Vol. 77 Monday, 

No. 58 March 26, 2012 

Book 2 of 2 Books 

Pages 17897–18098 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 65 

National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer 

Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control 

Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards 

General Provisions; Proposed Rule 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17898 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 65 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0868; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0869; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0870; 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0871; FRL–9645–1] 

RIN 2060–AR00 

National Uniform Emission Standards 

for Storage Vessel and Transfer 

Operations, Equipment Leaks, and 

Closed Vent Systems and Control 

Devices; and Revisions to the National 

Uniform Emission Standards General 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

National Uniform Emission Standards 

for Storage Vessels and Transfer 

Operations, Equipment Leaks and 

Control Devices, herein referred to as 

Uniform Standards. The EPA is also 

proposing supplemental revisions to the 

National Uniform Emission Standards 

General Provisions, which were 

proposed with the National Uniform 

Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 

Systems, signed by the EPA 

Administrator on November 30, 2011. 

The proposed Uniform Standards 

would be referenced, as appropriate, in 

future revisions to new source 

performance standards and national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants for individual source 

categories that are part of the chemical 

manufacturing and refining industries 

that have storage vessels and transfer 

operations, equipment leaks or control 

devices used to control process vents 

from reactors, distillation and other 

operations, as well as from emissions 

from storage vessels, transfer operations 

and equipment leaks that are routed to 

control devices. Establishing these 

Uniform Standards is consistent with 

the objectives of Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review, issued on January 18, 2011. In 

the future, as we periodically review 

and, if necessary, revise new source 

performance standards and national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants, as required by the Clean Air 

Act, we can direct those rulemakings to 

the proposed Uniform Standards, 

provided the Uniform Standards meet 

the applicable statutory stringency 

requirements for the specific 

rulemaking. The proposed Uniform 

Standards would ensure consistency 

and streamline recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for facilities 

with storage vessels and transfer 

operations, equipment leaks and process 

vents that must comply with multiple 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before June 25, 2012. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA by April 10, 2012 requesting to 

speak at a public hearing, the EPA will 

hold a public hearing on or about April 

25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Technical 

comments pertinent to the Uniform 

Standards should be identified as 

follows: 

• Uniform Standards for Storage 

Vessels and Transfer Operations should 

be marked, ‘‘Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0871.’’ 

• Uniform Standards for Equipment 

Leaks should be marked, ‘‘Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0869.’’ 

• Uniform Standards for Control 

Devices should be marked, ‘‘Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0868.’’ 

• Uniform Standards General 

Provisions or General Comments on the 

Uniform Standards should be marked, 

‘‘Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0870.’’ 

Submit your comments, identified by 

the appropriate Docket ID No., by one of 

the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• http://www.epa.gov/oar/ 

docket.html. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments on the EPA Air 

and Radiation Docket Web site. 

• Email: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (email) to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0868; EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0869; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0870; or EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0871 (as appropriate). 

• Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 

566–9744, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0868; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0869; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0870; or 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0871 (as 

appropriate). 

• Mail: Send your comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0868; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0869; EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0870; or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0871 (as appropriate). 

Please include a total of two copies. We 

request that a separate copy also be sent 

to the contact person identified below 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

In addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0868; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0869; EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0870; or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0871 (as appropriate). Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays), and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include agency name and docket 

number for this rulemaking. Direct your 

comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0868; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0869; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0870; or 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0871 (as 

appropriate). The EPA’s policy is that 

all comments received will be included 

in the public docket and may be made 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17899 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The 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 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the proposed 

General Provisions to the National 

Uniform Emission Standards, contact 

Brenda Shine, (919) 541–3608, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone 

number: (919) 541–3608; Fax number 

(919) 541–0246; email address: 

shine.brenda@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the 

proposed National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Equipment Leaks, contact 

Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

4607; Fax number (919) 541–0246; 

email address: howard.jodi@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the 

proposed National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Storage Vessel and 

Transfer Operations, contact Nick 

Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division (E143–01), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

5372; Fax number (919) 541–0246; 

email address: parsons.nick@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the 

proposed National Uniform Emission 

Standards For Control Devices, contact 

Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

4036; Fax number (919) 541–0246; 

email address: 

bouchard.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms 

and Abbreviations. The following 

acronyms and abbreviations are used in 

this document. 

AMOS ample margin of safety 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and 

Materials 

API American Petroleum Institute 

AWP Alternative Work Practice 

BSER best system of emission reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAM compliance assurance monitoring 

CAR Consolidated Federal Air Rule 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMS continuous monitoring system 

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring 

system 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

EFR external floating roof 

EIIP Emissions Inventory Improvement 

Program 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

GACT generally available control 

technology or management practice 

gal/yr gallons per year 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP 

HRVOC highly-reactive volatile organic 

compound 

hr/yr hours per year 

ICR information collection request 

IFR internal floating roof 

in. wc inch water column 

kPa kilopascals 

LDAR leak detection and repair 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

mg/acm milligram per actual cubic meter 

MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing NESHAP 

MTVP maximum true vapor pressure 

MW megawatts 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NESHAP National Emission Standards For 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OLD organic liquids distribution 

PID photo ionization detector 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 fine particulate matter 

ppm parts per million 

ppmv parts per million by volume 

PRD pressure relief device 

psia pounds per square inch absolute 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PVC polyvinyl chloride and copolymers 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

QA quality assurance 

QIP quality improvement program 

SOCMI synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry 

SR stoichiometric air ratio 

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction 

STERPP Storage Tank Emission Reduction 

Partnership Program 

TAC total annual costs 

TCI Total capital costs 

tpy tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S. United States 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WWW World Wide Web 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the proposed action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to the EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. Public Hearing 

II. Background Information for These 

Proposed Rules 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory background for the proposed 

Uniform Standards? 

B. What is the history and background of 

the proposed Uniform Standards? 

C. What is the relationship between the 

Uniform Standards and the referencing 

subparts? 

D. What are the purpose and benefits of the 

proposed Uniform Standards? 

E. How were the proposed Uniform 

Standards developed? 

F. What are the electronic data submittal 

requirements? 

III. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 

40 CFR Part 65 National Uniform 

Standards for Storage Vessel and 

Transfer Operations—Subpart I 

A. Summary 

B. Rationale 

IV. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 

40 CFR Part 65 National Uniform 

Emission Standards for Equipment 

Leaks—Subpart J 

A. Summary 

B. Rationale 

V. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 

40 CFR Part 65 National Uniform 

Emission Standards for Control 

Devices—Subpart M 

A. Summary 

B. Rationale 

VI. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 

Revision of 40 CFR Part 65 Uniform 

Standards General Provisions—Subpart 

H 

A. Summary 

B. Rationale 

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Rule 

A. What are the cost increases associated 

with requirements proposed in 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart I? 

B. What are the cost increases associated 

with requirements proposed in 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart J? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

C. What are the cost increases associated 

with requirements proposed in 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart M? 

D. What are the cost impacts associated 

with the proposed reporting 

requirements for the Uniform Standards? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does the proposed action apply to 

me? 

Regulated Entities. The proposed 

rules would establish a series of 

national uniform emission standards for 

storage vessels and transfer operations, 

equipment leaks and control devices. 

We expect, in future rulemaking 

actions, to propose that new source 

performance standards (NSPS) and 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

other source categories will also 

reference and require compliance with 

Uniform Standards, as appropriate, 

provided that the referencing subpart 

rulemakings demonstrate that the 

Uniform Standards meet the statutory 

stringency requirements that would 

apply to the referencing subpart source 

category, such as Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 112(d), maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT), section 

112(f), residual risk ample margin of 

safety (AMOS) and section 111(b), best 

systems of emission reduction (BSER). 

Examples of categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels 

and Transfer Operations, Equipment 

Leaks and Control Devices include the 

following: 

Category NAICSa code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Chemical Manufacturing .................................... 325 Manufacturing industries, particularly petrochemical, chemical, polymers, plastics and specialty chemicals manufacturing. 

Refining .............................................................. 324 Petroleum refineries. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities the EPA 

anticipates are likely to be potentially 

affected by this action through future, 

separate rulemaking actions. 

The table includes source categories 

currently subject to NESHAP under 

subparts in 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR 

part 63 and NSPS under subparts in 40 

CFR part 60. The entities listed in the 

above table are not affected by this 

action unless and until the EPA 

proposes in a separate notice to apply a 

Uniform Standard to their source 

categories. As proposed in 40 CFR part 

65, subparts H, I, J and M would apply 

to owners or operators expressly 

referenced to part 65 from future 

rulemakings that may result in new 

subparts or revisions to current subparts 

of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63. The list 

of categories and entities potentially 

affected by this proposed action in the 

future is provided solely to inform 

owners and operators of facilities in 

those categories of the potential for 

future rulemaking and to solicit 

comments from these entities at this 

time. If, in future rulemakings, the EPA 

were to propose to apply these Uniform 

Standards to a particular source 

category, there would be another 

opportunity to comment on the 

application to a specific industry. 

Because the EPA believes that 

establishing Uniform Standards for 

types of emission points found in a 

variety of industries will be efficient for 

facilities, state, local and tribal 

governments and the public, we seek 

broad input at this time. In the future, 

you would determine whether your 

facility, company, business or 

organization would be regulated by a 

proposed action by examining the 

applicability criteria in the referencing 

subpart. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult either the 

air permitting authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative, as 

listed in the referencing subpart. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI to only the following 

address: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. EPA Mailroom 

(C404–02), Attention: Mr. Roberto 

Morales, Document Control Officer, 109 

T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0868; EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0869; EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0870; or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0871 (as appropriate). 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the appropriate person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

2. Docket 

The docket numbers for the proposed 

action regarding the Uniform Standards 

are as follows: 

• Uniform Standards for Storage 

Vessels and Transfer Operations (40 

CFR part 65, subpart I) is Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0871. 

• Uniform Standards for Equipment 

Leaks (40 CFR part 65, subpart J) is 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0869. 

• Uniform Standards for Control 

Devices (40 CFR part 65, subpart M) is 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0868. 

• Uniform Standards General 

Provisions or general comments on the 

Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17901 

subpart H) is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0870. 

To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, 

be sure to identify the docket ID 

number(s) assigned to this action in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

response. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the World Wide Web (WWW) 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a 

copy of the proposed action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

D. Public Hearing 

If a public hearing is held, it will be 

held at 10 a.m. at the EPA’s 

Environmental Research Center 

Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 

NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact 

Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541–7946 to 

request a hearing, to request to speak at 

a public hearing, to determine if a 

hearing will be held or to determine the 

hearing location. If no one contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing concerning this proposed rule 

by April 10, 2012, a hearing will not be 

held. 

II. Background Information for These 

Proposed Rules 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory background for the proposed 

Uniform Standards? 

Consistent with the authority under 

CAA section 301(a)(1) and CAA sections 

111 and 112, we are proposing to 

establish the Uniform Standards as a set 

of foundational requirements that may 

be considered and adopted by future 

rulemakings under CAA sections 111 

and 112. Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA 

authorizes the Administrator ‘‘to 

prescribe such regulations as are 

necessary to carry out his functions 

under [the CAA].’’ The proposed 

Uniform Standards, if finalized, would 

provide a set of common control 

requirement subparts describing testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements that would, if 

appropriate, be referenced in future 

CAA 111 and 112 rulemakings. Future 

rulemakings would include CAA 

section 112(d) standards, based on 

MACT determinations and generally 

available control technology or 

management practice (GACT) 

determinations (for area sources), as 

well as CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews 

of existing standards and CAA section 

112(f) revisions, which take into 

account the risk to public health 

remaining after application of the 

MACT-based standards. The proposed 

Uniform Standards could also be 

referenced during CAA section 111(b) 

rulemakings to establish NSPS for 

source categories, and as we 

periodically review and revise these 

standards, to reflect improvements in 

methods for reducing emissions. CAA 

section 111(b) standards require a level 

of control that historically has been 

referred to as ‘‘Best Demonstrated 

Technology.’’ In order to better reflect 

that CAA section 111 was amended in 

1990 to clarify that ‘‘best systems’’ may 

or may not be ‘‘technology,’’ the EPA is 

now using the term ‘‘best system of 

emission reduction’’ or BSER. 

As foundational requirements, the 

Uniform Standards would become 

applicable to a particular source 

category only if a subsequent 

rulemaking for that source category 

references the Uniform Standards. We 

have previously promulgated similar 

standards, such as the 40 CFR parts 60, 

61 and 63 General Provisions (59 FR 

12430, March 16, 1994) and the 

Consolidated Federal Air Rules (CAR) 

(65 FR 78267, December 14, 2000), 

which only become applicable to a 

source category when referenced by 

another rulemaking. In this preamble, 

we refer to subparts that would 

reference the Uniform Standards as 

‘‘referencing subparts.’’ The authority 

for the referencing standards would be 

provided under the referencing subpart. 

The rationale for each determination 

that the Uniform Standards in proposed 

40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J or M are 

equivalent to MACT, GACT, AMOS or 

BSER and comply with all other 

applicable statutory requirements would 

be presented in the rulemaking for the 

individual source category with an 

opportunity for public comment at that 

time. 

The proposed Uniform Standards are 

also responsive to Executive Order 

13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, which directs each 

federal agency to ‘‘periodically review 

its existing significant regulations to 

determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed so as to make the 

agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives.’’ 

The proposed Uniform Standards reflect 

the EPA’s regulatory experience from 

previous NESHAP and NSPS 

rulemakings involving similar kinds of 

sources and emission points. They 

incorporate our review of the most 

current technology and emission 

reduction practices, as detailed in 

sections III through V of the preamble, 

and provide updated monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that may be referenced by 

future CAA 111 and 112 rulemakings. 

The proposed Uniform Standards for 

Storage Tanks and Transfer Operations, 

Equipment Leaks and Control Devices 

would be codified under 40 CFR part 65 

as subparts I, J and M. The General 

Provisions for the Uniform Standards 

and Uniform Standards for Heat 

Exchange Systems were previously 

proposed in a separate notice signed by 

the EPA Administrator on November 30, 

2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012) and 

would be codified under 40 CFR part 65 

as subparts H and L, respectively. We 

are proposing supplemental 

requirements for the General Provisions 

(subpart H) to include new provisions 

applicable to all Uniform Standards, as 

well as new provisions applicable to 

individual Uniform Standards in 

subparts I, J and M. As discussed in 

section VI.A of this preamble, we are 

maintaining the previously proposed 

five sections of subpart H and adding 

eleven new sections. Of the five 

previously proposed sections, we are 

proposing to make substantive changes 

to three sections. The EPA will consider 

all comments pertaining to the Uniform 

Standards General Provisions (subpart 

H) that were submitted in response to 

the previous proposal (77 FR 960, 

January 6, 2012), and will address those 

comments as we address the comments 

on the supplemental provisions 

proposed in this action. 

B. What is the history and background 

of the proposed Uniform Standards? 

In a number of cases, the EPA has 

established CAA standards for different 

source categories that regulate the same 

kinds of emission points. Standards for 

a given type of emission point may 

require application of controls with 

similar control efficiencies and include 

similar design, component or operating 

standards, even though these emission 

points may be located at different types 

of sources or facilities. To avoid 

duplicative or disjointed requirements, 

and to promote consistency among 

technical requirements for similar 

emission points in different source 

categories, the EPA has established 

several common control requirement 

subparts describing testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for certain emission points 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and emission controls that can be 

referenced from multiple source 

categories. For instance, we 

promulgated standard requirements for 

selected emission points (i.e., 

containers, surface impoundments, oilwater separators and organic-water 

separators, tanks, and individual drain 

systems) in individual subparts under 

the NESHAP for Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations (61 FR 34158, July 

1, 1996), and we promulgated subparts 

for selected emission points (i.e., closed 

vent systems, control devices, recovery 

devices and routing to a fuel gas system 

or a process; equipment leaks; and 

storage vessels) as part of the Generic 

MACT program. The Generic MACT 

standards, which were promulgated 

under 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, 

UU and WW, were referenced in 

NESHAP requirements for individual 

source categories. 

Consolidation of compliance 

requirements under these subparts 

allows for ease of reference, 

administrative convenience and 

consistency in the technical 

requirements of the air emission control 

requirements applied to similar 

emission points under different source 

category regulations. The 40 CFR part 

63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW are 

emission point- and emissions controlspecific. They specify monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, but generally do not 

specify emissions reduction 

performance requirements or 

applicability thresholds. Instead, the 

referencing subpart specifies the 

emissions reduction performance 

requirements and applicability 

thresholds. 

By establishing these emission pointand emissions control-specific subparts, 

other source category-specific 

regulations were able to reference a 

common set of design, operating, 

testing, inspection, monitoring, repair, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for air emissions controls. 

This reduced the potential for 

duplicative or conflicting technical 

requirements, and promoted 

consistency of the air emission 

requirements applied to similar 

emission points, while allowing specific 

emission standards to be set within the 

context of the source category-specific 

regulations. Additionally, creating 

emission point-specific and emissions 

control-specific subparts ensured that 

all regulations that cross-referenced 

these subparts could be amended in a 

consistent and timely manner, through 

one regulatory action. 

We intend to establish, through the 

proposed Uniform Standards, a 

workable process for consolidation and 

a more efficient approach to rulemaking. 

The Uniform Standards have, in general, 

been modeled after the emission-point 

and emissions control-specific subparts 

of the Generic MACT. We are proposing 

the Uniform Standards in lieu of 

revising the Generic MACT because it is 

our intention to provide a set of 

common compliance monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that could be applied to 

emission points referenced from CAA 

111 and 112 (NSPS and NESHAP, 

respectively) rulemakings. The Uniform 

Standards are designed to apply to 

chemical and refining facilities 

regulated under the authority of sections 

111 and 112 of the CAA and who may 

currently be subject to regulation under 

40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. The Generic 

MACT is currently referenced by 

NESHAP under the provisions of 40 

CFR part 63 and section 112 of the CAA; 

revising the current Generic MACT to be 

referenced by sources regulated under 

NSPS could create confusion regarding 

regulatory authority. In addition, the 

Generic MACT currently affects a large 

number of source categories and 

referencing subparts; therefore, a large 

revision of the Generic MACT could 

potentially be more confusing for 

regulated sources. Thus, we are 

proposing to establish the Uniform 

Standards under 40 CFR part 65 and 

anticipate, through future notice-andcomment rulemaking, to cross-reference 

subparts I, J and M from source category 

emission standards within at least two 

different parts of title 40 of the CFR— 

parts 60 and 63, which establish NSPS 

and NESHAP standards, respectively. 

The process of revising individual 

referencing subparts to reference the 

Uniform Standards or develop new 

subparts that reference the Uniform 

Standards is a clear-cut process that 

allows for review of the needs of 

specific source categories. 

C. What is the relationship between the 

Uniform Standards and the referencing 

subparts? 

This action may affect other source 

categories with similar emission points 

if the EPA takes action in the future to 

propose to apply the Uniform Standards 

to one or more other source categories 

for storage vessels and transfer 

operations, equipment leaks or process 

vents. However, the EPA will determine 

applicability of these proposed Uniform 

Standards for another source category 

through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. In such a rulemaking, we 

will explain that all or a portion of 40 

CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J or M are 

consistent with the CAA requirements 

at issue for the specific authority in the 

rulemaking. For example, in the context 

of an NSPS rulemaking, we could 

determine that subpart J is BSER for the 

source category at issue or, alternatively, 

we could determine that different 

emission standards should apply, but 

that recordkeeping, reporting and other 

requirements of subpart J are 

appropriate. 

We expect to see similar benefits for 

these Uniform Standards as we have 

seen for previous emission point- and 

emissions control-specific subparts, as 

described above, including the ability to 

reference a common set of standards for 

the same type of emission point located 

at sources within different source 

categories. This approach will maximize 

consistency between source categories 

for each type of emission point. 

As with the common control 

requirement subparts previously 

promulgated, the proposed Uniform 

Standards would include technical 

requirements and would not, in most 

cases, specify source category-specific 

applicability thresholds or emissions 

reduction performance requirements, 

because these requirements are more 

properly established in source categoryspecific rules. 

However, we are proposing 

applicability thresholds, compliance 

requirements and monitoring 

frequencies that would apply if the 

referencing subpart does not specify 

these parameters. In the rulemaking 

actions that revise or propose standards 

to cross-reference 40 CFR part 65, 

subparts I, J and M, we would address 

whether the referencing subpart should 

cross-reference subparts I, J and M in 

their entirety or cross-reference only a 

subset of subparts I, J and M. Moreover, 

we would determine whether the 

referencing (source category-specific) 

subpart should include more or less 

stringent requirements than subparts I, J 

and M. 

As we revise or promulgate source 

category-specific standards that have 

emission points addressed by a uniform 

standard for storage vessels, transfer 

operations, equipment leaks and/or 

control devices, we would propose 

whether and to what extent we would 

reference the Uniform Standards in the 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J 

and M. In making that decision, we 

would consider the applicable CAA 

requirements, analyses of the individual 

source category and the similarity of 

emission characteristics and applicable 

controls. We would consider factors 

such as: (1) The volume and 

concentration of emissions; (2) the type 

of emissions; (3) the similarity of 

emission points; (4) the cost and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17903 

effectiveness of controls for one source 

category relative to the cost and 

effectiveness of controls for the other 

source category; (5) whether a source 

has unusual characteristics that might 

require different analytical methods; 

and (6) whether any of the sources have 

existing emission controls that are 

dissimilar and more stringent than 

controls required for similar sources 

outside the source category. These 

factors would be considered on a source 

category-specific basis to ensure that 

sources are appropriately similar, and 

that emissions control technologies and 

reductions demonstrated outside of a 

source category are achievable for new 

and existing sources in an applicable 

source category. 

In future rulemakings, the referencing 

subpart would establish the source 

category-specific requirements, 

including the regulated materials, 

appropriate applicability thresholds or 

tiers, emissions limit requirements 

(including the format and units of 

measure) and other source categoryspecific requirements. Additionally, the 

referencing subpart would provide 

rationale for the use of surrogates, if the 

use of surrogates is appropriate for the 

source category; for example, the 

referencing subpart could establish 

limits on particulate matter (PM) to 

achieve control of non-volatile metallic 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), yet refer 

to the Uniform Standards for 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. For any 

provisions of the Uniform Standards not 

cross-referenced by a source categoryspecific subpart, the requirement would 

be expressly addressed in the source 

category-specific (referencing) subpart. 

A portion of 40 CFR part 65, subparts 

I, J and/or M could be cross-referenced 

and exceptions could be made within 

the referencing subpart, as necessary, to 

ensure that the proposed requirements 

are appropriate to the source category in 

light of the applicable CAA 

requirements. For example, the 

referencing subpart could specify a 

monitoring frequency other than that 

contained in the Uniform Standards if 

we determine that a different 

monitoring frequency is appropriate for 

the regulated emission point in that 

source category. A referencing subpart 

with applicability thresholds, for 

instance, may only direct to a portion of 

the Uniform Standards or not direct to 

the Uniform Standards at all for certain 

thresholds. Because the proposed 

Uniform Standards could be referenced 

in this manner, we believe that the 

requirements in subparts I, J and M 

would not inhibit the flexibility to 

address source category-specific needs. 

The rationale for each determination 

that the provisions of 40 CFR part 65, 

subparts H, I, J or M should be crossreferenced for an individual referencing 

subpart in light of the applicable CAA 

requirements, would be addressed in 

the rulemaking for the individual 

subpart at the time of proposal, and we 

would provide an opportunity for 

public comment at that time. A 

description of the analyses performed as 

part of that review would be presented 

in the rulemaking for the individual 

subpart and an opportunity for 

comment would be provided. We would 

also assess the costs, emission 

reduction, economic and other impacts 

as they relate to the specific source 

category at issue at that time. 

In light of these considerations, we 

have determined that the proposed 

Uniform Standards would promote the 

EPA’s ability to simplify, clarify and 

improve implementation of the rules 

with which source owners or operators 

must comply, consistent with the 

objectives of Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review, and resulting in a cost and 

burden reduction for both the public 

and private sector. 

D. What are the purpose and benefits of 

the proposed Uniform Standards? 

This action proposes the Uniform 

Standards for Storage Vessels and 

Transfer Operations (40 CFR part 65, 

subpart I), Equipment Leaks (40 CFR 

part 65, subpart J) and Control Devices 

(40 CFR part 65, subpart M), and 

revisions to the General Provisions for 

the Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, 

subpart H). 

This action is based on the EPA’s 

review of the current requirements for 

equipment leaks, storage tanks and 

transfer operations and control devices 

used to control process vents in light of 

over 20 years of regulatory 

implementation experience. The 

benefits of the proposed Uniform 

Standards include: 

• Providing one-stop requirements for 

equipment leaks, storage tanks and 

control devices for the chemical 

manufacturing and refining industries; 

• Providing strengthened control and 

monitoring requirements based on costeffective advances in technology that 

could be considered for adoption in 

future rulemakings; 

• Enhancing compliance and 

enforcement to ensure that the 

standards achieve the intended 

emissions reductions required for 

MACT, GACT or BSER; and 

• Reduction of unnecessary and 

unproductive regulatory burden. 

These benefits also support the 

objectives of Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review. Examples of the changes we are 

proposing that accomplish each of these 

objectives are below. 

The proposed Uniform Standards 

provide the benefit of one-stop 

compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for specific 

emission points that would be 

referenced in future rulemakings for the 

chemical manufacturing and refining 

industries. The EPA desires to facilitate 

implementation and compliance by 

making requirements easier to 

understand, incorporating streamlined 

compliance approaches and applying 

these approaches across industry 

sectors. Currently, the chemical 

manufacturing and refining industries 

may be subject to multiple NSPS and 

NESHAP, including the Generic MACT 

(40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU, 

and WW); the Miscellaneous Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (68 

FR 63851, November 10, 2003) (MON); 

the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (59 FR 

19402, April 22, 1994) (HON), the 

Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) 

NESHAP (69 FR 5038, February 3, 

2004); the Petroleum Refineries 

NESHAP (60 FR 43260, August 18, 

1995); the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) rules 

(Standards of Performance for Volatile 

Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (52 FR 

11429, April 8, 1987); Standards of 

Performance for Equipment Leaks of 

VOC in the Synthetic Organic 

Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (48 

FR 48335, October 18, 1983); and 

SOCMI Reactor Processes (58 FR 45962, 

August 31, 1993)). Several of these rules 

cover similar emission points, such as 

storage tanks, transfer operations, 

equipment leaks or process vents that 

route to a control device. As a result, 

facilities subject to two or more of these 

rules may have overlapping or 

confusing compliance requirements for 

the same emission point. Additionally, 

facilities may have burdensome 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for multiple subparts to 

which they are subject. The proposed 

Uniform Standards revise and 

streamline the compliance approach for 

future rulemakings by applying a set of 

control and compliance methods that 

may be referenced from multiple 

subparts. In particular, the proposed 

Uniform Standards are structured so 

that facilities regulated under NSPS and 

NESHAP could reference the same costeffective monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for storage tanks, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

transfer racks, equipment leaks and 

process vents that route to a control 

device, provided the Uniform Standards 

are determined to be appropriate for the 

NSPS and NESHAP source categories 

(see section II.C of this preamble). By 

providing a consistent set of 

compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements, the 

proposed standards would reduce the 

burden to the chemical manufacturing 

and refining industries. Additionally, 

applying these common emission pointspecific requirements provides the 

benefit of easing the enforcement 

burden for government agencies. 

The proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subparts I, J and M also provide the 

groundwork for future rulemakings as a 

set of strengthened control and 

monitoring requirements that may be 

considered for use in future referencing 

subparts to meet MACT, GACT, AMOS 

or BSER. The proposed standards are 

based on a consolidation of existing 

requirements, but have been augmented 

where appropriate based on our survey 

of available technology and a review of 

existing regulations for each emission 

point. For example, under the proposed 

Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels 

and Transfer Operations, we are 

proposing to specify situations when 

landing a floating roof is allowable and 

the amount of time that a storage vessel 

with a landed floating roof may be left 

standing idle. These changes reduce the 

amount of time during which volatile 

regulated materials are exposed to the 

atmosphere and may be released. To 

improve detection of leaks on fixed roof 

storage tanks and thereby minimize 

emissions, we are also proposing to 

require monitoring for leaks from 

closure devices, pressure/vacuum vents 

and other potential leak interfaces on 

fixed roof storage vessels using Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, or 

optical gas imaging instead of visual 

inspections for defects. We are also 

proposing to include different delay of 

repair provisions in the proposed 

Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks 

which specify that if a valve or 

connector cannot be repaired within 15 

days, ‘‘low leak technology’’ must be 

used to repair the equipment when it is 

technically feasible to do so. ‘‘Low leak 

technology’’ that is available and cost 

effective includes replacing the valve 

packing, flange gaskets or the entire 

valve or connector. These requirements 

provide additional emissions reductions 

and could be referenced by future 

rulemakings as a means to meet 

applicable CAA requirements. The 

proposed Uniform Standards for Control 

Devices include strengthened provisions 

that require owners and operators of 

closed vent systems to provide 

monitoring for each bypass for pressure 

relief devices (PRD), low leg drains, 

high point bleeds, analyzer vents and 

open-ended valves or lines. We are 

proposing that this equipment is subject 

to the bypass line requirements to have 

a flow monitor or a car seal on each 

bypass line that could divert a vent 

stream to the atmosphere, thereby 

minimizing emissions from these 

points. The proposed requirements 

under 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and 

M have been designed to reflect 

advanced practices and control methods 

and provide robust air emissions 

control. This allows us to consider these 

proposed standards as a basis for review 

in future rulemakings for source 

categories with similar emission points. 

Further discussion of these provisions 

and other strengthened requirements 

under the Uniform Standards are 

included in the discussions for each 

individual subpart in sections III, IV and 

V of this preamble. 

The proposed Uniform Standards also 

provide the benefits of improved 

compliance and enforceability. We are 

proposing to facilitate implementation 

and compliance by clarifying current 

requirements that were vague or 

confusing. For example, current 

equipment leak rules require facilities to 

equip open-ended valves or lines with 

a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 

to prevent emissions. We have retained 

that requirement in the proposed 

Uniform Standards for Equipment 

Leaks, but we have added a requirement 

to check that the cap, blind flange, plug 

or second valve is installed or closed 

properly using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7 at least once a 

year to ensure compliance with the 

standard. The EPA is also proposing to 

clarify requirements in the Uniform 

Standards that were confusing during 

implementation of previous rules, such 

as the monitoring requirements for 

small boilers and process heaters that 

are not part of a fuel gas system (see 

discussion in section V.B.3 of this 

preamble). As another example, the 

proposed Uniform Standards for 

Equipment Leaks include all the types 

of equipment for which sensory 

monitoring is required in one section, 

which makes clear that the sensory 

monitoring requirements for all 

applicable types of equipment are 

identical. In other current standards, 

these requirements are spread 

throughout the rule, and slight 

differences in wording make it difficult 

to tell if the requirements are supposed 

to be the same. These clarifications are 

intended to improve compliance and 

enforceability as the Uniform Standards 

are considered during CAA 111 and 112 

rulemakings and incorporated into 

future referencing subparts. Further 

clarifications are discussed in the 

individual subparts in sections III, IV 

and V of this preamble. 

The proposed Uniform Standards also 

provide benefits as they reduce 

unproductive burden within the 

chemical and refining sectors. For 

example, the proposed Uniform 

Standards for Equipment Leaks include 

provisions to use optical imaging to 

monitor for leaks (where appropriate 

and allowed by the referencing subpart) 

instead of instrument monitoring. 

Because the optical gas imaging device 

can monitor many more pieces of 

equipment than conducting instrument 

monitoring in the same period of time, 

these provisions are expected to reduce 

the cost of labor required to meet the 

proposed Uniform Standards for 

Equipment Leaks. In particular, we have 

focused on simplifying recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements throughout 

each proposed subpart. For example, 

under the proposed General Provisions, 

we have specified that certain reports 

that are required to be submitted will be 

done so electronically, as discussed in 

sections II.F and VI.B.7 of this preamble. 

We are also proposing a revised record 

retention policy that allows that records 

can be maintained in electronic format 

and accessible within 2 hours of a 

request for the 5-year record retention 

period. We have not included different 

retention periods for onsite and offsite 

records because the ability to maintain 

electronic records removes the need for 

specifying the storage location. An 

electronic record can be stored either 

onsite or offsite, but still be quickly 

accessible from onsite. 

Furthermore, we have developed the 

proposed Uniform Standards in keeping 

with the objectives of Executive Order 

13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, issued January 18, 

2011. Consistent with Executive Order 

13563, the proposed standards are based 

on a thorough review of current 

regulations and reduce regulatory 

burden by consolidating and 

simplifying requirements, including 

eliminating duplicative requirements. 

These proposed standards further 

facilitate implementation and 

compliance by clarifying and improving 

current requirements, using new and 

streamlined compliance approaches and 

applying these approaches broadly. The 

proposed Uniform Standards also 

implement cost-effective control 

strategies without compromising 

environmental protection, and have 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17905 

taken into consideration the latest 

control techniques. Finally, these 

standards provide a flexible, 

streamlined process for future 

rulemakings that will reduce burden 

and increase efficiency for both 

government regulators and industry. 

E. How were the proposed Uniform 

Standards developed? 

In keeping with previous emission 

point-specific and emissions controlspecific subparts, we have structured 

the proposed Uniform Standards for 40 

CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M to 

provide a common set of monitoring, 

testing, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. We intend the proposed 

Uniform Standards to provide common 

standards for environmental control that 

may be referenced from multiple 

regulations and that may be useful for 

a broad range of source categories. It is 

our view that the Uniform Standards 

will decrease inconsistencies between 

rulemakings for similar types of 

industries and reduce burden for both 

industry and government regulators. 

In keeping with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, we 

reviewed the current Generic MACT 

standards of 40 CFR part 63, subparts 

SS, TT, UU, and WW; the MON (68 FR 

63888, November 10, 2003); the HON 

(59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994); and other 

recent rules in the development of the 

proposed Uniform Standards. The 

Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 

63, subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW were 

chosen as a starting point for the 

Uniform Standards because they were 

previously developed for the purpose of 

providing consistent requirements for 

storage vessels and transfer operations, 

equipment leaks and control devices 

used to control process vents that could 

be referenced by multiple NESHAP 

subparts, and they already incorporate 

technical improvements based on the 

EPA’s experience with implementation 

of other subparts, such as the National 

Emission Standards for Petroleum 

Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart CC) 

and the HON. We augment these 

provisions in the proposed Uniform 

Standards by adding requirements from 

recent rulemakings, clarifying unclear 

requirements and incorporating 

alternative technologies and compliance 

approaches. As part of this process, we 

have investigated current practices and 

advances in technology and examined 

the cost effectiveness of applying certain 

technologies for control. Additionally, 

we reviewed the applicability 

determination index database, test 

reports, title V permit requirements, 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance experience and recent EPA 

decisions to identify cost-effective 

technological, monitoring and 

compliance approaches that would 

reduce burden across source categories. 

In this proposal, we are referring to the 

existing flare requirements in 40 CFR 

63.11(b) of subpart A for flare 

compliance and are not proposing new 

flare requirements. We are continuing to 

gather data, review flare research papers 

and test reports, and investigate 

operating conditions that may influence 

the performance of a flare. Based on this 

information, we may in the future 

propose to add new flare requirements 

to the Uniform Standards. 

As discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble, we expect that applying a 

common set of monitoring, testing and 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to multiple source 

categories would be feasible because 

several source categories within the 

chemical and refining industries use 

similar process operations and have 

similar emission points. Specifically, 

various industries require the regulation 

of air emissions from storage vessel and 

transfer operations, equipment leaks 

and control devices. Although these 

industries may have variations in their 

process operations and the regulated 

materials used, these emission sources 

are generally amenable to similar 

methods for control and demonstration 

of compliance. 

Our review of current regulations for 

storage vessel and transfer operations, 

equipment leaks and process vents 

found that these emission points often 

have similar requirements for the 

demonstration of compliance. In 

general, the mechanisms for release of 

emissions to the atmosphere from these 

emission points or emissions controls 

are similar, regardless of the specific 

regulated materials involved. With the 

knowledge of these similarities, we 

expect that compliance methods that 

have been determined to be cost 

effective for control of a specific amount 

of a given regulated material at one of 

the proposed emission points would 

generally be cost effective for the same 

regulated material at similar emission 

points, regardless of the source category. 

Specifically, the compliance methods 

proposed with the Uniform Standards 

have been developed with the 

consideration that they may be applied 

to emission points in a broad range of 

source categories. Although we 

considered how the proposed 

requirements would apply to petroleum 

refineries and chemical plants, we have 

structured the Uniform Standards to 

provide flexible compliance methods 

that could be useful for multiple 

industries. In determining the best and 

most cost-effective compliance methods, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for the proposed 

standards, we examined and drew 

guidance from current rules from many 

different source categories that contain 

storage vessel, transfer operations, 

equipment leaks, process vents, and a 

variety of control devices. These guiding 

rules are discussed further in sections 

III, IV and V of this preamble. While the 

current rules provide requirements for 

individual source categories with slight 

variations for the specific regulated 

materials and process methods used in 

the regulated industry, we propose that 

the Uniform Standards, which would 

consolidate consistent, cost-effective 

requirements from a wide range of 

compliance methods for the same 

emission points, could be easily and 

effectively applied to additional 

industries. 

Because the proposed Uniform 

Standards are intended to supply 

general requirements for source 

category-specific subparts, we expect 

that as current NSPS and NESHAP are 

periodically reviewed for technology 

advancements, they may refer to the 

Uniform Standards for compliance 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions. Review of both 

NSPS and NESHAP under the CAA 

authorizes us to consider the cost 

impacts of control. Therefore, in 

reviewing the current requirements for 

these emission points across source 

categories, we examined the cost 

effectiveness of the compliance 

methods. For example, we have 

considered the cost effectiveness of 

control methods for equipment leaks on 

a volatile organic compound (VOC) 

basis. The majority of the emissions 

from equipment leaks are the result of 

gases or vapors escaping through leaks, 

either because the process fluid itself is 

a gas or vapor or because the process 

fluid is a liquid that volatilizes easily. 

Therefore, VOC are a class of 

compounds that are representative of 

these types of emissions. The proposed 

Uniform Standards, as a whole, reflect 

our determination of the best and most 

cost-effective compliance and control 

options for the regulated materials 

generally expected at the proposed 

emission points. 

To account for the differences 

between individual source categories, 

the proposed standards generally 

provide limited technical requirements 

for monitoring, testing, recordkeeping 

and reporting for the identified emission 

points. Overall, we have determined 

that the regulated materials, 

applicability requirements, emission 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17906 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

limits or control levels are best 

determined on a source category basis, 

as discussed in section II.C in this 

preamble, to reflect the specific needs of 

the source category. However, we are 

proposing applicability thresholds for 

the Uniform Standards for Storage 

Tanks (including size and vapor 

pressure) and control levels for the 

Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks 

(including thresholds at which leaking 

equipment must be repaired, or ‘‘leak 

definitions’’). These thresholds are 

provided for consideration in future 

referencing subpart rulemakings, and 

would only apply if the referencing 

subpart does not specify an applicability 

threshold and/or control level. The 

referencing subpart may choose to refer 

to these thresholds in the Uniform 

Standards or may establish more 

appropriate thresholds for a specific 

source-category (overriding the Uniform 

Standards), as discussed in section II.C. 

F. What are the electronic data 

submittal requirements? 

Electronic reporting is becoming an 

increasingly common element of 

modern life (as evidenced by electronic 

banking and income tax filing), and the 

EPA is beginning to require electronic 

submittal of certain environmental data. 

Electronic reporting is already common 

in environmental data collection and 

many media offices at the EPA are 

reducing reporting burden for the 

regulated community by embracing 

electronic reporting systems as an 

alternative to paper-based reporting. 

One of the major benefits of reporting 

electronically is standardization, to the 

extent possible, of the data reporting 

formats, which provides more certainty 

to users of the data required in specific 

reports. For example, electronic 

reporting software allows for more 

efficient data transmittal and the 

software’s validation mechanism helps 

industry users submit fewer incomplete 

reports. This alone saves industry and 

regulatory agencies report processing 

resources and reduces transaction times. 

Standardization also allows for 

development of efficient methods to 

compile and store much of the 

documentation required to be reported 

under this rule. 

We are proposing that certain reports 

required to be submitted through the 

Uniform Standards would be submitted 

electronically. These reports would 

include all performance test reports, 

continuous emission monitoring system 

(CEMS) performance evaluation reports, 

the 40 CFR part 65, subparts I and J 

portions of the Notification of 

Compliance Status, and semiannual 

periodic reports specified in 40 CFR 

part 65, subparts H, I, J and M. All other 

reports would be submitted in hard 

copy or other method mutually agreed 

to between the source and the delegated 

authority. We have reasoned that 

reporting elements that are descriptive 

and contain a high level of detail would 

not be easily incorporated into the 

electronic reporting system at this time. 

For a discussion of each of these various 

types of reports, see sections III, IV, V 

and VI of this preamble. 

The availability of electronic 

reporting for sources subject to the 

Uniform Standards will provide 

efficiency, improved services, better 

accessibility of information and more 

transparency and accountability. 

Additionally, submittal of these 

required reports electronically provides 

significant benefits for regulatory 

agencies, industry and the public. The 

compliance data electronic reporting 

system is being developed such that 

once a facility’s initial data entry into 

the system is established and a report is 

generated, subsequent data submittal 

would only consist of electronic updates 

to existing information in the system. 

Such a system would effectively reduce 

the burden associated with submittal of 

data and reports by reducing the time, 

costs and effort required to submit and 

update hard copies of documentation. 

State, local and tribal air pollution 

control agencies could also benefit from 

more streamlined and accurate 

electronic data submitted to them. 

Electronic reporting would allow for an 

electronic review process rather than a 

manual data assessment, making review 

and evaluation of the source-provided 

data and calculations easier and more 

efficient. Electronic reporting would 

also benefit the public by generating a 

more transparent review process and 

increasing the ease and efficiency of 

data accessibility. Furthermore, 

electronic reporting would reduce the 

burden on the regulated community by 

reducing the effort involved in data 

collection and reporting activities. With 

the complete information provided in 

electronic reports, we anticipate there 

will be a need for fewer and less 

substantial data collection requests in 

conjunction with prospective required 

residual risk assessments or technology 

reviews. We anticipate that using 

electronic reporting for the required 

reports will result in an overall 

reduction in reporting costs; 

specifically, we estimated potential 

savings in reporting costs for an existing 

chemical plant to be approximately 

$6,780 (or a 42-percent cost reduction in 

hard copy reporting required by existing 

rules). For further discussion of the 

economic and cost impacts of electronic 

reporting, see section VII.D of this 

preamble. 

Another benefit of the proposed 

electronic data submittal is that these 

data will greatly improve the overall 

quality of existing and new emissions 

factors by supplementing the pool of 

emissions test data for establishing 

emissions factors and by ensuring that 

the factors are more representative of 

current industry operational procedures. 

A common complaint heard from 

industry and regulators is that emission 

factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source 

category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most 

performance tests, the EPA would be 

able to ensure that the updated emission 

factors become available to represent the 

most current range of operational 

practices. 

We are proposing that data entry of 

these electronic reports would be 

through the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Data transmitted electronically through 

CEDRI will be stored in CDX as an 

official copy of record. Once you have 

accessed CEDRI, you will select the 

applicable subpart for the report that 

you are submitting. You will then select 

the report type being transmitted, enter 

the data into the form and click on the 

submit button. In some cases, such as 

with submittal of a Notification of 

Compliance Status Report, you will 

select the report type, enter basic facility 

information and then upload the report 

in a specified file format. 

In addition, we believe that there will 

be utility in allowing other reporting 

forms to be developed and used in cases 

where the other reporting forms can 

provide an alternate electronic file 

consistent with the EPA’s form output 

format. This approach has been used 

successfully to provide alternatives for 

other electronic forms (e.g., income tax 

transmittal). The proposal to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA would apply only to those 

performance tests conducted using test 

methods that will be supported by the 

electronic reporting tool (ERT) which 

can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/chief/ert/index.html. The ERT 

contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at the ERT Web 

site listed above. A generic form is also 

available for test methods that are not 

specifically supported by ERT and you 

may submit performance tests with nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 20:07 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MRP2.SGM 26MRP2

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17907 

listed test methods using the generic 

form. 

In CEDRI, the user must then upload 

the ERT file. CEDRI transmits a copy of 

the ERT project data file directly to 

WebFIRE, where the data are made 

available. Where performance test 

reports are transmitted, WebFIRE 

notifies the appropriate state, local or 

tribal agency contact that an ERT project 

data file was received from the source. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with these reports 

would save industry, state, local, tribal 

agencies and the EPA significant time, 

money and effort while also improving 

the quality of emission inventories and, 

as a result, air quality regulations. 

III. Summary and Rationale for the 

Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 

Uniform Standards for Storage Vessel 

and Transfer Operations—Subpart I 

A. Summary 

We are proposing new Uniform 

Standards for control of emissions from 

storage vessels and transfer operations. 

These Uniform Standards would apply 

to a storage vessel or transfer operation 

only if that storage vessel or transfer 

operation is subject to a regulation that 

references such standards in proposed 

40 CFR part 65, subpart I for control of 

air emissions from these sources. In 

section III of this preamble, the term 

‘‘we’’ refers to the EPA and the term 

‘‘you’’ refers to owners and operators of 

sources affected by the proposed 

standards. Additionally, ‘‘subpart I’’ 

refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart I. Section III.B provides our 

rationale for the proposed requirements. 

1. What parts of my plant are affected 

by the proposed rule? 

Proposed subpart I would apply to 

atmospheric storage vessels, pressurized 

vessels and transfer operations for 

which another subpart references such 

standards in this subpart for air 

emission control. Different vessel size 

and stored material maximum true 

vapor pressure (MTVP) thresholds are 

specified for the different control 

requirements for storage vessels. 

Different throughputs and transferred 

material MTVP thresholds are specified 

for the different control requirements for 

transfer operations. We are not 

proposing to specify a compliance 

timeline in this subpart, since the 

compliance period would depend upon 

the proposal and final rule effective 

dates of the referencing subpart; thus, 

the compliance timeline for 

implementing these standards, as 

specified in the referencing subpart, 

would apply for that source category. 

As in current storage vessel rules, the 

proposed rule for storage vessels is 

based on design requirements, 

inspection requirements and emission 

standards. Current rules specify the size 

and vapor pressure thresholds that 

define which storage vessels must 

comply with the requirements. Similar 

thresholds are specified in proposed 

subpart I. As in current transfer 

operations rules, the proposed Uniform 

Standards for transfer operations are 

based on loading requirements, 

inspection requirements and emission 

standards. Current rules specify the size 

and vapor pressure thresholds that 

define which transfer operations must 

comply with the requirements. Similar 

thresholds are specified in proposed 

subpart I. 

2. What are the proposed general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

Your storage vessels and transfer 

operations would be subject to some or 

all of the requirements of subpart I 

when another subpart references the use 

of such requirements in subpart I for air 

emission control. In addition, you 

would be required to meet the general 

provisions applicable to 40 CFR part 65 

(i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR part 65) and 

the general provisions applicable to the 

referencing subpart (i.e., subpart A of 40 

CFR parts 60, 61 or 63). 

Atmospheric storage vessels. Under 

proposed subpart I, you would be 

required to control emissions from each 

atmospheric storage vessel that contains 

regulated material (and is part of a 

regulated source subject to a referencing 

subpart). The type of control would 

depend on the size of the storage vessel 

and the MTVP of the stored regulated 

material. We are proposing four 

compliance approaches for each storage 

vessel that meets the capacity and 

MTVP thresholds presented in Table 1 

of this preamble (and Table 1 of 

proposed subpart I). These approaches 

are: (1) Operate and maintain either an 

internal floating roof (IFR) or an external 

floating roof (EFR), provided the MTVP 

of the stored regulated material is less 

than 11.1 pounds per square inch 

absolute (psia); (2) operate and maintain 

a vapor balancing system on a fixed roof 

tank; (3) vent emissions from a fixed 

roof tank through a closed vent system 

to a control device according to the 

requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 

65, subpart M; or (4) route emissions 

from a fixed roof tank to a fuel gas 

system. For each storage vessel that does 

not meet either set of thresholds 

described above, you would be required 

to operate and maintain a fixed roof (or 

you may elect to comply with the 

requirements for larger tanks that store 

regulated material with higher MTVP). 

Inspections and repair of defects and 

leaks would also be required for all 

storage vessels. Each of the four 

compliance approaches is discussed in 

further detail in sections III.A.4 through 

7 of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—CONTROL THRESHOLDS FOR ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE VESSELS

Comply with If the storage capacity is And the MTVP is 

Requirements for fixed roof storage vessels in § 65.310 ............................... <20,000 gal, or ..................................

<40,000 gal, or ..................................

≥40,000 gal ........................................

Any level. 

<1.9 psia. 

<0.75 psia. 

Any one of four compliance approaches specified in §§ 65.315, 65.320, 

65.325 or 65.330.

≥20,000 gal, or ..................................

≥40,000 gal ........................................

≥1.9 psia. 

≥0.75 psia. 

Transfer operations. If you own or 

operate a transfer rack that loads 

regulated material into transport 

vehicles (i.e., cargo tanks or tank cars) 

or containers, you would have to control 

emissions from the transfer operations 

as specified in proposed subpart I. The 

specific control requirements would 

differ depending on the amount of 

regulated material transferred and the 

MTVP of the stored material. Details are 

discussed in sections III.A.9 and 10 of 

this preamble. The proposed rule does 

not specify requirements for loading 

regulated material into barges, which 

are currently regulated by the Marine 

Tank Vessel Loading Operations 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) 

and would remain so covered. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3. What are the proposed requirements 

for fixed roof atmospheric storage 

vessels that are small or store material 

that has a low vapor pressure? 

For fixed roof atmospheric storage 

vessels that are smaller than 20,000 

gallons, smaller than 40,000 gallons and 

store material with a MTVP less than 1.9 

psia or greater than or equal to 40,000 

gallons and store material with a MTVP 

less than 0.75 psia, you would have to 

meet specified equipment, operating, 

inspection and repair requirements. The 

proposed equipment requirements are 

to: (1) Install the fixed roof in a manner 

that would avoid creating open spaces 

between roof section joints or between 

the interface of the roof edge and the 

tank wall; and (2) equip each opening in 

the fixed roof with a closure device that, 

when secured in the closed position, 

allows no open spaces in the closure 

device or between the perimeter of the 

opening and the closure device. You 

would be required to operate the fixed 

roof with each closure device secured in 

the closed position except during those 

periods when access is needed. A 

conservation vent or similar device 

would be allowed to vent to the 

atmosphere when diurnal temperature 

changes or filling of the storage vessel 

cause pressure in the storage vessel to 

exceed the design range for the storage 

vessel (i.e., normal breathing and 

working emissions). 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

equipment and operating requirements, 

you would be required to conduct initial 

and periodic monitoring of the fixed 

roof and its closure devices for leaks. 

For parts of the fixed roof that you 

determine are unsafe to monitor, you 

would have to develop a written plan in 

which you document why those parts 

are unsafe to monitor and that specifies 

a schedule for monitoring when it is 

safe to do so. 

We are proposing two monitoring 

options. One option would be to use 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. This monitoring would be required 

annually, and you would detect a leak 

each time you obtain an instrument 

reading greater than 500 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv). The second 

option would be to use optical gas 

imaging. This monitoring would be 

required semiannually, and the 

instrument would have to be capable of 

detecting at least one of the compounds 

emitted from the storage vessel. A leak 

would be detected each time the 

instrument detects an image. This 

option also would reference a protocol 

for other requirements. We are currently 

developing the protocol and expect to 

propose it as appendix K to 40 CFR part 

60. Public comment on the content of 

the proposed protocol will be requested 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed protocol. In addition, we 

intend to provide an opportunity to 

comment on the application of 

appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 to the 

optical gas imaging provisions in these 

Uniform Standards. As discussed in 

section IV of this preamble, the protocol 

would also apply to optical gas imaging 

for equipment leaks. See section IV.A.5 

of this preamble for a discussion of the 

information that we are planning to 

include in the protocol. Note, however, 

that the proposed bimonthly monitoring 

frequency for equipment leaks would 

not apply to monitoring of fittings on 

storage vessels. 

If leaks are discovered in a storage 

vessel during an inspection, you have to 

either complete repairs or completely 

empty the storage vessel within 45 days, 

although you would be allowed up to 

two extensions of up to 30 days each. 

If you use an extension, you must 

maintain records that document your 

use of the extension. These records must 

indicate that alternative storage capacity 

was unavailable and list the actions you 

took in an effort to repair or empty the 

tank in the allowed period before the 

extension. 

4. What are the proposed requirements 

to control atmospheric storage vessels 

with a floating roof (‘‘floating roof 

approach’’)? 

If you elect to use a floating roof to 

control emissions from an atmospheric 

storage vessel that meets the size and 

MTVP thresholds for such control, you 

would have to comply with the 

proposed equipment, operating, 

inspection and repair requirements for 

floating roofs specified in this rule. 

The proposed rule includes rim seal 

equipment requirements that are 

consistent with current rules. If you use 

an IFR, you would be required to equip 

the IFR with a liquid-mounted seal, 

mechanical shoe seal or two seals 

mounted one above the other. If you use 

an EFR, you would have to equip the 

EFR with a liquid-mounted seal and 

secondary seal, or with a mechanical 

shoe seal and secondary seal. 

The proposed rule includes design 

and operation specifications for closure 

devices and other fittings for each type 

of opening through the deck of the 

floating roof. Most of these design and 

operational requirements for deck 

fittings are consistent with requirements 

in current rules. One difference is that 

the proposed rule explicitly specifies 

requirements for slotted ladder legs that 

are comparable to requirements for 

slotted guidepoles. Another difference is 

that the proposed rule defines automatic 

bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vent) to 

include both devices that are activated 

by pressure and vacuum differences 

across the floating roof and devices that 

are activated when an extension leg 

contacts the floor of the storage vessel. 

The proposed rule also includes 

additional control options for slotted 

guidepoles that were developed for the 

Storage Tank Emission Reduction 

Partnership Program (STERPP) (65 FR 

19891, April 13, 2000). 

The proposed rule would require that 

you equip each storage vessel with an 

alarm system that signals when the 

floating roof: (1) Is about to land on its 

legs or other support devices; or (2) is 

close to being overfilled. Each time the 

floating roof is landed, you would be 

required to estimate, record and report 

the amount of regulated material 

emitted during the time the roof was 

landed. Similarly, if the storage vessel is 

ever overfilled, you would be required 

to estimate, record and report the 

amount of regulated material spilled 

and emitted to the atmosphere. 

The proposed rule would require that 

the floating roof be floating on the liquid 

surface at all times except for certain 

instances when the floating roof is being 

supported on leg supports or other 

support devices (landed). We are 

proposing to limit both the total amount 

of time and the circumstances under 

which the floating roof may be landed 

to: (1) During the initial fill; (2) when 

necessary for maintenance, inspection 

or to support a change to an 

incompatible liquid, provided you 

either begin refilling the storage vessel 

or begin actions to completely empty 

the storage vessel within 24 hours; (3) 

when actions to completely empty the 

storage vessel begin within 24 hours 

after the roof is landed in order to take 

the storage vessel out of service; or (4) 

if the vapors are routed through a closed 

vent system to a control device from the 

time the roof is landed until the roof is 

within 10 percent by volume of being 

refloated. Typically, once you begin 

refilling the storage vessel, you would 

not be allowed to suspend refilling or 

withdraw liquid until after the roof is 

refloated. The requirement for 

continuous refilling until the roof is 

refloated would not apply to a storage 

vessel that is used to store product from 

a batch process if the quantity of 

product from one batch is insufficient to 

refloat the roof, and the roof will be 

refloated when product from additional 

batches is added to the storage vessel. 

However, withdrawal of liquid from the 

storage vessel would still not be 

permitted until after the roof is 

refloated. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17909 

The proposed rule would require that 

you inspect the floating roof deck, deck 

fittings and rim seals. One option would 

be to conduct visual inspections, 

measure gaps in rim seals for an EFR 

and measure gaps between gaskets and 

the surfaces they are intended to seal for 

deck fittings on both IFR and EFR. The 

proposed rule also specifies that Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 may 

be used as an alternative to the deck 

fittings gap measurement requirements 

for either type of floating roof and the 

rim-seal gap measurements on EFR. 

Another proposed alternative to the 

deck fittings gap measurement 

requirements is optical gas imaging. 

Requirements for monitoring using 

optical gas imaging would be the same 

as discussed in section III.A.3 of this 

preamble for monitoring of fixed roofs. 

Monitoring using either optical gas 

imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 would be required while 

the floating roof is floating on the stored 

liquid. The proposed rule lists the 

conditions that would be considered 

inspection failure (i.e., stored liquid on 

the floating roof; holes or tears in the 

primary or secondary seal; floating roof 

deck, deck fittings or rim seals that are 

not functioning as designed; failure to 

comply with the operational 

requirements; and excessive gaps). 

The proposed rule includes 

inspection frequency requirements for 

both IFR and EFR. For IFR, you would 

have to inspect: (1) Before the initial fill 

of the storage vessel; (2) at least 

annually (tank top inspection only); and 

(3) each time the storage vessel is 

completely emptied and degassed (but 

no later than 10 years after the previous 

such inspection or no later than 5 years 

for IFR equipped with two rim seals). 

For EFR, you would have to inspect: (1) 

The primary and secondary rim seals 

and deck fittings within 90 days after 

the initial fill of the storage vessel; (2) 

the secondary seal, deck fittings and 

EFR at least annually; and (3) the 

primary seal no later than 5 years after 

the previous primary seal gap 

inspection. Delays in IFR and EFR 

inspection would be allowed if the 

storage vessel is out of service on the 

date 5 or 10 years after the last 

inspection, as applicable, provided the 

inspection is conducted prior to filling 

the storage vessel. 

If you determine that it is unsafe to 

perform the EFR inspections specified 

in the rule, you would have to either 

perform the inspections no later than 30 

days after making this determination, or 

remove the storage vessel from service 

no later than 45 days after making this 

determination. You may use up to two 

extensions (up to 30 days each) if the 

storage vessel cannot be emptied within 

45 days, provided you document this 

decision, explain why it was unsafe to 

perform the inspection, document that 

alternative storage capacity is 

unavailable and provide a schedule of 

actions taken in an effort to completely 

empty the storage vessel during the 

extension period. Not completely 

emptying the storage vessel before the 

end of the second extension period 

would be a deviation. 

In the event of an inspection failure, 

the proposed rule requires repair to 

correct the failure. In addition, if at 

times when you are not specifically 

conducting an inspection as required by 

the proposed rule, but you notice a 

condition that constitutes an inspection 

failure, you would be required to make 

the necessary repairs just as if the 

condition had been noted during a 

scheduled inspection. If you performed 

the inspection while the storage vessel 

was not storing liquid, you would have 

to complete repairs before refilling the 

storage vessel with liquid. If you 

performed the inspection while the 

storage vessel was storing liquid, you 

would have to complete repairs or 

remove the vessel from service within 

45 days, but you would be allowed up 

to two extensions (up to 30 days each), 

as long as you document your decision 

to use the extension. The 

documentation would include a 

description of the failure, 

documentation that alternative storage 

capacity is unavailable and a schedule 

of actions taken in an effort to either 

repair or completely empty the storage 

vessel before the end of the applicable 

extension period. Not repairing or 

completely emptying the storage vessel 

before the end of the second extension 

would be a deviation. 

You have the option to request the 

substitution of an alternate device for 

any of the seals and fittings specified in 

the floating roof approach, as long as the 

alternate device has an emission factor 

less than or equal to the emission factor 

for the specified device and the 

emission factor for the alternate device 

was determined under tests that 

accurately simulated the conditions 

under which the device will operate 

(e.g., wind speed, temperature, pressure 

and filling rates). 

5. What are the proposed requirements 

for control of fixed roof atmospheric 

storage vessels if I use vapor balancing 

(‘‘vapor balancing approach’’)? 

If you elect to control emissions from 

a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel 

by using vapor balancing, you would 

have to comply with the proposed 

design, operating, monitoring and repair 

requirements for vapor balancing 

specified in this rule. You would have 

to operate, maintain and inspect the 

fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified 

in section III.A.3 of this preamble. 

Unlike current rules, the proposed rule 

contains no requirements for offsite 

facilities that clean and/or reload the 

transport vehicles and barges. 

Under the proposed vapor balancing 

approach, you would have to design and 

operate the vapor balancing system to 

route the vapors displaced from storage 

vessel loading to the transport vehicle 

used to fill the storage vessel. Each 

transport vehicle would have to have a 

current certification of pressure testing 

conducted in accordance with U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

requirements, and you would have to 

keep records of these certifications. 

Barges would have to be pressure tested 

annually in accordance with procedures 

in the proposed rule; these procedures 

are consistent with requirements in the 

Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) 

and the Benzene Transfer Operations 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart BB). 

You would be required to maintain 

copies of documentation showing that 

the required testing was performed. The 

fixed roof would have to meet the 

design and operating requirements 

described in section III.A.3 of this 

preamble. 

Under the proposed operating 

requirements, liquid may be unloaded 

only when the transport vehicle’s vaporcollection equipment is connected to 

the storage vessel’s vapor balancing 

system. Also, no PRD on the storage 

vessel, transport vehicle or barge may be 

open during loading, and PRD on the 

storage vessel would not be allowed to 

open at any time as a result of diurnal 

temperature changes (i.e., breathing 

losses would not be allowed). You 

would have to set PRD on storage 

vessels no lower than 2.5 pounds per 

square inch gauge (psig) in order to 

prevent breathing losses, unless you 

provide a rationale for a lower value in 

your notification of compliance. In 

addition, you would have to keep 

records of the pressure relief vent 

settings that prevent breathing losses 

from the storage vessel. All vapor 

connections and lines on the storage 

vessel would have to be equipped with 

closures that seal upon disconnect. 

Most of the proposed requirements for 

inspecting, monitoring and repairing 

equipment in the vapor balancing 

system and the fixed roof are the same 

as for closed vent systems as described 

in section III.A.6 of this preamble. The 

only difference is that for vapor 

balancing systems you may elect to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

comply with the alternative monitoring 

frequencies for batch operations in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J if 

your vapor balancing system operates 

less than 75 percent of the hours during 

the year. 

6. What are the proposed requirements 

for control of fixed roof atmospheric 

storage vessels if I route emissions 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device (‘‘closed vent system 

approach’’)? 

If you elect to vent emissions from a 

fixed roof storage vessel through a 

closed vent system to a control device, 

you would have to comply with the 

proposed equipment, operating, 

inspection and repair requirements 

specified in this rule for these systems. 

If your storage vessel and closed vent 

system are not in vacuum service, you 

would have to operate, maintain and 

inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks 

as specified in section III.A.3 of this 

preamble, except that normal breathing 

and working emissions would not be 

allowed to vent to the atmosphere. 

Monitoring would not be required if the 

storage vessel and closed vent system 

are in vacuum service, but you would be 

required to demonstrate that vacuum is 

maintained by installing a pressure 

monitoring device and alarm as 

specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart J. 

For the closed vent system, you 

would have to comply with the bypass 

line requirements specified in proposed 

40 CFR part 65, subpart M, and you 

would be required to comply with 

requirements for equipment in regulated 

material service in proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart J. Either equipment 

controls (e.g., caps on open ended lines) 

or leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

would be required, as specified in 40 

CFR 65.420 through 65.427 of proposed 

subpart J, except that sensory 

monitoring in 40 CFR 65.428 of 

proposed subpart J would be allowed for 

connectors if your referencing subpart 

does not require instrument monitoring 

for connectors. Note that the option in 

proposed subpart J to conduct sensory 

monitoring for equipment in regulated 

material service less than 300 hours per 

year (hr/yr) would not apply to 

equipment in the closed vent system. 

The proposed leak detection monitoring 

methods include either Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7, or optical 

gas imaging in accordance with 

proposed 40 CFR 65.450 (provided your 

referencing subpart specifies that optical 

gas imaging is allowed for LDAR). 

Required monitoring and inspections 

would have to be conducted either 

when an affected storage vessel is being 

filled or at any other time the equipment 

in the closed vent system is in regulated 

material service. Any other potential 

sources of vapor leakage (e.g., an access 

hatch) that are not defined as equipment 

would be subject to sensory monitoring 

and related repair requirements as 

specified in 40 CFR 65.428 and 65.430 

of proposed subpart J. 

For a non-flare control device, you 

would be required to comply with the 

provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M for the applicable control 

device and reduce regulated organic 

material emissions by at least 95 percent 

by weight or to an outlet concentration 

of regulated material less than 20 ppmv. 

To demonstrate initial compliance with 

this emission limit, proposed subpart I 

would allow you to conduct a design 

evaluation as an alternative to the 

performance test (note that the 

performance test is the default 

requirement in proposed subpart M). 

You would be required to comply with 

the provisions in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of 

subpart A for flares used to comply with 

the referencing subpart. 

For those periods when you conduct 

planned routine maintenance of the 

control devices for your storage vessels, 

the proposed rule would require that 

you add no material to the storage vessel 

during those periods and limit the 

periods to a total of no more than 360 

hr/yr. If you need more than 240 hr/yr, 

you would have to keep a record that 

explains why the extension was needed 

and describes how you minimized the 

amount of time beyond 240 hours. In 

addition, you would need to keep 

records of when the planned routine 

maintenance periods begin and end and 

the type of maintenance performed. 

7. What are the proposed requirements 

for control of fixed roof atmospheric 

storage vessels if I route emissions to a 

fuel gas system (‘‘fuel gas system 

approach’’)? 

If you elect to control storage vessel 

emissions by routing displaced vapor to 

a fuel gas system, you would be 

required to comply with the 

requirements for fuel gas systems, as 

specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M. Specifically, you would be 

required to: (1) Submit a statement in 

your Notification of Compliance Status 

that the emission stream is connected to 

the fuel gas system; (2) meet the 

requirements for equipment in regulated 

material service in proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart J for all equipment in 

the fuel gas system; (3) comply with 

proposed 40 CFR 65.724 for any small 

boilers or process heaters in the fuel gas 

system; and (4) not route halogenated 

streams to the fuel gas system. In 

addition, you would be required to 

operate, maintain and inspect the fixed 

roof, and repair leaks as specified in 

section III.A.3 of this preamble. The 

proposed procedures for inspecting or 

monitoring the equipment also are the 

same as for equipment in a closed vent 

system as described in section III.A.6 of 

this preamble. 

8. What are the proposed requirements 

for pressure vessels? 

The proposed rule defines a pressure 

vessel as a storage vessel that is 

designed not to vent to the atmosphere 

as a result of compression of the vapor 

headspace in the vessel during filling of 

the vessel to its design capacity. The 

proposed rule would require all 

openings in a pressure vessel to be 

equipped with closure devices. In 

addition, you would be required to 

conduct annual performance tests using 

either Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, or optical gas imaging to 

show pressure vessels operate with an 

instrument reading less than 500 ppmv 

(for Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7) or no emissions are 

imaged by the instrument (for optical 

gas imaging). Each time you obtain an 

instrument reading equal to or greater 

than 500 ppmv (for Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7) or 

emissions are imaged (for optical gas 

imaging), it would be a deviation of the 

emission limit, and you would be 

required to estimate, record and report 

the amount of regulated material 

emissions during the time the pressure 

vessel is out of compliance with the 

emission limit. 

The proposed rule would require that 

all purge streams be routed through a 

closed vent system to a control device 

that reduces regulated material 

emissions by at least 98 percent or to an 

outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv. 

Inert material purging is a short 

duration maintenance procedure 

required by good engineering practice to 

ensure proper operation of this type of 

storage system. The closed vent system 

would be subject to the same bypass 

line requirements and monitoring and 

inspection requirements as for a closed 

vent system that conveys emissions 

from an atmospheric storage vessel to a 

control device; see section III.A.6 of this 

preamble for details. The proposed 

compliance requirements for a control 

device would be the same as for a 

control device that controls emissions 

from an atmospheric storage vessel; see 

section III.A.6 of this preamble for 

details. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17911 

9. What are the proposed requirements 

for control of transfer operations to load 

transport vehicles? 

For each transfer rack that you use to 

load transport vehicles, you would be 

required to transfer the regulated 

material to the transport vehicles using 

submerged loading or bottom loading. 

In addition, you would be required to 

control displacement emissions of 

regulated materials from the transport 

vehicles if you transfer more than 35 

million gallons per year (gal/yr) of 

liquids with a weighted average MTVP 

greater than 4 psia. The proposed rule 

includes three compliance approaches 

for these emissions. One approach is to 

route the displaced emissions from the 

transport vehicle through a closed vent 

system to any combination of control 

devices. In this case, the proposed 

requirements are the same as those 

proposed for closed vent systems and 

control devices used to control 

emissions from storage vessels; see 

section III.A.6 of this preamble for 

details. 

A second approach is to route the 

displaced emissions from the transport 

vehicle to a fuel gas system. Again, the 

proposed requirements are the same as 

the proposed requirements for storage 

vessels that are controlled by routing 

emissions to a fuel gas system. 

The third approach is to design and 

operate a vapor balancing system to 

route vapors that are displaced from 

loading regulated liquids into transport 

vehicles back to the storage vessel or to 

another storage vessel that is connected 

to a common header. The proposed 

vapor balancing approach includes the 

following requirements: (1) Designing 

the vapor balancing system to prevent 

any regulated material vapors collected 

at one transfer rack from passing to 

another transfer rack; (2) equipping all 

vapor connections and lines in the 

vapor-collection equipment and vapor 

balancing system with closures that seal 

upon disconnect; (3) ensuring PRD in 

the system do not open while the 

transport vehicle is being filled with 

regulated material; (4) conducting the 

same LDAR procedures for equipment 

in the vapor balancing system as for 

equipment in a closed vent system; and 

(5) complying with the same bypass line 

requirements as in the proposed 

requirements for closed vent systems. 

You would not be allowed to use the 

vapor balancing approach if the 

applicable storage vessel has a floating 

roof. 

Each transport vehicle that you load 

with regulated material that has a MTVP 

of regulated material greater than 4 psia 

would be required to pass an annual 

vapor tightness test conducted using 

Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8. All other transport vehicles that 

you load with regulated material must 

either pass an annual vapor tightness 

test conducted using Method 27 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or have a 

current certification in accordance with 

DOT pressure test requirements for 

cargo tanks or tank cars. You would be 

required to keep records of the DOT 

certifications and tests conducted using 

Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8. You also would be required to take 

actions to assure that your vapor 

balancing system, closed vent system or 

fuel gas system is connected to the 

transport vehicle’s vapor-collection 

equipment during each transfer of 

regulated material to transport vehicles. 

10. What are the proposed requirements 

for control of transfer operations to load 

containers? 

For each transfer of regulated material 

to a container at a transfer rack that 

loads only containers, you would be 

required, at a minimum, to use either 

submerged fill or fitted opening/transfer 

line purging. Whenever a container 

contains a regulated material, you 

would also be required to install and 

secure all covers and closure devices in 

the closed position, except when you 

need to access the container (e.g., for 

adding or removing material, sampling 

or cleaning). You would also be 

required to demonstrate annually that 

containers, 55 gallons and larger, that 

are loaded and then used for onsite 

storage are vapor tight by using one of 

two approaches. One approach is to use 

Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8, under the same test conditions 

specified for testing transport vehicles, 

and the second approach is to monitor 

each potential leak interface on the 

container for leaks using Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. When 

monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, an instrument 

reading greater than 500 ppmv would 

constitute a leak that you would be 

required to repair within 15 days. 

We are proposing three more effective 

compliance approaches that you may 

elect to comply with as an alternative to 

conducting submerged filling. The first 

approach is to route emissions through 

a closed vent system to a control device 

in accordance with the same 

requirements that apply to closed vent 

systems and control devices that are 

used to control emissions from transfers 

to transport vehicles. The second 

approach is to design and operate a 

vapor balancing system that routes 

displaced vapors back to the storage 

vessel from which the transferred liquid 

originated. The requirements would be 

the same as for the vapor balancing 

approach for controlling emissions from 

transfers to transport vehicles. For 

example, vapor connection and lines in 

the vapor-collection equipment and 

vapor balancing system would have to 

be equipped with closures that seal 

upon disconnect. Any PRD on the 

container would have to remain closed 

while the container is being filled, and 

you would be required to comply with 

the same bypass line requirements and 

LDAR requirements for equipment in 

the vapor balancing system that are 

being proposed for closed vent systems. 

The third approach is to conduct the 

transfer operations inside a permanent 

total enclosure (meeting the criteria 

specified in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B) 

that is vented through a closed vent 

system to a control device. The 

requirements for the closed vent system 

and control device would be the same 

as in the first approach described above. 

11. What are the proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

Recordkeeping. Proposed subpart I 

would require records related to both 

storage vessels and transfer operations. 

For each storage vessel that contains a 

regulated material, you would be 

required to record the vessel 

dimensions, storage capacity and type of 

stored material. In addition, proposed 

subpart I would require records related 

to each type of storage vessel and each 

compliance approach. Many of these 

records would require documentation of 

the dates and results of inspections (for 

fixed roofs, floating roofs, closed vent 

systems, fuel gas systems and vapor 

balancing systems), including 

descriptions of repairs or actions taken 

to remedy leaks or inspection failures. 

Other records related to storage 

vessels would require documentation of: 

(1) The start and end dates of floating 

roof landing events and the procedure 

used to refloat the roof; (2) decisions to 

use extensions for inspections and 

repair/removal from service; (3) dates of 

each overfill event; (4) DOT 

certifications of vapor tightness tests for 

transport vehicles used to comply with 

the vapor balancing approach; (5) vapor 

tightness test results for barges used to 

comply with the vapor balancing 

approach; (6) date and time when 

periods of planned routine maintenance 

of a control device begin and end; and 

(7) identification of each potential 

source of vapor leakage in a closed vent 

system that is not defined as a piece of 

‘‘equipment.’’ If you comply with closed 

vent system and control device 

requirements or fuel gas system 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

requirements specified in proposed 40 

CFR part 65, subpart M, you would also 

be required to keep applicable records 

as specified in proposed subpart M. 

Similarly, if you comply with 

equipment monitoring requirements for 

a closed vent system or fuel gas system, 

or if you operate a closed vent system 

in vacuum service, you would be 

required to keep records that are related 

to these provisions, as specified in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. If 

you comply with the vapor balancing 

approach, you would be required to 

keep a record of the setting on the PRD 

that prevents breathing losses from the 

storage vessel. You would also be 

required to keep records of your 

estimates of emissions from: (1) Each 

spill caused by overfilling a storage 

vessel; (2) a storage vessel while the 

floating roof is landed; and (3) a 

pressure vessel that does not comply 

with the required emission limit. 

For transfer operations, you would be 

required to keep records of vapor 

tightness tests of transport vehicles that 

are loaded with liquid that has a 

regulated material vapor pressure 

greater than 4 psia and DOT 

certifications of vapor tightness tests for 

other transport vehicles that are loaded 

with regulated material. If you comply 

with the approach to route emissions 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device or the fuel gas system 

approach, you would be required to 

keep records of monitoring, inspections 

and leak repairs, as specified in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, and 

you would be required to comply with 

the recordkeeping requirements 

specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M, for the applicable control 

device. If you comply with the approach 

to load containers inside an enclosure, 

you would be required to keep records 

of the most recent calculations and 

measurements performed to verify that 

the enclosure meets the criteria of a 

permanent total enclosure, as specified 

in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B. 

Notification of Compliance Status. In 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

required by the referencing subpart and 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H, 

you would be required to include the 

identification of each storage vessel, its 

storage capacity and the liquid stored in 

the storage vessel. You would also be 

required to include identification of 

each transfer rack that loads regulated 

material into transport vehicles or 

containers. In addition, if you comply 

with the vapor balancing approach for a 

storage vessel (i.e., proposed 40 CFR 

65.320), and any PRD on that storage 

vessel is set to relieve at less than 2.5 

psig, you would be required to provide 

rationale for why that setting is 

sufficient to prevent breathing losses 

from the storage vessel. Finally, if you 

comply with any provisions in 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart J or 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M of the Uniform Standards, 

you must comply with any notification 

requirements related to those provisions 

that are specified in subpart J or subpart 

M. 

Semiannual periodic report. 

Semiannual periodic reports must 

include: (1) Documentation of the date 

when a storage vessel was emptied or 

repaired if the action was not conducted 

before the end of a second extension 

period, as required in proposed 40 CFR 

65.310(d) or 65.315(d); (2) storage vessel 

identification and the start and end 

dates of each floating roof landing that 

does not meet one of the criteria in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.315(b)(1); (3) a 

copy of the inspection report for a 

pressure vessel when you obtain an 

instrument reading greater than 500 

ppmv when using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, or an image of 

emissions when monitoring using 

optical gas imaging; and (4) any 

information required in semiannual 

periodic reports by proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart M related to provisions 

in those subparts with which you 

comply. 

Annual periodic reports. Annual 

periodic reports required by the 

referencing subpart must include the 

following information: (1) Inspection 

results for fixed and floating roofs when 

a failure or leak is detected; (2) 

estimated emissions each time a floating 

roof is landed; (3) estimated emissions 

each time a storage vessel is overfilled; 

(4) estimated emissions each time a 

pressure vessel fails a performance test; 

and (5) any information required in 

annual periodic reports by proposed 40 

CFR part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 

CFR part 65, subpart M related to 

provisions in those subparts with which 

you comply. 

Other reports. We are proposing that 

you notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to each planned inspection of 

rim seals and deck fittings in storage 

vessels. If an inspection is unplanned 

and you could not have known about 

the inspection 30 days in advance, then 

you would be required to notify the 

Administrator at least 7 days before the 

inspection. A delegated state or local 

agency may waive the requirement for 

notification of inspections. 

B. Rationale 

We developed the proposed 

requirements in subpart I based on a 

review of requirements in current 

federal and state rules, a survey of 

technology for controlling and 

monitoring emissions from storage 

vessels and transfer operations and an 

analysis of the cost impacts of various 

compliance approaches. 

The rules listed in Table 2 of this 

preamble include many provisions that 

we have developed as the most effective 

provisions for controlling emissions 

from storage vessels and transfer 

operations. These provisions form the 

backbone of proposed subpart I. In 

addition, the Generic MACT subparts 

were already organized to be referenced 

from source category-specific subparts. 

One difference between the Generic 

MACT rules and the proposed rule is 

how the storage vessel and transfer rack 

operating condition thresholds for a 

particular control requirement are 

specified. The Generic MACT relies on 

the referencing subpart to specify the 

range of characteristics that a storage 

vessel or transfer rack must possess to 

be subject to a particular control 

requirement. Conversely, proposed 

subpart I specifies both the thresholds 

and control requirements that would 

apply to storage vessels and transfer 

racks at any facility that is subject to a 

referencing subpart that incorporates 

those Uniform Standards provisions. If, 

while developing a referencing subpart, 

we identify a reason to select a different 

threshold for that source category (such 

as a difference driven by a prior MACT, 

AMOS or BSER decision for that 

subcategory), we would specify that 

threshold in the referencing subpart and 

indicate it applies in place of the 

threshold specified in proposed subpart 

I. The proposed subpart I thresholds and 

corresponding control requirements 

were determined based on the survey of 

technology and the cost impacts 

analysis; typically, the proposed 

requirements represent the best level of 

emission reduction for which we 

determined the costs are reasonable for 

model storage vessels and transfer racks. 

Another overarching difference 

between proposed subpart I and the 

Generic MACT subparts is that 

proposed subpart I was organized to be 

consistent with the ‘‘plain language’’ 

format that we have adopted since the 

Generic MACT rules were promulgated. 

The following sections describe the 

rationale for the proposed provisions in 

subpart I. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17913 

TABLE 2—RULES USED TO DEVELOP REQUIREMENTS IN PROPOSED SUBPART I 

Provisions in proposed subpart I Current rule used as starting point for the proposed provisions 

Floating roofs ........................................... National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks)—Control Level 2 (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

WW; ‘‘Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2’’) 

Fixed roofs ............................................... National Emission Standards for Tanks—Level 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart OO; ‘‘Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 1’’) 

Vapor balancing ....................................... National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF; ‘‘MON’’) 

Pressure vessels ..................................... National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart DD) 

Transfer to transport vehicles .................. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE; ‘‘OLD NESHAP’’) 

Transfer to containers ............................. National Emission Standards for Containers (40 CFR part 63, subpart PP; ‘‘Generic MACT for Containers’’) 

1. How is the EPA proposing to define 

the term ‘‘storage vessel?’’ 

We are proposing a definition of 

‘‘storage vessel’’ that is generally 

consistent with the definition in the 

Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, in that 

it means ‘‘a stationary unit that [* * *] 

is designed to hold an accumulation of 

liquids or other materials.’’ The 

definition also contains many of the 

same elements as definitions in many 

rules in 40 CFR part 63. For example, 

the proposed definition excludes vessels 

permanently attached to a motor 

vehicle, vessels containing regulated 

material only as impurities and 

wastewater tanks. Differences between 

the proposed definition and the 

definition in the Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 2 and most other rules in 

40 CFR part 63 are that the proposed 

definition specifically excludes process 

tanks, and it does not exclude pressure 

vessels. We excluded process tanks from 

the proposed definition because such 

vessels are in operation only when the 

process is operating, and they generally 

operate at process temperatures without 

the potential for significant emissions 

due to diurnal temperature changes. As 

a result, their emissions are more like 

other process vent emissions than 

storage tank emissions. We are 

proposing to include pressure vessels as 

a subset of storage vessels because we 

are proposing requirements for pressure 

vessels that differ from the requirements 

for atmospheric storage vessels. 

Proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H also 

defines both ‘‘pressure vessel’’ and 

‘‘atmospheric storage vessel.’’ 

We request comment on the clarity of 

this definition and the effect it would 

have if it were to apply in place of the 

current definitions in rules that could 

someday reference proposed subpart I 

for storage vessel requirements. In 

particular, we are interested in 

identification of any types of materials 

stored that could become subject to a 

rule that are not currently subject under 

a current rule’s definition. 

2. How did the EPA determine the 

applicability thresholds and control 

approaches for atmospheric storage 

vessels? 

As discussed in section III.A.2 of this 

preamble, any one of four specified 

compliance approaches would be 

required to control emissions from each 

atmospheric storage vessel that exceeds 

any pair of tank capacity and regulated 

material MTVP thresholds in Table 1 of 

proposed subpart I. Emissions from all 

other storage vessels that contain 

regulated material would have to be 

controlled using either any of these 

same four approaches or by equipping 

the storage vessel with a fixed roof that 

meets specified design and operation 

criteria. 

As part of our survey of technology, 

we estimated impacts for several control 

options for typical fixed roof storage 

vessels and EFR storage vessels. One 

purpose of the analysis was to 

determine applicable thresholds above 

which the costs for each control option 

are reasonable. Consistent with 

requirements in current rules, the 

thresholds we examined were the vessel 

size and the vapor pressure of the stored 

material. 

All of the control options that we 

evaluated involved variations in the 

requirements for floating roofs or 

changes to the storage vessel. We 

focused on floating roof controls 

because these are the most common 

controls currently in use, and the only 

feasible options for baseline EFR storage 

vessels. We did not estimate costs for 

the other compliance approaches for 

fixed roof storage vessels for various 

reasons. We did not estimate the costs 

to connect fixed roof storage vessels to 

a closed vent system and control device 

because these costs have been shown in 

previous analyses to exceed the costs of 

floating roofs (e.g., see EPA–450/3–81– 

003a, EPA–450/3–80–025 or the 

memorandum titled MACT Floor, 

Regulatory Alternatives, and 

Nationwide Impacts for Storage Tanks 

at Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Facilities, in item II–B– 

28 in docket A–96–04). Many 

atmospheric fixed roof storage vessels 

are designed to operate at pressure 

much lower than the 2.5 psig set 

pressure for PRD that is required in 

vapor balancing options. Therefore, we 

did not estimate costs for vapor 

balancing because this approach is 

technically feasible for only a subset of 

atmospheric storage vessels. We did not 

estimate costs for routing storage vessel 

emissions to a fuel gas system because 

this option would not be available at 

some facilities. Furthermore, the 

performance of these other control 

techniques is expected to be the same or 

only marginally superior to the 

performance of IFR, particularly for 

larger storage vessels and storage vessels 

storing material with higher vapor 

pressures. 

In the impacts analysis for fixed roof 

storage vessels, Control Option ST1 was 

installation of a typical IFR with typical 

rim seals and deck fittings, except that 

we varied the type of guide pole (none, 

solid and slotted). We assumed typical 

IFR are constructed from bolted 

aluminum panels, that the deck floats 

on pontoons and that the rim seal is a 

mechanical shoe seal. Based on 

information in AP–42 chapter 7, we 

assumed that even without a regulatory 

driver, roof legs, sample wells, stub 

drains and vacuum breakers typically 

are controlled in a manner consistent 

with the requirements in current rules 

such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. 

Control Option ST2 was to upgrade 

other fittings, as necessary, with 

gasketed covers, wipers and other 

features needed to meet requirements in 

current rules such as subpart WW. 

Additional controls were applied under 

control Option ST2 only for column 

wells, ladder wells, guidepoles, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

automatic gauge float wells and access 

hatches. Current rules allow a variety of 

control options for slotted guidepoles. 

In this analysis, we assumed for Option 

ST2 that controlled slotted guidepoles 

in IFR storage vessels are equipped with 

a gasketed cover, pole sleeve and pole 

wiper. Note that Control Option ST2 is 

also a control option for a storage vessel 

that is currently equipped with a typical 

IFR. 

We assumed the baseline EFR storage 

vessel is equipped with a single rim seal 

(mechanical shoe) and typical fittings, 

except that we varied the type of guide 

pole (either solid or slotted). For such 

vessels, Control Option ST3 was to 

install a secondary rim seal, which we 

assumed would be rim-mounted. 

Control Option ST4 was to upgrade 

fittings, like in Control Option ST2 for 

fixed roof storage vessels. In this case, 

additional controls were applied under 

Control Option ST4 only for guidepoles 

and automatic gauge float wells because 

other fittings typically would be 

controlled to current regulatory levels in 

the absence of a regulatory driver. For 

this analysis we assumed that controlled 

slotted guidepoles in EFR storage 

vessels are equipped with gasketed 

covers and flexible enclosures. Proposed 

subpart I would allow a variety of 

compliance approaches for slotted 

guidepoles; we elected to evaluate a 

flexible enclosure in the impacts 

analysis because it shows a net cost 

savings even for the most costly 

approach. Control Option ST5 was to 

install a dome over storage vessels that 

meet the Control Option ST4 

requirements. 

We estimated baseline and controlled 

emissions using the AP–42 procedures. 

Inputs for the analysis included 

meteorological conditions for Houston, 

Texas, and typical throughputs obtained 

from a survey of the chemical 

manufacturing industry (see EPA–450/ 

3–80–025). Costs were obtained from 

vendors. Table 3 of this preamble 

summarizes the cost- effectiveness 

estimates of the two control options for 

three sizes of model fixed roof storage 

vessels storing materials with a range of 

vapor pressures. Table 4 of this 

preamble shows the cost-effectiveness 

estimates of the three control options for 

model EFR storage vessels. Table 4 of 

this preamble also shows that the cost 

of Control Option ST5 (adding a dome 

over an EFR storage vessel that is 

already complying with Control Options 

ST3 and ST4) are unreasonable for all 

model vessels in the analysis; therefore, 

we rejected this control option from 

further consideration. Although we 

evaluated a variety of guide pole 

scenarios, as discussed above, the 

results in Table 3 of this preamble are 

for model storage vessels with a solid 

guide pole, and the results in Table 4 of 

this preamble are for model storage 

vessels with a slotted guide pole; the 

results for the other guide pole scenarios 

were not significantly different, and 

they would not lead to different 

conclusions. See the memorandum 

titled Survey of Control Technology for 

Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts 

for Storage Vessel Control Options, in 

the docket for proposed subpart I for a 

more detailed discussion of how these 

impacts were developed. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL OPTIONS ST1 AND ST2 FOR MODEL FIXED ROOF STORAGE

VESSELS

Model storage vessel size 

(gal) 

Cost effectiveness a ($/ton) 

Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius (psia) 

0.5 0.75 1.9 3.0 

Control Option ST1 

20,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 16,300 8,800 2,100 1,100 

40,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 6,300 3,300 1,300 730 

200,000 ............................................................................................................................................ 1,100 600 140 70 

Control Option ST2 

20,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 18,900 12,000 4,200 2,500 

40,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 17,900 11,800 4,600 2,900 

200,000 ............................................................................................................................................ 19,000 12,000 4,200 2,500 

aThe cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST2 are incremental relative to Control Option ST1. 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL OPTIONS ST3, ST4 AND ST5 FOR MODEL EFR STORAGE

VESSELS

Model storage vessel size 

(gal) 

Cost effectiveness ($/ton) a

Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius (psia) 

0.5 0.75 1.9 3.0 

Control Option ST3 

20,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 13,500 9,200 3,800 2,500 

40,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 13,000 8,600 3,300 2,100 

200,000 ............................................................................................................................................ 10,500 6,800 2,600 1,600 

Control Option ST4 

20,000 .............................................................................................................................................. (450) (580) (760) (800) 

40,000 .............................................................................................................................................. (360) (510) (720) (780) 

200,000 ............................................................................................................................................ (5) (260) (610) (700) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17915 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL OPTIONS ST3, ST4 AND ST5 FOR MODEL EFR STORAGE

VESSELS—Continued 

Model storage vessel size 

(gal) 

Cost effectiveness ($/ton) a

Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius (psia) 

0.5 0.75 1.9 3.0 

Control Option ST5 

20,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 100,000 71,000 32,000 21,000 

40,000 .............................................................................................................................................. 110,000 74,000 31,000 20,000 

200,000 ............................................................................................................................................ 120,000 78,000 33,000 21,000 

aThe cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST4 are incremental relative to Control Option ST3, and the cost-effectiveness values for 

Control Option ST5 are incremental relative to Control Option ST4. 

Current rules specify requirements 

comparable to the combined 

requirements in Control Options ST1, 

ST2, ST3 and ST4 for atmospheric 

storage vessels, but the size and vapor 

pressure thresholds in the rules vary. 

For comparison purposes, the HON 

requires control of emissions from 

storage vessels with a capacity of at least 

40,000 gallons that store material with 

a vapor pressure of at least 0.75 psia, 

and storage vessels with a capacity of at 

least 20,000 gallons that store material 

with a vapor pressure of at least 1.9 

psia. Tables 3 and 4 of this preamble 

show the incremental cost impacts for 

storage vessels at these thresholds range 

from a cost savings for Control Option 

ST4 to $12,000/ton for storage vessels 

storing material with a vapor pressure of 

0.75 psia under Control Option ST2. 

Although cost effectiveness is an 

important consideration in establishing 

thresholds for proposed subpart I, we 

also considered the practicality of 

setting thresholds less stringent than the 

thresholds in the HON and other current 

rules. This would be impractical 

because, when those rules are amended 

to reference the Uniform Standards, 

they would have to override such 

thresholds in order to satisfy statutory 

MACT, AMOS and other regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, we have 

decided to propose the thresholds that 

are used in the HON (see Table 1 of this 

preamble). These thresholds are widely 

applicable because many current rules 

reference the HON, and we think they 

represent the best choice as defaults for 

the Uniform Standards. We request 

comment on this decision. 

For most chemical manufacturing 

facilities, the costs to comply with the 

combined requirements of Control 

Options ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4 for 

atmospheric storage vessels above the 

proposed thresholds are expected to be 

zero or minimal because they are 

already subject to current rules that 

have the same or similar thresholds and 

control requirements. However, many 

storage vessels at petroleum refineries 

are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CC, which does not require control of 

deck fittings (i.e., Control Options ST2 

and ST4). Based on information 

provided by petroleum refiners in 

response to an information request, we 

determined that nationwide there are 

approximately 2,400 storage vessels 

with an EFR and 1,400 storage vessels 

with an IFR that meet or exceed the 

proposed thresholds in Table 1 of this 

preamble and about 60 percent of these 

storage vessels have slotted guidepoles 

(see the petroleum refinery database in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0682). About 50 percent of the IFR 

storage vessels that have slotted 

guidepoles are controlled, and about 

two-thirds of the EFR storage vessels 

that have slotted guidepoles are 

controlled. We assumed all of the other 

fittings have typical controls (i.e., 

consistent with Control Options ST1 

and ST3). We also assumed each EFR is 

equipped with two rim seals, as 

required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, 

and in Control Option ST3. To estimate 

current annual emissions, we first 

represented each storage vessel with one 

of four model sizes. Each model storage 

vessel also was assigned one of four 

model liquids, depending on the 

reported vapor pressure of the actual 

stored liquid. Storage vessels containing 

liquids with the lowest vapor pressures 

were represented with methyl ethyl 

ketone. The other storage vessels were 

organized into three groups, each of 

which was represented with a different 

grade of gasoline. 

We estimated the current and 

controlled emissions for each modelrefinery storage vessel using the AP–42 

procedures and other assumptions, as 

described above in the discussion of the 

analysis to establish thresholds for 

control. We estimated costs to upgrade 

fittings for each storage vessel using the 

same information that we used in the 

analysis to establish thresholds for 

control. We also applied a product 

recovery credit of $500/ton of VOC to 

the prevented emissions. The emission 

reductions associated with upgrading 

the deck fittings on EFR storage vessels, 

particularly slotted guidepoles, resulted 

in a product recovery credit that 

exceeded the estimate of all costs 

associated with Control Options ST2 

and ST4. Thus, the nationwide impacts 

of the control options for petroleum 

refineries is a cost savings of about 

$350/ton of VOC controlled. See the 

memorandum titled Survey of Control 

Technology for Storage Vessels Analysis 

of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control 

Options, in the docket for proposed 

subpart I for additional discussion of 

how these impacts were developed. 

3. How did the EPA determine the 

control and compliance requirements 

for fixed roof atmospheric storage 

vessels? 

All atmospheric storage vessels below 

the capacity and MTVP thresholds 

noted in section III.A.2 of this preamble 

would have to be equipped with a fixed 

roof. Although most current rules do not 

specify standards for such storage 

vessels, we expect that storage vessels at 

facilities that may in the future be 

subject to rules that reference the 

Uniform Standards already meet this 

proposed requirement. Thus, we do not 

expect any cost or emission impacts to 

meet this requirement. We request 

comment on the accuracy of this 

assumption. 

The design and operating 

requirements that we are proposing for 

fixed roofs are based on the 

requirements in the Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 1. However, we are 

proposing the seven changes to the 

requirements in the Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 1, described below, to 

control more effectively fugitive 

emissions, simplify requirements and 

enhance consistency with requirements 

for storage vessels that may be subject 

to other sections in proposed subpart I. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

First, we are not proposing to specify 

suitable materials for the fixed roof and 

closure devices. We decided that these 

decisions are best left to you and the 

storage vessel manufacturer. You would 

have the flexibility to choose whatever 

materials work best in your situation, 

provided you meet the design and 

operational requirements in proposed 

subpart I. 

Second, like the Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I 

would allow opening of a closure device 

or removal of the roof when needed to 

provide access. The Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 1 specifies that the closure 

devices may be opened to provide 

access for ‘‘performing routine 

inspection, maintenance, or other 

activities needed for normal operations’’ 

and ‘‘to remove accumulated sludge or 

other residues from the bottom of the 

tank.’’ In proposed subpart I, we use an 

edited version of these statements to 

clarify that the opening is allowed for 

‘‘manual operations that require access 

such as inspections, maintenance, 

sampling, and cleaning.’’ A related 

difference between the Generic MACT 

for Tanks Level 1 and the proposed rule 

is that the proposed rule does not 

explicitly state that the closure device 

must be secured in the closed position 

or the roof reinstalled when the activity 

that requires access is complete. Such a 

statement is unnecessary, because the 

inverse of the provision allows openings 

when access is needed. The proposed 

rule clearly states that closure devices 

must be closed at all times except when 

access is needed. 

Third, as in the Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I 

would allow you to route emissions 

from an opening through a closed vent 

system to a control device as an 

alternative to equipping the opening 

with a closure device. However, the 

Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 does 

not specify compliance procedures for 

this control option. To ensure that 

emission reductions are consistent and 

quantifiable when a control device is 

used, we are proposing to require 

compliance with the procedures in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.325 for closed vent 

systems and control devices. 

Fourth, the Generic MACT for Tanks 

Level 1 specifies at 40 CFR 63.902(c)(3) 

that opening of a safety device is 

allowed at any time. This provision was 

not included in proposed subpart I 

because the referencing subparts will 

address malfunctions. 

Fifth, we are proposing delay of repair 

provisions that differ from the 

requirements in the Generic MACT for 

Storage Tanks Level 1. The primary 

difference between the Generic MACT 

for Storage Tanks Level 1 and proposed 

subpart I is the time allowed to 

complete repair. The Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 1 allows delay as long as 

the owner or operator demonstrates that 

alternative tank capacity is not available 

to accept the regulated material from the 

tank that needs to be repaired, whereas 

the proposed rule would allow a 

maximum delay of 105 days (45 days 

plus up to two extensions of up to 30 

days each). We have determined that 

105 days is sufficient time to empty the 

tank, either to other existing tanks on 

site or to temporary storage, if 

necessary. Furthermore, current rules 

(and proposed subpart I) already 

include such requirements for repair of 

any floating roof, and applying the same 

requirements for fixed roof storage tanks 

would promote consistency and reduce 

the likelihood of inadvertent 

compliance errors. Sixth, we are 

proposing to require periodic 

monitoring of each potential source of 

vapor leakage from the fixed roof and 

fittings on the roof instead of annual 

visual inspections for defects. The 

monitoring could be conducted 

annually using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7 or semiannually 

using optical gas imaging (after 

promulgation of the protocol that we are 

developing for 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

K). See sections III.A.3 and IV.A.5 of 

this preamble for discussions of the 

protocol. Repairs would be required for 

each leak. A leak would be defined as 

any instrument reading greater than 500 

ppmv when monitoring using Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, or 

any emissions imaged when using an 

optical gas imaging instrument. We are 

proposing this monitoring change to 

better control fugitive emissions. As 

documented in the docket for proposed 

subpart I, EPA inspectors have often 

found significant leaks from fittings by 

sensory means (particularly olfactory) 

and optical gas imaging when visual 

inspections indicate the gaskets and 

other elements of closure devices appear 

to be sound, and the conservation vent 

is not actively releasing to relieve 

increased pressure caused by diurnal 

temperature changes or filling the 

storage vessel (see the memorandum 

titled Leaks Observed From Fixed Roof 

and Floating Roof Fittings, in the docket 

for proposed subpart I). 

The estimated annual costs, emission 

reductions and cost-effectiveness values 

for the three monitoring options are 

shown in Table 5 of this preamble. The 

estimated cost-effectiveness values for 

monitoring using either optical gas 

imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 are less than $230/ton per 

storage vessel, which we determined is 

reasonable. Note that the emission 

reductions for these two options are 

relative to estimated uncontrolled 

emissions. We lack the data needed to 

attempt to quantify the reductions for 

the visual inspections option, but we 

expect the reductions to be significantly 

less than for the other two options given 

the results of agency inspections noted 

above. 

The impacts were estimated for a 

representative fixed roof storage vessel 

with eight fittings on the roof (an access 

hatch, gauge hatch, conservation vent, 

emergency pressure relief vent and four 

other miscellaneous types of valves and 

instruments). Costs were estimated 

assuming a visual inspection takes an 

average of 30 minutes and the other 

monitoring options take between 40 

minutes and an hour, depending on the 

size of the facility at which the storage 

vessel is located. Based on the results of 

agency inspections, we estimated that 

initial optical gas imaging would find 

about 0.5 leaking fittings per storage 

vessel, and that monitoring with 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, would find an average of about 1 

leaking fitting per storage vessel. We 

assumed that subsequent monitoring 

would find about 5-percent leaking 

fittings if optical gas imaging is 

conducted semiannually and 

monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, is conducted 

annually. As in equipment leak 

analyses, repair costs were estimated 

assuming 75 percent of the leaks could 

be eliminated by a simple adjustment to 

the fitting and that 25 percent of the 

fittings would require a more extensive 

repair or replacement. Recordkeeping 

costs were estimated assuming 1 hr/yr 

to document the results of visual 

inspections and 0.5 hr/yr to document 

the results of the other monitoring 

options. Reporting costs were estimated 

assuming 0.5 hour per reporting period, 

to include records in annual periodic 

reports of inspections of each storage 

vessel for which a leak was found, and 

that 40 percent of the storage vessels 

have one leaking fitting each year (i.e., 

5 percent of the fittings are found to be 

leaking, and each tank has an average of 

eight fittings). Uncontrolled emissions 

for the conservation vent, emergency 

pressure relief vent and miscellaneous 

valves were estimated using average 

emission factors from the Protocol for 

Equipment Leaks Emission Estimates 

(EPA–453/R–95–017) for such 

equipment in the SOCMI. Uncontrolled 

emissions for access hatches and gauge 

hatches were approximated using AP– 

42 factors for such fittings on EFR 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17917 

(unbolted, gasketed cover for access 

hatches and gasketed, weighted 

mechanical actuation gauge hatches). 

Controlled emissions were estimated 

assuming the percent reduction in 

emissions equals the percent reduction 

in the number of fittings found to be 

leaking. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF MONITORING OPTIONS FOR FIXED ROOF STORAGE VESSELS

Monitoring option Total annual cost 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reduction 

relative to 

uncontrolled 

(tpy) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visual ............................................................................................... 120 unknown unknown N/A 

EPA Method 21 ............................................................................... 170 1.1 150 unknown 

Optical gas imaging ......................................................................... 260 1.1 230 undefined 

tpy means tons per year. 

N/A means not applicable. 

We request comment, with supporting 

rationale, on all aspects of the proposed 

requirements for fixed roof storage 

vessels that store regulated material. We 

are particularly interested in comment 

on the proposed monitoring 

requirements. For example, itemized 

cost estimates, data on mass emissions 

from leaks and information about the 

types of initial repairs that would be 

needed and the expected frequency of 

replacements would be useful. 

Comparisons of results obtained using 

both Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, and optical gas imaging 

are requested. 

4. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for atmospheric 

storage vessels that are controlled using 

an IFR or EFR? 

As noted in section III.A.2 of this 

preamble, we are proposing four 

different compliance approaches for 

atmospheric storage vessels that exceed 

specified capacity and MTVP 

thresholds. One of these approaches is 

to use a floating roof. The requirements 

that we are proposing for this approach 

in proposed 40 CFR 65.315 are 

essentially the same as the requirements 

in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. 

We are proposing additional 

requirements and clarifications as 

described below. 

Rim seal design. The Generic MACT 

for Tanks Level 2 specifies alternative 

rim seal configurations for IFR and EFR 

storage vessels at 40 CFR 

63.1063(a)(1)(i) and (ii). However, if 

certain conditions are met, 40 CFR 

63.1063(a)(1)(i)(D) and (ii)(C) specify 

that full compliance with these 

configurations is not required for 

existing tanks until the next time the 

storage vessel is completely emptied 

and degassed or 10 years after 

promulgation of the referencing subpart, 

whichever occurs first. The storage 

vessel provisions in 40 CFR 63.119(b) 

and (c) of the HON contain the same 

provision. We are not proposing this 

delayed compliance provision because 

we expect most rules that reference the 

Uniform Standards will be amended 

versions of current rules, and these 

amended rules will not reference the 

Uniform Standards until more than 10 

years after their original promulgation. 

Thus, all existing storage vessels that are 

subject to a referencing subpart should 

already be equipped with the required 

rim seals before they become subject to 

the Uniform Standards. 

One of the objectives of rim seals is 

to help fill the annular space between 

the rim of the floating roof and the wall 

of the storage vessel thereby minimizing 

evaporative losses from this area. To 

meet this objective, rim seals must be 

constructed of a material that is 

impermeable to the stored material or 

any components of the stored material. 

A rim seal that is saturated with (or has 

been plasticized by) stored liquid would 

constitute an inspection failure because 

the rim seal would not be functioning as 

designed. In proposed subpart I, this 

requirement is specified in section 

65.315(c)(1)(iii). We request comment 

on whether explicitly stating in subpart 

I that rim seal material saturated with 

(or plasticized by) stored liquid 

constitutes an inspection failure would 

help clarify this requirement. We also 

request comment on other possible 

approaches for clarifying this 

requirement. In addition, we are 

interested in strategies that could 

minimize repeated use of seal materials 

that are demonstrated to be less reliable 

than others. For example, we request 

comment on the feasibility and potential 

effectiveness of requiring more frequent 

inspections if a seal that failed during 

the first 5 years of use is replaced with 

a seal made from the same material. 

Sample well requirements. The 

Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 

specifies at 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(v) that 

each sample well and each deck drain 

that empties into the stored liquid may 

be equipped with a slit fabric seal or 

similar device that covers at least 90 

percent of the opening instead of a deck 

cover. In other rules, such as the CAR, 

the HON and Standards of Performance 

for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid 

Storage Vessels) for Which 

Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification Commenced After July 23, 

1984 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb; 

‘‘NSPS Kb’’), the option for sample 

wells to use a slit fabric cover applies 

only for IFR. Therefore, to clarify the 

requirement, we are proposing to split 

the requirements for sample wells and 

deck drains into two paragraphs in 

subpart I. As an alternative to using a 

gasketed deck cover, proposed 40 CFR 

65.315(a)(3)(v) specifies that sample 

wells in IFR may be equipped with a slit 

fabric seal (or similar device) that covers 

at least 90 percent of the opening. 

Proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(vi) 

specifies that each opening for a deck 

drain (in any floating roof) that empties 

into the stored liquid must be equipped 

with a slit fabric (or similar device) that 

covers at least 90 percent of the 

opening. 

Control requirements for guidepoles. 

The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 

specifies in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(vii) 

that each unslotted guide pole shall be 

equipped with a gasketed cap on the top 

of the guide pole. We are proposing an 

alternative to this provision for 

proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(viii) to 

indicate that a welded cap is an 

acceptable alternative to a gasketed cap 

for anti-rotational devices. The cap may 

be welded on an unslotted guide pole 

because such a guide pole is not used 

for gauging the liquid level. Emissions 

reductions are expected to be the same 

for both types of caps. 

As part of the STERPP, we offered to 

enter into agreements with companies 

that have installed or will install 

controls to reduce their slotted guide 

pole emissions from storage vessels that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17918 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

are subject to Standards of Performance 

for Storage Vessels for Petroleum 

Liquids for Which Construction, 

Reconstruction, or Modification 

Commenced After May 18, 1978, and 

Prior to July 23, 1984 (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Ka) or NSPS Kb. During 

development of the program, we 

identified two additional slotted guide 

pole control options that are not 

included in the Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 2. The STERPP included 

these options because their performance 

was determined to be comparable to the 

performance of other control options 

already specified in the rules. One of the 

new options is to use a flexible 

enclosure device that completely 

encloses the slotted guide pole and a 

cover on the top of the guide pole. The 

second new option is to install an 

internal guide pole sleeve, a pole wiper 

and a cover on the top of the guide pole. 

We are proposing to include both of 

these options in proposed 40 CFR 

65.315(a)(3)(ix). As discussed above for 

unslotted guidepoles, the cover may be 

either gasketed or welded. There is no 

cost impact associated with these 

control options because these options 

are providing compliance flexibility 

without imposing new requirements. 

Control requirements for slotted 

ladder legs. Many IFR tanks have a 

ladder with one slotted leg so that the 

leg can also be used for gauging and/or 

sampling. Current rules specify that 

ladder wells must have gasketed sliding 

deck covers, and slotted guidepoles 

must be controlled using any one of 

several techniques. However, current 

rules do not explicitly specify 

requirements for slotted ladder legs. 

Therefore, we are proposing to require 

any one of three options for this type of 

fitting. One option is to use a pole float 

in the slotted leg and pole wipers for 

both legs. A second option is to use a 

ladder sleeve and pole wipers for both 

legs. The third option is to use a flexible 

device that completely encloses the 

ladder and either a gasketed or welded 

cap on the top of the slotted leg. Each 

option also includes the requirement to 

have a gasketed sliding deck cover. 

These controls are similar to the 

controls for slotted guidepoles, and they 

have been accepted in equivalency 

determinations for numerous storage 

vessels that are subject to current rules. 

Thus, the costs to comply with 

proposed subpart I would be the same 

as costs to comply with current rules. 

Delayed compliance date for deck 

fitting requirements. The Generic MACT 

for Tanks Level 2 specifies in 40 CFR 

63.1063(a)(2)(ix) that deck fitting 

requirements do not apply for an 

existing IFR or EFR until the next time 

the storage vessel is completely emptied 

and degassed or 10 years after the 

promulgation date of the referencing 

subpart, whichever occurs first. We 

have not included this provision in 

proposed subpart I for the same reason 

described above regarding a similar 

provision for rim seals (i.e., all existing 

storage tanks that may in the future be 

subject to rules that reference the 

Uniform Standards should have already 

complied with the deck fitting 

requirements before they become 

subject to the Uniform Standards). 

Operational requirements. The 

Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 

requires that the floating roof float on 

the stored liquid surface at all times, 

except for times when the floating roof 

is supported by its leg supports or other 

support devices such as hangers from 

the fixed roof (‘‘landings’’). Once the 

floating roof lands, ‘‘the process of 

filling to the point of refloating the 

floating roof shall be continuous and 

shall be performed as soon as practical’’ 

(40 CFR 63.1063(b)(2)), and you must 

keep records of the date the roof landed 

and the date it was refloated (40 CFR 

63.1065(c)). The language at 40 CFR 

63.1063(b)(2) is similar to the language 

in the CAR (40 CFR 65.43(b) and 

65.44(b)), and the preamble to the CAR 

has clarified that the intent of this 

language is ‘‘to prevent the liquid level 

[in the storage vessel] from rising and 

falling while the roof is resting on the 

supports’’ (63 FR 57768, October 28, 

1998). However, neither the Generic 

MACT for Tanks Level 2 nor the CAR 

place any limits on the number of 

landings or the amount of time that a 

floating roof may be landed. The lack of 

limits is a concern because the standing 

idle emissions can be significant, 

especially relative to the emissions and 

emissions reductions for deck fittings 

while the roof is floating. For example, 

Table 6 of this preamble presents 

estimated emissions from typical 

gasoline storage tanks equipped with an 

EFR and standing idle for 2 or 5 days. 

These emissions were estimated using 

AP–42 procedures for a storage vessel in 

Corpus Christi, Texas. The landed 

height of the roof was assumed to be 5 

feet above the floor of the storage vessel, 

and the liquid level was assumed to be 

0.75 feet above the floor of the storage 

vessel. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED STANDING IDLE EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE STORAGE VESSELS THAT ARE EQUIPPED WITH AN

EFR 

Size of storage vessel 

(gal) Stored contents Number of days standing idle 

Estimated 

standing idle 

emissions 

(lb) 

2,000,000 .......................................................... gasoline ............................................................................ 2 830 

5 2,100 

7,000,000 .......................................................... gasoline ............................................................................ 2 1,500 

5 3,900 

Other rules (e.g., NSPS Kb) allow 

floating roof landings only if the storage 

vessel is being completely emptied, and 

both the emptying and refilling 

processes must be continuous and as 

rapid as possible. This requirement has 

been interpreted as requiring the storage 

vessel to be emptied each time the 

floating roof lands. However, as we 

clarified in the preamble to the CAR (63 

FR 57768), emptying the storage vessel 

every time the roof lands is undesirable 

because it increases the vapor space, 

which in turn increases emissions. 

Thus, emptying the storage vessel when 

landings are inadvertent or other times 

when emptying is not needed for 

operational reasons is 

counterproductive. 

To minimize emissions from landings 

and clarify the requirements, we are 

proposing several differences relative to 

the requirements in current rules. For 

example, instead of requiring the 

floating roof to be floating on the liquid 

surface at all times except when it is 

landed on its supports, we are 

proposing to list specific situations 

under which the floating roof is not 

required to be floating on the stored 

liquid (proposed 

40 CFR 65.315(b)(1)). We are proposing 

to allow the roof to be landed during the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17919 

initial fill because the landed height is 

typically several feet above the floor of 

the storage vessel. We are not proposing 

to require control of emissions in 

displaced gases during the initial fill 

because the average concentration of 

regulated materials in the vapor space 

over the course of the fill is relatively 

low, and the costs to vent such 

emissions to a control device are not 

reasonable. Like current rules, however, 

the proposed rule typically would 

require filling to the point of refloating 

the roof to be conducted continuously 

and as rapidly as practicable to 

minimize the amount of time a vapor 

space is present below the floating roof. 

The only exception to the proposed 

requirement for continuous filling until 

the roof is refloated would be for storage 

vessels that are used to store product 

from batch processes. The exemption 

would apply if the quantity of product 

from one batch is insufficient to refloat 

the roof, but sufficient product from 

additional batches to refloat the roof 

will be added before any material is 

withdrawn from the storage vessel. 

We also recognize that landings are 

required in order to take the storage 

vessel out of service, and they are often 

required in order to perform 

inspections, maintenance or before 

filling the storage vessel with a liquid 

that is incompatible with the liquid 

currently stored in the storage vessel. 

Therefore, we are proposing to allow 

roof landings in these situations, 

provided the time spent standing idle is 

limited to no more than 24 hours. After 

24 hours, you would be required to 

either begin actions to completely 

empty (and clean, if necessary) or refill 

the storage vessel. These requirements 

clarify that you would not be required 

to empty a storage vessel when the 

storage vessel does not need to be empty 

in order to conduct maintenance or 

inspections. The limited number of 

situations when landings are allowed is 

intended to eliminate unnecessary or 

convenience landings, and the 24-hour 

limit is intended to prevent emissions 

from unnecessary time spent standing 

idle. We request comment on the 

suitability of the 24-hour limit. In 

particular, we request comment on 

specific situations where a storage 

vessel does not need to be completely 

emptied to perform maintenance or 

inspection, but the maintenance or 

inspection activity cannot be completed 

in less than 24 hours. We also request 

comment on the proposed list of 

circumstances under which floating roof 

landings would be allowed, in 

particular whether there are other 

circumstances that would require a 

floating roof landing or whether the list 

allows landings in situations where they 

are unnecessary. 

We are also proposing to allow 

landings if you elect to route emissions 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device that reduces emissions by 

at least 90 percent while the roof is 

landed because this control technique 

will also reduce standing loss emissions 

relative to uncontrolled landings. To 

prevent liquid from being drawn into 

the closed vent system, control would 

be required only when the liquid fills 

less than 90 percent of the volume 

under the landed roof. We are not 

proposing to require control of 

displaced emissions during refill after 

these events because the cost to control, 

considering the estimated emissions 

reduction, would not be reasonable 

except for very large storage vessels that 

store highly volatile material. We 

request comment on the technical 

feasibility and cost of this control 

option. In particular, we are interested 

in test data showing the gas flow rate 

and inlet mass emissions to a control 

device that was used as we proposed; 

please also provide related supporting 

information, such as the diameter of the 

storage vessel, the height of the landed 

roof, the average height of the liquid, the 

type of material stored and the pressure 

drop across the floating roof. We also 

request comment on whether the rule 

should limit the number of days 

operating in this manner so that the 

total controlled emissions do not exceed 

the standing idle emissions from one 

day. We also request comment on 

whether any facilities would have no 

choice but to comply with this control 

option because it would not be possible 

to limit landings to the situations 

described in the paragraph above; please 

provide a description of any such 

facilities and explain why limiting 

landings would not be possible. 

Proposed subpart I would require you 

to estimate regulated material standing 

idle emissions from each landing and to 

submit the results in your next periodic 

report. As in the Generic MACT for 

Tanks Level 2, you would also be 

required to keep records documenting 

the start and end times of all roof 

landing events. We have determined 

that maintaining information on the 

occurrence, time span and quantity of 

standing idle emissions for landings is 

needed to demonstrate compliance with 

the proposed limits on when landings 

are allowed. This information will also 

help inform decisions about where to 

target compliance inspections. We 

request comment on the feasibility and 

burden of estimating emissions from 

landings. 

Monitoring and alarm systems. Under 

the proposed rule, an inadvertent 

landing of a floating roof would be a 

deviation of the operating requirements 

described above. To minimize the 

number of unintended landings of 

floating roofs (and the additional 

emissions generated as a result), we are 

proposing to require that you equip each 

affected storage vessel with a system 

that provides a visual or audible signal 

when the floating roof is about to land 

on its legs (or other support devices). 

This monitoring is intended to alert you 

in time to take action to prevent an 

inadvertent landing and the resulting 

deviation. We are soliciting comment on 

the prevalence of such monitoring 

systems in use with existing storage 

vessels and the burden to add them to 

storage vessels that are not already so 

equipped. We estimated the cost to 

plan, purchase and install the required 

monitors to be about $2,000 per storage 

vessel. We estimated the annual costs, 

including costs to estimate emissions for 

each landing and related recordkeeping 

and reporting, to be about $900/year per 

storage vessel. These estimates assume 

each floating roof will be landed an 

average of two times per year, and that 

one of the landings will be inadvertent. 

IFR and EFR inspections. The 

proposed inspection requirements are 

consistent with the inspection 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(c) and 

(d), except for the six proposed changes 

discussed below. First, in an effort to 

improve clarity, we are proposing to 

tabulate many of the inspection and 

frequency requirements (see Tables 2 

and 3 in proposed subpart I). The intent 

is not to change the requirements except 

as discussed below. 

Second, we are proposing to specify 

how an inspector is to demonstrate 

when a gap constitutes an inspection 

failure for a deck fitting. The Generic 

MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies at 40 

CFR 63.1063(d)(1)(v) that a gap of more 

than 1⁄8 inch between any deck fitting 

gasket, seal or wiper, and the surface 

that it is intended to seal is an 

inspection failure. The Generic MACT 

for Tanks Level 2 does not, however, 

explicitly specify how an inspector is to 

determine whether gaps exceed this 

amount. Therefore, we are proposing to 

specify in proposed 40 CFR 

65.315(c)(2)(i) that an inspector must 

use a 1⁄8-inch diameter probe, and each 

location where the probe passes freely 

constitutes a gap. This procedure is 

consistent with the currently specified 

procedure for monitoring rim seal gaps 

in EFR tanks. 

Third, we are proposing an editorial 

change to the language from 40 CFR 

63.1063(d)(1)(v) that is incorporated in 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17920 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i). In the Generic 

MACT for Tanks Level 2, 40 CFR 

63.1063(d)(1)(v) specifies that the gap 

limit for deck fittings applies to ‘‘any 

deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper.’’ The 

use of the word ‘‘seal’’ in this sentence 

may be misinterpreted as meaning the 

provision applies to rim seals because 

the design requirements for deck fittings 

refer only to gaskets and wipers. 

Therefore, to eliminate confusion and 

improve clarity, we are proposing in 40 

CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i) to specify that the 

gap limit applies to each deck fitting 

gasket or wiper. 

Fourth, to increase compliance 

flexibility and possibly emissions 

reductions, we are proposing to allow 

optical gas imaging or monitoring using 

Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 as an 

alternative to measuring rim seal gaps 

for EFR and deck fitting gaps for both 

IFR and EFR. The monitoring would be 

required on the same schedule as the 

otherwise applicable gap measurement 

requirements. An inspection failure 

would occur if you obtain an instrument 

reading greater than 500 ppmv when 

monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, or when you 

obtain an image of emissions when 

using optical gas imaging. Conditions 

causing an inspection failure would 

have to be repaired. To ensure 

consistent and reliable results when 

using optical gas imaging, we are also 

proposing two additional requirements: 

(1) Optical gas imaging would be 

allowed only if at least one compound 

in the emissions from the storage vessel 

can be detected by the optical gas 

imaging instrument and (2) monitoring 

would be required in accordance with a 

new protocol for optical gas imaging. As 

discussed in sections III.A.3 and III.A.4 

of this preamble, we are currently 

developing a protocol for using optical 

gas imaging instruments, and we expect 

that the protocol will be proposed as 

appendix K in 40 CFR part 60. We 

anticipate that compliance with either 

of the proposed monitoring alternatives 

would result in lower emissions than 

compliance with the conventional gap 

measurement requirements because 

agency personnel using an optical gas 

imaging instrument have often seen 

images of emissions from seals and 

fittings that appear to be in good 

condition upon visual inspection (see 

the memorandum titled Leaks Observed 

from Fixed Roof and Floating Roof 

Fittings, in the docket for proposed 

subpart I). We have not estimated cost 

effectiveness to conduct optical gas 

imaging or monitoring using Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, 

because such monitoring is only an 

alternative to gap measurements, not a 

requirement. However, monitoring costs 

and burden for optical gas imaging may 

be lower if several fittings can be 

monitored simultaneously. We request 

comment on the technical feasibility, 

performance and costs of both proposed 

alternatives to gap measurement 

requirements. 

Fifth, we are proposing to require 

inspections of an EFR deck and fittings 

annually rather than at least every 10 

years, as specified in the Generic MACT 

for Tanks Level 2. The Generic MACT 

for Tanks Level 2 requires annual 

secondary seal gap measurements, but 

complete inspections of the EFR, rim 

seals and deck fittings are required only 

when the storage vessel is completely 

emptied and degassed, or every 10 

years, whichever occurs first. A 

commenter on the proposed changes to 

storage vessel requirements in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC (73 FR 66694, 

November 10, 2008), which would have 

referenced the Generic MACT for Tanks 

Level 2, stated that the annual 

inspection for EFR should be expanded 

to include inspection of the roof and 

deck fittings as well as the secondary 

seal because defects in the roof or 

fittings are often clearly visible during 

the secondary seal inspections (see 

Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0146–0176). Furthermore, the 

commenter noted that, under the 

current rule, it is unclear whether any 

such defects noted during the annual 

inspection are to be repaired, reported 

or ignored until the next complete 

inspection. Upon review, we have 

determined that annual inspections of 

the EFR deck and fittings are reasonable 

because: (1) An inspection for other 

failures can readily be accomplished 

each time an inspector is measuring 

secondary seal gaps; (2) conducting 

such failure inspections annually would 

more closely align the EFR inspection 

requirements with the current IFR 

inspection requirements; and (3) we 

estimated the additional burden and 

costs to be minimal. Measurement of 

gaps between deck fitting gaskets and 

the surfaces they are intended to seal is 

not required for IFR. However, given 

that EFR have a greater potential for 

emissions due to wind effects, we think 

the minimal additional time and cost to 

perform such measurements of EFR 

fittings is reasonable in light of the 

potential for reduced emissions. We 

estimated the additional labor costs for 

visual inspections, measurement of deck 

fitting gasket gaps and associated 

recordkeeping to be about $100/year. 

The additional burden was estimated to 

be about 2 hours per storage vessel. 

As noted above, we are proposing to 

allow monitoring using Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7 and optical 

gas imaging as alternatives to gap 

measurement requirements. We 

estimated the costs and burden to 

conduct annual monitoring of EFR deck 

fittings using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7 to be about the same 

as for annual to measurement of gaps at 

each fitting because an inspector has to 

check each fitting individually in both 

cases. Theoretically, costs and burden to 

conduct optical gas imaging could be 

slightly less (assuming the facility is 

using a camera that has already been 

purchased for monitoring equipment 

leaks) because several emission points 

can be monitored simultaneously with 

an optical gas imaging instrument, but 

we assumed the same amount of time 

because time is needed to prepare the 

camera and to obtain images from 

multiple locations. See the 

memorandum titled Survey of Control 

Technology for Storage Vessels and 

Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel 

Control Options, in the docket for 

proposed subpart I for additional 

discussion of how these costs and 

burden estimates were developed. We 

request comments that assess the 

effectiveness and burden of the 

proposed annual EFR inspections 

relative to the inspection requirements 

in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. 

We are also proposing to clarify that 

repair is required any time a condition 

that constitutes an inspection failure is 

noted, regardless of whether it was 

noted as part of a scheduled inspection. 

Although not stated explicitly, current 

rules imply that repair is required any 

time an inspection failure is noted 

because they state that inspections must 

be conducted at least once during a 

specified time period. Any time a 

condition that constitutes an inspection 

failure is noted is effectively an 

inspection, whether or not it was 

scheduled. 

Finally, we are proposing changes to 

clarify the required frequency of 

inspections because we received 

comments on proposed amendments to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, that the 

current requirements could be subject to 

different interpretations (see docket 

item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146–0176). 

For example, the requirement to 

conduct inspections ‘‘every 10 years’’ 

could mean in every tenth calendar 

year, no later than the date 10 years after 

the previous inspection or in the same 

month every 10 years. The same 

uncertainties also apply to the 

inspection requirements that must be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17921 

conducted once per year or every 5 

years. We have also been asked when 

the inspection must be conducted if the 

storage vessel is out of service on the 

date when the inspection must be 

completed. To address these questions, 

we are proposing to replace the 

requirements for inspections at least 

once per year with a requirement to 

conduct inspections at least annually. 

The proposed General Provisions in 40 

CFR part 65, subpart H specify that 

‘‘annually’’ means once per calendar 

year, and successive occurrences of 

such events must be separated by at 

least 120 days. For the inspections that 

are required at least every 5 years and 

every 10 years under the Generic MACT 

for Tanks Level 2, we are proposing to 

require that the inspection typically 

must be conducted before the date 5 

years (or 10 years) after the last 

inspection. The only exception is that 

an inspection may be delayed if the 

storage vessel is out of service on that 

date, but in such cases, the inspection 

must be conducted before the storage 

vessel is refilled. 

Repairs. The proposed requirements 

to repair conditions that caused 

inspection failures are similar to the 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.1063(e) in 

the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. 

We are proposing three changes to 

clarify the requirements. As discussed 

above, the first change clarifies that all 

conditions that cause an inspection 

failure, regardless of whether they were 

identified during a scheduled 

inspection, must be repaired. 

The second change would clarify 

terminology. The applicable repair 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(e) 

differ depending on whether or not the 

inspection was conducted while the 

storage vessel was storing liquid. These 

requirements could be subject to 

inconsistent interpretations because the 

term ‘‘storing liquid’’ is not defined in 

the rule. The intent of the language was 

to apply different procedures depending 

on whether or not the storage vessel was 

completely empty when the inspection 

was conducted. The term ‘‘completely 

empty’’ is defined in the rule. Therefore, 

rather than define ‘‘storing liquid,’’ we 

are proposing to replace that term with 

the term ‘‘completely empty’’ to clarify 

the requirements. 

The third change would clarify the 

recordkeeping requirements when you 

use an extension to delay repair or 

emptying of a storage vessel beyond 45 

days. The current requirements in 40 

CFR 63.1063(e) imply that 

documentation of extensions is to be 

prepared before you use an extension 

and could be misinterpreted as 

requiring a request for approval to use 

an extension. Section 63.1067 of the 

Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 also 

specifies that this documentation be 

submitted in periodic reports. We have 

determined that approvals are not 

necessary; records that document the 

type of failure, the reasons why an 

extension was needed, the steps taken to 

either repair or completely empty the 

storage vessel during the extension and 

the date on which repairs were 

completed or the storage vessel was 

completely emptied are sufficient to 

demonstrate compliance. Furthermore, 

requesting approval via a periodic 

report is impractical because the 

schedule of such reports is unlikely to 

coincide with many extension periods. 

Therefore, to clarify the reporting 

requirements, the language in the 

proposed rule differs from the Generic 

MACT for Tanks Level 2 in that it 

clearly requires records of each decision 

to use an extension. 

5. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for vapor 

balancing as a compliance approach for 

atmospheric storage vessels? 

We are proposing that the second 

approach for atmospheric storage 

vessels is vapor balancing (proposed 40 

CFR 65.320). Proposed subpart I would 

require the same design, operating, 

monitoring and repair requirements for 

the fixed roof and closure devices that 

would be required for the closed vent 

system approach. See section III.B.6 of 

this preamble for a discussion of our 

rationale for these requirements. The 

vapor balancing requirements that we 

are proposing are similar to 

requirements in several rules in 40 CFR 

part 63 (e.g., the MON), except for the 

following three changes. First, we are 

proposing to replace the requirement to 

conduct quarterly monitoring of 

pressure relief valves on storage vessels 

using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, with a requirement to 

conduct applicable LDAR requirements 

for all equipment in the vapor balancing 

system. The proposed requirements are 

nearly identical to the proposed 

requirements for closed vent systems, as 

described in section III.B.6 of this 

preamble. The only difference is that 

you would have the option to reduce 

instrument monitoring frequencies (for 

types of equipment that must be 

monitored) consistent with the 

alternative for equipment in batch 

operations in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart J. We proposed this difference 

because it would be possible to 

determine the total operating hours for 

a vapor balancing system, but not for a 

closed vent system. We are not 

proposing to limit the monitoring 

requirement to PRD because such 

monitoring provides information only 

for that one piece of equipment. 

Conducting monitoring of the entire 

vapor balancing system while the 

storage vessel is being filled provides 

more information about the integrity of 

the entire system, and it is information 

collected while the system is actually 

operating and most likely to be emitting 

vapors. 

The second difference from vapor 

balancing requirements in current rules 

is that the proposed rule would require 

design, operation, inspection and repair 

of openings and closure devices 

consistent with the requirements for 

fixed roofs in storage vessels that are 

controlled by routing emissions through 

a closed vent system to a control device, 

as described in section III.B.6 of this 

preamble. Although current rules and 

proposed subpart I require PRD be set at 

levels to prevent breathing losses, we 

determined that additional requirements 

are needed to minimize vapor leakage 

through the roof and fittings regardless 

of the method for controlling breathing 

and working losses. 

The third difference from vapor 

balancing requirements in current rules 

is that the proposed rule would specify 

no requirements for offsite facilities that 

reload (and in some cases clean) the 

transport vehicle or barge. In current 

rules, these facilities are subject to the 

same control requirements as the facility 

that has the affected storage vessel. Both 

the vapor balancing and closed vent 

system options were included in current 

rules in 40 CFR part 63 because they 

were determined to be at least as 

effective as using floating roofs, which 

represented the MACT floors. Based on 

recent analyses, we determined that 

requiring control of offsite facilities as 

part of a vapor balancing option results 

in better overall control than the other 

options. Furthermore, the total 

emissions from a regulated source 

implementing vapor balancing and an 

uncontrolled offsite cleaning/reloading 

facility typically are about the same as 

the total emissions from both facilities 

when the regulated source implements 

the closed vent system approach. The 

performance of the closed vent system 

approach relative to vapor balancing 

will vary depending on the saturation 

level of the vapor space in the transport 

vehicle or barge when unloading of 

liquid to the storage vessel is complete. 

If the organic compound concentration 

in the vapor space of the transport 

vehicle or barge when transfer is 

complete is approximately the same as 

the concentration in the vapor space of 

the storage vessel, then the total mass of 

organic compounds in the transport 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17922 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

vehicle or barge (in both the vapor space 

and the liquid heel) would be the same 

under both approaches. Under these 

conditions, the performance of the two 

approaches is essentially the same, and 

control at the offsite cleaning/reloading 

facility as part of the vapor balancing 

approach is not needed to achieve the 

same level of control as the closed vent 

system approach. See the memorandum 

titled Vapor Balancing Emissions 

Estimates for Storage Vessels, in the 

docket for proposed subpart I for 

example calculations. 

Another issue with the vapor 

balancing approach, as specified in 

current rules, is that it imposes a 

significant burden on the offsite 

facilities (assuming these facilities are 

not required to control transfer 

operations emissions under a rule that 

currently applies to their source 

category). Furthermore, because 

facilities outside the United States are 

not required to comply with this rule, a 

regulated source would not be allowed 

to use the vapor balancing approach if 

the transport vehicle is cleaned outside 

of the United States. Therefore, we have 

decided not to include control 

requirements for offsite facilities in 

proposed subpart I because we have 

determined that such requirements 

result in greater overall emissions 

reductions than other storage vessel 

control approaches. This additional 

control is not needed to meet regulatory 

requirements such as MACT in current 

rules because the performance of vapor 

balancing without offsite control is at 

least equivalent to the performance of 

other control approaches, including 

those that represent MACT in current 

rules. As a result, the offsite control 

requirement also imposes an 

unnecessary burden on the offsite 

facilities. Furthermore, the vapor 

balancing approach without offsite 

controls imposes clearly enforceable 

requirements on the regulated facility. 

We request comment on the differences 

between the proposed vapor balancing 

requirements and the vapor balancing 

requirements in current rules. In 

particular, we are interested in whether 

the proposed lack of requirements for 

offsite facilities could result in 

significantly higher total emissions 

under some conditions. We are also 

interested in test data or theoretical 

calculations of the organic compound 

saturation level or concentration in the 

vapor space of freely vented transport 

vehicles at the time when unloading of 

various liquids is complete. 

6. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for control of 

atmospheric storage vessels when 

routing emissions through a closed vent 

system to a control device? 

As discussed in section III.A.5 of this 

preamble, the proposed requirements 

are based on a combination of the 

procedures specified in 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M and several additional 

requirements. As discussed in section 

V.B of this preamble, we have 

structured the proposed requirements in 

subpart M to be applicable to any 

emissions stream that is controlled by 

routing through a closed vent system to 

a control device. Referencing these 

provisions from proposed subpart I 

promotes consistency for all emissions 

streams that are routed through a closed 

vent system to a control device. It is also 

intended to simplify and reduce the 

burden of compliance and reduce the 

potential for inadvertent errors. 

However, we are also proposing several 

additional requirements to ensure 

appropriate control for storage vessels. 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

M, we are proposing to require design 

and operation of the fixed roof and 

closure devices consistent with the 

proposed requirements for fixed roof 

storage vessels, as discussed in section 

III.B.3 of this preamble, except that 

breathing and working losses would 

have to be controlled rather than vented 

to the atmosphere. We are also 

proposing to require the same type of 

monitoring and repair of all potential 

sources of vapor leakage from the fixed 

roof and closure devices, as discussed in 

section III.B.3 of this preamble. We 

request comment on whether the 

proposed monitoring frequencies are 

reasonable and if any changes to 

operating procedures for the monitoring 

devices would ensure that the 

alternative monitoring methods provide 

similar results. 

For equipment in a closed vent 

system, proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M references the compliance 

requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 

65, subpart J. However, in subpart I we 

are proposing to reference only the 

bypass line requirements in proposed 

subpart M and reference directly the 

applicable equipment leak requirements 

in proposed subpart J. We selected this 

approach to specify more easily that 

certain options in proposed subpart J do 

not apply to equipment in a closed vent 

system that conveys emissions from a 

regulated storage vessel. Specifically, 

the alternative monitoring frequency 

requirements for equipment in batch 

operations would not be allowed for 

equipment in such closed vent systems 

because the closed vent system must be 

in service continuously. Similarly, the 

provision that specifies sensory 

monitoring for equipment in service less 

than 300 hr/yr would not be allowed for 

equipment in such closed vent systems 

because determining the amount of time 

the system actually is conveying 

emissions is not practical. 

The applicable requirements in 40 

CFR part 65, subpart J differ depending 

on whether the equipment is in 

regulated material service or if it 

contains or contacts fluid that contains 

regulated material at levels below the 

regulated material service threshold. 

Current rules typically require sensory 

monitoring of closed vent systems (only 

closed vent systems constructed of 

ductwork are subject to monitoring 

using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7). We are proposing 

instrument monitoring of closed vent 

systems in regulated material service to 

be consistent with the requirements for 

process lines that convey gaseous 

materials and to ensure that the 

emission streams reach the control 

device so that the required level of 

control is met. As an alternative to using 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, we are proposing to allow 

monitoring using an optical gas imaging 

device (after the protocol is 

promulgated, as discussed in section 

III.A.3 of this preamble), provided at 

least one compound in the emissions 

can be detected by the optical gas 

imaging instrument. 

The proposed rule also specifies that 

all equipment in sections of closed vent 

systems that convey emissions from 

storage vessels that meet the thresholds 

for control (i.e., the thresholds specified 

in Table 1 of this preamble) are in 

regulated material service; no additional 

determination of the composition of gas 

streams in the closed vent system is 

required. This approach is being 

proposed because it provides an easy 

way for determining when equipment is 

in regulated material service and 

because the concentration of organic 

compounds in vapor that is in 

equilibrium with a liquid that has a 

vapor pressure of 0.75 psia (the 

minimum threshold for control) is 

approximately 50,000 ppmv, which 

after conversion to a weight basis, is 

comparable to or lower than typical 5 

percent or 10 percent by weight 

thresholds in definitions of ‘‘in organic 

HAP service’’ or ‘‘in VOC service’’ in 

current rules. We request comment on 

other approaches that can accurately 

determine whether equipment is in 

regulated material service without 

imposing unreasonable burden. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17923 

Current rules for storage vessels 

generally require non-flare control 

devices to reduce organic compound 

emissions by at least 95 percent or to an 

outlet concentration of regulated 

material less than 20 ppmv. They also 

require at least a 99-percent reduction or 

outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv 

for acid gases or halogen atoms (the acid 

gases may be part of the emission stream 

directly from the storage vessel, or they 

may be generated by burning 

halogenated organic compounds in 

combustion control devices). These 

levels are achievable by storage vessels 

storing a wide range of materials in a 

wide range of source categories, and 

they are at least equivalent to the 

reductions that are achieved when using 

floating roofs. Thus, we are proposing to 

specify these required control levels in 

proposed subpart I rather than in each 

of the individual referencing subparts, 

thereby improving consistency and 

simplifying the referencing subparts. 

The use of flares to control organic 

emissions from storage vessels is 

another option that would be allowed in 

proposed subpart I; all requirements for 

flares are covered in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of 

subpart A. 

Proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M 

specifies that control performance 

requirements will be specified in 

referencing subparts. Because proposed 

subpart I specifies the required 

reductions or outlet concentrations for 

non-flare control devices used to control 

emissions from storage vessels, subpart 

I (rather than the rule that references 

subpart I) would be the referencing 

subpart for the purpose of complying 

with proposed subpart M. Therefore, 

subpart I must specify the provisions for 

initial compliance determinations (i.e., 

design evaluation or performance test), 

if applicable for storage vessels. We 

determined that design evaluations 

provide sufficiently accurate results for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

reductions required for storage vessels. 

Thus, we are proposing to specify in 

subpart I that initial compliance with 

requirements for non-flare control 

devices that control emissions from 

storage vessels may be demonstrated 

using a design evaluation instead of a 

performance test, which is the default in 

subpart M. However, any control 

devices that control other emissions 

(e.g., process vents) in addition to 

storage vessel emissions, may still be 

required to conduct a performance test 

instead of a design evaluation, if another 

subpart references subpart M for the 

same control device. 

As in current rules, we are proposing 

to require different standards for periods 

of planned routine maintenance of the 

control device. We are not proposing to 

require compliance with the same 

standard at all times because the cost of 

such a requirement would be 

unreasonable. Instead, we are proposing 

to prohibit the addition of material to 

the storage vessel during periods of 

planned routine maintenance and to 

limit the time of planned routine 

maintenance to less than 360 hr/yr. If 

you need more than 240 hr/yr, you 

would be required to keep a record 

documenting why 240 hours is 

insufficient and the steps you took to 

minimize the additional time for 

planned routine maintenance. In 

analyses for current rules, 240 hours has 

been determined as sufficient for most 

control device rebuilds. 

7. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for control of 

atmospheric storage vessels when 

routing emissions to a fuel gas system? 

For fuel gas systems that control 

emissions from storage vessels, 

proposed subpart I references the fuel 

gas system requirements in proposed 40 

CFR part 65, subpart M and specifies a 

few additional requirements to ensure 

appropriate control for storage vessels. 

See section V.B.4 of this preamble for a 

discussion of the requirements in 

subpart M for fuel gas systems. 

Proposed subpart I also would require 

the same design operating, monitoring 

and repair requirements for the fixed 

roof and closure devices that would be 

required for the closed vent system 

approach. See section III.B.6 of this 

preamble for a discussion of our 

rationale for these requirements. 

Proposed subpart I also would require 

compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 

65, subpart J for the equipment in the 

fuel gas system. As for the closed vent 

system approach, all equipment in 

sections of a fuel gas system that convey 

emissions from an affected storage 

vessel are in regulated material service 

and subject to the monitoring and other 

LDAR requirements for equipment in 

regulated material service. See section 

III.B.6 of this preamble for a discussion 

of the rationale for these requirements. 

8. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for control for 

pressure vessels? 

A pressure vessel is defined in the 

Uniform Standards as a storage vessel 

that is designed not to vent to the 

atmosphere as a result of compression of 

the vapor headspace in the vessel 

during filling of the vessel. We are 

proposing standards for all pressure 

vessels that contain any regulated 

material. We are not proposing 

thresholds for the following reasons. 

First, materials stored in a pressure 

vessel are likely to be highly volatile; 

thus, a low vapor pressure threshold 

would have little or no impact. Second, 

we do not expect the operating pressure 

or frequency of leaks to vary with the 

size of the storage vessel. Thus, the 

emissions for the same emission 

pathway would be the same regardless 

of the size of the storage vessel. Third, 

the fittings on the pressure vessel are 

comparable to the types of equipment 

(and in the same service as equipment) 

that would be subject to monitoring 

under proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

J. 

The proposed requirements for 

pressure vessels are to equip each 

opening with a closure device, operate 

without emissions to the atmosphere at 

any time, monitor annually all potential 

leak interfaces using Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7 (or 

semiannually when using optical gas 

imaging), estimate and report emissions 

from periods when instrument readings 

exceed 500 ppmv or an image is 

detected and route purge streams to a 

control device. Closure devices are an 

operational necessity for pressure 

vessels, and they prevent emissions as 

well. We are proposing periodic 

monitoring requirements as a means to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

requirement to operate without 

emissions to the atmosphere. We have 

determined that estimating and 

reporting emissions is needed to help 

inform decisions about where to target 

compliance inspections and to ensure 

that the pressure vessels are properly 

operating with no vents to the 

atmosphere. The burden to conduct 

monitoring and associated 

recordkeeping and reporting is 

estimated to be about 2 hr/yr per storage 

vessel, at a cost of about $170/year for 

monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. The burden is 

estimated to be about 3.5 hr/yr at a cost 

of about $260/year for monitoring with 

an optical gas imaging instrument. The 

differences in the proposed Uniform 

Standards are due primarily to the 

different monitoring frequencies. 

We are proposing to include an 

alternative to the requirement of 

maintaining a closed system at all times. 

This alternative would allow you to 

purge inert materials that build up in 

the pressure vessel, provided the purge 

stream is routed through a closed vent 

system to a control device that achieves 

the same performance that is being 

proposed for atmospheric storage 

vessels (i.e., reductions of at least 95 

percent or to less than 20 ppmv or 

routed to a flare that meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b)). This 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

provision is consistent with an option 

for controlling emissions from pressure 

vessels that manage hazardous waste 

and are subject to the Standards for 

Owners and Operators of Hazardous 

Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 

Facilities in 40 CFR 264.1084 and 

40 CFR 265.1085. We are proposing this 

option in subpart I because it is 

consistent with and ensures control 

comparable to proposed requirements 

for atmospheric storage vessels. 

9. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for overfill 

detection and alarms? 

We are proposing to require you to 

equip each storage vessel with an 

overfill detection sensor. A consortium 

of international oil companies 

conducted a study that concluded 11 

percent of sunken-roof accidents were 

caused by overfilling the storage vessel 

(see 2008 American Petroleum Institute 

(API) AST Conference, in the docket for 

proposed subpart I). According to 

instrumentation industry 

representatives, overfill detection 

systems are currently available, and 

storage vessels designed to American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) standards must be equipped 

with such monitoring and alarm 

systems. The proposed overfill 

monitoring requirement is intended to 

alert you to a potential overfill so that 

you can take action to prevent the 

overfill and, thus, avoid a deviation of 

design requirements. We estimated the 

average cost to plan, purchase and 

install the required monitor and alarm 

to be about $1,900 per storage vessel. 

We estimated the average annual cost of 

the proposed requirement, including 

recordkeeping and reporting, to be about 

$400/year per storage vessel. We expect 

that this requirement will add little 

burden because we understand that 

most storage vessels are already 

equipped with overfill monitoring and 

alarm systems. Therefore, we request 

comment with descriptions of any types 

of affected storage vessels that are not 

already equipped with overfill 

protection systems. We also request 

comment on whether additional design 

or operational requirements are needed 

to ensure successful implementation 

and enforcement of the proposed 

overfill monitoring requirement, and 

whether other types of monitoring could 

better prevent overfill and the resulting 

emissions. 

10. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for control of 

transfer operations to load transport 

vehicles? 

In the survey of technology for control 

of transfer operations that involve 

loading transport vehicles, we identified 

several compliance approaches. The 

most common is submerged loading (or 

bottom loading). We identified this 

compliance approach as Control Option 

TR1. We also identified four additional 

compliance approaches that are more 

effective than submerged loading alone: 

(1) Control Option TR2 is to route 

displaced emissions through a closed 

vent system to a flare; (2) Control 

Option TR3 is to route displaced 

emissions through a closed vent system 

to a control device that reduces 

regulated organic emissions by at least 

98 percent or to less than 20 ppmv; (3) 

Control Option TR4 is to vapor balance 

the displaced emissions back to the 

storage vessel from which the transport 

vehicle is being loaded; and (4) Control 

Option TR5 is to route displaced 

emissions to a fuel gas system. 

We estimated impacts only for 

Control Options TR1 and TR2. We did 

not estimate impacts for the other 

compliance approaches for several 

reasons. We did not estimate costs for 

Control Option TR3 because, as part of 

the analysis for the OLD NESHAP, we 

determined that flares are the most 

common and least costly control device 

for transfer racks. See the memorandum 

titled Environmental and Cost Impacts 

of the Proposed OLD NESHAP, in 

docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0138– 

0053 for the flare analysis. Although 

vapor balancing may be less costly than 

control using a flare in some cases, we 

did not estimate impacts for Control 

Option TR4 because vapor balancing 

requires no venting from the system 

while a transfer is occurring. This will 

require pressure settings in the system 

that may not be feasible for some 

atmospheric storage vessels. We also did 

not estimate impacts for Control Option 

TR5 because not all facilities have or 

could make use of a fuel gas system, and 

it would be impractical to install a fuel 

gas system to handle transfer emissions 

alone. 

Regardless of the control option, 

vapor tightness testing of the transport 

vehicle is an approach for ensuring that 

emissions are conveyed to the intended 

destination. Finally, LDAR for the 

equipment in the transfer rack is an 

approach for controlling fugitive 

emissions from the transfer rack itself. 

Each of the control options and other 

compliance approaches and how they 

have been incorporated into proposed 

subpart I are discussed in the sections 

below. 

Control Option TR1. According to 

AP–42 Chapter 5.2, splash loading 

results in a vapor-space saturation factor 

of 1.45, and submerged loading results 

in a saturation factor of 0.6. Reducing 

the saturation factor also reduces the 

concentration of organic compounds in 

the gases that are displaced when 

loading the transport vehicle. Thus, 

Control Option TR1 reduces transfer 

emissions by an estimated 60 percent 

relative to splash loading. As shown in 

Table 7 of this preamble, the costs for 

Control Option TR1 in light of the 

estimated emissions reductions also are 

reasonable for a wide range of transfer 

throughputs and average vapor 

pressures. In many cases, the switch to 

submerged loading would result in a 

cost savings. Thus, we are proposing 

that all transfers of regulated material to 

transport vehicles be conducted using 

submerged (or bottom) loading. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED IMPACTS FOR SUBMERGED LOADING OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES

[Control option TR1] 

Average vapor pressure of transferred material 

(psia) 

Total transfer 

throughput at 

facility 

(million gal/yr) 

Number of 

loading arms 

Total annual 

costs 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reduction a

(tpy) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness a

($/ton) 

0.08 ................................................................................ 2 1 710 0 .13 5,400 

0.08 ................................................................................ 21 4 2,100 1 .4 1,500 

0.08 ................................................................................ 45 12 7,300 2 .9 2,500 

1 ..................................................................................... 2 1 190 1 .6 100 

1 ..................................................................................... 21 4 (12,100) 17 (710) 

1 ..................................................................................... 45 6 (28,000) 37 (770) 

3 ..................................................................................... 2 2 (2,700) 4 .9 (560) 

3 ..................................................................................... 21 4 (43,000) 51 (840) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17925 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED IMPACTS FOR SUBMERGED LOADING OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES—Continued 

[Control option TR1] 

Average vapor pressure of transferred material 

(psia) 

Total transfer 

throughput at 

facility 

(million gal/yr) 

Number of 

loading arms 

Total annual 

costs 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reduction a

(tpy) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness a

($/ton) 

3 ..................................................................................... 45 6 (94,000) 110 (860) 

a Relative to uncontrolled (i.e., splash loading). 

The emissions estimates for the model 

facilities in Table 7 of this preamble 

were estimated using procedures in AP– 

42 Chapter 5.2, assuming the average 

transfer temperature is 60 °Farenheit 

and the average vapor molecular weight 

of transferred materials is 80. The total 

capital investment was scaled from a 

quote for converting a rack that has six 

arms from splash loading to submerged 

loading; this quote was provided by an 

industry trade association during 

development of the gasoline distribution 

area source rule (see docket item EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0406–0060). Annual 

costs were developed for operation, 

maintenance and indirect costs such as 

capital recovery. We also included a 

product recovery credit for the 

emissions prevented by the change in 

loading procedures. See the 

memorandum titled Survey of Control 

Technology for Transfer Operations and 

Analysis of Impacts for Transfer 

Operation Control Options, in the 

docket for proposed subpart I for 

additional information regarding the 

development of these impacts. 

Control Option TR2. In the impacts 

analysis for Control Option TR2, we 

evaluated the impacts for model 

facilities similar to those that we used 

in the analysis of submerged loading 

impacts. The resulting annual costs, 

emission reductions and incremental 

cost effectiveness relative to Control 

Option TR1 are shown in Table 8 of this 

preamble. See the memorandum titled 

Survey of Control Technology for 

Transfer Operations and Analysis of 

Impacts for Transfer Operation Control 

Options, in the docket for proposed 

subpart I for a more detailed discussion 

of how the impacts were developed. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO CONTROL EMISSIONS FROM LOADING OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES USING A CLOSED

VENT SYSTEM AND FLARE

[Control option TR2] 

Total transfer throughput at facility 

(million gal/yr) 

Average vapor 

pressure of 

transferred 

material 

(psia) 

Number of 

loading arms 

Total annual 

costs 

($/yr) 

Emission reduction a

(tpy) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness a

($/ton) 

15 ................................................................................... 1 6 94,000 8 .5 11,100 

3 2 79,000 25 .4 3,100 

6 6 94,000 50 .7 1,900 

25 ................................................................................... 1 10 116,000 14 .1 8,200 

3 8 104,000 42 .3 2,500 

6 8 104,000 84 .5 1,200 

45 ................................................................................... 1 6 94,000 25 .4 3,700 

3 6 94,000 76 .1 1,200 

6 12 131,000 152 860 

a Relative to submerged loading. 

Based on the results in Table 8 of this 

preamble, we determined that the costs 

of Control Option TR2 are reasonable 

when a facility transfers more than 35 

million gal/yr of liquids that contain 

regulated material, and the weightedaverage vapor pressure of the transferred 

liquids is a little over 3 psia. Using the 

monthly temperature data in AP–42 

Chapter 7.1 to calculate vapor pressures 

for several cities shows the average true 

vapor pressure often is about 80 percent 

of the MTVP. Thus, we are proposing to 

require control of displaced emissions 

from transport vehicle loading at 

facilities that meet thresholds of at least 

35 million gal/yr throughput and a 

weighted average MTVP of at least 4 

psia. 

As for storage vessels, some current 

rules specify thresholds for transfer 

operation control that are more stringent 

than the thresholds that we determined 

to be cost effective. For transfer 

operations, we decided not to propose 

any of the thresholds from current rules 

because few current rules require 

control of transfer operations, and the 

thresholds in these rules vary. We also 

have not conducted regulatory analyses 

for source categories that do not have 

control requirements for transfer 

operations. Therefore, we do not know 

what thresholds would be appropriate 

in those rules if they were to be 

amended to include requirements for 

transfer operations. At a minimum, the 

current analysis identifies the costeffective thresholds that could be used 

as a starting point in more detailed 

analysis of requirements on a source 

category-specific basis. 

In contrast to some current rules (e.g., 

the HON), the proposed vapor pressure 

threshold is based on the MTVP instead 

of average vapor pressure. This is 

intended to reduce the compliance 

burden. If the temperature of the 

transferred material varies over the year, 

then significant calculations and 

recordkeeping is needed to document 

the vapor pressure for each transfer and 

the average over all transfers during the 

year. The burden grows as the number 

of materials transferred increases. We 

recognize that even determining the 

throughput-weighted MTVP could be 

burdensome for a rack that transfers 

numerous regulated materials. It also 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

requires you to project the total amount 

of various materials that you expect to 

transfer during the year so that you can 

determine whether there is a chance 

that you would exceed the thresholds. 

Basing the control threshold only on 

throughput as in some rules (e.g., the 

OLD NESHAP) would be less 

burdensome, but control would be 

required regardless of the material 

transferred. Therefore, we request 

comment on the proposed thresholds for 

control and suggestions for alternative 

thresholds that would impose less 

compliance burden while still ensuring 

control of emissions when the cost of 

such control is reasonable. 

Other compliance approaches. We are 

proposing to include several alternative 

compliance options with which you 

may elect to comply instead of using a 

flare. These alternatives are based on 

Control Options TR3, TR4 and TR5, and 

they are being included because their 

performance is the same as or possibly 

marginally better than the performance 

obtained by routing emissions through a 

closed vent system to a flare. We are 

proposing compliance procedures based 

on Control Options TR3 and TR5 that 

are the same as for the closed vent 

system and fuel gas system approaches 

for control of storage vessel emissions, 

except that monitoring or inspections 

would be required while a transport 

vehicle is being filled with regulated 

material. As in the requirements for 

storage vessels, we are proposing to 

allow you to demonstrate initial 

compliance with an emission limit 

using either a design evaluation or 

performance test regardless of the 

throughput. We are proposing this 

approach to minimize the compliance 

burden and because we have 

determined a design evaluation is 

sufficient given the relatively low level 

of emissions from transfer operations 

relative to other emission sources. 

The option based on Control Option 

TR4 is similar to the vapor balancing 

approach in the OLD NESHAP and 

other rules in that it includes both 

design requirements and inspection 

requirements (e.g., see 40 CFR 63.2346 

and Tables 7 and 10 in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEEE). Unlike current rules, 

however, we are also proposing to 

require the following specific design 

elements and operating procedures: (1) 

The vapor balancing system must be 

designed to prevent any regulated 

material vapors collected at one transfer 

rack from passing to another transfer 

rack; (2) all vapor connections in the 

system must be equipped with closures 

that seal upon disconnect; and (3) PRD 

in the system must remain closed while 

regulated material is loaded in the 

transport vehicle. Meeting these 

requirements will help ensure that the 

vapors displaced from loading transport 

vehicles with regulated materials are 

returned to the storage tank from which 

the liquids being loaded originated. The 

second and third requirements also are 

consistent with proposed requirements 

for vapor balancing systems to control 

emissions from storage vessels. Finally, 

we are proposing to require LDAR of 

equipment in the vapor balancing 

system consistent with the proposed 

requirements for equipment in closed 

vent systems. The vapor balancing 

system monitoring requirements vary 

widely in current rules. For example, no 

monitoring requirement is specified in 

the MON; the HON requires either 

annual visual inspections or annual 

monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, depending on 

whether the system is constructed of 

hard-piping or ductwork; and the OLD 

NESHAP requires quarterly monitoring 

using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. We are proposing 

requirements consistent with those for 

closed vent systems to streamline the 

compliance procedures and because a 

vapor balancing system serves 

essentially the same purpose as a closed 

vent system. 

Transport vehicle tightness testing. As 

part of the compliance approaches that 

are based on Control Options TR2, TR3, 

TR4 and TR5, you would be required to 

transfer regulated materials only to 

transport vehicles that are determined to 

be vapor tight. We are proposing the 

vapor tightness requirement for 

transport vehicles that are loaded at 

affected transfer racks to ensure that the 

requirement to collect and convey 

emissions to control during transfer 

operations is effective. These 

requirements have the added benefit of 

minimizing emissions while the vehicle 

is in transport as well. To be considered 

vapor tight, each transport vehicle that 

is loaded with material that has a MTVP 

greater than 4 psia would be required to 

pass an annual vapor tightness test 

conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8. All other 

transport vehicles would be required to 

have a current certification in 

accordance with DOT pressure test 

requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for 

cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank 

cars. These proposed requirements are 

similar to requirements in several 

current rules. For example, several 

gasoline distribution rules require 

testing of gasoline transport vehicles 

using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 (e.g., 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart XX, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

R). The OLD NESHAP requires EPA 

Method 27 testing for transport vehicles 

that are equipped with vapor-collection 

equipment, and other transport vehicles 

must meet the DOT certification 

requirements. In the preamble to the 

proposed OLD NESHAP, we noted that 

tank trucks in chemical service typically 

are not equipped with vapor-collection 

equipment (63 FR 15682, April 2, 2002). 

Although we are uncertain whether 

vapor-collection equipment is now more 

common on trucks used to transport 

chemicals than it was 10 years ago, we 

think it is appropriate that all vehicles 

used to transport materials with vapor 

pressure comparable to the vapor 

pressure of gasoline should be subject to 

the same vapor tightness requirements. 

The proposed MTVP threshold was set 

at 4 psia because this is about the 

minimum MTVP for any grade of 

gasoline. We request comment on the 

burden and costs of this proposed 

requirement to conduct vapor-tightness 

testing using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8. For example, we are 

interested in estimates of the number of 

vehicles that would have to be 

retrofitted with vapor-collection 

equipment, the costs of such retrofits 

and the fraction of the volume 

transported in such vehicles that 

exceeds the 4-psia threshold. In 

addition, since the MTVP of a given 

material varies depending on location, 

we request comment on whether a 

threshold based on another parameter 

would be easier to implement. 

Finally, as in current rules, you would 

be required to take actions to assure that 

your closed vent system, vapor 

balancing system or fuel gas system is 

connected to the transport vehicle’s 

vapor-collection equipment when 

regulated material is transferred. These 

requirements are intended to ensure that 

the displaced emissions are routed to 

the required control. Examples of 

actions to satisfy this requirement 

include training drivers in the hookup 

procedures and posting visible reminder 

signs at the affected transfer racks. 

11. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for control of 

transfer operations to load containers? 

In the survey of technology of 

emission controls for transfer racks that 

are used to load containers, we 

identified several control approaches 

that have each been included in one or 

more current rules. For example, one 

approach is to use controls such as 

submerged loading or fitted openings in 

conjunction with transfer line purging. 

We also identified operational practices 

to control emissions from containers 

that are storing transferred regulated 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17927 

material (e.g., maintaining covers and 

other closure devices in the closed 

position except when access to the 

container is necessary). We also 

identified three more effective 

compliance approaches: (1) Vapor 

balance displaced emissions back to a 

storage vessel; (2) locate the transfer 

rack inside an enclosure that meets the 

requirements for a Permanent or 

Temporary Total Enclosure in 40 CFR 

52.741, appendix B, and exhaust the 

enclosure through a closed vent system 

to a control device; and (3) vent 

displaced emissions from the container 

itself through a closed vent system to a 

control device. In addition, vapor 

tightness testing can be conducted on 

containers, like transport vehicles. 

For the impacts analysis, we 

evaluated two control options: Control 

Option TR6, which combines 

submerged fill with the operational 

practices of using closure devices on 

stored containers and Control Option 

TR7, which consists of venting 

displaced emissions through a closed 

vent system to a flare. We did not 

estimate impacts for the enclosure 

approach (Control Option TR8) because 

costs for the enclosure are expected to 

result in higher total costs than for 

Control Option TR7, and the control 

device might have to be larger to handle 

the airflow needed to meet the 

requirements in 40 CFR 52.741, 

appendix B. We did not estimate 

impacts for the vapor balancing 

approach (Control Option TR9) because 

we are not aware of any facility that is 

using this approach, and as with storage 

vessels, vapor balancing may not be 

feasible at all facilities due to allowable 

pressure limits for safe operation. 

The impacts of Control Options TR6 

and TR7 for a series of model transfer 

racks are presented in Table 9 of this 

preamble. The models cover a range of 

typical throughputs as reported by 

facilities that responded to an 

information collection request (ICR) for 

OLD operations (see the memorandum 

titled Model Plants for the OLD Source 

Category, in docket item EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0138–0052 for site-specific 

throughputs). The models also span a 

wide range of average vapor pressures. 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS TR6 AND TR7 FOR LOADING CONTAINERS AT A TRANSFER RACK

Average Reid vapor pressure of transferred material 

(psia) 

Total 

transfer 

throughput 

at facility 

(million gal/ 

yr) 

Total annual 

costs 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Cost 

effectiveness a

($/ton) 

Control Option TR6 

1.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.1 700 0.016 43,000 

1.5 .................................................................................................................................... 5 (13 ) 0.81 (16 ) 

3.37 .................................................................................................................................. 0.1 680 0.036 19,000 

3.37 .................................................................................................................................. 5 (920 ) 1.8 (510 ) 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.1 630 0.12 5,500 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 (3,200 ) 0.016 (550 ) 

Control Option TR7 

1.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.1 81,000 0.050 2,400,000 

1.5 .................................................................................................................................... 5 81,000 2.5 47,000 

3.37 .................................................................................................................................. 0.1 81,000 0.11 1,100,000 

3.37 .................................................................................................................................. 5 81,000 5.6 21,000 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.1 81,000 0.36 330,000 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 81,000 18 6,600 

a Relative to uncontrolled for Control Option TR6 and relative to Control Option TR6 for Control Option TR7. 

Capital costs for submerged fill were 

estimated assuming the capital costs for 

retrofitting one station that loads 

containers are about half of the costs for 

retrofitting one arm that loads transport 

vehicles. Annual costs for submerged 

fill were estimated using the same 

procedures as in the analysis for Control 

Option TR1. Costs for the closed vent 

and flare system were scaled from costs 

developed from vendor information in 

the analysis for the OLD analysis (see 

docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0138– 

0053). 

Uncontrolled emissions were 

estimated using two approaches. One 

approach was to use the vehicle 

refueling equation presented in AP–42 

chapter 5.2. This approach was used in 

the analysis for the OLD NESHAP 

because surveyed OLD facilities were 

using nozzles like those used at gasoline 

service stations. A problem with this 

approach is that it is not reliable at low 

vapor pressures. Specifically, as the 

vapor pressure approaches zero, the 

emissions are estimated to be negative. 

Therefore, we also estimated emissions 

using a second approach, which was to 

use the transfer rack loss equation in 

AP–42 chapter 5.2 (i.e., the same 

approach that we used to estimate 

emissions from transport vehicles), but 

with one modification. It is not clear 

that the splash-loading factor in AP–42 

is applicable for container loading given 

the much lower fill rate of containers. 

Therefore, we selected a saturation 

factor (i.e., 0.88) that, when used in the 

transfer rack loss equation, produced 

the same emissions as the vehicle 

refueling equation when the Reid vapor 

pressure of transferred material is 3.37 

psia (this is the vapor pressure used for 

models in the OLD analysis). Using this 

factor gave higher emissions estimates 

than the vapor refueling equation for 

Reid vapor pressures lower than 3.37 

psia, and it gave higher emissions for 

Reid vapor pressures higher than 3.37 

psia. To estimate controlled emissions 

for Control Option TR6, we assumed the 

saturation factor would be 0.6, as in the 

analysis for Control Option TR1. Thus, 

we assumed Control Option TR6 

reduces emissions by 32 percent ([0.88 

¥ 0.6]/[0.88] = 0.32). Controlled 

emissions for Control Option TR7 were 

assumed to be 2 percent of the 

emissions for Control Option TR6. 

The results of this analysis show the 

cost impacts for Control Option TR6 are 

reasonable for throughputs greater than 

about 1 million gal/yr over the range of 

vapor pressures specified for the model 

transfer racks. The analysis also shows 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the cost impacts of Control Option TR7 

are unreasonable for all of the same 

model transfer racks. Thus, for transfer 

operations that include the loading of 

regulated material into containers, we 

are proposing that the Uniform 

Standards require submerged loading. In 

addition, when a loaded container 

contains regulated material and is 

maintained on site, all openings in the 

containers would have to be equipped 

with covers and closure devices, which 

you would have to maintain in the 

closed position except when access to 

the container is necessary (e.g., for 

adding or removing material, sampling 

or cleaning). 

We are also proposing other options 

that have equal or better performance 

that may be used instead of submerged 

loading, or that may be required, if 

justified, by referencing subparts. These 

other options include using fitted 

openings in conjunction with transfer 

line purging, which is specified in the 

Gasoline Distribution NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart R). We are also 

proposing requirements for compliance 

approaches that are based on Control 

Options TR8 and TR9. These proposed 

requirements are a consolidated and 

streamlined version of the requirements 

in the Generic MACT for Containers and 

OLD NESHAP. If you use a closed vent 

system and control device, the control 

device would be required to reduce 

regulated material emissions by 95 

percent, as in current rules. Inspection 

requirements for both closed vent 

systems and vapor balancing systems 

would be the same as for such systems 

used to convey emissions from loading 

of transport vehicles. 

If you load a container 55 gallons or 

larger with material that has a MTVP 

greater than 4 psia and use the container 

for onsite storage of that material, then 

the container would be subject to either 

annual vapor tightness testing in 

accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8, or annual 

monitoring of potential leak interfaces 

using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. The leak definition for 

the EPA Method 21 testing would be 

500 ppmv. These testing or monitoring 

requirements are needed to demonstrate 

that transferred materials with high 

vapor pressures are not emitted from 

storage. We request comment on the 

burden and costs of this proposed 

requirement to conduct vapor-tightness 

testing using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8. For example, we are 

interested in estimates of the number of 

containers that would have to be 

retrofitted with vapor-collection 

equipment, the costs of such retrofits 

and the fraction of the volume stored in 

such containers that exceeds the 4-psia 

threshold. In addition, since the MTVP 

of a given material varies, depending on 

location, we request comment on 

whether a threshold based on another 

parameter would be easier to 

implement. 

12. How did the EPA determine the 

definitions of terms used in proposed 

subpart I? 

As discussed in section VI.B.16 of this 

preamble, all definitions are located in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. 

Most of the definitions that are used in 

proposed subpart I are unchanged from 

the definitions in current rules, such as 

40 CFR part 63, subpart WW and 

subpart EEEE. We are also proposing 

definitions for the terms ‘‘barge,’’ 

‘‘fittings’’ and ‘‘pressure vessel,’’ which 

are not defined in current rules. The 

vapor balancing requirements for 

storage vessels specify that emissions 

from the storage vessel may be vapor 

balanced to a barge that is providing the 

liquid to fill the storage vessel. To 

clarify what type of vessel qualifies as 

a barge, we are proposing to define a 

barge as ‘‘any vessel that transports 

regulated material liquids in bulk on 

inland waterways or at sea.’’ 

We are proposing to add a definition 

for the term ‘‘storage capacity.’’ This 

term is intended to take the place of the 

term ‘‘capacity’’ that is defined in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart WW. We are 

proposing the change to avoid possible 

confusion because the term capacity is 

also used in a different context in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. We 

are also modifying the definition to 

specify that storage capacity of a flatbottomed storage vessel is determined 

by multiplying the internal crosssectional area of the storage vessel by 

the internal height of the shell, but the 

calculation for storage vessels with a 

sloped bottom or cone-up or cone-down 

bottoms need to be adjusted to account 

for the fact that the floor is not flat. 

We are proposing to include a 

definition for ‘‘automatic bleeder vent 

(vacuum breaker vent).’’ Vacuum 

breaker vents equalize the pressure 

across a landed floating roof when 

liquid is either being withdrawn or 

added below the landed roof. Current 

rules do not include a definition for 

such devices, but historically vacuum 

breaker devices have been a covered 

well opening with a leg attached to the 

underside of the cover. When the roof 

lands, the leg opens the vent by lifting 

the cover off the well. Recently, we 

learned of a new design that is activated 

by pressure or vacuum differences 

across the roof. Theoretical calculations 

have shown such vents should open 

only while the roof is landed, not while 

it is floating. Based on this analysis, we 

have decided to include both 

mechanically activated and pressure/ 

vacuum activated devices in the 

proposed definition of ‘‘automatic 

bleeder vent (vacuum breaker vent).’’ 

We request additional information, in 

particular, any test data that either 

supports or contradicts the theoretical 

analysis. 

Finally, we are proposing to use a 

new definition of ‘‘maximum true vapor 

pressure’’ that excludes the list of 

methods that may be used to determine 

MTVP. In proposed subpart I, this list 

has been moved to 40 CFR 65.306. We 

also added a new method to the list: 

Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 

Reactive Organic Compounds in Heavy 

Crude Oil Using Gas Chromatography. 

This method was developed because 

existing methods cannot be applied to 

heavy crude oils. We moved the list of 

methods to 40 CFR 65.306 because we 

are also proposing three additional 

changes to the procedures for 

determining MTVP that cannot be 

readily included in a definition. First, 

we are proposing to require testing to 

determine MTVP of mixtures (such as 

petroleum liquids) and to allow 

information from reference texts to be 

used only for pure compounds. We are 

proposing this change because we are 

concerned that the compositions of 

mixtures (e.g., crude oils) vary 

considerably depending on their source 

and how they are handled before 

storage. Thus, average or generic values 

for a class of materials do not 

necessarily accurately represent the 

characteristics of the material in each 

storage vessel. Second, we are proposing 

to require new determinations each time 

a storage vessel is filled with a different 

type of material. This is an implied 

requirement in current rules, but this 

change clearly states the requirement. 

Third, because the composition of 

mixtures can vary (as noted above), we 

are proposing to require redetermination 

of the MTVP annually if stored 

materials are mixtures and previous 

testing has determined the MTVP is 

below the thresholds for control, as 

specified in Table 1 of proposed subpart 

I (and Table 1 of this preamble). 

IV. Summary and Rationale for the 

Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 

Uniform Emission Standards for 

Equipment Leaks—Subpart J 

A. Summary 

We are proposing new Uniform 

Standards for control of emissions from 

equipment leaks. These Uniform 

Standards for equipment leaks would 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17929 

apply only to equipment that is subject 

to a regulation that references 

provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, 

for control of equipment leaks. We 

would only issue regulations that 

reference provisions of 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart J, once we have determined that 

those provisions meet applicable 

statutory requirements for a particular 

source category (e.g., MACT, AMOS, 

BSER). 

In section IV of this preamble, the 

term ‘‘we’’ refers to the EPA and the 

term ‘‘you’’ refers to owners and 

operators affected by the proposed 

standards. Section IV.A.1 of this 

preamble identifies the regulated 

sources under the proposed 40 CFR part 

65, subpart J. Sections IV.A.2 through 4 

of this preamble summarize the 

proposed standards for equipment leaks. 

Section IV.A.5 of this preamble 

summarizes the proposed standards for 

using an optical gas imaging instrument 

to detect leaks. Section IV.A.6 of this 

preamble summarizes the notification, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. Section IV.B of this 

preamble presents the rationale behind 

the development of the proposed 

standards. 

1. What parts of my plant are affected 

by the proposed rule? 

The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

J includes requirements for equipment 

in process units, closed vent systems 

and fuel gas systems, including valves, 

pumps, connectors, agitators, PRD, 

compressors, sampling connection 

systems, open-ended valves and lines, 

instrumentation systems and any other 

types of equipment specified by the 

referencing subpart that contain or 

contact regulated material (as defined by 

the referencing subpart). This subpart 

also includes requirements for closedpurge and closed-loop systems used to 

control emissions from certain types of 

equipment. Proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart J does not include applicability 

provisions; instead, the referencing 

subpart would define what equipment 

in that source category is subject to the 

provisions of the Uniform Standards. 

2. What are the proposed general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

Your equipment would be subject to 

some or all of the requirements of 40 

CFR part 65, subpart J when another 

subpart references the use of provisions 

of subpart J for air emission control. In 

addition, you would be required to meet 

the general provisions applicable to part 

65 (i.e., subpart H of 40 CFR part 65) 

and the general provisions applicable to 

the referencing subpart (i.e., subpart A 

of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63). 

3. What are the types of techniques we 

are proposing to reduce emissions from 

equipment leaks? 

Equipment leak standards consist of 

techniques to detect leaks based on 

sensory inspections, instrument 

monitoring or use of an optical gas 

imaging instrument, as applicable. 

Equipment design standards specify 

requirements regarding the use, design 

or operation of the equipment. Each of 

these techniques is summarized in this 

section. 

Sensory monitoring. Sensory 

monitoring includes visual, audible, 

olfactory or any other sensory detection 

method used to determine a potential 

leak to the atmosphere. If you found 

indications of a potential leak, you 

would be required either to: (1) Repair 

the equipment such that the indications 

of a potential leak to the atmosphere are 

no longer evident; (2) determine that no 

bubbles are observed at potential leak 

sites during a leak check using a soap 

solution; or (3) conduct instrument 

monitoring as described in the next 

paragraph to determine if the 

instrument reading is above the 

applicable threshold (indicating that the 

equipment is leaking) and, if the 

equipment is leaking, repair the leak as 

described in section IV.A.4 of this 

preamble. 

Instrument monitoring. Instrument 

monitoring would require you to check 

for leaks with a portable instrument in 

accordance with Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. A leak would be 

detected if you obtain an instrument 

reading above the threshold (i.e., leak 

definition) specified in the applicable 

section of the proposed regulation. If 

you detect a leak, you would be 

required to repair the leak as described 

in section IV.A.4 of this preamble. The 

frequency at which you would be 

required to conduct instrument 

monitoring is specified for each type of 

equipment. For some equipment, the 

required monitoring frequency varies 

depending on the percentage of the 

equipment in the applicable process 

unit that was determined to be leaking 

in previous monitoring periods. In 

addition to following the procedures in 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, the proposed rule would require 

you to conduct a calibration drift 

assessment at the end of each 

monitoring day. The proposed rule also 

specifies procedures that would allow 

you to correct instrument readings for 

background concentrations of regulated 

materials. 

Optical gas imaging. Another method 

of detecting leaks from equipment is to 

scan equipment using a device or 

system specially designed to use one of 

several types of remote sensing 

techniques, including optical gas 

imaging of infrared wavelengths, 

differential absorption light detection 

and ranging [DIAL], and solar 

occultation flux. The most common 

optical gas imaging instrument (also 

referred to as a ‘‘camera’’) is a passive 

system that creates an image based on 

the absorption of infrared wavelengths. 

A gas cloud containing certain 

hydrocarbons (i.e., leaks) will show up 

as black or white plumes (depending on 

the instrument settings and 

characteristics of the leak) on the optical 

gas imaging instrument screen. This 

type of optical gas imaging instrument 

is the device on which our optical gas 

imaging provisions are based. 

On December 22, 2008, we published 

an Alternative Work Practice (AWP) for 

LDAR that includes a combination of 

optical gas imaging and instrument 

monitoring techniques (73 FR 78199). 

The AWP provisions are located in the 

General Provisions in 40 CFR parts 60, 

61 and 63, so any source subject to 

LDAR requirements in any current 

equipment leak rule may elect to 

comply with this AWP. (This includes 

the proposed Uniform Standards, as 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H 

specifies that those sections would 

continue to apply to the referencing 

subparts.) In addition, we are proposing 

the optical gas imaging-only provisions 

described in section IV.A.5 of this 

preamble. If specifically allowed by 

your referencing subpart, you would be 

allowed to use optical gas imaging 

rather than instrument monitoring to 

detect leaks from your equipment. You 

would be required to comply with the 

leak survey procedures for an optical 

gas imaging device that will be 

proposed in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

K. 

Equipment design. Proposed 

standards for some equipment consist of 

design features that either provide an 

additional barrier to emissions or 

provide for collection of otherwise 

discharged material for recycle, reuse or 

treatment. Where applicable, the 

specific requirements for each type of 

equipment and control level are 

described in section IV.A.4 of this 

preamble. 

4. What are the specific equipment leak 

standards we are proposing? 

As in current equipment leak rules, 

the proposed Uniform Standards for 

equipment leaks are based on a 

combination of standards, including 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

LDAR programs, equipment design 

standards and performance standards. 

In addition, we are proposing two 

alternative means of compliance that 

can be used only in specific situations. 

Many of these proposed equipment leak 

standards are consistent with current 

equipment leak standards. The 

discussion in this section IV.A of the 

preamble describes all elements of the 

proposed standards. Section IV.B of this 

preamble discusses how we developed 

the proposed provisions and describes 

how the proposed provisions are 

consistent with one or more previous 

rules or why we are introducing 

additional requirements unique to this 

proposal. 

For most types of equipment, current 

rules specify separate requirements for 

equipment in different types of service 

(e.g., gas and vapor service, light liquid 

service). The proposed Uniform 

Standards also follow this type of 

approach; for certain types of equipment 

(e.g., valves), the proposed Uniform 

Standards include specific instrument 

monitoring requirements for equipment 

in gas and vapor service and equipment 

in light liquid service and specify 

specific sensory monitoring 

requirements for equipment in heavy 

liquid service. We are also proposing 

that the sensory monitoring 

requirements would apply to other 

equipment that meet certain criteria, 

such as equipment in regulated service 

less than 300 hr/yr and equipment that 

contains or contacts regulated material, 

but not in sufficient quantities to be 

operating in regulated material service. 

Section IV.A.4 of this preamble 

describes proposed standards for 

specific types of equipment. After you 

identify indications of a potential leak 

using sensory monitoring or identify a 

leak using instrument monitoring, 

optical gas imaging or other method, the 

proposed rule would require you to 

repair the leaking equipment using 

procedures that also are summarized in 

section IV.A.4 of this preamble. Finally, 

alternative equipment leak standards 

that are provided in the proposed rule 

are summarized in section IV.A.4 of this 

preamble. 

Proposed requirements for valves in 

gas and vapor service and valves in light 

liquid service. We are proposing that for 

valves in gas and vapor service and 

valves in light liquid service, you would 

be required to conduct instrument 

monitoring on a monthly basis for at 

least the first 2 months after initial 

startup. An instrument reading of 500 

parts per million (ppm) or greater would 

indicate a leak requiring repair. 

Following the first 2 months, you would 

be required to conduct instrument 

monitoring at a frequency dependent 

upon the percentage of leaking valves 

within the process unit in those first 2 

months (the proposed frequencies range 

from monthly if more than 2 percent of 

the valves were leaking to biennially if 

less than 0.25 percent of the valves were 

leaking). We are also proposing that you 

may use prior monitoring data in lieu of 

conducting initial monthly monitoring. 

For example, if your valves in gas and 

vapor service and valves in light liquid 

service are already subject to instrument 

monitoring and repair of leaks at 500 

ppm or greater, you would be able to 

consider the monitoring data collected 

under your current rule to determine 

your monitoring frequency for the 

Uniform Standards. 

We are also proposing provisions for 

subgrouping valves for monitoring 

purposes. We are proposing specific 

monitoring and repair requirements for 

valves located at a plant site with fewer 

than 250 total valves, valves for which 

the valve mechanism is not connected 

to a device that penetrates the valve 

housing (e.g., most check valves), 

unsafe-to-monitor valves and difficultto-monitor valves. 

Proposed requirements for pumps in 

light liquid service. We are proposing 

monthly instrument monitoring for 

pumps in light liquid service. The 

instrument reading indicating a leak 

would vary based on the type of 

material being handled by that pump: 

5,000 ppm or greater for pumps 

handling polymerizing monomers and 

2,000 ppm or greater for all other 

pumps. In addition to instrument 

monitoring, you would be required to 

conduct a weekly visual inspection of 

all pumps in light liquid service for 

dripping liquids. If you found 

indications of liquids dripping, you 

would be required either to repair the 

pump seal, eliminating the indications 

of liquids dripping or to conduct 

instrument monitoring. If you elected to 

conduct instrument monitoring, the 

instrument reading that defines a leak 

requiring repair would be 5,000 ppm for 

a pump handling polymerizing 

monomers or 2,000 ppm for all other 

pumps. 

We are also proposing specific 

monitoring and repair requirements for 

pumps equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system that includes a 

barrier fluid system, pumps with no 

externally actuated shaft penetrating the 

pump housing, pumps located within 

the boundary of an unmanned plant 

site, unsafe-to-monitor pumps and 

difficult-to-monitor pumps. 

Proposed requirements for connectors 

in gas and vapor service and connectors 

in light liquid service. If your 

referencing subpart specifically 

references proposed 40 CFR 65.422, you 

would be required to conduct 

instrument monitoring for connectors in 

gas and vapor service and connectors in 

light liquid service, and you would be 

required to conduct initial instrument 

monitoring within 12 months of the 

compliance date specified in a 

referencing subpart or 12 months after 

initial startup, whichever is later. We 

are also proposing to specify that if all 

the connectors in a process unit have 

been monitored for leaks prior to the 

compliance date specified in the 

referencing subpart, no initial 

monitoring is required, provided that 

either no process changes have been 

made since the prior monitoring or you 

can show that the results of the 

monitoring reliably demonstrate 

compliance despite process changes. 

Following the initial monitoring, you 

would be required to conduct 

instrument monitoring at a frequency 

between annually and every 8 years, 

depending on the percentage of leaking 

connectors within the process unit. An 

instrument reading of 500 ppm or 

greater would indicate a leak that would 

require repair. We are also proposing 

specific monitoring and repair 

requirements for unsafe-to-monitor 

connectors; difficult-to-monitor 

connectors; and inaccessible, ceramic or 

ceramic-lined connectors. Note that you 

would only be required to conduct 

instrument monitoring for connectors in 

gas and vapor service and connectors in 

light liquid service if your referencing 

subpart specifies that you must comply 

with proposed 40 CFR 65.422. 

Proposed requirements for agitators in 

gas and vapor service and agitators in 

light liquid service. We are proposing 

monthly instrument monitoring for 

agitators in gas and vapor service and 

agitators in light liquid service. An 

instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or 

greater would indicate a leak that would 

require repair. In addition to instrument 

monitoring, you would be required to 

conduct weekly visual inspection of 

agitators. If you found indications of 

liquids dripping from the agitator seal, 

you would be required either to repair 

the agitator seal, eliminating the 

indications of liquids dripping or to 

conduct instrument monitoring. If you 

elected to conduct instrument 

monitoring, the instrument reading that 

defines a leak would be 10,000 ppm or 

greater. We are also proposing specific 

monitoring and repair requirements for 

agitators equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system that includes a 

barrier fluid system, agitators with no 

externally actuated shaft penetrating the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17931 

agitator housing, agitators located 

within the boundary of an unmanned 

plant site, agitators obstructed by 

equipment or piping, unsafe-to-monitor 

agitators and difficult-to-monitor 

agitators. 

Proposed requirements for PRD. 

Proposed 40 CFR 65.424 includes 

operational requirements and pressure 

release management requirements for all 

PRD in regulated material service. We 

are proposing that you operate PRD in 

gas or vapor service with an instrument 

reading less than 500 ppm above 

background. If your PRD includes or 

consists of a rupture disk, you would be 

required to install a replacement disk no 

later than 5 calendar days after each 

pressure release. In addition, after each 

pressure release from a PRD in gas or 

vapor service (regardless of the type of 

PRD), you would be required to conduct 

instrument monitoring to confirm that 

the instrument reading is less than 500 

ppm no later than 5 calendar days after 

the PRD returns to regulated material 

service following a pressure release. 

In addition, we are proposing 

provisions that would apply only if your 

referencing subpart specifies that no 

releases to the atmosphere are allowed 

from any PRD in regulated material 

service. We are proposing that for each 

such PRD, you would be required to 

install and operate a monitor capable of 

identifying a pressure release, recording 

the time and duration of each pressure 

release and notifying operators that a 

pressure release has occurred. We are 

also proposing that if the monitor is 

capable of monitoring concentration of 

any flow through the PRD, then you 

would not also be required to conduct 

separate instrument monitoring no later 

than 5 calendar days after the PRD 

returns to regulated material service 

following a pressure release to confirm 

that the instrument reading is less than 

500 ppm. You would also be required to 

calculate, record and report the quantity 

of regulated material released during 

each pressure relief event. Note that 

your referencing subpart may include 

other requirements for releases to the 

atmosphere as well. 

Proposed requirements for 

compressors. We are proposing two 

compliance options for compressors in 

regulated material service. The first 

would be to equip the compressor with 

a seal system that includes a barrier 

fluid system and that prevents leakage 

of process fluid to the atmosphere. You 

would determine, based on design 

considerations and operating 

experience, a criterion that indicates 

failure of the seal system, the barrier 

fluid system or both. You would also be 

required to equip the compressor with 

a sensor that would detect a failure of 

the seal system, the barrier fluid system 

or both. If a failure is indicated by either 

of those methods, a leak is detected, and 

you would be required to repair the 

leak. You would also be required to 

conduct sensory monitoring for all 

potential points of vapor leakage on the 

compressor other than the seal system. 

The second option would be to 

designate that the compressor operates 

with an instrument reading of less than 

500 ppm above background at all times. 

After you initially confirm that the 

compressor has an instrument reading 

less than 500 ppm, you would be 

required to conduct ongoing instrument 

monitoring at least annually to 

demonstrate that the compressor 

operates with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. If 

the instrument reading from any part of 

the compressor is 500 ppm above 

background or greater, the compressor 

would not be in compliance with 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J until 

the next instrument reading of less than 

500 ppm above background. 

Proposed requirements for sampling 

connection systems. We are proposing 

equipment design standards for 

sampling connection systems. You 

would be required to equip the 

sampling connection system with a 

closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent 

system. You would be required to 

control purged process fluids by 

returning them to the process line, to a 

process, routing them to a control 

device, routing them to a fuel gas system 

or treating them in a waste management 

unit, a hazardous waste treatment 

facility or a device used to burn used oil 

for energy recovery (all of which would 

be required to meet specific standards). 

Gases displaced during filling of the 

sample container and gases remaining 

in the tubing or piping between the 

closed-purge system valve(s) and 

sample container valves(s) after the 

valves are closed and the sample 

container is disconnected are not 

considered to be purged process fluids 

and would not be required to be 

collected or captured. We are proposing 

to clarify that analyzer vents are 

considered sampling connection 

systems (and that CEMS are not 

considered analyzer vents). In-situ 

sampling systems and systems without 

purges would be exempt from these 

standards. 

Proposed requirements for openended valves and lines in gas and vapor 

service and open-ended valves and lines 

in light liquid service. We are proposing 

equipment and operational standards 

for open-ended lines and open-ended 

valves. You would be required to equip 

open-ended valves and lines with a cap, 

blind flange, plug or second valve. The 

cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 

would be required to seal the openended valve or line at all times, except 

during operations requiring process 

fluid flow through the open-ended valve 

or line, during maintenance or during 

operations that require venting the line 

between block valves in a double block 

and bleed system. If the open-ended 

valve or line is equipped with a second 

valve, you would be required to close 

the valve on the process fluid end before 

closing the second valve. 

In addition, you would be required to 

conduct annual instrument monitoring 

to demonstrate that the open-ended 

valve or line operates with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background (i.e., that the cap, 

blind flange, plug or second valve seals 

the open-ended valve or line at all 

times). If the instrument reading is 500 

ppm above background or greater, the 

open-ended valve or line would not be 

in compliance with proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart J until the next 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background. 

Open-ended valves and lines in an 

emergency shutdown system that are 

designed to open automatically in the 

event of a process upset would be 

exempt from the equipment design and 

instrument monitoring requirements. 

However, if your referencing subpart 

specifies that releases to the atmosphere 

from these types of open-ended valves 

and lines are not allowed, then any time 

an open-ended valve or line of this type 

does release to the atmosphere, it would 

not be in compliance with proposed 40 

CFR part 65, subpart J. (Note that your 

referencing subpart may include other 

requirements for releases to the 

atmosphere as well.) In addition, openended valves and lines containing 

materials that would auto catalytically 

polymerize or would present an 

explosion, serious overpressure or other 

safety hazard if capped or equipped 

with a double block and bleed system 

would be exempt from the equipment 

and instrument monitoring 

requirements. Instead, you would be 

required to conduct sensory monitoring 

for these open-ended valves and lines. 

Proposed requirements for equipment 

in closed vent systems and fuel gas 

systems. We are proposing operational 

standards for equipment in closed vent 

systems and fuel gas systems. You 

would be required to conduct annual 

instrument monitoring to demonstrate 

that each piece of equipment in a closed 

vent system or fuel gas system operates 

with an instrument reading of less than 

500 ppm above background. If the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

instrument reading is 500 ppm above 

background or greater, the equipment 

would not be in compliance with 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J until 

the next instrument reading of less than 

500 ppm above background. 

Proposed requirements for detecting 

leaks from other equipment. We are 

proposing that sensory monitoring 

would be the basic level of control for 

all equipment. Sensory monitoring 

would be required for all equipment 

that contains or contacts regulated 

material, but is not required to comply 

with the specific requirements in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.420 through 

65.427. This would include: (1) 

Equipment at a plant site with less than 

1,500 total pieces of equipment; (2) 

equipment that contains or contacts 

regulated material, but not in sufficient 

quantities to be operating in regulated 

material service; (3) equipment in 

regulated material service less than 300 

hr/yr; (4) valves, pumps, connectors and 

agitators in heavy liquid service; (5) 

connectors not required by your 

referencing subpart to comply with 40 

CFR 65.422; (6) instrumentation 

systems; (7) PRD in liquid service; (8) 

any equipment for which sensory 

monitoring is required specifically by a 

provision in proposed 40 CFR 65.420 

through 65.427 (e.g., potential points of 

vapor leakage on the compressor other 

than the seal system, open-ended valves 

and lines containing materials that 

would auto catalytically polymerize or 

would present an explosion, serious 

overpressure or other safety hazard if 

capped or equipped with a double block 

and bleed system); and (9) any other 

equipment, as specified by your 

referencing subpart. If you found 

indications of a potential leak, you 

would be required either to repair the 

equipment, eliminating the indications 

of the potential leak or conduct 

instrument monitoring to confirm 

whether there is a leak within 5 

calendar days of detection. If you 

elected to conduct instrument 

monitoring, the instrument reading that 

defines a leak requiring repair is 

specified in proposed Table 1 to subpart 

J of 40 CFR part 65. 

We are also proposing special 

requirements for equipment in vacuum 

service. You would be required to 

identify equipment operating in vacuum 

service. You would also be required to 

demonstrate that the equipment is 

operating in vacuum service by 

installing and maintaining a pressure 

gauge and alarm system that will alert 

an operator immediately and 

automatically when the equipment is 

not operating vacuum service. If the 

alarm were triggered, you would be 

required either to initiate procedures 

immediately to return the equipment to 

vacuum service or to begin to comply 

with the applicable requirements of 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J (e.g., 

comply with the instrument monitoring 

requirements of proposed 40 CFR 

65.420 for valves in gas and vapor 

service and valves in light liquid 

service). 

Proposed repair requirements. We are 

proposing to specify that when the 

standards indicate that you are required 

to repair a leak, you would be required 

to do so as soon as practical, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after the leak 

is detected. You would also be required 

to make a first attempt at repair no later 

than 5 calendar days after the leak is 

detected. For leaks detected through 

instrument monitoring or optical gas 

imaging, repair would include 

instrument monitoring or optical gas 

imaging within the specified time frame 

to verify that the leak was repaired 

successfully. 

We are also proposing to allow repairs 

to be delayed in a few specific 

situations. First, you would be allowed 

to delay repair if the repair is 

technically infeasible within 15 days of 

detection without a process unit 

shutdown. We are proposing to require 

repair of this equipment as soon as 

practical, but no later than the end of 

the next process unit shutdown or 5 

years after detection, whichever is 

sooner. Any shutdown of 24 hours or 

longer would be considered the next 

process unit shutdown during which 

you would be required to repair the 

leak. Second, you would be allowed to 

delay repair if you determine that repair 

personnel would be exposed to an 

immediate danger as a consequence of 

complying with the repair requirement 

and you designate the equipment as 

unsafe-to-repair. Third, a delay in repair 

would be allowed for equipment that is 

isolated from the process and that does 

not remain in regulated material service. 

Fourth, for valves, connectors and 

agitators, delay of repair would be 

allowed if you demonstrate that 

emissions of purged material resulting 

from immediate repair would be greater 

than the fugitive emissions likely to 

result from delay of repair. When you 

do repair the valve, connector or 

agitator, you would be required to 

ensure the purged material is collected 

and destroyed, collected and routed to 

a fuel gas system or process or routed 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device. Finally, for pumps, you 

would be allowed to delay repair up to 

6 months after the leak was detected if 

you demonstrate that repair would 

require a design change such as 

replacement of the existing seal design 

with a new seal system or a dual 

mechanical seal system, installing a 

pump with no external shaft or routing 

emissions through a closed vent system 

to a control device or to a fuel gas 

system. Regardless of the reason that 

you delay repair, you would be required 

to continue instrument monitoring on 

the appropriate schedule for that type of 

equipment. 

If you delay repair of a valve or 

connector beyond 15 days, we are 

proposing to require that you repair the 

leaking equipment by replacing the 

leaking equipment with low leak 

technology unless it is not technically 

feasible to do so. You would have 

several types of ‘‘low leak technologies’’ 

from which to select. For valves, you 

could elect to repack the valve, replace 

the leaking valve with a valve designed 

to accommodate specific types of 

packing or replace the existing valve 

with a bellow seal valve. For 

connectors, you would have the option 

to replace the flange gasket or the entire 

connector. If you cannot replace the 

leaking equipment with low leak 

technology, then you would be required 

to explain why that replacement is 

technically infeasible in your annual 

periodic report and to keep records of 

the demonstration that replacement is 

technically infeasible. In addition, if 

that equipment leaks again in the future 

and you delay the repair beyond 15 

days, you would be required to conduct 

a new analysis of the technical 

feasibility of using low leak technology 

(i.e., you would not be allowed to just 

refer to the previous demonstration). 

Proposed alternative standards. We 

are proposing to provide an alternative 

compliance option specifically for 

equipment in regulated material service 

in batch operations. If you conduct 

instrument monitoring for equipment in 

batch operations, we are proposing to 

provide alternative monitoring 

frequencies to accommodate noncontinuous operation. In addition, each 

time you reconfigured the process 

components and transport piping in the 

batch operation for the production of a 

different product, you would be 

required to monitor the equipment in 

the reconfigured process for leaks 

within 30 days of beginning operation of 

the process. 

5. What are the proposed standards for 

using an optical gas imaging device to 

detect leaks? 

We anticipate that for some source 

categories, specific requirements for 

using an optical gas imaging device to 

detect leaks without accompanying 

instrument monitoring could be an 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17933 

appropriate alternative to the 

requirements described in section 

IV.A.4 of this preamble. Therefore, we 

are proposing to allow the use of optical 

gas imaging as a standalone technique 

for detecting equipment leaks in 

regulated material service. These 

provisions for leak detection would be 

allowed as an alternative only if your 

referencing subpart includes a direct 

reference to proposed 40 CFR 65.450. At 

this time, we are allowing only limited 

use of optical gas imaging because we 

believe that this technique currently is 

not suitable for detection of leaking 

compounds in all industry sectors due 

to the limitation of the number of 

compounds that can be screened using 

this technology. However, we fully 

expect that the technology will improve 

over time and that the number of 

industry sectors allowed to use this 

option will increase in the future. 

Additionally, we are currently 

developing a protocol for using optical 

gas imaging techniques. The protocol 

will be proposed to be promulgated as 

appendix K to 40 CFR part 60. Proposed 

40 CFR 65.450 specifies that you must 

follow this protocol if you opt to use 

optical gas imaging in lieu of EPA 

Method 21. This protocol will outline 

specifications of the equipment that 

must be used, calibration techniques, 

procedures for conducting surveys and 

training requirements for optical gas 

imaging instrument operators. The 

protocol will not specify the instrument 

that must be used, but it will provide 

specifications and performance criteria 

that must be met. The protocol will 

contain techniques to verify that your 

instrument can image the most 

prevalent chemical in your process unit. 

Because field conditions greatly impact 

detection of the regulated material using 

optical gas imaging, the protocol will 

describe the impact that these field 

conditions may have on readings and 

how to address them, as well as when 

monitoring with this technique is 

inappropriate. These field conditions 

include distance to the target, complex 

thermal environments, position of the 

sun, background temperatures, 

humidity, wind speed, wind direction, 

angle to the target and time of day. The 

protocol will also address difficulties 

with identifying equipment and leaks in 

dense industrial areas. 

We note that, to date, appendix K to 

40 CFR part 60 has not been proposed 

for review and comment. When 

appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 is 

proposed, we will request comments on 

that appendix K. In addition, we intend 

to provide an opportunity to comment 

on the application of appendix K to 40 

CFR part 60 to the optical gas imaging 

provisions in these Uniform Standards. 

If you elect to comply with 40 CFR 

65.450, then we are proposing that, 

unless your referencing subpart 

specifies otherwise, you would monitor 

your equipment bimonthly, and that the 

optical gas imaging instrument would 

be required to detect leaks at 60 grams 

per hour or greater. Any image that 

appears on the optical gas imaging 

instrument screen would be considered 

a leak requiring repair, regardless of the 

type of equipment leaking. You would 

be required to follow the repair 

requirements in proposed 40 CFR 

65.432, except that the monitoring to 

verify repair would be monitoring using 

the optical gas imaging instrument 

rather than instrument monitoring. You 

would be allowed to delay repair of 

leaks under the same provisions as if 

you conducted instrument monitoring 

(proposed 40 CFR 65.432(d)), including 

leaks that are technically infeasible to 

repair without a process unit shutdown 

and leaks in unsafe-to-repair equipment. 

6. What are the notification, reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements? 

Notification of Compliance Status. We 

are proposing that the Notification of 

Compliance Status required by 40 CFR 

65.225 would include: (1) The process 

unit, closed vent system or fuel gas 

system identification; (2) the number of 

each equipment type (e.g., valves, 

pumps); (3) method of compliance with 

the standard for that equipment; and (4) 

whether you used monitoring data 

generated before the regulated source 

became subject to the referencing 

subpart to qualify for less frequent 

monitoring of valves and/or connectors. 

If your method of compliance is a closed 

vent system and control device or a fuel 

gas system, you would include the 

applicable information specified in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. In 

addition, if your referencing subpart 

required you to comply with 40 CFR 

65.424(c) for PRD in regulated material 

service, you would be required to 

provide: (1) A description of the 

monitoring system to be implemented 

and (2) a description of the alarms or 

other methods by which operators will 

be notified of a release. 

Semiannual periodic report. We are 

proposing that the semiannual periodic 

report required by 40 CFR 65.225 would 

include: (1) For compressors that you 

choose to operate at an instrument 

reading of less than 500 ppm, the date 

of an instrument reading of 500 ppm or 

greater and the date of the next 

instrument reading less than 500 ppm; 

(2) for PRD in gas or vapor service, any 

instrument reading of 500 ppm or 

greater more than 5 days after the PRD 

returns to service after a release; (3) for 

open-ended valves and lines, the date of 

an instrument reading of 500 ppm or 

greater and the date of the next 

instrument reading less than 500 ppm; 

(4) for PRD for which the referencing 

subpart states may not release to the 

atmosphere, information about each 

release, including duration of the 

release and an estimate of the quantity 

of substances released; (5) if your 

referencing subpart specifies that 

releases to the atmosphere from openended valves and lines in an emergency 

shutdown system that are designed to 

open automatically in the event of a 

process upset are not allowed, 

information about each release; (6) for 

equipment in closed vent systems and 

fuel gas systems, the date of an 

instrument reading of 500 ppm or 

greater and the date of the next 

instrument reading less than 500 ppm; 

and (7) for closed vent systems, control 

devices and fuel gas systems, the 

applicable information specified in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. 

Annual periodic report. We are 

proposing that the annual periodic 

report would include a summary table 

showing: (1) The process unit 

identification; (2) the number of each 

type of equipment for which leaks were 

detected, either by instrument 

monitoring or by other method (e.g., 

sensor on a compressor seal system); (3) 

the total number of valves and 

connectors monitored and the percent 

leaking; (4) the number of leaks for each 

type of equipment that were not 

repaired; and (5) the number of valves 

that are determined to be nonrepairable. The annual periodic report 

also would include: (1) Information 

about instances of delayed repairs, 

including the demonstration that it was 

technically infeasible to replace a 

leaking valve or connector with low leak 

technology; (2) for PRD in gas and vapor 

service, confirmation that you 

conducted all required instrument 

monitoring to demonstrate that the 

instrument reading was less than 500 

ppm no later than 5 calendar days after 

a PRD returned to regulated material 

service following a pressure release; (3) 

for compressors operated at an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

and open-ended valves and lines, 

confirmation that you conducted all 

required instrument monitoring to 

demonstrate that the instrument reading 

is less than 500 ppm; (4) for open-ended 

lines and valves, confirmation that you 

conducted all monitoring to 

demonstrate that the instrument reading 

is less than 500 ppm; (5) for equipment 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

in closed vent systems and fuel gas 

systems, confirmation that you 

conducted all monitoring to 

demonstrate that the instrument reading 

is less than 500 ppm; (6) for closed vent 

systems, control devices and fuel gas 

systems, the applicable information 

specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M; (7) for regulated sources not 

included in the Notification of 

Compliance Status due to later 

compliance dates, the information 

required under the Notification of 

Compliance Status; and (8) any 

revisions to items reported in an earlier 

Notification of Compliance Status if the 

method of compliance has changed 

since the last report. 

Recordkeeping. We are proposing that 

you would keep the following general 

records: (1) Equipment identification 

(including identification of unsafe- or 

difficult-to-monitor equipment) if the 

equipment is not physically tagged; (2) 

for unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor 

equipment, an explanation of why it is 

unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor and a 

planned monitoring schedule; (3) 

identification of compressors operating 

with an instrument reading of less than 

500 ppm; (4) documentation of the 

determination that equipment is in 

heavy liquid service or is in regulated 

material service less than 300 hr/yr; (5) 

for equipment in vacuum service, 

records of any pressure alarms triggered 

and the duration the equipment was not 

in vacuum service; (6) monitoring 

instrument calibrations; (7) 

documentation and dates of monitoring 

events, leak detection, repairs and repair 

attempts, including documentation 

explaining why repair must be delayed 

and why a valve or connector could not 

be repaired using low leak technology, 

if applicable; and (8) the applicable 

records specified in proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart M for closed vent 

systems, control devices and fuel gas 

systems used to comply with this 

subpart. 

We are also proposing that you would 

keep the following records specific to 

equipment type: (1) For valves, the 

monitoring schedule for each process 

unit, documentation of the percent 

leaking calculation and documentation 

of valve subgrouping; (2) for pumps, 

documentation of visual inspections, 

documentation of dual mechanical seal 

pump visual inspections and 

documentation of the criteria that 

indicate failure of the seal system or the 

barrier fluid system; (3) for connectors, 

the start date and end date of each 

monitoring period for each process unit 

and documentation of the percent 

leaking calculation; (4) for agitators, 

documentation of visual inspections, 

documentation of dual mechanical seal 

agitator visual inspections and 

documentation of the criteria that 

indicate failure of the seal system or the 

barrier fluid system; (5) for PRD, the 

dates and results of each compliance 

test conducted for PRD in gas or vapor 

service after a pressure release and, if 

applicable, documentation of pressure 

releases (including duration and 

quantity of regulated material released); 

(6) for compressors, documentation of 

the criteria that indicate failure of the 

seal system or the barrier fluid system 

and, if applicable, the dates and results 

of each compliance test for compressors 

operating under the alternative 

compressor standard; (7) for sampling 

connection systems, documentation of 

the date and amount of each purge; (8) 

for open-ended lines and valves, the 

dates and results of each compliance 

test; and (9) for equipment in closed 

vent systems and fuel gas systems, the 

dates and results of each compliance 

test. 

If you elect to perform instrument 

monitoring to demonstrate compliance 

for equipment in batch operations, you 

would record: (1) A list of equipment 

added to the batch operation since the 

last monitoring period; (2) the date and 

results of the monitoring for equipment 

added to a batch operation since the last 

monitoring period; (3) a statement that 

the inspection was performed if no 

leaking equipment is found; and (4) the 

proportion of the time during the 

calendar year that all the equipment in 

regulated material service in the batch 

operation is in use, including 

documentation that the equipment is in 

regulated material service the day you 

conduct monitoring. 

For optical gas imaging, you would be 

required to keep: (1) Identification of the 

equipment and process units for which 

you choose to use the optical gas 

imaging instrument; (2) any records 

required to be kept by 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix K; (3) the video record used to 

document the leak survey results; and 

(4) the documentation of repairs and 

repair attempts otherwise required by 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. 

B. Rationale 

The proposed equipment LDAR 

requirements in the Uniform Standards 

are based on a survey and analysis of 

emissions reduction techniques that 

considered current practices and 

advances in technology, as well as the 

emissions reduction impacts and the 

cost impacts for model plants 

implementing those practices and 

technologies. The options considered in 

this analysis were developed mostly 

based on current federal rules, such as 

the National Emission Standards for 

Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 

Standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU; 

‘‘Level 2 EL Generic MACT’’), the 

Standards of Performance for 

Equipment Leaks of VOC in the 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals 

Manufacturing Industry for Which 

Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification Commenced After 

November 7, 2006 (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart VVa; ‘‘NSPS VVa’’) and the 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart H; ‘‘HON’’). Other options were 

developed from state and local rules and 

would be additional requirements not 

yet included in current federal 

regulations. 

The proposed requirements for each 

type of equipment are the requirements 

that we determined are the most 

effective and reasonable for reducing 

emissions from equipment leaks after 

reviewing current rules and considering 

the costs and emissions reductions 

associated with each option. As noted 

previously in this preamble, we will 

determine the nationwide emissions 

reductions and cost impacts for any 

source category from which we propose 

to reference these Uniform Standards in 

the future to ensure those impacts 

continue to be reasonable on a 

nationwide basis, as well as meet any 

applicable statutory requirements (e.g., 

MACT, AMOS, BSER). The remainder of 

section IV.B of this preamble 

summarizes how the results of the 

analysis led us to the proposed 

requirements; a more detailed 

description of the development of the 

analysis is available in the technical 

memorandum, Analysis of Emissions 

Reduction Techniques for Equipment 

Leaks, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0869. 

1. What were the options considered in 

the analysis and what are the cost and 

VOC emissions reduction impacts of 

those options? 

We developed six model plants— 

three to represent chemical 

manufacturing processes and three to 

represent petroleum refineries. The 

chemical manufacturing models 

represent a range of process sizes, from 

a simple process with about 1,200 total 

pieces of equipment to a complex 

process with nearly 13,000 total pieces 

of equipment. The refinery models also 

represent a range of sizes, from a simple 

topping refinery with a total of about 

1,800 pieces of equipment to a complex 

refinery with over 43,000 total pieces of 

equipment. These models allowed us to 

consider the costs and VOC emissions 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17935 

reduction impacts for processes of 

various sizes in multiple industries. We 

are aware that there are process units 

and facilities larger than our largest 

model; however, these models were 

intended to cover a range of sizes 

representing a majority of the process 

units and facilities potentially subject to 

40 CFR part 65, subpart J. In addition, 

the options considered for the Uniform 

Standards that are affected by 

economies of scale will have a greater 

impact on smaller processes than larger 

processes. We note that for each subpart 

that we propose to reference the 

Uniform Standards in the future, we 

will estimate nationwide costs and 

emissions reductions on a source 

category-specific basis. In most cases, 

we expect that since we have developed 

representative models for this analysis 

of the Uniform Standards, we will be 

able to use these model plants as a basis 

for each source category-specific 

analysis. We will then use available data 

from each specific source category to 

adjust the models to represent that 

industry more accurately, which will 

provide a better estimate of the source 

category-specific nationwide costs and 

emissions. 

As a first step, we decided to consider 

the impacts of implementing a LDAR 

program at an uncontrolled facility. 

While we expect that most equipment in 

regulated material service is already 

subject to a basic LDAR program, we 

wanted to evaluate the impacts of that 

program rather than simply assuming 

that a basic LDAR program is effective. 

We determined the costs and VOC 

emissions associated with implementing 

a basic LDAR program (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘baseline’’) for each of 

the six models. The elements that make 

up the baseline LDAR program are 

described in the following paragraphs. 

Most current equipment leaks 

regulations include two types of leak 

detection methodologies: Instrument 

monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, and sensory 

monitoring. Based on our review of the 

requirements and the applicability of 

current rules, including federal, state 

and local rules, we determined that 

baseline was implementation of a LDAR 

program equivalent to the requirements 

in the National Emission Standards for 

Equipment Leaks—Control Level 1 (40 

CFR part 63, subpart TT; ‘‘Level 1 EL 

Generic MACT’’) and Standards of 

Performance for Equipment Leaks of 

VOC in the Synthetic Organic 

Compound Manufacturing Industry for 

which Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification Commenced After January 

5, 1981 but Before November 7, 2006 (40 

CFR part 60, subpart VV; ‘‘NSPS VV’’). 

These requirements include instrument 

monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, for valves and 

agitators in gas and vapor service and 

for valves, pumps and agitators in light 

liquid service. The baseline leak 

definition for all of the above types of 

equipment is 10,000 ppm, and each 

piece of equipment must be monitored 

monthly, although valves may be 

transitioned to a less frequent 

monitoring schedule if they meet certain 

criteria (e.g., the owner or operator may 

elect a reduced monitoring schedule if 

the percentage of valves leaking is equal 

to or less than 2.0 percent). The baseline 

requirements also include sensory 

monitoring for connectors; pumps, 

valves and agitators in heavy liquid 

service; PRD in liquid service; and 

instrumentation systems. Finally, the 

baseline requirements include 

instrument monitoring of PRD in gas 

and vapor service after a release to 

verify that the PRD is operating with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm; equipping compressors with a seal 

system or maintaining them at or below 

an instrument reading of 500 ppm; 

handling of the process fluid collected 

through sampling connection systems 

properly; and equipping open-ended 

valves and lines with a cap, blind 

flange, plug, or a second valve. 

We determined the cost and VOC 

emissions reduction impacts of the 

baseline LDAR program described above 

for each of the six models. We then 

calculated the cost effectiveness for the 

six models. The results of these 

calculations are shown in Table 10 of 

this preamble. 

TABLE 10—BASELINE LDAR PROGRAM COSTS AND VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATES FOR MODEL PLANTS

Model 

Uncontrolled 

VOC emissions (tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annualized 

costs without 

recovery 

credits ($) 

VOC recovery 

credit ($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs ($) 

Total VOC 

emissions 

reduction (tpy) 

Overall cost 

effectiveness ($/ 

ton VOC) 

Chemical Manufacturing Models ....... 1 

2 

3 

10 

79 

160 

91,000 

460,000 

860,000 

41,000 

130,000 

230,000 

(2,900) 

(32,000) 

(62,000) 

38,000 

98,000 

160,000 

5.9 

63 

120 

7,000 

2,000 

1,800 

Petroleum Refinery Models ............... 4 

5 

6 

30 

270 

470 

160,000 

960,000 

1,700,000 

57,000 

260,000 

460,000 

(14,000) 

(130,000) 

(210,000) 

43,000 

140,000 

250,000 

28 

250 

420 

2,000 

1,000 

1,100 

When we compared the cost 

effectiveness of the baseline conditions 

for each model to the number of pieces 

of equipment in the models, we found 

that implementing the baseline LDAR 

program is more cost effective for 

models with higher equipment counts. 

This is due to the fact that there are 

several costs in the analysis that are 

fixed regardless of the number of pieces 

of equipment, such as the cost of the 

monitoring instrument and the number 

of hours spent on administrative 

activities and preparing reports. In 

particular, we note that baseline is the 

least cost effective for the model with 

less than 1,500 pieces of equipment. 

From baseline, we evaluated a total of 

five regulatory options, two for valves, 

two for pumps and one for connectors. 

In each of these options, we considered 

the impacts of increasing the stringency 

of one piece of the LDAR program, each 

option building on the one before it for 

that specific piece of equipment. We 

decided to develop the options in this 

manner to consider the effectiveness of 

each piece of the program separately 

and ensure that the LDAR program 

proposed for the Uniform Standards 

included the most appropriate pieces. 

The calculation methodologies used to 

develop the cost and emissions 

reduction impacts for each of the 

models are described in the technical 

memorandum, Analysis of Emissions 

Reduction Techniques for Equipment 

Leaks, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0869. 

Throughout the rest of this section of 

the preamble, we present the impacts 

and cost effectiveness for each of the 

models. The costs and VOC emissions 

associated with each of the regulatory 

options were compared with the 

baseline costs and VOC emissions (or 

the previous option costs and VOC 

emissions, as appropriate) to determine 

the incremental costs and VOC 

emissions reduction impacts. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

In Option 1 for valves, we considered 

the effect of lowering the leak definition 

from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm for valves 

in gas and vapor service and valves in 

light liquid service. Table 11 of this 

preamble shows the incremental costs 

and VOC emissions reductions of 

lowering the leak definition from 10,000 

ppm (baseline) to 500 ppm for valves in 

gas and vapor service and valves in light 

liquid service. 

TABLE 11—MODEL PLANT COSTS AND VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 1 FOR VALVES (LEAK

DEFINITION OF 500 PPM) INCREMENTAL TO BASELINE

Model Capital cost 

($) 

Annualized 

costs without 

recovery 

credits ($) 

VOC recovery 

credit ($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs ($) 

VOC emissions 

reduction (tpy) 

Overall cost 

effectiveness ($/ 

ton VOC) 

Chemical Manufacturing Models 1 

2 

3 

1,700 

6,200 

14,000 

360 

1,300 

2,900 

(350) 

(1,200) 

(2,500) 

15 

97 

360 

0 .69 

2.4 

5.0 

22 

40 

71 

Petroleum Refinery Models ....... 4 

5 

6 

1,200 

13,000 

34,000 

480 

5,400 

14,000 

(210) 

(2,300) 

(5,900) 

270 

3,000 

7,700 

0 .42 

4.7 

12 

630 

650 

650 

In Option 2 for valves, we considered 

further lowering the leak definition for 

valves in gas and vapor service and 

valves in light liquid service to 100 

ppm. The leak definition of 100 ppm for 

valves is required in some state and 

local regulations, as well as consent 

decrees. However, we estimate that the 

incremental costs to reduce a ton of 

VOC emissions for this option increase 

significantly for all of the models 

compared to Option 1 for valves. Table 

12 of this preamble shows the 

incremental costs and VOC emissions 

reductions of lowering the leak 

definition from 500 ppm (Option 1 for 

valves) to 100 ppm for valves in gas and 

vapor service and valves in light liquid 

service. 

TABLE 12—MODEL PLANT COSTS AND VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 2 FOR VALVES (LEAK

DEFINITION OF 100 PPM) INCREMENTAL TO OPTION 1 FOR VALVES

Model Capital cost ($) 

Annualized 

costs without 

recovery 

credits ($) 

VOC recovery 

credit ($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs ($) 

VOC 

emissions reduction (tpy) 

Overall cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton VOC) 

Chemical Manufacturing Models ......................................... 1 

2 

3 

3,800 

14,000 

31,000 

960 

3,400 

7,500 

(62) 

(360) 

(910) 

900 

3,000 

6,600 

0.12 

0.73 

1.8 

7,300 

4,200 

3,600 

Petroleum Refinery Models ..... 4 

5 

6 

5,300 

59,000 

150,000 

2,900 

29,000 

83,000 

(170) 

(1,500) 

(4,300) 

2,800 

28,000 

79,000 

0.33 

3.1 

8.7 

8,400 

9,000 

9,100 

In Option 1 for pumps, we considered 

the effect of lowering the leak definition 

from 10,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm for 

pumps in light liquid service. Table 13 

of this preamble shows the incremental 

costs and VOC emissions reductions of 

lowering the leak definition from 10,000 

ppm (baseline) to 2,000 ppm for pumps 

in light liquid service. The analysis 

showed that Option 1 for pumps is more 

cost effective for the chemical 

manufacturing models than for the 

refinery models. 

TABLE 13—MODEL PLANT COSTS AND VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 1 FOR PUMPS (LEAK

DEFINITION OF 2,000 PPM) INCREMENTAL TO BASELINE

Model Capital costs 

($) 

Annualized 

costs without 

recovery 

credits ($) 

VOC recovery 

credit ($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs ($) 

VOC 

emissions reduction (tpy) 

Overall cost 

effectiveness ($/ 

ton VOC) 

Chemical Manufacturing Models 1 

2 

3 

2,200 

5,900 

8,300 

440 

1,200 

1,700 

(130) 

(350) 

(490) 

310 

830 

1,200 

0.26 

0.70 

0.98 

1,200 

1,200 

1,200 

Petroleum Refinery Models ......... 4 

5 

6 

260 

2,300 

5,800 

200 

1,800 

4,500 

(15) 

(130) 

(330) 

190 

1,600 

4,200 

0.030 

0.26 

0.65 

6,300 

6,300 

6,300 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17937 

While this particular analysis showed 

that Option 1 for pumps is less cost 

effective for the refinery models, we 

note that there appear to be some 

anomalies in the values themselves. The 

large chemical manufacturing model 

(Model 3) and the small refinery model 

(Model 5) have a similar number of 

pumps, and the annualized costs 

(without VOC recovery credits) for these 

models is also very similar. However, 

the VOC recovery credit and VOC 

emissions reductions per year for Model 

3 are over 3.5 times higher than those 

for Model 5. This trend is due to the fact 

that the calculated emissions factors for 

refinery pumps in this analysis range 

from about 2 to 5 times lower than the 

emissions factors for chemical 

manufacturing pumps. Part of that 

difference is expected and is due to the 

differences in the emissions equations 

in the Protocol for Equipment Leak 

Emission Estimates (EPA–453/R–95– 

017, November 1995). However, part of 

the difference is also due to the assumed 

distribution of leaking pumps in each 

sector. The distribution of leaking 

pumps at refineries was based on a 

study of quarterly monitoring of pumps 

in the 1990s (Analysis of Refinery 

Screening Data, prepared by Hal Taback 

Company for API, November 1997). It is 

possible that monthly monitoring data 

or data collected more recently would 

result in a different cost-effectiveness 

value for refinery pumps. 

In Option 2 for pumps, we considered 

further lowering the leak definition for 

pumps in light liquid service to 500 

ppm. The leak definition of 500 ppm for 

pumps appears in a few consent 

decrees. However, we estimated a 

significantly higher incremental cost to 

reduce a ton of VOC emissions for all of 

the models compared to Option 1 for 

pumps. Table 14 of this preamble shows 

the incremental costs and VOC 

emissions reductions of lowering the 

leak definition from 2,000 ppm (Option 

1 for pumps) to 500 ppm for pumps in 

light liquid service. 

TABLE 14—MODEL PLANT COSTS AND VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 2 FOR PUMPS (LEAK

DEFINITION OF 500 PPM) INCREMENTAL TO OPTION 1 FOR PUMPS

Model Capital costs 

($) 

Annualized 

costs without 

recovery 

credits ($) 

VOC recovery 

credit ($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs ($) 

VOC emissions 

Reduction (tpy) 

Overall cost 

effectiveness ($/ 

ton VOC) 

Chemical Manufacturing Models ....................................... 1 

2 

3 

1,000 

2,700 

3,700 

370 

980 

1,400 

(12) 

(32) 

(44) 

350 

940 

1,300 

0.024 

0.063 

0.088 

15,000 

15,000 

15,000 

Petroleum Refinery Models ... 4 

5 

6 

140 

1,200 

3,000 

440 

3,800 

9,600 

(0.15) 

(1.3) 

(3.4) 

440 

3,800 

9,600 

0.00031 

0.0026 

0.0067 

1,400,000 

1,400,000 

1,400,000 

In Option 1 for connectors, we 

considered the impact of adding 

instrument monitoring for connectors in 

gas and vapor service and connectors in 

light liquid service as in Level 2 EL 

Generic MACT. In this option, the leak 

definition is 500 ppm. Connectors are 

monitored annually, but similar to 

valves, there are provisions for less 

frequent monitoring if the connectors 

meet certain conditions. When we 

evaluated the costs and emission 

reduction impacts relative to the 

number of connectors in the models, we 

again noticed that the option was more 

cost effective for models with the most 

connectors. Again, this trend is due to 

the fact that the number of hours spent 

on administrative activities and 

preparing reports is fixed regardless of 

the number of connectors. Table 15 of 

this preamble shows the incremental 

costs and VOC emissions reductions 

(from baseline) of requiring monitoring 

of connectors in gas and vapor service 

and connectors in light liquid service at 

a leak definition of 500 ppm. 

TABLE 15—MODEL PLANT COSTS AND VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 1 FOR CONNECTORS (LEAK

DEFINITION OF 500 PPM) INCREMENTAL TO BASELINE

Model Capital costs 

($) 

Annualized 

costs without 

recovery 

credits ($) 

VOC recovery 

credit ($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs ($) 

VOC emissions 

reduction (tpy) 

Overall cost 

effectiveness ($/ 

ton VOC) 

Chemical Manufacturing Models 1 

2 

3 

19,000 

66,000 

180,000 

7,900 

16,000 

35,000 

(510) 

(1,900) 

(5,200) 

7,400 

14,000 

30,000 

1 .0 

3.7 

10 

7,200 

3,700 

2,900 

Petroleum Refinery Models ....... 4 

5 

6 

19,000 

170,000 

520,000 

7,900 

34,000 

93,000 

(200) 

(2,000) 

(6,100) 

7,700 

32,000 

87,000 

0 .41 

4.0 

12 

19,000 

8,000 

7,200 

We also considered annual 

instrument monitoring for open-ended 

valves and lines. The requirement in 

nearly all equipment leak standards to 

equip open-ended valves and lines with 

a cap, blind flange, plug or a second 

valve is intended to essentially 

eliminate emissions from open-ended 

valves and lines. However, as we noted 

when we proposed amendments to 

NSPS VV (71 FR 65302, November 7, 

2006), inspections conducted by 

enforcement agencies have found that 

many of these closure devices are 

leaking due to improper installation. 

Therefore, some states have begun to 

require instrument monitoring of openended valves and lines in addition to 

requiring a cap, blind flange, plug or a 

second valve. For example, in the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria area of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Texas, petroleum refining and SOCMI 

process units in which a highly-reactive 

volatile organic compound (HRVOC) is 

a raw material, intermediate, final 

product or in a waste stream are subject 

to the requirements of part 30, chapter 

115, subchapter H, division 3 of the 

Texas Administrative Code. One of 

those requirements is quarterly 

monitoring of blind flanges, caps or 

plugs at the end of a pipe or line 

containing HRVOC and repair of leaks 

above 500 ppm (30 TAC 115.781(b)(3)). 

If the open-ended line is used for 

sampling of the process fluid and the 

cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 

is opened, then the instrument 

monitoring indicates whether the cap, 

blind flange, plug or second valve was 

re-closed properly after sampling. The 

monitoring will also indicate whether 

the open-ended valve is leaking. 

We considered the cost of instrument 

monitoring for open-ended valves and 

lines separately from the other options 

in this analysis. Since the cap, blind 

flange, plug or a second valve is 

required to seal the open-ended valve or 

line and eliminate emissions, we do not 

expect that monitoring would achieve 

any additional emissions reduction. 

Rather, the instrument monitoring 

would ensure compliance with the 

requirement that the cap, blind flange, 

plug or second valve seal the openended valve or line. The nationwide 

cost of these monitors would be 

incorporated into the estimate of 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting burden for the referencing 

subpart. The costs for the model plants 

ranged from a capital cost of $810 and 

an annualized cost of $180 for the 

simple chemical manufacturing model 

to a capital cost of $23,000 and an 

annualized cost of $5,400 for the 

complex refinery model. 

Similarly, we also estimated the costs 

of requiring electronic monitoring of 

PRD. This analysis was conducted 

separately from the options listed above 

because installation of electronic 

monitors is not expected to achieve 

additional emissions reductions. Rather, 

the electronic monitors would be used 

to notify operators when there is a 

pressure release and aid them in 

ensuring compliance with the 

requirement that there be no releases 

from the PRD. The nationwide cost of 

these monitors would be incorporated 

into the estimate of monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

the referencing subpart. The costs for 

the model plants ranged from a capital 

cost of $11,000 and an annualized cost 

of $1,600 for the simple chemical 

manufacturing model to a capital cost of 

$130,000 and an annualized cost of 

$19,000 for the complex refinery model. 

We note that the requirement to install 

this type of monitor would only apply 

if a referencing subpart specifically 

referenced this section. 

2. How did the EPA develop the 

proposed regulations based on the 

analysis of regulatory options? 

The analysis of regulatory options 

described in section IV.B.1 of this 

preamble provided us with the 

information needed to determine the 

appropriate level of stringency for the 

requirements for the Uniform Standards 

for equipment leaks from valves, pumps 

and connectors. The next step was to 

determine the details for the proposed 

requirements, as well as determine what 

other provisions were appropriate to 

propose as part of the Uniform 

Standards. Rather than developing allnew regulatory language to describe 

these requirements, we reviewed the 

language provided in current equipment 

leaks regulations. We elected to use the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT (40 CFR part 

63, subpart UU) as a starting point for 

developing the Uniform Standards for 

equipment leaks. We determined that, 

as one of the most recently promulgated 

standards for equipment leaks, the Level 

2 EL Generic MACT includes many of 

the provisions that we determined 

through the analysis described in 

section VI.B.I of this preamble are the 

appropriate level of control for the 

Uniform Standards. In addition, the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT was already 

organized to be referenced from source 

category-specific subparts. The major 

overarching change that we made to the 

format of the Level 2 EL Generic MACT 

was to rearrange and rephrase all of the 

provisions to be consistent with our 

most recent ‘‘plain English’’ regulations. 

We note that the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT specifies certain types of 

equipment that are not subject to any of 

the requirements of that rule, such as 

equipment in lines with no process 

fluids. We have elected not to propose 

this specific provision in 40 CFR part 

65, subpart J. Rather, we are proposing 

the requirements for detecting and 

repairing leaks in subpart J, and we 

expect that the referencing subpart will 

define clearly what equipment must 

comply with subpart J. Similarly, we are 

not proposing that equipment in 

vacuum service would be exempt from 

subpart J; instead, we are proposing the 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements described in section 

IV.A.3 and section IV.B.5 of this 

preamble. 

We also note that when reviewing the 

various equipment leak regulations, we 

noticed that while the requirements 

themselves are similar, the regulations 

are not consistent in defining a leak that 

must be repaired. As a specific example, 

the Level 2 EL Generic MACT specifies 

how to handle indications of liquids 

dripping that you find during a visual 

pump inspection, but it does not 

specifically say that indications of 

liquids dripping is a leak. Conversely, 

NSPS VVa specifically states that 

indications of liquids dripping is a leak 

and that removing the indications of 

liquids dripping is considered repair 

(although you are not required to 

conduct instrument monitoring to 

confirm repair in that case). 

We believe that the standards are 

clearer if ‘‘repair’’ is defined based on 

the detection method used to identify 

the potential leak or leak. For example, 

for a leak detected using instrument 

monitoring, repair requires instrument 

monitoring to confirm that there is no 

longer a leak, while indications of a 

potential leak detected using sensory 

monitoring are considered repaired once 

you adjust or alter the equipment to 

eliminate the indications of a potential 

leak. Therefore, we are proposing in 40 

CFR part 65, subpart H that ‘‘repaired’’ 

has different, specific meanings, 

depending on how the leak or potential 

leak is detected. We note that if you 

observe indications of a potential leak 

(e.g., liquids dripping) during sensory 

monitoring and you elect to confirm the 

presence of a leak through instrument 

monitoring, you would be required to 

repair the leak only based on the 

instrument monitoring definition of 

‘‘repair’’ (i.e., not also based on the 

sensory monitoring definition of 

‘‘repair’’). Although the Level 2 EL 

Generic MACT interpretation and 

language is different from the 

interpretation in NSPS VVa, we note 

that the substance of the proposed 

requirements is essentially the same as 

both these current rules. 

We are clarifying in this preamble that 

the proposed option to maintain certain 

types of equipment (e.g., such as 

compressors, PRD, open-ended valves 

and lines, and equipment in closed vent 

systems and fuel gas systems) below 500 

ppm above background is considered a 

performance standard and not a leak 

definition indicating a leak requiring 

repair. Therefore, the instrument 

monitoring that we are proposing for 

those types of equipment is to confirm 

that the performance standard is being 

met; it is not instrument monitoring to 

detect a leak. Additional details 

regarding these proposed requirements 

are provided in the equipment-specific 

paragraphs in section IV.B.4 of this 

preamble. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17939 

As we reviewed the regulatory 

language of current equipment leak 

rules, we noticed that the rules include 

definitions of some types of equipment 

(e.g., connector, open-ended valve or 

line) but not others. We request 

comment on whether we should add 

definitions of ‘‘valve,’’ ‘‘pump,’’ 

‘‘agitator’’ and ‘‘compressor,’’ as well as 

other terms that are used throughout the 

proposed Uniform Standards, but not 

defined (e.g., ‘‘dual mechanical seal 

system’’). The intended purpose of 

adding definitions of these terms to 40 

CFR part 65, subpart J, would not be to 

make the standards more or less 

stringent than current standards. Rather, 

the goal is to ensure that the standards 

are interpreted consistently. Therefore, 

comments on additional definitions 

should include proposed language for 

those definitions and describe how 

defining the term would result in 

interpretations that are more consistent. 

The following sections describe the 

rationale for specific proposed 

provisions. 

3. How did the EPA determine that the 

proposed compliance requirements of 

sensory monitoring for certain 

equipment are appropriate? 

As we noted in section IV.B.1 of this 

preamble, most current equipment leaks 

regulations include requirements for 

sensory monitoring, as well as 

instrument monitoring using Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. 

Sensory monitoring has traditionally 

been required for certain equipment for 

which it is considered not cost effective 

to require instrument monitoring, such 

as equipment in heavy liquid service 

and equipment that is in use a very 

short time during the year. Our analysis 

of emissions reduction techniques 

showed that sensory monitoring is still 

necessary and appropriate for certain 

types of equipment. For the specific 

types of equipment listed in 40 CFR 

65.428, we are proposing to require 

sensory monitoring equivalent to the 

monitoring required in the Level 2 EL 

Generic MACT, including equipment in 

heavy liquid service, equipment in 

regulated material service less than 300 

hr/yr, PRD in light liquid service and 

instrumentation systems. 

The list also includes equipment 

types that may not be specified in other 

rules. First, as noted in section IV.B.1 of 

this preamble, we determined that 

instrument monitoring at the baseline 

level (i.e., 10,000 ppm leak definition) is 

the least cost effective for a plant site 

with less than 1,500 total pieces of 

equipment, so we are proposing to 

require only sensory monitoring for a 

plant site with less than 1,500 total 

pieces of equipment. Second, we are 

proposing to clarify that sensory 

monitoring is required for connectors in 

gas and vapor service and connectors in 

light liquid service if the referencing 

subpart does not require compliance 

with the instrument monitoring 

provisions for connectors (40 CFR 

65.422). Third, we determined that 

sensory monitoring is necessary for any 

equipment that contains or contacts 

regulated material, but is not in 

regulated material service. For example, 

if a valve contains or contacts a light 

liquid process fluid with 3-percent 

regulated material (i.e., less than the 

amount required to be defined as ‘‘in 

light liquid service’’), instrument 

monitoring is not cost effective and 

would not be required. However, if that 

valve leaks, there are emissions in that 

release that need to be addressed. We 

have determined that sensory 

monitoring is an appropriate standard in 

that case. Fourth, we are proposing that 

the list of equipment for which you are 

required to conduct sensory monitoring 

includes any equipment for which 

sensory monitoring is required by a 

provision in proposed 40 CFR 65.420 

through 65.427. Throughout these 

sections of proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart J, there are exceptions to the 

instrument monitoring requirements for 

specific types of equipment. This 

proposed requirement will help to 

ensure operators keep an eye out for 

these potential leaks without placing 

undue burden on the operators. The 

requirement to conduct sensory 

monitoring for specific types of 

equipment is discussed throughout the 

remainder of section IV.B.4 of this 

preamble. Finally, we are proposing 

sensory monitoring for other equipment, 

as required by the referencing subpart. 

This provision is included partly to 

provide some flexibility to the 

referencing subpart in defining the 

requirements for specific types of 

equipment (based on source categoryspecific and subpart-specific analyses) 

and partly to indicate that sensory 

monitoring should be the minimum 

requirement for any equipment not 

otherwise required to conduct 

instrument monitoring or meet a 

performance standard. 

The change in format (i.e., specifying 

types of equipment required to conduct 

sensory monitoring in one location and 

referencing one section for LDAR 

requirements) better indicates that the 

level of control for all these types of 

equipment is the same. In some current 

equipment leak regulations, these 

requirements are spread throughout the 

rule with minor variations in language, 

and it is not clear whether the 

monitoring and repair requirements are 

intended to be identical. In addition, as 

noted above, the change in format more 

clearly indicates that sensory 

monitoring is the minimum requirement 

for all types of equipment for which 

instrument monitoring is not required. 

While we expect that sensory 

monitoring will continue to be specified 

mostly for equipment in heavy liquid 

service and instrumentation systems, we 

recognize that if instrument monitoring 

is not currently required for other types 

of equipment in a specific source 

category, analyses may show that it is 

not appropriate to begin instrument 

monitoring in that specific source 

category. In that case, we wanted to 

ensure that it is clear that you would, at 

a minimum, continue conducting 

sensory monitoring for these pieces of 

equipment. 

4. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed compliance requirements for 

specific types of equipment? 

Based on the analysis described in 

section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we are 

proposing requirements mostly 

equivalent to the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT, as well as instrument 

monitoring for open-ended valves and 

lines to ensure compliance with the 

proposed performance standard. We are 

also proposing several new 

requirements for delay of leak repair, 

including a requirement to install low 

leak technology when a leaking valve or 

connector is repaired more than 15 days 

after detection (i.e., when repair of a 

leaking valve or connector has been 

delayed under 40 CFR 65.432(d)). We 

are also proposing several clarifications 

(relative to the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT) and new requirements that are 

specific to certain types of equipment. 

This section includes rationale for those 

clarifications and requirements, as well 

as some rationale for requirements that 

we considered, but are not proposing. 

Valves in gas and vapor service and 

valves in light liquid service. The 

requirements that we are proposing in 

40 CFR 65.420 for valves in gas and 

vapor service and valves in light liquid 

service are essentially the same as the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT, including 

the requirement to calculate the percent 

of valves leaking and the option to 

subgroup valves for monitoring 

purposes. The differences between the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the 

proposed Uniform Standards are 

clarifications that are described in this 

section. 

We are proposing to clarify how to 

determine monitoring frequency for 

valves in 40 CFR 65.420(a)(2)(i). In the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT, the decision 

point for the monitoring frequency 

determinations is expressed in terms 

such as ‘‘less than the greater of 2 valves 

or 2 percent of the valves in a process 

unit.’’ For these Uniform Standards, we 

are proposing language similar to the 

HON to clarify the terminology for this 

determination. We are not proposing 

any changes to the procedure itself. If 

the number of leaking valves is 2 

percent of the valves or higher, you 

must either monitor monthly or, if the 

sum of the total valves leaking over the 

previous two monitoring periods is 

three or less, you must monitor at least 

quarterly. 

We are also proposing to clarify that 

the provision for 250 or fewer valves in 

a process unit in the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT is intended to ensure that 

monthly monitoring is not required and 

that quarterly is the most frequent 

monitoring required. Regardless of the 

number of valves in your process unit, 

you may monitor valves less frequently 

than quarterly if the percent leaking 

calculation qualifies that process unit 

for less frequent monitoring. 

We are proposing to clarify that you 

are not required to conduct instrument 

monitoring for valves with a valve 

mechanism that is not connected to a 

device that penetrates the valve housing 

(e.g., most check valves). As we stated 

in the background information 

document for NSPS VV (EPA–450/3– 

83–033a, November 1980), a valve that 

‘‘has no stem or subsequent packing 

gland * * * is not considered to be a 

potential source of fugitive emissions.’’ 

Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct 

instrument monitoring to detect leaks, 

and we consider this proposed 

provision to be a clarification of our 

original intent. However, we are 

proposing to require you to conduct 

sensory monitoring to ensure that there 

are no fugitive emissions from other 

parts of these types of valves. 

We are proposing to retain the 

requirement found in many current 

equipment leaks rules to limit the 

number of difficult-to-monitor valves in 

a new source to less than 3 percent of 

the valves in that source. The Uniform 

Standards would not define a new 

source; a new source would be defined 

by the referencing subpart. We are also 

proposing that you would not have to 

limit the number of difficult-to-monitor 

valves in a new source (as defined by 

the referencing subpart) if all of the 

difficult-to-monitor valves in that new 

source meet the description of low leak 

technology (see sections IV.A.4 and 

IV.B.5 of this preamble). We also 

considered requiring all valves in a new 

source to be designed to meet the 

description of low leak technology (not 

just those that you designate as difficultto-monitor), unless it is technically 

infeasible to do so. If we included that 

provision in the Uniform Standards, we 

would consider removing the 3-percent 

restriction on difficult-to-monitor valves 

in a new source, since the potential for 

leaks from all of the valves would be 

reduced. We request comment on the 

proposed provision providing the 

option of designing difficult-to-monitor 

valves in a new source to meet the 

description of low leak technology, as 

well as the idea of requiring all valves 

in a new source to be designed to meet 

the description of low leak technology. 

Finally, as we noted in section IV.B.1 

of this preamble, we evaluated the 

impacts of lowering the leak definition 

from 500 ppm to 100 ppm for valves. 

Based on our analysis, we concluded 

that for this proposed rule, 500 ppm is 

the appropriate leak definition for 

valves. However, we note that our 

analysis was general and based on 

assumptions that may not be applicable 

to all source categories. We expect that 

when conducting the analysis to 

determine whether it is appropriate to 

reference these Uniform Standards from 

each source category, we will consider 

the appropriate leak definition for 

valves in that source category. If the 

analysis shows that referencing the 

Uniform Standards would be 

appropriate with a lower leak definition 

than 500 ppm for valves, then the 

referencing subpart could specify that 

lower leak definition and override the 

requirements in the Uniform Standards. 

We request comment and additional 

data supporting a different leak 

definition for valves in the Uniform 

Standard. 

Pumps in light liquid service. The 

requirements that we are proposing in 

40 CFR 65.421 for pumps in light liquid 

service are mostly the same as the Level 

2 EL Generic MACT. Section IV.B.1 of 

this preamble presents the model plant 

impacts of lowering the leak definition 

from 10,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm for 

pumps in light liquid service. We also 

considered additional information when 

determining the appropriate level of 

control to propose. Specifically, data 

collected through an ICR for petroleum 

refineries (76 FR 5804, February 2, 

2011) indicate that 93 percent of the 

pumps that are currently monitored for 

leaks are monitored at a leak definition 

of 2,000 ppm. We did reorganize the 

sections slightly and revise the language 

relative to the Level 2 EL Generic MACT 

to better indicate the similarity between 

the provisions for pumps and agitators. 

Other differences between the Level 2 

EL Generic MACT and the proposed 

Uniform Standards are described in this 

section. 

We are proposing to maintain the leak 

definition of 5,000 ppm for pumps 

handling polymerizing monomers. This 

leak definition was set nearly 20 years 

ago, during the development of the 

HON, based on the argument that since 

mechanical seals cannot be used on 

pumps handling polymerizing 

monomers, these pumps cannot achieve 

a 2,000-ppm leak performance level. We 

request comment and any available data 

either to support maintaining the 5,000- 

ppm leak definition for pumps handling 

polymerizing monomers or to support 

lowering the leak definition for pumps 

handling polymerizing monomers. 

We are proposing to include the Level 

2 EL Generic MACT requirements for 

weekly inspections of pumps subject to 

40 CFR 65.421, including dual 

mechanical seal pumps. Like the Level 

2 EL Generic MACT, we are proposing 

that if you find indications of liquids 

dripping during a weekly inspection, 

you could choose whether to repair the 

pump, eliminating those indications of 

liquids dripping or conduct instrument 

monitoring to determine if there is a 

leak. We are proposing to add a 

requirement that if you choose to repair 

the pump to eliminate the potential leak 

rather than conducting instrument 

monitoring, you would be required to 

do so before the next weekly inspection. 

This limit of time is similar to the 5 days 

allowed to repair equipment subject to 

sensory monitoring requirements. 

However, if we required repair within 5 

days of detection and the next weekly 

inspection occurred less than 5 days 

after the inspection in which you 

observed the indications of liquids 

dripping (see the ‘‘reasonable interval’’ 

provisions in the General Provisions), 

then you would presumably continue to 

see the indications of liquids dripping 

that you are already planning to 

eliminate, and that weekly inspection 

would not provide any new 

information. We request comment on 

the amount of time provided to repair 

pumps with indications of liquids 

dripping. 

We are also proposing an additional 

clarification regarding weekly 

inspections for pumps consistent with 

NSPS VVa. The aim of an LDAR 

program is to find and repair leaks. In 

some instances, the liquids found 

dripping from pumps are not leaks; for 

example, the liquids could simply be 

condensation from the atmosphere. 

Therefore, we are proposing to clarify in 

40 CFR 65.421(c), consistent with NSPS 

VVa, that if you see liquids dripping 

during a weekly inspection, you choose 

to conduct instrument monitoring and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17941 

the instrument reading shows that the 

pump is not leaking, then for 

subsequent weekly inspections, you 

would not be required to conduct 

instrument monitoring when you find 

indications of liquids dripping, as long 

as the characteristics of the liquids 

dripping have not changed since the last 

weekly inspection. You would continue 

to conduct the weekly inspection, 

record the results, and conduct the 

monthly instrument monitoring, as 

required in proposed 40 CFR 65.421(a). 

Note, however, that if you repair the 

pump, then the clock would ‘‘reset’’ 

regarding the weekly inspections. In 

other words, if monthly instrument 

monitoring indicates that a leak has 

developed, then you would be required 

to repair the leak, and the next time you 

notice indications of liquids dripping 

during a weekly inspection, you would 

be required to choose whether to repair 

the potential leak or conduct instrument 

monitoring to determine if there is a 

leak. 

We note that persistent liquids 

dripping may indicate an operation 

problem that should be addressed by 

maintenance. If indications of liquids 

dripping are noted for one pump during 

multiple weekly inspections, we 

encourage you to ensure that the pump 

is operating properly. 

We are not proposing to require you 

to implement a quality improvement 

program (QIP) for pumps. In the Level 

2 EL Generic MACT, you are required to 

implement a QIP if ‘‘at least the greater 

of either 10 percent of the pumps in a 

process unit or three pumps’’ are 

leaking. However, evaluation of 

compliance with current rules that 

include these provisions has shown that 

these provisions are complicated and 

rarely used. We request comment on 

whether there is need to include QIP 

provisions for pumps in these Uniform 

Standards. We also request comment on 

whether we should substitute the QIP 

provisions with a similar, but more 

straightforward requirement. For 

example, we could include a 

requirement that if 10 percent of the 

pumps in a process leak, you would 

have to replace a certain percentage of 

those pumps with dual mechanical seal 

pumps within a set amount of time. A 

provision like this would achieve 

similar goals to the QIP, but would be 

much simpler to understand and 

implement. 

As we noted in section IV.B.1 of this 

preamble, we evaluated the impacts of 

lowering the leak definition from 2,000 

ppm to 500 ppm for pumps. Based on 

our analysis, we concluded that for this 

proposed rule, 2,000 ppm is the 

appropriate leak definition for pumps. 

However, as with valves, our analyses 

were general and were based on 

assumptions that may not be applicable 

to all source categories that could 

reference these Uniform Standards. We 

expect that when conducting the 

analysis to determine whether it is 

appropriate to reference these Uniform 

Standards from each source category, 

we will consider the appropriate leak 

definitions for pumps. If the analysis 

shows that referencing the Uniform 

Standards would be appropriate with a 

lower leak definition for pumps, then 

the referencing subpart can specify the 

lower level and override the 

requirements in the Uniform Standards. 

We request comment and additional 

data supporting a different leak 

definition for pumps in the Uniform 

Standard. 

Connectors in gas and vapor service 

and connectors in light liquid service. 

We note that the analysis described in 

section VI.B.1 of this preamble showed 

that the cost effectiveness of requiring 

instrument monitoring for connectors 

varies widely, depending on the number 

of connectors in each model. In 

addition, as noted previously in this 

section, our analysis was general and 

based on assumptions that may not be 

applicable to all source categories. 

Therefore, it is possible that instrument 

monitoring of connectors could be more 

cost effective on a nationwide basis for 

a source category in which a majority of 

the affected process units has a large 

number of connectors. As a result, we 

determined that the best approach was 

to include the provisions for instrument 

monitoring of connectors in the 

proposed Uniform Standards, but to 

leave the decision of whether to require 

instrument monitoring of connectors in 

gas and vapor service and instrument 

monitoring of connectors in light liquid 

service up to the rulemakings for the 

referencing subparts. 

We expect that we will estimate the 

costs and emissions reduction impacts 

of the Uniform Standards for each 

potential referencing subpart. At that 

time, we will evaluate the necessary 

factors (including cost effectiveness, if 

appropriate) and determine whether to 

require instrument monitoring for 

connectors. By including the connector 

monitoring provisions in the Uniform 

Standards, we can ensure that the 

instrument monitoring provisions for 

connectors will be consistent with the 

instrument monitoring provisions for 

other equipment in the Uniform 

Standards if we determine in the future 

that instrument monitoring of 

connectors is appropriate for a 

particular source category. 

Therefore, we are proposing that you 

would conduct instrument monitoring 

for connectors in gas and vapor service 

and connectors in light liquid service, as 

in Level 2 EL Generic MACT, only if 

required by your referencing subpart. 

We did rearrange the paragraphs and 

make small clarifications to the 

language, but aside from specifying in 

the Uniform Standards that connector 

monitoring and repair is required only 

if specified by your referencing subpart, 

there are no substantive differences 

between the connector requirements in 

the Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the 

connector requirements proposed in the 

Uniform Standards. The differences 

between the Level 2 EL Generic MACT 

and the proposed Uniform Standards 

are described in this section. We request 

comment on whether there are other 

requirements for connectors that we 

should consider. 

If your referencing subpart does 

require connector monitoring, we are 

proposing two requirements to clarify 

that the connector requirements are 

analogous to the requirements for 

valves. First, connector monitoring data 

generated less than 12 months before a 

process unit becomes subject to this 

subpart would be allowed in 

determining monitoring frequency (as 

well as counting as the initial 

monitoring for connectors). Second, the 

monitoring that you are required to 

perform after repairing a leaking 

connector and within 90 days of 

detecting the leak is not the same 

monitoring that you must perform to 

meet the definition of ‘‘repair.’’ 

Finally, we are proposing to limit the 

types of connectors that can be 

classified as ‘‘inaccessible’’ connectors 

in 40 CFR 65.416(b). We are not 

proposing to include connectors that 

cannot be reached without elevating 

personnel (as in the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT). These connectors would 

already be classified as difficult-tomonitor connectors under proposed 40 

CFR 65.416(a)(2). In addition, we are not 

specifically including connectors that 

cannot be accessed at any time in a safe 

manner to perform monitoring. Instead, 

we consider these connectors to be 

classified as unsafe-to-monitor under 

proposed 40 CFR 65.416(a)(1). See 

section IV.B.5 of this preamble for 

additional detail about unsafe-tomonitor and difficult-to-monitor 

equipment. 

Agitators in gas and vapor service and 

agitators in light liquid service. The 

requirements that we are proposing in 

40 CFR 65.423 for agitators in gas and 

vapor service and agitators in light 

liquid service are mostly the same as 

both the Level 1 EL Generic MACT and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the Level 2 EL Generic MACT. We did 

reorganize the sections slightly and 

revise the language relative to the Level 

2 EL Generic MACT to indicate more 

clearly the similarity between the 

provisions for pumps and agitators. We 

are also proposing to include the Level 

2 EL Generic MACT requirements for 

weekly inspections of agitators subject 

to 40 CFR 65.423 with clarifications 

identical to those described in section 

IV.B.4 of this preamble for pumps in 

light liquid service. 

Given the similarities between pumps 

and agitators in design, operation and 

current regulatory requirements, we 

considered lowering the leak definition 

for agitators from 10,000 ppm. However, 

we do not currently have sufficient data 

on agitator monitoring to conduct such 

an analysis. We request comment and 

additional data supporting either 

maintaining the leak definition at 

10,000 ppm or lowering the leak 

definition. 

PRD. We are proposing to require that 

all PRD in gas or vapor service be 

operated with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

No later than 5 days after the PRD 

begins operating in regulated material 

service again following a pressure 

release, you would be required to 

conduct instrument monitoring to 

demonstrate that the PRD is once again 

in compliance with the requirement to 

operate with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

We note that the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT includes a similar standard for 

PRD in gas and vapor service to operate 

at 500 ppm above background. 

In addition, your referencing subpart 

may specify that no releases are allowed 

from any PRD, as release events from 

PRD have the potential to emit large 

quantities of regulated material. In that 

case, it is important to identify and 

control any releases in a timely manner. 

Therefore, if your referencing subpart 

specifies that no releases be allowed 

from your PRD, we are proposing to 

require you to install electronic 

indicators on each PRD that would be 

able to identify and record the time and 

duration of each pressure release. In 

addition to ensuring that significant 

releases are addressed, these 

requirements will also alert operators to 

any operational problems with the PRD 

seal that could be resulting in emissions 

to the atmosphere. (We are also 

proposing that if your electronic 

indicator can measure the concentration 

of any flow through the PRD, such that 

it is capable of verifying that the PRD 

has reseated properly after any release, 

you would not be required to conduct 

additional instrument monitoring to 

verify that the PRD is operating below 

500 ppm above background following a 

pressure release. You would still be 

required to keep a record of the 

concentration provided by this monitor 

to demonstrate that the concentration is 

less than 500 ppm above background.) 

We request comment on the proposed 

requirements, including whether the 

PRD in liquid service should be 

required to meet the 500-ppm 

performance standard rather than 

conducting sensory monitoring. We also 

request comment on other approaches 

we could take to reduce leaks and 

manage releases from PRD. 

Compressors. We are proposing that 

compressors either (1) be equipped with 

a seal system or (2) be maintained at a 

condition indicated by an instrument 

reading of less than 500 ppm above 

background. We did rearrange the 

paragraphs and make small 

clarifications to the language, but there 

are few substantive differences between 

the compressor requirements in the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the 

compressor requirements proposed in 

the Uniform Standards. One of these 

differences is for compressors 

complying with 40 CFR 65.425(a). 

While the compressor seal is the most 

likely part of the compressor to leak, it 

is possible to have small leaks from 

other parts of the compressor. Therefore, 

we are requiring sensory monitoring for 

potential sources of VOC emissions 

other than the seal system. 

As noted in section IV.B.2 of this 

preamble, we are clarifying that the 

proposed alternative to maintain 

compressors at an instrument reading 

below 500 ppm above background is 

considered a performance standard. We 

did consider specifying a time frame for 

repair if you monitor the compressor 

and get an instrument reading above 500 

ppm. However, we determined that 

since the instrument reading above 500 

ppm is a deviation from the standard 

and not a leak, we should not allow a 

set number of days for repair or allow 

delay of repair. Instead, the deviation 

for that compressor would be continued 

until you return the compressor to a 

condition indicated by an instrument 

reading less than 500 ppm above 

background. To encourage you to take 

action as soon as possible to return the 

compressor to compliance, we are 

proposing to require that you must 

provide in your semiannual periodic 

report the date of the instrument reading 

500 ppm above background or greater 

and the date of the next instrument 

reading less than 500 ppm above 

background (i.e., the number of days 

that the deviation lasted) for each 

compressor. We request comment on 

whether there are other requirements for 

compressors that we should consider. 

Sampling connection systems. We are 

proposing requirements for sampling 

connection systems that are similar to 

NSPS VVa, including arranging the 

paragraphs of 40 CFR 65.426 for clarity. 

In addition, we realize that when 

collecting gas samples, the tubing or 

pipe between the valves on the sample 

container and in the closed-loop system 

will contain process gas. This trapped 

gas does not need to be collected or 

captured because it is not a purged 

process fluid. Therefore, consistent with 

NSPS VVa, we are specifying that you 

would not be required to collect or 

capture gases remaining in the tubing or 

piping between the closed-purge system 

valve(s) and sample container valves(s) 

after the valves are closed and the 

sample container is disconnected. 

We are also proposing to allow you to 

collect and recycle the purged process 

fluid to a process, consistent with NSPS 

VVa. We are proposing to add this 

option in 40 CFR 65.426(a)(4) for design 

of the closed-purge, closed-loop or 

closed vent system because the Level 2 

EL Generic MACT requirement to return 

the purged process fluid ‘‘directly’’ to a 

process line could be interpreted to 

mean that you could not route the 

process fluid to a process using any 

method other than direct piping. We 

intend that use of the word ‘‘collect’’ in 

this proposed option means the purged 

fluid should not be allowed to escape. 

The use of either containers or piping 

would be an acceptable means of 

complying with this option. Consistent 

with the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, we 

are also proposing to allow you to 

collect and recycle the purged process 

fluid to a fuel gas system that meets the 

requirements of proposed 40 CFR part 

65, subpart M. 

We are proposing to clarify through 

the definition of ‘‘sampling connection 

system’’ in proposed 40 CFR 65.295 that 

lines that convey samples to analyzers 

and analyzer bypass lines are 

considered part of sampling connection 

systems. You would be required to meet 

the same requirements for the purged 

process fluid in these lines that you are 

required to meet for other purged 

process fluids. We are also clarifying 

that, for the purposes of this provision, 

CEMS are not considered analyzers, as 

they are typically located on stacks and 

are analyzing emissions rather than 

process fluids. 

Finally, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT 

includes three options for collecting, 

storing and transporting purged process 

fluids, and consistent with NSPS VVa, 

we are proposing to add two other 

options in 40 CFR 65.426(a)(4)(iv). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17943 

Specifically, we are proposing to allow 

you to collect, store and transport the 

purged process fluid to a device used to 

burn off-specification used oil for 

energy recovery in accordance with 40 

CFR part 279, subpart G, because the 

combustion operation will result in 

destruction levels comparable to the 

other options. We are also proposing to 

allow you to collect, store and transport 

the purged process fluid to a waste 

management unit subject to and 

operated in compliance with the 

treatment requirements of 40 CFR 

61.348(a) because waste management 

units meeting the treatment 

requirements in 40 CFR 61.348(a) and 

the management requirements in 40 

CFR 61.343 through 61.347 must 

achieve emission suppression and 

treatment requirements similar to the 

requirements for group 1 streams in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart G, which was 

already provided as an option in the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT. 

However, the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT includes an exception to the 

option to collect, store and transport the 

purged process fluid to a waste 

management unit that is operated in 

compliance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart G that we are not 

proposing, consistent with NSPS VVa. 

Specifically, we are not proposing to 

allow you to transport purged process 

fluid that contains regulated material to 

a waste management unit that has a 

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

instead of to a waste management unit 

operated in compliance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

G, applicable to group 1 wastewater 

steams because NPDES permits do not 

require suppression from the 

wastewater treatment system. Therefore, 

the emissions from the purged process 

fluid would not be controlled 

adequately if we allowed you to send 

purged process fluid to a waste 

management unit that has a NPDES 

permit. 

Open-ended valves and lines. Like the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT, the proposed 

requirements for open-ended valves and 

lines specify that, except in certain 

situations, each open-ended valve or 

line shall be equipped with a cap, plug, 

blind flange or a second valve that seals 

the open-ended valve or line. As noted 

in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, 

inspections conducted by enforcement 

agencies have found that many of these 

closure devices are leaking due to 

factors such as improper installation. 

Therefore, we are proposing to require 

annual instrument monitoring of the 

cap, plug, blind flange or second valve 

to demonstrate that it seals the openended valve or line. An instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater would indicate that the openended valve or line is not sealed. 

Similar to the alternative standard for 

compressors, we did consider specifying 

a time frame for repair for an instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater. However, we determined 

that, since the instrument reading of 500 

ppm above background or greater 

indicates a deviation from the standard 

for the cap, plug, blind flange or second 

valve to seal the open-ended valve or 

line rather than the presence of a leak, 

we determined that it would not be 

appropriate to provide a set number of 

days for repair or allow delay of repair. 

Instead, we expect you to take action as 

soon as possible to properly seal the 

open-ended valve or line with the cap, 

plug, blind flange or second valve and 

obtain an instrument reading less than 

500 ppm above background, and we are 

proposing to require that you must 

provide in your semiannual periodic 

report the date of the instrument reading 

500 ppm above background or greater 

and the date of the next instrument 

reading less than 500 ppm above 

background (i.e., the number of days the 

deviation lasted) for each open-ended 

valve or line. We request comment on 

the appropriate requirements for openended valves and lines, including any 

additional data either supporting the 

proposed requirements or 

demonstrating that we should consider 

different requirements. 

We are proposing to require sensory 

monitoring for open-ended valves and 

lines containing materials that would 

auto catalytically polymerize or would 

present an explosion, serious 

overpressure or other safety hazard if 

capped or equipped with a double block 

and bleed system. These open-ended 

valves and lines are exempt from the 

requirement to install a cap, blind 

flange, plug or second valve because of 

the risk of serious overpressure leading 

to catastrophic failure and, potentially, 

greater emissions to the atmosphere 

than if the line is left uncapped. 

However, we do believe that it is 

appropriate to require sensory 

monitoring in this case, as indications of 

a potential leak from the open-ended 

valve or line could indicate a leak in the 

seal of the open-ended valve. 

In addition, we are proposing a few 

clarifications to the definition of ‘‘openended valve or line.’’ First, we recognize 

that the literal interpretation of the 

phrase ‘‘one side of the valve seat in 

contact with process fluid and one side 

open to atmosphere, either directly or 

through open piping’’ could lead you to 

the inaccurate conclusion that once you 

install a cap, plug, blind flange or 

second valve on the open-ended valve 

or line, you no longer have one side of 

the valve seat open to the atmosphere, 

so it is no longer an ‘‘open-ended valve 

or line.’’ However, that is not our 

intended interpretation. Instead, we 

consider an open-ended valve or line 

with a cap, plug, blind flange or second 

valve to be a controlled open-ended 

valve or line. Therefore, we are 

proposing to clarify that an open-ended 

valve or line with a cap, blind flange, 

plug or second valve on the side that 

would be otherwise open to the 

atmosphere is still considered an openended valve or line. Second, we are 

adding the words ‘‘any length of’’ to that 

phrase, so it reads ‘‘or one side open to 

atmosphere, either directly or through 

any length of open piping.’’ This 

proposed language clarifies that a valve 

with one side of the valve seat open to 

the atmosphere through a very long 

length of pipe is still considered an 

open-ended valve or line. 

Equipment in closed vent systems and 

fuel gas systems. Current equipment 

leak rules are not always consistent 

regarding regulation of equipment in 

closed vent systems and fuel gas 

systems. We expect that closed vent 

systems and fuel gas systems transport 

gaseous streams to control devices or 

combustion devices, respectively, 

without releases to the atmosphere. 

Therefore, we are proposing to specify 

that equipment in closed vent systems 

and fuel gas systems operate with an 

instrument reading below 500 ppm 

above background. Similar to 

compressors, PRD and open-ended 

valves and lines, we are proposing to 

require annual instrument monitoring of 

the equipment in closed vent systems 

and fuel gas systems to demonstrate that 

it operates with an instrument reading 

below 500 ppm above background. An 

instrument reading of 500 ppm above 

background or greater would be a 

deviation. 

Similar to the alternative standard for 

compressors, we did consider specifying 

a time frame for repair for an instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater. However, we determined that 

since the instrument reading of 500 ppm 

above background or greater indicates a 

deviation from the standard rather than 

the presence of a leak, we determined 

that it would not be appropriate to 

provide a set number of days for repair 

or allow delay of repair. Instead, we 

expect you to take action as soon as 

possible to return the equipment to an 

instrument reading less than 500 ppm 

above background. We are proposing to 

require that you must provide in your 

semiannual periodic report, the date of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the instrument reading 500 ppm above 

background or greater and the date of 

the next instrument reading less than 

500 ppm above background (i.e., the 

number of days that the deviation 

lasted) for each piece of equipment in a 

closed vent system or fuel gas system. 

We request comment on the appropriate 

requirements for equipment in closed 

vent systems and fuel gas systems, 

including data either supporting the 

proposed requirements or 

demonstrating that we should consider 

different requirements. 

5. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed general compliance 

requirements for equipment leaks? 

We are proposing several general 

clarifications and new requirements that 

are not specific to certain types of 

equipment. These clarifications and 

new requirements are described below. 

Equipment in vacuum service. In the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT, equipment 

in vacuum service is exempt from all of 

the LDAR requirements, including 

recordkeeping and reporting. In the 

Uniform Standards, we are proposing to 

require demonstration that equipment is 

in vacuum service in 40 CFR 65.416(e), 

including installation of a pressure 

gauge and alarm system that will alert 

an operator immediately and 

automatically when the pressure is such 

that the equipment no longer meets the 

definition of in vacuum service. While 

we continue to agree that monitoring the 

equipment in vacuum service for leaks 

is not necessary, we do find that it is 

appropriate for you to demonstrate 

continuously that your equipment is in 

vacuum service. 

Equipment that is unsafe- or difficultto-monitor. The provisions for 

equipment that is unsafe- or difficult-tomonitor are largely the same as the 

Level 2 EL Generic MACT. We are 

proposing to clarify that equipment of 

any type for which you are required to 

conduct instrument monitoring may be 

designated as unsafe- or difficult-tomonitor if they meet the appropriate 

conditions in 40 CFR 65.416(a)(1) or (2). 

The Level 2 EL Generic MACT limited 

difficult-to-monitor equipment to valves 

and agitators, and we found no 

technical feasibility reason that you 

should not be permitted to designate 

pumps and connectors as difficult-tomonitor, as well. We are also proposing 

to clarify that the written monitoring 

plans required in 40 CFR 65.416(a)(4) 

must address repair of any leaks you 

find when you conduct instrument 

monitoring according to the plan. 

Finally, we evaluated the provisions 

for inaccessible connectors, and we 

determined that two of the provisions 

are more appropriately classified as 

factors that make the connector either 

difficult-to-monitor or unsafe-tomonitor. In addition, we saw no reason 

why these provisions should be limited 

to connectors rather than applicable to 

all equipment. Therefore, we are 

proposing to add ‘‘equipment that you 

cannot access without the use of a 

motorized man-lift basket in areas 

where an ignition potential exists’’ and 

‘‘equipment in near proximity to 

hazards such as electrical lines’’ to the 

list of examples of unsafe-to-monitor 

equipment in proposed 40 CFR 

65.416(a). 

Sensory monitoring. Consistent with 

the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, if your 

equipment is subject to sensory 

monitoring requirements and you find 

evidence of a potential leak, we are 

proposing in 40 CFR 65.430(b) that you 

would be required either to use 

instrument monitoring to determine if 

there is a leak needing repair or to repair 

the equipment, eliminating the evidence 

of the potential leak. We are also 

proposing in 40 CFR 65.430(b)(1) to add 

a limit to the amount of time you would 

have to repair the equipment (i.e., 

eliminate the evidence of a potential 

leak) to 5 days after detection, which is 

consistent with NSPS VVa. 

Monitoring instrument calibration. 

Consistent with the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT, we are proposing that you 

would calibrate the monitoring 

instrument with zero air and methane in 

air. However, we have received 

information that while methane in air is 

commonly used to calibrate flame 

ionization detector (FID)-based 

instruments, methane is not appropriate 

for calibrating photo ionization detector 

(PID)-based instruments. The other 

calibration gas provided in NSPS VV 

and NSPS VVa, n-hexane in air, is 

difficult to find, as 10,000 ppm nhexane in air is close to the lower 

explosive limit. Instead, many users of 

PID-based monitoring instruments use 

isobutylene as the calibration gas 

because the response factor of 

isobutylene is representative of most of 

the gases they expect to encounter. 

Therefore, we are proposing to allow 

isobutylene in air as a calibration gas. 

Again, consistent with the Level 2 EL 

Generic MACT, we are proposing that if 

the instrument does not respond to 

methane or isobutylene, you may use 

another compound in air to calibrate the 

instrument, so the calibration 

procedures continue to be flexible. We 

request comment on whether 

isobutylene in air is an appropriate 

calibration gas and whether the use of 

other calibration gases is widespread 

enough that they should be included. 

To ensure that the monitoring results 

are as accurate as possible, we are also 

proposing in 40 CFR 65.431(a)(3)(ii) to 

require a calibration drift assessment 

similar to the requirements in NSPS 

VVa. At a minimum, you would be 

required to perform a calibration drift 

assessment at the end of each 

monitoring day. Post-test calibration 

drift assessments constitute good 

practice and are a useful quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) tool 

to validate the proper operation of the 

monitor during the monitoring period 

and, hence, the measurement data. We 

note that the proposed requirement for 

a calibration drift assessment is not an 

effort to make the method more accurate 

than was originally intended; it is 

intended as an additional quality 

assurance check. 

As proposed, you would be required 

to check the instrument with the same 

calibration gases as before use and 

calculate the percent difference from the 

most recent calibration value. If the drift 

assessment shows a negative drift of 

more than 10 percent, then you would 

have to calculate the leak definition 

adjusted for negative drift and remonitor all equipment monitored since 

the last calibration with instrument 

readings below the applicable leak 

definition and above the leak definition 

adjusted for negative drift. For example, 

if your leak definition is 500 ppm and 

you calculated the negative drift to be 

15 percent, you would calculate the leak 

definition adjusted for negative drift as 

425 ppm, and you would have to remonitor equipment with instrument 

readings above 425 ppm and below 500 

ppm to confirm that those pieces of 

equipment are not leaking. If the drift 

assessment shows a positive drift of 

more than 10 percent, then you would 

have the option to re-monitor all 

equipment monitored since the last 

calibration with instrument readings 

above the applicable leak definition and 

above the leak definition adjusted for 

positive drift. Using the same example, 

you would calculate the leak definition 

adjusted for negative drift as 575 ppm, 

and you could elect to re-monitor 

equipment with instrument readings 

above 500 ppm and below 575 ppm to 

show that those pieces of equipment are 

not actually leaking. 

Delay of repair. We are proposing a 

limit on the amount of time you can 

delay repair of leaking equipment in 40 

CFR 65.432(d). We agree that there are 

times when repair will be technically 

infeasible without a process unit 

shutdown, and we are not proposing to 

require immediate shutdown to 

accomplish those repairs. However, we 

are aware that some process units shut 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17945 

down very infrequently, allowing 

equipment to continue leaking for many 

years. Therefore, we are proposing to 

specify that you may only delay repair 

up to the end of the next process unit 

shutdown or up to 5 years after the leak 

is detected, whichever is sooner. We 

believe that a limit of no more than 5 

years will allow you to schedule repairs 

during a planned process unit shutdown 

while preventing repair from being 

delayed indefinitely. We request 

comment on the limit of 5 years; for 

comments supporting a longer amount 

of time, we request supporting 

documentation and examples 

demonstrating why a longer amount of 

time is necessary. 

We are also proposing that if you have 

a process unit shutdown of longer than 

24 hours, planned or unplanned, you 

would take the time during that 

shutdown to repair all equipment for 

which you delayed repair until the next 

process unit shutdown. We expect that 

you would purchase the supplies 

needed to repair the leaks when the 

leaks are first detected so that you 

would be prepared to make repairs 

during an unplanned shutdown. You 

would not be required to begin making 

repairs until the shutdown lasts 24 

hours, but you would be required to 

extend the shutdown until all 

equipment for which you delayed repair 

until the next shutdown have been 

repaired. You would not be required to 

repair leaks detected less than 15 days 

before the shutdown. While we expect 

that you would have ordered the 

supplies needed for repair, they may not 

arrive in less than 15 days. In addition, 

the delay of repair requirements are 

intended for equipment that cannot be 

repaired in 15 days, so it is not 

reasonable to expect that you will 

always know in less than 15 days that 

a leak cannot be repaired without a 

process unit shutdown. We request 

comment on requiring repairs during 

any shutdown longer than 24 hours. 

We are clarifying that you would 

continue to conduct instrument 

monitoring on the schedule required by 

40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427 while 

repair of the leak is delayed. The current 

equipment leaks requirements do not 

specify clearly that monitoring may be 

suspended, but we are aware that some 

owners and operators have interpreted 

the current regulations to mean that 

monitoring is not required. However, 

continuing to conduct instrument 

monitoring while repair is delayed 

provides information about the 

magnitude of the leak during that time. 

If the leak grows significantly over time, 

you may determine that it is appropriate 

to reschedule the next shutdown to 

repair the leak sooner. You would not 

be required to report the results of the 

continued monitoring, but you would be 

required to keep records of those results. 

We are also proposing that for a pump 

or agitator for which you have delayed 

repair, you may suspend the weekly 

inspection until the pump or agitator is 

repaired. 

Finally, we are proposing that unless 

it is technically infeasible for you to do 

so, when you do repair valves and 

connectors for which you delayed 

repair, you must replace leaking valves 

and connectors with low leak 

technology (e.g., replacing the valve 

packing, flange gaskets or the entire 

valve or connector). While it is not cost 

effective to require replacement of all 

equipment at one time, requiring 

replacement for equipment that cannot 

be repaired within 15 days would give 

you time to plan the repair and 

purchase the necessary supplies or 

equipment. In addition, experience has 

shown that these techniques result in a 

longer period of time before that specific 

piece of equipment leaks again, so you 

would have fewer leaks in the process 

and likely would be able to take 

advantage of the less frequent 

monitoring allowed for valves and 

connectors. In addition, over time, you 

would be required to conduct fewer 

repairs, reducing the cost and time 

necessary to repair leaks. These cost 

reductions are expected to offset the 

increases in capital cost associated with 

the low leak technology (estimated to be 

about 10 to 35 percent for valves; see the 

presentation ‘‘Low Leak Valve and 

Valve Packing Technology (Low-E 

Valve)’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0869). 

We recognize that there are situations 

where replacing the packing, gaskets or 

entire piece of equipment may not be 

technically feasible. In that case, you 

would be required to document the 

demonstration that such repair was 

technically infeasible and include the 

documentation in your annual periodic 

report. We are proposing that you would 

be required to evaluate this 

demonstration each time you delay 

repair for a piece of equipment. For 

example, suppose you previously 

determined that it was technically 

infeasible to install low leak technology 

to repair a valve for which you delayed 

repair. If that valve leaks again in the 

future and you have to delay repair 

beyond 15 days again, you would be 

required to demonstrate that it is still 

technically infeasible to install low leak 

technology to repair a valve; you cannot 

simply refer to your previous 

determination. We request comment on 

this proposed requirement, including 

whether there are other times that we 

should require installation of low leak 

technology and whether we should 

provide specific circumstances for 

which installation of low leak 

technology would not be required due 

to technical infeasibility (and if so, what 

those circumstances should be). 

We note that, as we stated in the 

preamble to the proposed amendments 

to NSPS VV (71 FR 65302, November 7, 

2006), sealant injection procedures such 

as drill and tap methods have advanced 

in recent years to the point that they are 

a viable on-line repair technique for 

many leaking valves. Therefore, we are 

again clarifying in this proposal that if 

sealant injection procedures such as 

drill and tap are a technically feasible 

type of repair for a specific valve, then 

those procedures should be attempted 

before you determine that it is necessary 

to delay repair for that valve. 

6. How did the EPA determine the 

requirements for the alternative 

compliance options for equipment 

leaks? 

Alternative for batch operations. The 

proposed requirements for the 

alternative compliance option for batch 

operations are essentially the same as 

the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 

63.1036(c) of the Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT. The proposed requirements 

include the option to elect adjusted 

monitoring frequencies for process units 

that operate infrequently, but we are 

also proposing to specify the minimum 

amount of time, or ‘‘reasonable 

intervals,’’ between monitoring events 

consistent with NSPS VVa. Section VI.B 

of this preamble discusses the rationale 

for including reasonable intervals in 

these Uniform Standards, and the 

reasonable intervals are specified in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.280 (the General 

Provisions to the Uniform Standards). 

We request comment on the reasonable 

intervals specific to the alternative 

compliance option for batch operations. 

Alternative for routing equipment leak 

emissions to a closed vent system and 

control device or to a fuel gas system. 

The Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes 

exceptions from instrument monitoring 

or other standards if you route 

emissions from leaks of certain types of 

equipment directly to a fuel gas system 

or to a control device via a closed vent 

system. We considered including these 

provisions as a centralized alternative 

compliance option in the Uniform 

Standards. However, we believe that 

these options have limited applicability. 

For example, only certain types of 

equipment and seals physically can be 

routed directly to a closed vent system 

or fuel gas system. Therefore, we have 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

elected to provide the provisions where 

they are the most directly applicable 

(i.e., with the other monitoring 

requirements or performance standards 

for that type of equipment). Specifically, 

we are proposing that PRD that release 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device would not be required to 

be operated at less than 500 ppm above 

background because any vapors released 

with an instrument reading higher than 

500 ppm would be controlled by the 

control device. Similarly, the proposed 

Uniform Standards provide a 

compliance option consistent with the 

Level 2 Generic MACT for dual 

mechanical seal pumps, dual 

mechanical seal agitators and 

compressor seal systems routed to a fuel 

gas system or through a closed vent 

system to a control device. If you use a 

closed vent system and non-flare control 

device or a fuel gas system to meet the 

requirements of this subpart, we are 

proposing that both the closed vent 

system and non-flare control device or 

the fuel gas system, as applicable, must 

comply with the applicable standards of 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. In 

addition, consistent with the Level 2 

Generic MACT, we are specifying that a 

non-flare control device must reduce 

regulated material emissions reductions 

by 95 percent or to an outlet 

concentration of 20 ppmv and we are 

requiring a design evaluation or 

performance test, as specified in 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for 

the non-flare control device. We are 

proposing that flares used to comply 

with the applicable standard meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b) of 

subpart A, as well as proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart M for the closed vent 

system associated with the flare. 

However, we are not proposing the 

alternative to route equipment leaks 

from other pumps and agitators to a fuel 

gas system or through a closed vent 

system to a control device. Based on our 

information, we believe the alternative 

is rarely, if ever, used for these types of 

equipment. We request comment on 

specific situations for which this 

alternative would apply, particularly 

from any owners and operators 

complying with a similar alternative 

under current equipment leak 

standards. 

Alternative for enclosing a process 

unit and routing equipment leak 

emissions to a closed vent system and 

control device. The Level 2 EL Generic 

MACT includes exceptions from 

instrument monitoring if you enclose a 

process unit or portion of a process unit 

and vent the equipment leak emissions 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device. We considered including 

these provisions as alternative 

compliance options as part of the 

Uniform Standards. However, we 

believe that these options have limited 

applicability, and we expect that the 

types of processes an owner or operator 

might choose to enclose would be 

limited, based on factors such as the 

process fluid characteristics (i.e., the 

owner or operator likely would not elect 

to enclose all processes at a facility). 

Therefore, we are not proposing any 

alternatives or exceptions based on 

enclosing process units and routing 

equipment leaks through a closed vent 

system to a control device. We request 

comment on this decision, including 

examples of specific situations in which 

that alternative would be most likely to 

apply. 

Alternative for routing emissions to 

the process. We are not proposing 

specific provisions for routing emissions 

from equipment leaks to a process. 

Instead, we are clarifying through this 

preamble that the line routing the 

emissions to the process would be 

considered part of the process and 

would be required to comply with the 

otherwise applicable provisions. 

Alternative for pressure testing. We 

are not proposing to include the 

alternative compliance option for 

pressure testing that is in the Level 2 EL 

Generic MACT. Based on the results of 

comparative testing and observations, 

we have concerns that the pressuretesting alternative may not be equivalent 

to the otherwise applicable LDAR 

requirements. Therefore, we have 

decided not to include that alternative 

in these Uniform Standards. If there is 

a specific source category for which the 

pressure-testing alternative is 

appropriate, we expect that the 

referencing subpart for that source 

category would include the provisions 

for that alternative. 

Requesting an alternative means of 

emission limitation. The Level 2 EL 

Generic MACT includes specific 

procedures for requesting an alternative 

means of emission limitation not 

already included within that subpart. 

However, the provisions in the Level 2 

EL Generic MACT provisions are fairly 

general, and there is nothing specific to 

requesting an alternative means of 

emission limitation for equipment leaks 

in the provisions. Therefore, after 

reviewing these provisions, the CAA 

and the General Provisions to 40 CFR 

part 60 and 40 CFR part 63, we have 

decided not to propose those provisions 

within 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. We are 

proposing to include provisions within 

the General Provisions to the Uniform 

Standards (40 CFR part 65, subpart H) 

for requesting an alternative means of 

emission limitation. See section VI.B.11 

of this preamble for additional details 

on these provisions. 

7. How did the EPA determine the 

requirements for using the optical gas 

imaging device to detect leaks? 

As noted in section IV.A.5 of this 

preamble, we anticipate that for some 

source categories, specific requirements 

for using an optical gas imaging device 

to detect leaks without accompanying 

instrument monitoring could be an 

appropriate alternative to the 

requirements described in section 

IV.A.4 of this preamble. Therefore, we 

are proposing to allow the use of optical 

gas imaging as a standalone technique 

for detecting equipment leaks in 

regulated material service. However, as 

we also noted in section IV.A.5 of this 

preamble, we believe that this technique 

is not currently suitable for detection of 

leaking compounds in all industry 

sectors, in part, due to the limitation of 

the number of compounds that can be 

screened using this technology. 

Therefore, we are proposing that the 

provisions for use of an optical gas 

imaging instrument for leak detection 

would be allowed as an alternative only 

if your referencing subpart includes a 

direct reference to 40 CFR 65.450. We 

expect that a referencing subpart will 

include a direct reference to 40 CFR 

65.450 only if it is technically feasible 

for the sources in that source category 

to follow the protocol proposed in 40 

CFR part 60, appendix K. Structuring 

the requirements in this way ensures 

that the optical gas imaging techniques 

are applied consistently over the various 

source categories, but provides the 

referencing subpart the flexibility to 

define clearly when the optical gas 

imaging provisions may be used. 

We are proposing to include a 

monitoring frequency of bimonthly and 

a leak detection level of 60 grams per 

hour in the Uniform Standards that 

would apply if the referencing subpart 

allows you to use the optical gas 

imaging alternative, but does not specify 

a monitoring frequency and/or leak 

detection level. We believe that the 

appropriate monitoring frequency and 

leak detection level for a given source 

category is likely to vary depending on 

the regulated material and other 

industry-specific factors. However, we 

currently do not have data to support 

setting different parameters, so we are 

proposing to set the levels in the 

Uniform Standards consistent with the 

AWP. Unless and until industry-specific 

and regulated material-specific data can 

be gathered using the optical gas 

imaging instrument, it is not reasonable 

to expect each referencing subpart to set 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17947 

a source category-specific monitoring 

frequency and leak detection level. 

However, if data are available, the 

referencing subpart can include a 

specific monitoring frequency and/or 

leak detection level other than those set 

in the Uniform Standards. 

V. Summary and Rationale for the 

Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National 

Uniform Emission Standards for 

Control Devices—Subpart M 

A. Summary 

This section summarizes the 

requirements proposed under 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart M in this action. The 

proposed requirements summarized in 

this section are based on the EPA’s 

review of current regulations for closed 

vent systems; control devices used to 

control process vents from reactors, 

distillation and other operations, as well 

as from emissions from storage vessels, 

transfer and equipment leaks; and fuel 

gas systems used for air emissions 

control. These requirements reflect our 

intent to implement a simplified 

approach to rulemaking that results in 

consistent requirements for these 

emission points across multiple source 

categories. Subpart M consolidates and 

simplifies monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements from current 

NSPS and NESHAP, eliminates 

duplicative or unnecessarily 

burdensome requirements and examines 

advances in control practices and 

technology that could be considered for 

control options in future rulemakings. 

In section V of this preamble, the term 

‘‘we’’ refers to the EPA and the term 

‘‘you’’ refers to owners and operators of 

sources affected by the proposed 

standards. Section V.B of this preamble 

provides our rationale for the proposed 

requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

M. Additionally, ‘‘subpart M’’ refers to 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, Subpart M. 

1. What is the purpose of the proposed 

rule? 

The proposed rule specifies 

requirements for closed vent systems 

collecting regulated materials from a 

regulated source under the referencing 

subpart; control devices that are used to 

reduce regulated material emissions 

from emission points affected by a 

subpart that references the use of 

subpart M, including small boilers and 

process heaters, oxidizers, absorbers, 

adsorbers, condensers, biofilters, fabric 

filters, sorbent injection and other 

control devices; and fuel gas systems 

used to meet the air emission control 

requirements of a referencing subpart. 

The owner or operator would use 

subpart M to comply with emission 

standards for any emission unit type 

(e.g., process vents, transfer racks, 

storage tanks and equipment leaks) for 

which emissions are routed to a control 

device or fuel gas system. 

2. What are the proposed general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

General requirements. Facilities 

would be subject to some or all of the 

requirements of subpart M when 

another subpart references the use of 

subpart M for air emission control, or 

when directed by another subpart under 

the Uniform Standards. You would be 

required to meet the general provisions 

applicable to part 65 (i.e., subpart A of 

40 CFR part 65) and the general 

provisions applicable to the referencing 

subpart (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR parts 

60, 61 or 63). 

General requirements for halogenated 

vent streams. As part of the general 

requirements for proposed subpart M, 

you would be required to identify each 

emission stream as either a halogenated 

or non-halogenated vent stream for 

purposes of determining which 

requirements of subpart M apply to each 

vent stream. 

3. What are the proposed requirements 

for closed vent systems? 

We are proposing to require that all 

owners and operators using a control 

device to comply with a referencing 

subpart meet the requirements for 

closed vent systems. For a closed vent 

system that contains bypass lines that 

can divert the stream away from the 

control device to the atmosphere, you 

would be required to either (1) install, 

maintain and operate a continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 

for flow that is capable of recording the 

volume of gas that bypassed the control 

device and is equipped with an 

automatic alarm system that will alert 

an operator immediately when flow is 

detected in the bypass line, or (2) to 

secure the bypass line valve in the nondiverting position with a car-seal or a 

lock-and-key type configuration. You 

would be required to inspect the seal or 

closure mechanism at least once per 

month to verify the valve is maintained 

in the non-diverting position. Use of a 

bypass at any time regulated materials 

are flowing in the closed vent system 

that results in a release of regulated 

materials to the atmosphere is 

considered an emissions standards 

deviation under the proposed rule. 

The closed vent system equipment 

collecting regulated material from a 

regulated source would be subject to the 

applicable requirements of the 

equipment leak Uniform Standards of 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J (see 

section IV.A of this preamble). 

4. What are the proposed monitoring 

and compliance requirements I must 

meet for each control device? 

Under the proposed requirements, 

you would be required to conduct 

continuous monitoring for each boiler, 

process heater, oxidizer, absorber, 

adsorber, condenser, sorbent injection, 

biofilter, fabric filter or other control 

device used to comply with standards in 

the referencing subpart. The monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements proposed in subpart M are 

applicable to all control devices. This 

includes control devices in series with 

one another (e.g., an absorber and a 

thermal oxidizer). 

For each of these control devices, you 

must install a CEMS capable of 

measuring regulated material in the 

exhaust stream of the control device or 

you may elect to install and operate a 

CPMS, unless disallowed by a 

referencing subpart. You would be 

required to establish operating limits for 

monitored parameters that indicate the 

control device is meeting the specified 

emission standard of the referencing 

subpart. For fabric filters, we are 

proposing that you equip your fabric 

filter with a bag leak detection system 

with a device able to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor. 

Additionally, the bag leak detection 

system must be equipped with an alarm 

system that will sound when an 

increase in PM emissions is detected 

and which does not sound more than 5 

percent of the operating time during a 

6-month period; if the alarm sounds 

more than 5 percent of the operating 

time during a 6-month period, it is 

considered a deviation. The proposed 

rule provides guidance for calculating 

the alarm time and directs the corrective 

actions to be taken. 

As part of the proposed general 

monitoring requirements for control 

devices, CEMS and CPMS must follow 

the requirements specified in proposed 

40 CFR 65.711 and 40 CFR 65.712. For 

each CEMS used to comply with the 

referencing subpart, we are proposing 

that you operate and maintain each 

CEMS according to the requirements of 

your CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan. We are proposing that 

you conduct initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of each CEMS 

used to comply with the referencing 

subpart according to this plan. In 

addition, for each CPMS used to comply 

with the referencing subpart, we are 

proposing that you operate and 

maintain each CPMS according to the 

requirements of your CPMS monitoring 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

plan. For each bag leak detection 

system, you must maintain a CPMS 

monitoring plan, a corrective action 

plan and records of any bag leak 

detection alarm, as described in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.724. 

All CPMS would be required to meet 

minimum calibration and quality 

control requirements, as specified in 

Table 4 of subpart M. For each 

monitored parameter, you would 

establish an operating limit, pursuant to 

the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 

65.713. Table 3 of subpart M specifies 

the operating parameters, operating 

limits and data monitoring, 

recordkeeping and compliance 

frequencies for each type of control 

device covered by proposed subpart M. 

Tables 1 and 2 of subpart M specify the 

monitoring equipment requirements 

when using CEMS and CPMS. You 

would be required to keep monitoring 

system records for your CEMS or CPMS, 

as specified in proposed 40 CFR 65.860. 

Additionally, you would be required to 

meet the control device-specific 

monitoring requirements in proposed 40 

CFR 65.724 through 65.800 for the 

specific control measure(s) being used. 

In addition to monitoring, we are 

proposing that for each control device, 

you must conduct a performance test to 

determine compliance with the 

referencing subpart unless you meet the 

exemptions specified in proposed 40 

CFR 65.702(e). You must conduct the 

performance test for each control device 

according to the requirements of 

proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829 

(see section V.A.7 of this preamble). For 

fabric filters, you would be required to 

conduct a performance evaluation 

consistent with the Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance (EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997, incorporated 

by reference). As a burden reduction for 

existing regulated sources transitioning 

to the Uniform Standards, we are not 

requiring performance tests for which a 

previous performance test report has 

been submitted, if the performance test 

was conducted within the last 5 years 

and was conducted as specified in 

proposed subpart M. We note that some 

transitioning sources may be required to 

conduct a performance test in cases 

where new parameter monitoring is 

required (e.g., carbon absorbers). We 

anticipate that the referencing subpart 

will specify, as appropriate for the 

individual source category, if a new 

performance test is required or if a prior 

performance test will satisfy the 

requirement. 

Owners or operators using a fuel gas 

system to comply with the requirements 

of the referencing subpart would be 

required to submit a statement that the 

emission stream is connected to the fuel 

gas system in the Notification of 

Compliance Status Report. Fuel gas 

systems used to meet air emissions 

control would be subject to the 

applicable proposed equipment leak 

Uniform Standards of 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart J (see section IV.A of this 

preamble) as they apply to the 

individual equipment components 

comprising the fuel gas system. These 

requirements include specific 

instrument monitoring requirements for 

equipment in gas and vapor service and 

equipment in light liquid service, and 

specific sensory monitoring 

requirements for equipment in heavy 

liquid service and other equipment that 

meets certain criteria. You would also 

be required to meet the control device 

provisions in proposed 40 CFR 65.724 

for small boilers and process heaters 

that are a part of the fuel gas system if 

regulated material is routed to the fuel 

gas system for control. 

For each small boiler or process 

heater, thermal oxidizer, catalytic 

oxidizer, absorber, adsorber, condenser, 

biofilter, sorbent injection system or 

other control device used to comply 

with the referencing subpart, you would 

be required to keep the records 

described in section V.A.8 of this 

preamble. 

5. What are the performance testing 

requirements? 

The performance testing requirements 

for subpart M are included in proposed 

40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829. 

Proposed 40 CFR 65.820 provides 

requirements for notification, 

development and submittal of a 

performance test plan, and specifies the 

‘‘performance testing facilities’’ that 

must be provided by owners and 

operators required to conduct a 

performance test (see proposed 40 CFR 

65.820(d)). 

For each control device controlling 

regulated materials for which a 

performance test is required, the 

proposed standards specify 

requirements on how to test vent 

streams from continuous process 

operations, batch process operations 

and combined continuous and batch 

process operations in proposed 40 CFR 

65.821. For continuous process 

operations, we are proposing that you 

conduct performance tests during 

‘‘maximum representative operating 

conditions for the process.’’ 

Specifically, we are proposing that you 

must operate your process during the 

performance test in such a way that 

results in the most challenging 

condition for the control device. The 

most challenging condition for the 

control device may include, but is not 

limited to, the highest HAP mass 

loading rate to the control device, or the 

highest HAP mass loading rate of 

constituents that approach the limits of 

solubility for scrubbing media. 

For batch process operations, 

performance tests must be conducted at 

absolute worst-case conditions or 

hypothetical worst-case conditions. The 

proposed standards define the criteria 

for selecting the absolute worst-case and 

hypothetical worst-case conditions in 40 

CFR 65.822 (see section V.B.6 of this 

preamble). We are also proposing that 

you develop an emissions profile that 

would describe the characteristics of the 

vent stream at the inlet to the control 

device under those absolute or 

hypothetical worst-case conditions you 

selected. You would then be required to 

control and achieve the emission limit 

prescribed under the referencing 

subpart, and conduct your performance 

tests for those periods of worst-case 

conditions you selected (see section 

V.B.6 of this preamble). 

For combined continuous and batch 

process operations, you must conduct 

performance tests when the batch 

process operations are operating at 

absolute worst-case conditions or 

hypothetical worst-case conditions, and 

the continuous operations are operating 

at the maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process. 

Table 5 to proposed subpart M 

specifies the applicable test methods 

and procedures for each test run, based 

on the type of emission limit specified 

in the referencing subpart. As discussed 

in section II.E of this preamble, we 

anticipate that the referencing subpart 

will establish the emission limit that 

best represents the level of control 

needed for the source category. The 

referencing subpart would provide 

rationale for the format and units of 

measure for each limit, or, if applicable, 

rationale for the use of a surrogate in 

cases where methods for a specific 

pollutant are insufficient. 

We are proposing that if you make a 

change to process equipment or 

operating conditions that would affect 

the operating parameter values of a 

control device and render the operating 

limits ineffective as indicators of 

compliance with the standard, you must 

conduct a performance test within 180 

days of the date of startup of the change 

to establish new operating limits and 

demonstrate that you are in compliance 

with the applicable emission limit of the 

referencing subpart. 

We have included additional 

requirements for performance testing, 

including sampling, duration and 

calculations for determining compliance 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17949 

in proposed 40 CFR 65.823 through 

65.829. 

6. What are the additional requirements 

for batch process operations? 

In proposed 40 CFR 65.835, we have 

included a method for demonstrating 

compliance with an aggregated percent 

reduction emission standard. These 

requirements apply when a referencing 

subpart allows the owner or operator to 

show compliance with a percent 

reduction by aggregating emissions over 

the full batch process. To demonstrate 

compliance, the owner or operator 

would use the proposed engineering 

evaluation methodologies to calculate 

uncontrolled emissions from all batch 

process operations for a given process 

that they do not want to control. The 

owner or operator would still 

determine, through performance testing, 

uncontrolled and controlled emissions 

from batch process operations that are 

controlled. All emissions from all batch 

process operations (i.e., those emissions 

determined from the proposed 

engineering evaluation methodologies 

and those emissions determined from 

performance testing) would then be 

considered when determining 

compliance with the percent reduction 

emission limit. 

In addition, we are proposing that you 

use these engineering evaluation 

methodologies if you choose to develop 

an emissions profile by process for 

determining absolute worst-case 

conditions of your batch process 

operations. You would also use these 

methodologies as part of your condenser 

design evaluation (see the specific 

condenser section of section V.B.3 of 

this preamble). 

7. How can I demonstrate compliance 

through design evaluation? 

Except for condensers, under the 

proposed standards, you may 

demonstrate compliance for a non-flare 

control device by conducting a design 

evaluation in lieu of a performance test, 

if allowed by the referencing subpart. 

The design evaluation would require 

documentation that the control device 

being used achieves the emission limit 

required by the referencing subpart. For 

condensers, we are proposing that you 

must conduct a design evaluation (see 

section V.B.3 of this preamble). The 

evaluation must also include 

documentation of the composition of 

the vent stream entering each control 

device, including flow, regulated 

material concentration and other sitespecific information for each control 

device, as provided in proposed 40 CFR 

65.850. If you choose to do a design 

evaluation, you would also submit a 

monitoring description with the 

Notification of Compliance Status. The 

monitoring description would contain a 

description of the parameters to be 

monitored and the associated operating 

limit(s), an explanation of the criteria 

used for selection of that parameter (or 

parameters) and the operating limit(s), 

the frequency with which monitoring 

will be performed, and the averaging 

time for each operating parameter being 

measured. Once the design evaluation 

has been conducted and operating 

parameters have been established, the 

non-flare control device must be 

operated and maintained such that the 

monitored parameters remain within the 

established operating limit. 

8. What are the recordkeeping, 

notification and reporting requirements? 

We are proposing that each owner or 

operator of the affected control device 

must keep the records in proposed 40 

CFR 65.860. These include: 

• Continuous records of the 

monitoring equipment operating 

parameters or emissions. If certain 

requirements are met, you have the 

option of maintaining a record of each 

measured value, or block hourly average 

data and the most recent three valid 

hours of continuous records. 

• Records of the daily average value 

or operating block average value of each 

continuously monitored parameter or 

emissions for each operating day. 

• Non-continuous records as 

specified in 40 CFR 65.860(b). 

• Records of each operating scenario, 

each emission episode, and each 

emission profile you develop as 

described in proposed 40 CFR 65.860(f) 

for batch operations. 

• Control device monitoring, 

calibration and maintenance records. 

• Records of periods when the 

regulated source, control equipment or 

CPMS are out of control, inoperative or 

are not operating properly. 

• For batch process operations, 

records of whether each batch operation 

was considered a standard batch, 

including estimated uncontrolled and 

controlled emissions for each 

nonstandard batch. 

• Performance test records for each 

performance test performed, as 

described in proposed 40 CFR 65.820 

through 65.829 (and discussed further 

in section V.A.7 of this preamble). For 

control devices for which a performance 

test is required, you would be required 

to keep records of the percent reduction 

of regulated material achieved by the 

control device or the concentration of 

regulated material at the outlet of the 

control device, as applicable. 

You would be required to submit the 

reports in proposed 40 CFR 65.880, 

65.882, 65.883 and 65.884; certain 

reports must be submitted 

electronically, as specified in the 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H (see 

section II.F and VI.B.7 of this preamble). 

As specified in proposed 40 CFR 65.880, 

you would be required to submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status by the 

date provided by the referencing 

subpart. The Notification of Compliance 

Status would require certifications of 

compliance with rule requirements, 

including batch calculations and design 

evaluation records. The report would 

also include the established operating 

limit for each monitored parameter. For 

halogenated vent streams, you would be 

required to identify any halogenated 

vent streams as part of the Notification 

of Compliance Status. The Notification 

of Compliance Status would also 

include a statement about any emissions 

being routed to a fuel gas system. For 

existing control devices that may be 

redirected to the Uniform Standards as 

current regulations are revised, you 

would also be required to submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status. 

However, in order to reduce burden for 

transitioning sources, we are providing 

that you would be allowed to rely on 

previous performance test reports as 

part of the submittal, as long as the 

performance test was conducted within 

the past 5 years and conducted as 

specified under proposed subpart M. As 

discussed in section V.A.4 of this 

preamble, some transitioning sources 

may be required to conduct a 

performance test in cases where new 

parameter monitoring is required. 

You would be required to submit 

semi-annual and annual periodic 

reports according to the requirements in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.882 and 65.883. 

Generally, semi-annual reporting of 

deviations is required to submit 

electronically, and annual reporting of 

non-deviation elements is required to be 

submitted in hard copy, as discussed 

under Types of reports in section VI.B.7 

of this preamble. We are proposing, 

under 40 CFR 65.884, that you submit 

certain reports at varying times, based 

on the activity being reported, including 

a notification of the performance test, 

any application to substitute a prior 

performance test for an initial 

performance test, a CEMS performance 

evaluation notification or CPMS 

monitoring plan submittal, a batch precompliance report and certain 

information, if you chose to use a 

control device other than those listed in 

this subpart. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9. When must I comply with the 

proposed standards? 

We are not proposing to specify a 

compliance timeline in subpart M, so 

the compliance timeline specified in the 

referencing subpart would apply for that 

source category. 

B. Rationale 

This section provides rationale for the 

proposed compliance requirements for 

vent streams that are routed to fuel gas 

systems or through closed vent systems 

to control devices. Rationale for the 

associated monitoring, performance 

testing, reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements is also included. 

In keeping with our intent to provide 

a smarter, streamlined process for 

rulemaking and ensure consistent 

standards across multiple source 

categories, we have structured the 

National Uniform Emission Standards 

for Control Devices to provide a 

common set of monitoring, testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that may be referenced 

from multiple regulations, including 

NSPS and NESHAP. The proposed 

Uniform Standards in 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M are generally based on a 

review of the Generic MACT standards 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. 

Additionally, we reviewed other recent 

rules, the applicability determination 

index database, test reports and recent 

EPA decisions to identify advances in 

control technologies, monitoring and 

compliance approaches. This is in 

keeping with our intent that the 

proposed National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Control Devices would 

provide a set of supporting requirements 

that could be considered in future 

rulemakings under CAA section 111 and 

112 to meet the applicable statutory 

requirements. 

The requirements for 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS were chosen as the best 

starting point for these proposed 

standards because they were previously 

developed for the purpose of providing 

consistent control device requirements 

that could be referenced by multiple 

NESHAP subparts, and they already 

incorporate some improvements based 

on the EPA’s experience with 

implementation of other subparts, such 

as the MON (71 FR 40333, issued on 

July 14, 2006) and the HON (59 FR 

19402, issued on April 22, 1994). We 

have augmented the subpart SS 

provisions by adding requirements from 

other subparts to provide additional 

continuous monitoring options, to better 

accommodate batch processes and to 

provide requirements for additional 

regulated materials (e.g., metals, PM) 

and types of control devices (e.g., fabric 

filters, sorbent injection) not covered by 

subpart SS. 

We have developed the Uniform 

Standards for Control Devices to create 

a set of requirements that will ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

standards established under a 

referencing subpart. In developing the 

proposed requirements, we had the 

opportunity to review typical 

compliance methods for control devices 

controlling vent streams from 

regulations representing a variety of 

source categories. From this review, we 

considered the variation in 

requirements between rules and 

identified the most effective 

requirements for each control device. As 

such, we are proposing subpart M with 

more stringent requirements than may 

currently apply to some source 

categories; however, this stringency can 

always be overridden by the referencing 

subpart if deemed appropriate for the 

particular source category. These more 

stringent requirements reflect our 

intention to provide a consistent set of 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements that reflect the 

most current control technologies and 

that are accessible and applicable for the 

majority of source categories complying 

with MACT and that would potentially 

reference the Uniform Standards to meet 

MACT. These consistent standards, if 

promulgated, will reduce the current 

overlapping and inconsistent provisions 

from multiple NSPS and NESHAP that 

may apply to a single source into a 

single set of requirements, thereby 

reducing the compliance burden for 

sources and government alike. 

Providing this common set of 

requirements also circumvents any 

undue burden on a single source 

category (for instance, source categories 

currently subject to multiple 

regulations). Furthermore, this approach 

would reduce the number of requests for 

alternative monitoring requirements, 

which are frequently made by sources 

required to comply with multiple 

NESHAP and NSPS. The proposed 

Uniform Standards for Control Devices 

also provide some additional 

requirements in places that we 

discovered, through our regulatory 

survey, were not adequately addressed 

by current regulations (e.g., we have 

included provisions for regenerative 

carbon absorbers that specify how the 

source should handle desorbed 

contaminants). We note that the 

referencing subpart establishes the 

applicability of the Uniform Standards 

for Control Devices and the specific 

provisions of subpart M that may apply; 

therefore, a referencing subpart may 

structure more or less stringent 

requirements for a given source category 

as is best determined to meet MACT, 

GACT, AMOS or BSER. (See 

Relationship to Referencing Subpart 

below.) 

In keeping with the objectives of 

Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, we 

have also incorporated changes to 

simplify and streamline the language, 

improve consistency, incorporate the 

latest technical requirements and 

remove unnecessary regulatory burden 

to create the National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Control Devices. We 

believe that these improvements will 

result in a consistent, yet flexible set of 

standards that may be easily referenced 

by multiple source categories in CAA 

section 111 and 112 rulemakings, 

resulting in a more efficient regulatory 

process that will benefit both regulated 

entities and government agencies. 

Throughout this section, we will 

describe the rationale for each major 

proposed change from the previous 

rules. 

Relationship to Referencing Subpart. 

In contrast to the Uniform Standards for 

Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations 

and the Uniform Standards for 

Equipment Leaks, the proposed subpart 

M does not establish applicability 

thresholds or control levels that may be 

relied upon by a referencing subpart. 

Rather, subpart M requires that the 

referencing subpart establish all 

applicability, including thresholds or 

tiers. We have developed subpart M 

without these types of thresholds 

because there is a greater variety of 

emission streams expected to be 

controlled under subpart M. Storage 

tanks and equipment leaks are generally 

controlled on a unit level, with a 

standard configuration, and the 

emissions mechanism by which 

pollutants are released to the 

atmosphere from these emission points 

is generally limited. In general, these 

emissions points are single points that, 

individually, do not represent large 

emission sources, and that all behave 

similarly. Therefore, control of 

emissions from these points has 

historically been homogenous with 

applicability thresholds and control 

levels that are easily set; storage tanks, 

for instance, have historically been 

controlled using preventative 

maintenance practices, while emissions 

from equipment leaks have been 

historically controlled by LDAR 

requirements. 

Conversely, subpart M provides 

requirements for control devices that 

may control a variety of emission 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17951 

streams with various configurations, 

flow and concentrations. It is possible 

for multiple process streams throughout 

a facility to be joined with and directed 

to a single control device in numerous 

configurations, combining emissions in 

one stream for control of a very large 

emission source. Furthermore, the 

number of vents to a control device may 

vary greatly across source categories; 

some source categories may reflect a 

standard configuration in which the 

process streams require multiple control 

devices; other source categories may 

reflect a standard configuration in 

which a single process stream requires 

control. Because of the many 

configurations that exist for individual 

facilities across multiple source 

categories, the emissions mechanism for 

process streams routed to control 

devices may vary greatly. Therefore, we 

have determined that the referencing 

subpart is the best place to determine 

the applicability threshold or control 

level for a specific source category, as 

the referencing subpart may consider 

the unique configurations, flow and 

concentration of regulated material 

within a given process stream or 

streams. 

The Uniform Standards for Control 

Devices assume that the referencing 

subpart will establish and provide the 

rationale for the specific emission limits 

that best support the source category 

being regulated. The referencing subpart 

would address and assign applicability 

thresholds or control levels for any 

provisions of the Uniform Standards not 

cross-referenced by the referencing 

subpart. The referencing subpart could 

cross-reference or make exceptions, as 

necessary, to ensure that the proposed 

requirements of subpart M are 

appropriate to the source category. For 

instance, a referencing subpart with 

multiple applicability thresholds may 

only direct to a portion of subpart M for 

sources meeting one of those thresholds. 

Additionally, the referencing subpart 

could determine to not direct to subpart 

M at all for certain applicability 

thresholds. For example, a referencing 

subpart may only require CEMS for 

streams above a defined threshold. 

Organization of Proposed Subpart M. 

The proposed rule is structured so that 

the compliance requirements for each 

control device are provided in separate 

sections. Each control device section 

includes the specific requirements for 

that control device, including 

monitoring, performance testing, 

conducting a design evaluation, and 

recordkeeping and reporting. Specific 

continuous monitoring requirements for 

control devices are provided in Tables 

1 and 2 of subpart M. We have 

organized the standards this way to 

facilitate ease of reading and 

understanding, to congregate 

requirements for similar control devices 

in one place and to remove redundant 

text. For example, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS includes a general section for 

performance testing procedures 

containing a specific requirement 

regarding the selection of sampling sites 

for vent streams introduced with 

combustion air or as a secondary fuel 

into certain types of boilers or process 

heaters. We have moved these 

requirements, specific only to small 

boilers and process heaters, to a small 

boiler and process heater section, which 

is located in proposed 40 CFR 65.724. 

Additionally, although subpart SS 

includes a separate section of 

requirements for halogenated scrubbers, 

we have consolidated these provisions 

with the requirements for absorbers. We 

reasoned that a halogenated scrubber is 

a specific type of absorber, and the 

previous requirements overlapped; 

combining these requirements reduces 

redundancy and allows for a 

streamlined compliance approach. 

Because the proposed standards 

contain general monitoring and 

performance testing requirements that 

would be applicable to more than one 

type of control device, we have 

included separate sections for general 

monitoring requirements and 

performance testing requirements to 

reduce redundancy across rule sections. 

We additionally congregated the 

requirements for the correct operation of 

CEMS and CPMS, as well as 

requirements for establishing the 

operating parameters for each CPMS, 

into individual sections. In addition to 

the specific control device section that 

applies to you, you would comply with 

these proposed general monitoring 

requirements, located in 40 CFR 65.710 

through 65.712. Likewise, you would 

comply with the proposed general 

performance testing requirements in 40 

CFR 65.820 through 65.829, which 

include detailed provisions on the 

methods required for testing. We have 

also designated a section for general 

requirements for performing design 

evaluations. It is our intent that the 

proposed standards of subpart M, as 

organized, will have improved clarity 

and consistency, which will facilitate 

both reading and compliance as the 

standards are referenced in future 

rulemakings. 

General differences between proposed 

40 CFR part 65, subpart M and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SS. Although the 

requirements of subpart M are primarily 

based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we 

revised some of the terminology used in 

subpart SS to provide clarification and 

accommodate the broad range of source 

categories and control devices that 

could be covered by the proposed 

standards in the future. The National 

Uniform Emission Standards for Control 

Devices are intended to provide a 

common set of testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that may be referenced 

from multiple regulations, including 

NSPS and NESHAP. Therefore, subparts 

referencing subpart M may define a 

range of pollutants and pollutant types 

(e.g., HAP, criteria pollutants). To 

accommodate the variety of pollutants 

and pollutant types that may be 

regulated under future NSPS and 

NESHAP, we have used the term 

‘‘regulated material’’ to mean the 

pollutant regulated by the referencing 

subpart. We have also used the term 

‘‘oxidizer’’ in lieu of ‘‘incinerator’’ to 

refer to control devices such as thermal 

and catalytic oxidizers in order to 

differentiate these devices from other 

regulated incineration units. 

We revised some provisions included 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS that are 

redundant or unclear, including the 

‘‘route to process’’ provisions. Subpart 

SS includes an option to route regulated 

material emissions from non-process 

operations (i.e., storage tanks, transfer 

equipment and equipment leaks) to a 

process for control. The monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting language 

from subpart SS for this option is not 

included in proposed subpart M, as 

these requirements add unnecessary 

regulatory burden. The proposed 

Uniform Standards are consistent with 

the intent of subpart SS, in that owners 

and operators will continue to have the 

flexibility to route vent streams, as 

necessary, to control releases. However, 

these emission streams will not be 

subject to additional monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting if they are 

simply integrated into the process. We 

have assumed that vent streams that are 

routed to a process would be eventually 

released to the atmosphere through a 

regulated emissions point (e.g., process 

operation, wastewater stream, 

equipment leak, etc.) or incorporated 

into a product or byproduct. Therefore, 

these requirements were unclear and 

unnecessary for the purposes of subpart 

M. We are soliciting comments on this 

change, including comment on the 

assumptions presented in this section. 

We are also requesting comments on 

whether some vent streams routed to the 

process are not released to the 

atmosphere through a regulated 

emissions point. 

The proposed subpart M does not 

contain requirements for flares. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed subparts I and J refer to 40 

CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for emissions 

routed to flares from storage tanks, 

transfer operations, and leaking 

equipment. It is anticipated that for 

process vents controlled by flares, a 

referencing subpart will reference either 

40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A or include 

other provisions that are determined to 

be applicable for flares used at the 

source category regulated by the 

referencing subpart. However, we are in 

the process of gathering data, reviewing 

flare research papers and test reports, 

and investigating operating conditions 

that may impact the performance of a 

flare, including situations of over 

steaming, excess aeration, flame lift off, 

and high winds. Based on this 

information, we may in the future 

propose to add new flare requirements 

to the Uniform Standards in subpart M, 

which can be referenced by subparts I 

and J and referencing subparts. 

1. How did the EPA determine the 

general monitoring requirements and 

the requirements for CEMS and CPMS? 

The general monitoring requirements 

that we are proposing are modeled after 

specific requirements from 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS, which were based on 

monitoring and inspection requirements 

previously developed by the EPA for 

use in implementing standards for 

various chemical industry sources. We 

are supplementing these requirements 

by proposing continuous monitoring 

through the installation and operation of 

either a CEMS or a CPMS. CEMS have 

been widely used to demonstrate that 

air pollution control devices are being 

operated in a manner that ensures that 

emission limitations are being met, and 

recent regulations reflect the increasing 

use of CEMS as a monitoring device 

across multiple source categories. 

However, in evaluating the use of CEMS 

in multiple NESHAP, we determined 

that monitoring of individual regulated 

materials may not be reasonable or 

technically feasible for certain streams. 

For instance, CEMS may not be 

available for certain individual HAP 

species, or may not be economically 

feasible for smaller sources. In such 

cases, parameter monitoring provides an 

alternative option that ensures the 

control device is operating consistently 

and continues to achieve the required 

emission limits. This also provides a 

more cost-efficient option for some 

sources, without reducing compliance. 

Therefore, in order to create a set of 

standards that could be applied to a 

broader range of source categories, we 

have included requirements for both 

CEMS and CPMS. During the 

development of referencing subparts 

that will direct to the Uniform 

Standards, we will continue to assess 

the best monitoring option for a given 

source category from a technical and 

economic standpoint. We will provide 

rationale upon proposal or 

promulgation as to why CEMS or CPMS 

would be more appropriate for an 

individual source category, or whether 

additional flexibility for industry and 

reduced burden on smaller sources 

within an individual source category 

could be granted by allowing either a 

CEMS or CPMS to be used. We 

anticipate that in future regulations, the 

referencing subpart may even override 

the monitoring options of the proposed 

subpart M and require a specific 

monitoring technique. 

We have incorporated and updated 

the CEMS requirements established in 

the MON, which were developed in 

consideration of a combination of 

monitoring requirements from the HON 

and Pharmaceuticals Production source 

categories. We have supplemented these 

requirements with provisions based on 

the CEMS-specific requirements of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart A. These 

provisions are consolidated under 

proposed 40 CFR 65.711 in order to 

establish a set of similar requirements 

for CEMS in one place that may more 

generally apply to sources regulated 

under 40 CFR part 60, 61 or 63 in future 

rulemakings. 

For CPMS, we selected monitoring 

equipment criteria for overall system 

accuracy and compatibility. These 

requirements, which ensure accuracy in 

measurements and provide confidence 

for testing results, were inconsistently 

provided in previous regulations. When 

these criteria are not established, there 

is potential that sources could elect to 

use very costly CPMS equipment, which 

is inappropriate or ineffective for 

measuring certain parameters and, 

therefore, provides inadequate data for 

the source category. By applying a 

consistent set of criteria that applies to 

multiple source categories, we are 

improving data accuracy, reducing 

potential costs and removing undue 

burden for specific source categories. 

We are requesting comment on whether 

the proposed approach for establishing 

CEMS calibration ranges and assessing 

performance will adequately ensure the 

accuracy of the reported average 

emissions that might include 

measurements at concentrations above 

the span value. We are also seeking 

comments on how owners and operators 

of CPMS are currently employing 

quality control and calibration methods. 

Additionally, we welcome information 

on the lifetime and degradation of 

CPMS equipment used to measure 

temperature, liquid or gas volumetric 

flow, pH, mass flow, pressure and 

sorbent injection; and whether a ‘‘sunset 

period’’ for existing CPMS equipment is 

necessary in cases where the lifetime of 

the monitoring components is limited. 

The requirements for measurement 

range were selected to ensure that the 

CPMS could detect and record 

measurements beyond the normal 

operating range. We believe that 

requiring a range of at least 20 percent 

beyond the normal operating range is 

reasonable and the minimum 

measurement range needed to 

encompass most deviations. Owners 

and operators may desire to select 

equipment with even wider ranges if it 

is likely that measurements beyond 20 

percent of the normal operating range 

will occur. Additionally, we are 

requiring a resolution of one-half the 

accuracy requirement or better to ensure 

that the accuracy of the CPMS can be 

calculated to at least the minimum 

number of significant figures for the 

data accuracy assessment to be 

meaningful. Selecting a resolution of 

one-half the required accuracy ensures 

that measurements made during 

validation checks can be readily 

compared to the accuracy requirement. 

We are soliciting comments on whether 

the proposed measurement range and 

accuracy requirements are reasonable 

and consistent with what is currently 

being used. 

We are proposing calibration and 

quality control requirements for CPMS 

to ensure that measured parameter data 

is accurate to demonstrate compliance 

with the referencing subpart. These 

measures, which establish requirements 

for the design, operation and evaluation 

of CPMS, are intended to ensure the 

generation of good quality data both 

initially and on an ongoing basis and 

determine that the control device is 

meeting the required emission limit, as 

specified in the referencing subpart. The 

specifications are located in Table 4 to 

proposed subpart M and would apply if 

you were to use a temperature, liquid or 

gas volumetric flow, pH, mass flow, 

pressure or sorbent injection 

measurement device to determine 

compliance with an operating limit. 

These requirements also reflect the 

EPA’s intention to improve the quality 

of data collected and disseminated by 

the agency, which will improve the 

quality of emission inventories and, as 

a result, future air quality regulations. 

For temperature CPMS, we reviewed 

rules promulgated under parts 60, 61 

and 63 that specify accuracy 

requirements for temperature. Although 

there is a wide range of accuracies 

specified in these rules, the accuracy 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17953 

required for temperature CPMS 

associated with high temperature (noncryogenic) applications, such as thermal 

oxidizers or boilers, generally ranges 

from 0.75 to 1.0 percent or from 0.5 

degrees Celsius to 2.5 degrees Celsius 

(0.9 degrees Fahrenheit to 4.5 degrees 

Fahrenheit). For lower temperature 

(cryogenic) applications, such as wet 

scrubbers, the specified percent 

accuracies often are not as stringent; 

that is, accuracies are specified as a 

higher percentage of the measured 

temperature. The reason for specifying 

higher-percentage accuracy for lower 

temperature ranges is to offset the fact 

that the accuracy percentage applies to 

a lower value. Our selection of 

temperature accuracies of 2.8 degrees 

Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) or 1 

percent for non-cryogenic applications, 

and 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees 

Fahrenheit) or 2.5 percent for cryogenic 

applications is consistent with the 

required accuracies for most standards, 

and we believe that the accuracies 

specified in the proposed performance 

specifications are adequate for ensuring 

good quality data. In addition, a review 

of vendor literature indicates that 

temperature CPMS that satisfy these 

accuracy requirements are readily 

available at reasonable costs. 

Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61 

and 63 that require flow rate monitoring 

specify flow rate accuracy in terms of 

percent. For liquid flow rate 

measurement, these rules generally 

require accuracies of 5 percent, and 

rules that require steam flow rate 

monitoring generally require an 

accuracy of 10 percent or better. We 

have revised these performance 

specifications in the proposed subpart 

M to require accuracies of 2 percent 

over the normal range of flow measured. 

Based on our review of vendor 

literature, we determined a 2-percent 

accuracy criterion is appropriate and 

available. Recognizing the differences in 

the relative magnitudes and the 

commonly used units of flow rate 

measurement for liquids and gases, we 

have specified in the proposed 

performance standards separate 

accuracy criteria for liquid and gas flow 

rates. For liquid flow rate CPMS, which 

typically are associated with wet 

scrubber operation, the minimum 

accuracy would be 1.9 liters per minute 

(0.5 gallons per minute) or 2 percent, 

whichever is greater. For gas flow rate 

CPMS, which often are used to monitor 

stack gas flow rate, the proposed 

performance specifications would 

require a minimum accuracy of 28 liters 

per minute (10 cubic feet/minute) or 2 

percent, whichever is greater. The 

relative accuracy criterion of 2 percent 

was selected because the proposed 

Uniform Standards have been 

developed to provide the greatest level 

of air emissions control that may be 

required by a referencing subpart. As 

advancements in technology have 

improved (and are estimated to continue 

to improve), we have determined that 

future rulemakings would require more 

stringent accuracy requirements, and a 

2-percent accuracy criterion is 

reasonable and achievable for the 

currently available flow CPMS. We note 

that these requirements could be revised 

by the referencing subpart, if a higher or 

lower accuracy is deemed more 

appropriate for a specific source 

category. 

Although we have incorporated an 

accuracy criteria for liquid flow rate and 

gas flow rate as a percent of flow rate 

and in units of volumetric flow in 

proposed subpart M, we have concluded 

that it would not be reasonable to 

specify accuracy criteria for mass flow 

in units of mass flow because of the 

wide range of flow rates that could be 

monitored (e.g., carbon injection rate v. 

rotary kiln raw material feed rate). As 

discussed above for liquid flow rate and 

gas flow rate, the 2-percent accuracy 

criterion is based on our review of 

vendor literature and is a reasonable 

and achievable requirement for the 

currently available mass flow CPMS. 

Manufacturer and vendor literature 

indicates that pH CPMS generally have 

accuracies of 0.01 to 0.15 pH units. 

Based largely on the vendor literature, 

we have decided to require pH CPMS to 

have accuracies of 0.2 pH units or 

better. An accuracy of 0.2 pH units 

should allow most facilities that 

currently monitor pH to continue using 

their pH CPMS, provided the CPMS 

satisfies the other criteria specified in 

the proposed Uniform Standards for 

Control Devices. 

For pressure monitoring, we reviewed 

the existing part 60, 61 and 63 rules that 

require pressure monitoring. These rules 

also specify a minimum accuracy. The 

accuracy specified generally is either 

0.25 to 0.5 kilopascals (kPa) (1 to 2 inch 

water column (in. wc)) or 5 percent for 

pressure drop, and 5 to 15 percent for 

liquid supply pressure. A review of 

vendor literature indicates that most 

pressure transducers are accurate from 

0.25 to 1.0 percent, and all but the 

lowest grade (Grade D) of American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)- 

rated pressure gauges have accuracies 

better than 5 percent. For the proposed 

performance specifications for CPMS, 

we selected an accuracy requirement of 

0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc) or 1.0 percent, 

whichever is greater. We believe this 

level of accuracy is appropriate, 

considering that some control devices 

operate with pressure drops of less than 

1.2 kPa (5 in. wc). This criterion was 

selected because the proposed Uniform 

Standards have been developed to 

provide the greatest level of air 

emissions control that may be required 

by a referencing subpart. The one 

percent criterion is consistent with 

vendor literature, which indicates that 

CPMS that are capable of achieving this 

accuracy are readily available. 

For sorbent injection, we are 

specifying accuracy requirements of 

within 5 percent of the normal range for 

the sorbent injection rate, with annual 

performance evaluations and 3-month 

visual checks. These requirements are 

consistent with the accuracy 

requirements for other CPMS, including 

the requirements for carrier gas flow rate 

monitors (a similar type of monitor) in 

the Standards of Performance for New 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units (76 

FR 15404, March 21, 2011). 

If your operation could be 

intermittent, we are requiring that you 

install and operate a flow indicator to 

identify periods of flow and no flow at 

the inlet or outlet of the control device. 

The proposed requirements are 

necessary to identify periods when 

monitored parameter or emission 

readings are not required or erroneous 

and should not be included in the daily 

or operating block average values. It is 

not necessary to monitor a control 

device during periods when regulated 

material is not routed to the control, and 

monitoring data during these times 

should not be averaged in calculating 

the daily or operating block average. We 

are proposing an annual verification 

check of the flow indicator to ensure 

that it is correctly identifying periods of 

no flow. We are not considering the 

flow indicator to be a CPMS that must 

meet all the provisions of proposed 40 

CFR 65.712. 

We are proposing to include 

monitoring requirements from the 

General Provisions of parts 60, 61 and 

63 in the monitoring sections of subpart 

M. This places all the applicable 

requirements associated with 

monitoring (including quality checks, 

monitoring plan requirements, 

calibration, monitoring data reduction, 

recordkeeping and reporting) in one 

place and consolidated using consistent 

terminology. For instance, we are 

including provisions for a CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan and a CPMS monitoring plan 

(formerly the ‘‘site-specific performance 

evaluation plan’’) from the part 63 

General Provisions (40 CFR 63.8) in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.711 and 65.712, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

respectively. Subpart A of 40 CFR part 

63 states that a specific subpart will 

indicate whether the plan must be 

submitted to the Administrator for 

approval. In the proposed rule, we are 

requiring that the plan be sent to the 

Administrator for approval for sources 

regulated under parts 60 and 61, as well 

as 40 CFR part 63. We have determined 

that a CEMS performance evaluation 

and monitoring plan or a CPMS 

monitoring plan, as appropriate, is 

necessary under subpart M to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits of a referencing subpart. 

However, the source must comply with 

the CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan or the CPMS 

monitoring plan upon submitting it to 

the Administrator. Changes may be 

necessary when the Administrator 

completes the review. 

2. How did the EPA determine the 

requirements for closed vent systems? 

Under the proposed standards, all 

closed vent systems would be required 

to meet the applicable provisions of 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J (see 

section IV.A of this preamble) as they 

apply to the individual equipment 

components that comprise the closed 

vent system. In previous rules, 

equipment that are in closed vent 

systems have been subject to annual 

monitoring and have not been subject to 

more frequent monitoring. We are 

proposing these requirements to ensure 

that a vent stream in regulated material 

service is properly routed to the closed 

vent system and delivered to the control 

device for reduction. The proposed rule 

also requires you to install and maintain 

a CPMS for flow through a bypass for 

each closed vent system bypass line that 

could divert a vent stream to the 

atmosphere. The CPMS for flow must be 

capable of recording the volume of the 

gas that bypasses the control device and 

be equipped with an alarm system that 

will alert an operator immediately and 

automatically when flow is detected in 

the bypass. These provisions are to 

ensure that any flow directed through a 

bypass is detected and identified by the 

operator. Alternatively, you may secure 

the bypass line valve in the nondiverting position with a seal 

mechanism. For this option, you would 

be required to inspect the seal or closure 

mechanism at least once per month to 

confirm that the valve is in the nondiverting position, or, for a lock-and-key 

type lock, maintain records that the key 

has been checked out. If the alarm 

sounds or if it is determined during the 

monthly inspection that a bypass has 

occurred, you would be required to 

report a deviation and to include an 

estimate of the resulting emissions of 

regulated material that bypassed the 

control device. The EPA’s intent is that 

control devices are not to be bypassed; 

therefore, use of the bypass at any time 

to divert a regulated vent stream to the 

atmosphere would be a deviation from 

the emissions standards set forth by the 

referencing subpart. 

We have not included requirements 

from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS that 

provided monitoring exclusions for 

equipment such as PRD, low leg drains, 

high point bleeds, analyzer vents and 

open-ended valves or lines needed for 

safety purposes. This equipment could 

provide a means of bypassing the 

control device; therefore, we are 

proposing bypass monitoring for these 

devices under subpart M of the 

proposed standards. It is our intent that 

analyzer vents should be subject to the 

control requirements for sampling 

connection systems in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UU. Additionally, applying the 

bypass monitoring requirements to PRD, 

low leg drains, high point bleeds, 

analyzer vents and open-ended valves 

or lines are consistent with the District 

of Columbia Circuit Court’s 2008 ruling 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, which states that 

emission standards must apply at all 

times (see section VI.B.5 of this 

preamble). For a discussion of the 

economic and cost impacts of these 

monitoring requirements, see section VII 

of this preamble. 

Following the guidance of Executive 

Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, we have not 

included requirements from 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS that we determined were 

redundant or an unnecessary burden on 

sources. For instance, although we are 

not changing the intent of the 

requirements from subpart SS, we have 

not included language providing 

specific instructions for bypass 

monitoring for loading arms and PRD at 

transfer racks; specifically, these 

provisions required that closed vent 

systems collecting regulated material 

from a transfer rack be operated such 

that regulated material vapors collected 

at one loading arm would not pass 

through another loading arm to the 

atmosphere. For PRD, the requirements 

prevented the PRD in the transfer rack’s 

closed vent system from opening to the 

atmosphere during loading. These 

provisions are equivalently handled 

under the general bypass monitoring 

requirements of proposed 40 CFR 

65.720(c) for closed vent systems, in 

which you would be required to prevent 

diversion of the stream to the 

atmosphere. Therefore, we are not 

including specific language associated 

with bypasses from transfer rack closed 

vent systems, as this additional 

language is redundant to the general 

bypass requirement. The requirement 

not to bypass remains. 

3. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed compliance requirements for 

each control device? 

For each control device, we are 

proposing that you meet the continuous 

monitoring requirements of Table 1 or 

Table 2 to subpart M. Table 1 to subpart 

M provides the requirements for 

facilities who comply with the 

referencing subpart using CEMS. We 

have consolidated the specific 

parametric monitoring requirements for 

each control device in Table 2 to 

subpart M to provide the requirements 

in a simplified, easily referenced format 

to facilitate compliance. 

You must conduct a performance test 

for each control device according to the 

requirements of proposed 40 CFR 

65.820 through 65.829, unless you meet 

the general control measures of 

proposed 40 CFR 65.702(e). A 

performance test is required because 

emissions measurement remains the 

best method to demonstrate initial 

compliance with regulations and 

determine control device performance. 

However, we have made exceptions for: 

(1) Control devices for which a CEMS is 

used to monitor the performance, (2) 

when the referencing subpart allows a 

design evaluation in lieu of a 

performance test or (3) if certain 

provisions have been made for a 

performance test extension, exemption 

or waiver. These exemptions allow 

greater flexibility for referencing 

subparts and are consistent with our 

desire to provide workable, 

consolidated requirements that could 

apply across multiple source categories. 

Small boilers and process heaters. 

The proposed standards under subpart 

M include requirements that apply to 

small boilers and process heaters used 

to control emissions of regulated 

materials. Small boilers and process 

heaters are defined in the proposed rule 

as having a capacity less than 44 

megawatts (MW) and a design such that 

the vent stream is introduced with the 

combustion air or as a secondary fuel. 

The capacity threshold and the 

monitoring, performance testing and 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for these units were 

modeled after 40 CFR 63, subpart SS. 

We have modified these provisions for 

the proposed Uniform Standards to 

provide clarification for requirements 

that were found to be confusing during 

the implementation of subpart SS. 

Under subpart SS, the requirements for 

boilers and process heaters overlapped 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17955 

with the requirements for fuel gas 

systems. 

Fuel gas system is defined in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SS broadly as the 

‘‘* * * piping * * * that gathers 

gaseous streams for use as fuel gas in 

combustion devices. * * *’’ Therefore, 

owners or operators that use a boiler or 

process heater to combust vent gas 

could be subject to either the boiler and 

process heater or the fuel gas system 

requirements. The testing and 

monitoring requirements under the 

control device and fuel gas system 

provisions of subpart SS are the same 

for boilers or process heaters larger than 

44 MW or which have the vent gas 

introduced with or as the primary fuel; 

performance testing and monitoring are 

not required for vent gas routed to a fuel 

gas system, a boiler or process heater 

larger than 44 MW or a boiler or process 

heater in which the vent gas is 

introduced as or with the primary fuel. 

However, under the control device 

provisions of subpart SS, performance 

testing and monitoring is required in 

those situations in which the vent gas is 

introduced with combustion air or as a 

secondary fuel into a boiler or process 

heater smaller than 44 MW. Conversely, 

if these units (smaller than 44 MW) are 

part of a fuel gas system, monitoring and 

testing is not required under subpart SS. 

We propose to clarify the requirements 

by differentiating small boilers (less 

than 44 MW) with vent gas introduced 

to the boiler with combustion air or as 

a secondary fuel from larger units and 

those units with vent gas introduced as 

or with the primary fuel. Therefore, we 

have distinguished separate 

requirements for performance testing 

and monitoring for small boilers and 

process heaters under proposed 40 CFR 

65.820 through 65.829, with specific 

parametric monitoring requirements 

specified in Table 2 of subpart M. Units 

not considered small boilers or process 

heaters would be required to meet the 

requirements of proposed 40 CFR 

65.732 for fuel gas systems. The 

proposed fuel gas system provisions 

also specify that any small boilers or 

process heaters that are part of a fuel gas 

system must meet the requirements of 

the small boiler and process heater 

provisions. These changes clarify 

whether each unit would be subject to 

the requirements for boilers and process 

heaters or the requirements for fuel gas 

systems. 

Additionally, we are not 

incorporating the requirements of 40 

CFR 63.988(a)(3), which stipulate that 

the vent stream from the boiler or 

oxidizer must be introduced into the 

flame zone. Although we are preserving 

the intent of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 

we have reasoned that this language is 

superfluous. We are proposing to clarify 

the definition of small boilers in this 

category as having a design such that 

the vent stream is introduced with the 

combustion air or as a secondary fuel. 

It is assumed that secondary fuel and 

combustion air are introduced into the 

flame zone and, therefore, the vent gas 

would be introduced into the flame 

zone. 

In the proposed rule, we have not 

included the exemptions from 

conducting a performance test or design 

evaluation included in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS for small boilers and process 

heaters which have been issued a final 

permit under 40 CFR part 270 and 

comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 266, subpart H or which have 

certified compliance with the interim 

status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart H. It is our expectation that 

these facilities are no longer subject to 

the air emissions requirements under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act permitting rules (other 

than requirements that pertain during 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM)); rather, all boilers and oxidizers 

previously subject to these requirements 

are now subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE. We have included a 

performance test exemption for small 

boilers or process heaters burning 

hazardous waste who have certified 

compliance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE by conducting 

comprehensive performance tests and 

submitting a Notification of Compliance 

Status per 40 CFR 63.1207(j) and 

63.1210(d), and who comply with these 

requirements at all times, even when 

burning non-hazardous waste. 

Additionally, we have not included the 

subpart SS provision allowing owners 

or operators of small boilers and process 

heaters with a minimum temperature of 

760 degrees Celsius and a minimum 

residence time of 0.5 seconds to omit 

the rationale for these design parameters 

in the design evaluation (40 CFR 

63.985(b)(1)(i)(B)) documentation. This 

minimum temperature and residence 

time does not necessarily ensure a 95- 

or 98-percent reduction efficiency for all 

possible emission stream chemical 

compositions (see technical 

memorandum, Design Criteria for 

Combustion, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0868). Because the Uniform 

Standards are designed to provide 

requirements for a variety of source 

categories and emission streams, we are 

not proposing this exception to design 

evaluation rationale. Instead, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator of 

the small boiler or process heater be 

required to consider the auto-ignition 

temperature and the residence time 

when developing the rationale showing 

that their small boiler or process heater 

meets the applicable control efficiency 

and that their chosen operating 

parameters and ranges are appropriate. 

The owner or operator may determine 

that the appropriate temperature and 

residence time are 760 degrees Celsius 

and 0.5 seconds for their process; 

however, under the proposed rule, they 

would have to provide the rationale in 

their design evaluation documentation 

(see technical memorandum, Design 

Criteria for Combustion, in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0868). 

Oxidizers. We are proposing 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for oxidizers, 

based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. 

We are proposing the requirements for 

thermal oxidizers and catalytic 

oxidizers in 40 CFR 65.726 and 65.728, 

respectively; these provisions are 

included in separate sections for ease of 

reading and to accommodate the 

additional monitoring requirements that 

are necessary to ensure compliance for 

catalytic oxidizers. 

For catalytic oxidizers, we are 

including sampling, analysis and 

inspection requirements to ensure that 

the oxidizer is capable of meeting the 

required emission limits specified in the 

referencing subpart. We are including a 

monitoring method for inlet temperature 

monitoring, provided the difference 

between the inlet and outlet 

temperature of the catalytic bed is less 

than 10 degrees Celsius. A differential of 

10 degrees Celsius was chosen based 

upon the accuracy requirements of 

temperature monitoring systems 

specified in this standard, and the 

typical operating temperature of a 

catalytic oxidizer. Allowing for 

measurement error on both sides of the 

oxidizer (inlet and outlet), 10 degrees 

Celsius was determined to be a range 

within measurement capability. The 

proposed method would allow you to 

determine a schedule for sampling and 

analysis of the catalyst activity, based 

on the degradation rate of the catalyst. 

If results from the catalyst sampling and 

analysis indicate that your catalyst will 

become inactive within the next 18 

months, you would be required to 

replace the catalyst bed or take other 

corrective action consistent with the 

manufacturer’s recommendations by 3 

months before the catalyst is anticipated 

to become inactive or within half the 

time available between receiving the 

catalyst activity report and when the 

catalyst is expected to become inactive, 

whichever is less. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Additionally, you would be required 

to conduct an annual internal 

inspection of the catalyst bed. The 

inspection frequency would increase to 

semiannual or a more stringent 

frequency, as specified in proposed 40 

CFR 65.728(a)(2)(ii), if any issues are 

found during the annual inspection that 

require corrective action. These 

requirements are based on our survey of 

the MON and the Miscellaneous Metal 

Parts and Products Surface Coating 

NESHAP, which included similar 

alternatives for monitoring the inlet 

stream temperature. The MON provided 

an option for monitoring the inlet 

stream temperature with the 

requirement of a 12-month check of the 

catalyst bed; this option was provided to 

accommodate emissions streams with 

low flow or diluted concentrations in 

which it would not always be possible 

to achieve a measurable temperature 

differential. 

As determined under the MON, when 

monitoring only the inlet temperature, a 

catalyst-activity-level check also is 

needed. This is because catalyst beds 

can become poisoned and rendered 

ineffective without any apparent change 

in operation. The proposed sampling, 

analysis and inspection requirements 

discussed above are modeled after the 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

Surface Coating NESHAP, which 

expand on the MON’s requirement to 

conduct a 12-month check of the 

catalyst bed. We are providing the 

option to determine the schedule for 

sampling and analysis based on the 

degradation of the catalyst to provide 

flexibility for multiple source categories 

that may reference the Uniform 

Standards, while ensuring that catalyst 

beds are replaced or that other 

corrective actions are taken in a timely 

manner. A referencing subpart may 

determine the specific sampling and 

analysis schedule, in order to ensure 

compliance, prevent excessive 

downtime or avoid unreasonable costs 

to an individual source category. 

We have included this option in 

subpart M only for sources in which the 

temperature differential between the 

inlet and outlet of the catalytic oxidizer 

during normal operating conditions is 

less than 10 degrees Celsius. We are not 

proposing this option for sources with a 

temperature differential of greater than 

10 degrees Celsius because inlet and 

outlet temperature monitoring is a more 

accurate method of parameter 

monitoring and should be used, if 

possible, to measure the temperature 

differential. 

As discussed for small boilers and 

process heaters in this section, we have 

not included the design evaluation or 

performance test exemptions included 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for 

oxidizers that comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart H, but only those oxidizers 

burning hazardous waste who have 

certified compliance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE. Additionally, as discussed for 

small boilers and process heaters, we 

have not included the subpart SS 

provision allowing oxidizers with a 

minimum temperature and residence 

time to omit the rationale 

documentation for the design 

evaluation. 

Absorbers. In developing the 

proposed standards for absorbers, we 

have incorporated the monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS and added several monitoring 

options to accommodate the many 

absorber designs that may be used. 

Alternative monitoring approaches for 

absorbers have been the most commonly 

requested alternative by industry under 

current rules. Because of this, we have 

incorporated multiple monitoring 

schemes based upon the alternatives 

approved by the EPA, the different 

monitoring schemes in various chemical 

sector rules and support documents 

prepared by the EPA for the compliance 

assurance monitoring (CAM) regulation. 

(See Technical Guidance Document: 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring, 

August 1998, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html.) 

Furthermore, because halogenated 

scrubbers are a type of absorber and the 

monitoring requirements are the same, 

we have merged the requirements for 

halogen scrubbers into the proposed 

standards for absorbers to reduce 

redundant text. We believe that 

integrating these additional monitoring 

options into the proposed standards will 

reduce the need for owners and 

operators to request the use of 

alternative monitoring requirements and 

for the EPA to review these requests, 

thereby improving the efficiency of the 

regulatory process. This is consistent 

with the objectives of Executive Order 

13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, which requires that 

we periodically review existing 

regulations to examine ways to improve 

regulatory efficacy or reduce burden. 

We are proposing the installation and 

operation of either a CEMS or a CPMS, 

following the requirements in Tables 1 

or 2 of proposed subpart M. As 

discussed in the general monitoring 

requirements in section V.B.1 of this 

preamble, we have included provisions 

for both CPMS and CEMS to 

accommodate the variety of sources that 

may be controlled by a referencing 

subpart. 

The most critical parameter for 

monitoring absorption systems is liquid 

flow to the absorber, therefore we are 

requiring liquid flow be monitored for 

all absorption systems, but have 

provided an option for monitoring of the 

liquid-to-gas ratio. Rather than 

calculating one minimum flow rate at 

maximum operating conditions that 

must be continuously adhered to, this 

alternative provision allows a facility to 

optimize the liquid flow for varying gas 

flow rates. By using a liquid-to-gas ratio, 

sources may save resources by reducing 

the liquid rate with reductions in gas 

flow due to periods of lower production 

rates. 

Pressure drop is also a valuable 

operating parameter to monitor for 

absorbers. It can signal abnormal 

column conditions such as plugging, 

channeling or mal-distribution of the 

packing. We are proposing that you 

monitor the pressure drop for all 

absorbers as long as the normal pressure 

drop across the absorber is greater than 

5 inches of water. If the pressure drop 

is typically less than 5 inches of water, 

it is not a sensitive monitor for absorber 

performance. We have also included a 

requirement to monitor pH for acid gas 

absorbers. For non-water absorbers used 

for VOC control, we are proposing that 

the chemical strength and flow rate of 

the chemical must be monitored. 

Monitoring the oxidation strength and 

flow rate of the chemical will ensure 

that enough chemical is being added to 

the absorber to attain at least the 

required amount of absorption. For 

particulate and metal absorbers, if the 

pressure drop is normally less than 5 

inches of water, the owner or operator 

will have the choice of monitoring the 

inlet and outlet gas temperature; the 

specific gravity and outlet gas 

temperature; or the liquid feed pressure 

and outlet gas temperature. These 

monitoring parameters provide 

information on whether there has been 

sufficient contact between the liquid 

and gas. 

Similar choices were provided for 

VOC absorbers if the normal pressure 

drop across the absorbers is less than 5 

inches of water and the scrubbing liquid 

is water. The source would monitor the 

inlet and outlet gas temperatures, or the 

liquid feed pressure and outlet gas 

temperature. 

Adsorbers. We are proposing 

standards for adsorbers used as control 

devices, based on the provisions of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS. We have 

clarified language in the proposed 

adsorber requirements in order to 

develop a more inclusive set of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17957 

standards. Specifically, we have revised 

the former subpart SS requirements for 

‘‘carbon adsorbers’’ to apply to 

‘‘adsorbers,’’ and modified the 

applicability to pertain to adsorbers 

containing any type of adsorbent such 

as carbon, zeolite or adsorbing 

polymers. These proposed standards 

address many different adsorber 

configurations existing in service today, 

including carbon adsorbers; adsorbers 

that use adsorbing media other than 

carbon; adsorbers that use vacuum as a 

regeneration technique; adsorber 

systems that use steam or other media 

for regeneration; and adsorbers that are 

not regenerated on site. These changes 

allow the proposed requirements to be 

more broadly referenced in future CAA 

section 111 and 112 rulemakings and 

provides additional options for control 

for multiple source categories. 

Additionally, this change reduces the 

need for owners and operators to 

request the use of alternative adsorbents 

or monitoring methods and for the EPA 

to review these requests, thereby 

eliminating unnecessary regulatory 

burden to industry and improving the 

efficiency of the regulatory process. 

Many current regulations address 

carbon adsorber operation, and the 

proposed rule has been written to 

address performance issues that have 

been identified by the EPA in 

implementing and enforcing these rules. 

Known performance issues include: The 

regeneration frequency of the adsorbent; 

the effectiveness of regeneration; the life 

of the adsorbent material before 

replacement is required; mechanical 

issues with the system operation 

including valve sequencing; and for 

non-regenerative systems, the expected 

life of the bed before replacement. The 

proposed rule incorporates different 

monitoring requirements for adsorption 

systems based on our review of 40 CFR 

part 63, subparts G, SS, GGG, MMM, 

FFFF, GGGGG and BBBBBB, as well as 

monitoring approaches that have been 

outlined and approved by the EPA in 

monitoring alternative requests. 

We are proposing the use of CEMS or 

CPMS to ensure the adsorption system 

operates consistently; we have included 

parametric monitoring provisions in 

Table 2 of subpart M in order to 

accommodate systems where a CEMS is 

not used. Because there is no single 

parameter you can monitor to ensure 

that all operating aspects are 

functioning properly, the proposal 

combines several monitoring 

approaches, each of which addresses 

common adsorber system performance 

issues. These include: (1) Monitoring of 

the regeneration process, (2) 

establishing and adhering to a 

regeneration frequency, (3) daily 

verification of system operating 

parameters and (4) routine sampling of 

the vent stream. 

The regeneration process monitoring 

provisions for non-vacuum systems 

include regeneration stream flow and 

adsorber temperature. These are key 

parameters to ensure the adsorption bed 

is sufficiently desorbed at the start of an 

adsorption cycle, and have long been 

known to influence adsorption 

performance. We have added the 

requirement to establish and adhere to 

a pre-defined interval for regeneration 

frequency in order to prevent 

overloading the bed and possibly 

incurring breakthrough during the 

adsorption cycle before regeneration is 

initiated. We considered alternatives to 

a pre-defined interval that would take 

into account the organic loading on the 

bed, but determined that regeneration 

on a prescribed schedule provides 

greater assurance that there would be 

sufficient adsorptive capacity at all 

times. 

Regenerative adsorption processes are 

typically multiple bed systems with 

complicated valve and piping 

arrangements designed to handle the 

vent streams and desorption streams on 

a batch basis. Because the consistent 

operation of the valves in these systems 

is critical to performance, we have 

included requirements for daily 

verification of the adsorber valve 

sequencing and cycle time. This daily 

system check will ensure that the 

adsorber is operating with proper valve 

sequencing and cycle time. 

While adsorption systems can achieve 

high levels of efficiency for removal of 

organic compounds from vent streams, 

performance degrades over time as the 

adsorption media deteriorates or 

becomes fouled. Because of this known 

performance deterioration, and because 

there are many mechanical elements in 

the system which can cause 

performance problems, we are 

proposing weekly measurements of the 

adsorber bed outlet VOC or regulated 

material concentration over the last 5 

minutes of an adsorption cycle for each 

adsorber bed. These measurements are 

not meant to be a check against the 

emissions limit established by the 

referencing subpart; rather, it is a check 

to determine if the absorber 

performance is deteriorating and/or has 

deviated from typical operation. By 

conducting weekly checks, the owner or 

operator will establish knowledge of 

typical operating conditions, so that if 

performance does degrade, it will 

become clear based on changes in the 

weekly measurements. We are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

establish a maximum normal 

concentration to compare to the weekly 

measurements. If a measurement is 

obtained that is above the maximum 

normal concentration, a corrective 

action process must be initiated within 

8 hours. We are proposing that you must 

develop a corrective action plan that 

includes investigation of the adsorbent 

and its efficacy, the valve sequencing 

system and regeneration process, and 

additional monitoring, as well as sitespecific corrective actions appropriate 

to the system. This plan is not required 

to be submitted to the Administrator for 

approval, but is required to be kept as 

a record per the requirements of 

proposed 40 CFR 65.742(j)(1). 

Measurements for the weekly checks 

on each adsorber may be taken with a 

portable analyzer using Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7 for open 

ended lines, or using chromatographic 

analysis. Acceptable levels for end-ofcycle measurements, the maximum 

normal concentration will be 

established based on a statistical 

evaluation of the last 5 minutes of at 

least eight adsorption cycles for each 

adsorber. Because these measurements 

are taken in the last 5 minutes of the 

adsorption cycle, they indicate the 

worst-case emissions over the adsorber 

cycle. Therefore, they are not indicators 

of compliance with the emission limit, 

but instead are indications of nonnormal operation, which trigger a 

corrective action. An adsorber would 

not be considered to be in deviation 

unless three consecutive weekly 

measurements are taken that are above 

the maximum normal concentration; if 

the requirement to initiate corrective 

action within 8 hours is not met; or if 

a weekly measurement is not performed. 

See section VII of this preamble for a 

discussion of the economic and cost 

impacts of these requirements. 

Because the materials desorbed 

during the regeneration process are 

regulated materials and are either 

recovered or disposed of, we are 

proposing explicit requirements to treat 

the regulated materials extracted from a 

regenerative system as process 

wastewater or vent streams subject to 

control, as specified by the referencing 

subpart. 

Very few previously published rules 

have addressed adsorption systems, 

which are not regenerated onsite. 

Because there is wide application of 

non-regenerative adsorption systems, 

we are including provisions for these 

systems in the proposed rule. For 

clarity, we have differentiated the 

proposed requirements for absorbers 

generated onsite and the requirements 

for non-regenerative adsorbers or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

regenerative adsorbers that are 

regenerated offsite in separate sections. 

As a guideline for the proposed 

monitoring, we used the National 

Emission Standards for Site 

Remediation (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

GGGGG), as well as monitoring 

approaches approved by the EPA in 

alternative requests for monitoring and 

in enforcement actions to address 

historical compliance issues with nonregenerated adsorbers. We are proposing 

CEMS monitoring for the adsorber 

exhaust. Alternatively, we are proposing 

requirements for dual adsorbent beds in 

series and daily monitoring. We have 

prescribed a dual bed system because 

the use of a single bed does not ensure 

continuous compliance unless the bed 

is replaced significantly before 

breakthrough. A dual bed system will 

allow one bed to be saturated before it 

is replaced and, therefore, makes 

efficient use of the adsorber bed without 

exceeding the emission limits. Facilities 

utilizing non-regenerative adsorbers 

must typically replace the adsorber bed 

at the end of the absorbent life and 

already have a second bed onsite. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

these requirements would not impose a 

cost increase; it would only require a 

second adsorber bed to be purchased 

earlier than it would have under 

previous rules. In addition, once the 

second adsorber was purchased, the 

source would need to purchase and 

install canisters at the same rate they 

would have under previous rules. In 

fact, the source could likely reduce costs 

over time because the adsorber beds can 

be used to a greater saturation level 

without risking non-compliance. Under 

current rules that do not require a 

second bed, sources must replace the 

beds, based on temperature readings, 

the vendor’s bed life expectancy 

estimates or past history, and may 

replace the bed prematurely in order to 

avoid non-compliance. The burden of 

purchasing the initial additional 

adsorber bed, when compared to the 

large increase in compliance assurance, 

is small. 

Similar to regenerative adsorbers, in 

order to monitor performance 

deterioration, we are proposing 

measurements of VOC or regulated 

materials using a portable analyzer or 

chromatographic analysis for nonregenerative absorbers. We are 

proposing that these measurements be 

taken daily on the outlet of the first 

adsorber bed in series using a sample 

port. Furthermore, in order to relieve 

some monitoring burden, we have 

included the option to reduce the 

frequency of monitoring with the 

portable analyzer from daily to weekly 

or monthly. If you choose this option, 

you would first be required to establish 

an average adsorber bed life. For periods 

when more than 2 months remain on 

the bed life, monthly monitoring can be 

conducted, and when more than 2 

weeks remain on the bed life, weekly 

monitoring can be conducted. For a 

discussion of the economic and cost 

impacts of these monitoring 

requirements, see section VII of this 

preamble. 

Condensers. The proposed standards 

include requirements for condensers 

used as control devices, which are based 

on the standards of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. Subpart SS requires that 

‘‘exit (product side)’’ temperature be 

monitored; the proposed rule clarifies 

that the temperature of the ‘‘condensate 

receiver’’ be monitored. The proposed 

standards require a design evaluation be 

conducted on condensers instead of a 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance. The equilibrium 

calculation for condensers using the 

actual measured temperature and a 

thorough understanding of the stream 

composition is an accurate method for 

estimating emissions in the exiting gas 

stream from a condenser. A performance 

test for condensers generally does not 

provide additional information that 

equilibrium calculations would not 

provide. Furthermore, requiring a 

design evaluation will reduce overall 

costs for owners and operators who are 

referred to the Uniform Standards for 

Control Devices. However, a 

performance test could be required by 

the referencing subpart if it is 

determined to be more appropriate for a 

given source category. 

As part of the design evaluation, we 

are proposing that you use the 

engineering evaluation methodologies 

in 40 CFR 65.835(d) with the 

temperature of the condensate receiver 

to determine the outlet organic 

regulated material concentration. You 

would then be required to show the 

concentration meets the emission 

standard established in the referencing 

subpart, or to conduct additional 

calculations to demonstrate a percent 

reduction or aggregate percent reduction 

for batch process vents in a referencing 

subpart was being met. 

In the design evaluation for 

condensers, we have included a 

provision to consider conditions under 

which entrainment of the condensing 

liquid could occur, as well as the other 

operating conditions traditionally 

included in a condenser design 

evaluation, such as the vent stream flow 

rate, relative humidity and temperature. 

Entrainment is an important factor in 

condenser performance that should be 

considered in a design evaluation in 

order to document that the condenser 

achieves the required emission 

reduction from a referencing subpart. 

Biofilters. We are proposing standards 

for biofilters used as control devices in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.748. We are 

providing these requirements as an 

additional control option for the 

Uniform Standards for Control Devices 

in order to add flexibility for industry. 

Compliance requirements for biofilters 

were included in a final amendment to 

the MON (71 FR 40333, July 14, 2006) 

as a response to comment by 

commenters. The final amendments 

specified that biofilters are an option for 

complying with the 95-percent 

reduction emission limit for batch 

process operations. A biofilter control 

option was not made available for 

continuous process operations in the 

MON because of concerns that biofilters 

could not meet the 98-percent control 

efficiency standard for continuous 

process operations. We are proposing 

biofilters as a control option for both 

batch and continuous process 

operations if you can demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limitation 

or percent reduction required by the 

referencing subpart. We are proposing 

you install a CEMS capable of 

measuring regulated materials, or you 

may install a temperature CPMS for the 

biofilter bed. 

In biofiltration, microbial activity is 

the primary means by which the process 

stream is controlled; the effectiveness of 

the device is maximized by maintaining 

preferential conditions for the growth of 

appropriate microbes. Temperature is a 

significant factor affecting the growth 

and maintenance of healthy microbes 

within the bed—temperatures that are 

too high or too low will result in 

reduced microbe colonies and reduced 

performance for the bed. It is also a good 

indicator of the health of the microbes 

since healthy microbes will generate 

heat themselves. Therefore, we are 

requiring bed temperature monitoring to 

ensure that the biofilter can achieve and 

maintain the emission limits specified 

in the referencing subpart. For a 

discussion of the economic and cost 

impacts of these requirements, see 

section VII of this preamble. 

Given the concerns expressed in the 

preamble to the final MON rule 

regarding continuous process 

operations, we are also proposing 

requirements to monitor the moisture 

content of the biofilter bed and pressure 

drop through the biofilter bed to ensure 

that the biofilter can achieve the 

emission limit or percent reduction 

requirements of the referencing subpart. 

The moisture content of the biofilter bed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17959 

is another indicator of the health of 

microbes. Pressure drop through the 

biofilter bed is important to ensure the 

filter bed is not plugged. 

In lieu of these additional monitoring 

requirements, we are also considering 

requiring weekly measurements of VOC 

or regulated material at the outlet of 

each biofilter bed using a portable 

analyzer or chromatic analyzer to 

monitor performance deterioration, 

similar to those requirements proposed 

for adsorbers. We are soliciting 

comment, including the identification 

or submittal of information or data, as 

to whether biofilter bed temperature 

monitoring would be enough for 

continuous compliance demonstration. 

Additionally, we are soliciting 

comments and supporting data or 

studies that assess the effectiveness of 

measuring additional parameters to 

ensure performance and compliance. 

The MON does not allow a design 

evaluation to demonstrate compliance 

for biofilters; however, we have 

included provisions for a design 

evaluation if the referencing subpart 

allows one. A design evaluation for a 

biofilter may be adequate to 

demonstrate compliance for certain 

source categories; however, this will 

need to be considered on a source 

category-specific basis and justified in 

the referencing subpart rulemaking. 

Sorbent injection and collection 

systems. In order to provide additional 

control technologies that will expand 

the options for future rulemakings, we 

are proposing requirements for sorbent 

injection systems that remove pollutants 

from exhaust gas. Sorbent injection is an 

emissions control technique that was 

developed to reduce pollutants from 

exhaust gas, primarily from combustion 

sources. The sorbent injected into the 

gas stream may be activated carbon, 

lime or any other type of material 

injected into a gas stream for the 

purposes of capturing and removing 

regulated materials. 

Activated carbon is used in sorbent 

injection systems where control of 

mercury or dioxin and furan emissions 

is required. Lime or other sorbents may 

also be used in sorbent injection 

systems to remove acid gasses, such as 

hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid. 

Sorbent injection is used in conjunction 

with a filtration device designed to 

collect the sorbent after injection. 

As a basis for developing the 

proposed rule, we have adapted the 

requirements for sorbent injection 

systems that were included in the final 

rule for National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry (75 FR 54970, September 9, 

2010). This recent NESHAP determined 

monitoring and performance 

specification requirements for sorbent 

injection systems and carrier gas 

systems that reflect the latest technical 

developments for these control options. 

In addition, facilities complying with 

the proposed provisions for sorbent 

injection would also be required to meet 

the requirements for fabric filters in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.762. The Portland 

Cement NESHAP requires facilities to 

specify and use the brand and type of 

sorbent used during the performance 

test until a subsequent performance test 

is conducted. We are proposing that you 

would be required to test if you wanted 

to substitute a different brand or type of 

sorbent. Although the Portland Cement 

NESHAP allows an owner or operator to 

substitute different brands or types of 

sorbent without having to do a new 

performance test (provided that the 

replacement has equivalent or improved 

properties compared to the sorbent used 

in the previous performance test), we 

have modified the proposed standards 

to require a new performance test if the 

sorbent is replaced with a different 

brand and type of sorbent than was used 

in the most recent performance test. As 

we intend the Uniform Standards for 

Control Devices to be referenced in both 

NSPS and NESHAP rulemakings across 

multiple source categories, this change 

ensures that the control device will 

continue to meet the emission limits or 

percent reduction requirements of a 

referencing subpart when a change of 

sorbent occurs. A referencing subpart 

may override this retest requirement if 

it is determined in its rulemaking to be 

unnecessary for the source category 

being regulated. 

Provisions for a design evaluation for 

sorbent collection systems are proposed 

for this rule in the event that a 

referencing subpart allows a design 

evaluation to be conducted in lieu of a 

performance test. Because this is a 

relatively new control technology, there 

were no current rules that provided 

guidance for a design evaluation of a 

sorbent collection system. Therefore, we 

have developed the proposed 

requirements using recently published 

articles on activated carbon injection as 

a control technology. This research 

indicates that the parameters identified 

in proposed 40 CFR 65.760(d) provide 

the best evaluation of sorbent injection 

system performance. 

Other control or devices. We have 

incorporated requirements for 

performance testing and the 

development of monitoring 

requirements on a case-by-case basis in 

order to address control devices that 

may be used by industry, but are not 

described specifically in this rule. These 

requirements are unchanged from the 

current provisions of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. Additionally, if other major 

control devices are used in specific 

source categories as a primary means for 

control, the referencing subpart can lay 

out such requirements needed in order 

to demonstrate compliance. 

4. How did the EPA determine 

requirements for fuel gas systems? 

In consideration of our experience 

implementing previous rules addressing 

fuel gas systems as control devices, we 

are proposing updated standards that 

clarify the definition of fuel gas system 

and ensure that these systems are 

achieving good combustion and control. 

Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 

owners and operators are permitted to 

route vent streams from storage tanks, 

transfer equipment and equipment leaks 

to a fuel gas system as a method of 

control (this compliance option is not 

specifically provided for process 

operations). Fuel gas systems are 

considered a part of the process, 

therefore process vent streams that are 

routed to a fuel gas system are not 

considered vent streams requiring 

control because they are not released to 

the atmosphere. The proposed rule does 

not specifically state that this control 

option is only for equipment leaks, 

storage tanks and transfer operations 

emissions. It is not necessary to allow 

this option for only some of the 

emission unit types, given that the 

proposed Uniform Standards may be 

referenced in future NESHAP and NSPS 

for multiple source categories and 

industry types, and those rulemakings 

can determine whether to restrict the 

control options for specific types of 

emission units. 

As previously discussed for small 

boilers and process heaters in section 

V.B.3 of this preamble, small boilers or 

process heaters receiving vent streams 

subject to subpart M with a capacity less 

than 44 MW (in which the vent stream 

is introduced with combustion air or as 

a secondary fuel) would be subject to 

the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 

65.724, whether they are part of a fuel 

gas system or not. If your fuel gas 

system directs the vent stream to small 

boilers or process heaters, you would 

still be required to meet the 

performance testing and monitoring 

requirements for small boilers and 

process heaters. As discussed in section 

V.B.3 of this preamble, larger boilers 

and process heaters in which the vent 

gas stream is introduced with or as the 

primary fuel have been recognized as 

units that can be confidently assumed to 

achieve good combustion. There is not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the same confidence in the performance 

of small boilers and process heaters; 

therefore, we are proposing that the 

units be tested and continuously 

monitored. 

We expect, in most cases, the vent gas 

stream of fuel gas systems will be 

introduced as the primary fuel and/or 

will be routed to larger units. We want 

to continue to encourage the use of this 

otherwise waste gas. However, if small 

boilers and process heaters are attached 

to the fuel gas system, then you would 

be required to conduct performance 

testing and monitoring. We do not 

expect this scenario to be common. We 

also considered defining a fuel gas 

system such that the vent gas must be 

introduced with or as a primary fuel, 

but determined that this would reduce 

flexibility for sources. 

Under the proposed standards, all fuel 

gas systems that are in regulated 

material service must perform quarterly 

LDAR monitoring and would be 

required to meet the applicable 

provisions of proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart J (see section IV.A of this 

preamble) as they apply to the 

individual equipment components that 

comprise the fuel gas system. We are 

proposing these requirements to ensure 

that a vent stream in regulated material 

service is properly routed by the fuel gas 

system and delivered to the combustion 

device for destruction. We expect that 

most fuel gas systems meet the 

applicability of the LDAR requirements 

and are already conducting LDAR 

monitoring; therefore, these 

requirements are not expected to 

introduce a new or unnecessary 

regulatory burden for industry. 

The proposed standards revise the 

definition of fuel gas system to include 

the requirement that the fuel in the fuel 

gas system be nonhalogenated. It is 

common for chemical sector rules to 

include a prohibition on combustion of 

halogens and a requirement for 

hydrogen halides or halogen reduction 

after combustion. However, this 

requirement was not explicit for vent 

streams routed to a fuel gas system 

under previous rules, and it is not our 

intent to allow halogenated streams to 

be combusted without additional 

control. Because fuel from fuel gas 

systems can be used in any number of 

combustion sources, hydrogen halide 

and halogen reduction after combustion 

is less likely to be feasible. Additionally, 

because process vent streams could be 

routed to the fuel gas system and not be 

subject to the rule, yet could still 

contain significant amounts of halogens, 

we are proposing this definition change 

to ensure that HAP are not created 

through the combustion of a regulated 

material. 

5. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed requirements for fabric filters? 

We have incorporated requirements 

for fabric filters in subpart M with the 

intent to simplify future rulemakings 

that would refer to the Uniform 

Standards. The proposed monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements may be referenced by new 

or revised NSPS or NESHAP that would 

establish standards for PM or other 

regulated materials controlled by fabric 

filters and not previously covered by 

other consolidated rulemakings. As 

such, the consolidation of fabric filter 

requirements in subpart M facilitates 

more efficient rulemaking and ensures 

consistent standards for these control 

devices across multiple source 

categories. The monitoring, design 

evaluation and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for fabric filters 

were modeled after the Pesticide Active 

Ingredient Production NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart MMM, as referenced by 

the MON) and the final rule for National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry, published on 

September 9, 2010 (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LLL, 75 FR 54970). The 

proposed requirements include the 

installation of a bag leak detection 

system equipped with an alarm that will 

sound when an increase in relative PM 

emissions over a preset level is detected. 

The Portland Cement Manufacturing 

NESHAP required that the bag leak 

detection system be certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting 

PM emissions at concentrations of 10 

milligrams per actual cubic meter (mg/ 

acm) or less. Because we intend the 

proposed Uniform Standards to be 

applicable for the majority of source 

categories complying with MACT, we 

considered that there may be future 

rulemakings that need to specify lower 

PM emission limits and would require 

a lower allowable detection limit for the 

bag leak detectors. Based on vendor 

literature, modern bag leak detection 

systems are capable of detecting 

baseline emissions as low as 1 mg/acm 

(see, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–015, 

September 1997, incorporated by 

reference). Therefore, we are requiring 

that the bag leak detection system be 

certified at a detection level of 1 mg/ 

acm or less. This requirement may be 

overridden by a referencing subpart in 

future rulemakings, as appropriate, 

based on the specific needs of the 

source category. 

We have also added a provision 

previously included in the Major Source 

Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 

NESHAP (76 FR 15608, March 21, 

2011), requiring that the bag leak 

detection system must be operated and 

maintained such that the alarm does not 

sound more than 5 percent of the 

operating time during a 6-month period. 

We are requiring records of the total 

alarm time and corrective actions taken 

following an alarm sounding for 

demonstration of compliance. These 

requirements are operation and 

maintenance requirements that could be 

adopted in future rulemakings to ensure 

that the fabric filter is being operated at 

the conditions for which the control 

device is meeting the emission limit 

specified in the referencing subpart. 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

requires that you conduct a performance 

test on your fabric filter, but provisions 

have been included for those situations 

where a design evaluation is acceptable 

and allowed by the referencing subpart 

(see sections V.A.9 and V.B.8 of this 

preamble). 

6. How did the EPA determine the 

performance testing requirements? 

The performance testing requirements 

that we are proposing are modeled after 

specific requirements from 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS, which are based on 

performance testing requirements 

previously developed by the EPA for 

use in implementing standards that 

could apply to a variety of chemical 

industry sources. 

We have organized the performance 

testing requirements to group similar 

topics together, and added new methods 

for performance testing to develop a 

more generic and inclusive set of 

control requirements that may be easily 

referenced in future rulemakings. In 

addition to using the term ‘‘regulated 

material’’ (see General differences 

between proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS at the beginning of section V.B of 

this preamble), we are proposing 

performance testing requirements that 

reflect this broader range of pollutants. 

Although based on language from 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS, where we 

propose that you conduct all 

performance tests at maximum 

representative operating conditions for 

continuous process operations, we have 

defined maximum representative 

operating conditions to be those 

conditions that result in the most 

challenging condition for the control 

device. In an effort to provide more 

flexibility to owners and operators 

regarding the identification of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17961 

proper testing conditions, the most 

challenging condition for the control 

device may include, but is not limited 

to, the highest HAP mass loading rate to 

the control device, or the highest HAP 

mass loading rate of constituents that 

approach the limits of solubility for 

scrubbing media. The EPA understands 

that there may be cases where 

efficiencies are dependent on other 

characteristics of emission streams, 

including the characteristics of 

components and the operating 

principles of the devices. For example, 

the solubility of emission stream 

components in scrubbing media, or 

emission stream component affinity in 

carbon adsorption systems can also 

define the most challenging condition 

for a particular control device. 

For batch process operations, we are 

proposing consistent requirements to 

those in 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG 

and FFFF, and are requiring that you 

develop an emissions profile and 

conduct your performance test at 

absolute worst-case conditions or 

hypothetical worst-case conditions. 

Although continuous operations tend to 

have products and operations that 

remain relatively constant, the control 

devices for batch operations may be 

subject to a wide variability of products 

and emission stream characteristics, and 

a performance test at ‘‘maximum 

representative’’ conditions for batch 

operations may not be representative at 

a later date when the products have 

changed. Absolute worst-case 

conditions are based on an emissions 

profile that shows periods of time when 

the maximum load, the regulated 

material loading or stream composition 

(including non-regulated material) is the 

most challenging condition for the final 

control device. To provide flexibility for 

sources, we are also proposing that you 

may test under hypothetical worst-case 

conditions as an alternative. 

Hypothetical worst-case conditions are 

simulated test conditions that, at a 

minimum, contain the highest hourly 

load of regulated material emissions that 

would be predicted to vent to the final 

control device, based on an emissions 

profile. 

The agency’s intent, when requiring 

the development of an emissions 

profile, is to determine the maximum 

HAP loading to a control device over 

time. Therefore, the proposed rule 

requires that the emissions to the device 

be evaluated by plotting HAP emissions 

versus time. To provide multiple 

options for compliance, we have 

allowed for the emission profile to be 

determined by process, by equipment or 

by capture and control device limitation 

(this would be dependent on how you 

choose to characterize your worst-case 

conditions). When sources test under 

worst-case conditions, this reduces, and 

may eliminate, in some cases, the need 

for any retesting at a later date when 

conditions change. If a source tested 

under normal operating conditions, then 

any change from these conditions would 

trigger a need to retest the source under 

the revised normal operating conditions. 

The concept of worst-case conditions 

allows sources to anticipate potential 

changes so that only one (initial) test is 

generally required, which would reduce 

the burden on the source. We note that 

the referencing subpart could require a 

re-test (e.g., annual or every 5 years) if 

it is appropriate to demonstrate 

compliance for a given source category; 

this would be determined during the 

rulemaking process for the referencing 

subpart. 

Building off the requirements of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS, the MON uses 

a hierarchy to determine applicable 

requirements for combined emission 

streams in 40 CFR 63.2450(c)(2). For 

example, the MON allows you to 

comply with only the batch process 

operation requirements for combined 

batch and continuous process 

operations. However, for the proposed 

rule, we are not establishing a hierarchy 

because the referencing subpart must 

consider the applicable statutory 

requirements for the specific type of 

rulemaking (CAA section 111 or section 

112). Instead, we are proposing that you 

must meet all requirements for each 

emission stream type in a combined 

emission stream (i.e., both continuous 

and batch process operation 

requirements must be met). The 

proposed rule is written in this way to 

ensure compliance for each emission 

stream. A hierarchy may be appropriate 

for certain source categories; however, 

this will need to be considered on a 

source category-specific basis during the 

development of the referencing subpart. 

A referencing subpart can override 

specific requirements in the Uniform 

Standard, as appropriate. 

We are proposing that if you make a 

change to process equipment or 

operating conditions that would affect 

the correlation between the operating 

parameter values of a control device and 

the emission reduction performance of 

that control device, and would render 

the previously established operating 

limits ineffective, you must conduct a 

performance test within 180 days of the 

date of startup of the change. This 

performance test would be necessary to 

establish new operating limits and 

demonstrate that you are in compliance 

with the applicable emission limit of the 

referencing subpart. For instance, a 

facility could institute changes that 

increase the mass flow to a thermal 

oxidizer, requiring a higher operating 

limit for temperature to maintain 

compliance with the emission standard 

of the referencing subpart. This 

proposed requirement is necessary to 

ensure that the control device remains 

effective for compliance with the 

referencing subpart. 

We have consolidated the allowed test 

methods in Table 5 of subpart M for 

ease of reading. The proposed rule 

provides test methods based on the 

types of emissions limits that we 

anticipate would be specified in a 

referencing subpart. As was done in the 

MON (for gas streams containing 

formaldehyde) and in the 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP 

(for gas streams containing carbon 

disulfide), we have provided specific 

test methods for determining 

compliance when formaldehyde or 

carbon disulfide makes up a significant 

portion of the vent stream. Consistent 

with our previous determinations under 

these rules, we have ascertained that not 

all methods detect these compounds 

accurately and these specific methods 

are necessary in the proposed Uniform 

Standards. 

We also are proposing that you may 

use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A as an alternative to using 

Method 18 or Method 26/26A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendices A–6 through A–8, to 

determine compliance with a specific 

organic regulated material compound 

outlet concentration or percent 

reduction emission limit, or a hydrogen 

halide emission limit specified in the 

referencing subpart. In response to a 

public comment, the Method 320 of CFR 

part 63, appendix A option was added 

to the MON at final promulgation (68 FR 

63852, November 10, 2003). The EPA 

declared that Method 320 of CFR part 

63, appendix A was an acceptable 

method to demonstrate compliance for 

any type of batch or continuous vent 

stream. We have augmented this 

provision by specifying that EPA 

Method 320 may only be used to 

demonstrate compliance with a halogen 

emission limit if you can show that 

there are no diatomic-halogen molecules 

present in the vent stream being tested. 

For vent streams with diatomichalogens molecules, we have 

determined that EPA Method 18 and 

EPA Method 26/26A are more effective. 

In addition, we are not allowing EPA 

Method 18, ASTM D6420–99 and EPA 

Method 320 to test for total regulated 

material because these methods only 

work for determining the quantity of 

known pollutants; therefore, you could 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

fail to identify the ‘‘total’’ regulated 

material. 

Because a referencing subpart may 

have requirements for organic HAP and 

metal HAP, or requirements for use of 

a surrogate, such as PM or fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) for metal 

HAP, we have incorporated provisions 

from the MON that tell you how to 

determine compliance with a PM or 

PM2.5 emission limit specified in a 

referencing subpart. (As discussed in 

section II.C of this preamble, the 

referencing subpart would establish and 

provide rationale for the use of a 

surrogate.) As determined under the 

MON, Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 allows you to determine 

the quantity of each HAP metal at the 

inlet and outlet of the control device(s). 

Furthermore, the MON allows for a 

second option, since controls for PM 

would also control the HAP metals, to 

use Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 to determine the quantity 

of PM at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device(s). We are proposing 

Methods 201A and 202 at 40 CFR part 

51, appendix M, or, if the stack contains 

entrained water droplets (e.g., 

immediately after a wet scrubber), 

Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–3 and Method 202 for total PM2.5. We 

have determined that EPA Methods 201 

and 202 are more accurate for 

measurement of PM2.5. It is our 

determination that the methods 

proposed represent the best and most 

recent methods for measurement of 

HAP, VOC, PM and PM2.5. 

7. How did the EPA determine the 

requirements for batch processing 

operations? 

We are proposing language from the 

MON and the Pharmaceuticals 

Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart GGG) to accommodate batch 

process operations. The MON primarily 

references the batch process operation 

provisions in the Pharmaceuticals 

Production NESHAP. The proposed 

standards are intended to be referenced 

from multiple regulations representing 

different source categories, and do not 

set group determinations or levels of 

control. 

We have included provisions in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.826 and 40 CFR 

65.827 explaining how compliance 

should be demonstrated for the different 

emission limit formats that a referencing 

subpart may use for batch process 

operations. The language accommodates 

percent reduction or outlet 

concentration limits for control devices. 

We have included the emission limit 

format from the MON that requires the 

owner or operator to show compliance 

with a percent reduction by aggregating 

emissions over the full batch process. 

These requirements would apply only 

when a referencing subpart requires the 

owner or operator to show compliance 

with a percent reduction using this 

method (see section V.A.8 of this 

preamble). We have included language 

(see equations 29 through 31 of 

proposed 40 CFR 65.835(a)) clarifying 

how to determine compliance with a 

percent reduction where a referencing 

subpart requires the owner or operator 

to aggregate batch emissions. The 

equations illustrate how you would 

compare the sums of the controlled and 

uncontrolled emissions for all batch 

process operations subject to control 

within the process to calculate the 

percent reduction achieved. This is a 

clarification of the MON language, 

which stated that uncontrolled and 

controlled emissions should be 

compared to demonstrate compliance, 

but did not provide additional details to 

explain how this should be done. 

We are proposing engineering 

evaluation methodologies that are 

incorporated by reference from section 3 

of the EPA’s Emissions Inventory 

Improvement Program, Volume II: 

Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air 

Emissions from Chemical 

Manufacturing Facilities, August 2007, 

Final, (EPA Emissions Inventory 

Improvement Program (EIIP) Volume II: 

Chapter 16). These methods are similar 

to those used in the Pharmaceuticals 

Production NESHAP, but include some 

refinements, such as an iterative 

methodology for purging, or gas sweep 

of a partially filled vessel emission 

episode. EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 

also contains additional methodologies 

(that were not included in the 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP) 

for calculating emissions from charging 

to a partially filled vessel with miscible 

contents, and evaporation from an open 

top vessel or spill. We are proposing 

that you conduct an engineering 

assessment to calculate uncontrolled 

emissions from other emissions 

episodes not described in EPA EIIP 

Volume II: Chapter 16. We are soliciting 

comment on the proposed use of EPA 

EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16. 

8. How did the EPA determine the 

requirements for compliance through 

design evaluation? 

With the exception of condensers, the 

proposed standards under subpart M 

require performance testing to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standard. However, to 

provide flexibility, we are including 

requirements for a design evaluation 

that could apply to non-flare control 

devices if it is allowed by the 

referencing subpart. For condensers, we 

are proposing that you must conduct a 

design evaluation (see discussion for 

condensers in section V.B.3 of this 

preamble). 

Subpart M is structured such that 

general requirements for conducting a 

design evaluation are included under 

one section (proposed 40 CFR 65.850). 

More specific requirements pertaining 

to information that must be included in 

the design evaluation for each type of 

device are included in the 

corresponding section for that control 

device. The requirements for 

determining the components to include 

in a design evaluation are based on 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS, which were 

previously developed by the EPA for 

use in implementing a generic set of 

control standards that could be applied 

for multiple source categories. To 

ensure that sources can demonstrate 

compliance with the referencing 

subpart, we are proposing that you must 

prepare both a monitoring description 

and design evaluation. The monitoring 

description provides documentation 

that the source is maintaining the 

continuous monitoring equipment such 

that the control device can meet the 

emission limits specified in the 

referencing subpart. For the monitoring 

description, you would be required to 

choose the parameters, the operating 

limit(s), the monitoring frequency and 

the averaging time for each operating 

parameter, based on site-specific 

information, manufacturer’s 

specifications, engineering judgment or 

other significant information. Your 

design evaluation would include 

documentation demonstrating that the 

control device being used achieves the 

required emission limit of a referencing 

subpart, taking into account the 

composition of the vent stream entering 

the control device, flow and regulated 

material concentration. There were no 

changes made to the design evaluation 

provisions except for the changes to: (1) 

Small boilers and process heaters, (2) 

oxidizers regarding the minimum 

temperature and residence time and (3) 

the inclusion of a design evaluation for 

biofilters when allowed by the 

referencing subpart (see previous 

discussion in section V.B.3 of this 

preamble). 

9. How did the EPA determine the 

required records and reports for this 

proposed standard? 

The notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements that we are 

proposing are similar to those required 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. However, 

we have streamlined the periodic 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17963 

compliance reporting with title V 

semiannual reporting requirements, 

incorporated updates for clarification, 

left out provisions that are redundant or 

unnecessary and created recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements to address 

any monitoring requirements included 

in the Uniform Standards. Many of 

these details are discussed in section 

VI.B.6 of this preamble. 

Averaging Periods. We are proposing 

records of the daily or operating block 

average (for batch operations) value of 

each continuously monitored parameter 

or emissions. 

Although some regulations under 40 

CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 require 

3-hour averaging (e.g., the SOCMI Air 

Oxidation NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart III; 

the SOCMI Distillation Operations 

NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart NNN; and the 

SOCMI Reactor Processes NSPS, 40 CFR 

60 Subpart RRR), many of the part 63 

regulations require daily averages. 

Specifically, with the exception of the 

recently proposed polyvinyl chloride 

and copolymers (PVC) rule (40 CFR 63, 

subpart J for PVC Production; 76 FR 

29528, May 20, 2011), which requires 3- 

hour averaging, daily averaging periods 

are used in all past part 63 NESHAP 

affecting the chemical and refining 

sectors. Therefore, the EPA has decided 

to allow daily averaging for all control 

devices, unless otherwise provided 

under a referencing subpart. 

We also do not consider daily 

averaging a relaxation of the previous 

NSPS that currently require more 

frequent averaging. Specifically, the 3- 

hour averages in NSPS and the daily 

averages in part 63 should not be 

compared only considering the 

averaging time, but one should also 

consider the meaning of out-of-range 

results. Under the NSPS, an out-of-range 

3-hour average does not necessarily 

mean the source is out of compliance. 

Under the 40 CFR part 60 General 

Provisions, compliance with emission 

standards is determined by a 

performance test (see 40 CFR 60.11(a)). 

Under the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions, it is clear that deviations 

from monitoring parameter ranges are 

direct violations (see 40 CFR 63.6(e)). 

Under the proposed Uniform 

Standards, we have adopted the 

significance of out-of-range results from 

40 CFR part 63; therefore, an out-ofrange parameter on a daily average basis 

is a violation. We would allow the same 

out-of-range parameter determinations 

from 40 CFR part 63 to be made in all 

referencing subparts, including 

regulations under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 

CFR part 61. Therefore, although 

facilities from 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR 

part 61 referenced to the Uniform 

Standards may become subject to daily 

averages in lieu of 3-hour averages, they 

would also be considered out of 

compliance if the daily average is out of 

range, provided this change is adopted 

in the rulemaking for the referencing 

subpart. 

We anticipate that the referencing 

subpart may ‘‘override’’ the proposed 

daily averaging period with a stricter 

requirement if it is determined that such 

a requirement would be necessary to 

maintain the emission standard for the 

source category covered by the 

referencing subpart. A good example of 

such a source category is the proposed 

PVC Production NESHAP. It was 

determined for proposal that, for this 

source category, 3-hour averages are 

necessary to meet MACT. We consider 

the development of a referencing 

subpart at the appropriate time to make 

these source-category specific decisions. 

We are proposing that you must 

report the daily and operating block 

averages for each continuously 

monitored parameter as part of the 

semiannual periodic report submitted 

through the CEDRI (see section II.F of 

this preamble). The EPA relies on the 

submittal of performance test data and 

emissions and parametric monitoring 

data to conduct effective reviews of 

CAA sections 111 and 112 standards, as 

well as compliance determinations, 

emission factor development, residual 

risk assessments and technology 

reviews. These emissions averages and 

parameter averages could supply up-todate information regarding the 

capabilities of current industry 

technology, identify compliance issues 

and supplement emissions test data for 

establishing emission factors, improving 

regulation and improving the quality of 

emission inventories. Collecting this 

data on an ongoing basis through CEDRI 

will greatly reduce or eliminate the 

burden to industry and EPA from ICR 

efforts. 

Recordkeeping and reporting of batch 

operations. The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for batch 

operations were modeled after the MON 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) and 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG). 40 CFR 

Part 63, subpart SS, as promulgated, 

contains only provisions for combined 

continuous and batch operations. We 

have drawn the requirements from 40 

CFR part 63, subparts GGG and FFFF 

because these NESHAP contain and 

clarify technical requirements for batch 

process operations; in particular, the 

MON improves upon some of the 

technical requirements of the 

Pharmaceutical Production NESHAP 

and reflects a set of standards that both 

industry and the EPA have experience 

in implementing. The inclusion of 

requirements for batch operations 

allows the proposed Uniform Standards 

to accommodate a wider range of source 

categories. The proposed recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements reflect our 

most current survey of batch operations 

under 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG 

and FFFF. 

The proposed subpart M includes a 

pre-compliance report for batch 

processes, as does the MON and 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. 

This report is a combination of data 

submittals and reports that require the 

EPA review and approval prior to 

implementation and is, therefore, due 

before the compliance date (6 months 

prior to the compliance date for existing 

sources and to be submitted with the 

application for approval of construction 

or reconstruction for new sources). 

While we have designed the 

requirements for batch process 

operations to provide flexible options 

for compliance for owners and 

operators, we must ensure compliance 

with the MACT, GACT and BSER 

standards specified in the referencing 

subpart. We contend that the precompliance report is a valuable tool for 

the regulatory agency responsible for 

making compliance determinations. The 

batch pre-compliance requirements 

include providing details on the test 

conditions, data, calculations and other 

information used to establish operating 

limits for all batch operations, and 

rationale for why each operating limit 

indicates the control device is meeting 

the specified emission limit of the 

referencing subpart during each specific 

emission episode. If you used an 

engineering assessment, as specified in 

40 CFR 65.835(b)(2), you would also 

include data or other information 

supporting a finding that the emissions 

estimation equations in the proposed 

subpart M are inappropriate. These data 

would include very detailed sitespecific information and complex 

rationale for the selection of operating 

limits and emissions calculations. It is 

important that such data are reviewed 

prior to compliance to provide time to 

revise the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan or the 

CPMS monitoring plan and conduct any 

necessary onsite preparation for revised 

monitoring requirements, based on the 

EPA concerns prior to the compliance 

date. This will ensure that there are no 

periods of noncompliance resulting 

from selection of an unacceptable 

approach. In the proposed Uniform 

Standards, we are using the term ‘‘batch 

pre-compliance report’’ rather than 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘pre-compliance report’’ because the 

report is submitted for only batch 

processes and includes only the batch 

information listed in this paragraph. 

There are several items required in 

the pre-compliance report for the two 

previous NESHAP that are not proposed 

in subpart M because they are not 

related to the control devices covered by 

this proposed rule. For example, we are 

not proposing requirements to 

determine wastewater characteristics, as 

required by the Pharmaceuticals 

Production NESHAP, because we are 

not proposing requirements for 

wastewater facilities at this time. 

Several source categories, including 

the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing source category and the 

Pharmaceuticals Production source 

category, use non-dedicated, 

multipurpose equipment that may be 

configured in numerous ways to 

accommodate different batch processes. 

We anticipate that when a NSPS or 

NESHAP considers referencing subpart 

M for a batch process operation, there 

could be a need to anticipate alternate 

operating scenarios for the batch 

process. As such, we are proposing 

these requirements in subpart M in 

order to accommodate these alternate 

scenarios. 

Fabric filter recordkeeping and 

reporting. We modeled the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for fabric filters after the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 

NESHAP and the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing NESHAP. These 

rulemakings reflect previous EPA 

determinations for fabric filter control. 

We considered, but are not proposing, 

that pre-compliance information be 

submitted for these control devices. In 

particular, the Pesticide Active 

Ingredient Production NESHAP and 

MON require an operation and 

maintenance plan and corrective action 

plan be submitted as part of a precompliance report. Instead, we are 

proposing that each bag leak detection 

system must be installed, operated, 

calibrated and maintained in a manner 

consistent with the manufacturer’s 

written specifications and 

recommendations, and in accordance 

with the guidance provided in EPA– 

454/R–98–015, September 1997. 

Therefore, we feel it is not necessary to 

pre-approve the fabric filter plans when 

these requirements are followed. A 

future referencing subpart may require 

prior approval if it is determined that it 

is appropriate for a given source 

category and considering the applicable 

statutory requirements for the specific 

rulemaking (e.g., MACT, GACT and/or 

BSER standards), or we may choose to 

adopt separate requirements for a 

particular source category in a 

referencing subpart. We are proposing 

that the operation and maintenance plan 

and corrective action plan for fabric 

filters be submitted as part of the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

Report instead of a pre-compliance 

report. The manufacturer’s guidance 

and the EPA guidance document 

provide adequate information for 

owners and operators to prepare 

appropriate operation and maintenance 

and corrective action plans. We 

anticipate that fabric filter operation 

does not vary enough to require sitespecific pre-review of these documents, 

although a referencing subpart may 

always override these requirements for 

a given source category. 

VI. Summary and Rationale for the 

Proposed Revision of 40 CFR Part 65 

Uniform Standards General 

Provisions—Subpart H 

This section summarizes and provides 

rationale for the supplemental proposal 

for 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. This 

subpart was originally proposed on 

January 6, 2012 (77 FR 960). This 

supplemental proposal generally adds 

new language and sections applicable to 

proposed subparts H, I, J and M. There 

are some changes to the language 

originally proposed, but these are 

relatively small changes needed to 

incorporate the additional Uniform 

Standards subparts. 

In section VI of this preamble, the 

term ‘‘we’’ refers to the EPA and the 

term ‘‘you’’ refers to owners and 

operators affected by the proposed 

standards. All other entities are referred 

to by their respective names (e.g., 

reviewing authorities.) Additionally, 

‘‘subpart H’’ refers to proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart H. 

A. Summary 

In a previous proposal of the National 

Uniform Emission Standards for Heat 

Exchangers (40 CFR part 65, subpart L), 

signed by the EPA Administrator on 

November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 

6, 2012), we proposed general 

provisions in subpart H that would 

apply to all sources subject to all 

Uniform Standards. In that proposal, we 

specified that 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 

63, subpart A (i.e., referred to in this 

preamble section VI as ‘‘the 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions’’) 

would still apply as the General 

Provisions for the Uniform Standards, 

with relatively minor additions in 

subpart H. During development of 

proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J 

and M, we reviewed this approach, in 

part under Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review, (see section II.A of this 

preamble for further discussion of 

Executive Order 13563) to ensure that 

this would be the best approach. 

Based on this review, we have 

determined that certain reporting 

provisions in the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 

and 63 General Provisions are not 

consistent with each other (e.g., report 

names), and that these differences could 

hamper efforts to provide compliance 

methods for all sources under one part. 

Additionally, we have determined that 

some 40 CFR part 63 general provisions 

include more details (e.g., detailed 

instructions for requesting a 

performance test waiver) that are not 

provided for the same kind of provision 

in the 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 General 

Provisions (e.g., allowing a request for a 

performance test waiver without 

detailed instructions). Applying these 

more detailed 40 CFR part 63 general 

provisions to sources covered under 40 

CFR parts 60 and 61 would result in 

more clarity and would facilitate the 

compliance process for sources 

regulated under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 

that refer to the Uniform Standards. 

As such, we have concluded that the 

best approach to providing general 

provisions for the 40 CFR part 65 

Uniform Standards is to consolidate 

some of the part 60, 61 and 63 general 

provisions, and to include these 

consolidated general provisions in 

subpart H. For the current proposal, we 

are issuing a supplemental proposal for 

subpart H in order to include additional 

provisions applicable to all Uniform 

Standards, as well as provisions 

applicable to individual Uniform 

Standards in 40 CFR Part 65, Subparts 

I, J and M. 

For this purpose, we are maintaining 

five sections of subpart H proposed on 

January 6, 2012 (77 FR 960), and adding 

12 new sections. Of the five previously 

proposed sections, we are proposing to 

make changes to three sections, as 

follows: (1) 40 CFR 65.200 will refer to 

40 CFR 65.210, which specifies which 

general provisions in subpart A of 40 

CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to all 

Uniform Standards; (2) 40 CFR 65.265 

will include additional methods 

incorporated by reference for 40 CFR 

part 65, subparts I, J and M; (3) 40 CFR 

65.295 will include additional 

definitions of terms used in 40 CFR part 

65, subparts I, J and M. The 12 new 

sections address the following 

consolidated general provisions 

applicable to all Uniform Standards: (1) 

General requirements for complying 

with the standards, operation and 

maintenance requirements, 

recordkeeping and reporting; (2) how to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17965 

request a waiver for testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting or an 

alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, 

test method or means of emission 

limitation; and (3) authorities not 

delegated to the states. 

For those 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 

general provisions that would apply to 

the Uniform Standards and that would 

not be consolidated into subpart H, you 

are referred to Table 1 of subpart H, 

which lists the sections or paragraphs of 

the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63 general 

provisions that still apply to the 

Uniform Standards. In general, Table 1 

lists general provisions that are 

associated with applicability, initial 

notifications and permit application 

requirements, and requirements that are 

not the typical compliance provisions 

that a source must meet. Examples of 

the types of 40 CFR part 60, 61 and 63 

general provisions listed in Table 1 

include: 40 CFR 60.2, 61.02 and 63.2 

(definitions); 40 CFR 60.3, 61.03 and 

63.3 (abbreviations); 40 CFR 60.12, 

61.05, 61.19 and 63.4 (prohibited 

activities, circumvention and 

fragmentation); and 40 CFR 60.5, 61.06 

and 63.5 (determination of construction 

or modification; preconstruction review 

and notification requirements). 

Regulated sources subject to 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 or 63 would remain subject 

to the provisions in Table 1, as 

applicable. 

B. Rationale 

1. What is the purpose of this subpart? 

40 CFR 65.200 is proposed to be 

changed from the previously proposed 

40 CFR 65.200 to specify that you would 

be required to comply with the General 

Provisions, as specified in 40 CFR 

65.210 (refers to Table 1), as well as the 

referencing subpart. 

2. Am I subject to the requirements of 

this subpart? 

40 CFR 65.205 is proposed to be 

added to subpart H to make it clear who 

would be required to comply with the 

general provisions in subpart H. Subpart 

H applies to owners and operators who 

are subject to a referencing subpart and 

have been expressly directed to comply 

with the Uniform Standards by a 

referencing subpart. This section is 

needed so that you will understand the 

applicability. 

3. When must I comply with this 

subpart? 

40 CFR 65.206 was added as part of 

efforts to make consistent the 

organization of the Uniform Standards. 

The question of when to comply is 

addressed in only subpart H. 

4. Am I subject to the General 

Provisions for part 60, 61 or 63 of this 

part? 

We are proposing to add 40 CFR 

65.210 to subpart H to specify that only 

some 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general 

provisions will apply to you. As 

discussed in section VI.A of this 

preamble, we reviewed the 40 CFR parts 

60, 61 and 63 General Provisions and 

concluded that the best approach to 

providing general provisions for the 40 

CFR part 65 Uniform Standards is to 

consolidate some of the 40 CFR parts 60, 

61 and 63 general provisions, and to 

include these consolidated general 

provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subparts 

H and M. Consolidating these 

provisions will allow us to streamline 

these general requirements for the 

Uniform Standards, increasing the 

clarity of the General Provisions and 

facilitating the compliance process for 

all parties. Consolidation will also 

reduce administrative burden by 

facilitating our process of amending the 

referencing subparts in the future. 

To consolidate the 40 CFR parts 60, 

61 and 63 general provisions, we 

reviewed each general provision in 40 

CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. For each 

provision, we determined if the general 

provision should be: (1) Consolidated 

into one general provision in subpart H 

that applies to sources complying with 

any Uniform Standard (you would not 

comply with the original, 

unconsolidated part 60, 61 or 63 

requirement); (2) consolidated into one 

general provision in 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart M that applies to sources 

complying with 40 CFR Part 65, subpart 

M (you would not comply with the 

original, unconsolidated part 60, 61 or 

63 requirement); (3) referred to in Table 

1 to subpart H and required, as specified 

in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63; or (4) 

excluded from the Uniform Standards 

because the provision does not apply to 

the types of sources that will be 

regulated using the Uniform Standards 

(e.g., opacity and visible emissions 

provisions). 

5. What are my general requirements for 

complying with operation and 

maintenance requirements? 

Under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR 

part 61, and as specified in subpart A of 

both parts, compliance is demonstrated 

with an emission limit using the results 

of a performance test; however, under 

40 CFR part 63, the General Provisions 

specify that the Administrator will 

determine compliance based on 

performance tests, monitoring data, 

records, operation and maintenance 

procedures, and conformance to the 

procedures. In order to remove undue 

burden for individual source categories 

and provide consistent requirements for 

sources complying with the Uniform 

Standards, we have consolidated the 

general operation and maintenance 

compliance provisions of 40 CFR part 

63 in proposed 40 CFR 65.215. These 

proposed provisions were developed, 

based on 40 CFR 63.6(e), (f) and (g). The 

proposed provisions are different from 

40 CFR 63.6(e), (f) and (g) in that they 

include changes in terminology and 

cross-references, as well as removal of 

SSM provisions. The consolidated 

provisions in 40 CFR 65, subparts H and 

M would apply to all sources subject to 

referencing subparts. 

We have not included provisions for 

SSM in these Uniform Standards, based 

on a recent District of Columbia Circuit 

ruling. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated portions of two 

provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 

112 regulations governing the emissions 

of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir., 

2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 

(U.S., 2010). Specifically, the Court 

vacated the SSM exemptions contained 

in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 

63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘General 

Provisions Rule,’’ that the EPA 

promulgated under CAA section 112. 

When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source 

categories, these two provisions exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standard during 

periods of SSM. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

the Uniform Standards, as proposed, are 

designed to provide for continuous 

compliance with the emission standards 

of a referencing subpart. Future 

rulemakings that may reference the 

Uniform Standards will include a 

determination on the need for separate 

standards for startup and shutdown for 

the specific source category. Rationale 

for those provisions will be supplied at 

the time of proposal, thus, providing an 

opportunity for public comment. The 

final rulemakings for such referencing 

subparts would determine whether 

separate standards for startup and 

shutdown would apply in lieu of the 

otherwise continuously applicable 

referenced Uniform Standards. 

6. What are my general recordkeeping 

requirements? 

We are proposing to add 40 CFR 

65.220 to require that you maintain 

records for a period of 5 years, as 

required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

These records would be required to be 

maintained in such a manner that they 

can be readily accessed and are suitable 

for inspection within 2-hours time. This 

proposed record retention policy does 

not specify onsite or offsite retention 

periods because we assume that sources 

primarily use electronic archival 

systems that can be easily accessed from 

on site, whether the archive exists on or 

off site. This will provide more 

flexibility for sources regulated under 

40 CFR part 63 while maintaining 

enforceability of the rule. This would 

allow the use of hard copy or electronic 

storage technologies that enable offsite 

data to be quickly retrieved by the site 

for independent review. For sources 

regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 

CFR part 61, this proposed 

recordkeeping provision could represent 

a longer total record retention period of 

5 years rather than 2 years, but would 

allow shorter onsite record retention. 

For many sources regulated under 40 

CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, this 

proposed record retention requirement 

represents a burden reduction compared 

to the title V program, which requires 

onsite record retention for 5 years. 

7. What are my general reporting 

requirements? 

We propose adding 40 CFR 65.225 to 

subpart H to consolidate and make 

consistent the reporting provisions in 40 

CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. We considered 

the level of reporting that would be 

required for sources regulated under the 

Uniform Standards according to the 

periodic reporting requirements of the 

existing rules and the title V program. 

Many sources are subject to numerous 

periodic reports under various 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63 subparts, as well as 

under the title V program. Petroleum 

refineries, for example, are required to 

prepare periodic reports under multiple 

regulations. For example, petroleum 

refineries can be subject to regulations, 

such as subparts G, R, CC, UU and UUU 

of 40 CFR part 63, subparts Kb, R, VV, 

XX, GGG and QQQ of 40 CFR part 60 

and subparts V, Y, BB and FF of 40 CFR 

part 61, in addition to title V reporting 

requirements. All of these regulations 

have requirements for periodic 

reporting, most commonly, semiannual 

reporting. The NESHAP for petroleum 

refineries, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, 

includes provisions for emission units 

that are subject to more than one 

regulation and the rule provides 

direction regarding which rule the 

source should follow to address the 

overlapping requirements. However, 

this guidance only applies when more 

than one rule applies to a given 

emission unit; the guidance does not 

address situations when several rules 

apply to the source, but there is no 

overlap of requirements for a given 

emission unit. For example, there is no 

guidance provided for situations, such 

as a source with a storage tank subject 

to 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, another 

tank subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Kb and third tank subject to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CC. For this example, the 

source is required to know the details of 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for all three rules and 

submit periodic reports according to the 

requirements of each rule. 

As discussed in section II.D of this 

preamble, having the Uniform 

Standards with different subparts 

referencing its use provides for a 

significant burden reduction due to the 

consolidation of requirements. Although 

the report content would be the same for 

a given emission point type, the 

reporting schedule is dictated by the 

referencing subpart; therefore, a source 

subject to the Uniform Standard under 

multiple referencing subparts applicable 

to different emission points could still 

be subject to multiple periodic reports 

on different reporting schedules. 

However, we have included in proposed 

subpart H, provisions modeled from the 

40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, 

allowing adjustments to reporting 

schedules to arrange the reports on a 

consistent schedule, including 40 CFR 

part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 operating 

permit semiannual reports. 

Types of reports. To consolidate and 

make consistent the reporting 

requirements under the Uniform 

Standards, proposed 40 CFR 65.225 

groups notifications and reports into 

four categories: (1) Notification of 

Compliance Status, (2) semiannual 

periodic reports, (3) annual periodic 

reports and (4) other notifications and 

reports. Consolidating the reporting 

requirements as described in this 

section will make it easier for you to 

comply with the rule and for the EPA 

to enforce and review these provisions 

in the future. 

In an effort to streamline the reporting 

requirements and reduce burden, we are 

proposing semiannual and annual 

periodic reports, based on whether the 

reporting elements are deviations or 

non-deviations. We considered whether 

it would be appropriate to eliminate 

periodic reports under the Uniform 

Standards because sources are required 

to document all deviations in 40 CFR 

part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 operating 

permit semiannual reports, which must 

also be documented in reports for the 

underlying rules. However, some 

reporting elements in the periodic 

reports required under existing rules are 

not reporting deviations. For example, 

periodic reports include, as applicable, 

reports on LDAR monitoring (such as 

number of equipment tested and 

number of leaking equipment found), 

new operating scenarios developed for 

batch operations and the associated 

parameter monitoring and reports on 

process changes. In order to address the 

differences between non-deviation 

reporting elements and to assure the 

appropriate level of detail for 

deviations, we have segregated the 

reporting elements into deviation and 

non-deviations. For non-deviation 

reporting elements, we are proposing 

that they be submitted annually in 

hardcopy. We have determined that 

annual reporting of non-deviation 

elements is sufficient to ensure 

compliance under the Uniform 

Standards, and anticipate that requiring 

these reporting elements annually, as 

opposed to semiannually, will create a 

burden reduction for industry (see 

section VII.D of this preamble). 

Although we have maintained 

semiannual reporting for the deviation 

reporting elements in the Uniform 

Standards, we are proposing that they 

be electronically entered in the CEDRI 

(rather than submitted by other means). 

The electronic reporting system will 

allow owners and operators to create 

copies of any deviation reports they 

would need to submit in a 40 CFR part 

70 or 40 CFR part 71 operating permit 

semiannual report to the permit 

authority. This would provide an 

additional burden reduction for 

industry, as discussed in section VII.D 

of this preamble. 

We are proposing that the Notification 

of Compliance Status Reports for 40 

CFR part 65, subparts I and J be 

submitted electronically; the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

Reports for 40 CFR part 65, subpart M 

would be submitted in hard copy. We 

are not requiring electronic submittal of 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

Report for subpart M because it contains 

reporting elements that contain a high 

level of detail and description. As 

discussed in section II.F of this 

preamble, we have determined that 

these reporting elements would not be 

easily incorporated into the electronic 

reporting system at this time. 

The category of ‘‘other’’ notifications 

and reports was created to group 

together reports that are not part of the 

Notification of Compliance Status or 

periodic compliance reports. This group 

includes notifications and reports: (1) 

Submitted initially prior to the initial 

compliance demonstration; (2) that must 

be submitted only if you request to use 

alternative methods or procedures from 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17967 

those specified in the proposed rule 

(e.g., request to use alternative test 

method); and (3) that are needed to be 

submitted for certain situations (e.g., 

notification of performance test; changes 

in continuous monitoring system (CMS), 

processes or controls; new operating 

scenarios for batch operations). Except 

for performance test and CEMS 

performance evaluation reports, ‘‘other’’ 

reports would be submitted in hard 

copy. 

We have included provisions that 

would require you to report any changes 

in CMS, processes or controls, or new 

operating scenarios for batch operations 

that differ from what has been 

previously reported (either in the 

Notification of Compliance Status or a 

subsequent report) within 30 days of 

making the change. We must be notified 

of these changes because they could be 

germane to the determination of a 

deviation, such as a deviation of an 

operating parameter under a new 

operating scenario, which was 

employed following the last report. In 

this instance, the agency would need to 

know the parameters against which to 

evaluate the deviation, as established 

under the updated operating scenario. 

Schedule. Proposed 40 CFR 65.225 

also establishes a schedule for 

submitting the initial Notification of 

Compliance Status and semiannual and 

annual periodic reports. The 

Notification of Compliance Status for 

each regulated source would be required 

to be reported within 240 days after the 

applicable compliance date specified in 

the referencing subparts, or within 60 

days after the completion of the initial 

performance test or initial compliance 

determination, whichever is earlier. We 

are requiring an annual periodic report 

containing non-deviation reporting 

elements. Reporting of deviations 

required by the Uniform Standards 

would be reported electronically with 

the semiannual periodic report. 

Report nomenclature. Currently, the 

40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General 

Provisions refer to the same report using 

different nomenclature, and these 

differences would hamper our efforts to 

specify, in 40 CFR part 65, subparts I 

through M, requirements related to this 

report. For example, the initial 

compliance report is referred to in the 

40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General 

Provisions as a ‘‘summary report’’ (40 

CFR 60.7(d)), ‘‘compliance status 

information’’ (40 CFR part 61, appendix 

A) and a ‘‘Notification of Compliance 

Status’’ (40 CFR 63.9(h)), respectively. 

In proposed 40 CFR 65.225, this initial 

report is renamed for all sources 

complying with the Uniform Standards, 

and is referred to as the ‘‘Notification of 

Compliance Status.’’ Using one name for 

this report for sources regulated under 

all three parts of title 40 will facilitate 

efforts to specify requirements related to 

this report in the proposed Uniform 

Standards in 40 CFR part 65, subparts 

I through M. 

This same approach to standardizing 

report names has been applied to 

periodic compliance reports and certain 

other reports. The proposed Uniform 

Standards refer to the periodic 

compliance report as the ‘‘annual 

periodic report’’ or ‘‘semiannual 

periodic report,’’ which standardizes the 

name for the ‘‘excess emission and 

continuous monitoring system 

performance report’’ and ‘‘summary 

report’’ in 40 CFR part 63, the ‘‘excess 

emissions and monitoring systems 

performance report’’ and ‘‘summary 

report form’’ in 40 CFR part 60 and the 

‘‘compliance status information’’ form 

in 40 CFR part 61, appendix A. 

Likewise, we propose making 

consistent, where appropriate, the 

content of these similar reports in 40 

CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 for the 

semiannual and annual periodic reports 

and other notifications and reports 

under the Uniform Standards. For 

example, the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 

general provisions for periodic 

compliance reporting include reporting 

provisions that are similar in intent, but 

slightly different in content, and this 

discrepancy between the General 

Provisions complicates our efforts to 

specify reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M. The 

proposed ‘‘semiannual periodic report’’ 

and ‘‘annual periodic report’’ 

incorporate elements of the ‘‘excess 

emission and continuous monitoring 

system performance report’’ and 

‘‘summary report’’ in 40 CFR part 63, 

the ‘‘excess emissions and monitoring 

systems performance report’’ and 

‘‘summary report form’’ in 40 CFR part 

60 and the ‘‘compliance status 

information’’ form in 40 CFR part 61, 

appendix A. We are also updating the 

contents of the semiannual and annual 

periodic reports by adding provisions 

for closed vent systems, batch 

operations and process changes. Refer to 

section V.B of this preamble for further 

discussion on this topic. 

Other report consolidation. We are 

proposing to consolidate certain 40 CFR 

part 60, 61 and 63 general provisions 

that specify the technical contents of 

reports (e.g., submittal of test plan and 

performance evaluation test plan), and 

we have determined that these 

provisions would best be aggregated 

with the monitoring, performance 

testing and/or reporting requirements of 

40 CFR part 65, subpart M, instead of in 

subpart H. It will be easier for sources 

to locate and understand these 

requirements if they are included in 

subpart M with related testing and 

monitoring requirements. Combining 

similar requirements together would 

benefit both the public and private 

sector by simplifying compliance and 

enforcement. Refer to section V.B of this 

preamble for further discussion of this 

topic. 

We have consolidated the reporting 

requirement to submit a request for 

alternative monitoring. The general 

provisions for 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 

63 all allow alternative monitoring, but 

40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 do 

not provide a procedure for submitting 

such a request. We proposed to apply 

the procedure specified in the 40 CFR 

part 63 General Provisions to all sources 

subject to the Uniform Standards. This 

proposed revision is discussed further 

in section VI.B.7 of this preamble. 

Consolidating these provisions in 

subpart H would provide a consistent 

method for requesting monitoring 

alternatives for all referencing subparts, 

adding flexibility and simplifying 

compliance for sources regulated under 

the Uniform Standards. 

Where we have determined that 

certain reporting requirements in the 40 

CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General 

Provisions do not apply to the Uniform 

Standards, we have excluded these 

provisions from 40 CFR part 65, 

subparts H through M. For example, the 

40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general 

provisions applicable to opacity and 

visible emissions are not included in 

proposed 40 CFR 65.225 because the 

Uniform Standards do not address 

opacity and visible emissions standards. 

We have also not included provisions 

from 40 CFR part 63 related to the SSM 

plan and associated recordkeeping and 

reporting, based on the Court decision 

that emissions limitations under CAA 

section 112 must apply at all times, 

even during periods of SSM (see section 

VI.B.5 of this preamble). Although the 

SSM plan and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements were not 

specifically vacated by the Court, they 

no longer serve the original purpose of 

making sure the source follows good 

pollution control measures during 

periods of SSM in return for not being 

in violation. 

We have removed provisions that 

required recordkeeping and reporting 

for actions taken during periods when a 

deviation occurs. These measures, 

which were previously included in 

periodic reports existing under 40 CFR 

part 60 and 40 CFR part 63, required 

that sources document and report the 

corrective actions taken when a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

deviation occurs, the measures adopted 

to correct the deviation, the nature of 

the repairs or adjustments to the CMS 

and a description of the cause of the 

deviation. Additionally, these 

provisions required more detailed 

reporting, such as the identification of 

the cause (e.g., the monitoring 

equipment malfunction process upset, 

control device upset, etc.) of each period 

of excess emissions and parameter 

monitoring exceedances. The reporting 

elements required by these provisions 

are elements that were previously 

established as part of SSM 

requirements. Although we are not 

requiring recording or reporting of these 

elements as part of the semiannual 

periodic report, sources may wish to 

collect and maintain this information 

for EPA and corporate review in the 

case of an exceedance of an emission 

standard. Further requirements for 

periods of deviation will be addressed 

by the referencing subpart in the 

manner appropriate for each source 

category; these requirements will be 

established during the development of 

the referencing subpart. 

Reporting impacts. The consolidation 

of reporting requirements, as discussed 

in this section, will create a simplified, 

consistent method for reporting that 

may be applied to multiple source 

categories. We anticipate that these 

revised requirements will improve 

understanding, facilitate compliance 

and reduce the burden associated with 

reporting for multiple regulations. We 

have estimated that reducing the 

reporting frequency for some reporting 

elements to annual; allowing 

semiannual periodic reports to be 

submitted on a consistent schedule; and 

converting to electronic reporting for 

certain reporting elements would 

provide a reporting burden reduction of 

42 to 59 percent to typical chemical 

plants and refineries (see sections VI.B.6 

and VII.D of this preamble for more 

information). 

8. How do I request a waiver for 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

We are proposing that 40 CFR 65.235 

be added to subpart H to provide a 

procedure for sources regulated under 

40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 (as 

well as 40 CFR part 63) to apply for and 

obtain approval for a recordkeeping or 

reporting waiver request. This proposed 

procedure for requesting a waiver is 

currently provided in the General 

Provisions for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

A, but is not provided in the General 

Provisions for 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR 

part 61. 40 CFR 61.11 does provide 

provisions for a waiver of compliance, 

but does not specifically address a 

waiver of recordkeeping and reporting. 

We propose that sources regulated 

under 40 CFR part 61 submit the 

proposed application for a waiver of 

recordkeeping or reporting with the 

application requesting a waiver of 

compliance under 40 CFR 61.11. 

Applying this 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

A procedure to all sources referred to 

the Uniform Standards would add 

flexibility and simplify compliance and 

enforcement for sources regulated under 

the Uniform Standards. 

9. How do I request alternative 

monitoring methods? 

We propose that 40 CFR 65.240 be 

added to subpart H to provide a 

procedure for requesting alternative 

monitoring methods, including major, 

minor and intermediate changes to 

monitoring methods. The allowance to 

request alternative monitoring is 

currently provided in the 40 CFR parts 

60, 61 and 63 General Provisions, but 

the 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 

General Provisions (i.e., see 40 CFR 

60.13(h)(3)(i) and 61.14(g)(1)) do not 

provide a procedure for application and 

approval of such requests. Applying the 

40 CFR part 63 general provisions 

procedure (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)(4)(ii)), 

with minor clarifying revisions to all 

sources referred to the Uniform 

Standards would provide a consistent 

method for requesting monitoring 

modifications and alternatives for all 

referencing subparts, adding flexibility 

and simplifying compliance for sources 

regulated under the Uniform Standards. 

10. How do I request a waiver for 

performance testing requirements? 

40 CFR 65.245 is proposed to be 

added to subpart H to provide a 

procedure for requesting a performance 

test waiver. This procedure is currently 

provided in the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions, but is not provided in the 40 

CFR part 60 General Provisions. The 40 

CFR part 61 General Provisions (i.e., 40 

CFR 60.8(b)) do allow a waiver for 

performance tests, but do not provide a 

procedure for application and approval. 

Applying this 40 CFR part 63 general 

provisions procedure to all sources 

referred to the Uniform Standards 

would update these provisions for 

sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 

and 40 CFR part 61 and benefit both the 

public and industry by simplifying 

compliance for and enforcement of 

sources regulated under the Uniform 

Standards. 

11. How do I request to use an 

alternative test method? 

We propose that 40 CFR 65.250 be 

added to subpart H to provide a 

procedure for requesting a different test 

method than specified in the Uniform 

Standards, including standard methods 

not specified, alternative test methods 

or changes to test methods. The 

allowance to request alternative test 

methods is provided in 40 CFR parts 60, 

61 and 63, subpart A, but 40 CFR part 

60 and 40 CFR part 61, subpart A do not 

provide a procedure for application and 

approval of such requests. Applying this 

40 CFR part 63, subpart A procedure to 

all sources referred to the Uniform 

Standards would provide sources 

regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 

CFR part 61 with more detailed 

instructions, simplifying compliance 

and enforcement of sources regulated 

under the Uniform Standards. 

12. What are the procedures for 

approval of alternative means of 

emission limitation? 

40 CFR 65.260 is proposed to be 

added to subpart H to specify a 

procedure for requesting an alternative 

means of emission limitation. The 40 

CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions currently include such 

provisions. The 40 CFR part 60 General 

Provisions do not include such 

provisions; however, such provisions 

are included in the underlying rules of 

40 CFR part 60. We are proposing to 

consolidate the provisions for 40 CFR 

part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 into 

proposed subpart H for sources directed 

to the Uniform Standards and regulated 

under 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. The 

consolidated language in proposed 

subpart H contains the same provisions 

as the other general provisions requiring 

the source to submit a request 

containing information showing that the 

alternative means of emission 

limitations achieves equivalent 

emission reductions to the method 

specified in the Uniform Standards. 

13. How do you determine what 

regulated sources are in regulated 

material service? 

The previously proposed 40 CFR 

65.275 describes procedures for 

determining whether a source is ‘‘in 

regulated material service,’’ in the event 

that a referencing subpart does not 

provide an explanation of how to 

determine whether a source is ‘‘in 

regulated material service.’’ These 

previously proposed requirements are 

based on the procedures in 40 CFR 

63.180(d), which require that you 

determine the percent organic HAP 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17969 

content using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–6. We are considering, 

but not proposing, applying the same 

concepts we used in selecting the test 

methods allowable for performance test 

methods for determining whether the 

source is ‘‘in regulated materials 

service.’’ As discussed in section V.B.6 

of this preamble, we are not allowing 

EPA Method 18, ASTM D6420–99 and 

EPA Method 320 as performance test 

methods for total regulated material 

because these methods only work for 

determining the quantity of known 

pollutants; therefore, you could fail to 

identify the ‘‘total’’ regulated material. 

We are requesting comment on whether 

it is reasonable to consider allowing 

Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A in lieu of EPA Method 18 for 

determining whether your regulated 

source is in regulated materials service 

when the specific organic regulated 

material is known, and not allowing 

EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 320 

when there are unknown HAP present. 

Instead, we would specify that Method 

25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 

should be used to determine if the 

source is ‘‘in regulated materials 

service.’’ This proposed 40 CFR 65.275 

is identical to the previously proposed 

40 CFR 65.275. 

14. What authorities are not delegated to 

the states? 

We delegate implementation and 

enforcement authority to a state under 

sections 111(c) and 112(l) of the CAA. 

For the Uniform Standards, the 

delegation of these authorities would be 

through the referencing subparts 

because the proposed Uniform 

Standards are a set of foundational 

requirements that may be used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions standards specified in the 

referencing subpart. However, because 

there are certain requirements that the 

EPA does not delegate to the states, and 

some of those requirements are located 

in the Uniform Standards, it is 

important to specify their location in the 

Uniform Standards. 40 CFR 65.275 is 

proposed to be added to subpart H to 

specify which authorities located in the 

Uniform Standards would be retained 

by the EPA and not delegated to a state. 

The proposed Uniform Standards in 

subpart H specify that the EPA retain 

authority to review and approve the 

following: alternative means of emission 

limitation; recordkeeping and reporting 

waivers; major changes to monitoring 

requirements; major changes to test 

methods; and using standard EPA test 

methods other than those listed in the 

Uniform Standards. This proposed list 

of authorities is consistent with the list 

of retained authorities specified 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63. 

15. How do I determine compliance 

with periodic requirements? 

The proposed National Uniform 

Emission Standards for Heat Exchangers 

(40 CFR part 65, subpart L), signed by 

the EPA Administrator on November 30, 

2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), 

included guidance on the timing of 

periodic requirements, including a 

minimum amount of time that must 

pass between consecutive instances, or 

‘‘reasonable intervals.’’ We provided 

reasonable intervals for weekly, 

monthly, quarterly, semiannual and 

annual requirements in proposed 40 

CFR part 65, subpart L, and those 

intervals have not changed. In the 

process of developing the Uniform 

Standards, we have added periodic 

requirements using additional time 

frames. Therefore, we are proposing to 

add additional reasonable intervals for 

requirements that occur bimonthly, 

three times per year and biennially (i.e., 

every 2 calendar years). We are 

proposing that the reasonable interval 

for bimonthly requirements would be 20 

days, which is roughly halfway between 

the reasonable intervals for monthly and 

quarterly requirements. Requirements 

that must be completed ‘‘three times per 

year’’ are less defined in terms of a 

calendar period, but if the three events 

were evenly spaced throughout a year, 

they would occur about 120 days apart. 

We are proposing that the reasonable 

interval for ‘‘three times per year’’ 

would be 40 days, which is consistent 

with the reasonable intervals of about 

one-third of the calendar period that we 

proposed previously for requirements 

that occur quarterly or less frequently. 

Finally, we are proposing that for 

provisions that you are required to 

complete biennially, you would repeat 

those events every other calendar year. 

(For example, if you are required to 

monitor valves subject to 40 CFR part 

65, subpart J biennially, and you 

complete the first monitoring event in 

January of 2014, you would be required 

to complete the next monitoring event 

on or after January 1, 2016, and on or 

before December 31, 2016.) This 

provision has the effect of requiring you 

to schedule each event between about 1 

to 3 calendar years after the previous 

event. We request comment on these 

reasonable intervals. 

16. What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

We are proposing definitions in 

subpart H for certain types of units that 

appear in multiple Uniform Standards, 

so that those terms are defined 

consistently. Some definitions modeled 

from subpart SS, UU and WW of part 63 

have been revised in the proposed 

subpart H for clarification or 

applicability purposes. Refer to sections 

III through V of this preamble for 

discussions about issues related to the 

proposed definitions. 

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Rule 

The Uniform Standards provide only 

operational, compliance monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that would not apply to 

any specific source category unless and 

until made applicable in a subsequent 

rulemaking for that source category 

referencing the Uniform Standards; 

therefore, it is most appropriate to 

present nationwide impacts for a 

referencing subpart during proposal or 

promulgation of that subpart when the 

emission standards are established for a 

given source category and when the 

decision of whether to refer to the 

Uniform Standards (and with what 

modifications) is made. The referencing 

subpart will provide the specific 

applicability of the Uniform Standards 

and an estimate of the number of 

sources and emission units for the given 

source category. Using the estimated 

numbers of regulated units, the 

nationwide impacts can be clearly 

calculated and presented. 

In order to provide sufficient 

information on the proposed Uniform 

Standards for comment review, we are 

presenting costs on a unit basis for the 

proposed monitoring requirements that 

have not been included in previous 

rules. Many of the requirements in the 

Uniform Standards are the same or are 

similar to previous rules and do not 

represent changes that will translate 

into a cost increase from current rules 

applicable to the chemical industry. 

Although the Uniform Standards are 

intended to reduce the overall burden 

for facilities, some of the proposed 

changes could cause an increase in 

costs. This section provides a discussion 

of these costs and any cost increases 

that could be associated with the 

compliance requirements of the 

Uniform Standards when they are 

applied through a referencing subpart. 

A. What are the cost increases 

associated with requirements proposed 

in 40 CFR part 65, subpart I? 

Generally, costs will be the same or 

lower for the 40 CFR part 65, subpart I 

standards. The proposed requirement to 

control emissions from degassing 

certain storage vessels will increase 

costs, as described in section III of this 

preamble. The proposed requirement to 

install monitoring devices and alarms to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

alert operators of impending floating 

roof landing and overfill will add costs 

for facilities that do not already have 

such devices. The EPA Method 21/ 

optical gas imaging instrument 

monitoring of fixed roofs will be more 

costly than visual inspections. 

B. What are the cost increases 

associated with requirements proposed 

in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J? 

There are two new provisions in the 

Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks 

that are expected to increase costs 

compared to current rules. As described 

in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, the 

first of these is annual instrument 

monitoring for open-ended valves and 

lines to ensure compliance with the 

requirement that the cap, blind flange, 

plug or a second valve properly seals 

the open-ended valve or line. The costs 

for the model plants ranged from a 

capital cost of $810 and an annualized 

cost of $180 for the simple chemical 

manufacturing model to a capital cost of 

$23,000 and an annualized cost of 

$5,400 for the complex refinery model. 

The other provision that is expected 

to increase costs compared to current 

rules is the requirement to install 

electronic indicators on each PRD that 

would be able to identify and record the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release. These costs range from a capital 

cost of $11,000 and an annualized 

capital cost of $1,600 for the simple 

chemical manufacturing model to a 

capital cost of $130,000 and an 

annualized capital cost of $19,000 for 

the complex refinery model. Additional 

details on the calculation of these costs 

are provided in the technical 

memorandum entitled Analysis of 

Emission Reduction Techniques for 

Equipment Leaks, in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0869. 

C. What are the cost increases 

associated with requirements proposed 

in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M? 

We are providing a summary of the 

cost impacts of the proposed 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart M monitoring 

requirements in which the expected 

impacts will change from the typical 

monitoring requirements in past rules, 

including adsorbers, biofilters, bypasses 

and reporting requirements. We do not 

anticipate other cost impacts that would 

differ from those established in current 

regulations. We provide a summary of 

the costs for the proposed monitoring 

and reporting requirements in sections 

VII.C.1 through VII.C.3 of this preamble. 

Additional information regarding 

monitoring costs for closed vent system 

and control devices, including small 

boilers and process heaters, oxidizers, 

absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, 

biofilters, sorbent injection and fabric 

filters can be located in the technical 

memorandum, Development of 

Monitoring Cost Estimates for the 

Proposed Part 65 Uniform Standards for 

Control Devices—Subpart M, in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0868. 

1. What are the cost increases associated 

with adsorber requirements proposed in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart M? 

The proposed monitoring for 

adsorbers, both regenerative and nonregenerative, includes some 

requirements that are new to the typical 

chemical sector regulation. Table 16 of 

this preamble provides a list of the 

proposed monitoring provisions for 

adsorbers that have not been typically 

included in previous chemical sector 

regulations. 

TABLE 16—CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR PROPOSED ADSORBER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN 40 CFR PART

65, SUBPART M 

Control Monitoring 

Total 

capital costs 

($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

($) 

Regenerative Adsorbers ................................................... Frequency monitor ........................................................... .................... 5,950 

Verification monitoring ...................................................... .................... 5,950 

Weekly checks on outlet concentration ........................... 9,200 3,700 

Corrective action plan ...................................................... .................... 3,400 

Non-regenerative Adsorbers ............................................. Checks on outlet concentration (costs assume an average of weekly monitoring).9,200 3,700 

As stated previously in section V.B.3 

of this preamble, these monitoring 

requirements are important to assess 

whether the adsorbers are operating 

properly. It is difficult to estimate 

emissions reductions that can be 

attributed to these additional costs. 

Other than the weekly outlet 

concentration tests, the additional 

monitoring checks are designed to check 

for a situation that can occur, but may 

not for a given adsorber. If, for example, 

the valve sequencing of a regenerative 

adsorber is sluggish and the timing is 

not correct, the emissions reduced by 

the adsorber could degrade 

significantly. The weekly checks on the 

outlet concentration and associated 

corrective action plan for regenerative 

adsorbers ensure that degradation of the 

adsorbent, fouling or channeling is 

detected in a timely manner. A period 

of time with inadequate adsorbent 

would significantly reduce the 

emissions reductions of the adsorber. 

Although the degradation of the 

adsorbent is an anticipated event, the 

adsorbent life can vary with actual use; 

therefore, a schedule to check the outlet 

concentration is important to make sure 

that the adsorber does not operate with 

degraded adsorbent and can control 

emissions to meet the requirements of 

the referencing subpart. 

Few past rules have included 

provisions for adsorbers regenerated 

offsite; therefore, any monitoring for 

non-regenerative adsorbers is additional 

monitoring or new for chemical sector 

rules. The proposed monitoring for this 

type of control, outlet concentration 

measurement, is low cost, especially 

considering that this is the only 

monitoring that is necessary for this 

control. 

2. What are the cost increases associated 

with biofilter requirements proposed in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart M? 

Although the MON requires 

monitoring the temperature of the 

biofilter bed, we are proposing 

additional monitoring for moisture and 

pressure drop. The estimated additional 

costs for monitoring these parameters 

are included in Table 17 of this 

preamble. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17971 

TABLE 17—CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR PROPOSED BIOFILTER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN SUBPART M 

Control Monitoring 

Total 

capital costs 

($) 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

($) 

Biofilters ............................................................................ Moisture content ............................................................... 5,400 7,100 

Pressure drop ................................................................... 6,400 7,400 

Although the MON only allows the 

biofilter as a control option for batch 

operations, we are proposing to allow 

the control option for emissions from 

either a batch or continuous operation. 

To meet the additional emissions 

reductions usually associated with 

continuous operations, we have added 

monitoring for moisture and pressure 

drop to ensure good performance of the 

biofilter. The costs for the additional 

monitoring are reasonable given the 

added assurance of good performance 

achieved by including this monitoring. 

3. What are the cost increases associated 

with bypass monitoring requirements 

proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M? 

Bypass monitoring has been a 

requirement of closed vent system 

provisions in many past regulations. 

However, PRD needed for safety 

purposes, low leg drains, high point 

bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended 

valves or lines were previously not 

subject to the bypass line requirements 

to have a flow monitor or a car seal on 

each bypass line that could divert a vent 

stream to the atmosphere. Given the 

recent Sierra Club v. EPA decision 

vacating the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions’ exemption from emission 

standards during periods of SSM (see 

section VI.B.5 of this preamble), these 

equipment would be subject to this 

monitoring when directed to the 

Uniform Standards from a referencing 

subpart. See the discussion under 

section VII.B of this preamble. 

D. What are the cost impacts associated 

with the proposed reporting 

requirements for the Uniform 

Standards? 

In our survey of existing regulations 

for the development of the Uniform 

Standards, we determined that many 

petroleum refineries and chemical 

plants are subject to numerous and 

duplicative recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements under various 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63 subparts, as well as 

under the title V program. We have 

estimated a total recordkeeping and 

reporting burden for a typical refinery 

subject to current rules of about 

$106,000, with a burden of 

approximately $52,800 for the required 

reporting. For an example chemical 

plant, we have estimated a total 

recordkeeping and reporting burden of 

approximately $66,900 for the current 

rules, with a burden of about $16,000 

for the current required reporting. In 

order to reduce burden to industry, 

while retaining the reporting 

requirements needed to monitor 

compliance, we are proposing annual 

periodic reporting for some reporting 

elements and we are proposing to accept 

semiannual reporting data elements 

electronically, as discussed in sections 

II.F and VI.B.7 of this preamble. We 

anticipate that the proposed reporting 

requirements will reduce the burden of 

reporting for a typical refinery by 59 

percent. This would represent a burden 

reduction of about $31,400 for reporting 

burden, and a total burden reduction of 

30 percent for a typical refinery. For a 

typical chemical plant, we anticipate 

that the proposed requirements will 

reduce the burden of reporting by 42 

percent. This would represent a burden 

reduction of $6,780 per year for 

reporting, and would represent a total 

burden reduction of 10 percent for a 

typical chemical plant. However, there 

will be some burden for a source to 

initially set up their facility in the 

electronic reporting system. We 

estimated set up costs for the example 

refinery and chemical plant as $5,300 

and $2,700, respectively. See technical 

memorandum, Comparison of Reporting 

Burden between Hardcopy Reports 

Submitted under Existing Rules and 

Electronic Reports Submitted for 

Uniform Standards, in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0868 for 

additional information. These burden 

reductions are estimates based on two 

model sources; we will be refining these 

estimates and developing estimates 

associated with all electronic reporting 

users. These estimates will be presented 

in the preamble for the electronic 

reporting rule proposal. For a discussion 

of the electronic reporting, see section 

II.F of this preamble. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 15859, 

March 22, 2011) directs each federal 

agency to ‘‘periodically review its 

existing significant regulations to 

determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed so as to make the 

agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives.’’ 

Through this proposal, the EPA is 

responding to Executive Order 13563 by 

presenting steps to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing 

that owners and operators of facilities 

affected by this proposal electronically 

submit certain specified compliance 

reports to the EPA. Electronic data 

reporting informs a number of our 

programs and offers several advantages 

over traditional paper reporting. First, 

electronic reporting provides the agency 

easy and routine access to the data 

needed to review and evaluate our 

regulations. This results in fewer future 

ICR, thereby saving both industry and 

the agency time and resources. In 

addition, electronic reporting of 

emissions data will allow the agency to 

develop and update emissions factors 

on a timelier basis. Finally, electronic 

reporting informs our compliance 

program and allows easier identification 

of compliance issues. 

Executive Order 13563 requires the 

EPA to evaluate current regulatory 

decisions to help generate a more 

transparent review process. We believe 

that, through this proposal, electronic 

reporting and data collection will 

provide a more effective and less 

burdensome approach to recordkeeping 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and reporting and is consistent with 

Executive Order 13563. The EPA 

prepared an additional analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action. This analysis is 

contained in section VII of this 

preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The 

proposed Uniform Standards only 

provide thresholds, emissions 

reductions requirements, control 

options, testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that would become 

applicable to a particular source 

category only if, and when, a future 

rulemaking for that source category 

references the Uniform Standards. The 

information collection burden of the 

Uniform Standards on a given source 

category cannot be determined until the 

Uniform Standards are referenced in a 

future rulemaking. Upon proposal of a 

rule that references the Uniform 

Standards, a determination of the 

burden estimate and an assessment for 

costs, economic impacts and other 

impacts, as appropriate, would be 

conducted. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business, as defined by the Small 

Business Administration regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not directly 

impose any requirements on any 

entities, including small entities. There 

are no entities subject to this proposed 

rule unless and until the Uniform 

Standards are referenced in future 

rulemakings for particular source 

categories. We continue to be interested 

in the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

state, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This rule does not 

contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for state, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. The 

Uniform Standards will not apply to any 

source category until future rulemakings 

under 40 CFR part 60, 61 or 63 reference 

their use. Thus, this rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Upon proposal of a rule that references 

the Uniform Standards, consideration 

will be made whether that rule exceeds 

$100 million or more for state, local and 

tribal governments or presents a 

significant impact on small government 

entities. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The Uniform 

Standards will not apply to any source 

category until a future rulemaking under 

40 CFR part 60, 61 or 63 references their 

use; therefore, the proposed Uniform 

Standards do not impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. Upon proposal of a rule that 

references the Uniform Standards, 

consideration will be made whether that 

rule has federalism implications. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, the EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the federal government and 

Indian tribes or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

federal government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. The 

proposed Uniform Standards do not 

directly impose requirements on owners 

and operators of specified sources or 

tribal governments, but will be referred 

to in future rulemakings, as discussed in 

section II of this preamble. If any 

industries that are owned or operated by 

tribal governments may be referenced to 

the Uniform Standards by another 

subpart in the future, the effect of this 

proposed rule on communities of tribal 

governments would not be unique or 

disproportionate to the effect on other 

communities. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution or use of 

energy. The proposed Uniform 

Standards provide testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements only and do not specify 

applicability thresholds or emissions 

reduction performance requirements 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17973 

that would have significant adverse 

energy impacts. The energy impacts of 

the proposed Uniform Standards would 

be determined when the standards are 

referenced in a future rulemaking. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

proposed rule, when implemented, is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution or use 

of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law 104– 

113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. This 

proposed rulemaking involves technical 

standards. The EPA cites the following 

standards: Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 

2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 18, 21, 22, 23, 

25A, 26, 26A, 27, 29, 201A, 202, 301 

and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA 

conducted searches to identify VCS in 

addition to these EPA methods. No 

applicable VCS were identified for EPA 

Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 22, 27, 

201A or 202. The search and review 

results are in the docket for this rule. 

The search identified six VCS as 

acceptable alternatives to EPA test 

methods for the purpose of this rule. 

The method, ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

(incorporated by reference-see proposed 

40 CFR 65.265), is cited in this rule for 

its manual method for measuring the 

oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon 

monoxide content of the exhaust gas. 

This part of ASME PTC 19.10–1981 is 

an acceptable alternative to EPA 

Methods 3A and 3B for the manual 

procedures only, and not the 

instrumental procedures. The VCS, 

ASTM D6420–99 (2010), Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Organic Compounds by Direct Interface 

Gas Chromatography-Mass 

Spectrometry (incorporated by 

reference-see proposed 40 CFR 65.265), 

was designated an acceptable alternative 

to EPA Method 18. Likewise, the VCS, 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 

2010 ‘‘Amines, Aliphatic, is acceptable 

as an alternative for EPA Method 18 

only for trimethylamine (CAS 121–44– 

8) at iron foundries. 

The VCS, ASTM D6735–01, Standard 

Test Method for Measurement of 

Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from 

Mineral Calcining Exhaust Source 

Impinger Method, is acceptable as an 

alternative to EPA Methods 26 and 26A. 

The VCS, ASTM D6784–2, Standard 

Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), is 

acceptable as an alternative to EPA 

Method 29 for mercury only. The VCS, 

ASTM D6348–03 (2010), Determination 

of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive 

Direct Interface Fourier Transform 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, is acceptable as an 

alternative to EPA Method 320, in 

accordance with the conditions outlined 

in the memorandum, Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for 

National Uniform Standards for Storage 

Vessels and Transfer Operations (40 

CFR 65 Subpart I), National Uniform 

Emission Standards for Equipment 

Leaks (40 CFR 65 Subpart J), and 

National Uniform Emission Standards 

for Control Devices (40 CFR Subpart M) 

(see Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0868). 

The search for emissions 

measurement procedures identified 23 

other VCS that were potentially 

applicable for the Uniform Standards in 

lieu of EPA reference methods. The EPA 

determined that these 23 standards 

identified for measuring emissions of 

the regulated pollutants or their 

surrogates subject to emission standards 

in this proposed rule were impractical 

due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. Therefore, the EPA does 

not intend to adopt these standards for 

this purpose. The reasons for the 

determinations for the 23 methods are 

in the docket for this proposed rule. For 

the methods required or referenced by 

the proposed rules, a source may apply 

to the EPA for permission to use 

alternative test methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in place of any 

required testing methods, performance 

specifications or procedures, as 

specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart H. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has concluded that it is not 

practicable to determine whether there 

would be disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and/or low income 

populations from this proposed rule. 

The proposed Uniform Standards only 

provide thresholds, emissions reduction 

requirements and operational, testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, and are not 

applicable until referenced by a future 

rulemaking for a particular source 

category. The impact of the proposed 

rule on minority and/or low-income 

populations would be determined 

during proposal in future rulemakings 

that reference the Uniform Standards. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 65 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 24, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 65—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 65 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

2. Replace subpart H to read as 

follows: 

Sec. 

Subpart H—National Uniform Emission 

Standards General Provisions 

What This Subpart Covers 

65.200 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

65.205 Am I subject to this subpart? 

65.206 When must I comply with this 

subpart? 

General Requirements 

65.210 Am I subject to the General 

Provisions for part 60, 61 or 63 of this 

part? 

65.215 What are my general requirements 

for complying with operation and 

maintenance requirements? 

65.220 What are my general recordkeeping 

requirements? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

65.225 What are my general reporting 

requirements? 

65.235 How do I request a waiver for 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

65.240 How do I request an alternative 

monitoring method? 

65.245 How do I request a waiver for 

performance testing requirements? 

65.250 How do I request to use an 

alternative test method? 

65.260 What are the procedures for 

approval of alternative means of 

emission limitation? 

65.265 What methods are incorporated by 

reference for the Uniform Standards? 

65.270 How do I determine what regulated 

sources are in regulated material service? 

Other Requirements and Information 

65.275 What authorities are not delegated to 

the states? 

65.280 How do I determine compliance 

with periodic requirements? 

65.295 What definitions apply to the 

Uniform Standards? 

Table to Subpart H of Part 65 

Table 1 to Subpart H of Part 65—Applicable 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61 and 63 General 

Provisions 

Subpart H—National Uniform Emission 

Standards General Provisions 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 65.200 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

provide general provisions for the 

Uniform Standards of this part. These 

general provisions apply to you if a 

subpart of part 60, 61 or 63 of this 

chapter references the use of this 

subpart. The general provisions 

applicable to the referencing subpart 

(subpart A of part 60, 61 or 63) apply 

to this subpart, as specified in § 65.210. 

Section 65.295 contains definitions of 

‘‘uniform standards’’ and ‘‘referencing 

subpart,’’ as well as other terms used in 

these Uniform Standards. The General 

Provisions for the Consolidated Federal 

Air Rule (subpart A of this part) do not 

apply to the Uniform Standards. 

§ 65.205 Am I subject to this subpart? 

You are subject to this subpart if you 

are an owner or operator who is subject 

to a referencing subpart and you have 

been expressly directed to comply with 

the uniform standards by a referencing 

subpart. 

§ 65.206 When must I comply with this 

subpart? 

You must comply with this subpart by 

the date specified in the referencing 

subpart that directed you to comply 

with this subpart. 

General Requirements 

§ 65.210 Am I subject to the General 

Provisions for part 60, 61 or 63 of this part? 

You must comply with the provisions 

of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A; 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart A; and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A, as applicable, that are 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart. 

Table 1 to this subpart specifies the 

provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A; 

40 CFR part 61, subpart A; and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A that continue to 

apply to owners or operators of 

regulated sources expressly referenced 

to the Uniform Standards. You must 

comply with the provisions in Table 1 

to this subpart that correspond to the 

referencing part. All provisions of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart A; 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart A; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

A that are not expressly referenced in 

Table 1 to this subpart do not apply, and 

the provisions of the Uniform Standards 

apply instead, except that provisions 

that were required to be met prior to 

implementation of the Uniform 

Standards still apply. 

§ 65.215 What are my general 

requirements for complying with operation 

and maintenance requirements? 

(a) Operation and maintenance 

requirements. You are subject to the 

operation and maintenance provisions 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any regulated source, 

including associated air pollution 

control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control 

practices for minimizing emissions. 

(2) The emission standards and 

established parameter ranges of the 

referencing subpart and of the Uniform 

Standards apply at all times, except 

during periods of non-operation of the 

regulated source (or specific portion 

thereof), as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. However, 

if a period of non-operation of one 

portion of a regulated source does not 

affect the ability of a particular emission 

point to comply with the specific 

provisions to which it is subject, then 

that emission point must comply with 

the applicable provisions of the Uniform 

Standards during the period of nonoperation. For example, the degassing of 

a storage vessel would not affect the 

ability of a process vent to meet the 

requirements of subpart M of this part. 

(i) For all Uniform Standards except 

subpart J of this part, periods of nonoperation of the regulated source (or 

specific portion thereof) are those 

periods resulting in cessation of the 

emissions to which the Uniform 

Standards apply. 

(ii) For subpart J of this part, periods 

of non-operation of the regulated source 

(or specific portion thereof) are those 

periods in which the lines are drained 

and depressurized, resulting in 

cessation of the emissions to which 

subpart J of this part applies. 

(3) Operation and maintenance 

requirements are enforceable 

independent of emissions limitations or 

other requirements in relevant 

standards. 

(b) Compliance determination 

procedures. The Administrator will 

follow the compliance determination 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Compliance with operating 

conditions. For emission points that are 

required to perform continuous 

parameter monitoring, the 

Administrator will determine 

compliance with the required operating 

conditions for the monitored control 

devices by using operating parameter 

monitoring data. 

(2) Compliance with the requirement 

to maintain any regulated source in a 

manner consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The 

Administrator will determine 

compliance with the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section by 

evaluation of your use of acceptable 

operation and maintenance procedures. 

This determination will be based on 

information available to the 

Administrator that may include, but is 

not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, inspection of the 

regulated source and alternatives 

approved as specified in § 65.240. 

(3) Compliance with emissions 

standards. Paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of 

this section govern the use of data, tests 

and requirements to determine 

compliance with emissions standards. 

(i) Performance test. The 

Administrator will determine 

compliance with emission standards of 

the referencing subpart and the Uniform 

Standards, based on the results of 

performance tests conducted according 

to the procedures specified in subpart M 

of this part, as applicable, unless 

otherwise specified in the Uniform 

Standards. 

(ii) Operation and maintenance 

requirements. The Administrator will 

determine compliance with emission 

standards of the Uniform Standards by 

evaluation of your conformance with 

operation and maintenance 

requirements, including the evaluation 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17975 

of monitoring data, as specified in the 

Uniform Standards. 

(4) Design, equipment, work practice 

or operational standards. The 

Administrator will determine 

compliance with design, equipment, 

work practice or operational standards 

by the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Review of records, inspection of 

the regulated source and other 

procedures specified in the Uniform 

Standards. 

(ii) Evaluation of your conformance 

with operation and maintenance 

requirements, as specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section and in the Uniform 

Standards. 

(c) Finding of compliance. The 

Administrator will make a finding 

concerning a regulated source’s 

compliance with an emission standard, 

design standard, work practice, 

operational standard or general duty 

requirement to maintain any regulated 

source in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control 

practices for minimizing emissions, as 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, upon obtaining all the 

compliance information required by the 

relevant standard (including the reports 

of performance test results, monitoring 

results and other information, if 

applicable), and information available to 

the Administrator, pursuant to 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

§ 65.220 What are my general 

recordkeeping requirements? 

(a) Maintaining notifications, records 

and reports. You must keep copies of 

notifications, reports and records 

required by this part for at least 5 years, 

except for records that reflect current 

operating conditions. These records and 

reports must be kept for 5 years after 

they no longer reflect current operating 

conditions. Examples of these records 

and reports include the regenerative 

adsorber corrective action plan required 

by § 65.742(e) or storage vessel capacity 

required by § 65.380(a). 

(b) Availability of records. You must 

maintain all applicable records in such 

a manner that they can be readily 

accessed and are suitable for inspection 

within 2 hours after a request. Records 

may be maintained in hard copy or 

computer-readable form, including, but 

not limited to, on paper, computer disk, 

CD/DVD or magnetic tape. 

§ 65.225 What are my general reporting 

requirements? 

(a) Required notifications and reports. 

You must submit the notifications and 

reports specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section, as applicable. 

The notifications and reports specified 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (g) through (j) of this section. 

(1) A Notification of Compliance 

Status described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(2) Semiannual periodic reports, as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(3) Annual periodic reports, as 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(4) Other notifications and reports, as 

described in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(b) Responsible official. For 

Notification of Compliance Status 

Reports, semi-annual reports, annual 

periodic reports, performance test 

reports and continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) performance 

evaluation data, you must include the 

name, title and signature of the 

responsible official who is certifying the 

accuracy of the report and attesting to 

whether the source has complied with 

the relevant standard. 

(c) Notification of Compliance Status. 

You must submit your Notification of 

Compliance Status, as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

The Notification of Compliance Status 

for subparts I and J of this part must be 

submitted electronically, as specified in 

paragraph (h) of this section and the 

Notification of Compliance Status for 

subpart M of this part must be 

submitted, as specified in paragraph (i) 

of this section. 

(1) Contents. You must submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status for 

each regulated source subject to the 

Uniform Standards, containing the 

information specified in the applicable 

subparts of the Uniform Standards. 

(2) Due date. You must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status for 

each regulated source within 240 days 

after the applicable compliance date 

specified in the referencing subpart, or 

within 60 days after the completion of 

the initial performance test, whichever 

is earlier. 

(d) Semiannual periodic reports. You 

must submit your periodic reports, as 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section. Semiannual reports must 

be submitted electronically as specified 

in paragraph (h) of this section. 

(1) Contents. Semiannual periodic 

reports must include information of all 

deviations. A deviation includes any 

failure to meet a requirement or 

obligation under the Uniform Standards 

and those reporting elements specified, 

to be submitted in the semiannual 

periodic reports in the Uniform 

Standards. 

(2) Due date. Semiannual periodic 

reports must be submitted 

semiannually, no later than 60 calendar 

days after the end of each 6-month 

period. The first report must be 

submitted, as specified in either 

paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(i) The first report must be submitted 

no later than the last day of the month 

that includes the date 8 months after the 

date the source became subject to this 

part or 6 months after the date since the 

last part 60, 61 or 63 periodic report was 

submitted for the applicable 

requirement, whichever is earlier. 

(ii) For sources complying with the 

Uniform Standards at initial startup, the 

first report must cover the 6 months 

after the Notification of Compliance 

Status is due. The first report must be 

submitted no later than the last day of 

the month that includes the date 8 

months after the Notification of 

Compliance Status is due. 

(e) Annual periodic report. You must 

submit your annual periodic reports, as 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1), (2) and (i) 

of this section. 

(1) Contents. Annual periodic reports 

must include all information specified 

for annual periodic reports in the 

Uniform Standards. 

(2) Due date. Annual periodic reports 

must be submitted annually, no later 

than 60 calendar days after the end of 

each 12-month period. The first report 

must be submitted, as specified in either 

paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(i) The first report must be submitted 

no later than the last day of the month 

that includes the date 14 months after 

the date the source became subject to 

this part or 12 months after the date 

since the last part 60, 61 or 63 periodic 

report was submitted for the applicable 

requirement, whichever is earlier. 

(ii) For sources complying with the 

Uniform Standards at initial startup, the 

first report must cover the 12 months 

after the Notification of Compliance 

Status is due. The first report must be 

submitted no later than the last day of 

the month that includes the date 14 

months after the Notification of 

Compliance Status is due. 

(f) Other notifications and reports. 

You must submit the reports specified 

in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3), and (i) 

of this section, as applicable. 

(1) Other reports required in this 

subpart. You must submit the reports 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through 

(iv) of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Any request for a waiver for 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements, as specified in § 65.235. 

(ii) Any request for an alternative or 

change in monitoring or an alternative 

recordkeeping method, as specified in 

§ 65.240. 

(iii) Any request for a waiver for a 

performance testing requirement, as 

specified in § 65.245. 

(iv) Any request to use a different 

method than one specified in the 

Uniform Standards, as specified in 

§ 65.250. 

(2) Other reports required in subpart 

I of this part. You must submit the 

reports specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (ii) of this section. 

(i) Notification of inspection 

(§ 65.388(a)). 

(ii) Requests for alternate devices 

(§ 65.388(b)). 

(3) Other reports required in subpart 

M of this part. You must submit the 

reports specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) 

through (xi) of this section. 

(i) Notification of performance test 

(§ 65.884(a)). 

(ii) Performance test reports 

(§ 65.884(b)) submitted, as specified in 

paragraph (k) of this section. 

(iii) Notification of CEMS 

performance evaluation (§ 65.884(c)). 

(iv) CEMS performance evaluation 

and monitoring plan (§ 65.884(c)). 

(v) CEMS performance evaluations 

(§ 65.884(d)) submitted, as specified in 

paragraph (k) of this section. 

(vi) Continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) monitoring plan 

(§ 65.884(e)). 

(vii) Application to substitute a prior 

performance test (§ 65.884(f)). 

(viii) A batch precompliance report 

(§ 65.884(g)). 

(ix) Request for approval of an 

alternative monitoring parameter or use 

of a control device other than those 

listed in subpart M of this part 

(§ 65.884(h)). 

(x) Changes in continuous monitoring 

system, processes or controls 

(§ 65.884(i)). 

(xi) New operating scenarios for batch 

operations (§ 65.884(j)). 

(g) General report content. All 

notifications and reports submitted, 

pursuant to the Uniform Standards, 

including reports that combine 

information from the Uniform Standards 

and a referencing subpart, must include 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (8) of this section. 

(1) Company name, address and 

telephone number (fax number may also 

be provided). 

(2) The name, address and telephone 

number of the person to whom inquiries 

should be addressed, if different than 

the owner or operator. 

(3) The address (physical location) of 

the reporting facility. 

(4) Identification of each regulated 

source covered in the submission. 

(5) Identification of which referencing 

subpart is applicable to each regulated 

source. 

(6) Identification of which Uniform 

Standards are applicable to that 

regulated source. 

(7) Summaries and groupings of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(g)(4) through (6) of this section are 

permitted. 

(8) The date of the report. 

(h) Electronic report submittals. You 

must electronically submit all 

semiannual periodic reports and the 40 

CFR part 65, subpart I and 40 CFR part 

65, subpart J portions of the Notification 

of Compliance Status to the 

Administrator using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) on or before the applicable due 

date. 

(i) Non-CEDRI submitted reports. You 

must submit notifications and reports 

not required to be submitted 

electronically according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (i)(1) through 

(4) of this section. 

(1) Notifications and reports not 

required to be submitted electronically 

under this part must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate EPA 

Regional Office, and to the delegated 

State authority; except if you request 

permission to use an alternative means 

of emission limitation, as provided for 

in § 65.260, you must submit the request 

to the Director of the Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (C404– 

04), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711. The EPA Regional 

Office may waive the requirement to 

receive a copy of any notification or 

report at its discretion. 

(2) If any State requires a notice that 

contains all the information required in 

a notification or report listed in this 

part, you may send the appropriate EPA 

Regional Office a copy of the 

notification or report that you sent to 

the state to satisfy the requirements of 

this part for that notification or report. 

(3) Wherever this subpart specifies 

‘‘postmark’’ dates, submittals may be 

sent by methods other than the U.S. 

Mail (for example, by email, fax or 

courier) upon mutual agreement with 

the Administrator. Submittals must be 

sent on or before the specified date. 

(4) If acceptable to both the 

Administrator and you, notifications 

and reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. 

(j) Adjustment to timing of submittals. 

Adjustment to timing of submittals may 

be made according to the provisions 

specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) 

of this section. 

(1) Alignment with title V submission. 

You may submit semiannual periodic 

reports required by this part, on the 

same schedule as the title V periodic 

report for the facility. If you use this 

option, you need not obtain prior 

approval, but must assure no reporting 

gaps from the last semiannual periodic 

report for the relevant standards. You 

must clearly identify the change in 

reporting schedule in the first report 

after the change is made, filed under 

paragraph (d) of this section. The 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this 

section are not waived when 

implementing this change. 

(2) Request for adjustment. You may 

arrange, by mutual agreement (which 

may be a standing agreement) with the 

Administrator, a common schedule on 

which reports required by this part must 

be submitted throughout the year, as 

long as the reporting period is not 

extended. If you wish to request a 

change in a time period or due date for 

a particular requirement, you must 

request the adjustment as soon as 

practical before the subject activity is 

required to take place. You must 

include in the request the information 

you consider to be useful to convince 

the Administrator that an adjustment is 

warranted. A request for a change to the 

semiannual or annual periodic reporting 

schedules need only be made once for 

every schedule change and not once for 

every semiannual or annual report 

submitted. Until an adjustment of a due 

date has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain subject to the 

requirements of the Uniform Standards. 

For periodic reports submitted for each 

relevant standard, the allowance for a 

consolidated schedule applies 

beginning 1 year after the regulated 

source’s compliance date for that 

standard. 

(3) Approval of request for 

adjustment. If, in the Administrator’s 

judgment, your request for an 

adjustment to a particular due date is 

warranted, the Administrator will 

approve the adjustment. The 

Administrator will notify you of 

approval or disapproval of the request 

for an adjustment within 15 calendar 

days of receiving sufficient information 

to evaluate the request. 

(4) Notification of delay. If the 

Administrator is unable to meet a 

specified deadline, you will be notified 

of any significant delay and informed of 

the amended schedule. 

(k) Electronic submittal of 

performance test and CEMS 

performance evaluation data. You must 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17977 

submit performance test and CEMS 

performance evaluation data using 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

required by Uniform Standards, you 

must submit performance test data 

electronically to EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) by using the ERT (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html). Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with ERT are 

subject to this requirement, to be 

submitted electronically to EPA’s CDX. 

If a non-supported test method is used, 

you must submit the performance test 

report within 60 days, as specified in 

paragraph (i) of this section. 

(2) If you claim that some of the 

information being submitted for 

performance tests is confidential 

business information (CBI), you must 

omit such CBI data from the electronic 

submissions and submit a complete ERT 

file, including information claimed to be 

CBI, on a compact disk or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media (including, but not limited to, 

flash drives) to EPA by the due date 

specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this 

section. The electronic media must be 

clearly marked as CBI, with the 

company name, facility location, contact 

name and phone number, and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD 

C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, 

NC 27703. 

(3) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test required by § 65.711(c), 

you must submit the relative accuracy 

test audit data electronically into EPA’s 

CDX by using the ERT, as described in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section. 

(4) The Administrator or the delegated 

authority may request a report in any 

form suitable for the specific 

information, (e.g., by commonly used 

electronic media, such as spreadsheet, 

on CD or hard copy). The Administrator 

retains the right to require submittal of 

reports in paper format. 

§ 65.235 How do I request a waiver for 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements? 

You may request a waiver from 

recordkeeping or reporting according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. The Administrator will 

process the waiver according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (c) through (e) 

of this section. You remain subject to 

the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of the Uniform Standards 

until a waiver has been granted by the 

Administrator. 

(a) Waiver application. You may 

apply for a waiver from recordkeeping 

or reporting requirements if your 

regulated source is achieving the 

relevant standard(s), or your source is 

operating under an extension of 

compliance under § 63.6(i) of this 

chapter, or a waiver of compliance 

under § 61.11 of this chapter, or you 

have requested an extension or waiver 

of compliance and the Administrator is 

still considering that request. 

(b) Extension of compliance request. If 

an application for a waiver of 

recordkeeping or reporting is made, the 

application must accompany the request 

for an extension of compliance under 

§ 63.6(i) of this chapter or the request for 

a waiver of compliance under § 61.10(b) 

of this chapter, any required compliance 

progress report or compliance status 

report required in the source’s title V 

permit application, or a permit 

modification application or a periodic 

report required under this part, 

whichever is applicable. The 

application must include whatever 

information you consider useful to 

convince the Administrator that a 

waiver of recordkeeping or reporting is 

warranted. 

(c) Approval or denial of waiver. The 

Administrator will approve or deny a 

request for a waiver of recordkeeping or 

reporting requirements when 

performing one of the following actions: 

(1) Approves or denies an extension 

of compliance under § 63.6(i) of this 

chapter or a waiver of compliance under 

§ 61.10(b) of this chapter. 

(2) Makes a determination of 

compliance following the submission of 

a required semiannual periodic report. 

(3) Makes a determination of suitable 

progress toward compliance following 

the submission of a compliance progress 

report, whichever is applicable. 

(d) Waiver conditions. A waiver of 

any recordkeeping or reporting 

requirement granted under this section 

may be conditioned on other 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

deemed necessary by the Administrator. 

(e) Waiver cancellation. Approval of 

any waiver granted under this section 

does not abrogate the Administrator’s 

authority under the Clean Air Act or in 

any way prohibit the Administrator 

from later canceling the waiver. The 

cancellation will be made only after 

notice is given to you. 

§ 65.240 How do I request an alternative 

monitoring method? 

You may submit a request for 

approval to use alternatives (major, 

intermediate or minor changes to 

monitoring methods) to the monitoring 

provisions of the Uniform Standards, as 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Contents. An application for 

alternative monitoring must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Information justifying your request 

for an alternative monitoring method, 

such as the technical or economic 

infeasibility, or the impracticality of the 

regulated source using the required 

method. 

(2) A description of the proposed 

alternative monitoring system that 

addresses the four elements contained 

in the definition of monitoring in 

§ 65.295. 

(3) A CEMS performance evaluation 

and monitoring plan, as specified in 

§ 65.711(c) or a CPMS monitoring plan, 

as specified in § 65.712(c), as applicable. 

(b) Request due date. You must 

submit the application for an alternative 

monitoring method, as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) You may submit the application at 

any time, provided that it is submitted 

with enough time prior to the 

compliance date specified in the 

referencing subpart to ensure a timely 

review by the Administrator in order to 

conduct the alternative monitoring 

method after the compliance date. 

(2) If the alternative monitoring 

procedure will serve as the performance 

test method that is to be used to 

demonstrate compliance with a 

referencing subpart, the application 

must be submitted at least 60 days 

before the performance test is scheduled 

to begin and must meet the 

requirements for an alternative test 

method under § 65.250. 

(3) For a request to make a minor 

change to monitoring, you must submit 

your request with your CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan required in § 65.711(c) or your 

CPMS monitoring plan required in 

§ 65.712(c), as applicable. Approval of 

the plan will constitute approval of the 

minor change. 

(c) Approval or denial of request to 

use alternative monitoring. The 

Administrator will notify you of 

approval or intention to deny approval 

of the request to use an alternative 

monitoring method within 30 calendar 

days after receipt of the original request 

and within 30 calendar days after 

receipt of any supplementary 

information that is submitted. Before 

disapproving any request to use an 

alternative method, the Administrator 

will notify the applicant of the 

Administrator’s intention to disapprove 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the request together with the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Notice of the information, and 

findings on which the intended 

disapproval is based. 

(2) Notice of opportunity for you to 

present additional information to the 

Administrator before final action on the 

request. At the time the Administrator 

notifies you of the intention to 

disapprove the request, the 

Administrator will specify how much 

time you will have after being notified 

of the intended disapproval to submit 

the additional information. 

(d) Use of an alternative monitoring 

method. Procedures applicable to 

sources that have requested an 

alternative monitoring method are 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) You are subject to the monitoring 

requirements of the Uniform Standards, 

unless permission to use an alternative 

monitoring method has been granted by 

the Administrator. Once an alternative 

is approved, you must use the 

alternative for the emission points or 

regulated sources cited in the approval, 

and must meet the monitoring 

requirements of the Uniform Standards 

for all other emission points or 

regulated sources. 

(2) If the Administrator approves the 

use of an alternative monitoring method 

for a regulated source, you must 

continue to use the alternative 

monitoring or method unless you 

receive approval from the Administrator 

to use another method. 

(3) If the Administrator finds 

reasonable grounds to dispute the 

results obtained by an alternative 

monitoring method, requirement or 

procedure, the Administrator may 

require the use of a method, 

requirement or procedure specified in 

the Uniform Standards. If the results of 

the specified and alternative methods, 

requirements or procedures do not 

agree, the results obtained by the 

method, requirement or procedure 

specified in the Uniform Standards will 

prevail. 

§ 65.245 How do I request a waiver for 

performance testing requirements? 

You may request a waiver from the 

requirements to conduct a performance 

test by following the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of 

this section. Unless and until a waiver 

of a performance testing requirement 

has been granted by the Administrator 

under this paragraph, you remain 

subject to the performance testing 

requirements in §§ 65.820 through 

65.829. 

(a) Conditions of request. You may 

apply for a waiver from the performance 

testing requirements specified if one or 

more of the conditions in paragraph 

(a)(1) through (3) apply. 

(1) You are meeting the Uniform 

Standards on a continuous basis. 

(2) You are operating under an 

extension of compliance, as specified in 

§ 63.6(i) of this chapter. 

(3) You have requested an extension 

of compliance, as specified in § 61.11 

and the Administrator is still 

considering that request. 

(b) Contents of request. The request 

must include information justifying 

your request for a waiver, such as the 

technical or economic infeasibility, or 

the impracticality of the regulated 

source performing the required test. 

(c) Timing of request. The waiver 

application must be submitted, as 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of 

this section. 

(1) If you request an extension of 

compliance under § 63.6(i) of this 

chapter, the application for a waiver of 

an initial performance test must 

accompany the information required for 

the request for an extension of 

compliance, and must be submitted on 

the schedule in § 63.6(i) of this chapter. 

(2) If you have not requested an 

extension of compliance or if you have 

requested an extension of compliance 

and the Administrator is still 

considering that request, the application 

for a waiver of a performance test must 

be submitted at least 60 days before 

performance testing would be required. 

The application may accompany a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

Report or semiannual periodic report, as 

specified in § 65.225(c) or (d). 

(d) Approval of request to waive 

performance test. The Administrator 

will approve or deny a request for a 

waiver of a performance test made 

under paragraph (a) of this section by 

completing any one of the actions 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(4) of this section. 

(1) Approves or denies an extension 

of compliance under § 63.6(i)(8) or 

under § 63.11. 

(2) Approves or disapproves a 

performance test plan under § 65.820(c). 

(3) Makes a determination of 

compliance following the submission of 

a required compliance status report or 

periodic report. 

(4) Makes a determination of suitable 

progress towards compliance following 

the submission of a compliance progress 

report. 

(e) Waiver cancellation. Approval of 

any waiver granted under this section 

does not abrogate the Administrator’s 

authority under the Clean Air Act or in 

any way prohibit the Administrator 

from later canceling the waiver. The 

cancellation will be made only after 

notice is given to you. 

§ 65.250 How do I request to use an 

alternative test method? 

You may submit a request for 

approval to use an alternative test 

method (i.e., major, intermediate or 

minor change to a test method, or an 

EPA test method other than one in the 

Uniform Standards), as described in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

section. 

(a) Contents of request. Except as 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, you must include the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the 

request for approval to use an 

alternative test method. 

(1) A justification for using the 

proposed alternative method instead of 

using the method specified in the 

Uniform Standards. 

(2) Results of applying Method 301 at 

40 CFR part 63, appendix A of this part 

to validate the alternative test method. 

This may include the use of only 

specific procedures of EPA Method 301, 

if use of such procedures are sufficient 

to validate the alternative test method. 

(3) For minor changes to a test method 

and for EPA test methods other than 

those specified in the Uniform 

Standards, Method 301 at 40 CFR part 

63, appendix A of this part is not 

required to validate the test method. 

(b) Timing of request. You must 

submit the request to use an alternative 

test method at least 60 days before the 

performance test is scheduled to begin. 

However, you may submit the request 

well in advance of the date 60 days 

before the performance test is scheduled 

to begin to ensure a timely review by the 

Administrator in order for you to meet 

the performance test date specified in 

the referencing subpart. This request 

may be submitted as part of the 

performance test plan required by 

§ 65.820. 

(c) Review of alternative test methods. 

The Administrator will determine 

whether your validation of the proposed 

alternative test method is adequate and 

issue an approval or disapproval. If the 

request for approval of an alternative 

test method is submitted with the 

performance test plan, approval of the 

performance test plan will indicate 

approval of the alternative test method. 

The procedure for test plan approval is 

specified in § 65.820. 

(d) Use of alternative test method. 

You must follow the provisions of 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) regarding 

the use of alternative test methods. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17979 

(1) If you have not received 

notification of approval/disapproval 

within 45 days after submission of the 

request to use an alternative method and 

the request satisfies the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

you may conduct the performance test 

using the alternative method. 

(2) If you use an alternative test 

method for a regulated source during a 

required performance test, you must 

continue to use the alternative test 

method for subsequent performance 

tests at that regulated source until you 

receive approval from the Administrator 

to use another test method, as allowed 

under this section. 

(3) If the Administrator finds 

reasonable grounds to dispute the 

results obtained by an alternative test 

method for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with a 

relevant standard, the Administrator 

may require the use of a test method 

specified in the Uniform Standards. 

(4) Neither the validation and 

approval process nor the failure to 

validate an alternative test method 

abrogates your responsibility to comply 

with the requirements of the Uniform 

Standards. 

§ 65.260 What are the procedures for 

approval of alternative means of emission 

limitation? 

(a) General procedures. You may 

request a determination of equivalence 

for an alternative means of emission 

limitation to the requirements of design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards of the Uniform Standards. If, 

in the judgment of the Administrator, an 

alternative means of emission limitation 

will achieve a reduction in regulated 

material emissions at least equivalent to 

the reduction in emissions from that 

source achieved under any design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (but not performance 

standards) in the Uniform Standards, 

the Administrator will publish in the 

Federal Register, a notice permitting the 

use of the alternative means for 

purposes of compliance with that 

requirement. Such notice will restrict 

the permission to the stationary 

source(s) or category(ies) of sources 

from which the alternative emission 

standard will achieve equivalent 

emission reductions. 

(1) The notice may provide 

permission on the condition that the 

alternative means of emission limitation 

must include requirements to assure the 

proper operation and maintenance of 

equipment and practices that would be 

required for compliance with the 

alternative emission standard, including 

appropriate quality assurance and 

quality control requirements that are 

deemed necessary. 

(2) Any such notice will be published 

only after public notice and an 

opportunity for a hearing. 

(3) A manufacturer of control devices 

or monitoring equipment may request 

an alternative means of emission 

limitation approval for their product. 

(b) Contents of submittal. You must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section in your request for alternative 

means of emission limitation, as 

applicable. 

(1) In order to obtain approval, any 

person seeking permission to use an 

alternative means of emission limitation 

under this section must collect, verify 

and submit to the Administrator 

information showing that the alternative 

means achieves equivalent emission 

reductions. If you seek permission to 

use an alternative means of emission 

limitation and you have not previously 

performed testing, you must also submit 

the proposed performance test plan 

required in § 65.820(b). If you seek 

permission to use an alternative means 

of emission limitation, based on 

previously performed testing, you must 

submit the results of that testing, a 

description of the procedures followed 

in testing or monitoring and a 

description of pertinent conditions 

during testing or monitoring. 

(2) If you request an alternative means 

of emission limitation, you must submit 

a description of the proposed testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting that you will use and the 

proposed basis for demonstrating 

compliance. 

(3) Any testing or monitoring 

conducted to request permission to use 

an alternative emission standard must 

be appropriately quality assured and 

quality controlled, as specified in 

§ 65.820(b), as applicable. 

(4) If you request the use of an 

alternate device for a fitting on a floating 

roof, as described in § 65.315(e), you 

must submit an application, including 

emissions test results and an analysis 

demonstrating that the alternate device 

has an emission factor that is less than 

or equal to the emission factor for the 

device specified in § 65.315(a). The test 

results must include all documentation 

required by the applicable test methods 

and documentation of monitoring 

during the performance test of any 

operating parameters on which you 

establish limits. The tests must be 

conducted using full-size or scale-model 

storage vessels that accurately collect 

and measure all regulated material 

emissions using a given control 

technique, and that accurately simulate 

wind and account for other emission 

variables, such as temperature and 

barometric pressure, or an engineering 

analysis that the Administrator 

determines is an accurate method of 

determining equivalence. 

(c) Compliance. If the Administrator 

makes a determination that a means of 

emission limitation is a permissible 

alternative to the requirements of 

design, equipment, work practice or 

operational standards of the Uniform 

Standards, you must either comply with 

the alternative or comply with the 

requirements of the Uniform Standards, 

as applicable. 

§ 65.265 What methods are incorporated 

by reference for the Uniform Standards? 

The materials listed in this section are 

incorporated by reference in the 

corresponding sections of the Uniform 

Standards. These incorporations by 

reference were approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

These materials are incorporated as they 

exist on the date of the approval, and 

notice of any change in these materials 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. The materials are available for 

purchase at the corresponding addresses 

noted in this section, and all are 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA), at the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, U.S. 

EPA, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC, and at the EPA 

Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Room C261, U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(a) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 

22161, (703) 605–6000 or (800) 553– 

6847; or for purchase from the 

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800. 

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (EPA–454/R– 

98–015). 

(2) Emissions Inventory Improvement 

Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, 

Methods for Estimating Air Emissions 

from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, 

August 2007, Final, (EPA EIIP Volume 

II: Chapter 16) http://www.epa.gov/ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/ 

index.html. 

(3) Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 

Reactive Organic Compounds in Heavy 

Crude Oil Using Gas Chromatography, 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/ 

R9Testmethod.nsf. 

(b) The following materials are 

available for purchase from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania 19428–2959, (610) 832– 

9585, http://www.astm.org. 

(1) ASTM D6420–99(2010), Standard 

Test Method for Determination of 

Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 

Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 

Spectrometry. 

(2) ASTM D1946–90(2006), Standard 

Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas 

by Gas Chromatography. 

(3) ASTM D4809–09a, Standard Test 

Method for Heat of Combustion of 

Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb 

Calorimeter (Precision Method). 

(4) ASTM D2879–95(2011), Standard 

Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 

Low Olefinic Gasoline by Mass 

Spectrometry. 

(c) The following materials are 

available for purchase from ASME, 

Information Central Orders/Inquiries, 

P.O. Box 2300, Fairfield, New Jersey 

07007–2300, (800) 843–2763, http:// 

www.asme.org. 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus]. 

(2) ASME B31.3–2010, Process Piping. 

(d) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 

Alexandria, Virginia 22312, (800) 553– 

6847, http://www.ntis.gov. 

(1) Flammability Characteristics of 

Combustible Gases and Vapors, 

Zabetakis, M.G., U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

Bulletin 627, 1965. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(e) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the 

American Petroleum Institute (API), 

1220 L Street NW., Washington, DC 

20005–4070, (202) 682–8000, http:// 

www.api.org. 

(1) Evaporative Loss From External 

Floating Roof Tanks, API MPMS 

Chapter 19.2, September 1, 2003. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

§ 65.270 How do I determine what 

regulated sources are in regulated material 

service? 

If you are subject to a uniform 

standard that includes requirements for 

regulated sources ‘‘in regulated material 

service,’’ you must determine if 

regulated sources or equipment are in 

regulated material service using either 

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(a) If the referencing subpart includes 

a procedure or definition of ‘‘in 

regulated material service,’’ you must 

use the procedure or definition of ‘‘in 

regulated material service’’ in the 

referencing subpart. 

(b) If the referencing subpart does not 

include a procedure or definition of ‘‘in 

regulated material service,’’ you must 

use the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Regulated sources or equipment 

that can reasonably be expected to be in 

regulated material service are presumed 

to be in regulated material service 

unless you demonstrate that the 

regulated sources or equipment are not 

in regulated material service. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(1) and (3) of this section, you must 

use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6 and either of the methods 

specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section to demonstrate that 

regulated sources or equipment are not 

in regulated material service. 

(i) Determine the weight percent 

regulated material content of the process 

fluid that is contained in or contacts the 

regulated source as the arithmetic sum 

of the weight percent concentration of 

each compound defined as regulated 

material. Demonstrate that the regulated 

material concentration is less than 5 

weight percent on an annual average 

basis. 

(ii) Demonstrate that the nonregulated material content exceeds 95 

percent by weight on an annual average 

basis. 

(3) You may use good engineering 

judgment rather than the procedures in 

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section to 

determine if regulated sources or 

equipment are not in regulated material 

service. However, when you and the 

Administrator do not agree on whether 

the regulated sources or equipment are 

in regulated material service, you must 

use the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section to resolve the disagreement. 

§ 65.275 What authorities are not 

delegated to the states? 

In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority to a state under 

sections 111(c) and 112(l) of the Clean 

Air Act, the following authorities are 

retained by the Administrator and not 

transferred to a state: 

(a) In § 65.235, request for 

recordkeeping and reporting waiver. 

(b) In § 65.240, major changes to 

monitoring methods. 

(c) In § 65.250, major changes to test 

methods or a different EPA method than 

one specified in the Uniform Standards. 

(d) In 65.260, alternative means of 

emissions limitation. 

§ 65.280 How do I determine compliance 

with periodic requirements? 

Except as specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section, if you are subject to a 

requirement in the Uniform Standards 

to complete a particular task on a 

periodic basis, you must comply, as 

described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) Periods of time. All terms in the 

Uniform Standards that define a period 

of time for completion of required tasks 

(e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, 

annually), refer to the standard calendar 

periods. 

(b) Reasonable intervals. You may 

comply with such periodic 

requirements by completing the 

required task any time within the 

standard calendar period, provided 

there is a reasonable interval between 

completion of two instances of the same 

task. Reasonable intervals are described 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this 

section. 

(1) Tasks that you are required to 

complete weekly must be separated by 

at least 3 calendar days. 

(2) Tasks that you are required to 

complete monthly must be separated by 

at least 14 calendar days. 

(3) Tasks that you are required to 

complete bimonthly (i.e., every 2 

calendar months) must be separated by 

at least 20 calendar days. 

(4) Tasks that you are required to 

complete quarterly must be separated by 

at least 30 calendar days. 

(5) Tasks that you are required to 

complete three times per year must be 

separated by at least 40 calendar days. 

(6) Tasks that you are required to 

complete semiannually (i.e., once every 

2 quarters or twice per year) must be 

separated by at least 60 calendar days. 

(7) Tasks that you are required to 

complete annually must be separated by 

at least 120 calendar days. 

(8) Tasks that you are required to 

complete biennially (i.e., once every 2 

calendar years) must be completed 

every other calendar year. 

(c) Exceptions. (1) Paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section do not apply to 

reports that you are required to submit 

under the General Provisions applicable 

to the referencing subpart (e.g., subpart 

A parts 60, 61 or 63). 

(2) If the paragraph in the Uniform 

Standards that imposes a periodic 

requirement specifies a different 

schedule for complying with that 

requirement, you must follow that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17981 

schedule instead of the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(3) Time periods may be changed by 

mutual agreement between you and the 

Administrator, as specified in 

§ 65.225(j). For example, a period could 

begin on the compliance date or another 

date, rather than on the first day of the 

standard calendar period. For each time 

period that is changed by agreement, the 

revised period applies until it is 

changed. A new request is not necessary 

for each recurring period. 

(4) Nothing in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section shall be construed as 

prohibiting you from conducting a 

periodic task at a more frequent interval 

than required. 

§ 65.295 What definitions apply to the 

Uniform Standards? 

All terms used in the Uniform 

Standards have the meaning given them 

in the Clean Air Act, the referencing 

subpart and in this section. The 

definition in the referencing subpart 

takes precedence. 

Alternative test method means any 

method of sampling and analyzing for 

an air pollutant other than a test method 

specified in the Uniform Standards. An 

alternative test method can include 

other EPA test methods that are not 

specified by the Uniform Standards; 

methods other than EPA test methods; 

or changes to test methods (i.e., minor, 

intermediate or major changes to test 

methods). For methods other than EPA 

standard test methods and changes 

other than minor changes to test 

methods, you must demonstrate to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction using 

Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, that an alternative test method 

produces results adequate for use in 

place of a test method specified in the 

Uniform Standards. 

Atmospheric storage vessel means any 

storage vessel that is not a pressure 

vessel. 

Automatic bleeder vent (or vacuum 

breaker vent) means a device used to 

equalize the pressure of the vapor space 

across the deck as the floating roof is 

either being landed on or floated off of 

its legs or other support devices. 

Typically, the device consists of a well 

in the deck with a cover. A guided leg 

is attached to the underside of the cover 

which comes in contact with the floor 

when the storage vessel is being 

emptied, just prior to the point that the 

floating roof lands on its supports. 

When in contact with the bottom of the 

storage vessel, the guided leg 

mechanically lifts the cover off the well. 

Alternatively, the device may be 

activated by increased pressure (or 

vacuum) in the vapor space below the 

landed floated roof that is created by 

changes in the liquid level while the 

floating roof is landed. 

Barge means any vessel that 

transports regulated material liquids in 

bulk on inland waterways or at sea. 

Batch emission episode means a 

discrete venting episode that may be 

associated with a single unit operation. 

A unit operation may have more than 

one batch emission episode. For 

example, a displacement of vapor 

resulting from the charging of a vessel 

with regulated material will result in a 

discrete emission episode that will last 

through the duration of the charge and 

will have an average flow rate equal to 

the rate of the charge. If the vessel is 

then heated, there will also be another 

discrete emission episode resulting from 

the expulsion of expanded vapor. Both 

emission episodes may occur in the 

same vessel or unit operation. There are 

possibly other emission episodes that 

may occur from the vessel or other 

process equipment, depending on 

process operations. 

Batch operation means a 

noncontinuous operation involving 

intermittent or discontinuous feed into 

process vessels and, in general, involves 

the emptying of the process vessels after 

the operation ceases and prior to 

beginning a new operation. Addition of 

raw material and withdrawal of product 

do not occur simultaneously in a batch 

operation. 

Boiler means any enclosed 

combustion device that extracts useful 

energy in the form of steam and is not 

an incinerator or a process heater. 

Bottoms receiver means a tank that 

collects bottoms from continuous 

distillation before the stream is sent for 

storage or for further downstream 

processing. A rundown tank is an 

example of a bottoms receiver. 

Breakthrough means the time when 

the level of regulated material detected 

is at the highest concentration allowed 

to be discharged from an adsorber 

system, as determined by the 

referencing subpart. 

By compound means by individual 

stream components, not carbon 

equivalents. 

Cargo tank means a liquid-carrying 

tank permanently attached and forming 

an integral part of a motor vehicle or 

truck trailer. This term also refers to the 

entire cargo tank motor vehicle or 

trailer. Vacuum trucks used exclusively 

for maintenance or spill response are 

not considered cargo tanks. 

Car-seal means a seal that is placed on 

a device that is used to change the 

position of a valve (e.g., from opened to 

closed) in such a way that the position 

of the valve cannot be changed without 

breaking the seal. 

Catalytic oxidizer means a thermal 

oxidizer where the gas stream, after 

passing through the enclosed 

combustion chamber, also passes 

through a catalyst bed. The catalyst has 

the effect of increasing the oxidation 

reaction rate, enabling conversion at 

lower reaction temperatures than in 

thermal oxidizers. 

Closed-loop system means an 

enclosed system that returns process 

fluid to the process and is not vented 

directly to the atmosphere. 

Closed-purge system means a system 

or combination of systems and portable 

containers to capture purged liquids. 

Containers for purged liquids must be 

covered or closed when not being filled 

or emptied. 

Closed vent system means a system 

that is not open to the atmosphere and 

is composed of piping, ductwork, 

connections and, if necessary, flow 

inducing devices that transport gas or 

vapor from an emission point to a 

control device. 

Combustion device means an 

individual unit of equipment, such as 

an incinerator, process heater or boiler, 

used for the combustion of organic 

emissions. 

Connector means flanged, screwed or 

other joined fittings used to connect 

pipelines, a pipeline and a process 

vessel, or a pipeline and a piece of 

equipment, or that close an opening in 

a pipe that could be connected to 

another pipe. A common connector is a 

flange. Joined fittings welded 

completely around the circumference of 

the interface are not considered 

connectors. 

Container means a portable unit in 

which a regulated material is stored, 

transported, treated or otherwise 

handled. Examples of containers 

include, but are not limited to, drums, 

dumpsters, roll-off boxes and portable 

cargo containers known as ‘‘portable 

tanks’’ or ‘‘totes.’’ Transport vehicles 

and barges are not containers. 

Continuous emission monitoring 

system (CEMS) means the total 

equipment that may be required to meet 

the data acquisition and availability 

requirements of this subpart, used to 

sample, condition (if applicable), 

analyze and provide a record of 

emissions. 

Continuous operation means any 

operation that is not a batch operation. 

Continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) means the total 

equipment that may be required to meet 

the data acquisition and availability 

requirements of the Uniform Standards, 

used to sample, condition (if 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

applicable), analyze and provide a 

record of process or control system 

parameters. 

Continuous record means 

documentation, either in hard copy or 

computer readable form, of data values 

measured at least once every 15 minutes 

and recorded at the frequency specified 

in § 65.860(a). 

Control device means, with the 

exceptions noted below, a combustion 

device, recovery device, recapture 

device or any combination of these 

devices used to comply with this 

subpart or a referencing subpart. Process 

condensers or fuel gas systems are not 

considered to be control devices. 

Control system means the 

combination of the closed vent system 

and the control devices used to collect 

and control vapors or gases from a 

regulated source. 

Corrective action analysis and/or 

Corrective action plan means a 

description of all reasonable interim and 

long-term measures, if any, that are 

available, and an explanation of why the 

selected corrective action is the best 

alternative, including, but not limited 

to, any consideration of cost 

effectiveness. 

Day means a calendar day. 

Deck cover means a device that covers 

an opening in a floating roof deck. Some 

deck covers move horizontally relative 

to the deck (i.e., a sliding cover). 

Double block and bleed system means 

two block valves connected in series 

with a bleed valve or line that can vent 

the line between the two block valves. 

Ductwork means a conveyance system 

such as those commonly used for 

heating and ventilation systems. It is 

often made of sheet metal and often has 

sections connected by screws or 

crimping. Hard-piping is not ductwork. 

Empty or emptying means the partial 

or complete removal of stored liquid 

from a storage vessel. Storage vessels 

that contain liquid only as wall or 

bottom clingage, or in pools due to 

bottom irregularities, are considered 

completely empty. 

Equipment means each pump, 

compressor, agitator, pressure relief 

device (PRD), sampling connection 

system, open-ended valve or line, valve, 

connector and instrumentation system 

that contains or contacts regulated 

material; and any control devices or 

systems used to comply with subpart J 

of this part. Equipment does not include 

process equipment, monitoring 

equipment, vapor collection equipment 

or testing equipment. 

External floating roof or EFR means a 

floating roof located in a storage vessel 

without a fixed roof. 

Fill or filling means the introduction 

of liquid into a storage vessel or 

container, but not necessarily to 

capacity. 

First attempt at repair means to take 

action for the purpose of stopping or 

reducing leakage of regulated material to 

the atmosphere. A first attempt at repair 

includes monitoring, as specified in 

§ 65.431(a) and (b) to verify that the leak 

is repaired, unless you determine by 

other means that the leak is not 

repaired. 

Fittings means any cover or other 

device to close an opening through a 

fixed roof or through the deck of a 

floating roof for automatic bleeder vents 

(vacuum breaker vents), rim space 

vents, leg sleeves, deck drains, access 

hatches, gauge float wells, sample wells, 

columns, guidepoles, ladders, 

conservation vents, PRD or any other 

opening on the fixed roof or floating 

roof deck. 

Fixed roof storage vessel means a 

vessel with roof that is mounted (i.e., 

permanently affixed) on a storage vessel 

and that does not move with 

fluctuations in stored liquid level. All 

horizontal tanks are classified as fixed 

roof storage vessels. 

Flexible enclosure device means a seal 

made of an elastomeric fabric (or other 

material) which completely encloses a 

slotted guidepole or ladder and 

eliminates the vapor emission pathway 

from inside the storage vessel through 

the guidepole slots or ladder slots to the 

outside air. 

Flexible fabric sleeve seal means a 

seal made of an elastomeric fabric (or 

other material) which covers an opening 

in a floating roof deck, and which 

allows the penetration of a fixed roof 

support column. The seal is attached to 

the rim of the deck opening and extends 

to the outer surface of the column. The 

seal is draped (but does not contact the 

stored liquid) to allow the horizontal 

movement of the deck relative to the 

column. 

Floating roof means a roof that floats 

on the surface of the liquid in a storage 

vessel. A floating roof substantially 

covers the stored liquid surface (but is 

not necessarily in contact with the 

entire surface), and is comprised of a 

deck, a rim seal and miscellaneous deck 

fittings. 

Flow indicator means a device that 

indicates whether gas flow is or whether 

the valve position would allow gas flow 

to be present in a line. 

Fuel gas means gases that are 

combusted to derive useful work or 

heat. 

Fuel gas system means the offsite and 

onsite piping and flow and pressure 

control system that gathers gaseous 

streams generated by onsite operations, 

may blend them with other sources of 

gas and transports the gaseous streams 

for use as fuel gas in combustion 

devices or in-process combustion 

equipment, such as furnaces and gas 

turbines, either singly or in 

combination. Piping that routes 

emissions to boilers or process heaters 

as the primary fuel or introduced with 

the primary fuel are considered fuel gas 

systems. 

Halogenated vent stream or 

halogenated stream means a stream 

determined to have a mass rate of 

halogen atoms of 0.45 kilograms per 

hour or greater, determined by the 

procedures presented in § 65.702(c). 

Hard-piping means pipe or tubing that 

is manufactured and properly installed 

using good engineering judgment and 

standards, such as ASME B31.3–2010, 

Process Piping (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265). 

In gas and vapor service means that 

a piece of equipment in regulated 

material service contains a gas or vapor 

at operating conditions. 

In heavy liquid service means that a 

piece of equipment in regulated material 

service is not in gas and vapor service 

or in light liquid service. 

In light liquid service means that a 

piece of equipment in regulated material 

service contains a liquid that meets the 

following conditions: (1) The vapor 

pressure of one or more of the organic 

compounds is greater than 0.3 

kilopascals at 20 degrees Celsius; (2) 

The total concentration of the pure 

organic compounds constituents having 

a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 

kilopascals at 20 degrees Celsius is 

equal to or greater than 20 percent by 

weight of the total process stream; (3) 

The fluid is a liquid at operating 

conditions. (Note to definition of ‘‘in 

light liquid service’’: Vapor pressures 

may be determined by standard 

reference texts or ASTM D–2879(2011), 

Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon 

Types in Low Olefinic Gasoline by Mass 

Spectrometry (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265). 

In liquid service means that a piece of 

equipment in regulated material service 

is not in gas and vapor service. 

In regulated material service means, 

unless specified otherwise in the 

referencing subpart, a regulated source 

or portion of a regulated source (e.g., a 

piece of equipment) that either contains 

or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is 

at least 5 percent by weight of regulated 

material (as defined in the referencing 

subpart), as determined according to the 

provisions of § 65.270. The provisions of 

§ 65.270 also specify how to determine 

that a regulated source or portion of a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17983 

regulated source is not in regulated 

material service. 

In vacuum service means that 

equipment, a closed vent system, fuel 

gas system or storage vessel is operating 

at an internal pressure that is at least 0.7 

pounds per square inch gauge (psig) 

below ambient pressure. 

Initial fill means the first introduction 

of liquid into a storage vessel that is 

either newly constructed or has not 

contained any regulated material for a 

year or longer. 

Initial startup means, for new sources, 

the first time the source begins 

production. For additions or changes 

not defined as a new source by the 

referencing subpart, initial startup 

means the first time additional or 

changed equipment is put into 

operation. Initial startup does not 

include operation solely for testing of 

equipment. Initial startup does not 

include subsequent startup of process 

units following malfunction or process 

unit shutdowns. Except for equipment 

leaks, initial startup also does not 

include subsequent startups (of process 

units following changes in product for 

flexible operation units or following 

recharging of equipment in batch 

operations). 

In-situ sampling systems means nonextractive samplers or in-line samplers. 

Instrumentation system means a 

group of equipment used to condition 

and convey a sample of the process 

fluid to analyzers and instruments for 

the purpose of determining process 

operating conditions (e.g., composition, 

pressure, flow, etc.). Valves and 

connectors are the predominant type of 

equipment used in instrumentation 

systems; however, other types of 

equipment may also be included in 

these systems. Only valves nominally 

0.5 inches and smaller, and connectors 

nominally 0.75 inches and smaller in 

diameter are considered 

instrumentation systems. Valves greater 

than nominally 0.5 inches and 

connectors greater than nominally 0.75 

inches associated with instrumentation 

systems are not considered part of 

instrumentation systems and must be 

monitored individually. 

Intermediate change to monitoring 

means a modification to federally 

required monitoring involving ‘‘proven 

technology’’ (generally accepted by the 

scientific community as equivalent or 

better) that is applied on a site-specific 

basis and that may have the potential to 

decrease the stringency of the associated 

emission limitation or standard. Though 

site-specific, an intermediate change 

may set a national precedent for a 

source category and may ultimately 

result in a revision to the federally 

required monitoring. Examples of 

intermediate changes to monitoring 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Use of a CEMS in lieu of a 

parameter monitoring approach; 

(2) Decreased frequency for noncontinuous parameter monitoring or 

physical inspections; 

(3) Changes to quality control 

requirements for parameter monitoring; 

and 

(4) Use of an electronic data reduction 

system in lieu of manual data reduction. 

Intermediate change to test method 

means a within-method modification to 

a federally enforceable test method 

involving ‘‘proven technology’’ 

(generally accepted by the scientific 

community as equivalent or better) that 

is applied on a site-specific basis and 

that may have the potential to decrease 

the stringency of the associated 

emission limitation or standard. Though 

site-specific, an intermediate change 

may set a national precedent for a 

source category and may ultimately 

result in a revision to the federally 

enforceable test method. In order to be 

approved, an intermediate change must 

be validated according to EPA Method 

301 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) to 

demonstrate that it provides equal or 

improved accuracy and precision. 

Examples of intermediate changes to a 

test method include, but are not limited 

to: 

(1) Modifications to a test method’s 

sampling procedure, including 

substitution of sampling equipment that 

has been demonstrated for a particular 

sample matrix and use of a different 

impinger absorbing solution; 

(2) Changes in sample recovery 

procedures and analytical techniques, 

such as changes to sample holding times 

and use of a different analytical finish 

with proven capability for the analyte of 

interest; and 

(3) ‘‘Combining’’ a federally required 

method with another proven method for 

application to processes emitting 

multiple pollutants. 

Internal floating roof or IFR means a 

floating roof located in a storage vessel 

with a fixed roof. An EFR located in a 

storage vessel to which a fixed roof has 

been added is considered to be an 

internal floating roof. 

Internal guidepole sleeve means a 

cylindrical device that fits on the inside 

of a slotted guidepole and blocks the 

vapor emission pathway from the 

interior of the guidepole through the 

guidepole slots to the outside air. 

Liquid-mounted seal means a resilient 

or liquid-filled rim seal designed to 

contact the stored liquid. 

Liquids dripping means any visible 

leakage from the seal including 

dripping, spraying, misting, clouding 

and ice formation. Indications of liquids 

dripping include puddling or new stains 

that are indicative of an existing 

evaporated drip. 

Major change to monitoring means a 

modification to federally required 

monitoring that uses ‘‘unproven 

technology or procedures’’ (not 

generally accepted by the scientific 

community) or is an entirely new 

method (sometimes necessary when the 

required monitoring is unsuitable). A 

major change to monitoring may be sitespecific or may apply to one or more 

source categories and will almost 

always set a national precedent. 

Examples of major changes to 

monitoring include, but are not limited 

to: 

(1) Use of a new monitoring approach 

developed to apply to a control 

technology not contemplated in the 

applicable regulation; 

(2) Use of a predictive emission 

monitoring system (PEMS) in place of a 

required CEMS; 

(3) Use of alternative calibration 

procedures that do not involve 

calibration gases or test cells; 

(4) Use of an analytical technology 

that differs from that specified by a 

performance specification; 

(5) Decreased monitoring frequency 

for a CEMS, continuous opacity 

monitoring system, PEMS or CPMS; 

(6) Decreased monitoring frequency 

for a leak detection and repair program; 

and 

(7) Use of alternative averaging times 

for reporting purposes. 

Major change to test method means a 

modification to a federally enforceable 

test method that uses ‘‘unproven 

technology or procedures’’ (not 

generally accepted by the scientific 

community) or is an entirely new 

method (sometimes necessary when the 

required test method is unsuitable). A 

major change to a test method may be 

site-specific or may apply to one or 

more sources or source categories, and 

will almost always set a national 

precedent. In order to be approved, a 

major change must be validated 

according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A). Examples of major 

changes to a test method include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Use of an unproven analytical 

finish; 

(2) Use of a method developed to fill 

a test method gap; 

(3) Use of a new test method 

developed to apply to a control 

technology not contemplated in the 

applicable regulation; and 

(4) Combining two or more sampling/ 

analytical methods (at least one 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

unproven) into one for application to 

processes emitting multiple pollutants. 

Maximum representative operating 

conditions means process operating 

conditions that result in the most 

challenging condition for the control 

device. The most challenging condition 

for the control device may include, but 

is not limited to, the highest hazardous 

air pollutant (HAP) mass loading rate to 

the control device or the highest HAP 

mass loading rate of constituents that 

approach the limits of solubility for 

scrubbing media. 

Maximum true vapor pressure or 

MTVP means the equilibrium partial 

pressure exerted by the total regulated 

material in the stored or transferred 

liquid at the temperature equal to the 

highest calendar-month average of the 

liquid storage or transfer temperature for 

liquids stored or transferred above or 

below the ambient temperature or at the 

local maximum monthly average 

temperature, as reported by the National 

Weather Service, for liquids stored or 

transferred at the ambient temperature, 

as determined using methods specified 

in § 65.306. 

Mechanical shoe seal or metallic shoe 

seal means a rim seal consisting of a 

band of metal (or other suitable 

material) as the sliding contact with the 

wall of the storage vessel, and a fabric 

seal to close the annular space between 

the band and the rim of the floating roof 

deck. The band is typically formed as a 

series of sheets (shoes) that are 

overlapped or joined together to form a 

ring. The sheets are held vertically 

against the wall of the storage vessel by 

springs, weighted levers or other 

mechanisms and are connected to the 

floating roof by braces or other means. 

The lower end of the band extends into 

the stored liquid. 

Minor change to monitoring means: 

(1) A modification to federally 

required monitoring that: 

(i) Does not decrease the stringency of 

the compliance and enforcement 

measures for the relevant standard; 

(ii) Has no national significance (e.g., 

does not affect implementation of the 

applicable regulation for other regulated 

sources, does not set a national 

precedent and individually does not 

result in a revision to the monitoring 

requirements); and 

(iii) Is site-specific, made to reflect or 

accommodate the operational 

characteristics, physical constraints or 

safety concerns of a regulated source. 

(2) Examples of minor changes to 

monitoring include, but are not limited 

to: 

(i) Modifications to a sampling 

procedure, such as use of an improved 

sample conditioning system to reduce 

maintenance requirements; 

(ii) Increased monitoring frequency; 

and 

(iii) Modification of the 

environmental shelter to moderate 

temperature fluctuation and, thus, 

protect the analytical instrumentation. 

Minor change to test method means: 

(1) A modification to a federally 

enforceable test method that: 

(i) Does not decrease the stringency of 

the emission limitation or standard; 

(ii) Has no national significance (e.g., 

does not affect implementation of the 

applicable regulation for other regulated 

sources, does not set a national 

precedent and individually does not 

result in a revision to the test method); 

and 

(iii) Is site-specific, made to reflect or 

accommodate the operational 

characteristics, physical constraints or 

safety concerns of a regulated source. 

(2) Examples of minor changes to a 

test method include, but are not limited 

to: 

(i) Field adjustments in a test 

method’s sampling procedure, such as a 

modified sampling traverse, or location 

to avoid interference from an 

obstruction in the stack, increasing the 

sampling time or volume, use of 

additional impingers for a high moisture 

situation, accepting particulate emission 

results for a test run that was conducted 

with a lower-than-specified 

temperature, substitution of a material 

in the sampling train that has been 

demonstrated to be more inert for the 

sample matrix; and 

(ii) Changes in recovery and analytical 

techniques, such as a change in quality 

control/quality assurance requirements 

needed to adjust for analysis of a certain 

sample matrix. 

Monitoring means the collection and 

use of measurement data or other 

information to control the operation of 

a process or pollution control device or 

to verify a work practice standard 

relative to assuring compliance with 

applicable requirements. Monitoring is 

composed of four elements: 

(1) Indicator(s) of performance—the 

parameter or parameters you measure or 

observe for demonstrating proper 

operation of the pollution control 

measures or compliance with the 

applicable emissions limitation or 

standard. Indicators of performance may 

include direct or predicted emissions 

measurements (including opacity), 

operational parametric values that 

correspond to process or control device 

(and capture system) efficiencies or 

emissions rates and recorded findings of 

inspection of work practice activities, 

materials tracking or design 

characteristics. Indicators may be 

expressed as a single maximum or 

minimum value, a function of process 

variables (for example, within a range of 

pressure drops), a particular operational 

or work practice status (for example, a 

damper position, completion of a waste 

recovery task, materials tracking) or an 

interdependency between two or among 

more than two variables. 

(2) Measurement techniques—the 

means by which you gather and record 

information of or about the indicators of 

performance. The components of the 

measurement technique include the 

detector type, location and installation 

specifications, inspection procedures, 

and quality assurance and quality 

control measures. Examples of 

measurement techniques include CEMS, 

continuous opacity monitoring systems, 

CPMS, and manual inspections that 

include making records of process 

conditions or work practices. 

(3) Monitoring frequency—the 

number of times you obtain and record 

monitoring data over a specified time 

interval. Examples of monitoring 

frequencies include at least four points 

equally paced for each hour for 

continuous emissions or parametric 

monitoring systems, at least every 10 

seconds for continuous opacity 

monitoring systems and at least once 

per operating day (or week, month, etc.) 

for work practice or design inspections. 

(4) Averaging time—the period over 

which you average and use data to 

verify proper operation of the pollution 

control approach or compliance with 

the emissions limitation or standard. 

Examples of averaging time include a 3- 

hour average in units of the emissions 

limitation, a 30-day rolling average 

emissions value, a daily average of a 

control device operational parametric 

range and an instantaneous alarm. 

Non-repairable means that it is 

technically infeasible to repair a piece of 

equipment from which a leak has been 

detected without a process unit 

shutdown. 

Nonstandard batch means a batch 

process that is operated outside of the 

range of operating conditions that are 

documented in an existing operating 

scenario, but is still a reasonably 

anticipated event. For example, a 

nonstandard batch occurs when 

additional processing or processing at 

different operating conditions must be 

conducted to produce a product that is 

normally produced under the 

conditions described by the standard 

batch. A nonstandard batch may be 

necessary, as a result of a malfunction, 

but it is not itself a malfunction. 

Open-ended valve or line means any 

valve, except relief valves, having one 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17985 

side of the valve seat in contact with 

process fluid and one side open to 

atmosphere, either directly or through 

any length of open piping. An openended valve or line with a cap, blind 

flange, plug or second valve on the side 

that would be otherwise open to the 

atmosphere is still considered an openended valve or line. 

Operating block means a period of 

time that is equal to the time from the 

beginning to end of batch process 

operations within a process. 

Optical gas imaging instrument means 

an instrument capable of producing an 

image that makes visible emissions that 

otherwise may be invisible to the naked 

eye. 

Owner or operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls or 

supervises a regulated source or a 

stationary source of which a regulated 

source is a part. 

Performance test means the collection 

of data resulting from the execution of 

a test method (usually three emission 

test runs) used to demonstrate 

compliance with a relevant emission 

limit, as specified in the performance 

test section of 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

M or in the referencing subpart. 

Pole float means a float located inside 

a guidepole that floats on the surface of 

the stored liquid. The rim of the float 

has a wiper or seal that extends to the 

inner surface of the pole. 

Pole sleeve means a device that 

extends from either the cover or the rim 

of an opening in a floating roof deck to 

the outer surface of a pole that passes 

through the opening. The sleeve extends 

into the stored liquid. 

Pole wiper means a seal that extends 

from either the cover or the rim of an 

opening in a floating roof deck to the 

outer surface of a pole that passes 

through the opening. 

Polymerizing monomer means a 

compound that may form polymer 

buildup in pump mechanical seals 

resulting in rapid mechanical seal 

failure. 

Pressure release means the emission 

of materials resulting from the system 

pressure being greater than the set 

pressure of the PRD. This release may be 

one release or a series of releases over 

a short time period. 

Pressure relief device (PRD) means a 

safety device used to prevent operating 

pressures from exceeding the maximum 

allowable working pressure of the 

process component. Examples of 

pressure relief devices are a springloaded pressure relief valve and a 

rupture disk. Except for devices used to 

comply with the vapor balancing 

requirements in § 65.320(c), devices that 

are actuated either by a pressure of less 

than or equal to 2.5 psig or by a vacuum 

are not pressure relief devices. 

Pressure vessel means a storage vessel 

that is used to store liquids or gases and 

is designed not to vent to the 

atmosphere as a result of compression of 

the vapor headspace in the pressure 

vessel during filling of the pressure 

vessel to its design capacity. 

Primary fuel means the fuel that 

provides the principal heat input to a 

combustion device. To be considered 

primary, the fuel must be able to sustain 

operation without the addition of other 

fuels. 

Process condenser means a condenser 

whose primary purpose is to recover 

material as an integral part of a 

regulated batch process. All condensers 

recovering condensate from a regulated 

batch process at or above the boiling 

point or all condensers in line prior to 

a vacuum source, are considered 

process condensers. Typically, a 

primary condenser or condensers in 

series, are considered to be integral to 

the batch regulated process if they are 

capable of and normally used for the 

purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel 

value (i.e., net positive heating value), 

use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use 

or reuse. This definition does not apply 

to a condenser that is used to remove 

materials that would hinder 

performance of a downstream recovery 

device as follows: 

(1) To remove water vapor that would 

cause icing in a downstream condenser. 

(2) To remove water vapor that would 

negatively affect the adsorption capacity 

of carbon in a downstream carbon 

adsorber. 

(3) To remove high molecular weight 

organic compounds or other organic 

compounds that would be difficult to 

remove during regeneration of a 

downstream carbon adsorber. 

Process heater means an enclosed 

combustion device that transfers heat 

liberated by burning fuel directly to 

process streams or to heat transfer 

liquids other than water. A process 

heater may, as a secondary function, 

heat water in unfired heat recovery 

sections. 

Process tank means a tank or other 

vessel that is used within a process to 

collect material discharged from a 

feedstock storage vessel or component 

within the process before the material is 

transferred to other components within 

the process or a product storage vessel. 

Examples of process tanks include surge 

control vessels, bottoms receivers and 

weigh tanks. In addition, all vessels in 

which a unit operation is conducted, 

including, but not limited to reaction, 

mixing and separation are process tanks. 

Process unit means, unless specified 

otherwise in the applicable referencing 

subpart, the components assembled to 

produce an intended intermediate or 

final product. A process unit can 

operate independently if supplied with 

sufficient feed or raw materials and 

sufficient storage facilities for the 

product. All components located within 

the fence line of the plant site are 

included in the process unit. 

Components located offsite are not 

included within any process unit. 

Process unit shutdown means a work 

practice or operational procedure that 

stops production from a process unit, or 

part of a process unit during which it is 

technically feasible to clear process 

material from a process unit, or part of 

a process unit, consistent with safety 

constraints and during which, repairs 

can be affected. The following are not 

considered process unit shutdowns: 

(1) An unscheduled work practice or 

operations procedure that stops 

production from a process unit, or part 

of a process unit, for less than 24 hours. 

(2) An unscheduled work practice or 

operations procedure that would stop 

production from a process unit, or part 

of a process unit, for a shorter period of 

time than would be required to clear the 

process unit, or part of the process unit 

of materials and start up the unit, and 

would result in greater emissions than 

delay of repair of leaking components, 

until the next scheduled process unit 

shutdown. 

(3) The use of spare equipment and 

technically feasible bypassing of 

equipment without stopping 

production. 

Referencing subpart means the 

subpart that directs you to comply with 

one or more applicable Uniform 

Standards (subparts I through M of this 

part). A referencing subpart for one 

Uniform Standard may also be a 

referencing subpart for another Uniform 

Standard. 

Regulated material means chemicals 

or groups of chemicals (such as volatile 

organic compounds or HAP) that are 

regulated by the referencing subpart. 

Regulated source means the stationary 

source, the group of stationary sources 

or the portion of a stationary source that 

is regulated by a relevant standard or 

other requirement established, pursuant 

to a referencing subpart. 

Repair means that: 

(1) If indications of a potential leak or 

liquids dripping are observed during 

sensory monitoring or a visual 

inspection, then the equipment, seal, 

fitting or other emissions source is 

adjusted, or otherwise altered, to 

eliminate the indications of a potential 

leak or liquids dripping. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(2) If a leak is detected by instrument 

monitoring, then the equipment, seal, 

fitting or other emissions source is 

adjusted or otherwise altered to 

eliminate a leak, as defined in the 

applicable sections of subparts I through 

M of this part and the emissions source 

is monitored, as specified in § 65.431(a) 

and (b) to verify that emissions are 

below the applicable instrument reading 

that defines a leak. 

(3) If a leak is detected by a sensor or 

by failure of one or more design or 

inspection criteria, then the equipment, 

seal, fitting or other emissions source is 

adjusted, or otherwise altered, to return 

the emissions source to conditions such 

that the sensor no longer indicates a 

leak or that the emissions source is 

meeting the design or inspection 

criteria, as applicable. 

(4) If a leak is detected by optical gas 

imaging, then the equipment, seal, 

fitting or other emissions source is 

adjusted, or otherwise altered, to 

eliminate the leak and the emissions 

source is monitored, as specified in 

§ 65.450(b)(2) to verify that the leak can 

no longer be imaged by the optical gas 

imaging instrument. 

(5) Repair does not mean repairs to 

CEMS or CPMS. 

Rim seal means a device attached to 

the rim of a floating roof deck that spans 

the annular space between the deck and 

the wall of the storage vessel. When a 

floating roof has only one such device, 

it is a primary seal; when there are two 

seals (one mounted above the other), the 

lower seal is the primary seal and the 

upper seal is the secondary seal. 

Run means one of a series of emission 

or other measurements needed to 

determine emissions for a representative 

operating period or cycle, as specified in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart M or in the 

referencing subpart. Unless otherwise 

specified, a run may be either 

intermittent or continuous within the 

limits of good engineering practice. 

Run down tank means a tank in which 

the product from a still, agitator or other 

processing equipment is received, and 

from which, the product is pumped to 

a storage vessel. 

Rupture disk means a PRD that 

consists of a diaphragm held between 

flanges. The diaphragm splits when the 

pressure on the process side exceeds the 

design set pressure. 

Sampling connection system means 

an assembly of piping and equipment 

within a process unit used during 

periods of representative operation to 

take samples of the process fluid. Lines 

that convey samples to analyzers and 

analyzer bypass lines are part of 

sampling connection systems. A device 

or apparatus used to take non-routine 

grab samples is not considered a 

sampling connection system. 

Secondary fuel means a fuel fired 

through a burner other than the primary 

fuel burner that provides supplementary 

heat, in addition to the heat provided by 

the primary fuel. 

Sensor means a device that measures 

a physical quantity or the change in a 

physical quantity, such as temperature, 

pressure, flow rate, pH or liquid level. 

Sensory monitoring means visual, 

audible, olfactory or any other detection 

method used to determine a potential 

leak to the atmosphere. 

Set pressure means the pressure at 

which a properly operating PRD begins 

to open to relieve atypical process 

system operating pressure. 

Slotted guidepole means a guidepole 

or gaugepole that has slots or holes 

through the wall of the pole. The slots 

or holes allow the stored liquid to flow 

into the pole at liquid levels above the 

lowest operating level. 

Small boiler or process heater means 

a boiler or process heater that has a 

design capacity less than 44 megawatts, 

and in which the vent stream is 

introduced with the combustion air or 

as a secondary fuel. 

Startup means the setting into 

operation of a process unit, a piece of 

equipment or a control device that is 

subject to the Uniform Standards. 

Storage capacity means the internal 

volume of a storage vessel from the floor 

to the top of the shell. For example, for 

a flat-bottomed storage vessel, the 

storage capacity is determined by 

multiplying the internal cross-sectional 

area of the storage vessel by the height 

of the shell. The calculation must be 

modified, as necessary, to account for 

floors that are not flat (e.g., slopebottomed, cone-up or cone-down). 

Storage vessel means a stationary unit 

that is constructed of non-earthen 

materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, 

fiberglass or plastic), which provides 

structural support and is designed to 

hold an accumulation of liquids or other 

materials. The following are not 

considered storage vessels: 

(1) Vessels permanently attached to 

motor vehicle, such as trucks, railcars, 

barges or ships; 

(2) Vessels storing liquid that contains 

regulated material only as an impurity; 

(3) Wastewater tanks; and 

(4) Process tanks. 

Submerged loading means the filling 

of a transport vehicle through a 

submerged fill pipe whose discharge is 

no more than 6 inches from the bottom 

of the tank. Bottom loading of transport 

vehicles is included in this definition. 

Supplemental combustion air means 

the air that is added to a vent stream 

after the vent stream leaves the unit 

operation. Air that is part of the vent 

stream as a result of the nature of the 

unit operation is not considered 

supplemental combustion air. Air 

required to operate combustion device 

burner(s) is not considered 

supplemental combustion air. Air 

required to ensure the proper operation 

of catalytic oxidizers, to include the 

intermittent addition of air upstream of 

the catalyst bed to maintain a minimum 

threshold flow rate through the catalyst 

bed or to avoid excessive temperatures 

in the catalyst bed, is not considered to 

be supplemental combustion air. 

Surge control vessel means feed 

drums, recycle drums and intermediate 

vessels as part of any continuous 

operation. Surge control vessels are used 

within a process unit when in-process 

storage, mixing or management of flow 

rates or volumes is needed to introduce 

material into continuous operations. 

Tank car means an unpowered type of 

rolling stock (or vehicle) with a 

permanently attached vessel that is 

designed to carry liquid freight by rail. 

Thermal oxidizer means a combustion 

device with an enclosed combustion 

chamber (i.e., an enclosed fire box) that 

is used for destroying organic 

compounds. Auxiliary fuel may be used 

to heat waste gas to combustion 

temperatures. 

Transfer operations means the 

loading into a transport vehicle or 

container of organic liquids from a 

transfer rack. 

Transfer rack means a single system 

used to load organic liquids into 

transport vehicles or containers. It 

includes all loading and unloading 

arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, 

relief valves and other piping and 

equipment necessary for the transfer 

operation. Transfer equipment and 

operations that are physically separate 

(i.e., do not share common piping, 

valves and other equipment) are 

considered to be separate transfer racks. 

Transport vehicle means a cargo tank 

or tank car. 

Uniform Standard(s) mean(s) any one 

or all of subparts I, J, K, L and M of this 

part. 

Unslotted guidepole or solid 

guidepole means a guidepole or 

gaugepole that does not have slots or 

holes through the wall of the pole at or 

above the level of the floating roof when 

it is at its lowest operating level. 

Vapor-mounted seal means a rim seal 

designed not to be in contact with the 

stored liquid. Vapor-mounted seals may 

include, but are not limited to, resilient 

seals and flexible wiper seals. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17987 

Wastewater stream means the 

wastewater generated by a particular 

process unit, tank or treatment process. 

Wastewater tank means a stationary 

structure that is designed to contain an 

accumulation of wastewater or any 

liquid or solid material containing 

volatile organics that is removed from a 

wastewater stream and is constructed of 

non-earthen materials (e.g., wood, 

concrete, steel, plastic) that provides 

structural support. 

You means an owner or operator of a 

regulated source under the Uniform 

Standards. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART H OF PART 65—APPLICABLE 40 CFR PARTS 60, 61 AND 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Part of 40 CFR 

General provisions from 40 

CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 

that continue to apply to 

owners and operators of 

regulated sources subject 

to the uniform standards of 

this part 

A. 40 CFR part 60, subpart A provisions for referencing subparts from part 60 .......................................................... § 60.1 

§§ 60.2, 60.3, 60.4 1

§ 60.5 

§ 60.6 

§ 60.7(a)(1) and (a)(3) 

§ 60.8(a) 

§§ 60.9, 60.10, 60.12 

§ 60.14 

§ 60.15 

§ 60.16 

§ 60.17 

B. 40 CFR part 61, subpart A provisions for referencing subparts from part 61 .......................................................... §§ 61.01 through 61.03, 

61.04,1 61.05 through 

61.09 

§ 61.10(b) 

§ 61.11 

§ 61.13(a) 

§§ 61.15 through 61.19 

C. 40 CFR part 63, subpart A provisions for referencing subparts from part 63 .......................................................... § 63.1 2

§§ 63.2, 63.3, 63.4 

§ 63.5 

§ 63.6(a) through (d), (i) 

and (j) 

§ 63.7(a) 3

§ 63.9(b), (c), (d), (h)(5) 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), (d)(4) 

§ 63.11(a), (c), (d), (e) 

§§ 63.12, 63.13, 63.15 

1Except that the requirements associated with where to submit reports does not apply; electronic submittal is required, as specified in 

§ 65.225. 2Except for § 63.1(a)(10) through (12). 

3Except that a waiver of performance testing is specified in § 65.245, and the conditions of § 63.7(c)(3)(ii)(B) do not apply to this paragraph. 

3. Add subpart I to read as follows: 

Subpart I—National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Storage Vessels and 

Transfer Operations 

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

65.300 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

65.301 Am I subject to this subpart? 

65.302 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

65.303 What parts of the General Provisions 

apply to me? 

General Requirements 

65.305 What requirements in this subpart 

apply to me? 

65.306 How must I determine the MTVP of 

stored material? 

Standards and Compliance Requirements for 

Storage Vessels 

65.310 What requirements must I meet for 

an atmospheric storage vessel equipped 

with a fixed roof? 

65.315 What requirements must I meet for 

an atmospheric storage vessel with a 

floating roof? 

65.320 What requirements must I meet for 

a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel if 

I use vapor balance? 

65.325 What requirements must I meet for 

a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel if 

I route emissions through a closed vent 

system to a control device? 

65.330 What requirements must I meet for 

a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel if 

I route emissions to a fuel gas system? 

65.340 What requirements must I meet for 

a pressure vessel? 

Standards and Compliance Requirements for 

Transfer Operations 

65.360 What requirements must I meet for 

control of transport vehicles and transfer 

operations to load transport vehicles? 

65.370 What requirements must I meet for 

control of transfer operations to load 

containers? 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

65.380 What records must I keep? 

65.382 What information must I submit in 

my Notification of Compliance Status? 

65.384 What information must I submit in 

my semiannual periodic report? 

65.386 What information must I submit in 

my annual periodic report? 

65.388 What other reports must I submit 

and when? 

Other Requirements and Information 

65.390 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

List of Tables in Subpart I of Part 65 

Table 1 to Subpart I of Part 65—Standards 

and Compliance Requirements for 

Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations 

Table 2 to Subpart I of Part 65—Inspection 

and Monitoring Requirements and 

Schedule for Storage Vessels Equipped 

With an IFR 

Table 3 to Subpart I of Part 65—Inspection 

and Monitoring Requirements and 

Schedule for Storage Vessels Equipped 

With an EFR 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 65.300 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart specifies requirements to 

meet the emission standards of a 

referencing subpart for storage vessels 

and transfer operations. 

§ 65.301 Am I subject to this subpart? 

You are subject to this subpart if you 

are an owner or operator who is subject 

to a referencing subpart and you have 

been expressly directed to comply with 

the Uniform Standards of this subpart 

by a referencing subpart. 

§ 65.302 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

This subpart applies to storage vessels 

and transfer operations that contain or 

contact regulated material and are 

subject to a referencing subpart. 

§ 65.303 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

The General Provisions of 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this 

subpart, as specified in subpart H of this 

part. 

General Requirements 

§ 65.305 What requirements in this subpart 

apply to me? 

The provisions of this subpart apply 

to storage vessels and transfer 

operations that contain or contact 

regulated material, as specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) For each atmospheric storage 

vessel that meets the requirements in 

item 1 of Table 1 to this subpart, you 

must comply with § 65.310. 

Alternatively, you may elect to comply 

with either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) Comply with § 65.310 if you install 

an internal floating roof, vapor balance 

or connect the storage vessel to a closed 

vent system and control device, but you 

are not required to comply with 

§ 65.315, § 65.320 or § 65.325. 

(2) Comply with any of the options in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(b) For each atmospheric storage 

vessel that meets the size and maximum 

true vapor pressure (MTVP) thresholds 

in item 2 or item 3 of Table 1 to this 

subpart, you must comply with either 

paragraph (b)(1), (2), (3) or (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Use an external floating roof or a 

fixed roof with an internal floating roof, 

in accordance with § 65.315. This 

option may be used only if the MTVP 

of the stored liquid is less than 76.6 

kilopascals (kPa). 

(2) Vapor balance in accordance with 

§ 65.320. 

(3) Maintain a fixed roof and route 

emissions through a closed vent system 

to a control device, in accordance with 

§ 65.325. 

(4) Route emissions to a fuel gas 

system in accordance with § 65.330. 

This option may not be used when the 

displaced vapors from the storage vessel 

include halogenated compounds. 

(c) For each pressure vessel, you must 

comply with § 65.340. 

(d) For transfer operations that 

involve loading of transport vehicles, 

you must comply with § 65.360. 

(e) For transfer operations that involve 

loading of containers, you must comply 

with § 65.370. 

§ 65.306 How must I determine the MTVP 

of stored material? 

(a) Determine the MTVP at the times 

specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) 

of this section and keep records, as 

specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section. For a single-component stock, 

use any one of the methods specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3) or (5) of this 

section. For a mixture of compounds 

(such as petroleum liquids), use any one 

of the methods specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (5) of this section. 

(1) As obtained from standard 

reference texts. 

(2) In accordance with methods 

described in chapter 19.2 of the API 

Manual of Petroleum Measurement 

Standards, ‘‘Evaporative Loss from 

Floating Roof Tanks’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265). If you need the 

total vapor pressure of a petroleum 

liquid mixture (e.g., crude oil or 

gasoline), you must test for Reid vapor 

pressure and distillation slope, as 

applicable, to determine the constants A 

and B for the vapor pressure equation. 

If only part of a mixture is regulated 

material, you must test to determine the 

composition of the stored liquid. 

Testing is not required if you determine, 

based on engineering judgment, that the 

mixture contains less than 1-percent 

regulated material by weight. 

(3) As determined by the ‘‘American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

Method D2879–83’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265). 

(4) As determined using ‘‘Test Method 

for Vapor Pressure of Reactive Organic 

Compounds in Heavy Crude Oil Using 

Gas Chromatography’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265). 

(5) Any other method approved by the 

Administrator in accordance with 

§ 65.250. 

(b) Determine the MTVP for each 

storage vessel that contains a regulated 

material either prior to the required 

submittal date of your Notification of 

Compliance Status or prior to the initial 

fill with regulated material, whichever 

is later. 

(c) Determine the MTVP each time the 

storage vessel is filled with a different 

type of material. 

(d) Determine the MTVP at least 

annually if the storage vessel stores a 

mixture and it was determined to be 

subject to § 65.305(a) the last time the 

MTVP was determined. 

(e) Keep records of each MTVP 

determination, as specified in 

§ 65.380(b)(2). 

Standards and Compliance 

Requirements for Storage Vessels 

§ 65.310 What requirements must I meet 

for an atmospheric storage vessel equipped 

with a fixed roof? 

You must equip the storage vessel 

with a fixed roof and operate in 

accordance with paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section. 

(a) Closure requirements. Each 

opening in the fixed roof must be 

equipped with a cover or other type of 

closure device. 

(b) Operating requirements. (1) Except 

as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, the fixed roof must be installed 

with each closure device secured in the 

closed position when the storage vessel 

contains regulated material. 

(2) You may open closure devices or 

remove the fixed roof under the 

conditions specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) A closure device may be opened or 

the roof may be removed when needed 

to provide access for manual operations 

such as maintenance, inspection, 

sampling and cleaning. 

(ii) Opening of a spring-loaded 

conservation vent or similar type of 

device that vents to the atmosphere (or 

allows air to enter the storage vessel) is 

allowed to maintain the tank internal 

operating pressure within tank design 

specifications when loading operations 

or diurnal ambient temperature 

fluctuations cause the pressure inside 

the storage vessel to migrate beyond the 

operating pressure range for the storage 

vessel. 

(c) Monitoring requirements. (1) 

Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17989 

or (3) of this section, monitor each 

potential source of vapor leakage from 

the fixed roof and its closure devices for 

leaks in accordance with either 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

Conduct monitoring while the storage 

vessel contains regulated material. 

(i) Monitor using Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7, in 

accordance with § 65.431(a) and (b). A 

leak is detected if you obtain an 

instrument reading greater than 500 

parts per million by volume. Conduct 

monitoring within 90 days after the 

initial fill and at least annually. 

(ii) Monitor in accordance with the 

protocol for optical gas imaging, as 

specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

K. You may use this monitoring option 

only if at least one compound in the 

emissions can be detected by the optical 

gas imaging instrument. A leak is 

detected if you observe an image of 

emissions when using the optical gas 

imaging instrument. Conduct 

monitoring within 90 days after the 

initial fill and at least semiannually. 

(2) If you determine parts of the roof 

are unsafe to monitor using Method 21 

of part 60, appendix A–7, because 

operating personnel would be exposed 

to an imminent or potential danger as a 

consequence of complying with such 

monitoring, then the inspection 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) of this section do not apply and 

you must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) You must prepare and maintain at 

the plant site written documentation 

that identifies all parts of the fixed roof 

and any closure devices that are unsafe 

to monitor and explains why such parts 

are unsafe to monitor. 

(ii) You must develop and implement 

a written plan and schedule to conduct 

inspections during times when it is safe 

to do so. The required inspections must 

be performed as frequently as 

practicable, but do not need to be 

performed more than annually. Keep a 

copy of the written plan and schedule 

at the plant site, as specified in 

§ 65.380(c)(4). 

(iii) As an alternative to paragraphs 

(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, you may 

monitor the parts of the roof identified 

in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section by 

using optical gas imaging, as specified 

in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, if 

the criteria in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 

section and 40 CFR part 60, appendix K, 

are met. 

(3) No monitoring is required during 

a calendar year when either of the 

conditions in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of 

this section are met. 

(i) The storage vessel stores no 

regulated material at any time during 

the calendar year. 

(ii) The storage vessel is emptied less 

than 120 days since the last inspection 

and no regulated material is stored in 

the storage vessel for the remainder of 

the year. 

(4) Keep records of the date of each 

inspection, as specified in 

§ 65.380(c)(1), and keep records of each 

leak, as specified in § 65.380(c)(2). 

Provide notification of each inspection, 

as specified in § 65.388(a)(1). 

(d) Repair requirements. When a leak 

is identified during monitoring required 

under paragraph (c) of this section, you 

must either complete repairs or 

completely empty the storage vessel 

within 45 days. If a repair cannot be 

completed or the vessel cannot be 

completely emptied within 45 days, you 

may use up to two extensions of up to 

30 additional days each. Keep records 

documenting each decision to use an 

extension, as specified in § 65.380(c)(3). 

Not repairing or emptying the storage 

vessel within the time frame specified 

in this paragraph (d) is a deviation and 

must be reported in your semiannual 

periodic report, as specified in 

§ 65.384(a). 

§ 65.315 What requirements must I meet 

for an atmospheric storage vessel with a 

floating roof? 

You must comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(g) of this section. 

(a) Design requirements. (1) Fixed roof 

in combination with internal floating 

roof. An internal floating roof (IFR) must 

be equipped with one of the seal 

configurations listed in paragraph 

(a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section. 

(i) A liquid-mounted seal. 

(ii) A mechanical shoe seal. 

(iii) Two seals mounted one above the 

other. The lower seal may be vapormounted. 

(2) External floating roof. An external 

floating roof (EFR) must be equipped 

with one of the seal configurations 

listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) A liquid-mounted seal and a 

secondary seal. 

(ii) A mechanical shoe seal and a 

secondary seal. The upper end of the 

shoe(s) must extend a minimum of 24 

inches above the stored liquid surface. 

(3) Deck fittings. Openings through 

the deck of the floating roof must be 

equipped, as described in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (x) of this section. 

(i) Each opening, except those for 

automatic bleeder vents (vacuum 

breaker vents) and rim space vents, 

must have its lower edge below the 

surface of the stored liquid. 

(ii) Each opening, except those for 

automatic bleeder vents (vacuum 

breaker vents), rim space vents, leg 

sleeves and deck drains, must be 

equipped with a deck cover. The deck 

cover must be equipped with a gasket 

between the cover and the deck. 

(iii) Each automatic bleeder vent 

(vacuum breaker vent) and rim space 

vent must be equipped with a gasketed 

lid, pallet, flapper or other closure 

device. 

(iv) Each opening for a fixed roof 

support column may be equipped with 

a flexible fabric sleeve seal instead of a 

deck cover. 

(v) Each opening in an internal 

floating roof for a sample well may be 

equipped with a slit fabric seal or 

similar device that covers at least 90 

percent of the opening instead of a deck 

cover. 

(vi) Each opening for a deck drain that 

empties into the stored liquid must be 

equipped with a slit fabric seal or 

similar device that covers at least 90 

percent of the opening. 

(vii) Each cover on access hatches and 

gauge float wells must be designed to be 

bolted or fastened when closed. 

(viii) Each opening for an unslotted 

guidepole must be equipped with a pole 

wiper, and each unslotted guidepole 

must be equipped with either a gasketed 

or welded cap on the top of the 

guidepole. 

(ix) Each opening for a slotted 

guidepole must be equipped with one of 

the control device configurations 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ix)(A), (B), 

(C) or (D) of this section. 

(A) A pole wiper and a pole float. The 

wiper or seal of the pole float must be 

at or above the height of the pole wiper. 

(B) A pole wiper and a pole sleeve. 

(C) A flexible enclosure device and 

either a gasketed or welded cap on the 

top of the guidepole. 

(D) An internal guidepole sleeve, a 

pole wiper and either a gasketed or 

welded cap on the top of the guidepole. 

(x) Each opening for a ladder that has 

at least one slotted leg must be equipped 

with one of the control device 

configurations specified in paragraph 

(a)(3)(x)(A), (B) or (C) of this section. 

(A) A pole float in the slotted leg and 

pole wipers for both legs. The wiper or 

seal of the pole float must be at or above 

the height of the pole wiper. 

(B) A ladder sleeve and pole wipers 

for both legs of the ladder. 

(C) A flexible enclosure device and 

either a gasketed or welded cap on the 

top of the slotted leg. 

(b) Operational requirements. (1) The 

floating roof must be floating on the 

liquid surface at all times, except that it 

may be supported by the leg supports or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

other support devices (e.g., hangers from 

the fixed roof) under the circumstances 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through 

(vi) of this section. Any other floating 

roof landing event is a deviation and 

must be recorded, as specified in 

§ 65.380(d)(1), and reported in your 

semiannual periodic report, as specified 

in § 65.384(b). 

(i) During the initial fill. 

(ii) When necessary for maintenance 

or inspection, including refill, provided 

you also comply with either paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section. 

(A) If the storage vessel does not need 

to be completely empty in order to 

perform the maintenance or inspection, 

then refill must begin no later than 24 

hours after the roof is landed. Refill 

must be performed in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(B) If the storage vessel must be 

completely empty in order to perform 

the maintenance or inspection, then 

actions to completely empty the storage 

vessel must begin no later than 24 hours 

after the roof is landed. Refill may occur 

at any time after the storage vessel is 

completely empty. 

(iii) When necessary to support a 

change in service to an incompatible 

liquid, including refill. Actions to 

completely empty the storage vessel 

must begin no later than 24 hours after 

the roof is landed. Refill may occur at 

any time after the storage vessel is 

completely empty. 

(iv) When necessary to take the 

storage vessel out of service. Actions to 

completely empty the storage vessel 

must begin no later than 24 hours after 

the roof is landed. 

(v) When the vapors are routed 

through a closed vent system to a nonflare control device that reduces 

regulated material emissions by at least 

90 percent by weight from the time the 

floating roof is landed until the floating 

roof is within 10 percent by volume of 

being refloated. You must comply with 

the requirements in subpart M of this 

part for the closed vent system and the 

applicable non-flare control device(s). 

To demonstrate initial compliance with 

the 90-percent reduction requirement, 

you must conduct either a design 

evaluation, as specified in § 65.850, or a 

performance test, as specified in 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. 

(vi) When non-halogenated vapors are 

routed through a closed vent system to 

a flare that reduces regulated material 

emissions from the time the floating roof 

is landed until the floating roof is 

within 10 percent by volume of being 

refloated. You must comply with the 

requirements in subpart M of this part 

for the closed vent system and the 

requirements of § 63.11(b) of this 

chapter for the flare. 

(2) Once you start filling or refilling 

a storage vessel that has a landed 

floating roof, you may not suspend 

filling or refilling until the roof is 

floating (except when the quantity of 

liquid produced in one batch is 

insufficient to float the roof, and the 

output from additional batches will be 

added before any material is withdrawn 

from the storage vessel), and you may 

not withdraw liquid from the storage 

vessel while simultaneously filling or 

refilling. 

(3) Each cover over an opening in the 

floating roof, except for automatic 

bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents) 

and rim space vents, must be closed at 

all times, except when the cover must 

be open for access. 

(4) Each automatic bleeder vent 

(vacuum breaker vent) and rim space 

vent must be closed at all times, except 

when required to be open to relieve 

excess pressure or vacuum, in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

design, and during periods when the 

floating roof is allowed to be supported 

by its legs or other support devices. 

(5) Each guidepole cap and slotted 

ladder leg cap must be closed at all 

times except when gauging the liquid 

level or taking liquid samples. 

(c) Inspection requirements. Inspect 

internal floating roofs in accordance 

with Table 2 to this subpart, and inspect 

external floating roofs in accordance 

with Table 3 to this subpart. You must 

also comply with paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (6) of this section, as specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart, or Table 3 to 

this subpart, as applicable. If a floating 

roof fails an inspection, comply with the 

repair requirements specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. Keep 

records of the inspections, as specified 

in § 65.380(d)(2), and report inspection 

failures in your annual periodic report, 

as specified in § 65.386(a). 

(1) Visually inspect for any of the 

conditions specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section at the 

frequency specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart or Table 3 to this subpart, as 

applicable. Observing any of these 

conditions constitutes an inspection 

failure. These inspections may be 

performed entirely from the top side of 

the floating roof, as long as there is 

visual access to all deck fittings and the 

top rim seal specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(i) Stored liquid on the floating roof. 

(ii) Holes or tears in the primary or 

secondary seal (if one is present). 

(iii) Floating roof deck, deck fittings 

or rim seals that are not functioning as 

designed (as specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section). 

(iv) Failure to comply with the 

operational requirements of paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(2) If you comply with Option 1 or 

Option 3 in Table 2 to this subpart or 

Option 1 in Table 3 to this subpart, 

inspect each deck fitting in accordance 

with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. 

If you comply with Option 2 in Table 

2 to this subpart or Option 3 in Table 

3 to this subpart, monitor each deck 

fitting in accordance with paragraph 

(c)(2)(iii) of this section. If you comply 

with Option 2 in Table 3 to this subpart, 

monitor each deck fitting in accordance 

with paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Measure the gap between each 

deck fitting gasket or wiper (required by 

paragraph (a) of this section) and any 

surface that it is intended to seal. The 

inspector must attempt to slide a 1⁄8 inch 

diameter probe between the gasket or 

wiper and the surface against which it 

is intended to seal. Each location where 

the probe passes freely (without forcing 

or binding) between the two surfaces 

constitutes a gap and an inspection 

failure. 

(ii) Use Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, in accordance with 

§ 65.431(a) and (b) to monitor all 

sources of potential vapor leakage 

around each fitting. Conduct monitoring 

only when the roof is floating on the 

stored liquid. An instrument reading 

greater than 500 ppmv constitutes an 

inspection failure. This option may be 

used only for an EFR. 

(iii) Monitor the deck fittings using an 

optical gas imaging instrument in 

accordance with the protocol for optical 

gas imaging, as specified in 40 CFR part 

60, appendix K. You may use this 

monitoring option only if at least one 

compound in the emissions can be 

detected by the optical gas imaging 

instrument. Conduct monitoring only 

when the roof is floating on the stored 

liquid. Any imaged emissions 

constitutes an inspection failure. 

(3) If you comply with Option 1 in 

Table 3 to this subpart, conduct seal gap 

inspections for an EFR by determining 

the presence and size of gaps between 

the rim seals and the wall of the storage 

vessel in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph 

(c)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. Any 

exceedance of the gap requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iii) 

of this section constitutes inspection 

failure. 

(i) Rim seals must be measured for 

gaps at one or more levels while the EFR 

is floating, as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i)(A) through (F) of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17991 

(A) The inspector must hold a 1⁄8 inch 

diameter probe vertically against the 

inside of the storage vessel wall, just 

above the rim seal, and attempt to slide 

the probe down between the seal and 

the vessel wall. Each location where the 

probe passes freely (without forcing or 

binding against the seal) between the 

seal and the vessel wall constitutes a 

gap. 

(B) Determine the length of each gap 

by inserting the probe into the gap 

(vertically) and sliding the probe along 

the vessel wall in each direction as far 

as it will travel freely without binding 

between the seal and the vessel wall. 

The circumferential length along which 

the probe can move freely is the gap 

length. 

(C) Determine the maximum width of 

each gap by inserting probes of various 

diameters between the seal and the 

vessel wall. The smallest probe diameter 

should be 1⁄8 inch, and larger probes 

should have diameters in increments of 

1⁄8 inch. The diameter of the largest 

probe that can be inserted freely 

anywhere along the length of the gap is 

the maximum gap width. 

(D) Determine the average width of 

each gap by averaging the minimum gap 

width (1⁄8 inch) and the maximum gap 

width. 

(E) The area of a gap is the product 

of the gap length and average gap width. 

(F) Determine the ratio of 

accumulated area of rim seal gaps to 

storage vessel diameter by adding the 

area of each gap, and dividing the sum 

by the nominal diameter of the storage 

vessel. Determine this ratio separately 

for primary and secondary rim seals. 

(ii) The ratio of seal gap area to vessel 

diameter for the primary seal must not 

exceed 10 square inches per foot of 

vessel diameter, and the maximum gap 

width must not exceed 1.5 inches. 

(iii) The ratio of seal gap area to vessel 

diameter for the secondary seal must not 

exceed 1 square inch per foot, and the 

maximum gap width must not exceed 

0.5 inches, except when you must pull 

back or remove the secondary seal to 

inspect the primary seal. 

(iv) If you determine that it is unsafe 

to perform an EFR inspection as 

specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this 

section, comply with the requirements 

of paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(A) or (B) of this 

section. 

(A) Perform the inspection no later 

than 30 days after the determination 

that the floating roof is unsafe. 

(B) Completely empty the storage 

vessel no later than 45 days after 

determining the floating roof is unsafe. 

If the vessel cannot be completely 

emptied within 45 days, you may utilize 

up to two extensions of up to 30 

additional days each. Keep records 

documenting each decision to use an 

extension, as specified in § 65.380(d)(3). 

(4) If you comply with Option 3 in 

Table 3 to this subpart, monitor the 

circumference of the floating roof when 

the roof is floating on stored liquid 

using an optical gas imaging instrument 

in accordance with the procedures 

specified in the protocol for optical gas 

imaging in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. 

This monitoring option may be used 

only if at least one compound emitted 

from the storage vessel can be detected 

by the optical gas imaging instrument. 

Any imaged emissions constitutes an 

inspection failure. 

(5) If you comply with Option 2 in 

Table 3 to this subpart, monitor the 

interface between the rim seal and the 

tank shell and any gaps in the secondary 

seal using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, in accordance with 

§ 65.431(a) and (b). Conduct monitoring 

when the roof is floating on stored 

liquid. An instrument reading greater 

than 500 ppmv constitutes an 

inspection failure. 

(6) If you comply with Option 2 in 

Table 2 to this subpart, monitor the 

circumference of the IFR using an 

optical gas imaging instrument in 

accordance with the protocol for optical 

gas imaging, as specified in 40 CFR part 

60, appendix K. You may use this 

monitoring option only if at least one 

compound in the emissions can be 

detected by the optical gas imaging 

instrument. Conduct monitoring when 

the roof is floating on stored liquid. Any 

imaged emissions constitutes an 

inspection failure. 

(d) Repair requirements. Any 

condition causing an inspection failure 

under paragraph (c) of this section that 

is observed during an inspection 

required by paragraph (c) of this section 

or that you observe while conducting 

other activities on the storage vessel 

(e.g., maintenance or sampling) must be 

repaired, as specified in paragraph (d)(1) 

or (2) of this section. 

(1) If the inspection is performed 

while the storage vessel is completely 

empty, you must complete repairs 

before refilling the storage vessel with 

regulated material. 

(2) If the inspection is performed 

while the storage vessel is not 

completely empty, you must complete 

repairs or completely empty the storage 

vessel within 45 days. If a repair cannot 

be completed or the vessel cannot be 

completely emptied within 45 days, you 

may use up to two extensions of up to 

30 additional days each. Keep records 

documenting each decision to use an 

extension, as specified in § 65.380(d)(3). 

Not repairing or emptying the storage 

vessel within the time frame specified 

in this paragraph (d) is a deviation and 

must be reported in your semiannual 

periodic report, as specified in 

§ 65.384(a). 

(e) Alternative means of emission 

limitation. (1) An alternate device may 

be substituted for a device specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section if the 

alternate device has an emission factor 

less than or equal to the emission factor 

for the device specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section. Requests for the use of 

alternate devices must be submitted, as 

specified in § 65.388(b). 

(2) Tests to determine emission 

factors for an alternate device must 

accurately simulate representative 

conditions under which the device and 

storage vessel will operate, such as wind 

speed, ambient and liquid temperatures, 

pressure or vacuum, and filling and 

withdrawal rates, but without creating 

an unsafe condition. You must include 

a copy of the proposed testing protocol 

in your request. 

(f) Floating roof landing monitoring 

requirements. (1) Each storage vessel 

must be equipped with a system that 

provides a visual or audible signal when 

the floating roof (IFR or EFR) is about to 

be landed on its legs or other support 

devices (e.g., hangers from the fixed 

roof). 

(2) Each time a floating roof is landed, 

even if the alarm did not activate, 

estimate the amount of regulated 

material emitted to the atmosphere 

during the time the floating roof is 

landed. Keep records of this emissions 

estimate, as specified in § 65.380(d)(1). 

Report the estimated emissions in your 

annual periodic report, as specified in 

§ 65.386(b). 

(g) Overfill monitoring requirements. 

(1) Each storage vessel must be 

equipped with monitoring equipment 

that provides a visual or audible signal 

when the storage vessel is about to be 

overfilled. 

(2) Each time the storage vessel is 

overfilled, estimate the amount of 

regulated material spilled and the 

amount emitted to the atmosphere. Keep 

records of this emissions estimate, as 

specified in § 65.380(i). Report the 

estimated emissions in your annual 

periodic report, as specified in 

§ 65.386(c). 

§ 65.320 What requirements must I meet 

for a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel 

if I use vapor balance? 

If you elect to use vapor balancing to 

control emissions from a fixed roof 

storage vessel, you must comply with 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Fixed roof requirements. Operate 

and maintain the fixed roof, as specified 

in § 65.310(a) and (b), except that 

§ 65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not apply for the 

purposes of this section; monitor the 

fixed roof, as specified in § 65.310(c); 

and repair leaks, as specified in 

§ 65.310(d). Keep records of monitoring 

and repair, as specified in § 65.380(e)(1), 

and report deviations in your 

semiannual periodic report, as specified 

in §§ 65.310(d) and 65.384(a). 

(b) Vapor balance requirements. (1) 

Design requirements. (i) The vapor 

balancing system must be designed and 

operated to route vapors displaced from 

loading of the storage vessel to the 

transport vehicle or barge from which 

the storage vessel is filled. 

(ii) All vapor connections and lines 

on the storage vessel must be equipped 

with closures that seal upon disconnect. 

(2) Testing requirements. (i) Transport 

vehicles must have a current 

certification in accordance with the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

pressure test requirements of 49 CFR 

part 180 for cargo tanks and 49 CFR 

173.31 for tank cars. Keep records of 

these certifications, as specified in 

§ 65.380(e)(2). 

(ii) Barges must have been pressure 

tested for vapor tightness within the 

365-day period prior to being used in a 

vapor balancing system to comply with 

the control requirements in this section. 

Pressure testing must be conducted in 

accordance with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) 

through (F) of this section, and you 

must maintain copies of documentation 

showing the required testing was 

conducted, as specified in 

§ 65.380(e)(3). You must either conduct 

the test at your facility or obtain 

documentation of the test from the barge 

owner or operator. 

(A) Each barge must be pressurized 

with dry air or inert gas to no more than 

the pressure of the lowest-pressure relief 

valve setting. 

(B) Once the pressure is obtained, the 

dry air or inert gas source must be shut 

off. 

(C) At the end of 1⁄2 hour, the pressure 

in the barge and piping must be 

measured. The change in pressure must 

be calculated using Equation 1 of this 

section. 

Where: 

P = Change in pressure, inches of water. 

Pi = Pressure in barge when air/gas source is 

shut off, inches of water. 

Pf = Pressure in barge at the end of 1⁄2 hour 

after air/gas is shut off, inches of water. 

(D) The change in pressure, P, must be 

compared to the pressure drop 

calculated using Equation 2 of this 

section. 

Where: 

PM = Maximum allowable pressure change, 

inches of water. 

Pi = Pressure in barge when air/gas source is 

shut off, pounds per square inch absolute 

(psia). 

L = Maximum permitted loading rate of the 

barge, barrels per hour 

V = Total volume of barge, barrels. 

(E) If P is less than or equal to PM, 

the vessel is vapor tight. 

(F) If P is greater than PM, the vessel 

is not vapor tight and the source of the 

leak must be identified and repaired 

before retesting. 

(3) Monitoring requirements. For 

pieces of equipment in the vapor 

balancing system, comply with 

§ 65.325(b) and (d), except as specified 

in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. Keep records, as specified 

in § 65.380(e)(5). 

(i) When § 65.325(b) refers to a 

‘‘closed vent system,’’ it means a ‘‘vapor 

balancing system’’ for the purposes of 

this section. 

(ii) When subpart M of this part, 

which is referenced from § 65.325(b), 

refers to ‘‘bypass lines that divert a vent 

stream away from a control device and 

to the atmosphere,’’ it means ‘‘bypass 

lines that divert displaced storage vessel 

emissions to the atmosphere and away 

from the transport vehicle or barge from 

which the storage vessel is being filled’’ 

for the purposes of this section. 

(iii) As an alternative to the otherwise 

applicable monitoring requirements 

specified in subpart J of this part, you 

may elect to comply with the alternative 

monitoring frequencies in § 65.440 for 

equipment in a vapor balancing system 

that convey emissions from a storage 

vessel for the purposes of this subpart. 

(c) Operating requirements. (1) Liquid 

must be unloaded only when the 

transport vehicle’s vapor collection 

equipment or barge’s vapor collection 

equipment is connected to the storage 

vessel’s vapor balancing system. 

(2) Each pressure relief device on the 

storage vessel or on the transport 

vehicle or barge must remain closed 

while the storage vessel is being filled. 

(3) Pressure relief devices on storage 

vessels must be set to no less than 2.5 

pounds per square inch gauge (psig) at 

all times to prevent breathing losses, 

unless you provide rationale in the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

specified in § 65.382(c) explaining why 

a lower value is sufficient to prevent 

breathing losses at all times or control 

breathing losses by another method. 

Keep records of the vent settings, as 

specified in § 65.380(e)(4). 

(d) Overfill monitoring requirements. 

Comply with the monitoring and alarm 

requirements and related recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements specified in 

§ 65.315(g). 

§ 65.325 What requirements must I meet 

for a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel 

if I route emissions through a closed vent 

system to a control device? 

If you elect to control emissions from 

a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel 

by routing emissions through a closed 

vent system to a control device, you 

must comply with the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Fixed roof requirements. Except as 

specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section, operate and maintain the fixed 

roof, as specified in § 65.310(a) and (b), 

except that § 65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not 

apply for the purposes of this section; 

monitor the fixed roof, as specified in 

§ 65.310(c); and repair leaks, as 

specified in § 65.310(d). Keep records of 

monitoring and repair, as specified in 

§ 65.380(f)(1), and report deviations in 

your semiannual periodic report, as 

specified in §§ 65.310(d) and 65.384(a). 

(b) Closed vent system requirements. 

Except as specified in paragraph (e) of 

this section, for the closed vent system, 

comply with the requirements specified 

in § 65.720(b) through (d) and 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Equipment in the closed vent 

system is in regulated material service 

when it conveys emissions from the 

storage vessel. For such equipment, 

comply with § 65.410(a) or (c) and 

applicable sections referenced therein, 

except that § 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not 

apply for the purposes of this subpart. 

When § 65.410(c) refers to ‘‘your 

referencing subpart,’’ it means ‘‘the 

subpart that references subpart I.’’ You 

must conduct the monitoring while the 

equipment is in regulated material 

service. 

(2) Comply with § 65.430 for each 

potential source of emissions in the 

closed vent system that is not defined as 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.131</GPH> EP26MR12.132</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17993 

a piece of equipment. Keep 

identification records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(f)(5). 

(3) Keep records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(f)(2). 

(c) Control device requirements. 

Comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 

section, as applicable. Keep records, as 

specified in § 65.380(f)(3). 

(1) A non-flare control device must 

meet the requirements for the applicable 

control device in subpart M of this part; 

and reduce organic regulated material 

emissions by at least 95 percent by 

weight or to an outlet concentration of 

regulated material less than 20 ppmv. If 

the regulated material is a subset of 

organic compounds (e.g., hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP)), you may demonstrate 

compliance by reducing emissions to an 

outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv 

as total organic compounds (TOC). You 

must reduce the hydrogen halide and 

halogen emissions from combusted 

halogenated vent streams, as defined in 

§ 65.295, by at least 99 percent by 

weight or to an outlet concentration less 

than 20 ppmv. The halogenated vent 

stream determination must be based on 

the emission rate at the maximum 

expected fill rate of the storage vessel. 

(2) A flare must meet the 

requirements of § 63.11(b) of this 

chapter. You must not use a flare to 

control halogenated vent streams, as 

defined in § 65.295. 

(3) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limit(s) specified in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, you 

must conduct either a design evaluation, 

as specified in § 65.850, or a 

performance test, as specified in 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. 

(4) During periods of planned routine 

maintenance of a control device, operate 

the storage vessel in accordance with 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. Keep records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(f)(4). 

(i) Do not add material to the storage 

vessel during periods of planned routine 

maintenance. 

(ii) Limit periods of planned routine 

maintenance for each control device to 

no more than 360 hours per year (hr/yr). 

(d) Overfill monitoring requirements. 

Comply with the monitoring and alarm 

requirements and related recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements specified in 

§ 65.315(g). 

(e) Alternative requirements. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do 

not apply if the fixed roof and closed 

vent system are maintained in vacuum 

service, provided you comply with 

§ 65.410(b)(1) through (3) for fittings on 

the fixed roof and equipment in the 

closed vent system and you keep 

records, as specified in § 65.380(f)(2). 

§ 65.330 What requirements must I meet 

for a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel 

if I route emissions to a fuel gas system? 

If you elect to control emissions from 

a fixed roof storage vessel by routing 

emissions to a fuel gas system, you must 

comply with paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Fixed roof requirements. Except as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, operate and maintain the fixed 

roof, as specified in § 65.310(a) and (b), 

except that § 65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not 

apply for the purposes of this section; 

monitor the fixed roof, as specified in 

§ 65.310(c); and repair leaks, as 

specified in § 65.310(d). Keep records of 

monitoring and repair, as specified in 

§ 65.380(g)(1), and report deviations in 

your semiannual periodic report, as 

specified in §§ 65.310(d) and 65.384(a). 

(b) Fuel gas system requirements. 

Except as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Comply with the requirements for 

fuel gas systems as specified in 

§ 65.732(a), (c), and (d). 

(2) Comply with the requirements for 

equipment leaks, as specified in subpart 

J of this part and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section. 

(i) Equipment in the fuel gas system 

is in regulated material service when it 

conveys emissions from the storage 

vessel. For such equipment, comply 

with § 65.410(a) or (c) and applicable 

sections referenced therein, except that 

§ 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart. When 

§ 65.410(c) refers to ‘‘your referencing 

subpart,’’ it means ‘‘the subpart that 

references subpart I.’’ You must conduct 

the monitoring while the equipment is 

in regulated material service. 

(ii) Comply with § 65.430 for each 

potential source of emissions from the 

fuel gas system that is not defined as a 

piece of equipment (e.g., an access 

hatch). Keep identification records, as 

specified in § 65.380(g)(3). 

(3) Keep records of the fuel gas 

system, as specified in § 65.380(g)(2). 

(c) Overfill monitoring requirements. 

Comply with the monitoring and alarm 

requirements and related recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements specified in 

§ 65.315(g). 

(d) Alternative requirements. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do 

not apply if the fixed roof and fuel gas 

system are maintained in vacuum 

service, provided you comply with 

§ 65.410(b)(1) through (3) for fittings on 

the fixed roof and equipment in the fuel 

gas system and you keep records, as 

specified in § 65.380(g)(2). 

§ 65.340 What requirements must I meet 

for a pressure vessel? 

If you have a pressure vessel that 

contains any regulated material, you 

must operate and maintain the pressure 

vessel, as specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section. 

(a) The pressure vessel must be 

designed to operate with no detectable 

emissions at all times. 

(b) All openings in the pressure vessel 

must be equipped with closure devices. 

(c) Conduct initial and annual 

performance tests by monitoring in 

accordance with either paragraph (c)(1) 

or (2) of this section to demonstrate 

compliance with paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(1) Monitor each point on the pressure 

vessel through which regulated material 

could potentially be emitted using 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, in accordance with the procedures 

specified in § 65.431(a) and (b) and 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) When § 65.431(a)(5) refers to 

‘‘monitoring when the equipment in 

regulated material service or in use with 

any other detectable material,’’ it means 

‘‘monitoring when the pressure vessel 

contains a regulated material with a 

concentration representative of the 

range of concentrations for the materials 

expected to be stored in the pressure 

vessel’’ for the purposes of this section. 

(ii) Section 65.431(a)(6) does not 

apply for the purposes of this section. 

(iii) Each instrument reading greater 

than 500 ppmv is a deviation. Comply 

with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) through 

(C) of this section each time you obtain 

an instrument reading greater than 500 

ppmv. 

(A) Estimate the flow rate and total 

regulated material emissions from the 

defect. Assume the pressure vessel has 

been emitting for half of the time since 

the last performance test, unless other 

information supports a different 

assumption. 

(B) Keep records of the performance 

test and emission estimates, as specified 

in § 65.380(h)(1). 

(C) Submit information in your 

semiannual periodic report, as specified 

in § 65.384(c). 

(2) Monitor each point on the pressure 

vessel through which regulated material 

potentially could be emitted using an 

optical gas imaging instrument, as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. 

(i) Operate and maintain the optical 

gas imaging instrument in accordance 

with the protocol for optical gas imaging 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. The 

optical gas imaging instrument must be 

able to detect at least one compound 

emitted from the storage vessel. 

(ii) Each image of emissions is a 

deviation. Comply with paragraphs 

(c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section each 

time you detect an image when using an 

optical gas imaging instrument. 

(A) Estimate emissions, as specified in 

paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. 

(B) Keep records and report 

information, as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section. 

(d) Whenever material regulated by a 

referencing subpart is in the pressure 

vessel, operate the pressure vessel as a 

closed system that does not vent to the 

atmosphere except at those times when 

purging of inerts or noncondensables 

from the pressure vessel is required and 

the purge stream is routed through a 

closed vent system to a control device 

in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (3) of this section, as applicable. 

Keep records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(h)(2), and report deviations in 

your semiannual periodic report, as 

specified in § 65.384(c). 

(1) For the closed vent system, 

comply with § 65.325(b). 

(2) For a non-flare control device, 

comply with requirements for the 

applicable control device in subpart M 

of this part, and comply with 

paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) A non-flare control device must 

reduce organic regulated material 

emissions by at least 98 percent by 

weight or to an outlet concentration of 

total regulated material less than 20 

ppmv. If the regulated material is a 

subset of organic compounds (e.g., 

HAP), you may demonstrate compliance 

by reducing emissions to an outlet 

concentration less than 20 ppmv as 

TOC. You must reduce the hydrogen 

halide and halogen emissions from 

combusted halogenated vent streams, as 

defined in § 65.295, by at least 99 

percent by weight or to an outlet 

concentration less than 20 ppmv. The 

halogenated vent stream determination 

must be based on the emission rate at 

the maximum expected fill rate of the 

pressure vessel. 

(ii) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limit(s) specified in 

paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, you 

must conduct either a design evaluation, 

as specified in § 65.850, or a 

performance test, as specified in 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. 

(3) For a flare, comply with the 

requirements of § 63.11(b) of this 

chapter. You must not use a flare to 

control halogenated vent streams, as 

defined in § 65.295. 

Standards and Compliance 

Requirements for Transfer Operations 

§ 65.360 What requirements must I meet 

for control of transport vehicles and 

transfer operations to load transport 

vehicles? 

For each transfer rack that is used to 

load transport vehicles with regulated 

material, you must comply with 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

You must also comply with paragraph 

(c) of this section for transport vehicles 

that are loaded with regulated material. 

(a) Transfer method. Transfer 

regulated liquids to transport vehicles 

using submerged loading or bottom 

loading. 

(b) Displaced emissions control. For 

each loading arm that transfers 

regulated material at a facility that 

transfers through all transfer racks a 

total of more than 35 million gallons per 

year (gal/yr) of liquids with a weighted 

average MTVP equal to or greater than 

4 psia, comply with either paragraph 

(b)(1), (2) or (3) of this section. 

(1) Route displaced emissions from 

the transport vehicle through a closed 

vent system to a control device and 

comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. Keep 

records, as specified in § 65.380(j)(2). 

(i) For the closed vent system, comply 

with the requirements specified in 

§ 65.720(b) through (d) and paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) Determine if a piece of equipment 

in the closed vent system is in regulated 

material service, based on the MTVP of 

each transferred material that generates 

vapor that contacts the equipment. If 

any such vapor meets the definition of 

‘‘in regulated material service,’’ comply 

with § 65.410(a) or (c) and applicable 

sections referenced therein, except that 

§ 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart. When 

§ 65.410(c) refers to ‘‘your referencing 

subpart’’ it means ‘‘the subpart that 

references subpart I.’’ If equipment in 

the closed vent system contacts 

regulated material from transfers, but is 

not in regulated material service, 

comply with requirements in § 65.430, 

unless you are required to comply with 

§ 65.429 for other emissions conveyed 

by the closed vent system. 

(B) If equipment in the closed vent 

system is determined to be in regulated 

material service, conduct monitoring 

and inspections when the closed vent 

system is conveying vapor that causes 

the equipment in the closed vent system 

to be in regulated material service (e.g., 

when transferring material that 

generates vapor that meets the threshold 

for ‘‘in regulated material service’’). If 

equipment in the closed vent system 

contacts regulated material, but is not in 

regulated material service, conduct 

inspections when regulated material 

vapors are flowing through the closed 

vent system (e.g., when filling any 

transport vehicle that generates vapor 

that contains regulated material). No 

monitoring or inspection is required 

during monitoring periods when the 

closed vent system conveys no regulated 

material. 

(C) Comply with § 65.430 for each 

potential source of vapor leakage in the 

closed vent system that is not defined as 

a piece of equipment. Keep 

identification records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(j)(3). 

(ii) For a non-flare control device, 

comply with the applicable 

requirements in subpart M of this part, 

and comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) 

and (B) of this section. 

(A) A non-flare control device must 

reduce organic regulated material 

emissions by at least 95 percent by 

weight or to an outlet concentration of 

total organic regulated material less than 

20 ppmv. If the regulated material is a 

subset of organic compounds (e.g., 

HAP), you may demonstrate compliance 

by reducing emissions to an outlet 

concentration less than 20 ppmv as 

TOC. You must reduce the hydrogen 

halide and halogen emissions from 

combusted halogenated vent streams, as 

defined in § 65.295, by at least 99 

percent by weight or to an outlet 

concentration less than 20 ppmv. The 

halogenated vent stream determination 

must be based on the emission rate at 

the maximum expected fill rate of the 

pressure vessel. 

(B) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limit specified in 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, 

you must conduct either a design 

evaluation, as specified in § 65.850, or a 

performance test, as specified in 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. 

(iii) For flares, comply with the 

requirements of § 63.11(b) of this 

chapter. You must not use a flare to 

control halogenated vent streams, as 

defined in § 65.295. 

(2) Route displaced emissions from 

the transport vehicle to a fuel gas system 

and comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) Comply with the requirements for 

fuel gas systems, as specified in 

§ 65.732(a), (c) and (d). 

(ii) For equipment in the fuel gas 

system, comply with the requirements 

for equipment leaks, as specified in 

subpart J of this part, and paragraphs 

(b)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) Determine if a piece of equipment 

in the fuel gas system is in regulated 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17995 

material service, based on the MTVP of 

each transferred material that generates 

vapor that contacts the equipment. If 

any such vapor meets the definition of 

‘‘in regulated material service,’’ comply 

with § 65.410(a) or (c) and applicable 

sections referenced therein, except that 

§ 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart. When 

§ 65.410(c) refers to ‘‘your referencing 

subpart,’’ it means ‘‘the subpart that 

references subpart I.’’ If equipment in 

the fuel gas system contacts regulated 

material from transfers, but is not in 

regulated material service, comply with 

requirements specified in § 65.430, 

unless you are required to comply with 

§ 65.427 for other emissions conveyed 

by the fuel gas system (e.g., process vent 

emissions). 

(B) For equipment in the fuel gas 

system that is determined to be in 

regulated material service, conduct 

monitoring and inspections, while 

transferring any material that generates 

vapor that causes the equipment in the 

fuel gas system to be in regulated 

material service. Alternatively, you may 

conduct monitoring and inspections 

when the fuel gas system is conveying 

vapors from other emission points that 

cause the equipment to be in regulated 

material service. If equipment in the 

fuel gas system contacts regulated 

material, but is not in regulated material 

service, conduct inspections when 

regulated material vapors are flowing 

through the fuel gas system (e.g., when 

filling any transport vehicle with liquid 

that contains regulated material). 

(C) Comply with § 65.430 for each 

potential source of emissions in the fuel 

gas system that is not defined as a piece 

of equipment. Keep identification 

records, as specified in § 65.380(j)(3). 

(iii) Keep records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(j)(7). 

(3) Design and operate a vapor 

balancing system, as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this 

section. This option may not be used if 

the applicable storage vessel is 

controlled using a floating roof. Keep 

records, as specified in § 65.380(j)(5). 

(i) The vapor balancing system must 

be designed to route vapors displaced 

from the loading of regulated liquids 

into transport vehicles back to the 

storage vessel from which the liquid 

being loaded originated or to another 

storage vessel connected to a common 

header. 

(ii) The vapor balancing system must 

be designed to prevent any regulated 

material vapors collected at one transfer 

rack from passing to another transfer 

rack. 

(iii) All vapor connections and lines 

in the vapor collection equipment and 

vapor balancing system must be 

equipped with closures that seal upon 

disconnect. 

(iv) Each pressure relief device on the 

transport vehicle and storage vessel 

must remain closed while the transport 

vehicle is being filled with regulated 

material. 

(v) For pieces of equipment in the 

vapor balancing system, comply with 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except 

that when paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section refers to a ‘‘closed vent system,’’ 

it means a ‘‘vapor balancing system’’ for 

the purposes of this section. 

(c) Transport vehicles. (1) Except 

when loading transport vehicles that 

meet the requirements in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section, you must ensure 

that regulated material liquids are 

loaded only into transport vehicles that 

have a current certification in 

accordance with the DOT pressure test 

requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for 

cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank 

cars. Keep records of these 

certifications, as specified in 

§ 65.380(j)(6). 

(2) Each transport vehicle that is 

loaded with regulated material that has 

a MTVP greater than 4 psia at a transfer 

rack that is subject to this section must 

pass an annual vapor tightness test 

conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8. Either you or the 

owner of the transport vehicle may 

conduct the test. Conduct the test using 

a time period (t) for the pressure and 

vacuum tests of 5 minutes. The initial 

pressure (Pi) for the pressure test must 

be 460 millimeters (mm) of water, 

gauge. The initial vacuum (Vi) for the 

vacuum test must be 150 mm of water, 

gauge. The maximum allowable 

pressure and vacuum changes (Dp, Dv) 

for transport vehicles is 25 mm of water, 

or less, in 5 minutes. Keep records of 

each test, as specified in § 65.380(j)(1). 

(3) You must act to assure that your 

vapor balancing system, closed vent 

system or fuel gas system is connected 

to the transport vehicle’s vapor 

collection equipment during each 

loading of a transport vehicle at the 

regulated source. Examples of actions to 

accomplish this include training drivers 

in the hookup procedures and posting 

visible reminder signs at the transfer 

racks that load regulated material. 

§ 65.370 What requirements must I meet 

for control of transfer operations to load 

containers? 

For each transfer rack that is used to 

load containers, you must comply with 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, you must transfer 

regulated material into containers using 

either submerged fill or a fitted opening 

in the top of the container through 

which the regulated material is filled, 

with subsequent purging of the transfer 

line before removing it from the 

container opening. 

(b) Whenever a container that is 

subject to this paragraph contains a 

regulated material, you must install all 

covers and closure devices for the 

container, and secure and maintain each 

closure device in the closed position, 

except when access to the container is 

necessary, such as for adding or 

removing material, sampling or 

cleaning. If the container is 55 gallons 

(gal) or larger, the transferred liquid has 

a MTVP greater than 4 psia, and the 

container is used for onsite storage, 

comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or 

(2) of this section. 

(1) Demonstrate initially and at least 

annually that the container is vapor 

tight by testing in accordance with 

Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8. Conduct the test using a time 

period (t) for the pressure and vacuum 

tests of 5 minutes. The initial pressure 

(Pi) for the pressure test must be 460 

mm of water, gauge. The initial vacuum 

(Vi) for the vacuum test must be 150 mm 

of water, gauge. The maximum 

allowable pressure and vacuum changes 

(Dp, Dv) for all tested containers is 76 

mm of water, or less, in 5 minutes. Keep 

records of each test, as specified in 

§ 65.380(j)(1). 

(2) Monitor annually each potential 

leak interface on the container using 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, in accordance with § 65.431(a) and 

(b), and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) 

of this section. 

(i) Section 65.431(a)(6) does not apply 

for the purposes of this section. 

(ii) When § 65.431(a) and (b) refers to 

‘‘equipment,’’ it means ‘‘each potential 

leak interface on the container’’ for the 

purposes of this section. 

(iii) A leak is identified when you 

obtain an instrument reading greater 

than 500 ppmv. 

(iv) For each leak, either repair the 

leak or empty the container within 15 

days after detecting the leak. 

(c) As an alternative to complying 

with paragraph (a) of this section, you 

may elect to control displaced vapors 

generated when filling the container in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(1), (2) or 

(3) of this section, as applicable. 

(1) Design and operate a vapor 

balancing system to route vapors 

displaced from the loading of regulated 

material into containers directly (e.g., no 

intervening tank or containment area, 

such as a room) to the storage vessel 

from which the liquid being loaded 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17996 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

originated or to another storage vessel 

connected to a common header. For 

equipment in the vapor balancing 

system, comply with § 65.360(b)(3), 

except when § 65.360(b)(1)(i), which is 

referenced from § 65.360(b)(3), refers to 

a ‘‘transport vehicle,’’ it means a 

‘‘container’’ for the purposes of this 

section. Keep records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(j)(5). 

(2) Vent displaced emissions directly 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) Comply with § 65.360(b)(1)(i) for 

the closed vent system, except that 

when § 65.360(b)(1)(i) refers to a 

‘‘transport vehicle,’’ it means a 

‘‘container’’ for the purposes of this 

section. 

(ii) Comply with § 65.360(b)(1)(ii) or 

(iii) for the applicable control device. 

(iii) Keep records, as specified in 

§ 65.380(j)(2). 

(3) When filling, locate the containers 

in an enclosure that is exhausted 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device, as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Design and operate the enclosure 

in accordance with the criteria for a 

permanent total enclosure, as specified 

in ‘‘Procedure T—Criteria for and 

Verification of a Permanent or 

Temporary Total Enclosure’’ under 40 

CFR 52.741, appendix B. The enclosure 

may have permanent or temporary 

openings to allow worker access; 

passage of containers through the 

enclosure by conveyor or other 

mechanical means; entry of permanent 

mechanical or electrical devices; or to 

direct airflow into the enclosure. 

Perform the verification procedure for 

the enclosure, as specified in Section 

5.0 to ‘‘Procedure T—Criteria for and 

Verification of a Permanent or 

Temporary Total Enclosure’’ initially 

when the enclosure is first installed 

and, thereafter, annually. Keep records 

of these verifications, as specified in 

§ 65.380(j)(4). 

(ii) Comply with § 65.360(b)(1)(i) for 

the closed vent system and comply with 

§ 65.360(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) for the 

applicable control device. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§ 65.380 What records must I keep? 

(a) Vessel dimensions and storage 

capacity. For each storage vessel that is 

subject to the referencing subpart, keep 

a record of the dimensions of the storage 

vessel and an analysis of the storage 

capacity of the storage vessel. 

(b) Liquid stored and MTVP. (1) Keep 

a list of all the types of liquids stored. 

(2) Keep a record of each MTVP 

determination and the supporting 

information used in the determination. 

(c) Monitoring and repair records for 

fixed roofs complying with § 65.310, 

§ 65.320, § 65.325 or § 65.330. (1) Record 

the date of each monitoring required by 

§ 65.310(c). 

(2) For each leak detected during 

monitoring required by § 65.310(c), 

record the location of the leak, a 

description of the leak, the date of 

detection, a description of actions taken 

to repair the defect and the date repair 

was completed. When using Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, keep 

a record of the instrument reading. 

When using optical gas imaging, keep a 

record of the video image. 

(3) If you elect to use an extension in 

accordance with § 65.310(d), keep 

records, as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Records for a first extension must 

include a description of the defect, 

documentation that alternative storage 

capacity was unavailable in the 45-day 

period after the inspection and a 

schedule of actions that you took in an 

effort to either repair or completely 

empty the storage vessel during the 

extension period. 

(ii) For a second extension, if needed, 

you must maintain records documenting 

that alternative storage capacity was 

unavailable during the first extension 

period and a schedule of the actions you 

took to ensure that the control device 

was repaired or the vessel was 

completely emptied by the end of the 

second extension period. 

(iii) Record the date on which the 

storage vessel was completely emptied, 

if applicable. 

(4) If applicable, maintain a copy of 

the written plan required by 

§ 65.310(c)(2)(ii) for parts of fixed roofs 

that are unsafe to monitor. 

(d) Records for floating roofs 

complying with § 65.315. (1) Floating 

roof landings. For each floating roof 

landing, keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 

section, as required by § 65.315(f)(2). 

(i) The date when a floating roof is set 

on its legs or other support devices. 

(ii) The date when the roof was 

refloated. 

(iii) Whether the process of refloating 

was continuous (i.e., once started, filling 

or refilling was not suspended until the 

roof was refloated, except for filling 

from batch production, as specified in 

§ 65.315(b)(2)). 

(iv) Estimated emissions from the 

landing event. 

(2) Inspection results. Keep records of 

floating roof inspection results, as 

specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) 

of this section, as required by 

§ 65.315(c). 

(i) If the floating roof passes 

inspection, keep a record that includes 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. If the 

floating roof fails inspection, keep a 

record that includes the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) 

through (E) of this section. 

(A) Identification of the storage vessel 

that was inspected. 

(B) The date of the inspection. 

(C) A description of all inspection 

failures. 

(D) A description of all repairs and 

the dates they were made. 

(E) The date the storage vessel was 

completely emptied, if applicable. 

(ii) Keep records of the data specified 

in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of 

this section, as applicable for EFR 

inspections and monitoring. 

(A) EFR seal gap measurements, 

including the raw data obtained and any 

calculations performed, as required by 

§ 65.315(c)(3). 

(B) Instrument readings when 

monitoring is conducted using Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. 

(C) A record of the video image when 

monitoring is conducted using optical 

gas imaging. 

(3) Documentation of inspection and 

repair extensions. If you elect to use an 

extension in accordance with 

§ 65.315(c)(3)(iv)(B) or (d)(2), keep 

records, as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Records for a first extension must 

include an explanation of why it was 

unsafe to perform the inspection, 

documentation that alternative storage 

capacity was unavailable during the 45- 

day period after determining the floating 

roof is unsafe to inspect and a schedule 

of actions that you took in an effort to 

completely empty the storage vessel 

during the extension period. 

(ii) For a second extension, if needed, 

you must maintain records documenting 

that alternative storage capacity was 

unavailable during the first extension 

period and a schedule of actions that 

you took to ensure that the vessel was 

completely emptied by the end of the 

second extension period. 

(iii) Record the date on which the 

storage vessel was completely emptied, 

if applicable. 

(e) Records for fixed roof storage 

vessels that vapor balance to comply 

with § 65.320. (1) Keep records of fixed 

roof monitoring and repair, as specified 

in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(2) For transport vehicles, keep 

records of DOT certification(s) required 

by § 65.320(b)(2)(i). 

(3) For barges, keep records of vapor 

tightness pressure test documentation 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17997 

required by § 65.320(b)(2)(ii). The 

documentation must include the 

information in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

through (ix) of this section. 

(i) Test title: Barge Pressure Test. 

(ii) Barge owner and address. 

(iii) Barge identification number. 

(iv) Testing location. 

(v) Test date. 

(vi) Tester name and signature. 

(vii) Witnessing inspector, if any: 

Name, signature and affiliation. 

(viii) Initial and final test pressures 

and the time at the beginning and end 

of the test. 

(ix) Test results: Actual pressure 

change in 30 minutes, mm of water. 

(4) Keep records of the pressure relief 

vent setting that prevents breathing 

losses from the storage vessel required 

by § 65.320(c)(3). 

(5) For equipment in the vapor 

balancing system, keep records, as 

required by subpart J of this part. 

(f) Records for fixed roof storage 

vessels vented to a control device 

complying with § 65.325. (1) Keep 

records of fixed roof monitoring and 

repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(2) For the closed vent system, keep 

records, as specified in subpart J of this 

part and subpart M of this part. 

(3) For a non-flare control device, 

keep the applicable records specified in 

subpart M of this part. For flares, keep 

records of all visual emissions observed, 

periods when a pilot flame is out, and 

any periods that the pilot flames are not 

monitored. 

(4) Record the day and time at which 

planned routine maintenance periods 

begin and end, and the type of 

maintenance performed on the control 

device. If you need more than 240 hr/ 

yr, keep a record that explains why 

additional time up to 360 hr/yr was 

needed and describes how you 

minimized the amount of additional 

time needed. 

(5) Keep a record identifying each 

potential source of vapor leakage in the 

closed vent system that is not defined as 

a piece of equipment, as required by 

§ 65.325(b)(2). 

(g) Records for fixed roof storage 

vessels vented to a fuel gas system 

complying with § 65.330. (1) Keep 

records of fixed roof monitoring and 

repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(2) For the fuel gas system, keep 

records, as specified in subpart J of this 

part and subpart M of this part. 

(3) Keep a record identifying each 

potential source of vapor leakage in the 

fuel gas system that is not defined as a 

piece of equipment, as required by 

§ 65.330(b)(2). 

(h) Records for pressure vessels 

complying with § 65.340. (1) For each 

performance test required by 

§ 65.340(c), keep records of the 

information in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iii). 

(i) The date of the test. 

(ii) The instrument reading (and 

background level, if you adjust for 

background, as described in 

§ 65.431(a)(7)), if you test using Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. 

(iii) The video image, if you test using 

optical gas imaging. 

(2) Keep records of the information in 

paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 

section when the performance test 

required by § 65.340(c) detects a defect. 

(i) Date each defect was detected. 

(ii) Date of the next performance test 

that shows either the instrument reading 

is less than 500 ppmv when using 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, or no image is detected when using 

an optical gas imaging instrument. 

(iii) Start and end dates of each period 

after the date in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of 

this section when the pressure vessel 

was completely empty. 

(iv) Estimated emissions from each 

defect. 

(3) When complying with § 65.340(d), 

keep records for the closed vent system, 

as specified in subpart J of this part and 

subpart M of this part, and for a nonflare control device, keep the applicable 

records specified in subpart M of this 

part. For flares, keep records of all 

visual emissions observed, periods 

when a pilot flame is out, and any 

periods that the pilot flames are not 

monitored. 

(i) Records of overfilling. For each 

storage vessel that is subject to 

§ 65.305(b), keep records of each date 

when the storage vessel is overfilled and 

estimates of the amount of regulated 

material spilled and emitted to the 

atmosphere, as required by § 65.315(g), 

§ 65.320(d), § 65.325(d), or § 65.330(c). 

(j) Records for transfer operations. (1) 

Keep records of the information listed in 

paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (ix) of this 

section for each transport vehicle and 

container for which testing using 

Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8 is required by § 65.360(c)(2) or 

§ 65.370(b)(1). You must update the 

documentation file for each subject 

transport vehicle and container at least 

once per year to reflect current test 

results, as determined by Method 27 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. 

(i) Test title: Transport Vehicle or 

Container Pressure Test—EPA Reference 

Method 27. 

(ii) Transport vehicle or container 

owner and address. 

(iii) Transport vehicle or container 

identification number. 

(iv) Testing location. 

(v) Date of test. 

(vi) Tester name and signature. 

(vii) Witnessing inspector, if any: 

Name, signature and affiliation. 

(viii) Initial and final test pressures, 

initial and final test vacuums and the 

time at the beginning and end of the 

test. 

(ix) Test results: Actual pressure and 

vacuum changes in 5 minutes, mm of 

water (average for 2 runs, as required by 

Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8). 

(2) If you use a closed vent system 

and control device, as specified in 

§ 65.360(b)(1) or § 65.370(c)(2)(ii), keep 

records for the closed vent system, as 

specified in subpart J of this part and 

subpart M of this part, and for a nonflare control device, keep the applicable 

records specified in subpart M of this 

part. For flares, keep records of all 

visual emissions observed, periods 

when a pilot flame is out, and any 

periods that the pilot flames are not 

monitored. 

(3) Keep a record identifying each 

potential source of vapor leakage in the 

closed vent system or fuel gas system 

that is not defined as a piece of 

equipment, as required by 

§ 65.360(b)(1)(i)(C) or (2)(ii)(C). 

(4) For containers filled inside an 

enclosure, as specified in 

§ 65.370(c)(3)(i), keep records of the 

most recent set of calculations and 

measurements performed to verify that 

the enclosure meets the criteria of a 

permanent total enclosure, as specified 

in ‘‘Procedure T—Criteria for and 

Verification of a Permanent or 

Temporary Total Enclosure’’ under 40 

CFR 52.741, appendix B. 

(5) If you use a vapor balancing 

system, as specified in § 65.360(b)(3) or 

§ 65.370(c)(1), keep records of the date 

of each sensory inspection or 

instrument monitoring, the number of 

potential leaks to the atmosphere that 

you identified and the records required 

by subpart J of this part for monitoring 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 65.430(b)(2) and the requirements 

referenced therein. 

(6) For transport vehicles, keep 

records of DOT certification(s) required 

by § 65.360(c)(1). 

(7) If you route emissions from 

transport vehicles to a fuel gas system, 

as specified in § 65.360(b)(2), keep 

records as specified in subpart M of this 

part. 

(k) Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

System (CPMS) Records for closed vent 

systems in vacuum service. Keep 

records of the inspections, checks and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

performance evaluations required by 

subpart J of this part for your CPMS. 

§ 65.382 What information must I submit in 

my Notification of Compliance Status? 

You must include the information 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section, as applicable, in the 

Notification of Compliance Status that 

you submit according to the procedures 

in § 65.225. 

(a) The identification of each storage 

vessel in the regulated source under the 

referencing subpart, its storage capacity 

and the liquid stored in the storage 

vessel. 

(b) The identification of each transfer 

rack in the regulated source under the 

referencing subpart. 

(c) If applicable, you must include 

rationale, pursuant to § 65.320(c)(3), 

explaining why pressure lower than 2.5 

psig is sufficient to prevent breathing 

losses from pressure relief devices on 

storage vessels. 

§ 65.384 What information must I submit in 

my semiannual periodic report? 

Submit the information specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, 

as applicable, in semiannual periodic 

reports that you submit, as specified in 

§ 65.225. 

(a) If you do not empty or repair leaks 

before the end of the second extension 

period, as required by § 65.310(d) or 

§ 65.315(d)(2), report the date when the 

storage vessel was emptied or repaired. 

(b) Report the storage vessel 

identification and the start and end 

dates of each floating roof landing that 

does not meet the criteria specified in 

§ 65.315(b)(1). 

(c) If you obtain an instrument 

reading greater than 500 ppmv or an 

image of a leak when monitoring a 

pressure vessel in accordance with 

§ 65.340(c)(1) or (2), submit a copy of 

the records specified in § 65.380(h)(2). 

(d) If you use a closed vent system 

and non-flare control device, as 

specified in § 65.325, § 65.360(b)(1) or 

§ 65.370(c)(2), submit information in 

semiannual reports, as specified in 

subparts J and M of this part. For flares, 

report any instances when visual 

emissions occur longer than 5 minutes 

during any 2 consecutive hours, a pilot 

flame is out, or the pilot flames are not 

monitored. 

(e) If you use a vapor balancing 

system, as specified in § 65.320, 

§ 65.360(b)(3) or § 65.370(c)(1), submit 

information in semiannual reports, as 

specified in subparts J and M of this 

part. 

(f) If you use a fuel gas system, as 

specified in § 65.330 or § 65.360(b)(2), 

submit information in semiannual 

reports, as specified in subparts J and M 

of this part. 

§ 65.386 What information must I submit in 

my annual periodic report? 

You must report the information 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section, as applicable, in annual 

periodic reports that you submit, as 

specified in § 65.225. 

(a) Inspection results. You must 

submit a copy of the inspection record 

(required by § 65.380(c)(2), (d)(3) and 

(g)(1)) when an inspection failure or 

leak is detected. 

(b) Estimated emissions from floating 

roof landings. Submit a copy of the 

estimated emissions record when a 

floating roof is landed, as specified in 

§ 65.380(d)(1). 

(c) Estimated emissions from 

overfilling. Submit a copy of the 

estimated emissions record when a 

storage vessel is overfilled, as specified 

in § 65.380(i). 

§ 65.388 What other reports must I submit 

and when? 

(a) Notification of inspection. (1) 

Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) 

and (3) of this section, you must notify 

the Administrator at least 30 days prior 

to a storage vessel inspection required 

by § 65.310(c) or § 65.315(c). This 

notification may be included in your 

next annual periodic report if the 

annual periodic report will be submitted 

so that it is received by the 

Administrator at least 30 days prior to 

the inspection. 

(2) Except as specified in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, if an inspection is 

unplanned and you could not have 

known about the inspection 30 days in 

advance, then you must notify the 

Administrator at least 7 days before the 

inspection. Notification must be made 

by telephone immediately, followed by 

written documentation demonstrating 

why the inspection was unplanned. 

Alternatively, the notification, including 

the written documentation, may be 

made in writing and sent so that it is 

received by the Administrator at least 7 

days before the inspection. 

(3) A delegated state or local agency 

may waive the requirement for 

notification of storage vessel 

inspections. 

(b) Requests for alternate devices. If 

you request the use of an alternate 

device, as described in § 65.315(e), you 

must submit an application in 

accordance with § 65.260. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 65.390 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

All terms used in this subpart have 

the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart H of this part, unless 

otherwise specified in the referencing 

subpart. 

List of Tables to Subpart I of Part 65 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART I OF PART 65—STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE VESSELS AND

TRANSFER OPERATIONS

[As required in §§ 65.310, 65.315, 65.320, 65.325, 65.330, 65.360 and 65.370, you must comply with each applicable control requirement for 

storage vessels and transfer operations specified in the following table.] 

For a(n) . . . You must . . . 

1. Atmospheric storage vessel that stores any regulated material and 

does not meet criteria specified in item 2 or item 3 to this table.

a. Comply with § 65.310 and the requirements referenced therein; or 

b. Comply with the requirements in item 2 to this table. 

2. Atmospheric storage vessel ≥20,000 gal and <40,000 gal that stores 

material with a MTVP ≥1.9 psia.

a. Comply with § 65.315 and the requirements referenced therein, provided the MTVP of the stored liquid is less than 76.6 kPa; or 

b. Comply with § 65.320 and the requirements referenced therein; or 

c. Comply with § 65.325 and the requirements referenced therein; or 

d. Comply with § 65.330 and the requirements referenced therein. 

3. Atmospheric storage vessel ≥40,000 gal that stores material with a 

MTVP ≥0.75 psia.

a. Comply with item 2 to this table. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17999 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART I OF PART 65—STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE VESSELS AND

TRANSFER OPERATIONS—Continued 

[As required in §§ 65.310, 65.315, 65.320, 65.325, 65.330, 65.360 and 65.370, you must comply with each applicable control requirement for 

storage vessels and transfer operations specified in the following table.] 

For a(n) . . . You must . . . 

4. Pressure vessels .................................................................................. a. Comply with § 65.340 and the requirements referenced therein. 

5. Transfer operations that involve loading of transport vehicles ............ a. Comply with § 65.360 and the requirements referenced therein. 

6. Transfer operations that involve loading of containers ........................ a. Comply with § 65.370 and the requirements referenced therein. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART I OF PART 65—INSPECTION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE FOR STORAGE

VESSELS EQUIPPED WITH AN IFR 

[As required in § 65.315(c), you must inspect and monitor IFR, as specified in the following table.] 

For each IFR, comply with . . . You must . . . At the following times . . . Except . . . 

1. Option 1; or ......... a. From within the storage vessel, inspect the floating roof deck, deck fittings and rim seal(s) in accordance 

with § 65.315(c)(1) and (2)(i); and 

i. Before the initial fill of the storage 

vessel, and.

Not applicable. 

.......................................................... ii. Each time the storage vessel is 

completely emptied and degassed, 

or before the date 10 years after the 

previous inspection from within the 

storage vessel, whichever occurs 

first.

(1) If the storage vessel is out of service on the date 10 years after the 

previous inspection, the inspection 

may be delayed, provided it is conducted prior to filling the storage 

vessel with regulated material. 

b. From openings in the fixed roof or 

from within the storage vessel, visually inspect the floating roof deck, 

deck fittings and rim seal in accordance with § 65.315(c)(1).

i. At least annually ................................ (1) Identification of holes or tears in 

the rim seal is required only for the 

seal that is visible from the top of 

the storage vessel. 

(2) This inspection is not required in a 

calendar year when you conduct an 

inspection in accordance with item 

1.a of this table. 

2. Option 2; or ......... a. From within the storage vessel, inspect the floating roof deck, deck fittings and rim seal(s) in accordance 

with § 65.315(c)(1); and 

i. Before the initial fill of the storage 

vessel; and.

See item 2.b.i.(1) of this table. 

ii. Each time the storage vessel is 

completely emptied and degassed, 

or before the date 10 years after the 

previous inspection from within the 

storage vessel, whichever occurs 

first.

(1) If the storage vessel is out of service on the date 10 years after the 

previous inspection, the inspection 

may be delayed provided it is conducted prior to filling the storage 

vessel with regulated material. 

b. From openings in the fixed roof, 

monitor each deck fitting in accordance with § 65.315(c)(2)(iii); and 

i. Within 90 days after initial fill; and .... (1) This option may be used only if the 

criteria for optical gas imaging in 

§ 65.315(c)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR part 

60, appendix K are met. 

ii. At least annually ............................... Not applicable. 

c. From openings in the fixed roof, 

monitor the circumference of the IFR 

in accordance with § 65.315(c)(6).

i. Within 90 days after initial fill; and .... See item 2.b.i.(1) of this table. 

ii. At least annually ............................... Not applicable. 

3. Option 3 .............. a. As an alternative to Option 1 in this 

table, for an IFR with two rim seals, 

inspect the roof deck, deck fittings, 

and rim seals from within the storage vessel in accordance with 

§ 65.315(c)(1) and (2)(i).

i. Before the initial fill; and ................... Not applicable. 

ii. Each time the storage vessel is 

completely emptied and degassed, 

or before the date 5 years after the 

previous inspection from within the 

storage vessel, whichever occurs 

first.

(1) If the storage vessel is out of service on the date 5 years after the previous inspection, the inspection may 

be delayed provided it is conducted 

prior to filling the storage vessel with 

regulated material. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 65—INSPECTION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE FOR STORAGE

VESSELS EQUIPPED WITH AN EFR 

[As required in § 65.315(c), you must inspect and monitor EFR, as specified in the following table.] 

For each EFR, comply with . . . You must . . . At the following times . . . Except . . . 

1. Option 1; or ......... a. Inspect the primary rim seal, as 

specified in § 65.315(c)(3), and 

i. Within 90 days after the initial fill of 

the storage vessel, and 

Not applicable. 

ii. Before the date 5 years after the 

previous primary seal gap inspection. 

Not applicable. 

b. Inspect the secondary rim seal, as 

specified in § 65.315(c)(3), and 

i. Within 90 days after the initial fill of 

the storage vessel, and 

Not applicable. 

ii. At least annually. .............................. Not applicable. 

c. Visually inspect the floating roof 

deck, deck fittings and secondary 

seal, as specified in § 65.315(c)(1); 

and 

i. At least annually. ............................... (1) Identification of holes or tears in 

the rim seal is required only for the 

seal that is visible from the top of 

the storage vessel. 

d. Inspect the deck fittings, as specified in § 65.315(c)(2)(i). i. At least annually. ............................... Not applicable. 

2. Option 2 .............. a. Monitor the circumference of the 

EFR in accordance with 

§ 65.315(c)(5); and 

i. Within 90 days after initial fill; and .... Not applicable. 

ii. At least annually. .............................. Not applicable. 

b. Monitor each deck fitting in accordance with § 65.315(c)(2)(ii); and i. Within 90 days after initial fill; and .... Not applicable. 

ii. At least annually. .............................. Not applicable. 

c. Visually inspect the floating roof 

deck, deck fittings and secondary 

seal in accordance with 

§ 65.315(c)(1). 

i. At least annually. ............................... (1) Identification of holes or tears in 

the rim seal is required only for the 

seal that is visible from the top of 

the storage vessel. 

3. Option 3 .............. a. Monitor the circumference of the 

EFR in accordance with 

§ 65.315(c)(4); and 

i. Within 90 days after initial fill; and .... (1) This option may be used only if the 

criteria for optical gas imaging in 

§ 65.315(c)(4) and 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix K are met. 

ii. At least annually. .............................. Not applicable. 

b. Monitor each deck fitting in accordance with § 65.315(c)(2)(iii); and i. Within 90 days after initial fill; and .... (1) This option may be used only if the 

criteria for optical gas imaging in 

§ 65.315(c)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR part 

60, appendix K are met. 

ii. At least annually. .............................. Not applicable. 

c. Visually inspect the floating roof 

deck, deck fittings and secondary 

seal in accordance with 

§ 65.315(c)(1). 

i. At least annually. ............................... (1) Identification of holes or tears in 

the rim seal is required only for the 

seal that is visible from the top of 

the storage vessel. 

4. Add subpart J to read as follows: 

Sec. 

Subpart J—National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Equipment Leaks 

What This Subpart Covers 

65.400 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

65.401 Am I subject to this subpart? 

65.402 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

65.403 What parts of the General Provisions 

apply to me? 

Emission Limits and Other Standards— 

General 

65.410 What are my compliance options? 

65.413 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for closed vent 

systems, control devices and fuel gas 

systems used to comply with this 

subpart? 

65.415 How must I identify equipment? 

65.416 How must I designate special 

equipment? 

Equipment Leak Standards 

65.420 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for valves in 

gas and vapor service and valves in light 

liquid service? 

65.421 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for pumps in 

light liquid service? 

65.422 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for connectors 

in gas and vapor service and connectors 

in light liquid service? 

65.423 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for agitators in 

gas and vapor service and agitators in 

light liquid service? 

65.424 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for pressure 

relief devices? 

65.425 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for 

compressors? 

65.426 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for sampling 

connection systems? 

65.427 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for open-ended 

valves and lines? 

65.428 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for other 

equipment that contacts or contains 

regulated material? 

65.429 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for equipment 

in closed vent systems and fuel gas 

systems? 

Equipment Leak Monitoring and Repair 

65.430 What are my sensory monitoring 

requirements? 

65.431 What instrument monitoring 

methods must I use to detect leaks? 

65.432 What are my leak identification and 

repair requirements? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18001 

Alternative Equipment Leak Standards 

65.440 What is the alternative means of 

emission limitation for equipment in 

batch operations? 

Optical Gas Imaging Standards for Detecting 

Equipment Leaks 

65.450 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for using an 

optical gas imaging instrument to detect 

leaks? 

Notifications, Reports and Records 

65.470 What notifications and reports must 

I submit? 

65.475 What are my recordkeeping 

requirements? 

Other Requirements and Information 

65.490 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

List of Tables in Subpart J of Part 65 

Table 1 to Subpart J of Part 65—Instrument 

Readings That Define a Leak for 

Equipment Complying With 

§ 65.430(b)(2) 

Table 2 to Subpart J of Part 65—Monitoring 

Frequency for Equipment in Batch 

Operations Complying With § 65.440 

Subpart J—National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Equipment Leaks 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 65.400 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart specifies requirements to 

meet the emission standards of a 

referencing subpart for equipment leaks. 

§ 65.401 Am I subject to this subpart? 

You are subject to this subpart if you 

are an owner or operator who is subject 

to a referencing subpart and you have 

been expressly directed to comply with 

this subpart by a referencing subpart. 

§ 65.402 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

This subpart applies to equipment in 

process units, closed vent systems and 

fuel gas systems that contains or 

contacts regulated material and is 

subject to a referencing subpart. This 

subpart applies to valves, pumps, 

connectors, agitators, pressure relief 

devices, compressors, sampling 

connection systems, open-ended valves 

and lines, instrumentation systems and 

any other equipment, as defined in the 

referencing subpart. This subpart also 

applies to closed-purge and closed-loop 

systems used to meet the requirements 

of this subpart. 

§ 65.403 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

The General Provisions of 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this 

subpart, as specified in subpart H of this 

part. 

Emission Limits and Other Standards— 

General 

§ 65.410 What are my compliance options? 

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of this section, for each 

regulated source that is subject to 

control requirements for equipment 

leaks in a referencing subpart, you must 

comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Identify subject equipment in 

accordance with §§ 65.415 and 65.416. 

(2) Comply with the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section or, as 

applicable, comply with the alternative 

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) As applicable, comply with the 

equipment-specific standards in 

§§ 65.420 through 65.429 and the 

related requirements in §§ 65.430 

through 65.432. 

(ii) As an alternative to paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) of this section, if you have 

equipment in a batch operation, you 

may elect to comply with the alternative 

monitoring frequency requirements in 

§ 65.440. 

(3) Comply with the applicable 

notification, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§§ 65.470 and 65.475. 

(b) You are not required to comply 

with the requirements of §§ 65.420 

through 65.440 for equipment in 

vacuum service, provided that you 

comply with paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Identify the equipment, as 

specified in § 65.415(f). 

(2) Continuously demonstrate that the 

equipment remains in vacuum service, 

as described in § 65.416(e). 

(3) Comply with the applicable 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§ 65.475(b)(6). 

(c) If your referencing subpart 

specifies that you may comply with the 

optical gas imaging requirements in 

§ 65.450 as an alternative to complying 

with paragraph (a) of this section, you 

must comply with paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (3) of this section if you elect 

to comply with the optical gas imaging 

alternative. 

(1) Identify subject equipment in 

accordance with § 65.415. 

(2) Comply with § 65.450 for leak 

detection and repair. 

(3) Comply with the applicable 

notification, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§§ 65.470 and 65.475(e). 

§ 65.413 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for closed vent 

systems, control devices and fuel gas 

systems used to comply with this subpart? 

A closed vent system and non-flare 

control device or a fuel gas system used 

to meet applicable requirements in 

§§ 65.420 through 65.427 must meet the 

applicable requirements of subpart M of 

this part. A flare used to meet applicable 

requirements in §§ 65.420 through 

65.427 must meet the applicable 

requirements in § 63.11(b) of this 

chapter. You must not use a flare to 

control halogenated vent streams, as 

defined in § 65.295. The non-flare 

control device must also meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) A non-flare control device must 

reduce regulated material emissions by 

at least 95 percent by weight or to an 

outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv. 

(b) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limit specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, you must 

conduct either a design evaluation or a 

performance test in accordance with 

subpart M of this part. 

§ 65.415 How must I identify equipment? 

You must identify equipment subject 

to this subpart, as described in 

paragraphs (a) through (g) of this 

section. Identification of the equipment 

does not require physical tagging of the 

equipment. For example, the equipment 

may be identified on a plant site plan, 

in log entries, by designation of process 

unit boundaries, by some form of 

weatherproof identification or by other 

appropriate methods. 

(a) Connectors. Except for 

inaccessible, ceramic or ceramic-lined 

connectors meeting the provision of 

§ 65.422(d)(3) and connectors in 

instrumentation systems identified, 

pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 

section, identify the connectors subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. You 

need not individually identify each 

connector if you identify all connectors 

in a designated area or length of pipe 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

as a group and you indicate the number 

of connectors subject. The identification 

of connectors must be complete no later 

than either the compliance date, as 

specified in your referencing subpart, or 

before completion of the initial round of 

monitoring required by § 65.422(a)(2), 

whichever is later. 

(b) Pressure relief devices. Identify the 

pressure relief devices in gas or vapor 

service that vent to the atmosphere 

under the provisions of § 65.424(a) and 

the pressure relief devices in gas or 

vapor service routed through a closed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

vent system to a control device under 

the provisions of § 65.424(d). 

(c) Instrumentation systems. Identify 

instrumentation systems subject to the 

provisions of § 65.430(a). You do not 

need to identify individual valves, 

pumps, connectors or other pieces of 

equipment within an instrumentation 

system. 

(d) Equipment in heavy liquid service. 

Identify the equipment in heavy liquid 

service, under the provisions of 

§ 65.430(c). 

(e) Equipment in service less than 300 

hours per calendar year. Identify, either 

by list, location (area or group) or other 

method, equipment in regulated 

material service less than 300 hours per 

calendar year within a process unit 

subject to the provisions of this subpart. 

(f) Equipment in vacuum service. 

Identify, either by list, location (area or 

group) or other method, equipment in 

vacuum service within a process unit 

subject to the provisions of this subpart. 

(g) Other equipment. Identify any 

other equipment subject to any of the 

provisions in § 65.410. 

§ 65.416 How do I designate special 

equipment? 

(a) Equipment that is unsafe- or 

difficult-to-monitor. (1) Designation and 

criteria for unsafe-to-monitor. You may 

designate the equipment listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) though (iv) of this 

section as unsafe-to-monitor if you 

determine that monitoring personnel 

would be exposed to an immediate 

danger as a consequence of complying 

with the monitoring requirements of 

this subpart. Examples of unsafe-tomonitor equipment include, but are not 

limited to, equipment under extreme 

pressure or heat, equipment that you 

cannot access without the use of a 

motorized man-lift basket in areas 

where an ignition potential exists or 

equipment in near proximity to hazards 

such as electrical lines. 

(i) Valves complying with § 65.420 or 

§ 65.440. 

(ii) Pumps complying with § 65.421 or 

§ 65.440. 

(iii) Connectors complying with 

§ 65.422 or § 65.440. 

(iv) Agitators complying with § 65.423 

or § 65.440. 

(2) Designation and criteria for 

difficult-to-monitor. You may designate 

the equipment listed in (a)(2)(i) though 

(iv) as difficult-to-monitor if you 

determine that the equipment cannot be 

monitored without elevating the 

monitoring personnel more than 7 feet 

above a support surface or it is not 

accessible in a safe manner when it is 

in regulated material service. 

(i) Valves complying with § 65.420 or 

§ 65.440. In a new source, the number 

of valves you designate as difficult-tomonitor must be less than 3 percent of 

the total number of valves in that new 

source, unless all of the difficult-tomonitor valves in that source are low 

leak technology, as described in 

§ 65.432(e)(3). 

(ii) Pumps complying with § 65.421 or 

§ 65.440. 

(iii) Connectors complying with 

§ 65.422 or § 65.440. 

(iv) Agitators complying with § 65.423 

or § 65.440. 

(3) Identification of unsafe- or 

difficult-to-monitor equipment. You 

must record the identity of equipment 

designated as unsafe-to-monitor 

according to the provisions of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section and record the 

identity of equipment designated as 

difficult-to-monitor according to the 

provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. For both types of equipment, 

you must also record the planned 

schedule for monitoring this equipment 

and an explanation why the equipment 

is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor, as 

specified in § 65.475(b)(2)(ii). 

(4) Written plan requirements. For 

equipment designated as unsafe-tomonitor or difficult-to-monitor, you 

must have a written plan that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) 

of this section, as applicable. You must 

keep the plan onsite as long as the 

equipment is designated unsafe-tomonitor or difficult-to-monitor. 

(i) For equipment designated as 

unsafe-to-monitor according to the 

provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, you must have a written plan 

that requires monitoring of the 

equipment as frequently as practical 

during safe-to-monitor times, but not 

more frequently than the periodic 

monitoring schedule otherwise 

applicable, and repair of the equipment 

according to the procedures in § 65.432 

if a leak is detected. If applicable, your 

written plan must also address how you 

will address any indications of liquids 

dripping observed during a weekly 

visual inspection. 

(ii) For equipment designated as 

difficult-to-monitor according to the 

provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, you must have a written plan 

that requires monitoring of the 

equipment at least once per calendar 

year and repair of the equipment 

according to the procedures in § 65.432 

if a leak is detected. If applicable, your 

written plan must also address how you 

will address any indications of liquids 

dripping observed during a weekly 

visual inspection. 

(b) Inaccessible connectors. You may 

designate a connector as an inaccessible 

connector if it meets any of the 

provisions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) of this section, as applicable. 

(1) The connector is buried. 

(2) The connector is insulated in a 

manner that prevents access to the 

connector by a monitor probe. 

(3) The connector is obstructed by 

equipment or piping that prevents 

access to the connector by a monitor 

probe. 

(c) Compressors operating with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 

parts per million (ppm) above 

background. Identify the compressors 

that you elect to designate as operating 

with instrument reading of less than 500 

parts per million (ppm) above 

background under the provisions of 

§ 65.425(b). 

(d) Pressure relief devices (PRD) in 

regulated material service that vent to 

atmosphere. If your referencing subpart 

specifies that releases to the atmosphere 

from a pressure relief device (PRD) is 

not allowed, identify all PRD in 

regulated material service, the process 

components served by the PRD and 

whether the PRD vent to atmosphere or 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device. This identification may 

be used to meet the requirements of 

§ 65.415(b). 

(e) Equipment in vacuum service. For 

equipment in vacuum service that 

contains or contacts regulated material, 

you must demonstrate that the 

equipment is operated and maintained 

in vacuum service, as described in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) In vacuum service alarm. You 

must install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) to measure 

pressure and an alarm system that will 

alert an operator immediately and 

automatically when the pressure is such 

that the equipment no longer meets the 

definition of in vacuum service. The 

alarm must be located such that the alert 

is detected and recognized easily by an 

operator. For the CPMS, you must check 

for obstructions (e.g., pressure tap 

pluggage) at least once each process 

operating day. You must conduct a 

performance evaluation annually, a 

check of all mechanical connections for 

leakage monthly and a visual inspection 

of all components for integrity, 

oxidation and galvanic corrosion every 

3 months. 

(2) In vacuum service alarm 

procedures. If the alarm is triggered for 

equipment operating in vacuum service, 

as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, you must immediately initiate 

procedures to get the equipment back 

into vacuum service, or you may chose 

to comply with the requirements of 

§ 65.410(a)(2). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18003 

(3) In vacuum service alarm records. 

You must maintain records, as specified 

in § 65.475(b)(6). 

Equipment Leak Standards 

§ 65.420 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for valves in gas 

and vapor service and valves in light liquid 

service? 

Except as provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section for valves in 

gas and vapor service and valves in light 

liquid service. 

(a) Instrument monitoring and leak 

detection. You must conduct instrument 

monitoring, as specified in § 65.431 and 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Instrument reading that defines a 

leak. The instrument reading that 

defines a leak is 500 ppm or greater. 

(2) Monitoring frequency. Except as 

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of this 

section, you must monitor valves for 

leaks monthly for the first 2 months 

after initial startup. After the first 2 

months following initial startup, you 

must monitor valves for leaks at the 

frequency specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. You 

must also keep a record of the start date 

and end date of each monitoring period 

under this section for each process unit, 

as specified in § 65.475(c)(1)(i). 

(i) At process units with at least 2- 

percent leaking valves, calculated 

according to paragraph (b) of this 

section, you must monitor each valve 

according to either paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) 

or (B) of this section. 

(A) Monitor each valve monthly. 

(B) If the summed number of valves 

found to be leaking (i.e., ‘‘VL’’ in 

Equation 2 in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 

section) over the last two monitoring 

periods is three or less, you may elect 

to monitor each valve quarterly. 

(ii) At process units with less than 2- 

percent leaking valves, calculated as 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, you must monitor each valve 

quarterly, except as provided in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (v) of this 

section. 

(iii) At process units with less than 1- 

percent leaking valves, you may elect to 

monitor each valve semiannually. 

(iv) At process units with less than 

0.5-percent leaking valves, you may 

elect to monitor each valve annually. 

(v) At process units with less than 

0.25 percent leaking valves, you may 

elect to monitor each valve biennially. 

(vi) Monitoring data generated before 

the regulated source became subject to 

the referencing subpart and meeting the 

criteria of either § 65.431(a)(1) through 

(5), or § 65.431(a)(6), may be used to 

qualify initially for less frequent 

monitoring under paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) 

through (v) of this section. 

(3) Valve subgrouping. For a process 

unit or a group of process units to which 

this subpart applies, you may choose to 

subdivide the valves in the applicable 

process unit or group of process units 

and apply the provisions of paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section to each subgroup. 

If you elect to subdivide the valves in 

the applicable process unit or group of 

process units, then the provisions of 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vii) of this 

section apply. 

(i) The overall performance of total 

valves in the applicable process unit or 

group of process units to be subdivided 

must be less than 2-percent leaking 

valves, as detected according to 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section 

and, as calculated according to 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(ii) The initial assignment or 

subsequent reassignment of valves to 

subgroups shall be governed by the 

provisions of paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) 

through (C) of this section. 

(A) You must determine which valves 

are assigned to each subgroup. Valves 

with less than 1 year of monitoring data 

or valves not monitored within the last 

12 months must be placed initially into 

the most frequently monitored subgroup 

until at least 1 year of monitoring data 

have been obtained. 

(B) Any valve or group of valves can 

be reassigned from a less frequently 

monitored subgroup to a more 

frequently monitored subgroup 

provided that you monitored the valves 

to be reassigned during the most recent 

monitoring period for the less frequently 

monitored subgroup. The monitoring 

results must be included with that less 

frequently monitored subgroup’s 

associated percent leaking valves 

calculation for that monitoring event. 

(C) Any valve or group of valves can 

be reassigned from a more frequently 

monitored subgroup to a less frequently 

monitored subgroup provided that the 

valves to be reassigned have not leaked 

for the period of the less frequently 

monitored subgroup (e.g., for the last 12 

months, if the valve or group of valves 

is to be reassigned to a subgroup being 

monitored annually). Non-repairable 

valves may not be reassigned to a less 

frequently monitored subgroup. 

(iii) Every 6 months, you must 

determine if the overall performance of 

total valves in the applicable process 

unit or group of process units is less 

than 2-percent leaking valves and so 

indicate the performance in the next 

periodic report. You must calculate the 

overall performance of total valves in 

the applicable process unit or group of 

process units as a weighted average of 

the percent leaking valves of each 

subgroup according to Equation 1 of this 

section: 

Where: 

%VLO = Overall performance of total valves 

in the applicable process unit or group 

of process units. 

%VLi = Percent leaking valves in subgroup i, 

most recent value calculated according 

to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) 

and (b)(2) of this section. 

Vi = Number of valves in subgroup i. 

n = Number of subgroups. 

(iv) If the overall performance of total 

valves in the applicable process unit or 

group of process units, determined 

according to paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this 

section, is 2-percent leaking valves or 

greater, you may no longer subgroup 

and must revert to the program required 

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 

section for that applicable process unit 

or group of process units. You can again 

elect to comply with the valve 

subgrouping procedures of paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section if future overall 

performance of total valves in the 

process unit or group of process units is 

again less than 2 percent. 

(v) You must maintain the records 

specified in § 65.475(c)(1)(ii). 

(vi) To determine the monitoring 

frequency for each subgroup, use the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.133</GPH>
18004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

calculation procedures of paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. 

(vii) Except for the overall 

performance calculations required by 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (iii) of this 

section, each subgroup must be treated 

as if it were a process unit for the 

purposes of applying the provisions of 

this section. 

(b) Percent leaking valves calculation. 

You must calculate the percent leaking 

valves in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Calculation basis and procedures. 

(i) You must decide no later than the 

compliance date specified in the 

referencing subpart or upon revision of 

an operating permit whether to calculate 

percent leaking valves on a process unit 

or group of process units basis. Once 

you have decided, all subsequent 

percentage calculations must be made 

on the same basis, and this also must be 

the basis used for comparison with the 

subgrouping criteria specified in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. 

(ii) Calculate the percent leaking 

valves for each monitoring period for 

each process unit or valve subgroup, as 

provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, using Equation 2 of this section: 

Where: 

%VL = Percent leaking valves. 

VL = Number of valves found leaking, as 

determined through periodic monitoring, 

as required in paragraph (a) of this 

section, including those valves found 

leaking, pursuant to paragraphs 

(c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section and 

excluding non-repairable valves, as 

provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

VT = The total number of valves monitored. 

(2) Calculation for monitoring 

frequency. When determining the next 

monitoring frequency for each process 

unit or valve subgroup currently subject 

to monthly, quarterly or semiannual 

monitoring frequencies, the percent 

leaking valves shall be the arithmetic 

average of the percent leaking valves 

from the last two monitoring periods. 

When determining the next monitoring 

frequency for each process unit or valve 

subgroup currently subject to annual or 

biennial monitoring frequencies, the 

percent leaking valves shall be the 

arithmetic average of the percent leaking 

valves from the last three monitoring 

periods. 

(3) Non-repairable valves. You must 

include non-repairable valves in the 

calculation of percent leaking valves, as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. 

(i) You must include a non-repairable 

valve in the calculation of percent 

leaking valves the first time the valve is 

identified as leaking and non-repairable. 

(ii) You may exclude a number of 

non-repairable valves (identified and 

included in the percent leaking valves 

calculation in a previous period, as 

required in paragraph (b)(3)(i)) up to a 

maximum of 1 percent of the total 

number of valves in regulated material 

service at a process unit. If the number 

of non-repairable valves exceeds 1 

percent of the total number of valves in 

regulated material service at a process 

unit, you must include the number of 

non-repairable valves exceeding 1 

percent of the total number of valves in 

regulated material service in the 

calculation of percent leaking valves. 

(c) Leak repair. (1) If a leak is 

determined, pursuant to paragraph (a) of 

this section, then you must repair the 

leak using the procedures in § 65.432, as 

applicable. 

(2) After a leak has been repaired, you 

must monitor the valve at least once 

within the first 3 months after its repair. 

The monitoring required by this 

paragraph is in addition to the 

monitoring required to satisfy the 

definitions of repair and first attempt at 

repair. 

(i) You must conduct monitoring, as 

specified in § 65.431(a) and determine 

whether the valve has resumed leaking, 

as specified in § 65.431(b). 

(ii) If the timing of the monitoring 

required by paragraph (a) of this section 

coincides with the timing of the 

monitoring specified in this paragraph, 

you may use the monitoring required by 

paragraph (a) of this section to satisfy 

the requirements of this paragraph. 

Alternatively, you may perform other 

monitoring to satisfy the requirements 

of this paragraph, regardless of whether 

the timing of the monitoring period for 

periodic monitoring coincides with the 

time specified in this paragraph. 

(iii) If a leak is detected by monitoring 

that is conducted, pursuant to paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section, you must follow 

the provisions of paragraphs 

(c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section to 

determine whether that valve must be 

counted as a leaking valve for purposes 

of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(A) If you elected to use periodic 

monitoring required by paragraph (a) of 

this section to satisfy the requirements 

of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, then 

you must count the valve as a leaking 

valve. 

(B) If you elected to use other 

monitoring, prior to the periodic 

monitoring required by paragraph (a) of 

this section, to satisfy the requirements 

of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, then 

you must count the valve as a leaking 

valve unless it is repaired and shown by 

periodic monitoring not to be leaking. 

(d) Special provisions for valves. (1) 

Fewer than 250 valves. Any valve 

located at a plant site with fewer than 

250 valves in regulated material service 

is exempt from the requirements for 

monthly monitoring specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. 

Instead, you must monitor each valve in 

regulated material service for leaks 

quarterly or comply with paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii), (iv) or (v) of this section, 

except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(2) No stem or packing gland. Any 

valve that is designed with a valve 

mechanism that is not connected to a 

device that penetrates the valve housing 

(e.g., a check valve) is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. You must instead 

conduct sensory monitoring according 

to § 65.430. 

(3) Unsafe-to-monitor valves. Any 

valve that you designate, in accordance 

with § 65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-tomonitor valve is exempt from 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section. You must monitor and repair 

the valve according to the written plan 

specified in § 65.416(a)(4)(i). 

(4) Difficult-to-monitor valves. Any 

valve that you designate, in accordance 

with § 65.416(a)(2) as a difficult-tomonitor valve is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. You must monitor 

and repair the valve according to the 

written plan specified in 

§ 65.416(a)(4)(ii). 

§ 65.421 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for pumps in light 

liquid service? 

Except as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section for pumps in 

light liquid service. 

(a) Instrument monitoring and leak 

detection. You must conduct instrument 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.134</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18005 

monitoring, as specified in § 65.431 and 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Instrument reading that defines a 

leak. The instrument reading that 

defines a leak is specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) 5,000 ppm or greater for pumps 

handling polymerizing monomers. 

(ii) 2,000 ppm or greater for all other 

pumps. 

(2) Monitoring frequency. You must 

monitor the pumps monthly to detect 

leaks. For a pump that begins operation 

after the initial startup date for the 

process unit, monitor within 30 days 

after the end of the pump startup 

period, unless the pump is replacing a 

leaking pump or if the pump meets any 

of the specifications in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(b) Leak repair. If a leak is detected, 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, 

then you must repair the leak using the 

procedures in § 65.432, as applicable. 

(c) Visual inspection. (1) You must 

check each pump by visual inspection 

each calendar week for indications of 

liquids dripping from the pump seal. 

(2) If there are indications of liquids 

dripping from the pump seal at the time 

of the weekly inspection, you must 

follow the procedure specified in either 

paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) (if applicable) 

of this section prior to the next required 

inspection, except as specified in 

paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(i) Before the next weekly inspection, 

you must repair the pump seal, as 

defined in § 65.295 for indications of 

liquids dripping. 

(ii) You must monitor the pump, as 

specified in § 65.431(a). 

(A) If the instrument reading indicates 

a leak, as specified in § 65.431(b) and 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a leak is 

detected, and you must repair it using 

the procedures in § 65.432. 

(B) If the instrument reading does not 

indicate a leak, as specified in 

§ 65.431(b) and paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, then a leak is not detected and 

no repair is required. 

(iii) If you observed liquids dripping 

during the last weekly inspection and 

the characteristics of the liquids 

dripping have not changed since that 

last weekly inspection (e.g., frequency 

of drips, different color, different odor), 

then you are not required to comply 

with paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 

section prior to the next weekly 

inspection. 

(3) You must document each 

inspection, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(2)(i). If you comply with 

paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, the 

record must include a description of the 

characteristics of the liquids dripping. 

(d) Special provisions for pumps. 

(1) Dual mechanical seal pumps. Each 

pump equipped with a dual mechanical 

seal system that includes a barrier fluid 

system is exempt from the requirements 

of paragraph (a) of this section, provided 

you meet the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (viii) of this 

section. 

(i) Each dual mechanical seal system 

meets the requirements specified in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B) or (C) of this 

section. 

(A) The seal system is operated with 

the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at 

all times greater than the pump stuffing 

box pressure. 

(B) The seal system is equipped with 

a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is 

connected by a closed vent system to a 

control device or is routed to a fuel gas 

system. The closed vent system and 

control device or the fuel gas system 

must meet § 65.413. 

(C) The seal system is equipped with 

a closed-loop system that purges the 

barrier fluid into a process stream. 

(ii) The barrier fluid is not in light 

liquid service. 

(iii) Each barrier fluid system is 

equipped with a sensor that will detect 

failure of the seal system, the barrier 

fluid system or both. 

(iv) Unless the pump is located within 

the boundary of an unmanned plant 

site, each sensor described in paragraph 

(d)(1)(iii) of this section is observed 

daily or is equipped with an alarm. 

(v) Each pump is checked by visual 

inspection each calendar week for 

indications of liquids dripping from the 

pump seal. You must document each 

inspection, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(2)(ii). If there are indications 

of liquids dripping from the pump seal 

at the time of the weekly inspection, 

you must follow the procedure specified 

in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) or (B) of this 

section prior to the next required 

inspection. 

(A) Before the next weekly inspection, 

you must repair the pump seal, as 

defined in § 65.295 for indications of 

liquids dripping. 

(B) You must monitor the pump, as 

specified in § 65.431(a) and determine if 

there is a leak of regulated material in 

the barrier fluid, as specified in 

§ 65.431(b). If an instrument reading of 

2,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak 

is detected. 

(vi) You must determine, based on 

design considerations and operating 

experience, criteria applicable to the 

presence and frequency of drips and to 

the sensor that indicate failure of the 

seal system, the barrier fluid system or 

both. You must keep records of the 

design criteria, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(2)(iii). 

(vii) If indications of liquids dripping 

from the pump seal exceed the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of 

this section, or if, based on the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of 

this section, the sensor indicates failure 

of the seal system, the barrier fluid 

system or both, a leak is detected. 

(viii) When you detect a leak, 

pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) or 

(d)(1)(vii) of this section, you must 

repair it, as specified in § 65.432. 

(2) No external shaft. Any pump that 

is designed with no externally actuated 

shaft penetrating the pump housing is 

exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) Unmanned plant site. Any pump 

that is located within the boundary of 

an unmanned plant site is exempt from 

the weekly visual inspection 

requirement of paragraphs (c) and 

(d)(1)(v) of this section, and the daily 

requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of 

this section, provided that each pump is 

visually inspected as often as practical 

and at least monthly. 

(4) Unsafe-to-monitor pumps. Any 

pump that you designate, in accordance 

with § 65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-tomonitor pump, is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. You must monitor, 

inspect and repair the pump according 

to the written plan specified in 

§ 65.416(a)(4)(i). 

(5) Difficult-to-monitor pumps. Any 

pump that you designate, in accordance 

with § 65.416(a)(2), as a difficult-tomonitor pump is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. You must monitor, 

inspect and repair the pump according 

to the written plan specified in 

§ 65.416(a)(4)(ii). 

§ 65.422 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for connectors in 

gas and vapor service and connectors in 

light liquid service? 

If required by your referencing 

subpart, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section for connectors 

in gas and vapor service and connectors 

in light liquid service except as 

provided in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) Instrument monitoring and leak 

detection. You must conduct instrument 

monitoring, as specified in § 65.431 and 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Instrument reading that defines a 

leak. The instrument reading that 

defines a leak is 500 ppm or greater. 

(2) Initial monitoring. You must 

monitor all connectors in the process 

unit initially for leaks by the later of 

either 12 months after the compliance 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

date specified in a referencing subpart 

or 12 months after initial startup. If all 

connectors in the process unit have 

been monitored for leaks, meeting the 

criteria of either § 65.431(a)(1) through 

(5) or § 65.431(a)(6) prior to the 

compliance date specified in the 

referencing subpart, no initial 

monitoring is required, provided either 

no process changes have been made 

since the monitoring or you can show 

that the results of the monitoring, with 

or without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite process 

changes. If required to monitor because 

of a process change, you are required to 

monitor only those connectors involved 

in the process change. 

(3) Monitoring frequency. After the 

initial monitoring (or monitoring 

conducted before the regulated source 

became subject to the referencing 

subpart) required in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, you must monitor 

connectors for leaks at the frequency 

specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through 

(iii) of this section, depending on the 

result of the percent-leaking-connectors 

calculation specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section. You must also keep a 

record of the start date and end date of 

each monitoring period under this 

section for each process unit, as 

specified in § 65.475(c)(3)(i). 

(i) If the percent leaking connectors in 

the process unit was greater than or 

equal to 0.5 percent, then you must 

monitor annually. 

(ii) If the percent leaking connectors 

in the process unit was greater than or 

equal to 0.25 percent, but less than 0.5 

percent, then monitor within 4 years. 

You are not required to monitor all 

connectors at the same time in the 

4-year period, but you must separate 

monitoring of an individual connector 

by at least 2 years. 

(iii) If the percent leaking connectors 

in the process unit was less than 0.25 

percent, then monitor, as provided in 

paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section 

and either paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B) or (C) 

of this section, as appropriate. 

(A) You must monitor at least 50 

percent of the connectors within 4 years 

of the start of the monitoring period. 

(B) If the percent-leaking-connectors 

calculated from the monitoring results 

in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section 

is greater than or equal to 0.35 percent 

of the monitored connectors, you must 

monitor all connectors that have not yet 

been monitored during that monitoring 

period as soon as practical, but within 

the next 6 months. At the conclusion of 

monitoring, a new monitoring period 

shall be started, pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, based on the 

percent leaking connectors of the total 

monitored connectors. 

(C) If the percent leaking connectors 

calculated from the monitoring results 

in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section 

is less than 0.35 percent of the 

monitored connectors, you must 

monitor all connectors that have not yet 

been monitored within 8 years of the 

start of the monitoring period. 

(b) Percent leaking connectors 

calculation. You must calculate the 

percent leaking connectors using 

Equation 3 of this section: 

Where: 

%CL = Percent leaking connectors. 

CL = Number of connectors found leaking 

during the monitoring period, as 

determined through periodic monitoring 

required in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this 

section. 

CT = Total number of connectors monitored. 

(c) Leak repair. (1) If a leak is 

determined, pursuant to paragraph (a) of 

this section, then you must repair the 

leak using the procedures in § 65.432, as 

applicable. 

(2) After a leak has been repaired, you 

must monitor the connector, as 

specified in § 65.431(a), once within the 

first 90 days after its repair to confirm 

that it is not leaking. The monitoring 

required by this paragraph is in addition 

to the monitoring required to satisfy the 

definitions of repair and first attempt at 

repair. 

(d) Special provisions for connectors. 

(1) Unsafe-to-monitor connectors. Any 

connector that you designate, in 

accordance with § 65.416(a)(1), as an 

unsafe-to-monitor connector is exempt 

from the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. You must 

monitor and repair the connector 

according to the written plan specified 

in § 65.416(a)(4)(i). 

(2) Difficult-to-monitor connectors. 

Any connector that you designate, in 

accordance with § 65.416(a)(2), as a 

difficult-to-monitor connector is exempt 

from the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. You must 

monitor, inspect and repair the 

connector according to the written plan 

specified in § 65.416(a)(4)(ii). 

(3) Inaccessible, ceramic or ceramiclined connectors. (i) Any connector that 

meets the provisions of paragraph 

(d)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section is 

exempt from the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 

and from the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of §§ 65.470 

and 65.475. 

(A) Any connector you designate, in 

accordance with § 65.416(b), as an 

inaccessible connector. 

(B) Any connector that is ceramic or 

ceramic-lined (e.g., porcelain, glass or 

glass-lined). 

(ii) If you observe indications of a 

potential leak from any connector 

identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this 

section by visual, audible, olfactory or 

other means, you must eliminate the 

visual, audible, olfactory or other 

indications of a potential leak to the 

atmosphere as soon as practical, but no 

later than the end of the next process 

unit shutdown or 5 years after detection, 

whichever is sooner. 

§ 65.423 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for agitators in 

gas and vapor service and agitators in light 

liquid service? 

Except as provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section for agitators 

in gas and vapor service and agitators in 

light liquid service. 

(a) Instrument monitoring and leak 

detection. You must conduct instrument 

monitoring, as specified in § 65.431 and 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Instrument reading that defines a 

leak. The instrument reading that 

defines a leak is 10,000 ppm or greater. 

(2) Monitoring frequency. You must 

monitor each agitator seal monthly to 

detect leaks. 

(b) Leak repair. If a leak is detected, 

then you must repair the leak using the 

procedures in § 65.432, as applicable. 

(c) Visual inspection. You must check 

each agitator seal by visual inspection 

each calendar week for indications of 

liquids dripping from the agitator seal. 

You must document each inspection, as 

specified in § 65.475(c)(4)(i). If there are 

indications of liquids dripping from the 

agitator seal at the time of the weekly 

inspection, you must follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph (c)(1) 

or (2) of this section prior to the next 

required inspection. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.135</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18007 

(1) Before the next weekly inspection, 

you must repair the agitator seal, as 

defined in § 65.295 for indications of 

liquids dripping. 

(2) You must monitor the agitator seal, 

as specified in § 65.431(a). If an 

instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or 

greater is measured, as specified in 

§ 65.431(b), a leak is detected, and you 

must repair it according to paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(d) Special provisions for agitators. (1) 

Dual mechanical seal agitators. Each 

agitator equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system that includes a 

barrier fluid system is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section, provided you meet the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Each dual mechanical seal system 

meets the requirements specified in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B) or (C) of this 

section. 

(A) The seal system is operated with 

the barrier fluid at a pressure that is, at 

all times greater than the agitator 

stuffing box pressure. 

(B) The seal system is equipped with 

a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is 

connected by a closed vent system to a 

control device or is routed to a fuel gas 

system. The closed vent system and 

control device or the fuel gas system 

must meet § 65.413. 

(C) The seal system is equipped with 

a closed-loop system that purges the 

barrier fluid into a process stream. 

(ii) The barrier fluid is not in light 

liquid service. 

(iii) Each barrier fluid system is 

equipped with a sensor that will detect 

failure of the seal system, the barrier 

fluid system or both. 

(iv) Unless the agitator seal is located 

within the boundary of an unmanned 

plant site, each sensor described in 

paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section is 

observed daily or is equipped with an 

alarm. 

(v) Each agitator seal is checked by 

visual inspection each calendar week 

for indications of liquids dripping from 

the agitator seal. You must document 

each inspection, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(4)(ii). If there are indications 

of liquids dripping from the agitator seal 

at the time of the weekly inspection, 

you must follow the procedure specified 

in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) or (B) of this 

section prior to the next required 

inspection. 

(A) Before the next weekly inspection, 

you must repair the agitator seal, as 

defined in § 65.295 for indications of 

liquids dripping. 

(B) You must monitor the agitator 

seal, as specified in § 65.431(a) and 

determine if there is a leak of regulated 

material in the barrier fluid, as specified 

in § 65.431(b). If an instrument reading 

of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a 

leak is detected. 

(vi) You must determine, based on 

design considerations and operating 

experience, criteria applicable to the 

presence and frequency of drips and to 

the sensor that indicate failure of the 

seal system, the barrier fluid system or 

both. You must keep records of the 

design criteria, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(4)(iii). 

(vii) If indications of liquids dripping 

from the agitator seal exceed the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of 

this section, or if, based on the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of 

this section, the sensor indicates failure 

of the seal system, the barrier fluid 

system or both, a leak is detected. 

(viii) When you detect a leak, 

pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) or 

(d)(1)(vii) of this section, you must 

repair it, as specified in § 65.432. 

(2) No external shaft. Any agitator 

that is designed with no externally 

actuated shaft penetrating the agitator 

housing is exempt from paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(3) Unmanned plant site. Any agitator 

that is located within the boundary of 

an unmanned plant site is exempt from 

the weekly visual inspection 

requirement of paragraphs (c) and 

(d)(1)(v) of this section, and the daily 

requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of 

this section, provided that each agitator 

is visually inspected as often as 

practical and at least monthly. 

(4) Equipment obstructions. Any 

agitator seal that is obstructed by 

equipment or piping that prevents 

access to the agitator by a monitor probe 

is exempt from the monitoring 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section. You must instead conduct 

sensory monitoring, as described in 

§ 65.430. 

(5) Unsafe-to-monitor agitator seals. 

Any agitator seal that you designate, in 

accordance with § 65.416(a)(1), as an 

unsafe-to-monitor agitator seal is 

exempt from the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section. You must monitor, inspect and 

repair the agitator seal according to the 

written plan specified in 

§ 65.416(a)(4)(i). 

(6) Difficult-to-monitor agitator seals. 

Any agitator seal that you designate, in 

accordance with § 65.416(a)(2), as a 

difficult-to-monitor agitator seal is 

exempt from the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section. You must monitor, inspect and 

repair the agitator seal according to the 

written plan specified in 

§ 65.416(a)(4)(ii). 

§ 65.424 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for pressure relief 

devices? 

Except as specified in paragraph (d), 

you must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section for PRD in gas and vapor 

service. If your referencing subpart 

specifies that releases to the atmosphere 

from PRD in regulated material service 

are not allowed, you must comply with 

the requirements specified in paragraph 

(c) or (d) of this section for all PRD in 

regulated material service. 

(a) Operating requirements. Operate 

each PRD in gas or vapor service with 

an instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm above background. 

(b) Release requirements. If a PRD in 

gas or vapor service vents or releases to 

atmosphere, you must comply with 

either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this 

section following the release. 

(1) If the PRD does not consist of or 

include a rupture disk, conduct 

instrument monitoring, as specified in 

§ 65.431 no later than 5 calendar days 

after the PRD returns to regulated 

material service following a pressure 

release to verify that the PRD is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm. An instrument 

reading of 500 ppm or greater is a 

deviation. 

(2) If the PRD consists of or includes 

a rupture disk, install a replacement 

disk as soon as practicable after a 

pressure release, but no later than 5 

calendar days after the pressure release. 

You must also conduct instrument 

monitoring, as specified in § 65.431 no 

later than 5 calendar days after the PRD 

returns to regulated material service 

following a pressure release to verify 

that the PRD is operating with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm. An instrument reading of 500 ppm 

or greater is a deviation. 

(c) Pressure release management. If 

your referencing subpart specifies that 

releases to the atmosphere from PRD in 

regulated material service are not 

allowed, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section for all PRD 

in regulated material service, and any 

release from a PRD in regulated material 

service is a deviation. 

(1) You must equip each PRD in 

regulated material service with a 

device(s) that is capable of identifying 

and recording the time and duration of 

each pressure release and of notifying 

operators that a pressure release has 

occurred. If this instrument is capable of 

measuring the concentration of leaks 

through the PRD, then you may use this 

instrument to meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(2) If any PRD in regulated material 

service vents or releases to atmosphere, 

you must calculate the quantity of 

regulated material released during each 

pressure relief event. Calculations may 

be based on data from the PRD 

monitoring alone or in combination 

with process parameter monitoring data 

and process knowledge. 

(d) PRD routed to a control device. If 

all releases and potential leaks from 

your PRD are routed through a closed 

vent system to a control device, you are 

not required to comply with paragraphs 

(a), (b) or (c) (if applicable) of this 

section. Both the closed vent system and 

control device must meet § 65.413. 

§ 65.425 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for compressors? 

You must comply with either the 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section for compressors in 

regulated material service. 

(a) Seal system standard. Each 

compressor must be equipped with a 

seal system that includes a barrier fluid 

system and that prevents leakage of 

process fluid to the atmosphere. You 

must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) Compressor seal system. Each 

compressor seal system must meet the 

applicable requirements specified in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) The seal system is operated with 

the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at 

all times greater than the compressor 

stuffing box pressure. 

(ii) The seal system is equipped with 

a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is 

connected by a closed vent system to a 

control device or is routed to a fuel gas 

system. The closed vent system and 

control device or the fuel gas system 

must meet § 65.413. 

(iii) The seal system is equipped with 

a closed-loop system that purges the 

barrier fluid directly into a process 

stream. 

(2) Barrier fluid system. The barrier 

fluid must not be in light liquid service. 

Each barrier fluid system must be 

equipped with a sensor that will detect 

failure of the seal system, barrier fluid 

system or both. Each sensor must be 

observed daily or must be equipped 

with an alarm unless the compressor is 

located within the boundary of an 

unmanned plant site. 

(3) Failure criterion and leak 

detection. (i) You must determine, based 

on design considerations and operating 

experience, a criterion that indicates 

failure of the seal system, the barrier 

fluid system or both. If the sensor 

indicates failure of the seal system, the 

barrier fluid system or both, based on 

the criterion, a leak is detected, and you 

must repair it, pursuant to § 65.432, as 

applicable. 

(ii) You must keep records of the 

design criteria, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(6)(i). 

(4) You must comply with § 65.430 for 

all potential points of vapor leakage on 

the compressor other than the seal 

system. 

(b) Alternative compressor standard. 

(1) You must designate that the 

compressor operates with an instrument 

reading of less than 500 ppm above 

background at all times. Any instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater is a deviation. 

(2) You must conduct instrument 

monitoring of all potential points of 

vapor leakage initially upon 

designation, annually and at other times 

requested by the Administrator to 

demonstrate that the compressor 

operates with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

(3) You must keep records of the 

compliance tests, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(6)(ii). 

§ 65.426 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for sampling 

connection systems? 

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 

this section, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section for sampling connection 

systems in regulated material service. 

For the purposes of the definition of 

‘‘sampling connection system’’ in 

§ 65.295, a continuous emission 

monitoring system is not an analyzer 

vent. 

(a) Equipment design and operation. 

Each sampling connection system must 

be equipped with a closed-purge, 

closed-loop or closed vent system. Each 

closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent 

system must meet the applicable 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (4) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(1) Gases displaced during filling of a 

sample container are not required to be 

collected or captured. 

(2) Containers that are part of a 

closed-purge system must be covered or 

closed when not being filled or emptied. 

(3) Gases remaining in the tubing or 

piping between the closed-purge system 

valve(s) and sample container valves(s) 

after the valves are closed and a sample 

container is disconnected are not 

required to be collected or captured. 

(4) Each closed-purge, closed-loop or 

closed vent system must be designed 

and operated to meet requirements in 

either paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) 

of this section. 

(i) Return the purged process fluid 

directly to the process line. 

(ii) Collect and recycle the purged 

process fluid to a process or to a fuel gas 

system that meets the requirements of 

subpart M of this part. 

(iii) Capture and transport all the 

purged process fluid to a control device 

that meets § 65.413. 

(iv) Collect, store and transport the 

purged process fluid to a system or 

facility identified in paragraph 

(a)(4)(iv)(A), (B), (C), (D) or (E) of this 

section. 

(A) A waste management unit, as 

defined in 40 CFR 63.111, if the waste 

management unit is subject to and 

operated in compliance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, 

applicable to group 1 wastewater 

streams. 

(B) A treatment, storage or disposal 

facility subject to regulation under 

40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265 or 266. 

(C) A facility permitted, licensed or 

registered by a state to manage 

municipal or industrial solid waste, if 

the process fluids are not hazardous 

waste, as defined in 40 CFR part 261. 

(D) A waste management unit subject 

to and operated in compliance with the 

treatment requirements of § 61.348(a), 

provided all waste management units 

that collect, store or transport the 

purged process fluid to the treatment 

unit are subject to and operated in 

compliance with the management 

requirements of §§ 61.343 through 

61.347. 

(E) A device used to burn-off 

specification used oil for energy 

recovery in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 279, subpart G, provided the 

purged process fluid is not hazardous 

waste, as defined in 40 CFR part 261. 

(b) In-situ sampling systems. In-situ 

sampling systems and sampling systems 

without purges are exempt from the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

§ 65.427 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for open-ended 

valves and lines? 

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 

this section, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section for all open-ended 

valves and lines in regulated material 

service. 

(a) Equipment and operational 

requirements. Equip open-ended valves 

and lines with a cap, blind flange, plug 

or second valve so that the open-ended 

valve or line operates with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background. The cap, blind 

flange, plug or second valve must seal 

the open-ended valve or line at all 

times, except during operations 

requiring process fluid flow through the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18009 

open-ended valve or line, during 

maintenance or during operations that 

require venting the line between block 

valves in a double block and bleed 

system. If the open-ended valve or line 

is equipped with a second valve, close 

the valve on the process fluid end before 

closing the second valve. 

(b) Instrument monitoring. You must 

conduct instrument monitoring, as 

specified in § 65.431 on the cap, blind 

flange, plug or second valve installed, 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 

initially upon installation, annually and 

at other times requested by the 

Administrator to demonstrate that the 

open-ended valve or line operates with 

an instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm above background. Any instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater is a deviation. 

(c) Special provisions for open-ended 

valves and lines. (1) Emergency 

shutdown exemption. Open-ended 

valves and lines in an emergency 

shutdown system that are designed to 

open automatically in the event of a 

process upset are exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. If your referencing subpart 

specifies that releases are not allowed 

from open-ended valves and lines in an 

emergency shutdown system that are 

designed to open automatically in the 

event of a process upset, than any 

release from such an open-ended valve 

or line is a deviation. 

(2) Polymerizing materials exemption. 

Open-ended valves and lines containing 

materials that would autocatalytically 

polymerize or would present an 

explosion, serious overpressure or other 

safety hazard if capped or equipped 

with a double block and bleed system, 

as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section are exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. You must instead conduct 

sensory monitoring, as described in 

§ 65.430. 

§ 65.428 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for other 

equipment that contacts or contains 

regulated material? 

You must conduct sensory 

monitoring, as described in § 65.430 for 

the equipment specified in paragraphs 

(a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) All equipment at a plant site with 

less than 1,500 total pieces of 

equipment. 

(b) Any equipment that contains or 

contacts regulated material, but is not in 

regulated material service. 

(c) Equipment in regulated material 

service less than 300 hours per calendar 

year. 

(d) Valves, pumps, connectors and 

agitators in heavy liquid service. 

(e) Connectors in gas and vapor 

service and connectors in light liquid 

service not required by your referencing 

subpart to comply with the provisions 

of § 65.422. 

(f) Instrumentation systems. 

(g) Pressure relief devices in liquid 

service. 

(h) Any equipment for which sensory 

monitoring is required specifically by a 

provision in §§ 65.420 through 65.427. 

(i) Other equipment, as required by 

your referencing subpart. 

§ 65.429 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for equipment in 

closed vent systems and fuel gas systems? 

You must meet the requirements of 

this section for equipment in any closed 

vent system or fuel gas system required 

to comply with subpart M of this part. 

You are not required to comply with 

§§ 65.420 through 65.428 for equipment 

complying with this section. 

(a) You must conduct instrument 

monitoring, as specified in § 65.431 of 

all potential points of vapor leakage on 

any equipment in a closed vent system 

or fuel gas system initially upon 

installation, annually and at other times 

requested by the Administrator to 

demonstrate that the equipment 

operates with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

Any instrument reading of 500 ppm 

above background or greater is a 

deviation. 

(b) You must keep records of the 

compliance tests, as specified in 

§ 65.475(c)(9). 

Equipment Leak Monitoring and Repair 

§ 65.430 What are my sensory monitoring 

requirements? 

(a) You must conduct sensory 

monitoring, as defined in § 65.295 for 

equipment identified in § 65.428. You 

must also comply with paragraph (b) 

through (d) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(b) If indications of a potential leak to 

the atmosphere are found by sensory 

monitoring methods, you must comply 

with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this 

section. 

(1) Within 5 calendar days of 

detection, you must comply with either 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

(i) Repair the equipment, as defined 

in § 65.295 for indications of a potential 

leak to the atmosphere detected during 

sensory monitoring. 

(ii) Determine that no bubbles are 

observed at potential leak sites during a 

leak check, using a soap solution. 

(2) Conduct instrument monitoring, as 

described in § 65.431 within 5 calendar 

days of detection and repair the 

equipment in accordance with § 65.432 

if the instrument reading is equal to or 

greater than the applicable level in 

Table 1 to this subpart. 

(c) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(4) of this section, you must comply 

with the requirements of either 

paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section for 

equipment in heavy liquid service. 

Paragraph (c)(3) of this section describes 

how to determine or demonstrate that a 

piece of equipment is in heavy liquid 

service. 

(1) Retain information, data and 

analyses used to determine that a piece 

of equipment is in heavy liquid service. 

(2) When requested by the 

Administrator, demonstrate that the 

piece of equipment or process is in 

heavy liquid service. 

(3) A determination or demonstration 

that a piece of equipment or process is 

in heavy liquid service shall include an 

analysis or demonstration that the 

process fluids do not meet the definition 

of ‘‘in light liquid service.’’ Examples of 

information that could document this 

include, but are not limited to, records 

of chemicals purchased for the process, 

analyses of process stream composition, 

engineering calculations or process 

knowledge. 

(4) You are not required to comply 

with paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section if all the equipment of a certain 

type (e.g., valves) in your process unit 

is subject to sensory monitoring, as 

required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(d) You must comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 65.475(b)(5) for equipment in 

regulated material service less than 300 

hours per calendar year. 

§ 65.431 What instrument monitoring 

methods must I use to detect leaks? 

(a) Instrument monitoring methods. 

Instrument monitoring, as required 

under this subpart, shall comply with 

the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this 

section. 

(1) Monitoring method. Monitor, as 

specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7, except as otherwise 

provided in this section. Traverse the 

instrument probe around all potential 

leak interfaces as close to the interface 

as possible, as described in Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. 

(2) Monitoring instrument 

performance criteria. (i) Except as 

provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section, the volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) monitoring instrument must meet 

the performance criteria of Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, except 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the instrument response factor criteria 

in section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21 must be 

for the representative composition of the 

process fluid, not each individual 

hydrocarbon compound in the stream. 

For process streams that contain 

nitrogen, air, water or other inerts that 

are not hydrocarbons, the representative 

stream response factor must be 

determined on an inert-free basis. The 

response factor may be determined at 

any concentration for which monitoring 

for leaks will be conducted. 

(ii) If there is no instrument 

commercially available that will meet 

the performance criteria specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the 

instrument readings may be adjusted by 

multiplying by the representative 

response factor of the process fluid, 

calculated on an inert-free basis, as 

described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

(3) Monitoring instrument calibration 

procedure. (i) Calibrate the VOC 

monitoring instrument before use on 

each day of its use by the procedures 

specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7. 

(ii) Perform a calibration drift 

assessment, at a minimum, at the end of 

each monitoring day, as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of 

this section. 

(A) Check the instrument using the 

same calibration gas(es) that were used 

to calibrate the instrument before use. 

Follow the procedures specified in 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, section 10.1, except do not adjust 

the meter readout to correspond to the 

calibration gas value. 

(B) Record the instrument reading for 

each scale used, as specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. Divide 

these readings by the initial calibration 

values for each scale and multiply by 

100 to express the calibration drift as a 

percentage. 

(C) If any calibration drift assessment 

shows a negative drift of more than 10 

percent from the initial calibration 

value, then you must re-monitor all 

equipment monitored since the last 

calibration with instrument readings 

below the applicable leak definition and 

above the applicable leak definition 

adjusted for negative drift. Determine 

the leak definition adjusted for negative 

drift according to Equation 4 of this 

section: 

Where: 

LND = Applicable leak definition adjusted for 

negative drift, ppm. 

L = Applicable leak definition, ppm. 

ND = Magnitude of negative drift calculated, 

as described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of 

this section, percent. 

(D) If any calibration drift assessment 

shows a positive drift of more than 10 

percent from the initial calibration 

value, then, at your discretion, you may 

re-monitor all equipment monitored 

since the last calibration with 

instrument readings above the 

applicable leak definition and below the 

applicable leak definition adjusted for 

positive drift. Determine the leak 

definition adjusted for positive drift 

according to Equation 5 of this section: 

Where: 

LPD = Applicable leak definition adjusted for 

positive drift, ppm. 

L = Applicable leak definition, ppm. 

PD = Magnitude of positive drift calculated, 

as described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of 

this section, percent. 

(4) Monitoring instrument calibration 

gas. Calibration gases shall be zero air 

(less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in 

air); and the gases specified in 

paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, except 

as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Mixtures of methane in air at a 

concentration no more than 2,000 ppm 

greater than the leak definition 

concentration of the equipment 

monitored. If the monitoring 

instrument’s design allows for multiple 

calibration scales, then calibrate the 

lower scale with a calibration gas that is 

no higher than 2,000 ppm above the 

concentration specified as a leak and 

calibrate the highest scale with a 

calibration gas that is approximately 

equal to 10,000 ppm. If only one scale 

on an instrument will be used during 

monitoring, you need not calibrate the 

scales that will not be used during that 

day’s monitoring. 

(ii) A calibration gas other than 

methane in air may be used if the 

instrument does not respond to methane 

or if the instrument does not meet the 

performance criteria specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. In 

such cases, the calibration gas may be a 

mixture of one or more of the 

compounds to be measured in air. 

(5) Monitoring performance. Perform 

monitoring when the equipment is in 

regulated material service or is in use 

with any other material that is 

detectable by an instrument operated in 

accordance with Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, and paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(6) Monitoring data. Monitoring data 

obtained prior to the regulated source 

becoming subject to the referencing 

subpart that do not meet the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(5) of this section may still be used to 

qualify initially for less frequent 

monitoring under the provisions in 

§ 65.420(a)(2) or (3) for valves or 

§ 65.422(a)(3) for connectors, provided 

the departures from the criteria or from 

the specified monitoring frequency of 

§ 65.420(a)(2) or (3) or § 65.422(a)(3) are 

minor and do not significantly affect the 

quality of the data. Examples of minor 

departures are monitoring at a slightly 

different frequency (such as every 6 

weeks instead of monthly or quarterly), 

following the performance criteria of 

section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, instead of 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or 

monitoring using a different leak 

definition if the data would indicate the 

presence or absence of a leak at the 

concentration specified in this subpart. 

Failure to use a calibrated instrument is 

not considered a minor departure. 

(7) Instrument monitoring using local 

ambient concentration (background) 

adjustments. You may elect to adjust the 

instrument readings for the local 

ambient concentration (‘‘background’’). 

If you elect to adjust instrument 

readings for background, you must 

determine the local ambient 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.136</GPH> EP26MR12.137</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18011 

concentration using the procedures in 

section 8.3.2 of Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. 

(b) Using instrument readings. (1) If 

you elect not to adjust instrument 

readings for background, as described in 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section, you 

must comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

and (ii) of this section. 

(i) Monitor the equipment according 

to the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(ii) Compare all instrument readings 

directly to the applicable leak definition 

or performance level for the monitored 

equipment to determine whether there 

is a leak or to determine compliance 

with § 65.424(a) (pressure relief 

devices), § 65.425(b) (alternative 

compressor standard) or § 65.427(b) 

(open-ended lines and valves). 

(2) If you elect to adjust instrument 

readings for background, as described in 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section, you 

must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) Monitor the equipment according 

to the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(ii) Determine the background level, 

as described in paragraph (a)(7) of this 

section. 

(iii) Compute the arithmetic 

difference between the maximum 

concentration indicated by the 

instrument and the background level 

determined. 

(iv) Compare this arithmetic 

difference to the applicable leak 

definition or performance level for the 

monitored equipment to determine 

whether there is a leak or to determine 

compliance with § 65.424(a) (pressure 

relief devices), § 65.425(b) (alternative 

compressor standard) or § 65.427(b) 

(open-ended lines and valves). 

§ 65.432 What are my leak identification 

and repair requirements? 

(a) Leaking equipment identification 

and records. 

(1) When each leak is detected, 

pursuant to §§ 65.420 through 65.428, 

§ 65.440 or § 65.450, attach a 

weatherproof and readily visible 

identification to the leaking equipment. 

(2) When each leak is detected, record 

and keep the information specified in 

§ 65.475(b)(8)(i). 

(b) Leak repair schedule. (1) Except as 

provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section, you must make a first attempt 

at repair, as defined in § 65.295, no later 

than 5 calendar days after the leak is 

detected. First attempt at repair for 

pumps includes, but is not limited to, 

tightening the packing gland nuts and/ 

or ensuring that the seal flush is 

operating at design pressure and 

temperature. First attempt at repair for 

valves includes, but is not limited to, 

tightening the bonnet bolts, and/or 

replacing the bonnet bolts, and/or 

tightening the packing gland nuts, and/ 

or injecting lubricant into the lubricated 

packing. Unless you determine, by other 

means, that the first attempt at repair 

was not successful, you must conduct 

instrument monitoring following the 

first attempt at repair, but no later than 

5 calendar days after the leak is detected 

to determine whether the first attempt at 

repair was successful. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b)(4), (d) and (e) of this section, if the 

first attempt at repair required by 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section was not 

successful, you must repair each leak 

detected as soon as practical, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after it is 

detected. If required by the applicable 

definition of ‘‘repair’’ in § 65.295, you 

must conduct monitoring following the 

repair, but no later than 15 calendar 

days after the leak is detected to 

determine whether the repair was 

successful. 

(3) You must keep records, as 

specified in § 65.475(b)(8)(ii) through 

(iv). 

(4) You may designate equipment as 

unsafe-to-repair, if you determine that 

repair personnel would be exposed to 

an immediate danger as a consequence 

of complying with the repair 

requirements of this subpart. You are 

not required to comply with paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (2) for equipment that you 

have designated unsafe-to-repair, but 

you must keep records, as specified in 

§ 65.475(b)(8)(v). You must also comply 

with paragraph (d) of this section. 

(c) Leak identification removal. 

(1) Valves in gas and vapor service. 

The leak identification on a valve may 

be removed after it has been monitored, 

as specified in § 65.420(c)(2) and no leak 

has been detected during that 

monitoring. 

(2) Connectors in gas and vapor 

service. The leak identification on a 

connector may be removed after it has 

been monitored, as specified in 

§ 65.422(c)(2) and no leak has been 

detected during that monitoring. 

(3) Other equipment. Except as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 

this section, you may remove the 

identification that you placed, pursuant 

to § 65.432(a)(1), on equipment 

determined to have a leak after it is 

repaired. 

(d) Delay of repair. Delay of repair is 

allowed for any of the conditions 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(5) of this section. If you delay repair, 

you must comply with paragraph (e) of 

this section. You must also maintain 

records, as specified in § 65.475(b)(8)(vi) 

and (vii). 

(1) Delay of repair of equipment for 

which leaks have been detected is 

allowed if repair within 15 days after a 

leak is detected is technically infeasible 

without a process unit shutdown, 

provided you comply with paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You must repair this equipment as 

soon as practical, but no later than the 

end of the next process unit shutdown 

or 5 years after detection, whichever is 

sooner. For the purposes of this section, 

a process unit shutdown is any 

shutdown that lasts more than 24 hours, 

regardless of whether it was planned or 

unplanned. 

(ii) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d)(1)(iii) of this section, you must 

repair all equipment for which you have 

delayed repair during the process unit 

shutdown. 

(iii) If you detect a leak less than 15 

days before the process unit shutdown, 

you are not required to repair that leak 

during the process unit shutdown. 

(2) Delay of repair of equipment for 

which leaks have been detected is 

allowed if the equipment is designated 

as unsafe to repair according to 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You 

must repair this equipment as soon as 

practical, but no later than the end of 

the next process unit shutdown or 5 

years after detection, whichever is 

sooner. 

(3) Delay of repair of equipment for 

which leaks have been detected is 

allowed for equipment that you isolate 

from the process such that it does not 

contact or contain regulated material. 

(4) Delay of repair for valves, 

connectors and agitators is also allowed 

if you meet the provisions of paragraphs 

(d)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) You document the planned repair 

date and demonstrate that emissions of 

purged material resulting from 

immediate repair would be greater than 

the fugitive emissions likely to result 

from delay of repair. 

(ii) When you do repair the 

equipment, the purged material is 

collected and destroyed, collected and 

routed to a fuel gas system or routed 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device. The fuel gas system or 

the closed vent system and the control 

device must meet § 65.413. 

(5) Delay of repair for pumps is also 

allowed if you meet the provisions of 

paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Repair will consist of any of the 

design changes specified in paragraph 

(d)(5)(i)(A), (B), (C) or (D) of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(A) Replacing the existing seal design 

with a new system that you have 

determined will provide better 

performance. You must document the 

demonstration that the new system will 

provide better performance than the 

existing seal. 

(B) Installing a dual mechanical seal 

system that meets the requirements of 

§ 65.421(d)(1). 

(C) Installing a pump that meets the 

requirements of § 65.421(d)(2). 

(D) Installing a system that routes 

emissions through a closed vent system 

to a control device or to a fuel gas 

system. The closed vent system and 

control device or the fuel gas system 

must meet § 65.413. 

(ii) You complete repair as soon as 

practical, but not later than 6 months 

after the leak was detected. 

(e) Requirements following the 

determination that delay of repair is 

necessary. (1) You must continue to 

monitor equipment for which you have 

delayed repair according to the 

provisions of paragraph (d)(1), (2), (4) or 

(5) of this section. You must monitor the 

equipment on the schedule required by 

§§ 65.420 through 65.427, § 65.440 or 

§ 65.450, as applicable. You must 

maintain records of this monitoring, as 

specified in § 65.475(b)(8)(viii). 

(2) If you delay repair for a pump or 

agitator according to the provisions of 

paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) of this 

section, you may suspend the weekly 

visual inspection required by § 65.421(c) 

for pumps or § 65.423(c) for agitators. 

(3) Unless it is technically infeasible 

to do so, when you repair a valve or 

connector for which you have delayed 

repair according to the provisions of 

paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3) or (4) of this 

section, you must replace the leaking 

equipment with low leak technology, as 

described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through 

(iv) of this section. You must develop a 

written plan that addresses the 

demonstration of whether a device or 

repair technique qualifies as low leak 

technology, criteria for selecting the low 

leak technology to be used for a repair 

and installation procedures for the 

selected technology. 

(i) Low leak technology for valves 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

options in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(A) 

through (D) of this section. 

(A) Repacking the valve or replacing 

the existing valve packing with low 

emissions packing. 

(B) Replacing the leaking valve with 

a valve designed to accommodate low 

emissions packing. 

(C) Replacing the existing valve with 

a bellow seal valve. 

(D) Other repair or replacement that 

has been tested rigorously and did not 

leak above 500 ppm during the entirety 

of the test. 

(ii) Low leak technology for 

connectors includes, but is not limited 

to, the options in paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) 

through (C) of this section. 

(A) Replacing the flange gasket. 

(B) Replacing the entire connector. 

(C) Other repair or replacement that 

has been tested rigorously and did not 

leak above 500 ppm during the entirety 

of the test. 

(iii) If you cannot replace the leaking 

equipment with low leak technology, 

then you would be required to explain 

why that replacement is technically 

infeasible in your annual periodic 

report, pursuant to § 65.470(c)(3). 

(iv) If that equipment leaks again in 

the future and you delay the repair 

beyond 15 days, you must conduct a 

new analysis of the technical feasibility 

of using low leak technology. 

Alternative Equipment Leak Standards 

§ 65.440 What is the alternative means of 

emission limitation for equipment in batch 

operations? 

For equipment in a batch operation 

that operates in regulated material 

service during the calendar year, you 

may comply with the equipment 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 

as an alternative to complying with the 

requirements of §§ 65.420 through 

65.427. 

(a) You must comply with the 

requirements of §§ 65.420 through 

65.427, as modified by paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(b) Monitor the equipment to detect 

leaks by the method specified in 

§ 65.431 and as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Each time the process components 

and transport piping are reconfigured 

for the production of a different 

product, monitor the equipment in the 

reconfigured process unit for leaks 

within 30 days of startup of the process. 

Do not include this initial monitoring of 

reconfigured equipment in determining 

percent leaking equipment in the 

process unit. 

(2) You may elect to monitor pumps, 

valves and agitators at the frequencies 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart. 

Determine the operating time as the 

proportion of the year the batch 

operation that is subject to the 

provisions of this subpart is operating. 

(3) The monitoring frequencies 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section are not requirements for 

monitoring at specific intervals and can 

be adjusted to accommodate process 

operations. You may monitor anytime 

during the specified monitoring period 

(e.g., month, quarter, year), provided the 

monitoring is conducted at a reasonable 

interval after completion of the last 

monitoring campaign. Reasonable 

intervals are defined in § 65.280. 

(c) You must keep the records for 

equipment in batch operations, as 

specified in § 65.475(d). 

Optical Gas Imaging Standards for 

Detecting Equipment Leaks 

§ 65.450 What are the standards and 

compliance requirements for using an 

optical gas imaging instrument to detect 

leaks? 

(a) Introduction. This section contains 

requirements for the use of an optical 

gas imaging instrument used to identify 

leaking equipment. 

(b) Applicability. You may only use 

an optical gas imaging instrument to 

screen for leaking equipment if the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) of this paragraph are met. 

(1) Your referencing subpart must 

directly reference this section and 

specify that the use of an optical gas 

imaging instrument is allowed to screen 

for leaking equipment. 

(2) The optical gas imaging 

instrument must be able to meet all of 

the criteria and requirements specified 

in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K for 

optical gas imaging instruments, and 

you must conduct monitoring, as 

specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

K. 

(3) You may only use the optical gas 

imaging instrument as an alternative to 

provisions that would otherwise require 

you to conduct monitoring, as described 

in §§ 65.430 and 65.431. You must 

continue to comply with all other 

requirements in §§ 65.420 through 

65.427 (e.g., weekly inspections of 

pumps, pursuant to § 65.421(c); for PRD, 

installation of a device that is capable of 

identifying and recording the time and 

duration of each pressure release, 

pursuant to § 65.424(c), if applicable; 

sampling connection system 

requirements in § 65.426). 

(c) Compliance requirements. You 

must meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this 

section. 

(1) Pursuant to § 65.415, you must 

identify the equipment and process 

units for which the optical gas imaging 

instrument will be used to identify 

leaks. 

(2) Unless your referencing subpart 

specifies otherwise, the leak detection 

level for all equipment is 60 grams per 

hour. 

(3) Unless your referencing subpart 

specifies otherwise, you must monitor 

all equipment identified in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section bimonthly. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18013 

(4) For equipment identified in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, you may 

not use the provisions for less frequent 

monitoring, based on the percent of 

equipment leaking in §§ 65.420(a)(2) 

and 65.422(a)(3). 

(5) When following the leak survey 

procedure in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

K, a leak is detected if you see any 

emissions using the optical gas imaging 

instrument. The leaking equipment 

must be identified for repair, as required 

in § 65.432(a). 

(6) You must repair the leaking 

equipment as required in § 65.432(b) 

through (e). 

(7) Monitoring to confirm repair of 

leaking equipment must be conducted 

using the procedures referenced in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(d) Recordkeeping. You must comply 

with the requirements in § 65.475(e). 

Notifications, Reports and Records 

§ 65.470 What notifications and reports 

must I submit? 

(a) Notification of Compliance Status. 

You must include the information listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section, as applicable, in the 

Notification of Compliance Status that 

you submit according to the procedures 

in § 65.225. 

(1) The notification must provide the 

information listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for each 

regulated source subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(i) Process unit, closed vent system or 

fuel gas system identification. 

(ii) Number of each equipment type 

(e.g., valves, pumps). 

(iii) Method of compliance with the 

standard (e.g., ‘‘monthly leak detection 

and repair,’’ ‘‘equipped with dual 

mechanical seals,’’ ‘‘in vacuum 

service’’). 

(2) For valves subject to § 65.420 and 

connectors subject to § 65.422, provide 

the historical monitoring data you are 

using to qualify for less frequent 

monitoring in lieu of having to do initial 

monitoring, if applicable. 

(3) If you are required to comply with 

§ 65.424(c), provide the information in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Description of the monitoring 

system to be implemented, including 

the PRD and process parameters to be 

monitored. 

(ii) A description of the alarms or 

other methods by which operators will 

be notified of a release. 

(4) For closed vent systems, non-flare 

control devices and fuel gas systems, 

pursuant to § 65.413, provide the 

applicable information specified in 

§ 65.880. 

(b) Semiannual periodic report. You 

must report the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section, as applicable, in the semiannual 

periodic report that you submit, as 

specified in § 65.225. 

(1) For compressors, pursuant to 

§ 65.425(b), that are to be operated with 

an instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm, report the date of any instrument 

reading 500 ppm or greater and the date 

of the next instrument reading of less 

than 500 ppm. 

(2) For PRD in gas or vapor service, 

pursuant to § 65.424(b), any instrument 

reading of 500 ppm or greater, more 

than 5 days after the PRD returns to 

service after a release. 

(3) For open-ended valves and lines, 

pursuant to § 65.427(b), report the date 

of any instrument reading 500 ppm or 

greater and the date of the next 

instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm. 

(4) If your referencing subpart 

specifies that releases are not allowed 

from PRD in regulated material service 

to the atmosphere, report each release, 

including duration of the release and 

estimate of quantity of substances 

released. 

(5) For open-ended lines in an 

emergency shutdown system that are 

designed to open automatically in the 

event of a process upset (and are not 

required to install a cap/plug), report 

each release if your referencing subpart 

states that releases from these types of 

open-ended lines are not allowed. 

(6) For equipment in closed vent 

systems and fuel gas systems, pursuant 

to § 65.429, report the date of any 

instrument reading 500 ppm or greater 

and the date of the next instrument 

reading of less than 500 ppm. 

(7) For closed vent systems, non-flare 

control devices and fuel gas systems, 

pursuant to § 65.413, provide the 

applicable information specified in 

§ 65.882. For flares, report any instances 

when visual emissions occur longer 

than 5 minutes during any 2 

consecutive hours, a pilot flame is out, 

or the pilot flames are not monitored. 

(c) Annual periodic report. You must 

report the information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this 

section, as applicable, in the annual 

periodic report that you submit, as 

specified in § 65.225. 

(1) Provide a summary table that 

includes the information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 

section for each process unit. 

(i) For the equipment specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (E) of 

this section, report the number of each 

type of equipment for which leaks were 

detected. 

(A) Valves, pursuant to § 65.420(a). 

(B) Pumps, pursuant to § 65.421(a), 

(d)(1)(v)(B) and (d)(1)(vii). 

(C) Connectors, pursuant to 

§ 65.422(a). 

(D) Agitators, pursuant to § 65.423(a), 

(d)(1)(v)(B) and (d)(1)(vii). 

(E) Compressors, pursuant to 

§ 65.425(a). 

(ii) Report the total number of valves 

and connectors monitored and the 

percent leaking, pursuant to 

§§ 65.420(b) (valves) and 65.422(b) 

(connectors). 

(iii) For each type of equipment 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) 

through (E) of this section, report the 

number of leaks that were not repaired, 

as required by § 65.432. 

(iv) Identify the number of valves that 

are determined by § 65.420(b)(3) to be 

non-repairable. 

(2) Where you delay any repair, 

pursuant to § 65.432(d), report that 

delay of repair has occurred and explain 

why delay of repair is necessary. 

(3) If you delayed repair for a valve or 

connector and you demonstrated that it 

is technically infeasible to repair the 

equipment using low leak technology, 

pursuant to § 65.432(e)(3), include 

documentation of that demonstration. 

(4) For PRD subject to § 65.424(b), 

report confirmation that you conducted 

all monitoring to show compliance 

conducted within the reporting period. 

(5) For compressors, pursuant to 

§ 65.425(b), that are to be operated with 

an instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm, report confirmation that you 

conducted all monitoring to show 

compliance conducted within the 

reporting period. 

(6) For open-ended lines and valves, 

pursuant to § 65.427(b), report 

confirmation that you conducted all 

monitoring to show compliance 

conducted within the reporting period. 

(7) For equipment in closed vent 

systems and fuel gas systems, pursuant 

to § 65.429, report confirmation that you 

conducted all monitoring to show 

compliance conducted within the 

reporting period. 

(8) Report the information listed in 

§ 65.470(a)(1) through (3) for the 

Notification of Compliance Status for 

regulated sources with later compliance 

dates. Report any revisions to items 

reported in an earlier Notification of 

Compliance Status if the method of 

compliance has changed since the last 

report. 

§ 65.475 What are my recordkeeping 

requirements? 

(a) Recordkeeping system. You may 

develop and use one recordkeeping 

system to comply with the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

recordkeeping requirements for all of 

your sources that are subject to the 

provisions of this subpart. The 

recordkeeping system must identify the 

type of program being implemented 

(e.g., quarterly monitoring, dual 

mechanical seals) for each type of 

equipment. The records required by this 

subpart are specified in paragraphs (b) 

through (f) of this section. 

(b) General equipment records. (1) As 

specified in § 65.415, you must keep 

equipment identification records if the 

equipment is not physically tagged and 

you elect to identify the equipment 

subject to this subpart through written 

documentation such as a log or other 

designation. 

(2) If you designate equipment as 

either unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor, 

you must keep the records specified in 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 

section onsite as long as the equipment 

is designated as either unsafe- or 

difficult-to-monitor. 

(i) You must maintain the identity of 

unsafe- and difficult-to-monitor 

equipment, as specified in § 65.416(a). 

(ii) You must keep records of the 

planned schedule for monitoring 

unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor 

equipment and an explanation why the 

equipment is unsafe- or difficult-tomonitor, as specified in § 65.416(a)(3). 

(iii) You must keep a written plan for 

monitoring unsafe- or difficult-tomonitor equipment, as required by 

§ 65.416(a)(4). Your plan must include 

procedures for repairing any leaks found 

when monitoring is conducted. 

(3) You must maintain the identity of 

compressors operating with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm, as specified in § 65.416(c). 

(4) You must keep records associated 

with the determination that equipment 

is in heavy liquid service, as specified 

in § 65.430(c), if applicable. 

(5) You must keep records associated 

with the determination that equipment 

is in regulated material service less than 

300 hours per calendar year, as 

specified in § 65.430(d), if applicable. 

(6) For equipment in vacuum service, 

you must keep records of any pressure 

alarms triggered, including the date and 

time the alarm was triggered, as well as 

the duration the equipment was not in 

vacuum service. 

(7) You must maintain records of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(7)(i) through (vi) of this section for 

monitoring instrument calibrations 

conducted according to sections 8.1.2 

and 10 of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, and § 65.431(a)(3) and 

(4). 

(i) Date of calibration and initials of 

operator performing the calibration. 

(ii) Calibration gas cylinder 

identification, certification date and 

certified concentration. 

(iii) Instrument scale(s) used. 

(iv) A description of any corrective 

action taken if the meter readout could 

not be adjusted to correspond to the 

calibration gas value in accordance with 

section 10.1 of Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. 

(v) Results of each calibration drift 

assessment required by § 65.431(a)(3)(ii) 

(i.e., instrument reading for calibration 

at end of the monitoring day and the 

calculated percent difference from the 

initial calibration value). 

(vi) If you make your own calibration 

gas, a description of the procedure used. 

(8) You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through 

(viii) of this section for leaking 

equipment detected according to 

§ 65.431 and repaired according to 

§ 65.432. You must keep the information 

for connectors complying with the 8- 

year monitoring period allowed under 

§ 65.422(a)(3)(iii) for 5 years beyond the 

date of its last use. 

(i) The date the leak was detected and 

the maximum instrument reading 

measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7, including the 

background concentration if you elect to 

adjust instrument readings for 

background, as described in 

§ 65.431(a)(7). 

(ii) The date of first attempt to repair 

the leak. 

(iii) The date of successful repair of 

the leak. 

(iv) Maximum instrument reading 

measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7, at the time the leak 

is successfully repaired or determined 

to be non-repairable. 

(v) A record of the identity and an 

explanation, as specified in 

§ 65.432(b)(4) for any equipment 

designated as unsafe-to-repair. 

(vi) ‘‘Repair delayed,’’ the reason for 

the delay if a leak is not repaired within 

15 calendar days after discovery of the 

leak and, where appropriate, why the 

repair was technically infeasible 

without a process unit shutdown, 

pursuant to § 65.432(d)(1), or the 

calculation showing that emissions of 

purged material resulting from 

immediate repair would be greater than 

the fugitive emissions likely to result 

from delay of repair, pursuant to 

§ 65.432(d)(4)(i). As an alternative to 

listing the reason for delay of repair for 

each leak, you may elect to develop 

written guidelines that identify the 

conditions that justify a delay of repair. 

If you elect to develop written 

guidelines, you may document the 

reason for delay of repair for each leak 

in your records by citing the relevant 

sections of the written guidelines. You 

must maintain the written guidelines at 

the plant site. 

(vii) Dates of process unit shutdowns 

that occur while the equipment is 

unrepaired. 

(viii) Instrument readings measured 

by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, while repair is delayed. 

(9) You must keep the applicable 

records specified in § 65.860 for closed 

vent systems, control devices and fuel 

gas systems used to comply with this 

subpart. 

(c) Specific equipment records. You 

must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this 

section as applicable to the compliance 

options with which you are complying. 

(1) For valves, you must maintain the 

records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The start and end dates of each 

monitoring period for each process unit, 

as specified in § 65.420(a)(2). 

(ii) If you decided to subgroup valves, 

pursuant to § 65.420(a)(3), the valve 

subgrouping records specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of 

this section. 

(A) Which valves are assigned to each 

subgroup. 

(B) Monitoring results and 

calculations made for each subgroup for 

each monitoring period. 

(C) Which valves are reassigned, the 

last monitoring result prior to 

reassignment and when they were 

reassigned. 

(D) The results of the semiannual 

overall performance calculation 

required in § 65.420(a)(3)(iii). 

(iii) The inputs and results for the 

calculation to determine percent leaking 

valves in § 65.420(b)(1). 

(2) For pumps, you must maintain the 

records specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Pursuant to § 65.421(c), 

documentation that pump visual 

inspections occurred, the date of each 

inspection and the results of each 

inspection, including a description of 

the characteristics of the liquids 

dripping, if observed. 

(ii) Pursuant to § 65.421(d)(1)(v), 

documentation that dual mechanical 

seal pump visual inspections occurred, 

the date of each inspection and the 

results of each inspection. 

(iii) Pursuant to § 65.421(d)(1)(vi), 

documentation of the criteria that 

indicate failure of the seal system, the 

barrier fluid system or both. Record the 

design criteria selected, explanations of 

how those criteria were selected and 

any changes to the criteria and the 

reason for the changes. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18015 

(3) For connectors, you must maintain 

the records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) The start date and end date of each 

monitoring period for each process unit, 

pursuant to § 65.422(a)(3). 

(ii) The inputs and results for the 

calculation to determine percent leaking 

connectors in § 65.422(b). 

(4) For agitators, you must maintain 

the records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Pursuant to § 65.423(c), 

documentation that agitator seal visual 

inspections occurred, the date of each 

inspection and the results of each 

inspection. 

(ii) Pursuant to § 65.423(d)(1)(v), 

documentation that dual mechanical 

seal agitator visual inspections 

occurred, the date of each inspection 

and the results of each inspection. 

(iii) Pursuant to § 65.423(d)(1)(vi), 

documentation of the criteria that 

indicate failure of the seal system, the 

barrier fluid system or both. Record the 

design criteria selected, explanations of 

how those criteria were selected, and 

any changes to the criteria and the 

reason for the changes. This record must 

be available for review by an inspector. 

(5) For pressure relief devices, you 

must maintain records of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Pursuant to § 65.424(b), the dates of 

pressure releases and the dates and 

results of monitoring following a 

pressure release, including the 

background level measured and the 

maximum instrument reading measured 

during the monitoring (or the 

concentration measured by the monitor 

required by § 65.424(c), if applicable). 

(ii) Pursuant to § 65.424(b)(2), the date 

the rupture disk was replaced. 

(iii) Pursuant to § 65.424(c)(2), the 

quantity of regulated material released 

during each pressure relief event. 

(6) For compressors, you must 

maintain the records specified in 

paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Pursuant to § 65.425(a)(3), 

documentation of the criteria that 

indicate failure of the seal system, the 

barrier fluid system or both. Record the 

design criteria selected, explanations of 

how those criteria were selected, and 

any changes to the criteria and the 

reason for the changes. 

(ii) Pursuant to § 65.425(b), for 

compressors operating under the 

alternative compressor standard, records 

of the dates and results of each 

compliance test, including the 

background level measured and the 

maximum instrument reading measured 

during each compliance test. 

(7) For sampling connection systems 

complying with § 65.426, you must 

maintain the records specified in 

paragraphs (c)(7)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Records of the date of each purge. 

(ii) An estimate of the amount of 

material purged. 

(8) Pursuant to § 65.427(b), for openended valves and lines, records of the 

dates and results of each compliance 

test, including the background level 

measured and the maximum instrument 

reading measured during each 

compliance test. 

(9) Pursuant to § 65.413, for 

equipment in closed vent systems and 

fuel gas systems, records of the dates 

and results of each compliance test, 

including the background level 

measured and the maximum instrument 

reading measured during each 

compliance test. 

(d) Records for the alternative 

compliance option for equipment in 

batch operations. For equipment in each 

batch operation complying with 

§ 65.440, you must maintain the records 

specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section, as applicable, as well as 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Prepare a list of equipment added 

to the batch operation since the last 

monitoring period required in § 65.440. 

(2) Record and keep, pursuant to the 

referencing subpart and this subpart, the 

date and results of the monitoring 

required in § 65.440 for equipment 

added to a batch operation since the last 

monitoring period. If no leaking 

equipment is found during this 

monitoring, you must record that the 

inspection was performed, but records 

of the actual monitoring results are not 

required. 

(3) Maintain records demonstrating 

the proportion of the time during the 

calendar year the equipment is in use in 

a batch operation that is subject to the 

provisions of this subpart. Examples of 

suitable documentation are records of 

time in use for individual pieces of 

equipment or average time in use for the 

process unit. These records are not 

required if you do not adjust monitoring 

frequency by the time in use, as 

provided in § 65.440(b)(2) and (3). 

(4) Document that the equipment was 

in service at the time you conducted 

instrument monitoring, pursuant to 

§ 65.440. 

(e) Records for optical gas imaging. 

Pursuant to § 65.450, you must keep the 

records described in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (5) of this section: 

(1) The equipment and process units 

for which you choose to use the optical 

gas imaging instrument. 

(2) All records required by 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix K. 

(3) A video record to document the 

leak survey results. The video record 

must include a time and date stamp for 

each monitoring event. 

(4) Identification of the equipment 

screened and the time and date of the 

screening. 

(5) Documentation of repairs 

attempted and repairs delayed, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(8)(ii) through 

(viii) of this section. If you confirm 

repair of a leak using the optical gas 

imaging instrument, then instead of the 

maximum instrument reading measured 

by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 required by paragraph 

(b)(8)(iv) of this section, you must keep 

a video record following repair to 

confirm the equipment is repaired. You 

must keep the information for 

connectors complying with the 8-year 

monitoring period allowed under 

§ 65.422(a)(3)(iii) for 5 years beyond the 

date of its last use. 

(f) Flare records. If you use a flare as 

specified in § 65.413, you must keep 

records of all visual emissions observed, 

periods when a pilot flame is out, and 

any periods that the pilot flames are not 

monitored. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 65.490 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

All terms used in this subpart have 

the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart H of this part, unless 

otherwise specified in the referencing 

subpart. 

List of Tables in Subpart J of Part 65 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART J OF PART 65—INSTRUMENT READINGS THAT DEFINE A LEAK FOR EQUIPMENT COMPLYING WITH

§ 65.430(B)(2) 

If you comply with § 65.430(b)(2) for . . . The instrument reading that 

defines a leak is . . . 

1. Valves ......................................................................................................................................................................... i. 500 ppm. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART J OF PART 65—INSTRUMENT READINGS THAT DEFINE A LEAK FOR EQUIPMENT COMPLYING WITH

§ 65.430(B)(2)—Continued 

If you comply with § 65.430(b)(2) for . . . The instrument reading that 

defines a leak is . . . 

2. Pumps ......................................................................................................................................................................... i. 5,000 ppm for pumps 

handling polymerizing 

monomers and 2,000 

ppm for all other pumps. 

3. Connectors ................................................................................................................................................................. i. 500 ppm. 

4. Agitators ...................................................................................................................................................................... i. 10,000 ppm. 

5. Instrumentation systems ............................................................................................................................................. i. 10,000 ppm. 

6. PRD ............................................................................................................................................................................ i. 500 ppm. 

7. Compressors .............................................................................................................................................................. i. 500 ppm. 

8. Open ended valves or lines ....................................................................................................................................... i. 500 ppm. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART J OF PART 65—MONITORING FREQUENCY FOR EQUIPMENT IN BATCH OPERATIONS COMPLYING

WITH § 65.440 

If the equipment in a batch operation is in use . . . 

And you would be required to monitor the equipment in a process operating the entire year . . . You must monitor the 

equipment in the batch operation . . . 

1. 0 to less than 25 percent of the hours during the year ............................. a. Monthly .......................................... i. Quarterly. 

b. Quarterly ........................................ i. Annually. 

c. Semiannually ................................. i. Annually. 

2. 25 to less than 50 percent of the hours during the year ........................... a. Monthly .......................................... i. Quarterly. 

b. Quarterly ........................................ i. Semiannually. 

c. Semiannually ................................. i. Annually. 

3. 50 to less than 75 percent of the hours during the year ........................... a. Monthly .......................................... i. Bimonthly. 

b. Quarterly ........................................ i. Three times per year. 

c. Semiannually ................................. i. Semiannually. 

4. 75 to 100 percent of the hours during the year ......................................... a. Monthly .......................................... i. Monthly. 

b. Quarterly ........................................ i. Quarterly. 

c. Semiannually ................................. i. Semiannually. 

5. Add subpart M to read as follows: 

Sec. 

Subpart M—National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Control Devices 

General 

65.700 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

65.701 Am I subject to this subpart? 

65.702 What are my general requirements 

for complying with this subpart? 

65.703 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

65.704 What parts of the General Provisions 

apply to me? 

65.705 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Control Devices 

65.710 What general monitoring 

requirements must I meet for control 

devices? 

65.711 What are the requirements for 

continuous emission monitoring systems 

(CEMS)? 

65.712 What are the requirements for 

continuous parameter monitoring 

systems (CPMS)? 

65.713 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

65.720 What requirements must I meet for 

closed vent systems? 

65.724 What requirements must I meet for 

small boilers and process heaters? 

65.726 What monitoring requirements must 

I meet for thermal oxidizers? 

65.728 What monitoring requirements must 

I meet for catalytic oxidizers? 

65.732 What monitoring requirements must 

I meet for fuel gas systems? 

65.740 What monitoring requirements must 

I meet for absorbers? 

65.742 What monitoring requirements must 

I meet for adsorbers regenerated onsite? 

65.744 What monitoring requirements must 

I meet for non-regenerative adsorbers? 

65.746 What requirements must I meet for 

condensers? 

65.748 What requirements must I meet for 

biofilters? 

65.760 What requirements must I meet for 

sorbent injection and collection systems? 

65.762 What requirements must I meet for 

fabric filters? 

65.800 What requirements must I meet for 

other control devices? 

Performance Testing 

65.820 What are the performance testing 

requirements? 

65.821 At what process conditions must I 

conduct performance testing? 

65.822 At what process conditions must I 

conduct performance testing for batch 

process operations? 

65.823 How do I sample from vent streams? 

65.824 What is the performance test 

duration? 

65.825 What performance test methods do I 

use? 

65.826 How do I calculate emissions in 

parts per million by volume 

concentration? 

65.827 How do I demonstrate compliance 

with a percent reduction requirement? 

65.828 How do I determine percent 

reduction? 

65.829 How do I demonstrate compliance 

with a hydrogen halide and halogen 

emission limit specified in a referencing 

subpart? 

65.830 When can an engineering 

assessment be used and what does it 

include? 

Batch Emission Calculations 

65.835 What emissions calculations must I 

use for batch process operations for 

purposes of compliance with an 

aggregated percent reduction? 

Design Evaluation 

65.850 How do I demonstrate compliance 

through design evaluation? 

Recordkeeping 

65.855 How do I calculate monitoring data 

averages? 

65.860 What records must I keep? 

Reporting 

65.880 What information do I submit as 

part of my Notification of Compliance 

Status? 

65.882 What information must I submit in 

my semiannual periodic report? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18017 

65.884 What other reports must I submit 

and when? 

List of Tables in Subpart M of Part 65 

Table 1 to Subpart M of Part 65—CEMS 

Monitoring 

Table 2 to Subpart M of Part 65—Monitoring 

Equipment as an Alternative to CEMS 

Monitoring 

Table 3 to Subpart M of Part 65—Operating 

Parameters, Operating Limits and Data 

Monitoring, Recordkeeping and 

Compliance Frequencies 

Table 4 to Subpart M of Part 65—Calibration 

and Quality Control Requirements for 

CPMS 

Table 5 to Subpart M of Part 65—Methods 

and Procedures for Conducting 

Performance Tests for Vent Streams 

Subpart M—National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Control Devices 

General 

§ 65.700 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart specifies requirements to 

meet the emission standards of a 

referencing subpart for closed vent 

systems, control devices and routing of 

air emissions to a fuel gas system. 

§ 65.701 Am I subject to this subpart? 

You are subject to this subpart if you 

are an owner or operator who is subject 

to a referencing subpart and you have 

been expressly directed to comply with 

this subpart by a referencing subpart. 

§ 65.702 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must comply with the 

following: 

(1) The applicable provisions of 

subpart H of this part. 

(2) The General Provisions that are 

applicable to the referencing subpart 

(i.e., subpart A of parts 60, 61 or 63 of 

this chapter), as specified in subpart H 

and the referencing subpart. 

(3) The section(s) of this subpart 

corresponding to the control measure(s) 

being used. 

(4) § 65.720 for closed vent systems. 

(5) All applicable requirements 

referenced in the provisions listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(b) Operation of closed vent systems, 

control devices or fuel gas systems. You 

must operate closed vent systems, 

control devices or fuel gas systems used 

to comply with the referencing subpart, 

at all times when emissions are vented 

to or collected by these systems or 

devices. 

(c) Halogenated vent streams. Unless 

required to do so by paragraph (d) of 

this section, you may determine 

whether each vent stream is halogenated 

by establishing the mass emission rate 

and the vent stream concentration (parts 

per million by volume (ppmv), by 

compound) of halogen atoms, based on 

one or more of the procedures specified 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Process knowledge that no 

halogen, hydrogen halides or organic 

halides are present in the process. 

(2) Applicable engineering 

assessment, as discussed in § 65.830. 

(3) Concentration of compounds 

containing halogen and hydrogen 

halides measured by Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, and 

organic halides measured by Method 18 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6. 

(4) Concentration of compounds 

containing hydrogen halides may be 

measured by Method 320 at 40 CFR part 

63, appendix A. 

(5) Any other method or data that has 

been validated according to the 

applicable procedures in Method 301 at 

40 CFR part 63, appendix A. 

(d) Halogenated vent stream control 

requirements. If you control a vent 

stream using a boiler, process heater, 

oxidizer or fuel gas system, you must 

determine whether the vent stream is 

halogenated, pursuant to paragraph (c) 

of this section. If you determine the vent 

stream is halogenated, you must convey 

the gas stream exiting the boiler, process 

heater or oxidizer to a halogen reduction 

device, such as an absorber meeting the 

requirements of § 65.740, or other 

device meeting the requirements of 

§ 65.800, before it is discharged to the 

atmosphere. You may use a halogen 

reduction device to reduce the vent 

stream halogen atom mass emission rate 

to less than 0.45 kilogram per hour and, 

thus, make the vent stream 

nonhalogenated. 

(e) Performance test requirements. 

You must conduct a performance test 

according to the procedures in §§ 65.820 

through 65.829. However, you are not 

required to conduct a performance test 

if any of the control measures specified 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this 

section are used. 

(1) A control device for which the 

referencing subpart allows a design 

evaluation as an alternative to the 

performance test. 

(2) You use a continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) meeting the 

requirements in § 65.711 to monitor the 

performance of the control device that 

would otherwise require performance 

testing. 

(3) Control measures for which you 

have received an approved performance 

test waiver, according to § 65.245 of this 

chapter. 

(4) If a prior performance test was 

conducted using the same procedures 

specified in § 65.724(b) for boilers and 

process heaters, § 65.726(b) for thermal 

oxidizers, § 65.728(b) for catalytic 

oxidizers, § 65.740(b) for absorbers, 

§ 65.742(f) for adsorbers regenerated on 

site, § 65.744(b) for non-regenerative 

adsorbers, § 65.746(b) for condensers, 

§ 65.748(b) for biofilters, § 65.760(b) for 

sorbent injection, § 65.762(b) for fabric 

filters and § 65.800(b) for other control 

devices, as applicable, and, either no 

process changes have been made since 

the test or you can demonstrate that the 

results of the performance test, with or 

without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite process 

changes, you may only use a prior 

performance test that is less than 5 years 

old in lieu of a performance test. You 

must request permission to substitute a 

prior performance test by application to 

the Administrator that includes the 

information specified in § 65.884(f). You 

must be able to establish appropriate 

operating limits using the information 

collected during the prior performance 

test. If a performance test is waived, you 

are still subject to any subsequent or 

periodic performance test requirements. 

(5) If you use a condenser and comply 

with § 65.746. 

(f) Process changes. If you make a 

change to process equipment or 

operating conditions that is expected to 

affect the operating parameter values of 

a control device and render the 

operating limits ineffective as indicators 

of compliance with the standard, you 

must conduct a performance test, as 

specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section, within 180 days of the date of 

start-up of the change to establish new 

operating limits and demonstrate that 

the changed emission point is in 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit of the referencing 

subpart. Whenever you make a change, 

you must report the change, as specified 

in § 65.884(i). 

(g) Monitoring data averages. You 

must calculate monitoring data 

averages, as specified in § 65.855. 

(h) Recordkeeping. You must keep upto-date, readily accessible records of 

applicable records, as specified in 

§ 65.860. 

(i) Reports. You must submit reports, 

as specified in §§ 65.880 through 

65.884. 

§ 65.703 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

This subpart applies to control 

devices that receive regulated material 

and that are used to comply with a 

referencing subpart. This subpart also 

applies to closed vent systems that route 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

regulated material to control devices 

and fuel gas systems that receive 

regulated material. 

§ 65.704 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

The General Provisions of 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this 

subpart, as specified in subpart H of this 

part. 

§ 65.705 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

All terms used in this subpart have 

the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart H of this part, unless 

otherwise specified in the referencing 

subpart. 

Control Devices 

§ 65.710 What general monitoring 

requirements must I meet for control 

devices? 

(a) You must meet the general 

monitoring requirements of this section 

for all control devices used to comply 

with the referencing subpart. 

(b) If you choose to use a CEMS to 

meet the requirements as specified in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

comply with the provisions specified in 

§ 65.711. If you choose to use a 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) to meet the 

requirements, as specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, you must comply with the 

provisions specified in § 65.712. 

(c) You are not required to operate 

CEMS or CPMS during periods of no 

flow, or no flow of regulated material to 

the control device; however, if flow 

could be intermittent, you must install 

a flow indicator to identify periods of 

flow/no flow at the inlet or outlet of the 

control device. You must keep records 

of periods of flow/no flow, or no flow 

of regulated material to the control 

device, as specified in § 65.860(i). Flow 

indicators used only to identify periods 

of flow and no flow are not subject to 

the requirements of § 65.712. However, 

you must perform a flow meter 

verification check annually. You must 

perform the annual verification check 

for at least two points, one at the 

instrument’s zero and the other at the 

instrument’s span. 

(d) All monitoring equipment must be 

capable of providing a continuous 

record. 

(e) A deviation means any of the cases 

listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of 

this section. Monitoring data are not 

required to be collected during periods 

of non-operation of the process unit or 

portion thereof (resulting in cessation of 

the emissions to which monitoring 

applies). 

(1) Periods of excess emissions, which 

are those periods when the daily or 

block average value from a CEMS, 

reduced to the units of the emissions 

standards, as specified in § 65.711(j), 

exceeds an emission limit specified in 

the referencing subpart. 

(2) Operating parameter exceedances, 

which are those periods when the daily 

or block average value of one or more 

monitored operating parameters is 

outside the operating limit established 

under this rule. 

(3) Any discharges to the atmosphere 

through a bypass line. 

(4) Any period when you route 

regulated materials to a monitored 

emission point that you do not collect 

data using your CEMS, CPMS or other 

required non-continuous monitoring, as 

applicable. This does not include 

periods of normally scheduled quality 

assurance activities in your CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan or CPMS monitoring plan that 

require the instrument to be offline (e.g., 

during calibration checks). 

(5) Any period when you route 

regulated emissions to a monitored 

emission point when the continuous 

monitoring system (CMS) is not 

operating properly or is out of control, 

as specified in § 65.711(i) or § 65.712(d). 

§ 65.711 What are the requirements for 

continuous emission monitoring systems 

(CEMS)? 

(a) General. You must comply with 

the requirements of this section for each 

CEMS unless the Administrator 

specifies or approves a change (minor, 

intermediate or major) in methodology 

or an alternative for the specified 

monitoring requirements and 

procedures, as provided in § 65.240. 

(b) Operation of CEMS. You must 

install, maintain and operate each 

CEMS, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (11) of this section. 

(1) Install each CEMS according to the 

procedures contained in the applicable 

performance specification(s) listed in 

paragraph (h) of this section. Locate the 

sampling probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

regulated process unit such that you 

obtain representative measurements of 

emissions from the regulated source 

(e.g., on or downstream of the last 

control device). 

(2) When you combine the regulated 

emissions from two or more regulated 

emission units before release to the 

atmosphere, you may install an 

applicable CEMS for each emissions 

unit or for the combined emissions 

stream, provided the monitoring is 

sufficient to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for each 

emissions unit. 

(3) If the relevant emission limit is a 

mass emission standard and the 

regulated emissions from a regulated 

emissions unit are released to the 

atmosphere through more than one 

emission point, you must install an 

applicable CEMS at each emission 

point. 

(4) You must ensure the readout (that 

portion of the CEMS that provides a 

visual display or record), or other 

indication of emissions, from any CEMS 

required for compliance with an 

emission standard is readily accessible 

onsite for operational control or 

inspection by the operator of the source. 

(5) You must conduct a CEMS 

performance evaluation, pursuant to the 

schedule specified in the referencing 

subpart, and periodically, as specified 

in your CEMS performance evaluation 

and monitoring plan described in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(6) All CEMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation 

(sampling, analyzing and data 

recording) for each successive 15- 

minute period. 

(7) Except for maintenance periods, 

instrument adjustments or checks to 

maintain precision and accuracy, 

calibration checks, and zero and span 

adjustments, you must operate all CEMS 

and collect data continuously when you 

route regulated emissions to the 

monitored emission point. 

(8) Upon submittal of the CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan to the Administrator for approval, 

you must operate and maintain each 

CEMS according to the CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(9) You must modify the CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan to incorporate the Administrator’s 

comments and resubmit the plan for 

approval to the Administrator within 30 

days of receiving the Administrator’s 

comments. Upon re-submittal to the 

Administrator for approval, you must 

operate and maintain each CEMS in 

conformance with the revised CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan. 

(10) For each CEMS, you must comply 

with the procedures for out-of-control 

periods described in paragraph (i) of 

this section. 

(11) You must reduce data from each 

CEMS, as specified in paragraph (j) of 

this section. 

(c) Quality control program. You must 

develop and implement a CEMS quality 

control program documented in a CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18019 

plan. You must include in the CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan the information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Routine quality control and 

assurance procedures that address the 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(2) CEMS evaluation procedures that 

meet the requirements of paragraph (e) 

of this section. 

(3) Additional information, as listed 

in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(d) CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan contents—routine 

quality control and assurance 

procedures. In the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan, you 

must include a description of the 

procedures listed in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (6) of this section and a 

schedule for conducting these 

procedures. The routine procedures 

must provide an assessment of CEMS 

performance and must be consistent 

with and incorporate applicable 

provisions of the procedures specified 

in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(1) Initial and subsequent calibration 

of the CEMS and acceptance criteria. 

(2) Determination and adjustment of 

the calibration drift of the CEMS. 

(3) Preventive maintenance of the 

CEMS, including spare parts inventory. 

(4) Data recording, calculations and 

reporting; 

(5) Accuracy audit procedures, 

including sampling and analysis 

methods. 

(6) Program of corrective action for a 

CEMS that is not operating properly or 

is out-of-control. 

(e) CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan contents—CEMS 

evaluation. In the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan, you 

must include the information listed in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of this 

section. 

(1) A description of the applicable 

CEMS evaluation procedure specified in 

paragraph (h) of this section and the 

site-specific details and procedures 

necessary to describe the applicable 

procedure for your specific operation. 

(2) The evaluation program objectives. 

(3) Acceptance criteria. 

(4) An evaluation program summary. 

(5) Data quality objectives. (The preevaluation expectations of precision, 

accuracy and completeness of data.) 

(6) Conditions that would trigger a 

CEMS evaluation, which must include, 

at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; 

an existing CEMS that is newly used to 

demonstrate compliance with a 

referencing subpart and has not 

previously had a CEMS evaluation; a 

process change that is expected to affect 

the performance of the CEMS; and the 

Administrator’s request for a 

performance evaluation under section 

114 of the Clean Air Act. A CEMS that 

is newly used to demonstrate 

compliance with a referencing subpart 

that has previously had a CEMS 

evaluation, as specified in this 

paragraph (e) of this section, and has 

followed routine quality assurance 

procedures, as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, since the previous 

CEMS evaluation, does not trigger an 

additional CEMS evaluation unless a 

change is also made that is expected to 

affect the performance of the CEMS. 

(f) CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan contents—additional 

information. In the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan, you 

must include information that provides 

background about the source and 

monitoring equipment, as specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Identification of the pollutant 

being monitored by the CEMS and the 

expected concentrations, including 

worst case concentrations at normal 

operation and during possible process 

upsets. 

(2) Description of the monitoring 

equipment, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through 

(vii) of this section. 

(i) Manufacturer and model number 

for all monitoring equipment 

components. 

(ii) Performance specifications, as 

provided by the manufacturer and any 

differences expected for your 

installation and operation. 

(iii) Location of the CMS sampling 

probe or other interface and a 

justification of how the location meets 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(iv) Placement of the CEMS readout, 

or other indication of emissions, 

indicating how the location meets the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(v) Span of the analyzer. 

(vi) Justification of the selection for 

the specific monitoring equipment with 

respect to the pollutant and pollutant 

concentrations expected. 

(vii) Identification of the cycle time 

for the CEMS, indicating that it meets 

the requirement of (b)(3) of this section. 

(3) Description of the data collection 

and reduction systems, including the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(f)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) A copy of the data acquisition 

system algorithm used to reduce the 

measured data into the reportable form 

of the standard and calculate the 

applicable averages. 

(ii) Identification of whether the 

algorithm excludes data collected 

during CEMS breakdowns, out-ofcontrol periods, repairs, maintenance 

periods, instrument adjustments or 

checks to maintain precision and 

accuracy, calibration checks, and zero 

(low-level), mid-level (if applicable) and 

high-level adjustments. 

(iii) If the data acquisition algorithm 

does not exclude data collected during 

CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control 

periods, repairs, maintenance periods, 

instrument adjustments or checks to 

maintain precision and accuracy, 

calibration checks, and zero (low-level), 

mid-level (if applicable) and high-level 

adjustments, then include a description 

of your procedure for excluding this 

data when the averages calculated, as 

specified in § 65.855, are determined. 

(iv) If the measured data are converted 

to the reportable form of the standard 

and/or averages calculated manually, 

documentation of the calculation 

procedure. 

(4) Identification of the applicable 

EPA performance specification(s) for the 

CEMS. 

(g) CEMS procedures. You must 

operate each CEMS in accordance with 

each of the applicable procedures in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this 

section and the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(g)(2) through (4) of this section, you 

must comply with procedure 1 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F. If you operate 

a CEMS, based on Fourier transform 

infrared spectroscopy, you must replace 

the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of procedure 1 with the 

validation requirements and criteria of 

sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance 

Specification 15 of part 60, appendix B. 

(2) If you operate a particulate matter 

CEMS, you must comply with 

procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F, instead of procedure 1 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix F. 

(3) If you operate a mercury CEMS, 

you must comply with procedure 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F, instead of 

procedure 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F. 

(4) If you operate a CEMS, meeting 

Performance Specification 9 or 15 

requirements, you must determine the 

target analyte(s) for calibration using 

either process knowledge of the vent 

stream or the presurvey screening 

procedures in section 16 of Method 18 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 on the 

control device outlet stream. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(h) Certification. As specified in the 

CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan in paragraph (c) of this 

section, you must perform a CEMS 

evaluation and certify your CEMS in 

accordance with the performance 

specifications listed in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (9) of this section, as specified 

in paragraphs (h)(10) and (11) of this 

section, and in accordance with your 

CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section. Paragraph (h)(12) of 

this section provides for situations 

when the performance specifications 

listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (9) of 

this section are not applicable. The 

performance specifications listed in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (11) of this 

section are found in appendix B of part 

60. 

(1) For particulate matter, 

Performance Specification 11. 

(2) For hydrogen halides, Performance 

Specification 15. 

(3) For mercury, Performance 

Specification 12A or 12B. 

(4) For sulfur dioxide, Performance 

Specification 2. 

(5) For total hydrocarbons, 

Performance Specification 8A. 

(6) For speciated organic compounds 

using a gas chromatograph, Performance 

Specification 9. 

(7) For speciated organic compounds 

using Fourier transform infrared 

spectroscopy, Performance Specification 

15. 

(8) For oxygen or carbon dioxide, 

Performance Specification 3. 

(9) For carbon monoxide, Performance 

Specification 4, if your emission limit is 

above 200 ppmv, or Performance 

Specification 4A if your emission limit 

is equal to or less than 200 ppmv. 

(10) If you operate a CEMS meeting 

Performance Specification 9 or 15, you 

must determine the target analyte(s) for 

calibration using either process 

knowledge of the vent stream or the presurvey screening procedures in section 

16 of Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6 on the control device 

outlet stream. 

(11) You may only use Performance 

Specification 15 to measure hydrogen 

halides if you are not required to 

include halogens in your measurement 

or you can demonstrate that there are no 

halogens in the vent stream. 

(12) If you wish to use a CEMS with 

no applicable Performance 

Specification, you must submit a 

request for approval to use an alternate 

monitoring method according to 

§ 65.240. Your alternative monitoring 

method request must include the 

procedures for a CEMS evaluation and 

other information typically contained in 

a Performance Specification. This 

information must also be included in 

the CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan specified on paragraph 

(d) of this section. 

(i) Out-of-control periods. For each 

CEMS, you must comply with the outof-control procedures described in 

paragraph (i) of this section when the 

CEMS is out-of-control, as defined in 

paragraph (i)(1). 

(1) If the conditions in paragraph 

(i)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section occur, the 

CEMS is out-of-control. 

(i) If the zero (low-level), mid-level (if 

applicable) or high-level calibration 

drift exceeds two times the applicable 

calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification. 

(ii) A CEMS is out of control if the 

CEMS fails a performance test audit 

(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy test audit or linearity test 

audit. 

(2) When the CEMS is out of control, 

you must take the necessary corrective 

action and repeat all necessary tests that 

indicate the system is out of control. 

You must take corrective action and 

conduct retesting until the performance 

requirements are below the applicable 

limits. The beginning of the out-ofcontrol period is the hour you conduct 

a performance check (e.g., calibration 

drift) that indicates an exceedance of the 

performance requirements established 

in this section. The end of the out-ofcontrol period is the hour following the 

completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the 

system is within the allowable limits. 

You must not use data recorded during 

periods the CEMS is out of control in 

data averages and calculations, used to 

report emissions or operating levels, as 

specified in § 65.855(b). 

(j) CEMS data reduction. You must 

reduce data from a CEMS, as specified 

in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Convert all CEMS emission data 

into units of the emission limit of the 

referencing subpart for reporting 

purposes using the conversion 

procedures specified in that subpart. 

After conversion into units of the 

emission limit, you may round the data 

to the same number of significant digits 

as used in that emission limit. 

(2) If a referencing subpart specifies 

an emission standard in a specific 

percent oxygen, you must correct the 

concentrations, as measured by the 

CEMS in accordance with § 65.826(b). 

(3) Calculate averages, as specified in 

§ 65.855. 

(4) Record the CEMS data, as 

specified in § 65.860. 

(k) The CEMS performance evaluation 

and monitoring plan must be submitted 

for approval to the Administrator 60 

days before the CEMS evaluation is to 

be conducted. 

(l) If you are not proposing any 

alternative monitoring methods and are 

intending to demonstrate compliance 

using the monitoring method(s) 

specified in this section, you do not 

have to wait for approval of your CEMS 

performance evaluation and monitoring 

plan before conducting the CEMS 

evaluation or before following the other 

procedures of the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan. 

(m) If you are proposing an alternative 

monitoring method, follow the 

procedures in § 65.240. 

§ 65.712 What are the requirements for 

continuous parameter monitoring systems 

(CPMS)? 

(a) General. You must comply with 

the requirements of this section for each 

CPMS unless the Administrator 

specifies or approves a change (minor, 

intermediate or major) in methodology 

or an alternative for the specified 

monitoring requirements and 

procedures, as provided in § 65.240. 

(b) Operation of CPMS. You must 

install, maintain and operate each 

CPMS, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (11) of this section. 

(1) Install and locate each CPMS 

sampling probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

regulated process unit or control device 

being monitored such that you obtain 

representative measurements of the 

operating parameter from the regulated 

source or control device (e.g., on or 

downstream of the last control device). 

(2) You must ensure the readout (that 

portion of the CPMS that provides a 

visual display or record), or other 

indication of the monitored operating 

parameter from any CPMS required for 

compliance is readily accessible onsite 

for operational control or inspection by 

the operator of the source. 

(3) All CPMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation 

(sampling, analyzing and data 

recording) for each successive 15- 

minute period. 

(4) Except for maintenance periods, 

instrument adjustments or checks to 

maintain precision and accuracy, 

calibration checks, and zero and span 

adjustments, you must operate all CPMS 

and collect data continuously when you 

route regulated emissions to the 

monitored emission point. 

(5) Upon submittal of the CPMS 

monitoring plan to the Administrator for 

approval, you must operate and 

maintain each CPMS according to the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18021 

CPMS monitoring plan specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(6) You must modify the CPMS 

monitoring plan to incorporate the 

Administrator’s comments and resubmit 

the plan for approval to the 

Administrator within 30 days of 

receiving the Administrator’s 

comments. Upon re-submittal to the 

Administrator for approval, you must 

operate and maintain each CPMS in 

conformance with the revised CPMS 

monitoring plan. 

(7) For each CPMS, you must comply 

with the out-of-control procedures 

described in paragraphs (d) of this 

section. 

(8) You must reduce data from a 

CPMS, as specified in paragraphs (e) of 

this section. 

(9) All monitoring equipment must 

meet the minimum accuracy, calibration 

and quality control requirements 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(10) Your CPMS must be capable of 

measuring the appropriate parameter 

over a range that extends from a value 

that is at least 20 percent less than the 

lowest value that you expect your CPMS 

to measure, to a value that is at least 20 

percent greater than the highest value 

that you expect your CPMS to measure. 

The data recording system associated 

with each CPMS must have a resolution 

that is equal to or better than one-half 

of the required system accuracy. 

(11) All CPMS must be installed, 

operational and calibrated, as specified 

in paragraph (b) of this section, within 

24 hours before conducting the 

performance test or, if a performance 

test is not required, prior to the 

compliance date. Subsequent 

calibrations must be conducted, as 

specified in the CPMS monitoring plan, 

as specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) Quality control program. You must 

develop and implement a CPMS quality 

control program documented in a CPMS 

monitoring plan. The CPMS monitoring 

plan must contain the information listed 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) The information specified in 

§ 65.225(g). 

(2) Identification of the parameter to 

be monitored by the CPMS and the 

expected parameter range, including 

worst case and normal operation. 

(3) Description of the monitoring 

equipment, including the information 

specified in (c)(3)(i) through (viii) of this 

section. 

(i) Manufacturer and model number 

for all monitoring equipment 

components. 

(ii) Performance specifications, as 

provided by the manufacturer, and any 

differences expected for your 

installation and operation. 

(iii) The location of the CMS sampling 

probe or other interface and a 

justification of how the location meets 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(iv) Placement of the CPMS readout, 

or other indication of parameter values, 

indicating how the location meets the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(v) Span of the analyzer. 

(vi) Identify the parameter detected by 

the parametric signal analyzer and the 

algorithm used to convert these values 

into the operating parameter monitored 

to demonstrate compliance, if the 

parameter detected is different from the 

operating parameter monitored. 

(vii) Justification for the selection of 

the specific monitoring equipment with 

respect to the parameter and expected 

parameter values. 

(viii) Identify the cycle time for the 

CPMS. 

(4) Description of the data collection 

and reduction systems, including the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) A copy of the data acquisition 

system algorithm used to reduce the 

measured data into the reportable form 

of the standard and calculate the 

applicable averages. 

(ii) Identification of whether the 

algorithm excludes data collected 

during CPMS breakdowns, out-ofcontrol periods, repairs, maintenance 

periods, instrument adjustments or 

checks to maintain precision and 

accuracy, calibration checks, and zero 

(low-level), mid-level (if applicable) and 

high-level adjustments. 

(iii) If the data acquisition algorithm 

does not exclude data collected during 

CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control 

periods, repairs, maintenance periods, 

instrument adjustments or checks to 

maintain precision and accuracy, 

calibration checks, and zero (low-level), 

mid-level (if applicable) and high-level 

adjustments, then include a description 

of your procedure for excluding this 

data when the averages calculated, as 

specified in § 65.855 are determined. 

(iv) If the measured data are converted 

to the reportable form of the standard 

and/or averages calculated manually, 

documentation of the calculation 

procedure. 

(5) Routine quality control and 

assurance procedures, including 

descriptions of the procedures listed in 

paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (vi) of this 

section and a schedule for conducting 

these procedures. The routine 

procedures must provide an assessment 

of CPMS performance. 

(i) Initial and subsequent calibration 

of the CPMS and acceptance criteria. 

(ii) Determination and adjustment of 

the calibration drift of the CPMS. 

(iii) Daily checks for indications that 

the system is responding. If the CPMS 

system includes an internal system 

check, you may use the results to verify 

the system is responding, as long as you 

check the internal system results daily 

for proper operation and the results are 

recorded. 

(iv) Preventive maintenance of the 

CPMS, including spare parts inventory. 

(v) Data recording, calculations and 

reporting. 

(vi) Program of corrective action for a 

CPMS that is not operating properly. 

(d) Out-of-control periods. For each 

CPMS, you must comply with the outof-control procedures described in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) A CPMS is out-of-control if the 

zero (low-level), mid-level (if 

applicable) or high-level calibration 

drift exceeds two times the accuracy 

requirement of Table 4 of this subpart. 

(2) When the CPMS is out of control, 

you must take the necessary corrective 

action and repeat all necessary tests that 

indicate the system is out of control. 

You must take corrective action and 

conduct retesting until the performance 

requirements are below the applicable 

limits. The beginning of the out-ofcontrol period is the hour you conduct 

a performance check (e.g., calibration 

drift) that indicates an exceedance of the 

performance requirements established 

in this section. The end of the out-ofcontrol period is the hour following the 

completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the 

system is within the allowable limits. 

You must not use data recorded during 

periods the CPMS is out of control in 

data averages and calculations, used to 

report emissions or operating levels, as 

specified in § 65.855(b). 

(e) CPMS data reduction. You must 

reduce data from a CPMS, as specified 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) You may round the data to the 

same number of significant digits, as 

used in that emission limit. 

(2) Periods of non-operation of the 

process unit (or portion thereof), 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies must not 

be included in daily averages. 

(3) Calculate averages, as specified in 

§ 65.855. 

(4) The data from a CPMS must be 

recorded, as specified in § 65.860. 

(f) Monitoring plan submittal date. 

The CPMS monitoring plan must be 

submitted for approval to the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Administrator 60 days before the initial 

CPMS evaluation is to be conducted. 

(g) Implementing the monitoring plan. 

If you are not proposing any alternative 

monitoring methods and are intending 

to demonstrate compliance using the 

monitoring method(s) specified in this 

section, you do not have to wait for 

approval of your CPMS monitoring plan 

before conducting the performance test 

or before following the procedures of 

the CPMS monitoring plan. 

(h) Alternative monitoring method. If 

you are proposing an alternative 

monitoring method, follow the 

procedures in § 65.240. 

§ 65.713 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

You must establish operating limits 

for operating parameters required to be 

monitored by this subpart by following 

the requirements in this section or you 

may request approval of monitoring 

alternatives, as specified in § 65.884(h). 

(a) You must establish the operating 

limit for each operating parameter for 

each control device, based on the 

operating parameter values recorded 

during the performance test, and may be 

supplemented by engineering 

assessments and/or manufacturer’s 

recommendations. Performance testing 

is not required to be conducted over the 

entire range of allowed operating 

parameter values. 

(b) The established operating limit 

must represent the conditions for which 

the control device is meeting the 

specified emission limit of the 

referencing subpart. 

(c) You must establish your operating 

limit as an operating parameter range, 

minimum operating parameter level or 

maximum operating parameter level, as 

specified in Table 3 to this subpart, as 

applicable. Where this subpart does not 

specify which format to use for your 

operating limit (e.g., operating range, or 

minimum/maximum operating levels), 

you must determine which format best 

establishes proper operation of the 

control device such that the control 

device is meeting the specified emission 

limit of the referencing subpart. 

(d) The operating limit may be based 

on ranges or limits previously 

established under a referencing subpart. 

If a performance test is not required for 

a control device and, except as specified 

in § 65.748(b) for biofilters, the 

operating limit may be based on 

engineering assessments and/or 

manufacturer’s recommendations 

included in the required design 

evaluation. 

(e) For batch processes, you may 

establish operating limits for individual 

emission episodes, including each 

distinct episode of vent stream 

emissions, if applicable. If you elect to 

establish separate operating limits for 

different emission episodes within a 

batch process, then you must comply 

with the provisions in paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Maintain a daily schedule or log of 

operating scenarios for batch processes 

according to § 65.860(f)(1). 

(2) Provide rationale for each 

operating limit for each emission 

episode in a batch pre-compliance 

report, as specified in § 65.884(g). You 

must also report the rationale according 

to § 65.884(j). 

§ 65.720 What requirements must I meet 

for closed vent systems? 

(a) General. If you operate a closed 

vent system that collects regulated 

material from a regulated source, you 

must meet the applicable requirements 

of this section. You must also meet the 

applicable requirements of subpart J of 

this part. 

(b) Collection of emissions. Each 

closed vent system must be designed 

and operated to collect the regulated 

material vapors from the emission point, 

and to route the collected vapors to a 

control device with no release to the 

atmosphere through bypass lines. 

(c) Bypass lines. Use of the bypass at 

any time to divert a regulated vent 

stream is an emissions standards 

deviation for all pollutants regulated by 

the referencing subpart. The use of the 

bypass during a performance test 

invalidates the performance test. You 

must comply with the provisions of 

either paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this 

section for each closed vent system that 

contains bypass lines that could divert 

a vent stream to the atmosphere. 

(1) Bypass line flow indicator. Install, 

maintain and operate a CPMS for flow, 

as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and 

(ii) of this section. 

(i) Install a CPMS for flow at the 

entrance to any bypass line. The CPMS 

must record the volume of the gas 

stream that bypassed the control device. 

(ii) Equip the CPMS for flow with an 

alarm system that will alert an operator 

immediately and automatically when 

flow is detected in the bypass line. 

Locate the alarm such that an operator 

can easily detect and recognize the alert. 

(2) Bypass line valve configuration. 

Secure the bypass line valve in the nondiverting position with a car-seal or a 

lock-and-key type configuration. You 

must visually inspect the seal or closure 

mechanism at least once every month to 

verify that the valve is maintained in the 

non-diverting position, and the vent 

stream is not diverted through the 

bypass line. 

(d) Bypass records. For each closed 

vent system that contains bypass lines 

that could divert a vent stream away 

from the control device and to the 

atmosphere, or cause air intrusion into 

the control device, you must keep a 

record of the information specified in 

either paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(1) You must maintain records of any 

alarms triggered because flow was 

detected in the bypass line, including 

the date and time the alarm was 

triggered and the duration of the flow in 

the bypass line. You must also maintain 

records of all periods when the vent 

stream is diverted from the control 

device or air intrudes into the control 

device. You must include an estimate of 

the volume of gas, the concentration of 

regulated material in the gas and the 

resulting emissions of regulated material 

that bypassed the control device. 

(2) Where a seal mechanism is used 

to comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section, hourly records of flow are not 

required. In such cases, you must record 

the date that you complete the monthly 

visual inspection of the seals or closure 

mechanisms. You must also record the 

occurrence of all periods when the seal 

or closure mechanism is broken, the 

bypass line valve position has changed 

or the key for a lock-and-key type lock 

has been checked out. You must include 

an estimate of the volume of gas, the 

concentration of regulated material in 

the gas and the resulting emissions of 

regulated material that bypassed the 

control device. 

§ 65.724 What requirements must I meet 

for small boilers and process heaters? 

(a) Small boiler or process heater 

monitoring. You must install the 

monitoring equipment and meet the 

requirements specified for small boilers 

and process heaters in either Table 1 or 

Table 2 to this subpart, even if the small 

boiler or process heater is part of a fuel 

gas system. 

(b) Small boiler or process heater 

performance test. You must conduct a 

performance test, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829, and paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section, even if the small 

boiler or process heater is part of a fuel 

gas system, unless one of the provisions 

in paragraph (c) of this section is met. 

(1) When demonstrating compliance 

with a percent reduction emission limit 

in a referencing subpart, you must 

determine the weight-percent reduction 

of organic regulated material or total 

organic compounds (minus methane 

and ethane) across the device by 

comparing the total organic compounds 

(minus methane and ethane) or organic 

regulated material in all combusted vent 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18023 

streams and primary and secondary 

fuels with the total organic compounds 

(minus methane and ethane) or organic 

regulated material exiting the 

combustion device, respectively. 

(2) When determining the weightpercent reduction, you must locate the 

sampling sites for the measurement of 

total organic regulated material or total 

organic compound (minus methane and 

ethane) concentrations, as applicable, at 

the inlet of the small boiler or process 

heater such that all vent streams and 

primary and secondary fuels introduced 

into the boiler or process heater are 

included. 

(c) Small boiler or process heater 

performance test exemptions. You are 

not required to conduct a performance 

test if any of the general control 

measures specified in § 65.702(e) are 

used. You are also not required to 

conduct a performance test if your small 

boiler or process heater burns hazardous 

waste and has certified compliance with 

the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE 

of this chapter by conducting 

comprehensive performance tests; you 

have submitted to the Administrator a 

notification of compliance under 

§§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) 

documenting compliance with the 

requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of 

this chapter; and you comply with these 

requirements at all times, even when 

you burn non-hazardous waste. 

(d) Boiler or process heater design 

evaluation. If a referencing subpart 

allows you to conduct a design 

evaluation in lieu of a performance test, 

and you chose to do a design evaluation, 

you must meet the requirements of 

§ 65.850. The design evaluation must 

demonstrate that the small boiler or 

process heater meets the applicable 

emission limit; consider the auto 

ignition temperature of the regulated 

material and the vent stream flow rate; 

establish the design minimum and 

average flame zone temperatures and 

combustion zone residence time; and 

describe the method and location where 

the vent stream is introduced into the 

flame zone. 

(e) Boiler or process heater 

performance test records. If you have 

chosen to monitor operating parameters 

in Table 2 to this subpart, you must 

record the operating parameters, as 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 

this section, as applicable, measured 

during each performance test 

conducted, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829. 

(1) Record the fire box temperature 

measured during the performance test at 

least every 15 minutes and average the 

temperature over each run of the 

performance test. 

(2) Record a location description of 

the vent stream junction into the boiler 

or process heater. 

(f) Boiler or process heater monitoring 

records. You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of 

this section up-to-date and readily 

accessible, as applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

§ 65.726 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet for thermal oxidizers? 

(a) Thermal oxidizer monitoring. You 

must install the monitoring equipment 

and meet the requirements specified for 

thermal oxidizers in either Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart. 

(b) Thermal oxidizer performance 

test. You must conduct a performance 

test, pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 

65.829, unless any of the general control 

measures specified in § 65.702(e) are 

used. You are also not required to 

conduct a performance test if your 

thermal oxidizer burns hazardous waste 

and has certified compliance with the 

requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of 

this chapter by conducting 

comprehensive performance tests; you 

have submitted to the Administrator a 

notification of compliance under 

§§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) 

documenting compliance with the 

requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of 

this chapter; and you comply with these 

requirements at all times, even when 

you burn non-hazardous waste. 

(c) Thermal oxidizer design 

evaluation. If a referencing subpart 

allows you to conduct a design 

evaluation in lieu of a performance test, 

and you chose to do a design evaluation, 

you must meet the requirements of 

§ 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the 

oxidizer meets the applicable emission 

limit, the design evaluation must 

consider the auto-ignition temperature 

of the regulated material and the vent 

stream flow rate and establish the 

design minimum and average 

temperature in the combustion zone and 

the combustion zone residence time. 

(d) Thermal oxidizer performance test 

records. If you have chosen to monitor 

operating parameters in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must record the fire box 

temperature measured during each 

performance test conducted, pursuant to 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. Record the 

fire box temperature at least every 15 

minutes and average the temperature 

over each run of the performance test. 

(e) Thermal oxidizer monitoring 

records. You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 

this section up-to-date and readily 

accessible, as applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

§ 65.728 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet for catalytic oxidizers? 

(a) Catalytic oxidizer monitoring. You 

must install the monitoring equipment 

and meet the requirements specified for 

catalytic oxidizers in either Table 1 or 

2 to this subpart. For catalytic oxidizers 

for which you have selected to monitor 

temperature at the inlet of the catalyst 

bed, as specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must conduct catalyst 

checks according to paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) You must conduct sampling and 

analysis of the catalyst and meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) You must determine a schedule for 

conducting sampling and analysis of the 

catalyst, based upon the expected 

degradation rate of the catalyst, and 

following the manufacturer’s or catalyst 

supplier’s recommended procedures for 

sampling and analysis. 

(ii) The catalyst sampling and analysis 

schedule must be included in the 

performance test plan specified in 

§ 65.820(b) and approved by the 

Administrator. 

(iii) If results from the catalyst 

sampling and analysis indicate that your 

catalyst will become inactive in 18 

months or less, you must replace the 

catalyst bed or take other corrective 

action consistent with the 

manufacturer’s recommendations 

within 3 months before the catalyst is 

anticipated to become inactive or within 

half the time available between 

receiving the catalyst activity report and 

when the catalyst is expected to become 

inactive, whichever is less. 

Additionally, you must determine if a 

more frequent catalyst replacement 

schedule is necessary. 

(iv) If you replace the catalyst bed 

with a catalyst different from the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

catalyst used during the performance 

test, you must conduct a new 

performance test according to paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(2) You must conduct annual internal 

inspections of the catalyst bed to check 

for fouling, plugging, mechanical 

breakdown, channeling, abrasion and 

settling, and follow the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) If indications of fouling, plugging, 

mechanical breakdown, channeling, 

abrasion or settling are found during the 

internal inspection of the catalyst, you 

must replace the catalyst bed or take 

other corrective action consistent with 

the manufacturer’s recommendations. 

(ii) If you find any of these issues 

during the annual inspection, then you 

must increase your inspection frequency 

to semi-annual. You must increase the 

inspection frequency from semi-annual 

to quarterly, and quarterly to monthly, 

if you find any issues requiring 

corrective action during the semi-annual 

or quarterly inspection. You may return 

the inspection frequency to the next less 

stringent frequency level when no 

issues are found during an inspection. 

(iii) If you replace the catalyst bed 

with a catalyst different from the 

catalyst used during the performance 

test, you must conduct a new 

performance test according to paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(b) Catalytic oxidizer performance 

test. You must conduct a performance 

test, pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 

65.829, unless any of the general control 

measures specified in § 65.702(e) are 

used. You are also not required to 

conduct a performance test if your 

catalytic oxidizer burns hazardous 

waste and has certified compliance with 

the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE 

of this chapter by conducting 

comprehensive performance tests; you 

have submitted to the Administrator a 

notification of compliance under 

§§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) 

documenting compliance with the 

requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of 

this chapter; and you comply with these 

requirements at all times, even when 

you burn non-hazardous waste. 

(c) Catalytic oxidizer design 

evaluation. If a referencing subpart 

allows you to conduct a design 

evaluation in lieu of a performance test, 

and you chose to do a design evaluation, 

you must meet the requirements of 

§ 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the 

oxidizer meets the applicable emission 

limit, the design evaluation must 

consider the vent stream flow rate and 

you must establish the design minimum 

and average temperatures across the 

catalyst bed inlet and outlet. 

(d) Catalytic oxidizer performance test 

records. If you have chosen to monitor 

operating parameters in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must record the upstream 

and downstream temperatures and the 

temperature difference across the 

catalyst bed measured during each 

performance test conducted, pursuant to 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. Record the 

upstream and downstream temperatures 

and the temperature difference across 

the catalyst bed at least every 15 

minutes and average each temperature 

and temperature differential over each 

run of the performance test. 

(e) Catalytic oxidizer monitoring 

records. You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 

this section up-to-date and readily 

accessible, as applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

(f) Catalytic oxidizer other records. 

For catalytic oxidizers for which you 

have selected the monitoring specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart, you must also 

maintain records of the results of the 

catalyst sampling and inspections 

required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 

this section, including any subsequent 

corrective actions taken. 

§ 65.732 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet for fuel gas systems? 

(a) You must submit a statement that 

the emission stream is connected to the 

fuel gas system in the Notification of 

Compliance Status Report, as required, 

pursuant to § 65.880(b). 

(b) You must meet the requirements of 

subpart J of this part for all components 

of a fuel gas system. 

(c) If you have small boilers or process 

heaters that are part of a fuel gas system, 

you must also comply with the 

provisions of § 65.724 for the small 

boilers or process heaters. 

(d) You must not route halogenated 

vent streams to a fuel gas system unless 

the requirements of § 65.702(d) are met. 

§ 65.740 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet for absorbers? 

(a) Absorber monitoring. You must 

install the monitoring equipment and 

meet the requirements specified for 

absorbers in either Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(b) Absorber performance test. You 

must conduct a performance test, 

pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 65.829, 

unless any of the general control 

measures specified in § 65.702(e) are 

used. 

(c) Absorber design evaluation. If a 

referencing subpart allows you to 

conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a 

performance test, and you chose to do 

a design evaluation, you must meet the 

requirements of § 65.850 and, in 

demonstrating that the absorber meets 

the applicable emission limit, address 

the characteristics specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(1) For an absorber, the design 

evaluation must consider the vent 

stream composition, constituent 

concentrations, liquid-to-gas ratio, 

absorber liquid flow rate and 

concentration, temperature, pressure 

drop and the reaction kinetics or 

absorption characteristics of the 

constituents with the scrubbing liquid. 

The design evaluation must establish 

the design exhaust vent stream organic 

compound concentration level. 

(2) For tray and packed column 

absorbers, the design evaluation must 

consider the characteristics specified in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, in 

addition to type and total number of 

theoretical and actual trays, type and 

total surface area of packing for the 

entire column and type and total surface 

area for individual packed sections if 

the column contains more than one 

packed section. 

(d) Absorber performance test records. 

If you have chosen to monitor operating 

parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, 

you must keep readily accessible 

records of the data specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, 

as applicable, measured during each 

performance test conducted, pursuant to 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. 

(1) The absorber influent liquid flow 

rate or liquid-to-gas ratio measured 

during the performance test. Record the 

influent liquid flow rate or liquid-to-gas 

ratio at least every 15 minutes and 

average the flow rate or liquid-to-gas 

ratio over each run of the performance 

test. 

(2) If applicable, the pressure drop 

through the absorber, the pH of the 

absorber liquid effluent, exit gas 

temperature, inlet gas temperature, 

specific gravity, liquid feed pressure, 

oxidation chemical flow rate and/or the 

oxidation chemical strength of the 

absorber liquid influent measured 

during the performance test. Record the 

pressure drop through the absorber, the 

pH of the absorber liquid effluent, exit 

gas temperature, inlet gas temperature, 

specific gravity, liquid feed pressure, 

oxidation chemical flow rate and/or the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18025 

oxidation chemical strength of the 

absorber liquid influent at least every 15 

minutes and average each operating 

parameter over each run of the 

performance test. 

(e) Absorber monitoring records. You 

must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section 

up-to-date and readily accessible, as 

applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

paragraph § 65.860(a). 

§ 65.742 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet for adsorbers regenerated 

onsite? 

(a) General. If you use regenerative 

adsorption systems that you regenerate 

onsite, you must treat the regulated 

materials extracted from the adsorption 

system as process wastewater or process 

vents subject to control levels required 

by the referencing subpart. 

(b) Regenerative adsorber monitoring. 

You must install the monitoring 

equipment and conduct the monitoring, 

as specified in either Table 1 or Table 

2 to this subpart for regenerative 

adsorption systems that you regenerate 

onsite. For regenerative adsorbers, 

except those monitored with CEMS, you 

must also conduct the checks specified 

in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 

include in your monitoring plan 

required in § 65.712(c) your plans for 

complying with paragraph (d) of this 

section and develop a corrective action 

plan, as specified in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(c) Regenerative adsorber valve and 

cycle verification. For regenerative 

adsorbers, except those monitored with 

CEMS, you must perform a verification 

of the adsorber during each day of 

operation. The verification must be 

through visual observation or through 

an automated alarm or shutdown system 

that monitors and records system 

operational parameters. The verification 

must confirm that the adsorber is 

operating with proper valve sequencing 

and cycle time. 

(d) Regenerative adsorber weekly 

measurements. For regenerative 

adsorbers, except those monitored with 

CEMS, you must conduct weekly 

measurements of each adsorber bed 

outlet volatile organic compounds or 

regulated materials concentration over 

the last 5 minutes of an adsorption cycle 

using the methods and procedures in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If the 

measured concentration is greater than 

the maximum normal concentration 

established in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section, you must take corrective action, 

as specified in the corrective action plan 

required in paragraph (e) of this section. 

(1) You must measure the 

concentration using the method that you 

used to establish the maximum normal 

concentration, and the method must be 

one of the methods specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. You must use Method 1 or 1A 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 to 

select the sampling location, which 

should be at the centrally located 10- 

percent area of the stack or sample port 

cross-section. 

(i) Use chromatographic analysis by 

using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. Calibrate the instrument 

following the procedures described in 

EPA Method 18 using a calibration gas 

or gas mixture containing the 

compounds present in the adsorber vent 

gas that can be measured by the method. 

(ii) Use a portable analyzer, in 

accordance with Method 21 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, for open-ended 

lines. Where EPA Method 21 uses the 

term ‘‘leak definition,’’ you must 

substitute the term ‘‘maximum normal 

concentration.’’ Calibrate the instrument 

following the procedures described in 

EPA Method 21 using one of the 

calibration gases specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. 

(A) A calibration gas or gas mixture 

representative of the normal 

compound(s) present in the adsorber 

vent gas. 

(B) Propane. 

(C) Methane. 

(D) Isobutylene. 

(iii) Use a flame ionization analyzer 

by using Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. Calibrate the instrument 

following the procedures described in 

EPA Method 25A using propane. 

(2) You must establish a maximum 

normal concentration for each adsorber 

bed vent gas, as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) For each adsorber bed, measure the 

outlet volatile organic compound or 

regulated material concentration 

weekly, as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, during the last 5 minutes of 

the adsorption cycle for at least 8 weeks. 

These measurements must be taken 

within a 90-day time period. 

(ii) Calculate the average outlet 

concentration for each adsorber bed as 

the average of the outlet concentrations 

measured, as required in paragraph 

(d)(2)(i) of this section. 

(iii) Determine maximum normal 

concentration for each adsorber bed as 

the 99th percentile confidence level 

using the one-sided z-statistic test 

described in Equation 1 of this section. 

Where: 

P99 = 99th percentile confidence level 

pollutant concentration in parts per 

million. 

Mean = Arithmetic average of the volatile 

organic compound or regulated material 

concentration in the adsorber vent gas, 

calculated as specified in paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii) of this section. 

SD = Standard deviation of the mean 

pollutant concentration, calculated as 

specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

t = t distribution critical value for 99th 

percentile (0.01) probability for the 

appropriate degrees of freedom (number 

of samples minus one), as obtained from 

a Distribution Critical Value Table. Use 

a value of 3 if you have 8 samples. 

(iv) You must reestablish your 

maximum normal concentration for an 

adsorber bed according to paragraphs 

(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section each 

time you replace the adsorbent in an 

adsorber bed. 

(e) Regenerative adsorber corrective 

action plan. For regenerative adsorbers, 

except those monitored with CEMS, you 

must develop a corrective action plan 

describing corrective actions to be taken 

and the timing of those actions when a 

weekly measurement is above the 

maximum normal concentration. The 

plan must specify that you will initiate 

procedures to identify the cause and 

take corrective action no later than 8 

hours after the weekly measurement. 

Three consecutive weekly 

measurements greater than the 

maximum normal concentration is a 

deviation. Examples of corrective 

actions that could be included in your 

plan are listed in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(1) Analyze the adsorber inlet vent to 

determine if inlet concentrations are in 

the expected range. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.138</GPH>
18026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Obtain samples at other locations 

in the system to determine if conditions 

are normal. 

(3) Verify the system temperatures, 

regeneration stream mass and other 

operational parameters are within 

normal ranges. 

(4) Test the operation of valves in the 

system, verify the valves are working as 

intended and not allowing gas to pass 

through when closed. 

(5) Obtain a sample of the carbon to 

check for bed poisoning or deterioration 

of the carbon. 

(6) Replace the adsorbent in the 

adsorber bed with fresh adsorbent. 

(f) Regenerative adsorber performance 

test. You must conduct a performance 

test, pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 

65.829, unless any of the general control 

measures specified in § 65.702(e) are 

used. 

(g) Regenerative adsorber design 

evaluation. If a referencing subpart 

allows you to conduct a design 

evaluation in lieu of a performance test, 

and you chose to do a design evaluation, 

you must meet the requirements of 

§ 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the 

absorber meets the applicable emission 

limit, address the following 

characteristics, as applicable. For an 

adsorption system that regenerates the 

adsorber bed directly onsite in the 

control device, such as a fixed-bed 

adsorber, the design evaluation must 

consider the vent stream mass flow rate, 

vent stream composition and 

concentrations, relative humidity, and 

temperature and must establish the 

design exhaust vent stream organic 

compound concentration level, 

adsorption cycle time, number and 

capacity of adsorber beds, type and 

working capacity of adsorbent used for 

adsorber beds, design total regeneration 

stream mass flow over the period of 

each complete adsorber bed 

regeneration cycle, design adsorber bed 

temperature after regeneration, design 

adsorber bed regeneration time and 

design service life of adsorbent. For 

vacuum desorption, the lowest required 

vacuum level and duration needed to 

assure regeneration of the beds must be 

considered. 

(h) Regenerative adsorber 

performance test records. If you are 

required to conduct a performance test, 

you must keep readily accessible 

records of the data specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this 

section, as applicable, measured during 

each performance test conducted, 

pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 65.829. 

(1) For non-vacuum regenerative 

adsorbers, you must record the total 

regeneration stream mass flow during 

each adsorber bed regeneration cycle 

during the period of the performance 

test, and temperature of the adsorber 

bed after each regeneration during the 

period of the performance test (and 

within 15 minutes of completion of any 

cooling cycle or cycles). 

(2) For non-vacuum regeneration 

adsorbers, you must record the adsorber 

bed temperature during regeneration, 

except for any temperature regulating 

(cooling or warming to bring bed 

temperature closer to vent gas 

temperature) portion of the regeneration 

cycle. 

(3) For vacuum regenerative 

adsorbers, you must record the vacuum 

profile over time during each 

regeneration cycle, and the period of 

time the vacuum level is below the 

minimum target level during the period 

of the performance test. 

(4) You must record regeneration 

frequency and duration during the 

period of the performance test. 

(5) You must record the observations 

of the verification of the adsorber 

operation during the period of the 

performance test. 

(i) Regenerative adsorber monitoring 

records. You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of 

this section up-to-date and readily 

accessible, as applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters and 

emissions required to be monitored 

under paragraph (b) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

(j) Regenerative adsorber other 

records. For regenerative adsorbers, 

except those monitored with CEMS, you 

must also maintain records, as specified 

in paragraphs (j)(1) through (6) of this 

section. 

(1) The corrective action plan 

required in paragraph (e) of this section. 

(2) For the adsorber verification 

required in paragraph (c) of this section, 

you must maintain daily records of the 

verification inspections, including the 

visual observations and/or any 

activation of an automated alarm or 

shutdown system with a written entry 

into a log book or other permanent form 

of record. 

(3) For the monitoring required in 

paragraph (d) of this section, you must 

record the weekly volatile organic 

compound or regulated material outlet 

concentration observed over the last 5 

minutes of the adsorption cycle for each 

adsorber bed. 

(4) If the measured concentration 

obtained during the monitoring required 

in paragraph (d) of this section is greater 

than the maximum normal 

concentration for 3 consecutive weekly 

measurements, you must keep a record 

of these periods, including the date of 

the third measurement and the date and 

time when the concentration becomes 

less than the maximum normal 

concentration, or when the adsorbent is 

replaced. 

(5) You must keep records of the 

measurements used to determine the 

maximum normal concentrations 

established for each adsorber bed. 

(6) You must keep records of the date 

and time the adsorbent is replaced and 

which adsorbent bed was replaced. 

§ 65.744 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet for non-regenerative 

adsorbers? 

(a) Non-regenerative adsorber 

monitoring. You must install the 

monitoring equipment and meet the 

requirements specified for nonregenerative adsorbers in either Table 1 

or Table 2 to this subpart. Nonregenerative adsorbers include 

adsorbers that cannot be regenerated 

and regenerative adsorbers that are 

regenerated offsite. For non-regenerative 

adsorbers for which you have selected 

the monitoring specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, you must also comply with 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and you 

may reduce your monitoring frequency 

according to paragraphs (a)(2) of this 

section. 

(1) The first adsorber in series must be 

replaced immediately when 

breakthrough, as defined in § 65.295, is 

detected between the first and second 

adsorber. The original second adsorber 

(or a fresh canister) will become the new 

first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will 

become the second adsorber. For 

purposes of this paragraph, 

‘‘immediately’’ means within 8 hours of 

the detection of a breakthrough for 

adsorbers of 55 gallons or less, and 

within 24 hours of the detection of a 

breakthrough for adsorbers greater than 

55 gallons. 

(2) In lieu of the daily monitoring, as 

specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you 

may reduce your monitoring frequency 

by establishing the average adsorber bed 

life. To establish the average adsorber 

bed life, you must conduct daily 

monitoring of the outlet volatile organic 

compound or regulated material 

concentration of the first adsorber bed 

in series until breakthrough, as defined 

in § 65.295, occurs for the first three 

adsorber bed change-outs. You must reestablish an average adsorber bed life if 

you change the adsorbent brand or type, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18027 

or if any process changes are made that 

would lead to a lower bed lifetime. You 

must measure the outlet concentration 

of volatile organic compounds or outlet 

concentration of regulated material(s) in 

accordance with Table 2 to this subpart. 

Once the average life of the bed is 

determined, you may conduct ongoing 

monitoring, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) You may conduct monthly 

monitoring if the adsorbent has more 

than 2 months of life remaining, based 

on the average adsorber bed life, as 

established in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, and the date the adsorbent was 

last replaced. 

(ii) You may conduct weekly 

monitoring if the adsorbent has more 

than 2 weeks of life remaining, based on 

the average adsorber bed life, 

established in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, and the date the adsorbent was 

last replaced. 

(b) Non-regenerative adsorber 

performance test. You must conduct a 

performance test, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829, unless any of the 

general control measures specified in 

§ 65.702(e) are used. 

(c) Non-regenerative adsorber design 

evaluation. If a referencing subpart 

allows you to conduct a design 

evaluation in lieu of a performance test, 

and you chose to do a design evaluation, 

you must meet the requirements of 

§ 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the 

absorber meets the applicable emission 

limit, address the following 

characteristics, as applicable. For an 

adsorption system that does not 

regenerate the adsorber bed directly on 

site in the control device, such as a 

carbon canister, the design evaluation 

must consider the vent stream mass 

flow rate, vent stream composition and 

concentrations, relative humidity and 

temperature and must establish the 

design exhaust vent stream organic 

compound concentration level, capacity 

of adsorber bed, type and working 

capacity of adsorbent used for the 

adsorber bed and design adsorbent 

replacement interval, based on the total 

adsorbent working capacity of the 

control device and source operating 

schedule. 

(d) Non-regenerative adsorber 

performance test records. If you are 

required to conduct a performance test, 

you must keep readily accessible 

records of the outlet volatile organic 

compound or regulated material 

concentration for each adsorber bed, as 

provided in Table 2 to this subpart, 

measured during each performance test 

conducted, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829. You must also keep 

records of the date and time you last 

replaced the adsorbent. 

(e) Non-regenerative adsorber 

monitoring records. You must keep the 

records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) of this section up-to-date and 

readily accessible, as applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

(f) Non-regenerative adsorber other 

records. For non-regenerative adsorbers 

for which you have selected the 

monitoring specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must also maintain 

records, as specified in paragraph (f)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Records of the date and time you 

replace the adsorbent. 

(2) If you conduct monitoring less 

frequently than daily, as specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart, you must record 

the average life of the bed. 

§ 65.746 What requirements must I meet 

for condensers? 

(a) Condenser monitoring. You must 

install the monitoring equipment and 

meet the requirements specified for 

condensers in either Table 1 or Table 2 

to this subpart. 

(b) Condenser performance test. You 

are not required to conduct a 

performance test, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829, unless required by a 

referencing subpart. Instead, you must 

conduct a design evaluation, as 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section, unless you choose to use a 

CEMS meeting the requirements in 

§ 65.711 to monitor the performance of 

the condenser. 

(c) Condenser design evaluation. If 

you chose to do a design evaluation in 

lieu of using CEMS meeting the 

requirements in § 65.711, you must meet 

the requirements of § 65.850 and, in 

demonstrating that the condenser meets 

the applicable emission limit, address 

the characteristics specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(1) The design evaluation must 

consider the vent stream flow rate, 

relative humidity, temperature and 

conditions under which entrainment of 

the condensing liquid could occur, and 

must establish the design outlet organic 

regulated material compound 

concentration level, design average 

temperature of the condenser exhaust 

vent stream and the design average 

temperatures of the coolant fluid at the 

condenser inlet and outlet. 

(2) You must establish your operating 

limit for temperature of the condensate 

receiver and calculate the resulting 

regulated material concentration using 

the methodologies in § 65.835(d) to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions standard of the referencing 

subpart. 

(d) Condenser monitoring records. 

You must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section 

up-to-date and readily accessible, as 

applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

(e) Condenser other records. If you 

chose to do a design evaluation in lieu 

of using CEMS meeting the 

requirements in § 65.711, you must 

calculate and record the regulated 

material concentration using continuous 

and direct measurements of the 

condensate receiver temperature and the 

methodology in § 65.835(d). 

§ 65.748 What requirements must I meet 

for biofilters? 

(a) Biofilter monitoring. You must 

install the monitoring equipment and 

meet the requirements specified for 

biofilters in either Table 1 or Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(b) Biofilter performance test. You 

must conduct a performance test, 

pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 65.829, 

and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section, unless one of the provisions in 

paragraph (c) of this section is met. 

(1) The operating temperature limit 

must be based on only the temperatures 

measured during the performance test; 

these data may not be supplemented by 

engineering assessments or 

manufacturer’s recommendations, as 

otherwise allowed in § 65.713(a). 

(2) You may expand the biofilter bed 

temperature operating limit by 

conducting a repeat performance test 

that demonstrates compliance with the 

percent reduction requirement or outlet 

concentration limit, as applicable. 

(3) You must conduct a repeat 

performance test using the applicable 

methods specified in § 65.825 within 2 

years following the previous 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

performance test and within 150 days 

after each replacement of any portion of 

the biofilter bed media with a different 

type of media or each replacement of 

more than 50 percent (by volume) of the 

biofilter bed media with the same type 

of media. 

(c) Biofilter performance test 

exemptions. You are not required to 

conduct a performance test if any of the 

general control measures specified in 

§ 65.702(e) are used. If the operating 

limit is established using data from 

previous performance tests in 

accordance with § 65.702(e)(4), 

replacement of the biofilter media with 

the same type of media is not 

considered a process change and would 

not require a new performance test; 

however, you are still subject to the 

repeat performance test requirements, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(d) Biofilter design evaluation. If a 

referencing subpart allows you to 

conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a 

performance test, and you chose to do 

a design evaluation, you must meet the 

requirements of § 65.850 and, in 

demonstrating that the biofilter meets 

the applicable emission limit, address 

the characteristics specified in the 

referencing subpart. 

(e) Biofilter performance test records. 

If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, you must record the 

biofilter bed temperature and moisture 

content, and the pressure drop through 

the biofilter bed measured during each 

performance test conducted, pursuant to 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. You must 

record the biofilter bed temperature, 

moisture content and the pressure drop 

through the biofilter bed at least every 

15 minutes and average these operating 

parameters over each run of the 

performance test. 

(f) Biofilter monitoring records. You 

must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section 

up-to-date and readily accessible, as 

applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

§ 65.760 What requirements must I meet 

for sorbent injection and collection 

systems? 

(a) General. If you use sorbent 

injection as an emission control 

technique, you must operate the sorbent 

injection system in accordance with this 

section. You must also meet the 

requirements in § 65.762 for the fabric 

filters used for sorbent collection. 

(b) Sorbent injection monitoring. You 

must install the monitoring equipment 

and meet the requirements specified for 

sorbent injection in either Table 1 or 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

(c) Sorbent injection performance test. 

You must conduct a performance test, 

pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 65.829, 

and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 

section, unless one of the general 

control measures specified in 

§ 65.702(e) is used. A performance test 

conducted to meet the requirements of 

this section also satisfies the 

performance test requirements of 

§ 65.762(b) provided that you monitor 

and record the appropriate fabric filter 

operating parameters during the 

performance test. 

(1) You must conduct the 

performance test at the outlet of the 

fabric filter used for sorbent collection. 

(2) If the sorbent is replaced with a 

different brand and type of sorbent that 

was used during the performance test, 

you must conduct a new performance 

test. 

(d) Sorbent injection design 

evaluation. If a referencing subpart 

allows you to conduct a design 

evaluation in lieu of a performance test, 

and you chose to do a design evaluation, 

you must meet the requirements of 

§ 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the 

sorbent injection system meets the 

applicable emission limit, address the 

characteristics specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(1) For a sorbent injection system, the 

design evaluation must consider the 

vent stream flow rate and temperature, 

levels of regulated materials to be 

adsorbed in the vent stream, sorbent 

type and brand, sorbent mass injection 

rate, sorbent injection carrier gas 

system, design of the injection system, 

location of sorbent injection site, 

downstream collection device (fabric 

filter or other device to capture the 

sorbent), residence time of the gassorbent mixture and contact 

characteristics of the gas-sorbent 

mixture. 

(2) For a sorbent injection system that 

is controlling dioxins, furans, total 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) or total 

organic HAP, as specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, you must consider the 

temperature in the combustion device 

and in any particulate control devices 

upstream of injection system. 

(e) Sorbent injection performance test 

records. If you are required to conduct 

a performance test, you must keep 

readily accessible records of the data 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 

this section, as applicable, measured 

during each performance test 

conducted, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829. 

(1) Record the brand and type of 

sorbent used during the performance 

test. 

(2) If you have chosen to monitor 

operating parameters in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must record the 

parameters, as specified in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) Record the rate of sorbent injection 

measured during the performance test at 

least every 15 minutes and average the 

injection rate over each run of the 

performance test. 

(ii) Record the carrier gas flow rate 

measured during the performance test at 

least every 15 minutes and average the 

flow rate over each run of the 

performance test. 

(iii) Record the temperature 

downstream of the combustion device 

and/or downstream of any particulate 

control devices, as applicable, measured 

during the performance test. Record the 

temperature(s) at least every 15 minutes 

and average the temperature(s) over 

each run of the performance test. 

(f) Sorbent injection monitoring 

records. You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of 

this section up-to-date and readily 

accessible, as applicable. 

(1) Continuous records of the control 

device operating parameters or 

emissions specified to be monitored 

under paragraph (b) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(2) Records of the daily average value, 

or for batch operations, operating block 

average value, of each continuously 

monitored operating parameter or 

records of continuous emissions 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 65.860(a). 

(g) Sorbent injection other records. 

You must keep records of the type and 

brand of sorbent used. If the type or 

brand of sorbent is changed, you must 

record the date the sorbent was 

changed, and maintain documentation 

that the substitute will provide the same 

or better level of control as the original 

sorbent. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18029 

§ 65.762 What requirements must I meet 

for fabric filters? 

(a) Fabric filter monitoring. You must 

equip fabric filters with a bag leak 

detection system that is installed, 

calibrated, maintained and continuously 

operated according to the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (10) of this 

section. Monitoring systems associated 

with bag leak detection are also subject 

to the requirements of § 65.710. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection 

sensor(s) in a position(s) that will be 

representative of the relative or absolute 

particulate matter loadings for each 

exhaust stack, roof vent or compartment 

(e.g., for a positive pressure fabric filter) 

of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 1 

milligram per actual cubic meter 

(0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or 

less. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the bag leak detection system in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section and consistent with the 

guidance provided in EPA–454/R–98– 

015 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 65.265). 

(4) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor. 

(5) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a system that will sound 

an alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate material emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must 

be located such that the alert is observed 

readily by plan operating personnel. 

(6) Install a bag leak detection system 

in each compartment or cell for positive 

pressure fabric filter systems that do not 

duct all compartments or cells to a 

common stack. Install a bag leak 

detector downstream of the fabric filter 

if a negative pressure or induced air 

filter is used. If multiple bag leak 

detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be 

shared among detectors. 

(7) Calibration of the bag leak 

detection system must, at a minimum, 

consist of establishing the baseline 

output level by adjusting the range and 

the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time. 

(8) Following initial adjustment, you 

must not adjust the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points or 

alarm delay time, except as established 

in a CPMS monitoring plan required in 

§ 65.712 and paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. In no event may the sensitivity 

be increased more than 100 percent or 

decreased by more than 50 percent over 

a 365-day period unless such 

adjustment follows a complete baghouse 

inspection that demonstrates the 

baghouse is in good operating condition. 

(9) Each bag leak detection system 

must be operated and maintained such 

that the alarm does not sound more than 

5 percent of the operating time during 

a 6-month period. If the alarm sounds 

more than 5 percent of the operating 

time during a 6-month period, it is 

considered an operating parameter 

exceedance and, therefore, a deviation, 

as specified in § 65.710(e)(2). You must 

calculate the alarm time, as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) If inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective action is 

required, no alarm time is counted. 

(ii) If corrective action is required, 

each alarm time is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour. 

(iii) If you take longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, each alarm 

time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is 

counted as the actual amount of time 

taken by you to initiate corrective 

action. 

(iv) Your maximum alarm time is 

equal to 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period. 

(10) If the alarm on a bag leak 

detection system is triggered, you must, 

within 1 hour of an alarm, initiate 

procedures to identify the cause of the 

alarm and take corrective action, as 

specified in the corrective action plan 

required in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section. 

(b) Fabric filter performance test. You 

must conduct a performance test, 

pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 65.829, 

unless one of the general control 

measures specified in § 65.702(e) is 

used. A performance test conducted to 

meet the requirements of this section 

also satisfies the performance test 

requirements of § 65.760(c) provided 

that § 65.760(c)(1) and (2) are followed 

and the appropriate sorbent injection 

operating parameters are monitored and 

recorded. 

(c) Fabric filter design evaluation. If a 

referencing subpart allows you to 

conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a 

performance test, and you chose to do 

a design evaluation, you must meet the 

requirements of § 65.850. The design 

evaluation must include the pressure 

drop through the device and the ratio of 

volumetric gas flow to surface area of 

the cloth. 

(d) Fabric filter performance test 

records. You must document the bag 

leak detection system’s sensitivity to 

detecting changes in particulate matter 

emissions, range, averaging period and 

alarm set points during each 

performance test conducted, pursuant to 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829. 

(e) Fabric filter monitoring records. 

For each bag leak detector used to 

monitor regulated material emissions 

from a fabric filter, you must maintain 

the records specified in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) A CPMS monitoring plan, as 

specified in § 65.712. You must also 

include performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations) in your CPMS monitoring 

plan, including how the alarm set-point 

will be established. 

(2) A corrective action plan describing 

corrective actions to be taken and the 

timing of those actions when the bag 

leak detection alarm sounds. You must 

initiate corrective action no later than 

48 hours after a bag leak detection 

system alarm. Failure to take action 

within the prescribed time period is 

considered a deviation. Corrective 

actions may include, but are not limited 

to, the actions listed in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other conditions that may 

cause an increase in regulated material 

emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media or otherwise fixing the control 

device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe or otherwise fixing the bag 

leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the regulated material 

emissions. 

(3) Records of any bag leak detection 

system alarm, including the date, time, 

duration and the percent of the total 

operating time during each 6-month 

period that the alarm sounds, with a 

brief explanation of the cause of the 

alarm, the corrective action taken and 

the schedule and duration of the 

corrective action. 

(f) You must submit analyses and 

supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA– 

454/R–98–015 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265) and 

specifications for bag leak detection 

systems as part of the Notification of 

Compliance Status Report, as required, 

pursuant to § 65.880(f). 

§ 65.800 What requirements must I meet 

for other control devices? 

(a) Other control device monitoring. If 

you use a control device other than 

those listed in this subpart, you must 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) You must submit to the 

Administrator for approval the planned 

operating parameters to be monitored, 

and the recordkeeping and reporting 

procedures, as specified in § 65.884(h). 

You must also include a rationale for 

the proposed monitoring in your 

submittal. The Administrator will 

approve, deny or modify the proposed 

monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements as part of 

the review of the plan or through the 

review of the permit application or by 

other appropriate means. 

(2) If you receive approval from the 

Administrator for the information 

required in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, you must then establish an 

operating limit for the operating 

parameters that indicates proper 

operation of the control device. The 

information required in § 65.880(d) 

must be submitted in the Notification of 

Compliance Status Report. The 

operating limit may be based upon a 

prior performance test meeting the 

specifications of § 65.702(e)(4). 

(b) Other control device performance 

test. You must conduct a performance 

test, pursuant to §§ 65.820 through 

65.829, as applicable, unless any of the 

general control measures specified in 

§ 65.702(e) are used. 

(c) Other control device performance 

test records. If you are required to 

conduct a performance test, you must 

keep readily accessible records of the 

approved operating parameters, as 

established in paragraph (a) of this 

section measured during the 

performance test and any other records 

as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of the performance test 

conducted, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829. 

(d) Other control device records. You 

must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section 

up-to-date and readily accessible, as 

applicable. 

(1) You must keep records of the 

operating parameter(s) monitored, 

pursuant to the approved plan 

established in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(2) Records of flow/no flow, as 

provided in § 65.860(i). 

Performance Testing 

§ 65.820 What are the performance testing 

requirements? 

For each control device for which a 

performance test is required, you must 

conduct a performance test according to 

the schedule specified by the 

referencing subpart and the procedures 

in this section §§ 65.820 through 65.829, 

as applicable, unless any of the general 

control measures specified in 

§ 65.702(e) are used. For all performance 

tests, a notification of the performance 

test and a performance test plan are also 

required, as specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. You must 

also provide the performance testing 

facilities, as specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Notification of performance test. 

You must notify the Administrator of 

your intention to conduct a performance 

test, as specified in § 65.884(a). 

(b) Performance test plan. Before 

conducting a required performance test, 

you must develop and submit a 

performance test plan to the 

Administrator for approval. The test 

plan must include a test program 

summary, the test schedule, data quality 

objectives and both an internal and 

external quality assurance program. 

Data quality objectives are the pretest 

expectations of precision, accuracy and 

completeness of data, as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The internal quality assurance 

program must include, at a minimum, 

the activities planned by routine 

operators and analysts to provide an 

assessment of test data bias and 

precision; an example of internal quality 

assurance to measure precision is the 

sampling and analysis of replicate 

samples. 

(2) You must perform a test method 

performance audit during the 

performance test, as specified in 

§ 60.8(g), § 61.13(e), or § 63.7(c)(2)(iii) of 

this chapter. 

(3) You must submit the performance 

test plan to the Administrator at least 60 

calendar days before the performance 

test is scheduled to take place, that is, 

simultaneously with the notification of 

intention to conduct a performance test 

required under paragraph (a) of this 

section, or on a mutually agreed upon 

date. 

(4) The Administrator may request 

additional relevant information after the 

submittal of a performance test plan. 

(5) If you would like to use an 

alternative test method or a change to a 

test method, you must follow the 

requirements of § 65.250, except for 

minor test method changes. You may 

propose minor test method changes in 

your performance test plan. Approval of 

the test plan is approval of any minor 

test method changes included in the test 

plan. 

(c) Approval of performance test plan. 

(1) The Administrator will notify you 

of approval or intention to deny 

approval of the performance test plan 

within 30 calendar days after receipt of 

the original plan and within 30 calendar 

days after receipt of any supplementary 

information that is submitted under 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. An 

intention to disapprove the plan will 

include the information provided in 

(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section and will 

be provided to you before the 

Administrator disapproves a 

performance test plan. 

(i) Notice of the information and 

findings on which the intended 

disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to 

present, within 30 calendar days after 

you have been notified of the intended 

disapproval, additional information to 

the Administrator before final action on 

the plan. 

(2) If the Administrator does not 

approve or disapprove the performance 

test plan within the time period 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, then you must conduct the 

performance test within the time 

specified in this subpart using the 

specified method(s) and any minor 

changes to the test methods proposed in 

the test plan. 

(d) Performance testing facilities. If 

required to do performance testing, you 

must provide performance testing 

facilities, as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) Sampling ports adequate for the 

applicable test methods, including 

meeting the provisions of paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) Constructing the air pollution 

control system such that volumetric 

flow rates and pollutant emission rates 

can be accurately determined by 

applicable test methods and procedures; 

and 

(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of 

cyclonic flow during performance tests, 

as demonstrated by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(2) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(3) Safe access to sampling 

platform(s). 

(4) Utilities for sampling and testing 

equipment. 

(5) Any other facilities that the 

Administrator deems necessary for safe 

and adequate testing of a source. 

§ 65.821 At what process conditions must 

I conduct performance testing? 

You must conduct performance tests 

under the conditions specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

section, as applicable, unless the 

Administrator specifies or approves 

alternate operating conditions. Upon 

request, you must make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18031 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests performed, pursuant 

to this section. 

(a) Continuous process operations. 

For continuous process operations, you 

must conduct all performance tests at 

maximum representative operating 

conditions for the process. 

(b) Batch process operations. For 

batch process operations, testing must 

be conducted at absolute worst-case 

conditions or hypothetical worst-case 

conditions, as specified in § 65.822. 

(c) Combination of both continuous 

and batch unit operations. For 

combined continuous and batch process 

operations, you must conduct 

performance tests when the batch 

process operations are operating at 

absolute worst-case conditions or 

hypothetical worst-case conditions, as 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, and the continuous process 

operations are operating at maximum 

representative operating conditions for 

the process, as specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(d) You must not conduct a 

performance test during startup, 

shutdown, periods when the control 

device is bypassed or periods when the 

process, monitoring equipment or 

control device is not operating properly. 

§ 65.822 At what process conditions must 

I conduct performance testing for batch 

process operations? 

If you choose to conduct testing at 

absolute worst-case conditions for batch 

process operations, you must 

characterize the conditions by the 

criteria presented in paragraph (a) of 

this section. If you choose to conduct 

testing at hypothetical worst-case 

conditions for batch process operations, 

you must characterize the conditions by 

the criteria presented in paragraph (b) of 

this section. In all cases, a performance 

test plan must be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval prior to 

testing in accordance with § 65.820(a) 

through (d). The performance test plan 

must include the emission profile 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(a) Absolute worst-case conditions. 

You must consider all relevant factors, 

including load and compound-specific 

characteristics, in defining absolute 

worst-case conditions. Absolute worstcase conditions are defined by the 

criteria presented in paragraph (a)(1) or 

(2) of this section if the maximum load 

is the most challenging condition for the 

control device. Otherwise, absolute 

worst-case conditions are defined by 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(1) The period in which the inlet to 

the control device will contain the 

maximum projected regulated material 

load and will always contain at least 50 

percent of the maximum regulated 

material load (in pounds) capable of 

being vented to the control device over 

any 8-hour period. An emission profile, 

as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, must be used to identify the 

8-hour period that includes the 

maximum projected regulated material 

load. 

(2) A 1-hour period of time in which 

the inlet to the control device will 

contain the highest regulated material 

mass loading rate, in lb/hr, capable of 

being vented to the control device. An 

emission profile, as described in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, must be 

used to identify the 1-hour period of 

maximum regulated material loading. 

(3) The period of time when the 

regulated material loading or stream 

composition (including non-regulated 

material) is most challenging for the 

control device. These conditions 

include, but are not limited to, 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) Periods when the stream contains 

the highest combined regulated material 

load, in lb/hr, described by the emission 

profiles in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(ii) Periods when the stream contains 

regulated material constituents that 

approach limits of solubility for 

scrubbing media. 

(iii) Periods when the stream contains 

regulated material constituents that 

approach limits of adsorptivity for 

adsorption systems. 

(b) Hypothetical worst-case 

conditions. Hypothetical worst-case 

conditions are simulated test conditions 

that, at a minimum, contain the highest 

hourly regulated material load of 

emissions that would be predicted to be 

vented to the control device from the 

emissions profile described in 

paragraphs (c)(2) or (3) of this section. 

(c) Emission profile. For batch process 

operations, you must develop an 

emission profile for the vent to the 

control device that describes the 

characteristics of the vent stream at the 

inlet to the control device under worstcase conditions. The emission profile is 

an analysis of regulated material 

emissions versus time and must be 

developed, based on any one of the 

procedures described in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Emission profile by process. The 

emission profile by process must 

consider all emission episodes (for 

example, but not limited to, vessel 

filling, empty vessel purging, gas sweep 

of a partially filled vessel, vacuum 

operations, gas evolution, 

depressurization, heating and 

evaporation) that could contribute to the 

vent stack for a period of time that is 

sufficient to include all processes 

venting to the stack and must consider 

production scheduling. The emission 

profile by process must describe the 

regulated material load to the device 

that equals the highest sum of emissions 

from the episodes that can vent to the 

control device in any given hour. 

Emissions per episode must be 

calculated using the procedures 

specified in § 65.835(b). 

(2) Emission profile by process 

equipment. The emission profile by 

process equipment must consist of 

emissions that meet or exceed the 

highest emissions, in lb/hr, that would 

be expected under actual processing 

conditions. The emission profile by 

process equipment must describe 

component configurations used to 

generate the emission events, volatility 

of materials processed in the process 

equipment and the rationale used to 

identify and characterize the emission 

events. The emissions may be based on 

using a compound more volatile than 

compounds actually used in the 

process(es), and the emissions may be 

generated from all process equipment in 

the process(es) or only selected process 

equipment. 

(3) Emission profile by capture and 

control device limitation. The emission 

profile by capture and control device 

must consider the capture and control 

system limitations and the highest 

emissions, in lb/hr, that can be routed 

to the control device, based on 

maximum flow rate and concentrations 

possible because of limitations on 

conveyance and control components 

(e.g., fans and lower explosive level 

alarms). 

§ 65.823 How do I sample from vent 

streams? 

You must conduct the applicable 

sampling, as specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section. 

(a) You must use Method 1 or 1A at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, as 

appropriate, to select the sampling sites. 

(1) For determination of compliance 

with a percent reduction requirement of 

regulated material or total organic 

compounds, sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of the control 

device, and with the exception noted in 

§ 65.724(b)(2), the control device inlet 

sampling site must be located at the exit 

from the unit operation before any 

control device. 

(2) For determining compliance with 

a ppmv total regulated material or total 

organic compounds emissions limit in a 

referencing subpart, the sampling site 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

must be located at the outlet of the 

control device. 

(3) For determining compliance with 

an emission limit requirement of a vent 

stream halogen atom mass emission rate 

prior to a combustion device, or to 

demonstrate that a vent stream is not 

halogenated, pursuant to § 65.702(c), 

collect samples prior to the combustion 

device. 

(b) For determining compliance with 

percent reduction emission limits, you 

must collect samples simultaneously at 

the inlet and outlet of the control device 

during the performance test. 

(c) For correcting concentrations to 

specified percent oxygen, the sampling 

site for the measurement of oxygen 

concentration must be the same as that 

of the regulated material samples, and 

the samples must be taken concurrently. 

(d) For each test run, you must take 

either real-time measurements, an 

integrated sample or a minimum of four 

grab samples per hour. If grab sampling 

is used, then the samples must be taken 

at approximately equal intervals in time, 

such as 15-minute intervals during the 

run. 

§ 65.824 What is the performance test 

duration? 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, for continuous 

process operations, a performance test 

must consist of three runs of at least 1 

hour in length; and must be conducted 

under the conditions specified in 

§ 65.821(a). 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, for batch process 

operations, a performance test must 

consist of three runs; and must be 

conducted under the conditions 

specified in § 65.821(b). Each run must 

occur over the same absolute or 

hypothetical worst-case conditions, as 

defined in § 65.822, and be tested over 

the length of the episode, at a minimum 

of 1 hour and not to exceed 8 hours. 

(c) For control devices used to control 

emissions from transfer racks (except 

low throughput transfer racks that are 

capable of continuous vapor processing, 

but do not handle continuous emissions 

or multiple loading arms of a transfer 

rack that load simultaneously), each run 

must represent at least one complete 

tank truck or tank car loading period, 

during which regulated materials are 

loaded. 

§ 65.825 What performance test methods 

do I use? 

You must conduct the performance 

test using the applicable test methods 

and procedures specified in Table 5 to 

this subpart and paragraphs (a) through 

(e) of this section, as applicable, unless 

you request an alternative test method 

or a change to a test method, as 

specified in § 65.250. 

(a) If you use ASTM D6420–99(2010), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Organic 

Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 65.265) 

in lieu of Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6 or Method 320 at 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A to measure specific 

organic regulated material compound 

concentration, as applicable, at the inlet 

and/or outlet of a control device, then 

you must meet the conditions specified 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) The target compound(s) must be 

listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420– 

99 (2010), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Organic 

Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 65.265), and the target concentration is 

between 150 parts per billion by volume 

and 100 ppmv. 

(2) If one (or more) target 

compound(s) is not listed in Section 1.1 

of ASTM D6420–99 (2010), ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determination of 

Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 

Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 

Spectrometry’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265), but is 

potentially detected by mass 

spectrometry, an additional system 

continuing calibration check after each 

run, as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of 

ASTM D6420–99, must be followed, 

met, documented and submitted with 

the performance test report, even if a 

moisture condenser is not used or the 

compound is not considered soluble. 

(3) A minimum of one sample/ 

analysis cycle must completed at least 

every 15 minutes. 

(b) If using Method 25A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7 to determine 

compliance with a total organic 

compounds outlet concentration or 

percent reduction limit specified in a 

referencing subpart, you must follow the 

procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Calibrate the instrument on 

propane. 

(2) When demonstrating compliance 

with an outlet concentration emission 

limit specified in the referencing 

subpart, you must use a span value of 

the analyzer between 1.5 and 2.5 times 

the applicable emission limit in the 

referencing subpart. When 

demonstrating compliance with a 

percent reduction by making 

measurements at the inlet and outlet of 

the control device, you must use a span 

value of the analyzer of between 1.5 and 

2.5 times the highest expected total 

organic compounds concentration at 

each location. 

(3) Report the results as carbon, 

calculated according to Equation 25A–1 

of Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. 

(c) If you are using Method 320 at 40 

CFR part 63, appendix A, pursuant to 

Table 5 to this subpart, you must follow 

the validation procedure of section 13.0 

of EPA Method 320 unless the 

validation procedure was conducted at 

another source and it can be shown that 

the exhaust gas characteristics are 

similar at both sources. When 

demonstrating compliance with an 

emission limit for hydrogen halides and 

halogens, EPA Method 320 may only be 

used if you can show that there are no 

diatomic halogen molecules present in 

the vent stream being tested. 

(d) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas 

stream to the control device contains 

formaldehyde, you must conduct 

emissions testing according to 

paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) If you elect to comply with a 

percent reduction requirement and 

formaldehyde is the principal regulated 

material compound (i.e., the highest 

concentration for any regulated 

compound in the stream by volume), 

you must use Method 320 at 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, to measure 

formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of 

the control device, unless the vent 

stream being tested has entrained water 

droplets. If the vent stream contains 

entrained water droplets, you must use 

EPA Method 316 instead of EPA Method 

320 to measure formaldehyde 

concentration. Use the percent 

reduction in formaldehyde as a 

surrogate for the percent reduction in 

total regulated material emissions. 

(2) If you elect to comply with an 

outlet total organic regulated material 

concentration or total organic 

compounds concentration limit, and the 

uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the 

control device contains greater than 10 

percent (by volume) formaldehyde, you 

must use Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, to determine the 

formaldehyde concentration, unless the 

vent stream being tested has entrained 

water droplets. If the vent stream 

contains entrained water droplets, you 

must use EPA Method 316 instead of 

EPA Method 320 to measure 

formaldehyde concentration. Calculate 

the total organic regulated material 

concentration or total organic 

compounds concentration by totaling 

the formaldehyde emissions measured 

using EPA Method 316 or EPA Method 

320 and the other regulated material 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18033 

compound emissions measured using 

Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–6, Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7, EPA Method 320 or 

ASTM D6420–99(2010), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Organic Compounds by Direct Interface 

Gas Chromatography-Mass 

Spectrometry’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265). 

(e) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas 

stream to the control device contains 

carbon disulfide, you must conduct 

emissions testing according to 

paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) If you elect to comply with a 

percent reduction requirement and 

carbon disulfide is the principal 

regulated material compound (i.e., the 

highest concentration for any regulated 

compound in the stream by volume), 

you must use Method 18 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–6 or Method 15 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–5, to measure 

carbon disulfide at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. Use the percent 

reduction in carbon disulfide as a 

surrogate for the percent reduction in 

total regulated material emissions. 

(2) If you elect to comply with an 

outlet total organic regulated material 

concentration or total organic 

compounds concentration limit, and the 

uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the 

control device contains greater than 10 

percent (by volume) carbon disulfide, 

you must use Method 18 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–6 or Method 15 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–5, to 

determine the carbon disulfide 

concentration. Calculate the total 

organic regulated material concentration 

or total organic compounds 

concentration by totaling the carbon 

disulfide emissions measured using 

Method 15 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–5 or Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6 and the other regulated 

material compound emissions measured 

using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6, or Method 25A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7, Method 320 

at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A or ASTM 

D6420–99(2010), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Organic Compounds by Direct Interface 

Gas Chromatography-Mass 

Spectrometry’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265), as applicable. 

(f) You must not use Method 26 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8, to test gas 

streams with entrained water droplets. 

§ 65.826 How do I calculate emissions in 

parts per million by volume concentration? 

Use the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section to calculate 

ppmv concentration. The calculated 

concentration must be corrected to a 

standard percent oxygen, if required by 

the referencing subpart, using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(a) Concentration calculation. The 

concentration of either total organic 

compounds (minus methane or ethane) 

or total organic regulated material must 

be calculated according to paragraph 

(a)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) The total organic compounds 

concentration (CTOC) is the sum of the 

concentrations of the individual 

components and must be computed for 

each run using Equation 2 of this 

section. 

Where: 

CTOC = Concentration of total organic 

compounds (minus methane and 

ethane), dry basis, ppmv. 

x = Number of samples in the sample run. 

n = Number of components in the sample. 

Cji = Concentration of sample component j 

(where j is not methane or ethane) of 

sample i, dry basis, ppmv. 

(2) You must compute the total 

organic regulated material (CREG) 

according to Equation 2 of this section 

except that you need only sum the 

regulated species. 

(b) Concentration correction 

calculation. If a referencing subpart 

requires the concentration of total 

organic compounds or organic regulated 

material to be corrected to standard 

oxygen, the correction must be made, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. For batch process operations, 

you must correct the concentration for 

supplemental gases, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Determine the concentration 

corrected to a standard percent oxygen 

(Cc) specified by the referencing 

subpart, using Equation 3 of this 

section. 

Where: 

Cc = Concentration of total organic 

compounds or organic regulated material 

corrected to a standard percent oxygen, 

dry basis, ppmv. 

CTOC = Concentration of total organic 

compounds (minus methane and ethane) 

or organic regulated material, dry basis, 

ppmv. 

%O2s = Concentration of oxygen specified by 

the referencing subpart, percentage by 

volume. 

%O2d = Measured concentration of oxygen, 

dry basis, percentage by volume. 

(2) For batch process operations, 

correct the measured concentration for 

any supplemental gases using Equation 

4 of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.139</GPH> EP26MR12.140</GPH> EP26MR12.141</GPH>
18034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

Ca = Corrected outlet concentration of 

regulated material, dry basis, ppmv. 

Cm = Actual concentration of regulated 

material measured at control device 

outlet, dry basis, ppmv. 

Qa = Total volumetric flow rate of all gas 

streams vented to the control device, 

except supplemental gases, cubic meters 

per minute. 

Qs = Total volumetric flow rate of 

supplemental gases, cubic meters per 

minute. 

§ 65.827 How do I demonstrate compliance 

with a percent reduction requirement? 

(a) To demonstrate compliance with a 

percent reduction requirement for a 

control device specified in a referencing 

subpart, you must comply with 

§ 65.828. 

(b) To meet a process aggregated 

percent reduction emission requirement 

specified in a referencing subpart for a 

batch process, you must follow the 

provisions, as specified in § 65.835. 

(c) For combined streams of 

continuous and batch process 

operations subject to a process 

aggregated percent reduction emission 

requirement in a referencing subpart, 

you must demonstrate that the control 

device meets the percent reduction 

requirements for both batch and 

continuous process operations by 

following the provisions specified in 

§§ 65.828 and 65.835. 

§ 65.828 How do I determine percent 

reduction? 

To determine a percent reduction for 

a control device, you must use the 

procedures specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. For small boilers 

and process heaters, you must follow 

the provisions of § 65.724(b)(1) and (2). 

(a) Mass rate of total organic 

compounds or regulated material. 

Compute the mass rate of either total 

organic compounds (minus methane 

and ethane) or regulated material (Ei, 

Eo), as applicable. Use Equations 5 and 

6 of this section. 

Where: 

Ei, Eo = Emission rate of total organic 

compounds (minus methane and ethane) 

or emission rate of regulated material in 

the sample at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device, respectively, dry basis, 

kilogram per hour. 

K2 = Constant, 2.494 × 10¥6 (ppmv)¥1 (gmol per standard cubic meter) (kilogram 

per gram) (minute per hour), where 

standard temperature is 20 degrees 

Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit). 

N = Number of compounds in the sample. 

Cij, Coj = Concentration on a dry basis of 

organic compound j (where j is not 

methane or ethane) in ppmv of the gas 

stream at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device, respectively. If the total 

organic compounds emission rate is 

being calculated, Cij and Coj include all 

organic compounds measured minus 

methane and ethane; if the regulated 

material emissions rate is being 

calculated, all organic regulated material 

are included. 

Mij, Moj = Molecular weight of compound j, 

gram per g-mol, of the gas stream at the 

inlet and outlet of the control device, 

respectively. 

Qi, Qo = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard 

cubic meter per minute, at a temperature 

of 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees 

Fahrenheit), at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device, respectively. 

(b) Percent reduction in total organic 

compounds or regulated material. 

Determine the percent reduction in total 

organic compounds (minus methane 

and ethane) or regulated material using 

Equation 7 of this section. 

Where: 

R = Control efficiency of control device, 

percent. 

Ei = Mass rate of total organic compounds 

(minus methane and ethane) or regulated 

material at the inlet to the control device 

as calculated under paragraph (a) of this 

section, kilograms total organic 

compounds per hour or kilograms 

regulated material per hour. 

Eo = Mass rate of total organic compounds 

(minus methane and ethane) or regulated 

material at the outlet of the control 

device, as calculated under paragraph (a) 

of this section, kilograms total organic 

compounds per hour or kilograms 

regulated material per hour. 

§ 65.829 How do I demonstrate compliance 

with a hydrogen halide and halogen 

emission limit specified in a referencing 

subpart? 

You must conduct a performance test, 

pursuant to § 65.820, and follow the 

procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section, as applicable, when 

determining compliance with a 

hydrogen halide and halogen emission 

limit specified in a referencing subpart. 

(a) To determine compliance with a 

halogen atom mass emission rate 

emission limit requirement, you must 

use Equation 8 of this section to 

calculate the mass emission rate of 

halogen atoms: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.142</GPH> EP26MR12.143</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18035 

Where: 

E = Mass of halogen atoms, dry basis, 

kilogram per hour. 

K2 = Constant, 2.494 × 10¥6(ppmv)¥1 (g-mol 

per standard cubic meter) (kilogram per 

gram) (minute per hour), where standard 

temperature is 20 degrees Celsius (68 

degrees Fahrenheit). 

Q = Flow rate of gas stream, dry standard 

cubic meters per minute, determined 

according to an engineering assessment, 

as specified in § 65.830 or, pursuant to 

Table 5 to this subpart. 

n = Number of halogenated compounds j in 

the gas stream. 

m = Number of different halogens i in each 

compound j of the gas stream. 

j = Halogenated compound in the gas stream. 

i = Halogen atom in compound j of the gas 

stream. 

Cj = Concentration of halogenated compound 

j in the gas stream, dry basis, ppmv. 

Lji = Number of atoms of halogen i in 

compound j of the gas stream. 

Mji = Molecular weight of halogen atom i in 

compound j of the gas stream, kilogram 

per kilogram-mol. 

(b) Calculate the mass emissions rate 

of each hydrogen halide and halogen 

compound as the summation of the 

measured concentrations and the gas 

stream flow rate, as shown in Equations 

9 and 10 of this section. To determine 

compliance with an outlet mass 

emission rate limit specified in a 

referencing subpart, only Equation 10 is 

required. 

Where: 

Ei, Eo = Total mass rate of hydrogen halide 

and halogen compounds, in kilograms 

per hour. 

K = 6 × 10¥5, Conversion factor of 

milligrams per minute to kilograms per 

hour. 

Cij, Coj = Concentration of each hydrogen 

halide and halogen compound in the gas 

stream, in milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device, respectively. 

Qi, Qo = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard 

cubic meter per minute, at a temperature 

of 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees 

Fahrenheit), at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device, respectively. 

(c) Calculate the percent reduction of 

hydrogen halide and halogen 

compounds using the inlet and outlet 

mass emission rates calculated in 

paragraph (b) of this section and 

Equation 7 of this section. 

(d) To demonstrate compliance with a 

mass rate (e.g., kilogram per hour) outlet 

emission limit, the test results must 

show that the mass emission rate of total 

hydrogen halides and halogens 

measured at the outlet of the absorber or 

other halogen reduction device is below 

the mass rate outlet emission limit 

specified in a referencing subpart. 

§ 65.830 When can an engineering 

assessment be used and what does it 

include? 

(a) You may conduct an engineering 

assessment if you perform any of the 

actions described in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(1) Determine whether a vent stream 

is halogenated, as specified in 

§ 65.702(c)(2). 

(2) Supplement your performance 

test, as specified in § 65.713(a). 

(3) Establish your operating limit on 

ranges or limits previously established 

under a referencing subpart, as specified 

in § 65.713(d). 

(4) Determine flow rate of a gas 

stream, as specified in Equation 8 of 

§ 65.829(a). 

(5) Calculate regulated material 

emissions for each emission episode 

that is not described in Section 3 of EPA 

EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 65.265), as specified in § 65.835(b)(2) 

or § 65.835(d)(3). 

(6) Calculate regulated material 

emissions for each emission episode 

that you can demonstrate to the 

Administrator that the emission 

estimation techniques in Section 3 of 

EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 

(incorporated by reference, see § 65.265) 

are not appropriate, as specified in 

§ 65.835(e). 

(b) An engineering assessment 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Previous test results, provided the 

tests are representative of current 

operating practices at the process unit. 

(2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data 

representative of the process under 

representative operating conditions. 

(3) Maximum flow rate, regulated 

material emission rate, concentration or 

other relevant parameter specified or 

implied within a permit limit applicable 

to the vent stream. 

(4) Design analysis, based on accepted 

chemical engineering principles, 

measurable process parameters or 

physical or chemical laws or properties. 

Examples of analytical methods include, 

but are not limited to, the methods 

specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) Use of material balances, based on 

process stoichiometry to estimate 

maximum organic regulated material 

concentrations. 

(ii) Estimation of maximum flow rate, 

based on physical process equipment 

design such as pump or blower 

capacities. 

(iii) Estimation of regulated material 

concentrations, based on saturation 

conditions. 

Batch Emission Calculations 

§ 65.835 What emissions calculations 

must I use for batch process operations for 

purposes of compliance with an aggregated 

percent reduction? 

(a) General. To demonstrate 

compliance with a process aggregated 

percent reduction emission limit in a 

referencing subpart for batch process 

operations, including batch process 

operations in combined streams of 

continuous and batch unit operations, 

you must compare the sums of the 

controlled and uncontrolled emissions 

for the batch vent streams subject to 

control within the process, and show 

that the specified reduction is met. The 

emission reduction must be calculated 

as shown in Equation 11 of this section 

using parameters from Equations 12 and 

13 of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.144</GPH> EP26MR12.145</GPH>
18036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

Eu = Uncontrolled emissions for batch vent 

streams. 

Ec = Controlled emissions for batch vent 

streams. 

Ei = Uncontrolled emissions for each 

emission episode, as determined, 

pursuant to § 65.835(b). 

i = Each emission episode that applies to the 

batch process (for example, but not 

limited to, vessel filling, empty vessel 

purging, gas sweep of a partially filled 

vessel, vacuum operations, gas 

evolution, depressurization, heating and 

evaporation). 

Di = Controlled emissions for each emission 

episode from a condenser, as 

determined, pursuant to paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

Zi = Emission percent reduction for a control 

device other than a condenser used 

during an emission episode (i), as 

determined, pursuant to § 65.828. 

(b) Uncontrolled emissions. You must 

calculate uncontrolled emissions from 

all process equipment according to the 

procedures described in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (2) of this section to 

demonstrate initial compliance with a 

percent reduction emission limit in a 

referencing subpart for batch process 

operations, including operations in 

combined streams of continuous and 

batch unit operations. You must also 

use these procedures if you choose to 

develop an emission profile by process, 

as specified in § 65.822(c)(1). 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, you must determine 

uncontrolled emissions of regulated 

material using measurements and/or 

calculations for each batch emission 

episode within each unit operation 

using the emission estimation 

techniques described in Section 3 of 

EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 65.265). Chemical property data can be 

obtained from standard reference texts. 

(2) You must conduct an engineering 

assessment according to § 65.830 in 

order to calculate uncontrolled 

regulated material emissions for each 

emission episode that is not described 

in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: 

Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 65.265). You may also conduct an 

engineering assessment according to 

§ 65.830 if you meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (d)(3) or (e) of this section. 

Data or other information supporting a 

finding that the emissions estimation 

equations are inappropriate are subject 

to preapproval by the Administrator and 

must be reported in the batch precompliance report. 

(c) Controlled emissions. Except as 

provided in paragraph (d) of this 

section, you must calculate controlled 

emissions using the percent reduction 

for the control device, as determined 

from the performance test required in 

§ 65.828 to demonstrate initial 

compliance with a percent reduction 

emission limit in a referencing subpart 

for batch process operations, including 

batch process operations in combined 

streams of continuous and batch unit 

operations. 

(d) Controlled emissions from 

condensers. For a condenser used as 

control, you may calculate controlled 

emissions from the condenser using the 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section to 

demonstrate initial compliance with a 

percent reduction emission limit in a 

referencing subpart for batch process 

operations, including batch process 

operations in combined streams of 

continuous and batch unit operations. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section, you must 

determine controlled emissions from the 

condenser using calculations for each 

batch emission episode within each unit 

operation according to the emission 

estimation techniques described in 

Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: 

Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 65.265). You must use the 

temperature and regulated material 

partial pressures that are determined at 

the exit temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser. Chemical 

property data can be obtained from 

standard reference texts. 

(2) For heating and depressurization 

episodes, you must determine 

controlled emissions from the 

condenser using the procedures, as 

specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) You must determine the average 

molecular weight of regulated material 

in vapor exiting the receiver using 

Equation 14 of this section. 

Where: 

MWRM = Average molecular weight of 

regulated material in vapor exiting the 

receiver. 

(Pi)T1 = Partial pressure of each regulated 

material in the vessel headspace at initial 

temperature of the receiver. 

(Pi)T2 = Partial pressure of each regulated 

material in the vessel headspace at final 

temperature of the receiver. 

MWi = Molecular weight of the individual 

regulated material. 

n = Number of regulated material compounds 

in the emission stream. 

i = Identifier for a regulated material 

compound. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.146</GPH> EP26MR12.147</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18037 

(ii) You must determine the number 

of moles of non-condensable gas 

displaced from the vessel using 

Equation 15 of this section for heating 

episodes; and Equation 16 of this 

section for depressurization episodes, as 

applicable. 

Where: 

Dh = Number of moles of non-condensable 

gas displaced from the vessel being 

heated or depressurized. 

V = Volume of free space in the vessel being 

heated or depressurized. 

R = Ideal gas law constant. 

Pnc1 = Initial partial pressure of the noncondensable gas in the headspace of the 

vessel being heated or depressurized. 

Pnc2 = Final partial pressure of the noncondensable gas in the headspace of the 

vessel being heated or depressurized. 

T1 = Initial temperature of the vessel contents 

being heated. 

T2 = Final temperature of the vessel contents 

being heated. 

T = Exit temperature of the receiver. 

(iii) You must determine the mass of 

regulated material emitted from the 

receiver due to the vessel being heated 

or depressurized using Equation 17 of 

this section. 

Where: 

E = Mass of regulated material emitted from 

the receiver due to the vessel being 

heated or depressurized. 

Dh = The number of moles of noncondensable displaced from the vessel 

being heated or depressurized, as 

calculated for heating episodes using 

Equation 15 of this section; or as 

calculated for depressurization episodes 

using Equation 16 of this section. 

PT = Pressure in the receiver. 

Pi = Partial pressure of each individual 

regulated material determined at the 

temperature of the receiver. 

Pj = Partial pressure of each individual 

condensable (including regulated 

material) determined at the temperature 

of the receiver. 

n = Number of regulated material compounds 

in the emission stream. 

i = Identifier for a regulated material 

compound. 

j = Identifier for a condensable compound. 

MWRM = Average molecular weight of 

regulated material in vapor exiting the 

receiver, as calculated using Equation 14 

of this section. 

m = Number of condensable compounds 

(including regulated material) in the 

emission stream. 

(3) You must conduct an engineering 

assessment, as specified in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, for each emission 

episode that is not described in Section 

3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 65.265). 

(4) You may elect to conduct an 

engineering assessment, as specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section, if you 

demonstrate to the Administrator that 

the methods described in paragraphs 

(d)(1) or (2) of this section are not 

appropriate. 

(e) Modified emission estimation 

technique. Instead of calculating 

uncontrolled emissions, as specified in 

§ 65.835(b)(1) of this section, or instead 

of calculating controlled emissions from 

a condenser used as a control device, as 

specified in § 65.835(d)(1) and (2) of this 

section, you may conduct an 

engineering assessment, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if you 

can demonstrate to the Administrator 

that the emission estimation techniques 

in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: 

Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 65.265) are not appropriate. The 

engineering assessment can result in 

modified versions of the emission 

estimation techniques described in 

Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: 

Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 65.265) if you demonstrate that 

they have been used to meet other 

regulatory obligations, and they do not 

affect applicability assessments or 

compliance determinations under the 

referencing subpart. One criterion you 

could use to demonstrate that the 

emission estimation techniques 

described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP 

Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 65.265) are not 

appropriate is if previous test data are 

available that show a greater than 20- 

percent discrepancy between the test 

value and the estimated value. 

Design Evaluation 

§ 65.850 How do I demonstrate compliance 

through design evaluation? 

(a) For each non-flare control device 

for which a design evaluation, as 

allowed by the referencing subpart, is 

used as an alternative to a performance 

test, as specified in § 65.702(e)(1), you 

must conduct the design evaluation 

according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. 

(b) You must prepare a design 

evaluation, as specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section. Also, unless you are 

using a CEMS to monitor the emissions 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission standard of the referencing 

subpart, you must prepare a monitoring 

description, as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section. The design 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26MR12.148</GPH> EP26MR12.149</GPH>
18038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

evaluation and monitoring description 

must be submitted with the Notification 

of Compliance Status Report, as 

specified in § 65.880(c). You must 

comply with § 63.711 for all CEMS. 

(c) The design evaluation must 

include documentation demonstrating 

that the control device being used 

achieves the required emission limit of 

a referencing subpart. You must identify 

in the design evaluation, each emission 

point routed to the control device and 

the applicable emission limit. The 

design evaluation must also address the 

composition of the vent stream entering 

the control device, including flow and 

regulated material concentration, and 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) of this section and 

§ 65.724(d) for boilers and process 

heaters, § 65.726(c) for thermal 

oxidizers, § 65.728(c) for catalytic 

oxidizers, § 65.740(c) for absorbers, 

§ 65.742(d) for adsorbers regenerated 

onsite, § 65.744(c) for non-regenerative 

adsorbers, § 65.746(c) for condensers, 

§ 65.748(d) for biofilters, § 65.760(d) for 

sorbent injection and § 65.762(c) for 

fabric filters, as applicable. 

(1) For storage vessels, the design 

evaluation must include documentation 

demonstrating that the control device 

being used achieves the required control 

efficiency during reasonably expected 

maximum filling rate. 

(2) For transfer racks, the design 

evaluation must demonstrate that the 

control device achieves the required 

control efficiency during the reasonably 

expected maximum transfer loading 

rate. 

(3) For a non-flare control device used 

to control emissions from batch process 

operations, establish emission profiles 

and conduct the evaluation under 

worst-case conditions, as determined, 

pursuant to § 65.822. 

(4) If the vent stream is not the only 

inlet to the control device, the efficiency 

demonstration also must consider all 

other vapors, gases and liquids other 

than fuels received by the control 

device. 

(d) The monitoring description must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section 

to identify the operating parameters that 

you will monitor to assure proper 

operation of the control device such that 

the control device is meeting the 

specified emission limit of the 

referencing subpart. 

(1) A description of the operating 

parameter or parameters to be 

monitored, an explanation of the criteria 

used for selection of that parameter (or 

parameters) and when the monitoring 

will be performed (e.g., when the liquid 

level in the storage vessel is being 

raised). If continuous records are 

specified, indicate whether the 

provisions of §§ 65.712 and 65.713 

apply. 

(2) The operating limit, monitoring 

frequency (e.g., every 15 minutes), and 

averaging time for each operating 

parameter identified in paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section. The specified operating 

limit must represent the conditions for 

which the control device is being 

properly operated and maintained such 

that the control device is meeting the 

specified emission limit of the 

referencing subpart. 

(e) You must operate and maintain the 

non-flare control device so that the 

monitored operating parameters, as 

determined in paragraph (d) of this 

section, remain within the operating 

limits specified in the Notification of 

Compliance Status whenever emissions 

of regulated material are routed to the 

control device. 

Recordkeeping 

§ 65.855 How do I calculate monitoring 

data averages? 

(a) Data averages for compliance. You 

must calculate monitoring data 

averages, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (4) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(1) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (4) of this section, daily 

average values of continuously 

monitored emissions and operating 

parameters must be calculated for each 

operating day using all continuously 

monitored data, except the data 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

must be excluded from the average. The 

operating day must be the period 

defined in the operating permit or in the 

Notification of Compliance Status. 

(2) For batch process operations and 

as an alternative to the requirement for 

daily averages in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, you may determine averages for 

operating blocks while excluding the 

data specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(3) If all values of a monitored 

operating parameter, during an 

operating day or operating block, are 

below the operating limit established, 

pursuant to § 65.713, you do not have to 

calculate the daily average for the 

operating parameter. In such cases, you 

may not discard the recorded values, as 

allowed in § 65.860(a)(2). 

(4) If all values of monitored 

continuous emissions, during an 

operating day or operating block, 

reduced, as specified in § 65.711(j), are 

below the emission limit specified in 

the referencing subpart, you do not have 

to calculate the daily or block average of 

the emissions. In such cases, you may 

not discard the recorded values, as 

allowed in § 65.860(a)(2). 

(b) Excluded data. In computing 

averages to determine compliance, as 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, you must exclude monitoring 

data recorded during periods identified 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Periods of non-operation of the 

process unit (or portion thereof), 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies. 

(2) Periods of no flow to a control 

device, as recorded, pursuant to 

paragraph § 65.860(i). 

(3) Any monitoring data recorded 

during CEMS or CPMS system 

breakdowns, out-of-control periods, 

repairs, maintenance periods, 

instrument adjustments or checks to 

maintain precision and accuracy, 

calibration checks, and zero (low-level), 

mid-level (if applicable) and high-level 

adjustments. 

(c) Data averages for recording. For 

the purposes of recording and in 

addition to the averages specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, you may 

calculate hourly averages of continuous 

parameter monitoring and continuous 

emissions data from all measured values 

or, if measured more frequently than 

once per minute, from at least one 

measured value per minute. The hourly 

averages may include values of 

excluded periods, as specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. The hourly 

averages may be retained as an 

alternative to retaining records of all 

measured values if the provisions of 

§ 65.860(a)(2) are met. 

§ 65.860 What records must I keep? 

(a) Continuous monitoring data 

records. You must maintain records, as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(6) of this section, as applicable. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section, you must maintain 

a record of each measured value 

measured at least once every 15 

minutes. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, or in § 65.855(a)(4) 

through (6), you may calculate and 

record block hourly average values 

calculated, as specified in § 65.855(c) 

and discard all but the most recent 3 

hours of continuous (15-minute or 

shorter) records that do not include 

deviations that are specified in 

§ 65.710(e). If you select this method for 

retaining monitoring data, you must also 

meet the provisions of paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You must retain a file that contains 

a hard copy of the data acquisition 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18039 

system algorithm used to reduce the 

measured data into the reportable form 

of the standard and calculate the hourly 

averages. 

(ii) The 1-hour averages may include 

measurements taken during periods of 

CEMS or CPMS system breakdowns, 

out-of-control periods, repairs, 

maintenance periods, instrument 

adjustments or checks to maintain 

precision and accuracy, calibration 

checks, and zero (low-level), mid-level 

(if applicable) and high-level 

adjustments. However, you must not 

include these periods for any average 

computed to determine compliance, as 

specified in § 65.855(a). 

(iii) A record must be maintained 

stating whether the calculated 1-hour 

averages include, or do not include, 

measurements taken during periods of 

CEMS or CPMS breakdowns, out-ofcontrol periods, repairs, maintenance 

periods, instrument adjustments or 

checks to maintain precision and 

accuracy, calibration checks, and zero 

(low-level), mid-level (if applicable) and 

high-level adjustments. 

(3) The Administrator, upon 

notification to you, may require you to 

maintain all measurements, as required 

by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if the 

Administrator determines these records 

are required to more accurately assess 

the compliance status of the regulated 

source. 

(4) You must keep records of all 

applicable daily and operating block 

averages, as calculated, pursuant to 

§ 65.855(a). 

(5) You must keep records of periods 

of operation during which the daily 

average of monitored operating 

parameters, calculated as specified in 

§ 65.855(a), is outside the operating 

limits established, pursuant to § 65.713. 

(6) You must keep records of periods 

of operation during which the daily 

average of continuous emissions, 

calculated as specified in § 65.855(a), is 

above the emission standard specified 

in the referencing subpart. 

(b) Non-continuous monitoring 

records. You must keep up-to-date and 

readily accessible records, as specified 

in § 65.728(f) for catalytic oxidizers, 

§ 65.742(j) for adsorbers regenerated 

onsite, § 65.744(k) for non-regenerative 

adsorbers, § 65.746(e) for condensers, 

§ 65.760(g) for sorbent injection and 

§ 65.762(e) for fabric filters. 

(c) Performance test records. For each 

performance test conducted, pursuant to 

§§ 65.820 through 65.829, and for any 

prior performance test that is accepted 

in place of a performance test 

conducted, pursuant to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829, you must keep readily 

accessible records of the data specified 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section, as applicable, recorded over the 

full period of the performance test, as 

well as averages calculated over the full 

period of the performance test. 

(1) The records specified in 

§ 65.724(e) for boilers and process 

heaters, § 65.726(d) for thermal 

oxidizers, § 65.728(d) for catalytic 

oxidizers, § 65.740(d) for absorbers, 

§ 65.742(h) for adsorbers regenerated 

onsite, § 65.744(d) for non-regenerative 

adsorbers, § 65.746(e) for condensers, 

§ 65.748(e) for biofilters, § 65.760(e) for 

sorbent injection, § 65.762(d) for fabric 

filters and § 65.800(c) for other control 

devices. 

(2) The concentration of regulated 

material or total organic compounds 

(ppmv, by compound), as applicable, at 

the outlet of the control device, as 

specified in § 65.826; or the percent 

reduction of regulated material or total 

organic compounds, as applicable, 

achieved by the control device, as 

specified in § 65.828. 

(3) You must retain copies of the 

performance test reports during the 

period that the performance tests are 

applicable to the operating limits being 

complied with and 5 years after the time 

they become obsolete. A complete test 

report must include the items listed in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (xvii) of this 

section. A performance test is 

‘‘completed’’ when field sample 

collection is terminated. 

(i) The purpose of the test. 

(ii) A brief process description. 

(iii) A complete unit description, 

including a description of feed streams 

and control devices. 

(iv) Sampling site description. 

(v) Pollutants measured. 

(vi) Description of sampling and 

analysis procedures and any 

modifications to standard procedures. 

(vii) Quality assurance procedures. 

(viii) Record of operating conditions 

during the test, including the records 

required by paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. 

(ix) Record of preparation of 

standards. 

(x) Record of calibrations. 

(xi) Raw data sheets for field 

sampling. 

(xii) Raw data sheets for field and 

laboratory analyses. 

(xiii) Chain-of-custody 

documentation. 

(xiv) Explanation of laboratory data 

qualifiers. 

(xv) Example calculations of all 

applicable stack gas parameters, 

emission rates, percent reduction rates 

and analytical results, as applicable. 

(xvi) Any other information required 

by the test method or the Administrator. 

(xvii) Any additional information 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(d) CMS records. You must maintain 

the records specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) The CEMS performance evaluation 

and monitoring plan and the CPMS 

monitoring plan, as applicable, 

developed and implemented, as 

specified in §§ 65.711 and 65.712, 

respectively. 

(2) Results of all CEMS evaluations, as 

specified in the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan and, as 

specified in § 65.711, including the 

information listed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this section. 

(i) Raw CEMS evaluation 

measurements. 

(ii) All measurements necessary to 

determine the conditions of the CEMS 

evaluation. 

(iii) Raw performance testing 

measurements associated with relative 

accuracy tests and audits. 

(iv) Cylinder gas certifications. 

(v) Information specified to be 

recorded in the applicable performance 

specification. 

(3) Records of all calibrations, 

certifications, audits, adjustments and 

other quality control procedures 

required in the CEMS performance 

evaluation and monitoring plan or 

CPMS monitoring plan. 

(4) If you use more than one CEMS to 

measure the regulated materials from 

one emissions unit (e.g., multiple 

breechings, multiple outlets), you must 

maintain records for both CEMS. 

However, if you use one CEMS as a 

backup to another CEMS, you must 

maintain records for the CEMS used to 

meet the monitoring requirements of 

this part. 

(e) General process records. You must 

maintain records of the information 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(8) of this section. 

(1) A description of the process and 

the type of process equipment used, 

including a description of storage 

vessels, wastewater, transfer operations 

or heat exchangers that are subject to 

this subpart. 

(2) An identification of related vent 

streams, including, for batch operations, 

their associated emissions episodes. 

(3) The applicable control 

requirements of this subpart, including 

the level of required control for each 

emission point. 

(4) The control device(s) and/or 

methods used on each regulated 

emission point to meet the emission 

standard, including a description of the 

operating conditions of the control 

device. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Combined emissions that are 

routed to the same control device. 

(6) The applicable monitoring 

requirements of this subpart and the 

operating limit(s) that apply for each 

emission point routed to the control 

device. 

(7) Calculations and engineering 

analyses required to demonstrate 

compliance. 

(8) Actual total monthly process 

operating time. 

(f) Batch process records. You must 

keep records for batch process 

operations, as specified in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) You must keep a schedule or log 

of operating scenarios, updated each 

time you put a different operating 

scenario into effect. You must maintain 

records in your daily schedule or log of 

processes indicating each point at 

which an emission episode with a 

different operating limit begins and 

ends, even if the duration of the 

emission episode and the monitoring for 

an operating limit is less than 15 

minutes. 

(2) For each operating scenario, you 

must record a justification 

demonstrating that the operating limit 

selected for the operating scenario (or 

operating limits selected for the 

individual emission episodes of the 

operating scenario) will not result in 

emissions in excess of the emissions 

standards. All calculations and 

engineering analyses performed to 

develop the operating limits must be 

included in the records. For the 

purposes of this paragraph, a revised 

operating scenario for an existing 

process is considered a different 

operating scenario when one or more of 

the data elements listed in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (7) of this section have 

changed. 

(3) You must keep records of all 

emission profiles you develop according 

to § 65.822(c). You must include 

descriptions and documentation of 

worst-case operating and/or testing 

conditions for control devices. 

(4) Calculations used to demonstrate 

compliance according to §§ 65.820 

through 65.829 and, if applicable, 

§ 65.835. You must include data and 

rationale used to support an engineering 

assessment to calculate uncontrolled 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 65.835(b)(2), if applicable. 

(5) You must keep records of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(f)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section for the 

collection of all batch vent streams at 

the regulated source in compliance with 

an aggregated percent reduction 

emission limit specified in the 

referencing subpart if some of the vents 

are controlled to less than the percent 

reduction requirement. 

(i) Records of each batch operated and 

whether it was considered a standard or 

nonstandard batch. 

(ii) The estimated uncontrolled and 

controlled emissions for each 

nonstandard batch. 

(g) Records of CMS, process and 

control changes. You must maintain 

records of changes in CMS, processes 

and controls, including a description of 

the change. 

(h) Closed vent system bypass records. 

For closed vent systems subject to the 

requirements of § 65.720, you must 

maintain records of the information 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of 

this section, as applicable. 

(1) All times when flow was detected 

in the bypass line, the vent stream was 

diverted from the control device or the 

flow indicator was not operating, as 

specified in § 65.720(d)(1). 

(2) All occurrences of periods when a 

bypass of the system was indicated (the 

seal mechanism is broken, the bypass 

line valve position has changed, or the 

key for a lock-and-key type lock has 

been checked out and records of any 

car-seal that has been broken), as 

specified in § 65.720(d)(2). 

(i) Records of flow/no flow to a control 

device. You must keep records of 

periods of no flow, or no flow of 

regulated material to the control device, 

including the start and stop time and 

dates of periods of flow and no flow. If 

flow to the control device is not 

intermittent, you must record that flow 

is not intermittent and flow/no flow 

records are not required. 

(j) Records of excess emissions, 

operating parameters exceeding their 

limits, out-of-control periods and 

periods when CMS, processes or 

controls are inoperative or not operating 

properly. You must identify each 

occurrence of the periods specified in 

paragraphs (j)(1) through (6) of this 

section, include the date and time of 

commencement and completion of each 

period and the total duration (recorded 

in hours). 

(1) Periods of excess emissions. 

(2) Periods when the daily average of 

an operating parameter is outside the 

established operating limit. 

(3) Periods when CEMS or CPMS are 

out-of-control. 

(4) Periods when a CEMS or CPMS is 

not operating properly or is inoperative, 

except for zero (low-level), mid-level (if 

applicable) and high-level checks. 

(5) Periods when the process is not 

operating properly. 

(6) Periods when a control device is 

not working properly. 

(k) Records demonstrating 

compliance with a waiver of 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. You must keep a record of 

any information demonstrating whether 

you are meeting the requirements for a 

waiver of recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements under this part, if the 

source has been granted a waiver under 

§ 65.235. 

(l) Fabric filter plan. You must 

maintain a record of your corrective 

action plan, as specified in 

§ 65.762(e)(2). 

(m) Adsorber corrective action plan. 

You must maintain a record of the 

corrective action plan, as specified in 

§ 65.742(e). 

(n) Records of submittals to the 

Administrator. You must maintain 

copies of all reports, notifications and 

requests (e.g., requests or applications 

for alternative monitoring, test methods, 

test method changes, recordkeeping or 

reporting and waivers) submitted to the 

Administrator associated with this part 

and applicable referencing subparts. 

You must also maintain all 

documentation supporting submitted 

notifications and reports. 

(o) Other records. You must keep 

records of all information specified to be 

recorded in design evaluations 

prepared, pursuant to § 65.850; all data, 

assumptions and procedures used in the 

engineering assessment, pursuant to 

§ 65.830; requests and approvals for 

other control devices, pursuant to 

§ 65.800; and alternative requests and 

the Administrator’s approvals of 

alternative requests, as specified in 

§ 65.235 for recordkeeping waivers, 

§ 65.240 for alternative monitoring 

(including alternative operating 

parameters) and recordkeeping, § 65.245 

for performance test waivers and 

§ 65.250 for alternative test methods. 

Reporting 

§ 65.880 What information do I submit as 

part of my Notification of Compliance 

Status? 

You must include the information 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (g) of 

this section, as applicable, in the 

Notification of Compliance Status that 

you submit according to the procedures 

in § 65.225. 

(a) Batch operations. You must submit 

the information specified in 

§ 65.860(f)(2) through (4). 

(b) Routing emissions to a fuel gas 

system. If you elect to comply by routing 

emissions to a fuel gas system, you must 

submit a statement that the emission 

stream is connected to the fuel gas 

system. 

(c) Design evaluation and monitoring 

description. If you conduct a design 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18041 

evaluation instead of a performance test 

to demonstrate compliance with a 

referencing subpart, you must submit 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) The design evaluation and 

monitoring description specified in 

§ 65.850(c) and (d), respectively. 

(2) Any data and calculations used to 

select the operating parameters and 

establish the operating limits specified 

in 65.850(d). 

(3) The information specified in 

paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(d) Operating limit for monitored 

operating parameters. You must submit 

the information in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (3) of this section, for each 

control device requiring operating 

limits, as applicable. 

(1) The operating limit and averaging 

time for each operating parameter 

identified for each control device, as 

determined, pursuant to § 65.713 or 

§ 65.884(h), and the emission point(s) 

routed to each control device. 

(2) The rationale for the established 

operating limit for each operating 

parameter for each emission point, 

including any data and calculations 

used to develop the operating limit and 

a description of why the operating limit 

indicates proper operation of the control 

device. 

(3) A definition of the source’s 

operating day for purposes of 

determining daily average values of 

monitored operating parameters. The 

definition must specify the times at 

which an operating day begins and 

ends. The operating day must cover a 

24-hour period if operation is 

continuous. It may be from midnight to 

midnight or another daily period. For 

batch process operations, you may 

define the operating blocks, as specified 

in § 65.295, instead of an operating day. 

(e) Designating a halogen vent stream. 

You must submit a list of the vent 

streams designated as halogenated, 

pursuant to § 65.702(c)(2). 

(f) Bag leak detection system 

documentation. You must submit the 

bag leak detection system information 

specified in § 65.762(f). 

(g) Biofilter thermocouple placement 

rationale. If you use multiple 

thermocouples in representative 

locations throughout the biofilter bed to 

calculate the average biofilter bed 

temperature across these thermocouples 

prior to reducing the temperature data 

to 15 minute (or shorter) averages for 

purposes of establishing operating limits 

for the biofilter, you must submit 

rationale for their site selection. 

§ 65.882 What information must I submit in 

my semiannual periodic report? 

You must include the information 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of 

this section, as applicable, in the 

semiannual periodic report that you 

submit, according to the procedures in 

§ 65.225. 

(a) The beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period and the total 

operating time of the regulated source 

during the reporting period. 

(b) For any information reported in a 

semiannual periodic report, provide the 

identification of the process unit and/or 

emission unit the information, using the 

same terminology and identification 

numbers used in the Notification of 

Compliance Status or subsequent 

periodic report. 

(c) For CEMS and CPMS, include the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (6) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(1) For each period when a CEMS or 

CPMS is out of control, inoperative or 

not operating properly, include the date, 

the start time and the stop time of the 

period. 

(2) For each period when your CEMS 

or CPMS data does not meet the data 

availability requirements defined in 

§ 65.710(e)(4) and (5), include the date, 

the start time and the stop time of the 

period. 

(3) The daily average emission value, 

as calculated in § 65.855, for each day 

when the calculated daily average 

emission value indicated excess 

emissions, include the date, the start 

time and the stop time of the period. 

(4) The block average emission value, 

as calculated in § 65.855, for each block 

when the calculated block average value 

indicated excess emissions, include the 

date, the start time and the stop time of 

the period. 

(5) The daily average value of each 

monitored operating parameter, as 

calculated in § 65.855, that is outside 

the operating limit established 

according to § 65.713 and documented 

in your Notification of Compliance 

Status or subsequent periodic report, 

include the date, the start time and the 

stop time of the period. 

(6) The block average value of each 

monitored operating parameter, as 

calculated in § 65.855, that is outside 

the operating limit established 

according to § 65.713 and documented 

in your Notification of Compliance 

Status or subsequent periodic report, 

include the date, the start time and the 

stop time of the period. 

(d) For closed vent systems, include 

the records of periods when vent steam 

flow was detected in the bypass line or 

diverted from the control device, a flow 

indicator was not operating or a bypass 

of the system was indicated, as specified 

in § 65.860(h). 

(e) All records of daily and operating 

block averages, required in 

§ 65.860(a)(4). 

§ 65.884 What other reports must I submit 

and when? 

You must submit the reports specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this 

section, as applicable, according to the 

procedures in § 65.225. You must 

provide the identification of the process 

unit and/or emission unit information, 

using the same terminology and 

identification numbers used in the 

Notification of Compliance Status or 

subsequent report. 

(a) Performance test notification. At 

least 60 calendar days before a 

performance test is initially scheduled, 

you must notify the Administrator of 

your intention to conduct a performance 

test to allow the Administrator to have 

an observer present during the test. You 

must include the performance test plan 

required in § 65.820(b) with your 

notification to allow the Administrator 

time to review and approve the 

performance test plan. For batch process 

operations, you must include the 

emission profile(s) required in 

§ 65.822(c). If you are unable to conduct 

the performance test on the date 

specified in a performance test 

notification, due to unforeseeable 

circumstances beyond your control, you 

must notify the Administrator as soon as 

practicable and without delay prior to 

the scheduled performance test date and 

specify the date when the performance 

test is rescheduled. 

(b) Submission of performance test 

reports. Within 60 calendar days of 

completing a performance test, you 

must submit a performance test report 

with the information specified in 

§ 65.860(c)(3). 

(c) CEMS performance evaluation 

notification and monitoring plan. If you 

use a CEMS, you must submit a 

notification of the date the CEMS 

performance evaluation under 

§ 65.711(c) is scheduled to begin, along 

with the CEMS performance evaluation 

and monitoring plan. The notification 

and plan must be submitted according 

to the schedule specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) If you are conducting a 

performance test, you must submit the 

notification and plan simultaneously 

with the notification of the performance 

test date required in paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(2) If you are not conducting a 

performance test, you must submit the 

notification and plan at least 60 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

calendar days before the CEMS 

performance evaluation is scheduled to 

begin, as specified by the referencing 

subpart, or on a mutually agreed upon 

date. 

(3) If you are unable to conduct the 

CEMS performance evaluation on the 

date specified in the notification 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of 

this section, due to unforeseeable 

circumstances beyond your control, you 

must notify the Administrator as soon as 

practicable and without delay prior to 

the scheduled CEMS performance 

evaluation date and specify the date 

when the evaluation is rescheduled. 

(d) Submission of CEMS performance 

evaluations. Within 60 calendar days of 

completing a CEMS performance 

evaluation, pursuant to § 65.711, and 

your CEMS performance evaluation and 

monitoring plan, you must submit the 

results of the CEMS performance 

evaluation. 

(e) CPMS monitoring plan submittal. 

If you use a CPMS, you must submit the 

CPMS monitoring plan required in 

§ 65.712(c), 60 days prior to the 

performance test, with the performance 

test notification and test plan specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section, except 

as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) If no performance test is required, 

submit your CPMS monitoring plan 60 

days prior to your compliance date. 

(2) If you submit an application 

specified in § 65.884(f) to use a prior 

performance test, submit your CPMS 

monitoring plan with the application to 

use the prior performance test. 

(3) If you are making a change to a 

previously submitted monitoring plan, 

submit the revised monitoring plan 60 

days before you intend to implement the 

revised plan. 

(f) Application to substitute a prior 

performance test. You must submit an 

application to the Administrator for 

approval if you would like to substitute 

a prior performance test for an initial 

performance test, as allowed by 

§ 65.702(e)(4). The application must be 

submitted no later than 90 days before 

the performance test is required. The 

application must include all 

documentation required by the 

applicable test methods specified in 

§ 65.825 and all documentation of 

monitoring during the performance test 

that supports the operating parameters 

for which you establish limits. Your 

application must document that the 

prior test was conducted using the same 

sample times or volumes required by 

the referencing subpart and the methods 

required by the referencing subpart or 

Table 5 of this subpart. Your prior test 

report must include all of the 

information required by § 65.860(c). The 

application must also include 

information demonstrating that no 

process changes were made since the 

test, or that the results of the 

performance test or compliance 

assessment reliably demonstrates 

compliance despite process changes. 

(g) Batch pre-compliance report. You 

must submit a batch pre-compliance 

report, which includes a description of 

the test conditions, data, calculations 

and other information used to establish 

operating limits according to § 65.713 

for all batch operations, and a 

description of why each operating limit 

indicates the control device is meeting 

the specified emission limit of the 

referencing subpart during each specific 

emission episode. If you use an 

engineering assessment, as specified in 

§ 65.835(b)(2), you must also include 

data or other information supporting a 

finding that the emissions estimation 

equations in § 65.835 are inappropriate. 

You must submit the batch precompliance report according to the 

schedule in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section. The Administrator will approve 

or disapprove your report, as specified 

in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. You 

must notify the Administrator of any 

changes to the report according to the 

schedule in paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 

(1) You must submit the report for 

approval at least 6 months prior to the 

compliance date of the referencing 

subpart, or with the permit application 

for modification, construction or 

reconstruction. 

(2) We will either approve or 

disapprove the report within 90 days 

after we receive it. If we disapprove the 

report, you must still be in compliance 

with the emission limitations and work 

practice standards of the referencing 

subpart by the compliance date of the 

referencing subpart. 

(3) To change any of the information 

submitted in the report, you must 

submit a revised report 60 days before 

the planned change is to be 

implemented in order to allow time for 

review and approval by the 

administrator before the change is 

implemented. 

(h) Requests for approval of different 

operating parameters. You may request 

approval to monitor a different 

operating parameter than those 

specified for control devices in this 

subpart; and you must propose 

operating parameters for any control 

device not specified in this subpart, as 

specified in § 65.800. These requests 

must contain the information specified 

in paragraphs (h)(1) through (8) of this 

section, and you must comply with 

paragraph (h)(9) of this section. 

(1) A description of the operating 

parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure 

the control technology or pollution 

prevention measure is operated in 

conformance with its design and 

achieves the emission limit, as specified 

in the referencing subpart. Specify the 

applicable averaging time(s) for the 

operating parameter(s) and an 

explanation of the criteria used to select 

the operating parameter(s) and 

averaging times. 

(2) A description of the methods and 

procedures that will be used to 

demonstrate that the operating 

parameter indicates proper operation of 

the control device and the schedule for 

this demonstration. 

(3) For parameter monitoring that 

does not generate continuous data, 

include the monitoring results that 

demonstrate that the device is outside 

the established limit. 

(4) The frequency and content of 

monitoring, recording and reporting. 

(5) If continuous records are specified, 

indicate whether the provisions of 

§§ 65.712 and 65.713 apply. 

(6) The rationale for the proposed 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting system. 

(7) If your request includes a proposal 

to use a control device other than those 

listed in this subpart, your request must 

include a description of the proposed 

control device and your proposed 

operating parameters. 

(8) A statement that you will establish 

an operating limit for the monitored 

operating parameter(s) as part of the 

Notification of Compliance Status or a 

semiannual periodic report. 

(9) You must submit the request for 

this approval according to the 

procedures specified for alternative 

monitoring in § 65.240. 

(i) Changes in CMS, processes or 

controls. For changes specified in 

§ 65.702(f), or whenever you change any 

of the information submitted in the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

Report or a subsequent report, you must 

report the information specified in 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section, 

within 30 days of completing the 

process change. 

(1) A description of the change. 

(2) Revisions to any of the information 

reported in the Notification of 

Compliance Status Report specified in 

§ 65.880, or subsequent report. 

(j) New operating scenarios for batch 

operations. For batch operations, you 

must report the information specified in 

§ 65.860(f)(2) for each new operating 

scenario that has not been reported in 

the Notification of Compliance Status or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18043 

a previous report, within 30 days of implementing the new operating 

scenario. 

List of Tables in Subpart M of Part 65 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—CEMS MONITORING

For all control 

devices, you 

must . . . 

If . . . At this location . . . To . . . And the monitoring equipment 

must . . . 

Install CEMS .. The referencing subpart requires the use of CEMS or 

you choose not to conduct 

the monitoring according to 

Table 2 to this subpart.

At a spot representative of 

the exhaust stream of the 

control device.

Measure the compound required by the referencing 

subpart.

Be capable of measuring the 

compounds required by the 

referencing subpart; and 

meet the requirements in 

§ 65.711. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—MONITORING EQUIPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CEMS MONITORING

You must do the following . . . If . . . And you must monitor . . . And . . . 

Small Boilers and Process Heaters 

Install a CPMS for temperature in 

the fire box.

Temperature in the firebox.

Thermal Oxidizers 

Install a CPMS for temperature in 

the fire box or in the ductwork 

immediately downstream of the 

fire box in a position before any 

substantial heat exchange occurs.

Temperature in the firebox or 

ductwork.

Catalytic Oxidizers 

Install a CPMS for temperature in 

the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed.

You choose to monitor the temperature differential across the 

catalyst bed, rather than temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed.

Temperature differential across 

the catalyst bed.

Install a CPMS for temperature at 

the inlet of the catalyst bed.

You choose to monitor the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed, rather than the temperature differential across the 

catalyst bed; and the temperature differential between the 

inlet and outlet of the catalytic 

oxidizer during normal operating conditions is less than 10 

degrees Celsius (18 degrees 

Fahrenheit).

Temperature at the inlet of the 

catalyst bed.

You must conduct catalyst checks 

according to § 65.728(a)(1) and 

(2). 

All Absorbers 

Install a CPMS for liquid flow at 

the inlet of the absorber.

You choose to monitor only the 

influent liquid flow, rather than 

the liquid-to-gas ratio.

Influent liquid flow.

Install CPMS for liquid and gas 

flow at the inlet of the absorber.

You choose to monitor the liquidto-gas ratio, rather than only the 

influent liquid flow; and you 

want the ability to lower liquid 

flow with changes in gas flow.

Liquid-to-gas ratio as determined 

by dividing the influent liquid 

flow rate by the inlet gas flow 

rate. The units of measure must 

be consistent with those used 

to calculate this ratio during the 

performance test.

You must measure the gas 

stream by: 

(A) Measuring the gas stream 

flow at the absorber inlet; or 

(B) Using the design blower capacity, with appropriate adjustments for pressure drop; or 

(C) If the absorber is subject to 

regulations in 40 CFR parts 264 

through 266 that require a determination of the liquid-to-gas 

ratio prior to the applicable 

compliance date, as specified in 

a referencing subpart, determine the gas stream flow by the 

method that had been used to 

comply with those regulations if 

it is still representative. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—MONITORING EQUIPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CEMS MONITORING—Continued 

You must do the following . . . If . . . And you must monitor . . . And . . . 

Install CPMS for pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of 

the absorber.

Your pressure drop through the 

absorber is greater than 5 

inches of water.

Pressure drop through the absorber.

Acid Gas Absorbers 

Install a CPMS for pH at the absorber liquid effluent.pH of the absorber liquid effluent.

Absorbers Controlling Particulate and/or Metal Regulated Materials 

Install CPMS for temperature at 

the absorber gas stream outlet.

Your pressure drop through the 

absorber is 5 inches of water or 

less.

Exit gas temperature of the absorber.

Install CPMS for temperature at 

the absorber gas stream inlet.

Your pressure drop through the 

absorber is 5 inches of water or 

less, and you choose not to 

monitor the specific gravity of 

liquid stream at inlet and exit of 

the absorber, or liquid inlet feed 

pressure of the absorber.

Inlet gas temperature of the absorber.

Install CPMS for specific gravity at 

the absorber liquid stream inlet 

and outlet.

The difference between the specific gravity of the saturated 

scrubbing fluid and specific 

gravity of the fresh scrubbing 

fluid is greater than 0.02 specific gravity units; and your 

pressure drop through the absorber is 5 inches of water or 

less; and you choose not to 

monitor the inlet gas temperature of the absorber, or liquid 

inlet feed pressure of the absorber.

Specific gravity of liquid stream at 

inlet and exit of the absorber.

Install CPMS for pressure at the 

absorber liquid stream inlet.

Your pressure drop through the 

absorber is 5 inches of water or 

less, and you choose not to 

monitor the inlet gas temperature of the absorber, or specific 

gravity of liquid stream at inlet 

and exit of the absorber.

Liquid inlet feed pressure of the 

absorber.

Absorbers Not Controlling Acid Gas, Particulates and Metal Regulated Materials 

Install CPMS for chemical strength 

at the inlet liquid stream of the 

absorber.

You are using a scrubbing liquid 

other than water.

Chemical strength at the inlet liquid stream to the absorber.

Install CPMS for flow rate of the 

chemical at the chemical stream 

inlet.

You are using a scrubbing liquid 

other than water.

Chemical flow rate.

Install CPMS for temperature at 

the absorber gas stream outlet.

You are using water as the scrubbing liquid; and your pressure 

drop through the absorber is 5 

inches of water or less.

Exit gas temperature of the absorber.

Install CPMS for temperature at 

the absorber gas stream inlet.

You are using water as the scrubbing liquid; and your pressure 

drop through the absorber is 5 

inches of water or less; and you 

choose not to monitor the liquid 

inlet feed pressure of the absorber.

Inlet gas temperature of the absorber.

Install CPMS for pressure at the 

absorber liquid stream inlet.

You are using water as the scrubbing liquid; and your pressure 

drop through the absorber is 5 

inches of water or less; and you 

choose not to monitor the inlet 

gas temperature of the absorber.

Liquid inlet feed pressure of the 

absorber.


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18045 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—MONITORING EQUIPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CEMS MONITORING—Continued 

You must do the following . . . If . . . And you must monitor . . . And . . . 

Adsorbers Regenerated On Site 

Install a CPMS for mass flow ........ You operate a non-vacuum regeneration system.Total regeneration stream mass 

flow for each regeneration cycle.

Install a CPMS for temperature in 

the adsorber bed..

You operate a non-vacuum regeneration system.The adsorber bed temperature 

after each regeneration and 

within 15 minutes of completing 

any temperature regulation 

(cooling or warming to bring 

bed temperature closer to vent 

gas temperature) portion of the 

regeneration cycle.

Install a CPMS for temperature in 

the adsorber bed..

You operate a non-vacuum regeneration system.The adsorber bed temperature 

during regeneration, except during any temperature regulating 

(cooling or warming to bring 

bed temperature closer to vent 

gas temperature) portion of the 

regeneration cycle.

Install a CPMS for pressure in the 

vacuum pump suction line.

You operate a vacuum regeneration system.Vacuum level for each minute 

during regeneration. You must 

establish a minimum target and 

a length of time at which the 

vacuum must be below the minimum target during regeneration.

Install a frequency monitoring device.You operate any type of regeneration system.Regeneration frequency (i.e., operating time since last regeneration) and duration.

Non-Regenerative Adsorbers 

Install a system of dual adsorber 

units in series.

The concentration of volatile organic compounds or regulated 

material(s) through a sample 

port at the outlet of the first 

adsorber bed in series.

Measure the concentration of 

volatile organic compounds 

through a sample port using a 

portable analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, for 

open-ended lines. 

Measure the concentration of regulated material(s) through a 

sample port using either: 

Chromatographic analysis and 

Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A using a calibration 

gas or gas mixture containing 

the compounds present in the 

adsorber vent gas; or a flame 

ionization analyzer and Method 

25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 using propane as the 

calibration gas. 

Condensers 

Install a CPMS for temperature in 

the condensate receiver.

Temperature of the condensate 

receiver.

Biofilters 

Install CPMS for temperature in 

the biofilter bed.

Biofilter bed temperature .............. You must include the rationale for 

the placement of the CPMS for 

temperature in the Notification 

of Compliance Status Report, 

pursuant to § 65.880(g). 

Install CPMS for moisture content 

in the biofilter bed.

Biofilter bed moisture content.

Install CPMS for pressure at the 

inlet and outlet of the biofilter 

bed.

Pressure drop through the biofilter 

bed.


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18046 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—MONITORING EQUIPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CEMS MONITORING—Continued 

You must do the following . . . If . . . And you must monitor . . . And . . . 

Sorbent Injection 

Install a CPMS for flow .................. Sorbent injection rate.

Install a CPMS for flow .................. Sorbent injection carrier gas flow 

rate.

Install a CPMS for temperature ..... You are operating a combustion 

device upstream of the sorbent 

injection system.

Temperature in the ductwork immediately downstream of the 

fire box of the combustion device.

Install a CPMS for temperature ..... You are using a particulate matter 

control device upstream of the 

adsorbent injection system.

Temperature in the ductwork immediately downstream of the 

particulate matter control device.

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as 

specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must monitor 

. . . 

Establish the following operating limit during your 

performance test . . . 

Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies. 

Data measurement Data recording Data averaging period for 

compliance 

Small Boilers and Process Heaters 

Temperature in the fire box Minimum temperature ....... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Thermal Oxidizers 

Temperature in the fire box 

or downstream ductwork 

prior to heat exchange.

Minimum temperature ....... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Catalytic Oxidizers 

Temperature differential 

across catalyst bed.

Minimum temperature differential.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Temperature at the inlet to 

catalyst bed and condition of the catalyst.

Minimum inlet temperature 

and catalyst condition as 

specified in § 65.728(a) 

(1) and (2).

Continuous for temperature; frequency determined in accordance 

with § 65.728(a)(1)(ii) for 

sampling and analysis of 

the catalyst; and annual 

for internal inspections 

of catalyst bed.

Every 15 minutes for temperature; frequency determined in accordance 

with § 65.728(a)(1)(ii) for 

sampling and analysis of 

the catalyst; and annual 

for internal inspections 

of catalyst bed.

Daily for temperature; frequency determined in 

accordance with 

§ 65.728(a)(1)(ii) for 

sampling and analysis of 

the catalyst; and annual 

for internal inspections 

of catalyst bed. 

All Absorbers 

Influent liquid flow .............. Minimum inlet liquid flow ... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Influent liquid flow rate and 

gas stream flow rate.

Minimum influent liquid-togas ratio.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Pressure drop .................... Pressure drop range ......... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Acid Gas Absorbers 

pH of effluent liquid ........... Minimum pH ...................... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Absorbers Controlling Particulate and/or Metal Regulated Materials 

Exit gas temperature ......... Maximum exit gas temperature.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Inlet gas temperature ........ Temperature range of temperature difference between inlet and exit gas.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Specific gravity .................. Range of specific gravity 

difference between inlet 

and outlet scrubbing liquid.

Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Liquid feed pressure .......... Pressure range ................. Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18047 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES—Continued 

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as 

specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must monitor 

. . . 

Establish the following operating limit during your 

performance test . . . 

Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies. 

Data measurement Data recording Data averaging period for 

compliance 

Absorbers Not Controlling Acid Gas, Particulates, and Metal Regulated Materials 

Chemical strength of influent liquid stream.Minimum chemical 

strength.

Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Chemical flow rate ............. Minimum flow rate ............. Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Exit gas temperature ......... Maximum exit gas temperature.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Inlet gas temperature ........ Temperature range of temperature difference between inlet and exit gas.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Liquid feed pressure .......... Pressure range ................. Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Adsorbers Regenerated On Site 

Total regeneration stream 

mass flow for each generation cycle.

Minimum total flow per regeneration cycle.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes during 

regeneration cycle.

Total flow for each regeneration cycle. 

Adsorber bed temperature 

after each regeneration.

Maximum temperature ...... Continuously after regeneration and within 15 

minutes of completing 

any temperature regulation.

Every 15 minutes after regeneration and within 15 

minutes of completing 

any temperature regulation.

Daily. 

Adsorber bed temperature 

during regeneration.

Minimum temperature ....... Continuously during regeneration except during 

any temperature regulating portion of the regeneration cycle.

Every 15 minutes during 

regeneration cycle.

Average of regeneration 

cycle. 

Vacuum and duration of 

regeneration.

Minimum vacuum and period of time for regeneration.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes during 

regeneration cycle.

Average vacuum and duration of regeneration. 

Regeneration frequency .... Minimum regeneration frequency and duration.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes during 

regeneration cycle.

Date and time of regeneration start and stop. 

Adsorber operation valve 

sequencing and cycle 

time.

Correct valve sequencing 

and minimum cycle time.

Daily .................................. Daily .................................. N/A. 

Non-Regenerative Adsorbers 

Outlet VOC concentration 

or regulated material 

concentration of the first 

adsorber bed in series.

Breakthrough limit as determined by the referencing subpart.Daily, except as provided 

in § 65.744(a)(2).

Daily, except as provided 

in § 65.744(a)(2).

N/A. 

Average adsorber bed life N/A .................................... Daily until breakthrough for 

3 adsorber bed changeouts.

Calculated average bed 

life.

N/A. 

Condensers 

Gas temperature at the 

exit of the condenser.

Maximum outlet gas temperature.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Sorbent Injection 

Sorbent injection rate ........ Minimum injection rate ...... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Sorbent injection carrier 

gas flow rate.

Minimum carrier gas flow 

rate.

Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Temperature in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox of 

the combustion device.

Minimum temperature ....... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Temperature in the ductwork immediately downstream of the particulate 

matter control device.

Minimum temperature ....... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES—Continued 

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as 

specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must monitor 

. . . 

Establish the following operating limit during your 

performance test . . . 

Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies. 

Data measurement Data recording Data averaging period for 

compliance 

Fabric Filters 

Alarm time ......................... Maximum alarm time is not 

established on a sitespecific basis but is 

specified in 

§ 65.762(a)(9).

Continuous ........................ Each date and time of 

alarm start and stop.

Maximum alarm time specified in § 65.762(a)(9). 

Biofilter 

Biofilter bed temperature ... Temperature range ........... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes; if you 

use multiple temperature 

monitoring devices, you 

must calculate the average biofilter bed temperature across the temperature devices prior to 

reducing the temperature data to 15 minute 

averages.

Daily. 

Biofilter bed moisture content.Moisture content range ..... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Pressure drop through the 

biofilter bed.

Minimum pressure drop .... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—CALIBRATION AND QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR CPMS 

If you monitor this parameter 

. . . Your accuracy requirements are . . . Your calibration requirements are . . . 

Temperature ......................... ±1 percent over the normal range of temperature measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), 

whichever is greater, for non-cryogenic temperature 

ranges.

±2.5 percent over the normal range of temperature 

measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater, for cryogenic temperature ranges.

Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the temperature exceeded the maximum rated temperature 

of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation every 

3 months, unless the CPMS has a redundant temperature sensor. 

Select a representative measurement location. 

Flow Rate ............................. ±2 percent over the normal range of flow measured or 

1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons per minute), whichever is greater, for liquid flow rate.

±2 percent over the normal range of flow measured or 

28 liters per minute (10 cubic feet per minute), whichever is greater, for gas flow rate.

±2 percent over the normal range measured for mass 

flow rate.

Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the flow 

rate exceeded the maximum rated flow rate of the 

sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. Checks of 

all mechanical connections for leakage monthly. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation every 

3 months, unless the CPMS has a redundant flow 

sensor. 

Select a representative measurement location where 

swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 

upstream and downstream disturbances at the point 

of measurement are minimized. 

pH ......................................... ±0.2 pH units. .................................................................. Performance check daily. Performance evaluation, including a two-point calibration with one of the two 

buffer solutions having a pH within 1 of the pH of the 

operating limit, every 3 months. 

Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation 

monthly, unless the CPMS has a redundant pH sensor. 

Select a measurement location that provides a representative sample of absorber effluent and that ensures the fluid is properly mixed. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18049 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—CALIBRATION AND QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR CPMS—Continued 

If you monitor this parameter 

. . . Your accuracy requirements are . . . Your calibration requirements are . . . 

Pressure ............................... ±1 percent over the normal range measured or 0.12 

kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever 

is greater.

Checks for obstructions at least once each process operating day (e.g., pressure tap pluggage). 

Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the 

pressure exceeded the maximum rated pressure of 

the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. 

Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage 

monthly. Visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and galvanic corrosion every 3 

months, unless the CPMS has a redundant pressure 

sensor. 

Select a representative measurement location that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and 

internal and external corrosion. 

Sorbent Injection Rate ......... ±5 percent over the normal range measured ................. Performance evaluation annually. Visual inspections 

and checks of CPMS operation every 3 months, unless the CPMS has a redundant sensor. 

Select a representative measurement location that provides measurement of total sorbent injection. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR VENT

STREAMS

For each control device used to meet . . . You must use . . . And you must . . . 

Specific organic regulated material compound 

outlet concentration or percent reduction 

emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.

Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6; 

or.

ASTM D6420–99(2010) Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic 

Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry.

(incorporated by reference, see § 65.265), 

under the conditions specified in 

§ 65.825(a); or 

Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A 

under the conditions specified in § 65.825(c).

Follow the exceptions provided in § 65.825(d) 

and (e), as applicable. 

A total organic compounds emission limit (either outlet concentration or percent reduction) 

specified in a referencing subpart.

Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 

under the conditions specified in 

§ 65.825(b).

Follow the exceptions provided in § 65.825(d) 

and (e), as applicable. 

A metal regulated material emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.

A filterable particulate matter emission limit 

specified in a referencing subpart.

Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3.

A total (filterable plus condensable) particulate 

matter emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.

Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 

and Method 202 at 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.

A total (filterable plus condensable) fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emission limit specified in 

a referencing subpart.

Methods 201A and 202 at 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix M, if no entrained water droplets 

exist in the stack. If the stack contains entrained water droplets (e.g., immediately 

after a wet scrubber), use Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3 with a filter 

temperature of 320 degrees Fahrenheit ± 

25 degrees Fahrenheit and 

Method 202 at 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.

A hydrogen halide and halogen emission limit 

specified in a referencing subpart (either outlet concentration or percent reduction).

Method 26 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

under conditions specified in § 65.825(f); or 

Method 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

8; or 

Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A 

under the conditions specified in § 65.825(c).

Halogen atom mass emission rate or percent 

reduction emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.

Method 26 at 40 CFR part 60, under conditions specified in § 65.825(f); or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8; or Method 320 

at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A under the 

conditions specified in § 65.825(c); and 

Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6.

A dioxins/furans emission limit specified in a 

referencing subpart.

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7.


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART M OF PART 65—METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR VENT

STREAMS—Continued 

For each control device used to meet . . . You must use . . . And you must . . . 

An emission limit for a batch and/or continuous 

process operation.

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F or 2G at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2.

Determine gas velocity and volumetric flow 

rate. 

Method 3, 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2; or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see § 65.265).

Conduct gas molecular weight analysis and 

correction to standard percent oxygen (if 

applicable). 

Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 ... Measure gas moisture content. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5760 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS