p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

213) ll-J-6 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 213 of 276 
P.2 

JA mn 

lic--*'i . r 

Monda.

 II_J "6 

January 5, 1981 

'j l ^ I. VJI Ui J •- _»-» -

Part V 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

Fugitive Emission Sources in the 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals 

Manufacturing Industry 

'% 
P.3 

1138 Federal Rwastar / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rtilea 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

(AO-FT.*. 1Q33-31 

Standards of Psr.ormaf.ee for New 

Stationary Sources; VCC Fugitive 

Emission Sources; Synthetic Organic 

Chemicals Manufacturing Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The proposed standards 

would limit emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) from fugitive 

emission sources in the synthetic 

organic chemicals manufacturing 

industry (SOCMI). SOCMI is a portion 

of the organic chemical industry which • 

produces the group of chemicals listed 

in Appendix E. These proposed 

standards would (1) require a leak 

detection and repair program to reduce 

VOC emissions from valves and (2) 

specify the use of certain equipment to 

reduce VOC emissions from pumps, 

compressors, sampling connections, and 

open-ended lines, the proposed 

standards would also prohibit leaks 

from safety/relief valves during normal 

operations. The standards would apply 

only to equipment that contains 10 

percent or more VOC Reference Method 

21 and Appendix E are being proposed 

with the standards. 

The proposed standards implement 

the Clean Air Act and are based on die 

Administrator's determination that 

fugitive emission sources of VOC in 

SOCMI contribute significantly to air 

pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare. As required by Section 111 of 

ihe Clean Air Act. the proposed 

standards are intended to require new, 

modified, and reconstructed sources in 

SOCMI to use the beat demonstrated 

system of continuous emission 

reduction, considering casts, nonair 

quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. 

A public hearing will be held to 

provide interested persons an 

opportunity for oral presentation of 

data, views, or arguments concerning 

the proposed standards. 

DATES: Comments, comments must be 

received by April d. 1981. 

Public Hearing. A public hearing will 

be held on March 3.1981. beginning at 9 

a.m. 

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons 

wishing to present oral testimony should 

contact EPA by March 24. 1981. 

AOOfmsses: Comments. Comments 

should be submitted (in duplicate if 

possible) to: Central Docket Section (A130), Attention: Docket No. A-79-32, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

401 M Street S.W.. Washington. D.C 

2046a 

Public Hearing. The public hearing 

will be held at the EPA Administration 

Bldg. Auditorium Research Triangie 

Park North Carolina. 

Persons wishing to present oral 

testimony-should notify Ms. Naomi 

Durkee. Emissions Standards & 

Engineering Branch (MD-13), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangie Park. North Carolina 

27711. telephone number (919) 541-5271. 

Background Information Document 

The Background Infonnation Document 

(BID) for the proposed standards may be 

obtained from the U.S. EPA Library 

(MD-35), Research Triangle Park. North 

Carolina 27711. telephone number (919) 

541-2777. Please refer to VOC Fugitive 

Emissions in the Synthetic Organic 

Chemicals Manufacturing industry— 

Background Information For Proposed 

Standards. EPA-450/3-3O-033a. 

Docket Docket No. A-79-32, 

containing supporting information used 

in developing the proposed standards, is 

available for public inspection and 

copying between 8:00 a_m. and 4:00 p.m.. 

Monday through Friday, at EPA's 

Central Docket Section. West Tower 

Lobby. Gallery l. Waterside Mall. 401 M 

Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C 2046a A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

FOR FUF*TMEB INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Susan Wyatt Emission Standards 

and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangie Park. North Carolina 

27711. telephone number (919) 541-5477. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Standards 

The proposed standards of 

performance would apply to fugitive 

emission sources within process units 

operated to produce one or more of die 

organic chemicals listed in proposed 

Appendix E. Certain equipment 

processing VOC liquids and gases 

would be covered by the standards. 

Implementation of the proposed 

standards would reduce fugitive 

emissions of VOC from pumps, 

compressors, valves, sampling 

connections, safety/relief valves, and 

open-ended valves in VOC service. The 

proposed standards would require: (1) a 

leak detection and repair program for inline vaives in gas and light liquid VOC 

service: (2) certain equipment for certain 

fugitive emission sources in VOC 

service: and (3) no detectable VOC • 

emissions from safety/relief valves in 

VOC service during normal operation. 

VOC service means that a fugitive 

emission source contains or contacts a 

process fluid composed of equal to or 

greater than 10 percent VOC by weight. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would provide a procedure for 

determining tiie equivalency of 

alternative control measures. 

The proposed standards include » 

"leak detection and repair program that 

would require monthly monitoring for 

vaives in gas and light liquid service. 

Valves found not to leak for two 

successive months could be monitored 

quarterly. Monitoring would be 

conducted in accordance with Reference 

Method 21 which is being proposed with 

these proposed standards. The proposed 

standards wouid require, repair of 

leaking valves within 15 days after 

detection of the leak unless repair wouid 

require a process unit shutdown. A Leak 

is defined a3 a detectable VOC 

concentration equal to or greater than 

10,000 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). An initial attempt at rcprorma 

these vaives wouid be required within 5 

days after detection ot* a leak. 

Two alternative standards have been 

provided for valves in gas and Hght 

liquid service. A plant owner or operator 

might elect to comply with one of the 

alternative standards which would be 

based on data gathered during one 

year's monthly monitoring ki his 

affected facility. The first alternative 

standard would provide an allowable 

percentage of valves leaking. The 

second alternative standard would 

provide for the use of a different leak 

detection and repair program which 

would achieve the same level ot control 

as the program designed by EPA. 

The proposed standards would 

require pumps in light liquid service to 

be equipped with dual mechanical seal 

systems that include a carrier fluid 

system. The barrier fluid would be 

required to be something other than a 

light liquid or gaseous VOC Li-^ht 

liquids are denned as VOC liquids with 

vapor pressures greater than 0.3 kPa at 

20*C. Each barrier fluid system would be 

equipped with a sensor so that failure of 

the inner and outer seals could be 

detected. In addition, each barrier fluid 

system wouid be operated at a pressuregreater than the seal area pressure or 

would be equipped with a barrier fluid 

degassing reservoir. The deqassing 

reservoir wouid be connected, by a 

closed vent system, to a control device 

-javing a VOC control efficiency of a: 

least 95 percent. The proposed 

standards would also require weekly 
—IT — rywymn •_.._• P.4 

Fedsgai Registeg / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 113'. 

visual inspections of the seals on light 

Liquid pumps in order to identify failure 

of the outer seal. Repair of the pump 

would be required within 15 days after a 

seal failure or leak was detected unless 

repair wouid require a process unit 

shutdown. The first attempt at repairing 

the pump wouid be required within 5 

days after detection of the leak. If a 

pump could not be equipped with dual 

mechanical seals and a barrier fluid 

system, a closed vent system would be 

required to transport leakage to a „ 

control device having a VOC control 

efficiency of at least 95 percent. 

The proposed standards would 

require compressors to be equipped with 

seals having a barrier fluid system that 

prevents leakage of the process fluid to 

the atmosphere. The barrier fluid would 

be required to be something other than a 

light liquid or gaseous VOC. These 

standards would also require each 

barrier fluid system either to operate at 

a pressure greater than the compressor 

seal area pressure or to be equipped 

with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir. 

The degassing reservoir would be 

connected by a closed vent system to a 

control device having a VOC control 

efficiency of at least 95 percent The 

proposed standards would require each 

barrier fluid system to be equipped with 

a sensor so that seal failures may be 

detected. When seal failure is detected, 

repair would be required within 15 days 

unless repair would require a process 

unit shutdown. An initial attempt at 

repair would be required within 5 days. 

If a compressor could not be equipped 

with a barrier fluid system, a closed 

vent system would be required to 

transport leakage from the seal to an 

enclosed combustion source or vapor 

recovery system having a VOC control 

efficiency of at least 95 percent. 

The proposed standards would 

require that VOCs purged from 

sampling connections be recycled to the 

process by a closed sampling loop. 

Alternatively these VOCs could be 

collected in a closed collection system 

for recycle or disposal without VOC 

emissions to atmosphere In-situ 

sampling systems would be exempt from 

these requirements. 

The proposed standards would 

require that safety/relief valves have 

"no detectable emissions'' of VOC 

except in cases of pressure relief. "No 

detectable emissions" of VOC in this 

case means 200 ppm or less above the 

background level as measured by 

Reference Method 21. After each 

overpressure relief, the proposed 

standards would require the safety/ 

relief vaives to be returned to a state of 

no detectable emissions within 5 days. 

Open-ended lines would be required 

to be sealed with a second valve, cap, 

blind flange or plug except when, the 

open-ended line is in use. If a second 

valve is used, the valve on the process 

side would be required to be closed first ' 

to avoid trapping VOC between the 

valves. 

Cooling towers, agitator seals, and 

equipment not in VOC service would 

not be covered by the proposed 

standards. Flanges, safety/relief valves 

in liquid service, equipment operating at 

subatmospheric pressures and all 

equipment components in "heavy 

liquid" VOC service, would be excluded 

from the routine monitoring 

requirements of the proposed standards. 

Heavy liquids are defined as VOC 

liquids with vapor pressure less than 0.3 

kPa at 20* C However, the proposed 

standards would require VOC leaks 

which were visually or otherwise 

detected from these sources in VOC 

service to be repaired within 15 days 

after the leak is confirmed using 

Reference Method 21. 

Compliance with the proposed leak 

detection and repair program and 

equipment requirements would be 

assessed through review of records and 

reports and by inspection. Each owner/ 

operator would report quarterly the 

number of leaks found and repaired 

during the quarter. Each owner/operator 

would also submit quarterly a signed 

report stating that all monitoring had 

been performed in accordance with the 

standards, all specified equipment had 

been installed and operated in 

accordance with the standards, and all 

emission limits had been met. 

Under the proposed standards, any 

owner or operator of a facility subject to 

the standards could request that the 

Administrator determine the 

equivalence of any alternative means of 

emission limitation to the equipment 

design, operational and work practice 

requirements of the proposed standards. 

Upon receiving a request for 

determination of equivalence, the 

Administrator would provide an 

opportunity for public hearing. After 

such a hearing, the Administrator would 

make a decision and publish the 

decision in the Federal Register. 

Summary of Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Impacts 

The proposed standards of 

performance would reduce fugitive 

emissions of VOC from new and 

modified process units in SOCMI by 

approximately 87 percent in comparison 

to those emissions that would result in 

the absence of the proposed standards. 

In the fifth year after implementation the 

proposed standards would reduce the 

total uncontrolled fugitive emissions 

from new, reconstructed and modified 

process units from approximately 200 tc 

26 gigagrams (Gg). 

The proposed standards of 

performance would not increase the 

energy usage of SOCMI process units. L 

general the controls-required by the 

standards do not require much energy. 

Furthermore, the effect of the standards 

would be to increase efficiency of raw 

material usage, so that a net positive 

energy impact would result 

Implementation of the proposed 

standards could result in a minor 

negative contribution to solid'waste. 

However, the standards would also 

cause a positive impact on water qualit 

by containment of potential liquid leak: 

The economic impact of the propbsec 

standards would be reasonable. The 

proposed standards would require of th 

producers of SOCMI chemicals a capita 

investment ranging from S41 million in 

1981 to S52 million in 1985. The total 

industry-wide capital investment over 

the five-year period would be 

. approximately S232 million. The 

industry-wide net annualized cost wou. 

range from about $2 million in 1981 to 

about Sll million in 1985. This net 

annualized cost includes a credit 

resulting from "recovered" fugitive 

emissions. The costs would be 

distributed among 830 facilities affecte: 

during the five year period. Industrywide price increases are not expected : 

result from implementation of these 

standards. 

Rationale 

Selection of Sources and Pollutants 

The synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry (SOCMI) sourc 

category ranked first on the Priority Li_ 

40 CFR 60.16 (44 FR 49222. August 21. 

1979), of 59 major source categories for 

which standards of performance are to 

be promulgated by 1982. The Priority 

List consists of categories of air 

pollution sources that In the judgment 

of the Administrator, cause or contribu 

significantly to air pollution which ma*, 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. 

The segment of the organic chemical 

industry covered by the proposed 

standards should be a readily 

identifiable portion or subgroup of the 

organic chemical industry. EPA has 

identified a list of organic chemicals 

produced in a segment of this industry. 

The products of this industry segment 

are derived from about ten basic 

petrochemical feedstocks and are usee 

as feedstocks in a number of synthetic 

products industries. Organic chemicals 

such as acetone, methyl methacrylate. 
ii3a Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules -"1 

toluene, and glycine are produced in this 

segment of SOCML Large quantities of 

SOCMI products are used in the 

production of plastics, fibers, 

surfactants, pharmaceuticals, synthetic 

rubber, dyes, pesticides, and specialty 

organiC3. They are typically 

intermediates, although they may be 

nsed as final products. Many of these 

products are high volume chemicals. The 

Administrator is proposing the List of 

organic chemicals in Appendix E as the 

segment of SOCMI covered by the 

proposed standards. 

The total VOC emissions from SOCMI 

were estimated to be about 1,000 

Gigagrams/year (Gg/yr) in 1978 or about 

5 percent of the 19.000 Gg total annual 

VOC emissions from stationary sources 

in this country. Fugitive emissions of 

VOC are a significant portion of the 

total VOC emissions from SOCMI. 

Fugitive emissions of VOC from smaller 

SOCMI process units are about 70 Mg/ 

yr and larger SOCMI process units are 

about 800 Mg/yr. It is estimated mat. 

approximately 400 Gg/yr of the total 

emissions of VOC from SOCMI are 

currently attributable to fugitive 

emission sources. Fugitive emissions are 

unintentional emissions caused by leaks' 

in processing equipment Fugitive 

emission sources include pumps, valves, 

compressors, flanges, and agitators. 

Other potential sources of VOC 

emissions in this industry include 

process sources, storage and handling 

equipment sources, and secondary 

emission sources. Standards are 

currently under development for some of 

these VOC emission sources. Other 

pollutants emitted from SOCMI include 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen oxides (NO,), sulfur 

oxides (SO-), sulfuric acid (H_SO<) and 

'hydrochloric acid (HCl*) as well as other 

.emicais. Most particulate matter, NO, 

..id (SOT) emissions from this industry, 

are regulated under combustion and * 

process standards that have been 

developed or are under development 

VOC emissions from SOCMI 

contribute to the production of ozone 

which is one of the criteria pollutants for 

which an ambient air quality standard 

exists under Section 109 of the Cean .Air 

Act Because fugitive emissions of VOC 

are a significant portion of the total* 

SOCMI emissions of VOC the 

Administrator is proposing standards of 

performance that are intended to reduce 

fugitive emissions of VOC from SOCMI. 

These proposed standards would reduce 

emissions of VOC by about 175 Gg/yr in 

1985. The VOC that would be regulated 

by the proposed fugitive emissions 

standards are compounds which 

participate in atmospheric 

photochemical reactions or can be 

measured by Reference Method 21 

which is being proposed with the 

standards. In addition to reducing 

fugitive emissions of VOC from SOCML 

the proposed standards would reduce 

emissions of organic chemicals that are 

toxic and in some cases potentially 

carcinogenic However, specific VOC 

which the Administrator Lists as 

hazardous air pollutants would be 

regulated under Section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act rather than under this 

regulation. 

Selection of Regulatory Approach and 

Affected Facilities 

Two general regulatory approaches 

could be used in developing standards 

for SOCML The first approach involves 

the development of standards applicable 

to each specific chemical process; this 

approach has historically been the most 

commonly used approach in developing 

standards of performance for new 

stationary sources. Following this 

approach wouid involve establishing 

standards for each specific chemical 

process. 

The second approach involves the 

development of standards on the basis 

of similar types of emission sources and 

applicable emission control techniques. 

The second approach is more resource 

efficient than the first approach because 

a large number of specific chemical 

processes can be covered by one 

regulation. 

SOCMI plants contain similar fugitive 

emission sources. In general, a few 

fugitive emission sources within SOCMI 

process plants contribute the greatest 

proportion of fugitive emissions. Leaks 

from fugitive emission sources generally 

occur randomly and are not related to 

process variables. These similarities in 

the behavior of fugitive emission 

sources in SOCMI allow the same 

control techniques to be applied to all of 

die processes. Therefore, because the 

control techniques can be applied to the 

entire industry group and because 

regulating die entire group wouid be 

more resource efficient a single 

regulation is being proposed for 

controlling fugitive emissions from 

SOCMI. 

An affected facility for standards of 

performance is an emission source or 

group of emission sources to which the 

standard applies. Affected facilities fcr 

fugitive emissions standards could be 

defined as individual emission source:* 

(equipment components), groups of 

equipment components diat are 

operated in conjunction with each other 

(process units), or groups of process 

ur.it3 at one location (plant sites). The 

selection of one of these definitions fcr 

affected facilities is influenced by the. 

fact that the provisions of the proposed 

standards wouid apply to new, modified 

or reconstructed facilities. 

Aa existing facility, as defined in 40 

CFR 80-2. is a facility that was 

constructed or codified before the 

proposal date of the applicable 

standards of performance. However, an 

existing facility that is modified or 

reconstructed after die date of proposal 

of the standards becomes an affected 

facility and then is subject to applicable 

standards of performance. 

Modification is defined in 40 CFR 

60.14(a) as any physical or operational 

change of an existing facility which 

increases the emission rate of any 

pollutant to which a standard applies. 

Exemptions to this definition include an 

increase in production rate, if such an 

increase can be made without capital 

expenditure: an increase in the hours of 

operation: die use of an alternative fuel 

or raw material if the facility was 

designed to accommodate the alternate 

fuel or raw material prior to* the 

standards***the addition of air pollution 

control equipment routine maintenance, 

repair, and replacement and relocation 

or change in ownership. 

Reconstruction is defined in 40 CFR 

60.15 as any replacement of components 

in an existing facility where the fixed 

capital cost of the new components 

exceeds 50 percent of die fixed capital 

cost that wouid be required to construct 

a comparable entirely new facility. 

Under such conditions, the 

Administrator would determine whedier 

a.t <*-.isting facility wouid become an 

s;'. - •;_ facility. Fixed capital cost 

r_.ea:-._ .-.e capital needed to provide ai! 

deysc-.ible components of die facility. 

The three different alternatives for 

defining affected facilities and the 

implications of each one were 

considered in selecting the definition, if 

the affected facilities covered by tha 

proposed standards were defined on the 

basis of individual equipment 

components, any replacement of ar. 

equipment component (pump, valve, 

etc) would be considered a sew source 

and would be subject to die new source 

standards. Under this definition 

situations would result in which 

replaced equipment components in 

existing process units would be subject 

to new source standards, while adjacent 

components would not be subject tc the 

standards. Determining which 

components were subject to 

requirements of the standards ccuic be 

difficult for the owner/ooerator and for 

EPA. 

Designating affected facilit: .s on ths 

Sasis of process units '.vould combine 

individual fugitive emission sources 
P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules 1139 

within the process unit into a unified 

group.* Any like-for-like replacement of 

fugitive emission sources within an 

existing unit would not increase the 

overall emission rate, and would be a 

small capital expenditure compared to 

the cost of the entire unit. Therefore, the 

unit would not be subject to the 

standards due to modification or 

reconstruction considerations. Defining 

an affected facility as a process unit 

would reflect industry construction' 

practices. Almost all new construction 

in SOCMI is by process unit 

Furthermore, most reconstruction and 

modification occurs by process units. 

Affected facilities could also be 

defined as plant sites, i.e.. all process 

units at each plant site. If affected 

facilities were defined as plant sites, 

construction of new process units at 

existing sites could make the entire site 

subject to die standards. This broad 

coverage would be an unreasonable 

burden for owner/operators that have 

existing plant sites that may consist of 

many process units. The burden could 

be so severe that expansion might be 

limited at existing sites. If an entire 

process unit were replaced within an 

existing plant site, no emission increase 

would result and. therefore, the unit and 

site would not be subject to the 

standards under modification 

considerations. If the plant site 

consisted of many process units, the 

replacement of one unit would probably 

not exceed 50 percent of the 

replacement cost of the affected facility 

(all process units at the site), and 

therefore die unit and* site would not be 

subject to die standards. 

.After carefully considering each of the ** 

above alternatives, the Administrator 

selected process units as the basis for 

defining affected facilities. This 

definition allows for routine equipment 

replacement and minor changes or 

expansions in existing facilities without 

subjecting either single emission sources 

or entire plant sites to requirements of 

the proposed standards while also _. 

providing for full coverage for all new 

process units. 

A disadvantage of implementing a 

decision to designate the process unit as 

the affected facility is that some small 

routine changes and additions in an 

existing SOCMI unit could result in the 

unit's being modified and. therefore, 

subject to the standards of performance. 

These changes and additions may 

increase the number of fugitive emission 

sources within an existing facility, 

thereby increasing the fugitive emissions 

by a smail amount. In most cases it 

wouid be feasible to control fugitive 

emissions from some other fugitive 

emission sources-within the existing• 

facility to keep fugitive emissions to 

their original level. In cases where 

existing facilities are already operating 

with a good fugitive emission control 

program, however, it might not be 

possible to control fugitive emissions 

from another fugitive emission source. 

Standards of performance for new . 

SOCMI sources are not intended to 

cover existing plants making routine and 

minor additions. There are two 

exceptions to the modifications 

provisions in the General Provisions of 

40 CFR Part 60 which may exclude some 

plants making such additions. 

Exemptions are made for routine 

replacement and for additions made to 

increase production rate if they can be __ 

accomplished without capital 

expenditures. There are many specific 

reasons for routine additions and 

changes made in a SOCMI unit. For 

example, a small number of fugitive 

emission sources might be added in 

making changes to increase 

productivity, to increase ease of 

maintenance, to improve plant safety, 

and to correct minor design flaws. While 

the two reasons for exemptions included 

in die General Provisions tnight.be 

interpreted to cover tiiese types of 

changes, there may be different 

interpretations. To clarify the intent that 

existing SOCMI units making routine 

changes and additions would not be 

covered, die proposed standards would 

exempt additions made for process 

improvements if they are made without 

incurring a "capital expenditure" as 

defined in the General Provisions. 

The General Provisions define 

"capital expenditure" as an expenditure 

for a physical or operational change to 

an existing facility which exceeds the 

product of the applicable "annual asset 

guideline repair allowance percentage" 

specified in the latest edition of Internal 

Revenue Service Publication 534 and the 

existing facility's basis, as defined by 

Section 1012 of the Internal Revenue 

Code. However, the total expenditure 

for a physical or operational change to 

an existing facility must not be reduced 

by any "excluded addition" as defined 

in IRS Publication 534. as would be done 

for tax purposes. 

Using the process unit as die basis for 

an affected facility, an affected facility 

would be a group of all fugitive emission 

sources within a process unit. In this 

way, the process unit is used as the 

basis for defining an affected facility, 

but coverage is restricted to fugitive— 

emission sources. A process unit is 

specifically defined as equipment 

assembled to produce one or more of the 

chemicals listed in proposed Appendix 

E which can operate independently if 

supplied with sufficient feed or raw 

materials and sufficient storage facilities 

for the final product A process unit 

includes intermediate storage or surge 

tanks and all fluid transport equipment 

connecting the reaction, separation and 

purification devices. All equipment 

within the battery limits is included. 

However, offsite fluid transport and 

storage facilities are excluded. Under 

this definition, if a number of SOCMI 

process units were integrated into a 

continuous operation, each would be . 

considered a separate process unit. For 

example, if chemical A was produced as 

a feedstock for the production of 

chemical B and chemical B. in turn, was 

used as a feedstock to produce chemical 

C. the whole continuous operation 

would consist of three process units. If 

A. B. and C were SOCMI chemicals, 

there would be three affected facilities. 

Selection of Regulatory Alternatives 

Fugitive emissions of VOC can be 

reduced by two types of control 

techniques: (1) leak detection and repair 

programs and (2) equipment design, and 

operational specifications. Four 

regulatory alternatives which would 

achieve different levels of emission 

reduction using various combinations of 

leak detection and repair programs and 

equipment design, and operational -

requirements were considered. 

Control Techniques. The leak 

detection and repair programs included 

in the various regulatory alternatives 

consist of two phases. The initial phase 

involves monitoring potential fugitive 

emission sources within a process unit 

to detect fugitive emissions of VOC. 

After detection of die leak, die second 

phase involves repair or replacement of 

the fugitive emission source. 

Severalleak detection methods were 

considered in die development of the 

regulatory alternatives. Methods 

considered included die use of VOC 

detection instruments and soap bubble 

solutions to locate individual leaking 

sources. Different modes of monitoring 

were also considered. Included were 

periodic monitoring for fugitive emission 

leaking sources on an individual 

component or an area basis and 

continuous automatic instrument 

monitoring of ambient air at multiple 

sites within a facility. As detailed in the 

Selection of Test Methods section of this 

preamble, the individual component 

survey using a portable VOC detection 

instrument has been selected as the leak 

detection method for die proposed 

standards. This metiiod requires that the 

VOC concentration at the surface of 

each fugitive emission source would be 
P.7 

1140 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January -5.1981 / Proposed Rules 

monitored with a portable VCC 

detection instrument. 

The effectiveness of an individualsource leak detection program would 

depend not only on the detection 

method, but also on die frequency of the 

monitoring schedule. More frequent 

monitoring would ailow leaks to be 

detected earlier and ti_us ailow more 

frequent maintenance and a 

corresponding reduction in fugitive • 

emissions. 

The second phase of a leak detection 

and repair program consists of repair or 

replacement of leaking fugitive emission 

sources. Repairer replacement of a 

fugitive emission source wouid be 

required within a specified period of 

time after the detection of a VOC 

concentration equal to or in excess of a 

predetermined level. These repair and 

replacement procedures would vary for 

each fugitive emission source. Fugitive 

emissions from packed seals on a pump 

or compressor, for example, could be 

reduced by tightening die packing gland. 

However, the packing couid deteriorate 

to a point where further tightening 

wouid no longer reduce, but instead, 

would increase die emission rate. At 

this point the packing would have to be 

replaced. Mechanical seals on pumps 

and compressors would need to be 

removed for repair. Replacement of 

these seals would be included in their 

repair, if necessary. 

Many valve leaks can be repaired 

while the equipment is in service. Most 

process valves have a packing gland 

which could be tightened while the 

valve is in service. Tightening of the 

packing gland would normally reduce 

fugitive emissions from a leaking valve. 

but die emission rate could increase if 

the packing is old and brittle or if die 

packing were overly tightened. When 

this orrurs. die packing would have to 

be replaced. Plug vaives might be 

repaired by addition of grease. 

Some vaives could not be repaired 

while in service. These vaives include 

control vaives. which may be excluded 

from in-service repair by operating or 

safety considerations, and block valves, 

whose removal for repair or replacement 

might require a process shutdown. Other 

vaives. such as control valves with a 

manual bypass loop, could be isolated 

for repair or removaL The repair of a 

leaking safety/relief valve normally 

requires that it be removed from service. 

Leaks from flanges could often be 

reduced by tightening of the flange bolts. 

Most flanges could not be isolated from 

die process to permit replacement of the 

gasket. 

Fugitive emissions of VOC also could 

be reduced by installing certain 

equipment Requiring installation of 

certain equipment was considered for 

die following fugitive emission sources 

in the development of the regulatory 

alternatives: pumps, compressors, 

pressure relief devices, open-ended 

lines, sampling connections, and valves. 

Fugitive emissions from pumps occur, 

primarily at the pump seal. These 

emissions couid be reduced by 

installation of the following equipment: 

sealless pumps, pumps with improved 

seals (e.g.. dual mechanical seals), or 

closed vent systems for collection and 

control of emissions. 

Because of process condition 

limitations, sealless pumps are not 

suitable for all pump applications but 

would reduce emissions whenever 

applicable. Enclosing die seal area and 

venting die captured emissions to a 

control device is an alternative control 

technique for pumps: however, it is not 

generally used because such a 3ystem is 

cosdy. 

Dual mechanical seals are currendy 

used in many SOCMI process 

applications. These seals . 

characteristically include a barrier fluid 

betweea.the seals. If die pressure in the 

barrier fluid system is higher than diat 

in die pump seal area. VOC would not 

leak from the seal. If. however, die 

pressure in die pump seal area is higher. 

VOC could leak into die barrier fluid 

and later be emitted to. die atmosphere 

through degassing vents on the barrier 

fluid reservoir. Connecting die degassing 

vents to a control device (enclosed 

combustion or vapor recovery system) 

could effectively control fugitive 

emissions originating from the doubie 

mechanical seals. The control efficiency 

would vary with the condition of die 

mechanical seals and die type of control 

device used, but control efficiencies 

approaching 100, percent can be 

achieved. Consequentiy. a system 

combining dual mechanical seal systems 

equipped with controlled degassing 

vents were considered as the equipment 

for pumps. 

Emissions from compressors also 

occur primarily a't the seai. An enclosed 

seal area or replacement of the seal with 

an improved seal (mechanical) could be 

specified to reduce emissions from 

compressors. Enclosing the seal area 

and venting die captured emissions to a 

control device is an alternative control 

technique for compressors: however, it 

is not generally used because it is too 

cosdy. The use of mechanical seals on 

compressors and connection of die 

barrier fluid reservoir to a control device 

(enclosed combustion or vapor recovery 

system) with a closed vent system could 

provide control efficiencies approaching 

100 percent If the barrier fluid pressure 

is higher than the compressor seal area 

pressure, diere.wouid be no-VOC 

emissions to atmosphere. However, if 

the pressure in the barrier fluid system 

is lower than diat in die compressor seai 

area, the degassing vents on die barrier 

fluid reservoir should be connected to a 

control device to effectively control 

fugitive emissions. Therefore, a system 

combining mechanical seals and 

controlled degassing vents was 

considered as die equipment for 

compressors. 

Safety/reiief valves may emit fugitive 

VOC due to defects in valve seating 

surfaces, improper reseating after 

relieving, or process operation near die 

relief valve set point. Equipment 

considered for controlling fugitive VOC 

emissions from relief valves include 

dosed vent systems connected to a 

control device or rupture disks upstream 

• of safety/relief valves, 

A closed vent system can be used to 

transport the relief valve discharge (and 

fugitive emissions) to a control device 

such as a flare. These types of systems 

are currendy used.in SOCMI process 

units; however, under certain 

applications, such as flaring halogenated 

compounds, these systems couid result 

in undersirable emissions. The control 

efficiency of a closed vent and control 

device system is mostiy dependent on 

die effectiveness of the control device. 

For example, a closed vent system is 

about ICO percent effective in VOC 

capture, and a typical flare process is 

about 60 to 99 percent effective for VOC 

destruction: thus, die overall efficiency 

would be about 80 to 99 percent 

depending on the turn-down capability 

of the flare. 

Rupture disks can be installed 

upstream of safety-relief vaives to 

prevent die emission of VOC through 

die valve seat during normal processing 

conditions. The use of a rupture disk 

upstream of a safety/relief valve results 

in no emissions of VOC from the valve. 

Rupture disks would provide more 

control tiian systems vented to a control 

device because the control device couid 

not achieve 100 percent VOC emissions 

reduction, whereas rupture disks could. 

Consequentiy. rupture disks were 

considered as die equipment for safety/ 

relief valves. 

When process samples are taken for 

analysis, obtaining a representative 

stream sample requires purging some 

process fluid dirough die sampie 

connection. This sampie purge could be 

vented to die atmosphere if the fluid 

were gaseous, and Liquid sampie purges 

could be drained onto die ground or into 

open collection systems where 

evaporative emissions could result 

""There is no leakage from in-site 

sampling systems but they may not be 
P.8 

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 2 /• Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 1141 

applicable in all situations. Fugitive 

emissions from other sampling 

connections can be reduced by using a 

closed-loop sampling system that 

eliminates atmospheric purging of 

process material. 

Fugitive emissions of VOC from openended lines can be controlled by 

installing a cap, plug, blind flange, or 

second valve on die open end of the 

line. Capping of open-ended lines and 

closed-loop sampling are common 

industrial practices applied in SOCMI 

which exhibit control efficiencies for _ 

fugitive emissions of VOC of 

approximately 100 percent The actual 

control efficiencies will depend on sitespecific factors. Because the equipment 

is readily available, commonly used, 

and inexpensive, caps, plugs, blinds, or 

vaives were considered for open-ended 

lines, and closed-loop sampling was 

considered for sampling connections. 

Fugitive emissions from valves occur 

at the stem or gland area of the valve 

body. These emissions can be controlled 

by using valves which have actuating 

mechanisms isolated from the process 

fluid such as diaphragm or bellows 

valves. Although the control 

effectiveness of diaphragm or bellows 

seal valves is about 100 percent their 

use is limited. Because the application of 

these valves would be limited to certain 

services, they were not considered and, 

therefore, no equipment was considered 

for valves in die regulatory alternatives. 

Regulatory Alternatives. Four 

regulatory alternatives, which represent 

different levels of emission reduction 

achievable by combining various leak 

detection and repair programs, 

operational and design requirements 

and equipment specifications, were 

considered in the development of the 

proposed standards. Regulatory 

Alternative I is die baseline alternative 

and represents the level of control that 

would exist in the absence of any 

standards of performance. Under 

Regulatory Alternative I SOCMI 

facilities located in areas attaining the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for ozone would not be subject to any 

VOC fugitive emission regulations; 

however, facilities in nonattainment 

areas would be subject to applicable SIP 

regulations. Only a few states have 

developed or are considering near-term 

development of these specific 

regulations. Under Regulatory 

Alternative I fugitive emissions of VOC 

could also be controlled to some extent 

by OSHA health standards or controls 

based on provisions of insurance policy 

for fire and/or explosion protection. 

Estimates of emissions from fugitive 

emission sources have been developed 

based on existing levels of fugitive 

emission control. Thus, Regulatory 

Alternative I was based on current 

levels of control, considering possible 

new regulatory controls, and represents 

the level of control diat would exist in 

the absence of any standards of 

performance. 

Regulatory Alternative II includes the 

same monitoring requirements and 

equipment specifications included in the 

petroleum refinery Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) document (EPA-450/ 

2-78-036). These requirements and 

specifications are: 

• 1. Quarterly monitoring of all in-line 

valves, open-ended valves and safety/ 

relief valves in gas service (relief valves 

would also be monitored after 

overpressure relief to check for proper 

reseating); 

2. Annual monitoring of all in-line 

valves and open-ended valves in light 

liquid service: 

3. Quarterly monitoring of compressor 

seals: 

4. Annual monitoring of light liquid 

service pumps (such pumps would also 

be inspected visually for liquid leaks 

each week: immediate instrument 

monitoring of visually leaking pumps 

wouid be required); and 

5. Installation of caps, blinds, plugs, or 

second valves to seal all open-ended 

Lines. 

Regulatory Alternative III specifies a 

more frequent equipment monitoring 

schedule than Regulatory Alternative II. 

thereby providing for more stringent 

control of fugitive emissions of VOC 

For instance. Regulatory Alternative III 

would require monthly, rather than 

quarterly or annual monitoring. Monthly 

monitoring wouid result in a reduction 

of emissions from residual leaking 

sources, Le-, those sources which are 

found to be leaking and are repaired but 

begin to leak again before the next 

inspection and those previously nonleaking sources diat begin leaking 

between inspections. Regulatory 

Alternative HI would also require the 

use of caps, plugs, or second valves on 

open-ended lines. 

Of the four alternatives. Regulatory 

Alternative IV would provide die 

greatest level of control for fugitive 

emissions of VOC through the use of 

equipment specifications for some 

fugitive emission sources. The 

implementation of equipment 

specifications for the various potential 

fugitive emission sources would lessen 

the need for periodic monitoring. The 

monitoring and equipment specifications 

requirements of Regulatory Alternative 

IV are: 

1. Monthly monitoring of all In-line 

valves and open-ended valves in gas 

and light liquid service: 

2. Installation of rupture disks 

upstream of as service safety/relief 

valves that vent to the atmosphere (the 

disk would be replaced if disk failure 

were detected); 

3. Installation of closed vents and 

control devices for compressor seal 

areas and/or degassing vents from 

compressor barrier fluid reservoirs; 

4. Installation of duai mechanical 

seals on pumps in light Liquid service 

and installation of closed vent control 

devices for degassing vents from barrier 

fluid reservoirs of all pumps in light 

liquid service (weekly visual inspections 

of pumps in light liquid service would 

"also be required, with subsequent 

instrument monitoring required for those 

pumps witii visible liquid leaks); 

5. Installation of closed loop sampling 

systems; and 

6. Installation of caps, blinds, plugs, or 

second valves to seal all open-ended 

lines. 

Selection of Basis for the Proposed 

Standard 

The Clean Air Act requires diat 

standards for performance be based on 

the best system of continuous emissions 

reduction, considering costs, energy 

usage, and environmental impact. 

Selection of a regulatory alternative as 

the basis for the propo'sed standards 

was made after considering estimated 

fugitive emission reductions, energy 

savings or usage, and cost and economic 

impacts of the regulatory alternatives. 

SOCMI. with approximately 1.680 

operating process units in the United 

States in 1980. is projected to grow at an 

annual rate of 5.9 percent Based on this 

growth rate, approximately 2,240 

process units will be in operation in 

1985. Approximately 830 of tiiese 

facilities would be subject to the 

proposed standards in 1985 due to new 

construction. Of this total, about 560 

facilities would be newly constructed 

and subject to the standards on this 

basis. The remaining 270 facilities would 

result from replaced facilities which 

would be subject to die standards. 

To examine the environmental 

impacts of the regulatory alternatives, 

estimates of fugitive emissions of VOC 

are required. To make tiiese estimates 

for SOCML fugitive emissions data 

developed in petroleum refineries have 

been used. Transferring data in this way 

is justified because die fugitive emission 

sources and die substances processed in 

the two industries are similar. Both 

industries use the same types of pumps. • 

compressors, valves, flanges and other 

chemical processing equipment. 
P.9 

1142 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 

Furthermore, both industries process 

VOC Leak rates of VOC from similar 

fugitive emission sources are similar 

leak frequencies in die two industries 

are similar. Available EPA data as 

presented in the Background 

Information Document shows this to be 

true. To further verify this similarity, 

EPA is currently gathering more data in 

SOCMI units for comparison to the 

refinery data. These data will be in die 

docket before die end of the comment 

period. These data and comments on 

this data will be fully considered before 

promulgation of tiiese standards. 

Regulatory Alternative II would 

reduce fugitive emissions of VOC from 

die 830 affected facilities in 1985 from an 

uncontrolled level of 200 Gg/yr to 

approximately 73 Gg/yr. or by 83 

percent. The total energy associated 

with a VOC being processed is made up 

of die energy value of die compound and 

die energy expended to process 

(condense^ pump, vaporize, etc) the 

compound. The total energy associated 

with the VOC wouid be lost if the VOC 

were to leak to the atmosphere. This 

energy loss could be reduced if the VOC 

were combusted in an enclosed 

combustion system because some of the 

energy released during combustion 

could be recovered. If die VOC could be 

kept within die process and sold as 

product die energy loss would be 

eliminated. Regulatory Alternative Q 

reduces die energy loss diat would 

result in die absence of any standards. 

During the first five years after 

implementation of Regulatory 

Alternative LL SOCMI's cumulative 

capital costs would be S21 million. In die 

firth year. Regulatory Alternative II 

wouid resuit in an annualized net credit 

of S29 million due to die value of die 

recovered product. Implementation of 

Regulatory Alternative Q would tend to • 

hold individual price increases down 

because it would result in a net 

annualized credit Implementation of 

Regulatory Alternative H could have a 

slight positive impact on wastewater 

from SOCMI facilities because leak 

detection would result in die 

identification and repair of liquid VOC 

leaks, and therefore, reduction of VOCs 

in wastewater from SOCMI facilities. 

Regulatory .Alternative II would have no 

impact on any sotid wastes associated 

with SOCMI. 

Regulatory Alternative III would 

result in a fusitive emission rate of 

approximately 82 Gg/yr from die 830 

affected facilities in 1985: this represents 

a 69 percent reduction over the baseiine. 

or Regulatory .Alternative I level. 

Regulatory Alternative HL like 

Regulatory Alternative IL reduces the 

energy loss that wouid result from 

SOCMI in die absence of any standards. 

SOCMI wouid incur cumulative capital 

costs of S21 million during die first five 

years after implementation of this 

alternative.'However, due to the 

increased cost of implementing a more 

frequent monitoring schedule. 

Regulatory Alternative HI would result 

in a smaller annualized net credit than 

Regulatory Alternative EL 

Implementation of Regulatory 

Alternative HI would result in an 

annualized net credit of S21 million in 

1985. As with Regulatory Alternative IL 

an annualized net credit would tend to 

hold individual price increases down. 

Regulatory Alternative HI would have 

die same potential positive impact on 

wastewater from SOCvH facilities as 

Regulatory Alternative H. and no impact 

on solid waste. 

Regulatory Alternative IV would 

reduce fugitive emissions, of VOC from 

the 830 affected facilities in 1985 to 28 

Gg/yr this represents an 37 percent 

reduction from the Regulatory 

Alternative I level. Regulatory 

- Alternative IV would minimize die 

energy loss diat would result from 

SOCMI in die absence of any standards. 

For Regulatory Alternative IV die 

cumulative capital costs wouid be about 

$232 million after die first five years of 

implementation. The net annualized cast 

for tiiis regulatory alternative would be 

Sll million in 1985. These costs should 

not significantiy increase die prices of 

SOCMI products because net 

annualized costs of control are 

extremely small (less than 0.03 percent) 

relative to die value of total industry 

output Implementation of Regulatory 

Alternative IV couid have a slight 

positive impact on wastewater for die 

same reasons as Regulatory 

Alternatives fl and HL A wastewater 

containing suspended solids and some 

solid waste could result from die use of 

various control processes such as 

carbon adsorption units with die 

equipment specifications implemented 

under this alternative. However, the 

impact of tiiese waste streams wouid be 

slight Solid waste impact would also be 

minimal. 

The Administrator selects a regulatory 

alternative as the basis for the proposed 

standards of performance after 

considering emission reductions, energy 

requirements, and cost and economic 

impacts of die regulatory alternative. 

This selection is based on choosing the 

best system of continuous emission 

reduction considering costs, energy and 

environmental impacts. Regulatory 

Alternative FV wouid reduce fugitive 

emissions of VOC by 170 Gg/yr in 1985. 

Of all die regulatory alternatives. 

Regulatory Alternative IV would 

achieve the greatest reduction of VOC 

fugitive emissions. The costs and 

economic impacts of Regulatory 

Alternative IV, as presented above, are 

reasonable. Energy requirements and 

nonair quality impacts of Regulatory 

Alternative IV wouid be similar to those 

of the other regulatory alternatives. 

Therefore. Regulatory Alternative IV 

represents die best system of emission 

reduction considering cost energy 

requirements, and environmental impact 

and die Administrator selected 

Reguiatory .Alternative IV as die basis 

for the proposed standards. 

Selection of Format for the Proposed 

Standards 

Several formats could be used to 

Implement Regulatory Alternative IV. 

Section 111 of die Clean Air Act requires 

that standards of performance be 

prescribed unless, in die judgement of 

die Adminsitrator. it is.not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce such standards. 

Section 111(h) defines two conditions 

under which it is not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce a performance 

standard. These conditions are (1) if die 

application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological or economic limitations, or 

(2) ii die pollutants cannot be emitted 

through a conveyance device. If a 

standard of performance is not feasible 

to prescribe or enforce: tiien die 

Administrator may instead promulgate a 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard, or combination 

diereof as provided in Section 111(h). 

For most SOCMI fugutive emission 

sources, it is not feasible to prescribe a 

performance standard. Except in those 

cases in which standard can be set at 

"no detectable emissions", die only way 

to measure emissions from such SOCMI 

fugitive emission sources as pumps, 

pipeline valves, and compressors would 

be to use a bagging technique for each of 

the pipeline sources in a process unit 

The great number of such sources and 

their dispersion over large areas would 

make such a requirement economically 

impracticable. Therefore, the 

Administrator has not selected this 

format in prescribing the proposed 

standards. 

Anotiier approach to prescribing a 

standard wouid be to specify a number 

or percent of fugitive emission sources 

that wouid be allowed to leak. This 

approach wouid be qualitative. It differs 

from die performance standard appoach 

_which is based on quantitive emissions 

measurements (e.g. bagging). However. 

it wouid have some of the same benefits 
P.10 

Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 1143 

of flexibility provided by performance 

standards. The only fugitive emission 

source for which a leak frequency limit 

would be applicable is valves. However. 

the variability in die percentage of 

valves leaking among process units 

limits the setting of an allowable 

percentage of valves leaking which 

could be achieved by all process units 

within SOCMI. Thi3 variability is 

observed even among units in which 

leak detection and repair programs are 

being implemented. Even so. 

establishing an allowable percentage of 

vaives leaking based on data collected 

for that unit may be feasible for each 

individual process unit This approach is 

discussed in more depth in Alternative 

Standards for Valves in the next section 

of this preamble as one which would 

add desirable flexibility to the proposed 

standard. 

Anodier possible regulatory format is 

an equipment standard. For those 

sources for which performance 

standards cannot feasibly be prescribed, 

work practices, design standards, 

operational standards, or equipment 

standards may be prescribed. Each of 

these formats has its own advantages 

and disadvantages. Equipment 

standards provide well-documented 

reductions. Compliance monitoring 

would require only an initial check to 

insure diat the equipment had been 

installed properly and periodic checks to 

insure that equipment was continuing to 

operate properly. However, an inherent 

disadvantage associated with this type 

of format is that less site-specific 

flexibility is provided than witii a 

performance standard and innovation 

may be stymied. Design and operational 

standards have similar advantages and 

disadvantages as those for equipment 

standards. 

Another format is work practices. An 

example of tiiis format would be a 

program for detecting and repairing 

leaks. Inspection methods, inspection 

time intervals, and time allowed for 

repair would be defined in detailing die 

work practices. Compliance with a work 

practice standard would be determined 

by judging success in implementing die 

work practices. Some recordkeeping and 

reporting would be needed to serve as 

die basis for judging this success. 

The proposed standards could 

incorporate all of the potential 

regulatory formats. Different formats are 

required for different fugitive emission 

sources because characteristics of die 

emission sources, the available emissioncontrol options, and die applicability of 

proposed Reference Method 21 differ 

among die sources. In the next section 

the rationale for selecting a particular 

format is explained for each type of 

' fugitive emission source. For each 

fugitive emission source, die feasibility 

of prescribing or enforcing a 

performance standard is discussed. If a 

performance standard is not feasible, 

the rational for selecting another format 

is presented. • 

Selection of Emission Limit, Equipment, 

Work Practice. Design and Operational 

Standards 

Safety relief valves. Section 111(h) of 

the Clean Air Act requires that a 

standared of performance be 

promulgated unless it is not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce. Thus, control 

techniques included in Regulatory 

Alternative IV were first evaluated to 

determine if a performance standard 

could be proposed. The conclusion of 

this evaluation is that the only fugitive 

emission sources for which it would be 

feasible to prescribe and enforce a 

performance standard are safety/relief 

valves, and in certain cases, fugitive 

emission sources which are designed 

not to leak. 

Rupture disks were evaluated as die 

equipment specification for gas service 

service safety/relief valves under 

Regulatory Alternative IV. When the 

integrity of rupture disks is maintained, 

fugitive emissions through die relief 

valve are eliminated. Rupture disks 

maintain their integrity unless an 

" overpressure occurs. After an 

overpressure, replacement of die rupture 

disk once again eliminates fugitive 

emissions through the safety relief 

valve. 

For control techniques the eliminate 

fugitive emissions, and emission limit 

measurement for "no detectable 

emissions" is feasible by the proposed 

Reference Method 21. Measurement 

methods for de terming the quantitative 

emission rate from safety/relief valves 

are not feasible because they would 

require bagging each piece of equipment 

However, Method 21, while it does not 

allow quantitative measurement of 

emissions, does allow die detection of 

leaks of fugitive VOC emissions from 

safety/relief valves. Therefore, the 

proposed standard for safety/relief 

valves in gas service is "no detectable 

emissions." The "no detectable 

emission" limit would hot apply to 

discharges tiirough die safety/relief 

valve during pressure relief because die 

function of relief vaives is to discharge 

process fluid, tiiereby reducing 

dangerous high pressures within the 

equipment. The Standard would speeify, 

however, that die relief valve be 

returned to a state of no detectable 

emissions within 5 days after such a 

discharge. It would further require an 

annual test to verify the "no detectable 

emissions'' status of the safety relief 

valves. Also, a test wouid be required 

when die Administrator makes such a 

request. 

A test to determine if a fugitive 

emission source is complying with a "no 

detectable emissions" requirement is a 

performance test. Performance tests 

require three separate runs, unless 

otherwise specified in an applicable 

subpart, as required in 40 CFR 60.8(f)- A 

test to determine if a fugitive emission 

source is complying with a "no 

detectable emissions" requirement does 

not require three runs. Thus, tests to 

determine "no detectable emissions" 

would be exempted from 40 CFR 60.8(f) 

in the proposed standards. 

In addition to three runs, performance 

test requirements include a notification 

to die Administrator 30 days before 

each performance test. For fugitive 

emission sources, tests to determine "no 

detectable emissions" may occur 

throughout a year end at least, after 

each over pressure relief. Requiring an 

owner or operator to notify the 

Administrator, as required in 40 CFR 

60.8(d), is not considered reasonable for 

these standards. Thus, to reduce die 

reporting burden on industry, owners or 

operators of affected facilities are 

exempted from 40 CFR 60.8(d) in die 

proposed standards. 

Pumps. It is not feasible to prescribe a 

performance standard for pumps 

because application of measurement 

technology to pumps is technologically 

and economically impractical. First. 

even tiiough pump seals can be designed 

to release emissions into a conveyance 

mechanism, measurement of these 

emissions is not practicable. Dilution of 

die fugitive emissions in a conveyance 

mechanism limits the economical and 

technological application of 

measurement methods. Second, 

determining emission levels from each 

pump would require die time-consuming, 

expensive and impractical method of 

bagging each pump as described in die 

Selection of Test Method section of this 

preamble. Furthermore, a "no detectable 

emission" limit is not feasible because 

dual mechanical pump seals leak on 

occasion. 

After determining that a performance 

standard for pumps would not be 

practicable because of technological and 

economic limitations, equipment 

standards were evaluated. Equipment 

specifications evaluated for pumps were 

dual mechanical seals with closed vents 

for the barrier fluid degassing-reservoirs, 

closed vents for die pump seal areas, 

and seadess-pumps. After evaluation, 

dual mechanical seal systems that 

include barrier fluid systems and 
P.11 

1144 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 

sensors to detect failure of either seai or 

barrier fluid system were selected as the 

basis for die equipment specifications 

for pumps in Regulatory Alternative IV. 

They are frequently used in SOCMI 

pump applications. If die barrier fluid 

system is maintained at a pressure 

greater than the stuffing box pressure. 

no VOC leakage wouid occur because 

all leaks would be inward into the 

process fluid. If the stuffing box pressure 

is greater than the barrier fluid pressure. 

die barrier fluid between the two seals -

collects leakage from the inner seal and 

die VOC collected by die barrier fluid is 

controlled by connecting die barrier 

fluid reservoir to a control device* 

(enclosed combustion or vapor 

recovery) with a closed vent system or 

by returning it to the process. The dual 

mechanical seals with controlled 

degassing vents system is die most 

universally applicable of the three 

options evaluated. Thus, because they 

provide die best control efficiency 

(dependent upon die efficiency of die 

control device) considering costs, die 

equipment requirement for pumps ia the 

use of dual mechanical seals-with closed 

barrier fluid degassing vents connected 

to a control device or designed to return 

the VOC to the process. 

Section 111(h) of die Clean Air Act 

requires that when equipment standards 

are established, requirements must also 

be established to insure die proper 

operation and maintenance of the 

equipment Such provisions have been 

made in the proposed regulation. An 

indicator on die barrier fluid system 

would reveal any catastrophic failure of 

the inner or outer seal or barrier fluid -.. 

system. Tne failure indication criterion 

would be determined, for each piece of 

equipment Leakage dirough the outer 

seai couid be detected by weekly visual 

inspections and would be limited by the 

barrier fluid. Although die intent of the 

standards would best be preserved by 

inspections as frequent as possible, 

weekly inspections were specified to 

keep die requirement from .being 

burdensome. Detection of any leaks 

should be followed by repair within 15 

days. 

The barrier fluid would be either anon-VOC fluid or a heavy-liquid VOC 

The use of light liquid VOC as a barrier 

fluid couid result in emissions of VOC of 

the same magnitude aa those which 

would occur if product VOC were 

allowed to leak past die seals. Leakage 

_f process fluid dirough die inner seal 

would be captured and controlled by the 

barrier fluid/closed vent system. 

Seailess pumps, such as diaphragm or 

canned pumps, do not have a potential 

leak area, and dierefore should achieve 

approximately IOO percent controL 

However, seailess pumps may not be 

suitable for use in some SOCMI process 

applications due to diroughput pressure. 

or fluid composition constraints. 

Sealless pumps were not selected under 

Regulatory Alternative IV and. 

therefore, were not selected as required 

equipment for die proposed standards. 

Sealless pumps are at least equivalent 

to dual mechanical seals with barrier 

fluid degassing vents connected to 

control devices in controlling fugitive 

emissions. Therefore, die proposed 

standards allow diem for owners/ 

operators who wish to use them. 

Seailesss pumps would be required to 

operate under a "no detectable 

emission" Limit as discussed in Leakless 

Equipment in this section. 

The seai area of a pump could be 

completely enclosed, and tiiis enclosed 

area couid be connected to a control 

device (enclosed combustion or vapor 

recovery) with a closed vent system. 

The control efficiency of this 

arrangement is dependent on the control 

efficiency of the vapor recovery system 

or enclosed combustion device. The 

closed vent system could require a flow 

inducing device to transport emissions 

from the seal area to the control device. 

Because of safety or operating 

limitations, enclosure of die pump seal 

area may not be feasible in all cases. 

There may be isolated and unusual 

pump applications which require pumps 

which cannot be equipped with 

mechanical seals. For example, if a 

reciprocating pump is required, 

mechanical seals may not be possible. 

The enclosed seal area would be die 

best control option for such pumps. 

Therefore, enclosed seal areas 

connected to a control device with a 

closed vent system wouid be allowed 

for pumps that cannot be equipped with 

dual mechanical seai systems. Although 

enclosing seal areas would be as 

effective in reducing emissions as other 

effective techniques, this option would 

most"likely be used on a limited basis. 

Compressors. As in die case for 

pumps, a performance standard for 

compressors is not feasible. Even though 

compressor seals can be designed to 

release fugitive emissions into a 

conveyance mechanism, measurement 

of these emissions would be limited by 

technological and economical factors. 

Measuring emissions from each 

compressor would require bagging each 

seai area. This method is timeconsuming and expensive and is 

dierefore. impracticable. An emission 

limit of "no detectable emissions" using 

proposed Reference Method 21 as the 

measurement method, is not feasible 

because mechanical contact seals leak 

on occasion. 

Because performance standards 

cannot feasibly be prescribed for 

compressors, the several alternative 

formats were considered and equipment 

standards found to be most appropriate. 

Equipment specifications evaluated for 

compressors were seailess compressors. 

mechanical contact seais equipped with 

barrier fluid system with the barrier 

fluid degassing reservoirs vented to 

control devices, and closed vents for die 

compressor seal area vented to a control 

device. Dual seal systems uat include 

barrier fluid systems and sensors to 

detect failure of either seai or barrier 

fluid system were selected as the basis 

for Alternative IV. Some compressors in 

current SOCMI applications have a seal 

system with a circulating barrier fluid 

system. This barrier fluid system is 

simdar to the system described for 

pumps.with dual mechanical seals, 

although the compressor seals may be 

mechanical contact oil film, or another 

type of seaL If the barrier fluid system is 

maintained at a pressure greater tiian 

die stuffing box pressure, no VOC 

leakage would occur because ail leaks 

would be towards process fluid. If the ' 

stuffing box pressure, is greater than die 

barrier fluid pressure, die barrier fluid 

betweea- the two seais collects leakage 

from the inner seaL Leakage dirough the 

seal results in die presence of VOC in 

die barrier fluid which would be a nonVOC fluid or gas or a heavy VOC The 

use of a light Liquid VOC or VOC gas a 

barrier fluid could result in emissions of 

VOC of die same magnitude as tiiose 

which wouid occur if product VOC were 

allowed to leak past the seals. VOC 

trapped in die barrier fluid would be 

emitted from die barrier fluid reservoir. 

However, this VOC couid be coUected 

and directed to a control device 

(enclosed combustion or vapor recovery 

system) or returned to die process 

(probably the suctions of the 

compressor) by a dosed vent system 

that is connected to the barrier fluid 

reservoir. A seal system which uses a 

barrier fluid system provides a high 

control efficiency and is the most 

applicable effective control technique 

for compressors. 

Section 111(h) of die Clean Air Act 

requires that proper maintenance and 

operation of equipment specified in a 

regulation be insured. To provide thi3 

insurance the proposed standard 

requires visual inspection and ' 

monitoring of the barrier fluid system to 

"cTetect seai failure or barrier fluid system 

faiiure and the use of non-VOC or heavy 

VOC liquids for the barrier fluid. The 
P.12 

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules 1145 

failure indication criterion would be 

determined for each piece of equipment. 

Although sealless compressors would 

achieve approximately 100 control, 

seailess compressors are not readily 

available in capacities large enough for 

most SOCMI process applications, and 

therefore, have limited use in SOCMIConsequently, sealless compressors 

were not considered under Regulatory 

.Alternative IV and were not selected as 

equipment specifications for die 

proposed standards. 

However, sealless compressors are at 

least equivalent to compressors 

equipped with barrier fluid systems and 

degassing vents connected to control 

devices because VOC emissions are 

eliminated and, dierefore, can be used 

as an alternative. Leakless compressors 

would be required to operate under a 

"no detectable emissions" limit as 

discussed in die Leakless Equipment 

section. 

There are some cases in which seals 

with barrier fluid systems cannot be 

utilized. A barrier fluid system cannot 

be used under all process conditions due 

to pressure limitations. For those cases, 

enclosure bf the seal area would be the 

best option. The enclosed area would be 

connected to a control device (enclosed, 

combustion or vapor recovery) with a 

closed vent system. Therefore, enclosed 

seal areas connected to a control device 

with a closed vent system would be 

allowed for compressors that cannot 

utilize a barrier fluid system. Although 

enclosing seal areas would be as 

effective in reducing emissions as other 

effective techniques, this option would 

most likely be used on a limited basis. 

Open-ended valves. The equipment 

chosen for open-ended valves as the 

basis for Regulatory Alternative IV was 

equipment which would effect enclosure 

of the open end. Because performance 

standards cannot feasibly be prescribed 

for open-ended valves, die several 

alternative formats were considered and 

equipment standards found to be most 

appropriate. An emission limit is not ' 

feasible because open-ended valves are 

generally not designed to emit fugitive 

emissions into a conveyance mechanism 

and because diey would require 

bagging, which is economically 

impracticable, as previously explained 

in the Selection of Formats section. A 

"no detectable emissions" level could 

not be selected as the basis for die 

proposed standard because VOCs could 

leak dirough die valve seat and become 

trapped in the line between die valve 

and enclosure. These trapped VOCs 

would be emitted when die enclosure 

was removed for operation of the valves 

and open-ended valve. 

After consideration and rejection of 

the possibilities for performance 

standards for open-ended valves, 

equipment standard options were 

considered. Equipment specifications 

considered included improved valve 

seat technology and enclosure of the 

open end. Improved valve seat 

technoiogy was not selected because the 

effectiveness of such technology could 

be nullified by operating variables such 

as incomplete closure of the valve by 

operating personnel. 

Specific equipment which would be 

required to close die open end wouid be 

a cap, plug, blind flange, or a second 

valve. The control efficiency associated 

with these techniques is approximately 

100 percent. 

To insure the proper operation of the 

equipment open-ended lines are also 

covered by operational standards. If a 

second valve is used to close the open 

end, the proposed standards would 

require the upstream valve to be closed 

first After the upstream valve is 

completely closed, the downstream 

valve would be closed. This operational 

requirement is necessary in order to 

prevent trapping process fluid berween 

the two valves, which could result in a 

situation equivalent to the uncontrolled 

open-ended line. 

Sampling connections. Closed loop 

sampling was considered as the 

equipment specification for sampling 

connections. Closed loop sampling 

systems eliminate emissions due to 

purging by either returning the purge 

material directiy to the process or by 

collecting the purge in a collection 

system which is not open to the 

atmosphere for recycle or disposal. An 

emission limit was not specified because 

measuring mass emissions from each 

sampling system would require bagging 

each system, a measurement method 

which is time-consuming, costly, and 

impractical. A "no detectable 

emissions" limit is not feasible because 

although the VOC control efficiency of a 

closed loop sampling system is 

approximately 100 percent some VOC 

could be emitted during its transfer to a 

closed collection device or during its 

ultimate disposal. 

Because performance standards 

cannot feasibly be prescribed for 

sampling connections, the several 

alternative formats were considered and 

equipment standards found to be most 

appropriate. The equipment standards in 

the proposed standards require the use 

of closed loop sampling equipment. In 

addition to closed loop sampling ~~ 

systems any system that collects all the 

VOC purged in die sampling and either 

recycles or disposes of tiiis VOC 

without emissions to atmosphere is 

allowed. In'situ sampling systems are 

exempted from these requirements. 

Vaives. Work practices consisting of 

periodic leak detection and repair 

programs were considered for valves in 

Regulatory Alternative IV. 

A performance standard for valves • 

was considered and found infeasible. 

Valves are not designed to release 

fugitive emissions Into a conveyance 

mechanism. Furthermore, determining 

mass emissions from each valve would 

require bagging each valve. This 

measurement method would be timeconsuming and prohibitively expensive, 

especially considering die number of 

valves in a SOCMI process unit. A "no 

detectable emissions" limit is not 

feasible for valves because some 

percent of the valves are expected to 

lead. 

Since performance standards were 

found to be infeasible for valves, -

equipment standards were considered. 

Equipment specifications considered for 

valves were diaphragm valyes and 

beilows-sealed valves. These equipment 

specifications would not be suitable for 

all SOCMI process applications, and 

dierefore. were not selected as part of 

Regulatory Alternative IV. However, use 

of these valves would be at least 

equivalent.because tiiey eliminate 

leakage of VOC. The use of such vaives 

is allowed as an alternative. These 

valves would be required to operate 

with "no detectable emissions" as 

described In Leakless Equipment in this 

section. 

Work practices were selected as die 

format forcontrol of fugitive VOC . 

emissions from valves. Several factors 

influence the level of emission reduction 

that can be achieved by a leak detection 

and repair program. The three main 

factors are the monitoring interval, leak 

definition, and repair interval. Training 

and diligence of personnel conducting 

the program, repair methods attempted, 

and other site-specific factors may also 

influence the level of emission reduction 

achievable: however, these factors are 

less quantifiable than die three main 

factors. 

The monitoring interval is the 

frequency at which individual 

component monitoring is conducted. The 

lengtii of time between inspections 

should be determined by the rate at 

which new leaks occur and die rate at 

which repaired leaks recur. More 

frequent inspections could tiien be 

required for souces which tend to leak 

more often. Available data with which 

to quantify die frequency of occurrence 

and recurrence of leaks from valves are 

limited. However, more frequent 

monitoring would result in greater 

emissions reduction because more 
P.13 

1146 / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 

frequent mard-oring wouid allow leaks 

to be detected earlier and thus ailow 

more immediate repair. 

Monthly monitoring wao eonsidefsd 

for Regulatory Alternative.IV. Test data 

indicate diat leaks would be found with 

monthly inspections. More frequent 

intervals were not considered because 

the large number of valves in eertaia 

SOCMI process units limits die practical 

minimum for the raosiitoring intervals. 

For example, a typical large process 

unit Modei Unit C (defined in the 

Background Information Doos_ae__t), 

includes 2800 valves (in gas and light 

liquid service) requiring periodic 

monitoring. Each leak detection snd 

repair survey for a single process u_u8 

would require approximately 9S Bias 

hours for monitoring and IS msa hews 

for reaair..:' the monitoring were 

performed by a two man teats* sore 

than one week would be required to 

.: ;npiete the monitoring. A week would 

. jariy be too short a time istemii to 

aeiect for taoBitoring. Since some time 

would be required to schedule repei? 

after s leak is detected, aoniteiiag 

intervals shorter'has oae month eould 

resui: : situation where e detected 

leak c~ _.d not be repaired before the 

next monitoring was required. One 

month was selected as the required 

monitoring interval because it would 

provide the greatest emission reduction 

potential without imposing difficulties ia 

implementing die leak detection and 

repair program. 

Industry representatives argued at ths 

National .Air Pollution Control 

Techniques Advisory. Committee 

meeting (a public meeting held dusisg 

the development of standards of 

performance) diat moniterisg all valves 

monthly wouid be aa ias-Sesoat oxpassG 

of time and manpower for vaives that 

leak infrequently or less oftea thaa etas. 

vaives. The analysis in the BID assis-sod 

diat about half the valves feuad Igaiaag 

at any given time are valves which have 

been -.paired and which have begus 

leaking again. This assumption 

emphasizes the importance of valve leak 

recurrence. If this assumption is esfrcet, 

more monitoring effort should be 

expended on valves found leaking and 

.ess on those found leaking iafrequeatly. 

Therefore, the proposed standard would 

require monthly monitoring of valves 

unless they are not found leaking toe 

two successive months. If a valve were 

not found leaking for two successive 

months, an owner or operator would 

have the option to exclude that vslvo 

from monitoring until die first month of 

the next quarterly period. Thereafter, 

the valve couid be monitored once every 

quarter until a leak was detected. If a 

valve IGQ_S WQSQ detected, monthly 

ffieaite_is§ o_ that valve wouid be 

required ustil it had been shown leak 

free, fe. tw© suggsssive raontiis. 

EPA waata t© make clear diat this 

proposed staadasd is baaed on die 

assump&e® that recurrence is an 

important facte!? in predicting valve 

leaks. This assus-ptioa was used to 

develop a faoaitsring program which 

would regal, is a level of fugitive 

emission eeefrel comparable to diat 

which would result from monthly 

; is aa. EPA's intent in tiiis 

! G meaitoring plan 

i comparable in effect to 

qvtmssif meai-odng. This wouid be die 

caso esdo*. the ps-gpased standard if 

oeeaffGaeg rathe? than recurrence is the 

ae?Q fepo_ia__. factor. 

EP A ia ©__K*a£ly collecting data 

comtzsaimj the importance of valve leak 

reeagreaes, ThG data being collected will 

be available before promulgation. If the 

date stows that recurrence is not a 

signifies--, esambutor to die total 

numbe? o_ leaks, the proposed program 

will bo raosossses and consideration 

will bo pvoa te rensaiag to monthly 

The leak deSajtioa is die VOC 

coaeeat*?atioia observed during 

soaite.iag tha* defines leaking sources 

that _e-*i_s_-Q Fepsi-. Two primary factors 

affoct the saleetioa of the leak 

defimtiea. These factors are: (1) the 

peregat of total sass emissions which 

eaa potoafcally be controlled by die leak 

detocti@-_/fepa!_~ program, and (2) the 

ability t© rcl. a_? the leaking components. 

As tho leak desisiteos decreases, die 

_aaxi_ai_® peteatiai emission reduction 

iaerenaoa disc to dis increasing number 

of se»__*es9 that have VOC 

co-iec-ats-a£_©<__. that are greater than the 

desseasmg loa__ defiaitions. The overall 

: r.issioa redue&o__ of a leak detection 

a.-.e fspai*. prefp'aga depends on several 

factors as aeted. above. Each of these 

faexera li_aits the effectiveness of the 

progress, ll eads of the factors 

eoasidered ia selecting die leak 

deteetaea aad repo!? program is 90 

3. tfaea the overall 

i be about 73 percent 

Each factor is a Limiting factor to die 

overall effeetsvGaGso. Thus, the most 

restrictive defisitiea that is reasonable 

for each faetsr should be selected. In 

order to sa___.'js__r_c control effectiveness 

of diQ look detection and repair 

prog_*a__i. dso lewest leak definition 

which ia feasible ia terms of monitoring 

and eea&alling effectively without being 

uareoaoiaabiy bordeascme should be 

selected. 

The leak definition selected for leak 

detection _ae___t@rffig was 10.000 ppm. 

Preli_r_iaa_=y data show that attempting 

on-line repair of valves at or above a 

leak dennition*of 10.00) ppm eould 

result in a few cases where the 

attempted repair wouid increase die 

emission rate from die valve, but these 

cases do not offset emission reductions 

achieved by repair of other vaives. 

When repair does not reduce tile VOC 

concentration to less than 10,000 ppm. 

die valve would require a more 

extensive repair effort than tightening or 

regreasing the packing. Replacement of 

the valve may be necessary. Preliminary 

data also show that attempting the 

repair of valves in the 1.000-10.000 ppm 

range (low level) couid result in morecases in which individual valve 

emission rates increase after repair 

when compared to the number of such 

cases which would result from 

attempting to repair valves in the over 

10.000 ppm range. If such increases were 

to occur, die attempted repair of "low" 

level" leaks could result in a lower 

overall emission reduction at a leak 

definition of 1.000 ppm than at 10.000 

ppm. Because die 10.000 ppm action 

tevei may provide a higher overall 

emission reduction than the 1.000 ppm 

action level. 10.000 ppm was selected as 

the leak definition for leak detection 

monitoring. 

The repair interval is defined as die 

length of time allowed between the 

detection of a leak and repair of die 

leak. In order to provide the maximum 

effectiveness of the leak detection and 

repair program, the repair interval 

shoui d require expeditious reduction of 

die i::*.ve emission but should also 

allov- tr._ owner/operator to maintain a 

reasonable degree of flexibility in 

overall maintenance scheduling. 

The leng'Ji of the repair interval wouid 

affect emission reductions achievable 

by the leak detection and repair 

programs because leaking sources 

wouid be allowed to continue to leak for 

a given length of time. Repair intervals 

of 1. 3,10.15. 30 and -45 days were 

evaluated. The effect on the maximum 

emission reduction potential is 

proportional to the number of days die 

source is allowed to leak between 

detection and repair. Estimates of 

emission reduction efficiency as a 

function of repair interval are presented 

in the Background Infonnation 

Document 

The repair interval selected for die 

leak repair program was 15 days. A 

repair interval of one day would cause 

problems in coordinating activities of 

personnel involved in leak detection and 

leak repair and in certain circumstances. 

wouid not be technically feasible. A one 

day repair interval would essentially 
P.14 

require repair of each component as 

soon as the leak was discovered. 

Some vaives may not be repairable by 

simple field maintenance. These valves 

may require spare parts or removal from 

the process for repair. Repair intervals 

of 5 and 10 days couid cause problems 

in obtaining acceptable repair for these 

valves. However, a 15-day interval 

provides the owner/operator witii 

sufficient time for flexibility in repair 

scheduling, and provides time for better 

determination of methods for isolating 

pieces of leaking equipment for repair. 

In general, a 15 day repair interval 

allows more efficient handling of repair 

tasks while maintaining an effective 

reduction in fugitive emissions and was, 

therefore selected as die repair interval. 

A repair interval of 30 or 45 days was 

not selected because a 15 day repair 

interval provides die most effective 

emission reduction without being 

burdensome. 

However, the first attempt at repair of 

a leaking source would be required as 

soon as practicable after detection of 

the leak, and no later tiian 5 days after 

discovery. Most repairs can be done 

quickly, and 5 days should provide 

sufficient time to schedule maintenance 

and repair a leaking source. Attempting 

to repair the leak within 5 days will help 

to identify die leaks that cannot be 

repaired within die 15 day repair 

interval. Delay of repair beyond 15 days 

would be allowed for leaks which could 

not be repaired without a process unit 

shutdown. 

Alternative Standards. In an effort to 

provide as much flexibility as possible, 

two alternative standards are being 

proposed for valves in gas and light 

liquid service. Owners or operators of 

affected facilities could identify and 

elect to comply witii either of the 

alternative standards^hich allow 

tailoring of fugitive emissions control 

programs to their own operations. This 

would be accomplished by carrying out 

a monthly monitoring program for at 

least one year. Then, a plant owner or 

operator could elect to comply with one 

of the alternative standards which 

would be based on information gathered 

during die one year's implementation of 

monthly monitoring. 

The first alternative standard would 

provide an allowable percentage of 

valves leaking. This type of standard 

would provide die flexibility of a 

performance standard by setting a limit 

which couid be achieved by die most 

efficient and practical metiiods for a 

particular operation. As previously 

pointed out in the Selection of Format 

for the Proposed Standards section of 

this preamble, an industry-wide 

allowable leak percentage was not 

possible for vaives because of the 

variability in vaive leak frequency 

among plants within die industry. 

However, the alternative standard 

would allow each affected facility to 

comply with an allowable percentage of 

valves leaking which is determined by 

their individualperformance based on 

monthly monitoring in die leak detection 

and repair program. 

The allowable percentage of leakers 

wouid be determined by averaging die 

percentage of valves found leaking in 

each month of the last six months of 

monitoring, excluding those which could 

not be repaired without a process unit 

shutdown. To this average would be 

added die additional percentage of leaks 

which would occur if vaives found 

leaking were monitored monthly and 

those found not leaking for two 

successive months were monitored 

quarterly. The resulting sum would be 

the performance standard for die 

percentage of vaives leaking which 

would be allowed at any time. If an 

owner or operator elected to comply 

with an allowable percentage of valves 

leaking, he would be required to meet 

this standard at any point in time, even 

though his allowable percentage-would 

be based on his average performance of 

a leak detection and repair program. 

Choosing this alternative standard 

would allow for the possibUity of 

different monitoring and maintenance 

programs and substitution of 

engineering controls, at the discretion of 

die owner or operator. It would also 

eliminate a large part of the 

recordkeeping and reporting associated 

with the proposed standard for valves. 

This alternative would require a 

minimum of one performance test per 

year. Additional performance tests 

could be requested by EPA. If the results 

of a performance test showed a 

percentage of valves leaking higher than 

die allowable limit die process unit 

would be in violation. Reporting would 

consist of submitting performance test 

results to die Administrator quarterly 

reporting would be eliminated for 

valves. 

The second alternative standard 

would provide for die use of. different 

work practices which would achieve the 

same level of control as die standard for 

valves described in proposed § 60.482(f). 

After performing monthly monitoring for 

at least a year, the data collected would 

be used to devise work practices which 

would achieve the same control as the 

work practices specified in the proposed 

standards. Using this approach an 

owner or operator could optimize labor 

and capital costs to achieve die required 

level of control by varying monitoring 

intervals or installing valves with lower 

probabilities of leaking. Quarterly 

reporting would be required under this 

alternative as it is under the proposed 

standard in § 60.482(f). 

An owner or operator would request 

approvalfrom EPA to use either of the 

alternative standards for valves. A 

request for approval would be 

accompanied by a description of die 

standard being selected for compliance 

and data and calculations supporting 

die basis for the alternative standard. 

The Administrator wouid eidier approve 

or disapprove the request for die use of 

the alternative standard within ninety 

days after die request-is submitted. A 

denial from the Administrator would be 

accompanied by his reasoning for 

denial. Until die alternative is approved, 

an owner or operator would be required 

to comply with the work practice 

standard propsoed for valves. 

The approach of providing optional 

standards would be reassessed before 

promulgation of the proposed standards 

and if promulgated would be reviewed 

at die fourth year review. At that time, 

changing, eliminating, or continuing the 

alternative standards would be 

considered. 

Control device. Control devices would 

be used to dispose of VOC captured in 

closed vent systems from barrier fluid 

degassing systems and enclosed pump 

and compressor seai areas. In all cases, 

these control devices would receive 

streams with low and intermittent flow 

rates. These control devices would in 

some cases be designed to dispose of 

organic streams from other sources in 

the plant so that the VOC streams may 

contribute a very small percentage of 

the total loading on die control device. 

Because it would be technologically and 

economically impracticable to measure 

very low-flow streams and differentiate 

these streams from others, an emission 

standard was not proposed for these 

control devices. 

Design requirements for control 

devices were considered to insure that 

appropriate emission reductions wouid 

be achieved from control devices used 

in conjunction with closed vent systems. 

Enclosed combustion sources and vapor 

recovery systems were considered as 

control devices for die closed vent 

system. Enclosed combustion was 

specified because open flares may only 

be 60 percent efficient for VOC 

destruction of tiiese low flow 

intermittent streams. The design 

requirements specified in the proposed 

standard for enclosed combustion are 

the attainment of a minimum 

temperature of 816"C for 0.75 seconds. 

Under these conditions, at least 95 

percent VOC destruction is achieved. 
P.15 

1148 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 [• Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 

Vapor recovery systems were also 

evaluated as control devices for VOC 

from closed vent systems used with 

pumps and compressors. A control 

efficiency of at least 95 percent was 

chosen as the design requirement 

because it is the highest reasonable 

control efficiency practically achievable 

for vapor recovery systems such as 

carbon adsorption or condensation units 

used for fugitive emission sources. The 

design requirement selected for control 

devices wasat least 95 percent VOC 

emission reduction. This control 

efficiency can be achieved by boiler 

furnaces, incinerators, process heaters, 

and carbon adsorption units. 

Leakless equipment. As discussed in 

the previous sections, leakless 

equipment was considered for several of 

the fugitive emission sources to which 

these proposed standards apply. Sealedbellows and diaphragm valves, canned 

and diaphragm pumps, and sealless 

compressors were considered for 

equipment standards. Although use of 

this equipment achieves excedent 

control (100 percent) of fugitive VOC 

emissions, its specification in die 

proposed standards was rejected 

because it is not widely applicable to 

SOCMI processes. However, use of 

leakless equipment is clearly equivalent 

if not better than die proposed 

standards for pumps, compressors, and 

vaives and the proposed standards 

would ailow the use of such equipment 

as an alternative to the required 

practices. 

Leakless equipment would be required 

to operate with "no detectable 

emissions'' at all times when it is in 

service. "No detectable emissions'' of 

VOC means 200 ppm or less above 

background. The 200 ppm limit resulted 

from die measurement method of 

proposed Reference Method 21 as 

discussed in die Selection of Test 

Mediods section of this preamble. 

Because leaks are not expected to occur 

in leakless equipment die proposed 

standards require diat its leakless status 

need only be verified annually using 

Method 21. 

Exclusions. Flanges in ail services, 

relief valves in light liquid service, and 

all components in "heavy liquid" (VOC 

fluids with vapor pressures less dian 0.3 

kPa at 20-C) VOC service were excluded 

from die routine monitoring and 

inspection requirements. However, if 

leaks are detected from these sources. 

the same allowable repair interval 

which applies to pumps, vaives. and 

compressors would apply. These 

sources wouid be excluded from routine 

monitoring on the basis of data from 

EPA testing in petroleum refineries. 

Flanges in refineries have very low 

emission rates, and alUiough they 

represent 81 percent of the total sources 

in refineries, dieir total contribution to 

overall emissions is about 11 percent In 

EPA testing of fugitive emission sources 

in refineries, safety/relief valves in 

liquid VOC service also exhibited very 

low emission rates. These valves 

contribute only 0.2 percent of all 

emissions from refineries. Components 

in "heavy liquid" VOC service have 

emission rates that are much lower than 

"light liquid" or gas service components. 

Since all three of tiiese types of sources 

contribute a very small portion of 

overall emission, including them in die 

monitoring and equipment requirements 

was not considered reesonabie. 

Also excluded would be equipment 

operating under a vacuum because leaks 

to atmosphere wouid not occur while 

die equipment operated at 

subatmospheric internal pressures. 

Selection of Recordkeeping gnd 

Reporting Requirements 

Recordkeeping and reporting wouid 

be required by the proposed standards 

to provide documentation for die 

assessment of compliance with (1) work 

practice standards. (2) equipment 

standards. (3) designs standards. (4) 

emission standards, and (5) operational 

standards. Review of records and 

reports would provide infonnation for 

enforcement personnel to assess 

implementation of die proposed 

standards. 

Compliance with die proposed 

standards would be determined by 

inspection and review of records. The 

General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 

state diat compliance with standards of 

performance, other than opacity 

standards, shall be determined only by 

performance tests. However, the 

proposed standards are. in general, not 

standards of performance and 

performance tests are not applicable. 

Therefore, an amendment to 40 CFR 

60.11 is being proposed which would 

add a provision that allows compliance 

to be determined by review of records 

and inspection. The proposed standards 

then specify that compliance with die 

standards other dian those for safety/ 

relief devices will be determined by 

review of records and inspection. 

Recordkeeping. Three recordkeeping 

alternatives were considered in 

evaluating the amount of recorded 

information needed to assess 

compliance with the proposed 

standards. These alternatives represent 

varying levels of die amount of 

information which could be recorded 

during activities associated with 

complying with the standards. 

Consequently, these alternatives 

represent varying ievels of resource 

requirements for industry. 

The first alternative would be to 

require no formal recordkeeping other 

dian die recordkeeping required by the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR 60.7 for 

notification of cons auction or 

modification: reconstruction: and startup, and shutdown or malfunction. 

- Failure to require recorded 

documentation of die proposed work 

practice, equipment design, and 

operational standards would not 

provide a mechanism for checking the 

thoroughness of the implementation of 

me proposed standards and. diarefo"**"-. 

wouid not ensure fugitive emission 

reduction. Because the effectiveness of 

the proposed standards is dependent 

upon the thoroughness of industry's 

efforts, this alternative was r.ot chosen 

as the basis of die recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The second alternative would require 

recordkeeping to document results cf tha 

leak detection and repair prcgr*_.*n *r.d 

information relating to equipment, 

design, and operation requirement... 

Information wouid be recorded in 

sufficient detail to enable owners / " 

operators to demonstrate corspiisnes. 

with the standards and therefore 

provide reasonable assurance cf 

adequate reduction of fugitive 

emissions. This alternative would 

require die maintenance of quant:::-*--.<*• 

records of repaired and unrepaired 

leaking fugitive emission sources. Th:.-. 

alternative would require only the 

minimum amount of records on the 

equipment design, emission, and 

operational standards and the work 

practice leak detection and repair 

program necessary to ensure the 

effective implementation of die 

proposed standards. ^ 

The third alternative would require 

recordkeeping of all die information 

generated by the proposed standards 

e.g.. die number of Fugitive emission 

sources detected at a concentration less 

than 10,000 ppmv. Much of tiiis 

information would not be necessary to 

insure die implementation of the 

proposed standards. The level of 

recordkeeping in the third alternative is 

more appropriate for requirements to 

establish equivalent methods for 

emission limitation. 

The second alternative was selected 

as die basis for the recordkeeping 

requirements of the proposed standards. 

This alternative would require the 

minimum industry resources to provide 

the necessary records to ensure effective 

'implementation of the proposed 

standards. This alternative would also 

provide a basis for efficient reporaa*". 
P.16 

Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 1149 

The proposed standards would -

require recording of specific information 

pertaining to the monthly monitoring for 

the work practice standards. Also 

information pertaining to repair of 

leaking pumps and compressors would 

be recorded. Each leaking fugitive . 

emission source would be identified 

with readily visible weadierproof 

identification bearing the LD. number of 

the fugitive emission source. The 

identification could be a tag or any other 

marking which allows ready location of 

the equipment. It could be removed after 

the fugitive emission source was 

repaired and verified non-leaking in two 

successive months. A log would be 

maintained for information pertaining to 

the leaking sources. The log would -

contain die instrument and operator 

identification numbers for valve 

monitoring, the leaking source 

identification number, die date of 

detection of die leak, the date of each • 

attempt to repair die leak, and die 

maximum screening value after each 

attempt. The log would be kept for 2 

years following the survey... 

The proposed standards would 

require that ""repair delayed" be 

recorded in the log for that particular 

fugitive emission source if repair were 

delayed beyond 15 calendar days after 

the date of detection. The reasons for 

unsuccessful repair, date of detection, 

repair methods attempted and the 

expected date of repair of the leak and 

die maximum screening value observed 

after repair would be recorded in the 

log. These records wouid be needed to 

establish a data base to provide the . 

information necessary to allow 

enforcement personnel to assess 

compliance with the work practice • 

standards. 

The proposed standards would 

require no records for vaives which 

were found not to leak. Similarly, no 

records wouid need to be maintained of 

the weekly pump inspections if no leaks 

were observed visually. 

For the design standards, die 

proposed standards would require 

records to be maintained of the location 

of materials documenting control device 

design criteria, such as design 

specifications for a vapor recovery 

system or an incinerator. When the 

control equipment was modified or 

replaced, die date of replacement and 

new design criteria would be recorded. 

A record of the source identification 

numbers for those fugitive emission 

sources operating under "no detectable 

emissions" limits would be required. 

Fugitive emission sources included in 

this category would be all safety relief 

valves and leakless equipment which 

has been designated for operation under 

"no detectable emissions" such.as 

diaphragm valves or seaiiess. pumps. 

Records of each measurement made to 

verify "no detectable emissions" would 

be required. The dates of the verification, 

tests, ambient background VOC 

concentration measured, and die 

maximum VOC concentration measured 

at the source wouid be recorded. 

The proposed standards contain very 

specific requirements concerning 

recordkeeping. These requirements are 

in addition.to die requirements set forth 

in the General Provisions (40 CFR 60.7). 

Some of die requirements in 5 60.7 are 

duplicated in die proposed standards. 

Also § 60.7 requires some records diat 

may be unnecessary to determining 

compliance with die proposed 

standards. To eliminate redundancy and 

unnecessary recordkeeping, the 

proposed standards state that §§ 60.7 (b) 

and (d) wouid not be applicable to 

owners or operators affected by the 

proposed standards. A revision to the 

General Provisions is also being 

proposed to provide a mechanism to 

exclude the coverage of § § 60.7 (b) and 

(d). 

Reporting. Three reporting 

alternatives were considered in. . 

evaluating die amount of reported 

infonnation needed to assess 

compliance with the proposed 

standards. These alternatives represent 

varying levels of enforcement 

monitoring of the proposed standards. 

They also represent varying levels of 

resources required for industry and 

enforcement personnel. Enforcement 

personnel would review the reports 

submitted by industry personnel on the 

status of implementing the proposed 

standards. This review procedure 

reduces die need for in-plant * 

inspections. 

. The first alternative would require 

minimum reporting of information which 

was recorded to monitor compliance 

with the proposed standards. Recorded 

information wouid be available at the 

plant to enforcement personnel, but the 

owner/operator would be required only 

to supply a report testifying that all 

equipment design, emission, and 

operational standards had been met 

that all components had been monitored 

and diat those with'leaks had been 

repaired. The more detailed recorded 

information would tiien be available 

upon specific request or plant visit by 

enforcement personnel. This alternative 

would not provide a mechanism for 

checking the thoroughness of the —-

industry's efforts to reduce VOC fugitive 

emissions without a visit to the plant 

site. Thus, assessment of compliance 

with the standards wouid be 

intermittent and somewhat random 

since it would mainly be determined 

through in-plant inspections rather than 

dirough submittal of information to 

enforcement agencies. 

The second reporting alternative 

would require the submittal of 

information in sufficient detail to insure 

compliance with the proposed work 

practice, equipment, design, emission, 

and operational standards. Included in 

the reports would be summarized data 

concerning leaks detected during the 

reporting period. This requirement 

would provide enforcement personnel 

witii an overview of the repair of leaks. 

A report signed by die plant owner/ 

operator attesting to the validity of the 

results of die monitoring surveys and 

instrument calibration procedures would 

allow enforcement personnel to assess 

the compliance of facilities with the 

work practice standards. This report 

would also attest to the proper 

application, operation, and maintenance 

of the equipment required by the 

proposed equipment, design, emission, 

and operational standards. These 

requirements would not necessarily 

include all records kept by industry. 

Only information that would be 

necessary to.assess the implementation 

of the equipment standards would be 

required. 

The third reporting alternative would 

require die submittal of all the 

information obtained while conducting 

leak detection and repair programs. This 

information would include the 

information reported in the second 

alternative and. additionally, 

comprehensive information on all tested 

components. This reporting alternative 

would necessitate the reporting of ail 

information included in the 

recordkeeping requirements. The 

extensiveness of die reported 

information would require the SOCMI tc 

report data that would be more 

appropriate for demonstrating 

equivalency of alternate methods of 

emission control dian for establishing 

compliance with proposed standards. 

The second alternative was selected 

as die reporting requirement for the 

proposed standards. This alternative 

provides sufficient information to 

review compliance without requiring 

excessive resources from industry. The 

first alternative was not selected 

because die compdance with work 

practice standards and the 

implementation of equipment design, 

emission, and operational standards 

could not be adequately assessed by 

enforcement personnel to insure that 

reductions in fugitive emissions were 

achieved. The third reporting alternative 
P.17 

1130 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 

was not selected because the additional 

resources expended by industry would 

not facilitate assessment of compliance 

and implementation of work practice, 

equipment, design, emission and 

operational standards. 

Under die proposed standards 

quarterly reports would be submitted. 

The reports would contain summary 

data of die number of leaks found and 

repaired within die reporting period. The 

number of leaks not repaired within 15 

days, reasons for their non-repair, and 

anticipated dates of repair would also 

be required. The owner or operator 

would be required to sign die report 

stating whether or not the process unit 

was operated in full compliance with all 

work practice, design and operational, 

and equipment provisions of the 

standard. If die owner or operator had 

more dian one affected facility, he could 

submit one statement of compliance for 

ail of them. Example report formats are 

shown in Figures 1. 2. 3. and 4 In die 

proposed standards. These are 

examples only. The required information 

could be submitted in any other useful 

form. 

As stated previously in die Safety/ 

Relief Valves section of tiiis preamble, 

performance tests generally require 

three runs and notification of die 

Administrator 30 days before die test 

However, tiiis prenotification is not 

reasonable for die proposed standards 

because tests to determine no detectable 

emissions must occur within five days 

after an overpressure relief. Because of 

this conflict in reporting requirements. 

affected facilities have been exempted 

from 40 CFR 60.8(d). 

Impacts of reporting requirements. In 

addition to requirements of die General 

Provisions of Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 

60. die proposed standards would 

require quarterly reports including 

information pertaining to die required 

work practices. Estimates of die efforts 

associated with the reporting 

requirements indicate that the industry 

wouid incur manpower expenditures of 

approximately 33 manyears in 1985 to 

fulfill the requirement which would 

apply to about 830 affected facilities. No 

overlapping data requirements with 

other government agencies are. 

anticipated. 

Equivalence of Alternative Means of 

Emission Limitation 

Under the provisions of Section 111(h) 

of the Clean Air Act. if die 

Administrator establishes work 

practices, equipment, design or 

operational standards, then the 

Administrator must allow the use of ~~ 

alternative means of emission 

limitations if they achieve a reduction in 

air pollutants equivalent to diat 

achieved under requirements of a 

standard of performance. Sufficient data 

would be required to show equivalency 

and a public hearing would be required. 

Individual owners /operators in 

SOCMI could request alternatives 

beyond diose now provided for specific 

requirements such as the proposed 

equipment and the proposed leak 

detection and repair program. Sufficient 

infonnation would have to-be collected 

by a facility to demonstrate diat die 

alternative control techniques would be 

equivalent to die control techniques 

required by the proposed standards. 

This information would tiien be 

submitted to EPA in a request for a 

determination of equivalence. A public 

hearing notice would be published in die 

Federal Register. 

The data submitted in a request for 

equivalency of alternative control 

measures would take the form of test 

data to substantiate equivalency. To 

obtain permission to use alternate types 

of equipment VOC emissions test data 

would be supplied for comparison to 

emissions data from the specified 

equipment Application for equivalence 

of work practices would require 

submission of twelve months' data for 

the leak detection and repair program 

specified in die standards and data for 

die alternate system. 

After public notice and opportunity 

for public hearing, the Administrator 

would determine die equivalence of an 

alternative means of emission limitation 

and would publish his determination in 

die Federal Register. 

Selection of Test Methods 

Several fugitive emission 

measurement and monitoring methods 

were identified and analyzed in the 

development of die proposed standards. 

Evaluation of these alternative methods 

was based upon results of emission 

testing conducted at petroleum 

refineries and synthetic organic 

chemical manufacturing plants. 

One method of emission measurement 

is die direct measurement of mass per 

unit time. e.g. kg/hr. from each source. 

For the wide variety of sources subject 

to this standard, direct measurement 

would require "bagging" techniques for 

the measurement of mass emissions. 

"Bagging" means to enclose a fugitive 

emission source with a shroud in order 

to capture all of the emissions from the 

source. The shroud must be attached 

securely to the source in order to insure 

complete capture of emissions, and a 

flow measurement device is needed to 

measure the volumetric emission rate. 

After an appropriate equilibration time, 

which depends on the shroud and the 

leak rate (5-30 minutes), a sample of tha . 

effluent from the shroud is taken to 

detennine the VOC concentration. The 

VOC mass emission rate is then 

calculated based on the low volumetric 

flow rate and VOC concentration. 

Because of die large numbers of sources 

in an affected facility as weil as the 

different physical configurations and 

diverse locations, direct measurements 

of leak rates would be costly, timeconsuming, and impractical for routine 

testing. Therefore, direct measurement 

. of leak rates was not selected as die 

emission measurement method for die 

proposed standard. 

Indirect emission measurement 

methods or monitoring methods that 

would yield qualitative indications of 

leaks were reviewed. These monitoring 

methods are: (1) a periodic individual 

component survey that would monitor 

all fugitive emission sources using 

portable VOC detectors: (2) a periodic 

area, or walkthrough survey that wouid 

monitor ambient concentrations of VOC 

using portable VOC detectors: and (3) a 

continuous fixed-point monitoring 

system diat wouid consist of stationary 

sensing devices with a remotely located 

central readout or a central analyzer 

system (gas chromatograph) with remote 

sample collection. 

Individual component surveys using 

portable VOC detectors would be the 

most efficient method for detecting ail 

leaks. The periodic individual 

component survey could be done in a 

reasonable amount of time by 

monitoring personnel and couid be 

accomplished with relative ease. The 

cost of leak detection equipment for an 

individual component survey would be 

reasonable. 

Two individual component survey 

methods were identified: (1) leak 

detection by spraying each component 

with a soap solution and observing 

bubble formation: and (2) leak detection 

by measuring VOC concentration with a 

. portable VOC detector. The maanituce 

of leak rates based on bubble formation 

is difficult to assess. In addition, soap 

bubble formation does not distinguish 

VOC emissions from other leaking jases 

or vapors, and bubble formation is 

subject to component temperature and 

component configuration restraints. 

Therefore, measurement of VOC 

concentration with a portable VOC 

detector was selected as die method for 

monitoring individual components. 

A periodic area, or walkthrough 

survey of ambient VOC concentrations 

with a portable VOC detector and 

recorder would be a less effective 

"method for detecting specific leaks than 

an individual component survey. 

Interference due to local meteorological 
P.18 

conditions and leaks from adjacent units 

would probably prevent the detection of 

all leaks within a process unit. In fact 

previous studies have indicated that die 

area survey is suitable only for locating 

large leaks. In order to have a 

walkthrough method diat is as sensitive 

to leak3 as an individual component 

survey, the "action level".indicating the 

need to do a complete survey of 

equipment within a specific area would' 

necessarily need to be very low. It 

would also probably need to be unit and 

meteorology specific (different action 

levels for different wind speeds). Witii 

an action level this low the background 

level of VOC could cause considerable 

interference and leaks would 

undoubtedly be indicated almost 

everywhere in the unit. An individual 

component survey would in many cases 

be necessary to locate the actual leak. 

Therefore, since it is not possible to 

provide an industry-wide action level 

indicative of leaks for a given process 

unit, and since any action level diat 

was determined could give so many 

false indications of leaks that an 

essentially complete individual 

component survey would be necessary 

to detect die actual leaks, walkthrough 

testing was not judged to be a 

reasonable approach for leak detection. 

Implementation of a continuous fixedpoint monitoring system would require a 

portable VOC detector to locate specific 

leaking-components in addition to 

multiple stationary monitors or sampie 

collectors. This system may be less 

efficient than the other metiiods for 

detecting VOC emissions. Possible 

meteorological interference and 

problems witii measuring VOC 

concentrations of remotely collected 

samples would limit die efficiency of 

leak detection by a fixed-point system. 

Except for possible monitoring 

equipment calibration problems, the 

fixed-point system would be operated 

with relative ease by monitoring 

personnel, who wouid still be required 

to use portable VOC detection 

equipment to find the individual leaking 

components indicated by die fixed-point 

monitoring system. Implementation of a 

continuous fixed-point monitoring 

system would be capital-intensive, 

although leak detection labor costs 

would probably be the least of the three 

monitoring methods. 

Some characteristics of the three 

indirect emission measurement methods 

are similar, including safety 

considerations and ease of operation for 

monitoring personnel. Some aspects of 

the three methods are different. Capital 

and operating costs vary, as do the 

efficiencies of the methods in detecting 

VOC leaks. The individual component 

method is characterized by a superior 

leak detection efficiency and reasonable 

costs. Considering these factors, the 

individual component method was 

selected as die monitoring method for 

the proposed standards. 

Selected Test Procedure. The. 

proposed test metiiod. Method 21, would 

incorporate the use of a portable VOC 

detector to measure the concentration of 

VOC at a source to yield a qualitative or 

semiquantitative indication of the VOC 

emission rate from the source. The 

general approach of tiiis technique • 

assumes diat if a VOC leak exists, there 

is an increased VOC concentration in 

the vicinity of the leak. Tests in 

petroleum refineries have established 

general concentration versus mass 

emission relationships for various 

fugitive emission sources. Also, tests 

have indicated diat local conditions 

cause variations in concentration 

readings at points removed from the 

surface of the interface on the 

component where leaking occurs. 

Therefore, the proposed method requires 

the concentration to be measured at die 

leak interface. 

As discussed in the Selection of 

Emission Limit Equipment Work -

Practice, Design, and Operational 

Standards section in this preamble, a 

definition of a leak for valves was 

selected to be 10.000 ppm. This 

concentration level is measured at tile 

leak interface and qualitatively relates 

to emission rates. Also discussed in that 

section is the definition of no detectable 

emissions. A concentration for no 

detectable emissions needs to Be 

defined such diat when emissions occur 

they can be detected and when 

emissions are not occuring they are not 

mistakenly detected. Based on 

considerations of Uie calibration 

procedures and monitor variability at 

low meter deflections, two percent of 

the definition of a leak was selected as 

the definition of no detectable 

emissions. Thus, in this case, no 

detectable emissions means a VOC 

concentration of less than 200 ppm 

above background concentration at the 

leak interface. 

The portable VOC detector used in 

tihe proposed monitoring program would 

be required to conform to several 

specifications to insure consistent 

industry-wide monitoring, effective VOC 

emission reduction efforts, and safe leak 

detection programs. Equipment 

specifications are proposed in MethdcT 

21 as follows: (1) The instrument should 

respond to total hydrocarbons or 

combustible gases. Detector types which 

may meet this requirement include 

catalytic oxidation, flame ionization, 

infrared absorption, and 

photoionization: (2) the instrument 

should be safe for operation in* explosive 

atmospheres: (3) the.instrument should 

incorporate an appropriate range or 

dilution option so diat concentration 

levels of 10.000 ppmv can be measured: 

(4) the instrument should be equipped 

with a pump so that a continuous 

sample can be provided to the detector. 

The nominal sample flow rate should be 

1-3 liters per minute: (5) die scale of the 

instrument readout meter should be 

readable to ±5 percent at 10,000 ppmv. 

The proposed standards would 

require that the monitoring instrument 

be calibrated before each monitoring 

survey. The proposed standards would 

require that the monitoring instrument 

be calibrated with methane. The 

required calibration gases would be a 

zero gas (air, 3 ppmv VOC) and a 

methane-air mixture of approximately 

10.000 ppmv methane. If cylinder 

calibration gas mixtures would be used, 

they would have to be analyzed and 

certified by the manufacturer to within 

±2 percent accuracy as required in 

proposed Method 21. Calibration gases 

prepared by the user according to an 

accepted gaseous standards preparation 

procedure would also have to be 

accurate within ±2 percent, as required 

in proposed Metiiod 21. 

Proposed Method 21 requires that the 

monitoring instrument would be 

subjected to otiier performance 

requirements prior to being placed in 

service for the-first time. The instrument 

would be subjected to these 

performance criteria every six months 

and after any modification or 

replacement of the instrument detector. 

•Public Hearing 

A public hearing will be held to 

discuss these proposed standards in __ 

accordance witii Section 307(d)(5) of'the 

Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make 

oral presentations should contact EPA 

at the address given in the ADDRESSES 

section of this preamble. Oral 

presentations will be limited to 15 

minutes each. Any member of the public 

may file a written statement with EPA 

before, during, or within 30 days after 

the hearing. Written statements should 

be addressed to the Central Docket 

Section address given in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

A verbatim transcript of the hearing 

and written statements will be available 

for public inspection and copying during 

normal working hours at EPA's Central 

Docket Section in Washington. D.C. (see 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 
P.19 

1132 Fedaiai Re-aster / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 

Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of ail die infonnation 

submitted to or otherwise considered "by 

EPA in the development of this proposed 

rulemaking. The principal purposes of 

die docket are (1) to allow interested 

parties to readily identify and locate 

documents so that tiiey can intelligently 

and effectively participate in die 

rulemaking process and (2) to serve as 

the record in case of judicial review. 

Miscellaneous 

Aa prescribed by Section 111. 

establishment of standards of 

performance for the synthetic organic 

chemical manufacturing industry was 

preceded by die Administrator's 

determination (40 CFR 60.18. 44 FR 

49222. dated August 21.1979) that 

sources within tiiis industry contribute 

significantly to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. In accordance 

with Section 117 of the Act publication 

of this proposal was preceded by 

consultation with appropriate advisory 

committees, independent experts, and 

Federal departments and agencies. The 

Administrator will welcome comments 

on all aspects of the proposed 

standards, including economic and 

technological issues, and on die 

proposed Appendix E and Method 21. 

It should be noted diat standards of 

performance for new sources 

established under Section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act reflect 

' ' " application of die best" technological 

system of continuous emission reduction 

which (taking into consideration die cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, and 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated (Section 111(a)(1)]. 

.Although there may be emission 

control technology available diat can 

reauce emissions below those levels 

required to comply with standards of 

performance, this technology might not 

be selected as die basis of standards of 

performance because of costs 

associated with its use Accordingly,, 

standards of performance should not be 

viewed as the ultimate in achievable 

emission control. In fact the Act 

requires (or has the potential for 

requiring) the imposition of a more 

stringent emission standard in several 

situations. 

For example, applicable costs do not 

necessarily play as prominent a role in 

determining the "lowest achievable 

emission rate" for new or modified 

sources locating m nonattainment areas, 

i.e.. those areas where statutorialy 

mandated health and welfare standards 

are being violated. In this respect 

Section 173 of the Act requires that new 

or modified sources constructed, in an 

area where ambient pollutant 

concentrations are above the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). must reduce emissions to the 

level that reflects the "lowest 

achievable emission rate" (LAER). as 

defined in Section 171(3) for such 

category of source. The statute defines 

LAER as that rate of emissions based on 

the following, whichever is more 

stringent: 

(A) The most stringent emission limitation 

which is contained in the implementation 

plant of any State for such class or category 

of source, unless the owner or operator of the 

proposed source demonstrates that such 

limitations are.not achievable, or 

(B) The most stringent emission limitation 

which is achieved in practice by such class or 

category of source. 

In no event can the emission rate exceed 

any applicable new source performance 

standard (Section 171(3J). 

A similar situation may arise under 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality provisions of 

die Act (Part C). These provisions 

require that certain sources (referred to 

in Section 189(1 )j employ "best 

avadable control technology" (BACT) as 

defined in Section 166(3) for ail 

pollutants regulated under the Act Best 

available control technology must be 

determined on a case-by-case basis, 

taking energy, environmental and 

economic impacts, and other costs into 

account In no event may die application 

of BACT result in emissions of any 

pollutants which wdl exceed the 

emissions allowed by an applicable 

standard established pursuant to 

Section 111 (or 112) of the Act 

In all cases. State Implementation 

Plans (SIP's) approved or promulgated 

under Section 110 of die Act must provid 

for the attainment and maintenance of 

NAAQS designed to protect public 

health and welfare. For tiiis purpose. 

SIFs must in some cases require greater 

emission reduction dian diose required 

by standards of performance for new 

sources. 

Finally, States are free under Section 

116 of die Act to establish even more 

stringent emission limits than diose 

established under Section 111 of diose 

necessary to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS under Section 110. Accordingly, 

new sources may in some cases be 

subject to limitations more stringent 

than standards of performance under 

Section 111. and prospective owners and 

operators of new sources should be 

aware of this possibility in planning for 

such facilities. 

This regulation will be reviewed fdury.. r_ from the date of promulgation as 

required by the Clean Air Act This 

review will include an assessment of 

such factors as the need for integration 

with other programs, the existence cf 

alternative methods, enforceability, and 

improvements in emission control 

technology, and reporting requirements. 

The reporting requirements in this 

regulation will be reviewed as required 

under EPA's sunset policy for reporting 

requirements in regulations. 

Section 317 of die Clean Air Act 

requires die Administrator to prepare an 

economic impact assessment for any 

new source standard of performance 

promulgated under Section 111(b) of the 

Act An economic impact assessment 

was prepared for the proposed 

regulations and for other regulatory 

alternatives. All aspects of the 

assessment were considered in the 

formulation of the proposed standards 

to insure diat the proposed standards 

would represent the best'system of 

emission reduction considering costs. 

The economic impact assessment is 

included in the Background Lniormaticn 

Document. 

Dated: December 18.1980. ___ 

Douglas M. Costie, 

Administrator. 

It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part 

60 as follows: 

1. By adding paragraph (f) to § 60.7 to 

Subpart A—General Provisions as 

follows: 

§ 80.7 Notification and recortikMO-ng. 

• * • • * 

(0 Individual subparts of tiiis pan 

may include specific provisions which 

clarify or make inapplicable the 

provisions set forth in this section. 

(Sec. 111.114. 301(a) of die Clean Air Act. as 

amended (42 U.S.C 7411. 7414. 7eoi(a))J 

2. By adding paragraph (f) to § 60.11 to 

Subpart A—General Provisions as 

follows: 

3 SOU. Compliance with auncar aa and 

maintenance requirements. 

(f) Special provisions set forth under 

an applicable subpart of this part shall 

supersede any conflicting provisions cf 

this section. 

tSec. 111. 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as 

amended |42 U.S.C 7411. 7601(a))) 

3. By adding Subpart VV as fellows: 

Subpart VV—Standards of Pertortrtaoce ?s. 

Fugitive Emission Sources in tne Symretsc 

Organic Chemicals Manufacturing industry 

.O.4g0 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 
P.20 

Federal Refistee / Vol. 48, No. 2 / Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 11S3 

Sec. 

60.481 Definitions. 

60.482 Standards. 

50.483 Alternative Standards. 

60.484 Equivalence of alternative means of 

emission limitation. 

60.485 Test methods and procedures. 

60.486 Recordkeeping requirements. 

60.487 Reporting requirements. 

Authority: Sec. 111. 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601(a)], and 

additional authority as noted below. 

Subpart W=Standard§ of 

Pertermane«_ for Fugitive Emission 

Sources in ths Synthetic Organic 

Chemicals Manufacturing Industry 

§ 60.480 Aplicabillty and designation o. 

affected facility. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to affected facilities witiiin die 

synthetic organic chemicals 

manufacturing industry. .An affected 

facility is the group of all fugitive 

emission sources within a process unit. 

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of 

this section that commences 

construction or modification after 

January 5.1981 would be subject to die 

requirements of this subpart. 

(c) Addition or replacement of fugitive 

emission sources for the purpose of 

process improvement which is 

accomplished without a capital 

expenditure shall not by itself be 

considered a modification under this 

subpart 

§ 60.481 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined here shall have the meaning 

given diem in the Act and in Subpart A 

of Part 60. and the following terms shall 

have die specific meanings given them. 

"Closed Vent System" means a 

system which is not open to die 

atmosphere and which is composed of 

piping, connections, and. if necessary, 

flow inducing devices that transport gas 

or vapor from a fugitive emission source 

to an enclosed combustion device or 

vapor recovery system. 

"Enclosed Combustion Oevice" means 

.-fny combustion device which is not 

open to die atmosphere such as a 

process heater or furnace, but not a 

flare. 

"First^Attempt at Repair" means to 

take rapid action for die purpose of 

stopping or reducing leakage of organic 

material to atmosphere using best 

modern practices. 

"Fugitive Emission Source" means 

each pump, valve, safety/relief valve, 

open-ended valve, flange or other 

connector, compressor, or sampling 

system. 

"In Gas/Vapor Service" means that 

the fugitive emission source contains 

process fluid that, is in the gaseous state 

at operating conditions. 

"In Light Liquid Service" means diat 

the fugitive emission source contains a 

liquid that meets die conditions 

specified in § 60.485(c). 

"Open-Ended Valve" means any 

valve, except safety/relief valves, with 

one side of die valve seat in contact 

with process fluid and one side that is 

open to the atmosphere, either directly 

or dirough open piping. 

"Process Improvement" means routine 

changes made for safety and 

occupational health requirements, for 

energy savings, for better utility, for 

ease of maintenance and operation, for 

correction of design deficiencies, for 

bottleneck removal, for changing 

product requirements, or for 

environmental control. 

"Process Unit" means equipment 

assembled to produce, as intermediates 

or final products, one or more of die 

chemicals listed in Appendix E of tiiis 

part A process unit can operate 

independently if supplied with sufficient 

feed or raw materials and sufficient 

storage facilities for die final product. 

"Quarter" means a three month 

period. The first quarter concludes at the 

end of die last full month during die 180 

days following initial startup. 

"Repaired'"means that a fugitive 

emissions source is adjusted or 

otherwise altered in order to reduce 

fugitive emissions below the level that 

indicates die necessity for repair as 

required in § 60.482. 

"Synthetic Organic Chemicals 

Manufacturing Industry" means the 

industry diat produces, as intermediates 

or final products, one or more of die 

chemicals listed in Appendix E of this 

part. 

"In Vacuum Service" means that a 

fugitive emission source is operating at 

an internal pressure which is 

continuously less than 100 kPa. 

"Vapor Recovery System" means any 

type of control device capable of 

removing VOC vapor from a gas stream, 

such as carbon adsorption, vapor 

compression, and vapor refrigeration 

systems. 

"Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)" 

means any organic compound, which 

participates in atmospheric 

photochemical reactions or is measured 

by the applicable test methods 

described in Reference Method 21. 

"In VOC Service" means that a 

fugitive emission source contains or"^ 

contacts a process fluid that is at least 

10 percent VOC by weight as 

determined according to the provisions 

of § 60.485(d). 

§ 60.483 Standards. 

Each owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall comply 

with the following requirements for 

fugitive emission sources in VOC 

service, except those in vacuum service. 

(a) Pumps in light liquid service. 

(1) Each pump shail be equipped with 

a dual mechanical seal system that 

includes a barrier fluid svstem except as 

provided in § 60.482(a)(7], § 60.482(a)(8). 

or § 60.482(j). 

(2) Each fluid system as required in 

§ 60.482(a)(1) shall be equipped with a 

sensor that will detect failure of the seal 

system, die barrier fluid system, or both. 

The barrier fluid shall not be a light 

liquid or gaseous VOC. 

(3) Each dual mechanical seal system 

as required in § 60.482(a)(1) shall be— 

(i) Operated witii the barrier fluid at a 

pressure diat is at all times greater than 

die pump stuffing box pressure: 

(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid 

degassing reservoir that is connected by 

a closed vent system to an enclosed 

combustion device designed for a 

minimum VOC residence time of 0.75 

seconds at 816*"C or to a vapor recovery 

system"designed for a minimum of 95 

percent capture of VOC input to the 

vapor recovery system: or 

(iii) Equipped with a system to purge 

the barrier fluid into a process stream, 

with no VOC emission to atmosphere. 

(4) Each pump shall be checked by 

visual inspection, each calendar week, 

for indications of liquids dripping from 

the pump seal. If indications of liquids 

dripping from the pump seal are seen, 

then a leak is detected. 

(5) Each sensor as required in 

§ 60.482(a)(2) shall be checked daily or 

shall be equipped witii an audible alarm. 

Based on design considerations and 

operating experience, a criterion that 

indicates failure of die seal system or 

die barrier fluid system, or both shall be 

determined for each dual mechanical 

seal system. If this criterion is registered 

by die sensor, a leak is detected. 

(6) When a leak is detected, it shall be 

repaired as soon as practicable, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after it is 

detected except as provided in 

§ 60.462(h). A first attempt at repair 

shall be made no later dian 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(7) Any pump that is not equipped as 

required in § 60.482(a)(1) shall be 

equipped witii a closed vent system 

capable of transporting any leakage 

from the seal to an enclosed combustion 

device designed for a minimum VOC 

residence time of 0.75 seconds at 816°C 

or to a vapor recovery system designed 

for a minimum of 95 percent capture of 

the VOC input to the system. Closed 

vent systems, enclosed combustion 
P.21 

1154 Federal Register. / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. Januar/ 5, 1381 / Proposed Rules 

devices and vapor recovery systems 

used to comply with this requirement -

shall be operated at all times when VOC 

emissions could occur. 

(8) Any pump diat is designated as 

required in 5 60.488(d)(1) for emissions 

having a concentration of less than 200 

ppm above background, as determined 

by die methods specified in § 60.485(b), 

is exemot fromihe requirements of 

§5 60.482(a)(lH7) if die pump— 

(i) Has no externally actuated shaft 

penetrating die pump housing, 

(ii) Is operated with emissions less 

than 200 ppmv above background as 

measured by die methods specified in 

I 60.485(b). and 

(iii) Is tested for compliance with 

5 60.482(a)(8)(ii) annually and at the 

request of die Administrator. 

(9) Closed vent systems, enclosed 

combustion devices, and vapor recovery 

svstems used to comply with 

§'§ 60.48a(3) (ii) and (iu) shall be 

operated at all times when VOC 

emissions may occur, 

(b) Compressors. 

(1) Each compressor shall be equipped 

with a seal system diat includes a 

barrier fluid system and diat prevents 

leakage of process fluid to the 

atmosphere, except as provided in 

§ 60.482(b)(6). 5 60.482(b)(7). or 

§ 60.482(j) . 

(2) Each barrier fluid system as 

required in § 60.482(b)(1) shall be 

equipped with a sensor diat will detect 

failure of the seal system. The barrier 

fluid shall not be a lighi liquid or 

gaseous VOC 

(3) Each seal svstem as required in 

I 60.482(b)(1) shall be— 

(i) Operated with die barrier fluid at a 

pressure diat is greater dian die 

compressor stuffing box pressure: 

(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid 

system that is connected by a closed 

vent system to an enclosed combustion 

device designed for a minimum VOC 

residence time of 0.75 seconds at 818*C 

or to a vapor recovery system designed 

for a minimum of 95 percent capture of 

VOC input to die system: or 

(iii) Equipped •Arith a system to purge, 

with no VOC emission to atmosphere, 

die barrier fluid into a process stream. 

(4) Each sensor as required in 

. 60.482(b)(2) shall be checked daily or 

shall be equipped with an audible alarm. 

Based on design considerations and 

operating experience, a criterion diat 

indicates failure of die seal system, the 

barrier fluid system or both shall be 

determined for each dual mechanical 

seal system. If tiiis criterion is attained 

and is registered by the sensor, a leak is 

detected. 

(5) When a leak in detected it snail be 

repaired as soon as practicable, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after it is 

detected except as provided in 

§ 60.482(h). A first attempt at repair 

shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(6) Any compressor that is not 

equipped as required in § 60.482(b)(1) 

shall be equipped with a closed vent 

system capable of transporting any 

leakage from die seal to an enclosed 

combustion device designed for a 

minimum VOC residence time of 0.75 

seconds at 816*C or to a vapor recovery 

system designed for a mtnimtim of 95 

percent capture of VOC input to tiie 

vapor recovery system. Gosed vent 

systems, enclosed combustion devices 

and vapor recovery systems used to 

comply witii this requirement shall be 

operated at all times. 

(7) Each compressor mat is designated 

as required in 3 60.438(d)(1) for 

concentrations of emissions less man 

200 ppm above background, as 

<i .•_rmined by die methods specified in 

. c0.485(b), is exempt from the 

requirements of 3 J 60.482(b)(lH6) if it is 

operated with emissions having 

concentrations of less than 200 ppmv 

above background, as measured by the 

methods specified In § 60.485(b) and if it 

is tested for compliance annually. 

(8) Qosed vent systems, enclosed 

combustion devices, and vapor recovery 

systems used to comply with 

§ § 60.482(b)(3) (ii] and (iii) shall be 

operated at all times when VOC 

emissions may occur. 

(c) Safety/relief valves in gas/vapor 

service. 

(1) Each safety/relief valve in gas/ 

vapor service shall be operated at a 

state of emissions having a 

concentration of less than 200 ppm 

above background, as determined by Uie 

methods specified in § 60.485(b). except 

during pressure releases. 

(2) Each safety/relief valve shall be 

returned to a state of emissions having a 

concentration of less than 2C0 ppm 

above background after each emergency 

pressure release as soon as practicable, 

but no later dian 5 calendar days, after 

each episode of pressure release. 

(d) Sampling'systems. 

(1) Each sampling system shall be 

equipped with a closed purge system. 

(2) Each closed purge, system as 

required by § 60.482(d)(1) shall return 

the purged process fluid directly to the 

process line, or shall collect the purged 

process fluid for recycle or disposal 

without VOC emissions to the 

atmosphere. 

(3) In-situ sampling systems are 

exempt for $ § 60.432(d)(1) and 12). __ 

(e) Open-ended vaives. "*~ 

(l) Each open-ended valve shall be 

equipped with a cap. blind flange, piug. 

or a second closed vaive which is 

attached to seal the open end at all 

times except during operations requiring 

process fluid flow through die open* 

ended line. 

(2) Each open-ended valve equipped 

•.vith a second valve attached io the 

open end of the process vaive. as 

required in 3 60.482(e)(1). shall be 

operated such that the process side 

valve is closed first after operations 

requiring flow through die open-ended 

vaive. 

(f) Valves in gas/vapor service and 

valves in light liquid service. 

(1) Each valve shall be monitored 

monthly to detect leaks by the methods 

specified in § 60.485(a). 

(2) If a VOC concentration of 10.CC0 

ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected. 

(3) Any valve for which a leak is not 

detected for two successive months may 

be monitored die first month of every 

quarter beginning widi die next quarter 

by the'metiiods specified in 3 60.435(a) 

until a leak is detected. If a leak is 

detected, die vaive shall be monitc red 

monthly until a leak is not detected for 

two successive months. 

(4) When a leak is detected it shall be 

repaired as soon as practicable, but no 

later than 15 calendar days after it is 

detected except as provided in 

§ 60.482(h). A first attempt at repair 

shall be made no later dian 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(5) First attempts at repair include, but 

are not Limited to. the following best 

modem practices if practicable: 

(i) Tightening of bonnet boits. 

(ii) Replacement of bonnet bolts, 

(iii) Tightening of packing giand nuts, 

(iv) Injection of lubricant into 

lubricated packing. 

(6) Any vaive that is designated as 

required in 3 60.486(d)(1) for emissions 

having a concentration of less dian _C0 

ppm above background as determined 

by the methods specified in § 60.485(b) 

;s a.xempt from the requirements of 

33 60.4a2(f)(D and (3) if the vaive— 

(i) Has no external actuating 

mechanism in contact with die process 

fluid: 

(ii) Is operated with emissions having 

a concentration of less dian 2C0 ppm 

above background as determined by the 

method specified in § 60.485(b); and 

(iii) Is tested for compliance with 

§ 60.432(f-(6)(ii) annually and at the 

request of the Administrator. 

(3) Pumps and vaives in heavy liquid 

service, safety/relief vaives in iigh: 

liquid and heavy liquid service, and 

flanges and other cormectors shall be 

monitored within 5 days by ths method 

specified in 1 S0.485(aj if evidence c: a 

potential leak is found by v-.suai. 
P.22 

Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules 1135 

audible, olfactory, or any other 

detection method, as follows: 

(1) If a VOC concentration, of 10.000 

ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected. 

(2) When a leak is detected, it shall be 

repaired as soon as practicable, but not 

later than IS calendar days after it is 

detected. The first attempt at repair 

shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(h) Delay of repair of fugitive emission 

sources for which leaks have been 

detected will be allowed only if the' 

repair is technically infeasible without a 

complete or partial process unit 

shutdown. Delay of repair will not be 

allowed beyond a process unit 

shutdown. 

(i) Compliance with 51 60.482 (a), (b). 

(c), (d), (e), (f), and (h) in this subpart 

shall be determined by review of 

records and inspection. Compliance 

with 5§ 60.482 (a)(8), (b)(7), (c), and (f)(6) 

shall be determined by the metiiods 

specified in 3 60.485(b). Compliance 

shall be achieved within 180 days of 

initial startup. 

(j) A determination of equivalence of 

alternative means of emission limitation 

to the requirements of §§ 60.482 (a), (b), 

(d), (e). (f), or (g) may be requested as 

provided in § 60.484. If the 

Administrator determines that an 

alternative means of emission limitation 

is at least equivalent to the requirements 

of §§ 60.482 (a), (b). (d). (e). (f). or (g). the 

requirements of that determination shall 

apply. 

§ 60.483 Alto-native standards. 

(a) Valves in gas/vapor and valves in 

light liquid service—allowable 

percentage of valves leaking. 

(1) After performing a monthly leak 

detection and repair program in 

accordance with 5§ 60.482(f) (1), (2). (4). 

and (5) for at least twelve months, an 

owner or operator may request approval 

from the Administrator to comply with 

an allowable.percentage of valves 

leaking in gas/vapor and light liquid 

service. 

(2) The following requirements shall 

be met if an owner or operator wishes to 

comply with an allowable percentage of 

vaives leaking. 

(i) An owner or operator must request 

approval of the Administrator to comply 

with an allowable percentage of valves 

leaking. 

(ii) An owner or operator must have 

performed a monthly leak detection and 

repair program in accordance with 

§ 3 60.482 (f). (1). (2). (4), and (5) for at 

least twelve months before a request for 

approval is submitted. 

(iii) A request of approval of an 

allowable percentage of valves leaking 

must be accompanied by data and., 

calculations which describe the 

methodology used for determining die 

allowable percentage of valves leaking. 

(iv) A performance test as specified in 

3 60.483(a)(4) shall be conducted 

annually and at die request of die 

Administrator. A written report of die 

results of the performance test shall be 

submitted to the Administrator witiiin a 

time interval specified by die 

Administrator. 

(v) If a valve leak is detected, an 

attempt must be made to repair it. 

(3) The allowable percentage of leaks 

shall be determined by adding die 

monthly baseline percentage of leaks 

demonstrated during die last six monthsunder monthly monitoring and the 

monthly incremental percentage of leaks 

which would have occured if the 

provisions of § 60.482(f)(3) had been 

followed. 

(i) The monthly baseline percentage of 

leaks shall be determined by obtaining a 

monthly average of the percentage of 

leaks found in an affected facility during 

die Last six months of operation under 

monthly monitoring. 

(ii) The monthly incremental 

percentage of leaks shall be determined 

by averaging the percentage of valves 

for which leaks had been detected in die 

second and third months of die last two 

quarters but which had not been 

detected during the first months of die 

last two quarters. 

(iii) A percentage of leaks shall be 

determined by dividing die total number 

of leaks by the total number of valves in 

an affected facility, excluding those 

leaks for which repair has been delayed 

because a process unit shutdown would 

be required as provided in 3 60.482(h) 

and excluding those valves which are 

complying with the provisions of 

§ 60.482(f)(6). 

(4) Performance tests shall be 

conducted in the following manner. 

(i) All valves within the affected 

facility shall be monitored by the 

methods specified in § 60.485(a). 

(ii) If a VOC concentration of 10,000 ~ 

ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected. 

(iii) The leak percentage shall be 

determined by dividing the number of 

valves for which leaks are detected by 

the number of valves within the affected 

facility, excluding valves for which 

repair has been delayed because a 

process unit shutdown would be 

required, and excluding those which are 

complying with the provisions of 

§ 60.482(f)(6). — 

(iv) For those valves for which repair 

has been delayed because a process unit 

shutdown would be required, records of 

attempted repair must be provided at 

the request of Uie.Administrator. 

Records of attempted repair for those 

valves for which repair has been 

delayed shall be kept for two years. 

(5)(i) The AHministrator will either 

approve or disapprove the request for 

the use of the alternative standard 

within ninety days after the request is 

submitted. 

(ii) If the Administrator denies die use 

of this alternative, the owner or operator 

wiil be notified of die reasons for the 

denial. 

(iii) If the Administrator is reviewing a 

request for the use of this alternative as 

specified in 5§ 60.483(a) (1) and (2). 

additional information may be 

requested of the owner or operator 

seeking approval of tiiis option. 

(iv) Until this alternative is approved, 

the owner or operator shall be subject to 

die requirements of § 60.482(f). 

(6) The reporting provisions of 

55 60.487(b), (2), (3). (4J, (5). (6) and (9) 

would not apply to owners or operators 

complying with an allowable percentage 

of valves leaking. 

(b) Valves in gas/vapor and valves in 

light liquid service—alternative work 

practices. 

(1) After performing a monthly leak 

detection and repair program in 

accordance with §§ 60.482(f), (1), (2), (4) 

and (5) for at least twelve months, an 

owner or operator may request approval 

of die administrator to comply with an 

alternative work practice for valves in 

gas/vapor and vaives in light liquid 

service which differs from the work 

practice required in 5 5 60.482(f) (1) and 

(3). 

(2) The following requirements shall 

be met if an owner or operator wishes to 

comply with an optional work practice. 

(i) An owner or operator must request 

approval of the Administrator to comply 

witii an optional work practice 

standard. 

(ii) An owner or operator must have 

performed a monthly leak detection and 

repair program in accordance with 

55 60.432(f) (1). (2), (4) and (5) for twelve 

months before a request for approval is 

submitted. 

(iii) A request for approval of an 

optional work practice standard must be 

accomplished by data and calculations 

showing diat the optional work practice 

complies with the requirements of 

5 60.487(b)(3). 

(3) The optional work practice 

program shall be designed to accomplish 

the emission reduction associated with 

die required program in 55 60.482(l)(f). 

(2), (3), (4) and (5). To demonstrate this 

reduction, an owner or operator shail 

determine the leak occurrence and 

recurrence for each program. These data 

shall be used to show that the expected 
P.23 

1156 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 

percentage of valves leaking in dieaffected facility under die optional 

program is equal to or less than die 

expected percentage of valves leaking 

under die required program. 

(4) (i) The Administrator may deny die 

use of this option for any owner or 

operator within 90 days of the request 

for approval. If disapproval is not given 

within 90 days of die request for 

approval, the request is approved. 

(ii) If the Administrator denies die use 

of this option, die owner or operator will 

be notified of die reasons for the denial 

(iii) If die Administrator is reviewing a 

request for die use of this alternative as 

specified in 33 60.483(a) (1) and (2). 

additional information may be 

requested of die owner or operator 

seeking approval of this alternative. 

(iv) Until this alternative is approved. 

the owner or operator shall be subject to 

the requirements of § 60.482(f). 

§ 60.484 Equivalence of alternative means 

ot emission limitation. 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart may apply 

to the Administrator for determination 

of equivalence for any alternative 

means of emission limitation mat 

achieves a reduction in emissions of 

VOC at least equivalent to die reduction 

in emissions of VOC achieved by die 

controls required in §3 60.482 (aj, (b), 

(d). (e). (f). and (g). 

(b) Determination of equivalence to 

die equipment requirements of § 5 60.482 

(a), (b), (d). and (e) wiil be evaluated by 

die following guidelines: 

(1) Each owner or operator applying 

for an equivalence determination shall 

be responsible for collecting and 

verifying test data to demonstrate 

equivalence of any alternative means of 

emission limitation to die requirements 

of § 5 60.482 (a), (b). (d), or (e). 

(2) The Administrator wiil compare 

test data for die alternative means cf 

emission limitation to test data for '-heequipment requirements ot 33 60.482 (a), 

(b). (d). or (e). 

(3) The Administrator may condition 

die approval of equivalence on 

requirements that may be necessary to 

assure operation and maintenance to 

achieve the same emission reduction as 

the requirements of 5 5 60.482 (a), (b), 

(d), or (e). 

ic) Determination of equivalence to 

die work practices required in 3 60.482(f) 

••vtil be evaluated by die following 

guidelines: 

(1) Each owner or operator applying 

for a determination of equivalence shall 

be responsible for collecting and 

verifying test data to demonstrate 

equivalence of an alternative means of 

emission limitation to Uie'requirements 

of 3 60.482(f). 

(2) For each affected facility for which 

a determination of equivalence is 

requested, die emission reduction 

achieved by the requirements cf 

5 60.432(f) shall be demonstrated for a 

minimum period of 12 months. A 

quantitative performance level shall be 

determined diat describes the emission 

reduction achieved by die requirements 

of 5 60.482(f). 

(3) For each affected facility, die 

emission reduction achieved by any 

alternative means of emission limitation 

shall be demonstrated. 

(4) Each owner or operator applying 

for a determination of equivalence shall 

commit to compliance with a 

performance that provides for emission 

reductions equal to or greater than the 

emission reductions achievable by die 

requirements of 5 60.482(f). 

(5) The Administrator will compare 

the demonstrated emission reduction for 

die alternative means of emission 

limitation to the demonstrated emission 

reduction for die work practices 

required in 5 60.482(f) and.wiil consider 

die commitment in § 60.484(c)(4). 

(6) The Administrator may condition 

die approval of equivalence on 

requirements that may be necessary to 

assure operation and maintenance to 

achieve the same emission reduction as 

Uie requirements of 5 60.482(f). 

(d) After a request for determination 

of equivalence is received, the 

Administrator will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register and provide the 

opportunity for public hearing. After 

notice and opportunity for public 

hearing, the Administrator will 

determine die equivalence of an 

alternative means of emission limitation 

and will publish die determination in the 

Federal Register. 

§ 60.485 Teat methods and procedures. 

lach owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of tiiis subpart shall comply 

with the following test metiiod and 

procedure requirements: 

(a) Fugitive emission monitoring as 

required in § 60.482(f) shall comply with 

die following requirements. 

(1) Monitoring shall comply with 

Reference Method 21. 

(2) The VOC detection instrument 

shall meet the performance criteria of 

Reference Method 21. 

(3) The instrument shall be calibrated 

before use on die day of its use by die 

methods specified in Method 21. 

(4) Calibration gases shall be: __ 

(i) Zero air (less than 3 ppm of VOC La 

air): and 

(ii) A mixture of methane and air at a 

concentration of approximately 10.CQ0 

" ppmv methane. 

(5) The instrument probe shall be 

traversed around ail potential leak 

interfaces as close to die interface as 

possible as described in Reference 

Method 21. 

(b) When fugitive emission sources 

are tested for emissions having a 

concentration of less than 200 ppm 

above background as reauired in 

5 5 60.482 (a), (b), (c). and (f). the testing 

shall comply with die fallowing 

requirements: 

(1) The requirements of 53 60.485(a) 

(1). (2). and (3) shall appiy. 

(2) The background level shall be 

determined, as set forth in Reference 

Method 21. 

(3) The instrument probe shall be 

traversed around all potential leak 

interfaces as close to the interface as 

possible as descnoed in Reference 

Method 21. 

(4) The provisions of 3 60.3(f) do not 

appiy to affected faculties subject to the 

provisions of this subpart 

(c) A fugitive emission source is in 

light liquid service if the following 

conditions apply: 

(1) The vapor pressure of one or more 

of the components is greater tiiao 0.3 

kPa at 20"C. Vapor pressures may be 

obtained from standard reference texts 

or may be determined by ASTM Method 

D-2879. 

(2) The total concentration of die pure 

components having a vapor pressure 

greater than 0.3 kPa at 20*C is equal to 

or greater than 10 percent by weight: 

and 

(3) The fluid is a Liquid at operating 

conditions. 

(d) For purposes of determining die 

percent VOC in die process fluid within 

a fugutive emission source, procedures 

that conform to the general methods 

described in ASTM aetiiods E-260. E168. and E-169 shall be used. 

(Sec 114 ot" the Cean Air Act as amended (42 

U.S.C -414J) 

5 60.488 Recordkeeping requirements. 

Each owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall comply 

with the following recordkeeping 

requirements. 

(a) When each leak is detected as 

specified in 55 60.482 (a), (b). (f). and (gj: 

the following recordkeeping 

requirements apply: 

(1) Weatherproof and readiiy visible 

identification, marked '-vith die source 

identification number, shall be attached 

to tie leaking source. 

(i) The identification may be removed 

if the fugitive emission source has been 

monitored for two successive months as 
P.24 

Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 1157 

specified in 5 60.482(f)(3) and no leak 

has been detected during those two 

months. 

(b) When each leak is detected as 

specified in 55 60.482 (a), (b), (f). and (g), 

the following information shall be 

recorded in a log and shall be kept for 

two years in a readily accessible 

location: 

(1) The instrument and operator 

identification numbers and the fugutive 

emission source identification number. 

(2) The date die leak was detected 

and die dates of each attempt to repair 

die leak. 

(3) Repair methods applied in each 

attempt to repair the leak. 

(4) "Above 10,000" if the maximum 

VOC'concentrations measured by the 

methods specified in 3 60.485(a) after 

each repair attempt is greater than 

10.000 ppm. 

(5) "Repair delayed" if a leak is not 

repaired within 15 calendar days after 

discovery of the leak. 

(6) The signature of the owner/ 

operator whose decision it was that 

repair could not be effected without a 

process shutdown. 

(7) The expected date of successful 

repair of the leak if a leak is not 

repaired within 15 days. 

(8) The date of successful repair of the 

leak. 

(c) The following information 

pertaining to the design requirements for 

closed vent systems, enclosed 

combustion devices, and vapor recovery 

systems required in 3 5 60.482 (a) and (b) 

shall be recorded and kept in a readily 

accessible location: 

(1) Detailed schematics, design 

specifications, and piping and 

instrumentation diagrams. 

(2) The dates and descriptions of any 

changes in the design specifications. 

(3) Periods when die enclosed 

combustion devices and vapor recovery 

systems required in 5§ 60.482 (a) and (b) 

are not functioning as designed and 

dates of startups and shutdowns. 

(d) The following infonnation 

pertaining to all fugitive emission 

sources subject to the requirements in 

53 60.482 (a), (b), (c). and (f) shall be 

recorded in a log that is kept in a readily 

accessible location: 

(1) A list of identification numbers for 

fugutive emission sources that are 

designated for emissions having a 

concentration of less than 200 ppm 

above background under the provisions 

of 55 60.482 (a)(8), (b)(7). and (f)(7). The 

designation of these sources as subject 

to die requirements of 55 60.482 (a)(8), 

(b)(7). or (f)(6) shall be signed by die 

owner or operator. 

(2) A list of source identification 

numbers for safety/relief valves 

required by § 60.482(c) to meet no 

detectable emissions. 

(3) The dates of each verification test 

for "no detectable emissions" status as 

determined by the mediods specified in 

§ 60.485(b). 

(4) The background level measured 

during each verification test as required 

in 5 60.485(b). 

(5) The maximum VOC concentration 

measured at the source during each 

verification test as required in 

§ 60.485(b). 

(e) The following information shall be 

recorded in a log that is kept in a readily 

accessible location: (1) the design 

criterion required in 5 60.482(a)(5) and 

5 60.482(b)(4), and (2) any changes to 

this criterion and the reasons for this 

change. 

(f) The provisions of 5 § 60.7(b) and (d) 

do not apply to affected facilities subject 

to the provisions of this subpart. 

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 

U.S.C 7414)) 

§ 60.487 Reporting requirements. 

Each owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall comply 

with die following reporting 

requirements. 

(a) A summary of the information 

recorded as required in 5 60.486(b) shall 

be reported quarterly to the 

Administrator. 

(b) Quarterly reports as required in 

§ 60.487(a) shall be similar to the forms 

as shown in Figures 1. 2. 3, and 4 and . 

shall include die following information: 

(1) Process unit identification. 

(2) Number of valves in the process 

unit excluding diose designated for 

emissions having a concentration of less 

dian 200 ppm above background under 

the provisions of 5 60.482(f)(5). 

(3) Number of valves for which leaks 

were detected by die monitoring method 

specified in 5 60.485(a) during each 

month of the reporting quarter. 

(4) Number of valves repaired. 

(5) Number of valves not repaired 

within 15 days as required in 

5 60.482(f)(4). 

(6) Reasons for non-repair of valves 

within 15 days as required in 

5 60.482(f)(4). 

(7) Number of pumps for which leaks 

were detected during the reporting 

quarter as specified in §§ 60.482(a)(4) 

and (a)(5). 

(8) Number of compressors for which 

leaks were detected during the reporting 

quarter as specified in 5 60.482(b)(4). — . 

(9) Statement signed by die owner or 

operator stating whether all provisions 

of 40 CFR 60 Subpart W had been 

fulfilled during die reporting quarter. 

(c) The provisions of 5 60.8(d) do not 

apply to affected facilities subject to the 

provisions of this subpart. 

(d) In die first report submitted as 

required, in 8§ 60.487(a), the report shall 

include a reporting schedule stating die 

months that quarterly reports shall be 

submitted. Subsequent reports shall be 

submitted according to that schedule 

unless a revised schedule has been 

submitted in a previous quarterly report. 

(Sec. 114 of die Clean Air Act as amended (42 

U.S.C.7414)) 

amino cooe SS«O-M-M 
figur e 2 

SUMMARY STAMSriCS FOR LEAH DETECTION 

AIIO REPAIR REQUIRtHENTS 

UF 40 CFH Part 60 . Subpart VV. f60.4B4(t>) 

I . Process Unit Maine 

(one report required fur each affected facility) 

2. Hunker of valves covered under the l<j 

and repair program. 

3. N_ir_>er of valves found leaking during 

reporting period. 

4. Nunlier of leaking valves 

during the reporting perl 

5. ' Nuirber of pimps found 

reporting period. 

6. Nup_>er of totipresso 

the reporting period 

EL 

(D 

(A 
1. 

2. 

3. 

Figure 3 

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 40 CFR Part 60. Subpart VV. §60.484(b)(6) 

FOR LEAKING VALVES NOT REPAIRED WITHIN IS DAYS 

Process Unit Name 

(b) Off-line repa1r\e< 

in-service v 

(c) Other (Explain 

Date of next 

Total number of valves not re<$a>«£d m^fn 15 days 

Number of valves not repa^jJ^tipX^fTij/fol lowing reasons, 

(a) New parts required 

Critical, 

impossible. 

_.._ >_•--v- - f° r non-repair) 

\c"1te4irr&^turn-around or shutdown 

Signature of Plant Manager 

or Manager Designate 

BILLING CODE SSSO-26-C 

figure 4 

CERTIFICATION 

AS REQUIRED IN §60.484(b)(10) 

I hereby certify that process uni 

oy_ 

(company name) (city, state) 

in compliance with the 

owned (operated) 

(has been/has not been)' 

requirements of Subpart V \ 4JJXj:'K£irt 60 which contains Standards of 

Performince for New Sti^tlijn^yNibljVces In the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Indu 

All required eViVm__x'and control devices have been operated and 

maintained Ui\c\npl 1a\ / with the standards. All required worl practices 

have beep^roi ity^-^Monl torlng has been done as specified in Method 21. 

All rjrfurf p£<^ r£_Vr*_s have been made and are kept 1n_ 

(location in plant) 

_for review by EPA. 

(signature of owner or operator) 

(title ) 

(date) 

- • 1 

2L 

CB 

l 

JO 

co 

< 

o 

25 

p 

s 

O 

a 

w 

CO 

CD 

o 

T» 

O 

CO 

CO 

O5>0 

B. 

CD 

CO 

CJl 

CD 
P.27 

1160 Federal Register / VoL 48. No. 2 / Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules 

4. By adding Reference Method 21 to 

Appendix A as follows: 

Appendix A— Reference methods 

Method 21. Determination of Volatile Organic 

Compound Leaks 

1. Applicability and Principle 

1.1 Applicability. This method applies to 

the determination •:' volatile organic 

compound (VOC Ons from organic process 

equipment These ...urces include, but are not 

limited to. vaive.. tianges and other 

connections, pumps and compressors, 

pressure reiief devices, process drains, openended vaives. pump and compressor seai 

system degassing vents, accumulator vessel 

vents, and access door seals. 

1__ Principle. A portable instrument is 

used to detect VOC leaks from individual 

sources. The instrument detector is not 

specified, but it must meet the specifications 

and performance criteria contained in 

paragraph 2.1. 

2. Apparatus 

2.1 Monitoring instrument The 

monitoring instrument shall be as follows: 

2.1.1 Specifications. 

a. The VOC instrument detector snail 

respond to the organic compounds being 

processed. Detectors which may meet this 

requirement include, but are not limited to. 

catalytic oxidation, flame ionization, infrared 

absorption, and photoionization. 

b. The instrument shall be intrinsically safe 

for operation in explosive atmospheres as 

defined by the applicable U.S-A Standards 

(e.g.. National Electrical Code by the National 

Tire Prevention Association). 

c The instrument shall be able to measure 

the leak definition concentration specified in 

the regulation. 

d. The instrument shall be equipped with a 

pump so that a continuous sample is provided 

to the detector. The nominal sampie flow rate 

shall be 1-3 liters per minute. 

e. The scale of the instrument meter shall 

be readable to __a percent of the specified 

leak definition concentration. 

2.1.2 Performance Criteria. The 

instrument must meet the following 

performance criteria. The definitions and 

evaluation procedures for each parameter are 

given in Section 4. 

2.1.2.1 The instrument response time must 

be 30 seconds or less. The response time must 

be determined for the instrument system 

configuration to be used during testing, 

including dilution equipment The use of a 

system with a shorter response time than that 

specified will reduce die time required for 

Reid component surveys. 

2.1.2-2 Calibration Precision: The 

calibration precision.must be less than or 

equal to 10 percent of the calibration gas 

value. 

2.1-2.3 Quality Assurance. The instrument 

shall be subjected to response time and 

calibration precision tests prior to being 

placed in service. The calibration precision 

test snail be repeated every 6 months 

thereafter. If any modification or replacement 

of the instrument detector is required, the 

instrument shall be retested and a new a 

month quality assurance test schedule will 

apply. The response time test shall be 

repeated if any modifications to the sampie 

pumping system or flow configuration is 

made that wouid change the response time. 

2.3 Calibration Gases. The monitoring 

instrument is calibrated in terms of parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) of the compound 

specified in the applicable regulation. The 

calibration gases required for monitoring and 

instrument performance evaluation are a zero 

gas (air. 3 ppmv VOC) and a calibration gas 

in air mixture approximately equal to the 

leak definition specified in the regulation. If 

cylinder calibration gas mixtures are used, 

they must be analyzed and certified by the 

maafacturer to be within HZ percent 

accuracy. Calibration gases may be prepared 

by the user according to any accepted 

gaseous standards preparation procedure 

that will yield a mixture accurate to within 

__2 percent Alternative calibration gas 

species may be used in place of the 

calibration compound if a relative response 

factor for each instrument is determined so 

that calibrations with the alternative species 

may be expressed as calibration compound 

equivalents on the meter readout 

..Procedures 

3.1 Calibration. Assemble and start up the 

VOC analyzer and recorder according to the 

manufacturer's instructions. After the 

appropriate warmnp period and zero or 

internal calibration procedure, introduce die 

calibration gas into the instrument sampie 

probe. Adjust die instrument meter readout to 

correspond to the calibration gas value. 

If a dilution apparatus is used, calibration 

must include the instrument and dilution 

apparatus assembly. The nominal dilution 

factor may be used to establish a scale factor 

for converting to an undiluted basis. For 

example, if a nominal ion dilution apparatus 

is used, the meter reading for a 10.000 ppm 

calibration wouid be set at 1.000. During field 

surveys, the scale factor of 10 wouid be used 

to convert measurements to an undiluted 

basis. 

3.2 Individual Source Surveys. 

3.2.1 Case I—Leak Definition Based on 

Concentration Value. Place the probe inlet at 

the surface of the component interface where 

leakage couid occur. Move the probe along 

the interface periphery while observing the 

instrument readout If an increased meter 

reading is observed, slowly probe the 

interface where leakage is indicated until the 

maximum meter reading is obtained. Leave 

the probe inlet at this maximum reading 

locations for approximately two times the 

instrument response time, if ths maximum 

observed meter reading is greater that the 

leak definition in the applicable regulation, 

record and report the result as specified ia 

the regulation reporting requirements. 

Examples of the application of this general 

technique to specific equipment types are: 

a. Valves—The most common sourca of 

leaks from vaives is at the seai between the 

stem and housing. Ptace the probe at the 

interface where the stem exists the packing 

gland and sample the stem circumference. 

Also, place the probe at the interface of the 

packing giaad take-up flange seat and sampie 

the periphery. In addition, survey valve 

housings of multipart assembly at the surface 

of ail interfaces where leaks can occur. 

b. Flanges and Other Connections—frfr 

.veitied flanges, places the probe at the outer 

edge of the flange-gasket interface and 

sampie around the circumference of the 

flange. Sampie other types of nonpermanent 

joints (such as threaded connections) with a 

similar traverse. 

c. Pumps and Compressors—Canduct a 

circumferential traverse at the outer surface 

of the pump or compressor shaft and seai 

interface. If the source is a rotating shaft 

position the probe inlet within one centimeter 

of the shaft-seal interface for the survey, if 

the housing configuration prevents a 

complete traverse of the shaft periphery, 

sample all accessible portions. Sample all 

other joints on the pump or compressor 

housing where leakage can occur. 

d. Pressure Relief Devices—The 

configuration of most pressure relief devices 

prevents sampling at tiie sealing seat 

interface. For those devices equipped with an 

enclosed extension, or horn, place the probe 

inlet at approximately the center of the 

exhaust area to the atmosphere for sampling. 

e. Process Drains—for open drains, ptace 

tha probe inlet at approximately the center of 

the area open to the atmosphere for sampling. 

For covered drains, place'the probe at the 

surface of the cover interface and conduct a 

peripheral traverse. 

f. Open-Ended Lines or Valves—Place the 

probe inlet at approximately the center of the 

opening to the atmosphere for sampling. 

g. Seai System Degassing Vents and 

Accumulator Vents—Place the probe inlet at 

approximately the center of the opening to 

the atmosphere for sampling. 

h. Assess Door Seals—Place tire probe inlet 

at the surface of the door seal interface and 

conduct a peripheral traverse. 

3.2-2. Case II-Leak Devinition Baaed on 

"NO Detectable Emission". 

a. Determine the local ambient 

concentration around the source by moving 

the probe inlet randomly upwind and 

downwind at distance of one to two meters 

from the source. If an interference exists with 

this determination due to a nearby emission 

or ieak. the local ambient concentration may 

be determined at distances closer to the 

source, but in no case snail the distance be. 

less dian 23 centimeters. Note the ambient 

concentration and then move the probe inlet 

to the surface of the source and conduct a 

survey as described in 3-2.1. If a 

concentration increase greater than 2 percent 

of the concentration-based leak definition is 

obtained, record and report the results as 

specified by the regulation. 

b. For those cases where the regulation 

requires a specific device installation, or that 

specified vents be ducted or piped to a 

control device, the existence of these 

conditions shall be visually confirmed. When 

the regulation also requires that'no 

detectable emissions exist visual 

observations and sampling surveys are 

required. Examples of this technique are: 

L Pump or Compressor Seals—If 

applicable, determine the type of shaft seal. 

Perform a survey of the local area ambient 

VOC concentration and determine if 

detectable emissions exist as described in 

'3 2 2.a. 

ii. Seai system degassing vents, 

accumulator vessel vents, pressure relief 
P.28 

• Federal Register / Vol. 46.-No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 J Proposed Rules 1161 

devices—If applicable, observe whether or -

not the applicable ducting or piping exists. 

Also, determine if any sources exist in the 

ducting or piping where emissions could 

occur prior to the control device. If the 

required ducting or piping exists and there 

are no sources of where the emissions could 

be vented to the atmosphere prior to the 

control device, then it is presumed that no 

detectable emissions are present. 

4. Instrument Performance Evaluation 

Procedures 

4.1 Definitions. 

4.1.1 Calibration Precision. The difference 

berween the average VOC concentration 

indicated by the meter readout for 

consecutive repetitions and the know 

concentration of a test gas mixture. 

4.1.2 Response time. The time interval 

from a step change in VOC concentration at 

the input of the sampling system to the time 

at which 90 percent of the corresponding final 

value is reached as displayed on the 

instrument readout meter. 

4.2 Evaluation Procedures. At the .. . 

beginning of the instrument performance 

evaluation test assemble and start up the 

instrument according to the manufacturer's 

instructions for recommended warmup period 

and preliminary adjustments. If a dilution 

apparatus is used during field surveys, the 

evaluation procedure must be performed on 

the instrument-dilution system combination. 

'4.2.1. Calibration Precision Test. Make a 

total of nine measurements by alternately 

using zero gas and the specified calibration 

gas. Record the meter readings (example data 

sheet shown in Figure 21-1). 

4.2-2 Response time Test Procedure. 

Introduce zero gas into the instrument sample 

probe. When the meter reading has 

stabilized, switch quickly to the specified 

calibration gas. Measure the time from 

concentration switching to 95 percent of final 

stable reading. Perform this test sequence 

three times and record the results (example 

data sheet given in Figure 21-2). 

4.3 Calculations. All results are expressed 

as mean values, calculated by: 

1 

a 

n 

r 

i = 1 

*: 

i 

Where: 

X« . VALUE OF THE MESUREMCMTS. 

2 __ Sum of the individual values. 

-t = Mean value. 

n = Number of data points. 

BILLING COOE W*0-_S-M 
1162 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules 

Instrument iD 

Run 

No. 

1 . 

2. 

3. 

4. 

** « 

5. 

7. 

a. 

9. 

Calibration Gas Data 

Calibration - ppmv 

.Instrument Meter 

Reading, ppm 

•Difference 

ppm 

(1) 

Mean Difference 

Calibration Error * Mean Difference 

(2) 

Calibration Gas Concentration 

x 100 

TT) Calibration Gas Concentration - Instrument Reaaing 

Figure 21-1. Calibration Error Ceteraination 
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 1163 

Instrument .* ID 

Calibration Gas Concentration 

90* Response Time: 

1. Seconds 

2. Seconds 

3. Seconds 

Mean Response Time * Seconds 

Figure 21-2. Response Time Determination3ILUNQ COOE «S60-I«-C 
P.31 

1184 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 

5. 3y adding Appendix E as follows: 

Appendix E~Synthetic Organic 

Chemicals Manufacturing industry 

3CPGBNO.' 

2 0 — Acatn. 

40 Aeawdoi. 

SO Aewamoa . 

3S — Acatanmea. 

"0 Aeaoe aaa . 

30 Acaoc annyanaa. 

30 Acaiona. 

100 Acacon* eyananyam . 

no Acawrwma. 

'23 Acacyi enone*. 

• 30 Acacyiana. 

!<0 Aaeia-i. 

ISO Aoyiamda. 

'60 Aeryte K M and aaiara. 

'TO Aayiorwnle. 

'80 

'8S 

190 Alleyt i 

200 AH* i 

210 Ally! < 

220....;. 

20O._~_._..i._ AiHwujaiHyiaiimmmii-ia. 

233-~~ •. 3 Ajwnoonafo. 

240 Afltyt 1 

250 Amy! I 

2«0 _. Amy! i 

270 Amyt < 

290 A/nyt r 

290 Amy* enanoi. 

300 

310 

320 

330 Anaoaa. 

340 Anovanke aoo. 

3S0 Amrraau-icna. 

360 Sanzananyaa. 

380 Santana. 

390 

400 

«10__________ 3an». 

420 Sanakcaod. 

430 Saraoe aad. 

4410 Saraon. 

4—** Sanconmia. 

460 Sanxoonanona. 

4 on 3anzoyt cftonaa. 

SOO Sanzyt aaconol 

S10 9anzy< anana. 

520 -ana * banzoaia. 

530 3*nxyi crwnoa. 

V O 3amyl amnonoa, 

SSO Sicnanw. 

S«0 _oonanoi A. 

570 3nyneoan_ana. 

S80 3ronionaomnajana. 

590 3ua 

592 1 . 

SOO n-ouwt i 

530 -i-ouM aayiata. 

*40 xsuiyi ueonoi. 

SSO »-outyi ucona. 

560— _ *^utya aicooaL 

S70 

M O 

880 t-t 

TOO xar.-ouryt eanxae i 

710 t.34uiyiana yycs -

7J0 n-OdyaManyoa. 

780 3uwne aoo. 

770 __. Sutyne i 

780 3u * 

r8S ._..„.— GaofOMKiani. 

790 C_non oauMa . 

SOO.... Careen mraoronwa. 

810 _ Careon taoacnionaa. 

320 Catkaoaa aetata. 

MO _... CMorsacaoc aoo. 

950 D-cmortWwna. 

SCO xnaraanana. 

870 

380... _ Chle 

390 

900 CMoraoanrac aaa 

90S 

1870.. 

1880 , 

1890 

1700. 

1710.. 

1720.. 

1 730.. 

1740 

17J0 

. Emyi acauta. 

Stnyl acaaraacataia 

Ssiyl acryiaia. 

.. Stnyteaiiuioaa. 

Sin* enionoa. 

=myi cnacoacawa. 

jw^unm«K>n»j suiton>c aoo. 

3-oaomnoi. 
P.32 

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules 

ocfioa *<>.• Ctttmieal j OCPOB No' Chamcil 

27SO Naooenianoc-aod. 

2755... o-nrtroani-ine. 

2757 p-rMtroarMiine. 

2760—______ onuoarusoie. 

2762 _._. xwsanijcie. 

2770 Nttrooeniene. 

2780 N.trooanjoie acd (o.m. ano p). 

27SO Nuroetnane. 

2791 Nrr/omewane. 

2792 Nnroonenol. 

2795 Nju-oorooane. 

2800 Niirotoftiena. 

2510 Nonerw. 

'2S20 Nonyl pfienoL 

2330 Cctyi onanoL 

2840 Paraldenyd*. 

2350 Pemaarytnntoi. 

2351 rvpantana. 

2S55..._'. l-pentene. 

2860 Perenloroetnylene. 

2852 Peroiorometnyl mefcaotan. 

2890 o-pnenetioine. 

2900 p.p,ienetidine. 

2910 Phenol. 

2920 Phenoismfomc acids. 

2930 Phenyl anthramiie acid. 

29410 Prwnyienediamtne. 

2930 Phosgene. 

2960 Primate anhydride. 

2970 PNnalDTMM. 

2973___ _ i^tcoun*. 

29 76 ?*oera_ine. 

3000 PotyOutenes. 

3010 Poryemyiene glycol. 

3025 Poyprooyiene glycol. 

3063 Praoonaidenyde. 

3066 Proooncaad. 

3070 n-prooyl alcohol. 

3073 Propylamine. 

3080 Propyl chloride. 

3090 Prooyiena. 

3iGQ.m Propylene cmorohydnn. 

3110 Propylene oicnlohde. 

3111 Propylene glycol. 

3120.. Propylene oxide. 

3130 Pyntfne. 

3140 Ouinone. 

3150 fieaorano-. 

3160 Pesoreyiic add. 

3170 Salicylic acid. 

3180 Sca m acetate. 

3181 Sodium benroate. 

3190 Sodium earooxymeihyl cellulose. 

3191 Sodium chloraeetate. 

3200... Sodium lormate. 

3210 Sortum pmsnate. 

3220 Some aad. 

3230 Slyrene. 

32«0 Sucerae acid. 

3250 Sucononitnle. 

3251 Suitaiuc acid. 

3260 Sulfolane. 

327B Tannic acid. 

3260— Te-epntnaue acid. 

3290 and Tetraenioraamanes. 

3291. 

3300 Tenemoroontna-ic armytinda. 

3310 Tetraeinyilead. 

3320 Tetranydronaptnalana. 

3330. _ Tetrahydropmnatic annydrida. 

3335 Terrametnyilead. 

3340 Te. arwtnytenediamme. 

33*1 __ Te(rtniefnylainyienedi«mme. 

3349 Toluene. 

3350 Toluene-2.4-aamina. 

33S4 _ Tofuene-2.44i_socvanate. 

3355 Toluene dnsocyanaies (mixture). 

33EO Toluene sulfonamide. 

3370 Toluene sulfonic acids. 

3380 Toluene suifonyt cnioride. 

3381 ToluKSnes. 

3390. 3391. Ti mnioiooemenea. 

and 3393 

33S5 _ i.i.i.tnenioroetr)ane. 

3400 '.IJE-inenwroemana. 

3410 mm. Tncmoroeinyiene. 

34U._ Thcntoroftuoromeihene. 

3420 1^.3-inenioroo'opane. 

3430 i. 1,2-trienioro. 1.2.2-triHuoroetnane. 

3450 Tn4f_hyfamine. 

3460 Tr^myiene glycol. 

3470—;. Tne'hyfena glycol dimethyl etner. 

3480 Trisooufylene. 

3490 THmemyiamine. 

3500 Urea. 

3510 Vinyl acetate. 

3520 v,nyl chloride. 

3330 Virwudena cnionda. 

3540 Vinyl loluene. 

3541 Xy-enes (mtxedl. 

2560 >sylene. 

3570 _ s-xyiene. 

3530 Xylenol. 

3590 Xyiidina 

•The OCPOS Numpers are reference inoicea assigned 10 

ihe »anous cnermcals in tne Organic Chemical producers 

Oata Base aeveiooeo 6y EPA. 

(FR Doc. 81-H filed 1-2-61: 8:45 «m| 

SILLING COOE 8560-2S-_l 

J