p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 213 ) ll-J- 6
Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:01 AM

Sheet 213 of 276P. 2 

# JA mn lic--*' i

. r 

## Monda

. II_J 

## " 6 

## January 5 , 198 1

'j l ^ I

. VJ I U i J • - _»- » -



# Part V 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agency Volatil e Organi c Compound s (VOC ) Fugitiv e Emissio n Source s i n th e Syntheti c Organi c Chemical s Manufacturin g Industr y

' %P. 3



### 113 8 Federa l Rwastar /

Vol

. 48

. No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar y 5.198 1 / Propose dRtile a ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF RPar t6 0 (AO-FT.* . 1Q33-3 1 Standard s o f Psr.ormaf.e e fo r Ne w Stationar y Sources ; VC C Fugitiv e Emissio n Sources ; Syntheti c Organi c Chemical s Manufacturin g Industr y AGENCY : Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) . ACTION : Propose d rule an d notic e o f publi c hearing . SUMMARY : Th e propose d standard s woul d limi temission s o f volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) from fugitive emissio n source s in the syntheti c organi c chemical s manufacturing industr y (SOCMI) . SOCM

I i s a portio n o f th e organi c chemical industr y whic h • produce s th

e grou p o f chemical s liste d i n Appendi x E

. Thes e propose d standard s woul d (1 ) requir e a lea k detectio n and repair progra m t o reduc e VO C emission s fro

m valve s an d (2

) specif y th e us e o f certai n equipmentt

o reduce VO C emission s from pumps , compressors , sampling connections , and open-ende d lines , th

e propose d standard s woul d als o prohibitleak s from safety/relie f

valve s durin

g norma l operations . The standard s woul d appl y only t o equipmenttha

tcontain s 1 0 percen to r mor

e VO C Referenc e Metho d 2 1 an d Appendi x E ar

e bein g propose d wit h the standards . The propose d standard s implemen t the Clea n Ai r Actand are base d o n di e Administrator' s determinatio n tha t fugitive emissio n source s o f VO C i n SOCM I contribut

e significantl y t

o ai r pollutio n whic h ma

y reasonabl y b e anticipate d t

o endange r publi c health or welfare . A s required b

y Sectio n 11 1 of ih e Clea n Air Act . th e propose d standard s ar

e intende d t

o requir e new , modified, and reconstructe d source s in SOCM I t o us e th e bea

tdemonstrate d syste m o f continuou s emissio n reduction , considerin g casts , nonai r qualit y healt h an d environmental impacts , and energy requirements . A publi c hearing wil l b e hel d t o provid e intereste d person s a n opportunit

y fo r ora l presentatio n o

f data , views , o

r argument

s concernin g the propose d standards . DATES : Comments, comment s mus tb e receive d by Apri

l d . 1981 . Public Hearing. A publi c hearin g wil l b e hel d o n Marc h 3.1981 . beginnin g a

t9 a.m. Request to Speak at

Hearing. Person s wishin g t o presentora

l testimony shoul d contac tEP

A by Marc

h 24 . 1981 . AOOfmsses : Comments. Comment s shoul d b e submitte d (i n duplicate i f possible ) to : Centra

l Docke tSectio n (A 130) , Attention : Docke tNo . A-79-32 , U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency . 40 1 M Stree tS.W. . Washington . D. C 2046 a Public Hearing. Th

e publi c hearin g wil l b e hel d a

tthe EP A Administratio n Bldg. Auditoriu

m Research Triangi e Par k Nort h Carolina . Person s wishin g t

o presen tora

l testimony-shoul d notif

y Ms . Naom i Durkee . Emission s Standard s & Engineering Branc

h (MD-13) , U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency . Research Triangi e Park

. Nort h Carolin a 27711 . telephon e number (919) 541-5271 . Background

Information Document Th e Background Infonnatio n Documen t (BID ) fo r th e propose d standard s ma y b e obtaine d fro

m th e U.S . EP

A Librar y (MD-35) , Research Triangl e Park . Nort h Carolina 27711 . telephon e number (919) 541-2777 . Pleas e refer t

o VOC Fugitive Emissions in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing industry — Background

Information ForProposed Standards. EPA-450/3-3O-033a . Docket Docke tNo . A-79-32 , containin g supportin g informatio n use d i n developin g the propose d standards , i s availabl e fo

r publi c inspectio n an d copyin g betwee n 8:0

0 a_m . an d 4:0 0 p.m. . Monda y throug h Friday , a

tEPA' s Centra l Docke tSection . Wes tTowe r Lobby . Galler

y l . Watersid e Mall . 40 1 M Street . S.W. . Washington . D. C 2046 a A reasonabl e fe e ma

y b e charge d fo

r copying . FO R FUF*TME B INFORMATIO N CONTACT : Ms . Susa n Wyat tEmissio n Standard s an d Engineering Divisio n (MD-13) , U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency . Research Triangi e Park

. Nort h Carolin a 27711 . telephon e numbe

r (919) 541-5477 . SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATION : Propose d Standard s The propose d standard s o f performance woul d appl

y t o fugitiv e emissio n source s withi n proces s units operate d t

o produce on e or mor

e o f di e organi c chemical s liste d i n propose d Appendi x E. Certain equipment processin g VO C liquid s an d gase s woul d b e covere d b y th

e standards . Implementatio n o

f th e propose d standard s woul d reduce fugitiv e emission s o

f VO C fro m pumps , compressors , valves , samplin g connections , safety/relie f valves , an d open-ende d valve s i

n VO C service . Th e propose d standard s woul d require : (1 ) a leak detectio n an

d repai r progra

m fo r in lin e vaive s in ga s and lightliqui d VO C service : (2) certai n equipmentfo r certai n fugitive emissio n source s i n VO C service : an d (3 ) n o detectabl e VO C •

emission s fro

m safety/relie f

valve s i n VO C servic e during norma l operation . VO C servic e mean s tha

ta fugitiv e emissio n sourc e contain s o r contact s a proces s flui d compose d o f equal t o or greate r than 1

0 percen tVO C b y weight . I n addition , th

e propose d standard s woul d provid e a procedur e fo r determinin g tii e equivalenc y o f alternativ e contro l measures . Th e propose d standard s includ e » "lea k detectio n an d repai r progra m tha t woul d require monthl y monitorin g for vaive s i n ga s and lightliqui d service . Valve s foun

d nott o leak fo r tw o successiv e month s coul d b e monitore d quarterly . Monitorin g woul d b e conducte d i n accordanc e with Referenc e Metho d 2 1 whic h i s bein g propose d with thes e propose d standards . The propose d standard s woui d require, repai r o f leakin g valve s withi n 15 day s after detectio n o

f the leak unles s repai r woui d requir e a proces s unitshutdown . A Lea k i s define d a

3 a detectabl e VO C concentratio n equa

l t o o r greate r tha

n 10,00 0 part s per millio n b

y volum e (ppmv) . A n initia l attemp ta trcprorm a thes e vaive s woui d b e required withi n 5 day s afte r detectio n ot

* a leak . Tw o alternativ e standard s hav e bee n provide d fo

r valve s in ga s an d Hgh

t liqui d service . A plantowne r o r operato r migh telec tt o compl y with on e o

f the alternativ e standard s whic h woul d b e base d o n data gathere d durin g on e year' s monthly monitoring k i hi s affecte d facility . The firs talternativ e standar d woul d provid e a n allowabl e percentag e o

f valve s leaking . Th e secon d alternativ e standard woul d provid e fo

r the us e o

f a differentleak detectio n and repai r progra m whic h woul d achiev e th e sam e leve l o tcontro l a s th e progra m designe d b

y EPA . Th e propose d standard s woul d require pump s i n ligh

tliqui d servic e t

o b e equippe d wit

h dua l mechanica l sea l system s tha

tinclud e a carrie r fluid system . The barrier fluid woul d b e required t

o b e somethin g othe r than a lightliqui d o

r gaseou s VO C Li-^h

t liquid s ar e denne d a s VO C liquid s wit h vapo r pressure s greate r tha n 0. 3 kP a a t 20*C . Eac h barrier fluid syste m woul d b e equippe d wit

h a senso r s o tha

tfailure o f th e inne r and oute r seal s coul d b e detected . I

n addition , eac h barrie r flui d syste m woui d b e operate d a ta pressuregreate r tha

n the sea l area pressur e o r woul d b e equippe d wit

h a barrie r fluid degassin g reservoir . The deqassin g reservoi r woui d b e connected , b y a close d ven tsystem , t

o a contro l devic e -javin g a VO C control efficienc y o f a : leas t9 5 percent . The propose d standard s woul d als o requir e weekl y—IT

—rywymn •_.._ • P. 4 

### Fedsga i Registeg /

Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar y 5.198 1 / Propose dRule s 113'

. visua l inspection s o

f th e seal s o n ligh t Liqui dpump s i n orde r

t o identif y failur e o f th e oute r seal

. Repai r

o f th e pump woul db e require dwithi n 1 5 day s afte r a sea l failur e o r

lea k wa s detecte dunles s repai r woui drequir e aproces s uni t shutdown

. Th e firs t

attemp t a t repairin g th e pum p woui db e require dwithi n 5 day s afte r

detectio n o

f th e leak

. I

f a pump coul dno t

b e equippe dwith dua l mechanica l seal s an d abarrie r flui d system , aclose dven t

syste mwoul db e require dt o transpor t

leakag e to a„ contro l devic e havin g aVO C contro l efficienc y o

f a t leas t 9 5 percent
. Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e compressor s t o b e equippe dwit h seal s havin g abarrie r

flui dsyste mtha t prevent s leakag e o

f th e proces s flui dt o th e atmosphere

. Th e barrie r flui dwoul d b e require dto b e somethin g othe r tha n a ligh t liqui do r gaseou s VOC

. Thes e standard s woul dals o requir e eac h barrie r flui dsyste meithe r

to operat e a t apressur e greate r

tha n th e compresso r sea l are apressur e o r

t o b e equippe d with abarrie r

flui ddegassin g reservoir

. Th e degassin g reservoi r

woul db e connecte db y aclose dven t syste mto a contro l devic e havin g aVO C contro l efficienc y of

a t leas t 9 5 percen t

Th e propose dstandard s woul drequir e eac h barrie r flui dsyste mt o b e equippe dwit h asenso r s o tha t sea l failure s ma y b e detected

. Whe n sea l failur e i s detected , repai r woul db e require dwithi n 1 5 day s unles s repai r

woul drequir e aproces s uni t shutdown

. A n initia l attemp t a t repai r woul db e require dwithi n 5 days

. I f acompresso r

coul dno t

b e equippe d wit h abarrie r

flui dsystem , aclose d ven t syste mwoul db e requiredt o transpor t leakag e fromth e sea l t o a n enclose dcombustio n sourc e o r vapo r recover y syste mhavin g aVO C contro l efficienc y o

f a t leas t 9 5 percent
. Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e tha t

VOC s purge dfro

m samplin g connection s b e recycle dt o th e proces s b y aclose dsamplin g loop

. Alternativel y thes e VOC s coul db e collecte di n aclose dcollectio n syste m fo r recycl e o r

disposa l withou t

VO C emission s t o atmospher e In-situ samplin g system s woul db e exemp t from thes e requirements

. Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e tha t

safety/relie f

valve s hav e "n o detectabl e emissions' ' o f VO C excep t i n case s o

f pressur e relief

. "N o detectabl e emissions " o

f VO C i n thi s cas e mean s 20

0 pp mo r les s abov e th e backgroun dleve l a s measure db y Referenc e Metho d21

. Afte r eac h overpressur e relief

, th e propose d standard s woul drequir e th e safety / relie f vaive s to b e returne dt o astat e o f n o detectabl e emission s withi n 5 days

. Open-ende dline s woul db e require d to b e seale dwit h asecon dvalve , cap , blin dflang e o r

plu g excep t

when , th e open-ende dlin e i s i n use . I f asecon d valv e i s used , th e valv e o n th e proces s sid e woul db e require dt o b e close dfirs t ' to avoi dtrappin g VO C betwee n th e valves

. Coolin g towers , agitato r

seals , an d equipmen t

no t i n VO C servic e woul d no t b e covere db y th e propose d standards

. Flanges , safety/relie f valve s i n liqui dservice , equipmen t operatin g a t subatmospheri c pressure s an d al l equipmen t

component s i n "heav y liquid " VO C service , woul db e exclude d fromth e routin e monitorin g requirement s o

f th e propose dstandards

. Heav y liquid s ar e define da s VO C liquid s wit h vapo r

pressur e les s tha n 0. 3 kP aa t 20 * C However , th e propose d standard s woul drequir e VO C leak s whic h wer e visuall y o r

otherwis e detecte dfro mthes e source s i n VO C servic e to b e repaire dwithi n 1 5 day s afte r th e lea k i s confirme dusin g Referenc e Metho d 21

. Complianc e wit h th e propose dlea k detectio n an d repai r

progra man d equipmen t

requirement s woul db e assesse dthroug h review o f record s an d report s an d b y inspection

. Eac h owner / operato r woul dreport

quarterl y th e numbe r o f leak s foun dan d repaire d durin g th e quarter
. Eac h owner/operato r woul dals o submi t

quarterl y asigne d repor t statin g tha t

al l monitorin g ha d bee n performe di n accordanc e wit h th e standards , al l specifie dequipmen t ha d bee n installe dan d operate di n accordanc e wit h th e standards , an d al l emissio n limit s ha d bee n met
. Unde r th e propose dstandards , an y owne r o r operato r o f afacility subjec t

t o th e standard s coul dreques t tha t th e Administrato r

determin e th e equivalenc e o

f an y alternativ e mean s o f emissio n limitatio n to th e equipmen t design , operationa l an d wor k practic e requirement s o

f th e propose dstandards

. Upo n receivin g areques t for determinatio n o

f equivalence , th e Administrato r

woul dprovid e a n opportunit y fo

r publi c hearing

. Afte r suc h ahearing , th e Administrato r woul d mak e adecisio n an d publis h th e decisio n i n th e Federa l Register

. Summar y of

Environmental , Energy , an d Economi c Impact s Th e propose dstandard s o f performanc e woul dreduce fugitiv e emission s o

f VO C fro mne w an d modifie dproces s unit s i n SOCM I b y approximatel y 87 percen t i n compariso n t o thos e emission s tha t

woul dresul t

i n th e absenc e o

f th e propose dstandards

. In th e fift h yea r afte r implementatio n th e propose dstandard s woul dreduc e th e tota l uncontrolle dfugitiv e emission s fro mnew , reconstructe dan d modifie d proces s unit s fro mapproximatel y 200 t c 26 gigagram s (Gg)

. Th e propose dstandard s of performanc e woul dno t

increas e th e energ y usag e o

f SOCM I proces s units

. L genera l th e controls-require d b y th e standard s d o no t

require muc h energy . Furthermore , th e effec t

o f th e standard s woul db e to increas e efficienc y of ra w materia l usage , s o tha t

ane t positiv e energ y impac t

woul dresul t Implementatio n of

th e propose d standard s coul dresul t

i n amino r negativ e contributio n t o solid'waste

. However , th e standard s woul dals o caus e apositiv e impac t

o n wate r

quali t b y containmen t

o f potentia l liqui dleak : Th e economi c impac t

o f th e propbse c standard s woul db e reasonable. Th e propose dstandard s woul drequir e o f t h producer s o

f SOCM I chemical s acapit a investmen t

rangin g fromS4 1 millio n i n 198 1 t o S5 2 millio n i n 1985

. Th e tota l industry-wid e capita l investmen t ove r th e five-year

perio dwoul db e

. approximatel y S23 2 million

. Th e industry-wid e ne t

annualize dcos t

wou . rang e fro mabou t

$ 2 millio n i n 198 1 t o abou t Sl l millio n i n 1985

. Thi s ne t annualize dcos t

include s acredi t resultin g from"recovered " fugitiv e emissions

. Th e cost s woul db e distribute damon g 83 0 facilitie s affecte : durin g th e fiv e yea r

period

. Industry

wid e pric e increase s ar e no t expecte d: resul t fro mimplementatio n o

f thes e standards

. Rational e Selection of

Sources and

Pollutants Th e syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturin g industr y (SOCMI ) sour c categor y ranke dfirs t

o n th e Priorit y Li

_ 40 CF R60.1 6 (4 4 F R49222

. Augus t

21

. 1979) , o f 5 9 majo r sourc e categorie s fo

r whic h standard s o

f performanc e ar e t o b e promulgate db y 1982

. Th e Priorit y Lis t consist s o

f categorie s o

f ai r pollutio n source s tha t

I n th e judgmen t o f th e Administrator , caus e o r contrib u significantl y t o ai r

pollutio n whic h ma* , reasonabl y b e anticipate dt o endange r publi c healt h o r

welfare

. Th e segmen t

o f th e organi c chemica l industr y covere db y th e propose d standard s shoul db e areadil y identifiabl e portio n o r

subgrou p o

f th e organi c chemica l industry

. EP A ha s identifie dalis t

o f organi c chemical s produce din asegmen t

o f thi s industry

. Th e product s o

f thi s industr y segmen t ar e derive dfro

mabou t te n basi c petrochemica l feedstock s an d ar e use e a s feedstock s i n anumbe r o f syntheti c product s industries

. Organi c chemical s suc h a s acetone , methy l methacrylate

.

### ii3 a Federa l Registe r /

Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar y 5

. 198 1 / Propose dRule s 

# -" 1

toluene , an d glycin e ar

e produce d i n thi s segmen to

f SOCM L Larg e quantitie s o

f SOCM I product s ar e use d i n the productio n o

f plastics , fibers, surfactants , pharmaceuticals , syntheti c rubber , dyes , pesticides , an d specialt y organiC3 . The y ar

e typicall y intermediates , althoug

h the y ma y b e nse d a s fina

l products . Man

y o f thes e product s ar e hig h volum e chemicals . The Administrato r i s proposin g the Lis tof organi c chemical s in Appendi x E a s the segmen to

f SOCM I covere d by the propose d standards . Th e total VO C emission s from SOCM I wer e estimate d t

o b e abou t1,00

0 Gigagrams/yea r (Gg/yr ) i n 197 8 o r about 5 percen to

f th e 19.00 0 G g total annual VO C emission s from stationary source s i n thi s country . Fugitiv e emission s o f VO C ar e a significan tportio n o

f th e total VO C emission s fro

m SOCMI. Fugitive emission s o

f VO C fro m smalle r SOCM I proces s unit

s ar e abou t7 0 Mg

/ y r and larger SOCM

I proces s units ar

e about80 0 Mg/yr . I

ti s estimate d mat . approximatel y 40

0 Gg/y r o f th e tota l emission s o

f VO C fro m SOCM I ar e currently attributabl e t

o fugitive emissio n sources . Fugitive emission s ar e unintentional emission s cause d by leaks ' in processin g equipmen tFugitiv e emissio n source s includ e pumps , valves , compressors , flanges , an d agitators . Other potentia l source s o f VO C emission s in thi s industr

y includ e proces s sources , storag e and handlin g equipmen tsources , and secondar y emissio n sources . Standard s ar e currently unde r developmen tfo r som e o f thes e VO C emissio n sources . Othe r pollutant s emitte d fro

m SOCM I includ e particulate matter , carbo n monoxid e (CO) , nitrogen oxide s (NO,) , sulfur oxide s (SO-) , sulfuri c aci d (H_SO< ) an d 'hydrochloric aci d (HCl*

) a s wel l a s othe r .emicais . Mos tparticulate matter, NO , ..i d (SO

T ) emission s from thi s industry , ar e regulated unde r combustio n and * proces s standard s tha

thav e bee n develope d o

r ar e unde r developmen t VO C emission s fro

m SOCM I contribute t

o the productio n o

f ozon e whic h i s on e o

f the criteri a pollutants fo r whic h a n ambientai r qualit y standar d exist s unde r Sectio n 10

9 o f the Cea n .Ai

r Ac tBecaus e fugitive emission s of VO C ar e a significan tportion o

f the total* SOCM I emission s o

f VO C th e Administrato r i s proposin g standard s o f performance tha

tar e intende d t

o reduc e fugitive emission s o

f VO C fro m SOCMI

. Thes e propose d standard s woul d reduce emission s o

f VO C by about17

5 Gg/y r in 1985 . Th e VO C tha

twoul d b e regulate d b y th e propose d fugitiv e emission s standard s ar

e compound s which participate in atmospheri c photochemica l reaction s o r ca n b e measure d b y Referenc e Metho d 2 1 whic h i s bein g propose d with the standards . I

n additio n t

o reducing fugitiv e emission s o

f VO C fro m SOCM L 

### th e propose d standard s wouldreduc e emission s o

f organi c chemical s tha

t ar e toxi c an d in som e case s potentiall y carcinogeni c However , specifi c VO C whic h the Administrato r List s a s hazardou s ai r pollutant s woul d b e regulated unde r Sectio n 11 2 o f the Clea n Ai r Ac trathe r than unde r thi s regulation. Selection of

Regulatory Approach and Affected Facilities Tw o general regulator

y approache s coul d b e use d i n developin g standard s fo r SOCM L Th e firstapproach involve s th e developmen to

f standard s applicabl e t o eac h specifi c chemica l process ; thi s approach ha s historicall y bee n th e mos t commonl y use d approach i n developin g standard s o

f performance fo

r ne w stationary sources . Followin g thi s approac h woui d involv e establishin g standard s fo

r eac h specifi c chemical process . Th e secon d approach involve s th e developmen to

f standard s o n th

e basi s o f simila r type s of

emissio n source s an d applicabl e emissio n contro l techniques . Th e secon d approach i s mor e resource efficien ttha

n th e firstapproac

h becaus e a larg e number o

f specifi c chemica l processe s ca n b e covere d by on e regulation. SOCM I plants contai n simila r fugitiv e emissio n sources . I

n general , a fe w fugitive emissio n source s withi n SOCM I proces s plants contribute th e greates t proportio n o

f fugitiv e emissions . Leaks from fugitiv e emissio n source s generall y occu r randomly and ar

e notrelate d t

o proces s variables . Thes e similaritie s i n th e behavio r o

f fugitiv e emissio n source s in SOCM

I allo w the sam e contro l technique s t

o b e applie d t

o al l o f di e processes . Therefore , becaus e the contro l technique s ca n b e applie d t o the entire industr

y grou p an d becaus e regulating di e entire grou p woui d b e mor e resourc e efficien ta singl e regulatio n i s bein g propose d fo r controllin g fugitiv e emission s fro m SOCMI. An affecte d facilit

y fo r standard s o

f performance i s a n emissio n source or grou p o f emissio n source s t

o which the standard applies . Affecte d facilitie s fcr fugitive emission s standard s coul d b e define d a s individual emissio n source: * (equipmentcomponents) , group s o f equipmentcomponents diatar e operate d i n conjunctio n wit h eac h othe r (proces s units) , or group s o f proces s ur.it 3 aton e locatio n (plantsites) . Th e selectio n o

f on e o f thes e definition s fcr affecte d facilitie s i s influence d by the . fac ttha tth e provision s of

th e propose d standard s woui d appl y t o new , modifie d o r reconstructed facilities . A a existin g facility , a s define d i n 4 0 CF R80-2 . i s a facility tha

twa s constructe d or codifie d befor e th e proposa l dat e o

f the applicabl e standard s of

performance . However , a n existin g facility thati s modifie d or reconstructe d afte r di e dat e o f proposal o f th e standard s become s a n affecte d facility an d the n i s subjec tt o applicabl e standard s o

f performance . Modificatio n i s define d i n 4 0 CF R 60.14(a) a s an y physica l or operationa l chang e of a n existin g facility whic h increase s the emissio n rat e o f an y pollutan tt

o whic h a standar d applies . Exemption s t

o thi s definitio n includ e a n increas e i n productio n rate , i f suc h a n increas e ca n b e mad e withou tcapita l expenditure : a

n increas e in th e hour

s o f operation : di e us e o

f a n alternativ e fuel o r ra w material i

f th e facility wa s designe d t

o accommodat e th e alternate fue l o r raw material prior to

* th e standards***th

e additio n of

air pollutio n contro l equipmen troutine maintenance , repair , an d replacementan d relocatio n o r chang e i n ownership . Reconstructio n i s define d i n 4 0 CF R 60.1 5 a s an y replacemento f component s i n a n existin g facility wher e th e fixed capita l cos tof

th e ne w component s exceed s 5 0 percen to

f di e fixed capita l cos ttha twoui d b e require d t

o construc t a comparabl e entirel y ne w facility . Unde r such conditions , th e Administrato r woul d determin e whedie r a.t<*-.istin

g facilit y woui d becom e a

n s;' . - •;

_facility . Fixe d capita l cost r_.ea:-.

_.-. e capita l neede d t

o provid e ai ! deysc-.ibl e component s o f di e facility . The three differentalternative s fo r definin g affecte d facilitie s and th e implication s o

f eac h on e wer e considere d i n selectin g the definition , if the affecte d facilitie s covere d by th a propose d standard s wer e define d o n th e basi s o f individual equipmen t components , any replacemen to f ar. equipmen tcomponen t(pump , valve , etc ) woul d b e considere d a se w sourc e an d woul d b e subjec tt

o di e ne w sourc e standards . Unde r thi s definitio n situation s woul d resultin whic h replace d equipmen tcomponents i n existin g proces s unit

s woul d b e subjec t t o ne w sourc e standards , whil e adjacen t components woul d notbe subjec tt c th e standards . Determinin g which component s wer e subjec tt o requirement

s o f the standard s ccui c be difficul tfo

r th e owner/ooerato r an d fo r EPA. Designatin g affecte d facilit : . s o n th s Sasi s o f proces s unit

s '.voul d combin e individual fugitiv e emissio n source sP. 6 

### Federal Registe

r / Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5,198 1 /

Propose dRule s 113 9 within th e proces s unit

int o aunifie d group. * An y like-for-lik

e replacement

o f fugitiv e emissio n source s within a n existin g unit

woul dno t

increas e the overal l emissio n rate , an dwoul db e a small capital expenditure compare dt o the cos t o f the entire unit

. Therefore , th e uni t woul dno t

b e subjec t

t o th e standard s du e t

o modificatio n o

r reconstructio n considerations

. Definin g a n affectedfacilit

y a s aproces s unit woul dreflec t

industr y construction ' practices

. Almos t

al l ne w constructio n i n SOCM I i s b y proces s uni t Furthermore , mos t

reconstructio n an d modificatio n occur s b

y proces s units

. Affecte dfacilitie s coul dals o b e defineda s plant

sites , i.e.

. al l proces s unit s at eac h plan t

site

. I f affected facilitie s wer

e define da s plant

sites , constructio n o

f ne w proces s unit s at existin g site s coul dmak

e th e entire site subjec t t o die standards

. Thi s broa d coverag e woul db e an unreasonabl e burde n fo r owner/operator s tha

t hav e existin g plan t

site s tha t ma y consis t o f man y proces s units

. Th e burde n could b e s o severe tha

t expansio n migh

t b e limite da t existin g sites

. I

f an entire proces s unit

wer e replacedwithi n a

n existin g plan t

site , no emissio n increas e woul dresul t

and

. therefore , the unit

an d site woul dno t

b e subjec t

t o the standard s under

modificatio n considerations

. I

f th e plant site consiste do

f man y proces s units , the replacement

o f on e unit woul dprobably not excee d5 0 percent o f the replacement

cos t o f th e affecte dfacilit

y (all proces s unit s at

the site) , an d therefor e di e unit and * site woul dnot

b e subject t o di e standards

. .Afte r carefull y considerin g eac h o

f the * * abov e alternatives , th e Administrato r selecte dproces s unit s a s the basi s fo r definin g affectedfacilities

. Thi s definitio n allow s fo

r routin e equipmen

t replacement

an dmino r change s o r expansion s i

n existin g facilitie s without subjecting either

single emissio n source s o r entir e plant site s t o requirement s o

f the propose dstandard s whil e als o _ . providing fo

r ful l coverag e fo

r al l ne w proces s units

. A disadvantag e o

f implementing a decisio n t o designate th

e proces s uni

t a s th e affectedfacilit

y i s that som e smal l routin e change s an daddition s i n a n existin g SOCM

I unit coul dresul t

i n the unit' s bein g modifie dand

. therefore , subject t o the standard s o

f performance

. Thes e change s an daddition s ma y increas e the numbe

r o f fugitiv e emission source s withi n a

n existin g facility , thereb y increasin g the fugitiv e emission s b y asmai l amount
. I

n mos t case s i t woui db e feasibl e t

o contro l fugitiv

e emission s fro

msom e other fugitiv e emissio n sources-withi n th e existing • facilit y t o keep fugitive emission s t o their origina l level

. I n case s wher

e existin g facilitie s ar e alread y operatin g wit h agoo dfugitive emissio n contro l program , however , i

t migh t no t b e possibl e t o contro l fugitive emission s fro manothe r fugitive emissio n source . Standard s o

f performanc e fo

r new . SOCM I source s ar e no t

intende dt

o cove r existin g plant s making routin e an d mino r additions

. Ther e ar e tw o exception s t

o th e modification s provision s i n th e General Provision s o f 4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 whic h ma

y exclude som

e plant s making suc h additions

. Exemption s ar e made fo

r routin e replacement

an dfo r addition s mad e t

o increas e productio n rat e i

f they can b e _

_ accomplishe dwithout

capital expenditures

. Ther

e ar e man y specific reason s fo r routin e addition s an d change s made i

n aSOCM I unit

. Fo r example , asmal l numbe

r o f fugitiv e emissio n source s migh

t b e adde di

n making change s t

o increas e productivity , t

o increas e eas e o

f maintenance , t

o improv e plant

safety , an dto correc t

minor desig n flaws

. Whil e the tw o reason s fo

r exemption s include d i n di e General Provision s tnight.b e interprete dt

o cove r tiiese type s o

f changes , ther

e ma y b e differen

t interpretations

. T o clarif

y th e intent

tha t existin g SOCM

I unit s making routine change s an daddition s woul dno t b e covered , di e propose dstandard s woul d exemp t addition s made fo

r proces s improvement s i

f they ar e mad e withou t incurrin g a"capita l expenditure " a s definedi n the Genera

l Provisions

. The Genera

l Provision s defin e "capita l expenditure " a s a

n expenditure fo r aphysical o

r operational chang e to a n existin g facilit

y which exceed s th

e produc t o f the applicabl e "annual asse t guidelin e repai r

allowanc e percentage " specifie di n the lates t

editio n o f Internal Revenu e Servic e Publicatio n 53 4 an dth e existin g facility' s basis , a s definedb y Sectio n 101 2 o

f the Internal Revenue Code

. However , th e total expenditure fo r aphysical or

operational chang e t

o an existin g facilit

y mus t no t b e reduced b y any "exclude daddition " a s defined i n IR S Publicatio n 534

. a s woul db e done fo r tax purposes . Usin g the proces s unit

a s di e basi s fo

r a n affectedfacility , a

n affectedfacilit

y woul db e agrou

p o f al l fugitiv e emissio n source s withi n aproces s unit

. I n thi s way , th e proces s unit

i s use da s th

e basi s fo r definin g a n affectedfacility , but coverag e i s restricte dt

o fugitive — emissio n sources . A proces s unit i s specifically define da s equipmen t assemble dt

o produc e on

e o r mor e o f the chemical s liste di

n propose dAppendi x E whic h can operat e independentl y i f supplie dwit

h sufficien t fee do r ra w material s an dsufficien

t storag e facilitie s fo r th e final produc t

A proces s unit include s intermediat e storag e o r surg e tank s an dal l flui

dtranspor t equipmen

t connectin g the reaction , separatio n an d purificatio n devices

. Al

l equipmen

t withi n th e battery limit s i s included

. However , offsit

e fluidtranspor

t an d storag e facilitie s ar e excluded

. Unde r thi s definition , i

f anumber o f SOCM I proces s unit s were integrate dinto a continuou s operation , eac h woul db e . considere daseparat e proces s unit

. Fo r example , i f chemica l A wa s produce da s afeedstoc k

fo r th e productio n o

f chemica l B an dchemica

l B

. in turn , wa s use da s afeedstoc k

t o produc e chemica

l C

. th e whol e continuou s operatio n woul dconsis t

o f thre e proces s units

. I

f A

. B

. an dC were SOCM

I chemicals , ther e woul db e thre e affecte dfacilities

. Selection of

Regulatory Alternatives Fugitiv e emission s o

f VOC ca n b e reduce dby tw o type s o

f contro l techniques : (1 ) lea

k detectio n an drepai r program s an d(2

) equipmen t

design , an d operational specifications

. Fou r regulatory alternative s whic h woul d achiev e differen

t level s o f emissio n reductio n using variou s combination s o f lea k detectio n an drepai r

program s an d equipmen t

design , an doperational - requirement s wer e considered

. Control Techniques. The lea

k detectio n an drepai r

program s include d i n th e variou s regulator

y alternative s consis t o f tw o phases

. The initia

l phas e involve s monitorin g potential fugitiv e emissio n source s withi n aproces s uni t t o detec t fugitiv e emission s o

f VOC

. Afte r detectio n o

f di e leak , di e secon d phas e involve s repair

o r replacement

o f th e fugitiv e emissio n source . Severalleak

detectio n method s wer

e considere di

n di e development

o f the regulator y alternatives

. Method s considere dinclude ddi e us e o f VO C detectio n instrument s an dsoa p bubbl e solution s t o locate individual leakin g sources . Differen

t mode s o f monitorin g were als o considered

. Include dwere periodi c monitoring fo

r fugitiv e emission leaking source s o

n a n individua

l componen t o r a n are abasi s an d continuou s automati c instrument monitoring o

f ambient ai r a t multipl e site s withi n afacility

. A s detaile di n the Selectio n o

f Tes t Method s sectio n o

f thi s preamble , th

e individua

l componen

t survey using aportabl e VO C detectio n instrument

ha s been selecte da s the lea k detectio n metho dfo

r di e propose d standards

. Thi s metiio d require s tha t the VO C concentratio n a

t th e surfac e o

f eac h fugitiv

e emissio n sourc e wouldb eP. 7

114 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 46 . No . 2 /

Monday . Januar y -5.198 1 / Propose d Rule s monitored with a portabl e VC C detectio n instrument . The effectivenes s o

f a n individual source leak detectio n progra m woul d depen d notonl y o

n th e detectio n method , butals o o n di e frequenc y o f the monitorin g schedule . Mor e frequent monitoring woul d ailo w leak s t o b e detecte d earlie r and ti_us ailo w mor e frequen tmaintenanc e and a correspondin g reductio n i n fugitiv e • emissions . The secon d phas e o

f a leak detectio n and repai r progra

m consist s o f

repair or replacemen to

f leakin g fugitiv e emissio n sources . Repairer replacementof a fugitiv e emissio n sourc e woui d b e required withi n a specifie d perio d of tim e afte r the detectio n o

f a VO C concentratio n equa l t

o o r i n exces s of

a predetermine d level . Thes e repai r an d replacemen tprocedure s woul d vary fo r each fugitiv e emissio n source . Fugitive emission s fro

m packe d seal s o n a pum p o r compressor , for example , coul d b e reduce d by tightenin g di e packin g gland . However , th

e packing coui d deteriorate t o a poin twher e furthe

r tightening woui d n o longe r reduce , bu tinstead , woul d increas e di e emissio n rate . A t thi s poin tth e packin g woul d hav e t o b e replaced . Mechanical seal s o n pump s and compressor s woul d nee d t o b e remove d for repair. Replacemen tof thes e seal s woul d b e include d i n thei r repair , i f necessary . Man y valv e leak s ca n b e repaired whil e th e equipmenti s i n service . Mos t proces s valve s hav e a packin g glan d whic h coul d b e tightened whil e th e valv e i s i n service . Tightenin g o f th e packin g glan d woul d normally reduc e fugitive emission s fro

m a leakin g valve . bu tdi e emissio n rat

e coul d increas e i

f the packin g i s ol d an d brittl e or i f di e packin g wer e overl y tightened. Whe n thi s orrurs . di e packin g woul d hav e t o b e replaced . Plu

g vaive s migh

tb e repaire d by additio n o

f grease . Some vaive s coul d no tb e repaired whil e i n service . Thes e vaive s includ e contro l vaives . whic h ma y b e exclude d fro m in-servic e repair by operatin g o r safet y considerations , an d bloc k valves , whos e removal fo

r repai r or replacemen t migh trequir e a proces s shutdown . Other vaives . suc h a s contro l valve s with a manua l bypas s loop , coul d b e isolate d fo r repai r o r remova L The repair o

f a leakin g safety/relie f

valv e normall y requires tha

titb e remove d from service . Leak s fro m flange s coul d ofte n b e reduce d by tightening o

f th e flang e bolts . Mostflange s coul d notbe isolate d from di e proces s t

o permi treplacemen to

f the gasket . Fugitive emission s o

f VO C als o coul d b e reduce d b y installin g certai n equipmen tRequirin

g installatio n o

f certai n equipmen twa s considere d fo r die followin g fugitiv e emissio n source s in the developmen to

f th e regulator

y alternatives : pumps , compressors , pressur e relief devices , open-ende d lines , samplin g connections , an d valves . Fugitiv e emission s fro

m pump s occur, primaril y atthe pum

p seal . Thes e emission s coui d b e reduce d b y installatio n of

th e followin g equipment : sealles s pumps , pump s wit h improve d seal s (e.g. . dua

l mechanica l seals) , o

r close d ven tsystem s fo

r collectio n an d contro l o f emissions . Becaus e o

f proces s conditio n limitations , sealles s pump s ar e not suitabl e fo r al l pum

p application s bu

t woul d reduc e emission s wheneve r applicable . Enclosin g di e sea l area an d ventin g di e capture d emission s t o a contro l devic e i s a n alternativ e contro l techniqu e for pumps : however , i ti s no t generall y use d becaus e such a 3yste m i s cosdy . Dua l mechanica l seal s are currendy use d in many SOCM

I proces s applications . Thes e seal s . characteristicall y includ e a barrie r flui d betweea.th e seals . I

f di e pressur e i n the barrier flui d syste m i s highe r than diat in di e pum

p sea l area . VO C woul d no t leak fro m th e seal . If

. however , di e pressure i n di e pum

p sea l area i s higher . VO C coul d lea k into di e barrier fluid and late r b e emitte d to . di e atmospher e throug h degassin g vent s o n th e barrier fluid reservoir . Connectin g di e degassin g vent s t o a contro l devic e (enclose d combustio n o r vapo r recovery system ) coul d effectivel y contro l fugitiv e emission s originatin g fro m th e doubi e mechanica l seals . Th e contro l efficienc y woul d var

y with th e conditio n o

f di e mechanical seal s an d di e typ e o f contro l devic e used , butcontro l efficiencie s approachin g 100, percen tca n b e achieved . Consequentiy . a syste m combinin g dual mechanica l sea l system s equippe d with controlle d degassin g vent s wer e considere d a s th e equipment fo r pumps . Emission s from compressor s als o occu r primarily a'

tth e seai . A n enclose d sea l are a or replacemento f the sea l with a n improve d sea l (mechanical ) coul d b e specifie d t

o reduc e emission s from compressors . Enclosin g th e sea l are a and ventin g di e capture d emission s t o a contro l devic e i s a n alternativ e contro l techniqu e fo

r compressors : however , it i s notgenerall y use d becaus e iti s to o cosdy . Th e us e of

mechanica l seal s o n compressor s an d connectio n o f di e barrie r flui d reservoi r t

o a control devic e (enclose d combustio n o r vapo r recovery system ) with a close d ven tsyste m coul d provid e contro l efficiencie s approachin g 10 0 percen tI

f th e barrier fluid pressure i s higher tha

n the compresso r sea l area pressure , diere.woui d b e no-VO C emission s t

o atmosphere . However , i f the pressur e i n th e barrier flui d syste m i s lowe r than dia ti n di e compresso r sea i area , th e degassin g vent s o n di e barrier flui d reservoir shoul d b e connecte d t o a contro l devic e t

o effectivel y contro l fugitive emissions . Therefore , a syste m combinin g mechanica l seal s an d controlle d degassin g vent s wa s considere d a s di e equipmen tfor compressors . Safety/reiie f

valve s may emi tfugitive VO C du e t

o defect s i n valv e seatin g surfaces , imprope r reseating afte r relieving , or proces s operatio n nea r di e relief valv e se tpoint . Equipmen t considere d for controllin g fugitiv e VO C emission s from relief

valve s includ e dose d ven tsystem s connecte d t o a contro l devic e o r ruptur

e disk s upstream • o f safety/relie f

valves , A close d ven tsyste m can b e use d t o transpor tthe relie f

valv e discharg e (an d fugitiv e emissions ) t

o a contro l devic e such a s a flare . Thes e type s o f system s ar e currendy used.in SOCM I proces s units ; however , unde r certai n applications , suc h a s flaring halogenate d compounds , thes e system s coui d resul t i n undersirabl e emissions . Th e contro l efficienc y o

f a close d ven tan d contro l devic e syste m i s mosti y dependen to n di e effectivenes s o

f th e contro l device . Fo r example , a close d ven tsyste m i s aboutIC O percen teffectiv e i n VO C capture , an d a typica l flar e proces s i s abou t6 0 t

o 9 9 percen teffectiv e fo

r VO C destruction : thus , di e overal l efficienc y woul d b e abou t80 t

o 99 percen t dependin g o n the turn-down capability o f th e flare . Ruptur e disk s ca n b e installe d upstrea m o f safety-relie f

vaive s t o preven tdi e emissio n of

VO C throug

h di e valv e sea tduring norma l processin g conditions . The us e o

f a ruptur e dis k upstream o

f a safety/relie f

valv e result s in n o emission s o

f VO C fro m th e valve . Ruptur e disk s woul d provid e more contro l tiian system s vente d t o a contro l devic e becaus e th e contro l devic e coui d notachiev e 10

0 percen tVO C emission s reduction , wherea s ruptur e disk s could . Consequentiy . ruptur

e disk s wer e considere d a s di e equipmen tfor safety / relie f valves . Whe n proces s sample s ar e take n fo r analysis , obtainin g a representativ e stream sampl e requires purgin g som e proces s flui d dirough di e sampi e connection . Thi s sampi e purg e coul d b e vente d t o di e atmospher e i

f the flui d wer e gaseous , an d Liqui

d sampi e purges coul d b e draine d ont o di e ground o r into ope n collectio n system s wher e evaporativ e emission s coul d resul t ""Ther e i s n o leakag e fro

m in-sit e samplin g system s bu

tthey may no tb eP. 8 

### Federal Registe

r / Vol

. 48

. No

. 2 /

• Monday , Januar

y 5

. 198 1 /

Propose dRule s 114 1 applicabl e in al l situations . Fugitiv e emission s fro

m othe r samplin g connection s ca n b e reduce d b y usin g a closed-loo p samplin g syste m tha t eliminate s atmospheri c purgin g o f proces s material . Fugitiv e emission s o

f VO C from open ende d line s ca n b e controlle d b y installin g a cap , plug , blin d flange, o r secon d valv e o n di e ope n en d o f the line . Capping o

f open-ende d line s and closed-loo p samplin g are commo n industrial practice s applie d i n SOCM I whic h exhibi tcontro l efficiencie s fo r _ fugitiv e emission s o

f VO C o f approximatel y 100 percen tTh e actual contro l efficiencie s wil l depen d o n site specifi c factors . Becaus e th e equipmen t i s readil y available , commonl y used , and inexpensive , caps , plugs , blinds , or vaive s wer e considere d fo r open-ende d lines , an d closed-loo p samplin g wa s considere d fo

r samplin g connections . Fugitive emission s from valve s occu r a tthe stem o

r glan d are a o

f th e valv e body . Thes e emission s ca n b e controlle d b y usin g valve s whic h hav e actuatin g mechanism s isolate d fro m th e proces s fluid such a s diaphragm o r bellow s valves . Although th e contro l effectivenes s o

f diaphrag m o r bellow s sea l valve s i s abou t100 percen tthei r us e i s limited . Becaus e th e applicatio n o f thes e valve s woul d b e limite d t o certai n services , the y wer e no tconsidere d and , therefore , n o equipmen twa s considere d for valve s i n di e regulatory alternatives . Regulatory Alternatives. Fou r regulatory alternatives , whic h represent differentlevel s o

f emissio n reductio n achievabl e b y combinin g variou s lea k detectio n an d repair programs , operationa l an d desig n requirements an d equipmen tspecifications , wer e considere d i n th e developmen to f th e propose d standards . Regulatory Alternativ e I i s di e baselin e alternativ e an d represents th e leve l o f contro l that woul d exis ti n th e absenc e of an y standard s o

f performance . Unde r Regulator y Alternativ e I SOCM

I facilitie s locate d i n area s attainin g th e Nationa l Ambien tAi r Quality Standar d fo r ozon e woul d no tb e subjec tt o any VO C fugitiv e emissio n regulations; however , facilitie s i n nonattainmen t area s woul d b e subjec tt o applicabl e SI

P regulations . Onl y a fe w state s hav e develope d o r ar

e considerin g near-ter

m developmen to

f thes e specifi c regulations. Unde r Regulatory Alternativ e I fugitiv e emission s o f VO C coul d als o b e controlle d t o som e exten t b y OSH A health standard s or control s base d o n provision s o

f insuranc e polic y fo r fir e and/o r explosio n protection . Estimate s o

f emission s fro

m fugitiv e emissio n source s hav e bee n develope d base d o n existin g level s of fugitiv e emissio n control . Thus , Regulatory Alternativ e I wa s base d o n current level s o f control , considerin g possibl e ne w regulatory controls , an d represent s the leve l o

f contro l dia twoul d exis ti n th e absenc e o

f an y standard s of performance . Regulator y Alternativ e I

I include s th e sam e monitorin g requirements an d equipmen tspecification s include d i n th e petroleu m refinery Contro l Technique s Guideline s (CTG

) documen t(EPA-450/ 2-78-036) . Thes e requirements an d specification s are : • 1 . Quarterly monitorin g o f al l in-lin e valves , open-ende d valve s an d safety / relief valve s i n ga s servic e (relie f valve s woul d als o b e monitore d afte r overpressur e relie f

t o chec k for prope r reseating) ; 2 . Annual monitorin g o

f al l in-lin e valve s an d open-ende d valve s i n ligh t liqui d service : 3 . Quarterly monitorin g o f compresso r seals : 4 . Annua l monitorin g o

f ligh tliqui d servic e pump s (suc h pump s woul d als o b e inspecte d visuall y fo

r liqui d leak s eac h week : immediat e instrumen t monitorin g o

f visuall y leakin g pump s woui d b e required); an d 5 . Installatio n o

f caps , blinds , plugs , or secon d valve s t

o sea l al l open-ende d Lines. Regulatory Alternativ e II I specifie s a mor e frequentequipmen tmonitorin g schedul e than Regulatory Alternativ e II. thereb y providin g for more stringen t contro l o f fugitiv e emission s of

VO C Fo r instance . Regulatory Alternativ e II I woul d require monthly , rathe r than quarterly o

r annual monitoring . Monthl y monitorin g woui d resulti n a reduction of emission s fro

m residual leakin g sources , Le- , thos e source s whic h ar e found t o b e leakin g an d ar e repaired but begi n t o lea k agai n befor e th e nex t inspectio n an d thos e previousl y non leakin g source s dia tbegi n leakin g betwee n inspections . Regulatory Alternativ e H

I woul d als o require th e us e o f caps , plugs , or secon d valve s o n open-ende d lines . O f th e fou r alternatives . Regulator y Alternativ e I

V woul d provid e di e greates tleve l o

f contro l for fugitiv e emission s of

VO C throug

h th e us e o

f equipmen tspecification s for som e fugitiv e emissio n sources . Th e implementatio n of

equipmen t specification s fo

r th e variou s potentia l fugitiv e emissio n source s woul d lesse n th e nee d for periodi c monitoring . Th e monitorin g and equipmen tspecification s requirements o

f Regulatory Alternativ e I V are : 1 . Monthl y monitorin g o f al l In-lin e valve s an d open-ende d valve s in ga s an d ligh tliqui d service : 2 . Installatio n o

f ruptur e disk s upstream of

a s servic e safety/relie f valve s tha

tven tt o th e atmospher e (th e dis k woul d b e replace d i f dis k failure wer e detected) ; 3 . Installatio n of

close d vent s an d contro l device s fo

r compresso r sea l area s and/o r degassin g vent s fro m compresso r barrie r flui d reservoirs ; 4 . Installatio n o

f duai mechanica l seal s o n pump s i n ligh tLiqui d servic e an d installatio n o

f close d ven tcontro l device s fo

r degassin g vent s from barrie r flui d reservoir s o

f al l pump s i n ligh t liqui d servic e (weekl y visua l inspection s o f pump s in ligh tliqui d servic e woul d "als o b e required , with subsequen t instrumen tmonitorin g require d for thos e pump s witi i visibl e liqui d leaks) ; 5 . Installatio n o

f close d loo p samplin g systems ; an d 6. Installatio n o

f caps , blinds , plugs , o

r secon d valve s t

o sea l al l open-ende d lines . Selection of

Basis forthe Proposed Standard Th e Clea n Ai r Ac trequire s diat standard s fo

r performanc e b e base d o n the bes tsyste m o

f continuou s emission s reduction , considerin g costs , energ y usage , an d environmenta l impact . Selectio n o

f a regulatory alternativ e a s th e basi s fo

r th e propo'sed standard s wa s mad e afte r considerin g estimate d fugitiv e emissio n reductions, energ y saving s or usage , an d cos tan d economi c impact s o f th e regulatory alternatives . SOCMI. with approximatel y 1.68 0 operatin g proces s unit s i n th e Unite d State s i n 1980 . i s projecte d t o gro w a ta n annual rat

e o f 5. 9 percen tBase d o n thi s growt h rate , approximatel y 2,24 0 proces s unit s wil l b e i n operatio n in 1985 . Approximatel y 83 0 of tiiese facilitie s woul d b e subjec tt o th e propose d standard s i n 198 5 du e t o ne w construction . O

f thi s total , abou t560 facilitie s woul d b e newl y constructe d an d subjec tt

o th e standard s o n thi s basis . Th e remaining 270 facilitie s woul d resultfrom replace d facilitie s whic h woul d b e subjec tt

o di e standards . T o examin e the environmenta l impacts o f th e regulatory alternatives , estimate s o

f fugitiv e emission s o

f VO C are required . T o mak e tiies e estimate s fo r SOCM L fugitiv e emission s data develope d i n petroleu m refinerie s hav e bee n used . Transferrin g dat a i n thi s wa y i s justifie d becaus e di e fugitiv e emissio n source s and di e substance s processe d i n the tw o industrie s are similar . Bot h industrie s us e th e sam e type s o f pumps . • compressors , valves , flanges an d othe r chemica l processin g equipment .P. 9

114 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 48 . No . 2 /

Monday . Januar y 5 . 198 1 / Propose d Rule s Furthermore , bot

h industrie s proces s VO C Lea k rate s o f VO C from simila r fugitive emissio n source s ar e simila r lea k frequencies i n di e tw o industrie s are similar . Availabl e EP A data a s presente d i n the Backgroun d Information Documentshows thi s t o b e true . T o furthe r verif y thi s similarity , EP A i s currently gatherin g more dat a i n SOCM I unit s for compariso n t

o th e refiner y data . Thes e data wil l b e in di e docke tbefor

e di e en d o

f th e comment period . Thes e data an d comments o n thi s data wil l b e fully considere d before promulgatio n o f

tiiese standards . Regulator y Alternativ e I

I woul d reduce fugitiv e emission s o f VO C from di e 830 affecte d facilitie s i n 198 5 from a n uncontrolle d leve l of

20 0 Gg/y r t o approximatel y 73 Gg/yr . or b y 83 percent . Th

e total energ y associate d with a VO C bein g processe d i s mad e u p o f di e energy valu e o

f di e compoun d an d di e energy expende d t

o proces s (condense ^ pump , vaporize , etc ) the compound . Th e total energy associate d wit h th e VO C woui d b e los ti

f th e VO C wer e t o lea k t

o th e atmosphere . Thi s energy los s coul d b e reduced i f th e VO C wer e combuste d i n a n enclose d combustio n syste m becaus e som e o f th e energy released durin

g combustio n coul d b e recovered. I

f di e VO C coul d b e kep twithi n di e proces s an d sol d a s produc tdi e energy los s woul d b e eliminated . Regulator

y Alternativ e Q reduce s di e energy los s diatwoul d resulti n di e absenc e o

f an y standards . Durin g the firstfiv e year s after implementatio n o

f Regulator

y Alternativ e L

L SOCMI' s cumulativ e capital cost s woul d b e S2 1 million . I n di e firt h year . Regulator

y Alternativ e I

I woui d resui tin a

n annualize d ne tcredi t o f S2 9 millio n du e t

o di e valu e of

di e recovere d product. Implementatio n o f Regulator y Alternativ e Q woul d ten d t o • hol d individual price increase s dow n becaus e i twoul d resul ti n a ne t annualize d credi tImplementatio n o f Regulator y Alternativ e H coul d hav e a sligh tpositiv e impacto n wastewate r from SOCM

I facilitie s becaus e lea k detectio n woul d resulti n di e identificatio n an d repair of liqui d VO C leaks , and therefore , reductio n o f VOC s i n wastewate r from SOCM I facilities . Regulator y .Alternative I

I woul d hav e n o impacto n any soti d waste s associate d wit h SOCMI . Regulator y Alternativ e II

I woul d resul tin a fusitiv e emissio n rat e o f approximatel y 82 Gg/y r from di e 830 affecte d facilitie s i n 1985 : thi s represents a 69 percen treduction ove r th e baseiine . o r Regulator

y .Alternative I level . Regulator y Alternativ e H

L lik e Regulator y Alternativ e I

L reduce s th e energy los s tha twoui d resul tfrom SOCM I in di e absenc e o

f any standards . SOCM I woui d incu r cumulativ e capita l cost s o f S2 1 millio n durin

g di e first five year s afte r implementatio n o f thi s alternative.'However , du e t o th e increase d cos to

f implementin g a more frequen tmonitorin g schedule . Regulator y Alternativ e H

I woul d result in a smalle r annualize d ne tcredi ttha n Regulator y Alternativ e E

L Implementatio n o

f Regulator

y Alternativ e H

I woul d resul ti n a

n annualize d ne tcredi to

f S2 1 millio n i n 1985 . A s with Regulator

y Alternativ e I

L a n annualize d ne tcredi twoul d ten d t o hol d individua l price increase s down . Regulator y Alternativ e H

I woul d hav e di e sam e potentia l positiv e impacto n wastewate r from SOCv

H facilitie s a s Regulator y Alternativ e H

. an d n o impact o n soli d waste . Regulator y Alternativ e I

V woul d reduc e fugitiv e emissions , o f VO C from th e 830 affecte d facilitie s i n 198 5 t o 2 8 Gg/y r thi s represent s a

n 3 7 percen t reduction from the Regulatory Alternativ e I level . Regulator y

- Alternativ e I

V woul d minimiz e di e energy los s diatwoul d resul tfrom SOCM I i n di e absenc e o

f any standards . Fo r Regulator

y Alternativ e I

V di e cumulativ e capita l cost s woui d b e abou t $23 2 millio n after di e first five year s o f implementation . Th e ne tannualize d cast fo r tiiis regulator

y alternativ e woul d b e Sl l millio n in 1985 . Thes e cost s shoul d notsignificanti y increas e di e price s o f SOCM I products becaus e ne t annualize d cost s o

f contro l are extremel y smal l (les s than 0.0 3 percent ) relativ e t o di e valu e o

f tota l industr

y outpu tImplementatio n o f Regulatory Alternativ e I

V coui d hav e a sligh t positiv e impacto n wastewate r for di e sam e reason s a s Regulator y Alternative s fl an d H

L A wastewate r containin g suspende d solid s an d som e soli d wast e coul d result from di e us e of variou s contro l processe s such a s carbo n adsorptio n unit

s wit h di e equipmentspecification s implemente d unde r thi s alternative . However , th e impac to f tiiese wast e stream s woui d b e sligh tSoli d wast e impactwoul d als o b e minimal . Th e Administrato r select s a regulatory alternativ e a s th e basi s fo r th e propose d standard s o

f performance afte r considerin g emissio n reductions , energy requirements , and cos tand economi c impact s o f di e regulator

y alternative . Thi s selectio n is base d o n choosin g th e bes tsyste m of

continuou s emissio n reductio n considerin g costs , energy and environmental impacts . Regulator y Alternativ e F

V woui d reduce fugitiv e emission s o

f VO C b y 17

0 Gg/y r in 1985 . O

f al l di e regulatory alternatives . Regulator y Alternativ e I

V woul d achiev e the greates treductio n o f VO C fugitiv e emissions . Th e cost s an d economi c impacts of

Regulator

y Alternativ e IV

, a s presente d above , ar e reasonable . Energ

y requirements an d nonai r qualit

y impacts o

f Regulatory Alternativ e I

V woui d b e simila r t

o thos e o f th e othe r regulatory alternatives . Therefore . Regulator

y Alternativ e I

V represent s di e bes tsyste m o f emissio n reductio n considerin g cos tenerg y requirements, an d environmenta l impact an d di e Administrato r selecte d Reguiator y .Alternative I

V a s di e basi s fo r th e propose d standards . Selection of

Format for the Proposed Standards Severa l format

s coul d b e use d t

o Implemen

tRegulator

y Alternativ e IV . Sectio n 11 1 o

f di e Clea n Ai r Ac trequire s tha tstandard s o f

performanc e b e prescribe d unless , i n di e judgemen to f di e Adminsitrator . itis.no tfeasibl e t o prescrib e o

r enforc e such standards . Sectio n 111(h) define s tw o condition s unde r whic h i

ti s no tfeasibl e t

o prescrib e or enforc e a performanc e standard . Thes e condition s are (1 ) i f di e applicatio n o

f measuremen t methodolog y t

o a particula r clas s o

f source s i s no tpracticabl e du e t o technologica l o

r economi c limitations , o r (2) i i di e pollutant s canno tb e emitte d throug h a conveyanc e device . I f a standar d o

f performanc e i s no tfeasibl e t o prescrib e o

r enforce : tiien di e Administrato r ma

y instea d promulgate a design , equipment , wor

k practice , or operationa l standard , o

r combinatio n diereo f as provide d i n Sectio n 111(h) . Fo r mos tSOCM

I fugutive emissio n sources , i ti s no tfeasibl e t

o prescrib e a performance standard . Excep ti n thos e case s i n whic h standar d ca n b e se ta t "n o detectabl e emissions" , di e onl y wa y t o measur e emission s from suc h SOCM I fugitiv e emissio n source s a s pumps , pipelin e valves , and compressor s woul d b e t o us e a baggin g techniqu e for eac h of th e pipelin e source s in a proces s uni t Th e grea tnumber o

f suc h source s an d thei r dispersio n ove r larg e area s woul d make such a requirementeconomicall y impracticable . Therefore , th e Administrato r has no tselecte d thi s forma tin prescribin g th

e propose d standards . Anotiie r approach t

o prescribin g a standar d woui d b e t

o specif y a number o r percen to

f fugitive emissio n source s tha twoui d b e allowe d t

o leak . Thi s approac h woui d b e qualitative . I tdiffer s fro m di e performance standar d appoach _whic h i s base d o n quantitiv e emission s measurements (e.g . bagging) . However . i twoui d hav e som e o

f th e sam e benefit sP.1 0


### Federa l Registe r /

Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar y 5.198 1 / Propose dRule s 114 3

o f flexibilit y provide d by performanc e standards . The onl y fugitiv e emissio n sourc e fo r whic h a lea k frequency limi t woul d b e applicabl e i s valves . However . th e variability i n di e percentag e of valve s leakin g amon

g proces s unit s limit s th e settin g o

f a n allowabl e percentag e o

f valve s leakin g whic h coul d b e achieve d b y al l proces s unit s withi n SOCMI. Thi

3 variability i s observe d eve n among unit s i n whic h lea k detectio n and repair program s ar e bein g implemented . Eve n so . establishin g a n allowabl e percentag e of vaive s leakin g base d o n data collecte d fo r thatuni tma

y b e feasibl e fo r eac h individua l proces s uni tThi s approach i s discusse d i n mor

e dept h i n Alternativ e Standard s fo

r Valve s i n th e nex tsectio n o f thi s preambl e a s on e whic h woul d ad d desirabl e flexibility t o th e propose d standard . Anodie r possibl e regulatory forma ti s a n equipmen tstandard . For thos e source s fo

r whic h performanc e standard s canno tfeasibl y b e prescribed , work practices , desig n standards , operationa l standards , or equipmen t standard s ma

y b e prescribed . Each o

f thes e format

s ha s it s ow n advantage s an d disadvantages . Equipment standard s provid e well-documente d reductions . Complianc e monitorin g woul d require onl y a n initia l chec k t o insur e diatth e equipmentha d bee n installe d properly an d periodi c check s t o insur e tha

tequipmen twa s continuin g t o operate properly . However , a n inheren t disadvantag e associate d wit h thi s typ e o f forma ti s tha tles s site-specifi c flexibility i s provide d tha n witi i a performanc e standard an d innovatio n may b e stymied . Desig n an d operationa l standard s hav e simila r advantage s an d disadvantage s a s thos e for equipmen t standards . Anothe r forma

ti s work practices . A n exampl e o

f tiiis forma

twoul d b e a progra m fo r detectin g an d repairing leaks . Inspectio n methods , inspectio n tim e intervals , and tim e allowe d for repai r woul d b e define d i n detailin g di e wor k practices . Complianc e with a wor k practic e standar d woul d b e determine d b y judgin g succes s in implementin g di e wor k practices . Som e recordkeepin g and reportin g woul d b e neede d t o serv e a s di e basi s fo

r judgin g thi s success . Th e propose d standard s coul d incorporate all o

f th e potentia l regulator y formats . Differentformat s ar e required fo

r differentfugitiv e emissio n source s becaus e characteristic s o f di e emissio n sources , the availabl e emission contro l options , and di e applicability o f propose d Referenc e Metho d 2 1 diffe r among di e sources . I

n th e nex tsectio n th e rational e fo

r selectin g a particula r forma ti s explaine d for eac h typ e of ' fugitiv e emissio n source . For eac h fugitiv e emissio n source , di e feasibilit y o f prescribin g or enforcin g a performanc e standar d i s discussed . I f a performance standar d i s notfeasible , th e rational for selectin g anothe r forma t i s presented . • Selection of

Emission Limit, Equipment, Work Practice. Design and Operational Standards Safety relief

valves. Sectio n 111(h) of th e Clea n Ai r Ac trequires tha ta standare d of

performanc e b e promulgate d unles s i ti s no tfeasibl e t o prescrib e or enforce . Thus , contro l technique s include d i n Regulatory Alternativ e I

V wer e firstevaluate d t

o determin e i

f a performanc e standar d coul d b e proposed . Th e conclusio n o f thi s evaluatio n i s thatthe onl y fugitiv e emissio n source s fo

r whic h itwoul d b e feasibl e t o prescrib e an d enforc e a performanc e standar d are safety/relie f valves , an d i n certai n cases , fugitiv e emissio n source s whic h ar e designe d no tt o leak . Ruptur e disk s wer e evaluate d a s di e equipmen tspecificatio n fo r ga s servic e servic e safety/relie f

valve s unde r Regulatory Alternativ e IV . Whe n th e integrit y of ruptur e disk s i s maintained , fugitiv e emission s throug h di e relief valv e are eliminated . Ruptur e disk s maintai n thei r integrit

y unles s a n " overpressur e occurs . Afte r a n overpressure , replacementof di e ruptur

e dis k onc e agai n eliminate s fugitiv e emission s throug

h th e safet y relie f valve . Fo r contro l technique s th e eliminat e fugitiv e emissions , an d emissio n limi t measuremen tfor "n

o detectabl e emissions " i s feasibl e b y th e propose d Referenc e Metho d 21 . Measuremen t method s fo r d e terming th e quantitativ e emissio n rat

e from safety/relie f

valve s are no tfeasibl e becaus e the y woul d requir e baggin g eac h piec e o

f equipmen t However , Metho d 21 , whil e itdoe s no t allo w quantitativ e measuremen to f emissions , doe s allo w di e detectio n o f leak s o f fugitiv e VO C emission s fro m safety/relie f

valves . Therefore , th e propose d standar d fo r safety/relie f valve s i n ga s servic e i s "n o detectabl e emissions. " Th e "n

o detectabl e emission " limi twoul d ho tappl y t o discharge s tiirough di e safety/relie f valv e during pressur e relief becaus e di e functio n o

f relief vaive s i s t

o discharg e proces s fluid, tiiereby reducing dangerou s hig

h pressure s withi n th e equipment . Th e Standard woul d speeify , however , tha

tdi e relief

valv e b e returne d t

o a stat e of

n o detectabl e emission s withi n 5 day s afte r suc h a discharge . I

twoul d further require a n 

### annual tes t

t o verif y th e "no detectabl e emissions' ' statu s o

f th e safet y relief valves . Also , a tes twoui d b e required whe n di e Administrato r make s suc h a request . A tes tt o determin e i

f a fugitiv e emissio n sourc e i s complyin g wit h a "n o detectabl e emissions " requiremen ti s a performanc e test . Performanc e test s require thre e separat e runs , unles s otherwis e specifie d i n a n applicabl e subpart , a s required i n 4 0 CF R60.8(f) - A tes tt o determin e i

f a fugitiv e emissio n sourc e i s complyin g wit h a "n o detectabl e emissions " requiremen tdoe s no trequire thre e runs . Thus , test s t o determin e "n

o detectabl e emissions " woul d b e exempte d fro

m 4 0 CF R60.8(f ) i n th e propose d standards . I n additio n t

o thre e runs , performanc e tes trequirements includ e a notificatio n t o di e Administrato r 30 day s befor e eac h performanc e test . For fugitiv e emissio n sources , test s t o determin e "n

o detectabl e emissions " may occu r throughouta yea r en d atleast , afte r eac h ove r pressur e relief . Requirin g a n owne r or operato r t

o notif y th e Administrator , a s required i n 4 0 CF R 60.8(d) , i s no tconsidere d reasonabl e for thes e standards . Thus , t

o reduc e di e reportin g burden o n industry , owner s o r operator s o

f affecte d facilitie s ar e exempte d from 4 0 CF

R60.8(d ) i n di e propose d standards . Pumps. I ti s no tfeasibl e t

o prescrib e a performanc e standar d fo r pump s becaus e applicatio n o f

measuremen t technolog y t

o pump s i s technologicall y an d economicall y impractical . First . eve n tiiough pum

p seal s ca n b e designe d t o release emission s into a conveyanc e mechanism , measuremen to f thes e emission s i s notpracticable . Dilutio n o f di e fugitiv e emission s i n a conveyanc e mechanis m limits th e economica l and technologica l applicatio n o f measuremen tmethods . Second , determinin g emissio n level s from eac h pum p woul d requir

e di e time-consuming , expensiv e an d impractica l metho d o f baggin g eac h pum

p a s describe d in di e Selectio n o

f Tes tMetho d sectio n o

f thi s preamble . Furthermore , a "n o detectabl e emission " limiti s notfeasibl e becaus e dual mechanica l pum

p seal s lea k o n occasion . Afte r determinin g thata performanc e standar d fo

r pump s woul d no tb e practicabl e becaus e of

technologica l an d economi c limitations , equipmen t standard s wer e evaluated . Equipmen t specification s evaluate d fo r pump s wer e dua l mechanica l seal s with close d vent s fo r th e barrie r fluid degassing-reservoirs , close d vent s fo

r di e pum

p sea l areas , an d seadess-pumps . Afte r evaluation , dua l mechanica l sea l system s tha t includ e barrier fluid system s an dP.1 1

114 4 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 46 . No . 2 /

Monday . Januar y 5.198 1 / Propose d Rule s

sensor s t o detec tfailur

e o f eithe r sea i o r barrier flui d syste m wer e selecte d a s th e basi s fo r di e equipmentspecification s fo r pump s in Regulator

y Alternativ e IV . The y ar e frequently use d in SOCM I pum p applications . I

f di e barrie r fluid syste m i s maintaine d a

ta pressur e greate r tha

n the stuffing bo x pressure . no VO C leakag e woui d occu r becaus e al l leak s woul d b e inwar d into th e proces s fluid. I

f th e stuffing bo x pressur e i s greate r tha

n th e barrier fluid pressure . di e barrier fluid betwee n th e tw o seal s - collect s leakag e fro

m th e inne r sea l an d di e VO C collecte d b y di e barrie r fluid i s controlle d by connectin g di e barrie r fluid reservoi r t

o a contro l device * (enclose d combustio n o r vapo r recovery ) wit

h a close d ven tsyste m o r b y returning i tt

o the process . Th e dua

l mechanica l seal s wit

h controlle d degassin g vent s syste m i s di e mos t universall y applicabl e of th e thre e option s evaluated . Thus , becaus e the y provid e di e bes tcontro l efficienc y (dependen tupo

n di e efficiency o

f di e contro l device ) considerin g costs, di e equipmentrequirementfo r pump s ia the us e o f dua l mechanical seals-with close d barrier fluid degassin g vent s connecte d t o a contro l devic e o r designe d t o return the VO C t

o the process . Sectio n 111(h

) o f di e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s tha

twhe n equipmentstandard s ar e established , requirements mustals o b e establishe d t

o insure di e proper operatio n an d maintenanc e o f th e equipmen tSuch provision s hav e bee n mad e i n the propose d regulation . A n indicato r o n di e barrier fluid syste m woul d revea l an

y catastrophi c failure o

f the inne r o

r outer sea l o

r barrier fluid -. . system . Tn

e failur e indicatio n criterio n woul d b e determined , fo

r eac h piec e o

f equipmen tLeakage diroug h th e oute r sea i coui d b e detecte d b y weekl y visua l inspection s an d woul d b e limite d b y the barrier fluid. Although di e inten to f the standard s woul d bes tb e preserve d b y inspection s a s frequen

ta s possible , weekl y inspection s wer e specifie d t o kee p di e requirementfro m .bein g burdensome . Detectio n o f an y leak s shoul d b e followe d by repai r withi n 15 days . The barrier fluid woul d b e eithe r anon-VO C fluid o

r a heavy-liqui d VO C The us e o f lightliqui d VO C a s a barrier fluid coui d resul ti

n emission s o

f VO C o f th e sam e magnitud e a

a thos e whic h woul d occu r i

f produc tVO C wer e allowe d t o leak pas tdi e seals . Leakag e

_ f proces s fluid diroug

h di e inne r sea l woul d b e capture d an d controlle d b y th e barrie r fluid/closed ven tsystem . Seailes s pumps , such a s diaphrag m o r canne d pumps , d o nothav e a potentia l leak area , and dierefore shoul d achiev e approximatel y IO O percen tcontro

L However , seailes s pump s ma y no tb e suitabl e fo r us e i n som e SOCM I proces s application s du e t

o diroughpu tpressure . o r fluid compositio n constraints . Sealles s pump s wer e no tselecte d unde r Regulator y Alternativ e I

V and . therefore , wer e no tselecte d a s require d equipmentfor di e propose d standards . Sealles s pump s ar

e atleas tequivalen t t o dua l mechanica l seal s wit

h barrie r fluid degassin g vent s connecte d t o contro l device s i n controllin g fugitiv e emissions . Therefore , di e propose d standard s allo w die m fo r owners / operator s wh o wis h t

o us e them . Seailess s pump s woul d b e required t o operate unde r a "n

o detectabl e emission " Limi

ta s discusse d i n Leakless Equipment

i n thi s section . Th e sea i area o

f a pum p coul d b e completel y enclosed , an d tiiis enclose d area coui d b e connecte d t o a contro l devic e (enclose d combustio n or vapo r recovery) with a close d ven tsystem . Th e contro l efficienc y o

f thi s arrangemen

ti s dependen to n the contro l efficienc y o

f th e vapo r recover y syste m o r enclose d combustio n device . The close d ven tsyste m coul d requir e a flo w inducin g devic e t

o transpor

temission s from the sea l area t

o the contro l device . Becaus e o

f safety o r operatin g limitations , enclosur e of

di e pum p sea l area ma y no tb e feasibl e i n al l cases . Ther e ma y b e isolate d an d unusual pum p application s whic h requir e pump s which canno tb e equippe d with mechanica l seals . Fo

r example , i

f a reciprocating pum

p i s required , mechanica l seal s ma

y notb e possible . The enclose d sea l are a woul d b e di e bes tcontro l optio n for suc h pumps . Therefore , enclose d sea l area s connecte d t

o a control devic e with a close d ven tsyste m woui d b e allowe d fo r pump s thatcanno tb e equippe d with dua l mechanica l sea i systems . Although enclosin g sea l area s woul d b e a s effectiv e i n reducin g emission s a s othe r effectiv e techniques , thi s optio n woul d most"likel

y b e use d o n a limite d basis . Compressors. A s i n di e cas e fo r pumps , a performanc

e standar d fo

r compressor s i s no tfeasible . Eve n thoug h compresso r seal s ca n b e designe d t o releas e fugitiv e emission s int o a conveyanc e mechanism , measuremen t o f thes e emission s woul d b e limite d b y technologica l and economica l factors . Measurin g emission s from eac h compresso r woul d require bagging eac h sea i area . Thi s method i s timeconsumin g an d expensiv e an d i s dierefore . impracticable . An emissio n limito f "n o detectabl e emissions " usin g propose d Referenc e Metho d 2 1 a s th e measuremen tmethod , i s notfeasibl e becaus e mechanica l contac tseal s lea k o n occasion . Becaus e performanc e standard s canno tfeasibl y b e prescribe d fo r compressors , th e severa l alternativ e format s wer e considere d an

d equipmen t standard s found t

o b e mos tappropriate . Equipmen

tspecification s evaluate d fo r compressor s wer e seailes s compressors . mechanica l contac tseai s equippe d with barrie r fluid syste m wit

h the barrie r fluid degassin g reservoir s vente d t o contro l devices , an d close d vent s fo r di e compresso r sea l are a vente d t o a contro l device . Dual sea l system s ua tinclud e barrie r fluid system s an d sensor s t o detectfailure of

eithe r sea i o r barrie r fluid syste m wer e selecte d a s th e basi s for Alternativ e IV . Som e compressor s i n curren tSOCM I application s hav e a sea l syste m wit

h a circulatin g barrier fluid system . Thi s barrier fluid syste m i s simda r t o th e syste m describe d for pumps.wit

h dua l mechanica l seals , although the compresso r seal s ma y b e mechanica l contac toi l film, o r anothe r typ e o f sea L I f th e barrier fluid syste m i s maintaine d ata pressur e greate r tiian di e stuffin g bo x pressure , n o VO C leakag e woul d occu r becaus e ai l leak s woul d b e toward s proces s fluid. I f th e ' stuffing bo x pressure , i s greate r tha n di e barrie r flui d pressure , di e barrier fluid betweea - th e tw o seai s collect s leakag e from th e inne r sea

L Leakage diroug

h th e sea l results i n di e presenc e o f VO C i n di e barrie r fluid whic h woul d b e a non VO C flui d or ga s or a heav y VO C Th e us e o f a ligh tLiqui

d VO C or VO C ga s a barrier flui d coul d resulti n emission s o f VO C o f di e sam e magnitud e a s tiiose whic h woui d occu r i

f produc tVO C wer e allowe d t o lea k pas tthe seals . VO C trapped i n di e barrie

r fluid woul d b e emitte d from di e barrier fluid reservoir. However , thi s VO C coui d b e coUecte d an d directe d t

o a contro l devic e (enclose d combustio n o

r vapo r recovery system ) o r returned t

o di e proces s (probabl y th e suction s o

f the compressor ) by a dose d ven tsyste m tha ti s connecte d t

o th e barrier fluid reservoir . A sea l syste m whic h use s a barrie r flui d syste m provide s a high contro l efficienc y an d i s the mos t applicabl e effectiv e contro l techniqu e fo r compressors . Sectio n 111(h) o

f di e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s tha

tproper maintenanc e an d operatio n o

f equipmen tspecifie d i n a regulatio n be insured . To provid e thi 3 insuranc e th e propose d standard requires visua l inspectio n an d ' monitoring o

f the barrier fluid syste m t o "cTetec tsea i failur

e o r barrier fluid syste m faiiure an d the us e of

non-VO C or heav y VO C liquid s fo

r th e barrie r fluid . Th eP.1 2 

### Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 46 , No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5 , 198 1 /

Propose dRule s 114 5 failure indicatio n criterio n woul d b e determine d for eac h piec e o f equipment . Although sealles s compressor s woul d achiev e approximatel y 100 control , seailes s compressor s are no treadily availabl e i n capacitie s larg e enough fo r mos tSOCM

I proces s applications , an d therefore , hav e limite d us e i n SOCMI Consequently , sealles s compressor s wer e no tconsidere d unde r Regulator y .Alternativ e I

V an d wer e no tselecte d a s equipmen tspecification s fo r di e propose d standards . However , sealles s compressor s ar e at leas tequivalen tt

o compressor s equippe d with barrie r fluid system s an d degassin g vent s connecte d t o contro l device s becaus e VO C emission s are eliminate d and , dierefore , ca n b e use d a s a n alternative . Leakles s compressor s woul d b e require d t

o operate unde r a "n o detectabl e emissions " limi ta s discusse d in di e Leakless Equipment section . Ther e ar e som e case s in whic h seal s wit h barrie r fluid system s canno tb e utilized . A barrier fluid syste m canno t b e use d unde r al l proces s condition s du e t o pressur e limitations . For thos e cases , enclosur e b

f th e sea l are a woul d b e th e bes toption . Th e enclose d are a woul d b e connecte d t

o a contro l devic e (enclosed , combustio n or vapo r recovery) with a close d ven tsystem . Therefore , enclose d sea l area s connecte d t

o a contro l devic e with a close d ven tsyste m woul d b e allowe d fo r compressor s thatcanno t utiliz e a barrie r fluid system . Althoug h enclosin g sea l area s woul d b e a s effectiv e in reducin g emission s a s othe r effectiv e techniques , thi s optio n woul d mos tlikel y b e use d o n a limite d basis . Open-ended

valves. Th e equipmen t chose n fo r open-ende d valve s a s th e basi s fo r Regulator

y Alternativ e I

V wa s equipmen twhic h woul d effec tenclosur e o f th e ope n end . Becaus e performanc e standard s canno tfeasibl y b e prescribe d fo r open-ende d valves , di e severa l alternativ e format

s wer e considere d an d equipmen tstandard s foun d t o b e mos t appropriate . A n emissio n limi ti s no t' feasibl e becaus e open-ende d valve s ar e generall y no tdesigne d t o emi tfugitiv e emission s into a conveyanc e mechanis m and becaus e die y woul d require bagging , whic h i s economicall y impracticable , a s previousl y explaine d in the Selectio n o

f Format s section. A "n o detectabl e emissions " leve l coul d notb e selecte d a s the basi s fo r di e propose d standar d becaus e VOC s coul d lea k diroug

h di e valv e sea tan d becom e trappe d in the lin e betwee n di e valv e and enclosure . Thes e trappe d VOC s woul d b e emitte d whe n di e enclosur e wa s removed fo

r operatio n o

f the valve s and open-ende d valve . Afte r consideratio n an d rejectio n o f the possibilitie s for performanc e standard s for open-ende d valves , equipmen tstandar d option s wer e considered . Equipmentspecification s considere d include d improve d valv e sea ttechnolog y an d enclosur e o f th e ope n end . Improve d valv e seat technoiog y wa s no tselecte d becaus e th e effectivenes s o

f suc h technolog y coul d b e nullifie d b y operatin g variable s suc h a s incomplet e closur e o

f th e valv e b y operatin g personnel . Specifi c equipmen twhic h woul d b e require d t

o clos e di e ope n en d woui d b e a cap , plug , blin d flange, or a secon d valve . Th e contro l efficienc y associate d wit h thes e technique s i s approximatel y 100 percent . T o insur e th e prope r operatio n o f th e equipmen topen-ende d line s are als o covere d b y operationa l standards . I f a secon d valv e i s use d t

o clos e th e ope n end , th e propose d standard s woul d require th e upstream valv e t o b e close d firstAfte r th e upstream valv e i s completel y closed , th e downstrea m valv e woul d b e closed . Thi s operationa l requiremen ti s necessar y i n orde r t o preven ttrapping proces s fluid berwee n th e tw o valves , whic h coul d resulti n a situatio n equivalen tt

o th e uncontrolle d open-ende d line . Sampling connections. Close d loo p samplin g wa s considere d a s th e equipmen tspecificatio n for samplin g connections . Close d loo p samplin g system s eliminat e emission s du e t o purging b y eithe r returnin g th e purge materia l directi y t

o th e proces s or by collectin g th e purg

e i n a collectio n syste m whic h i s no tope n t o th e atmospher e for recycle o r disposal . A n emissio n limi twa s no tspecifie d becaus e measurin g mas s emission s from eac h samplin g syste m woul d require baggin g eac h system , a measuremen tmetho d whic h i s time-consuming, costly , an d impractical . A "n

o detectabl e emissions " limi ti s no tfeasibl e becaus e althoug h th e VO C contro l efficienc y o f a close d loo p samplin g syste m i s approximatel y 100 percen tsom e VO C coul d b e emitte d during it s transfe r t o a close d collectio n devic e or during it s ultimat e disposal . Becaus e performanc e standard s canno tfeasibl y b e prescribe d fo r samplin g connections , th e severa l alternativ e format

s wer e considere d an d equipmen tstandard s foun d t o b e mos t appropriate . Th e equipmen tstandard s i n th e propose d standard s require the us e o f close d loo p samplin g equipment . I n additio n t

o close d loo p samplin g ~ ~ system s an y syste m tha

tcollect s al l th e VO C purged in di e samplin g an d eithe r recycle s or dispose s o

f tiiis VO C withou temission s t

o atmospher e i s allowed . In'situ samplin g system s are exempte d fro

m thes e requirements . Vaives. Wor

k practice s consistin g of periodi c lea k detectio n an d repai r program s wer e considere d for valve s i n Regulatory Alternativ e IV . A performanc e standar d fo r valve s • wa s considere d an d foun d infeasible . Valve s ar

e no tdesigne d t

o releas e fugitiv e emission s Int

o a conveyanc e mechanism . Furthermore , determinin g mas s emission s from eac h valv e woul d require baggin g eac h valve . Thi s measuremen tmetho d woul d b e timeconsumin g an d prohibitivel y expensive , especiall y considerin g di e numbe r o f valve s in a SOCM

I proces s unit . A "n

o detectabl e emissions " limi ti s no t feasibl e fo

r valve s becaus e som e percen to f th e valve s are expecte d t o lead . Sinc e performanc e standard s wer e foun d t o b e infeasibl e fo

r valves , - equipmen tstandard s wer e considered . Equipmentspecification s considere d fo r valve s wer e diaphragm valye s an d beilows-seale d valves . Thes e equipmen t specification s woul d no tb e suitabl e for al l SOCM

I proces s applications , an d dierefore . wer e no tselecte d a s par to f Regulatory Alternativ e IV . However , us e o f thes e valve s woul d b e a tleas t equivalent.becaus e tiiey eliminat e leakag e of

VOC . Th e us e of

suc h vaive s i s allowe d a s a n alternative . Thes e valve s woul d b e require d t o operat e wit h "n o detectabl e emissions " a s describe d I

n Leakless Equipment

i n thi s section . Wor k practice s wer e selecte d a s di e forma tforcontro l of

fugitiv e VO C . emission s from valves . Severa l factor s influenc e th e leve l o

f emissio n reductio n thatca n b e achieve d b y a lea k detectio n an d repair program . Th e thre e mai n factor s are th e monitorin g interval , lea k definition , an d repair interval . Trainin g an d diligenc e o

f personne l conductin g th e program , repair method s attempted , an d othe r site-specifi c factor s ma y als o influenc e th e leve l o

f emissio n reductio n achievable : however , thes e factor s are les s quantifiabl e tha n di e thre e mai n factors . Th e monitorin g interva l i s th e frequency a

twhic h individua l componen tmonitorin g i s conducted . Th e lengti i o f time betwee n inspection s shoul d b e determine d b y th e rat e a t whic h ne w leak s occu r an d di e rat e at whic h repaire d leak s recur . Mor e frequentinspection s coul d tiien b e require d fo

r souce s whic h ten d t

o lea k mor e often . Availabl e data with whic h t o quantif y di e frequency o

f occurrenc e an d recurrence of

leak s from valve s are limited . However, mor

e frequent monitorin g woul d resultin greate r emission s reduction becaus e moreP.1 3



### 114 6 / Vol

. 46 , No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar

y 5

. 198 1 /

Propose dRule s frequen t mard-orin g woui dallo w leak s t o b e detecte dearlie r

an d thus ailo w mor e immediat e repair. Monthl y monitorin g wa o eonsidefs d fo r Regulator y Alternative.IV

. Tes t dat a indicat e dia t

leak s woul db e foun dwith monthl y inspections

. Mor e frequen t interval s wer e no t

considere dbecaus e th e larg e numbe r

o f valve s i n eertai a SOCM I proces s unit s limit s di e practica l minimu mfor

th e raosiitoring intervals

. Fo r example , atypica l larg e proces s uni t Mode i Uni t

C (define di n th e Backgroun dInformatio n Doos_ae__t) , include s 280 0 valve s (i n ga s an d ligh t liqui dservice ) requirin g periodi c monitoring

. Eac h leak

detectio n sn d repai r surve y fo r

asingl e proces s u_u

8 woul drequir e approximatel y 9 S Bia s hour s for monitorin g an d I S ms ahew s fo r reaair..:' th e monitorin g wer e performe db y atw o man teats * sor e tha n on e wee k

woul db e require dt o

. : ;npiet e th e monitoring

. A wee k woul d

. jari y b e to o shor t

atime istemi i to aeiec t for taoBitoring

. Sinc e som e tim e woul db e requiredto schedul e repei ? afte r s lea k i s detected , aoniteiia g interval s shorter'ha s oa e mont h eoul d resui : : situatio n wher e e detecte d lea k c~ _. d no t

b e repairedbefor e th e nex t monitorin g wa s required

. On e mont h wa s selecte da s th e required monitorin g interva l becaus e i t woul d provid e th e greates t

emissio n reductio n potentia l withou t

imposin g difficultie s ia implementin g di e lea k

detectio n an d repai r program . Industr y representative s argue dat ths Nationa l .Ai

r Pollutio n Contro l Technique s Advisory

. Committe e meetin g ( apubli c meetin g hel ddusis g th e developmen t

of standard s of performance ) dia t

moniteris g al l valve s monthl y woui db e a aias-Sesoa t oxpass G o f tim e an d manpowe r

fo r vaive s that lea k infrequentl y o r

les s ofte atha aetas
. vaives

. Th e analysi s i n th e BI D assis-so d dia t abou t hal f th e valve s feua d Igaiaa g a t an y give n tim e ar e valve s whic h hav e bee n -.paire d an d whic h hav e begu s leakin g again

. Thi s assumptio n emphasize s th e importanc e o f valv e lea k recurrence . I

f thi s assumptio n i s esfrcet , mor e monitorin g effor

t shoul db e expende do n valve s foun dleakin g an d .es s o n thos e foun dleakin g iafrequeatly

. Therefore , th e propose dstandar dwoul d requir e monthl y monitorin g o f valve s unles s the y ar e no t

foun dleakin g toe tw o successiv e months

. I f avalv e wer e no t foun dleakin g fo

r tw o successiv e months , a n owne r

o r operato r woul d hav e th e optio n to exclud e tha t vslv o fro mmonitorin g unti l di e firs t month o f th e nex t quarterl y period

. Thereafter , th e valv e coui db e monitore donc e ever y quarte r unti l aleak

wa s detected

. I

f a valv e IGQ_

S WQSQ detected , monthl y ffieaite_is§ o

_ tha t valv e woui db e require dusti l i t

ha dbee n show n lea k free , fe

. tw © suggsssiv e raontiis. EP A waat at © mak e clea r

dia t thi s propose d staadas d i s baae do n di e assump&e ® that

recurrenc e i s a n importan t facte! ? i n predictin g valv e leaks

. Thi s assus-ptio awa s use dto develo p afaoaitsrin g progra mwhic h woul dregal , i s aleve l o

f fugitiv e emissio n eeefre l comparabl e t o dia t whic h woul dresul t

frommonthl y ; i s aa . EPA' s inten t

i n tiiis ! G meaitorin g pla n i comparabl e i n effec t

t o qvtmssif meai-odng

. Thi s woui db e di e cas o esdo*

. th e ps-gpase d standar dif oeeaffGae g rathe ? tha n recurrence i s th e ae?Q fepo_ia__. factor

. E P A ia©__K*a£l

y collectin g dat a comtzsaimjth e importanc e o f valv e lea k reeagreaes , Th

G dat abein g collecte dwil l b e availabl e befor e promulgation

. I f th e dat e stow s tha t

recurrenc e i s no t

a signifies-- , esambuto r

t o di e tota l numbe ? o

_leaks , th e propose dprogra m wil l b o raosossses an d consideratio n wil l b o pvo ate rensaia g t o monthl y Th e lea k deSajtio ai s di e VO C coaeeat*?atioi aobserve d durin g soaite.ia g tha * define s leakin g source s tha t _e-*i_s_- Q Fepsi-

. Tw o primar y factor s affoc t th e saleetio ao

f th e lea k defimtiea

. Thes e factor s are : (1 ) th e perega t of tota l sas s emission s whic h ea apotoafcall y b e controlle db y di e lea k detocti@-_/fepa!_

~ program , an d (2

) th e abilit y t © rcl

. a_ ? th e leakin g components
. A s th o lea k

desisiteo s decreases , di e _aaxi_ai_ ® peteatia i emissio n reductio n iaerenao adis c t o di s increasin g numbe r o f se»__*es 9 tha t hav e VO C co-iec-ats-a£_©<__

. tha t ar e greate r

tha n th e desseasm g loa_

_defiaitions

. Th e overal l : r.issio aredue&o_

_o f alea k detectio n a.-. e fspai*

. prefp'ag adepend s on severa l factor s a s aeted

. above

. Eac h o f thes e faexer ali_ait s th e effectivenes s o f th e progress , l l ead s o

f th e factor s eoasidere d iaselectin g di e lea k deteetae aaa d repo! ? progra mi s 9 0

3

. tfae ath e overal l i b e abou t

7 3 percen t Eac h facto r

i s aLimitin

g facto r t o di e overal l effeetsvGaGso

. Thus , th e mos t restrictiv e defisitie atha t i s reasonabl e fo r eac h faets r

shoul db e selected

. In orde r t o sa___.'js__r_

c contro l effectivenes s o f di Q loo k detectio n an d repair prog_*a__i

. ds o lewes t

leak definitio n whic h iafeasibl e iaterm s o f monitorin g an deea&allin g effectivel y withou t bein g uareoaoiaabi y bordeascm e shoul db e selected

. Th e lea k definitio n selecte dfo

r lea k detectio n _ae___t@rffi

g wa s 10.00

0 ppm . Preli_r_iaa_=

y dat asho w tha t

attemptin g on-lin e repai r o f valve s a t

o r abov e a lea k dennition*o f

10.00 ) pp meoul d resul t i n afe w case s wher e th e attempte drepai r

woui dincreas e di e emissio n rat e fro mdi e valve , bu t thes e case s d o no t

offse t emissio n reduction s achieve db y repai r

o f othe r vaives

. Whe n repai r

doe s no t reduc e tile VO C concentratio n to les s tha n 10,00 0 ppm . di e valv e woul drequire amor e extensiv e repair

effor t tha n tightening o r regreasin g th e packing

. Replacemen t of th e valv e ma y b e necessary . Preliminar y dat aals o sho w tha t

attemptin g th e repai r of valve s i n th e 1.000-10.00 0 pp m rang e (lo w level ) coui dresul t i n more case s i n whic h individua l valv e emissio n rate s increas e afte r repai r whe n compare dt o th e numbe r of suc h case s whic h woul dresul t from attemptin g t o repair

valve s i n th e ove r 10.000 pp mrange . If

suc h increase s wer e t o occur , di e attempte drepai r o f "low " level " leak s coul dresul t

i n alowe r overal l emissio n reductio n a t alea k definitio n o f

1.00 0 pp mtha n a t

10.000 ppm . Becaus e di e 10.000 pp mactio n tevei ma y provid e ahighe r overal l emissio n reductio n tha n th e 1.00 0 pp m actio n level

. 10.000 pp mwa s selecte da s th e lea k definitio n for

lea k detectio n monitoring

. Th e repair

interva l i s define da s di e lengt h of time allowe dbetwee n th e detectio n o

f alea k an d repai r

o f di e leak

. I n orde r

t o provid e th e maximu m effectivenes s of

th e lea k detectio n an d repai r program , th e repai r

interva l shou i drequir e expeditiou s reductio n o f di e i::*.v

e emissio n bu t

shoul d als o allov

- tr.

_owner/operato r to maintai n a reasonabl e degre e o

f flexibilit y i n overal l maintenanc e scheduling

. Th e leng'J i o

f th e repai r

interva l woui d affec t emissio n reduction s achievabl e b y th e lea k

detectio n an d repai r program s becaus e leakin g source s woui db e allowe dto continu e t o lea k fo r agive n lengt h o

f time

. Repai r

interval s o f 1

. 3,10.15

. 3 0 an d -4

5 day s wer e evaluated

. Th e effec t

o n th e maximu m emissio n reduction potentia l i s proportiona l t o th e numbe r o f day s di e sourc e i s allowe dto lea k betwee n detectio n an d repair

. Estimate s o f emissio n reductio n efficienc y a s a functio n o

f repai r interva l ar e presente d i n th e Backgroun dInfonnatio n Documen t Th e repair

interva l selecte dfo

r di e lea k repai r progra mwa s 1 5 days

. A repai r interva l o

f on e da y woul dcaus e problem s i n coordinatin g activitie s o f personne l involve di n leak detectio n an d lea k repai r an d in certai n circumstances

. woui dno t

b e technicall y feasible

. A on e da y repai r

interva l woul dessentiall yP.1 4

requir e repai r

o f eac h componen t

a s soo n a s th e lea k

wa s discovered

. Som e vaive s ma y no t

b e repairabl e b y simpl e fiel dmaintenance

. Thes e valve s ma y requir e spar e part s o r remova l fro m th e proces s fo

r repair

. Repai r

interval s o f 5 an d1 0 day s coui dcaus e problem s i n obtainin g acceptabl e repai r fo r thes e valves

. However , a15-day interva l provide s th e owner/operato r witi i sufficien t tim e fo r flexibilit y i n repai r scheduling , an dprovide s tim e for bette r determinatio n o

f method s fo

r isolatin g piece s o f leakin g equipmen t

fo r repair

. I n general , a1 5 da y repai r interva l allow s mor e efficien t

handlin g o

f repai r task s whil e maintainin g a n effectiv e reductio n i n fugitiv e emission s an dwas , therefor e selecte da s di e repai r interval

. A repai r interva l o

f 3 0 o r 4 5 day s wa s no t selecte dbecaus e a1 5 da y repai r interva l provide s di e mos t effectiv e emissio n reductio n withou t bein g burdensome

. However , th e firs t

attemp t a t repai r o f aleakin g sourc e woul db e requireda s soo n a s practicabl e afte r detectio n o

f th e leak , an dn o late r

tiian 5 day s afte r discovery

. Mos t

repair s ca n b e don e quickly , an d5 day s shoul dprovid e sufficien t tim e t o schedul e maintenanc e an drepai r

aleakin g source . Attemptin g to repai r th e lea k withi n 5 day s will hel p t o identif y di e leak s tha t

canno t b e repaire dwithi n di e 1 5 da y repai r interval

. Dela y o

f repai r beyon d1 5 day s woul db e allowe dfo

r leak s whic h coul d no t b e repairedwithou t

aproces s uni t shutdown

. Alternative Standards. I n a n effor t t o provid e a s muc h flexibilit y a s possible , tw o alternativ e standard s ar e bein g propose dfo

r valve s i n ga s an dligh t liqui dservice

. Owner s o r operator s o

f affecte dfacilitie s coul didentif y an d elec t t o compl y witi i eithe r

o f th e alternativ e standards^hic h allo w tailorin g o

f fugitiv e emission s contro l program s to thei r

ow n operations

. Thi s woul db e accomplishe db y carryin g ou t amonthl y monitorin g progra mfo r a t leas t on e year . Then , aplan t

owne r o r operato r coul delec t

t o compl y wit h on e o f th e alternativ e standard s whic h woul db e base do n informatio n gathere d durin g di e on e year' s implementatio n o f monthl y monitoring

. Th e firs t alternativ e standar dwoul d provid e a n allowabl e percentag e o f valve s leaking

. Thi s typ e o f standar d woul dprovid e di e flexibilit y o f a performanc e standar db y settin g alimi t whic h coui db e achieve db y di e mos t efficien t an dpractica l metiiod s fo r a particula r operation

. A s previousl y pointe dou t

i n th e Selectio n o

f Forma t fo r th e Propose dStandard s sectio n o f thi s preamble , a n industry-wid e allowabl e lea k

percentag e wa s no t possibl e fo r vaive s becaus e o

f th e variabilit y i n vaiv e lea k

frequenc y amon g plant s withi n di e industry

. However , th e alternativ e standar d woul dallo w eac h affecte dfacilit y t o compl y wit h a n allowabl e percentag e o f valve s leakin g whic h i s determine db y thei r individualperformanc e base do n monthl y monitorin g i n di e lea k detectio n an drepair

program . Th e allowabl e percentag e of leaker s woui db e determine db y averagin g di e percentag e o

f valve s foun dleakin g i n eac h mont h o

f th e las t si x month s o

f monitoring , excludin g thos e whic h coul d no t b e repairedwithou t

aproces s uni t shutdown

. T o thi s averag e woul db e adde ddi e additiona l percentag e o f leak s whic h woul doccu r

i f vaive s foun d leakin g wer e monitore dmonthl y an d thos e foun dno t

leakin g for

tw o successiv e month s wer e monitore d quarterly

. Th e resultin g su mwoul db e th e performanc e standar dfor di e percentag e o

f vaive s leakin g whic h woul db e allowe da t

an y time. I

f a n owne r o r operato r electe dt o compl y wit h a n allowabl e percentag e o f valve s leaking , h e woul db e require dto mee t thi s standar da t

an y poin t

i n time , eve n thoug h hi s allowabl e percentage-woul d b e base do n hi s averag e performanc e of alea k detectio n an drepai r

program . Choosin g thi s alternativ e standar d woul dallo w fo

r th e possibUit y o

f differen t monitorin g an dmaintenanc e program s an dsubstitutio n o f engineerin g controls , a t

th e discretio n o

f di e owne r

o r operator
. I t

woul dals o eliminat e alarg e par t

o f th e recordkeepin g an dreporting associate d wit h th e propose dstandar dfo r valves

. Thi s alternativ e woul drequire a minimu mo

f on e performanc e tes t

pe r year . Additiona l performanc e test s coul db e requeste db y EPA

. I f th e result s o f aperformanc e tes t

showe da percentag e o

f valve s leakin g highe r

tha n di e allowabl e limi t

di e proces s uni t woul db e i n violation

. Reportin g woul d consis t o f submittin g performanc e tes t result s t o di e Administrato r quarterl y reportin g woul db e eliminate dfor valves

. Th e secon dalternativ e standar d woul dprovid e fo

r di e us e of

. differen t wor k practice s whic h woul dachiev e th e sam e leve l o

f contro l a s di e standar dfo r valve s describe di n propose d§ 60.482(f)

. Afte r performin g monthl y monitorin g fo r at leas t ayear , th e dat acollecte dwoul d b e use dto devis e wor k

practice s whic h woul dachiev e th e sam e contro l a s th e wor k practice s specifie din th e propose d standards

. Usin g thi s approac h a n owne r o r operato r coul doptimiz e labo r an dcapita l cost s to achiev e di e require d leve l of contro l b y varyin g monitorin g interval s o r installin g valve s wit h lowe r probabilitie s o

f leaking

. Quarterl y reportin g woul db e require dunde r thi s alternativ e a s i t

i s unde r th e propose d standar di n § 60.482(f)

. A n owne r

o r operato r woul dreques t approvalfro mEP

A to us e eithe r

o f th e alternativ e standard s for valves

. A reques t fo r approva l woul db e accompanie db y adescriptio n o f di e standar dbein g selecte dfo r complianc e an ddat aan dcalculation s supportin g di e basi s for

th e alternativ e standard

. Th e Administrato r

woui deidie r

approv e o r disapprov e th e reques t

fo r di e us e of th e alternativ e standar dwithi n ninet y day s afte r

di e request-i s submitted

. A denia l fro mth e Administrato r woul db e accompanie db y hi s reasonin g fo r denial

. Unti l di e alternativ e i s approved , a n owne r o r operato r woul db e require d t o compl y wit h th e wor k practic e standar dpropsoe dfor

valves

. Th e approac h o

f providin g optiona l standard s woul db e reassesse d before promulgatio n o

f th e propose dstandard s an dif promulgate dwoul db e reviewe d a t di e fourth yea r

review. A t

tha t time , changing , eliminating , o r continuin g th e alternativ e standard s woul db e considered

. Control device. Contro l device s woul d b e use dt o dispos e o

f VO C capture di n close dven t

system s fro mbarrie r

flui d degassin g system s an denclose dpump an dcompresso r

sea i areas . In al l cases , thes e contro l device s woul dreceiv e stream s wit h lo w an dintermitten t flo w rates
. Thes e contro l device s woul di n som e case s b e designe dt o dispos e of organi c stream s fromothe r source s i n th e plan t s o tha t th e VO C stream s ma y contribut e aver y smal l percentag e o f th e tota l loadin g o n di e contro l device

. Becaus e i t

woul db e technologicall y an d economicall y impracticabl e to measur e ver y low-flo w stream s an ddifferentiat e thes e stream s fromothers , a n emissio n standar dwa s no t

propose dfo

r thes e contro l devices

. Desig n requirement s fo

r contro l device s wer e considere dt o insur e tha t appropriat e emissio n reduction s woui d b e achieve dfro mcontro l device s use d i n conjunctio n wit h close dven t systems
. Enclose dcombustio n source s an d vapo r recover y system s wer e considere da s contro l device s fo

r di e close dven t system
. Enclose dcombustio n wa s specifie dbecaus e ope n flare s ma y onl y b e 6 0 percen t efficien t fo r VO C destructio n o

f tiiese lo w flo w intermitten t

streams
. Th e desig n requirement s specifie di n th e propose d standar dfo

r enclose dcombustio n ar e th e attainmen t

o f aminimu m temperatur e o

f 816" C for

0.7 5 seconds

. Unde r thes e conditions , a t

leas t 9 5 percen t VO C destructio n i s achieved

.P.1 5



### 1148 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 [• Monday , Januar y 5.198 1 /

Propose dRule s Vapo r recovery system s wer e als o evaluate d a s contro l device s for VO C fro m close d ven tsystem s use d wit h pump s an d compressors . A contro l efficienc y o

f a tleas t95 percen twa s chose n a s the desig n requirement becaus e i ti s th e highes treasonabl e contro l efficienc y practicall y achievabl e fo r vapo r recovery system s such a s carbo n adsorptio n o

r condensatio n unit

s use d fo r fugitiv e emissio n sources . The desig n requirementselecte d fo r contro l device s wasa tleas t95 percentVO C emissio n reduction . Thi s contro l efficienc y ca n b e achieve d b y boile r furnaces , incinerators , proces s heaters , an d carbo n adsorptio n units . Leakless equipment. A s discusse d in the previou s sections , leakles s equipmentwa s considere d fo r severa l o

f th e fugitiv e emissio n source s t o whic h thes e propose d standard s apply . Sealed bellow s and diaphrag

m valves , canne d and diaphrag

m pumps , an d sealles s compressor s wer e considere d fo r equipmentstandards . Although us e o f thi s equipmentachieve s exceden t contro l (100 percent) o

f fugitive VO C emissions , it s specificatio n i n di e propose d standard s wa s rejecte d becaus e i ti s notwidel y applicabl e t o SOCM I processes . However , us e o f leakles s equipmen ti s clearl y equivalen t i f notbette r than di e propose d standard s for pumps , compressors , an d vaive s an d th e propose d standard s woul d ailo w th e us e o

f such equipmen t a s a n alternativ e t

o the required practices . Leakles s equipmentwoul d b e required t o operate with "n

o detectabl e emissions' ' a

tal l time s whe n iti s in service . "N

o detectabl e emissions' ' o f VO C mean s 200 pp

m o r les s abov e background . Th e 20

0 pp m limitresulte d fro m di e measuremen tmetho d o f propose d Referenc e Metho d 2 1 a s discusse d i

n di e Selectio n o

f Tes t Mediod s sectio n o

f thi s preamble . Becaus e leak s ar

e no texpecte d t

o occu r in leakles s equipmen tdi e propose d standard s require diatit

s leakles s statu s nee d onl y b e verifie d annuall y usin g Metho d 21 . Exclusions. Flange s in ail services , relief valve s i n lightliqui d service , an d al l component s i n "heav

y liquid " (VO C fluid s wit h vapo r pressure s less dian 0. 3 kP a a t20-C ) VO C servic e wer e exclude d fro m di e routine monitoring and inspectio n requirements . However , i f leak s ar e detecte d fro

m thes e sources . the sam e allowabl e repair interval whic h applie s t

o pumps , vaives . an d compressor s woul d apply . Thes e source s woui d b e exclude d fro m routine monitoring o n th e basi s o f data fro m EP A testin g in petroleum refineries . Flange s in refineries hav e very lo w emissio n rates , an d alUioug h they represent8 1 percen to

f th e total source s in refineries , diei r tota l contributio n t o overal l emission s i s abou t11 percen tI n EP A testin g o

f fugitiv e emissio n source s in refineries, safety/relie f valve s i n liqui d VO C servic e als o exhibite d very lo w emissio n rates . Thes e valve s contribut e onl y 0. 2 percen to

f al l emission s fro

m refineries . Components i n "heav y liquid " VO C servic e hav e emissio n rate s thatare muc h lowe r than "ligh tliquid " or ga s servic e components . Sinc e al l thre e o

f tiiese type s o

f source s contribut e a very smal l portio n o

f overal l emission , includin g the m i n di e monitorin g an d equipmentrequirements wa s no tconsidere d reesonabie . Als o exclude d woul d b e equipmen t operatin g under a vacuum becaus e leak s t o atmospher e woui d no toccu r whil e di e equipmen toperate d a t subatmospheri c interna

l pressures . Selection of

Recordkeeping gnd Reporting Requirements Recordkeepin g and reporting woui d b e require d by the propose d standard s t o provid e documentatio n fo r di e assessmento

f complianc e wit

h (1 ) wor k practic e standards . (2) equipmen t standards . (3 ) design s standards . (4 ) emissio n standards , an d (5 ) operationa l standards . Revie w o

f record s and report s woul d provid e infonnatio n fo r enforcemen tpersonne l t o asses s implementatio n o

f di e propose d standards . Complianc e wit h di e propose d standard s woul d b e determine d b y inspectio n an d review o

f records . Th e General Provision s of

4 0 CF RPar t6 0 stat e diatcomplianc e with standard s o f performance , othe r than opacity standards , shal l b e determine d onl y b y performance tests . However , th e propose d standard s are . i n general , not standard s o

f performance an d performance test s ar

e no tapplicable . Therefore , a

n amendmentt

o 4 0 CF R 60.1 1 i s bein g propose d whic h woul d ad d a provisio n tha

tallow s complianc e t o b e determine d b y revie w o f record s and inspection . The propose d standard s then specif

y tha tcomplianc e wit

h di e standard s othe r dia n thos e fo r safety / relief device s wil l b e determine d b y revie w o f record s an d inspection . Recordkeeping. Thre e recordkeepin g alternative s wer e considere d in evaluatin g th e amoun

to f recorded information neede d t

o asses s complianc e with th e propose d standards . Thes e alternative s represent varyin g level s o

f di e amounto

f informatio n whic h coul d b e recorde d durin g activitie s associate d wit h complyin g with th e standards . Consequently , thes e alternative s represen tvaryin g ievel s o f resourc e requirements fo

r industry . Th e firs talternativ e woul d b e t o requir e no forma

l recordkeepin g othe r dia n di e recordkeeping require d b y th e General Provision s o

f 4 0 CF R60. 7 fo r notificatio n o

f con s auctio n o r modification : reconstruction : an d start up , an d shutdow n or malfunction .

- Failure t o require recorded documentatio n o

f di e propose d wor

k practice , equipmen tdesign , and operationa l standard s woul d no t provid e a mechanis m fo r checkin g the thoroughnes s o

f the implementatio n o

f m e propose d standard s and . diarefo"**"- . woui d no tensur e fugitiv e emissio n reduction. Becaus e th e effectivenes s of th e propose d standard s i s dependen t upon th e thoroughnes s o f industry' s efforts , thi s alternativ e wa s r.o tchose n a s th e basi s o

f di e recordkeeping requirements . Th e secon d alternativ e woul d requir e recordkeeping t

o documen tresult s c f

th a leak detectio n an d repai r prcgr*_.* n *r.d informatio n relating t

o equipment , design , and operatio n requirement.. . Information woui d b e recorded i n sufficien tdetai l t

o enabl e owner s /

" operator s t

o demonstrat e corspiisnes . wit h th e standard s an d therefore provid e reasonable assuranc e c f adequat e reductio n o

f fugitiv e emissions . Thi s alternativ e woul d requir e di e maintenanc e o

f quant:::-*--.<*• record s o f repaire d and unrepaire d leakin g fugitiv e emissio n sources . Th:.- . alternativ e woul d require onl y th e minimum amounto

f record s o n th e equipmen tdesign , emission , an d operationa l standard s an d th e wor k practic e leak detectio n an d repair progra m necessar y t

o ensur e th e effectiv e implementatio n o f di e propose d standards . ^ The thir d alternativ e woul d requir e recordkeeping of

al l di e informatio n generate d b y th e propose d standard s e.g. . di e numbe r o f

Fugitiv e emissio n source s detecte d a

ta concentratio n les s tha n 10,000 ppmv . Muc

h o f tiiis informatio n woul d notb e necessar y t o insure di e implementatio n o f th e propose d standards . Th e leve l of recordkeepin g in th e thir d alternativ e i s mor e appropriat

e fo r requirements t

o establis h equivalen tmethod s fo r emissio n limitation . The secon d alternativ e wa s selecte d a s di e basi s fo r th e recordkeepin g requirements o

f th e propose d standards . Thi s alternativ e woul d require th e minimu m industr y resource s t

o provid e th e necessar y record s t

o ensure effectiv e 'implementatio n o

f the propose d standards . Thi s alternativ e woul d als o provid e a basi s fo

r efficien treporaa*".P.1 6
Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar y 5

. 198 1 / Propose dRule s 114 9
Th e propose dstandard s woul d- requir e recordin g o

f specifi c informatio n pertainin g t o th e monthl y monitorin g for th e work practic e standards

. Als o informatio n pertainin g to repai r o f leakin g pump s an dcompressor s woul d b e recorded

. Eac h leakin g fugitiv e . emissio n sourc e woul db e identifie d wit h readil y visibl e weadierproo f identificatio n bearin g th e LD

. numbe r o f th e fugitiv e emissio n source . Th e identificatio n coul db e ata g o r an y othe r markin g whic h allow s read y locatio n of th e equipment

. I

t coul db e remove dafte r th e fugitiv e emissio n sourc e wa s repaire dan dverifie dnon-leakin g i n tw o successiv e months

. A lo g woul db e maintaine dfor

informatio n pertainin g t o th e leakin g sources . Th e lo g woul d- contai n di e instrumen t

an doperato r identificatio n number s for valv e monitoring , th e leakin g sourc e identificatio n number , di e dat e o f detectio n of

di e leak , th e dat e o

f eac h • attemp t to repai r di e leak , an ddi e maximu mscreenin g valu e afte r eac h attempt
. Th e lo g woul db e kep t for 2 year s followin g th e survey.. . Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e tha t

""repai r delayed " b e recorde di n th e lo g fo r

tha t particula r fugitiv e emissio n sourc e i f repai r wer e delaye dbeyon d1 5 calenda r day s afte r th e dat e o

f detection

. Th e reasons for unsuccessfu l repair , dat e o f detection , repai r method s attempte dan dth e expecte ddat e o

f repai r o f th e lea k an d di e maximu mscreenin g valu e observe d afte r repai r woul db e recordedi n th e log

. Thes e record s woui db e neede dt o establis h adat abas e t o provid e th e . informatio n necessar y t o allo w enforcemen t

personne l to asses s complianc e with th e wor k practic e • standards

. Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e n o record s for

vaive s whic h wer e foun dno t

to leak

. Similarly , n o record s woui dnee dt o b e maintaine do f th e weekl y pump inspection s i f n o leak s wer e observe dvisually

. Fo r th e desig n standards , di e propose dstandard s woul drequir e record s t o b e maintaine do f th e locatio n o f material s documentin g contro l devic e desig n criteria , suc h a s desig n specification s fo

r avapo r recover y syste mo r a n incinerator

. Whe n th e contro l equipmen t

wa s modifie do r replaced , di e dat e o

f replacemen t

an d ne w desig n criteri awoul db e recorded. A recor do

f th e sourc e identificatio n number s fo

r thos e fugitiv e emissio n source s operatin g unde r

"n o detectabl e emissions " limit s woul db e required

. Fugitiv e emissio n source s include di n thi s categor y woul db e al l safet y relie f valve s an dleakles s equipmen t whic h ha s bee n designate dfor

operatio n unde r "n o detectabl e emissions " such.a s

diaphrag mvalve s o r

seaiiess

. pumps . Record s o

f eac h measuremen t

mad e to verif y "n o detectabl e emissions " woul d b e required

. Th e date s o f th e verification , tests , ambien t

backgroun dVO C concentratio n measured , an ddi e maximu mVO C concentratio n measure d a t th e sourc e woui db e recorded

. Th e propose dstandard s contai n ver y specifi c requirement s concernin g recordkeeping

. Thes e requirement s ar e i n addition.t o di e requirement s se t forth i n th e Genera l Provision s (4 0 CF R60.7)

. Som e o f di e requirement s i n 5 60. 7 ar e duplicate di n di e propose dstandards

. Als o § 60. 7 require s som e record s dia t ma y b e unnecessar y t o determinin g complianc e wit h di e propose d standards

. T o eliminat e redundanc y an d unnecessar y recordkeeping , th e propose dstandard s stat e tha t § § 60. 7 (b ) an d(d ) woui dno t

b e applicabl e to owner s o r

operator s affecte db y th e propose dstandards

. A revisio n t o th e Genera l Provision s i s als o bein g propose dt o provid e amechanis mt o exclud e th e coverag e o

f § § 60. 7 (b ) an d (d)

. Reporting. Thre e reportin g alternative s wer e considere din

. . evaluatin g di e amoun t

o f reporte d infonnatio n neede dt o asses s complianc e wit h th e propose d standards

. Thes e alternative s represen t varyin g level s o

f enforcemen t monitorin g o

f th e propose dstandards

. The y als o represent

varyin g level s o

f resource s require dfo

r industr y an d enforcemen t

personnel

. Enforcemen t personne l woul drevie w th e report s submitte db y industr y personne l o n th e statu s o f implementin g th e propose d standards

. Thi s revie w procedur e reduce s di e nee dfor

in-plan t * inspections

.

. Th e firs t

alternativ e woul drequir e minimu mreportin g o

f informatio n whic h wa s recorde dt o monito r complianc e with th e propose dstandards

. Recorde d informatio n woui db e availabl e a t th e plan t t o enforcemen t

personnel , bu t

th e owner/operato r

woul db e requiredonl y to suppl y arepor t

testifyin g tha t

al l equipmen t

design , emission , an d operationa l standard s ha dbee n me t tha t al l component s ha dbee n monitore d an ddia t thos e with'leak s ha dbee n repaired

. Th e mor e detaile drecorde d informatio n woul dtiien b e availabl e upo n specifi c reques t

o r plan t visi t b y enforcemen t

personnel

. Thi s alternativ e woul dno t

provid e amechanis mfo r checkin g th e thoroughnes s o f th e —- industry' s effort s t

o reduc e VO C fugitiv e emission s withou t

avisi t t o th e plan t site

. Thus , assessmen t

of complianc e with th e standard s woui db e intermitten t an dsomewha t

rando m sinc e i t woul dmainl y b e determine d throug h in-plan t

inspection s rathe r

tha n diroug h submitta l o

f informatio n t o enforcemen t

agencies

. Th e secon dreportin g alternativ e woul drequir e th e submitta l o f informatio n i n sufficien t

detai l t o insur e complianc e wit h th e propose dwor k practice , equipment , design , emission , an doperationa l standards

. Include din th e report s woul db e summarize ddat a concernin g leak s detecte ddurin g th e reportin g period

. Thi s requiremen t woul dprovid e enforcemen t personne l witi i a n overvie w o

f th e repai r

o f leaks

. A repor t signe db y di e plan t

owner / operato r attestin g t o th e validit y o f th e result s o f di e monitorin g survey s an d instrumen t

calibratio n procedure s woul d allo w enforcemen t

personne l t o asses s th e complianc e of

facilitie s wit h th e work practic e standards

. Thi s repor t woul dals o attes t

t o th e prope r application , operation , an d maintenanc e o f th e equipmen t

requiredb y th e propose dequipment , design , emission , an doperationa l standards

. Thes e requirements woul dno t

necessaril y includ e al l record s kep t

b y industry

. Onl y informatio n tha t

woul db e necessar y to.asses s th e implementatio n o f th e equipmen t

standard s woul db e required. Th e thir dreportin g alternativ e woul d requir e di e submitta l o

f al l th e informatio n obtaine dwhil e conductin g lea k detectio n an drepai r

programs . Thi s informatio n woul dinclud e th e informatio n reporte di n th e secon d alternativ e and

. additionally , comprehensiv e informatio n o n al l teste d components
. Thi s reportin g alternativ e woul dnecessitat e th e reportin g o f ai l informatio n include di n th e recordkeepin g requirements

. Th e extensivenes s o

f di e reporte d informatio n woul drequir e th e SOCM I tc repor t dat atha t

woul db e mor e appropriat e fo

r demonstratin g equivalenc y o

f alternat e method s of emissio n contro l dia n fo r establishin g complianc e wit h propose dstandards

. Th e secon dalternativ e wa s selecte d a s di e reportin g requiremen t fo r th e propose dstandards

. Thi s alternativ e provide s sufficien t

informatio n t

o revie w complianc e withou t requirin g excessiv e resource s fro mindustry

. Th e firs t alternativ e wa s no t

selecte d becaus e di e compdanc e wit h work practic e standard s an dth e implementatio n o

f equipmen t

design , emission , an doperationa l standard s coul dno t b e adequatel y assesse db y enforcemen t

personne l to insur e tha t reduction s in fugitiv e emission s wer e achieved

. Th e thir dreportin g alternativ eP.1 7

113 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 48 . No . 2 /

Monday . Januar y 5.198 1 / Propose d Rule s

wa s notselecte d becaus e th e additiona l resource s expende d b y industr y woul d notfacilitat e assessmen to f complianc e and implementatio n o

f wor k practice , equipment, design , emissio n an d operational standards . Under di e propose d standard s quarterly report

s woul d b e submitted . The report

s woul d contai n summar y dat a o f di e number o

f leak s found and repaire d withi n di e reporting period . Th e number o f leak s notrepaire d withi n 1 5 days , reasons for thei r non-repair , an d anticipate d date s o

f repair woul d als o b e required . The owne r o r operato r woul d b e require d t

o sign di e report statin g whethe r or notth e proces s unit wa s operate d i n ful

l complianc e with al l wor k practice , desig n an d operational , and equipmentprovision s o f th e standard . I

f di e owne r o

r operato r ha d mor e dian on e affecte d facility , h e coul d submiton e statemen to

f complianc e fo

r ai l o f them . Exampl e repor

tformat s are show n i n Figure s 1 . 2 . 3 . and 4 I

n di e propose d standards . Thes e are example s only . Th e required informatio n coul d b e submitte d i n an y othe r usefu l form. A s state d previousl y in di e Safety / Relief Valve s sectio n o

f tiiis preamble , performance test s generall y requir e three runs an d notificatio n of di e Administrato r 3 0 day s before di e tes t However , tiiis prenotificatio n i s not reasonabl e fo

r di e propose d standard s becaus e test s t

o determin e n o detectabl e emission s mustoccu r withi n fiv e day s after a n overpressur e relief . Becaus e o

f thi s conflic tin reporting requirements . affecte d facilitie s hav e bee n exempte d fro m 4 0 CF R60.8(d) . Impacts of

reporting requirements. I n additio n t o requirements o

f di e General Provision s o

f Subpar tA o f 4 0 CF RPar t 60 . di e propose d standard s woul d requir e quarterly reports includin g informatio n pertainin g t

o di e required wor k practices . Estimate s o

f di e effort

s associate d wit

h the reporting requirement

s indicat e thatth e industr y woui d incur manpowe r expenditure s o f approximatel y 3

3 manyear s in 198

5 t o fulfil l the requirementwhic h woul d apply t o about830 affecte d facilities . N o overlappin g dat

a requirements wit

h othe r governmentagencie s are . anticipated . Equivalence of

Alternative Means of Emission Limitation Under th e provision s o

f Sectio n 111(h

) o f th e Clea n Air Act . i

f di e Administrato r establishe s wor k practices , equipment , desig n o r operational standards , then the Administrato r mus

tallo w the us e o

f ~ ~ alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitation s i

f the y achiev e a reductio n in air pollutant s equivalen tt o diat achieve d unde r requirement s o f a standard o

f performance . Sufficien tdata woul d b e required t

o sho w equivalenc y and a publi c hearin g woul d b e required . Individual owner s /operator s i n SOCM I coul d reques talternative s beyon d dios e no w provide d fo r specifi c requirement

s such a s the propose d equipmentan d the propose d lea k detectio n an d repai r program . Sufficien t infonnatio n woul d hav e to-b e collecte d b y a facility t

o demonstrate diatdi e alternativ e contro l technique s woul d b e equivalen tt

o di e contro l technique s required b y the propose d standards . Thi s informatio n woul d tiien b e submitte d t

o EP A i n a reques tfo r a determinatio n o

f equivalence . A publi c hearin g notic e woul d b e publishe d i n di e Federa l Register . Th e data submitte d in a reques tfo r equivalenc y o

f alternativ e contro l measure s woul d take the for m o f tes t dat a t o substantiat e equivalency . To obtai n permissio n t

o us e alternate type s o f equipmen tVO C emission s tes tdata woul d b e supplie d fo

r compariso n t

o emission s data fro

m the specifie d equipmen tApplicatio n fo r equivalenc e o f wor k practice s woul d require submissio n o

f twelv e months ' data for th e lea k detectio n an d repai r progra m specifie d i n di e standard s an d data for di e alternate system . After publi c notic e and opportunit y fo r publi c hearing , the Administrato r woul d determin e di e equivalenc e o f a n alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n and woul d publis h hi s determinatio n i n di e Federa

l Register . Selection of

Test Methods Several fugitiv e emissio n measurementan d monitorin g method s wer e identifie d an d analyze d i n th e developmen to

f di e propose d standards . Evaluatio n o

f thes e alternativ e method s wa s base d upon results o f emissio n testin g conducte d a

tpetroleum refinerie s an d syntheti c organi c chemical manufacturing plants . One metho d o

f emissio n measuremen t i s di e direc tmeasuremen tof mas s pe r uni ttime. e.g . kg/hr . fro

m eac h source . Fo r th e wid e variety o

f source s subjec t t o thi s standard , directmeasuremen t woul d require "bagging " technique s for th e measuremen to

f mas s emissions . "Bagging " mean s t

o enclos e a fugitiv e emissio n sourc e wit

h a shrou d i n orde r t o captur e al l o f th e emission s fro

m the source . The shrou d mus

tb e attache d securel y t o th e sourc e in orde r t

o insur e complete capture o

f emissions , and a flo w measurementdevic e i s neede d t o measure th e volumetri c emissio n rate . After a n appropriat

e equilibratio n time, whic h depend s o n th e shrou d an d th e lea k rat e (5-3 0 minutes) , a sampl e o f tha . effluentfro

m the shrou d i s take n t

o detennin e th e VO C concentration . Th e VO C mas s emissio n rat

e i s the n calculate d base d o n th e lo w volumetri c flow rate an d VO C concentration . Becaus e o

f di e large numbers o

f source s i n a n affecte d facility a s wei l a s th e differentphysica l configuration s an d divers e locations , direc tmeasurement s o f lea k rate s woul d b e costly , timeconsuming , and impractical for routin e testing . Therefore , direc tmeasuremen t

. o f lea k rate s wa s no tselecte d a s di e emissio n measuremen tmetho d fo r di e propose d standard . Indirectemissio n measuremen t method s or monitorin g method s that woul d yiel d qualitativ e indication s o f leak s wer e reviewed . Thes e monitorin g method s are : (1 ) a periodi c individua l componen tsurve y tha

twoul d monito r al l fugitiv e emissio n source s usin g portabl e VO C detectors : (2) a periodi c area , o r walkthrough surve y thatwoui d monito r ambien tconcentration s o f VO C usin g portabl e VO C detectors : an d (3) a continuou s fixed-poin tmonitorin g syste m diatwoui d consis tof stationar y sensin g device s wit

h a remotely locate d central readou to

r a centra l analyze r syste m (ga s chromatograph ) with remot e sampl e collection . Individual componen tsurvey s usin g portabl e VO C detector s woul d b e th e mos tefficien tmetho d for detectin g ai l leaks . Th e periodi c individua l componen tsurve y coul d b e don e i n a reasonabl e amounto

f time b y monitoring personne l an d coui d b e accomplishe d with relativ e ease . Th e cos to f leak detectio n equipmen tfo r a n individual componen tsurve y woul d b e reasonable . Tw o individual componen tsurve y method s wer e identified : (1 ) lea k detectio n b

y sprayin g eac h componen t wit h a soa p solutio n and observin g bubbl e formation : and (2 ) lea k detectio n b y measurin g VO C concentratio n wit h a

. portabl e VO C detector . Th e maanituc e o f lea k rate s base d o n bubbl e formatio n i s difficultt

o assess . I

n addition , soa p bubbl e formation doe s no tdistinguis h VO C emission s fro

m othe r leakin g jase s o r vapors , an d bubbl e formatio n i s subjec tt o componen ttemperature and componen tconfiguratio n restraints . Therefore , measuremen to f VO C concentratio n with a portabl e VO C detecto r wa s selecte d a s di e metho d fo r monitoring individual components . A periodi c area , o

r walkthrough surve y o f ambien tVO C concentration s wit h a portabl e VO C detecto r and recorde r woul d b e a less effectiv e "metho d fo

r detectin g specifi c leak s tha n a n individual componen tsurvey . Interferenc e du e t

o local meteorologica lP.1 8

condition s an dleak s fro

madjacen t

unit s woul dprobabl y preven t

th e detectio n of al l leak s withi n aproces s unit

. I n fac t previou s studie s hav e indicate dtha t di e are asurve y i s suitabl e onl y fo r locatin g larg e leaks

. In orde r

to hav e a walkthroug h metho ddia t i s a s sensitiv e t o leak 3 a s a n individua l componen t survey , th e "actio n level".indicatin g th e nee dto d o acomplet e surve y o f equipmen t

withi n aspecifi c are awould ' necessaril y nee dt

o b e ver y low

. It woul dals o probabl y nee dt o b e uni t an d meteorolog y specifi c (differen t actio n level s fo r differen t win dspeeds)

. Witi i a n actio n leve l thi s lo w th e backgroun d leve l of VO C coul dcaus e considerabl e interferenc e an dleak s woul d undoubtedl y b e indicate dalmos t everywher e i n th e unit

. A n individua l componen t

surve y woul di n man y case s b e necessar y t o locat e th e actua l leak

. Therefore , sinc e i t

i s no t possibl e t

o provid e a n industry-wid e actio n leve l indicativ e o

f leak s fo r agive n proces s unit , an dsinc e an y actio n leve l dia t wa s determine dcoul dgiv e s o man y fals e indication s o

f leak s tha t

a n essentiall y complet e individua l componen t

surve y woul db e necessar y to detec t di e actua l leaks , walkthroug h testin g wa s no t

judge dto b e a reasonabl e approac h for lea k detection

. Implementatio n o

f acontinuou s fixed

poin t monitorin g syste mwoul drequire a portabl e VO C detecto r

to locat e specifi c leaking-component s i n additio n t o multipl e stationar y monitor s o r sampi e collectors

. Thi s syste mma y b e les s efficien t tha n th e othe r

metiiod s fo

r detectin g VO C emissions

. Possibl e meteorologica l interferenc e an d problem s witi i measurin g VO C concentration s o

f remotel y collecte d sample s woul dlimi t

di e efficienc y o

f lea k detectio n b y afixed-poin t system
. Excep t fo r possibl e monitorin g equipmen t

calibratio n problems , th e fixed-poin t

syste mwoul db e operate d wit h relativ e eas e b y monitorin g personnel , wh o woui dstil l b e require d t o us e portabl e VO C detectio n equipmen t

to fin dth e individua l leakin g component s indicate db y di e fixed-poin t monitorin g system
. Implementatio n o f a continuou s fixed-poin t

monitorin g syste mwoul db e capital-intensive , althoug h lea k

detectio n labo r

cost s woul dprobabl y b e th e leas t o f th e thre e monitorin g methods

. Som e characteristic s o

f th e thre e indirec t emissio n measuremen t

method s ar e similar , includin g safet y consideration s an deas e of operatio n for monitorin g personnel

. Som e aspect s o f th e thre e method s ar e different

. Capita l an doperatin g cost s vary , a s d o th e efficiencie s o

f th e method s i n detectin g VO C leaks

. Th e individua l componen t metho di s characterize db y asuperio r lea k detectio n efficienc y an dreasonabl e costs
. Considerin g thes e factors , th e individua l componen t

metho dwa s selecte da s di e monitorin g metho d fo r th e propose dstandards

. Selected Test Procedure. The

. propose dtes t

metiiod

. Metho d21 , woul d incorporat e th e us e o

f aportabl e VO C detecto r t o measur e th e concentratio n o f VO C a t asourc e t o yiel daqualitativ e o r semiquantitativ e indicatio n of th e VO C emissio n rat e fro mth e source . Th e genera l approac h o

f tiiis techniqu e • assume s dia t

i f aVO C lea k

exists , ther e i s a n increase dVO C concentratio n i n th e vicinit y o

f th e leak

. Test s i n petroleu mrefinerie s hav e establishe d genera l concentratio n versu s mas s emissio n relationships fo r variou s fugitiv e emissio n sources . Also , test s hav e indicate ddia t

loca l condition s caus e variation s i n concentratio n reading s a t

point s remove dfro mth e surfac e o f th e interfac e o n th e componen t

wher e leakin g occurs . Therefore , th e propose dmetho drequire s th e concentratio n to b e measure da t di e lea k interface

. A s discusse di n th e Selectio n o f Emissio n Limi t

Equipmen t

Wor k - Practice , Design , an dOperationa l Standard s sectio n i n thi s preamble , a definitio n o

f alea k fo r valve s wa s selecte dt o b e 10.000 ppm . Thi s concentratio n leve l i s measure da t tile lea k interfac e an dqualitativel y relates t o emissio n rates
. Als o discusse di n tha t sectio n i s th e definitio n o f n o detectabl e emissions

. A concentratio n for n o detectabl e emission s need s t o B e define dsuc h dia t

whe n emission s occu r the y ca n b e detecte dan dwhe n emission s ar e no t

occurin g the y ar e no t mistakenl y detected

. Base do n consideration s o

f Ui e calibratio n procedure s an dmonito r

variabilit y a t lo w mete r

deflections , tw o percen t o f th e definitio n o

f alea k wa s selecte da s th e definitio n o

f n o detectabl e emissions

. Thus , i n thi s case , n o detectabl e emission s mean s aVO C concentratio n o

f les s tha n 200 pp m abov e backgroun dconcentratio n a t th e lea k interface

. Th e portabl e VO C detecto r use di n tihe propose dmonitorin g progra mwoul d b e require dto conformt o severa l specification s to insur e consisten t industry-wid e monitoring , effectiv e VO C emissio n reductio n efforts , an dsaf e lea k detectio n programs . Equipmen t specification s ar e propose di n Methdc T 2 1 a s follows : (1 ) Th e instrumen t shoul d respon dto tota l hydrocarbon s o r combustibl e gases . Detecto r type s whic h ma y mee t thi s requiremen t

includ e catalyti c oxidation , flame ionization ,

infrare dabsorption , an d photoionization : (2

) th e instrumen t shoul db e saf

e for operatio n in

* explosiv e atmospheres : (3 ) the.instrumen t shoul d incorporat e a n appropriat e rang e o r dilutio n optio n s o dia t

concentratio n level s o f 10.000 ppm v ca n b e measured : (4 ) th e instrumen t

shoul db e equippe d wit h apump s o tha t

acontinuou s sampl e ca n b e provide dt o th e detector

. Th e nomina l sampl e flo w rat e shoul db e 1- 3 liter s pe r

minute : (5 ) di e scal e o

f th e instrumen t

readou t mete r shoul db e readabl e to ± 5 percen t

a t 10,00 0 ppmv . Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e tha t

th e monitorin g instrumen t b e calibrate dbefor e eac h monitorin g survey . Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e tha t

th e monitorin g instrumen t b e calibrate dwit h methane

. Th e require dcalibratio n gase s woul db e a zer o ga s (air , 3 ppm v VOC ) an da methane-ai r

mixtur e o

f approximatel y 10.00 0 ppm v methane

. I

f cylinde r calibratio n ga s mixture s woul db e used , the y woul dhav e t o b e analyze dan d certifie db y th e manufacture r t o withi n ± 2 percen t

accurac y a s require di n propose dMetho d21

. Calibratio n gase s prepare db y th e use r

accordin g t o a n accepte dgaseou s standard s preparatio n procedur e woul dals o hav e t o b e accurat e withi n ± 2 percent , a s require d i n propose dMetiio d21

. Propose dMetho d2 1 require s tha t th e monitorin g instrumen t

woul db e subjecte dto otiie r

performanc e requirement s prio r

t o bein g place din servic e fo r the-firs t time. Th e instrumen t woul db e subjecte dt o thes e performanc e criteri aever y si x month s an dafte r an y modificatio n o r replacemen t

o f th e instrumen t

detector

. •Publi c Hearin g A publi c hearin g wil l b e hel dto discus s thes e propose dstandard s in _ _ accordanc e witi i Sectio n 307(d)(5 ) of'th e Clea n Ai r Act

. Person s wishin g t o mak e ora l presentation s shoul dcontac t EP A a t th e addres s give n i n th e ADDRESSE S sectio n o f thi s preamble

. Ora l presentation s wil l b e limite dto 1 5 minute s each

. An y membe r o f th e publi c ma y file awritte n statemen t with EP A before , during , o r

withi n 3 0 day s afte r th e hearing

. Writte n statement s shoul d b e addresse dto th e Centra l Docke t Sectio n addres s give n i n th e ADDRESSE S sectio n o

f thi s preamble

. A verbati mtranscrip t

o f th e hearin g an dwritte n statement s wil l b e availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n an dcopyin g durin g norma l workin g hour s a t EPA' s Centra l Docke t Sectio n i n Washington

. D.C

. (se e ADDRESSE S sectio n o

f thi s preamble)

.P.1 9



### 113 2 Fedaia i Re-aste r / Vol . 48 . No . 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5.198 1 /

Propose d Rule s Docke t The docke ti s a n organize d and complet e fil e of

ai l di e infonnatio n submitte d t

o o r otherwis e considere d "b y EP A i n th e developmen to

f thi s propose d rulemaking . Th e principa l purpose s o

f di e docke tar

e (1 ) t o allo w intereste d partie s t o readil y identif

y an d locat e documents s o tha

ttiiey ca n intelligentl y and effectivel y participate i n di e rulemaking proces s and (2 ) t o serv e a s the record in cas e o

f judicial review . Miscellaneou s Aa prescribe d b y Sectio n 111 . establishmen to

f standard s o

f performance fo

r th e syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturing industry wa s precede d b y di e Administrator' s determinatio n (4 0 CF

R60.18 . 4 4 F R 49222 . date d Augus t21.1979 ) tha t source s withi n tiiis industr y contribute significantl y t

o ai r pollutio n whic h may reasonabl y b e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healt

h or welfare . I

n accordanc e wit h Sectio n 117 o

f th e Ac tpublicatio n o f thi s proposal wa s precede d by consultatio n with appropriat e advisor y committees , independen texperts , an d Federal departments an d agencies . Th e Administrato r wil l welcom e comments o n al l aspect s of

the propose d standards , includin g economi c an d technologica l issues , and o n di e propose d Appendi x E an d Metho d 21 . I tshoul d b e note d diatstandard s o f performanc e fo

r ne w source s establishe d unde r Sectio n 11 1 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac treflect
' ' " applicatio

n o f di e best " technologica

l syste m o f continuou s emissio n reductio n whic h (takin g int o consideratio

n di e costo f achievin g suc h emissio n reduction

, an d nonai r qualit y healt h an d environmenta

l impac tan d energ y requirements

) th e Administrato

r determine

s ha s bee n adequatel y demonstrate

d (Sectio n 111(a)(1)] . .Althoug h ther e ma y b e emissio n contro l technolog y availabl e dia tca n reauc e emission s belo w thos e level s required t

o compl y wit

h standard s of performance , thi s technolog y migh tno t b e selecte d a s di e basi s of standard s o

f performance becaus e o

f cost s associate d wit

h its us e Accordingly, , standard s o

f performance shoul d no tb e viewe d a s the ultimat

e in achievabl e emissio n control . I

n fac tth e Ac t require s (or ha s the potentia l fo r requiring) th

e impositio n o

f a mor e stringen temissio n standar d in severa l situations . Fo r example , applicabl e cost s d o not necessaril y play a s prominenta rol e i n determinin g the "lowes tachievabl e emissio n rate " fo

r ne w or modifie d source s locatin g m nonattainmen tareas , i.e. . thos e area s wher e statutorial y mandate d healt h an d welfar e standard s ar e bein g violated . I

n thi s respect Sectio n 17

3 o f th e Ac trequire s tha

tne w o r modifie d source s constructed , i n a n are a wher e ambien tpollutan t concentration s ar

e abov e the Nationa l Ambien tAi r Qualit

y Standard (NAAQS) . mustreduc e emission s t o th e leve l tha treflects th e "lowes t achievabl e emissio n rate " (LAER) . a s define d i n Sectio n 171(3) fo

r such category o

f source . Th e statut e define s LAE Ra s tha trat e o f emission s base d o n th e following , whicheve r i s mor e stringent : (A ) Th e mos tstringen temissio n limitatio n whic h is containe

d i n th e implementatio

n plan to f an y Stat e fo r suc h clas s o r categor y o f source , unless th e owne r o r operato r o f th e propose d sourc e demonstrate

s tha tsuc h limitation s are.no tachievable, o

r (B ) Th e mos tstringen temissio n limitatio n whic h is achieve

d i n practic e b y suc h clas s o r categor y o f source . I n n o even tca n th e emissio n rat e excee d an y applicabl e ne w sourc e performanc e standard (Sectio n 171(3J) . A simila r situatio n ma

y aris e unde r the preventio n o

f significan t deterioratio n o

f ai r qualit

y provision s o

f di e Ac t(Par

tC) . Thes e provision s requir e tha tcertai n source s (referred t o in Sectio n 189( 1 )

j emplo y "bes t avadabl e contro l technology " (BACT ) a s define d i n Sectio n 166(3 ) fo r ai l pollutant s regulate d unde r th e Ac tBes t availabl e contro l technolog y mus tb e determine d o n a case-by-cas e basis , takin g energy , environmental an d economi c impacts , and othe r cost s int o accoun tI

n n o even tmay di e applicatio n o f BACT resul tin emission s o f an y pollutants whic h wd l excee d th e emission s allowe d by a

n applicabl e standard establishe d pursuan tt o Sectio n 11 1 (o r 112

) o f the Ac t I n al l cases . State Implementatio n Plan s (SIP's ) approve d o r promulgate d under Sectio n 11 0 o

f di e Ac tmus tprovi d for the attainmen tan d maintenanc e of NAAQ S designe d t

o protectpubli c health and welfare . Fo

r tiiis purpose . SIF s musti n som e case s require greate r emissio n reductio n dia n dios e required b y standard s o

f performance for ne w sources . Finally , State s ar

e free under Sectio n 11 6 o f di e Ac tt o establis h eve n more stringentemissio n limit

s tha n dios e establishe d under Sectio n 11 1 o f dios e necessar y t

o attai n o r maintai n th e NAAQ S unde r Sectio n 110 . Accordingly , ne w source s ma

y i n som e case s b e subjectt o limitation s mor

e stringent tha n standard s o

f performance unde r Sectio n 111 . and prospectiv e owner s and operator s o

f ne w source s shoul d b e awar e o f thi s possibility in plannin g fo r suc h facilities . Thi s regulatio n wil l b e reviewe d fdury. . r

_from th e dat e of

promulgatio n a s require d b y th e Clea n Ai r Ac tThi s revie w wil l includ e a n assessmen tof suc h factor s a s th e nee d for integratio n wit h othe r programs , th e existenc e c f alternativ e methods , enforceability , an d improvements i

n emissio n contro l technology , an d reportin g requirements . Th e reporting requirements i n thi s regulatio n wil l b e reviewe d a s require d unde r EPA' s sunse tpolic y fo r reportin g requirements i n regulations . Sectio n 31 7 of

di e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s di e Administrato r t o prepare a n economi c impactassessmen tfor an y ne w sourc e standar d o

f performanc e promulgate d unde r Sectio n 111(b ) of th e Ac tA n economi c impactassessmen t wa s prepare d fo

r th e propose d regulation s and for othe r regulatory alternatives . Al l aspect s of th e assessmen twer e considere d in th e formulatio n of

th e propose d standard s t o insur e diatth e propose d standard s woul d represen tthe best'syste m of emissio n reduction considerin g costs . The economi c impactassessmen ti s include d i n th e Background Lniormatic n Document . Dated : Decembe

r 18.1980. __

_ Dougla s M . Costie, Administrator. I ti s propose d t

o amen d 4 0 CF

RPar t 6 0 a s follows : 1 . B y addin g paragraph (f

) t o § 60. 7 t o Subpar tA—General Provision s a s follows : § 80. 7 Notificatio n an d recortikMO-ng. • * • • * ( 0 Individual subparts o

f tiiis pa n ma y includ e specifi c provision s whic h clarif y o r make inapplicabl e th e provision s se tfort

h in thi s section . (Sec. 111.114 . 301(a

) o f di e Clea n Ai r Act . a s amende d (4 2 U.S. C 7411 . 7414

. 7eoi(a)) J 2 . B y addin g paragraph (f

) t o § 60.1 1 t

o Subpar tA—Genera

l Provision s a s follows : 3 SOU . Complianc

e wit h aunca r a a and maintenanc

e requirements . (f ) Specia l provision s se tfort h unde r a n applicabl e subpar

tof thi s par tshal l supersed e any conflictin g provision s c f thi s section . tSec. 111. 301(a

) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac ta s amende d |4 2 U.S. C 7411 . 7601(a))

) 3 . B y addin g Subpar

tV V a s fellows : Subpar tVV—Standard

s o f Pertortrtaoc

e ?s . Fugitiv e Emissio n Source s i

n tne Symrets c Organi c Chemical

s Manufacturin

g industr y .O.4g 0 Applicabilit

y an d designatio

n o f affecte d facility.P.2 0


### Federal Refiste e /

Vol

. 48 , No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5.198 1 /

Propose dRule s 11S 3
Sec

. 60.48 1 Definitions

. 60.48 2 Standards

. 50.48 3 Alternativ e Standards

. 60.484 Equivalenc e o

f alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitation

. 60.48 5 Tes t

method s an dprocedures

. 60.48 6 Recordkeepin g requirements

. 60.48 7 Reportin g requirements

. Authority : Sec

. 111

. 301(a ) o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t a s amende d(4

2 U.S.C

. 7411 , 7601(a)] , an d additiona l authorit y a s note dbelow

. Subpar t W=Standard § o f Pertermane«

_ fo rFugitiv e Emissio n Source s i n th s Syntheti c Organi c Chemical s Manufacturin g Industry § 60.48 0 Aplicabillt

y an d designatio n o . affecte d facility

. (a ) Th e provision s o

f thi s subpar t appl y t o affecte dfacilitie s witiii n di e syntheti c organi c chemical s manufacturin g industry

. .A n affecte d facility i s th e grou p o

f al l fugitiv e emissio n source s withi n aproces s unit

. (b ) An y facility unde r

paragrap h (a ) o

f thi s sectio n tha t

commence s constructio n o r

modificatio n afte r Januar y 5.198 1 woul db e subjec t t o di e requirement s o

f thi s subpart

. (c ) Additio n o r

replacemen t

o f fugitiv e emissio n source s fo

r th e purpos e o

f proces s improvemen t

whic h i s accomplishe dwithou t

acapita l expenditur e shal l no t

b y itsel f b e considere damodificatio n unde r thi s subpar t § 60.48 1 Definitions

. A s use di n thi s subpart , al l term s no t define dher e shal l hav e th e meanin g give n die mi n th e Ac t

an di n Subpar t

A o f Par t 60

. an dth e followin g term s shal l hav e di e specifi c meaning s give n them

. "Close dVen t

System " mean s a syste mwhic h i s no t

ope n t o di e atmospher e an dwhic h i s compose do f piping , connections , and

. i f necessary , flo w inducin g device s tha t transpor t

ga s o r vapo r fromafugitiv e emissio n sourc e t o a n enclose dcombustio n devic e o r vapo r recovery system
. "Enclose dCombustio n Oevice " mean s .-fn y combustio n devic e whic h i s no t ope n to di e atmospher e suc h a s a proces s heate r

o r furnace , bu t

no t a flare

. "First^Attemp t

a t Repair " mean s to tak e rapi dactio n fo

r di e purpos e o

f stoppin g o r

reducin g leakag e o

f organi c materia l to atmospher e usin g bes t moder n practices

. "Fugitiv e Emissio n Source " mean s eac h pump , valve , safety/relie f valve , open-ende dvalve , flang e o r othe r connector , compressor , o r samplin g system
. "I n Gas/Vapo r

Service " mean s tha t th e fugitiv e emissio n sourc e contain s proces s flui dthat , i s i n th e gaseou s stat e a t operatin g conditions

. "I n Light Liqui dService " mean s dia t th e fugitiv e emissio n sourc e contain s a liqui dtha t

meet s di e condition s specifie di n § 60.485(c)

. "Open-Ende dValve " mean s an y valve , excep t

safety/relie f

valves , with on e sid e o

f di e valv e sea t

i n contac t wit h proces s flui dan don e sid e tha t i s ope n t o th e atmosphere , eithe r directl y o r diroug h ope n piping

. "Proces s Improvement " mean s routin e change s mad e for

safet y an d occupationa l healt h requirements , fo r energ y savings , for

bette r utility , for eas e o f maintenanc e an doperation , fo r correctio n o

f desig n deficiencies , fo

r bottlenec k

removal , fo r

changin g produc t requirements , o r

fo r environmenta l control

. "Proces s Unit " mean s equipmen t assemble dt o produce , a s intermediate s o r final products , on e o r

mor e o f di e chemical s liste di n Appendi x E o f tiiis par t A proces s uni t

ca n operat e independentl y i

f supplie dwit h sufficien t fee do r ra w material s an dsufficien t storag e facilitie s fo

r di e final product

. "Quarter " mean s athre e mont h period

. Th e firs t

quarte r conclude s a t

th e en do f di e las t ful l mont h durin g di e 180 day s followin g initia l startup
. "Repaired'"mean s tha t

afugitiv e emission s sourc e i s adjuste do r otherwis e altere di n orde r t o reduc e fugitiv e emission s belo w th e leve l tha t indicate s di e necessit y fo r repai r a s require di n § 60.482

. "Syntheti c Organi c Chemical s Manufacturin g Industry " mean s th e industr y dia t

produces , a s intermediate s o r final products , on e o r

mor e o f di e chemical s liste di n Appendi x E o f thi s part
. "I n Vacuu mService " mean s tha t a fugitiv e emissio n sourc e i s operatin g a t a n interna l pressur e whic h i s continuousl y les s tha n 100 kPa

. "Vapo r Recover y System " mean s an y typ e o f contro l devic e capabl e o f removin g VO C vapo r

fro maga s stream , suc h a s carbo n adsorption , vapo r compression , an dvapo r

refrigeratio n systems
. "Volatil e Organi c Compoun d(VOC) " mean s an y organi c compound , whic h participate s i n atmospheri c photochemica l reaction s o r i s measure d b y th e applicabl e tes t

method s describe di n Referenc e Metho d21

. "I n VO C Service " mean s tha t a fugitiv e emissio n sourc e contain s or" ^ contact s aproces s flui dtha t i s a t leas t 1 0 percen t

VO C b y weigh t

a s determine daccordin g to th e provision s o f § 60.485(d)

. § 60.48 3 Standards

. Eac h owne r

o r operato r subjec t t o th e provision s o

f thi s subpar t

shal l compl y wit h th e followin g requirements fo r fugitiv e emissio n source s in VO C service , excep t

thos e i n vacuu mservice

. (a ) Pumps i n ligh t

liqui dservice

. (1 ) Eac h pump shai l b e equippe dwit h adua l mechanica l sea l syste mtha t include s abarrie r

flui dsvste mexcep t

a s provide di n § 60.482(a)(7] , § 60.482(a)(8)

. o r § 60.482(j)

. (2 ) Eac h flui dsyste ma s require di n § 60.482(a)(1 ) shal l b e equippe dwit h a senso r tha t will detec t

failur e o f th e sea l system , di e barrie r

flui dsystem , o r

both

. Th e barrie r

flui dshal l no t

b e aligh t liqui do r gaseou s VOC

. (3 ) Eac h dua l mechanica l sea l syste m a s require di n § 60.482(a)(1 ) shal l be — (i) Operate dwiti i th e barrie r flui da t a pressur e dia t

i s a t al l time s greate r

tha n di e pum p stuffin g bo x pressure : (ii ) Equippe dwit h abarrie r fluid degassin g reservoi r

tha t i s connecte db y aclose dven t

syste mt o a n enclose d combustio n devic e designe dfo r a minimu mVO C residenc e tim e o f 0.7 5 second s a t

816*" C o r t o avapo r

recover y system"designe d fo

r aminimu mo

f 9 5 percen t captur e o

f VO C inpu t

t o th e vapo r recover y system : o r (iii ) Equippe dwit h asyste mt o purg e th e barrie r

fluid int o aproces s stream , wit h n o VO C emissio n t o atmosphere

. (4 ) Eac h pum p shal l b e checke db y visua l inspection , eac h calenda r week , fo r indication s o

f liquid s drippin g fro

m th e pum p seal

. I

f indication s o

f liquid s drippin g fromth e pump sea l ar e seen , the n alea k

i s detected

. (5 ) Eac h senso r

a s require di n § 60.482(a)(2 ) shal l b e checke ddail y o r shal l b e equippe dwiti i a n audibl e alarm

. Base do n desig n consideration s an d operatin g experience , acriterio n tha t indicate s failur e o

f di e sea l syste mo r di e barrie r

fluidsystem , o r

bot h shal l b e determine dfo

r eac h dua l mechanica l sea l system
. I

f thi s criterio n i s registere d b y di e sensor , alea k

i s detected

. (6) Whe n alea k

i s detected , i t

shal l b e repaire da s soo n a s practicable , bu t no t late r tha n 1 5 calenda r

day s afte r

i t i s detecte dexcep t

a s provide di n § 60.462(h)

. A firs t

attemp t a t repai r shal l b e mad e n o late r

dia n 5 calenda r day s afte r

eac h lea k

i s detected

. (7 ) An y pum p tha t

i s no t equippe da s require di n § 60.482(a)(1 ) shal l b e equippe dwiti i aclose dven t syste m capabl e o f transportin g an y leakag e fro mth e sea l t o a n enclose dcombustio n devic e designe dfo

r aminimu mVO C residenc e tim e o

f 0.7 5 second s a t

816° C o r t o avapo r

recover y syste mdesigne d fo r aminimu mo

f 9 5 percen t

captur e of th e VO C inpu t

to th e system
. Close d ven t systems , enclose dcombustio nP.2 1

115 4 Federa l Register . / Vol . 48 . No . 2 /

Monday . Januar /

5 , 138 1 /

Propose d Rule s device s and vapo r recovery system s use d t o compl y with thi s requirement- shal l b e operate d a

tal l time s whe n VO C emission s coul d occur . (8 ) An y pum

p diati s designate d as required in 5 60.488(d)(1 ) fo r emission s havin g a concentratio n o f les s tha n 20 0 pp m abov e background , a s determine d b y di e method s specifie d i n § 60.485(b) , i s exemo tfromih e requirements o f § 5 60.482(a)(lH7 ) i

f di e pump — (i) Ha s n o externall y actuate d shaf t penetratin g di e pum

p housing , (ii ) I s operate d wit

h emission s les s tha n 20 0 ppm v abov e background a s measure d b y di e method s specifie d i n I 60.485(b) . and (iii ) I s teste d fo

r complianc e with 5 60.482(a)(8)(ii ) annuall y an d atth e reques tof

di e Administrator . (9 ) Close d ven tsystems , enclose d combustio n devices , and vapo r recovery svstem s use d t

o compl y with §' § 60.48a(3 ) (ii ) and (iu ) shal l b e operate d a

tal l times whe n VO C emission s ma

y occur , (b ) Compressors . (1 ) Eac h compresso r shal l b e equippe d wit h a sea l syste m diatinclude s a barrier fluid syste m an d diatprevents leakag e o f proces s fluid t

o th e atmosphere , excep tas provide d in § 60.482(b)(6) . 5 60.482(b)(7) . o r § 60.482(j ) . (2 ) Eac h barrier fluid syste m a s required i n § 60.482(b)(1 ) shal l b e equippe d with a senso r diatwil l detec t failur e o f th e sea l system . Th

e barrier fluid shal l notb e a lighi liqui d o r gaseou s VO C (3 ) Eac h sea l svste m a s required i n I 60.482(b)(1 ) shal l be

— (i ) Operate d wit

h di e barrier flui d ata pressure diati s greate r dia n di e compresso r stuffing bo x pressure : (ii ) Equipped with a barrie r fluid syste m tha

ti s connecte d b

y a close d ven tsyste m t

o a n enclose d combustio n devic e designe d fo r a minimu m VO C residence time o

f 0.7 5 second s at818* C o r t o a vapo r recovery syste m designe d fo r a minimu

m o f 9 5 percentcaptur

e o f VO C inpu

tt o di e system : or (iii ) Equipped •Arit

h a syste m t

o purge , with n o VO C emissio n t

o atmosphere , di e barrier flui d int

o a proces s stream . (4 ) Eac h senso r a s required in

. 60.482(b)(2 ) shal l b e checke d dail y or shal l b e equippe d wit

h a n audibl e alarm . Base d o n desig n consideration s and operatin g experience , a criterio n dia t indicate s failur

e o f di e sea l system , the barrier fluid syste m o

r bot h shal l b e determine d fo

r each dua

l mechanical sea l system . I

f tiiis criterio n i s attaine d and i s registere d b

y th e sensor , a leak i s detected . (5 ) When a leak in detecte d itsnai l b e repaire d a s soo n a s practicable , bu tnot late r tha

n 1 5 calenda r day s afte r i

ti s detecte d excep ta s provide d i n § 60.482(h) . A firstattemp ta trepai r shal l b e mad e n o late r tha n 5 calenda r day s afte r eac h leak i s detected . (6 ) An y compresso r tha

ti s not equippe d a s required in § 60.482(b)(1 ) shal l b e equippe d with a close d ven t syste m capabl e o

f transportin g any leakag e fro

m di e sea l t

o a n enclose d combustio n devic e designe d for a minimu m VO C residenc e time o f 0.7 5 second s at816* C o

r t o a vapo r recover y syste m designe d fo

r a mtnimti

m o f 9 5 percen tcapture o

f VO C inpu

tt o tiie vapo r recovery system . Gose d ven t systems, enclose d combustio n device s an d vapo r recover y system s use d t o compl y witi i thi s requirementshal l b e operate d atal l times . (7 ) Eac h compresso r ma

ti s designate d a s required i n 3 60.438(d)(1 ) fo r concentration s o

f emission s les s ma

n 20 0 pp m abov e background , a s < i .•_rmine d b y di e method s specifie d in

. c0.485(b) , i s exemp tfro m th e requirements of

3 J 60.482(b)(lH6 ) i

f i ti s operate d wit

h emission s havin g concentration s o

f les s tha n 20 0 ppm

v abov e background , a s measure d b y th e method s specifie d I

n § 60.485(b ) an d i

f it i s teste d for complianc e annually . (8 ) Qose d ven tsystems, enclose d combustio n devices , an d vapo r recovery system s use d t

o compl y with § § 60.482(b)(3 ) (ii ] an d (iii ) shal l b e operate d a

tal l times whe n VO C emission s ma

y occur . (c ) Safety/relie f

valve s in gas/vapo r service . (1 ) Eac h safety/relie f

valv e in gas / vapo r servic e shal l b e operate d a ta stat e o f emission s havin g a concentratio n o

f les s than 20

0 pp m abov e background , a s determine d by Ui e method s specifie d in § 60.485(b) . excep t durin g pressure releases . (2) Each safety/relie f

valv e shal l b e returned t

o a stat e o

f emission s havin g a concentratio n o f

les s than 2C

0 ppm abov e background afte

r eac h emergency pressur e releas e a s soo n a s practicable , bu tn o late r dia n 5 calenda r days , after eac h episod e o

f pressure release. (d ) Sampling'systems . (1 ) Eac h samplin g syste m shal l b e equippe d with a close d purg e system . (2 ) Eac h close d purge , syste m a s required b y § 60.482(d)(1 ) shal l return th e purge d proces s fluid directl y t o th e proces s line , o

r shal l collec tth

e purge d proces s fluid fo

r recycl e o

r disposa l withou tVO C emission s t o th e atmosphere . (3 ) In-situ samplin g system s ar e exemp tfo r $ § 60.432(d)(1 ) and 12). _ _ (e) Open-ende d vaives . "* ~ (l ) Eac h open-ende d valv e shal l b e equippe d with a cap . blin d flange, piug . o r a secon d close d vaiv e whic h i s attache d t

o sea l th e ope n en d a tal l time s excep tdurin

g operation s requiring proces s flui d flo w throug h di e open * ende d line . (2 ) Eac h open-ende d valv e equippe d •.vit h a secon d valv e attache d i o the ope n en d o

f th e proces s vaive . a s require d i n 3 60.482(e)(1) . shal l b e operate d suc h tha

tth e proces s sid e valv e i s close d firs tafte r operation s requiring flo w throug

h di e open-ende d vaive . (f ) Valve s i n gas/vapo r servic e an d valve s i n ligh tliqui d service . (1 ) Eac h valv e shal l b e monitore d monthl y t o detec tleak s b y the method s specifie d i n § 60.485(a) . (2 ) I f a VO C concentratio n o

f 10.CC 0 ppm o r greate r i s measured , a lea k i s detected . (3 ) An y valv e for whic h a lea k i s not detecte d fo

r tw o successiv e month s ma y b e monitore d di e firstmont h o f every quarte r beginnin g wid i di e nex tquarte r b y the'metiiod s specifie d i n 3 60.435(a) until a lea k i s detected . I f a lea k i s detected , di e vaiv e shal l b e monitc red monthl y unti l a lea k i s no tdetecte d for tw o successiv e months . (4 ) Whe n a leak i s detecte d i tshal l b e repaired a s soo n a s practicable , bu tn o late r than 1 5 calenda r day s afte r iti s detecte d excep ta s provide d i n § 60.482(h) . A firstattemp tatrepair shal l b e mad e n o late r dia n 5 calenda r day s afte r eac h leak i s detected . (5 ) Firstattempts a

trepair include , bu

t ar e notLimite

d to . the followin g bes t mode m practice s i

f practicable : (i ) Tightenin g o

f bonne tboits . (ii ) Replacemen to

f bonne tbolts , (iii ) Tightenin g o

f packin g gian d nuts , (iv ) Injectio n o

f lubricantinto lubricate d packing . (6 ) An y vaiv e tha

ti s designate d a s required in 3 60.486(d)(1 ) fo r emission s havin g a concentratio n o f les s dia n _C

0 pp m abov e backgroun d a s determine d b y th e method s specifie d i n § 60.485(b ) ; s a.xemp tfro m th e requirement

s o f 3 3 60.4a2(f)(D an d (3

) i f the vaive — (i) Ha s n o externa l actuatin g mechanis m in contac twith di e proces s fluid : (ii ) I s operate d wit

h emission s havin g a concentratio n o

f les s dia n 2C

0 pp m abov e backgroun d a s determine d by the metho d specifie d i

n § 60.485(b) ; and (iii ) I s teste d fo

r complianc e with § 60.432(f-(6)(ii ) annuall y an d a tth e requesto f the Administrator . (3) Pumps and vaive s i

n heav y liqui d service , safety/relie f

vaive s in iigh : liqui d and heav y liqui d service , and flange s and othe r cormectors shal l b e monitore d withi n 5 day s by ths metho d specifie d i

n 1 S0.485(a

j i f evidenc e c : a potentia l lea k i s found by v-.suai .P.22 

### Federal Register

/ Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5,198 1 /

Propose dRule s 113 5 audible , olfactory , o

r an y othe r detectio n method , a s follows : (1 ) I f aVO C concentration , of 10.000 pp mo r greate r i s measured , alea k

i s detected

. (2) Whe n alea k

i s detected , i t

shal l b e repaire da s soo n a s practicable , bu t no t late r tha n I S calenda r

day s afte r

i t i s detected

. Th e firs t

attemp t a t repai r shal l b e mad e n o late r

tha n 5 calenda r day s afte r

eac h lea k

i s detected

. (h ) Dela y of

repair o f fugitiv e emissio n source s fo

r whic h leak s hav e bee n detecte dwil l b e allowe donl y i f the ' repai r i s technicall y infeasibl e withou t a complet e o r

partia l proces s uni t shutdown

. Dela y o

f repai r wil l no t b e allowe dbeyon daproces s uni t shutdown

. (i ) Complianc e wit h 5 1 60.48 2 (a) , (b)

. (c) , (d) , (e) , (f) , an d(h ) i n thi s subpar t shal l b e determine db y review o f record s an dinspection

. Complianc e wit h 5 § 60.48 2 (a)(8) , (b)(7) , (c) , an d(f)(6) shal l b e determine db y th e metiiod s specifie di n 3 60.485(b)

. Complianc e shal l b e achieve dwithi n 18 0 day s o f initia l startup
. (j ) A determinatio n o

f equivalenc e o

f alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n to th e requirement s o

f § § 60.48 2 (a) , (b) , (d) , (e)

. (f) , o r

(g ) ma y b e requeste da s provide di n § 60.484

. I

f th e Administrato r

determine s tha t

a n alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n i s a t leas t equivalen t

t o th e requirement s o f § § 60.48 2 (a) , (b)

. (d)

. (e)

. (f)

. o r (g)

. th e requirement s of

tha t determinatio n shal l apply

. § 60.48 3 Alto-nativ e standards

. (a ) Valve s i n gas/vapo r

an dvalve s i n light liqui dservice—allowabl e percentag e o

f valve s leaking

. (1 ) Afte r performin g amonthl y lea k detectio n an drepai r

progra mi n accordanc e wit h 5 § 60.482(f ) (1) , (2)

. (4)

. an d(5 ) fo r a t leas t twelv e months , a n owne r o r operato r ma y reques t

approva l fromth e Administrato r

t o compl y wit h a n allowable.percentag e o f valve s leakin g i n gas/vapo r

an dligh t liqui d service

. (2) Th e followin g requirement s shal l b e me t i f a n owne r

o r operato r wishe s t o compl y wit h a n allowabl e percentag e o f vaive s leaking

. (i) A n owne r

o r operato r mus t reques t approva l o

f th e Administrato r

t o compl y with a n allowabl e percentag e o f valve s leaking

. (ii ) A n owne r

o r operato r mus t hav e performe damonthl y lea k detectio n an d repai r progra min accordanc e wit h § 3 60.48 2 (f)

. (1)

. (2)

. (4) , an d(5 ) fo r a t leas t twelv e month s befor e areques t fo r approva l i s submitted

. (iii ) A reques t

o f approva l o

f a n allowabl e percentag e of

valve s leakin g mus t b e accompanie db y dat aand. , calculation s whic h describ e th e methodolog y use dfor

determinin g di e allowabl e percentag e of

valve s leaking

. (iv ) A performanc e tes t

a s specifie di n 3 60.483(a)(4 ) shal l b e conducte d annuall y an d a t

di e request

o f di e Administrator

. A writte n repor t of di e result s o f th e performanc e tes t

shal l b e submitte dt o th e Administrato r witiii n a tim e interva l specifie db y di e Administrator

. (v ) I f avalv e lea k

i s detected , a n attemp t mus t b e mad e t o repai r

it

. (3 ) Th e allowabl e percentag e o f leak s shal l b e determine db y addin g di e monthl y baselin e percentag e o f leak s demonstrate ddurin g di e las t si x months

unde r monthl y monitorin g an dth e monthl y incrementa l percentag e o f leak s whic h woul dhav e occure di f th e provision s o

f § 60.482(f)(3 ) ha dbee n followed

. (i ) Th e monthl y baselin e percentag e of leak s shal l b e determine db y obtainin g a monthl y averag e o f

th e percentag e o

f leak s foun di n a n affecte dfacility durin g di e Las t si x month s o f

operatio n unde r monthl y monitoring

. (ii ) Th e monthl y incrementa l percentag e o

f leak s shal l b e determine d b y averagin g th e percentag e o f valve s fo r whic h leak s ha dbee n detecte di n di e secon dan dthir dmonth s of di e las t tw o quarter s bu t

whic h ha dno t

bee n detecte ddurin g th e firs t

month s o

f di e las t tw o quarters
. (iii ) A percentag e of

leak s shal l b e determine db y dividin g di e tota l numbe r o f leak s b y th e tota l numbe r o f valve s i n a n affecte dfacility , excludin g thos e leak s for whic h repai r

ha s bee n delaye d becaus e aproces s uni t

shutdow n woul d b e requireda s provide di n 3 60.482(h ) an dexcludin g thos e valve s whic h ar e complyin g wit h th e provision s o f § 60.482(f)(6)

. (4) Performanc e test s shal l b e conducte di n th e followin g manner . (i ) Al l valve s withi n th e affecte d facility shal l b e monitore db y th e method s specifie di n § 60.485(a)

. (ii ) I f aVO C concentratio n o

f 10,000 ~ pp mo r greate r i s measured , alea k

i s detected

. (iii ) Th e lea k

percentag e shal l b e determine db y dividin g th e numbe r o f valve s for

whic h leak s ar e detecte db y th e numbe r

o f valve s withi n th e affecte d facility , excludin g valve s fo r whic h repai r ha s bee n delaye dbecaus e a proces s uni t

shutdow n woul db e required , an dexcludin g thos e whic h ar e complyin g wit h th e provision s o f § 60.482(f)(6)

. — (iv ) Fo r thos e valve s fo

r whic h repai r ha s bee n delaye dbecaus e aproces s uni t shutdow n woul db e required , record s o f attempte drepai r

mus t b e provide da t th e reques t of Uie.Administrator

. 

### Record s o f attempte drepai r fo r those valve s for

whic h repai r

ha s bee n delaye dshal l b e kep t

fo r tw o years . (5)(i ) Th e AHministrato r

wil l eithe r approv e o r

disapprov e th e reques t

fo r th e us e o f th e alternativ e standar d withi n ninet y day s afte r

th e reques t

i s submitted

. (ii ) I f th e Administrato r

denie s di e us e o f thi s alternative , th e owne r o r operato r wii l b e notifie do

f di e reason s for

th e denial

. (iii ) I f th e Administrato r

i s reviewin g a reques t fo r th e us e o

f thi s alternativ e a s specifie di n 5 § 60.483(a) (1 ) an d(2)

. additiona l informatio n ma y b e requeste dof

th e owne r

o r operato r seekin g approva l o

f tiiis option

. (iv ) Unti l thi s alternativ e i s approved , th e owne r

o r operato r shal l b e subjec t

to di e requirement s of

§ 60.482(f)

. (6 ) Th e reportin g provision s o f 5 5 60.487(b) , (2) , (3)

. (4J , (5)

. (6 ) an d(9 ) woul dno t

appl y to owner s o r

operator s complyin g wit h a n allowabl e percentag e o f valve s leaking

. (b ) Valve s i n gas/vapo r

an dvalve s i n ligh t liqui dservice—alternativ e work practices

. (1 ) Afte r performin g amonthl y lea k detectio n an drepai r

progra mi n accordanc e wit h § § 60.482(f) , (1) , (2) , (4) an d(5 ) for

a t leas t twelv e months , a n owne r o r operato r ma y reques t

approva l o f di e administrato r

t o compl y wit h a n alternativ e wor k

practic e for

valve s in gas/vapo r

an dvaive s i n ligh t

liqui d servic e whic h differ s fro mth e work practic e requiredi n 5 5 60.482(f ) (1 ) an d (3)

. (2 ) Th e followin g requirement s shal l b e me t i f a n owne r

o r operato r wishe s t o compl y wit h a n optiona l wor k practice

. (i) A n owne r

o r operato r mus t reques t approva l o

f th e Administrato r

to compl y witi i a n optiona l work

practic e standard

. (ii ) A n owne r

o r operato r mus t hav e performe damonthl y lea k detectio n an d repai r progra min accordanc e wit h 5 5 60.432(f

) (1)

. (2) , (4 ) an d(5 ) fo

r twelv e month s before areques t for approva l i s submitted

. (iii ) A reques t

fo r approva l o

f a n optiona l wor k

practic e standar dmus t

b e accomplishe db y dat aan dcalculation s showin g dia t

th e optiona l wor k

practic e complie s wit h th e requirement s o f 5 60.487(b)(3)

. (3 ) Th e optiona l wor k

practic e progra mshal l b e designe dto accomplis h th e emissio n reductio n associate dwith di e require dprogra min 5 5 60.482(l)(f)

. (2) , (3) , (4 ) an d(5)

. T o demonstrat e thi s reduction , a n owne r

o r operato r shai l determin e th e lea k

occurrenc e an d recurrenc e fo

r eac h program . Thes e dat a shal l b e use dto sho w tha t th e expecte dP.2 3

115 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 46 . No . 2 /

Monday , Januar y 5 . 198 1 / Propose d Rule s percentag e o

f valve s leakin g i n die

affecte d facility under di e optiona l progra m i s equa l t

o or les s than di e expecte d percentag e o

f valve s leakin g under di e require d program . (4) (i ) Th e Administrato r ma y den y di e us e o f thi s optio n fo

r an y owne r o

r operato r withi n 9 0 day s o f th e reques t fo r approval . I

f disapproval i s no tgive n withi n 90 day s o

f di e requestfo

r approval , th e reques ti s approved . (ii ) I f the Administrato r denie s di e us e o f thi s option , di e owne r o r operato r wil l b e notifie d o

f di e reason s fo r th e denia l (iii ) I f di e Administrato r i s reviewin g a reques tfo

r di e us e o

f thi s alternativ e a s specifie d i n 3 3 60.483(a) (1 ) an d (2) . additional informatio n ma y b e requeste d o

f di e owne r or operato r 

### seekin g approva l o f

thi s alternative . (iv ) Until thi s alternativ e i s approved . th e owne r o

r operato r shal l b e subjectt o th e requirement

s o f § 60.482(f) . § 60.484 Equivalenc

e o f alternativ e means o temissio n limitation. (a ) Eac h owne r o

r operato r subjec tt

o the provision s o

f thi s subpartma

y apply t o th e Administrato r for determinatio n o f equivalenc e fo

r any alternativ e mean s o f emissio n limitatio n ma t achieve s a reductio n i n emission s o f VO C a tleas tequivalen tt o di e reductio n i n emission s o

f VO C achieve d b y di e control s required i n § 3 60.482 (aj , (b) , (d) . (e) . (f) . and (g) . (b ) Determinatio n o

f equivalenc e t

o di e equipmen trequirements o f § 5 60.482 (a) , (b) , (d) . an d (e ) wii l b e evaluate d b y di e followin g guidelines : (1 ) Eac h owne r o

r operato r applyin g fo r a n equivalenc e determinatio n shal l b e responsible fo

r collectin g and verifyin g tes tdata t

o demonstrate equivalenc e o

f any alternativ e mean s o f emissio n limitatio n t

o di e requirements o f § 5 60.482 (a) , (b) . (d) , o r (e) . (2 ) The Administrato r wii l compare tes tdat a fo r di e alternativ e mean s c f emissio n limitatio n t

o tes tdata fo

r '-heequipmen trequirement

s ot3 3 60.482 (a) , (b) . (d) . o r (e) . (3 ) The Administrato r may conditio n di e approval o

f equivalenc e o n requirements tha

tma y b e necessar y t

o assur e operatio n an d maintenanc e t o achiev e the sam e emissio n reduction a s th e requirements o

f 5 5 60.482 (a) , (b) , (d) , o r (e) . ic ) Determinatio n o

f equivalenc e t

o di e wor k practice s required in 3 60.482(f ) ••vti l b e evaluate d b

y di e followin g guidelines : (1 ) Eac h owne r o

r operato r applyin g fo r a determinatio n o

f equivalenc e shal l b e responsibl e fo

r collectin g and verifying tes tdata t

o demonstrate equivalenc e o

f a n alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n t o Uie'requirement

s o f 3 60.482(f) . (2 ) Fo r eac h affecte d facility fo r whic h a determinatio n o

f equivalenc e i s requested , di e emissio n reductio n achieve d b y the requirements c f 5 60.432(f ) shal l b e demonstrate d fo r a minimu m perio d o

f 1 2 months . A quantitativ e performance leve l shal l b e determine d diatdescribe s the emissio n reductio n achieve d b y di e requirements o f 5 60.482(f) . (3 ) Fo r eac h affecte d facility , di e emissio n reductio n achieve d by an y alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n shal l b e demonstrated . (4 ) Eac h owne r o

r operato r applyin g fo r a determinatio n o

f equivalenc e shal l commi tt o complianc e with a 

### performanc e thatprovide s foremissio n reduction s equa

l t o or greate r tha

n th e emissio n reduction s achievabl e b y di e requirement

s of 5 60.482(f) . (5 ) Th e Administrato r wil l compar e the demonstrate d emissio n reduction fo r di e alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n t

o the demonstrate d emissio n reductio n fo

r di e wor k practice s required i n 5 60.482(f

) and.wii l conside r di e commitmenti n § 60.484(c)(4) . (6 ) Th e Administrato r ma

y conditio n di e approval o

f equivalenc e o n requirement

s tha tmay b e necessar y t

o assur e operatio n an d maintenanc e t o achiev e th e sam e emissio n reductio n a s Ui e requirements o

f 5 60.482(f) . (d) Afte r a reques tfor determinatio n o f equivalenc e i s received , th e Administrato r wil l publis h a notic e i n th e Federal Registe r and provid e th e opportunit

y fo r publi c hearing . Afte r notic e an d opportunit

y fo r publi c hearing , th e Administrato r wil l determin e di e equivalenc e o f a n alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n and wil l publis h di e determinatio n in th e Federa l Register . § 60.485 Tea

tmethod s an

d procedures . lac h owne r or operato r subjec tt o th e provision s o

f tiiis subpar

tshal l compl y with th e followin g tes tmetiio d an d procedure requirements: (a) Fugitiv e emissio n monitorin g a s require d i n § 60.482(f

) shal l compl y with di e followin g requirements. (1 ) Monitoring shal l compl y with Referenc e Metho d 21 . (2 ) Th e VO C detectio n instrument shal l mee tth e performance criteri a o f Referenc e Metho d 21 . (3) The instrumentshal l b e calibrate d before us e o n di e day o

f its us e by di e method s specifie d i n Metho d 21 . (4 ) Calibratio n gase s shal l be : _ _ (i) Zer o ai r (les s tha

n 3 pp m o f VO C L a air) : an d (ii ) A mixture o f methan e an d ai r a

ta concentratio n o

f approximatel y 10.CQ

0 " ppm v methane . (5) Th e instrumen tprob e shal l b e traverse d aroun d ai l potentia l leak interface s a s clos e t

o di e interfac e a s possibl e a s describe d i

n Referenc e Metho d 21 . (b) Whe n fugitiv e emissio n source s ar e teste d fo

r emission s havin g a concentratio n o

f les s than 200 ppm abov e backgroun d a s reauire d i n 5 5 60.482 (a) , (b) , (c) . an d (f) . th e testin g shal l compl y with di e fallowin g requirements: (1 ) Th e requirements of

53 60.485(a) (1) . (2) . an d (3) shal l appiy . (2) The backgroun d leve l shal l b e determined , a s se tfort

h i n Referenc e Metho d 21 . (3 ) Th e instrumen tprob e shal l b e traverse d aroun d al l potentia l lea k interface s a s clos e t

o th e interfac e a s possibl e a s descnoe d i n Referenc e Metho d 21 . (4 ) Th e provision s o

f 3 60.3(f ) do not appi y t o affecte d facultie s subjec tt o th e provision s o

f thi s subpar t (c ) A fugitiv e emissio n sourc e i s i n ligh tliqui d servic e i

f th e followin g condition s apply : (1 ) Th e vapo r pressure o f on e o r mor

e o f th e component s i s greate r tiiao 0.3 kP a a t20"C. Vapo r pressure s may b e obtaine d fro

m standar d referenc e text s o r ma y b e determine d b y AST M Metho d D-2879 . (2 ) Th e tota l concentratio n of di e pur e component s havin g a vapo r pressur e greate r tha

n 0. 3 kP a at20* C i s equal t

o o r greate r than 1 0 percen tb y weight : and (3) Th e flui d i s a Liqui

d a toperatin g conditions . (d ) Fo r purpose s of

determinin g di e percen tVO C in di e proces s flui d withi n a fugutive emissio n source , procedure s tha tconfor m t o the genera l method s describe d in AST

M aetiiod s E-260 . E 168 . an d E-16 9 shal l b e used . (Se c 11 4 ot " th e Cea n Ai r Ac tas amende

d (4 2 U.S. C -414J

) 5 60.488 Recordkeepin

g requirements . Eac h owne r o

r operato r subjec tt

o th e provision s of

thi s subpar

tshal l compl y with the followin g recordkeeping requirements. (a) Whe n eac h lea k i s detecte d a s specifie d in 5

5 60.482 (a) , (b) . (f) . and (gj : th e followin g recordkeepin g requirements apply : (1 ) Weatherproo f

and readii y visibl e identification , marked '-vit h di e sourc e identificatio n number , shal l b e attache d t o ti e leakin g source . (i ) Th e identificatio n ma y b e remove d i f the fugitiv e emissio n sourc e ha s bee n monitore d fo r tw o successiv e month s a sP.2 4


### Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 46 . No . 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5 . 198 1 /

Propose d Rule s 115 7 specifie di n 5 60.482(f)(3 ) an dn o lea k ha s bee n detecte ddurin g thos e tw o months

. (b ) Whe n eac h lea k

i s detecte da s specifie di n 5 5 60.48 2 (a) , (b) , (f)

. an d(g) , th e followin g informatio n shal l b e recorde di n alo g an dshal l b e kep t fo r tw o year s i n areadil y accessibl e location : (1 ) Th e instrumen t

an doperato r identificatio n number s an dth e fugutiv e emissio n sourc e identificatio n number

. (2 ) Th e dat e di e lea k

wa s detecte d an ddi e date s of

eac h attemp t

t o repai r di e leak

. (3 ) Repai r method s applie di n eac h attemp t to repair th e leak

. (4) "Abov e 10,000 " i

f th e maximu m VOC'concentration s measure db y th e method s specifie di n 3 60.485(a) afte r eac h repai r

attemp t i s greate r

tha n 10.00 0 ppm . (5 ) "Repai r

delayed " i

f alea k i s no t repaire dwithi n 1 5 calenda r day s afte r discover y o

f th e leak

. (6 ) Th e signatur e o

f th e owner / operato r whos e decisio n i t

wa s tha t repai r coul dno t

b e effecte dwithou t

a proces s shutdown

. (7 ) Th e expecte ddat e of

successfu l repair o f th e lea k i f alea k i s no t repaire dwithi n 1 5 days

. (8 ) Th e dat e o

f successfu l repair

o f th e leak

. (c ) Th e followin g informatio n pertainin g t o th e desig n requirement s for close dven t

systems , enclose d combustio n devices , an dvapo r recover y system s requiredi n 3 5 60.48 2 (a ) an d(b ) shal l b e recorde dan dkep t i n areadil y accessibl e location : (1 ) Detaile dschematics , desig n specifications , an dpipin g an d instrumentatio n diagrams

. (2 ) Th e date s an ddescription s o f an y change s i n th e desig n specifications

. (3 ) Period s whe n di e enclose d combustio n device s an dvapo r recovery system s require di n 5 § 60.48 2 (a ) an d(b ) ar e no t functionin g a s designe dan d date s o f startup s an dshutdowns

. (d ) Th e followin g infonnatio n pertainin g t o al l fugitiv e emissio n source s subjec t

t o th e requirements i n 5 3 60.48 2 (a) , (b) , (c)

. an d(f ) shal l b e recorde di n alo g tha t

i s kep t i n areadil y accessibl e location : (1 ) A lis t o f identificatio n number s fo r fugutiv e emissio n source s tha t ar e designate dfo

r emission s havin g a concentratio n o

f les s tha n 200 pp m abov e backgroun dunde r th e provision s o f 5 5 60.48 2 (a)(8) , (b)(7)

. an d(f)(7)

. Th e designatio n o

f thes e source s a s subjec t to di e requirement s o

f 5 5 60.48 2 (a)(8) , (b)(7)

. o r (f)(6) shal l b e signe db y di e owne r o r operator
. (2 ) A lis t o f sourc e identificatio n number s fo

r safety/relie f

valve s require db y § 60.482(c ) to mee t n o detectabl e emissions

. (3 ) Th e date s o

f eac h verificatio n tes t fo r "n o detectabl e emissions " statu s a s determine db y th e mediod s specifie di n § 60.485(b)

. (4 ) Th e backgroun dleve l measure d durin g eac h verificatio n tes t a s require d i n 5 60.485(b)

. (5 ) Th e maximu mVO C concentratio n measure da t

th e sourc e durin g eac h verificatio n tes t

a s require di n § 60.485(b)

. (e ) Th e followin g informatio n shal l b e recorde di n alo g tha t

i s kep t i n areadil y accessibl e location : (1 ) th e desig n criterio n requiredi n 5 60.482(a)(5 ) an d 5 60.482(b)(4) , an d(2

) an y change s t o thi s criterio n an dth e reasons fo r thi s change

. (f ) Th e provision s o

f 5 § 60.7(b ) an d(d) d o no t appl y t o affecte dfacilitie s subjec t t o th e provision s o

f thi s subpart

. (Sec

. 114 o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t a s amende d(4

2 U.S. C 7414)

) § 60.48 7 Reportin g requirements . Eac h owne r

o r operato r subjec t t o th e provision s o

f thi s subpar t

shal l compl y wit h di e followin g reportin g requirements

. (a ) A summar y o

f th e informatio n recordeda s require di n 5 60.486(b ) shal l b e reportedquarterl y to th e Administrator

. (b ) Quarterl y report s a s require di n § 60.487(a) shal l b e simila r t o th e form s a s show n i n Figure s 1

. 2

. 3 , an d4 an d

. shal l includ e di e followin g information : (1 ) Proces s uni t

identification

. (2) Numbe r

o f valve s i n th e proces s uni t excludin g dios e designate dfo r emission s havin g aconcentratio n o f les s dia n 200 pp mabov e backgroun dunde r th e provision s o

f 5 60.482(f)(5)

. (3 ) Numbe r

o f valve s fo r

whic h leak s wer e detecte db y di e monitorin g metho d specifie di n 5 60.485(a) durin g eac h mont h o f th e reportin g quarter
. (4 ) Numbe r

o f valve s repaired

. (5 ) Numbe r

o f valve s no t

repaired withi n 1 5 day s a s require di n 5 60.482(f)(4)

. (6 ) Reason s for

non-repai r

o f valve s withi n 1 5 day s a s requiredi n 5 60.482(f)(4) . (7 ) Numbe r

o f pump s fo

r whic h leak s wer e detecte ddurin g th e reporting quarte r a s specifie din § § 60.482(a)(4 ) an d(a)(5)

. (8 ) Numbe r

of compressor s fo

r whic h leak s wer e detecte ddurin g th e reportin g quarte r a s specifie di n 5 60.482(b)(4)

. —. (9 ) Statemen t

signe db y di e owne r

o r operato r statin g whethe r

al l provision s o f 40 CF R60 Subpar t

W ha dbee n fulfille ddurin g di e reportin g quarter
. (c ) Th e provision s of 5 60.8(d ) d o no t appl y t o affecte dfacilitie s subjec t t o th e provision s o

f thi s subpart

. (d) In di e firs t

repor t submitte da s required , i n 8 § 60.487(a) , th e report shal l includ e areportin g schedul e statin g di e month s tha t

quarterl y report s shal l b e submitted

. Subsequen t

report s shal l b e submitte daccordin g t o tha t schedul e unles s arevise dschedul e ha s bee n submitte di n apreviou s quarterl y report
. (Sec

. 11 4 o f di e Clea n Ai r Ac t a s amende d(4

2 U.S.C.7414) ) amin o coo e SS«O-M- Mfigur e 2 SUMMAR Y STAMSriC S FO

R LEA H DETECTIO N AII O REPAI R REQUIRtHENT S U F 4 0 CFH Par t 60 . Subpar t VV . f60.4B4(t> )

I . Proces s Uni t Main e (on e repor t require d fu r eac h affecte d facility) 2 . Hunke r o f valve s covere d unde r th e l< j an d repai r program . 3 . N_ir_>e r o f valve s foun d leakin g durin g reportin g period . 4 . Nunlie r o f leakin g valve s durin g th e reportin g per l 5 . ' Nuirbe r o f pimp s foun d reportin g period . 6 . Nup_>e r o f totipress o th e reportin g perio d

E L ( D ( A1 .

2 . 3 . Figur e 3

INFORMATION

REQUIRE D BY 4 0 CF R Par t 60 . Subpar t VV . §60.484(b)(6 ) FO R LEAKING VALVE S NO T REPAIRE D WITHI N I S DAY S

Proces s Uni t Name

(b ) Off-lin e repa1r\e < in-servic e v (c ) Othe r (Explai n Dat e o f nex t Tota l numbe

r of valve s not re<$a>«£ d m^fn 1 5 day

s Numbe r o f valve s no t repa^jJ^tipX^fTij/fo l lowin g reasons , (a ) Ne wpart s require d Critical , impossible .

_..
_>_•--v

- - f° r non-repair ) \c"1te4irr&^turn-aroun d o r shutdown

Signatur e o f Plan t Manage r o r Manage r Designat e

BILLIN G COD E SSSO-26- C figur e 4

CERTIFICATIO N A S REQUIRE D I

N §60.484(b)(10 )

I hereb y certif y

tha t proces s un i
oy
_ (company name ) (city , state ) i n complianc e wit h th e

owne d (operated )

(ha s been/ha s no t been) ' requirement s o f Subpart V \ 4JJXj : 'K£ir t 6 0 whic h contain s Standard s o f Performinc e fo r Ne

wSti^tlijn^yNibljVce s I n th e Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin g Ind u Al l require d eViVm__x'an d contro l device s hav e bee n operate d an d maintaine d Ui\c\np l 1a\ / wit h th e standards . Al l require d wor l practice s hav e beep^ro i ity^-^Mon l torln g ha s bee n don e as specifie d i n Metho d 21 . Al l rjrfur

f p£< ^ r£_Vr*_ s hav e bee n mad

e an d ar e kep t 1n

_ (locatio n i n plant ) _fo r revie wb

y EPA .

(signatur e o f owne r o r operator )

(title ) (date ) - • 1 

### 2 L C B 

# l J O
c o 

### < o 2 5 p 

# s O 

### a w

C O C D

o T » O C O C O O 5>0 B. C D C O

CJ l C DP.2 7



### 116 0 Federa l Registe r /

Vo L 48

. No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar y 5.198 1 / Propose dRule s 4

. B y adding Reference Metho d2 1 t o Appendix A a s follows : Appendi x A

—Reference method s Method 21 . Determination o f Volatil e Organic Compoun d Leak s 1 . Applicability and

Principle 1. 1 Applicability . Thi

s metho d applie s t

o the determinatio n •: ' volatil e organi c compound (VO C Ons from organi c proces s equipmen tThes e ...urce s include , bu tar e not limite d to . vaive. . tiange s and othe r connections , pump s an

d compressors , pressure reiief

devices , proces s drains , open ende d vaives . pum

p and compresso r sea i syste m degassin g vents , accumulato r vesse l vents , and acces s doo r seals . 1_

_Principle . A portabl e instrumenti s use d t o detec tVO C leak s from individual sources . The instrumen

tdetecto r i s no t specified , bu

ti tmustmee tth e specification s an d performanc

e criteria containe d i n paragrap h 2.1 . 2. Apparatus 2. 1 Monitorin

g instrumen tTh

e monitoring instrumen

tshall b e a s follows : 2.1. 1 Specifications . a . Th e VO C instrumen

tdetecto r snai l respon d t o the organi c compound s bein g processed . Detector s whic h ma y mee tthi s requiremen

tinclude , bu

tar e notlimite d to . catalyti c oxidation , flam

e ionization , infrared absorption , an

d photoionization . b . The instrumen

tshal l b e intrinsicall y saf e fo r operatio n in explosiv e atmosphere s a s define d b y th e applicabl e U.S- A Standard s (e.g. . National Electrica

l Cod e by th e Nationa l Tir e Preventio n Association) . c The instrumen

tshall b e abl e to measure th e leak definitio n concentratio n specifie d i n th e regulation . d. Th e instrumen

tshal l b e equippe d wit

h a pum p s o tha ta continuou s sampl e i s provide d t o th e detector . Th

e nomina l sampi e flow rate shall b e 1-3 liters pe

r minute . e . Th e scal e o f th e instrumen

tmete r shal l b e readabl e t

o __ a percen to f th e specifie d leak definitio n concentration . 2.1. 2 Performanc

e Criteria . The instrumen tmus tmeetthe followin g performanc

e criteria . Th

e definition s an d evaluatio n procedures fo

r eac h parameter ar

e give n i n Sectio n 4 . 2.1.2. 1 Th

e instrumen

trespons e tim

e mus t b e 3 0 second s or less . Th

e respons e time mus t b e determine d for th

e instrumen

tsyste m configuratio n t

o b e use d durin

g testing , including dilutio n equipmen tTh e us e o f a syste m wit

h a shorter respons e tim

e tha n tha t specifie d wil l reduc

e die tim e require d fo r Rei d componentsurveys . 2.1.2-2 Calibration Precision : Th e calibratio n precision.mus tb e les s tha n o r equa l t o 10 percento

f the calibratio n ga s value . 2.1-2. 3 Qualit y Assurance . Th

e instrumen

t shal l b e subjecte d t

o respons e time an

d calibratio n precisio n tests prio r t o bein g place d in service . Th

e calibratio n precisio n tes tsnai l b e repeate d ever y 6 month s thereafter . I

f an y modificatio n or replacemen t o f th e instrumen

tdetecto r i s required , the instrumen tshal l b e reteste d an d a ne w a mont h qualit y assuranc e tes tschedul e wil l apply . The respons e time tes tshal l b e repeate d i f an y modification s t

o th e sampi e pumpin g syste m or flow configuratio n i s mad e tha twoui d chang e th e respons e time . 2. 3 Calibratio n Gases . Th e monitoring instrumen ti s calibrate d i n term

s o f part s pe r million b y volum e (ppmv

) o f th e compoun d specifie d i

n th e applicabl e regulation . Th e calibratio n gase s required fo r monitoring an d instrumen tperformanc

e evaluatio n ar

e a zer o ga s (air . 3 ppm

v VOC ) an d a calibratio n ga s in ai r mixtur e approximatel y equal t

o the leak definitio n specifie d in the regulation . I f cylinde r calibratio n ga s mixture s ar e used , the y mustb e analyze d and certifie d by th e maafacturer t

o b e withi n HZ percen t accuracy . Calibratio n gase s ma y b e prepare d by th e use r accordin g t

o an y accepte d gaseou s standard s preparatio n procedur e tha twil l yiel d a mixture accurat e t o withi n

__ 2 percen tAlternativ e calibratio n ga s specie s ma

y b e use d i n plac e o f

th e calibratio n compound i

f a relativ e respons e facto r fo r eac h instrumen

ti s determine d s o tha tcalibration s wit

h the alternativ e specie s ma y b e expresse d a s calibratio n compound equivalent s o n th e meter readou t ..Procedures 3. 1 Calibration . Assembl e an d startu p th e VOC analyze r an

d recorder accordin g t

o the manufacturer' s instructions . Afte r th e appropriat

e warmn p perio d an d zero o

r interna l calibratio n procedure , introduce di e calibratio n ga s int

o the instrumen

tsampi e probe . Adjus tdi e instrumen tmete r readou tt

o correspon d t

o th e calibratio n ga s value . I f a dilutio n apparatus i s used , calibratio n mus tinclud e the instrumentan d dilutio n apparatus assembly . The nomina l dilutio n facto r ma y b e use d t

o establis h a scal e facto r fo r convertin g t

o a n undilute d basis . Fo

r example , i

f a nomina

l io n dilutio n apparatu s i s used , the mete r reading fo r a 10.000 pp

m calibratio n woui d b e se ta t1.000 . Durin

g field surveys , the scal e facto r o f 1 0 woui d b e use d t o convertmeasurement

s t o a n undilute d basis . 3. 2 Individua

l Source Surveys . 3.2. 1 Cas e I—Lea

k Definitio n Base d o n Concentratio n Value . Plac e th e prob e inle tat th e surface o

f th e componentinterfac e wher e leakag e coui d occur . Move the prob e alon g th e interfac e peripher

y whil e observin g the instrumen treadou tI

f a n increase d mete r reading i s observed , slowl y prob e th e interface wher e leakag e i s indicate d until the maximu m mete r reading i s obtained . Leav e th e prob e inleta

tthi s maximu

m readin g location s for approximately tw o times the instrumen trespons e time, i

f th s maximu

m observe d mete r reading i s greater thatthe leak definitio n i n th

e applicabl e regulation , recor d and repor

tthe resulta s specifie d i a th e regulatio n reportin

g requirements . Example s o

f the applicatio n o

f this general techniqu e t

o specifi c equipmen

ttype s are : a . Valves—Th e mostcommon sourca o f leak s from vaive s i s a tth e sea i betwee n th

e ste m and housing . Ptac

e the prob e a

tth e interface wher e the stem exist s the packin g glan d an d sampl e th e stem circumference . Also , plac e th

e prob e a tthe interfac e o

f the packing giaa d take-up flang e sea tan d sampi e th e periphery . I

n addition , survey valv e housing s o

f multipar tassembl y a

tth e surface o f ai l interface s where leak s ca n occur . b . Flange s an d Othe r Connections—frf r .veitie d flanges, place s th e prob e atthe oute r edg e o f th e flange-gaske tinterfac e an d sampi e around the circumferenc e o f th e flange . Sampi e othe r type s o f nonpermanent joints (such a s threade d connections ) wit h a simila r traverse . c. Pump s an d Compressors—Canduc ta circumferentia

l travers e a

tth e oute r surfac e o f the pum p o r compresso r shaf

tan d sea i interface . I

f th e sourc e i s a rotatin g shaf t positio n th

e prob e inletwithi n on e centimete r o f the shaft-sea l interfac e fo r the survey , if the housin g configuratio n prevents a complet e travers e o

f the shaf tperiphery , sampl e al l accessibl e portions . Sampl e al l othe r joint

s o n th e pum

p or compresso r housin g wher e leakag e ca n occur . d . Pressure Relie

f Devices—Th e configuratio n o

f mos tpressur e relie f

device s prevent s samplin g a

ttiie sealin g sea t 

### interface

. Fo

r thos e device s equippe dwit h a n enclose d extension , or horn , plac e the prob e inle ta tapproximatel y th

e cente r o f the exhaus tare a to th e atmosphere for sampling . e . Proces s Drains—fo r ope n drains , ptac e th a prob e inle ta

tapproximatel y th e cente r o f the are a ope n t

o th e atmosphere fo

r sampling . Fo r covere d drains , place'th e prob e a tthe surfac e o f the cove r interface an d conduc ta periphera l traverse . f . Open-Ende d Line s or Valves—Plac e th e prob e inle tatapproximatel y the cente r o f th e openin g to th e atmosphere for sampling . g . Sea i Syste m Degassin g Vent s an d Accumulato r Vents—Place the prob e inle ta t approximatel y the cente r o f the openin g t

o the atmospher e for sampling . h . Asses s Doo r Seals—Plac e tir e prob e inle t a tth e surfac e o

f th e doo r sea l interfac e an d conduc ta periphera

l traverse . 3.2-2 . Cas e II-Lea

k Devinitio n Baae d o n "N O Detectabl e Emission" . a . Determin e the loca l ambient concentratio n aroun

d th e sourc e by movin g th e prob e inle trandomly upwin d an d downwin d a

tdistanc e o

f on e t o tw o meters fro m th e source . I

f a n interferenc e exist s with thi s determinatio n due t

o a nearb y emissio n o r ieak . th e local ambientconcentratio n may b e determine d a

tdistance s close r t

o the source , bu

tin n o cas e snai l th

e distanc e be . les s dia n 23 centimeters . Not e the ambien t concentratio n and then move the prob e inlet t o th e surfac e o

f the sourc e and conducta survey a s describe d i

n 3-2.1 . I f a concentratio n increas e greater tha n 2 percent o f th e concentration-base d lea k definitio n i s obtained , recor

d an d repor

tth e results a s specifie d b y th e regulation . b . Fo r thos e case s where th e regulatio n require s a specifi c devic e installation , o r tha t specifie d vent s b e ducte d or pipe d t o a contro l device , the existenc e o f thes e condition s shal l b e visuall y confirmed . When th e regulatio n als o requires that'no detectabl e emission s exis tvisua l observation s an

d sampling survey s ar

e required . Examples o

f this techniqu e are : L Pum p o r Compresso r Seals—I

f applicable , determin e th

e typ e o f shaf tseal . Perfor m a survey o

f th e loca l are a ambient VO C concentratio n and determin e i f detectabl e emission s exis ta s describe d i n ' 3 2 2.a . ii . Sea i syste m degassin g vents , accumulato r vesse l vents , pressure reliefP.2 8



### • Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 46. -No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar

y 5

. 198 1 J

Propose dRule s 116 1
devices—I f

applicable , observ e whethe r or - no tth e applicabl e ducting o

r piping exists . Also , determin e i

f an y source s exis tin th e ductin g or pipin

g wher e emission s coul d occu r prior t

o the control device . I

f the required ducting or piping exist s an d ther e are n o source s o

f where th e emission s coul d b e vente d t

o the atmosphere prio

r t o th e contro l device , the

n i ti s presume d tha

tn o detectabl e emission s ar

e present . 4. Instrument

Performance

Evaluation Procedures 4. 1 Definitions . 4.1. 1 Calibratio n Precision . Th e differenc e berwee n the averag e VO C concentratio n indicate d by the mete r readoutfo r consecutiv e repetition s an d the kno w concentratio n o

f a tes tga s mixture . 4.1. 2 Respons e time . The time interva l fro m a ste p chang e i n VO C concentratio n a t the inputo

f the samplin g syste m t

o th e tim e a twhic h 9 0 percento

f th e correspondin g fina

l valu e i s reache d a s displaye d o n th e instrumentreadoutmeter . 4. 2 Evaluatio n Procedures . A tth e .. . beginnin g o

f the instrumen

tperformanc

e evaluatio n tes tassembl e and star tu p the instrumentaccordin g t

o th e manufacturer' s instruction s fo

r recommende d warmu

p perio d and preliminar

y adjustments . I

f a dilutio n apparatu s i s use d durin

g fiel d surveys , the evaluatio n procedure mustb e performed o n the instrument-dilutio n syste m combination . '4.2.1 . Calibratio n Precisio n Test . Mak e a tota l o f nin e measurements by alternatel y usin g zero ga s an d th e specifie d calibratio n gas . Recor

d th e mete r reading s (exampl e dat a shee tshow n in Figur

e 21-1) . 4.2-2 Respons e time Tes tProcedure . Introduce zero ga s int

o the instrumen

tsampl e probe . When the mete r readin g ha s stabilized , switc h quickly t o the specifie d calibratio n gas . Measure the time fro m concentratio n switchin g t o 9 5 percento

f fina l stabl e reading . Perfor

m thi s tes tsequenc e three time s and recor

d th e results (exampl e data shee tgive n i n Figur e 21-2) . 4. 3 Calculations . Al l result s ar e expresse d a s mea n values , calculate d by : 

## 1 a n

r 

### i = 1 * :

i Where : X « . VALU E O F TH E MESUREMCMTS . 2

_ _Su m o f the individual values . -t = Mea n value . n = Numbe

r o f dat a points . BILLIN G COOE W*0-_S- M

## 116 2 Federal Register / Vol

. 48 , No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5,198 1 / Propose dRule s Instrumen t

i D

Ru n No

. 1

. 2

. 3

. 4

.

* * « 5

. 7

. 

# a . 9

. Calibratio n Ga s Dat a Calibratio n - ppm v .Instrumen t

Mete r Reading , pp

m •Differenc e

pp m 

## (1 )

Mea n Differenc e
Calibratio n Erro r * Mea n Differenc e 

## (2 ) Calibratio n Ga s Concentratio n x 10 0



## TT ) Calibratio n Ga s Concentratio n - Instrumen t Reaain g

Figur e 21-1

. Calibratio n Erro r Ceterainatio n

### Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 46

. No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar

y 5

. 198 1 /

Propose dRule s 1163



## Instrumen t.

* I D Calibratio n Ga

s Concentratio n

90 * Respons e Time :
1

. Second s 2

. Second s 3

. Second s Mea n Respons e Tim e * Second s

Figur e 21-2

. Respons e Tim e Determination
3ILUN Q COO E «S60-I«- CP.3 1



### 118 4 Federa

l Registe r / Vol

. 48

. No

. 2 /

Monday

. Januar

y 5

. 198 1 /

Propose dRule s 5. 3 y addin g Appendi x E a s follows : Appendix

E~Synthetic

Organic Chemicals

Manufacturing

industry

3CPGBNO.'
2 0 — Acatn . 4 0 Aeawdoi . S O Aewamoa . 3 S —Acatanmea . " 0 Aeao e aaa . 3 0 Acao c annyanaa . 3 0 Acaiona . 10 0 Acacon * eyananya m . n o Acawrwma . '2 3 Acacy i enone* . • 3 0 Acacyiana . !< 0 Aaeia-i . IS O Aoyiamda . '6 0 Aeryt e K M an d aaiara . 'T O Aayiorwnle . '8 0 '8 S 19 0 Alley

t i 20 0 AH * i 21 0 Ally ! < 220....; . 20O._~_._..i.

_AiHwujaiHyiaiimmmii-ia . 233-~ ~ • . 3

Ajwnoonafo . 24 0 Aflty

t 1 25 0 Amy ! I 2« 0

_ . Amy ! i 27 0 Amy

t < 29 0 A/ny

t r 29 0 Amy

* enanoi . 30 0 31 0 32 0 33 0 Anaoaa . 34 0 Anovanke aoo . 3S 0 Amrraau-icna . 36 0 Sanzananyaa . 38 0 Santana . 39 0 40 0 «10_________

_3an» . 42 0 Sanakcaod . 43 0 Sarao e aad . 441 0 Saraon . 4—* * Sanconmia . 46 0 Sanxoonanona . 4 o n 3anzoy t cftonaa . SO O Sanzy t aacono l S1 0 9anzy < anana . 52 0 -ana * banzoaia . 53 0 3*nxy i crwnoa . V O 3amy l amnonoa , SS O Sicnanw . S« 0 _oonano i A . 57 0 3nyneoan_ana . S8 0 3ronionaomnajana . 59 0 3ua 59 2 1 . SO O n-ouw t i 53 0 -i-ou M aayiata . *4 0 xsuiy i ueonoi . SS O »-outy i ucona . 560—

_*^uty a aicooa L S7 0 M O 88 0 t- t TO O xar.-oury t eanxa e i 71 0 t.34uiyian a yycs - 7J 0 n-OdyaManyoa . 78 0 3uwn e aoo . 77 0

__ . Sutyn e i 78 0 3u * r8 S ._..„. —GaofOMKiani . 79 0 C_no n oauMa . SOO... . Caree n mraoronwa . 81 0

_Careo n taoacnionaa . 32 0 Catkaoa a aetata . M O _.. . CMorsacao c aoo . 95 0 D-cmortWwna . SC O xnaraanana . 87 0 380.. . _Chl e 39 0 90 0 CMoraoanra c aa a 90 S 1870. . 188 0 , 189 0 1700 . 1710. . 1720. . 1 730. . 174 0 17J 0 . Emy i acauta .

Stny l acaaraacatai a Ssiy l acryiaia .

. . Stnyteaiiuioaa . Sin * enionoa . =my i cnacoacawa . jw^unm«K>n» j suiton> c aoo . 3-oaomnoi .P.3 2



### Federal Register

/ Vol

. 46 , No

. 2 /

Monday , Januar

y 5

. 198 1 /

Propose dRule s
ocfioa *<>.• Ctttmieal j OCPOB No' Chamcil 27SO Naooenianoc-aod . 2755.. . o-nrtroani-ine . 275 7 p-rMtroarMiine . 2760—_____

_onuoarusoie . 276 2 _._ . xwsanijcie . 277 0 Nttrooeniene . 278 0 N.trooanjoi e ac d (o.m . an o p) . 27S O Nuroetnane . 279 1 Nrr/omewane . 279 2 Nnroonenol . 279 5 Nju-oorooane. 280 0 Niirotoftiena . 251 0 Nonerw . '2S2 0 Nony l pfieno L 233 0 Ccty i onano L 284 0 Paraldenyd* . 235 0 Pemaarytnntoi . 235 1 rvpantana . 2S55..._' . l-pentene . 286 0 Perenloroetnylene . 285 2 Peroiorometny l mefcaotan . 289 0 o-pnenetioine . 290 0 p.p,ienetidine . 291 0 Phenol . 292 0 Phenoismfom c acids . 293 0 Pheny l anthramii e acid . 2941 0 Prwnyienediamtne . 293 0 Phosgene . 296 0 Primat e anhydride . 297 0 PNnalDTMM . 2973___

_i^tcoun*. 2 9 7 6 ?*oera_ine . 300 0 PotyOutenes . 301 0 Poryemyien e glycol . 302 5 Poyprooyien e glycol . 306 3 Praoonaidenyde . 306 6 Proooncaad . 307 0 n-prooy

l alcohol . 307 3 Propylamine . 308 0 Propy l chloride . 309 0 Prooyiena . 3iGQ. m Propylen e cmorohydnn . 311 0 Propylen e oicnlohde . 311 1 Propylen e glycol . 3120. . Propylen e oxide . 313 0 Pyntfne . 314 0 Ouinone . 315 0 fieaorano-. 316 0 Pesoreyii c add . 317 0 Salicyli c acid . 318 0 Sca m acetate . 318 1 Sodiu m benroate . 319 0 Sodiu m earooxymeihy l cellulose . 319 1 Sodiu m chloraeetate . 3200.. . Sodiu m lormate . 321 0 Sortu m pmsnate . 322 0 Som e aad . 323 0 Slyrene . 32« 0 Sucera e acid . 325 0 Sucononitnle . 325 1 Suitaiu c acid . 326 0 Sulfolane . 327 B Tanni c acid . 3260 —Te-epntnau e acid . 329 0 an d Tetraenioraamanes . 3291 . 330 0 Tenemoroontna-i c armytinda . 331 0 Tetraeinyilead . 332 0 Tetranydronaptnalana . 3330 . _ Tetrahydropmnati c annydrida . 333 5 Terrametnyilead . 334 0 Te . arwtnytenediamme . 33* 1

_

_T e(rt niefnylainyienedi«mme . 334 9 Toluene . 335 0 Toluene-2.4-aamina . 33S 4

_

Tofuene-2.44i_socvanate . 335 5 Toluen e dnsocyanaie s (mixture) . 33EO Toluen e sulfonamide . 337 0 Toluen e sulfoni c acids . 338 0 Toluen e suifony t cnioride . 338 1 ToluKSnes . 3390 . 3391 . T i mnioiooemenea . an d 339 3 33S 5

_i.i.i.tnenioroetr)ane . 340 0 '.IJE-inenwroemana . 341 0 mm. Tncmoroeinyiene . 34U.

_Thcntoroftuoromeihene . 342 0 1^.3-inenioroo'opane . 343 0 i . 1,2-trienioro . 1.2.2-triHuoroetnane . 345 0 Tn4f_hyfamine . 346 0 Tr^myien e glycol . 3470—; . Tne'hyfen a glyco l dimethy l etner . 348 0 Trisooufylene . 349 0 THmemyiamine . 350 0 Urea . 351 0 Viny l acetate . 352 0 v,ny l chloride . 333 0 Virwuden a cnionda . 354 0 Viny l loluene . 354 1 Xy-ene s (mtxedl . 256 0 >sylene . 357 0

_s-xyiene . 353 0 Xylenol . 359 0 Xyiidin a •Th e OCPO S Numper s ar e referenc e inoice a assigne d 1 0 ih e »anou s cnermcal s i n tn e Organi c Chemica l producer s Oat a Bas e aeveiooe o 6 y EPA . (F R Doc . 81- H file d 1-2-61 : 8:4 5 «m | SILLIN G COO E 8560-2S-_ l



# J