GEORGE W. BUSH 

GOVERNOR 

Ms. Jane Saginaw 

Regional Administration 

STATE OF TEXAS 

OFFICE oF THE GovERNOR 

April 19, 1996 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Dear Ms. Saginaw: 

rn ® rn ~ w ~ r~ 

• -9- W' 

Enclosed are revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116,_which were adopted by the Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission (commission) on March 27, 1996. The commission 

adopted amendments to Chapter 116, Subchapter F, § 116.610, concerning Applicability, 

and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List, and new §116.620, concerning 

Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities, and § 116.621, concerning 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. The amendments and new sections establish a standard 

air permit for municipal solid waste landfills with new, amended, or modified municipal 

solid waste permits and reorganized the standard permit rule language to allow increased 

efficiency in proposing new standard permit provisions. The revisions are being submitted 

to you as a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Also enclosed is a 

public hearing certification, as required by 40 CFR §51.1 02(f), a complete record of the 

public hearing~ and the adoption Order. 

I look forward to your expeditious approval of this revision to the Texas SIP. 

.BUSH ~ 

Enclosure 

cc: Mr. Barry McBee, Chairman, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

Mr. Dan Pearson, Executive Director, Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission 

Posr OPFICE Box 12428 AUSilN, TEXAS 78711 (512) 463-2000 (VOICE)/(512) 475-3165 (IDD) 
Barry R. McBee, Chairman 

R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner 

John M. Baker, Commissioner 

Dan Pearson, Executive Director 

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § 

COUNTY OF TRAVIS § 

This is to certify that the attached are true and correct copies of revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and the 

State Implementation Plan adopted on March 27, 1996 pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

§51.104. Prior to the adoption of the revision, a public hearing was held pursuant to 40 CFR, §51.102(a), 

and notice of the hearing was given which conformed to the requirements of 40 CFR, §51.102( d). I am 

the custodian of the records of the Commission. 

To certi~y which, witness my hand and the seal of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 

this t~te 27th day of Marci:. 1996. 

&~ .. ~.:..J:J, 04-?'~~ Gloria Vasquez 

Chief Clerk 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-1000 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Public Hearing 

November 6, 1995 

30 TAC Chapter 116 

MSW Standard Permits 
INTRODUCTION 

A public hearing was held in Austin on November 6, 1995 to consider amendments to Chapter 116, 

Subchapter F, §116.610, concerning Applicability and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List. In 

addition, new §116.620, concerning Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities and 

§116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfills were considered. The amendments included the 

deletion of subsections (d) - (g) of § 116.610, eliminating duplicative requirements also contained in 

paragraphs in §116.615, concerning General Conditions. In addition, the amendments involved the 

deletion of §116.617(3), relating to Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities. This 

paragraph was renumbered as the new §116.620. New §116.621 established criteria for obtaining a 

standard air quality permit for a municipal solid waste landfill. 

Written comments were accepted through December 6, 1995. All testimony and comments have been 

reviewed and seriously considered. This volume contains a complete record of the public hearing and 

is divided into the following four sections: 

o Public Notification and Proposal 

o Written and Oral Testimony 

o Evaluation of Testimony 

o Staff Recommendations 

Additional copies of this hearing record are maintained in the TNRCC central office at 12100 North 

IH-35, Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, contact Gus Eghneim at (512) 239-1965. 
PUBLIC

NOTIFICATION AND

PROPOSAL
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION 

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures: 

1. Publication of the notice of public hearing in the following newspapers on the dates listed: 

Austin American-Statesman; October 7, 1995 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram; October 6, 1995 

Houston Chronicle; October 6, 1995 

2. Publication of the proposed rules in the Texas Register on October 6, 1995. Publication of the 

public hearing notice in the Texas Register on October 10, 1995. 

3. Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearing to the following officials and agencies: 

Speaker of the House 

Lieutenant Governor 

Dallas Department of Health and Human Services 

El Paso City-County Health District 

Fort Worth Public Health Department 

Galveston County Health District 

Houston Department of Health and Human Services 

Harris County Pollution Control Department 

City of El Paso 
North Central Texas Council of Govenunents 

Houston-Galveston Area Council 

South East Texas Regional Planning Conunission 

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

New Mexico Air Quality Bureau 

Oklahoma State Department of Health 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

-

-
··~ : : ·~··_: ... · ·:. ;.:· 

-

EXAMPLE OF 

NEWSPAPER CLASSIFIED AD 

I 

NOncE Of PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION ON PROPOSED 

REVISION TO CHAPTER 116 . AND THE STATE 

I IMPLEMENTATIOi~ PLAN Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the requ1re· 

I 

ments of the T e_xas Health and Safety Code, 382.01 7; Texas Government Code, 

~~~'i~a~~~r 40 't'ode C,t}a~~~ ' 

eral Regulations, 51.102 of the Umted State Environ- 1 mental Protection Agency ' regulations concerning - State Implementation Plans I 

(SIP), the Texas Natural Re-

~~~T~n ~c~.n~~C"~~ ~o,;~~: } sion) will conduct a public i h~aring to receive test1mony 

I concerning revisions to I Chapter 116 and the SIP. The TNRCC proposes amend- ments to 30 TAC Cha;:>ter I 

116, Subchapter F, 

E.~~. .e, ocaioa:,nc.e~njn..J! List. In a~ition, the TNRCC proposes new 116.620. concerning Installation and/ or Modificaiton of Oil and Gas Facilities, and 116.621, , concerning Municipal · Solid : Waste Landfill. The amend- ments and new sections 

~;r~~~ ~o~~=n~~:na~~dn~~: m1ts .. New 116.621 would establish a standard air per· mit for. a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill with new. amended, or modified m~..r 

nicipal solid waste permits. The sections are proposed to allow increased efficiency in proposing new standard permit proviSions. Comment : 1s specifically solicited on , 

lp~?sfo1i~·~~~fee[~i~9fi~umc- ' 

· A public hearing on the pro- . t:>Osal will be held NovembE!r 6, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. 1n Room 254S of TNRCC Build- ing E located at 12118 North fH-35 Technology Center, Austin. The hea~<ng is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. lndivid~..r 

als may present oral state- ments when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audt-- ence will not occur during 

~~RC~e~~~1fme~b"irv!.'ifl b: 

a~~i~1b~Ot m~:,Su1~~s ~~i~!"t~ I rhe heairng and will answer questions before and after the hearing. 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram 

October 6, 1995 

Written comments not pre--

~:n;~~~ih!~e t~~~~"-FNir~c central office in· Austin. The deadline for submission of written comments will be 30 days after the date of publi- cation of the proposed rUles in the Texas Register. Mate·· rial received by the TNRCC 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00 · 

p.m. on that date will be con-. · sidered by the commission prior to any final action on the proposal. Please mail 

comments to Lisa Martin, Otg~~~~ P~~ctt.a~c~'&lzula~~6. Box 1 §o87 Austin, Texas 78711-3081, and reference 

~~~~vra~~~~.;o,a~95~~~ 

ments to (51212 • Copies of revision are avai~ 

able at the central office of the TNRCC, PJr Policy and 1 

:f~~t~~n~r:t~siln'3t'~~~~ 35 Technology Center Buildi~ E, Aust1n, and at all 

Tu~Rh~r rnePoirn~~tro~~e~ie:~~ . contact Monica Pesek at (512) 239-1971. Persons with disabilities who 

~~ve ~~=;iala~~~~~~d:~!g~ needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at 1512) 239-4900. Request should 

I be made as far in advance as possible i ls§~~~er:,nb,t.u!~inj ~e;_as, on 

I Is/Kevin McCalla. Director. , Legal Services Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Cf?mmission 

:;_._··. .; ' . ·- .,_ 
-~ •.. 

., 

·-

!~:··· , .. 

' 

days after the date of publication of the proposal in the 

Texas Register. Material received by the lNRCC Office of 

Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that 

date will be considered by the commission prior to any 

final action on the proposal. Please mail comments to Lisa 

Martin, Office of Policy and Regulatory Development.. 

MC 202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. and 

reference Rules Traclci~g Log #95144~116-AI. Please fax . 

comments to (512) 239-5687. Copies of the revision are 

available at the central office of the lNRCC. Air Policy 

and Regulations Division. located at 12118 North lli-35, 

Park 35 Technology Center, Building B. Austin, and at all 

lNRCC regional offices. For further information. please 

contact Thomas ,Ortiz. at (512) 239-1054. 

Persons with disabilities who have special communication 

or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend 

the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. 

Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 5, 1995. 

TRD-9512606 Kevin McCalla 

Director, Legal Services Division 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission 

Filed: October 4, 1995 

• •• • 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the requirements of 

the Texas Health_ and Safety Code. §382.017; Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations. §51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning State 

Implementation Plans (SIP), the Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission (lNRCC or commission) will 

conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning 

revisions to Chapter 116 and the SIP. 

The lNRCC proposes amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 

116, Subchapter F. §116. 610. concerning Applicability; 

and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List. In addition, the lNRCC proposes new §116.620, concerning 

Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities, 

and § 116.621. concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. 

The amendments and new sections would reorganize the 

numbering of the standard permits. New §116.621 would 

establish a standard air permit for a Municipal Solid W&Ste 

Landfill with new, amended, or modified municipal solid 

waste pennits. The sections are proposed to allow increased efficiency in proposing ~ew standard permit provisions. Comment is specifically solicited on §116.621. 

concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. · 

A public hearing on the projlosal will be held November 6, 

1995, at 10:00 a. m. in Room 254S of TNRCC Building B, 

located at 12118 North lli-35, Park 35 Technology Center. 

Austin. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or 

written comments by interested persons. Individuals may 

present oral statements when called upon in order of 

registration. Open discussion within the audience will not 

occur during the hearing; however. a TNRCC staff mem- ber will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes 

prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and 

after the hearing. 

Written comments not presented at the hearing may be 

submitted to the lNRCC central office in Austin. The 

deadline for submission of written comments will be 30 

days after· the date of publication of the proposed rules in 

the Texas Register. Material received by the lNRCC 

.·.·. '·.:". : :_·· . .- ··· ... ·. 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00 

p.m. on that date will be considered by the Commission 

prior to any fmal. action on the propoSal. Please mail 

comments to Lisa Martin, Office of Policy and Regulatory 

Development, MC 202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 

78711-3087. 8fid reference Rules Tracking LOg #95103· 

116-AI. Please fax comments to (512) 239-5687, Copies 

of the revision are available at the central office of the 

lNRCC. Air Policy and Regulations Division. located at 

12118 North lli-35, Park 35 Technology Center. Building 

B. Austin, and at all 1NRCC regional offices. For further 

information. please contact Monica Pesek at (512) 

239-1971. 

Persons with disabilities who have special communication· 

or other accommodation needs who are plaMing to attend 

the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. 

Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. 

Issued in Austin.- Texas, on October 2, 1995. 

TRD-9512605 Kevin McCalla 

Director, Legal Services DMsion 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation · 

Commluion 

Filed: October 4, 1995 

• • . ,. 

Texas Department of Protective and 

- Regulatory Services 

Correction of Error 

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services published an invitation for Consultant Proposal Request in the October 3, 1995, issue of the Texas Register 

(20 TexReg 8091). The contact person, Deborah Williams. 

phone number was published incorrectly. The phone number for Deborah Wllliams is (512) 438-3367. Mail Code 

B-559. · 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 3, 1995. 

TRD-9512577 Nancy Murphy 

Section Manager, Media and l'olicy 

Services 

Texas Depll!tment of Protective and 

· Regulatory Services 

Filed: October 3, 1995 

• • • 

Request for Information 

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS) is sedcing information regarding the availability of qualified service providers tO conduct an economic 

impact and cost/benefit study of recent changes tO the 

minimum standards for licensed day-care centers in Texas. 

The minimum standards are rules that facilities must fol- • 

low to obtain and maintain their license to provide child · 

care. These rules focus on conditions that impact the 

health. safety. and well-being of children. The study will 

examine changes in the child/staff ratios, group sizes. and . square footage requirements of the minimum' standards 

that were adopted in 1994. 

The goals of the economic impact aspect of the study are to determine the differential and actual economic impact 

of the changes for facilities, the average cost increase for 

centers which are impacted and how that cost is recouped, 

the profile of centers that are impacted, the impact on 

~·· ' .'. ·-----------------------~:-:-:---:-=-::-=:=-:---------:-:---:-:--:-----:-:----'----

• IN ADDITION October 10, 1995 20 TerReg 8343 

,-
. ,. . . . .• ~ 

The amendment will affect Human ResotXces 

Code, Chapter 32. 

~33.140. Early and Periodic Screening, Di· 

grwsis, Treatment-Comprehensive Care 

Program Providers (EPSDT-CCP). The 

following are approved EPSDT-CCP provider types and the approved Texas Medical 

Assistance (Medicaid) Program reimbursement methodology for each provider type. 

(1)-(4) (No change.) 

(5) Reimbursement for durable 

medical equipment 

(A) Direct vendor payments. 

The department or its designee makes direct 

vendor payments to providers of durable 

medical equipment participating in the 

Medicaid program. Participating providers 

are reimbursed within the limits of the max· 

imum allowable fee schedule established by 

the department._ The maximum allowable 

fee schedule for durable medical equipment 

is based on the lesser of the following: 

(i)-(iii) (No change.) 

(iv) [if no discount is provided,] the incurred cost to the dealer plus a 

percentage to be determined by the depart· 

ment. 

(B)-(C) (No change.) 

(6)-(14) (No change.) 

(15) Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility/outpatient rehabilitation facility. A comprehensive 

outpatient rehabilitation facility or outpatient rehabilitation facility must be enrolled and participating in Medicare. The 

department or its designee will reimburse 

comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation 

facilities and outpatient rehabilitation facilities according to Medicare reimbursement methodology. 

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal 

· has been reviewed by legal counsel and 

lound to be within the agency's authority to 

adopt. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 27, 

1995. 

TR0-9512361 Susan K. Steeg 

General Counsel 

Texas Department of 

Hea~h 

Earliest possiJie date of adoption: November 

6, 1995 

For further information, please call: (512) 

458-7236 

• • • 

__ -:•::..._ .. _.; ___ . ______ ._ ..... ~~~_..,__ ____ -· ---- ·-· .._ __ ••• & _ ___, __ ... ....,_--._ ........ _, .._.~:.:...; • .;..._.;_..,_~·~ .. 

TI1LE 30. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Part I. Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation 

Commission 

Chapter 116. Control of Air 

Pollution by Permits for 

New Construction or 

Modification 

Subchapter F. Standard Permits 

• 30 TAC §§116.610, 116.617, 

116.620, 116.621 

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes amendments to §116.610, concerning 

Applicability, and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List. In addition, the TNRCC proposes new §116. 620. concerning Installation 

and/or Modification ol Oil and Gas Facilities. 

and new §116.621, concerning Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfill. 

The proposed amendments involve the deletion ol subsections (d)-(g) ol §116.61 0. These 

subsections are repeated as paragraphs in 

§116.615, concerning General Conditions. In 

addition, the proposed amendments involve 

the deletion of §116.617(3), relating to Instal· 

lalion and/or ModifiCation ol Oil and Gas Fa· 

cilities. This paragraph is proposed lor 

renumbering as the new §116.620. 

The proposal is intended to increase efficiency in proposing new standard permit pro· 

visions. With the existing structtXe, the 

TNRCC is experiencing delays in proposing 

new standard permits. The proposed renumbering ol the subsections in the existing standard permit rules to complete sections would 

enable more timely consideration ol new 

standard permit provisions. No substantive 

change is intended by this renumbering. 

Comment is specifically solicited on 

§116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste 

landfill. 

New § 116.621 would estabflsh criteria lor obtaining a standard permit lor a Municipal Solid 

Waste landfill (MSWLF) with new, amended, 

or modified municipal solid waste permits. 

The MSWLF standard permit would provide 

an aHernative to the New Source Review 

permit process of Chapter 116, Subchapter 

B, §116.110, concerning Applicability, il it is 

demonstrated that the applicant satisfies provisions in §116.610, concerning Applicability; 

and §116.615, concerning General Conditions. The standard permit is not a new requirement. but provides an alternative to the 

New Source Review permit review process 

that specifies operating and control requirements. The standard permit does not require 

modeling or a heabh eflects review. 

The proposed rule states that nonmethane 

organic compounds (NMOC) emission rates 

lor MSWLF units with a design capacity exceeding 100,000 megagrams (Mg) in an 

ozone nonattainment area or a design capacity exceeding 2,500,000 Mg in an ozone attainment area shall be calculated using the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proced...-es in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §60.753 of the proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 

1991, issue ol the Federal Register (56 FR 

24488) with minor modifications. 

Proposed §116.621 (3) requires that owner(s) 

or operator(s) of a MSWLF include the calculated maximum expected NMOC emission 

rate lor the MSWLF units. 

Proposed §116.621(4) establishes requirements lor MSWLFs if lhe calculated NMOC 

emission rate exceeds the threshold level. 

The threshold level is defined as the lower ot· 

either the federal standard lor the NMOC 

emission rate which requires the installation 

ol an active gas collection and control system 

or 150 Mg per year; or the amount constituting the major so...-ce definition lor MSWLFs 

and Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (MSW 

facilities) (as defined in 30 T AC §1 01.1. concerning Definitions) located in ozone 

nonattainment areas (as defined in 30 T AC 

§116.10, concerning General Definitions). 

The TNRCC staff has reviewed the EPA's 

Standards ol Performance lor New Stationary 

SotXces and recognized a need to incorporate the federal standard for the NMOC emission rate or establish a threshold value of 150 

Mg per year. The federal standard is currently 

proposed as 50 Mg per year. The 50 Mg per 

year standard is undergoing review by the 

United States Office ol Management and 

Budget. Upon promulgation ol a federal standard, the TNRCC would address any discrepancies between the federal and state 

standard. In the event that the federal rule is 

not enacted by the date ol adoption ol 

MSWLF standard permit provisions. the 150 

Mg NMOC emission rate will be incorporated. 

For background information, reler to the Federal Register dated Thursday, May 30, 

1991 • Standards ol Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines lor Control ol 

Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills; Proposed Rule, Guideline and Notice ol Public Hearing. 

For MSWLFs and MSW facilities exceeding 

the threshold level, the proposed 

§116.621(4)(A) provides the option_ t9 submit 

site-specifiC NMOC Concentration and/or 

site-specific landfill gas Generation Rate Constant to demonstrate that the NMOC emission 

rate is less than the threshold value. Proposed § 116.621 ( 4)(B) provides the option to 

slbmit plans lor an active gas collection and 

control system (GCCS). 

Proposed §116.621(5) requires owner(s) or 

operator(s) ol an MSW facility whose calcu· 

lated NMOC emission rate exceeds the 

threshold level to install, within one year, an 

active gas collection and control system 

(GCCS) to control NMOC gas emissions by 

routing the total collected gas to ·a control 

device. 

Proposed § 116.621 (6) establishes the conditions lor capping or removing an active 

GCCS; and references 30 T AC §§330.250-

330.256, concerning Clos...-e and PostClosure. 

Proposed §116.621(7) identifies the test 

methods that may be utilized for meas...-ements to determine compliance. This para20 TexReg 8168 October 6, 1995 Texas Register • 
·. ' ·. ·~ ·:· ·.·:. -=: . "• ... ··.:· .. ·. . .. ---·~-.._-~.._·_. _ _._~..---~-------~---~-~.;__ _____ _;_.-..,o ----

graph allows for testing alternatives or 

modifications that may be approved by the 

TNRCC in advance of the measurements. 

The testing methods allow for the determination for compliance, collection efficiency, and 

the integrity of the MSWLF cap. 

The pr~osed § 116.621 (8) requires MSWLF 

un~ owner(s} and operator(s) to monitor and 

control pal1iculate matter by minimizing any 

fugitive particulate matter emissions associated with material handling and transport; and 

maintaining all roads and areas on the pr~­

erty subject to vehicle traffic by watering, 

treating with dust-suppressant chemicals, or paving and cleaning as necessary to achieve 

maximum control of dust emissions. 

Proposed § 116.621 {9) describes the procedures for developing a monitoring plan for 

high volume ai" sampling and references the 

TNRCC Olftee of Ai: Quality Management 

Plarr, Appendix I {EPA Requi:ements for 

Quality Assurance Project Plans, dated February 1995) and the TNRCC "Sampling Procedures Manual, • Chapter 11 (particulate 

matter, dated January 1983 and revised July 

1983). 

The pr~sed §116.621 {1 0) describes the inspection and maintenance protocols lor 

MSWLF unit surlace leaks; and defines a 

leak as a sustained reading for a minimum of 

one minute of 500 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv) total organic compounds {including 

methane and ethane) measilred as methane, 

propane, or hexane. The paragraph states 

that leak testing shall be performed at least 

once each qual1er using an instrument that 

meets the apparatus specifications of E~A 

Test Method 21 {40 CFR 60, Appendix A). 

The area of the leaks shall be identified with 

orange nuorescent paint and a readily visible 

marl<er. Leaks shall be repaired within 15 

days upon detection of the leak, unless the 

repair requires excavation. Excavation requi"es a plan for approval by the TNRCC 

executive director. The velocity of the probe 

mentioned in § 116. 621 (1 O)(C) shall not exceed the limitations of the equipment, including travel speeds. 

Proposed §116.621(11) describes the inspection and maintenance protocols for active 

GCCS organic compound leaks from compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure relief 

valves in gaseous service, and pump seals 

for MSWLF units. Emissions from all compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure relief 

valves in gaseous service, and pump seals 

shall be measured quarterly with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer and with all technically feasible repairs to be made within 15 days of 

detecting the leak. 

The proposed §116.621(12) requires the 

owner(s) or ~erator(s) of each MSWLF unit 

to maintain records sufficient to readily determine if compliance with the requirements of 

this paragraph was maintained. Monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

are delined. The intent of the requirements is 

to obtain data that is compatible to link this 

chapter to 30 T AC Chapter 330, concerning 

Municipal Solid Waste Division. and establish 

consistency between the two chapters. 

Stephen Minick, Strategic Planning and Appropriations Division, has determined that for 

the first live-year period the sections are in 

effect there will be no significant fiscal impllcalions for state go..ernment as a result of 

enforcing or administering the sections. There 

will be costs associated with installing a 

GCCS. The EPA has estimated a cost effectiveness factor of $500 to $2,000 per ton of 

NMOC reduced with variability depending 

upon such factors as the type of refuse, MSW 

facility location, and MSW facility size. The 

costs will be incurred under the requirements 

of the New Source Review Subchapter 8 

permit and the standard permit provisions. 

However, local governments that own and 

operate new or modified MSWLFs may experience a cost savings with regard to permit 

fees as a result of receiving approval for a 

standard permit. 

Mr. Minick also has determined that for each 

year of the first five years the section is in 

effect the public benefit anticipaled as a result 

of enforcing the sections wiU be the possibility 

of improved health due to emission reductions achieved through the installation of 

GCCS. The TNRCC anticipates thai small 

businesses may experience a cost savings; 

since the MSWLF standard permit is an alternative to the New Source Review permit procedures. The 2.5 million Mg capacity 

exemption is also beneficial for smaU 

businesses located in ozone attainment areas. There is no anticipated economic cost to 

persons who are required to comply with the 

sections as proposed. The MSWLF standard 

permit is an alternative that is expected to 

result in a cost savings to the state and lhe 

regulated community. 

A public hearing on the proposal will be held 

November 6, 1995, at 1 0:00 a. m. in Room 

254S of TNRCC Building E, located at12118 

North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, 

Austin. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral 

statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience 

will not occur during the hearing; however, a 

TNRCC staff member will be available· to 

discuss the proposal 30 minUtes prior to the 

hearing. 

Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted. to the TNRCC central 

office in Austin. The deadline for stbmission 

of written comments will be 30 days alter the 

date of publication of the proposal in the 

Texas Register. Material received by the 

TNRCC Office of Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that date will be 

considered by the commission prior to any 

final action on the proposal. Please mail comments to the attention of Usa Martin, Office of 

Policy and Regulatory Development, MC202, 

P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, 

and reference Rules Tracking Log #95103-

116-AI. Please fax comments to (512) 

239-5687. Copies of the revisions are available at the central office of the TNRCC. Air 

Policy and Regulations Division, located at 

12118 North IH-35, Pari< 35 Technology Center, Building E. Austin, and at all TNRCC 

regional offices. For further information, . 

please contact Monica Pesek at (512) 

239-1971. 

Persons with disabilities who. have special 

~ ... ---~ .:..--=--· ----------. -· _;:.· ~-· --- --'"-

I . 

communication or. other accommodation 

needs who are planning to attend the hearing 

should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. 

Requests should be made as far in advance 

as possible. 

The amendments and new sections are proposed under the Texas Health and Safety 

Code, Texas Clean Air Act {TCAA), 

§382.017, which provides the TNRCC with 

the authority to adopt rules consistent with 

·the policy and purposes of the TCAA. 

The proposed amendments and new sections 

implement the Texas Health and Safety 

Code, §382.017. concerning Rules. 

§1 16.610. Applicability. 

(a) Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air 

Act (TCAA), §382.051, projects involving 

the types of facilities or physical or 

operational changes to facilities which meet 

the requirements for a standard permit listed 

in this subchapter [§116.617 of this title 

(relating to Standard Permit List)] are 

hereby entitled to the standard pennit; provided however, that: 

(1) (No change.) 

(2) construction or operation of 

the project shall be commenced prior to the 

effective date of a revision to this 

subchapter [§116.617 of this title] under 

which the project would no longer meet the 

requirements for a standard pennit; 

(3)-(5) (No change.) 

(b) Any project which constitutes a 

new major source, or major modification 

under the new source review requirements 

of Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review) or Part D (Nonattainment 

Review) of the FCAA and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be subject to the . 

requirements of §116.110 of this title {relating to Applicability) rather than this 

subchapter. 

(c) (No change.) 

[(d) The emissions from the facility shall comply with all applicable rules 

and regulations of the TNRCC adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code. 

Chapter 382. and· with intent of the Texas 

Clean Air Act (TCAA). including protection of health and property of the public and 

all emissions cont.rol equipment s~all be 

maintained in good condition and operated 

properly during operation of the facility. 

[(e) All representations with regard 

to construction plans, operating procedures, 

and maximum emission rates in. any registration for a standard permit become conditions upon which the facility or changes 

thereto, shall be constructed and operated. It 

shall be unlawful for any person to vary 

from such representations if the change will 

affect that person's right to claim a standard 

permit under this section. Any change in 

conditions such that a person is no longer 

• PROPOSED RULES October 6, 1995 20 TerReg 8169 

1 

l 

' I 

-

I I , 

I : 

I 

I 

l 

I 

I 

_,. 

I 

I. 

--
I 

1 

I 

i_ 

-

eligible to claim a standard permit under 

this section requires proper authorization 

under §116.110 of this title. The owner or 

operator of the facility must notify the 

lNRCC of any other change in conditions 

which will result in a change in the method 

of control of emissions. a change in the 

character of the emissions. or an increase in 

the discharge of the various emission as 

compared to the representations in the original registration or any previous notification 

of a change in representations. Notice of 

changes in representations must be received 

by the lNRCC no later than 30 days after 

the change. 

[(f) All record·s relating to the applicability of and compliance with the terms 

of a standard permit shall be maintained by 

the permittee for at least a two-year rolling 

retention basis. and made available for review by authorized representatives of the 

lNRCC. the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. or local air pollution 

control agencies. 

[(g) All changes authorized by standard permit to a facility previously permitted pursuant to §116.110 of this title shall 

be administratively incorporated into. that 

facility's permit at such time as the permit 

is amended or renewed.] · 

§I 16.617. Standard Permit List. Pursuant 

to the Texas Clean Air Act, §382.051, projects involving the types of facilities or 

physical or operational changes to facilities · 

listed in this section qualify for a standard 

permit subject to the conditions stated in 

§ 116.610 of this title (relating to Applicability) and §116.615 or this title (relatine 

to General Conditions). 

(l)-(2) (No change.) 

[(3) Installation and/or modification of oil and gas facilities. 

[(A) Emission specifications. 

[(i) Venting or flaring 

more than 0.3 long tons per day of total 

sulfur shall not be allowed. 

[(ii) No facility shall be 

allowed to emit total uncontrolled emissions 

of sulfur compounds. except sulfur dioxide 

(SO,). from all vents (excluding process 

fugitives emissions) equal to or greater than 

four pounds per hour unless the vapors are 

collected and routed to a flare. 

[(iii) Any vent. excluding 

any safety relief valves that discharge to the 

atmosphere only as a result of fue or failure 

of utilities. emitting sulfur compounds other 

than sulfur dioxide. shall be at least 20 feet 

above ground level. 

[(iv) New or modified internal combustion reciprocating engines or 

....... _;·_..;. ·-·"'-~-- ~------- ---'-----~-- _..__~ .... - .. ..: .... ·.:.:..-...~·.-- ... -· 

gas turbines permitted under this standard 

permit shall satisfy all of the requirements 

of Standard Exemption Number 6. except 

that registration using the Form PI-7 or PI-8 

shall not be required. Emissions from engines or turbines shall be limited to the 

amounts found in §116.2ll(a)(l) of this 

title (relating to Standard Exemption List). 

[(v) Total Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from a 

natural gas glycol dehydration unit shall not 

exceed ten tons per year (tpy) unless the 

vapors are collected and controlled in accordance with subparagraph (B)(ii) of this 

paragraph. 

[(vi) Any combustion unit 

(excluding flares. internal combustion engines. or natural gas turbines). with a design 

maximum .heat input greater than 40 million 

British thermal units (Btu) per hour (using 

lower heating values) shall not emit more 

than 0.06 pounds of nitrogen oxides (NO,) 

per million Btu. 

[(vii) No facility which is 

less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant 

receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC · process fugitive emissions 

equal to or greater than ten tpy. but less 

than 25 tpy. unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to 

subparagraph (C)(i) of this paragraph. 

[(viii) No facility which 

is 500 feet or more from the nearest off- · 

plant receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions 

equal to or greater than 25 tpy unless the 

equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(i) of this paragraph. 

{(ix) No facility which is 

less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant 

receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions 

equal to or greater than 25 tpy unless the 

equipment is inspectCd and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(ii)of this paragraph. 

[(x) No facility shall be 

allowed to,emit uncontrolled VOC process 

fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 

40 1py unless the equipment is inspected 

and repaired according to subparagraph 

(C)(ii)of this paragraph. 

[(xi) No facility which is · 

located less than one quarter of a mile from 

the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit hydrogen sulfide (H,S) or 

SO, process fugitive emissions unless the 

equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(iii) of this paragraph. No facility which is located at least 

one quarter of a mile from the nearest offplant receptor shall be allowed to emit H,S 

or SO, process fugitive emissions unless the 

equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(iii) of this paragraph or unless the H,S or SO, emissions 

are monitored with .ambient property line 

monitors according to subparagraph (E)(i) 

of this paragraph. Components in · sweet 

crude oil or gas service as defmed by Chapter 101 of this title (relating to General 

Rules) are exempt from these limitations. 

[(xii) Flares shall be designed and operated in accordance with 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 

60.18 or equivalent standard approved by 

the commission. including specifications of 

minimum heating values of waste gas, max- imum tip velocity, and pilot flame monitor~ 

ing._ If necessary to ensure adequate 

combustion. sufficient gas shall be added to 

make the gases combustible. An infrared 

monitor is considered equivalent to a thermocouple for flame monitoring purposes. 

An automatic ignition system may be used 

in lieu of a continuous pilot. 

[(xiii) Appropriate documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate 

that compliance with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and · 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

provisions of the FCAA. Parts C and D, and 

regulations promulgated thereunder. are being met The oil and gas facility shall be 

required to meet the requirements of 

Subchapter B of this chapter (relating to 

New Source Review Permits) instead of this 

subchapter if a PSD or nonattainment permit is required. 

[(xiv) DocUmentation 

shall be submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS. 40 CFR 60) and 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollution (NESHAP. 40 CFR 61). . .. 

[(xv) New and increased 

emissions shall not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) or regulation 

property line standards as . specifled in 

Chapters 111. 112. and 113 of this title 

(relating to Control of Air Pollution From 

Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter; 

Control of Air Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and Control of Air Pollution From 

Toxic Materials). Engineering judgment 

and/or computerized air dispersion modeling may be used in this demonstration. To 

show compliance with §ll6.610(a)(l) of 

this title (relating to Applicability) for H.,S · 

emissions from process vents. ten milligrams per cubic meter shall be used as the 

"L" value instead of the value represented 

by §ll6.610(a)(l) of this title. 

[(xvi) Fuel for all com- . bustion units and flare pilots shall be sweet 

natural gas or liquid petroleum gas. fuel gas 

containing no more than ten grains of total 

sulfur per 100 dry standard cubic feet 

(scdf). or field gas. If field gas contains 

more than 1.5 grains of H,S or 30 grains 

total sulfur compounds per 100 scdf. the 

20 TcxReg 8170 October 6, 1995 Texas Register t 
.. -... . . ·. .\:·. 

~·· -~-:~ :<:::2-~~~·:._~--~----·. 

operator shall maintain records. including at 

least quarterly measurements of fuel H,S 

and total sulfur content, which demonstrate 

that the annual sol emissions from the facility do not exceeo the limitations listed in 

the standard permit registration. If a flare is 

the only combustion unit on a property, the 

operator shall not be required to maintain 

such records on flare pilot gas. 

[(B) Control requirements. 

[(i) floating roofs or 

equivalent controls shall be required on all 

new or modified storage tanks, other than 

pressurized tanks which meet Standard Exemption 83, unless the tank is less than 

25,000 gallons in nominal size or the vapor 

pressure of the compound to be stored in 

the tank is less than 0.5 pounds per square 

inch absolute (psia) at maximum short-term 

storage temperature. 

[(I) For internal floating roofs, mechanical shoe primary seal or 

liquid-mounted primary seal or a vapormounted primary with a rim-mounted secondary seals shall be used. 

[(IT) Mechanical shoe 

or liquid-mounted primary seals shall include a rim-mounted secondary seal on all 

external floating roofs tanks. Vapormounted primary seals will not be accepted. 

[(ITI) All floating roof 

tanks shall comply with the requirements 

under §l15.112(a)(2) (A)-(F) of this title 

(relating to Control Requirements). 

[(IV) In lieu of a floating roof. tank emissions may be routed to: 

[ (-a-) a destruction 

device such that a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of 98% is achieved: or 

[(-b-) a vapor recovery system suqh that a minimum VOC 

rec.overy eff1ciency of 95% is achie-.:ed. 

[(V) Independent of 

the exemptions listed in this clause, if the 

emissions from any flxed roof tank exceed 

ten tpy of VOC or ten tpy of sulfur compounds, the tank emissions shall be routed 

to a destruction device. vapor recovery unit, 

or equivalent method of control that meets 

the requirements listed in subclause (IV) of 

this clause. 

[(ii) The VOC emissions 

from a natural gas glycol dehydration unit 

shall be controlled as follows. 

[(I) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or 

,•' 

. ... ' .. '· .. ---.. ---..--- ... ---- ----~ -· ·---" ..... 

greater than ten tons per year, but less than 

50 tons per year. a minimum of 80% by 

weight minimum control efficiency shall be 

achieved by either operating a condenser 

and a separator (or flash tank), vapor recovery unit, destruction device. or equivalent 

control device. · 

[(II) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or 

greater than 50 tpy, a minimum of: 

[(-a-) 98% by 

weight minim urn destruction efficiency 

shall be achieved by a destruction device or 

equivalent; or . 

[(-b-) 95% by 

weight minimum control efficiency shall be 

achieved by a vapor recovery system or 

equivalent. · 

[(C) Inspection requirements. 

((i) Owners or operators 

who are subject to subparagraph (A)(vii) or 

(viii) of this paragraph shall comply with 

the following requirements. 

[(I) No component 

shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for 

more than 15 days after the leak is detected 

to exceed a VOC concentration greater than 

10. 000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) 

above background as methane. propane, or 

hexane, or the dripping or exuding of process fluid based on sight. smell, or sound 

for all components. The VOC fugitive emission components which contact process fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate 

partial pressure or vapor pressure of less 

than 0.5 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are 

exempt from this requirement. If VOC fugitive emission components are· in service 

where the operating pressure is at least 

0.725 pounds per square inch (psi) (flve 

kilopascals (Kpa)) below ambient pressure. 

then these components are also exempt 

from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is made 

available upon request by Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission 

(1NRCC) representatives. the EPA. or any 

other air pollution agency having jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and smaller. unless subject to 

Federal New Source Performance Standards 

requiring a fugitive VOC emissions leak 

detection and repair program or Chapter 

115 of this title (relating to Control of Air 

Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds), are also exempt from this requirement. 

[(II) All technically 

feasible repairs shall be made to repair a 

VOC leaking process -fugitive component 

within 15 days after the leak is detected. If 

the repair of a component would require a 

unit shutdown. the repair may be delayed 

until the next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaired 

until a scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such repair by tagging. The 

1NRCC executive direc.tor. at his or her 

discretion, may require early unit shutdown 

or other appropriate action based on the 

number and severity of tagged leaks awaiting wu~own. . 

[(ill) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shall contain no buried·valves 

such that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical. 

[(IV) To the extent 

that good engineeriJlg practice will permit, 

new and reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located 

to be reasonably accessible for. · leakchecking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a support 

surface will be considered non-accessible 

and shall be identified in a list to be made 

available upon request. 

[(V) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service 

shall be welded or flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping 

smaller than two-inch diameter. No later 

than the next scheduled quarterly monitOring after initial installation or replacement, 

all new or reworked connections shall be 

gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less 

than normal operating pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free 

performance. Flanges in VOC service shall 

be inspected by visual, audible. and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating 

personnel walk-through. 

((VI) Each openended valve or line in VOC service, other 

than a valve or line used for safety relief, 

shall be equipped with a cap. blind flange. 

plug. or a second valve. Except during sampling. the second valve shall be closed. 

[(VII) Accessible 

valves in VOC service shall be monitored 

by leak-checking for fugitive emissions at 

least quarterly using an approved gas 

analyzer. For valves equipped with rupture 

discs. a pressure gauge shall be installed 

between the relief valve and rupture disc to 

monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs 

shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity. 

but no later than the next process shu~own. 

Sealless/lealcless valves (including. but not 

limited to, welded bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped 

with a rupture disc or venting to a. control 

+ ·PROPOSED ·RULES October 6, 1995 20 Tex.Reg 8171 

-

-
device are exempt from monitoring. 

[(VITI) Dual pump 

- with barrier fluid at higher pressure 

•. .• process pressure. seals degassing to . 

vent control systems kept in good wor~g 

order, or seals equipped with an automatic 

seal failure detection and alarm system. 

submerged pumps, or sealless pumps (including. but not limited to. diaphragm. 

canned. or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring. 

[(IX) All other pump 

and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be 

monitored with an approved gas analyzer at 

least quarterly. 

[(X) After completion 

of the required quarterly inspections for a 

period of at least two years, the operator of . 

the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the lNRCC. Office of Air Qualit~. 

New Source Review Division that the momtaring schedule be revised based on the 

percent of valves leaking. ~e perce~t .of 

valves leaking shall be determmed by dividing the sum of valves leaking ~uring c~rrent 

monitoring and valves for which repall' has 

been delayed by the total number of valves 

subject· to the requirements. This request 

shall include all data that has been devel-

~ to justify the following modifications 

·,e monitoring schedule. 

[(-a-) After two 

consecutive quarterly leak detection periods 

with the percent of valves leaking equal to 

or less than 2.0%. an owner or operator 

may begin to skip one of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor 

and light liquid service. 

[(-b-) After five 

consecutive quanerly leak detection periods 

with the percent of valves leaking equal to 

or less than 2.0%. an owner or operator 

may begin to skip three of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor 

and light liquid service. 

. [(ii) Owners or operators 

who are subject to subparagraph (A)(ix) or 

(x) of this paragraph shall comply with the 

following requirements. 

[(I) No component 

shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for 

more than 15 days after the leak is found 

which exceeds a VOC concentration greater 

than 500 ppmv for all components except 

pumps and compressors and greater than 

2.000 ppmv for pumps and compressors 

above background as methane, propane, or 

hexane. or the dripping or exuding of pro-

- fluid based on sight. smell. or sound. 

. VOC fugitive emission· components 

which contact process fluids where the 

VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or 

vapor pressure of less than 0.044 psia at 

100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from 

this requirement. If VOC fugitive emission 

components are in service wher~ the operating pressure is at least 0. 725 ps1 (five Kpa) 

below ambient pressure. these components 

are also exempt from this requirement as 

long as the equipment is identified in a list 

that is made available upon request by 

lNRCC representatives. the EPA. or any 

air pollution control agency hav~ng jurisdiction. All piping and valves two mches nominal size and smaller are also exempt from 

this requirement 

[(m All technically 

feasible repairs shall be made to repair a 

VOC leaking proCess fugitive component 

within 15 days after the leak is detected. If 

the repair of a component would require a 

unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed . 

until the next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaire? 

until a scheduled shutdown shall be Identified for such repair by tagging. The executive director. at his or her discretion, may 

require early unit shutdown or other appropriate action based on the number and severity of taggetl leaks awaiting shutdown. 

[(III) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shall contain no buried valves 

such that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical. 

[(IV) To the extent 

that good· engineering practice will permit. 

new and reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located 

to be reasonably accessible for leakchecking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a support 

surface will be considered non-accessible 

and shall be identified in a list to be made 

avail able upon request. 

[(V) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service 

shall be welded or flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping 

smaller than two-inch diameter. No later 

than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement. 

all new or reworked connections shall be 

gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less · 

· than normal operating pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free 

performance. flanges in VOC service shall 

be inspected by visual. audible. and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating 

personnel walk-through. 

[(VI) Each openended valve or line in VOC service. other 

20 TexReg 8172 October 6, 1995 Texas Register • 

.. ; ..... 

than a valve or line used for safety relief. 

shall be equipped with a cap. blind flange. 

plug. or a second valve. Except during sampling. the second valve shall be closed. 

[(vm Accessible 

valves in VOC service shall be monitored 

by leak-checking for fugitive emissions at 

least quarterly using an approved gas 

analyzer. For valves equipped with rupture 

discs. a pressure gauge shall be ins~alled 

between the relief valve and rupture disc to 

monitor disc integrity. All leaking· discs 

shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity •. 

but no later than the next process shutdown. 

Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not 

limited to, welded bonnet bellows and dia-

. phragm valves) and relief valves equipped 

with a rupture disc or venting to a control 

device are exempt from monitoring. 

[(Vlli)Dual pump seals 

with barrier fluid at higher pressure than 

process pressure. seals degassing to vent 

control systems kept in good working order 

or seals equipped with an automatic seal 

failure detection and alarm system. submerged pumps, or sealless pumps (including. but not limited to, diaphragm. canned, 

or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from 

monitoring; 

[(IX) All other pump 

and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be 

monitored with an approved gas analyzer at 

least quarterly. 

[(X) After completion 

of the required quarterly inspections for a 

period of at least two years, the operator of 

the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the lNRCC. Office of Air Quality, 

New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the 

percent of valves leaking. The percent of 

valveS leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves leaking ~uring c~rrent 

monitoring and valves for which repall' has 

been delayed by the total number of valves 

subject to the requirements. This request 

shall include all data that have been developed to justify the following modifications 

in the monitoring schedule. 

[(-a-) After two 

consecutive quarterly leak detection periods 

with the percent of valves leaking equal to 

or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator 

may begin to skip one of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor 

and light liquid service. 

[(-b-) After five 

consecutive quarterly leak detection periods 

with the percent of valves leaking equal to 

or less than 2.0%. an owner or operator 

may begin to skip three of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor 

) 
and light liquid service. 

[(XI) A directed maintenance program shall be used and consist 

of the repair and maintenance of VOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by the use of an approved gas 

analyzer such that a minimum concentration 

of leaking VOC is obtained for each component being maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days 

of being placed back_ into VOC service. 

[(iii) For owners and operators who are subject to the applicable 

parts of subparagraph (A)(xi) of this paragraph, auditory and visual checks for so3 

and H,S leaks within the operating area 

shall be made every day. Immediately, but 

no later than eight hours upon detection of a 

leak, operating personnel shall take the following actions: 

[(I) isolate the leak; 

and 

[(m commence repair 

o~ replacement of the leaking component; o~ 

[(ill) use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the 

leak until repair or replacement can be 

made if immediate repair is not possible. 

[(D) Approved test methods. 

[(i) An approved gas 

analyzer. used for the VOC fugitive irispection and repair requirement in subparagraph 

(C) of this paragraph, shall conform to requirements listed in 40 CFR §60.48S(a) and 

(b). 

[(ii) Tutweiler analysis 

or equivalent shall be used to determine the 

hydrogen sulfide content as required under 

subparagraphs (A) and (E) of this paragraph. 

[(iii) Proper operation of 

any condenser used as a VOC emissions 

control device to comply with subparagraph 

(A)(v) of this paragraph shall be tested to 

demonstrate compliance with the minimum 

control efficiency. Sampling shall occur 

within 60 days after start-up of new or 

modified facilities. The permittee shall con- tact the Engineering Services Section, Air 

Quality Enforcement Division 45 days prior 

to sampling for approval of sampling protocol. The appropriate regional office in the 

region where the source is located shall also 

be contacted 45 days prior to sampling to 

provide them the opportunity to view the 

sampling. Neither the regional office nor 

the Engineering Seniices Section. Air Quality Enforcement Division personnel are re· 

quired to view the testing. Sampling reports 

which comply with the provisions of the 

1NRCC Sampling Procedure Manual. 

Chapter 14, ·shall be distributed to the appropriate regional office, any local programs, and the Engineering Services 

Section. Air Quality Enforcement Division. 

[(E) Monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements .. 

[(i) If the operator elects 

to install and maintain ambient H,S property line monitors to comply with (A)(xi) of 

this paragraph, the monitors shall be approved by the 1NRCC Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement 

Division office in Austin, and shall be capable of detecting and alarming at H3

S concentrations of ten ppmv. Operations 

personnel shall perform . an initial on-site 

inspection of the facility within 24 hours of 

initial alarm and take corrective actions as 

listed in subparagraph (C)(iii)(I) -(ill) of . 

this paragraph within eight hou'rs of detection of a leak. 

[(ii) The results of the. 

VOC leak detection and repair requirements 

shall be made available to the executive 

director, his or her designated representative, or any air pollution control 

agency having jurisdiction upon request. 

Records, for all components, shall include: 

[(I) appropriate dates; 

[ (ll) test methods; . 

((Ill) instrument readings; 

[(IV) repair results; 

and 

((V) corrective actions. Rei:ords of flange inspections are not 

required unless a leak is detected. 

[(iii) Records for repairs 

and replacements made due to inspections 

of H,S and S03 components shall be maintained. 

[ (iv) Records shall be 

kept for each production, processing, and 

pipeline tank battery or for each storage 

tank if not located at a tank battery. on a monthly basis, as follows: 

[(I) tank battery identification or storage tank identification. if 

not located at a tank battery; 

[(ll) compound stored; 

((Ill) monthly 

throughput in barrels/ month; and 

((IV) cumulative an- nual throughput. barrels/year. 

[(v) A plan shall be submitted to show how ongoing compliance 

will be demonstrated for the eff1ciency requirements listed in subparagraph (B)(i)(IV) 

of this paragraph. The demonstration may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring 

flowrates, temperatures, or other operating 

parameters. 

[(vi) Records shall be 

kept on at least a monthly basis of ~ 

production facility flow rates (in standard 

cubic feet per day) and total sulfur content 

of process vents or flares or gas processing 

streams. Total sulfur shall be calculated in 

long tons per day. 

[(vii) Records shall be 

kept of all ambient property 'line monitor 

alarms and shall include · the date. time, 

duration. and cause of alarm, date and time 

of initial on-site inspection, and date and 

time of corrective actions taken. 

[(viii) All required records shall be made avail able to repre- . 

sentatives of the 1NRCC. EPA. or local air 

pollution control agencies upon request and 

be kept for at least two years. All required 

records shall be kept at the plant site, unless 

the plant site is unmanned during business 

hours. For plant sites ordinarily unmanned 

during business hours, the records shall be 

maintained at the nearest office in the state· 

having day-to-day operations control of the 

plant site.] " 

§116.620. /nsrallaJion and/or ModificaJion 

of Oil and Gas Facilities. 

(a) Emission specifications. · 

(I) Venting or flaring more than 

0.3 long tons per day of total sulfur shall 

not be allowed. 

(2) No facility shall be allowed 

to emit total uncontrolled emissions of sulfur compounds. except sulfur dioxide (S03), 

from all vents (excluding process fugitives 

emissions) equal to or greater than four 

pounds per hour unless the vapors are collected and routed to a flare. 

(3) Any vent. excluding any 

safety relief valves that discharge to the 

atmosphere only as a result of fire or failure 

of utilities. emitting sulfur compounds other 

than SO, shall be at least 20 feet above 

ground level. · 

(4) New or modified internal 

combustion reciprocating engines or gas 

turbines permitted under this standard permit shall satisfy all of the requirements of 

Standard Exemption Number 6. except that 

registration using the Form Pl-7 or PI-8 

+ PROPOSED RULES October 6, 1995 20 TexReg 8173 
-

shall not be required. Emissions from engines or turbines shall be limited to the 

amounts found in § 116.211 (a)(l) of this 

title (relating to Standard Exemption List). 

(5) Total Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from a natural gas 

glycol dehydration unit shall not exceed ten 

tons per year (tpy) unless the vapors are 

collected and controlled in accordance with 

subsection (b)(2) of this section. 

(6) .Any combustion unit (excluding flares. internal combustion engines. 

or natural gas turbines). with a design maximum heat input greater than 40 million 

British thermal units (Btu) per hour (using 

lower heating values)· shall not emit more 

than 0.06 pounds of nitrogen oxides per 

million Btu. 

(7) No facility which is less than 

500 feet from the nearest off-plant receptor 

shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC 

process fugitive emissions equal to or 

greater than·lO tpy, but less than 25 tpy, 

unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)( I) of this 

section. 

(8) No facility which is 500 feet 

or more from the nearest off-plant receptor 

shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC 

process fugitive emissions equal to or 

greater than 25 tpy unless the equipment is 

inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(l) of this section. .. ....-. (9) No facility which is less than 

500 feet from the nearest off-plant receptor 

shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC 

process fugitive emissions equal to or 

greater than 25 tpy unless the equipment is 

inspected and repaired according to subsection (c) (2) of this section. 

(10) No facility shall be allowed 

to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive 

emissions equal to or greater than 40 tpy 

unless the equipment is inspected and · repaired according to subsection (c)(2) of this 

section. 

(11) No facility which is located 

less than one quarter of a mile from the 

nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed 

to emit hydrogen sulfide (H,S) or SO, process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to 

subsection (c)(3) of this section. No facility 

which is located at least one quarter of a 

mile from the nearest off-plant receptor 

shall be allowed to emit H,S or SO, process 

fugitive emissions unless the equipment is 

inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(3) of this section or unless the H,S 

or SO, emissions are monitored with ambient property line monitors according to subsection (e)(l) of this section. Components 

in sweet crude oil or gas service as defined 

- by Chapter 101 of this title (relating to 

General Rules) are exempt from these limi-

·' • .l..~·~· 

tations. 

(12) Flares shall be designed 

and operated in accordance with 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR}, Part 60.18 or 

equivalent standard approved by the Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(TNRCC), including specifications of minimum heating values of waste gas. maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame 

monitoring. If necessary to ensure adequate 

combustion, sufficient gas shall be added to 

make the gases combustible. An infrared 

monitor is considered equivalent to a thermocouple for flame monitoring purposes. 

An automatic ignition system may be used 

in lieu of a continuous pilot. 

(13) Appropriate documentation 

shall be submitted to demonstrate that compliance with the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new 

source review provisions of the Federal 

Clean Air Act, Parts C and D, and regulations promulgated thereunder. are being 

met. The oil and gas facility shall be required to meet the requirements of 

Subchapter B of this chapter (relating to 

New Source Review Pennits) instead of this 

subchapter if a PSD or nonattainment permit is required. 

(14) Documentation shall be 

submitted to demonstrate compliance with 

applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS. 40 CFR 60) and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution (NESHAP, 40 CFR 61) . 

(15) New and increased emissions shall not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard or regulation property line 

standards as specified in Chapters 111, 112, 

and 113 of this title (relating to Control of 

Air Pollution From Visible Emissions and 

Particulate Matter; Control of Air Pollution 

From Sulfur Compounds: and Control of 

Air Pollution From Toxic Materials). Engineering judgment and/or computerized air 

dispersion modeling may be used in this 

demonstration. To show compliance with 

§116.610(a)(l) of this title (relating to Applicability) for H,S emissions from process 

vents. ten milligrams per cubic meter shall 

be used as the "L" value instead of the 

value represented by §116.610(a)(1) of this 

title. 

(16) Fuel for all combustion 

units and flare pilots shall be sweet natural 

gas or liquid petroleum gas. fuel gas containing no more than ten grains of total 

sulfur per I 00 dry standard cubic feet 

(scdf). or field gas. If field gas contains 

more than 1.5 grains of H,S or 30 grains 

total sulfur compounds per 100 scdf. the 

operator shall maintain records. including at 

least quarterly measurements of fuel H,S 

and total sulfur content. which demonstrate 

that the annual SO, emissions from the fa20 TexReg 8174 October 6, 1995 Texas Register • 

cility do not exceed the limitations listed in 

the standard permit registration. If a flare is 

the only combustion unit on a property. the 

operator shall not be required to maintain 

such records on flare pilot gas. 

(b) Control requirements. 

(1) Floating roofs or equivalent 

controls shall be required on all new or 

modified storage tanks, other than pressurized tanks which meet Standard Exemption 

83. unless the tank is less than 25.000 gallons in nominal size or the vapor pressure 

of the compound to be stored in the tank is 

less than 0.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) at maximwn short-tenn storage 

temperature. 

(A) For internal floating 

roofs, mechanical shoe primary seal or 

liquid-mounted primary seal or a vapor· 

mounted primary with rim-mounted secondary seal shall be used. 

(B) Mechanical shoe or 

liquid-mounted primary seals shall include a 

rim-moupted secondary seal on all external 

floating roofs tanks .. Vapor-mounted primary seals will not be ·accepted. 

(C) All floating roof tanks 

shall comply with the requirements under 

§115.112(a)(2)(A)-(F) of this title (relating 

to Control Requirements). 

(D) In lieu of a floating roof, 

· tank emissions may be routed to: 

(i) a destruction device 

such that a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of 98% is achieved; 'or 

(ii) a vapor recovery system such that a minimwn VOC recovery 

efficiency of 95% is achieved. 

(E) Independent of the exemptions listed in !his paragraph, if the 

emissions from any fixed roof tank exceed 

ten tpy of VOC or ten tpy of sulfur compounds, the tank emissions shall be routed 

to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, 

or equivalent method of control that meets 

the requirements listed in subparagraph (D) 

· of this paragraph. 

(2) . The VOC emissions from a 

natural gas glycol dehydration unit shall be 

controlled as follows. 

(A) If total uncontrolled 

VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 

ten tpy. but less than 50 tpy. a minimum of 

80% by weight minimum control efficiency 

shall be achieved by either operating a condenser and a separator (or flash tank). vapor 

recovery unit, destruction device, or equiva-
.· '· ---------------"--------· 

lent control device. 

(B) If total uncontrolled 

VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 

50 tpy. a minimum of: 

(i) 98% by weight minimum destruction efficiency shall be 

achieved by a destruction device or equivalent; or 

(ii) 95% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by 

a vapor recovery system or equivalent. 

(c) Inspection requirements. 

(1) Owners or operators who are 

subject to subsection (a)(7) or (8) of this 

section shall comply with the following re· 

quirements. 

(A) . No component shall be 

allowed to have a VOC leak for more than 

15 days after the leak is deteeted to exceed 

a VOC concentration greater than 10. 000 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) above 

background as methane, propane. or hexane, or the dripping or exuding of process 

fluid based on sight, smell, or sound for all . 

components. The VOC fugitive emission 

components which contact process fluids 

where the VOCs have an aggregate partial 

pressure or vapor pressure of less than 0.5 

psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt 

from this requirement. If VOC fugitive 

emission components are in service where . 

the operating pressure is at least 0.725 

pounds per square . inch (psi) (five 

· kilopascals (Kpa)) below ambient pressure, 

then these components are also exempt 

from this requirement as long as the equip· 

ment is identified in a list that is made 

available upon request by the 'INRCC representatives, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). or any other 

air pollution agency having jurisdiction. All 

piping and valves two inches nominal size 

and smaller, unless subject to Federal NSPS, 

requiring a fugitive VOC emissions leak 

detection and repair program or Chapter 

115 of this title (relating to Control of Air 

Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds). are also exempt from this requirement. 

(B) All technically feasible 

repairs shall be made to repair a VOC leaking process fugitive component within 15 

days after the leak is detected. If the repair · of a compopent would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the 

next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaired until a 

scheduled shutdown shall be identified for 

such repair by tagging. The 'INRCC execu· 

tive director, at his or her discretion, may 

require early unit shutdown or other appropriate action based on the number and severity of tagged leaks awaiting shutdown. 

(C) New and reworked un· 

derground process pipelines containing 

VOCs shall contain no buried valves such 

that process fugitive emission inspection 

and repair is rendered impractical. 

. (D) . To the extent that good 

engineering practice will permit, new and 

reworked valves and piping connections in 

VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably accessible for leak-checking during 

plant operation. Valves elevated more than 

two meters above a support surface will be 

considered non-accessible and shall be iden· 

tified in a list to be made available upon 

request. 

(E) · New and reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be 

welded or flanged. Screwed connections are 

permissible. only on piping smaller than · 

two-inch diameter. No later than the next 

scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial 

installation or replacement, all neo,y or reworked connections shall be gas-tested or 

hydraulically-tested at no less than ·normal 

operating pressure and adjustments made as 

necessary to obtain leak-free performance. 

Aanges in VOC service shall be inspected 

by visual. audible, and/or olfactory means 

at least weekly by operating personnel 

walk-through. · 

. (F) Each open-ended valve 

or line in VOC service, other than a valve 

or line used for safety relief. . shall be 

equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a 

second valve. Except· during sampling, the 

·second valve shall be closed. 

· (G) Accessible valves . in 

VOC service shall be monitored by leak· 

checking for fugitive emissions at least 

quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. 

For valves equipped with rupture discs. a 

pressure gauge shall be. installed between 

the relief valve and rupture disc to monitor 

disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be 

- replaced at the earliest opportunity. but no 

later than the next process shutdown. 

Sealless/leakless valves (including. but not 

limited to, welded bonnet bellows and dia· 

phragm valves) and relief valves equipped 

with a rupture disc or venting to a control 

device. are ~xempt from monitoring.' 

· (H) Dual pump seals with 

barrier fluid at higher pressure than process 

pressure. seals degassing to vent control 

systems kept in good working order. or 

seals equipped with an automatic seal fail· 

ure detection and alarm s~tem. submerged 

pumps, or sealless pumps (including, but 

not limited to, diaphragm, canned. or mag·_ 

netic driven pumps) are exempt from moni· 

toring. 

en All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be moni· 

tored with an approved gas analyzer at least 

quarterly. 

<n After completion of the 

required quarterly inspections for a period 

of at least two years. the operator of the oil 

and gas facility may request in writing to 

the 'INRCC, Office of Air Quality, New 

Source Review Division that the monitoring 

schedule be revised based on the percent of 

valves leaking. The percent of valves leak· 

ing shall be determined by dividing the sum 

of valves leiling during current monitoring · and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number of valves subject 

to the requirements. This request Shall in· 

clude all data that has been developed to 

justify the following modifications in the 

monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two eonsec)Jtive 

quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less 

than 2. 0%. an owner or operator may begin 

to skip one of the quarterly leak detection 

periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light 

liquid service. 

(ii) After five consecu· 

tive quarterly leak detection periods with 

the percent of valves leaking equal to or 

less than 2.0'Fo, an owner or' operator may 

begin to skip three of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor 

and light liquid service. 

(2) Owners or operators who are 

subject to subsection (a)(9) or (10) of this 

section shall comply with the following requirements. 

(A) No component shall be 

allowed to hav~ a VOC leak for more than 

15 days after the leak is found which ex· 

ceeds a VOC concentration greater than 500 

ppmv for all components except pumps and 

compressors and greater than 2,000 ppmv 

for pumps and compressors above back· 

ground as methane, propane, or hexane, ?r 

the dripping or exuding of· process fluid 

based on sight, smell. or sound. The VOC 

fugitive emission components which contact 

process fluids where the VOCs have an 

aggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure 

of less than 0.044 psia at 100 degrees Fahr· 

enheit are exempt from this requirement. !1 

VOC fugitive emission components are 1n 

service where the operating pressure is at 

least 0.725 psi (five Kpa) below ambient 

pressure. these components are also exen:pt 

from this requirement as long as the equ1p· 

ment is identified in a list that is made 

available upon request by 'INRCC representatives. the EPA. or any air pollution 

• PROPOSED RULES October 6, 1995 20 TexReg 8175 
... ··--··" .. · ......... _. ... _ ...... . _ _... ··---~--· --~·_,...:_,~~-...... ._:__ .. :1 .. '.,..,_ • ._ ... ~ .... 

-

control agency having jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and 

smaller are also exempt from this requirement. 

(B) All technically feasible 

repairs shall be made to repair a VOC leaking process fugitive component within 15 

days after the leak is detected. If the repair 

of a component would require a unit shutdown. the repair may be delayed until the 

next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaired until a· 

scheduled shutdown shall be identified for 

such repair by tagging. The executive director. at his or her discretion. may require 

early unit shutdown or other appropriate 

action based on the number and severity of 

tagged leaks awaiting shutdown. 

(C) New and reworked un, 

derground process pipelines containing 

VOCs shall contain no buried valves such 

that process -fugitive emission inspection 

and repair is rendered impractical. 

(D) To the extent that good 

engineering practice will permit, new and 

reworked valves and piping coMections in 

VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably accessible for leak-checking during 

plant operation. Valves elevated more than 

two meters above a support surface will be 

considered non-accessible and shall be identified in a list to be made available upon 

request. 

(E) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be 

welded or flanged. Screwed coMections are 

permissible only on piping smaller than 

two-inch diameter. No later than the next 

scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial 

installation or replacement. all new or reworked coMections shall be gas-tested or 

hydraulically-tested at no less than normal 

operating pressure and adjustments made as 

necessary to obtain leak-free performance. 

Flanges in VOC service shall be inspected 

by visual. audible. and/or olfactory means 

at least weekly by operating personnel 

walk-through: 

(F) Each open-ended valve 

or line in VOC service. other than a valve 

or line used for safety relief. shall be 

equipped with a cap. blind flange. plug. or a 

seco'nd valve. Except during sampling. the 

second valve shall be closed. 

(G) Accessible valves in 

voc service shall be monitored by leakchecking for fugitive emissions at least 

quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. 

.-. For valves equipped with rupture discs. a 

,Jressure gauge shall be installed between 

the relief valve and rupture disc to monitor 

disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be 

replaced at the earliest opportunity. but no 

later than the next process shutdown. 

Sealless/leakless valves (including. but not 

limited to. welded bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped 

with a rupture disc or venting to a control 

device are exempt from monitoring. 

(H) Dual pump seals with 

barrier fluid at higher pressure than process 

pressure. seals degassing to vent control 

systems kept in good working order or seals 

equipped with an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system. submerged 

·pumps. or sealless pumps (including, but 

not limited to. diaphragm. canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring. 

(I) All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored with an approved gas analyzer at least 

quarterly. 

(J) After completion of the 

required quarterly inspections for a period 

of at least two years, the operator of the oil 

and gas facility may request in writing to 

the 1NRCC, Office of Air Quality. New 

Source Review Division that the monitoring 

schedule be revised based on the percent of 

valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum 

of valves leaking during current monitoring 

and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number of valves subject 

to the requirements. 1bis request shall include all data that have been developed to 

justify the following modifications in the 

monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive · 

quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less 

than 2. 0%. an owner or operator may begin 

to skip one of the quarterly leak detection 

periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light 

liquid service. · 

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with 

the percent of valves leaking equal to or 

less. than 2.0%. an owner or operator may 

begin to skip three of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor 

and light liquid service. 

(K) A directed maintenance 

program shall be used and consist of the 

repair and maintenance of VOC fugitive 

emission components assisted simultaneously by the use of an approved gas 

analyzer such that a minimum concentration 

of leaking VOC is obtained for each component being maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days 

20 TexReg 8176 October 6, 1995 Texas Register • 

of being placed back into VOC service. 

(3) For owners and operators 

who are subject to the applicable parts of 

subsection (a)(ll) of this section. auditory 

and visual checks for SO, and H,S leaks 

within the operating area shall be made 

every day. Immediately. but no later than 

eight hours upon detection of a leak. operating personnel shall take the following actions: 

(A) isolate the leak; and 

(B) commence repair or replacement of the leaking component; or 

(C) use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the leak until 

repair or replacement can be made if immediate repair is not possible. 

(d) Approved test methods. 

(1) An approved gas analyz.er 

used for the VOC fugitive inspection and 

repair requirement in subsection (c) of this 

section. shall conform to requirements listed 

in 40 CFR 60.485(a) and (b) (2}. 

(2) Tutweiler analysis or equiva· 

lent shall be used to determine the hydrogen 

sulfide content as required under subsec· 

tions (a) and (e) of this section. 

(3) Proper operation of any condenser used as a VOC emissions control 

device to comply with subsection (a)(5) of 

this section shall be tested to demonstrate 

compliance with the minimum control effi. 

ciency. Sampling shall occur within 60 days 

after start-up of new or modified facilities. 

The permittee shall Contact the Engineering 

Services Section. Air Quality Enforcement 

Division 45 days prior to sampling for approval of sampling protocol. The appropriate regional office in the region where the 

source is located shall also be contacted 45 

days prior to sampling to provide them the 

opportunity to view the sampling. Neither 

the regional office nor the Engineering Services Section. Air Quality Enforcement Division personnel are required to view the 

testing. Sampling reports which comply 

with the provisions of the 1NRCC Sampling Procedure Manual. Chapter 14. shall 

be distributed to the appropriate regional 

office, any local programs, and the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division. 

(e) Monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

(1) If the operator elects to install and maintain ambient H,S property line 

monitors to comply with subsection (a)(ll) 

of this section. the monitors shall be approved by the 1NRCC Engineering Services Section. Air Quality Enforcement 

Division office in Austin, ~nd shall be capa-
ble of detecting and alarming at H,S con- centrations of ten ppmv. Operations 

personnel shall perform an initial on-site 

inspection of the facility within 24 hours of 

initial alarm and take corrective actions as 

listed in subsection (c)(3)(A)-(C) of this 

section within eight hours of detection of a leak. · 

(2) The results of the VOC leak 

detection and repair requirements shall be 

made available to the executive director. his 

or her designated representative, or any air 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction 

upon request. Records. for all components. 

shall include: 

(A) appropriate dates: 

(B) test methods; 

(C)" instrument readings; 

(D) . repair results; and 

(E) corrective actions. Records of flange inspections are not required 

unless a leak is detected. 

(3) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections of H,S 

and SO, components shall be maintained. 

(4) Records shall be kept for 

each production, processing, and pipeline 

tank battery or for each storage tank if not 

located at a tank battery, on a monthly 

basis, as follows: 

(A) tank battery identification or storage tank identification, if not 

located at a tank battery: 

(B) compound stored: 

(C) monthly throughput in 

barrels/month; and 

(D) cumulative annual 

throughput, barrels/year. 

(5) A plan Shall be submitted to 

show how ongoing compliance will be demonstrated for the efficiency 'requirements 

listed in subsection (b)(l)(D) of this section. 

The demonstration may include, but is not 

limited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, or other operating parameters. 

(6) Records shall be kept on at 

least a monthly basis of all production facility flow rates (in standard cubic feet per 

day) and total sulfur content of process 

vents or flares or gas processing streams. 

Total sulfur shall be calculated in long tons 

per day. 

(7) Records shall be kept of all 

ambient property line monitor alarms and 

shall include the date, time. duration. and 

cause of alarm. date and time of initial onsite inspection, and date and time of corrective actions taken. · 

(8) All required records shall be 

made available to representatives of the 

1NRCC. the EPA. or local air pollution 

control agencies upon request and be kept 

for at least two years. All required records 

shall be kept at the plant site, unless the 

plant site is unmanned during business 

hours. For plant sites ordinarily unmanned 

during business hours, the records shall be 

maintained at the nearest office in the state 

having day-to-day operations control of the 

plant site. 

§Il6.621. Municipal Solid Waste Lundfill. Operation of a Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfill (MSWLF) as defined in § 101.1 of 

this title (relating to Definitions), including, 

but not limited to. the installation of emission control equipment or implementation 

of control techniques for Type I, Type 

1-AE, Type IT. Type ill. Type N. Type IVAE. Type VI. and Type IX sites as defined 

in §330.42 of this title (relating to Types of 

Municipal Solid Waste Sites). 

(1) The MSWLF and associated 

waste acceptance and handling facilities that 

comply with §116.610 of this title (relating 

to Applicability) and §116.615 of this title 

(relating to General Conditions) except 

§116.610(1) of this title; that comply with 

§116.611 of this title (relating to Registration Requirements); and that comply with 

§116.614 ofthis title (relating to Standard 

Permit Fees) may be issued a standard permit. 

(2) Separate permit authorization must be obtained for the following: 

(A) industrial solid waste solidification/ stabilization facilities: 

(B) outdoor burning; 

(C) waste mcmeration other 

than that used to control landfill gas emissions: and 

(D) landfill cells in which 

any regulated quantities of hazardous waste 

will be placed. 

(3) Registration for an MSWLF 

located in an ozone nonattainment area, as 

defmed in § 116.10 of this title (relating to 

General Definitions). and having a total design capacity equal to or greater than 

100.000 megagrams (Mg) or an MSWLF 

located in an ozone atta,inment area and 

having a total design capacity equal to or 

greater than 2.500.000 Mg shall include. in 

addition to § 116.611 of this title, concerning Registration Requirements, the maximum expected nonmethane organic 

compounds (NMOC) emission rate for the 

MSWLF units calculated by using the procedures provided in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR.). §60.753 of the proposed federal rules published in the May 

30. 1991. issue of the Federal Register (56 

FR 24468). In the absence of site-specific 

data, the NMOC emission rate shall be cal-

~ulated based upon the maximum design 

capacity of the MSWLF and using the following default values: Generation Rate 

Constant, K = 0.04 one/year, and Generation Potential. L0 · = 125 m1Mg. The 

MSWLFs that codispose industrial solid 

waste with municipal solid waste shall use a 

default value for NMOC Concentration 

(C,...oc) of c ..... oc: = 4400 parts per million 

by volume (ppmv): other MSWLFs shall 

use a default value of c ..... oc = 1170 ppmv. 

(4) The permit holder shall annually calculate the NMOC emission rate 

for the MSWLF units based upon the actual 

waste managed in the MSWLF unit to determine if the emission rate exceeds the 

threshold level. For all MSWLFs and Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (MSW facilities) (as defined in §101.1 of this title) 

located in an ozone nonattainment area. the 

threshold level shall be the lower of either 

the NMOC emission rate specified in the 

new source performance standard regarding 

landfllls which requires the installation of 

an active gas collection and control system 

(GCCS) or 150 Mg (165 tons) per year: or 

the amount constituting the major source as 

defmed for that area in §116.12 of this title 

(relating to Nonattainment Review Defmitions) in Table I (concerning Major 

Source/Major Modification Emission 

Thresholds). For all MSWLFs located in an 

ozone attainment area, the threshold level 

shall be the NMOC emission rate specified 

in the new source performance standard 

regarding landfills which requires the installation of an active gas collection and control 

system or ISO Mg (165 tons) per year. 

Owner(s) and operator(s) of contiguous 

MSWLF units under related control shall 

calculate the NMOC emission rate for the 

MSW facility in the aggregate for all the 

MSWLF units therein. If the calculations 

show that the NMOC emission rate is 

greater than the threshold level, within 90 

days after the date that the calculated emission rate first exceeded the threshold nlue, 

the owner(s) or operator(s) shall either: 

(A) determine and submit 

site-specific NMOC Concentration (C"'i'.J 

and/or site-specific landfill gas Generauon 

Rate Constant (K) in accordance with the 

procedures of 40 CFR, §61.753 of the proposed federal rules published in the May 

30, 1991. issue of the Federal Register (56 

• PlWPOSED RULES October 6, 1995 20 TexReg 8177 

-

-

-
FR 24468) to demonstrate that the NMOC 

emission rate is less than the threshold 

value; or 

(B) submit plans for an active GCCS to effectively capture the gas 

that is generated within the MSWLF. The 

GCCS shall: 

(i) be designed to handle 

the maximum expected gas flowrate over 

the lifetime· of the GCCS from the entire 

area of the MSWLF that warrants control 

over the equipment lifetime; . 

(ii) collect gas from each 

area. cell, or group of cells in the MSWLF, 

which is either covered by final cover or in 

which refuse has been placed for a period of 

five years or more; 

(iii) collect gas at sufficient extraction rate; 

_ (iv) control NMOC gas 

emissions in one or more of the following 

ways: 

(I) the total collected 

gas is routed to an open flare with a minimum height of 30 feet and that is designed, 

operated. and inspected in accordance with 

40 CFR. §60.18. If necessary to ensure 

adequate combustion, natural gas shall be 

added to make the gases combustible. An 

infrared monitor is considered equivalent to 

a thermocouple for flame monitoring purposes. An automatic ignition systerrt may be 

used in lieu of a continuous pilot; 

-

(II) the total collected 

gas is routed to a control device with a 

minimum vent release height of 30 feet and 

that reduces the total collected NMOC gas 

emissions by 98% or to less than 20 ppmv; 

(III) the total collected 

gas is routed to a gas treatment system that 

processes the collected gas for subsequent 

use or sale. The sum of all emissions from 

any. atmospheric vent from the gas treatme!lt system shall be subject to the require-. 

ments of subclause (II) of this clause; 

(IV} the total collected 

gas is routed to gas or liquid fuel-fired 

stationary internal combustion reciprocating 

engines or gas turbines that satisfy all the 

requirements of§ 116.211 of this title (relating to Standard Exemption List). Standard· 

Exemption Number 6. except that registration using Form PI-7 or PI-8 shall not be 

required. Actual emissions from engines or 

turbines shall be limited to the amounts 

specified in § 116.2ll(a)(l) of this title; or 

(V) the total collected 

gas is routed to boilers. heaters. or other 

combustion units, but not including stationary internal combustion engines or turbines, 

that satisfy all of the requirements of Standard Exemption Number 7. Emissions from 

these combustion units shall be limited to 

the amounts found in §ll6.2ll(a)(l) of this 

title. 

(5) The owner(s) or operator(s) 

of an municipal solid waste facility whose 

calculated NMOC emission rate exceeds the 

threshold level shall within one year of 

submitting plans specified in paragraph 

(4)(B) of this section: 

(A) install the active GCCS; 

and 

(B) operate the GCCS in 

compliance with 40 CFR. §60.754 of the 

proposed federal rules published in the May 

30, 1991, issue· of the Federal Register (56 

FR 24468). . 

(6) The active GCCS may be 

capped or removed only if all of the following conditions are met · 

(A) the MSWLF unit shall 

not have accepted waste at any time during 

the previous six consecutive years and shall 

be permanently closed pursuant to 

§§330.250-330.256 of this title (relating to 

Closure and Post-Closure); 

. (B) the active GCCS shall 

have been in continuous operation for at 

least 15 years; and 

(C) the calculated NMOC' 

emission rate shall be less than the threshold value on three successive test dates. The 

test dates shall be no closer than three 

months apart. and no longer than six 

months apart. 

(7) All. measurements to deter· 

mine compliance with this paragraph shall 

be conducted by applying the following test 

methods. as appropriate: 

{A) Test Methods 1-4 (40 

CFR 60, Appendix A) for determining flow 

rate, oxygen concentration, or moisture, as 

necessary; 

(B) Test Method 2E as described in proposed 40 CFR 60. Appendix 

A, published in the May 30, 1991. issue of 

the Federal Register (56 FR 24468) for 

measuring the landfill gas production flow 

rate and designing the area of influence of 

the active GCCS; 

(C) Test Method 3C as de~ 

scribed in proposed 40 CFR 60. Appendix 

20 _ TexReg 8178 October 6, 1995. TextU Register • 

·-····· -· ··-· .:.· ... · .. -...... _.· .• : 

A. published in the May 30, 1991. issue of 

the Federal Register (56 FR 24468) for 

measuring the concentration of nitrogen in 

the landflll gas; 

(D) Test Method 18 (40 CFR 

60. Appendix A) for determining gaseous 

organic compound emissions by gas chro· 

matography; 

(E) Test Method 21 (40 CFR 

60, Appendix A) for determining volatile 

organic compound (VOC) leaks; 

(F) Test Method 25 (40 CFR 

60. Appendix A) for determination of total 

gaseous -nonmethane organic emissions as 

carbon; 

(G) Test Methods 25A or 

25B (40 CFR 60. Appendix A) for deter· 

mining total gaseous organic concentrations 

using flame ionization or nondispersive infrared analysis; · 

(H) Test MethOd 25C as de· 

scribed in proposed 40 CFR 60, Appendix 

A, published in the May 30, 1991, issue of 

the Federal Register (56 FR 24468) for 

determining NMOC in landfill gases; and 

(I) alternatives or modifica· 

tions. approved in advance by the Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(TNRCC) executive director or a designated 

representative, to the test . methods in 

subparagraphs (A)-(H) of this paragraph. 

Requests for alternative or modified test 

methods shall be submitted to the 1NRCC 

Office of Air Quality, New Source Review 

Program in Austin. Alternative test method 

proposals for New Source Performance 

Standard testing shall be submitted to· the 

TNRCC Office of Air Quality~ Monitoring 

Operations Division. Source and Mobile 

Monitoring Section in Austin. 

(8) MSWLF unit owner{s) and 

operator{s) shall monitor and control particulate· matter as follows. 

(A) All material handling 

and transport operations shall be conducted 

in a manner so as to minimize any fugitive 

particulate matter emissions. 

{B) All roads and areas on 

the property subject to vehicle traffic, including MSWLF cells during excavation, 

shall be watered, treated with dust· 

suppressant chemicals, or paved and 

cleaned as necessary to achieve maximum 

control of dust emissions with care given to 

prevent oversaturated conditions which 

would cause outgoing trucks to track mud 
··.· .. · ' 

~::;~L~·:_. - .. ·- -----------------~------- -------·-------·-.---~~~ ···~- -~~-- .· 

onto public roads and/or streets. 

(9) High volume air sampling, 

one- and/or three-hour tests, for net ground 

level concentrations of total particulate matter shall be performed upon request of the· 

TNRCC executive director or a designated 

representative. Each test shall consist of at 

least one upwind and one downwind sample 

taken simultaneously. The tests shall be performed during normal operations. A monitoring plan for high volume sampling shall 

be developed in accordance with the 

TNRCC Office of Air Quality Management 

Plan, Appendix I (United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans. 

dated February 1995) and the TNRCC 

"Sampling Procedures Manual," Chapter ll · 

(particulate matter, dated January 1983 and 

revised July 1983), and shall require approval by the TNRCC executive director or 

a designated representative prior to sampling. The 'INRCC executive director or a 

designated representative shall be afforded 

the opportunity to observe all such sampling 

equipment and records upon request 

(10) Inspection and maintenance 

protocols for MSWlF unit surface leaks 

shall be as follows. · 

(A) A leak is defmed as a 

sustained reading for a minimum of one 

minute of 500 ppmv total organic compounds (including methane and ethane) 

measured as methane, propane, or hexane. 

The owner(s) or operator(s) of the MSWLF 

unit at least once each quarter shall perform 

leak testing on all locations on the surface 

of the MSWlF uni_t covered by final cover 

and all- locations on the surface of the 

MSWLF unit which have been covered by 

intermediate cover for over six months. The 

TNRCC executive director or designated 

representative shall be afforded the opportunity to observe all such sampling equipment 

and records upon request. : 

(B) Surface leak testing 

shall be performed using an instrument that 

ineets the apparatus specifications of EPA 

Test Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A). 

The instrument shall be calibrated before 

and after each test using zero air and the 

methane standard calibration gas in accordance with the instrument manufacturer's 

recommendations. 

(C) Surface leak testing shall 

be performed by holding the detector probe 

two inches from the MSWlF cell surface 

while traversing a pattern of parallel paths 

not more than 50 feet apart over all applicable surface areas. In areas where vegetation 

prevents surface monitoring in accordance 

with this paragraph, the detector probe shall 

be held as close as possible to the MSWLF 

cell surface without necessitating the removal or cutting the vegetation. Cracks. 

holes, and other breaches in the surface as 

well as areas where buried waste interfaces 

with undisturbed native soil shall also be 

tested. 

(D) Surface leak testing shall 

be performed only when the wind speed is 

less than five miles per hour (mph) and 

instantaneous wind speed is less than 10 

mph, unless the TNRCC executive director 

or a designated representative approves alternate wind speed limits. Surface leak testing shall be performed only when the 

landfill has received less than 0.1 inches of 

rain in' the last 72 hours. 

(E) The owner(s) or operator(s) of a MSWLF unit; upon detection of 

a leak, shall identify the area of the leak 

with orange fluorescent paint and a readily 

visible marker that contains the identification number and the date the leak was detected. The marker shall not penetrate the 

surface and shall stand 48 inches above the 

surface. The marker and fluorescent paint 

shall remain in place until the leak is repaired. 

(F) Leaks shall be repaired 

within 15 days upon detection of the leak, 

unless the repair requires excavation. For 

repairs that require excavation, the 1NRCC 

executive director or a designated representative may require coordination with the 

lNRCC Office of Waste Management, Municipal Solid Waste Division. The owner or 

operator shall demonstrate that repairs will 

be made promptly and specify the expected 

date of completion. Leak repair methods 

shall reduce th_e total organic compound 

emissions to under 500 ppmv and include, 

but are not limited to: 

(i) increasing the collection rate of existing wells; · 

(ii) repairing the landfill 

cover: and 

(iii) installing additional 

collection wells. 

(11) Inspection and maintenance 

protocols for active GCCS organic compound leaks from compressor seals, pipeline 

valves, pressure relief valves in gaseous 

service. flanges, and pump seals (hereafter 

called components) for MSWLF units shall 

be as follows. 

(A) A leak is defmed as escape of gas with a total organic compound 

concentration greater than or equal to 

10,000 ppmv above background methane, 

propane, or hexane; or the dripping or exuding of process fluid detected by sight, smell, 

or sound. Emissions from all compressor 

seals. pipeline valves. pressure relief valves 

in gaseous service. and pump seals shall be 

measured quarterly with a hydrocarbon gas 

analyzer. Flanges in organic compound service shall be inspected by visual, olfactory, 

and/or audible means by operating personnel. 

(B) All technically feasible 

repairs to a leaking component shall be 

made within 15 days of detecting the leak. 

(C) All leaking components 

which cannot be repaired within 15 days 

shall be identified with a readily visible 

weatherproof tag that contains an identifiCation number and the date the leak was detected. This tag shall remain in place until 

the leaking component is repaired. The 

lNRCC executive director or a designated · 

representative, at his discretion, may require 

appropriate action based on the number and 

severity of tagged leaks. 

(D) Except for safety pressure relief valves, no valves shall be installed or operated at the end of a pipe or 

line containing organic compounds unle~ 

the pipe or line is. sealed with a second 

relief/closed valve, a blind flange, a plug, or 

a cap. The sealing device may be removed 

only while a sample is being taken or during maintenance operations. When closing 

the line, the upstream valve shall be closed 

fust. 

(E) New and reworked underground pipelines containing organic 

compounds shall contain no buried valves. 

(F) New and reworked 

valves and piping connections in organic 

compound service shall be so located to be 

accessible for leak-checking. 

(G) New and reworked piping connections in organic compound service shall be welded or flanged. Screwed 

·connections are permissible only on piping 

smaller than two-inch diameter. No later 

than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement 

of new or reworked connections, the owner(s) or operator(s) shall conduct gas-testing 

or hydraulic-testing at no less than normal 

operating pressure and make any adjustments to obtain leak-free performance. 

(H) Valves equipped with 

rupture discs shall require the installation of 

a pressure gauge between the relief valve 

and rupture disc to monitor disc integrity. 

All leaking discs shall be replaced no later 

than the next quarterly monitoring. 

• PROPOSED RULES October 6, 1995 20 TexReg 8179 
.. . . . . 

·~..._: ..... - ·&-.--·---~· -· --··- _ .... ·. _. . -- .. _. _ _._. _:·~-'- ·--'l..-~.:-·! .. ·- :. ·-~- .. _ •. -..... 

(I) Test Method 21 (40 CFR 

60, Appendix A) shall be utilized for determining VOC leaks by instrument. The leak 

- detection equipment may be calibrated with 

methane. propane, or hexane, but the meter 

readout shall be parts per million methane. 

(J) The components identified in clauses (i)-(x) of this subparagraph 

are exempt from the inspection and maintenance protocols for active GCCS organic 

compound leaks, pro.vided that the components are identified in a list maintained onsite that is made available upon request by 

the lNRCC representatives, the EPA, or any other pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction: 

(i) components at an 

MSWLF where the total of all estimated 

uncontrolled fugitive emissions from all 

components is less than ten tons per year; 

- (ii) components which 

contact gas or liquid where the VOC emissions have an aggregate partial pressure or 

vapor pressure of less than 0. 5 pounds per 

square inch (psi) area at 100 degrees Fahrenheit; 

(iii) components which 

are in a continuous vacuum service where 

vacuum is defined as at least five 

kilopascals (approximately 0.725 psi) below 

ambient pressure; 

(iv) piping and valves 

which are two inches nominal size and 

smaller; 

(v) valves which are elevated more than two meters above a support 

surface; 

(vi) sealless and leakless 

valves (including, but not limited to. welded 

bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and 

pressure relief devices which are equipped 

with a rupture disc upstream or routed to a 

control device; 

(vii) valves which are not 

externally regulated, such as in-line check 

valves; 

(viii) pressUre relief 

valves which are downstream of an intact 

rupture disc; 

(ix) reciprocating compressors which are equipped with degassing 

vents and vent control systems; and 

(x) dual pump seals 

which maintain barrier fluid at a pressure 

higher than process pressure; seals which are degassed to vent control systems; or seals which are equipped with an automatic 

seal failure detection and alarm system, 

submerged pumps, or sealless pumps (in-

- eluding, but not limited to, diaphragm, 

canned, or magnetic driven pumps). 

(K) After completion of the 

required quarterly inspections for a period 

of two consecutive years. the owner(s) or 

operator(s) may request in writing to the 

1NRCC. Office of Air Quality, New Source 

Review Program. that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the ·percent of 

valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing by the 

total number of valves subject to the monitoring requirements into the S\Jm of the 

valves leaking during the current monitoring and the valves for which repair has been 

delayed. This request shall include all data 

developed to justify the following modifications in the monitoring· schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive 

quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less 

than 2.0%. an owner or operator may skip . 

o"ne of the quarterly leak detection periods 

for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid 

service. 

(ii) After five consecutive 

quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less 

than 2.0%, an owner or operator may skip 

three of the quarterly leak detection periods 

for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid 

service. 

(12) The owner(s) or operator(s) of each MSWLF unit shall maintain 

complete and up-to-date records sufficient 

to readily determine if continuous compliance with the requirements of this paragraph for the previous two years of 

operation have been maintained. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements shall be as follows. 

(A) All records required by 

thiS paragraph shall be maintained at the 

MSWLF site and shall be available for review · upon request by 1NRCC representatives or any local air pollution agency 

having jurisdiction. 

(B) A leaking components 

log shall be maintained. This log shall contain at a minimum, the following data: 

(i) the location, type (e.g., 

valve or seal), and tag identification number 

of the component; 

(ii) the date and instrument reading of the initial check procedure 

upon discovery of the leaking component; 

(iii) the date of the leaking component repair; 

(iv) the date and instrument reading of the recheck procedure upon 

repair of the leaking component; 

( v) a calibration record 

for the monitoring instrument; 

20 TexReg 8180 October 6, 1995 Tems Register • 

(vi) an identification of 

leaks that cannot be repaired within 15 days 

and justification for the delay in making 

necessary repairs; and 

(vii) the total number of 

components checked and the total number 

of leaking components discovered. 

(C) The owner(s) or operator(s) of each MSWLF unit shall maintain a 

surface cap integrity leak log. This log shall 

contain, at a minimum, the_ following data: 

(i) the location and description of the leak; 

(ii) the date and instrument reading of the initial check procedure 

upon discovery of the leak; 

(iii) the steps taken to re~ 

pair the leak; 

(iv) the date of the leak 

repair; 

(v) the date and instrument reading of the recheck procedure upon 

repair of the leak; 

(vi) a calibration record 

for the monitoring instrument; and 

(vii) an identification of 

leaks that cannot be repaired within 15 days 

and justification for the delay in making 

necessary repairs. 

(D) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an MSWLF unit not required to 

install a GCCS shall maintain complete and 

up-to-date records of the data used for the 

annual calculation of the NMOC emissions 

rate, including, but not limited to: . 

(i) the annual calculation 

of the NMOC emission rate; and 

. (ii) the test results used to 

determine site-specific K and C,...oc factors 

as described in 40 CFR, §60. 753 of the 

proposed federal rules published in the· May 

30. 1991, issue of the Federal Register (56 

FR 24468). 

(E) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an MSWLF unit that has installed 

an active GCCS shall: 

(i) simultaneously with 

the GCCS installation, install a sampling 

port at each gas collection well in the gas 

collection header; 

(ii) measure and record 

the gauge pressure at each well in the gas 

collection header at the point where each 

well is coMected to the gas collection 

header pipe on a monthly basis; 

(iii)· sample and analyze 

for the methane, oxygen, and nitrogen concentrations of the landfill gas at each well in 
' . ·: .. ·;· . • :._~-.-.L. :_·._;_~.:_;:..:..,_ • '·-'- -- -·~·-·-- . 

) 

the gas collection header on a monthly basis; 

(iv) simultaneously with 

the GCCS installation, install a flow indicator (mass flowmeter) that automatically provides a continuous record of gas flow to the 

control device; 

(v) simultaneously with 

the GCCS installation, install, maintain, and 

operate a temperature monitoring device 

equipped with a continuous recorder to 

monitor the exhaust gas temperature immediately downstream for any direct-flame incinerator or enclosed flare; and 

(vi) simultaneously with 

the GCCS installation, install, maintain, and 

operate a temperature monitoring device 

equipped with a continuous recorder to 

monitor the gas temperature immediately 

upstream and downstream for any catalytic 

incinerator or chiller. 

(F) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an MSWLF unit shall maintajn upto-date records of landfill design and operation. These records shall include: 

(i) maximum design ca" 

pacity; 

(ii) current refuse in 

place; 

(iii) year-by-year refuse 

acceptance rate; 

(iv) a map or plot of the 

MSW facility providing the size and location, and identifying all areas where waste 

may be landfilled, where waste has been 

placed. and areas with intermediate cover 

and final cover. including the date the cover 

was placed; 

(v) any changes in landfill design capacity. including, but not limited to, area and depth of waste disposal, 

and changes to landfill operating procedures 

since the initial landfill design; 

(vi) calculated maximum 

expected gas generation flowrate to the 

combustion device using Method 2E; and 

(vii) calculated radius of 

influence (in meters) of the extraction wells. 

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal 

has been reviewed by legal counsel and 

fourd to be within the agency's authority to 

adopt. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 27, 

1995. 

TR0-9512422 Kevin McCalla 

Director, Legal Service a 

Olvtalon 

T axaa Natural Reaourcea 

Conservation 

Commission 

Proposed date of adoption: December 27, 

1995 

For further information, please call: (512} 

239-1966 

• • • 

Chapter 277. Use 

Determination 

[Determination] for Tax 

Exemptions for Pollution 

Control Property 

e 30 TAC §§1.77.10, 277.12, 277.20 

The Texas NatiXal Resource Conservation 

Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes amendments to §2n.10, concerning 

AppriCalion for Use Determination, §2n.12. 

concerning Application Review Schedule, and 

§277.20, concerning Application Fees. The 

proposed change to §2n.1o will extend the 

application deadline by 31 days. The proposed change to §2n.12 will clarify therequirements for notifying an applicant of 

deficiencies. The proposed change to 

§277.20 will revise the application fees lor 

T~er I, Tier· II. and Tier Ill applications. 

The proposed change to §277.10 will extend 

the application deadline from December 31 of 

the tax year for which. the use determination 

is being sought to January 31 ,of the following 

year. This extra 31 days will allow applicants 

to include year-end expeildit11es in their use 

determination applications. 

The proposed change to §277.12 will clarify 

the requirements for the TNRCC to send a 

deficiency notice to an applicant. In practice, 

a letter is mailed to the applicant stating 

whether the application is administratively 

complete and listing any items that have been 

omitted from the application. The technical 

review does not begin until the application is 

declared administratively complete. During 

the technical review of the application, it may 

be determined that additional infor'mation is 

needed before a final det0rmination can be 

made. Within 60 days of receiving an administratively complete application, a technical 

deficiency letter may be sent to the applicant 

requesting whatever additional inlormation is 

needed to complete the review. The rule language is being revised to clarify that the administrative and technical deficiencies are two 

separate determinations made by TNRCC 

staff. 

The proposed change to §277.20 will revise 

the fee structure for alt levels of the application fee. The revisions are based on the 

stall's evaluation of the fll"st year of operating 

the Proposition 2 program. The fee for Tier I 

applications will be reduced from $1 00 to $50 

per application. Internal staff processing of 

these applications averaged about one hou-. 

The new fee will more accurately reflect actual use of agency reso11ces. Conversely, the 

Tier II and Tier Ill fees must be raised because the average review time for these applications was much higher than ofiginally 

anticipated. The Tier II fee will be raised from 

$500 to $1,000 and the Tier Ill fee will be 

raised from $1,000 to $2,500. The new fee 

structure wiU generate adequate funding to 

fully staff the program in order to ensile 

timely re-1iew of use detetmination applicalions. 

A total of 786 applications for use determina- . 

lion were received for tax year 1994. Of this 

total, 84% were Tier I applications, 10% were 

Tier II, and 6.0% were Tier Ill. The fee revenues are broken down as follows: 44% of the 

fees were assessed to Tier I, 26% to Tier II, 

and 30% to Tier Ill. 

Stephen Minick, Strategic Planning and ~ 

propriations Division, has determined that for 

the r.-st five-year period the sections as prOposed are in effect there will be fiscal implications for state government as a result of 

enlorcing or administering the sections. The 

effect on state government w~l be a change 

in the fee rates assessed for review of applications for certificates of tax exemption. No 

significant increase in total revenues fro111 applications lees is anticipated; however, the 

changes in rates will result in increased fees 

for Tier II and T~er Ill applicants. Fees for Tier 

I applicants will be reduced. The revised rate 

structure will shift a greater proportion of the 

program funding to those applications that 

require the most time and agency reso11ces 

to process. There are no significant effects on 

local governments. The changes proposed 

are not anticipated to affect the determinations for qualification of pollution control 

equipment or the ·value of any potential property exemptions arising from such de1ermination. · · 

Mr. Minick also has determined that for each 

year of the first five years the sections are in 

effect the public benefit anticipated as a result 

of enforcing the sections as proposed will be 

more cost-effective processing ol applications 

for certification of pollution control equipment 

and the more equitable distribution of the 

costs of agency programs. Cost implications 

for affected persons, · lacirlties, - and 

businesses will range from a decrease of $50 

to an increase of $1,500. The effects on small 

businesses will be equivalent to those for 

larger concerns and will be based on the 

. types of applications submitted ard the 

equipment to be certified. The lower lees 

proposed for Tier I applications should encourage greater participation in the program 

by small businesses. Participation in this program is voluntary and the lees will only be 

incurred by companies or persons that seek a 

tax exemption for pollution control equipment. 

Based on a review of 1994 tax exemption 

applications, the anticipated reduction in tax 

liabilities lor the first year after a tax exemption is obtained will significantly exceed any 

increases in application fees or other costs 

associated with these rules. Other than the· 

fiscal implications identified, there are no additional costs to persons who are required to 

comply with the sections as proposed. 

Written comments may be submitted to the 

TNRCC Central Office in Austin. The deadline for submission ol written comments wid 

be 30 days al\er the dale of publication of this · 

proposal in the Texas Register. Material received by the TN RCC Office of Policy and 

Regulatory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that 

date will be considered by the commission 

prior to any final action on the proposal. 

Please mail comments to Lisa Martin, Office 

of Policy and Regulatory Development, MC 

205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas , 

• PROPOSED RULES October 6, 1995 20 TexReg 8181 

-

-
-

Barry R. McBee, Chairman 

R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner 

John M. Baker, Commissioner 

Dan Pearson, Executive Director 

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE 

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 116 

AND THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the requirements of the Texas Health and Safety Code, 

§3 82.017; Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations, §51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations 

concerning State Implementation Plans (SIP), the Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission (TNRCC or commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony 

concerning revisions to Chapter 116 and the SIP. 

The TNRCC proposes amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F, §116.610, 

concerning Applicability; and § 116.617, concerning Standard Permit List. In addition, the 

TNRCC proposes new §116.620, concerning Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas 

Facilities, and §116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. The amendments and new 

sections would reorganize the numbering of the standard permits. New §116.621 would 

establish a standard air permit for a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill with new, amended, or 

modified municipal solid waste permits. The sections are proposed to allow increased efficiency 

in proposing new standard permit provisions. Comment is specifically solicited on § 116.621, 

concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. 

A public hearing on the proposal will be held November 6, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 254S 

of TNRCC Building E, located at 12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Austin. The 

hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. 

Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open 

discussion within the audience will not occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC staff 

member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer 

questions before and after the hearing. 

Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office 

in Austin. The deadline for submission of written comments will be 30 days after the date of 

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711·3087 • 512/239-1000 
PAGE TWO 

publication of the proposed rules in the Texas Register. Material received by the TNRCC Office 

of Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00p.m. on that date will be considered by the 

commission prior to any final action on the proposal. Please mail comments to Lisa Martin, 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development, MC 202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-

3087, and reference Rules . Tracking Log #951 03-116-AI. Please fax comments to 

(512) 239-5687. Copies of the revision are available at the central office of the TNRCC, Air 

Policy and Regulations Division, located at 12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, 

Building E, Austin, and at all TNRCC regional offices. For further information, please contact 

Monica Pesek at (512) 239-1971. 

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who 

are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests should 

be made as far in advance as possible. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 27, 1995. 

Kevin McCalla 

Director, Legal Services Division 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 1 

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes amendments to §116.610, concerning Applicability, and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List. In addition, the TNRCC proposes new §116.620, concerning Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas 

Facilities, and new §116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. 

The proposed amendments involve the deletion of subsections (d)-(g) of §116.610. These subsections 

are repeated as paragraphs in §116.615, concerning General Conditions. In addition, the proposed 

amendments involve the deletion of §116.617(3), relating to Installation and/or Modification of Oil and 

Gas Facilities. This paragraph is proposed for renumbering as the new §116.620. 

The proposal is intended to increase efficiency in proposing new standard permit provisions. With the 

existing structure, the TNRCC is experiencing delays in proposing new standard permits. The 

proposed renumbering of the subsections in the existing standard permit rules to complete sections 

would enable more timely consideration of new standard permit provisions. No substantive change is 

intended by this renumbering. Comment is specifically solicited on §116.621, concerning Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfill. 

New §116.621 would establish criteria for obtaining a standard permit for a Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfill (MSWLF) with new, amended, or modified municipal solid waste permits. The MSWLF 

standard permit would provide an alternative to the New Source Review permit process of Chapter 

116, Subchapter B, § 116.110, concerning Applicability, if it is demonstrated that the applicant satisfies 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 2 

provisions in§ 116.610, concerning Applicability; and §116.615, concerning General Conditions. The 

standard permit is not a new requirement, but provides an alternative to the New Source Review permit 

review process that specifies operating and control requirements. The standard permit does not require 

modeling or a health effects review. 

The proposed rule states that nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) emission rates for MSWLF 

units with a design capacity exceeding 100,000 megagrams (Mg) in an ozone nonattainment area or a 

design capacity exceeding 2,500,000 Mg in an ozone attainment area shall be calculated using the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) procedures in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), §60. 753 of the proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the Federal 

Reaister (56 FR 24468) with minor modifications. 

Proposed §116.621(3) requires that owner(s) or operator(s) of a MSWLF include the calculated 

maximum expected NMOC emission rate for the MSWLF units. 

Proposed §116.621(4) establishes requirements for MSWLFs if the calculated NMOC emission rate 

exceeds the threshold level. The threshold level is defmed as the lower of either the federal standard 

for the NMOC emission rate which requires the installation of an active gas collection and control 

system or 150 Mg per year; or the amount constituting the major source defmition for MSWLFs and 

Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (MSW facilities) (as defmed in 30 TAC §101.1, concerning Defmitions) located in ozone nonattainment areas (as defmed in 30 TAC §116.10, concerning General 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Pennits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 3 

Definitions). The TNRCC staff has reviewed the EPA's Standards of Perfonnance for New Stationary 

Sources and recognized a need to incorporate the federal standard for the NMOC emission rate or 

establish a threshold value of 150 Mg per year. The federal standard is currently proposed as 50 Mg 

per year. The 50 Mg per year standard is undergoing review by the United States Office of Management and Budget. Upon promulgation of a federal standard, the TNRCC would address any discrepancies between the federal and state standard. In the event that the federal rule is not enacted by 

the date of adoption of MSWLF standard pennit provisions, the 150 Mg NMOC emission rate will be 

- incorporated. For background infonnation, refer to the Federal Reiister dated Thursday, May 30, 

1991, Standards of Perfonnance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing 

Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule, Guideline and Notice of Public Hearing. 

For MSWLFs and MSW facilities exceeding the threshold level, the proposed §116.621(4)(A) provides 

the option to submit site-specific NMOC Concentration and/or site-specific landfill gas Generation Rate 

Constant to demonstrate that the NMOC emisslon rate is less than the threshold value. Proposed 

§116.621(4)(B) provides the option to submit plans for an active gas collection and control system 

(GCCS). 

Proposed §116.621(5) requires owner(s) or operator(s) of an MSW facility whose calculated NMOC 

emission rate exceeds the threshold level to install, within one year, an active gas collection and control 

system (GCCS) to control NMOC gas emissions by routing the total collected gas to a control device. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Proposed §116.621(6) establishes the conditions for capping or removing an active GCCS; and 

references 30 TAC §§330.250-330.256, concerning Closure and Post-Closure. 

Page 4 

Proposed § 116.621 (7) identifies the test methods that may be utilized for measurements to determine 

compliance. This paragraph allows for testing alternatives or modifications that may be approved by 

the TNRCC in advance of the measurements. The testing methods allow for the determination for 

compliance, collection efficiency, and the integrity of the MSWLF cap. 

The proposed §116.621(8) requires MSWLF unit owner(s) and operator(s) to monitor and control 

particulate matter by minimizing any fugitive particulate matter emissions associated with material 

handling and transport; and maintaining all roads and areas on the property subject to vehicle traffic by 

watering, treating with dust-suppressant chemicals, or paving and cleaning as necessary to achieve 

maximum control of dust emissions. 

Proposed §116.621(9) describes the procedures for developing a monitoring plan for high volume air 

sampling and references the TNRCC Office of Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix I (EPA 

Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, dated February 1995) and the TNRCC "Sampling 

Procedures Manual," Chapter 11 (particulate matter, dated January 1983 and revised July 1983). 

The proposed § 116.621 (1 0) describes the inspection and maintenance protocols for MSWLF unit 

surface leaks; and defines a leak as a sustained reading for a minimum of one minute of 500 parts per 

-

-
-

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

million by volume (ppmv) total organic compounds (including methane and ethane) measured as 

Page 5 

methane, propane, or hexane. The paragraph states that leak testing shall be performed at least once 

each quarter using an instrument that meets the apparatus specifications of EPA Test Method 21 (40 

CFR 60, Appendix A). The area of the leaks shall be identified with orange fluorescent paint and a 

readily visible marker. Leaks shall be repaired within 15 days upon detection of the ieak, unless the 

repair requires excavation. Excavation requires a plan for approval by the TNRCC executive director. 

The velocity of the probe mentioned in §116.621(10)(C) shall not exceed the limitations of the 

equipment, including travel speeds. 

Proposed §116.621(11) describes the inspection and maintenance protocols for active GCCS organic 

compound leaks from compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure relief valves in gaseous service, and 

pump seals for MSWLF units. Emissions from all compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure relief 

valves in gaseous service, and pump seals shall be measured quarterly with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer 

and with all technically feasible repairs to be made within 15 days of detecting the leak. 

The proposed§ 116.621(12) requires the owner(s) or operator(s) of each MSWLF unit to maintain 

records sufficient to readily determine if compliance with the requirements of this paragraph was 

maintained. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are defmed. The intent of the 

requirements is to obtain data that is compatible to link this chapter to 30 TAC Chapter 330, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Division, and establish consistency between the two chapters. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 6 

Stephen Minick, Strategic Planning and Appropriations Division, has determined that for the first fiveyear period the sections are in effect there will be no significant fiscal implications for state government 

as a result of enforcing or administering the sections. There will be costs associated with installing a 

GCCS. The EPA has estimated a cost effectiveness factor of $500 to $2,000 per ton of NMOC 

reduced with variability depending upon such factors as the type of refuse, MSW facility location, and 

MSW facility size. The costs will be incurred under the requirements of the New Source Review 

Subchapter B permit and the standard permit provisions. However, local governments that own and 

operate new or modified MSWLFs may experience a cost savings with regard to permit fees as a result 

of receiving approval for a standard permit. 

Mr. Minick also has determined that for each year of the first five years the section is in effect the 

public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the sections will be the possibility of improved health 

due to emission reductions achieved through the installation of GCCS. The TNRCC anticipates that 

small businesses may experience a cost savings,, since the MSWLF standard permit is an alternative to 

the New Source Review permit procedures. The 2.5 million Mg capacity exemption is also beneficial 

for small businesses located in ozone attainment areas. There is no anticipated economic cost to 

persons who are required to comply with the sections as proposed. The MSWLF standard permit is an 

alternative that is expected to result in a cost savings to the state and the regulated community. 

A public hearing on the proposal will be held November 6, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 254S of 

TNRCC Building E, located at 12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Austin. The hearing 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 7 

is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present 

oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not 

occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 

minutes prior to the hearing. 

Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office in 

Austin. The deadline for submission of written comments will be 30 days after the date of publication 

of the proposal in the Texas Reiister. Material received by the TNRCC Office of Policy and 

Regulatory Development by 4:00p.m. on that date will be considered by the commission prior to any 

final action on the proposal. Please mail comments to the attention of Lisa Martin, Office of Policy 

and Regulatory Development, MC202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, and reference 

Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-AI. Please fax comments to (512) 239-5687. Copies of the revisions 

are available at the central office of the TNRCC, Air Policy and Regulations Division, located at 12118 

North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Building E, Austin, and at all TNRCC regional offices. For 

further information, please contact Monica Pesek at (512) 239-1971. 

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are 

planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made 

as far in advance as possible. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Conunission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 8 

The amendments are proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), 

§382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and 

purposes of the TCAA. 

The proposed amendments implement the Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017, concerning Rules. 

-

.-, 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for .-.l"ew Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

SUBCHAPTER F : STANDARD PERMITS 

§116.610. Applicability. 

Page 9 

(a) Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.051, projects involving the types of 

facilities or physical or operational changes to facilities which meet the requirements for a standard 

permit listed in this subchapter [§116.617 of this title (relating to Standard Permit List)] are hereby 

entitled to the standard permit; provided however, that: 

(I) (No change.) 

(2) construction or operation of the project shall be commenced prior to the effective 

date of a revision to this subchapter [§116.617 of this title] under which the project would no longer 

meet the requirements for a standard permit; 

(3) - (5) (No change.) 

(b) Any project which constitutes a new major source, or major modification under the new 

source review requirements of the FCAA, Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review) or 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Part D (Nonattainment Review) and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be subject to the 

requirements of §116.110 of this title (relating to Applicability) rather than this subchapter. 

(c) (No change.) 

Page 10 

[(d) The emissions from the facility shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of 

the TNRCC adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382, and with intent of the 

TCAA, including protection of health and property of the public and all emissions control equipment 

shall be maintained in good condition and operated properly during operation of the facility. 

[(e) All representations with regard to construction plans, operating procedures, and maximum 

emission rates in any registration for a standard permit become conditions upon which the facility or 

changes thereto, shall be constructed and operated. It shall be unlawful for any person to vary from 

such representations if the change will affect that person's right to claim a standard permit under this 

section. Any change in conditions such that a person is no longer eligible to claim a standard permit 

under this section requires proper authorization under §116.110 of this title. The owner or operator of 

the facility must notify the TNRCC of any other change in conditions which will result in a change in 

the method of control of emissions, a change in the character of the emissions, or an increase in the 

discharge of the various emission as compared to the representations in the original registration or any 

previous notification of a change in representations. Notice of changes in representations must be 

received by the TNRCC no later than 30 days after the change. 

-

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 11 

[(t) All records relating to the applicability of and compliance with the terms of a standard 

permit shall be maintained by the permittee for at least a two-year rolling retention basis, and made 

available for review by authorized representatives of the TNRCC, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, or local air pollution control agencies. 

[(g) All changes authorized by standard permit to a facility previously permitted pursuant to 

§ 116.110 of this title shall be administratively incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the 

permit is amended or renewed.] 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

§116.617. Standard Pennit List. 

Page 12 

Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act, §382.051, projects involving the types of facilities or 

physical or operational changes to facilities listed in this section qualify for a standard· permit subject to 

the conditions stated in §116.610 of this title (relating to Applicability) and §116.615 of this title 

(relatini to General Conditions). 

(1) - (2) (No change.) 

[(3) Installation and/or modification of oil and gas facilities. 

[(A) Emission specifications. 

[(i) Venting or flaring more than 0.3 long tons per day of total sulfur 

shall not be allowed. 

[(ii) No facility shall be allowed to emit total uncontrolled emissions of 

sulfur compounds, except sulfur dioxide (SO:z), from all vents (excluding process fugitives emissions) 

equal to or greater than four pounds per hour unless the vapors are collected and routed to a flare. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 13 

[(iii) Any vent, excluding any safety relief valves that discharge to the 

atmosphere only as a result of fire or failure of utilities, emitting sulfur compounds other than sulfur 

dioxide, shall be at least 20 feet above ground level. 

[(iv) New or modified internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas 

turbines permitted under this standard permit shall satisfy all of the requirements of Standard Exemption Number 6, except that registration using the Form Pl-7 or PI-8 shall not be required. Emissions 

from engines or turbines shall be limited to the amounts found in § 116.21l(a)(l) of this title (relating to 

Standard Exemption List). 

[(v) Total Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from a natural 

gas glycol dehydration unit shall not exceed 10 tons per year (tpy) unless the vapors are collected and 

controlled in accordance with subparagraph (B)(ii) of this paragraph. 

[(vi) Any combustion unit (excluding flares, internal combustion 

engines, or natural gas turbines), with a design maximum heat input greater than 40 million British 

thermal units (Btu) per hour (using lower heating values) shall not emit more than 0.06 pounds of 

nitrogen oxides (NO.) per million Btu. 

[(vii) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant 

receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 14 

10 tpy, but less than 25 tpy, unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph 

(C)(i) of this paragraph. 

[(viii) No facility which is 500 feet or more from the nearest off-plant 

receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 

25 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(i) of this 

paragraph. 

[(ix) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant 

receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 

25 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(ii) of this 

paragraph. 

[(x) No facility shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process 

fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 40 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired 

according to subparagraph (C)(ii) of this paragraph. 

[(xi) No facility which is located less than one quarter of a mile from 

the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or S02 process fugitive 

emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)( iii) of this 

paragraph. No facility which is located at least one quarter of a mile from the nearest off-plant 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

receptor shall be allowed to emit H2S or S02 process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is 

Page 15 

inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(iii) of this paragraph or unless the H2S or S02 

emissions are monitored with ambient property line monitors according to subparagraph (E)(i) of this 

paragraph. Components in sweet crude oil or gas service as defmed by Chapter 101 of this title 

(relating to General Rules) are exempt from these limitations. 

[(xii) Flares shall be designed and operated in accordance with 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CPR), Part 60.18 or equivalent standard approved by the commission, 

including specifications of minimum heating values of waste gas, maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame 

monitoring. If necessary to ensure adequate combustion, sufficient gas shall be added to make the 

gases combustible. An infrared monitor is considered equivalent to a thermocouple for flame 

monitoring purposes. An automatic ignition system may be used in lieu of a continuous pilot. 

[(xiii) Appropriate documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate 

that compliance with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattairunent new source 

review (NSR) provisions of the FCAA, Parts C and D, and regulations promulgated thereunder, are 

being met. The oil and gas facility shall be required to meet the requirements of Subchapter B of this 

chapter (relating to New Source Review Permits) instead of this subchapter if a PSD or nonattainment 

permit is required. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 16 

[(xiv) Documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate compliance 

with applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40 CFR 60) and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution (NESHAP, 40 CFR 61). 

[(xv) New and increased emissions shall not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or regulation property line standards 

as specified in Chapters 111, 112, and 113 of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollution From 

Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter; Control of Air Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and 

Control of Air Pollution From Toxic Materials). Engineering judgment and/or computerized air 

dispersion modeling may be used in this demonstration. To show compliance with §116.610(a)(l) of 

this title (relating to Applicability) for H2S emissions from process vents, 10 milligrams per cubic meter 

shall be used as the "L" value instead of the value represented by 116.61 0( a )(1) of this title. 

[(xvi) Fuel for all combustion units and flare pilots shall be sweet 

natural gas or liquid petroleum gas, fuel gas containing no more than 10 grains of total sulfur per 100 

dry standard cubic feet (scdt), or field gas. If field gas contains more than 1.5 grains of H2S or 30 

grains total sulfur compounds per 100 scdf, the operator shall maintain records, including at least 

quarterly measurements of fuel H2S and total sulfur content, which demonstrate that the annual S02 

emissions from the facility do not exceed the limitations listed in the standard permit registration. If a 

flare is the only combustion unit on a property, the operator shall not be required to maintain such 

records on flare pilot gas. 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 17 

[(B) Control requirements. 

[(i) Floating roofs or equivalent controls shall be required on all new 

or modified storage tanks, other than pressurized tanks which meet Standard Exemption 83, unless the 

tank is less than 25,000 gallons in nominal size or the vapor pressure of the compound to be stored in 

the tank is less than 0.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) at maximum short-term storage 

temperature. 

[(I) For internal floating roofs, mechanical shoe primary seal 

or liquid-mounted primary seal or a vapor-mounted primary with a rim-mounted secondary seals shall 

be used. 

[(II) Mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted primary seals shall 

include a rim-mounted secondary seal on all external floating roofs tanks. Vapor-mounted primary 

seals will not be accepted. 

[(III) All floating roof tanks shall comply with the requirements under § 115 .112(a)(2)(A) - (F) of this title (relating to Control Requirements). 

[(IV) In lieu of a floating roof, tank emissions may be routed 

to: 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 18 

[(-a-) a destruction device such that a minimum VOC 

destruction efficiency of 98% is achieved; or 

[(-b-) a vapor recovery system such that a minimum 

VOC recovery efficiency of 95% is achieved. 

[(V) Independent of the exemptions listed in this clause, if the 

emissions from any fixed roof tank exceed 10 tpy of VOC or 10 tpy of sulfur compounds, the tank 

emissions shall be routed to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, or equivalent method of control 

that meets the requirements listed in subclause (IV) of this clause. 

[(ii) The VOC emissions from a natural gas glycol dehydration unit 

shall be controlled as follows. 

[(I) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater 

than 10 tons per year, but less than 50 tons per year, a minimum of 80% by weight minimum control 

efficiency shall be achieved by either operating a condenser and a separator (or flash tank), vapor 

recovery unit, destruction device, or equivalent control device. 

[(II) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or 

greater than 50 tpy, a minimum of: 

-

-

-
,- Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 19 

[(-a-) 98% by weight minimum destruction efficiency 

shall be achieved by a destruction device or equivalent; or 

[ (-b-) 95 % by weight minimum control efficiency shall 

be achieved by a vapor recovery system or equivalent. 

[(C) Inspection requirements. 

[(i) Owners or operators who are subject to subparagraph (A)(vii) or 

(viii) of this paragraph shall comply with the following requirements. 

[(I) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for 

more than 15 days after the leak is detected to exceed a VOC concentration greater than 10,000 parts 

per million by volume (ppmv) above background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the dripping or 

exuding of process fluid based on sight, smell, or sound for all components. The VOC fugitive 

emission components which contact process fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure 

or vapor pressure of less than 0.5 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. If 

VOC fugitive emission components are in service where the operating pressure is at least 0. 725 pounds 

per square inch (psi) (five kilopascals (Kpa)) below ambient pressure, then these components are also 

exempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is made available upon 

request by Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) representatives, the EPA, or 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 20 

any other air pollution agency having jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and 

smaller, unless subject to Federal New Source Performance Standards requiring a fugitive VOC 

emissions leak detection and repair program or Chapter 115 of this title (relating to Control of Air 

Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds), are also exempt from this requirement. 

[(II) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to repair a 

VOC leaking process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. If the repair of a 

component would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled 

shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaired until a scheduled shutdown shall be 

identified for such repair by tagging. The TNRCC executive director, at his or her discretion, may 

require early unit shutdown or other appropriate action based on the number and severity of tagged 

leaks awaiting shutdown. 

[(Ill) New and reworked underground process pipelines 

containing VOCs shall contain no buried valves such that process fugitive emission inspection and 

repair is rendered impractical. 

[(N) To the extent that good engineering practice will permit, 

new and reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably 

accessible for leak-checking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 21 

support surface will be considered non-accessible and shall be identified in a list to be made available 

upon request. 

[(V) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service 

shall be welded or flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping s~aller than two-inch 

diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement, all new or reworked 

connections shall be gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating pressure and 

adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. Flanges in VOC service shall be 

inspected by visual, audible, and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating personnel walkthrough. 

[(VI) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, other 

than a valve or line used for safety relief, shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second 

valve. Except during sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

[(VII) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by 

leak -checking for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. For valves 

equipped with rupture discs, a pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture 

disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity, but no 

later than the next process shutdown. Sealless/leak.less valves (including, but not limited to, welded 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 22 

bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupture disc or venting to a 

control device are exempt from monitoring. 

[(VIII) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher pressure 

than process pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order, or seals 

equipped with an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged pumps, or sealless 

pumps (including, but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from 

monitoring. 

[(IX) All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall 

be monitored with an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly. 

[(X) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for 

a period of at least two years, the operator of the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the 

TNRCC, Office of Air Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised 

based on the percent of valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing 

the sum of valves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by 

the total number of valves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data that has been 

developed to justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 23 

[(-a-) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin 

to skip one of the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

[(-b-) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin 

to skip three of the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

[(ii) Owners or operators who are subject to subparagraph (A)(ix) or 

(x) of this paragraph shall comply with the following requirements. 

[(I) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for 

more than 15 days after the leak is found which exceeds a VOC concentration greater than 500 ppmv 

for all components except pumps and compressors and greater than 2,000 ppmv for pumps and 

compressors above background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the dripping or exuding of process 

fluid based on sight, smell, or sound. The VOC fugitive emission components which contact process 

fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure of less than 0.044 psia at 

100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. If VOC fugitive emission components are in 

service where the operating pressure is at least 0. 725 psi (five Kpa) below ambient pressure, these 

components are also exempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is 

made available upon request by TNRCC representatives, the EPA, or any air pollution control agency 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-Al 

Page 24 

having jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and smaller are also exempt from 

this requirement. 

[(II) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to repair a 

VOC leaking process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. If the repair of a 

component would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled 

shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaired until a scheduled shutdown shaH be 

identified for such repair by tagging. The executive director, at his or her discretion, may require 

early unit shutdown or other appropriate action based on the number and severity of tagged leaks 

awaiting shutdown. 

[(III) New and reworked underground process pipelines 

containing VOCs shall contain no buried valves such that process fugitive emission inspection and 

repair is rendered impractical. 

[(N) To the extent that good engineering practice will permit, 

new and reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably 

accessible for leak-checking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a 

support surface will be considered non-accessible and shall be identified in a list to be made available 

upon request. 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 25 

[(V) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service 

shall be welded or flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping smaller than two-inch 

diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement, all new or reworked connections shall be gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less than normal 

operating pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. Flanges in 

VOC service shall be inspected by visual, audible, and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating 

personnel walk-through. 

[(VI) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, other 

than a valve or line used for safety relief, shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second 

valve. Except during sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

[(VII) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by 

leak -checking for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. For valves 

equipped with rupture discs, a pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture 

disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity, but no 

later than the next process shutdown. Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded 

bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupture disc or venting to a 

control device are exempt from monitoring. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-l16-AI 

Page 26 

[(VIII) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher pressure 

than process pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order or seals 

equipped with an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged pumps, or sealless 

pumps (including, but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from 

monitoring. 

[(IX) All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall 

be monitored with an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly. 

[(X) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for 

a period of at least two years, the operator of the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the 

TNRCC, Office of Air Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised 

based on the percent of valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing 

the sum of valves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by 

the total number of valves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data that have 

been developed to justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

[(-a-) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin 

to skip one of the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 27 

[(-b-) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin 

to skip three of the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

[(XI) A directed maintenance program shall be used and 

consist of the repair and maintenance of VOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by 

the use of an approved gas analyzer such that a minimum concentration of leaking VOC is obtained for 

each component being maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days of being 

placed back into VOC service. 

[(iii) For owners and operators who are subject to the applicable parts 

of subparagraph (A)(xi) of this paragraph, auditory and visual checks for S02 and H2S leaks within the 

operating area shall be made every day. Immediately, but no later than eight hours upon detection of a 

leak, operating personnel shall take the following actions: 

[(I) isolate the leak; and 

[(II) commence repair or replacement of the leaking component; or 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 28 

[(III) use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the 

leak until repair or replacement can be made if immediate repair is not possible. 

[(D) Approved test methods. 

[(i) An approved gas analyzer used for the VOC fugitive inspection 

and repair requirement in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, shall conform to requirements listed in 

40 CFR 60.485(a) and (b). 

[(ii) Tutweiler analysis or equivalenfshall be used to determine the 

hydrogen sulfide content as required under subparagraphs (A) and (E) of this paragraph. 

[(iii) Proper operation of any condenser used as a VOC emissions 

control device to comply with subparagraph (A)(v) of this paragraph shall be tested to demonstrate 

compliance with the minimum control efficiency. Sampling shall occur within 60 days after start-up of 

new or modified facilities. The permittee shall contact the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality 

Enforcement Division 45 days prior to sampling for approval of sampling protocol. The appropriate 

regional office in the region where the source is located shall also be contacted 45 days prior to 

sampling to provide them the opportunity to view the sampling. Neither the regional office nor the 

Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division personnel are required to view the 

testing. Sampling reports which comply with the provisions of the TNRCC Sampling Procedure 

-
-

-

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 29 

Manual, Chapter 14, shall be distributed to the appropriate regional office, any local programs, and the 

Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division. 

[(E) Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. 

[(i) If the operator elects to install and maintain ambient H2S property 

line monitors to comply with (A)(xi) of this paragraph, the monitors shall be approved by the TNRCC 

Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division office in Austin, and shall be capable 

of detecting and alarming at H2S concentrations of 10 ppmv. Operations personnel shall perform an 

initial on-site inspection of the facility within 24 hours of initial alarm and take corrective actions as 

listed in subparagraph (C)(iii)(I)-(Ill) of this paragraph within eight hours of detection of a leak. 

[(ii) The results of the VOC leak detection and repair requirements 

shall be made available to the executive director, his or her designated representative, or any air 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction upon request. Records, for all components, shall include: 

[(I) appropriate dates; 

[(II) test methods; 

[(III) instrument readings; 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#951 03-116-AI 

required unless a leak is detected. 

Page 30 

[(IV) repair results; and 

[(V) corrective actions. Records of flange inspections are not 

[(iii) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections of 

H2S and S02 components shall be maintained. 

[(iv) Records shall be kept for each production, processing, and 

pipeline tank battery or for each storage tank if not located at a tank battery, on a monthly basis, as 

follows: 

[(I) tank battery identification or storage tank identification, if 

not located at a tank battery; 

[(II) compound stored; 

[(III) monthly throughput in barrels/ month; and 

[(IV) cumulative annual throughput, barrels/year. 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-Al 

Page 31 

[(v) A plan shall be submitted to show how ongoing compliance will 

be demonstrated for the efficiency requirements listed in subparagraph (B}(i)(IV) of this paragraph. 

The demonstration may include, but is not limited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, or other 

operating parameters. 

[(vi) Records shall be kept on at least a monthly basis of all production 

facility flow rates (in standard cubic feet per day) and total sulfur content of process vents or flares or 

gas processing streams. Total sulfur shall be calculated in long tons per day. 

[(vii) Records shall be kept of all ambient property line monitor alarms 

and shall include the date, time, duration, and cause of alarm, date and time of initial on-site inspection, and date and time of corrective actions taken. 

[(viii) All required records shall be made available to representatives 

of the TNRCC, EPA, or local air pollution control agencies upon request and be kept for at least two 

years. All required records shall be kept at the plant site, unless the plant site is unmanned during 

business hours. For plant sites ordinarily unmanned during business hours, the records shall be 

maintained at the nearest office in the state having day-to-day operations control of the plant site.] 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Pennits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

§116.620. Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas 

Facilities. 

(a) Emission specifications. 

Page 32 

(1) Venting or flaring more than 0.3 long tons per day of total sulfur shall not be 

allowed. 

(2) No facility shall be allowed to emit total uncontrolled emissions of sulfur compounds, except sulfur dioxide (S02), from all vents (excluding process fugitives emissions) equal to or 

greater than four pounds per hour unless the vapors are collected and routed to a flare. 

(3) Any vent, excluding any safety relief valves that discharge to the atmosphere only 

as a result of fire or failure of utilities, emitting sulfur compounds other than S02 shall be at least 20 

feet above ground level. 

(4) New or modified internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines 

pennitted under this standard pennit shall satisfy all of the requirements of Standard Exemption 

Number 6, except that registration using the Fonn PI-7 or PI-8 shall not be required. Emissions from 

engines or turbines shall be limited to the amounts found in §116.2ll(a)(l) of this title (relating to 

Standard Exemption List). 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Conunission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 33 

(5) Total Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from a natural gas glycol 

dehydration unit shall not exceed 10 tons per year (tpy) unless the vapors are collected and controlled 

· in accordance with subsection (b )(2) of this section. 

(6) Any combustion unit (excluding flares, internal combustion engines, or natural gas 

turbines), with a design maximum heat input greater than 40 million British thermal units (Btu) per 

hour (using lower heating values) shall not emit more than 0.06 pounds of nitrogen oxides per million 

Btu. 

(7) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be 

allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 10 tpy, but less 

than 25 tpy, unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(l) of this 

section. 

(8) No facility which is 500 feet or more from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be 

allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 25 tpy unless the 

equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)( 1) of this section. 

(9) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be 

allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 25 tpy unless the 

equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(2) of this section. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 34 

(10) No facility shall be allowed to emit uncomrolled VOC process fugitive emissions 

equal to or greater than 40 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(11) No facility which is located less than one quarter of a mile from the nearest offplant receptor shall be allowed to emit hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or S02 process fugitive emissions unless 

the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection ( c )(3) of this section. No facility which 

is located at least one quarter of a mile from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit H2S 

or S02 process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to 

subsection (c)(3) of this section or unless the H2S or S02 emissions are monitored with ambient 

property line monitors according to subsection (e)(l) of this section. Components in sweet crude oil or 

gas service as defined by Chapter 101 of this title (relating to General Rules) are exempt from these 

limitations. 

(12) Flares shall be designed and operated in accordance with 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 60.18 or equivalent standard approved by the Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission (TNRCC), including specifications of minimum heating values of waste gas, 

maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame monitoring. If necessary to ensure adequate combustion, 

sufficient gas shall be added to make the gases combustible. An infrared monitor is considered 

equivalent to a thermocouple for flame monitoring purposes. An automatic ignition system may be 

used in lieu of a continuous pilot. 

-~ 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 35 

(13) Appropriate documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate that compliance 

with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review provisions 

of the Federal Clean Air Act, Parts C and D, and regulations promulgated thereunder, are being met. 

The oil and gas facility shall be required to meet the requirements of Subchapter B of this chapter 

(relating to New Source Review Permits) instead of this subchapter if a PSD or nonattainment permit is 

required. 

(14) Documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable-New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40 CFR 60) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollution (NESHAP, 40 CFR 61). 

(15) New and increased emissions shall not cause or contribute to a violation of any 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard or regulation property line standards as specified in Chapters 

111, 112, and 113 of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollution From Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter; Control of Air Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and Control of Air Pollution From 

Toxic Materials). Engineering judgment and/or computerized air dispersion modeling may be used in 

this demonstration. To show compliance with §116.610(a)(l) of this title (relating to Applicability) for 

H2S emissions from process vents, 10 milligrams per cubic meter shall be used as the "L" value instead 

of the value represented by §116.610(a)(l) of this title. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 36 

( 16) Fuel for all combustion units and flare pilots shall be sweet natural gas or liquid 

petroleum gas, fuel gas containing no more than 10 grains of total sulfur per 100 dry standard cubic 

feet (scdf), or field gas. If field gas contains more than 1.5 grains of H2S or 30 grains total sulfur 

compounds per 100 scdf, the operator shall maintain records, including at least quarterly measurements 

of fuel H2S and total sulfur content, which demonstrate that the annual S02 emissil?ns from the facility 

do not exceed the limitations listed in the standard permit registration. If a flare is the only combustion 

unit on a property, the operator shall not be required to maintain such records on flare pilot gas. 

(b) Control requirements. 

( 1) Floating roofs or equivalent controls shall be required on all new or modified 

storage tanks, other than pressurized tanks which meet Standard Exemption 83, unless the tank is less 

than 25,000 gallons in nominal size or the vapor pressure ofthe compound to be stored in the tank is 

less than 0.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) at maximum short-term storage temperature. 

(A) For internal floating roofs, mechanical shoe primary seal or liquidmounted primary seal or a vapor-mounted primary with rim-mounted secondary seal shall be used. 

(B) Mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted primary seals shall include a rimmounted secondary seal on all external floating roofs tanks. Vapor-mounted primary seals will not be 

accepted. 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

(C) All floating roof tanks shall comply with the requirements under 

§115.112(a)(2)(A)- (F) of this title (relating to Control Requirements). 

(D) In lieu of a floating roof, tank emissions may be routed to: 

(i~ a destruction device such that a minimum VOC destruction 

efficiency of 98% is achieved; or 

Page 37 

(ii) a vapor recovery system such that a minimum VOC recovery efficiency 

of 95% is achieved. 

(E) Independent of the exemptions listed in this paragraph, if the emissions 

from any fixed roof tank exceed 10 tpy of VOC or 10 tpy of sulfur compounds, the tank emissions shall 

be routed to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, or equivalent method of control that meets the 

requirements listed in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. 

(2) The VOC emissions from a natural gas glycol dehydration unit shall be controlled 

as follows. 

(A) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 10 tpy, 

but less than 50 tpy, a minimum of 80% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 38 

either operating a condenser and a separator (or flash tank), vapor recovery unit, destruction device, or 

equivalent control device. 

(B) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 50 tpy, a 

minimum of: 

(i) 98% by weight minimum destruction efficiency shall be achieved 

by a destruction device or equivalent; or 

(ii) 95% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by a vapor 

recovery system or equivalent. 

(c) Inspection requirements. 

(1) Owners or operators who are subject to subsection (a)(7) or (8) of this section shall 

comply with the following requirements. 

(A) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for more than 15 days 

after the leak is detected to exceed a VOC concentration greater than 10,000 parts per million by 

volume (ppmv) above background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the dripping or exuding of 

process fluid based on sight, smell, or sound for all components. The VOC fugitive emission 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 39 

components which contact process fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or vapor 

pressure of less than 0.5 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. If VOC 

fugitive emission components are in service where the operating pressure is at least 0. 725 pounds per 

square inch (psi) (five kilopascals (Kpa)) below ambient pressure, then these components are also 

exempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is made available upon 

request by the TNRCC representatives, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or 

any other air pollution agency having jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and 

smaller, unless subject to Federal NSPS requiring a fugitive VOC emissions leak detection and repair 

program or Chapter 115 of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic 

Compounds), are also exempt from this requirement. 

(B) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to repair a VOC leaking 

process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. If the repair of a component 

would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled shutdown. All 

leaking components which cannot be repaired until a scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such 

repair by tagging. The TNRCC executive director, at his or her discretion, may require early unit 

shutdown or other appropriate action based on the number and severity of tagged leaks awaiting 

shutdown. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 40 

(C) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shall 

contain no buried valves such that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical. 

(D) To the extent that good engineering practice will permit, new and 

reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably accessible 

for leak-checking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a support 

surface will be considered non-accessible and shall be identified in a list to be made available upon 

request. 

(E) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be welded or 

flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping smaller than two-inch diameter. No later 

than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement, all new or 

reworked connections shall be gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating 

pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. Flanges in VOC service 

shall be inspected by visual, audible, and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating personnel 

walk-through. 

(F) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, other than a valve or line 

used for safety relief, shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve. Except 

during sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

-

-· 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 41 

(G) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by leak-checking for 

fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. For valves equipped with rupture 

discs, a pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture disc to monitor disc 

integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity, but no later than the next 

process shutdown. Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded bonnet bellows and 

diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupture disc or venting to a control device are 

exempt from monitoring. 

(H) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher pressure than process 

pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order, or seals equipped with an 

automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged pumps, or sealless pumps (including, but 

not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring. 

(I) All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored with 

an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly. 

(J) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for a period of at 

least two years, the operator of the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the TNRCC, Office of 

Air Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent 

of valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves 

leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number of 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter l16 

#95l03-ll6-AI 

Page 42 

valves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data that has been developed to justify 

the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periOds with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip one of the 

quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the percent 

of valves leaking equal to or less than 2. 0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip three of the 

quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(2) Owners or operators who are subject to subsection (a)(9) or (lO) of this section 

shall comply with the following requirements. 

(A) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for. more than l5 days 

after the leak is found which exceeds a VOC concentration greater than 500 ppmv for all components 

except pumps and compressors and greater than 2,000 ppmv for pumps and compressors above 

background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the dripping or exuding of process fluid based on 

sight, smell, or sound. The VOC fugitive emission components which contact process fluids where the 

VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure of less than 0.044 psia at 100 degrees 

Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. If VOC fugitive emission components are in service 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#951 03-116-AI 

Page 43 

where the operating pressure is at least 0. 725 psi (five Kpa) below ambient pressure, these components 

are also exempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is made 

· available upon request by TNRCC representatives, the EPA, or any air pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and smaller are also exempt from this requirement. 

(B) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to repair a VOC leaking 

process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. If the repair of a component 

would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled shutdown. All 

leaking components which cannot be repaired until a scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such 

repair by tagging. The executive director, at his or her discretion, may require early unit shutdown or 

other appropriate action based on the number and severity of tagged leaks awaiting shutdown. 

(C) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shall 

contain no buried valves such that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered 

impractical. 

(D) To the extent that good engineering practice will permit, new and 

reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably accessible 

for leak-checking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a support 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 44 

surface will be considered non-accessible and shall be identified in a list to be made available upon 

request. 

(E) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be welded or 

flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping smaller than two-inch diameter. No later 

than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement, all new or 

reworked connections shall be gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating 

pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. Flanges in VOC service 

shall be inspected by visual, audible, and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating personnel 

walk-through. 

(F) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, other than a valve or line 

used for safety relief, shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve. Except 

during sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

(G) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by leak-checking for 

fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. For valves equipped with rupture 

discs, a pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture disc to monitor disc 

integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity, but no later than the next 

process shutdown. Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded bonnet bellows and 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 45 

diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupture disc or venting to a control device are 

exempt from monitoring. 

(H) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher pressure than process 

pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order or seals equipped with an 

automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged pumps, or sealless pumps (including, but 

not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring. 

(I) All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored with 

an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly. 

(J) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for a period of at 

least two years, the operator of the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the TNRCC, Office of 

Air Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent 

of valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves 

leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total"number of 

valves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data that have been developed to 

justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 46 

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2. 0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip one of the 

quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection peri~ds with the percent 

of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip three of the 

quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(K) A directed maintenance program shall be used and consist of the repair 

and maintenance of VOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by the use of an 

approved gas analyzer such that a minimum concentration of leaking VOC is obtained for each 

component being maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days of being 

placed back into VOC service. 

(3) For owners and operators who are subject to the applicable parts of subsection 

(a)(ll) of this section, auditory and visual checks for S02 and H2S leaks within the operating area shall 

be made every day. Immediately, but no later than eight hours upon detection of a leak, operating 

personnel shall take the following actions: 

(A) isolate the leak; and 

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

(B) commence repair or replacement of the leaking component; or 

Page 47 

(C) use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the leak until repair or 

replacement can be made if immediate repair is not possible. 

(d) Approved test methods. 

( 1) An approved gas analyzer used for the VOC fugitive inspection and repair 

requirement in subsection (c) of this section, shall conform to requirements listed in 40 CFR 60.485(a) 

and (b). 

(2) Tutweiler analysis or equivalent shall be used to determine the hydrogen sulfide 

content as required under subsections (a) and (e) of this section. 

(3) Proper operation of any condenser used as a VOC emissions control device to 

comply with subsection (a)(5) of this section shall be tested to demonstrate compliance with the 

minimum control efficiency. Sampling shall occur within 60 days after start-up of new or modified 

facilities. The permittee shall contact the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement 

Division 45 days prior to sampling for approval of sampling protocol. The appropriate regional office 

in the region where the source is located shall also be contacted 45 days prior to sampling to provide 

them the opportunity to view the sampling. Neither the regional office nor the Engineering Services 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 48 

Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division personnel are required to view the testing. Sampling 

reports which comply with the provisions of the TNRCC Sampling Procedure Manual, Chapter 14, 

shall be distributed to the appropriate regional office, any local programs, and the Engineering Services 

Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division. 

(e) Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. 

(1) If the operator elects to install and maintain ambient H2S property line monitors to 

comply with subsection (a)(l1) of this section, the monitors shall be approved by the TNRCC 

Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division office in Austin, and shall be capable 

of detecting and alarming at H2S concentrations of 10 ppmv. Operations personnel shall perform an 

initial on-site inspection of the facility within 24 hours of initial alarm and take corrective actions as 

listed in subsection (c)(3)(A)-(C) of this section within eight hours of detection of a leak. 

(2) The results of the VOC leak detection and repair requirements shall be made 

available to the executive director, his or her designated representative, or any air pollution control 

agency having jurisdiction upon request. Records, for all components, shall include: 

(A) appropriate dates; 

(B) test methods; 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

(C) instrument readings; 

(D) repair results; and 

Page 49 

(E) corrective actions. Records of flange inspections are not required unless a 

leak is detected. 

(3) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections of H2S and S02 

components shall be maintained. 

(4) Records shall be kept for each production, processing, and pipeline tank battery or 

for each storage tank if not located at a tank battery, on a monthly basis, as follows: 

(A) tank battery identification or storage tank identification, if not located at a 

tank battery; 

(B) compound stored; 

(C) monthly throughput in barrels/month; and 

(D) cumulative annual throughput, barrels/year. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification . Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 50 

(5) A plan shall be submitted to show how ongoing compliance will be demonstrated 

for the efficiency requirements listed in subsection (b)(l)(D) of this section. The demonstration may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, or other operating parameters. 

(6) Records shall be kept on at least a monthly basis of all production facility flow 

rates (in standard cubic feet per day) and total sulfur content of process vents or flares or gas processing streams. Total sulfur shall be calculated in long tons per day. 

(7) Records shall be kept of all ambient property line monitor alarms and shall include 

the date, time, duration, and cause of alarm, date and time of initial on-site inspection, and date and 

time of corrective actions taken. 

(8) All required records shall be made available to representatives of the TNRCC, the 

EPA, or local air pollution control agencies upon request and be kept for at least two years. All 

required records shall be kept at the plant site, unless the plant site is unmanned during business hours. 

For plant sites ordinarily unmanned during business hours, the records shall be maintained at the 

nearest office in the state having day-to-day operations control of the plant site. 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

§116.621. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. 

Page 51 

Operation of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) as defined in § 101 .1 of this title 

(relating to Definitions), including, but not limited to, the installation of emission control equipment or 

implementation of control techniques for Type I, Type 1-AE, Type II, Type III, Type IV, Type IV-AE, 

I 

Type VI, and Type IX sites as defined in §330.4~ of this title (relating to Types of Municipal Solid 

Waste Sites). 

(1) The MSWLF and associated waste acceptance and handling facilities that comply 

with §116.610 of this title (relating to Applicability) and §116.615 of this title (relating to General 

Conditions) except §116.610(1) of this title; that comply with §116.611 of this title (relating to 

Registration Requirements); and that comply with §116.614 of this title (relating to Standard Permit 

Fees) may be issued a standard permit. 

(2) Separate pennit authorization must be obtained for the following: 

(A) industrial solid waste solidification/ stabilization facilities; 

(B) outdoor burning; 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 52 

(C) waste incineration other than that used to control landfill gas emissions; 

and 

(D) landfill cells in which any regulated quantities of hazardous waste will be 

placed. 

(3) Registration for an MSWLF located in an ozone nonattainment area, as defmed in 

§ 116.10 of this title (relating to General Definitions), and having a total design capacity equal to or 

greater than 100,000 megagrams (Mg) or an MSWLF located in an ozone attainment area and having a 

total design capacity equal to or greater than 2,500,000 Mg shall include, in addition to §116.611 of 

this title, concerning Registration Requirements, the maximum expected nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) emission rate for the MSWLF units calculated by using the procedures provided in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §60. 753 of the proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 

1991, issue of the Federal Reaister (56 FR 24468). In the absence of site-specific data, the NMOC 

emission rate shall be calculated based upon the maximum design capacity of the MSWLF and using 

the following default values: Generation Rate Constant, K = 0.04 one/year; and Generation Potential, 

L0 = 125m3/Mg. The MSWLFs that codispose industrial solid waste with municipal solid waste shall 

use a default value for NMOC Concentration (CNMoc) of CNMoc = 4400 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv); other MSWLFs shall use a default value of CNMoc = 1170 ppmv. 

-

-· 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

(4) The permit holder shall annually calculate the NMOC emission rate for the 

Page 53 

MSWLF units based upon the actual waste managed in the MSWLF unit to determine if the emission 

rate exceeds the threshold level. For all MSWLFs and Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (MSW 

facilities) (as defined in §101.1 of this title) located in an ozone nonattainment area, the threshold level 

shall be the lower of either the NMOC emission rate specified in the new source performance standard 

regarding landfills which requires the installation of an active gas collection and control system (GCCS) 

or 150 Mg (165 tons) per year; or the amount constituting the major source as defmed for that area in 

§ 116.12 of this title (relating to Nonattainment Review Definitions) in Table I (concerning Major 

Source/Major Modification Emission Thresholds). For all MSWLFs located in an ozone attainment 

area, the threshold level shall be the NMOC emission rate specified in the new source performance 

standard regarding landfills which requires the installation of an active gas collection and control 

system or 150 Mg (165 tons) per year. Owner(s) and operator(s) of contiguous MSWLF units under 

related control shall calculate the NMOC emission rate for the MSW facility in the aggregate for all the 

MSWLF units therein. If the calculations show that the NMOC emission rate is greater than the 

threshold level, within 90 days after the date truit the calculated emission rate first exceeded the 

threshold value, the owner(s) or operator(s) shall either: 

(A) determine and submit site-specific NMOC Concentration (CNMoc) and/or 

site-specific landfill gas Generation Rate Constant (K) in accordance with the procedures of 40 CFR, 

§61.753 of the proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the Federal Reiister (56 

FR 24468) to demonstrate that the NMOC emission rate is less than the threshold value; or 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95l03-II6-AI 

Page 54 

(B) submit plans for an active GCCS to effectively capture the gas that is 

generated within the MSWLF. The GCCS shall: 

(i) be designed to handle the maximum expected gas flowrate over the 

lifetime of the GCCS from the entire area of the MSWLF that warrants control over the equipment 

lifetime; 

(ii) collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the MSWLF, which 

is either covered by final cover or in which refuse has been placed for a period of five years or more; 

(iii) collect gas at sufficient extraction rate; 

(iv) control NMOC gas emissions in one or more of the following ways: 

(I) the total collected gas is routed to an open flare with a 

minimum height of 30 feet and that is designed, operated, and inspected in accordance with 40 CFR, 

§60.18. If necessary to ensure adequate combustion, natural gas shall be added to make the gases 

combustible. An infrared monitor is considered equivalent to a thermocouple for flame monitoring 

purposes. An automatic ignition system may be used in lieu of a continuous pilot; 

-· 

-. 

-
- Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 55 

(II) the total collected gas is routed to a control device with a 

minimum vent release height of 30 feet and that reduces the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 

98% or to less than 20 ppmv; 

(III) the total collected gas is routed to a gas treatment system that 

processes the collected gas for subsequent use or sale. The sum of all emissions from any atmospheric 

vent from the gas treatment system shall be subject to the requirements of subclause (II) of this claus; 

(IV) the total collected gas is routed to gas or liquid fuel-fired 

stationary internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines that satisfy all the requirements of 

§ 116.211 of this title (relating to Standard Exemption List), Standard Exemption Number 6, except that 

registration using Form Pl-7 or PI-8 shall not be required. Actual emissions from engines or turbines 

shall be limited to the amounts specified in §116.211(a)(l) of this title; or 

(V) the total collected gas is routed to boilers, heaters, or other 

combustion units, but not including stationary internal combustion engines or turbines, that satisfy all of 

the requirements of Standard Exemption Number 7. 

Emissions from these combustion units shall be limited to the amounts found in §116.211(a)(l) of this 

title. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 56 

(5) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an municipal solid waste facility whose calculated 

NMOC emission rate exceeds the threshold level shall within one year of submitting plans specified in 

paragraph (4)(B} of this section: 

(A) install the active GCCS; and 

(B) operate the GCCS in compliance with 40 CPR, §60. 754 of the proposed 

federal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the Federal Reiister (56 FR 24468). 

(6} The active GCCS may be capped or removed only if all of the following conditions 

are met: 

(A) the MSWLF unit shall not have accepted waste at any time during the 

previous six consecutive years and shall be permanently closed pursuant to §§330.250-330.256 of this 

title (relating to Closure and Post-Closure); 

(B) the active GCCS shall have been in continuous operation for at least 15 

years; and 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 57 

(C) the calculated NMOC emission rate shall be less than the threshold value 

on three successive test dates. The test dates shall be no closer than three months apart, and no longer 

than six months apart. 

(7) All measurements to determine compliance with this paragraph shall be conducted 

by applying the following test methods, as appropriate: 

(A) Test Methods 1-4 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determining flow rate, 

oxygen concentration, or moisture, as necessary; 

(B) Test Method 2E as described in proposed 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, 

published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the Federal Register (56 FR 24468) for measuring the landfill 

gas production flow rate and designing the area of influence of the active GCCS; 

(C) Test Method 3C as described in proposed 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, 

published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the Federal Register (56 FR 24468) for measuring the 

concentration of nitrogen in the landfill gas; 

(D) Test Method 18 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determining gaseous 

organic compound emissions by gas chromatography; 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 58 

(E) Test Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determining volatile organic 

compound (VOC) leaks; 

(F) Test Method 25 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determination of total gaseous 

nonmethane orgaruc emissions as carbon; 

(G) Test Methods 25A or 25B (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determining total 

gaseous organic concentrations using flame ionization or nondispersive infrared analysis; 

(H) Test Method 25C as described in proposed 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, 

published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the Federal Reiister (56 FR 24468) for determining NMOC in 

landfill gases; and 

(I) alternatives or modifications, approved in advance by the Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) ·executive director or a designated representative, to the 

test methods in subparagraphs (A) - (H) of this paragraph. Requests for alternative or modified test 

methods shall be submitted to the TNRCC Office of Air Quality, New Source Review Program in 

Austin. Alternative test method proposals for New Source Performance Standard testing shall be 

submitted to the TNRCC Office of Air Quality, Monitoring Operations Division, Source and Mobile 

Monitoring Section in Austin. 

-

-· 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-Al 

Page 59 

(8) MSWLF unit owner(s) and operator(s) shall monitor and control particulate matter 

as follows. 

(A) All material handling and transport operations shall be conducted in a 

manner so as to minimize any fugitive particulate matter emissions. 

(B) All roads and areas on the property subject to vehicle traffic, including 

MSWLF cells during excavation, shall be watered, treated with dust-suppressant chemicals, or paved 

and cleaned as necessary to achieve maximum control of dust emissions with care given to prevent 

oversaturated conditions which would cause outgoing trucks to track mud onto public roads and/or 

streets. 

(9) High volume air sampling, one- and/or three-hour tests, for net ground level 

concentrations of total particulate matter shall be performed upon request of the TNRCC executive 

director or a designated representative. Each test shall consist of at least one upwind and one 

downwind sample taken simultaneously. The tests shall be performed during normal operations. A 

monitoring plan for high volume sampling shall be developed in accordance with the TNRCC Office of 

Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix I (United States Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, dated February 1995) and the TNRCC "Sampling 

Procedures Manual," Chapter 11 (particulate matter, dated January 1983 and revised July 1983), and 

shall require approval by the TNRCC executive director or a designated representative prior to 

-

-

-
-

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Conunission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

sampling. The TNRCC executive director or a designated representative shall be afforded the 

opportunity to observe all such sampling equipment and records upon request. 

Page 60 

(1 0) Inspection and maintenance protocols for MSWLF unit surface leaks shall be as 

follows. 

(A) A leak is defmed as a sustained reading for a minimum of one minute of 

500 ppmv total organic compounds (including methane and ethane) measured as methane, propane, or 

hexane. The owner(s) or operator(s) of the MSWLF unit at least once each quarter shall perform leak 

testing on all locations on the surface of the MSWLF unit covered by fmal cover and all locations on 

the surface of the MSWLF unit which have been covered by intermediate cover for over six months. 

The TNRCC executive director or designated representative shall be afforded the opportunity to 

observe all such sampling equipment and records upon request. 

(B) Surface leak testing shall be performed using an instrument that meets the 

apparatus specifications of EPA Test Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A).. The iiistrument shall be 

calibrated before and after each test using zero air and the methane standard calibration gas in 

accordance with the instrument manufacturer's recommendations. 

(C) Surface leak testing shall be performed by holding the detector probe two 

inches from the MSWLF cell surface while traversing a pattern of parallel paths not more than 50 feet 
-

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 61 

apart over all applicable surface areas. In areas where vegetation prevents surface monitoring in 

accordance with this paragraph, the detector probe shall be held as close as possible to the MSWLF cell 

surface without necessitating the removal or cutting the vegetation. Cracks, holes, and other breaches 

in the surface as well as areas where buried waste interfaces with undisturbed native soil shall also be 

tested. 

(D) Surface leak testing shall be performed only when the wind speed is less 

than five miles per hour (mph) and instantaneous wind speed is less than 10 mph, unless the TNRCC 

executive director or a designated representative approves alternate wind speed limits. Surface leak 

testing shall be performed only when the landfill has received less than 0.1 inches of rain in the last 72 

hours. 

(E) The owner(s) or operator(s) of a MSWLF unit, upon detection of a leak, 

shall identify the area of the leak with orange fluorescent paint and a readily visible marker that 

contains the identification number and the date the leak was detected. The marker shall not penetrate 

the surface and shall stand 48 inches above the surface. The marker and fluorescent paint shall remain 

in place until the leak is repaired. 

(F) Leaks shall be repaired within 15 days upon detection of the leak, unless 

the repair requires excavation. For repairs that require excavation, the TNRCC executive director or a 

designated representative may require coordination with the TNRCC Office of Waste Management, 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 62 

Municipal Solid Waste Division. The owner or operator shall demonstrate that repairs will be made 

promptly and specify the expected date of completion. Leak repair methods shall reduce the total 

organic compound emissions to under 500 ppmv and include, but are not limited to: 

(i) increasing the collection rate of existing wells; 

(ii) repairing the landfill cover; and 

(iii) installing additional collection wells. 

( 11) Inspection and maintenance protocols for active GCCS organic compound leaks 

from compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure relief valves in gaseous service, flanges, and pump 

seals (hereafter called components) for MSWLF units shall be as follows. 

(A) A leak is defmed as escape of gas with a total organic compound 

concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv above background methane, propane, or hexane; or 

the dripping or exuding of process fluid detected by sight, smell, or sound. Emissions from all 

compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure relief valves in gaseous service, and pump seals shall be 

measured quarterly with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer. Flanges in organic compound service shall be 

inspected by visual, olfactory, and/or audible means by operating personnel. 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 63 

(B) All technically feasible repairs to a leaking component shall be made 

within 15 days of detecting the leak. 

(C) All leaking components which cannot be repaired within 15 days shall be 

identified with a readily visible weatherproof tag that contains an identification number and the date the 

leak was detected. This tag shall remain in place until the leaking component is repaired. The TNRCC 

executive director or a designated representative, at his discretion, may require appropriate action 

based on the number and severity of tagged leaks. 

(D) Except for safety pressure relief valves, no valves shall be installed or 

operated at the end of a pipe or line containing organic compounds unless the pipe or line is sealed with 

a second relief/closed valve, a blind flange, a plug, or a cap. The sealing device may be removed only 

while a sample is being taken or during maintenance operations. When closing the line, the upstream 

valve shall be closed first. 

(E) New and reworked underground pipelines containing organic compounds 

shall contain no buried valves. 

(F) New and reworked valves and piping connections in organic compound 

service shall be so located to be accessible for leak-checking. 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#951 03-116-AI 

Page 64 

(G) New and reworked piping connections in organic compound service shall 

be welded or flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping smaller than two-inch 

diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement 

of new or reworked connections, the owner(s) or operator(s) shall conduct gas-testing or hydraulictesting at no less than normal operating pressure and make any adjustments to obtain leak-free performance. 

(H) Valves equipped with rupture discs shall require the installation of a 

pressure gauge between the relief valve and rupture disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs 

shall be replaced no later than the next quarterly monitoring. 

(I) Test Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) shall be utilized for detennining 

VOC leaks by instrument. The leak detection equipment may be calibrated with methane, propane, or 

hexane, but the meter readout shall be parts per million methane. 

(J) The components identified in clauses (i)-(x) of this subparagraph are 

exempt from the inspection and maintenance protocols for active GCCS organic compound leaks, 

provided that the components are identified in a list maintained on-site that is made available upon 

request by the TNRCC representatives, the EPA, or any other pollution control agency having jurisdiction: 

-

-
·-

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

(i) components at an MSWLF where the total of all estimated 

uncontrolled fugitive emissions from all components is less than ten tons per year; 

Page 65 

(ii) components which contact gas or liquid where the VOC emissions have 

an aggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure of less than 0.5 pounds per square inch (psi) area at 100 

degrees Fahrenheit; 

(iii) components which are in a continuous vacuum service where vacuum is 

defined as at least five kilopascals (approximately 0. 725 psi) below ambient pressure; 

(iv) piping and valves which are two inches nominal size and smaller; 

(v) valves which are elevated more than two meters above a support 

surface; 

(vi) sealless and leakless valves (including, but ·not limited to, welded 

bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and pressure relief devices which are equipped with a rupture 

disc upstream or routed to a control device; 

(vii) valves which are not externally regulated, such as in-line check valves; 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 66 

(viii) pressure relief valves which are downstream of an intact rupture disc; 

(ix) reciprocating compressors which are equipped with degassing vents and 

vent control systems; and 

(x) dual pump seals which maintain barrier fluid at a pressure higher 

than process pressure; seals which are degassed to vent control systems; or seals which are equipped 

with an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged pumps, or sealless pumps 

(including, but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic driven pumps). 

(K) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for a period of two 

consecutive years, the owner(s) or operator(s) may request in writing to the TNRCC, Office of Air 

Quality, New Source Review Program, that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent of 

valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing by the total number of 

valves subject to the monitoring requirements into the sum of the valves leaking during the current 

monitoring and the valves for which repair has been delayed. This request shall include all data 

developed to justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may skip one of the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 67 

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the percent 

of valves leaking equal to or less than 2. 0%, an owner or operator may skip three of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(12) The owner(s) or operator(s) of each MSWLF unit shall maintain complete and upto-date records sufficient to readily determine if continuous compliance with the requirements of this 

paragraph for the previous two years of operation have been maintained. Monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements shall be as follows. 

(A) All records required by this paragraph shall be maintained at the MSWLF 

site and shall be available for review upon request by TNRCC representatives or any local air pollution 

agency having jurisdiction. 

(B) A leaking components log shall be maintained. This log shall contain at a 

minimum, the following data: 

(i) the location, type (e.g., valve or seal), and tag identification 

number of the component; 

(ii) the date and instrument reading of the initial check procedure upon 

discovery of the leaking component; 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

(iii) the date of the leaking component repair; 

Page 68 

(iv) the date and instrument reading of the recheck procedure upon repair of 

the leaking component; 

(v) a calibration record for the monitoring instrument; 

(vi) an identification of leaks that cannot be repaired within 15 days and 

justification for the delay in making necessary repairs; and 

(vii) the total nwnber of components checked and the total nwnber of 

leaking components discovered. 

(C) The owner(s) or operator(s) of each MSWLF unit shall maintain a surface cap 

integrity leak log. This log shall contain, at a minimwn, the following data: 

(i) the location and description of the leak; 

(ii) the date and instrument reading of the initial check procedure upon 

discovery of the leak; 

-

-

-
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

(iii) the steps taken to repair the leak; 

(iv) the date of the leak repair; 

Page 69 

(v) the date and instrument reading of the recheck procedure upon 

repair of the leak; 

(vi) a calibration record for the monitoring instrument; and 

(vii) an identification of leaks that cannot be repaired within 15 days and 

justification for the delay in making necessary repairs. 

(D) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an MSWLF unit not required to install a 

GCCS shall maintain complete and up-to-date records of the data used for the annual calculation of the 

NMOC emissions rate, including, but not limited to: 

(i) the annual calculation of the NMOC emission rate; and 

(ii) the test results used to determine site-specific K and CNMoc factors as 

described in 40 CFR, §60. 753 of the proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the 

Federal Re~ister (56 FR 24468). 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 70 

(E) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an MSWLF unit that has installed an active 

GCCS shall: 

(i) simultaneously with the GCCS installation, install a sampling port at 

each gas collection well in the gas collection header; 

(ii) measure and record the gauge pressure at each well in the gas 

collection header at the point where each well is connected to the gas collection header pipe on a 

monthly basis; 

(iii) sample and analyze for the methane, oxygen, and nitrogen 

concentrations of the landfill gas at each well in the gas collection header on a monthly basis; 

(iv) simultaneously with the GCCS installation, install a flow indicator 

(mass flowmeter) that automatically provides a continuous record of gas flow to the control device; 

(v) simultaneously with the GCCS installation, install, maintain, and 

operate a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to monitor the exhaust 

gas temperature immediately downstream for any direct-flame incinerator or enclosed flare; and 

-, 

-
- Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 71 

(vi) simultaneously with the GCCS installation, install, maintain, and 

operate a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to monitor the gas 

temperature immediately upstream and downstream for any catalytic incinerator or chiller. 

(F) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an MSWLF unit shall maintain up-to-date 

records of landfill design and operation. These records shall include: 

(i) maximum design capacity; 

(ii) current refuse in place; 

(iii) year-by-year refuse acceptance rate; 

(iv) a map or plot of the MSW facility providing the size and location, and 

identifying all areas where waste may be landfilled, where waste has been placed, and areas with 

intermediate cover and final cover, including the date the cover was placed; 

(v) any changes in landfill design capacity, including, but not limited 

to, area and depth of waste disposal, and changes to landfill operating procedures since the initial 

landfill design; 
Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Control of Air Pollution by Permits 

for New Construction or Modification 

Chapter 116 

#95103-116-AI 

Page 72 

(vi) calculated maximum expected gas generation flowrate to the combustion device using Method 2E; and 

(vii) calculated radius of influence (in meters) of the extraction wells. 

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be 

within the agency's authority to adopt. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 27, 1995. 

-

-
WRITTEN AND 

ORAL TESTIMONY
INDEX OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

Reference Number 

W-1 

W-2 

W-3 

W-4 

W-5 

W-6 

W-7 

W-8 

W-9 

W-10 

W-11 

W-12 

Submitted By 

Robert S. Byrd, City of Arlington 

Hans J. Mueller, Browning-Ferris Industries 

Gary Butts, City of Brownwood 

R. T. Bruner, City of Corpus Christi 

Jole C. Luehrs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Brian G. Williams, City of Garland 

Brandt Mannchen, GRASP 

Scott Hill, HDR Engineering, Inc. 

Paul G. Gosselink, U.S.A. Waste Services, Inc. 

John Labrie, Solid Waste Association of North America, Lone 

Star Chapter 

Brent W. Ryan, Waste Management of Texas, Inc. 

Bill Angelo, Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency 
® 

Qtyof Arlington Texas 

November 6, 1995 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission 

P .0. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

RECEIVED 

urriGE OF POLICY & NT 

qEGULATORY oEVELOPME 

RE: City of Arlington- Comments on Proposed Standard Permit for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #951 03-116-AI) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

The City of Arlington supports the TNRCC's development of the proposed standard permit for 

municipal solid waste landfills. Such a permit should make significant progress towards 

reducing the emission of the pollutants that form ground-level ozone, while at the same time 

providing landfill owners with some certainty with regard to air control requirements. However, 

the City requests certain clarifications and changes to the proposed standard air permit, as 

discussed below. 

Arlington specifically supports the setting of the emissions threshold at major source levels. This 

provision addresses the need for additional controls on landfill gas emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas. However, for this provision to be effective, the proposed standard permit 

needs to explain the relationship between NMOC and VOC emissions because TNRCC 

regulations do not define major sources of NMOC emissions. One solution to this problem 

would be for the standard permit to specifically set out the emissions threshold, in terms of 

NMOC emissions, in each ozone nonattainment area. 

Arlington also recommends this rule be clarified to limit the application of the standard permit 

thresholds to the modified areas of existing landfills. Application of the standard permit 

threshold to existing landfill areas will unnecessarily complicate compliance. In this connection, 

101 West Abram Street • Box 231 • Arlington, Texas 76004-0231 • (817) 275-3271 • (Metro 817) 265-3311 
Ms. Lisa Martin 

November 6, 1995 

Page2 

it is important that the TNRCC make clear that just because a landfill has received a 

"modification" as defined in 30 TAC 305.70, the landfill does not have to secure a standard air 

permit. 

Finally, Arlington also recommends that the standard permit allow up to 180 days to perform 

Tier 2 testing rather than 90 days as proposed. As a participant in the group Tier 2 testing effort 

in the D/FW area, Arlington learned that this data is not necessarily easy to obtain. Because this 

testing is new, few labs are capable of performing the tests. Therefore, until the testing becomes 

more routine, Arlington believes that the standard permit should allow more time for this testing. 

Sincerely, 

l/t14M 

Robert S. BytclAssistant Director 

Community Development/Health 

/lc 

cc: The Honorable Chairman Barry McBee 

Commissioner Ralph Marquez 

Commissioner John Baker 

Mr. Dan Pearson 

Ms. Beverly Hartsock 

Mr. Jeffrey Saitas 

Mr. Bryan Dixon 

g:\letters\951 03-ll.doc 

-

-
NOV 06 '95 15:49 512 469 0673 TX EA /4690673 

BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES 

SOUiHERN REGION 

November 6, 1995 

Usa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

P.2/6 

8 

Subject: Comments on Proposed TNRCC Regulation 116.621 - Control of 

Pollution by Permits for new C~nstructlon or Modification: Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfill (Rule~ Tracking Log #951 03-116-AI) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFJ), appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 

above-referenced rules. We support the default values which are proposed for use in 

calculating non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) emission rates in the absence 

of site-specific data. 

Our specific comments are as follows: 

Section 116.621 (3) 

BFI supports the default values which are proposed for use in calculating NMOC 

emission rates in the absence of site specific data. The proposed values, compared 

to the proposed default values in the March, 1995, NSPS present a more realistic 

estimation of landfill gas emissions. 

916 CONGRESS AVENUE • SUITE 200 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701·2422 * {512) 478·7494 • FAX: (512) 469-0673 
NOV 06 '95 15:49 512 469 0673 TX EA /4690673 P.3/6 

DEFAULT TNRCC PROPOSAL MARCH 1995 DRAFT 

PARAMETERS FINAL 

Generation Rate Constant 0.01 1/yr 0.05 1/yr 

(K) 

Generation Potential ('-o) 125 m3

/Mg 170 m3

/Mg 

NMOC Concentration 1170 ppmv 4000 ppmv 

(CNMOC} 

Average CNMOO values from tests on landfill gas at numerous BFI landfills are even 

lower than e1ther proposal: 800.900 ppmv. tf the rule is conformed to the March, 

1995, draft final NSPS, the Commission should authorize the use of representative 

data from historic landfill operations. 

Section 116.621 {4)(B)(iv)(l) 

Since Section 116.621 ( 4)(B}(iv)(IV) addresses the routing of total collected gas to gas 

or liquid fuel-fired stationary internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines 

that satisfy all the requirements of Standard Exemption Number 6 as an acceptable 

means of NMOC control, BF1 proposes that Section 116.621(4)(8)(iv)(l) should 

-

address the routing of total collected gas "to an open flare with a minimum height of -

30 feet and that is designed, operated, and inspected in accordance with 40 CFR 

60.18 and satisfies the requirements of Standard Exemption Number 80. 

Section 116.621 (4){B)(iv)(lll 

BFl proposes that this Section be changed to read: "the total collected gas is routed 

to a control device such as an enclosed flare with a minimum vent release height of 30 

feet and that reduces the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98% or to less than 

20 ppmv, as hexane.•• This change is requested in order to address enclosed flares, 

which are not subject to 40 CFR 60.18; and, to make the means of expressing NMOC 

reduction consistent with the proposed MSW NSPS (i.e .• 20 ppmv as hexane). 

Section 116.621 (9) 

BFI does not support the inclusion in the proposed regulation of a mandate that highvolume air sampling be "performed upon request of the TNRCC executive director or 

a designated representative." BFI believes that TNRCC's authority to require sampling 

for any criteria or hazardous air pollutant should conform to what the agency has 

historically required in the terms and conditions specified in individual permits. 

Historically, TNRCC has included in the terms and conditions of permits to construct 

and operate a condition that upon request of the executive director, a source may be 

required to perform specified sampling tests. Specific testing should not be -

addressed in the requirements of this regulation. Furthermore, the testing requirement 
NOV 06 '95 15:50 512 469 0673 TX EA /4690673 P.4/6 

proposed here does not specify whether the testing is for Total Suspended 

Particulate, for which there is no longer a National Ambient Air Quality Standard, or for 

PM10, for which a NAAQS does exist. Should TNRCC elect to keep a testing provision 

in this regulation, BFI proposes that testing be only by PM10• 

Section 116.621 (1 O) (A) 

Refer to the above regarding total organic compound measurements in ppmv as 

methane, propane, or hexane. Rather than defining a leak as "a minimum of one 

minute of 500 ppmv total organic compounds (including methane and ethane) 

measured as methane, propane, or hexane'\ the leak should be defined as "a 

minimum of one minute of 500 ppmv total organic compounds (including methane and 

ethane) measured as methane". 

Section 116.621 (1 O) (D) 

BFI opposes inclusion of specific meteorological conditions as a basis for determining 

when surface leak testing should be performed. The requirements specified herein, 

that testing be performed only when the wind speed is less than five miles per hour 

(mph), the instantaneous wind speed is less than 10 mph, and less than 0.1 inches of 

rain has fallen in the last 72 hours, are not reasonable or easily determined at most 

landfill sites. · 

Most landfills are not located adjacent to a 24-hour operating National Weather Service 

facility. The meteorological crtteria being specified in the proposed regulation are 

micrometeorologicat parameters and to asses them would require that either the 

landfill be located next to a continuously operating NWS Station or purchase, install, 

calibrate, and maintain an operating anemometer and recording rain gauge, and to 

train an individual in the proper operation, calibration, and maintenance of these 

instruments. Measurement of the parameters specified in this regulation is an 

unnecessary expense. 

BFI proposes that, if meteorological parameters are to be included in the proposed 

regulation. they should be as follows: 

No instantaneous wind speed requirement 

Maximum Wind Speed Observed Over 3-minute Period: < Beaufort 3 (i.e., 

leaves and small twigs in constant motion; wind extends light flag). 

No obvious rainfall in the last 72 hours. 

Section 116.621 (11 )(A) 

The chief constituent organic compound in landfill gas is methane. Leaks should be 

defined as ''escape of gas with a total organic compound concentration greater than 

or equal to 10,000 ppmv above background methane," not "methane, propane, or 

hexane.'' Note: 10,000 ppmv as methane is not equal to 10,000 ppmv as hexane or 

as propane. 
NOV 06 '95 15:50 512 469 0673 TX EA /4690673 P.5/6 

If, for example, a leak is measured as 10,000 ppmv above background hexane, this is -

equivalent to 60,000 ppmv methane, since methane has only one carbon atom. while 

hexane has six. For consistency, leak measurements should be determined on the 

basis of the simplest carbon compound. that being methane. 

Section 116.621 (11)(E) 

BFI requests that valves installed underground solely for the purpose of isolating 

sections of pipe in order to make repairs be made exempt from inspection and 

maintenance protocols. These buried valves are left in a permanently open position, 

unless it becomes necessary to uncover them and close them in order to perform 

pipeline repairs. Requiring these valves to be in a valve box would result in creating 

an unnecessary confined a space, which presents a safety hazard~ In addition, this 

type of design creates a path for gas to escape the landfill and for air to enter, 

creating the potential for fugitive leaks of NMOC and for fires inside the landfill. 

Section 116.621 (11) (G1 

BFI uses primarily HOPE piping in its gas collection and control systems. 

Consequently. there are no welded connections. All connections are made using a 

heat fusion process which, according to the piping manufacturer, results in a pipe 

strength that exceeds the strength in the remainder of the pipe run. In addition, BFl•s 

piping systems are pressure tested to insure integrity. The proposed regulation 

addresses only new and reworked piping connections that are welded or flanged. 

HOPE piping should be exempt from leak detection, monitoring, and repair 

requirements. 

Section 116.621 (11)(J)(j) 

The proposed regulation should specify the means by which uncontrolled fugitive 

emissions that leak from components should be quantified, i.e., which emission factors 

should be used to insure that emissions are less than ten tons per year in order to 

qualify for the exemption from inspection and maintenance protocols. 

SectJon 116.621 (11) {J) (iii} 

A vacuum of 0.725 psi is equivalent to 20 inches water column. This amount of 

vacuum is not acceptable in design and operation of landfill gas extraction systems. 

BFI designs its extraction system to operate at a minimum of 5 inches water column 

(0.18 psi). Depending upon well location, a vacuum over 20 inches water column 

would significantly enhances the probability of air infiltration and potential fires in the 

landfill. BFI proposes that components in vacuum should be exempt from the 

inspection and maintenance protocols specified in this section. 

-· 
NOV 06 '95 15:51 512 469 0673 TX EA /4690673 

Section 116.621 (12)(D)(ill) 

BFI opposes the sampling and analysis for nitrogen concentrations in the landfill gas 

at each well in the gas collection header. lf monitoring is required for oxygen. as a 

means of determining air infiltration into the landfill resulting from vacuum extraction of 

landfill gas, it is an unnecessary expense to test for nitrogen concentrations as oxygen 

measurements reveal air infiltration. 

We would be happy to discuss our comments with you at any time. 

Very truly yours, 

11::;£ P.E. 

Manager, Regional Regulatory Affairs 
=~city of 

Brownwood 

November 2, 1995 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Re: City of Brownwood - Comments on TNRCC' s Proposed Standard 

Permit for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log 

#95103-116-Al) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

The City of Brownwood supports the comments filed by the Lone Star Chapter of the Solid 

Waste Association of North America on the proposed standard air permit for municipal solid 

waste landfills. For landfills, the standard air permit approach appears to be the best way to 

go. Real reductions in the air pollution can be achieved without the unnecessary expense of 

having to obtain individual permits. 

~rely, 

Gary Butts 

City Manager 

GB:lb 

cc: The Honorable Chairman Barry McBee 

Commissioner Ralph Marquez 

Commissioner John Baker 

Mr. Dan Pearson 

Ms. Beverly Hartsock 

Mr. Jeffrey Saitas 

Mr. Bryan Dixon 

POST OFFICE BOX 1389 • 

PHONE 915 646-5775 

FAX 915 646-0938 • BROWNWOOD, TEXAS 76804 
-

--

City of 

Corpus =Christi 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

November 6, 1995 

~ City of Corpus Christi - Comments on Proposed 

Standard Permit for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(Rules Tracking Lo~: #95103-116-AD 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

The City of Corpus Christi appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the TNRCC's 

proposed standard air permit for municipal solid waste landfills. Corpus Christi supports the 

issuance of a final standard air permit. We believe that the standard permit approach will obtain 

significant reductions in landfill gas emissions in a cost efficient manner. However, because EPA 

plans to adopt its final NSPS for landfills in the very near future, Corpus Christi recommends that 

the TNRCC postpone adoption of the final standard air permit until after EPA adopts the final 

NSPS. This approach would allow the TNRCC to adopt a standard permit that would be fully 

consistent with the NSPS and avoid any conflicts between state and federal law. 

Corpus Christi supports the TNRCC's decision to set the NMOC threshold at 1 SO mg/year. This 

level is consistent with existing TNRCC regulations (Chapter 11 5) and is significantly below 

major source levels for ozone attainment areas. Any more stringent threshold in attainment areas 

would be economically unreasonable and unsupported by current research data. If a more 

stringent threshold is adopted by EPA, the proposed standard air permit is designed to 

incorporate more stringent federal standards. 

Corpus Christi offers the following comments on hoe the proposed standard air permit could be 

improved: 

• The permit needs to describe the types of landfill modifications that could trigger the need 

for the standard air permit. The regulations must clarifY that just because an activity is 

defined as a "modification" in the municipal solid waste regulations it does not 

automatically require the need for a standard air permit. 

P.O. Box 9277 • Corpus Christi, 

~ 

Texas 78469-9277 • (512) 880-3000 
City of 

Corpus 

Chnsti 

• The pennit should clarifY that the only areas to which threshold calculations apply are 

those areas which receive new waste pursuant to the modification rather than the entire 

existing landfill. 

• Up to 180 days should be allowed to conduct Tier 2 & 3 testing. 

• The default value for the constant should be changed to k=0.02 because SubtitleD 

requirements cause the waste to be drier and AP42 identifies the proposed k value of0.04 

as being based on wet waste. 

• The CDIDOC: Default value should be set at 1, 170 ppmv for all facilities except those that 

accept organic industrial waste. 

cc: The Honorable Chairman Barry McBee 

Commissioner Ralph Marquez 

Commissioner John Baker 

Mr. Dan Pearson 

Ms. Beverly Hartsock 

Mr. I effrey Saitas 

Mr. Bryan Dixon 

lfpermillf 

Sincerely, 

~~~ 

R. T. Bruner, Director 

Solid Waste Services 

-

-
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 6 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 

Ms. Jodena N. Henneke 

Division Director 

Air Quality Planning 

Office of Air Quality 

NOV 0 7 1995 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-30B7 

8 

RE: Revisions to Regulation VI concerning proposed revisions to 

Chapter 116 and the State Implementation Plan 

Dear Ms. Henneke: 

We have reviewed the proposed regulations concerning 

revisions to Regulation VI forwarded to the Environmental 

Protection Agency on October 5, 1995. You are proposing 

amendments to Sections 116.610, concerning applicability, and 

116.617, concerning standard Permit List; and proposing new 

Sections 116.620, Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities, and 

116.621, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFS}. Comments were 

specifically solicited concerning the proposed Standard Permit 

for MSWLFs. On the basis of our evaluation, we have the 

following items of concern: 

1. Section 116.621(3} states that the maximum expected 

nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC} emission rate will be 

calculated using the procedures provided in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.753 of the proposed Federal New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for MSWLFs published in 

the May 30, 1991, issue uf the Federal Register (56 Federal 

Register 24468). However, the default values for the 

generation rate constant (K), generation potential (L0 }, and 

the NMOC concentration (CN~c> differ from the default values 

in the proposed 40 CFR 60.753. The public record should 

address the method for deriving the default values in 

section 116.621(3), why they differ from the default values 

in the proposed 40 CFR 60.753, and demonstrate that the 

proposed default values are at least as stringent as the 

proposed NSPS. 

2. Section 116.621(4} states that for MSWLFs located in an 

ozone attainment area, the threshold level shall be the NMOC 

emission rate specified in the NSPS regarding landfills 

which requires the installation of an active gas collection 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 
2 

and control system (which is currently proposed at 50 

Megagrams (Mg.) per year) or 150 Mg. This should be 

modified to state the threshold value shall be the lower of 

the two emission rates. 

We appreciate this opportunity to review and comment on 

these proposed revisions. If you have any questions, please call 

Mr. Jon Lutz of my staff at (214) 665-7213. 

Sincerely yh, ff':-L~hrs~ Ch.ief 

Air Permits Section 

-

-

--
City of Garland 

...J2.0. Box 469002 

arland, Texas 

75046-9002 

214-205-2000 

8 Gi<RLAND 

R EC E I.VE D 

November 3, 1995 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Ot-=t-t~E Of POLICY & 

~EGULATORY DEVELOPMENl 

Re: City of Garland - Comments on Proposed Standard Permit for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-AI) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

The City of Garland wishes to go on record in support of the concept of a standard 

air permit for municipal landfills that was published in the October 6, 1995, volume of the 

Texas Register. 

However, the City requests certain clarifications and modifications to the proposed 

rule, as discussed below. A standard air permit for municipal waste landfills will provide 

the TNRCC with an efficient mechanism to control emissions of landfill gas while avoiding 

the often unnecessary cost of obtaining a regular air permit and any related contested case 

proceedings. Based on our past experience at the Texas Air Control Board, it is difficult 

to write conventional air permits for landfills. However, the use of a standard air permit 

should avoid the problems that were encountered in the past. The permittee will know 

ahead of time exactly what controls will be required and when they must be installed. 

The standard permit should only apply in new and modified areas of existing 

landfills. The disposal of waste in existing areas, including the associated air emissions, 

have previously been authorized by the state. Landfill owners should not be required to 

obtain additional authorization for these areas when they seek to expand the size of the 

existing landfill. If the standard permit applies to all areas of an existing landfill, the 

standard permit will discourage expansions of existing landfills and encourage the 

construction of landfills in greenfields, a goal which appears at odds with the concept 

behind TNRCC's "brownfields" initiative. 

Garland supports setting the NMOC threshold at major source levels. However, 

for this provision to be effective, the proposed standard permit needs to explain the 

relationship between NMOC and VOC emissions because TNRCC regulations do not 
Ms. Lisa Martin 

Page2 

November 3, 1995 

define major sources ofNMOC emissions. Garland suggests that the threshold trigger for 

the standard permit should be tied to the specific NMOC threshold for each nonattainment 

area in the state. 

Garland suggests that the standard permit allow up to 180 days to perform Tier 2 

testing rather than 90 days as proposed. As a participant in the group Tier 2 testing effort 

in the D/FW area, Garland learned that this data is not necessarily easy to obtain. 

Therefore, Garland believes that the standard permit should allow more time for this 

testing. 

Also, Garland recommends that the default value for CNMoc in the standard permit 

be set at 1,170 ppmv for all municipal landfills rather than at 4,400 ppmv for MSW 

landfills that have received industrial solid waste. The Tier 2 testing conducted in the 

DIFW area demonstrates that actual CNMbc values in pre-Subtitle D landfills are generally 

less than 1,170 ppmv. Because all landfills subject to the standard permit will be Subtitle 

D permits, there is strong reason to believe that actual CNMoc values in these SubtitleD 

landfills will be even further below the present concentrations and clearly below the 

presently suggested default value of 1, 170 ppmv. 

Sincerely, , j j 

~~~E Landfill Director 

cc: The Honorable Chairman Barry McBee 

Commissioner Ralph Marquez 

Commissioner John Baker 

Mr. Dan Pearson 

Ms. Beverly Hartsock 

Mr. Jeffrey Saitas 

Mr. Bryan Dixon 

-

-

-· 
Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC 202 

P.o. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Dear Lisa, 

8 RECEIVED 

OFFICE OF POLICY & 

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT 

October 17, 1995 

Enclosed are the comments of tbe Galveston-Houston Association 

for Smog Prevention (GHASP) concerning the changes proposed for 

116.617, 620, 621, 610 with respect to Standard Permits. 

1) We are not in favor of standard permits not requiring 

modeling or health effects review. This protection that affords 

citizens welfare and health effects mitigation needs to be kept 

so that TNRCC dces not permit future nuisance situations. 

2) Under 116.620(a)(7) and (8) and (9) we are not in favor 

of having less stringent control under (8 & 9) than for (7). Under 

7 the typ~ of facilities that are controlled go from 10-25 tpy but 

under 8 and 9 only greater than or equal to 25 tpy are regulated. 

They all should be regulated so that facilities between 10-25 ~ons 

or more are regulated equally strict. In addition you allow 40 

tpy. This needs to be regulated down to 10-25 tpy or more. 

The idea is not to opt people out but to ensure that such facilities 

which can produce deadly hydrogen sulfide gas and other pollutants 

are maximally controlled using a permit system that is not case-by-

'Case. 

3) Under 116.620(b)(1), the 25,000 g~llon cut-off size is not 

stringent enough. Regulation should occur down to 5,000 gallon 

tan~ size to ensure nuisance situations do not occur or toxic pollution does not threaten people. Also under {b)(2)(A) 80% control 

is not BACT and is not even RACT. We object to this less than adequate control level. 

Under (c)(1)(A) we object to using a 10,000 ppm VOC leak detection level. ~ou need to gc to 500 ppm like you do in other parts of 

this rule so that you reduce ozone precursors maximally. This will 

result in savings of products and pollution control equipment (like 

values) that are virtually leak proof. Why settle for less? We 

also object to, under (D) the phrase "reasonably accessible". This 

has no specific definition and is subjectiv2 instead of being objective as it could be written and defined. Companies must make their 

0quipment accessible or it will not be monitored and maintained 

properly. The same comment also applies to (c)(2)(D). 

P.O. BOX 30537 • HOUSTON, TEXAS • 77249-0537 
P2ge 2 

4) Under 116.621(4) we object to only having a 150 Mg threshold 

that is used to require a GCCS for municipal landfills. This is 

particularly inappropriate when EPA has proposed a 50 Mg threshold. 

You need to be as stringent as possible sirce in nonattainment areas 

there is a need to reduce ozone prec~rsor emissions as much as 

possible. 

-· 

Under (9) you need to place in this section that TNRCC and the 

local programs will be nctified when sampling will occur so that th8y 

have the opportunity to watch the sampling. 

Under (11)(A) a 10,000 ppm leak detection level for VOC is too 

high for a severe ozone nonattainment area like the Houston Area. 

This leak detection level needs to be lowered to 500 ppm. In addition under (J)(i) allowing 10 tpy of fugitives/yr. seems like alot 

when this equals what an area source might produce. Less fugitives 

here, esp~cially in a nonattainment area seems appropriate. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you. 

(§:~ Brandt Mannchen 

GHA-SP 

1705 Michigan #3 

Houston, Texas 77006 

H713-521-9534, W713-640-4313 

-
NOV 22 '95 12=19PM HDR ENGR DEPT 37 <214)950-4471 

November 22, 1995 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Tx. 78711-3087 

Re: Revised Comments on Proposed Standard Permit for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #951 03-116-Al) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

P.2/3 

HDR Engineering, Inc. would like to replace the November 6, 1995 comments on 

the proposed standard permit with the following revised comments. Please note 

that the only change was the removal of the 3rd comment on section §116.621 

(5)(A). 

§116.621 (4)(A) 

It is apparent that this section addresses the option to submit a site specific 

NMOC emission rate. However, it only requests the determination of the CNMOC 

and (k) values and does not request a submittal of the recalculated NMOC 

emission rate utilizing the site-specific values. HDR suggests that a second 

NMOC emission rate calculation in accordance with ·the procedures of 40 CFR, 

§60.753 of the proposed federal rules be required, using the site specific values, 

to show emission rates below the threshold level. Also, the appropriate section of 

the federal mle is referenced erroneously as §61.753 when it should be §60.753. 

§116.621 (4)(B)(i) & (ii) 

These two parts appear to conflict in their requirements for the submitted design 

of the active gas collection and control system (GCCS). Part (i) requires the 

GCCS to be designed to accommodate gas produced by the entire landfill falling 

under the proposed standard permit, while part (ii) requires the designed system 

to collect gas from areas or cells of the permitted landfill which contain final cover, 

or where refuse has been in place for over 5 years. The conflict is that part (i) 

requires a GCCS design to address the permitted landfill in total, while part (ii) 

implies a phased GCCS design. Due to the trend for new and amended landfills 

to have long operational lives, HDR recommends that the required plan for the 

GCCS be submitted conceptually with the standard permit application to address 

the entire facility covered by the standard permit, and that the final design and 

installation of the GCCS take place in phases in accordance with the requirements 

of part (ii). 

HDA Engineering. Inc. Suite 125 

12700 Hillcrest Road 

Dallas, Texas 

75230-2096 

Telephone 

214 960-4000 
NOV 22 '95 12=19PM HDR ENGR DEPT 37 C214)960-4471 P.3/3 

November 22, 1995 

Revised Comments on Standard Permit 

§116.621 (12)(F)(vi) 

Requiring landfills to calculate maximum ~xpected gas generation flow rates using 

Method 2E as listed in the proposed NSPS and EG will have a significant economic 

impact on the owners. HDR questions the need for this calculation based on the fact 

that per1ormance testing will be conducted on the system via the required surface 

monitoring, along with the verification of negative pressure at all of the well heads. If 

the TNRCC feels that maximum gas generation flow rates are necessary, a 

recommended alternative to Method 25 would be to use one of several available gas 

generation models such as the one referenced in §60.754 of the proposed federal 

regulations. However, because these models only serve as a theoretical estimate of 

the gas generation rate for a landfill, HDR stresses that model results should be used 

for information only, and not to evaluate the adequacy of an installed GCCS. 

§116.621 (12)(F)(vii) 

As with the maximum expected gas generation flow rates mentioned above, . the 

calculated radius of influence ROI of extraction wells in accordance with Method 2E will 

have a significant economic impact on landfill owners with little benefit in return. The 

required surface monitoring (performance testing) will indicate areas of the landfill 

surface that require additional control; and if the required repairs fail to resolve the 

emission point, owners will ultimately install additional wells. Although available as an 

option for design of the GCCS in place of the 200 meter design default spacing in the 

proposed NSPS and EG, the nonhomogenous characteristics of a landfill renders the 

u~e of a uniform calcu[ated ROI to evaluate GCCS performance ineffective. 

Additional.ly, the presence of negative pressure within the refuse induced by the already 

installed GCCS will impact any tests conducted to determine the ROI. Based on 

experience, HDR feels that performance testing through GCCS operation and surface 

monitoJing will sufficiently indicate when and where additional extraction wells are 

needed. HDR recommends that this requirement be removed from the proposed rule. 

HDR is also in general agreement with those comments submitted by the Texas 

Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Please call me at 

(214) 960-4400 if you should have any questions regarding these comments. 

Sincerely 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

{J/jdfJ 

Scott Hill, P.E. 

2 

-

-

-
·- November 6, 1995 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Tx. 78711-3087 OFfiCE OF POLICY & 

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT 

Re: Comments on Proposed Standard Permit for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(Rules Tracking Log #951 03-116-AI) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) is in support of the intentions of the proposed standard 

permit and hereby submits the following technical comments in accordance with the 

procedures as listed in the October 6, 1995 Texas State Register. 

§116.621 (4)(A) 

It is apparent that this section addresses the option to submit a site specific NMOC 

- emission rate. However, it only requests the determination of the CNMoc and (k) values 

and does not request a submittal of the recalculated NMOC emission rate utilizing the 

site-specific values. HDR suggests that a second NMOC emission rate calculation in 

accordance with the procedures of 40 CFR, §60.753 of the proposed federal rules be 

required, using the site specific values, to show emission rates below the threshold 

level. Also, the appropriate section of the federal rule is referenced erroneously as 

§61.753 when it should be §60.753. 

§116.621 (4)(B)(i) & (ii) 

These two parts appear to conflict in their requirements for the submitted design of the 

active gas coilection and control system (GCCS). Part (i) requires the GCCS to be 

designed to accommodate gas produced by the entire landfill falling under the proposed 

standard permit, while part (ii) requires the designed system to collect gas from areas 

or cells of the permitted landfill which contain final cover, or where refuse has been in 

place for over 5 years. The conflict is that part (i) requires a GCCS design to address 

the permitted landfill in total, while part (ii) implies a phased GCCS design. Due to the 

trend for new and amended landfills to have long operational lives, HDR recommends 

that the required plan for the GCCS be submitted conceptually with the standard permit 

application to address the entire facility covered by the standard permit, and that the 

final design and installation of the GCCS take place in phases in accordance with the 

requirements of part (ii). 

HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 125 

12700 Hillcrest Road 

Dallas, Texas 

75230-2096 

Telephone 

214 960-4000 
November 6, 1995 

Comments on Standard Permit 

§116.621 (5)(A) 

This section requires the submittal of plans and specifications for the GCCS. As 

mentioned above, landfills with longer operating lives typically install GCCS's in phases 

as individual cells are filled. If designed for construction early on, the GCCS would 

likely require several modi'fications to account for lessons learned from the initial phases 

of the extraction system, changes in the operations at the landfill, and improvements in 

technology. HDR suggests that phased GCCS plans be required only at a conceptual 

level without specifications, along with an installation schedule meeting the 

requirements described in part (ii) as mentioned above. 

§116.621 (12)(F)(vi) 

Requiring landfills to calculate maximum expected gas generation flow rates using 

Method 2E as listed in the proposed NSPS and EG will have a significant economic 

impact on the owners. HDR questions the need for this calculation based on the fact 

that performance testing will be conducted on the system via the required surface 

monitoring, along with the verification of negative pressure at all of the well heads. If 

the TNRCC feels that maximum gas generation flow rates are necessary, a 

recommended alternative to Method 25 would be to use one of several available gas 

generation models such as the one referenced in §60.754 of the proposed federal 

-

regulations. However, because these models only serve as a theoretical estimate of -

the gas generation rate for a landfill, HDR stresses that model results should be used 

for information only, and not to evaluate the adequacy of an installed GCCS. 

§116.621 (12)(F)(vii) 

As with the maximum expected gas generation flow rates mentioned above, the 

calculated radius of influence ROI of extraction wells in accordance with Method 2E will 

have a significant economic impact on landfill owners with little benefit in retLim. The 

required surface monitoring (performance testing) will indicate areas of the landfill 

surface that require additional control; and if the required repairs fail to resolve the 

emission point, owners will ultimately install additional wells. Although available as an 

option for design of the GCCS in place of the 200 meter design default spacing in the 

proposed NSPS and EG, the nonhomogenous characteristics of a landfill renders the 

use of a uniform calculated ROI to evaluate GCCS performance ineffective. 

Additionally, the presence of negative pressure within the refuse induced by the already 

installed GCCS will impact any tests conducted to determine the ROI. Based on 

experience, HDR feels that performance testing through GCCS operation and surface 

monitoring will sufficiently indicate when and where additional extraction wells are 

needed. HDR recommends that this requirement be removed from the proposed rule. 

2 

-
November 6, 1995 

Comments on Standard Permit 

HDR is also in general agreement with those comments submitted by the Texas 

Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Please call me at 

(214} 960-4400 if you should have any questions regarding these comments. 

Sincerely 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

~1$ Scott Hill, P.E. 

3 
LLOYD, GossELINK, FowLER, BLEVINS & MATHEWS, P. c. 

Ill CONGRESS AVENUE 

SUITE 1800 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 

TELEPHONE<SI2l322-S800 

TELECOPIER <S12l 472-0S32 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

November 6, 1995 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

I II SOLEDAD STREET• 

SUITE 300 

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7820S 

TELEPHONE (210) 212-S888 

TELECOPIER <210> 212-5889 

•ay APPOINTJi.CENT ONLY 

VIA HAND-DELIVERY 

Re: Comments of USA Waste Services, Inc., on TNRCC's Proposed 

Standard Permit for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking 

Log #95103-116-AI) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

The following comments to the proposed standard permit for municipal solid waste 

landfills ("MSW Landfills") (Rules Tracking Log #951 03-116-AI) are submitted on behalf 

of USA Waste Services, Inc. USA Waste appreciates the opportunity to address such an 

important regulatory issue. 

If new and modified landfills are legally required to obtain separate air quality 

permits, USA Waste strongly supports the use of a standard air permit to meet such a 

requirement. · Standard permits, if properly drafted, represent an improved approach to 

permitting. The use of standard permits can significantly reduce the red-tape and cost 

associated with obtaining a permit without compromising the benefits obtained. 

Although USA Waste endorses the concept of using a standard permit for landfills, 

USA Waste recommends that the TNRCC postpone adoption of the final standard permit 

until at least January, 1996, to provide EPA with time to adopt a final NSPS. The threat 

that the NSPS and the standard permit may have conflicting provisions is real and should 

be avoided if at all possible. No member of the regulated community wants to be in the 

uncomfortable position of having to decide which regulation to comply with. 

USA Waste supports the TNRCC's decision to set the NMOC threshold at 150 

Mg/year. This level is consistent with existing TNRCC regulations (Chapter 115) and is 

significantly below major source levels for ozone attainment areas. A more stringent 

threshold in attainment areas is not warranted based on the existing state of knowledge. 
USA Waste's Comments 

to Standard Permit 

for MSW Landfills 

November 6, 1995 

Page 2 

If a more stringent threshold is adopted by EPA, the proposed standard air permit is 

designed to incorporate more stringent federal standards. 

1. 

LIST OF SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

USA Waste also offers the following comments to improve the standard permit: 

Define/Describe Modification - The standard permit can be used to authorize the 

construction of new and modified MSW Landfills. Either the standard permit or 

the preamble to the final permit should explain what physical and operational 

changes at a MSW Landfill will trigger the need for such authorization. For 

example, most MSW Landfills are undergoing modifications to implement RCRA 

Subtitle D requirements. However, neither these modifications nor those listed in 

30 TAC 305.70 should trigger the need to use the standard permit because the 

changes are not modifications as defined by the Texas Clean Air Act. The standard 

permit should make it clear that Reg VI authorization is only required for landfill 

expansions beyond currently permitted capacity, and that such authorization is not 

needed for solid waste permit modifications required to implement Subtitle D or 

30 TAC 305.70 changes. 

Also with regard to modifications, the standard permit needs to explain 

whether the standard permit applies to all areas of the existing MSW Landfill or 

just to the modified areas. Correspondingly, the standard permit should explain 

how emissions will be calculated for modifications (e.g., all waste or only new 

waste), and where and when gas collection systems will be required to be installed 

in existing areas. USA Waste recommends that the standard permit thresholds be 

determined based only on the modified areas and that the installation of gas 

collection systems be specifically required only in modified areas. 

2. Threshold Levels in Ozone Nonattainment Areas - The proposed standard permit 

sets the NMOC threshold level in ozone nonattainment areas at "the amount 

constituting the major source as defined for that area in § 116.12." However, 

§ 116.12 does not define major sources with regard to emissions of NMOC. 

Instead § 116.12 defines major sources based on VOC emissions. The TNRCC 

-

-
USA Waste's Comments 

to Standard Permit 

for MSW Landfills 

November 6, 1995 

Page 3 

should amend the standard air permit to clarify this ambiguity. USA Waste offers 

the following suggested language: 

3. More Time Needed to Perform Tier 2 & 3 Testing- The proposed standard permit 

only allows 90 days during which a MSW Landfill can perform Tier 2 and/or Tier 

3 testing. This is an insufficient amount of time in which to perform the testing. 

The proposed NSPS would allow. up to one year to perform this testing. Moreover, 

recent experience conducting Tier 2 testing in the Dallas/Fort Worth area indicates 

that 90 days will not be sufficient to obtain and analyze Tier 2 data. Tier 2 data 

can be difficult to obtain and analyze. No analytical laboratory in Texas has 

demonstrated an ability to obtain and analyze Tier 2 data within the 90 day 

window provided by the proposed permit. Therefore, USA Waste recommends that 

this period be changed to 180 days rather than 90 days. 

4. Default Value for "k" Factor Should be 0.02- The proposed standard permit sets 

the default value for the "k" factor at 0.04/year. For MSW Landfills, AP-42 

suggests the use of the following values when estimating NMOC emissions: 

k = 0.04 (for landfills with wet waste) 

= 0.02 (for landfills with drier waste) 

Because of the strict requirements of RCRA Subtitle D, which restrict the disposal 

of liquids, require the use of liners and control runon of stormwater, the waste that 

is disposed of in new and modified MSW Landfills should be considered as drier 

waste for purposes of AP-42. Therefore, USA Waste recommends that the default 

value for the "k" factor be changed to: k = 0.02. USA requests that the TNRCC 

air policy rule writing staff consult with the municipal solid waste division and/or 

outside sources such as the National Solid Waste Management Association to 

specifically identify what constitutes "wet" and "drier" and to determine which 
USA Waste's Comments 

to Standard Permit 

for MSW Landfills 

November 6,·1995 

Page 4 

5. 

category Subtitle D landfills fall into. This could be especially informative since 

the AP-42 default values for the "k" factor were determined on data compiled from 

pre-Subtitle D landfills. 

Default Value for CNMoc Should be 1.170 - The proposed standard permit sets the 

default value for CNMoc as 1,170 ppmv for MSW Landfills that have not received 

any industrial solid waste and as 4,400 ppmv for MSW landfills that have received 

industrial solid waste. This default value is more stringent than that recommended 

by AP-42 because under the definition of industrial solid waste virtually every 

MSW Landfill will be considered as receiving industrial solid waste. AP-42 

recommends the use ofCNMoc = 1,170 ppmv (for landfills with primarily municipal 

solid waste), and the use of CNMoc = 4,400 ppmv for landfills that receive organic 

industrial solid waste. Therefore, USA Waste recommends the use of CNMoc = 

1,170 ppmv for all MSW Landfills except those co-disposing organic industrial 

solid waste. USA repeats its request that the TNRCC's air policy rule-writing staff 

consult with the municipal solid waste division to develop a regulatory method that 

can be used to distinguish between those landfills which do and those landfills 

which do not take organic industrial waste in greater than de minimis amounts. 

Sincerely, 

?l4}; h}srktk 

Paul G. Gosse link 

PGG/ldp 

cc: The Honorable Chairman Barry McBee 

Commissioner Ralph Marquez 

Commissioner John Baker 

Mr. Dan Pearson 

Ms. Beverly Hartsock 

Mr. Jeffrey Saitas 

Mr. Bryan Dixon 

Mr. Ron Jones 

Mr. Gregory Sangalis -
-

The Lone 

November 6, 1995 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

8 

Re: Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North 

America - Comments on Proposed Standard Permit for Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-AI) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

The following comments to the proposed standard permit for municipal solid waste 

landfills ("MSW Landfills") (Rules Tracking Log #9 51 03-116-AI) are submitted on behalf 

of the Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America 

("TxSWANA"). Initially, TxSWANA wishes to express its support for a standard pennit 

for MSW Landfills and to thank the TNRCC staff (primarily Monica Pesek, David 

Schanbacher, Gus Eghneim and Margaret Hoffman) for developing the proposed standard 

permit and for actively seeking comment from TxSWANA and other interested groups. 

The use of a standard preconstruction air permit could provide the municipal solid 

waste industry with significant regulatory and economic relief, and at the same time, 

improve air quality in Texas. If MSW Landfills are legally required to obtain 

preconstruction permit authorization under the Texas Clean Air Act (Tex. Health & Safety 

Code§ 382.0518), the use of a standard permit may be the only practical way to satisfy 

the permit requirement. Moreover, a standard permit will provide the TNRCC with a 

~--:~, 1 lE CfE B V lE -~~ I U; . I 1 00'1 to 95 

C:,.. C~ OF OMS0:C:::~.~ :,;J 
TxSW ANA Comments to Standard 

Permit for MSW Landfills 

Page 2 

convenient and effective regulatory vehicle to control air contaminants emitted from MSW 

Landfills. 

Prior attempts by the Texas Air Control Board ("TACB") to issue air permits to 

MSW Landfills resulted in an almost total breakdown in the permitting process because 

MSW Landfills are not well suited to traditional preconstruction air permitting. Unlike 

most other sources of air contaminants, MSW Landfill gas emissions are difficult to 

quantify, ~ither before or after construction, because of the inherent variability in waste 

composition and because of the areal extent of the disposal area. Also, MSW Landfill gas 

emissions differ from emissions from many other sources of air contaminants in that the 

activities that produce landfill gas emissions, the disposal of solid waste, are pervasively 

regulated by the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Moreover, unlike most other sources of air 

contaminants, gas emissions from MSW Landfills cannot be started or stopped at will; 

these emissions can only be stopped by removing the solid waste from the MSW Landfill. 

Trying to fit MSW Landfills into the traditional air permitting program is in many ways 

like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. With that fact in mind, TxSW ANA urges 

the TNRCC to more actively seek input from its Municipal Solid Waste Division as part 

of its consideration of these comments, especially regarding operational issues such as 

those discussed in specific comments 4 and 5 below. 

While TxSW ANA wholeheartedly supports the concept of a standard permit for 

MSW Landfills, TxSW ANA suggests that the TNRCC consider postponing the issuance 

of the final standard permit until the end of the year to give EPA time to promulgate the 

final New Source Performance Standard ("NSPS") for MSW Landfills, which EPA 

currently expects to promulgate in November. The proposed standard permit includes 

landfill gas collection and controi requirements that are largely based on EPA's proposed 

NSPS. The comparable requirements in the final NSPS, which will be applicable to all 

new and modified MSW Landfills in Texas, may differ from those in the proposed rule. 

Thus, inconsistencies could arise between the standard permit and the final NSPS. In 

order to avoid conflicting and inconsistent state and federal regulations, TxSW ANA 

suggests that the TNRCC wait to see if EPA promulgates the final NSPS and that the 

TNRCC modify the standard permit to directly incorporate the final NSPS. TxSW ANA 

is not urging inaction unless and until the final NSPS is issued. Rather, TxSW ANA is 

urging the TNRCC to not rush the issuance of this rule. The TNRCC has six months to 

finalize this rule. TxSW ANA foresees potentially unnecessary complications if the 

TNRCC finalizes this rule in December or January only to have the USEPA finalize the 

NSPS in March. TxSWANA is not aware of any city or private operator in its 

-

-
TxSW ANA Comments to Standard 

Permit for MSW Landfills 

Page 3 

membership which would be harmed by the proposed two or three month delay m 

issuance. 

LIST OF SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

TxSW ANA offers the following comments that TxSW ANA believes would 

improve the standard permit: 

1. Define/Describe Modification - The standard permit can be used to authorize the 

construction of new and modified MSW Landfills. Either the standard permit or 

the preamble to the final permit should explain what physical and operational 

changes at a MSW Landfill will trigger the need for such authorization. For 

example, most MSW Landfills are undergoing modifications to implement RCRA 

Subtitle D requirements. However, neither these modifications nor the 

modifications delineated in 30 TAC 305.70 should trigger the need to use the 

standard air permit because these changes are not modifications as defined by the 

Texas Clean Air Act. The standard permit should make it clear that Reg VI 

authorization is only required for landfill expansions beyond currently permitted 

capacity, and that such authorization is not needed for solid waste permit 

modifications required to implement Subtitle D or the changes authorized under 30 

TAC 305.70. 

Also with regard to modifications, the TNRCC needs to explain whether the 

standard permit applies to all areas of the existing MSW Landfill or just to the 

modified areas. Correspondingly, the standard permit should explain how 

emissions will be calculated for modifications (e.g., all waste or only new waste), 

and where and when gas collection systems will be required to be installed in 

existing areas. TxSW ANA recommends that the standard permit thresholds be 

determined based only on the modified areas and that the installation of gas 

collection systems be specifically required only in modified areas. A permit 

requirement that tries to include previously deposited waste on previously permitted 

areas could create significant legal questions regarding the right of permittees to 

rely on prior authorizations as well as create extensive practical difficulties m 

emission estimation and system retrofitting. 

2. Threshold Levels in Ozone Nonattainment Areas - The proposed standard permit 

sets the NMOC threshold level in ozone nonattainment areas at "the amount 
TxSW ANA Comments to Standard 

Permit for MSW Landfills 

Page 4 

3. 

constituting the major source as defined for that area in § 116.12." However, 

§ 116.12 does not define major sources with regard to emissions of NMOC. 

Instead § 116.12 defines major sources based on VOC emissions. The TNRCC 

should amend the standard air permit to clarify this ambiguity. TxSWANA offers 

the following suggested language: 

or source • 

that area in § 116.12 of this title (relating to 

Source/Major Modification Emission Thresholds). 

More Time Needed to Perform Tier 2 & 3 Testing- The proposed standard permit 

only allows 90 days during which a MSW Landfill can perform Tier 2 and/or Tier 

3 testing. This is an insufficient ·amount of time in which to perform the testing. 

The proposed NSPS would allow up to one year to perform this testing. Moreover, 

recent experience conducting Tier 2 testing in the Dallas/Fort Worth area indicates 

that 90 days will not be sufficient to obtain and analyze Tier 2 data. Tier 2 data 

can be difficult to obtain and analyze. No analytical laboratory in Texas has 

demonstrated an ability to obtain and analyze Tier 2 data within the 90 day 

window provided by the proposed permit. Therefore, TxSW ANA recommends that 

this period be changed to 180 days rather than 90 days. 

4. Default Value for "k" Factor Should be 0.02 - The proposed standard permit sets 

the default value for the "k" factor at 0.04/year. For MSW Landfills, AP-42 

suggests the use of the following values when estimating NM:OC emissions: 

k = 0.04 (for landfills with wet waste) 

= 0.02 (for landfills with drier waste) 

Because of the strict requirements of RCRA Subtitle D, which restrict the disposal 

of liquids, require the use of liners and control run on of storm water, the waste that 

is disposed of in new and modified MSW Landfills should be considered as drier 

waste for purposes of AP-42. Therefore, TxSWANA recommends that the default 

value for the "k" factor be changed to: k = 0.02. TxSWANA further suggests that 

the TNRCC consult with its municipal solid waste division and/or outside sources 

such as TxSWANA to specifically identify the definition of "wet" and "drier" and 

-

-

-· 
TxSW ANA Comments to Standard 

Permit for MSW Landfills 

Page 5 

determine which category Subtitle D landfills represent. It is TxSWANA's 

understanding that the above-referenced "k" values were determined based on preSubtitle D landfills. 

5. Default Value for CNMoc Should be 1.170- The proposed standardpermit sets the 

default value for CNMoc as 1,170 ppmv for MSW Landfills that have not received 

any industrial solid waste and as 4,400 ppmv for MSW landfills that have received 

industrial solid waste. This default value is more stringent than that recommended 

by AP-42 because under the definition of industrial solid waste virtually every 

MSW Landfill will be considered as receiving industrial solid waste. AP-42 

recommends the use of CNMoc = 1,170 ppmv (for landfills with primarily municipal 

solid waste), and the use of CNMoc = 4,400 ppmv for landfills that receive organic 

industrial solid waste. Almost all municipal landfills in Texas receive some Class 

2 or Class 3 industrial waste. A limited number receive Class 1 organic industrial 

solid waste beyond household hazardous waste. Therefore, TxSW ANA 

recommends the use ofCNMoc = 1,170 ppmv for all MSW Landfills except those 

co-disposing organic industrial solid waste. TxSW ANA again suggests that the 

TNRCC consult its municipal solid waste division to develop a regulatory 

mechanism that can be used to distinguish between those landfills which do and 

those landfills which do not take more than a de minimis amount of organic 

industrial waste. 

TxSWANA's suggestion to set the default value at 1,170 ppmv is supported by its 

recent NMOC emission testing at various Dallas-Fort Worth area landfills. Final data on 

those tests will be submitted soon. However, as the TNRCC staff is aware, the level of 

emissions for these pre-SubtitleD landfills were all below the 1,170 ppmv default value 

much less the 4,400 ppmv value. TxSW ANA is not aware of any data regarding actual 

emissions from Texas municipal solid waste landfills which supports the proposed 4,400 

ppmv value. 

CONCLUSION 

TxSWANA appreciates the consideration given to these comments on the proposed 

standard permit for MSW Landfills. TxSW ANA remains committed to its stated policy 

of providing the greatest possible protection of the public health and the environment at 

the lowest possible cost. TxSWANA's comments are based on this policy. If the TNRCC 
TxSW ANA Comments to Standard 

Permit for MSW Landfills 

Page 6 

needs any further assistance during the development of this standard permit, please feel 

free to call on me or Joe Freeland. 

Sincerely, 

r~ John Labrie 

President, 

Lone Star Chapter 

Solid Waste Association 

of North America 

cc: ~'1*9~<l.ra6l~::cliaiffiian.'Banj McBeef 

Commissioner Ralph Marquez 

Commissioner John Baker 

Mr. Dan Pearson 

Ms. Beverly Hartsock 

Mr. Jeffrey Saitas 

Mr. Bryan Dixon 

1249/003-002. CMT 

-

-

-
512 480 0958 

- · NGV 06 '95 04:56PM MCELROY & SULLIVAN / L.L.P. 

"·-MAU.ll'U A.TlUJ{F:HK: 

>.(). UOX 12UI'7 

AIJEITJ:N. TJ;:XAK 'l'87ll 

McELROY & SULLIVAN, L.L.P. 

ATTORNJtYS AT LAW 

FJKKT HTATE BANK TOWER 

400 w~T 15TH STREET 

MUITE 1410 

AUS'TIN. TEXAS 78701 

November 6, 1995 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Attn: Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

RE: Proposed Rules 

30 TAC Chapter 116 

20 Tex Reg. 8168 (October 6, 1995) 

P.i/3 

a 

QI...EPHONR 

r!'illil 480.0091 

FA(~I:UMIJ.E 

15 HU 480..0908 

These comments are submitte~ on behalf of Waste Manaqement of 

Texas. Inc. ("WMTX'1 ) reqarding the amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116 

proposed·at 20 Tex Req 8168 (October 6 1 1995), in particular new 

S116. 621 regardinq a standard per1nit for municipal solicS waste 

landfills. WMTX is very supportive of the concept of a standard 

permit for municipal solid waste landfills. The use of the 

standard permit will increase efficiency in the permittinq p~ocess 

and will result in cost savings to the state and the regulated community, 

WMTX offers the· following specific comments regarding proposed 

30 TAC §116.621: 

1. 116.621(1) - As proposed, this section states that 

facilities which comply with applicable conditions "may be issuec5. 

a standard permit. 11 30 TAC §116. 610 (a), as it currently exists and 

as proposed, provi~es that facilities which meet the requirements for a standard permit "are hereby entitled to the standard permit." 

WMTX believes that the language in §116.610(a) more appropriately describes the applicability of a standard permit and suggests that 

§116.621(1) Da revised to De consistent with §l16.610(a). 

2. §116.621(8) - WMTX supports the concept, as set out in 

this paragraph of the proposed rules, of employinq reasonable 

control technologies and methodologies at MSWLFs to limit 

particulate matter emissions. WMTX also believes that the proposed #- rule identifies the control technologies which can be most 

effectively employed to control such emissions. However, WMTX 

believes that the use of the phrases nminimize any fugitive 
NOV 06 '95 04:56PM MCELROY & SULLIVRN / L.L.P. 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Texas Natural Resource conservation commission 

November 6, 1995 

Paqe a 

P.2/3 

particulate matter emissions" and ••achieve :maximum control of dust 

emissions" could. be construed to suqqest a constantly escalating but never satisfied requirement to employ any conceivable means of 

controllinq such emissions. Also, soma of the control tec:hnoloqies identified are obviously not appropriate for use on all of the 

areas identified (eq. paving of a cell during excavation). WMTX 

suggests revising proposed §116.62l(A) and tB) to read as follows: 

(A) All material hancllinq and transport operations shall 

be conducted in a manner so as to reasonably control 

fugitive particulate matter emissions. 

(B) As necessary to achieve reasonable control of dust 

emissions, 

( i) roads and other areas subject to vehicular 

traffic shall be paved and cleaned, watered or 

treated with dust-suppressant chemicals, and 

(ii) MSWLF cells during excavation shall be 

watered or treated with dust-suppressant 

chemicals. 

J. §116.621(9) - WMTX suggests deletin9 this paragraph from 

the proposed rules. Given the size and nature of operations at 

MSWLF facilities, upwind/downwind hiqh volume air samplinq for 

particulate matter is unlikely to provide data useful in evaluating controlling partieulate matter emissions. WMTX believes that 

requirements to utilize tha cont;rol methodoloqies set out in 

§116.621(8) will adequately limit particulate matter emissions f:rcm 

MSWLF facilities. The lack of identifiable criteria for either 

triqgerinq a samplinq event or evaluating the results are further 

bases for deletinq this paragraph. 

4. §116.621(10) - WMTX is aware that the provisions of this 

proposed paraqraph regarding MWSLF unit surface leak inspection and 

maintenance are based on the federal regulations first proposed by 

u.s. EPA in the May JO, 1991 Federal Register. However, those 

rules have not yet been adopted and, while significant changes to 

them have been considered by EPA, the rules are in the process of 

final review now. WMTX would suggest that, if the Commission 

proceeds to adopt §116.621(10), that it continue to monitor the 

statu$ of the proposed federal rules and, if changes are made to 

them prior to final adoption, that the Conunission initiate a 

process to revise the Texas state rules accordingly. -
NOV 06 '95 04:57PM MCELROY & SULLIVAN / L.L.P. 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Texas Natural Resource conservation commission 

November 6, 1995 

Page 3 

P.3/3 

In closinq, WMTX supports the concept of a standard permit for 

municipal solid waste landfills and appreciates the hard work of 

the TNRCC staff in developing these proposed rules. WMTX woul4 

urge the Commission to adopt the proposed rules with the changes suqqested herein. If you have any questions, please contact either 

Mr. walter Hunt, P.E. (at 214-842-5710) or me. 

BWR/jam 

Brent w. Rya Attorney for as 

of 'I'exas, !n • 

cc: Mr. David Schanbacher, P.E. 

Mr. Srian Dixon, P.E. 
8 RECEIVED 

BRAZOS VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY OFfiCE OF POLICY & 

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. Lisa Martin 

Office of Policy and Regulatory Development 

MC202 

Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 13087 

. Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Re: Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency 

Permit for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log 

#951 03-n 6-AI) 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

The Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency on behalf of the Cities of 

Bryan and College Station supports the comments filed by the Lone Star Chapter of the 

Solid Waste Association ofNorth America on the proposed standard air permit for 

municipal solid waste landfills. The standard air permit approach would appear to be the 

most prudent course of action for landfill facilities. Real reductions in air pollution can be 

achieved without the unnecessary expense ofhaving to obtain individual permits. 

cc: The Honorable Chairman Barry McBee 

Commissioner Ralph Marquez 

Commissioner John Baker 

Mr. Dan Pearson 

Ms. Beverly Hartsock 

Mr. Jeffrey Saitas 

Mr. Bryan Dixon 

P.O. Box 9960 2700 E. Bypass, Ste. 4300 College Station, TX 77845 409n64·3806 

Sincerely 

Bill Angelo 

Executive Director 

Prrnted on Recycled Paper 
Reference Number 

0-1 

INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY 

Submitted By 

Paul Gosselink, USA Waste Services, Inc. 

(Similar to W -9) 
.~. ·::·.: :, Before the 

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 

CHAPTER 116 AND THE STATE 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

X 

X 

X PROCUREMENT FORM 

X NO. 036537 

X 

PUBLIC HEARING 

NOVEMBER 6, 1995 

BE IT REMEMBERED that the above matter 

came on for hearin~ on the 6th day of November 1995 

beginning at 10 a.m. before the Honorable Lisa 

Martin, Hearings Examiner, at the Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission, 12118 North IH-35, 

Park 35 Technology Center, Building E, Room 254S, 

Austin, Texas, whereupon the following proceedings 

were had: 

Austin 

America 

Reporters 

a record of excellence 

7800 Shoal Creek Blvd. • 268-E • Austin, Texas 78757 • 512-458-3334 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1995 

MORNING SESSION: 10 A.M. 

* * * * * 

MS. MARTIN: Good morning, ladies 

and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to 

this public hearing being conducted by the Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission. If 

you are not familiar with the proposed changes, 

handout materials are available at the 

registration table. 

My name is Lisa Martin, and I'm with the 

office of poli~y and regulatory development, and 

I will be serving as your hearings officer this 

morning. Our court reporter is Evelyn Roof. 

The purpose of this hearing is to 

solicit comments and testimony from the public 

regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 

116 concerning municipal solid waste landfill 

standard permits and the state implementation 

plan. 

At this time, those of you who wish to 

present testimony, please stand and be sworn in 

by the court reporter. 

(All witnesses present in 

the hearing room were duly 

-
" ® " 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

3 

sworn. 

MS. MARTIN: Okay, we have one 

speaker this morning, Mr. Paul Gosselink. Mr. 

Gosselink, if you would, please come forward to 

the podium, and please spell your name for the 

court reporter. 

MR. GOSSELINK: My name is Paul 

Gosse link. That's spelled G-o-s-s-e-1-i-n-k. 

Paul is P-a-u-1. I'm going to disappoint the 

audience. All I wanted to do was be available 

to testify in case I needed to. Since I'm the 

only testifier, what I'll content myself with 

doing is handing in comments on behalf of USA 

Waste. I've given carbon copies to Ms. Pesek. 

They are self-explanatory. 

MS. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. 

Gosselink. Do we have anyone else who would 

like to present testimony this morning? 

MR. SIMS: I don't necessarily have 

testimony, but I have one comment on a typo in 

the rules 

MS. MARTIN: Okay. 

MR. SIMS: --- if I can find the 

page here. It's Page 51, and it references the 

MSW rules, 330.42. That should be 330.41. 
r~-

~·:,:· :~? 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

0 9 ,. . 

·····,/ 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

0 17 . 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

4 

MS. MARTIN: Okay, could you give us 

your name, please, for the record? 

MR. SIMS: Robert Sims, S-i-m-s. 

MS. MARTIN: Do we have any other 

commentors? 

Okay, I would like to state that the end 

of the comment period for this rulemaking is 

today, November 6, 1995 at 4 p.m. Thank you for 

attending this public hearing, and I now declare 

the hearing closed. 

* * * * * 

HEARING ADJOURNED 

* * * * * 

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 

THE STATE OF TEXAS X 

COUNTY OF TRAVIS X 

I, Evelyn Roof, certified shorthand 

reporter for the state of Texas, do hereby certify 

that the above and foregoing four pages constitutes 

a full, true and correct transcript of the 

proceedings had before the Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission on November 6, 1995, at the 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 

-

-
..... ,· •• : ... 1 

~. · ... ' 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

© 9 .;,.; 

10 

11 

12 

,.-. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

C·~:: 17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

5 

12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, 

Building E, Room 254S, Austin, Texas in the hearing 

relating to the matter of Proposed Revisions to 

Chapter 116 and the State Implementation Plan. 

I further certify that a stenographic 

record was made by me at the time of the hearing and 

said stenographic notes were thereafter reduced to 

computerized transcription under my direction and 

control . 

Witness my hand this, the 7th day of 

November 1995. 

~o~------------ certified Shorthand Reporter 

State of Texas 

(Certificate No. 2845) 

My Certification Expires: 

December 31, 1995 
-1 a../). I I (p - MSW t:l./77 d h ~ f-rl 

Public Hearing Registration ._ Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

Location: ~-L Date: 7l()v. t 1195 

N arne & Mailing Address Representing Making Oral 

Presentation 

(circle one) 

vo,J s~ til-\ e oui,L -\')o-j u~ /lVc 

s>r-z_ w J)~ sr ~ ~ D 

AiJ C)\1 N 1\r 18;?0 ( 

A R f\'1. ft-N SHA+/ 

ff"f-UD j<_ U 5 I L-/·rA ® 8 1/ t) frl'\. '\ u N 'if' /ZI N ~$ Yes 

/kJ)ItN _'~ >c r 1-f 1-0 lf 

-=s-c:n: F N~_..lc-.~ ~ Llu-r j Cc~5c= {"' L 

f II { Ov\ l~s-5 ~ f8c£.- Yes No 

!""' o.-c. '< A on" -A Lv-'.1--t ' '7 X 72 :K' l 

~~L-- u~s~r ~ l9- VSA. L-..J 4.<;..'\-e--

'\l~ CON~ u;v No 

~s.~-~v 

L A-tt !l1 ; +-ll,IZ/t -d 1 /3rovv,...·.., S- F-<.-.-,'5 ~J(...._;h('D Yes 8 /. ·D, BJ ---/ 31 s-I 

I J., ...v ,_.:; /V -('"" 7 ?..:< ;/'"3 ~c..-

~.:r"e-vr s,~~ r~/ZC<: /MSI.J -r;:Jtt~y,..;fs c3 Yes 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

.... 

II 

Yes No 
EVALUATION OF

TESTIMONY
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

To: 

Thru: 

From: 

Subject: 

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 

The Commissioners Date: 

The Chief Clerk's Office 

Beverly Hartsock, Deputy Direclory (11,) 

Office of Policy and Regulatory DevLJ:ent 

March 8, 1996 

Docket No. 95-1115-RUL. Consideration for adoption of amendments to 30 T AC 

Chapter 116, Subchapter F, Sections 116.610, 116.617, and new 116.620 and 116.621, 

concerning Standard Pennits; and the State Implementation Plan. The amended sections 

and new Section 116.620 eliminate duplicative language and renumber the standard 

pennit for oil and gas facilities. The new Section 116.621 establishes a standard air 

pennit for municipal solid waste landfills. The proposals were published in the Texas 

Ret!ister on October 6, 1995 (20 TexReg 8168). (Gus Eghneim) (Rule Log No. 95103-

116-AI) 

What the Proposed Rules Would Do: 

Amendments to Subchapter F, Standard Permits, §116.610, concerning Applicability, eliminate 

duplicative language. Amendments to § 116.617, concerning Standard Permit List, relocate the 

standard pennit, Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities, from §116.117(3) to 

new §116.620. The relocation of individual standard permits from a rule paragraph to a rule 

section simplifies future addition or modification of standard permits, since Texas Re£ister rules 

allow a section to be open for only one set of changes at a time. 

New §116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills, establishes criteria for 

obtaining a standard air pennit for a new or modified MSW landfill. The MSW landfill standard 

permit provides an alternative to the regular New Source Review (NSR) permit process of 

Chapter 116, Subchapter B. Both the regular permit process of Subchapter B and the standard 

pennit specify operating and control requirements. Unlike the regular NSR permit process, the 

standard pennit does not require case-by-case modeling or health effects review. 

The proposed standard pennit would be available to any MSW landfill facility which is required 

to obtain an air quality permit under the Texas Clean Air Act. The proposed standard permit 

would require landfill gas emissions to be controlled in accordance with the requirements of the 

New Source Perfonnance Standards (NSPS) for MSW landfills, 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Part 60, Subpart WWW. In addition to the requirements in the NSPS, the standard 

permit requires: 

A. The collection system must conform with specifications for active collection systems, 

which means that the collection system must use gas mover equipment. The NSPS 

allows the use of passive systems after the owner or operator has provided information 

to demonstrate the collection system will satisfactorily control off-site migration of 
The Commissioners 

Page 2 

March 8, 1996 

Subject: Docket No. 95-1115-RUL 

landfill gas. This type of individual review is beyond the scope and intent of the standard 

permit review. 

B. Additional landfill gas control methods that satisfy best available control technology 

(BACT), including specifications for open flares, enclosed flares, gas treatment systems, 

internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines, and boilers, heaters, or other 

combustion units. 

- C. The gas collection and control system to be capped or removed only if the landfill is 

permanently closed pursuant to closure and post-closure requirements in 30 T AC Chapter 

330. 

The proposed standard permit amendment also establishes requirements for the control of 

paniculate matter emissions, equipment component leak detection and repair, and recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

Applicable Laws: 

The proposed standard permit provides an option for compliance with the permitting requirements 

of Subchapter C of the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), Chapter 382, Texas Health and Safety 

Code. 

Reason Rules Are Needed: 

One of the consequences of Senate Bill No. 2, which passed in 1991 and resulted in the formation 

of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) in September 1993, was the 

repeal from the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act those statutory sections commonly referred to 

as "one-stop permitting." One of these sections (§361.073) specified that the Texas Air Control 

Board would perform a technical review of the air quality aspects of a permit application for a 

solid waste management facility, but specifically exempted MSW management facilities, except 

those that incinerate waste, from this requirement. With the repeal of this statute effective 

September 1, 1993, MSW facilities were no longer able to obtain TCAA air permit authorization 

through the "one-stop" permit system. 

Under the TCAA, any person who plans to construct any new facility or to engage in the 

modification of any existing facility which may emit air contaminants into the air of this state 

shall obtain a permit. Because many MSW landfills are operated by local governments and 

because of the difficulty and expense these facilities will suffer in obtaining an air quality permit 

pursuant to 30 TAC Chapter 116, the Office of Air Quality is proposing this MSW Standard 

Permit as an option for those landfills that are required to obtain an air quality permit. This 

standard permit specifies operational and control requirements for MSW landfills that ensure 

compliance with the TCAA without subjecting each landfill to the time and expense of an 

individual permit review. 

-· 

-. 
The Commissioners 

Page 3 

March 8, 1996 

Subject: Docket No. 95-1115-RUL 

Summary of Comments: 

A public hearing was held on November 6, 1995, in Austin. Comments received during the 

public comment period were generally supportive of the proposed amendments. Most 

commenters noted that the standard air permit, by simplifying the permitting process, provides 

the MSW industry with significant regulatory and economic_ relief. The majority of concerns 

raised by commenters have been resolved as a result of incorporating the NSPS into the final 

rulemaking. 

Affected Agency Programs: 

This standard permit only provides a permlttmg option and does not implement new 

requirements. The Office of Air Quality NSR Division is affected because the standard permit 

review process is an expedited method of authorizing the construction or modification of a 

landfill. The Office of Waste Management MSW Division is affected because their division is 

so directly tied to requirements affecting landfills. Field operations is affected because the permit 

for those landfills opting for the standard permit will be standardized. The permit requirements 

will not vary for each landfill. 

Agency Contacts: 

The proposed rulemaking was originated by the Office of Air Quality. Rule team members 

include David C. Schanbacher, team leader, Office of Air Quality, 239-1228; David Duncan, 

Legal Services Division, 239-0465; Gus Eghneim, Air Policy and Regulations Division, 239-

1965, and Susan Janek, Office of Waste Management, MSW Division, 239-6784. 
EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY 

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) adopts amendments 

to §116.610, concerning Applicability, and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List, and new 

§116.620, concerning Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities, and §116.621, 

concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Sections 116.610, 116.620, and 116.621 are adopted 

with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 6, 1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 

TexReg 8168). Section 116.617 is adopted without changes and will not be republished. 

The amendments include the deletion of subsections (d)-(g) of §116.610, eliminating duplicative 

requirements also contained in paragraphs in §116.615, concerning General Conditions. In addition, 

the amendments involve the deletion of §116.617(3), relating to Installation and/or Modification of 

Oil and Gas Facilities. This paragraph is renumbered as the new §116.620. The renumbering of 

specific standard permits from paragraphs to sections simplifies future addition or modification of 

standard permits, since Texas Register rules allow a section to be open for only one set of changes at 

a time. Minor changes to §116.610 and §116.620 have been made to conform these sections to Texas 

Register style conventions. 

New § 116.621 establishes criteria for obtaining a standard air quality permit for a municipal solid 

waste landfill (MSWLF). The Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) states that a permit is required to 

construct a new facility or to modify an existing facility that may emit air contaminants. The 

MSWLF standard permit is not a new requirement, but provides an alternative to the New Source 

1 
Review permit process of Chapter 116, Subchapter B. The standard permit alternative specifies 

operating and control requirements, but does not require modeling or a health effects review. 

The cmmnission staff has reviewed the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for MSWLF, adopted March 1, 1996. As discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed rulemaking, as published in the October 6, 1995, issue of the Texas 

Register (20 TexReg 8168), the staff has incorporated the adopted federal standards into the final 

rulemaking. 

Paragraph (1) of §116.621 specifies sections of the standard permit subchapter which must be 

complied with in order to qualify for the standard permit. 

Paragraph (2) of §116.621 lists facilities and operations which do not qualify for the standard permit. 

Paragraph (3) of §116.621 requires the inclusion of the initial design capacity report in the standard 

permit registration. 

Paragraph (4) of §116.621 requires compliance with the adopted federal NSPS Subpart WWW, with 

additions and changes. 

Paragraph (5) of §116.621 specifies procedures to control fugitive particulate matter emissions. 

2 

-

-
Paragraph (6) of §116.621 provides that the executive director may require upwind/downwind air 

sampling for particulate matter and specifies the procedures to follow for such testing. 

Paragraph (7) of §116.621 describes the inspection and maintenance protocols for active gas collection 

and control systems (GCCS) organic compound leaks from compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure 

relief valves in gaseous service, and pump seals. 

Paragraph (8) of §116.621 requires the owner or operator of each MSWLF unit to maintain records 

sufficient to readily determine if compliance with the standard permit has been maintained. 

The commission has prepared a Takings Impaet Assessment for these rules pursuant to Texas 

Government Code, §2007.043. The following is a summary of that assessment. The purpose of the 

amendments and new sections is to eliminate duplicative language, renumber the standard permit for 

oil and gas facilities, and establish a standard permit for MSWLFs and municipal solid waste (MSW) 

facilities. The MSW standard permit provides an option for MSWLFs that are required to obtain an 

air quality permit. The amendments and new sections will substantially advance this specific purpose 

by changing rule language as appropriate. Promulgation and enforcement of the rules will not affect 

private real property because no new control requirements are added by this adoption. 

A public hearing was held November 6, 1995, in Austin. The following 12 commenters submitted 

testimony regarding the proposed rules: the City of Arlington (Arlington); Browning-Ferris Industries 

Southern Region (BFI); the City of Brownwood (Brownwood); the City of Corpus Christi (Corpus 

Christi); the EPA; the City of Garland (Garland); Galveston Houston Association for Smog 

3 
Prevention (GHASP); HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR); Lloyd, Gosselink, Fowler, Blevins and 

Mathews, P.C., on behalf of USA Waste Services, Inc. (USA Waste); the Texas Lone Star Chapter 

of the Solid Waste Association of North America (TxSWANA); McElroy & Sullivan, L.L.P., on 

behalf of Waste Management of Texas, Inc. (WMTX); and the Brazos Valley Solid Waste 

Management Agency (BVSWMA), on the behalf of the Cities of Bryan and College Station. 

Arlington, BFI, Brownwood, Corpus Christi, Garland, HDR, USA Waste, TxSWANA, WMTX, and 

BVSWMA generally supported the proposed revisions, but suggested changes or clarification. The 

EPA and GHASP suggested changes without generally supporting or opposing the proposed revisions. 

Brownwood and BVSWMA supported the comments filed by TxSW ANA on the proposed standard 

air permit for MSWLFs. HDR generally supported TxSWANA's comments. 

No comments were received regarding §116.610 or §116.617. 

Installation or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities. GHASP does not support less stringent 

control under §116.620(a)(8) and (9) than is required for paragraph (7). 

With this rulemaking project, no changes were made to the content of the standard pennit for 

the installation and/or modification of oil and gas facilities. Modification to the oil and gas 

standard pennit was limited to the renumbering of subsections. During the negotiations for the 

final oil and gas standard pennit, a tiered approach was devised to allow oil and gas facilities to 

be constructed or modified within certain distances to off-plant receptors under certain 

conditions. With the tiered approach, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) as well as 

4 

-

-

-
protection of public health and welfare are still ensured. For further explanation, see the 

August 18, 1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 6324). 

GHASP stated that under §116.620(b)(l), the 25,000 gallon cut-off size is not stringent enough and 

that regulation should occur down to 5,000 gallon tank size to ensure that nuisance situations do not 

occur or toxic pollution does not threaten people. 

This comment was addressed in previous rulemaking in which the agency responded that the 

25,000 gallon threshold has been the historical limit for BACT. The conunission finds the 

25,000 limitation on tank storage size to be consistent with its definition of BACT. 

Furthermore, there is no provision in this standard permit that prevents a person from claiming 

that a nuisance violation is alleged to have occurred. 

GHASP considers the 80% control under §116.620(b)(2)(A) to be less than adequate. 

The conunission finds that a tiered approach for control of glycol dehydrators is BACT and this 

approach ensures the protection of public health and welfare. 

GHASP objected to using a 10,000 parts per million (ppm) volatile organic compounds (VOC) leak 

detection level under §116.620(c)(l)(A). GHASP stated that the leak detection level should be 500 

ppm to be consistent with other parts of the rule in order to reduce ozone precursors maximally and 

further stated that this will result in savings of products and pollution control equipment. GHASP 

also objected to the phrase "reasonably accessible" under subsection (c)(l)(D) and (2)(D). 

5 
A tiered approach for leak detection levels is used to allow oil and gas facilities to be constructed 

or modified within certain distances to off-plant receptors under certain conditions. With the 

tiered approach, BACT as well as protection of public health and welfare are ensured. As to the 

comment regarding what valves and fittings are "reasonably accessible," the commission believes 

that reasonably accessible valves are those which would not expose monitoring personnel to 

immediate danger, such as being less than two meters above a support surface. For further 

explanation, see the August 18, 1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 6324). 

MSWLFs- Comments. Arlington, Brownwood, BVSWMA, Corpus Christi, Garland, TxSWANA, 

USA Waste, and WMTX supported the adoption of a standard air permit for MSWLF. TxSWANA 

stated that the use of a standard preconstruction air permit could provide the MSW industry with 

significant regulatory and economic relief, and at the same time, improve air quality in Texas. 

Brownwood further stated that for landfills, the standard air permit approach appears to be the best 

approach, since real reductions in air pollution can be achieved without the unnecessary expense of 

having to obtain individual permits. USA Waste further noted that the use of standard permits can 

significantly reduce the red tape and cost associated with obtaining a permit without compromising the 

benefits obtained. 

The commission agrees that the standard air pennit will provide equivalent environmental 

benefit to the Chapter 116, Subchapter B air pennit, at less cost to the regulated community and 

the TNRCC. 

6 

-

-

-
TxSWANA and USA Waste supported the use of a standard air permit if new and modified landfills 

are legally required to obtain separate air quality permits. 

The TCAA requires any person who plans to construct any new facility or engage in the 

modification of any existing facility which may emit air contaminants into the air of Texas to 

obtain an air quality permit. The definitions of MSWLF and MSW facility in 30 TAC Chapter 

101 reflect the agency's view that landfills are facilities. This position is consistent with the 

federal NSPS for MSWLF. 

Corpus Christi, TxSWANA, and USA Waste recommended that the TNRCC postpone adoption of the 

final standard air permit until the EPA adopts-the final NSPS. TxSWANA noted that the proposed 

standard permit includes landfill gas collection and control requirements that are largely based on 

EPA's proposed NSPS, and that waiting would avoid conflicting and inconsistent state and federal 

regulations. 

The EPA adopted the NSPS on March 1, 1996. The final state rule has been revised to be 

consistent with the adopted NSPS. 

TxSW ANA recommended that the TNRCC modify the standard permit to directly incorporate the 

final NSPS. 

The commission agrees with TxSW ANA and has directly incorporated the entire final NSPS by 

reference. 

7 
TxSWANA, USA Waste, and Corpus Christi requested an explanation of what physical and 

operational changes at a MSW facility will trigger the need for a standard permit to authorize the 

construction of new and modified MSW facilities. Arlington and TxSWANA stated that it is 

important that the TNRCC make clear that just because a landfill has received a "modification" as 

defined in 30 TAC §305.70, the landfill does not have to secure a standard air permit. TxSWANA 

further stated that the standard permit should make it clear that Chapter 116 authorization is only 

required for landfill expansions beyond currently permitted capacity, and that such authorization is not 

needed for solid waste permit modifications required to implement Subtitle D. 

The commission agrees that clarification is needed. MSWLFs differ from most types of facilities 

receiving air permits because construction is- an ongoing process as new cells (disposal units 

within the MSWLF) are added. The commission intended that Chapter 116 authorization be 

required for MSWLF expansions and that such authorization is not needed for solid waste 

permit amendments or modifications that do not increase the air emissions associated with the 

permitted facility. 

Arlington, Corpus Christi, Garland, TxSWANA, and USA Waste pointed out the need to explain 

whether the standard permit applies to all areas of the existing MSW facility or just the modified 

areas. Garland stated that the standard permit should only apply in new and modified areas of 

existing landfills. Garland noted that the disposal of waste in existing areas, including the associated 

air emissions, have previously been authorized by the state. Garland stated that landfill owners 

should not be required to obtain additional authorization for these areas when seeking to expand the 

size of the existing landfill. Garland noted that if the standard permit applies to all areas of an 

8 

-

-

-
existing landfill, the standard permit will discourage expansions of existing landfills and encourage the 

construction of landfills in greenfields, a goal which appears at odds with the concept behind the 

TNRCC's "brownfields" initiative. TxSWANA and USA Waste further stated that the standard 

permit should explain how emissions will be calculated for modifications, and where and when gas 

collection systems will be required to be installed in existing areas. Arlington, TxSWANA, and USA 

Waste recommended that the standard permit thresholds be determined based only on the modified 

areas and that the installation of GCCS be specifically required only in modified areas. Arlington 

stated that application of the standard permit thresholds to existing landfill areas will unnecessarily 

complicate compliance. TxSW ANA further stated that a permit requirement that tries to include 

previously deposited waste on previously permitted areas could create significant legal questions 

regarding the right of permittees to rely on prior authorization as well as create extensive practical 

difficulties in emission estimation and system retrofitting. 

The commission agrees that clarification is needed. The commission refers to the definition of 

MSW facility within Chapter 101, concerning General Rules. The general rules define a MSW 

facility so as to encompass the entire landfill: "all contiguous land, structures, other 

appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for processing, storing, or disposing of solid 

waste." According to Chapter 116, when a facility is modified, the entire facility must obtain a 

permit. Thus, the area of the MSW facility that is impacted by the standard permit is 

considered to be the entire facility. This policy is consistent with the adopted NSPS, which 

requires emissions control over the entire landfill, rather than a portion of it. 

9 
GHASP stated that standard permits should require modeling and health effects review. GHASP 

expressed concern that the TNRCC would permit facilities that would have potential nuisance 

situations. TxSWANA stated that the use of a standard permit may be the only practical way to 

satisfy the permit requirements. 

The commission believes that meaningful modeling and health effects review cannot be done for 

a MSWLF before the landfill is operating due to the difficulty in determining the characteristics 

and distribution of emissions. The control imposed by this standard permit meets all of the 

requirements of the federal NSPS and is designed to ensure that the air resources of the State of 

Texas are protected without subjecting permit applicants to unnecessary costs and regulatory 

burden. 

TxSWANA urged the TNRCC to more actively seek input from its MSW Division as part of the 

consideration of the comments, especially regarding the default value for the generation rate constant 

(k) and for nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) Concentration (CNMod· 

The agency has developed the MSWLF standard air permit as a multi-media project. Specific 

provisions have been coordinated among several divisions, including the MSW Division. 

WMTX commented on proposed §116.621(1), which states that facilities complying with the 

applicable requirements may be issued a standard permit. WMTX stated that the language " ... are 

hereby entitled to the standard permit" in §116.610(a), more appropriately describes the applicability 

of a standard permit. 

10 

--

-
The conunission agrees with WMTX that paragraph (1) should reflect more certainty of action, 

and has revised it to read, "qualify for a standard permit," consistent with §116.617. 

Paragraph (1) continues to reference §116.610. To further clarify, the first sentence of §116.621 

has been revised to state, "a person may claim a standard permit," instead of "a standard 

permit may be issued." 

BFI, Corpus Christi, EPA, Garland, TxSWANA, and USA Waste commented on the default values in 

§116.621(3), which were proposed for use in calculating NMOC emission rates in the absence of sitespecific data. BPI supported the proposed default values. 

Corpus Christi, TxSWANA and USA Waste suggested changes to the generation rate constant for 

landfills with drier waste. TxSWANA stated that because of the strict requirements of Subtitle D, the 

waste that is disposed of in new and modified MSW facilities should be considered as drier waste. 

Corpus Christi, USA Waste, and TxSWANA recommended that the default value for the generation 

rate constant (k) be changed to k = 0.02 per year. TxSWANA and USA Waste also requested that a 

determination be made to identify what constitutes "wet" and "drier" and also to determine which 

category Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act landfills represent. 

TxSWANA and USA Waste noted that the proposed standard permit sets the default value for CNMoc 

as 1,170 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for MSW facilities that have not received any industrial 

waste and 4,400 ppmv for MSW facilities that have received industrial solid waste. TxSWANA, 

USA Waste, Garland, and Corpus Christi recommended the use of CNMoc = 1,170 ppmv for all 

MSW facilities except those codisposing organic industrial solid waste. Garland stated that the Tier 2 

11 
testing conducted in the Dallas/Fort Worth area demonstrates that actual CNMoc values in pre-Subtitle 

D landfills are generally less than 1,170 ppmv. TxSW ANA and USA Waste further requested the 

development of a regulatory method to distinguish between landfills that do and do not accept organic 

industrial waste in greater than de minimis amounts. 

The EPA expressed concern regarding paragraph (3), which states that the maximum expected NMOC 

emission rate will be calculated using the procedures provided in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CPR), §60.753 of the proposed NSPS for MSWLFs published in the May 30, 1991, issue of the 

Federal Register (56 FR 24468). The EPA noted that the default values for the generation rate 

constant (k), generation potential (La), and the CNMoc differ from the default values in the proposed 40 

CPR, §60.753. The EPA stated that the public record should address the method for deriving the 

default values in paragraph (3), why they differ from the default values in 40 CPR, §60.753, and 

demonstrate that the proposed default values are at least as stringent as the proposed NSPS. 

The commission has deleted the specific references to default values in the adopted rule. To be 

consistent with the adopted NSPS, the commission has modified the rule language to directly 

reference the NSPS, which addresses default values. 

BPI stated that if the rule is conformed to the March 1995 draft final NSPS, the commission should 

authorize the use of representative data from historic landfill operations. 

The commission believes that representative data from historic landfill operations is not 

-

transferable to other MSWLF sites, because MSWLFs are unique in waste characterization and -

12 
operation. The use of the default values in calculating the NMOC emission rates followed by 

testing provides more accurate information. The commission has modified the rule language to 

directly reference the adopted NSPS, which does not provide for using data from different 

landfills. 

Corpus Christi, EPA, GRASP, and USA Waste commented on the threshold levels in §116.621(4). 

The EPA expressed concern that for MSWLFs located in an ozone attainment area, the proposed 

threshold level was the NMOC emission rate specified in the NSPS, or 150 megagrarns (Mg) per 

year. The EPA stated that this should be modified to state that the threshold value shall be the lower 

of the two emission rates. GRASP stated that the 150 Mg is particularly inappropriate when the EPA 

has proposed a 50 Mg threshold. GRASP expressed a concern that the TNRCC needs to be as 

stringent as possible, since in nonattainment areas reduction of ozone precursor emissions needs to 

occur. USA Waste and Corpus Christi supported the TNRCC's decision to set the NMOC threshold 

at 150 Mg per year and stated that the level is consistent with existing TNRCC regulations in 30 T AC 

Chapter 115. Corpus Christi further stated that a more stringent threshold level in the attainment 

areas would be economically unreasonable and unsupported by current research data. 

The rule as proposed specified that the state rule incorporate the NMOC emission rate (50 Mg 

per year) specified in the NSPS, provided the federal standard was promulgated prior to the 

adoption of the state rule, or the agency would incorporate the use of 150 Mg per year as the 

threshold for requiring the installation of the active GCCS. The standard permit incorporates 

the 50 Mg per year threshold (emission rate cutoff), since that is the value incorporated by the 

adopted NSPS. 

13 
HDR noted that paragraph (4)(A) requests the determination of the CNMoc and (k) values and does not 

require a submittal of the recalculated NMOC emission rate utilizing the site-specific values. HDR 

suggested that a second NMOC emission rate calculation in accordance with the procedures of 40 

CFR, §60. 753 of the proposed federal rules be required, using the site-specific values, to show 

emission rates below the threshold level. HDR further noted that the appropriate section of the 

federal rule is referenced erroneously as 40 CFR, §61.753 when it should be 40 CFR, §60.753. 

The commission has deleted the specific rule language to resolve the deficiencies pointed out in 

HDR's comment. The commission has modified the rule language to directly reference the 

adopted NSPS, which addresses the calculation and reporting methodology. 

TxSWANA and USA Waste noted that the proposed standard permit sets the NMOC threshold level 

in ozone nonattainrnent areas at "the amount constituting the major source as defined for that area in 

§116.12," but §116.12 does not define major sources with regard to emissions of NMOC. 

TxSWANA and USA Waste noted that §116.12 defines major source based on VOC emissions. 

TxSWANA and USA Waste requested that the TNRCC amend the standard air permit to clarify the 

ambiguity and offered the following suggested language: " ... or a NMOC emission rate eguivalent to 

a VOC emission rate constituting a [the amount constituting the] major source for VOC as defined for 

that area in § 116.12 of this title (relating to Major Source/Major Modification Emission Thresholds)." 

Garland and Arlington acknowledged support for setting the NMOC threshold at major source levels. 

However, Garland and Arlington stated that for this provision to be effective, the proposed standard 

permit needs to explain the relationship between NMOC and VOC emissions because the TNRCC 

regulations do not define major sources of NMOC emissions. Garland suggested that the threshold 

14 

-· 

-

-
trigger for the standard permit should be tied to the specific NMOC threshold for each nonattainrnent 

area in the state. Arlington suggested that the standard permit specifically set out the emissions 

threshold in terms of NMOC emissions in each ozone nonattainrnent area. 

VOC is a subset of NMOC (while all VOCs are NMOC, not all NMOCs are VOC). For 

landfills, the most predominant NMOCs that are not VOC are ethane, methylene chloride, 

trichlorofluoromethane, and chlorodifluoromethane. VOC can be determined by subtracting out 

the non-VOC portion of the NMOC. Section 116.621(2)(F) has been added to clarify that new 

major sources or modifications under the federal new source review requirements of the Federal 

Clean Air Act (FCAA), Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) or Part D 

(nonattainment review) must obtain a regular air quality permit in accordance with §116.110 

(concerning Applicability). The definitions in these federal rules use VOC, not NMOC. When 

the potential emission rate would otherwise exceed the amount constituting the major source 

definition for ozone nonattainment areas (e.g., in Houston, 25 tons per year of VOC constitutes 

a major source), the permit holder may elect to install landfill gas controls to remain below the 

major source level. Representations to limit the air emissions, made in the registration, become 

enforceable conditions of the standard air permit. 

Arlington, Corpus Christi, Garland, USA Waste, and TxSWANA commented on paragraph (4), 

concerning the proposed time allowed for submitting site- specific testing. TxSW ANA and USA 

Waste stated that the allotted 90 days to perform Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 testing is an insufficient amount 

15 
of time, and noted that the proposed NSPS would allow up to one year to perform this testing. 

TxSWANA, USA Waste, and Corpus Christi recommended that the time period be changed to 180 

days rather than 90 days to conduct Tier 2 and Tier 3 testing. Arlington and Garland also suggested 

that the standard permit allow up to 180 days to perform Tier 2 testing rather than 90 days as 

proposed. TxSW ANA, Arlington, and Garland stated that recent experience conducting Tier 2 testing 

in the Dallas/Fort Worth area indicated that 90 days will not be sufficient to obtain and analyze Tier 2 

data. Arlington noted that the testing is new and few laboratories are capable of performing the test. 

The commission has modified the rule language by eliminating specific reference to time frames 

in the rules, since these time frames are specified in the adopted NSPS. Any MSWLF 

construction or modification which would otherwise result in a major new source or modification 

under the FCAA, Part C or Part D would need to install and operate the GCCS prior to 

becoming a major source, to eliminate the need for federal nonattainment permitting. 

HDR stated that language in paragraph (4)(B)(i) and (ii) appears to conflict in its requirements for the 

submitted design of the active GCCS. HDR stated that clause (i) requires the GCCS to be designed 

to accommodate gas produced by the entire landfill falling under the proposed standard permit, while 

clause (ii) requires the designed system to collect gas from areas or cells of the permitted landfill 

which contain final cover, or where refuse has been in place for over five years. HDR stated that the 

conflict is that clause (i) requires a GCCS design to address the permitted landfill in total, while 

clause (ii) implies a phased GCCS design. HDR noted that due to the trend for new and amended 

landfills to have long operational lives, it is recommended that the required plan for the GCCS be 

submitted conceptually with the standard permit application to address the entire facility covered by 

16 
the standard permit, and that the final design and installation of the GCCS take place in phases in 

accordance with the requirements of clause (ii). 

The commission eliminated the specific rule language addressed in HDR's comment to be 

consistent with the requirements of the adopted NSPS. 

BFI proposed that paragraph (4)(B)(iv)(I) should address the routing of total collected gas "to an open 

flare with a minimum height of 30 feet and that is designed, operated, and inspected in accordance 

with 40 CFR §60.18" and satisfies the requirements of Standard Exemption 80. 

The commission has modified the rule language to incorporate BFI's comment. 

BFI proposed that paragraph (4)(B)(iv)(II) be changed to read: "the total collected gas is routed to a 

control device such as an enclosed flare with a minimum vent release height of 30 feet and that 

reduces the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98% or to less than 20 ppmv, as hexane." BFI 

requested the change in order to address enclosed flares, which are not subject to 40 CFR, §60.18, 

and to make the means of expressing NMOC reductions consistent with the proposed NSPS for 

MSWLFs (i.e., 20 ppmv as hexane). 

The commission has modified the rule language to incorporate BFI's comment. 

WMTX supported the concept of employing reasonable control technologies and methodologies at 

MSWLFs to limit particulate matter emissions in §116.621(8). WMTX stated that the proposed rule 

17 
identifies the control technologies which can be most effectively employed to control such emissions. 

However, WMTX stated that the use of the phrases "minimize any fugitive particulate matter 

emissions" and "achieve maximum control of dust emissions" could be construed to suggest a 

constantly escalating, but never satisfied requirement to employ any conceivable means of controlling 

such emissions. In addition, some of the control technologies identified are obviously not appropriate 

for use on all of the areas identified (e.g., paving of a cell during excavation). WMTX suggested 

specific language for paragraph (8). 

The adopted NSPS is limited to organic emission control from landfills, while the standard 

permit additionally covers particulate matter emissions, which may also be associated these 

facilities. The commission believes that the term "minimize" contains an element of technical 

practicability and economical reasonableness and disagrees that the term suggests a constantly 

escalating means of controlling emissions. The commission modified the rule language, now 

paragraph (5), in response to the comments concerning the maximum control of dust emissions. 

BPI stated that it did not support the inclusion of a mandate that high-volume air sampling be 

"performed upon request of the TNRCC executive director or a designated representative" in 

§116.621(9). BFI believes that TNRCC authority to require sampling for any criteria or hazardous 

air pollutant should conform to what the agency has historically required in the terms and conditions 

specified in individual permits. BPI further stated that specific testing should not be addressed in the 

requirements of this regulation. In addition, BPI noted that the proposed rule does not specify 

whether the testing is for total suspended particulate, for which there is no longer a National Ambient 

18 

-

-

-
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), or for inhalable particulate matter (PM10), for which a NAAQS does 

exist. BFI proposed that testing be only for PM10 • 

High-volume air sampling provides a mechanism for determining compliance in situations where 

estimating emissions in advance of operational activity is difficult. The commission believes that 

high-volume air sampling is useful and economically reasonable in measuring emissions. This 

standard permit is intended to test total suspended particulates, for which state standards exist. 

If necessary, federal standards may be addressed under 30 TAC §101.8, concerning Sampling, 

which provides the commission or executive director the authority to request that any person 

owning or operating a source which emits air contaminants conduct sampling to determine the 

opacity, rate, composition, and/or concentration of such emissions. 

WMTX suggested deleting §116.621(9) from the proposal. Due to the size and nature of operations 

at MSWLFs, WMTX stated that upwind/downwind high volume air sampling for particulate matter is 

unlikely to provide data useful to evaluate the control of particulate matter emissions. WMTX stated 

that requirements to utilize the control methodologies set out in paragraph (8) will adequately limit 

particulate matter emissions from MSWLFs. WMTX further stated that the lack of identifiable 

criteria for either triggering a sample event or evaluating the results is further basis for deleting the 

paragraph. 

The commission considers the option to require upwind/downwind high volume air sampling, 

which establishes compliance status with the standards, necessary in order to ensure the 

effectiveness of the control criteria. Furthermore, the commission believes that it is difficult to 

19 
anticipate all the criteria that would necessitate sampling; thus, the commission has not modified 

the rule to attempt to itemize the various criteria that might trigger a request for monitoring. 

GHASP stated that the TNRCC and the local programs should be notified when sampling will occur 

so that an opportunity to observe the sampling is presented. 

The commission agrees, and has revised §116.621(6) accordingly. 

WMTX suggested that if the commission adopts §116.621(10), it continue to monitor the status of the 

proposed federal rules and, if changes are made to them prior to final adoption, that the commission 

initiate a process to revise the Texas state rules accordingly. BFI suggested defining a leak as 

methane, rather than as methane, propane, or hexane. BFI opposed the inclusion of specific 

meteorological conditions as a basis for determining when surface leak testing should be performed, 

since it would require that either the landfill be located next to a continuously operating National 

Weather Service station or that it purchase, install, calibrate, and maintain an operating anemometer 

and recording rain gauge, and to train an individual in the proper operation, calibration, and 

maintenance of these instruments. 

Because the adopted NSPS fully treats surface leaks, adding flexibility that was not included in 

the proposed version, the commission has eliminated proposed paragraph (1 0) from the final 

rule. The adopted NSPS also clarifies that a surface leak is measured as methane. The surface 

leak requirements are now directly incorporated by reference to the entire final NSPS in 

§116.621(4). 

20 

-

-
GHASP stated that under §116.621(11)(J)(i), allowing ten tons per year (tpy) of fugitives per year 

seems like a lot. 

The commission believes that the ten tpy exemption is appropriate. The commission believes 

that requiring MSW facilities, often owned by local governments, to implement fugitive emission 

inspection and maintenance programs at facilities with less than ten tpy of fugitive emissions is 

not economically reasonable. Since the majority of components in a GCCS are under negative 

pressure, the fugitive monitoring requirements would not be generally applicable anyway. Only 

a gas processing facility, which is not a typical control system, will have significant numbers of 

components and potentially be subject to the component monitoring requirements, now 

renumbered as paragraph (7). 

Also, the commission believes that under certain circumstances, alternative methods to 

implement fugitive emission inspection and maintenance programs may be reasonable. 

Therefore, §116.621(7)(E) is added to provide for use of alternative methods of fugitive 

monitoring if approved by the executive director. 

BFI stated that in paragraph (11)(A), leaks should be defined as "escape of gas with a total organic 

compound concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv above background methane," not 

"methane, propane, or hexane." BFI noted that 10,000 ppmv as methane is not equal to 10,000 

ppmv as hexane or as propane. 

The commission agrees with BFI, and has added a clarifying definition in §116.621(7)(A). 

21 
GHASP stated that in paragraph (ll)(A), a 10,000 ppm leak detection level for VOCs is too high for 

a severe ozone nonattainment area like the Houston area and stated that the leak detection level needs 

to be lowered to 500 ppm. 

The commission believes that the 10,000 ppm detection level is a sufficient leak detection 

program for reducing VOC emissions from landfill gas collection systems. The fugitive emission 

and inspection program requires monitoring for total organic compounds, which includes 

methane. Because the concentration of VOC in landfill gas is low compared to the total organic 

compound content, actual VOC emissions will be well under 10,000 ppm. 

BFI requested that in paragraph (ll)(E), valves installed underground solely for the purpose of 

isolating sections of pipe in order to make repairs be made exempt from inspection and maintenance 

protocols. BFI stated that these buried valves are left in a permanently open position, unless it 

becomes necessary to uncover them and close them in order to perform pipeline repairs. BFI stated 

that requiring these valves to be in a valve box would result in creating an unnecessary confined 

space, which presents a safety hazard. In addition, BFI stated that this type of design creates a path 

for gas to escape the landfill and for air to enter, creating the potential for fugitive leaks of NMOC 

and for fires inside the landfill. 

The buried valves referenced in BFI's comments are in continuous vacuum service and therefore 

exempt under paragraph (7)(D)(i). The commission has also added specific language in 

§116.621(7)(B) to further clarify this issue. 

22 

-

-
- BFI stated that in paragraph (ll)(G), the proposed regulation addresses only new and reworked piping 

connections that are welded or flanged. BFI further stated that high-density polyethylene piping 

which has no welded connections should be exempt from leak detection, monitoring, and repair 

requirements. 

The commission has modified the rule language to reflect BFI's comment, in §116.621(7)(C). 

BFI stated that in paragraph (ll)(J)(i), the proposed regulation should specify the means by which 

uncontrolled fugitive emissions that leak from components should be quantified, i.e., which emission 

factors should be used to ensure that emissions are less than ten tpy in order to qualify for the 

exemption from inspection and maintenance pr-otocols. 

The commission believes that addressing the issue of which fugitive emission factors to use is 

appropriate for inclusion in a guidance document which will be available. 

BFI stated that in paragraph (ll)(J)(iii), a vacuum of 0.725 pounds per square inch (psi) is equivalent 

to 20 inches water column and that this amount of vacuum is not acceptable in design and operation 

of landfill gas extraction systems. BFI further stated that depending upon well location, a vacuum 

over 20 inches water column would significantly enhance the probability of air infiltration and 

potential fires in the landfill. BPI proposed that components in vacuum be exempt from the 

inspection and maintenance protocols. 

23 
The commission agrees with BFI, and has added an exemption in §116.621{7)(D){i) to 

incorporate BFI's comment. 

BPI opposed the sampling and analysis for nitrogen concentrations in the landfill gas at each well in 

the gas collection header in paragraph (12)(D)(iii). BPI stated that if monitoring is required for 

oxygen, as a means of determining air infiltration into the landfill resulting from vacuum extraction of 

landfill gas, it is an unnecessary expense to test for nitrogen concentrations as oxygen. 

The adopted NSPS allows an option for monitoring oxygen instead of nitrogen. Because the 

NSPS fully treats surface leaks, including recordkeeping, the commission has eliminated 

proposed paragraph {10), addressing surface leaks, and the associated recordkeeping in 

proposed paragraph {12). Recordkeeping is now addressed in paragraph {8). 

HDR stated that in paragraph (12)(F)(vi), requiring landfills to calculate maximum expected gas 

generation flow rates using Method 2E as listed in the proposed NSPS and emission guidelines will 

have a significant economic impact on the owners of MSWLFs. HDR questioned the need for this 

calculation based on the fact that performance testing will be conducted on the system via the required 

surface monitoring, along with the verification of negative pressure at all of the well heads. HDR 

stated that if the TNRCC believes that maximum gas generation flow rates are necessary, a 

recommended alternative to Method 25 would be to use one of several available gas generation 

models such as the one referenced in §60.754 of the proposed federal regulations. However, HDR 

stated that because these models only serve as a theoretical estimate of the gas generation rate for a 

24 

-

-

-
landfill, HD R stressed that model results should be used for information only, and not to evaluate the 

adequacy of an installed GCCS. 

The adopted NSPS does not require Method 2E sampling. Because the NSPS fully treats the 

issue of expected gas generation flow rates, including recordkeeping, the commission has 

eliminated the specification. 

HDR stated that in paragraph (12)(F)(vii), the calculated radius of influence (ROI) of extraction wells 

in accordance with Method 2E will have a significant economic impact on landfill owners with little 

benefit in return. HDR stated that the required surface monitoring (performance testing) will indicate 

areas of the landfill surface that require additional control; and if the required repairs fail to resolve 

the emission point, owners will ultimately install additional wells. HDR further stated that although 

available as an option for design of the GCCS in place of the 200 meter design default spacing in the 

proposed NSPS and emission guidelines, the nonhomogeneous characteristics of a landfill renders the 

use of a uniform calculated ROI to evaluate GCCS performances ineffective. Additionally, HDR 

stated that the presence of negative pressure within the refuse induced by the already installed GCCS 

will impact any tests conducted to determine ROI. Based on experience, HDR believed that 

performance testing through GCCS operation surface monitoring will sufficiently indicate when and 

where additional extraction wells are needed. HDR recommended that this requirement be removed 

from the proposed rule. 

The adopted NSPS allows more flexibility than the proposed version upon which the standard 

permit proposal was based. Because the NSPS addresses the design layout of collection wells 

25 
and related recordkeeping, the commission has eliminated the proposed recordkeeping 

requirement. 

The amendments and new sections are adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the TCAA, 

§382.017, which provides the commission the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and 

purpose of the TCAA. 

26 

-

-

-
STAFF

RECOMMENDATIONS
SUBCHAPTER F : STANDARD PERMITS 

§116.610. Applicability. 

(a) Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.051, projects involving the types of 

facilities or physical or operational changes to facilities which meet the requirements for a standard 

permit listed in this subchapter are hereby entitled to the standard permit; provided however, that: 

(1) (No change.) 

(2) construction or operation of the project shall be commenced prior to the effective 

date of a revision to this subchapter under which the project would no longer meet the requirements 

for a standard permit; 

(3) - (5) (No change.) 

(b) Any project which constitutes a new major source, or major modification under the new 

source review requirements of the FCAA, Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review) or 

Part D (Nonattainment Review) and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be subject to the 

requirements of § 116.110 of this title (relating to Applicability) rather than this subchapter. 

(c) (No change.) 

27 
§116.617. Standard Permit List. 

Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act, §382.051, projects involving the types of facilities or 

physical or operational changes to facilities listed in this section qualify for a standard permit subject 

to the conditions stated in §116.610 of this title (relating to Applicability) and §116.615 of this title 

(relating to General Conditions). 

(1) - (2) (No change.) 

§116.620. Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities. 

(a) Emission specifications. 

(1) Venting or flaring more than 0.3 long tons per day of total sulfur shall not be 

allowed. 

(2) No facility shall be allowed to emit total uncontrolled emissions of sulfur 

compounds, except sulfur dioxide (S02), from all vents (excluding process fugitives emissions) equal 

to or greater than four pounds per hour unless the vapors are collected and routed to a flare. 

(3) Any vent, excluding any safety relief valves that discharge to the atmosphere only 

as a result of fire or failure of utilities, emitting sulfur compounds other than S02 shall be at least 20 

feet above ground level. 

28 -
(4) New or modified internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines 

permitted under this standard permit shall satisfy all of the requirements of Standard Exemption 

Number 6, except that registration using the Form Pl-7 or PI-8 shall not be required. Emissions from 

engines or turbines shall be limited to the amounts found in § 116.21l(a)(l) of this title (relating to 

Standard Exemption List). 

(5) Total Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from a natural gas glycol 

dehydration unit shall not exceed ten tons per year (tpy) unless the vapors are collected and controlled 

in accordance with subsection (b )(2) of this section. 

~6) Any combustion unit (excluding flares, internal combustion engines, or natural 

gas turbines), with a design maximum heat input greater than 40 million British thermal units (Btu) 

per hour (using lower heating values) shall not emit more than 0.06 pounds of nitrogen oxides per 

million Btu. 

(7) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be 

allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than ten tpy, but less 

than 25 tpy, unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(l) of this 

section. 

(8) No facility which is 500 feet or more from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be 

allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 25 tpy unless 

the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)( I) of this section. 

29 
(9) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be 

allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 25 tpy unless 

the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(2) of this section. 

( 10) No facility shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions 

equal to or greater than 40 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(11) No facility which is located less than 114 mile from the nearest off-plant receptor 

shall be allowed to emit hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or S02 process fugitive emissions unless the 

equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(3) of this section. No facility which 

is located at least 114 mile from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit H2S or S02 

process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection 

(c)(3) of this section or unless the H2S or S02 emissions are monitored with ambient property line 

monitors according to subsection (e)(1) of this section. Components in sweet crude oil or gas service 

as defined by Chapter 101 of this title (relating to General Rules) are exempt from these limitations. 

(12) Flares shall be designed and operated in accordance with 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CPR), Part 60.18 or equivalent standard approved by the commission, including 

specifications of minimum heating values of waste gas, maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame 

monitoring. If necessary to ensure adequate combustion, sufficient gas shall be added to make the 

gases combustible. An infrared monitor is considered equivalent to a thermocouple for flame 

monitoring purposes. An automatic ignition system may be used in lieu of a continuous pilot. 

30 

-

-
(13) Appropriate documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate that compliance 

with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review 

provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act, Parts C and D, and regulations promulgated thereunder, are 

being met. The oil and gas facility shall be required to meet the requirements of Subchapter B of this 

chapter (relating to New Source Review Permits) instead of this subchapter if a PSD or nonattainment 

permit is required. 

(14) Documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40 CPR 60) and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollution (NESHAP, 40 CPR 61). 

(15) New and increased emissions shall not cause or contribute to a violation of any 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard or regulation property line standards as specified in Chapters 

111, 112, and 113 of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollution From Visible Emissions and 

Particulate Matter; Control of Air Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and Control of Air Pollution 

From Toxic Materials). Engineering judgment and/or computerized air dispersion modeling may be 

used in this demonstration. To show compliance with §116.610(a)(l) of this title (relating to 

Applicability) for H2S emissions from process vents, ten milligrams per cubic meter shall be used as 

the "L" value instead of the value represented by §116.610(a)(l) of this title. 

(16) Fuel for all combustion units and flare pilots shall be sweet natural gas or liquid 

petroleum gas, fuel gas containing no more than ten grains of total sulfur per 100 dry standard cubic 

feet (scdt), or field gas. If field gas contains more than 1.5 grains of H2S or 30 grains total sulfur 

31 
compounds per 100 scdf, the operator shall maintain records, including at least quarterly 

measurements of fuel H2S and total sulfur content, which demonstrate that the annual SO 2 emissions 

from the facility do not exceed the limitations listed in the standard permit registration. If a flare is 

the only combustion unit on a property, the operator shall not be required to maintain such records on 

flare pilot gas. 

(b) Control requirements. 

(1) Floating roofs or equivalent controls shall be required on all new or modified 

storage tanks, other than pressurized tanks which meet Standard Exemption 83, unless the tank is less 

than 25,000 gallons in nominal size or the vapor pressure of the compound to be stored in the tank is 

less than 0.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) at maximum short-term storage temperature. 

(A) For internal floating roofs, mechanical shoe primary seal or liquidmounted primary seal or a vapor-mounted primary with rim-mounted secondary seal shall be used. 

(B) Mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted primary seals shall include a rimmounted secondary seal on all external floating roofs tanks. Vapor-mounted primary seals will not be 

accepted. 

(C) All floating roof tanks shall comply with the requirements under 

§l15.112(a)(2)(A)-(F) of this title (relating to Control Requirements). 

32 

-

-
(D) In lieu of a floating roof, tank emissions may be routed to: 

(i) a destruction device such that a minimum VOC destruction 

efficiency of 98% is achieved; or 

(ii) a vapor recovery system such that a minimum VOC recovery 

efficiency of 95% is achieved. 

(E) Independent of the exemptions listed in this paragraph, if the emissions 

from any fixed roof tank exceed ten tpy of VOC or ten tpy of sulfur compounds, the tank emissions 

shall be routed to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, or equivalent method of control that 

meets the requirements listed in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. 

(2) The VOC emissions from a natural gas glycol dehydration unit shall be controlled 

as follows. 

(A) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than ten tpy, 

but less than 50 tpy, a minimum of 80% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by 

either operating a condenser and a separator (or flash tank), vapor recovery unit, destruction device, 

or equivalent control device. 

(B) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 50 tpy, a 

minimum of: 

33 
(i) 98% by weight minimum destruction efficiency shall be achieved 

by a destruction device or equivalent; or 

(ii) 95% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by a 

vapor recovery system or equivalent. 

(c) Inspection requirements. 

(1) Owners or operators who are subject to subsection (a)(7) or (8) of this section 

shall comply with the following requirements. 

(A) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for more than 15 

days after the leak is detected to exceed a VOC concentration greater than 10,000 parts per million by 

volume (ppmv) above background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the dripping or exuding of 

process fluid based on sight, smell, or sound for all components. The VOC fugitive emission 

components which contact process fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or vapor 

pressure of less than 0.5 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. If VOC 

fugitive emission components are in service where the operating pressure is at least 0. 725 pounds per 

square inch (psi) (five ·kilopascals (Kpa)) below ambient pressure, then these components are also 

exempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is made available 

upon request by the agency representatives, the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), or any other air pollution agency having jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches 

nominal size and smaller, unless subject to federal NSPS requiring a fugitive VOC emissions leak 

34 

-
-

detection and repair program or Chapter 115 of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollution from 

Volatile Organic Compounds), are also exempt from this requirement. 

(B) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to repair a VOC leaking 

process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. If the repair of a component 

would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled shutdown. All 

leaking components which cannot be repaired until a scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such 

repair by tagging. The executive director, at his discretion, may require early unit shutdown or other 

appropriate action based on the number and severity of tagged leaks awaiting shutdown. 

(C) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shall 

contain no buried valves such that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered 

impractical. 

(D) To the extent that good engineering practice will permit, new and 

reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably 

accessible for leak-checking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a 

support surface will be considered non-accessible and shall be identified in a list to be made available 

upon request. 

(E) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be welded or 

flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping smaller than two-inch diameter. No 

later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement, all new or 

35 
reworked connections shall be gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating 

pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. Flanges in VOC service 

shall be inspected by visual, audible, and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating personnel 

walk-through. 

(F) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, other than a valve or line 

used for safety relief, shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve. Except 

during sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

(G) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by leak-checking 

for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. For valves equipped with 

rupture discs, a pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture disc to monitor 

disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity, but no later than the next 

process shutdown. Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded bonnet bellows and 

diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupture disc or venting to a control device are 

exempt from monitoring. 

(H) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher pressure than process 

pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order, or seals equipped with 

an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged pumps, or sealless pumps (including, 

but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring. 

36 

-

-

-
(I) All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored 

with an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly. 

(J) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for a period of at 

least two years, the operator of the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the Office of Air 

Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent of 

valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves 

leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number 

of valves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data that has been developed to 

justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip one of 

the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip three of 

the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(2) Owners or operators who are subject to subsection (a)(9) or (10) of this section 

shall comply with the following requirements. 

37 
(A) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for more than 15 

days after the leak is found which exceeds a VOC concentration greater than 500 ppmv for all 

components except pumps and compressors and greater than 2,000 ppmv for pumps and compressors 

above background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the dripping or exuding of process fluid based 

on sight, smell, or sound. The VOC fugitive emission components which contact process fluids 

where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure of less than 0.044 psia at 100 

degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. If VOC fugitive emission components are in 

service where the operating pressure is at least 0. 725 psi (five Kpa) below ambient pressure, these 

components are also exempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that 

is made available upon request by agency representatives, the EPA, or any air pollution control 

agency having jurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and smaller are also 

exempt from this requirement. 

(B) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to repair a VOC leaking 

process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. If the repair of a component 

would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled shutdown. All 

leaking components which cannot be repaired until a scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such 

repair by tagging. The executive director, at his or her discretion, may require early unit shutdown 

or other appropriate action based on the number and severity of tagged leaks awaiting shutdown. 

(C) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shall 

contain no buried valves such that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered 

impractical. 

38 

-

-

-
- (D) To the extent that good engineering practice will permit, new and 

reworked valves and piping connections in VOC service shall be so located to be reasonably 

accessible for leak-checking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two meters above a 

support surface will be considered non-accessible and shall be identified in a list to be made available 

upon request. 

(E) New and reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be welded or 

flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only on piping smaller than two-inch diameter. No 

later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or replacement, all new or 

reworked connections shall be gas-tested or hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating 

pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. Flanges in VOC service 

shall be inspected by visual, audible, and/or olfactory means at least weekly by operating personnel 

walk-through. 

(F) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, other than a valve or line 

used for safety relief, shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve. Except 

during sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

(G) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by leak-checking 

for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. For valves equipped with 

rupture discs, a pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture disc to monitor 

disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at the earliest opportunity, but no later than the next 

process shutdown. Sealless!leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded bonnet bellows and 

39 
diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupture disc or venting to a control device are 

exempt from monitoring. 

(H) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher pressure than process 

pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order or seals equipped with 

an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged pumps, or sealless pumps (including, 

but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring. 

(I) All other pump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored 

with an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly. 

(J) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for a period of at 

least two years, the operator of the oil and gas facility may request in writing to the Office of Air 

Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent of 

valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves 

leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number 

of valves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data that have been developed to 

justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip one of 

the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

40 

-

-' 
,-

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the 

percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip three of 

the quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(K) A directed maintenance program shall be used and consist of the repair 

and maintenance of VOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by the use of an 

approved gas analyzer such that a minimum concentration of leaking VOC is obtained for each 

component being maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days of being 

placed back into VOC service. 

(3) For owners and operators·who are subject to the applicable parts of subsection 

(a)(ll) of this section, auditory and visual checks for S02 and H2S leaks within the operating area 

shall be made every day. Immediately, but no later than eight hours upon detection of a leak, 

operating personnel shall take the following actions: 

(A) isolate the leak; and 

(B) commence repair or replacement of the leaking component; or 

(C) use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the leak until repair 

or replacement can be made if immediate repair is not possible. 

(d) Approved test methods. 

41 
(1) An approved gas analyzer used for the VOC fugitive inspection and repair 

requirement in subsection (c) of this section, shall conform to requirements listed in 40 CPR 

60.485(a) and (b). 

(2) Tutweiler analysis or equivalent shall be used to determine the H2S content as 

required under subsections (a) and (e) of this section. 

(3) Proper operation of any condenser used as a VOC emissions control device to 

comply with subsection (a)(5) of this section shall be tested to demonstrate compliance with the 

minimum control efficiency. Sampling shall occur within 60 days after start-up of new or modified 

facilities. The permittee shall contact the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement 

Division 45 days prior to sampling for approval of sampling protocol. The appropriate regional 

office in the region where the source is located shall also be contacted 45 days prior to sampling to 

provide them the opportunity to view the sampling. Neither the regional office nor the Engineering 

Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division personnel are required to view the testing. 

Sampling reports which comply with the provisions of the "TNRCC Sampling Procedures Manual," 

Chapter 14 ("Contents of Sampling Reports," dated January 1983 and revised July 1985), shall be 

distributed to the appropriate regional office, any local programs, and the Engineering Services 

Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division. 

(e) Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. 

42 

-

-
-

( 1) If the operator elects to install and maintain ambient H2S property line monitors 

to comply with subsection (a)(ll) of this section, the monitors shall be approved by the Engineering 

Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division office in Austin, and shall be capable of detecting 

and alarming at H2S concentrations of ten ppmv. Operations personnel shall perform an initial on-site 

inspection of the facility within 24 hours of initial alarm and take corrective actions as listed in 

subsection (c)(3)(A)-(C) of this section within eight hours of detection of a leak. 

(2) The results of the VOC leak detection and repair requirements shall be made 

available to the executive director, his or her designated representative, or any air pollution control 

agency having jurisdiction upon request. Records, for all components, shall include: 

(A) appropriate dates; 

(B) test methods; 

(C) instrument readings; 

(D) repair results; and 

(E) corrective actions. Records of flange inspections are not required unless 

a leak is detected. 

43 
(3) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections of H2S and S02 

components shall be maintained. 

(4) Records shall be kept for each production, processing, and pipeline tank battery 

or for each storage tank if not located at a tank battery, on a monthly basis, as follows: 

(A) tank battery identification or storage tank identification, if not located at a 

tank battery; 

(B) compound stored; 

(C) monthly throughput in barrels/month; and 

(D) cumulative annual throughput, barrels/year. 

(5) A plan shall be submitted to show how ongoing compliance will be demonstrated 

for the efficiency requirements listed in subsection (b)(l)(D) of this section. The demonstration may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, or other operating parameters. 

(6) Records shall be kept on at least a monthly basis of all production facility flow 

rates (in standard cubic feet per day) and total sulfur content of process vents or flares or gas 

processing streams. Total sulfur shall be calculated in long tons per day. 

44 

-

-

-
(7) Records shall be kept of all ambient property line monitor alarms and shall 

include the date, time, duration, and cause of alarm, date and time of initial on-site inspection, and 

date and time of corrective actions taken. 

(8) All required records shall be made available to representatives of the agency, the 

EPA, or local air pollution control agencies upon request and be kept for at least two years. All 

required records shall be kept at the plant site, unless the plant site is unmanned during business 

hours. For plant sites ordinarily unmanned during business hours, the records shall be maintained at 

the nearest office in the state having day-to-day operations control of the plant site. 

§116.621. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.-

A person may claim a standard permit for the construction or modification to a municipal 

solid waste landfill (MSWLF) or municipal solid waste facility (MSW facility) as defined in § 101.1 of 

this title (relating to Definitions}, including, but not limited to, Type I, Type 1-AE, Type II, Type III, 

Type IV, Type IV-AE, Type VI, and Type IX sites as defined in §330.41 of this title (relating to 

Types of Municipal Solid Waste Sites). 

(1) An MSWLF and associated waste acceptance and handling facilities which comply 

with §116.610 of this title (relating to Applicability), except §116.610(a)(l) of this title; §116.611 of 

this title (relating to Registration Requirements); §116.614 of this title (relating to Standard Permit 

Fees); and §116.615 of this title (relating to General Conditions) qualify for a standard permit. 

45 
(2) Separate permit authorization under Subchapter B of this chapter (relating to New 

Source Review Permits) must be obtained for the following: 

(A) industrial solid waste solidification/stabilization facilities; 

(B) outdoor burning; 

(C) waste incineration other than that used to control landfill gas emissions; 

(D) landfill cells in which any regulated quantities of hazardous waste will be 

placed; 

(E) MSWLF and MSW facilities with passive collection systems as defined in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §60. 751; and 

(F) any project which constitutes a new major source, or major modification 

under the new source review requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, Part C (Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration review) or Part D (nonattainment review) and regulations promulgated 

thereunder shall be subject to the requirements of§ 116.110 of this title (relating to Applicability) 

rather than this subchapter. 

(3) Registration shall include, in addition to the information required by §116.611 of 

this title, an initial design capacity report in accordance with 40 CFR, §60. 757(a)(2). 

46 

-

-
(4) The permit holder shall comply with the air emissions standards as specified in 40 

CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW, with the following additions and changes. 

(A) The gas collection and control system (GCCS) shall conform with 

specifications for active collection systems as specified in 40 CFR, §60. 759. 

(B) The GCCS shall be designed to control nonmethane organic compounds 

(NMOC) gas emissions in one or more of the following ways by routing the total collected gas to: 

(i) an open flare with a minimum height of 30 feet and which satisfies 

all of the requirements of§ 116.211 of this title (relating to Standard Exemption List), Standard 

Exemption Number 80, except that registration using Form P1-7 or P1-8 shall not be required; 

(ii) a control device (such as an enclosed flare) with a minimum vent 

release height of 30 feet and which reduces the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98%, or to 

less than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv), as hexane; 

(iii) a gas treatment system that processes the collected gas for 

subsequent use or sale. The sum of all emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment 

system shall be subject to the requirements of clause (ii) of this subparagraph; 

(iv) gas or liquid fuel-fired stationary internal combustion 

reciprocating engines or gas turbines that satisfy all of the requirements of §116.211 of this title, 

47 
Standard Exemption Number 6, except that registration using Form PI-7 or PI-8 shall not be required; 

or 

(v) boilers, heaters, or other combustion units, but not including 

stationary internal combustion engines or turbines, that satisfy all of the requirements of § 116.211 of 

this title, Standard Exemption Number 7. 

(C) The active GCCS may be capped or removed only if, in addition to the 

requirements listed in 40 CPR, §60.752(b)(2)(v), the MSWLF is permanently closed pursuant to 

§§330.250-330.256 of this title (relating to Closure and Post-closure). 

(5) MSWLF owners and operators shall monitor and control particulate matter as 

follows. 

(A) All material handling and transport operations shall be conducted in a 

manner so as to minimize any fugitive particulate matter emissions. · 

(B) Roads and other areas subject to vehicle traffic shall be paved and 

cleaned, watered, or treated with dust-suppressant chemicals as necessary to control particulate 

matter emissions. 

48 
(C) During excavation, MSWLF cells shall be watered or treated with dustsuppressant chemicals as necessary to control particulate matter emissions. 

(6) High volume air sampling for net ground level concentrations of total particulate 

matter shall be performed upon request of the executive director or a designated representative. Each 

test shall consist of at least one upwind and one downwind sample taken simultaneously. The tests 

shall be performed during normal operations. A monitoring plan for high volume sampling shall be 

developed in accordance with the Office of Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix I (United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, dated 

February 1995) and the "TNRCC Sampling Procedures Manual," Chapter 11 ("Particulate Matter," 

dated January 1983 and revised July 1985), and shall require approval by the executive director or a 

designated representative prior to sampling. The executive director or a designated representative 

shall be afforded the opportunity to observe all such sampling equipment, operations, and records 

upon request. 

(7) GCCS components (compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure relief valves in 

gaseous service, flanges, and pump seals) at an MSWLF or MSW facility, where the total of all 

estimated uncontrolled fugitive emissions from all components is greater than ten tons per year, shall 

be inspected and maintained pursuant to the requirements of § 116.620(c)(1)(A)-(J) of this title 

(relating to Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities), with the following changes and 

additions. 

49 
(A) Instead of the definition in §116.620(c)(l)(A) of this title, a leak shall be 

defined as the escape of gas with a total organic compound concentration greater than or equal to 

10,000 ppmv above background as methane; or the dripping or exuding of process fluid based on 

sight, smell, or sound. 

(B) In §116.620(c)(l)(C) of this title, new and reworked underground 

pipelines containing NMOC that are located within the gas collection area and are in continuous 

vacuum service may contain buried valves. 

(C) In §116.620(c)(l)(E) of this title, high density polyethylene pipe 

connections may be fused or flanged. 

(D) In addition to those components exempted in §116.620(c)(l)(A)-(J) of 

this title, the following additional components are exempt from the maintenance and inspection 

protocols: 

(i) components which are in a continuous vacuum service; 

(ii) valves which are not externally regulated, such as in-line check 

valves; 

(iii) pressure relief valves which are downstream of an intact rupture 

disc; and 

50 

-
(iv) reciprocating compressors which are equipped with degassing 

vents and vent control systems. 

(E) Alternate methods of fugitive monitoring may be used, subject to the 

approval of the executive director. 

(8) The owner or operator of each MSWLF unit shall maintain complete and up-todate records sufficient to readily determine continuous compliance with the requirements of this 

section for the previous five years of operation. All the records shall be maintained in an operating 

record in accordance with §330.113(b)(ll) of this title (relating to Recordkeeping Requirements). 

The records shall be available for review upon request by representatives or any local air pollution 

agency having jurisdiction. The following recordkeeping requirements shall apply, in addition to 

those specified in 40 CPR 60, Subpart WWW. 

(A) Permit holders who are subject to a standard exemption specified in 

paragraph (4) of this section shall maintain any records specified in the exemption. 

(B) Permit holders who are subject to paragraph (7) of this section shall 

maintain a leaking-components log in accordance with §116.620(e)(2) of this title. 

51 
This agency hereby certifies that the sections as adopted have been reviewed by legal counsel and 

found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on March 29, 1996. 

52 
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

--:. STATE OF TEXAS 

c._.u:~TY OF TRAVl9-

t he•ehy certify that this is a true and ~orrec1 ·::OPV of a 

Tt.-•as Nat:.Jrat Resource Conservauon Corr.rr.tssion document. 

the original of which 11 flied tn U\e permanent records of tne 

C,.__mmtsSiCln . . . . .. 

G1ven unaer. my hand ana tl'le seat of offtce on APR ~ 1996 

AN ORDER adopting amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116, 

concerning Standard Permits and adopting revisions 

to the State Implementation Plan, to establish a 

standard air permit for municipal solid waste 

landfllls with new, amended, or modified municipal 

solid waste permits "and to reorganize the standard 

permit rule language to allow increased efficiency in 

proposing new standard permit provisions; 

Docket No. 95-1115-RUL 

WHEREAS, on March 27, 1996, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(TNRCC or Commission) considered amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F, 

§116.610, concerning Applicability, and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List, and new 

§116.620, concerning Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities, and §116.621, 

concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. The amendments and new sections establish a 

standard air permit for municipal solid waste landfllls with new, amended, or modified municipal 

solid waste permits and reorganize the standard permit rule language to allow increased efficiency 

in proposing new standard permit provisions; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, §382.017 

(Vernon's 1992); Texas Government Code Annotated, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001 (Vernon's 

1993); and 40 Code of Federal Regulations, §51.102, the Commission staff, after proper notice, 

conducted a public hearing on November 6, 1995 to consider revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 

and to the SIP; and 

WHEREAS, the Commission staff duly circulated to interested persons, the Regional 

Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all applicable local air 

pollution control agencies, hearing notices of its intended action; and 

WHEREAS, interested persons were invited to submit data, views, and recommendations 

on the proposed revisions, either orally or in writing, at the hearing; and 

WHEREAS, copies of the proposed revisions were available for public inspection at the 

Commission's central office and regional offices prior to the scheduled hearing; and 
Docket No. 95-1115-RUL 

Page 2 -. ··., 

- _!'"·:.- '' ·' 

WHEREAS, data, views, and recommendations·of interested,personS)'*~<P!it.lbinitted to 

the Commission staff at the hearing and were considered by the Commission staff as reflected in 

the attached analysis of testimony; and ., :,;.· ·. 1

' ~w!: ,· · p.:,; ·~h .. , ,..;;)" .. ' 

WHEREAS, the TNRCC finds that said analysis of testimony includes the names of all 

interested groups or associations offering comment on th~ revisions :and ~eir' position· ~onc'erning 

the proposed amendments; and ..,: · -.. · 

WHEREAS, the Texas Health and Safety Code Arinotated, §382. 017, gives the 

Commission authority to make rules and regulations consistent with the policies and purposes of 

the Texas Clean Air Act; and 

WHEREAS, the Commission fmds that the reasoned justification and fa,ctual bases for the 

proposed revisions are fully set out in the analysis of testimony; and 

WHEREAS, the Commission hereby certifies that the amendments, as adopted, have been 

reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the Commission's legal authority. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE TNRCC THAT: 

1. The revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and the SIP appended to this Order are hereby 

adopted and promulgated; 

2. On behalf of the Commission, the Chairman should transmit a certified copy of this 

Order, together with the adopted amendments, to the Governor of Texas for submittal to the 

Regional Administrator of the EPA as a proposed revision to the Texas SIP pursuant to the 

Federal Clean Air Act, §110, as amended; and 

3. The Executive Director is instructed to file a certified copy of the adopted amendments 

to 30 T AC Chapter 116 with the Secretary of State pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Issued date: APR 0 R 1996 

ATTEST: 

&~~ ;2. 'U.,~ Gloria A. Vasquez, Chi lerk 

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE 

C~ERV ATION COMMISSION 

\):)~~ 

Barry R. McBee, Chairman 

•' .... ... ' 

....... -. 

-
· CertifiCate of Account Status upon renewal involves unnecessary ex-

;- pense to the renewing title agent, the comptroller and the department. 

Agency Response: Tlle agency agrees and has added new language 

er.minaling this requirement. · 

ci>~ent: Commenters object to the procedure set out in L-1. V. B. 3, 

4 and 5 requiing the cancellation of a license and the expense and 

burden of reissuance of a new license when there are minor changes 

· in the name of the title agent. Commenters believe thai none of these 

cha"nges warrant cancellation. and reissuance of a license. 

· · Agency Response: The agency agrees ~ the changes recommended 

by the commenlers have been adopled. 

Comment: Commenters be6eve thallhe instructions for the submission 

of the Title Agent Update. Form in L-1. V. 3. a. iv. and 3. b. iv. are 

unclear and have recommended clarifying language. 

Agency ResPOnsQ: Tlle agency agrees and the recommended language has been adopled. 

Comment: Commenters object to the procedure set out in L-1.V. 3. a 

iii: requiing the title agent upon deletion of a county to submit an 

executed Abstract Plant Information Form for an other counties unaffected by the deletion. The cornmenters . feel there is no need to 

examine the abstract plant because the remaining counties entered in 

the abstract plant are unaffected by the deletion. 

Agency Response: The agency disagrees because the abstract plant of 

many title aQentS are only examined about every four years and the 

additional spot tests necessitated by this requirement are consiierecl 

beneficial from a regulatory stand point. New 6miting language was 

added to requre an Abstract Plant Information Ferm only in cases 

where the abstract plant has not been examined within the 17evious 12 

months. 

Comment: Commenters object to the JJ"oceclure set out in L-3. Ill. 2. 

requiing a letter to be sent to the department upon cancellation of a · 

direct operation r.cense by an underwriter. Tlle commenter argues that 

this requrement is rrelevant because the underwriter is seeking canceDation of its own drect operation. 

Agency Response: The agency disagrees and be6eves that it is careful 

regulation to require the underwriter to submit a letter indicating the 

reasons fer cancellation of a a~rect operation riCense because if the 

department fails to receive this infcrmation it coulciJJ"event the department lrom pursuing necessary administrative enforcement action. 

For with changes: Texas Land Tille Association 

The amendment is adop(ed under the Insurance Code, Articles 9.36, 

9.42, 9. 43, 9.36A; 21.01·2, and 1.03A and the Government Code, 

§§2001.004 et seq. Miele 9.36 authOrizes the department to accept 

appriCalions, issue, renew, and cancel title insurance agents' licenses 

and pra.o-ides fer a staggered renewal system to be adopted under 

Miele 21.01-2. Miele 9.42 authorizes the department to ac:lopl a 

system of staggered renewal for escrow officers' licenses urder Miele 

21.01-2. Miele 9.43 authorizes the department to accept appfiCalions 

fer escrow officers' r.censes and to grant such 6cense. Article 9.36A 

authorizes the department to accept appriCations, issue, and renew 

drect operations' licenses and17ovides for the adop(ion of a staggered 

renewal system under Miele 21.D1-2. Miele 21.01-2 authOrizes the 

commissioner by rule to adopt a staggered renewal system under 

which licenses expre on various dates during a r.censing period. Miele 

1.03A authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules and regulations fer 

the conduct and execution of the duties and functions of the department as authOrized by statute. Tlle Ga.o-emment Code, §§2001.004 et 

seq authorizes and requires each stale agency to adopt rules of 

practice setting forth the nature and requirements of available IJ'"oe&-

dures and to 17escrbe the 17oceclure for adoption of rules by a state 

administrative agency. 

§9.1 Basic Manual Of Rules, RaJes, and Forms for the Writing of 

Title Insurance in the Stale of Texas. The Texas Department of 

Insurance adopts by reference the Basic Manual of Rules, Rates, and · 

Forms for the Writing of Title Insurance in the State of Texas as amended effective May 1, 1996. The document is published by and 

is available from Hart Wormation Services, 11500 Metric Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78758. and is available from and on file at the 

21 TexReg 3192 April 12, 1996 Texas Register • 

. • . ' . . ' . . • • .. t!' 

Texas Department of Insurance, Title Insurance Section, Mail COde .. 

103-lT, 333 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas. 78701-1998. ' . :. ~ . ' -· • • ' ....... i.: '~. 

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by· 

legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. . . ' ~ - : 

Issued in Austin, Texas, ·on April 1, 1996. . · .•. •.: • 

TRD-9604827 Alicia M. Fechlal 

General Couneal ard Chief Clertc' 

Texas Department ol 1118Uranca -.~ . ., . 

Effective date: April 23, 1996 

Proposal publicalion date: January 26, 1996 

Fer fu1her information, please ca11: (512) 463-6327 

• • •• TI1LE 30. ENVIRONME'l'ffAL QUALITY 

Part I. Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission 

Chapter 116. Control of Air Pollution by . . 

.· Permits for New Construction or Modification· 

Subchapter F. Standard ~ermits 

• 30 TAC §§116.610, 116.617, 116.620, 116.621 

The commission adopts amendments to §116.610, concerning Applicability and §116.617, concerning Standard Permit List and new 

§116.620, concerning Installation aroter MocflfiCation of Oil and Gas 

Facilities and §116.621, COI'ICeming Mu~ Sofd Waste landfills. 

Sections 116.610, 116.620, and116. 621 are adopted with changes to 

the 17oposed text as plblished in the October 6, 1995, issue of the 

Texas Register(20 TexReg 8168). Section 116.617 is ac:lopled without 

. changes and will not be republished. 

The amendments include the deletion of subsections {d)-(g) of 

§116.61 0, e&minating duplicative requiremerts also contained in para~ 

graphs in §116. 615, concerning Generai_Conditions. In addition, the 

amendments involve the deletion of §116.617(3), relating to Installation 

ancllor Modificalion of Oil and Gas Facilities. This paragraph is renumbered as the new §116.620. The renumbering of specific standard 

permits from paragraphs to sections simp&fies future ac:IOdion or modification of standard permits, since Texas Register rules aDOtN a section 

to be open for only one set of changes at a time. Minor changes to 

§116.610 and §116.620 have been made to conform these sections to· 

Texas Register style conventions. 

New §116.621 establishes aieria for oblaining a standard air quaflly 

permit fer a munq,al soJij waste lanclfiD {MSWI..F). The Texas Clean 

/IJr ACt {TCAA) states that a permit is required to construct a neW 

tacirlly er to modify an existing facility thai may emit air contaminants. 

The MSWLF standard permit is not a new requirement, but prcwijes an 

aHern81ive to the New Source Review permit process of Chapter 116, 

Subchapter B. Tlle Standard permit alternative sp8cifies ·operating· and :f"e:. requirements, bul does not require mode lin~ or a he~h eff~cts 

The commission staff has reviewed the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's {EPA) New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) fa MSWI..Fs, ac:lopled March 1, 1996. As discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed rulemaking, as published in the October 6, 

1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 8168), the staff has 

incorporated the adopted federal standards into the final rulemaking. 

Paragraph (1) of §116.621 specifies sections of the standard permit 

subchapter which must be complied with in order to qualify fer the 

standard permit. 

Paragraph (2) of §116.621 lists fac~ities and operations which do not 

qualify fer the standard permit · 

Paragraph (3) of §116.621 requires the inclusion of the initial design 

capacity report in the standard permit registration. 

Paragraph (4) of §116.621 requires COI11lliance with the adopted federal NSPS Subpart WWW, with additions and changes. t

-·.,,.; - I 
Para!18Ph (5) of §116.821 specifies procedures lo control fugitive 

particulate matter emissi_ons. . · · 

Para!18Ph (6) of· §116.821 prcwides that the executive director may 

require up.vind/downwind air sampling for particulate matter and 

) specif.18S t_he procedures to follow for such testing. ·· .. 

Para!18Ph (7) of §116.821 describes the inspedion and maintena~ 

protocols for adive gas collection and control systems (GCCS) organiC 

compound leaks from compressor. seals, pipeline valves, pressure 

rertef valves in gaseous service, and pump seals. · . 

Prni!18Ph (8} of§11s.621 requires the owner or operator of each 

MSWLF unit to maintain records sufficient to readHy determine if 

compliance with the standard permit has been maintained. 

The commission has prepared a Takings lmpad Assessment far these 

rules pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2007.043. The following 

is a summ&ry of that assessment. The PlrPOSB of the amendments and 

new &edions is to eliminate duplicative language, renurrber the standard permit for on and gas facmties, and establish a standard permit for 

MSWLFs and munic;;>al solid waste (MSW) facmties. The MSW standard permit prcwides an option for MSWLFs thai are required to obtain 

an air quality permit. The amendments and oow sections will substantially advance this specific purpose by changing rule _language as 

appropriate. Promulgation and enforcement of the rules wiD not aHect 

private real property because no new control requirements are added 

by this adoption. ·' . . 

A public hearing was held Novelmer 6, 1995, in Austin. The following 

12 commenters slbmitted testimony regarding the proposed rules: the 

City of Arlington {Arlington); Browning-Ferris Industries Southern Region (BFI); the City of Brownwood (Br~nwood); the City of Corpus 

Christi (Corpus Cmsti); the EPA; the City of Garland (Garland); Ga~ 

veston Houston Association for Smog Prevention {GHASP); HDR Engineering, lrte. {HDR); lloyd, Gosselink, Fowler, Blevins and Mathews, 

P.C., on behaH of USA Waste Services, Inc. {USA Waste); the Te~as 

Lone Star Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North Amenca 

{TxSWANA); McEtoy & Sumvan, L.l.P., on behalf of Waste Management of Texas, lrte. (WMTX); and the Brazos Valley Sorld Waste 

Management Agency (BVSWMA), on the behalf of the Cities of Bryan 

and College Stalion. 

Arlington, BFI, Brownwood, Corpus Christi, Garland, HDR, USA 

Waste, TxSWANA, WMTX, and BVSWMA generally supported the 

proposed revisions, but suggested changes or darification. The EPA 

and GHASP suggested changes without generally supporting or opposing the prOposed reVisions. Brownwood and BVSWMA supported the 

comments filed by TxSWANA on the proposed standard air permit for 

MSWLFs. HDR geoorally s~ed TxSWANA's comments. 

No comments were received regardi;..g §116.610 or §116.617. 

InstallatiOn or Modificalion of Oil and Gas Facilities. GHASP does not 

SLJR>Ort less stringent control under §116.620(a)(8) and (9) than is 

required for paragaph (7). -

Wrth this rule making projed, no changes were made to the content of 

the standard permit for the instanation and/or modification of oil and 

gas facilities. Modification to the oil and gas standard permit was 

limited to the renumbering o1 subsections. During the negotiations for 

the final oil and gas sta~ard permit, a tiered approa~ w~ d:evised ~o. 

allow oil and gas facifrties to be construded or modified with1n certain 

distances to oft-plant receptors under certain conditions. With the tiered 

approach, Best Available Control Technology (BACl) as well as protedion of plbfiC health and welfare are stiR ensured. For further· 

explanation, see the August 18, 1995, issue ol the Texas Register {20 

TexReg 6324). 

GHASP stated that under §116.620(b)(1), the 25,000 gallon cut·off size 

e not stringent enough and thai regulation should occ11 down to 5,~0 

gallon tank size to ensure that nuisance situations do not occur or toxiC 

poftution does nol ttreaten people. 

This com~nt was addressed in Previous rulemaking in which the 

agency responded that the 25,000 gallon ttreshold has been the 

historical limit for BACT. The commission finds the 25,000 limitation on 

tank storage size to be consistent with its definition of BACT. Furthermore, there is no provision in this standard permit that prevents a 

person from claiming that a nuisance violation is alleged to have 

occurred. 

• 

GHASP considers the 80% control under §116.820(b)(2)(A) to be less-, · 

than adequate. · · - , • 

The commission finds that a tiered approach for control ·of glycol . 

dehydrators is BACT and this approach ensures the protection of ' 

public health and welfare. - · · 

GHASP objeded to using a 10,000 parts per million (Win) volatile 

organic · compounds · (VOC) leak detedion level • under 

§118.820(c)(1 )(A). GHASP stated that the leak detedion level should 

be 500 ppm to be consistent with other parts of the. rule in order to · ·· 

reduce ozone precursors maximally and fu1her staled that this wiD 

result in savings of products and pollution control equipment. GHASP 

also objected to the phrase "reasonably accessible• under Subsection 

(c)(1 )(D) and (2)(D). . · . ·' ., '' · • · ' ·_c • • 

.. ·, 

A tiered approach for leak detection levels is used to allow oil and gas . · 

facirdies to be constructed or modified within certain distances to oftplant receptors under certain conditions. Wrth the tiered approach, 

BACT as well as protection of ptblic heaHh and welfare are ensured. 

As to the comment regarding what valves and fittings are "reasonably . 

accessble," the commission believes that reasonably accessible 

valves are those which would not expose monitoring personnel to 

immediate danger, such as being less than two meters above a 

suppat surface. For further explanation, see the August 18, 1995, 

issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 6324). 

MSWLFs-Comments.. Arlington, Brownwood, . BVSWMA, Corpus . 

Ctristi, Garland, TxSWANA, USA Waste, and WMTX supported the 

. adoption of a standard air permit for MSWLF. TxSWANA stated that . 

the use of a standard preconstruction ai" permit could provide the MSW 

industry with significant regulatory and economic relief, and at the 

same time, i1!1)1"cwe air quality in Texas. Brownwood further stated that 

for landfills, the standard air permit approach appears to ~ the best .. 

app-oach, since real reductions in air ponution can be achieved without · 

the unnecessary expense of having to obtain individual permits. USA 

Waste further noted that the use of standard permits can significantly 

reduce the red tape and cost associated with obtaining a permit without 

compromising the benefits obtained. 

The commission agrees thai the staoolird air permit will provide equivalent environmental benefit to the Chapter 116, Subchapter B air 

permit, at less cost to the regulated community and the Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission {TNRCC). 

TxSWANA and USA Waste supported the use oi a standard air permit 

if new and modified landfiDs are legally required to obtain _separate air 

quality permits. 

The TCAA requi"es any person who plans to Construct any new faCility 

or engage in the modification of any existing facility which may emil air 

contaminants into the air of Texas to obtain an air qually permit. The 

definitions of MSWLF and MSW facility in 30 TAC Chapter 101 rellect 

the agency's view thai landfills are facilities. This position is consistent 

w~h the federal NSPS for MSWLF. . 

Corpus Christi, TxSWANA, and USA Waste reCommended that the 

TNRCC postpone adoption o! the final standard air permit until the EPA · 

adopts the final NSPS. TxSWANA noted that the proposed standard 

permit includes landfil gas cOllection and control requirements that are 

largely based on EPA's proposed NSPS, and thai wa~ing would avoid 

confriCfing and inconsistent stale and federal re~lalions. .· 

The EPA adopted the NSPS on March 1, 1996. The final state rule has 

been revised to be consistent with the adopted NSPS. · . 

TxSWANA recommended thai the TNRCC modify the standard permit 

to directly incorporate the final NSPS. 

The commission agrees with TxSWANA and has diredly incorporated 

the entire final NSPS by refere_nce. 

TxSWANA, USA Waste, and Corpus Christi requesled an explanation 

of what physical and operational changes at a MSW facmty wm trigger 

the need for a standard permit to authorize the construdion of new arid 

modified MSW facilities. Arlington and TxSWANA stated thal it is 

important that the TNACC make clear that just because a landfiR has 

received a "modification" as defined in 30 TAC §305.70, the landfill 

does not have to secure a standard aif permit. TxSWANA further 

stated thai the standard permit should make it clear that Chapter 116 

authorization is only required for landfill expansions beyord currently 

permitted capacity, and that such authorization is not needed for solid 

ADOYrED RULES April 12, 1996 21 TexReg 3193 

!If 

JJJ 

. .. .. .. 

' 

: i :1: 

i i '! ·I 

iJ~i· 

l! \ 

ii 
. waste, permit modifications required to implement Slbt"le D. more certainty of. action, and has revised it to. read, "qualify for a ,t' 

standard permit," consistent with §116.617. Paragraph (1) continues to.~. 

reference §116.610. To further clarify, the fi'st sentence of §116.621 ·- Tti~ Commission agrees that · clarification is needed. MSWLFs differ 

.rom most types of facil"ies receiving ar permits because construction 

is an ongoing process as new cells (disposal units within the MSWLF) 

· are added. The commission intended that Chapter 116 authorization be . 

· · required tor MS\YLF expansions and that such authorization is not 

needed for solid waste permit amendments or modifiCations that do not 

has been revised to state, ·a person may claim a standard permit; r1 · · 

· =~~:;:ac:=.:P:;~:~ T~s:::·and usAw~~Zc~~· .. ~, (> mented on the default values in §116.621 (3); which were proPosed. for; c.;' ' 

l 

j 

I 

l 

· increase the air emissions associated with the permitted facility. '' 

M~o;,. CorpUs christ(Garland, "fxSWANA, and USA Waste poirit~. out the need to explain whether the standard permit applies to all areas · 

of the existing MSW facility or just the modified areas. Garland stated 

that the standard permit should only apply in new and modified areas of 

existing landfills. Gar1and noted that the disposal of waste in existing 

areas; including the associated air emissions, h~e previously been 

authorized by the state. Garland stated that landfill owners should not 

be requi'ed to obtain adcfrtional authorization for these areas when 

seeking to expand the size of the existing landfiU. Garland noted that if 

the standard permit applies to all areas of an existing landfill, the . 

standard permit wiD discourage exP,ansions of existing landfills and 

' enCOUllge the construction of landfills in green fields, a goal. which 

appears at odds with the concept behind the TNRCC's "brownfields" 

initiative. TxSWANA and USA Waste further stated that the standard 

permit should explain how emissions win be calculated for modifiCa· = 

lions, aOd where and when gas collection systems wiD be required to 

be installed in existing areas. Arlington, TxSWANA, and USA Waste 

recommended that the standard permit thresholds be determined .. 

based only on the modified areas and that the installation of GCCS be 

specifically requred only in modified areas. Ar1ington stated that application of the standard permit thresholds to existing landfill areas will 

unnecessan1y compfiCate compliance. TxSWANA further stated that a 

permit requrement that tries to inclUde previously deposited waste on 

previously permitted areas could creal~ significant .legal. questions 

. regarding the right of permittees to rely on prior authorization as well as , ... 

. create extensive practical difficulties in emission estimation and system ~-. 

.~ retrofitting. · · 

The commission agrees that clarification is needed. The commission 

refers to the definition of MSW facility within Chapter 101, concerning 

General Rules. The general rules define a MSW facility so as to 

encompass the entre landfill: ·an contiguous land, structures, other 

appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for processing, 

storing, or disposing of sofld waste." According to Chapter 116, when a 

facirrty is modified, the entire facility must obtain a permit. Thus, the 

· area of the MSW facDity that is impacted by the standard permit is 

conseered to be the entire facirrty. This policy is consistent with the 

adopled NSPS, which requres emissions corrtrol rNer the entre landfill, rather than a portion of it. · 

GHASP stated that standard permits should requre modeling and 

health effects review. GHASP expressed concern that the TNRCC 

would permit facirrties that would have potential nuisance situations. 

TxSWANA staled that the use of a standard permit may be the only 

practical way to satisfy the permit requirements. <';··· • • 

The Commission believes that meaningful modeling and health effects 

review cannot be done for a MSWLF before the landfill is operating due 

to the difficulty in determining the characteristics and distrbution of 

emissions. The coritrol imposed by this standard permit meets all of the 

requirements of the federal NSPS and is designed to ensure that the 

ar resources of the State of Texas are protected without subjecting 

permit appfteants to unnecessary costs and regulatory burden. 

TxSWANA urged the TNRCC to more actively seek input from its MSW 

Division as part of the consideration of the comments. especially 

.regarding the default value for the generation rate constant (k) and for 

nonmethane organic compounds (NM~) Concentration (CN"""). 

The agency has developed the foy4SWLF standard ar permit as a multimedia project. Specific prrNisions have been coordinated among sev· 

eral divisions, including the MSW Division. 

WMTX commented on proposed §116.621 (1), which states that facili· 

ties complying with the applicable requirements may be issued a . 

standard permit. WMTX stated that the language • ... are hereby entitled . 

to th~ standard permit" in §116.610(a), more appropriately desaibes. 

the applicability of. a standard permit. 

The commission agrees with WMTX that paragraph (1) should reflect 

21 TexReg 3194 April 12, 1996 Texas Register • 

use in calculating NMOC emission rates in the absence of site-specific'· .· 

data. BFI s~ed the proposed default values. . •· •. . · • · 

Corpus Christi, TxSW ANA and USA Waste suggested ch8nges to the • 

generation rate constant for landfills with drier waste. TxSWANA staled ·' 

that because of the strict requrements of Slbtitle D, the waste that iS · · · disposed of in new and modified MSW facilities should be Considered · '· 

as drier waste. Corpus Christi, USA Waste, and TxSWANA recom· .. 

mended that the default value for the generation rate constant (k) be~·. 

changed to k•0.02 per year. TxSWANA and USA Waste also re· · 

quested that a determination be made to identify what constitutes •wet• 

and "drier" and also to determine .which category Slbtitle D of the . 

Resource Conservation and RecOvery Act landfills represent. 

TxSWANA and USA Waste noted that the proposed standard permit 

sets the default value for ~N~e NMOC as 1,170 parts per million by 

. volume (ppmv) for MSW facihbes that have not received any industrial 

waste and 4, 400 ppmv for MSW facilities that have received industrial · .. 

sofld waste. TxSWANA, USA Waste, Garlandt and Corpus Christl 

recommended the use of CN"'X'"'1,170 ppmv for an MSW faciflties 

except those codisposing organiC industrial solid waste. Gar1and stated 

that the T~&r 2 testing corlducted in the Dallas/Fort Worth area demonstrates that actual c .... oe values in pre-Subtitle D landfills. are generaDy 

less than 1, 170 ppmy. TxSWANA and USA Waste further requested 

the developn;ent of a regulatory method to distinguish between landfills 

that do and do not accept organic industrial waste in greater than de 

minimis amounts. · ... .. · · · 

The EPA expressed concern regarding paragraph (3), which states that · 

the maximum expeded NMOC emission rate will be calculated using 

the procedures provided in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

§60.753 of the proposed NSPS for MSWL.Fs plbfeshed in the May 30, 

1991, issue ofthe Federal Register (56 FR 24468). The EPA noted that 

the default values for the generation rate constant (k), generation 

potential (LJ, and the c .... oe differ from . the default values in the 

proposed 40 CFR, §60. 753. The EPA stated that the plblic record 

should address the method for deriving the default values in paragraph . 

(3), why they differ from the default values in 40 CFR, §60.753, and 

demonstrate that the proposed default values are at least ·as stringent 

as the proposed NSPS. 

The commission has deleted the sPecifiC references to default values 

in the a~ed rule. To be consistent with the adopted NSPS, the 

commission has modified the rule language to drectly reference the 

NSPS, which addresses default values. 

BFI stated that if the rule is conform~· to the March 1995 draft final 

NSPS, the commission should authorize the use of representative data 

from historic landfill operations, · · 

The commission believes that representative data from hiStoric landfill 

operations is not transferable to other MSWLF sites; because MSWLFs 

are unique in waste characterization and operati<jl. The use of the 

default values in calculating the NMOC emission ·rates followed by 

testing provides more accurate information. The commission has modi- . 

fied the rule language to erectly reference the adopted NSPS, which 

does not provide for using data from different landfills. 

Corpus Christi, EPA, GHASP, and USA Waste commented on the 

threshold levels in §116.621(4). The EPA expressed concern that for· 

MSWLFs located in an ozone attainment area, the proposed threshold 

level was the NMOC emission rate specified in tho NSPS, or 150 

megagrams (Mg) per year. The EPA staled that this should be modified 

to state that the threshold value shall be the lower of the two emission 

rates. GHASP stated that the 150 Mg is particularly inappropriate when 

the EPA has proposed a 50 Mg threshold. GHASP expressed a 

concern that the TNRCC needs to be as stringent as possible, since in 

nonattainment areas reduction of ozone precursor emissions needs to 

occur. USA Waste and Corpus Christi supported the TNRCC's decision to set the NMOC threshold at 150 Mg per year and stated that the 

level is consistent with existing TNRCC regulations in 30 TAC Chapter 

115. Corpus Christi further stated that a more stringent threshold level 

····.'.· . ,:.~ 
in .the attainment areas. WOUld be ·economically UIYeasonable and•. 

unsupPOrted by clirent re5earch i:lata. . · .· · . _ • · ·· 

The rule. a$ proposed, specified that the stale. rule incorporate the . 

NMOC emission rate (50 Mg per year) specified in the NSPS, provided 

) 

the' federal standiud was promulgated prior to the adoption of the state 

· rure; ·or the agency would incorporate the use ol 150 Mg per year as 

the threshold lor requiring the installation of the active GCCS. The 

standard permit iilcorporates the 50 Mg per year threshold (emission 

rate. cuto!f), _since that is the value .incorporal~ by the adopted NSPS. · 

HDR noted that paragraph (4)(A) requests the determination ol the· 

C and (k) values and does not requre a submittal ol the recalcu·. 

la~NMOC emission rate utilizing the site-specific values. HDR sug· 

gested that a secooo NMOC emission rale calculation. in accordance 

with the procechies ol 40 CFR, §60.753 of the proposed federal_rules 

be required, using the site-specific values, to show emission rates 

below the threshold level. HDR. fl.lther noted that the appropriate 

section of the federal rule- is referenced erroneously as 40 CFR, 

§61.753 when it should be 40 CFR, §60. 753. . 

The cOOimission has ~leted the sPecific rule language to resolVe the 

deficiencies pointed out in HDR's comment. The commission has 

modified the rule language to dredly reference the adopted NSPS, 

which addresses the calculation and reporting methodology. 

T~sWmA arit·'usA waste not~ ihat the 'p-oPosect.standard perrrit 

sets the NMOC threshold level in ozone nonaHainment areas at "the· 

amoont constituting the major soiXce as defined for that· area in 

§ 116.12, • but § 116.12 does not define major sources with regard to 

emissions of NMOC; TxSWANA and USA Waste noted that §116.12 

defines major sotn:e based on VOQ emissions. TxSWANA ard USA 

Waste requested that the TNRCC amend the Standard ar permit to 

clarify the ambiguity and offered the following suggested language: • ... 

or a NMOC emission rate. equivalent to a VOC emJsslon rate. 

constituting a [the amount constituting the] major soiJ"ce for VOC as 

defined for that area in §116.12 ol this title (relating to Major 

So!SC8/Major Modification Emission Thresholds)." Garland and Arfing" 

ton ackryowtedged support for setting the NMOC threshold at major 

souree levels. However; Garland and Arlington stated that for this 

\ provision to be effective, the proposed standard permit needs IO 

, explain the relationship between NMOC and VOC emissions because 

the TNRCC regulations do not define major sources of NMOC emis-. 

sions. Qariand suggested that ttie threshold trigger lor the standard 

permit should be tied . to the specific N~ threshold for each 

nonattainment area in the state. Arfmgton suggested that the standard 

permit specifiCally set out the emissions threshold in terms of NMOC 

emissions in each ozone nonaHainment area. 

VOC is a subset of NMOC (while all VOCs are NMOC, not aD NMOCs 

are VOC). For landfills, the most predominant NMOCs that are not 

VOC are ethane, methylene chloride, trichlorofluoromethane, and 

chloroclilluoromethane. VOC can be determined by subtracting out the 

non-VOC portion of the NMOC. Section 116. 621(2)(F) has been 

added to clarify that new major soiJ"ces or modifications under the 

federal new soiJ"ce review requremenls of the Federal Clean Ar Act 

(FCAA), Part C (Prevention of Significant D~terioration). or Part D 

(nonattainment review) must rotain a regular ar· quality permit in' 

accordance with §116.110 (concerning AppriC8bility). The definitions in 

these federal rules use VOC, not NMOC. When the potential emission 

rale would olherwise-~ceed the amount constituting the major source 

definition for ozone nonattainment areas (e.g., in Houston, 25 tons per· 

year of VOC constitutes a major source), the permit holder may elect to 

install landfiD gas controls to remain below the major source level. 

Representations to 6mit the air emissions, made in the registration, 

become enforceable conditions of the standard ar permit. 

Arlington, Corpus Christi, Garland, USA Waste, and TxSWANA com· 

C, mented on paragraph (4), concerning the proposed lime allcJoNed for 

slbmitting site-specifiC testing. TxSWANA and USA Waste stated that 

the allotted 90 days to perform Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 testing is an 

insufficient amount ol lime, and noted thai the proposed NSPS would 

allow~ to one year to perform this testing. TxSWANA, USA Waste, 

and Corpus Christi recommended that the time period be changed to 

180 days rather than· 90 days to conduct Tli:lr 2 and Tier 3 testing. 

Arlington and Garland also suggested that the standard permit allow up 

to 180 days to perform T~er 2 testing rather than 90 days as proposed. 

TxSWANA, Arlington, and Garland stated that recent experience conducting T~er 2 testing in the Dallas/Fort Worth area indicated thai 90 

days wiD not be sufficient to obtain and analyze Tier 2 data. Arlington • 

noted that the testing is new and few laboratories are capable of 

performing the lest •... : . . ' . ·' . ' ! - c·:. 

. ~ ·• "- "':.!..'· .. ~ ~ ., -~ ·.. . ; ' • . . -~ ~ ·' - -~ .. .. : ~ ~~ ' . . •. .. . 

The commission has modili9d the rule language by elimiriating SpecifiC -. 

reference to time. frames in. the rules, since these time lraines are . , 

specified in the adopted NSPS: Any MSWLF construction 'or mcidifica- · .. 

tion which WOIAd otherwise result in a major riew SOIJ"ce or modificalion 

under the FCAA, Part C or Part D would need to instal and operate the ' 

GCCS prior to becoming a major SOIJ"ce, to·eliminale the need lor··, 

federal I]Onattainment permitting. ' · ' ' . :; '. ·· ,, ) -.• · . ..; · ' • <. ' ,p• '' ·• •; ;,· . ~ , -'to:."" ' • f ' 1 '. • '• , ·• ... .._ I •. ~, .-. •,, • .., ,, , , 1 .~ , ' 

HDR stated that language _in j:laragraph (4)(B)(i) and_ (i0 ~ to ... 

conflict in its requreme~. for .. the. sl.bmitted design ~~ the active : . . 

GCCS. HDR stated that clause (0 requi'es the GCCS to be designed to.'·, 

accommOdate ga5 Produced by the entire IBndtill. falling under the' 

proposed stan:iard permit, while cliluse (ii) requres the designed 

system to coiled gas from areas or cells ol the pgrmiHed landfill which 

contain final et:Ner; oi where refuse has been in place for over' five 

years. HDR stated that the conflict is ttial clause (ij requires a GCCS ·· 

design to adctess the permitted landfill in total, while clause (iij ilf1)1ies ·. · 

a phased GCCS design. HDR ·noted that due to the trend for new and · 

amended landlils to have long operational lives, it is recommended-·. 

that the requi"ed plan lor the GCCS be submitted conceptuaUy with the . 

standard perrm IRJiication to adlt'ess the entire facility covered by the ·. . 

standard permit, and that the final design and instaDation of the GCCS ~ .. 

take place in phases in accordance with the requrements of clause (iij. : · . "'.:· --. . ·. ":' . ;::···: :~ "·_:.f ... -:.'->~·.... _) .. 

The commission eliminated the specific rule language addressed in .. 

HDR's comment to be consistent with the requremeilts of the adoPted' 

NSPS. .: · ·. . . . ... - . 

BFI proposed that pa(agrapti (4)(B)("rv)(l) sho~rd actdr~ the rOuting ·of 

total conected gas "lo an open flare with a minimum height of 30 feet 

and that is designed, operated, and inspected in accordance with 40 

CFR §60.18" and satisfies the requirements of Standard ExeJ'T1)t~n 80_. · 

The commission haS mOdified the rule lailgilage to iriC:orporate BFI's 

-comment. · 

BFI proposed that paragraph (4)(B)(iv)(ll) be changed to read: "the total 

collected gas is routed to a control device such as an enclosed flare 

with a minimum vent release height of 30 feet and that reduces the 

total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98% or to less than 20 ppmv, 

as hexane." BFI requested the change in order to address enclosed 

llilres, which are not sl.bject to 40 CFR, §60.18, and to make the 

means of expressing NMOC reductions consistent with the proposed 

NSPS fcir MSWLFs (i.e., 20 ppmv as hexane). · . . 

The commission has modified the rute language to incorporate BFI's 

comment. .: •. :·· · ·· · · 

WMTX suppated the concept of employing reasonable control technologies and methodologies at MSWLFs to limit particulate matter emis~ 

sions in §116.621 (8). WMTX stated that the proposed rule identifies the 

control technologies which can be most effectively employed to control 

such emissions. However, WMTX stated that the use of the phrases · 

"minimize any fugitive particulate maHer emissions" and "achieve maximum control ol dust emissions· could be construed to sugge&t a 

constantly escalating, but-never. satisfied. requirement to efnploy~ any 

conceivable means of corltrolrmg such emissions. In addition, sOme of 

the control technOlogies identified are obviously not appropriate fer-use 

on all of the areas identif.ect (e.g., paving of a ·cell dl.ling excavation). 

WMTX suggested specific language for paragraph (8), 

The adopted NSPS is limited to organic emission cOntrol from landfills, 

while the standard permit adcfltionally covers particulate maHer emissions, which may also be associated these facilities. The commission 

believes that the term "minimize" contains an element of technical 

practicability and economical reasonableness and disagrees that the 

term suggests a constantly escalating means of controDing emissions. 

The commission modified the rule language, now paragraph (5), in 

response to the comments concerning the maximum control of dust 

emissions. 

BFI stated that it did not support the inclusion of a mandate that high-. 

volume ar sampling be "performed upon request of the TNRCC exear 

tive director or a designated representative" in §116.621(9). BFI be· 

fieves that TNRCC authority to requi'e salf1)1ing for any criterja or 

hazardous ar pollutant should conform to what the agency has histori· 

caDy requi'ed in the terms and conditions specified in incfrvidual per· 

• ADOn'ED RULES April 12, 1996 21 TexReg 3195 

1: 

II 

I J II 

I I 

II I! 

c . ' 

I 

I 

I 

. I 

'' i I

I! 

~ 

il I 
mils. BFI further stated that specific testing should not be adcressed in . 

· the. r9Qurements of this regulation. In addition, BFI noted that the 

-O)roposed rule does not specify whether the testing is for total sus-

,Jended particulate, for which there is no longer a National Arrbient Air 

_ OUalitY Standard (NAAQS), or for inhalable particulate matter (PM,.,), 

. · fofwhich a NAAOS does exist. BFI proposed that testing be only for 

:-~ ~-~:-~ ~~~ .. ·•· ~ . . . . . ' . '" . 

· ;. _,. Higlt-volume air samp6ng prCN"ides a mechanism for determining com-

. · prsance in situations where estimating . emissions in advance of 

. : operational activity is difficult. The commission ber.eves that high-: . 

. ··:'volume ar sampling is useful and economically reasonable in measur~ 

· · ing ·emissions. This standard permit is intended t() test total suspended 

. - f»artieulates, for which state standards. exist. If necessary, federal 

st!llld~Uds may be addressed under 30 TAC § 1 01.8, concerning Sam-

' plitig, which provides the commission or executive dredor the authority 

to. request that any person owning or operating a source which emits 

air contaminants .condud sampling to determine the opacity, rate, 

· coinposition, and/or concentration of such emissions.-:. · : · . - ~ ... _. =. . . . . . . ' 

WMTX suggested deleting §116.621(9) from the proposal. Due to the· 

size and nal\re of operations at MSWLFs, WMTX stated that up-

:· windfdownwind high volume air S81!1>1ing for particulate matter is 

unlikely to provide data useftJ to evaluate the control of particulate 

: matter emissions. WMTX stated that requirements to utilize th9 control 

methodologies set <M in paragraph (8) will adequately limit Particulate 

matter emissions from MSWLFs. WMTX further stated that the lack of · 

· identifiable criteria for either triggering a sample event or evaluating the · 

re5ulls is further basis for delet!ng th~ paragraph.. · · .::- •·< .• _,, 

'The' commission consi:lers the option to require L.pNiild/downwind high 

volume air sampling, which establishes COI!1>1iance status with the 

standards, necessary in order to ensure the effectivenesS of the control 

. critena. Furthermore, the commission believes that it is difficult to 

~~e aD the criteria that would necessitate S81!1>1ing; thus, the 

commission has not modified the rule to attempt to itemize the various . 

.criteria that might trigger a request for monitoring. · · . . . . ·--.. 

- GHASP stated that the TNRCC and the local pr(9"ams should be 

notified when sampling wiD occur so that an opportunity to observe the 

sairipling. is presented. · · · ' · · · 

.-

' . 

· The commission a11'9es, and has revised §116.621 (6) accordingly. . . 

WMT.X suggested that if the commission adopts §116.621 (1 0), it continue to monitor the status of the proposed federal rules and, if changes 

are made to them prior to final adoption, that the commission initiate a 

process to revise the Texas state rules accordingly; BFI suggested 

defining a leak as methane, rather th8.n as methane, propane, or 

hexane. BFI opposed the inclusion of specifiC meteorological conditions as a basis for determining when surface leak testing should be 

performed, siriCe it would require that either the landfiU be located next 

to a continuously operating National Weather Service stalicin or thai it 

purchase, install, calitnte, and maintain an operating !lnEimometer and 

recording rain gauge, and to train an individual in the prq>er operatiOn, 

Calibration, and maintenance of these instruments. 

~Use the adcipt8d NSPS fully treats surface leakS,· adding flexibility 

' that ·was not included iri the proPosed version, the commissiOn has 

eruninaled proposed paragraph (10) from th9 final rule. The 'ad0j:Jt8cl · NSPS also clarif~eS"lhat a surface leak is measured as methane. The 

slrlace leak requirements are now directly incorporated bY refereriCe to 

the entre final NSPS in §116. 621(4). 

GHASP stated that under §116.621 (11)(J)(i), allowing ten ton$ per year 

(lpy) ·of fugitives per year seems li<e a lot. 

The commission believes that the ten tpy exemption iS appropriate. 

The commission believes that requiring MSW facilities, often owned by 

local governments, to i111>lement fugitive emission inspedion and maintenance programs at lacifrties with less than ten tpy of fugitive emissions is not economicany reasonable. Since the majority . of 

components in a GCCS are under negative pressure, the fugitive 

. monitoring requrements would not be generally appriCable anyway. 

Only a gas processing facility, which is not a typical control system, will 

have significant numbers of co~nts and potentially be stbjed to· ; 

the COII1>00ent monitoring requirements, now renumbered as paragraph (7). . 

AlsO, the commission believes that under certain crcumstances, aHernative methods to implement fugitive emission inspection and. n:'ainte-

• 21 TexReg 3196 April 12, 1996 Te:ms Register • 

nance programs. may be reasonable. Therefore, . §116.621 (7)(E) .is . 

added to provide for use 'of alternative methods 'of fugitive f11C)nitoring il ~ apprCN"ed by the executive dredor. · · · .. · · · · ' ''·:·' ~~::'·: 

BFI stated that in paragraph. (11 )(A), leaks· shoUld b8 cteliried' aS.~, •escape of gas with a total organic compound coo,centration greater·:_! (·· 

than or equal to 10, 000 ~ above_background methane,•:not·.,. ' 

•methane, propane, or hexane: B~.l noted that 10,00Q ppmv ~ !l'~~h::-~:; · · · ane is not equal to 1 0,000 ppmv as hexan~ ,or as propllr!.~. :- ;, · , , , .·· _ 

The commission agree$ with BFI, and has added a cl8rifying definition< 

in §116.621 (7)(A). · ~· : . ·, . , ' . .;: , ,, 

GHASP staled that i~ pam~ (11)(A),· a 1 o,iJ& ppm leak' ~(~ion . 

level for VOCs is too high for a severe ozone nonattainment area like ' 

the Houston· area and stated that the leak detedion level needS to be · lowered to 500 ·ppm. · ,., · · ·· · 

The cOmmission believes thai the .10,000 ppm deteCtion ievel iS a · 

sufficient leak detedion program for reducing VOC emissions from 

landfill gas collection systems. The· fugitive emission and insPection 

program requires monitoring for total organic compounds, which in~ 

etudes methane. Because the c:oncentration of VOC in landfiD ·gas is 

low compared to the total organic compound content, actUal VOC · · 

emissions will be wen unda: 10.~00 ppm~ · · ·· · · _' · ::: 

BFI requested that in p;lragraph (11)(E), valves instaDed underground . · 

solely for the purpose of isolating sedions of pipe in order to make 

repairs be made exempt from inspection and mainlenariC8 protoCols. • 

BFI stated that these buried valves are left in a permanently open ·. 

position, unless it becomes necessary to uncover them and close them··.· 

in order to perfam pipefme repairs. BFI stated that requiring these . 

valves to be in a valve box would resuH in creating an unnecessary 

confined space, which preSents a safety hazard. In addition, BA stated 

that this type of design creates a path for gas to escape the landfiR and 

for ar to enter, creating the potential for fugitive leaks of NMOC aid for· 

fires inside t~ landfill.'· · · · · · · · _ • · · · · · 

The buried valves referenced in BFI's comments are in continuous 

vacuum service and therefore exempt ui-der paragraph (7)(D)(i}. The 

commission has also added specific language in §116.621(7)(8) to 

further clarify this issue. . . · 

BFI stated. that in paiaiTaph (11)(G), the P,c)posed regulation addresses only new and reworked ppng cc:innedions that are weld9d or . 

llanged. BFI further stated that higlt-density polyethylene ppng which ·. 

has no welded coMections should be · exe111>t from leak detection, 

monitoring, and repai" requirements.' · · · · ' - . ' . - . ,.-:. .. ·. •'·-

The commission has modified the rule language to refled BFI's comment, in §116.621 (7)(C). . . 

BFI stated that in paraiTaph (11 )(J)(i), the proposed regulatiOn should 

specify the means by which uncontrolled fugitive emissions that leak 

from C0111>009nts should be quantified, i.e:; which emission factors , 

should be used to ensure that emissions are less than ten tpy in order · 

to qualify for the exemption from inspection and maintenance proto-

~- ·'. '- '- '* • < • 

The commission believes that addressing the issue of which fugitive 

emission fadors to use is. 'appropriate for inclusion in a guidance. 

document which will be .available. · .--- _ :: 

BFI stated that in para~ (11)(J)(iii), a vacuum 6f 0.725 pounds per. 

square inch (psi) is equivalent to 20 inches water column and that this 

amount of vacuum is not acceptable in design and operation of landfill 

gas extraction systems. BFI further stated that depending upon well 

location, a vacuum CN"er 20 inches water column would significantly 

enhance the probability of air infiHration and potential fires in the 

landfill. BFI proposed that co~nls in vacuum be exempt from the 

inspection and maintenance protocols. · 

The commission agrees wilh BFI, and has added an exemption in 

§116.621(7) (D)(i) to incorporate BFI"s comment. 

BFI opposed the sampling and analysis for nitrogen concentrations in 

the landfiU gas at each wen in the gas. colleCtion header in paragraph 

(12)(0) (ii~. BFI stated that if monitoring is requred for oxygen, as a 

means· of determining ar. infiHration into the landfill resulting from 

vacuum extraction of landfm gas, it is an unnecessary expense to test t-. • 

for nitrogen concentrations as oxygen. 

The adopted NSPS allows an option for monitoring oxygen instead of 
nitrogen. BecauSe the NSPS fully . treats strlace leaks, including 

recorclkeeping, the commissiot1 has' efuninated proposed paragraph 

(10), addressing surface leaks, and the associated re~eeping in 

proposed paragraph (12). Re~eeping is now addressed in paragraph (8): 

HDR S:tated that in pMagraph (12)(F)(vij, requiing landfills to calculate 

maximum expeded gas generation flow rates using Methcxl 2E as . listed in the proposed NSPS ard emission guidelines will have a significant economic i~d on the owners of MSWLFs. HDR questioned the need for this calculation based on the fad that perlamance 

testing will be conducted on the system via the requred strlace 

monitoring, along with the verification of negative pressure at all of the · weD heads. HDR stated that if the TNRCC ber~eves that maximum gas 

generation llow rates are necessary, a recommerded alternative to· 

Method 25 would be to use one of several available gas generation ·· models such as the one referenced in §60.754 of the proposed federal 

regulations. However, HDR stated that because these models only · serve as a theoretical estimate of the g8s generation rate for a landfill,· 

HDR stressed that model results should be used lor infamation only, 

and not to evaluate the adequacy of an installed GCCS. 

The adopted NSPS does not require Methcxl 2E sa~6ng. Because the 

NSPS fully treats the issue of expected gas generation llow rates, · · inclooing recatlkeeping, the commission has eliminated the specification.. . · 

HDR stated that in paragraph (12)(F)(viij, the calculated radius of 

influence (ROI) of extraction wells in accordance with Methcxl 2E will 

have a significant economic impad on landfiD owners with 6ttle benefrt 

in return. HDR stated that the requi"ed surface monitoring (per1or- mance testing) wiD irdicate areas of the landfill strlace that requi"e 

adcfrtional control; and if the requred repars faD to resolve the emission 

point, owners will ultimately instan adcfrtional weDs. HDR further stated 

that although available as an option for design of the GCCS in place of 

the 200 meter design default spacing in the proposed NSPS and 

emission guidelines, the nonhomogeneous characteristics of a landfill 

renders the use of a uniform calculated ROI to evaluate GCCS perfor- mances ineffective. Add'rtionally, HDR stated that the presence of 

negative pressure within the refuse induced by the already installed 

) GCCS will impad any tests conduded to detennine ROI. Based on experience, HDR believed that perfamance testing through GCCS 

operation sur1ace monitoring wm sufficiently indicate when ard where 

adcfrtional extraction wells are needed. HDR recommerded that this 

requirement be removed from the proposed rule. 

The adopted NSPS aDeM'S more flexbifrty than the proposed version ~ whic<h the standard pennit proposal was based. Because the 

NSPS addresses the design layout of colledion wens ard related 

recorclkeeping, . the commission has eliminated the proposed 

recordkeeping requi"ement. 

The amerdments and new sections are adopted under the Texas· 

Health arid Safety Code, the TCAA, §382.017, which provides the 

commission the authority to adopt rules consistent with the pofiCy and 

purpose of the TCAA. 

§116.610. Applicability. 

(a) Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.051, 

projects involving the-types of facilities or physical or operational 

changes to facilities which meet the requirements for a standard 

permit listed in this subchapter are hereby entitled to the standard 

permit; provided however, that: 

(1) (No change.) 

(2) construction or operation of the project shall be commenced prior to the effective date of a revision to this subchapter 

under which the project would no longer meet the requirements for a 

standard permit; 

(3)-(5) (No change.) 

(b) Any project which constitutes a new· major source, or 

major modification under the new source review requirements of the 

FCAA, Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review) or 

Part D (Nonattainment Review) and regulations promulgated there-

• 

under shall be subject to the requirements of §116.110 of this title 

(relating to ApplicabilitY) rather thari this. subchapter~ · ..... , 

(c) (No change.) , .. 

§116.620.lnstallation and/or MOdif;caJion Of Oil and GasFaciliti~s. · 

(a) · Emission specifications. .. 

· . ·. . (1)' Venting or flaririg more than 0.3 long tons per day of . · total sulfur shall not be allowed. ,. · ': · · .; ·: · · · · · · ' 

· (2) No facility shall be allowed to 6mit toW uncontrolled . 

emissions of sulfur compounds, except sulfur dioxide (SO,), from all 

vents (excluding process fugitives emissions) equal to or greater . 

than four pounds per hour.unless the vapors are collected and routed 

to a flare. ' -

. (3) ·Any vent, ~:XCluding. any safety' relief valves that . 

discharge to the atmosphere. only as a result of fire or failure of 

utilities, emitting sulfur compounds other than SO,' shall be at least.,. 

20 feet above ground level. _ _ · . . . . · 

- · .: (4) . New· or .modified internal combustion reciprocating 

engines or gaS turbines permitted under this standard' permit siW.l 

satisfy all of the requirements of Standard EXemption Number 6, · 

except that registration using the Form PI-7 or PI-8 shall not be .. required. Emissions from engines or turbines shall be limited to the . 

amounts found in §116.21l(a)(l) of this title (relating to Standard 

Exemption List); · · · · 

(5) Tota1 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions: 

from a natural gas glycol dehydration unit shall not exceed ten tons 

per yeir (tpy) unless. the vapors are· collected and controlled in 

accordance with subsection (b)(2) "of this section: .. ~ - · ...• 

. . (6) Any comb~stion unit (excludin~ flares, ~ternal ~m- . 

bustion engines, or natural gas turbines), with a design maximum_' 

heat input greater than 40 million British thermal units (Btu) per~ . 

hour (using lower heating values) shall not emit more than 0.06 · · 

pounds of nitrogen oxides per million Btu. 

(7) No facility which is less than 500 feet" from the· 

nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC 

process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than ten tpy, but les$ 

than 25 tpy •. unless the equipment is inspeCted and repaired according to subsection (c)(l) of this section. · · . . . . · · 

. (8) No facility which is 500 feet· or more from the 

nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC 

process fugitive er.dso;~ons equal to or greater than 25 tpy unless the 

equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(l) . of this section. · . . :. ' .~ ~'. 

(9) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the 

nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit uncOntrolled voc 

process fugitive emissions~ual to or greater than 25 tpy unless the . equipment is inspected aitd_ repaired accordirig tO subsection ·(c)(~)· 

of this section.· · · · - (10) No facilitY shall be allowed-to emit uncontrolled ' 

VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greater than 40 tpy 

unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(2) of this section. 

(11) No facility which is located less than 1/4 mile from · 

the nearest off-plant receptor· shall be allowed to emit hydrogen 

sulfide (H,S) or SO, process fugitive emissions unless the equipment 

is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(3) of this 

section. No facility which is located at least 1/4 mile from the 

nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit H,S or SO 

process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and 

repaired according to subsection (c)(3) of this section or unless the 

H,S or SO, emissions are monitored with ambient property line 

monitors according to subsection (e)(l) of this section. Components 

in sweet crude oil or gas service as defined by Chapter 101 of this 

title (relating to General Rules) are exempt from these limitations. 

ADOPTED RULES April 12. 1996 21 Ter.Reg 3197 

II 

JJ 

I J ~ ! . 

:l 

(i I 

•' li 

'I 1: 

l 

~. 

' ' 

~ .I 

~ 

~ 

i 

~ ;j 

11 

ft H 

•. 
- (12) Aares shall be deSigned and operated in accordance · 

with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60.18 or equivalent standard approved by the commission, including specifications 

of minimum heating values of waste gas, maximum tip velocity, and 

pilot flame monitoring. If necessary to ensure adequate combustion, 

sufficient gas shall be added to make the gases combustible. An 

infrared monitor is considered equivalent to a thermocouple for 

flame monitoring purposes.' An automatic ignition system may be 

used in lieu of a continuous pilot 

. (13) Appropriate documentation shall ~ submitted to 

demonstrate that compliance With the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review provisions of the Federal Oean Air Act, Parts C and D, and regulations· 

promulgated thereunder, are being mel The oil and gas facility shall 

be required to meet the requirements of Subchapter B of this chapter 

(relating to New Source Review Permits) instead of this subchapter 

if a PSD or nonattainment permit is required. 

(14) Documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate 

compliance with applicable New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS, 40 CFR 60) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollution (NESHAP, 40 CFR 61). 

(15) New and increased emissions shall not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard or regulation property line standards as specified in Chapters 111, 112, and 113 of this title (relating to Control of Air 

Pollution From Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter; Control of 

Air Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and Control of Air Pollution 

From Toxic Materials). Engineering judgment and/or computerized 

air dispersion modeling may be used in this demonstration. To show · 

compliance with §116.610(a)(l) of this title (relating to Applicability) for ~S emissions from process vents, ten milligrams per cubic 

meter shall be used as the "L" value instead of the value represented · 

by §116.610(a)(l) of this title. 

(16) Fuel for all combustion units and flare pilots shall 

be sweet natural gas or liquid petroleum gas, fuel gas containing no 

more than ten grains of total sulfur per 100 drY. standard cubic feet 

(scdf), or field gas. If field gas contains more than 15 grains of ~S 

or 30 grains total sulfur compounds per 100 scdf, the operator shall 

maintain records, including at least quarterly measurements of fuel 

~S and total sulfuT c:Ontent. which demonstrate that the annual SO, 

emissions from the facility do not exceed the limitations listed in the 

standard permit registration. If a flare is the only combustion unit on 

a property, the operator shall not be required to maintain such 

·records on flare pilot gas. · 

(b) Control requirements. 

(1) Aoating roofs or equivalent controls shall be required 

on all new or modified storage tanks, other than pressurized tanks 

which meet Stanaard Exemption 83, unless· the tank is less than 

25,000 gallons in nominal size or the vapor pressure of the compound to be stored in the tank is less than 0.5 pounds per square inch 

absolute (psia) at maximum short-term stora~e temperab.Ire. 

(A) For internal floating roofs, mechanical shoe primary seal or liquid-mounted primary seal or a vapor-mounted primary with rim-mounted secondary seal shall be used. 

(B) Mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted primary seals 

shall include a rim-mounted secondary seal on all external floating 

roofs tanks. Vapor-mounted primary seals will not be accepted. 

(Q All floating roof tanks shall comply with the 

requirements under §115.112(a)(2)(A)-(F) of this title (relating to 

Control Requirements). 

21 TerReg 3198 April 12, 1996 Texas Register • 

· ' (D) In lieu of a floating roof, t~ emissio~~ may ~ . 

routed to: · · . '. ' ·. , . . . : .. ;".,. :· · .', ,;< 

· · · (i) a destruction device such that a minimum VOC '.;; 

destruction effic~cy of 98% is achieved; or . : .. •.. . .:, I:;< · · (u) a vapor recovery system such that a mmmium ·_ .,; . 

VOC. recavery efficiency of 95% is achieved:' · . . ''.":~'~ • . ' . .· :1 \ ·i 

· (E) Independent of the exemptions listed in this para- ' 

graph, if the emissions f!om any fixed roof tank exCeeci ten tpy of·: 

VOC or ten tpy of sulfur c:Ompounds, the tank emissions shall ~. ::, 

routed to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, or equivalent, 

method of c:Ontrol that meets the requirementS listed in subparagraph 

(D) of this paragraph. 

(2) The VOC emissions from a natural gu.glycol dehy~ .· dration unit shall be controlled as follows. · · · · · · ·· · 

(A) If total uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to : 

or greater than ten tpy: but less than 50 tpy, a minimum of 80% by · · 

weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by either · 

operating a condenser and a separator (or flash tank), vapor recovery ' 

unit, destruction device, or equivalent control device. . . . . 

(B) If total unControlled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 50 tpy, a minimum of: · 

(i) 98% by weight minimum destruction efficiency 

shall be achieved by a destruction device or equivalent; or · 

(ii) 95% by. -.yeight minimum contr~l efficie~cy· . shall be achieved by a vapor recovery system or equivalent 

(c) Inspection requirements. 

(1) Owners or operators who are subject to subsection · · · 

~~~~-or (8) of this section shall eomply with the following req~e-~.': (J 

(A) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC 

leak for more than 15 days after the leak is detected to exceed a VOC concentration greater than 10, 000 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv) above background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the_ 

dripping or exuding of process fluid based on sight, smell, or sound. 

for all components. The VOC fugitive emission components which · 

contact process fluids. where the VOCs have an aggregate partial.-

pressure or vapOr pressure of less than 0.5 psia at 100 de&fees' , 

Fahrenheit. are exempt_ from.·this requirement If. VOC fugitive:.~ 

emission components are in service where the operating pressure is 

at least 0.725 pounds per square inch (psi) (five kilopascals (Kpa)) 

below ambient pressure, then these componen!S are also exempt 

from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list 

that is made available upon request by the agc#ncy representatives, 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or any 

other air pollution agency having jurisdiction. All piping and valves 

two inches nominal size and smaller, unless subject to federal NSPS 

requiring a fugitive VOC emissions leak detection and repair program or Chapter 115 of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollution 

from Volatile Organic Compounds), are also exempt from this 

requirement · 

(B) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to 

repair a VOC leaking process fugitive component within 15 days 

after the leak is detected. If the repair of a component would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled 

shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaired until a 

scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such repair by tagging. · •··• The executive director, at his discretion, may require early unit ~ 

shutdown or other appropriate action based on the number and 

severity of tagged leaks awaiting shutdown. 
(C) New and reworked underground process pipelineS 

containing VOCs shall contain no buried valves such that process 

, fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical. 

(D) To the extent that good engineering pr~ctice .will 

permit, new and reworked valves· and piping connections in VOC 

service shall be so located to be reasonably accessible for leakchecking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two. 

meters above a support surface will be considered non-accessible 

and shall be identified in a list to be made availableupon request. 

(E) New and reworked piping connections in VOC · 

service shall be welded or flanged. Screwed connections are· permissible only on piping smaller than two-inch diameter. No later. than 

the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or 

replacement, all new or reworked corinections shall be gas-teSted or 

hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating pressure and. 

adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. 

Aanges in VOC se~ice shall be inspected by visual, audible, and/or 

olfactory means at least weekly by operating personnel. walk-.· . 

tluough. · 

(F) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, 

other than a valve or line used for safety relief, shall be equipped 

with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve. Except during 

sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

(G) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by leak-checking for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using 

an approved gas analyzer. For valves equipped with rupture discs, a 

pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture 

"- disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at 

, the earliest opportunity, but no later than the next process shutdown. 

Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded bonnet 

bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a 

rupture disc or venting to a control device are exempt from monitoring. 

(H) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher 

pressure than process pressure, seals degassing to vent control 

systems kept in good working order, or seals equipped with an 

automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged 

pumps, or sealless pumps (including, but not limited to, diaphragm, 

canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are eXe.mpt from monitoring. 

(I) All other pump and compressor seals emitting . 

. VOC shall be monitored with an approved gas analyzer at least 

quarterly. --

(J) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for a period of at least two years, the operator of the oil and 

gas facility may request in writing to the Office of Air Quality, New 

Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised 

~based on the percent of valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking 

·shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves leaking during · 

current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by 

the total number of valves subject to the requirements. lbis request 

shall include all data that has been developed to justify the following 

modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%; an owner or operator may begin to skip one of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, 

an owner or operator may begin to skip tluee of the quarterly leaic 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

. (2) · Owners or operators who are subject to· subsection 

(a)(9) or (10) of this seeticiri shall corriply with the following . requirements. · · · · · 

, , . (A)_ No component shall be allowed to have a VOC 

leak for more than 15 days after the leak is found which exceeds a 

VOC • concentration· greater than 500 ppmv for all coinp01wnts 

e-Xcept pumps and compressors and greater than 2, 000 ppmv for' -

pumps and compressors above background as methane, propane, or 

hexane, or the dripping or exuding of process fluid based ori sight, 

smell, or sound. The VOC fugitive emission components which 

contact· process fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial 

pressure or vapor pressure of less than 0.044 psia at 100 degrees 

Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement H VOC fugitive 

emission components_ are in service where the operating pressure is 

at least 0.725 psi (five Kpa) below ambient pressure, these components are also ~xempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is made available upon request by 

agency representatives, the EPA, or any air pollution control agency 

having jurisdiction.· All piping and valves two inches nominal size 

and small~ . are . also exempt from _this requirement. 

(B) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to. 

repair a VOC_leaking process fugitive component within 15 days 

after the leak is detected. H the repair of a component would require 

a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled 

-shutdown. All leaking components which cannot be repaired until a 

scheduled shu~own shall be identified for such repair by tagging. 

·The executive director. at his or her discretion, may require early· 

unit shutdown or other appropriate action based on the number and 

severity of· tagged leaks awaiting shutdown. 

(C) New aqd reworked underground process pipelines 

containing VOCs shall contain no buried valves such, that process 

fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical 

, · (D) To ihe- eXtent that good engineering practice will 

permit; new and reworked valves and piping connections in VOC 

service shall be so located to be reasonably accessible for leakchecking during plant operation. Valves elevated more than two 

meters above a support surface will be considered non-accessible 

and shall be identified in a list to be made available uiX>n r_~u_;st. 

-~- -~ . .· 

. (E) New artd reworked piping connections in VOC 

service shall be welded o~ flanged. Screwed connections are perrAi.s~ 

sible only on piping smaller than two-inch diameter. No later than 

the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation or 

replacement, all new or reworked connections shall be gas-tested or 

hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating pressure and 

adjustments made as necessary to· obtain leak-free performance. 

Flanges in VOC service shall be inspected by visual, audible, and/or 

olfactory means at least weekly by operating personnel walkthrough. ·· 

(F) Each open-ended valve or line in VOC service, 

other than a valve or line used for safety relief, shall be equipped 

with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve. Except during 

sampling, the second valve shall be closed. 

(G) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by leak-checking for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using 

• ADOPTED RULES April 12, 1996 21 TexReg 3199 

J 
·-

-

an approved gas analyzer. For valves equipped with rupture discs, a 

pressure gauge shall be installed between the relief valve and rupture 

disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at 

the earliest opportunity, but no later than the next process shutdown. 

Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded bonnet 

bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a 

rupture disc or venting to a control device are exempt from monitoring. 

(H) Dual pump seals with barrier fluid at higher 

pressure than process pressure, seals degassing to vent control 

systems kept in good working order or seals equipped with an 

automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submerged 

pumps, or sealless pumps (including, but not limited to, diaphragm, 

canned, or magnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring. 

(I) All other pump and compressor seals emitting 

VOC shall be monitored with an approved gas analyzer at least 

quarterly. 

(J) After completion of the required quarterly inspections for a period of at least two years, the operator of the oil and 

gas facility may request in writing to the Office of Air Quality, New 

Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised 

based on the percent of valves leaking. The percent of valves leaking 

shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves leaking during 

current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by 

the total number of valves subject to the requirements. This request 

shall include all data that have been developed to justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, 

an owner or operator may begin to skip one of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection 

periods with the percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, 

an owner or operator may begin to skip three of the quarterly leak 

detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

(K) A directed maintenance program shall be used 

and consist of the repair and maintenance of VOC fugitive emission 

components assisted simultaneously by the use of an approved gas 

analyzer such that a minimum concentration of leaking VOC is 

obtained for each component being maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days of being placed back into 

VOC service. 

(3) For owners and operators who are subject to the 

applicable parts-of subsection (a)(ll) of this section, auditory and 

visual checks for S01 and H1

S leaks within the operating area shall 

be made every day. Immediately, but no later than eight hours upon 

detection of a leak, oi>erating personnel shall take the following 

actions: 

(A) isolate the leak; and 

(B) commence repair or replacement of the leaking 

component; or 

(C) use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the leak until repair or replacement can be made if immediate 

repair is not possible. 

(d) Approved test methods. 

21 TexReg 3200 April 12, 1996 Texas Register • 

( 1) An approved gas analyzer used for the VOC fugitive 

inspection and repair requirement in subsection (c) of this section, 

shall conform to requirements listed in 40 CFR 60.485(a) and (b). 

. (2) Tutweiler analysis or equivalent shall be used to.,> 1/f':' 

deterJ?ine ~e H2S content as required under subsections (a) and. (e) ·' '1.·. 

of th1s sec non. · . :: . .. ·: · 

(3) Proper operation of any con&nser used as a ·voc 

emissions control device to comply with subsection (a)(5) 'of this · 

section shall be tested to demonstrate compliance with the minimum · 

control efficiency. Sampling shall occur within 60 days after start-up . 

of new or modified facilities. The permittee shall contact the Engi" 

neering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division 45 days· 

prior to sampling for approval of sampling protocol. The appropriate . 

regional office· in the region where the source is located shall also be 

contacted 45 days prior to sampl..iilg to provide them the opportunity 

to view the sampling. Neither the regional office nor the Engineering 

Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division personnel are 

required to view the testing. Sampling reports which comply with . 

the provisions of the "JNRCC Sampling Procedures Manual," Chap-·. 

ter 14 ("Contents of Sampling Reports," dated .January 1983 and 

revised July 1985), shall be distributed to the appropriate regional 

office, any local programs, and the &lgineering Services Section, 

Air. QualitY Enforcement Division. 

(e) Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. 

( 1) If the operator elects to install and maintain ambient 

~S property line monitors to comply with subsection (a)(ll) of this 

section, the monitors shall be approved by the Engineering Services 

Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division office in Austin, and 

shall be capable of detecting and alarming at H1S concentrations of 

ten ppmv. Operations personnel· shall perform an initial on-site 

inspection of the facility within 24 hours of initial alarm and take 

corrective actions as listed in subsection (c)(3)(A)-(C) of this section 

within eight hours of detection of a leak. 

(2) The results of the VOC leak detection and repair 

requirements shall be made available to the executive director, his or 

her designated representative, or any air pollution control agency 

having jurisdiction upon request. Records, for all components. shall 

include:· 

(A) appropriate dates: 

(B) test methods; 

(C) instrument readings; 

(D) repair results; and 

.. 

I 

(E) corrective actions. Records of flange inspections 

are not required unless a leak is detected. 

(3) Records for repairs and replacements made due to 

inspections of H,S and SO, components shall be maintained. 

(4) Records shall be kept for each production: processing, and pipeline tank battery or for each storage tank if not located 

at a tank battery, on a monthly basis, as follows: 

(A) tank battery identification or storage tank identification, if not lat:ated at a tank battery; 

(B) compound stored: 

(C) monthly throughput in barrels/month: and ' 
(D) cumulative annual throughput, barrels/year. r' • :"j .• :~ : ·_, .· •' • •· • • • I• 

. (5) . A plan shall be submitted . to show how ongoing 

• compliance will be demonstrated for the efficiency requirements 

y listed in subsection (b)(1)(D) of this section. The demonstration may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, or other operating parameters. . . ' ' .. ' 

(6) Records shall be kept. on at least a monthly baSis of 

all production facility flow rates (in standard cubic feet per day) arid 

total sulfur content of process vents 'or. flares or gas processing 

streams. Total sulfiir shall be calculated in long tons per day. 

(7) Records shall be kept oi all ambient property'~­ monitor alarms and shall include the date. time. duration. and cause 

of alarm, date and time of initial on-site inspection. and date and 

time of corrective actions taken. ; .. (8) All required records shall be made available to representatives of the agency, the EPA, or local air pollution control 

agencies upon request and be kept for at least two years; · All 

required records shall be kept at the plant site, unless the plant site is 

unmanned during business hours. For plant sites ordiliarily unmanned during business hours, the records shall be maintained at th~ 

nearest office in the state having day·to~y operations control of the 

plant site. . ' . . 

§116.621. Mlmicipa/ Solid Waste Landfills. A person may claim a 

standard permit for the construction or modification to a municipal 

solid waste landfill (MSWLF) or municipal solid waste facility 

(MSW facility) as defined in §101.1 of this title (relating to Definitions), includilig. but riot limited to, Type I. Type l-AB. Type II, 

Type m, Type IV, TyPe IV-AE, Type VI, and Type IX sites as 

defined in §330.41 of this title (relating to Types of Municipal Solid 

Waste Sites). . . . 

• · (l) An MSWl.F and associated waste acceptance and 

, handling facilities which comply with §116.610 of this title (relating 

to Applicability), except §116.610(a)(l) of this title; §116.611 of 

this title (relating to Registration Requirements); §116.614 of this 

title (relating to Standard Permit Fees); and §116.615 of this title 

(relating to General Conditions)' qualify for a standard permit. 

(2) Separate p~t authorization i.Jnder Subchapter B of 

this chapter (relating to New Source Review Permits) must be 

obtained for the. following: .. 

. . (A) · industrial solid waste .solidification/stabilization 

facilities; 

(B) outdoor ·burning; 

· (C) . ~aste u;cineration other. than that used to co~trol landfill gas emiSsions; · 

. (D) landfill cells in which any regulated quantities of 

hazardous waste will be placed; 

~ (E) MSWLF and MSW facilities with passive collection systems as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

§60.751; and 

(F) any project which constitutes a new major source, 

or major modillcation under the new source review requirements of 

the Federal Clean Air Act, Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration review) or Part D (nonattainment review) and regulations 

promulgated thereunder shall be subject to the requirements of 

• 

§ 116.110 of this title (relating to Applicability) rather than this 

subchapter. · ' ·' . . . . . . , . " ' · · ' .· · . . . I , ~-i _- • ~ , ·, . , _ , _. . . .. , . '- .. 

(3) ' Registration shall mclude. in addition to the informa.: 

tion required by §116.611 ,of this title, 'an" initial. design capacity ' 

report iD accordance with 40 CFR, §60.757(a)(2).' · .. - , ' . · · .. 

· (4). The permit holder shall comply with the air emissions standards as specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW, with· 

the following additions and changes; ' . , · · ; . .. ·• 

. . (A) " The gas . collection ·and control. system. (GCCS) 

shall. c:Onform with specificationl! for active collection ·systems as specified in 40 CFR, §60.759. .. , . . . ·' 

(B). The GCCS . shall be · designed to control. 

nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) gas emissions in one or 

more of the following ways by ~uting ~ total co_llected gas to: 

. . (i) an open flaCe with a minimum height of 30 feet 

and which satisfies all of the requirements of §116.211of this title· 

(relating to Standard Exemption J,lst), Standard Exemption Number 

80, except that registration using Form P1-7 or Pl-8 shall not be 

required; ' 

• 

(ii) a ~ntrol device (such as ·an enclosed flare) 

with a minimum vent release height of 30 feet and which reduces 

the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98%, or to less than 20 

parts per million by volume {pJ)rllV), as hexane; 

(iii) a gas treatment system that proce~ th~ collected gas for subsequent use or sale. The sum of all emissions from 

any atrilo5plieric.vent from the gas treatment system shall be subject 

to the requirements of clause (ii) of this_ s~,~bparagrapli; · · · · 

. (iv) - gas or liquid fuel~fired stationary internal 

combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines that satisfy all of. 

th.e requirements of §116.211 of this title, Standard Exemption 

Number 6, except that registration using Form PI-7 or PI-8 shall not 

be required; or · 

(v) boilers, heaters, or other combustion units, but 

not including stationary internal combustion engines or turbines, that 

satisfy all of the requirements of §116.211 of this title. Standard 

Exemption Number 7. · · · 

· (C) The active GCCS may be capped or removed 

only if, in addition to the· requirements·, listed in 40 CFR. 

§60.752(b)(2)(v), the MSWLF is permanently closed pursuant to· 

§§330.250;-330.256 of this title (relating to Closure and Postclosure). ··· · ·. ·: · · .· ·. ' . '·' :· . . . ·· ' 

(5) MSWLF ~ers and operators shall monitor~ ~d control particulate matter_-as. follows. . . . . - . .· 

(A). All material handling and transport operations 

shall tie conducted in a manner so as to' minimize any fugitive 

particulate matter emissions. 

(B) Roads and other areas subject to vehicle traffic 

shall be paved and cleaned. watered, or treated with dust-suppressant 

chemicals as necessary to control particulate matter emissions. 

(C) During excavation, MSWl.F cells. shall be watered or treated with dust-suppressant chemicals as necessary to 

control particulate matter emissions. 

(6) High volume air sampling for net ground level con- centrations of total particulate matter shall be performed upon 

request of the executive director or a designated representative. Each 

ADOPTED RULES April 12, 1996 21 TexReg 3201 

J 

JJI; 

. 

·. 

. 

I ' I I 

! : : 

..._ ., 

li 

i 
-

. ' 

-·-

L 

.. 

test shan consist of at least one upwind and one downwind sample 

taken simultaneously. The tests shall be performed during normal 

operations. A monitoririg plan for high volume sampling shall be 

developed in accordance with the Office of Air Quality Management 

Plan, Appendix I (United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, dated 

-February 1995) and the "lNRCC Sampling Procedures Manual," 

· Chapter 11 ("Particulate Matter," dated January 1983 and revised 

July 1985), and shall require approval by the executive director or a 

designated representative prior to sampling. The executive director 

or a designated representative shall be afforded the opportunity to 

observe all such sampling equipment, operations, and records upon 

request. · · 

(7) GCCS components (compressor seals. pipeline 

valves, pressure relief valves in gaseous service, flanges, and pump 

seats) at an MSWLF or MSW facility, where the total of all 

. estimated uncontrolled fugitive emissions from all comp(,nents is 

greater than ten tons per year, shall be inspected and maintained 

pursuant to the requirements of §116.620(c)(l)(A)-(J) of this title 

(relating to Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities), with the following changes and -additions. 

(A) Instead of the definition in §116.620(c)(l)(A) of 

this title, a leak shall be defined as the escape of gas with a total 

organic compound concentration greiter than or equal to 10,000 

ppmv above background as methane; or the dripping or exuding of 

process fluid based on sight. smell, or· sound. 

(B) In §116.620{c)(1)(C) of this title. new' and reworked underground pipelines containing NMOC that are located 

within the gas collection area and are in continuous vacuum service 

may contain buried valves. 

(C). In §116.620(c)(1)(E) of this title. high density 

polyethylene pipe connections may be fused or flanged. . 

(D) In addition to those components exempted in 

§116.620(c)(1)(A)-(J) of this title, the following additional components are exempt from the maintenance and inspection protocols: 

(i) components which are in a continuous vacuum 

service; 

(ii) valves which are not externally regulated, such 

as in-line check valves; -

(iii) pressure relief valves which are downstream 

of an intact rupture disc; and 

_ (iv) reciprocating compressors which are equipped 

with degassing vents and vent Control systems. · 

(E) Alternate methods of fugitive monitoring may be 

used, subject to the approval of the executive director. 

(8) The owner or operator of each MSWLF unit shall 

maintain complete and up-to-date records sufficient to readily determine continuous compliance with the requirements of this section 

for the previous five years of operation. All the records shall be 

maintained in an operating record in accordance with 

§330.113(b)(ll) of this title (relating to Recordkeeping Requirements). The records shall be available for review upon request by 

representatives or any local air pollution agency having jurisdiction. 

The following recordkeeping requirements shall apply, in addition to 

those specified in 40 CFR 60. Subpart WWW. 

(A) Permit holders who are subject to a standard 

exemption specified in paragraph (4) of this section shall maintain 

any records specified in the exemption. 

l, 

1

,. 21 TexReg 3202 April 12, 1996 Texas Register • 

(B) Permit holders who are subject to paragraph (7) 

of this section shall maintain a leaking-components log in accordance with §116.620(e)(2). of this title. .. · · · !_ ·• < .. • . 6[·. 

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has ~n r~~.;.,'ed by: ~:­ legal counsel and found to be a vali::t exercise of the agency's authoritY •. · • - ' - t. ~- ~ . ~ '. • • 

Issued in Austin, Texas·, on March 27, 199ft 

TRD-96043n Kevin McCana • ,. . .. 

Director, Legal' Servlcei DM&Ion · · . 

Texas Na!Ural Resource Con&erva!ion Comrfli&slon · 

Effective date: April 19, 1998 '· 

~~ ptblicalion date: October 6, 1995 

For hl1her information, please ~1: (512) 239-1966 

• • • 

Chapter 120. Control of Air Pollution From· 

Hazardous W-aste or Solid Waste Management 

Facilities · 

Subchapter B. Pollution Prevention Require-

. ments: Source Reduction· and Waste Minimi- · 

zation 

• 30 TAC §§120.101-120.103, 120.105-120.11~, 

The Texas NatLral ResoLrce Conservation Commission (TNRCC) 

adopts the repeal of §§120.101-120.103 and §§120.105-120.110, concerning Definitions, Ponutants and Contaminants, AppriCability, SoLrce 

Reduction and Waste . Minimi~tion _ Plans, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requi'ements, Exel11)tions, Enlorcemert, Compliance 

Schedules, and Confdertiality, without changes to the proposed text 

as published in the January 2, 1998, issue of the Texas Register (21 

TexReg 21). - · · 

The repeals are part of a rules revision pr*Ct to i::tentify TNRCC rules. ~l and regulations which need clarifiCation for the benefit of the''p!blic; ~ appear to be outdated, seem to ifTl)OSe regulatory requi'ements in 

excess of their cortrbution to the commission's mission, or are duplic¢ed, umecessary, or inconsistert. In this case, the repealed rules are 

duplicated in 30 TAC Chapter 335, Slbchapter Q, concerning Industrial 

Sord Waste and Munic~l Hazardous Waste. · - . . . ~ .:· . .· .. . . \ 

30 TAC Chapter 120, Slbchapter B, and 31). TAC Chapter 335, 

Subchapter Q, were developed to satisfy requirements of Senate Bill 

1 099, relefred to as the Wasle Reduction PoriCy Act of 1991, passed 

by the 72nd Texas State Legislature. 30 TAC Chapter 120, Slbchapter 

B, became redundart when the Texas Air Control Board and the Texas 

Water Commission merged to form the TNRCC on September 1, 1993. 

A public hearing was held January 23, 1998 in Austin. The plbriC 

comment period closed February 2, 1998. c: '· 

One comrnenter slbmitted testimony regardi!l!J §§120.101-120.103 

and 120. 1 05-120.11 0. Texas Utilities Services, ~nc. (TU) stJR)Orted the 

proposed repeals, noting that they will eliminate ~lication of existing 

regulations contained in 30 TAC Chapter 335, Slbchapler Q.' TU 

believes that the repeals win reduce potertial contusion in the regulated 

community and supports the agency's efforts to streamHne existing 

regulations where possible. No comments were received from persons 

who opposed the proposed changes. . 

The repeals are adopled under Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas 

Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provi::tes the TNRCC the 

authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and PlJ'POS&S of the 

TCAA. 

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by 

legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on March 27, 1998. 

TRD-9604378 Kevin McCalla 

Dlreclor, Legal Services Division 

Taxaa Narural Reeource Conservallon Commlsalon . 

Effective date: April 19, 1998 

.-, 

~