GEORGE W. BUSH GOVERNOR 

### Ms. Jane Saginaw Regional Administration STATE OF TEXAS OFFICE oF THE GovERNOR 

### April 19, 1996

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency Region 6 1445Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 DearMs. Saginaw: 

# rn ®

# rn**~** 

# w**~ r~**  

# • -9- W'

Enclosed arerevisionsto 30TACChapter 116,_whichwereadoptedbytheTexasNatural ResourceConservationCommission(commission) onMarch27, 1996. Thecommission adopted amendmentstoChapter 116, SubchapterF, §116.610, concerningApplicability, and §116.617, concerning StandardPermitList, and new §116.620, concerning Installationand/orModification ofOil and GasFacilities, and §116.621, concerning Municipal SolidWasteLandfill. Theamendments and new sections establisha standard airpermitfor municipal solid wastelandfillswithnew, amended, ormodified municipal solidwastepermitsand reorganizedthestandardpermitrulelanguageto allowincreased efficiency in proposingnew standardpermitprovisions. Therevisions arebeing submitted toyou as a proposedrevisiontothe StateImplementationPlan (SIP). Also enclosed is a publichearing certification, as requiredby40CFR §51.102(f), a complete record ofthe public**hearing~** 

### andtheadoption Order. I lookforward toyourexpeditiousapproval ofthis revisiontotheTexas SIP.

# ~ .BUSH Enclosure cc: 

### Mr. BarryMcBee, Chairman, TexasNaturalResourceConservation Commission 

### Mr. DanPearson, ExecutiveDirector, TexasNaturalResourceConservation

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 byReducingandPreventingPollution



### THE STATEOFTEXAS § COUNTY OFTRAVIS §

This is to certify that the attached are true and correctcopies ofrevisions to 30TAC Chapter 116 and the State Implementation Plan adopted on March27, 1996 pursuantto 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR), §51.104. Priorto the adoption ofthe revision, apublic hearing was heldpursuantto 40 CFR, §51.102(a), and notice ofthe hearing was given which conformed to the requirements of40CFR, §51.102(d). Iam the custodian ofthe records ofthe Commission.

To**certi~y** 

### which, witness my hand andthe seal ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, this**t~te** 

### 27thday ofMarci:. 1996.

# &~

# ..**~.:..J:J, 04-?'~~**  Gloria Vasquez ChiefClerk Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-1000Texas 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 ofthe public hearing and is divided into the following four sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal
o Written and Oral Testimony
o Evaluation ofTestimony
o StaffRecommendations

Additional copies ofthis 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 ofthe proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publication ofthe notice ofpublic 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 ofthe proposed rules in the Texas Register on October 6, 1995. Publication ofthe public hearing notice in the Texas Register on October 10, 1995.

3. Correspondence forwarding the notice ofpublic hearing to the following officials and agencies:
Speaker ofthe House Lieutenant Governor Dallas Department ofHealth and Human Services El Paso City-County Health District FortWorth Public Health Department Galveston County Health District Houston Department ofHealth and Human Services Harris County Pollution Control Department City ofEl Paso

### North Central Texas Council ofGovenunents Houston-Galveston Area Council South East Texas Regional Planning Conunission Arkansas Department ofPollution Control and Ecology Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality New Mexico Air Quality Bureau Oklahoma State Department ofHealth U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

# -

-**··~** ::**·~··_:** ...··:. ;.:·



# - EXAMPLE OF NEWSPAPER CLASSIFIED AD



# I

NOncEOf 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 Te_xas Health

and Safety Code, 382.017; 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 116and 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 ofTNRCC Build- ing E located at 12118 NorthfH-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 datewill be con-. · sidered by the commission prior to any final action on the proposal. Please mail commentsto Lisa Martin, Ot**g~~~~ 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 TexasRegister. Material receivedby thelNRCC 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 herebygiven thatpursuant to therequirements of the Texas Health_and Safety Code. §382.017; Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code ofFederal Regulations. §51.102ofthe 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 ofOil and Gas Facilities, and §116.621.concerningMunicipal SolidWasteLandfill. The amendments and new sections would reorganize the numbering of the standard permits. New §116.621 would establish a standardairpermitfor aMunicipal SolidW&Ste Landfill with new, amended, or modified municipal solid waste pennits. The sections are proposed to allow increasedefficiencyinproposing**~ew** standard permitprovisions. Comment is specifically solicited on §116.621. concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. · Apublichearingontheprojlosalwill beheldNovember6, 1995, at 10:00a. m. in Room 254S ofTNRCCBuildingB, located at 12118Northlli-35,Park35TechnologyCenter. Austin. The hearing is structured for the receiptoforal 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 staffmem- 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 ofpublication ofthe 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 ofPolicy 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 (20TexReg 8091). Thecontactperson, DeborahWilliams. phone numberwas published incorrectly. Thephone 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 ofProtective and Regulatory Services (PRS) is sedcing informationregarding the availability ofqualified service providers tO conduct an economic impact and cost/benefit study of recent changes tO the minimum standards for licensedday-care centers inTexas. 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 ofchildren. The study will examine changes in the child/staffratios, group sizes. and
. square footage requirements of the minimum' standards that were adopted in 1994. The goals ofthe economic impact aspect ofthe study are to determine the differential and actual economic impact ofthe changes for facilities, the average cost increase for centers which are impacted and how that costis 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 andPeriodic 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. Thedepartment oritsdesignee makes direct vendor payments to providers of durable medical equipment participating in the Medicaid program. Participating providers are reimbursed within the limitsofthe 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) [ifno 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 olsubsections (d)-(g) ol §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 Instal· lalion and/or ModifiCation olOil 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 olthe subsections inthe 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 astandard permit lor aMunicipal 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 areaor adesign 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 inthe 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; orthe amount constituting the major so...-ce definition lor MSWLFs and Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (MSW facilities) (as defined in 30TAC §101.1. concerning Definitions) located in ozone nonattainment areas (as defined in 30 TAC §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 emissionrate orestablisha thresholdvalue of 150 Mgper year. The federal standard iscurrently 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, theTNRCCwould 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 gasGeneration Rate Constanttodemonstrate thatthe 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 TAC §§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 associatedwith materialhandling andtransport; 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{10) 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 byvolume (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(1O)(C) shall not exceed the limitations of the equipment, including travel speeds. Proposed §116.621(11) describesthe 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 TAC 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 asthe 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 mayexperience 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 publicbenefit anticipaled as a result ofenforcingthe sectionswiU bethe 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 10:00 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. Opendiscussionwithinthe 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 be30 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 tothe attention of Usa Martin, Officeof 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. §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 [§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 ofthis 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 ofhealth and property ofthe 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 ifthe 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 achange in the method of control of emissions. a change in the characterofthe emissions. or an increase in the discharge of the various emission as comparedto 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 applicabilityofand 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) Allchanges 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.] · §I16.617. 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 orthis 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 emittotal uncontrolledemissions 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 reliefvalves that discharge to the atmosphere only as aresult offue or failure ofutilities. emitting sulfurcompounds 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 theForm 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 naturalgasglycoldehydration 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) Anycombustion unit (excluding flares. internal combustion engines.ornaturalgasturbines). with adesign maximum .heatinputgreater than40million British thermal units (Btu) per hour (using lower heating values) shall not emit more than 0.06 pounds ofnitrogen 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 accordingto subparagraph (C)(i) ofthisparagraph. {(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)ofthis 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 thanone quarter ofa 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 fugitiveemissions 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 crudeoil or gas service asdefmed 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 ofwaste gas, max- imum tip velocity, and pilot flame**monitor~** ing._ If necessary to ensure adequate combustion. sufficientgas shall be added to make the gases combustible. An infrared monitor is considered equivalent to 

### athermocouple for flame monitoring purposes. An automatic ignition system may be used in lieu of a continuous pilot. [(xiii) Appropriate documentation shall be submittedto demonstrate that compliance with the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) and · nonattainment new source review (NSR) provisionsoftheFCAA. Parts Cand 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 SourceReview Permits) instead ofthis 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 ofAir 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 orliquid petroleum gas. fuel gas containing no more than ten grains oftotal 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. Ifaflare is the only combustion unit on aproperty, 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. Vapormountedprimary 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 ofafloating 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 rooftank exceed ten tpy of VOC or ten tpy of sulfur compounds, the tank emissions shall be routed to adestruction device. vaporrecovery 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 aseparator (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 minimurn destruction efficiency shall be achieved by adestruction device or equivalent; or . [(-b-) 95% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by a vapor recovery system or equivalent. · [(C) Inspectionrequirements. ((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 aVOC concentration greater than 10. 000partsper millionbyvolume (ppmv) above background as methane. propane, or hexane, or the dripping or exuding ofprocess 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 exemptfrom this requirement. IfVOC 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 FederalNew 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 oftagged leaks awaiting**wu~own.** . [(ill) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shallcontain 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 morethan two meters above asupport 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 asecond valve. Exceptduring 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 reliefvalve and rupture disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall bereplaced at the earliest opportunity. but nolater 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 emittingVOC 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 SourceReview Division that the momtaring schedule be revised based on the percent of valves leaking.**~e perce~t**  .of valves leaking shallbedetermmedbydividing the sum ofvalves 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 detectionperiodsfor 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 beginto skipthreeofthe quarterly leak detectionperiodsfor 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. IfVOC 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 duringplantoperation. Valveselevated more than two meters above asupport 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

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 reliefvalve 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 exemptfrom monitoring; [(IX) All other pump and compressor seals emittingVOC 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, NewSourceReviewDivision that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent of valves leaking. The percent of valveS leaking shall bedeterminedbydividing the sum ofvalvesleaking**~uring c~rrent**  monitoring and valves for which repall' has been delayed by the total number ofvalves 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 periodsfor 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 threeofthe quarterly leak detection periodsfor thevalvesin gas/vapor 

# )and light liquid service. [(XI) Adirected maintenance program shall be used and consist ofthe repair and maintenance ofVOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by the use of an approved gas analyzer such that aminimum 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 laterthan eight hours upon detection ofa leak, operating personnel shall take the following actions: [(I) isolate the leak; and [(m commence repair**o~**replacementofthe leakingcomponent;**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 Division45 days prior to sampling for approval ofsampling 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.AirQuality 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 officein Austin, and shall becapable of detecting and alarming at H3S concentrations of ten ppmv. Operations personnel shall perform
.an initial on-site inspection ofthe 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 ofdetection of a leak. [(ii) The results of the. VOC leakdetection andrepairrequirements 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 offlange inspections are not required unless a leak is detected. [(iii) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections ofH,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 ofprocess 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 ofalarm, 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 repre- . sentatives ofthe 1NRCC. EPA. or local air pollution control agencies upon request and be kept for at least two years. All required records shall bekept 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 ofthe plant site.] " §116.620. /nsrallaJion and/or ModificaJion ofOil 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 sulfurdioxide (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 aresult offire or failure ofutilities. 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. ornatural gasturbines). 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 lessthan 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) ofthis 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 isless 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) ofthis 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) ofthis 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 ofminimum heating values of waste gas. maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame monitoring. Ifnecessary to ensure adequate combustion, sufficientgas 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 nonattainmentnew 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 SourceReviewPennits) instead ofthis 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 ofAir 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 I00 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. Ifa 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· mountedprimary with rim-mounted secondary seal shall be used. (B) Mechanical shoe or liquid-mountedprimary 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 ofa 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 adestruction device, vaporrecovery 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 orgreater than ten tpy. but less than 50 tpy. a minimum of 80% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by either operating a condenserand 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 minimumcontrol efficiency shall be achieved by a vapor recovery system or equivalent. (c) Inspection requirements. (1) Owners oroperators 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 aVOC leakfor more than 15 days after the leakis 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 ofprocess 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 ofless 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 airpollution agency havingjurisdiction. All piping and valves two inches nominal size and smaller, unless subjecttoFederalNSPS, requiring a fugitive VOC emissions leak detection and repair program or Chapter 115 of this title (relating to Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds). are also exempt from this requirement. (B) All technically feasible repairs shall be made to repair aVOC leaking process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. Ifthe 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 considerednon-accessible and shall beiden· tified in a list to be made available upon request. (E) ·New and reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be welded orflanged. 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 operatingpressureand 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 equippedwithacap, blindflange, 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 reliefvalve 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 drivenpumps) are exempt from moni· toring. 

# en All otherpump 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 ofat least two years. the operator ofthe oil and gas facility may request in writing to the 'INRCC, Office of Air Quality, New SourceReviewDivision that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percentof valves leaking. The percent ofvalves leak· ing shall bedeterminedby dividingthe sum ofvalves leilingduring current monitoring · and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number ofvalves 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 than2. 0%. anowneroroperator may begin to skip one of the quarterly leak detection periods for thevalves ingas/vaporand 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 detectionperiods for thevalvesingas/vapor and light liquid service. (2) Owners oroperators 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~** aVOC leak for more than 15 days after the leak is found which ex· ceeds aVOC concentrationgreaterthan 500 ppmv for all components exceptpumps 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 emissioncomponents which contact process fluids where the VOCs have an aggregatepartial pressure or vaporpressure ofless than 0.044 psia at 100degrees Fahr· enheit are exemptfrom 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. Ifthe 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 executivedirector. 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. ScrewedcoMections 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 equippedwith 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 reliefvalve 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 reliefvalves 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 systemskept in good working orderorseals 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 ofat least two years, the operator ofthe 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 ofvalves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum ofvalves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number ofvalves 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 periodsfor 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 detectionperiods 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 hoursupon detection ofa 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 canbe made ifimmediate 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 operationofany 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 ofthe 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 ofdetection ofa leak. · (2) The results ofthe 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 havingjurisdiction 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 offlange inspections are not required unless a leak is detected. (3) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections ofH,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) Aplan Shall be submitted to show how ongoing compliance will bedemonstrated for the efficiency 'requirements listed in subsection (b)(l)(D) ofthis 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 amonthly basis ofall 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 ofcorrective 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 ofthe plant site. §Il6.621. Municipal Solid Waste Lund

### fill. Operation ofaMunicipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) as defined in §101.1 of this title (relating to Definitions), including, but not limited to. the installation ofemission control equipment or implementation of control techniques for Type I, Type 1-AE, TypeIT. Type ill.Type N.TypeIVAE. Type VI. and Type IX sites as defined in §330.42 ofthis title (relating to Types of Municipal Solid Waste Sites). (1) The MSWLF and associated waste acceptance and handlingfacilities that comply with §116.610 ofthis 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 ofhazardous 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 calculatedby 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 ofthe 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. L 0 ·

## = 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 ofeither 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 ofthis 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 ofan activegascollection 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 of40 CFR, §61.753 ofthe 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 ofcells in theMSWLF, which is either covered by final cover or in which refuse has been placed for aperiod 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 of30 feet and that isdesigned, 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 systerrtmay 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 of30 feet and thatreduces the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98% ortoless 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 ofall 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 totalcollected 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 ofthis 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 orturbines, that satisfy all ofthe requirements of Standard Exemption Number 7. Emissions from these combustion units shall be limited to the amounts found in §ll6.2ll(a)(l) ofthis title. (5) The owner(s) or operator(s) of an municipal solid waste facility whose calculated NMOCemission rateexceeds 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·ofthe Federal Register (56 FR 24468).
. (6) The active GCCS may be capped orremovedonly ifall ofthe following conditions are met· (A) the MSWLF unit shall not have accepted waste at any time during the previous sixconsecutive 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 thresholdvalueonthree successivetestdates. 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 ofinfluence 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) TestMethod 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) executivedirectoror adesignated 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 ofAir Quality, New Source Review Program in Austin. Alternative test method proposals for New Source Performance Standard testing shall be submitted to· the TNRCC Office ofAir**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 ofdust 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 oftotalparticulate matter shall be performed upon request of the· TNRCC executive director or a designated representative. Each test shall consist of at leastoneupwind and onedownwind 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 ofAir 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) ofthe MSWLF unit at least once each quarter shall perform leak testing on all locations on the surface ofthe MSWlFuni_t covered by final cover and all- locations on the surface of the MSWLF unit which have been covered by intermediatecoverfor over six months. The TNRCC executive director or designated representativeshallbe afforded the opportunity toobserve 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 morethan 50feet 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 lNRCCOffice ofWaste 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 compoundleaksfrom 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 ofgas with a total organic compound concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv above background methane, propane,orhexane; orthe dripping orexuding ofprocess fluid detectedbysight, smell, or sound. Emissions from all compressor seals. pipeline valves. pressure reliefvalves 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 ofdetecting the leak. (C) All leaking components which cannot be repaired within 15 days shall be identified with a readily visible weatherprooftag 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/closedvalve, a blind flange, aplug, 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 conductgas-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 ofless 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 elevatedmore than two meters above asupport surface; (vi) sealless and leakless valves (including, but notlimited 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.OfficeofAir Quality, New Source Review Program. that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the ·percent of valves leaking. The percent ofvalves leaking shall be determined by dividing by the total number ofvalves subject to the monitoring requirements into the S\Jm of the valves leaking during the current monitoring and thevalves for which repairhas been delayed. This request shall include all data developedtojustify the following modifications in the monitoring· schedule. (i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the percent ofvalves 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 ofthe quarterly leakdetection 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) thelocation, type (e.g., valve or seal), andtag identification number of the component; (ii) the date and instrument reading ofthe initial check procedure upon discovery of the leaking component; (iii) the date of the leaking component repair; (iv) the date and instrument reading ofthe recheckprocedure 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 thatcannot 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) ofeach 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 ofthe 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 instrumentreading ofthe recheckprocedureupon repair of the leak; (vi) a calibration record for the monitoring instrument; and (vii) an identification of leaks thatcannotbe repairedwithin 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 aGCCS shall maintain complete and up-to-date records of the data used for the annual calculation ofthe 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 publishedin the·May 30. 1991, issue ofthe 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 concentrationsofthe landfill gas ateachwell in' . ·:

### ..·;· 

## . •**:._~-.-.L. :_·._;_~.:_;:..:..,_**  • '·-'- --**-·~·-·--** .



# ) the gas collection header on a monthly basis; (iv) simultaneously with the GCCS installation, install aflow indicator (mass flowmeter) that automatically provides a continuous record ofgas 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 thecover 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) ofthe 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 Servicea Olvtalon Taxaa 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 applicationdeadlinefrom December31 of the tax year for which.the use determination is being sought to January31 ,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 ofthe 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 maybe sent tothe applicant requesting whatever additional inlormation is needed to complete the review. The rule language is being revised to clarify that the administrative andtechnicaldeficienciesare 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 $100to $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. Atotal of 786 applications for use determina-

. lion were received for tax year 1994. Of this total, 84% were Tier Iapplications, 10%were Tier II, and 6.0% were Tier Ill. The fee revenues are broken down asfollows: 44%ofthe 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 befiscal 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 forTier II and**T~er** Ill applicants. FeesforTier 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 businesseswill range from a decrease of $50 to an increase of$1,500.The effectson 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 bycompanies or personsthat 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 be30daysal\er the daleofpublication of this · 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 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, ExecutiveDirector 

## TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas byReducingandPreventing 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 giventhat pursuant to the requirements ofthe 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 (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 ofOil and Gas Facilities, and §116.621, concerningMunicipalSolidWaste 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 modifiedmunicipal solid waste permits. The sections areproposedto allow increased efficiency in proposing new standard permit provisions. Comment is specifically solicited on §116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. Apublic hearing on the proposal will be held November 6, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 254S ofTNRCC Building E, locatedat 12118 NorthIH-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 willbe availableto discuss the proposal 30minutes priorto 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 ofwritten comments will be 30 days after the date of

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

### PAGE TWO 

### publicationoftheproposed rules inthe Texas Register. Material receivedbytheTNRCC 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 ofPolicy and Regulatory Development, MC 202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711- 3087, and reference Rules
.Tracking Log #95103-116-AI. Please fax comments to (512) 239-5687. Copies ofthe revision are available at the central office ofthe 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. Forfurther information, please contact Monica Pesek at (512) 239-1971. Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attendthehearing shouldcontactthe 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 ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification 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 ofOil and Gas Facilities, and new §116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.

The proposed amendments involve the deletion ofsubsections (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 ofOil and Gas Facilities. This paragraph is proposed for renumbering as the new §116.620.

The proposal is intended to increase efficiency inproposing new standardpermitprovisions. With the existing structure, the TNRCC is experiencing delays inproposing new standardpermits. The proposed renumbering ofthe subsections inthe existing standardpermit rules to complete sections would enable more timely consideration ofnew standardpermitprovisions. 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 standardpermitfor a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) with new, amended, ormodified municipal solid waste permits. The MSWLF standardpermit would provide an alternative to the New Source Review permitprocess ofChapter 116, Subchapter B, §116.110, concerning Applicability, ifit is demonstrated that the applicant satisfiesTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification 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 designcapacity exceeding 100,000megagrams (Mg) in anozone nonattainment area or a designcapacity exceeding 2,500,000 Mg in an ozone attainment area shall be calculated using the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) procedures in40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR), §60.753 ofthe proposed federal rulespublished in the May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal Reaister (56 FR 24468) with minor modifications.
Proposed §116.621(3) requires that owner(s) oroperator(s) ofa MSWLF include the calculated maximum expected NMOC emissionrate for the MSWLFunits.
Proposed §116.621(4) establishes requirements for MSWLFs ifthe calculated NMOC emissionrate exceeds the threshold level. The threshold level is defmed as the lower ofeither the federal standard for the NMOC emissionrate which requires the installationofanactive gas collectionand control system or 150 Mg per year; or the amount constituting the major source defmition for MSWLFs and Municipal SolidWaste Facilities (MSW facilities) (as defmed in 30TAC §101.1, concerning Defmitions) located in ozone nonattainment areas (as defmed in 30TAC §116.10, concerning General 

# -

-Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollutionby Pennits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 3

Definitions). The TNRCC staffhas reviewed the EPA's Standards ofPerfonnance 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 currentlyproposed as 50 Mg per year. The 50 Mg peryear standard is undergoing review by the United States Office ofManagement and Budget. Upon promulgation ofa federal standard, the TNRCC would address any discrepancies betweenthe federal and state standard. In the eventthat the federal rule is not enactedby the date ofadoption ofMSWLF standardpennitprovisions, the 150 Mg NMOC emission rate will be

- incorporated. Forbackground infonnation, refer to the Federal Reiisterdated Thursday, May 30, 1991, Standards ofPerfonnance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control ofExisting Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule, Guideline and Notice ofPublic 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 Constantto demonstrate that the NMOC emisslon rate is less than the threshold value. Proposed §116.621(4)(B) provides the option to submitplans for an active gas collection and control system (GCCS).
Proposed §116.621(5) requires owner(s) oroperator(s) ofan 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 ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Constructionor Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Proposed §116.621(6) establishes the conditions for capping or removing an active GCCS; and references 30TAC §§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 ormodifications that may be approved by the TNRCC in advance ofthe measurements. The testing methods allow for the determination for compliance, collectionefficiency, and the integrity ofthe MSWLF cap.

Theproposed §116.621(8) requires MSWLFunit owner(s) and operator(s) to monitor and control particulate matterby minimizing any fugitive particulate matter emissions associated with material handling and transport; and maintaining all roads and areas onthe property subject to vehicle traffic by watering, treating with dust-suppressant chemicals, orpaving and cleaning as necessary to achieve maximum control ofdust emissions.
Proposed §116.621(9)describes the procedures for developing a monitoring plan for high volume air sampling and references the TNRCC Office ofAir 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, datedJanuary 1983 and revised July 1983).

The proposed §116.621(10) describes the inspection and maintenance protocols for MSWLF unit surface leaks; and defines a leak as a sustained reading for a minimum ofone minute of500parts per 

# -



# -

# - Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI
million by volume (ppmv) total organic compounds (including methane and ethane) measured as Page 5

methane, propane, orhexane. The paragraph states that leak testing shall be performed at least once each quarter using an instrument that meets the apparatus specifications ofEPA Test Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A). The area ofthe leaks shall be identified with orange fluorescent paint and a readily visible marker. Leaks shall be repaired within 15 days upon detection ofthe ieak, unless the repair requires excavation. Excavationrequires a planfor approval by the TNRCC executive director. The velocity ofthe probe mentioned in §116.621(10)(C) shall not exceed the limitations ofthe 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 reliefvalves 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 hydrocarbongas analyzer and with all technically feasible repairs to be made within 15 days ofdetecting the leak.

The proposed§116.621(12) requires the owner(s) or operator(s) ofeachMSWLF unit to maintain records sufficient to readily determine ifcompliance with the requirements ofthis paragraph was maintained. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are defmed. The intent ofthe requirements is to obtain data that is compatible to link this chapter to 30TAC Chapter 330, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Division, and establish consistencybetween the two chapters.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New ConstructionorModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 6

StephenMinick, Strategic Planning and Appropriations Division, has determined that for the first fiveyearperiod the sections are in effect there will be no significant fiscal implications for state government
as a result ofenforcing oradministering the sections. There will be costs associated with installing a GCCS. The EPA has estimated a cost effectiveness factor of$500to $2,000perton ofNMOC reduced with variability depending upon such factors as the type ofrefuse, MSW facility location, and MSW facility size. The costs will be incurredunder the requirements ofthe New Source Review Subchapter Bpermit and the standardpermitprovisions. However, local governments that own and operate new or modified MSWLFs may experience a cost savings with regard to permit fees as a result ofreceiving approval for a standardpermit.

Mr. Minick also has determined that for eachyear ofthe first five years the section is in effect the public benefit anticipated as a result ofenforcing the sections will be the possibility ofimproved health due to emission reductions achieved through the installation ofGCCS. The TNRCC anticipates that small businesses may experience a cost savings,,since the MSWLF standard permit is an alternative to the New Source Review permitprocedures. The 2.5 million Mg capacity exemptionis also beneficial for small businesses located in ozone attainment areas. There is no anticipated economic cost to persons who are requiredto comply withthe sections as proposed. The MSWLF standardpermit is an alternative that is expectedto 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 ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 7

is structured for the receipt oforal or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order ofregistration. Open discussion within the audience will not
occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC staffmember will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes priorto the hearing.

Writtencomments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office in Austin. The deadline for submissionofwritten comments will be 30days after the date ofpublication ofthe proposal in the Texas Reiister. Material received by the TNRCC Office ofPolicy and Regulatory Developmentby 4:00p.m. on that date will be considered by the commissionprior to any final actionon the proposal. Please mail comments to the attention ofLisa Martin, Office ofPolicy 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 ofthe revisions
are available at the central office ofthe 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 contactMonica Pesekat (512) 239-1971.

Persons with disabilities who have special communicationorother accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests shouldbe made
as far in advance as possible.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Conunission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 8

The amendments areproposed underthe Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas CleanAir Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC withthe authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes ofthe TCAA.

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

# -

.-,Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for .-.l"ew Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI

SUBCHAPTERF : STANDARDPERMITS



### §116.610. Applicability. Page 9

(a) Pursuantto the Texas CleanAir Act (TCAA), §382.051, projects involving the types of facilities or physical or operational changes to facilities which meetthe requirements for a standard permit listed in this subchapter [§116.617 ofthis title (relating to Standard Permit List)] are hereby entitled to the standard permit; provided however, that:

(I) (No change.)

(2) constructionoroperation ofthe project shall be commenced prior to the effective date ofa revision to this subchapter [§116.617 ofthis title] under which the projectwould no longer meet the requirements for a standardpermit;
(3)

- (5) (No change.)
(b) Any project which constitutes a new major source, or major modification under the new
source review requirements ofthe FCAA, PartC (PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationReview) orTexas Natural Resource ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Constructionor Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI
Part D (Nonattainment Review) and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be subject to the requirements of§116.110 ofthis 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 underthe Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382, and with intent ofthe TCAA, including protection ofhealth and property ofthe public and all emissions control equipment shallbe maintained in good condition and operatedproperly during operation ofthe facility.

[(e) All representations with regard to constructionplans, operating procedures, and maximum emission rates in any registration for a standard permit become conditions upon which the facility or changes thereto, shall beconstructed and operated. It shall be unlawful for anyperson to vary from such representations ifthe change will affectthatperson'srightto claim a standard permitunderthis section. Any change inconditions such that a personis no longer eligible to claim a standardpermit underthis sectionrequires properauthorizationunder §116.110 ofthis title. Theowneroroperator of the facility must notify the TNRCC ofany other change in conditions which will result in a change in the method ofcontrol ofemissions, a change in the character ofthe emissions, oran increase in the discharge ofthe various emission as compared to the representations 

### in the original registration orany previous notification ofa change in representations. Notice ofchanges in representations mustbe receivedby the TNRCC no later than 30days after the change. 

# -

-

-Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 11

[(t) All records relating to the applicability ofand compliance with the terms ofa 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 ofthe TNRCC, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or local air pollutioncontrol agencies.
[(g) All changes authorizedby standardpermit to a facility previously permittedpursuant to §116.110 ofthis title shall be administratively incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended orrenewed.] 

# -Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification 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 offacilities or physical or operational changes to facilities listed in this section qualify for a standard·permit subject to the conditions stated in §116.610 ofthis title (relating to Applicability) and §116.615 ofthis title (relatini to General Conditions).

(1)

- (2) (No change.)

[(3) Installation and/ormodification ofoil and gas facilities.

[(A) Emission specifications.
[(i) Venting or flaring more than0.3 long tons perday oftotal sulfur shall not be allowed.

[(ii) No facility shall be allowed to emittotal uncontrolled emissions of sulfur compounds, except sulfur dioxide (SO:z), from all vents (excluding process fugitives emissions) equal to orgreater than four pounds per hour unless the vapors are collected and routed to a flare.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 13

[(iii) Any vent, excluding any safety reliefvalves that discharge to the atmosphere only as a result offire orfailure ofutilities, emitting sulfur compounds other than sulfur dioxide, shall be at least 20 feet above ground level.
[(iv) New ormodified internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines permittedunder this standardpermit shall satisfy all ofthe requirements ofStandard Exemption Number 6, exceptthat registration using the FormPl-7 orPI-8 shall not be required. Emissions from engines orturbines shall be limited to the amounts found in §116.21l(a)(l)ofthis title (relatingto Standard Exemption List).

[(v) Total Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from a natural gas glycol dehydrationunit shall not exceed 10 tons per year (tpy) unless the vapors are collected and controlled in accordance with subparagraph (B)(ii) ofthis paragraph.
[(vi) Any combustion unit (excluding flares, internal combustion engines, or natural gas turbines), with a designmaximumheat input greater than40million British thermal units (Btu) perhour (using lower heating values) shall not emitmore than0.06 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 orgreater thanTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby 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) ofthis paragraph.

[(viii) No facility which is 500 feet ormore from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emituncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to orgreaterthan 25 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(i) ofthis paragraph.

[(ix) No facility which is less than500feet from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emituncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to orgreater than 25 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(ii) ofthis paragraph.

[(x) No facility shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to orgreaterthan40tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(ii) ofthis paragraph.
[(xi) No facility which is located less than one quarter ofa mile from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit hydrogen sulfide (H2

### S) or 

### S02 process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(iii) ofthis paragraph. No facility which is located at least one quarter ofa mile from the nearest off-plant 

# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI receptor shall be allowed to emit H2S or S02process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is Page 15

inspected and repaired according to subparagraph (C)(iii) ofthis paragraphorunless the H2S orS02 emissions are monitored with ambient property line monitors according to subparagraph (E)(i) ofthis paragraph. Components in sweet crude oil orgas service as defmed by Chapter 101 ofthis title (relating to General Rules) are exempt from these limitations.
[(xii) Flares shall be designed and operated in accordance with40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CPR), Part 60.18 orequivalent standard approved by the commission, including specifications ofminimum heating values ofwaste gas, maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame monitoring. Ifnecessary 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 systemmay be used inlieu ofa continuous pilot.

[(xiii) Appropriate documentation shallbe submitted to demonstrate that compliance with the PreventionofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattairunent new source review (NSR) provisions ofthe FCAA, Parts C and D, and regulations promulgated thereunder, are being met. The oil and gas facility shall be required to meet the requirements ofSubchapter Bofthis chapter (relating to New Source Review Permits) instead ofthis subchapter ifa PSD ornonattainment permit is required.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAirPollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 16

[(xiv) Documentation shall be submittedto demonstrate compliance with applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40 CFR60) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution (NESHAP, 40 CFR61).

[(xv) New and increased emissions shall not cause orcontribute to a violation ofany National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) orregulation property line standards

as specified in Chapters 111, 112, and 113 ofthis title (relating to Control ofAir Pollution From Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter; Control ofAir Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and Control ofAir Pollution From Toxic Materials). Engineeringjudgment 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 ofthe value represented by 116.610(a)(1) ofthis title.
[(xvi) Fuel for all combustionunits and flare pilots shall be sweet natural gas orliquid petroleum gas, fuel gas containing no more than 10 grains oftotal sulfurper 100 dry standardcubic feet (scdt), orfield gas. Iffield gas contains morethan 1.5 grains ofH2S or 30 grains total sulfur compoundsper 100 scdf, the operator shall maintain records, including at least quarterly measurements offuel H2Sand total sulfur content, which demonstrate that the annual S02 emissions from the facility do not exceed the limitations listed in the standardpermit registration. Ifa flare is the only combustionunit ona property, the operator shall not be required to maintain such records onflare pilot gas. 

# -

-Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 17

[(B) Control requirements.

[(i) Floating roofs orequivalent controls shall be required on all new
ormodified storage tanks, otherthanpressurized tanks which meet Standard Exemption 83, unless the tank is less than25,000 gallons innominal size orthe vapor pressure ofthe compound to be stored in the tank is less than 0.5 poundsper square inch absolute (psia) at maximum short-term storage temperature.

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

orliquid-mounted primary seal ora 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 rooftanks shall comply with the requirements under §115.112(a)(2)(A)

- (F) ofthis title (relating to Control Requirements).
[(IV) In lieu ofafloating roof, tankemissions may be routed to:Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 18

[(-a-) a destruction device such that a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of98% is achieved; or
[(-b-) a vapor recovery system such that a minimum VOC recovery efficiency of95% is achieved.

[(V) Independent ofthe exemptions listed 

### in this clause, ifthe emissions from any fixed rooftankexceed 10tpy ofVOC or 10 tpy ofsulfur compounds, the tank emissions shall be routed to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, orequivalent method ofcontrol that meets the requirements listed in subclause (IV)ofthis clause.

[(ii) The VOC emissions from anatural gas glycol dehydration unit shall be controlled as follows.
[(I) Iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 10 tons peryear, but less than 50 tons peryear, a minimumof80% by weight minimum control efficiency shallbe achievedby eitheroperating a condenser and a separator (or flash tank), vapor recovery unit, destruction device, orequivalentcontrol device.
[(II) Iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 50tpy, a minimum of: 

# -

-



# -

# ,- Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification 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 achievedby a vapor recovery system or equivalent.

[(C) Inspection requirements.

[(i) Owners or operators who are subject to subparagraph (A)(vii) or (viii) ofthis paragraph shall comply withthe 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 concentrationgreater than 10,000parts per million by volume (ppmv) above background as methane, propane, orhexane, orthe dripping or exuding ofprocess fluid based on sight, smell, or sound for all components. The VOC fugitive emission components which contactprocess fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partialpressure
or vaporpressure ofless than 0.5 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. If VOC fugitive emissioncomponents are in service where the operatingpressure is at least 0.725 pounds per square inch (psi) (five kilopascals (Kpa)) below ambient pressure, thenthese 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, orTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 20

any other air pollution agency havingjurisdiction. 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 repairprogramor Chapter 115 ofthis title (relating to Control ofAir 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. Ifthe repair ofa component would require aunit shutdown, the repair may be delayeduntil the next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components whichcannot be repaireduntil a scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such repairby tagging. The TNRCC executive director, at his orher discretion, may require early unit shutdownorother appropriate actionbased on the number and severity oftagged leaks awaiting shutdown.
[(Ill) New and reworked underground process pipelines containing VOCs shall contain no buriedvalves suchthatprocess fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical.
[(N) To the extentthat 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 elevatedmore than two meters above a 

# -



# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby 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 onpiping**s~aller** thantwo-inch diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation orreplacement, all new or reworked connections shall be gas-tested orhydraulically-tested at no less than normal operatingpressure 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 leastweekly 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. Exceptduring sampling, the second valve shall be closed.

[(VII) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitoredby leak-checking for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approved gas analyzer. Forvalves equipped with rupture discs, a pressure gauge shall be installed between the reliefvalve and rupture disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced atthe earliest opportunity, but no later than the next process shutdown. Sealless/leak.less valves (including, but not limited to, weldedTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New ConstructionorModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 22

bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and reliefvalves equipped with a rupture disc orventing to a control device are exempt from monitoring.

[(VIII) Dual pump seals withbarrier fluid at higher pressure thanprocesspressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order, or seals equipped with an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submergedpumps, or sealless pumps (including, but not limitedto, diaphragm, canned, ormagnetic drivenpumps) are exempt from monitoring.

[(IX) All otherpump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored with an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly.

[(X) After completion ofthe required quarterly inspections for
a period ofat least two years, the operator ofthe oil and gas facility may request in writing to the TNRCC, Office ofAir Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percentofvalves leaking. The percent ofvalves leaking shall be determinedby dividing the sum ofvalves leaking during currentmonitoring andvalves for whichrepair has been delayed by the total number ofvalves subjectto the requirements. This request shall include all datathathas been developed tojustify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. 

# -



# -Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 23

[(-a-) Aftertwo consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip one ofthe 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 ofvalves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip three ofthe quarterly leak detectionperiods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.
[(ii) Owners or operators who are subject to subparagraph (A)(ix) or (x) ofthis 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 exceptpumps and compressors and greater than 2,000ppmv for pumps and compressors above background as methane, propane, orhexane, orthe dripping or exuding ofprocess fluid based on sight, smell, or sound. The VOC fugitive emission components which contactprocess fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure ofless than 0.044psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. IfVOC fugitive emission components are in service where the operating pressure is at least0.725 psi (five Kpa) below ambient pressure, these components are also exemptfrom this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a list that is made available uponrequestby TNRCC representatives, the EPA, or any air pollution control agencyTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-Al Page 24

havingjurisdiction. 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. Ifthe repair ofa component would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components which cannotbe repaired until a scheduled shutdown shaH be identified for such repair by tagging. The executive director, at his orher discretion, may require earlyunit shutdown or other appropriate actionbased onthe number and severityoftagged leaks awaiting shutdown.

[(III) New and reworkedunderground 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 ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification 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 onpiping smaller than two-inch diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation orreplacement, all new or reworked connections shall be gas-tested orhydraulically-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 orline used for safety relief, shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, ora 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 installedbetween the reliefvalve andrupture disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shallbe replaced at the earliest opportunity, but no later than the next process shutdown. Sealless/leakless valves (including, but not limited to, welded bonnetbellows and diaphragm valves) and reliefvalves equipped with a rupture disc orventing to a control device are exempt from monitoring.Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-l16-AI Page 26

[(VIII) Dual pump seals withbarrier 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, submergedpumps, orsealless pumps (including, but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, ormagnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring.

[(IX) All otherpump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored with an approvedgas analyzer at least quarterly.

[(X) After completion ofthe required quarterly inspections for
aperiod ofat least two years, the operatorofthe oil and gas facility may request in writing to the TNRCC, Office ofAir Quality, New Source Review Divisionthat the monitoring schedule be revised based onthe percent ofvalves leaking. The percent ofvalves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum ofvalves leaking during currentmonitoring and valves for which repair has beendelayed by the total number ofvalves subjectto the requirements. This request shall include all data that have beendeveloped tojustify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule.
[(-a-) After two consecutive quarterly leakdetection periods with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner oroperatormay begin to skip one ofthe quarterly leakdetectionperiods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.


# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 27

[(-b-) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to orless than 2.0%, an owner or operatormay begin to skip three ofthe quarterly leakdetection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.

[(XI) Adirected maintenance program shall be used and consist ofthe repair and maintenance ofVOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by the use ofan approved gas analyzer such that a minimum concentration ofleaking VOC is obtained for each componentbeing maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days ofbeing placed back into VOC service.

[(iii) Forowners and operators who are subject to the applicable parts ofsubparagraph (A)(xi) ofthis paragraph, auditory and visual checks for 

### S02 and H2

### S leaks within the operating area shall be made every day. Immediately, but no later than eight hours upon detection ofa leak, operating personnel shall take the following actions:

[(I) isolate the leak; and
[(II) commence repair orreplacement ofthe leaking component; orTexas Natural Resource ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 28

[(III) use a leakcollection/containment systemto prevent the leakuntil repair or replacement canbe made ifimmediate repair is notpossible.

[(D) Approved test methods.

[(i) An approved gas analyzer used for the VOC fugitive inspection and repairrequirement in subparagraph (C) ofthis paragraph, shall conformto requirements listed in 40 CFR 60.485(a) and (b).

[(ii) Tutweiler analysis orequivalenfshallbe used to determine the hydrogen sulfide content as required under subparagraphs (A) and (E) ofthis paragraph.

[(iii) Properoperationofany condenserused as a VOC emissions control device to comply with subparagraph (A)(v) ofthis paragraph shallbe tested to demonstrate compliance with the minimum control efficiency. Sampling shall occur within 60 days after start-up of

new ormodified facilities. Thepermittee shall contactthe Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division45 days priorto sampling for approval ofsampling protocol. The appropriate regional office in the region where the source is located shall also becontacted45 days priorto sampling to provide them the opportunity to view the sampling. Neither the regional office northe Engineering Services Section, AirQuality Enforcement Divisionpersonnel are required to view the testing. Sampling reports which comply with theprovisions ofthe TNRCC Sampling Procedure 

# -

# -

- Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir 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) Ifthe operatorelects to install and maintain ambient H2Sproperty line monitors to comply with (A)(xi) ofthis paragraph, the monitors shall be approved by the TNRCC Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division office in Austin, and shall be capable ofdetecting and alarming at H2S concentrations of 10ppmv. Operationspersonnel shall perform an initial on-site inspection ofthe facility within 24 hours ofinitial alarm and take corrective actions as listed in subparagraph (C)(iii)(I)-(Ill) ofthis paragraph within eighthours ofdetection ofa leak.

[(ii) The results ofthe VOC leakdetection and repair requirements shall be made available to the executive director, his orher designated representative, orany air pollution control agency havingjurisdictionupon request. Records, for all components, shall include:

[(I) appropriate dates;
[(II) test methods;
[(III) instrument readings;Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI

required unless a leak is detected. Page 30

[(IV) repair results; and

[(V) corrective actions. Records offlange inspections are not

[(iii) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections of H2

### Sand 

### S02 components shall be maintained.
[(iv) Records shall be kept for eachproduction, processing, and pipeline tankbattery orfor eachstorage tank ifnot located at a tankbattery, on a monthly basis, as follows:
[(I) tankbattery identification or storage tank identification, if not located at a tankbattery;
[(II) compound stored;
[(III) monthly throughput inbarrels/ month; and
[(IV) cumulative annual throughput, barrels/year. 

# -



# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-Al Page 31

[(v) Aplan shall be submitted to show how ongoing compliance will be demonstrated for the efficiency requirements listed in subparagraph (B}(i)(IV) ofthis paragraph. The demonstration may include, but is not limited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, orother operatingparameters.
[(vi) Records shall bekept on at least a monthly basis ofall production facility flow rates (in standard cubic feet perday) and total sulfur content ofprocess vents orflares or gas processing streams. Total sulfur shall be calculated in long tons perday.
[(vii) Records shall be kept ofall ambient property line monitor alarms and shall include the date, time, duration, and cause ofalarm, date and time ofinitial on-site inspection, and date and time ofcorrective actions taken.
[(viii) All required records shall be made available to representatives ofthe TNRCC, EPA, or local air pollutioncontrol agencies upon request and be kept for at least two years. All required records shall bekept at the plant site, unless the plant site is unmanned during business hours. Forplant sites ordinarily unmanned during business hours, the records shall be maintained at the nearest office inthe state having day-to-day operations control ofthe plant site.]

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Pennits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI 

### §116.620. Installation and/orModification ofOil and Gas Facilities.
(a) Emission specifications. Page 32

(1) 

### Venting orflaring more than0.3 longtons perday oftotal sulfur shall not be allowed.

(2) No facility shallbe allowed to emit total uncontrolled emissions ofsulfur compounds, except sulfur dioxide (S02), 

### from all vents (excluding process fugitives emissions) equal to or greaterthanfour pounds perhourunless the vapors are collected and routed to a flare.
(3) Any vent, excluding any safety reliefvalves that discharge to the atmosphere only
as a result offire orfailure ofutilities, emitting sulfur compounds other than S02 

### shall be at least 20 feet above ground level.
(4) New or modified internal combustionreciprocating engines orgas turbines pennittedunder this standard pennit shall satisfy all ofthe requirements ofStandard Exemption Number 6, except that registrationusing the FonnPI-7 or PI-8 shall not be required. Emissions from engines orturbines shall be limited to the amounts found in §116.2ll(a)(l) ofthis title (relating to Standard Exemption List). 

# -

-Texas Natural Resource Conservation Conunission Control ofAir 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) ofthis section.

(6) Any combustionunit (excluding flares, internal combustion engines, or natural gas turbines), with a design maximum heat input greater than40 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour (using lower heating values) shall not emit more than 0.06 pounds ofnitrogen oxides per million Btu.
(7) No facility which is less than 500feet from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emituncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to orgreater than 10 tpy, but less than 25 tpy, unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(l) ofthis section.

(8) No facility which is 500 feet ormore from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit uncontrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greaterthan 25 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(1) ofthis section.
(9) No facility which is less than 500 feet from the nearest off-plant receptor shallbe 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) ofthis section.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New ConstructionorModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 34

(10) No facility shall be allowed to emit uncomrolled VOC process fugitive emissions equal to or greaterthan40 tpy unless the equipment is inspected and repaired accordingto subsection (c)(2) ofthis section.

(11) No facility which is located less thanonequarter ofamile from the nearest offplant receptor shall be allowed to emithydrogen sulfide (H2

### S) or 

### S02process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection ( c)(3) ofthis section. No facility which is located at least one quarter ofamile from the nearestoff-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) ofthis sectionorunless the H2Sor

### S02 emissions are monitored with ambient property line monitors according to subsection (e)(l) ofthis section. Components in sweet crude oil or gas service as defined by Chapter 101 ofthis title (relating to General Rules) are exempt from these limitations.
(12) Flares shall be designed and operated in accordance with40Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR), Part 60.18 orequivalent standard approved by the Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission(TNRCC), including specifications ofminimum heating values ofwaste gas, maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame monitoring. Ifnecessary 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 systemmay be used in lieu ofa continuous pilot.**-~**Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby 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 ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review provisions ofthe Federal CleanAir Act, Parts C and D, and regulations promulgated thereunder, are being met. The oil and gas facility shall be required to meet the requirements ofSubchapterBofthis chapter (relating to New Source Review Permits) instead ofthis subchapter ifa PSD ornonattainment permit is required.
(14) Documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable-New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40CFR 60) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution (NESHAP, 40 CFR61).
(15) New and increased emissions shall not cause orcontribute to a violation ofany National Ambient Air Quality Standard orregulationproperty line standards as specified in Chapters 111, 112, and 113 ofthis title (relating to Control ofAir Pollution FromVisible Emissions and Particulate Matter; Control ofAir Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and Control ofAir Pollution From Toxic Materials). Engineeringjudgment and/or computerized air dispersionmodeling may be used in this demonstration. To show compliance with §116.610(a)(l) ofthis title (relating to Applicability) for H2S emissions from process vents, 10 milligrams percubic meter shall be used as the "L" value instead ofthe value represented by §116.610(a)(l) ofthis title.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification 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 oftotal sulfur per 100 dry standard cubic feet (scdf), or field gas. 

### Iffield gas contains more than 1.5 grains ofH2S or 30 grains total sulfur compounds per 100 scdf, the operator shall maintain records, including at least quarterly measurements offuel H2S and total sulfurcontent, which demonstrate thatthe annual S02emissil?ns from the facility do not exceed the limitations listed in the standardpermit registration. Ifa flare is the only combustion unit ona property, the operator shall notbe required to maintain such records on flare pilot gas.
(b) Control requirements.

(1) Floating roofs or equivalent controls shall be required onall new ormodified storage tanks, otherthanpressurizedtanks which meet Standard Exemption 83, unless the tank is less than 25,000gallons in nominal size or the vapor pressure ofthecompound 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 orliquidmounted primary seal or a vapor-mounted primary with rim-mounted secondary seal shall be used.
(B) Mechanical shoe orliquid-mountedprimary 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 ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI (C) All floating rooftanks shall comply with the requirements under §115.112(a)(2)(A)- (F) ofthis title (relating to Control Requirements).

(D) In lieu ofa floating roof, tankemissions may be routed to:**(i~** a destruction device such that a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of98% is achieved; or Page 37

(ii) a vapor recovery system such that a minimum VOC recovery efficiency of95% is achieved.

(E) Independent ofthe exemptions listed in this paragraph, ifthe emissions from any fixed rooftank exceed 10 tpy ofVOC or 10 tpy ofsulfur compounds, the tank emissions shall be routed to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, orequivalent method ofcontrol that meets the requirements listed in subparagraph (D) ofthis paragraph.
(2) The VOC emissions from a natural gas glycol dehydrationunit shallbe controlled

as follows.
(A) Iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to orgreater than 10 tpy, but less than 50 tpy, aminimum of80% by weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved byTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Constructionor 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) Iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions are equalto or greater than 50tpy, a minimum of:

(i) 98% by weight minimum destruction efficiency shallbe achieved by a destructiondevice orequivalent; or

(ii) 95% by weight minimum control efficiency shallbe achieved by a vapor recovery system orequivalent.

(c) Inspectionrequirements.

(1) Owners oroperators who are subject to subsection (a)(7) or (8) ofthis section shall comply with the following requirements.
(A) No component shallbeallowed to have a VOC leakfor more than 15 days after the leak is detected to exceed a VOC concentrationgreaterthan 10,000partspermillion by volume (ppmv) above background as methane, propane, orhexane, orthe dripping orexuding of process fluid based on sight, smell, or sound for all components. The VOC fugitive emission 

# -

-Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 39

components which contactprocess fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure ofless than 0.5 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. IfVOC fugitive emission components are in service where the operating pressure is at least 0.725 pounds per square inch (psi) (five kilopascals (Kpa)) below ambientpressure, then these components are also exempt from this requirement as long as the equipment is identified in a listthat is made available upon request by the TNRCC representatives, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or any other air pollution agency havingjurisdiction. 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 ofthis title (relating to Control ofAir 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. Ifthe repair ofa component would require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components which cannotbe repaired until a scheduled shutdown shall be identified for such repair by tagging. The TNRCC executive director, at his orherdiscretion, may require early 

### unit shutdown orother appropriate actionbased on the number and severity oftagged leaks awaiting shutdown.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 40

(C) New and reworked undergroundprocess 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 reworkedpiping connections inVOC service shall be welded or flanged. Screwed connections are permissible only onpiping smaller than two-inch diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installation orreplacement, all new or reworkedconnections shall be gas-tested orhydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating pressure and adjustmentsmade as necessary to obtain leak-freeperformance. Flanges in VOC service shall be inspected byvisual, audible, and/orolfactory means at least weekly by operatingpersonnel walk-through.
(F) Eachopen-ended valve orline inVOC service, otherthan 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 ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollutionby 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 reliefvalve 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 reliefvalves equipped with arupture disc or venting to a control device are exempt from monitoring.

(H) Dual pump seals withbarrier fluid athigher pressure than process pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good workingorder, or seals equipped with an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submergedpumps, or sealless pumps (including, but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, ormagnetic driven pumps) are exempt from monitoring.

(I) All otherpump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored with
an approved gas analyzer at least quarterly.

(J) After completion ofthe required quarterly inspections for a period ofat least two years, the operator ofthe oil and gas facility may request in writing to the TNRCC, Office of Air Quality, New Source Review Divisionthat the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent ofvalves leaking. The percent ofvalves leaking shallbe determinedby dividing the sum ofvalves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number ofTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby 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 tojustify the following modifications inthe monitoring schedule.

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leakdetectionperiOds with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may beginto skip one ofthe quarterly leak detectionperiods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leakdetectionperiods with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to orless than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip three ofthe 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) ofthis section shall comply with the following requirements.

(A) No component shall be allowed to have a VOC leak for. more than l5 days afterthe leak is found whichexceeds a VOC concentration greaterthan 500ppmv for all components except pumps and compressors and greaterthan2,000ppmv for pumps and compressors above background as methane, propane, orhexane, orthe dripping or exuding ofprocess fluid based on sight, smell, or sound. The VOC fugitive emissioncomponents which contact process fluids where the VOCs have an aggregate partial pressure orvaporpressure ofless than0.044 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. IfVOC fugitive emissioncomponents are in serviceTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification 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. Ifthe repair ofa 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 shallbe identified for such repair by tagging. The executive director, at his orher discretion, may require early unit shutdown or other appropriate actionbased onthe number and severity oftagged leaks awaiting shutdown.

(C) New and reworked underground processpipelines containing VOCs shall contain no buried valves such that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical.
(D) To the extent that good engineeringpractice 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 thantwo meters above a supportTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 44

surface will be considered non-accessible and shall be identified ina 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 onpiping smaller than two-inch diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installationorreplacement, all new or reworked connections shall be gas-tested orhydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating pressure and adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. Flanges inVOC 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 inVOC 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 beclosed.
(G) Accessible valves in VOC service shall be monitored by leak-checking for fugitive emissions at least quarterly using an approvedgas analyzer. Forvalves equipped with rupture discs, a pressuregauge shall be installedbetweenthe reliefvalve 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 limitedto, welded bonnetbellows and 

# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 

### #95103-116-AI Page 45

diaphragm valves) and reliefvalves 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 thanprocess pressure, seals degassing to vent control systems kept in good working order or seals equipped with an automatic seal failure detection and alarm system, submergedpumps, or sealless pumps (including, but not limited to, diaphragm, canned, or magnetic drivenpumps) are exempt from monitoring.

(I) All otherpump and compressor seals emitting VOC shall be monitored with
an approvedgas analyzer at least quarterly.

(J) After completionofthe required quarterly inspections for aperiod ofat least two years, the operator ofthe 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 onthe percent ofvalves leaking. The percent ofvalves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum ofvalves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has beendelayed by the total"number of valves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data thathave been developed to justify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 46

(i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detectionperiods with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operatormay beginto skip one ofthe quarterly leakdetectionperiods for the valves in gas/vaporand light liquid service.

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leakdetection**peri~ds** with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to orless than 2.0%, anowner or operatormay begin to skip three ofthe quarterly leak detectionperiods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.

(K) A directed maintenance program shall be used and consist ofthe repair and maintenance ofVOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by the use ofan approved gas analyzer such that a minimumconcentration ofleaking VOC is obtained for each component being maintained. Replacedcomponents shall be remonitored within 30days ofbeing placedback into VOC service.

(3) Forowners and operators who are subjectto the applicable parts ofsubsection (a)(ll)ofthis section, auditory and visual checks for 

### S02 and H2

### Sleaks within the operating area shall be made every day. Immediately, but no later thaneight hours upondetection ofa leak, operating personnel shall take the following actions:
(A) isolate the leak; and 

# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI (B) commence repair orreplacement ofthe leaking component; or Page 47

(C) use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the leak until repair or replacement can be made ifimmediate repair is notpossible.
(d) Approved test methods.

(1) An approved gas analyzer used for the VOC fugitive inspection and repair requirement in subsection (c) ofthis section, shall conform to requirements listed in 40 CFR 60.485(a) and (b).

(2) Tutweiler analysis orequivalent shallbe used to determine the hydrogen sulfide content as required under subsections (a) and (e) ofthis section.

(3) Proper operationofany condenser used as a VOC emissions control device to comply with subsection (a)(5) ofthis section shall betested to demonstrate compliance with the minimum control efficiency. Sampling shall occurwithin 60 days after start-up ofnew or modified facilities. Thepermittee shall contact the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division45 days prior to sampling for approval ofsampling protocol. The appropriate regional office in the region where the source is located shall also be contacted 45 days priorto sampling to provide them the opportunity to view the sampling. Neither the regional office nor the Engineering ServicesTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir PollutionbyPermits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 48

Section, Air Quality Enforcement Divisionpersonnel are required to view the testing. Sampling reports which comply with theprovisions ofthe 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) Ifthe operatorelects to install and maintain ambient H2S property line monitors to comply with subsection (a)(l1) ofthis section, the monitors shall be approvedby the TNRCC Engineering Services Section, Air QualityEnforcement Division office inAustin, and shall be capable ofdetecting and alarming at H2S concentrations of 10 ppmv. Operations personnel shall perform an initial on-site inspectionofthe facility within24 hours ofinitial alarm and take corrective actions as listed in subsection (c)(3)(A)-(C) ofthis sectionwithineight hours ofdetectionofa leak.

(2) The results ofthe VOC leakdetection and repair requirements shall be made available to the executive director, his orher designated representative, or any air pollutioncontrol agency havingjurisdictionupon request. Records, for all components, shall include:
(A) appropriate dates;
(B) test methods; 

# -

-

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI (C) 

### instrument readings;
(D) repair results; and Page 49

(E) corrective actions. Records offlange inspections are not required unless a leak is detected.
(3) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections ofH2

### S and S02 

### components shall be maintained.

(4) Records shall be kept for eachproduction, processing, and pipeline tankbattery or for each storage tank ifnot located at atankbattery, on a monthly basis, as follows:
(A) tankbattery identification or storage tank identification, ifnot located at a tankbattery;
(B) compound stored;

(C) 

### monthly throughput inbarrels/month; and
(D) cumulative annual throughput, barrels/year.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification 

# . Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 50

(5) Aplan shall be submitted to showhow ongoing compliance will be demonstrated for the efficiency requirements listed in subsection (b)(l)(D) ofthis section. The demonstrationmay include, but is not limited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, or other operating parameters.
(6) Records shall be kept on at least amonthly basis ofall production facility flow rates (in standard cubic feet per day) and total sulfur content ofprocess vents orflares or gas processing streams. Total sulfur shall be calculated in long tons per day.

(7) Records shall be kept ofall ambient property line monitor alarms and shall include the date, time, duration, and cause ofalarm, date and time ofinitial on-site inspection, and date and time ofcorrective actions taken.

(8) All required records shall be made available to representatives ofthe TNRCC, the EPA, orlocal air pollutioncontrol agenciesupon request and be kept for at least two years. All required records shall bekept at the plant site, unless the plant site is unmannedduring business hours. Forplant sites ordinarily unmannedduring business hours, the records shall be maintained at the nearest office in the state having day-to-day operations control ofthe plant site. 

# -



# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI 

### §116.621. Municipal SolidWaste Landfill. Page 51

Operation ofa Municipal SolidWaste Landfill (MSWLF) as defined in §101.1 ofthis title (relating to Definitions), including, but not limited to, the installation ofemission control equipment or implementation ofcontrol 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~**ofthis title (relating to Types ofMunicipal Solid Waste Sites).

(1) The MSWLF and associated waste acceptance and handling facilities that comply with §116.610 ofthis title (relating to Applicability) and §116.615 ofthis title (relating to General Conditions) except §116.610(1) ofthis title; that comply with §116.611 ofthis title (relating to Registration Requirements); and that comply with §116.614 ofthis title (relating to Standard Permit Fees) may be issued a standardpermit.

(2) Separate pennitauthorizationmustbe obtained for the following:
(A) industrial solid waste solidification/ stabilization facilities;
(B) outdoorburning;Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 52

(C) waste incinerationotherthan that used to control landfill gas emissions; and

(D) landfill cells in which any regulated quantities ofhazardous waste will be placed.

(3) Registration for an MSWLF located in an ozone nonattainment area, as defmed in §116.10 ofthis title (relating to General Definitions), and having a total designcapacity equal to or greaterthan 100,000megagrams (Mg) or anMSWLF located in an ozone attainment area and having a total design capacity equal to orgreaterthan 2,500,000Mg shall include, in additionto §116.611 of this title, concerning Registration Requirements, the maximum expected nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) emissionrate for the MSWLFunits calculatedbyusing the procedures provided in40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR), §60.753 ofthe proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal Reaister (56 FR24468). Inthe absence ofsite-specific data, the NMOC emission rate shallbe calculatedbased uponthe maximumdesign capacity ofthe MSWLF and using the following default values: Generation Rate Constant, K 

## =0.04 one/year; and GenerationPotential, L0 

## = 125m 3/Mg. The MSWLFs that codispose industrial solid waste with municipal solid waste shall
use a default value for NMOC Concentration (CNMoc) ofCNMoc 

## = 4400partspermillionby volume (ppmv); other MSWLFs shall use a default value ofCNMoc = 1170ppmv. 

# -

-·Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI (4) The permitholder shall annually calculate the NMOC emission rate for the Page 53

MSWLFunits based uponthe actual waste managed inthe MSWLF unit to determine ifthe emission rate exceeds the threshold level. For all MSWLFs and Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (MSW facilities) (as defined in §101.1 ofthis title) located in anozone nonattainment area, the threshold level shall be the lower ofeitherthe NMOC emission rate specified in the new source performance standard regarding landfills which requires the installation ofanactive gas collection and control system (GCCS)

or 150 Mg (165 tons) per year; orthe amount constituting the major source as defmed for that area in §116.12 ofthis title (relating to Nonattainment Review Definitions) in Table I (concerning Major Source/MajorModification EmissionThresholds). For all MSWLFs located in an ozone attainment area, the threshold level shall be the NMOC emission rate specified in the new sourceperformance standard regarding landfills which requires the installation ofan active gas collection and control system or 150 Mg (165 tons) per year. Owner(s) and operator(s) ofcontiguous MSWLFunits under related control shall calculate the NMOC emission rate for the MSW facility in the aggregate for all the MSWLFunits therein. Ifthe calculations show thatthe NMOC emission rate is greaterthan the threshold level, within 90 days after thedate truitthe calculated emission rate first exceeded the threshold value, the owner(s) oroperator(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 of40 CFR, §61.753 ofthe proposedfederal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal Reiister (56 FR24468) to demonstrate that the NMOC emission rate is less thanthe threshold value; or

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New ConstructionorModification 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 ofthe GCCS from the entire area ofthe MSWLF that warrants control overthe equipment lifetime;
(ii) collect gas from each area, cell, orgroup ofcells in the MSWLF, which is eithercoveredby final cover orin whichrefuse has beenplaced for a period offive years ormore;
(iii) collect gas at sufficient extractionrate;
(iv) control NMOC gas emissions in one ormore ofthe following ways:
(I) the total collected gas is routed to anopen flare with a minimum height of30 feet and that is designed, operated, and inspected in accordance with40 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 ofa continuous pilot; 

# -·



# -.



# -

# - Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 55

(II) the total collected gas is routed to a control device with a minimum vent release height of30 feet and that reduces the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98% orto 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 ofall emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system shall be subjectto the requirements ofsubclause (II) ofthis claus;

(IV) the total collected gas is routed to gas or liquid fuel-fired stationary internal combustion reciprocating engines orgas turbines that satisfy all the requirements of §116.211 ofthis title (relating to StandardExemption List), Standard Exemption Number 6, except that registration using FormPl-7 orPI-8 shall notbe required. Actual emissions from engines orturbines shall be limited to the amounts specified in §116.211(a)(l) ofthis title; or
(V) the total collected gas is routed to boilers, heaters, orother combustionunits, but not including stationary internal combustion engines orturbines, that satisfy all of the requirements ofStandard Exemption Number 7. Emissions from these combustion units shall be limited to the amounts found in §116.211(a)(l) ofthis title.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 56

(5) The owner(s) or operator(s) ofan municipal solid waste facility whose calculated NMOC emission rate exceeds the threshold level shall within one year ofsubmitting plans specified in paragraph (4)(B} ofthis section:

(A) install the active GCCS; and

(B) operate the GCCS incompliance with40CPR, §60.754 ofthe proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal Reiister (56 FR 24468).

(6} The active GCCS may be capped orremoved only ifall ofthe following conditions
are met:
(A) the MSWLF unit shall not have accepted waste at any time during the previous six consecutiveyears and shall be permanently closed pursuant to §§330.250-330.256 ofthis title (relating to Closure and Post-Closure);
(B) the active GCCS shall have beenincontinuous operationfor at least 15 years; and 

# -

-Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 57

(C) the calculated NMOC emission rate shall be less than the threshold value
onthree successive test dates. The test dates shall be no closer thanthree 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, ormoisture, as necessary;
(B) Test Method 2E as described inproposed 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, published in the May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal Register (56 FR24468) for measuring the landfill gas production flow rate and designing the area ofinfluence ofthe active GCCS;
(C) Test Method 3C as described inproposed 40 CFR60, Appendix A, published in the May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal Register (56 FR24468) for measuring the concentration ofnitrogen inthe 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 ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New ConstructionorModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 58

(E) Test Method 21 (40CFR 60, AppendixA) for determining volatile organic compound (VOC) leaks;

(F) Test Method 25 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determination oftotal gaseous nonmethane orgaruc emissions as carbon;

(G) TestMethods 25A or 25B (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determining total gaseous organic concentrationsusing flame ionization ornondispersive infrared analysis;

(H) TestMethod 25C as described inproposed40CFR 60, Appendix A, published inthe May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal Reiister (56 FR24468) for determining NMOC in landfillgases; and

(I) alternatives ormodifications, approved in advance by the Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission (TNRCC)·executive director or a designated representative, to the test methods in subparagraphs (A)

- (H) ofthis paragraph. Requests for alternative ormodified test methods shall be submitted to the TNRCC Office ofAir Quality, New Source Review Program in Austin. Alternative test method proposals for New Source Performance Standardtesting shall be submitted to the TNRCC Office ofAir Quality, Monitoring Operations Division, Source and Mobile Monitoring Section in Austin. 

# -

-·Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification 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 onthe property subject to vehicle traffic, including MSWLF cells during excavation, shall be watered, treated with dust-suppressant chemicals, orpaved and cleaned as necessary to achieve maximumcontrol ofdust emissions with caregiven to prevent oversaturated conditions whichwould cause outgoing trucks to trackmud onto public roads and/or streets.
(9) High volume air sampling, one- and/or three-hour tests, for net ground level concentrations oftotal particulate matter shall beperformed upon request ofthe TNRCC executive director or a designated representative. Each test shall consist ofat least one upwind and one downwind sample taken simultaneously. The tests shall be performed during normal operations. A monitoring planfor high volume sampling shall be developed in accordance with the TNRCC Office of Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix I (United States Envirorunental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, dated February 1995) and the TNRCC "Sampling Procedures Manual," Chapter 11 (particulate matter, datedJanuary 1983 and revised July 1983), and shall require approval by the TNRCC executive director or a designated representative prior to 

# -



# -

-

# - Texas Natural Resource ConservationConunission Control ofAir Pollutionby 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

(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 ofone minute of 500ppmv total organic compounds (including methane and ethane) measured as methane, propane, or hexane. The owner(s) oroperator(s) ofthe MSWLFunit at least once each quarter shall perform leak testing onall locations onthe surface ofthe MSWLFunit coveredby fmal cover and all locations on the surface ofthe MSWLF unit which have beencovered by intermediate coverfor over six months. The TNRCC executive director ordesignated representative shall be afforded the opportunity to observe all such sampling equipment and records uponrequest.
(B) Surface leaktesting shall beperformedusing aninstrument thatmeets the apparatus specifications ofEPATestMethod21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A).. The iiistrument shall be calibratedbefore and aftereachtestusing zero air and the methane standard calibrationgas in accordance with the instrumentmanufacturer's recommendations.

(C) Surface leaktesting shall be performed byholding the detectorprobe two inches from the MSWLF cell surface while traversing a pattern ofparallel paths not more than 50 feet

# - Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 61

apart over all applicable surface areas. In areas where vegetationprevents 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 orcutting 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 leaktesting shall be performedonly whenthe wind speed is less than five miles perhour (mph) and instantaneous wind speed is less than 10 mph, unless the TNRCC executive director ora designated representative approves alternate wind speed limits. Surface leak testing shall be performed only when the landfill has received less than0.1 inches ofrain in the last 72 hours.

(E) The owner(s) or operator(s) ofa MSWLF unit, upondetection ofa leak, shall identify the area ofthe leak with orange fluorescentpaint and a readily visible markerthat contains the identificationnumber andthe date the leakwas detected. The marker shall not penetrate the surface and shall stand48 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 upondetection ofthe 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 ofWaste Management,

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 

### 116 #95103-116-AI Page 62

Municipal SolidWaste Division. The owner or operator shall demonstrate that repairs will be made promptly and specify the expected date ofcompletion. Leak repair methods shall reduce the total organic compound emissions to under 

### 500 ppmv and include, but are not limited to:
(i) increasing the collectionrate ofexisting 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 reliefvalves in gaseous service, flanges, andpump seals (hereafter called components) for MSWLF units 

### shallbe as follows.
(A) 

### A leak is defmed as escape ofgas with a total organic compound concentration greaterthan orequal to 10,000ppmv abovebackgroundmethane, propane, orhexane; or the dripping orexuding ofprocess fluid detected by sight, smell, or sound. Emissions from all compressor seals, pipeline valves, pressure reliefvalves in gaseous service, andpump 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 operatingpersonnel. 

# -

-Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 63

(B) All technically feasible repairs to a leaking component shall be made within 15 days ofdetecting the leak.

(C) All leaking components which cannotbe repaired within 15 days shall be identified with a readily visible weatherprooftag 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 onthe number and severity oftagged leaks.

(D) Except for safety pressure reliefvalves, no valves shallbe installed or operated at the end ofa pipe or line containing organic compounds unless the pipe or line is sealed with
a second relief/closed valve, ablind flange, a plug, or a cap. The sealing device may be removed only while a sample is being taken orduring 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 ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 64

(G) New and reworked piping connections in organic compound service shall be welded or flanged. Screwed connections arepermissible only onpiping smaller thantwo-inch diameter. No later than the next scheduled quarterly monitoring after initial installationor replacement ofnew or reworked connections, the owner(s) or operator(s) shall conduct gas-testing or hydraulictesting at no less than normal operatingpressure and make any adjustments to obtain leak-free performance.
(H) Valves equipped with rupture discs shall require the installationofa pressure gauge betweenthe reliefvalve and rupture disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced no later than the next quarterly monitoring.
(I) Test Method 21 (40CFR60, Appendix A) shall be utilized for detennining VOC leaks by instrument. The leakdetection equipment may be calibrated with methane, propane, or hexane, but the meter readout shall be parts permillionmethane.

(J) The components identified inclauses (i)-(x) ofthis subparagraph are exempt from the inspection and maintenance protocols for active GCCS organic compound leaks, providedthat the components are identified in alistmaintainedon-site that is made availableupon request by the TNRCC representatives, the EPA, orany otherpollutioncontrol agency havingjurisdiction: 

# -

-

# ·- Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI (i) components at an MSWLF where the total ofall estimated uncontrolled fugitive emissions from all components is less than ten tons peryear; Page 65

(ii) components which contact gas or liquid where the VOC emissions have

anaggregate partial pressure or vapor pressure ofless than0.5 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 thantwo meters above a support surface;
(vi) sealless and leakless valves (including, but·not limited to, welded bonnetbellows and diaphragm valves) and pressure reliefdevices which are equipped with a rupture disc upstream orrouted to a control device;
(vii) valves which are not externally regulated, such as in-line check valves;Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 66

(viii) pressure reliefvalves which are downstream ofan 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 apressure higher thanprocesspressure; 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, ormagnetic drivenpumps).

(K) After completion ofthe required quarterly inspections for aperiod oftwo consecutive years, the owner(s) or operator(s) may request in writing to the TNRCC, Office ofAir Quality, New Source Review Program, that the monitoring schedule be revisedbased on the percent of valves leaking. Thepercent ofvalves leaking shall be determinedby dividing by the total number of valves subject to the monitoring requirements into the sum ofthe valves leaking during the current monitoring and the valves for which repair has beendelayed. This request shall include all data developed tojustifythe following modifications in the monitoring schedule.
(i) After two consecutive quarterly leakdetectionperiods with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may skip one ofthe quarterly leak detectionperiods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. 

# -



# -Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 67

(ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detectionperiods with the percent ofvalves leaking equal to or less than2.0%, an owner oroperator may skip three ofthe quarterly leak detection periods for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.

(12) The owner(s) oroperator(s) ofeach MSWLF unit shall maintaincomplete and upto-date records sufficient to readily determine ifcontinuous compliance with the requirements ofthis paragraph for the previoustwo years ofoperationhave 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 requestbyTNRCC representatives or any local air pollution agency havingjurisdiction.
(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 ofthe component;

(ii) the date and instrument reading ofthe initial check procedure upon discovery ofthe leaking component;Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New ConstructionorModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI (iii) the date ofthe leaking component repair; Page 68

(iv) the date and instrument reading ofthe recheckprocedure upon repair of the leaking component;
(v) a calibrationrecord for the monitoring instrument;
(vi) an identification ofleaks that cannot be repaired within 15 days and justificationfor the delay inmaking necessary repairs; and
(vii) the total nwnber ofcomponents checked and the total nwnber of leaking components discovered.

(C) The owner(s) or operator(s) ofeach MSWLFunit shall maintain a surface cap integrity leak log. This log shall contain, at a minimwn, the following data:
(i) the location and description ofthe leak;

(ii) the date and instrument reading ofthe initial checkprocedure upon discovery ofthe leak; 

# -



# -

-Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI (iii) the steps taken to repair the leak;
(iv) the date ofthe leak repair; Page 69

(v) the date and instrument reading ofthe recheckprocedure upon repair ofthe leak;
(vi) a calibration record for the monitoring instrument; and
(vii) an identificationofleaks that cannotbe repaired within 15 days and justification for the delay in making necessary repairs.

(D) The owner(s) or operator(s) ofan MSWLF unit not required to install a GCCS shall maintain complete and up-to-date records ofthe data used for the annual calculation ofthe NMOC emissions rate, including, but not limited to:
(i) the annual calculation ofthe NMOC emission rate; and

(ii) the test results used to determine site-specific K and CNMoc factors as described in 40 CFR, §60.753 ofthe proposed federal rules published in the May 30, 1991, issue ofthe Federal**Re~ister** (56 FR24468).Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits

for New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 70

(E) The owner(s) or operator(s) ofan MSWLF unit that has installed an active GCCS shall:

(i) simultaneously with the GCCS installation, install a samplingport at each gas collection well in the gas collection header;

(ii) measure and record the gauge pressure at each well in the gas collectionheader at the point where each well is connected to the gas collection headerpipe on a monthly basis;

(iii) sample and analyze for the methane, oxygen, and nitrogen concentrations ofthe landfill gas at each well in the gas collection header onamonthly basis;
(iv) simultaneously withthe GCCS installation, install a flow indicator (mass flowmeter) that automatically provides a continuous record ofgas flow to the controldevice;
(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 orenclosedflare; and 

# -,



# -

# - Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollution by Permits

for New Construction orModification Chapter 116 #95103-116-AI Page 71

(vi) simultaneously with the GCCS installation, install, maintain, and operate a temperature monitoring device equipped with acontinuous recorder to monitor the gas temperature immediately upstream and downstream for any catalytic incinerator or chiller.
(F) The owner(s) oroperator(s) ofan MSWLF unit shall maintain up-to-date records oflandfill design and operation. These records shall include:
(i) maximumdesign capacity;

(ii) current refuse in place;

(iii) year-by-year refuse acceptance rate;
(iv) a map orplot ofthe MSW facility providing the size and location, and identifying all areas where waste may be landfilled, where waste has beenplaced, and areas with intermediate cover and final cover, including the date the coverwas placed;

(v) any changes in landfill design capacity, including, butnot limited to, area and depth ofwaste disposal, and changes to landfill operatingprocedures since the initial landfill design;Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control ofAir Pollutionby 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 ofinfluence (inmeters) ofthe 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, onSeptember 27, 1995. 

# -

-

# WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONYINDEX 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 ofArlington Hans J. Mueller, Browning-Ferris Industries Gary Butts, City ofBrownwood R.T. Bruner, City ofCorpus Christi Jole C. Luehrs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brian G. Williams, City ofGarland Brandt Mannchen, GRASP Scott Hill, HDR Engineering, Inc. Paul G. Gosselink, U.S.A. Waste Services, Inc. John Labrie, Solid Waste Association ofNorth America, Lone Star Chapter Brent W. Ryan, Waste Management ofTexas, Inc. Bill Angelo, Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency® 

### QtyofArlingtonTexas

November 6, 1995

Ms. LisaMartin Office ofPolicy andRegulatoryDevelopment MC202 TexasNaturalResource Conservation Commission P

### .0.Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

# RECEIVED

urriGE 

### OF POLICY & 

### NT qEGULATORY oEVELOPME



### RE: CityofArlington- Comments onProposed StandardPermitfor Municipal SolidWaste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-AI) DearMs. Martin: The City ofArlington supports the TNRCC's development ofthe proposed standard permit for municipal solid waste landfills. Such a permit should make significant progress towards reducing the emission ofthe pollutants that form ground-level ozone, while at the same time providing landfill owners with some certainty withregard to air control requirements. However, the City requests certain clarifications and changes to the proposed standard air permit, as discussedbelow. Arlington specifically supportsthe setting ofthe emissionsthreshold atmajor sourcelevels. 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 ofNMOC emissions. One solution to this problem would be for the standard permit to specifically set out the emissions threshold, in terms of NMOC emissions, ineachozonenonattainmentarea. Arlington also recommends this rule be clarified to limit the application ofthe standard permit thresholds to the modified areas of existing landfills. Application of the standard permit thresholdto existing landfill areas will unnecessarily complicate compliance. Inthis connection,

101 West Abram Street• Box 231 • Arlington, Texas 76004-0231 • (817) 275-3271 • (Metro 817) 265-3311

### Ms. LisaMartin November6, 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 ratherthan90 days as 

### proposed. As aparticipant inthe group Tier2 testing effort intheD/FWarea, Arlingtonlearned that this data is notnecessarily easy to obtain. Becausethis testing is new, few labs are capable ofperformingthetests. Therefore, untilthetestingbecomes moreroutine, Arlingtonbelievesthatthe standardpermitshould allowmoretimeforthistesting. Sincerely, 

# l/t14M Robert S. BytclAssistantDirector CommunityDevelopment/Health /lc

cc: TheHonorable ChairmanBarryMcBee CommissionerRalphMarquez CommissionerJohnBaker Mr. DanPearson Ms. BeverlyHartsock 

### Mr. Jeffrey Saitas 

### Mr. BryanDixon g:\letters\95103-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 SolidWaste Landfill**(Rule~** 

### Tracking Log #95103-116-AI) 

### Dear Ms. Martin: 

### Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFJ), appreciates 

### the 

### opportunity to comment on the 

### above-referenced rules. We supportthe default values which 

### are proposed for use in calculating 

### non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) 

### emission rates 

### in 

### the absence ofsite-specific data. Ourspecific 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 tothe 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) 469-0673NOV 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

## m 3

### /Mg NMOC Concentration 1170 ppmv 4000 ppmv 

### (CNMOC} Average CNMOO 

### values from tests on landfill gas at numerous BFI landfills are even lowerthan 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) addressesthe routing oftotal collected gasto gas or liquid fuel-fired stationary internal combustion reciprocating engines or gasturbines that satisfy all the requirements of Standard Exemption Number 6 as an acceptable means of NMOC control, 

## BF1 proposesthat Section 116.621(4)(8)(iv)(l) should 

# -

addressthe routing oftotal collected gas "to an openflare with a minimum height 

### of
- 30 feet 

### andthat 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 proposesthatthis Section 

### be changedto 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% orto less than 20 ppmv, as hexane.•• This change is requested in orderto address enclosedflares, which are not subjectto 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 notsupport the inclusion in the proposed regulation of a mandate that highvolume air sampling be "performed upon request ofthe TNRCC executive director or a designated representative." BFI believesthatTNRCC'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 ofthe executive director, a source may be required to perform specified sampling tests. Specifictesting should not be - addressed in the requirements ofthis regulation. Furthermore, the testing requirementNOV 06 '95 15:50 512 469 0673 TX EA /4690673 P.4/6



### proposed here does not specify whetherthe testing is for Total Suspended Particulate, for which there is no longer a National Ambient Air Quality Standard, orfor 

### 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(1O)(A) Refer tothe 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 ppmvtotal 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(1O)(D) 

### BFI opposes inclusion of specific meteorological conditions as

## a basis for determining when surface leak testing should be performed. The requirements specified herein, thattesting be performed onlywhen the wind speed is less than five miles per hour (mph), the instantaneous wind speed is less than 10mph, and less than 0.1 inches of rain 

### hasfallen 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 nextto 

## 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 ofthese instruments. Measurement ofthe 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 lightflag). 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 greaterthan 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 ofthe 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 uncoverthem and close them in orderto perform pipeline repairs. Requiring these valves to be in a valve boxwould result in creating an unnecessary confined a space, which presents a safety**hazard~** 

### In addition, this type 

### ofdesign creates a path for gasto escape the landfill and for airto enter, creating the potential 

### forfugitive 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 heatfusion process which, according tothe piping manufacturer, results in a pipe strength that exceeds the strength in the remainder ofthe 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 orflanged. 

## HOPE piping should be exempt from leak detection, monitoring, and repair requirements.
Section 116.621(11)(J)(j) The proposed regulation should specifythe means bywhich uncontrolled fugitive emissionsthat 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 orderto qualify for the exemption from inspection and maintenance protocols. 

## SectJon 116.621(11){J)

### (iii} A vacuum of 0.725 psi is equivalentto 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 ofair 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 ofdetermining 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 ofPolicy and Regulatory Development MC202 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Re: City ofBrownwood

- Comments on TNRCC's Proposed Standard Permit for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-Al) Dear Ms. Martin: The City ofBrownwood supports the comments filed by the Lone Star Chapter ofthe Solid Waste Association ofNorth 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

POSTOFFICE BOX 1389 

### • PHONE 915 646-5775 FAX 915 646-0938 

### • BROWNWOOD,TEXAS76804

# - 

# - 

# - City of Corpus =Christi

Ms. LisaMartin Office ofPolicyandRegulatoryDevelopment MC202 TexasNaturalResource ConservationCommission P.O.Box 13087 Austin, Texas78711-3087 November6, 1995**~** 

### CityofCorpusChristi

- Commentson Proposed StandardPermitforMunicipal SolidWasteLandfills (RulesTracking**Lo~:**

### #95103-116-AD DearMs. Martin: TheCityofCorpus Christi appreciates theopportunityto submit commentsontheTNRCC's proposed standard 

### airpermitfor municipal solid wastelandfills. CorpusChristi supportsthe issuance ofafinal standard airpermit. Webelievethatthe standard permit approach will obtain significant reductions in landfill gasemissions in acostefficient manner. However,becauseEPA plansto adopt itsfinal NSPS forlandfillsintheverynearfuture, CorpusChristirecommendsthat theTNRCC postponeadoption ofthefinal standard airpermituntil afterEPAadopts thefinal NSPS. This approach would allowtheTNRCCto adopt a standardpermitthatwouldbefully consistentwith theNSPS and avoid any conflictsbetween stateand federal law. CorpusChristi supportstheTNRCC'sdecisionto settheNMOCthreshold at 1SO 

### mg/year. This level is consistentwith existingTNRCC regulations (Chapter 115) and is significantlybelow major sourcelevelsfor ozone attainment areas. Any more stringentthreshold in attainment areas wouldbeeconomicallyunreasonable andunsupportedby currentresearch data. 

### Ifamore stringentthreshold is adoptedbyEPA, the proposed standard 

### airpermitis designed to incorporatemore stringentfederal standards. CorpusChristi offers thefollowing comments on hoetheproposed standard airpermit couldbe improved:

• Thepermit needs to describethetypes oflandfill modificationsthat couldtriggertheneed for the standard airpermit. Theregulationsmust clarifYthatjustbecause an activity is defined as a "modification" in themunicipal solid wasteregulations it doesnot automaticallyrequiretheneed for a standard airpermit.

P.O. Box 9277 • Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9277 • (512) 880-3000**~**

## City of Corpus Chnsti

• Thepennit should clarifY

### thatthe onlyareas to whichthreshold calculations apply are those areaswhichreceivenewwastepursuantto themodificationratherthanthe entire existinglandfill.
• Up to 180days shouldbe allowed to conductTier2 & 3testing.
• Thedefaultvalueforthe constant shouldbechangedtok=0.02 because SubtitleD requirements causethewastetobedrierandAP42identifiestheproposedkvalue of0.04 asbeingbased onwetwaste.
• TheCDIDOC:Defaultvalue shouldbe setat 1,170ppmvfor all

### facilities exceptthosethat accept organicindustrialwaste.

cc: TheHonorableChairmanBarryMcBee CommissionerRalphMarquez CommissionerJohnBaker Mr.

### DanPearson Ms.

### BeverlyHartsock Mr. I

### effrey Saitas Mr.

### BryanDixon

lfpermillf 

### Sincerely,

## ~~~ R. 

### T. Bruner, Director SolidWaste 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 

## 07 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 • Printedwith Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% RecycledPaper(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 

# -



# -

--CityofGarland ...J2.0. Box 469002 arland, Texas 75046-9002 214-205-2000 

# 8 Gi<RLAND REC EI.VE D
November 3, 1995 Ms. LisaMartin OfficeofPolicyand RegulatoryDevelopment MC202 TexasNaturalResource ConservationCommission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087**Ot-=t-t~E** Of POLICY &

### ~EGULATORY DEVELOPMENl



### Re: CityofGarland

- Comments onProposed StandardPermitforMunicipal Solid WasteLandfills (Rules TrackingLog#95103-116-AI) DearMs. Martin: TheCityofGarland wishesto go onrecordin supportoftheconceptofa standard airpermitfor municipallandfillsthatwas publishedintheOctober6, 1995, volumeofthe TexasRegister. However,theCityrequests certainclarificationsandmodificationstotheproposed rule, asdiscussedbelow. A standard airpermitfor municipal wastelandfills will provide theTNRCCwith anefficient mechanismto control emissions oflandfill gas while avoiding theoftenunnecessarycost ofobtaininga regular airpermit and anyrelated contestedcase proceedings. Basedonourpastexperience attheTexas AirControlBoard,it is difficult towriteconventional air permitsforlandfills. However,theuseof

# a standard airpermit should avoidtheproblemsthatwereencounteredinthepast. Thepermitteewill know ahead oftime exactlywhatcontrolswill berequired and whentheymustbeinstalled. The standardpermit should only applyin newandmodified areas ofexisting landfills. Thedisposal ofwastein existing areas, includingtheassociated air emissions, havepreviouslybeenauthorizedbythe state. Landfill owners should notberequiredto obtainadditional authorizationforthese areaswhenthey seektoexpandthe size ofthe existinglandfill. Ifthe standardpermit appliesto all areas ofanexisting landfill, the standard permitwill discourage expansionsofexistinglandfills and encouragethe constructionoflandfillsin greenfields, a goalwhich appears at oddswiththeconcept behind TNRCC's"brownfields"initiative. Garland supports settingtheNMOCthreshold atmajor sourcelevels. However, forthis provisiontobeeffective, theproposed standardpermitneedstoexplainthe relationshipbetweenNMOC and VOC emissionsbecauseTNRCCregulationsdonot

### Ms. LisaMartin Page2 November3, 1995
define major sourcesofNMOC emissions. Garland suggeststhatthe thresholdtriggerfor the standardpermit shouldbetiedtothe specificNMOC threshold for each nonattainment areainthe state. Garland suggeststhatthe standardpermitallowupto 180 days toperformTier2 testingratherthan90 days as proposed. As aparticipantinthe group Tier2testing effort intheD/FW area, Garlandlearnedthatthis dataisnotnecessarilyeasyto obtain. Therefore, Garlandbelievesthatthe standardpermit should allow more timeforthis testing.Also, Garland recommendsthatthe defaultvaluefor CNMocinthe standardpermit be set at 1,170ppmvfor all municipallandfills ratherthan at4,400 ppmvforMSW landfillsthathavereceivedindustrial solidwaste. TheTier2testingconductedinthe DIFW areademonstratesthat actual CNMbcvaluesinpre-SubtitleDlandfills are generally lessthan 1,170ppmv. Becauseall landfills subjecttothe standardpermitwillbe Subtitle Dpermits, thereis strongreasonto believethat actualCNMoc values inthese SubtitleD landfillswillbe evenfurtherbelowthepresentconcentrations and clearlybelowthe presently suggested defaultvalue of1,170ppmv. Sincerely, , 

# j

# j

# ~~~E LandfillDirector

cc: TheHonorableChairmanBarryMcBee CommissionerRalphMarquez CommissionerJohnBaker Mr.

### DanPearson Ms. BeverlyHartsock Mr. 

### Jeffrey Saitas Mr.

### BryanDixon 

# -



# -

-·

### 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. BOX30537 • 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



### November22, 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 Permitfor Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-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, toshowemission rates belowthe 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 underthe proposed standard permit, while part 

### (ii) requires the designed system to collect gas from areas orcells 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 GCCStake 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 

### November22, 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 notto evaluatethe 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 2Ewill 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 ofthe 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 ofnegative pressurewithin the refuse induced bythe 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 recommendsthatthis requirement be removed from the proposed rule. HDR is also in general agreement with those comments submitted by 

### the Texas Chapter ofthe Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Please call me at (214) 960-4400

## ifyou should have any questions regardingthese 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 Permitfor Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-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 October6, 1995Texas 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 ofthe 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 appearto 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 bythe entire landfill falling underthe 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 forthe 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

### November6, 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 longeroperating 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 accountfor 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 notto 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 

# -

### November6, 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.



### 3LLOYD, 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 ofPolicy 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 StandardPermitforMunicipalSolidWasteLandfills (RulesTracking Log #95103-116-AI) Dear Ms. Martin: The following commentstotheproposed standardpermitfor municipal solidwaste landfills ("MSWLandfills") (RulesTrackingLog#95103-116-AI) are submittedonbehalf ofUSA 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 ofa standard air permit to meet such a requirement. · Standard permits, ifproperly drafted, represent an improved approach to permitting. The use ofstandard permits can significantly reduce the red-tape and cost associated with obtaining a permit without compromising the benefits obtained. AlthoughUSAWasteendorses the conceptofusing a standardpermit for landfills, USA Wasterecommends thatthe TNRCC postpone adoption ofthe final standardpermit until at leastJanuary, 1996, to provide EPA with time to adopt a final NSPS. The threat thatthe NSPS and the standardpermit may have conflictingprovisions is real and should be avoided ifat all possible. No member ofthe regulated community wants to be in the uncomfortable position ofhaving 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 consistentwith 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 ofknowledge.

### 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 ofnew 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, mostMSW Landfills are undergoing modifications to implement RCRA Subtitle Drequirements. However, neither these modifications nor those listedin 30 TAC 305.70 should trigger the need to use the standard permit because the changes arenotmodifications as definedbytheTexas CleanAirAct. The standard permit should make it clearthat Reg VI authorization is only required for landfill expansionsbeyondcurrentlypermitted 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 ofthe 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 andwhen gas collection systems will berequired to be installed in existing areas. USA Waste recommends thatthe 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 airpermitto clarify this ambiguity. USA Waste offers the following suggested language:

3. More TimeNeededto Perform Tier 2 & 

### 3Testing- The proposed standardpermit only allows 90 days duringwhich aMSWLandfill canperform Tier 2 and/orTier 3 testing. This is an insufficient amount oftime in which to perform the testing. TheproposedNSPS wouldallow.uptooneyeartoperformthistesting. Moreover, recent experience conductingTier 2testingintheDallas/FortWorth 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 windowprovidedbytheproposedpermit. Therefore, USAWasterecommendsthat 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 ofthe following values when estimating NMOC emissions: k = 

### 0.04 (for landfills with wet waste)
= 

### 0.02 (for landfills with drier waste) Because ofthe strictrequirements ofRCRA SubtitleD, whichrestrictthe disposal ofliquids, require the use ofliners andcontrol runon ofstormwater, thewastethat is disposed ofin new and modified MSW Landfills should be considered as drier waste for purposes ofAP-42. Therefore, USA Wasterecommends thatthe default value for the "k" factor be changed to: k = 

### 0.02. USA requests that the TNRCC airpolicy rule writing staffconsult 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 theAP-42 defaultvaluesforthe "k" factorwere determined ondatacompiledfrom 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 thathave not received any industrial solidwasteand as 4,400ppmv for MSW landfills thathave received industrial solidwaste. This defaultvalue is more stringentthanthatrecommended by AP-42 because under the definition ofindustrial solid waste virtually every MSW Landfill will be considered as receiving industrial solid waste. AP-42 recommends theuseofCNMoc

## = 1,170ppmv(for landfillswith primarily municipal solid waste), and the use ofCNMoc 

## =4,400ppmv for landfills thatreceive organic industrial solid waste. Therefore, USA Waste recommends the use ofCNMoc 

## = 1,170 ppmv for all MSW Landfills except those co-disposing organic industrial solidwaste. USArepeats itsrequestthattheTNRCC's airpolicyrule-writing staff consultwiththe municipal solidwastedivisionto develop aregulatory methodthat 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. Gosselink 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 ofPolicy and Regulatory Development MC202 Texas Natural Resource

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

# 8

Re: Texas Lone Star Chapter ofthe Solid Waste Association ofNorth America

- Comments on Proposed Standard Permit for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rules Tracking Log #95103-116-AI) Dear Ms. Martin: The following comments totheproposedstandardpermitfor municipal solidwaste landfills("MSWLandfills") (RulesTrackingLog#95103-116-AI) are submittedonbehalf of the Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America ("TxSWANA"). Initially, TxSWANA wishesto express its supportfor a standardpennit for MSW Landfills and to thank the TNRCC staff (primarily Monica Pesek, David Schanbacher, GusEghneim andMargaretHoffman) for developingtheproposed standard permit and for actively seeking comment from TxSWANA and other interested groups. The use ofa standard preconstruction airpermit couldprovide 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 preconstructionpermit authorizationundertheTexasCleanAirAct(Tex. Health & 

### Safety Code§ 382.0518), the use ofa standard permit may be the only practical way to satisfy the permit requirement. Moreover, a standard permit will provide the TNRCC with a

## ~--:~,

# 1lE 

# CfE B V 

# lE**-~~** I

# U;

. I 

# 100'1 to 95

C:,..**C~** OF**OMS0:C:::~.~** :,;J

### TxSWANA Comments to Standard Permit for MSW Landfills Page 2

convenientandeffectiveregulatoryvehicletocontrol aircontaminantsemittedfrom 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 ofthe inherent variability in 

### waste composition andbecauseofthe areal extentofthe disposal area. Also, MSW Landfill gas emissions differ from emissions from many other sources ofair contaminants in that the activities thatproduce landfill gas emissions, the disposal ofsolid waste, are pervasively regulated by the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Moreover, unlike most other sources ofair contaminants, gas emissions from MSW Landfills cannot be started or stopped at will; theseemissions canonlybe stoppedbyremovingthe solidwaste from the MSWLandfill. Trying to fit MSW Landfills into the traditional air permittingprogram is in many ways like tryingto fit aroundpeginto asquare hole. Withthatfact inmind, TxSWANA urges the TNRCC to more actively seek input from its Municipal Solid Waste Division as part ofits consideration ofthese comments, especially regarding operational issues such as those discussed in specific comments 4 and 5 below. While TxSWANA wholeheartedly supports the concept ofa standard permit for MSW Landfills, TxSW ANA suggests thatthe TNRCC considerpostponing the issuance ofthe final standardpermit until the end ofthe 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 collectionand controi requirements thatare largely based onEPA'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, TxSWANA suggests that the TNRCC wait to see ifEPA promulgates the final NSPS and that the TNRCC modify the standardpermit to directly incorporate the final NSPS. TxSWANA is not urging inaction unless and until the final NSPS is issued. Rather, TxSWANA is urging the TNRCC to not rush the issuance ofthis rule. The TNRCC has six months to finalize this rule. TxSWANA 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 

# -

-

### TxSWANA 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 

### TxSWANA offers the following comments that TxSWANA believes would improve the standard permit: 1. Define/Describe Modification

- The standard permit can be used to authorize the construction ofnew 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 implementRCRA Subtitle D requirements. However, neither these modifications nor the modifications delineated in 30 TAC 305.70 should trigger the need to use the standard airpermit becausethese 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 SubtitleDorthechanges authorizedunder 30 TAC 305.70. Alsowithregard to modifications, theTNRCC needs to explainwhetherthe standard permit applies to all areas ofthe existing MSW Landfill orjust 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. TxSWANA 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 requirementthattriestoincludepreviouslydepositedwasteonpreviouslypermitted areas could create significant legal questions regarding the right ofpermittees 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

### TxSWANA 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 airpermitto 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 TimeNeededto Perform Tier 2 & 

### 3Testing- Theproposed standardpermit only allows 90 days during which aMSWLandfill canperform Tier 2 and/orTier 3 testing. This is an insufficient·amount oftime in which to perform the testing. TheproposedNSPS wouldallowup tooneyeartoperform thistesting. Moreover, recent experience conductingTier 2testingin theDallas/FortWorth 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 windowprovidedbytheproposedpermit. Therefore, TxSWANArecommendsthat 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 ofthe following values when estimating NM:OC emissions: k = 

### 0.04 (for landfills with wet waste)
= 

### 0.02 (for landfills with drier waste) Because ofthe strictrequirements ofRCRA Subtitle D, whichrestrict the disposal ofliquids, require theuse ofliners and control runon ofstormwater, thewastethat is disposed ofin new and modified MSW Landfills should be considered as drier waste for purposes ofAP-42. Therefore, TxSWANA recommends thatthe default value for the "k" factor bechangedto: k = 

### 0.02. TxSWANA further suggests that the TNRCC consultwith 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 understandingthatthe above-referenced "k" valueswere determined basedonpreSubtitle D landfills. 5. Default Value for CNMoc Should be 1.170- The proposed standardpermit sets the defaultvalue for CNMoc as 1,170 ppmv for MSW Landfills that have notreceived any industrial solidwaste and as 4,400ppmv for MSW landfillsthathavereceived industrial solidwaste. This defaultvalue is more stringentthanthatrecommended 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 theuseofCNMoc

## = 1,170ppmv(for landfills withprimarily municipal solid waste), andthe use ofCNMoc 

### = 4,400 ppmv for landfills thatreceive organic industrial solidwaste. Almost all municipal landfills in Texas receive some Class 2 or Class 3 industrial waste. A limited numberreceive Class 1organic industrial solid waste beyond household hazardous waste. Therefore, TxSWANA 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 suggestionto setthe default value at 1,170 ppmv is supportedby its recentNMOC emission testing at various Dallas-Fort Worth area landfills. Final dataon those tests will be submitted soon. However, as the TNRCC staffis aware, the level of emissions for these pre-SubtitleD landfills were all belowthe 1,170 ppmv default value much less the 4,400 ppmv value. TxSWANA is not aware ofany data regarding actual emissions from Texas municipal solid waste landfills which supports the proposed4,400 ppmv value. CONCLUSION TxSWANAappreciatestheconsideration giventothesecomments ontheproposed standard permit for MSW Landfills. TxSWANA remains committed to its stated policy ofproviding the greatest possible protection ofthe public health and the environment at thelowestpossible cost. TxSWANA's comments arebasedonthispolicy. IftheTNRCC

### TxSW ANA Comments to Standard Permit for MSW Landfills Page 6

needs any further assistance during the development ofthis standard permit, please feel free to call on me or Joe Freeland. Sincerely,

# r~ John Labrie President, Lone Star Chapter Solid Waste Association ofNorth 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. BryanDixon

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 HTATEBANKTOWER

400**w~T** 15THSTREET 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** 15HU 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. LisaMartin Office ofPolicyand RegulatoryDevelopment MC202 TexasNaturalResource

Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087

. Austin, Texas78711-3087 Re: BrazosValley SolidWasteManagement Agency PermitforMunicipal SolidWasteLandfills (Rules TrackingLog #951

### 03-

# n6-AI) DearMs. Martin: TheBrazosValley SolidWasteManagement Agency onbehalfofthe Cities of Bryan and College Station supportsthe commentsfiled bytheLone StarChapterofthe SolidWasteAssociation ofNorthAmerica ontheproposed standard airpermitfor municipal solidwastelandfills. The standard airpermit approachwould appeartobethe mostprudent courseofactionfor landfill facilities. Real reductions in airpollution canbe achieved withouttheunnecessary expense ofhavingto obtainindividual permits.

cc: TheHonorable ChairmanBarryMcBee CommissionerRalphMarquez CommissionerJohnBaker Mr.

### DanPearson Ms. BeverlyHartsock Mr. 

### Jeffrey Saitas Mr. 

### BryanDixon

P.O. Box

### 9960 2700 E. Bypass,Ste.

### 4300 CollegeStation,TX

### 77845 409n64·3806 

### Sincerely

BillAngelo ExecutiveDirector

Prrnted on Recycled PaperReference Number 0-1 INDEX OF ORALTESTIMONY 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 ofexcellence 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 Gosselink. 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 Narne 

## & 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 ( 

# ARf\'1. 

## ft-N SHA+/ ff"f-UD j<_ 

### U

## 5 I 

## L-/·rA 

# ®

8 1/ t)frl'\.'\uN 

### 'if'/ZIN**~$** 

### Yes /kJ)ItN**_'~** >c

## r 1-f1-0 

### 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"

# -ALv-'.1--t ' 

# '7X 

## 72:K' l

# ~~L--**u~s~r ~**  

# l9- VSA. L-..J4.<;..'\-e-- 

# u;v**'\l~ CON~**  

### No

### ~s.~-~v 

# LA-tt!l

# 1 ;+-ll,IZ/t-d 

### 1 

# /3rovv,...·.., S- F-<.-.-,'5

### ~J(...._;h('D Yes 

# 8 /. ·D, BJ---/ 31

# s- I 

## 7 

# ?..:< ;/'"3 IJ., ...v,_.:; /V -('""**~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 ChiefClerk's Office Beverly Hartsock, Deputy Direclory

## (11,) Office ofPolicy and Regulatory DevLJ:ent March 8, 1996

Docket No. 95-1115-RUL. Consideration for adoption of amendments to 30 TAC 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 ofOil 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 ofchanges at a time. New §116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills, establishes criteria for obtaining a standard air pennit for a new ormodified 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 ofSubchapter 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 ofthe New Source Perfonnance Standards (NSPS) for MSW landfills, 40 Code ofFederal 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 ofpassive systems after the owner or operator has provided information to demonstrate the collection system will satisfactorily control off-site migration ofThe Commissioners Page 2 March 8, 1996 Subject: Docket No. 95-1115-RUL

landfill gas. This type ofindividual review is beyond the scope and intent ofthe 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 TAC 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 permitprovides 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 ofthe consequences ofSenate Bill No. 2, which passed in 1991 and resulted in the formation ofthe 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 ofthese sections (§361.073) specified that the Texas Air Control Board would perform a technical review ofthe 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, MSWfacilities 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 ofthis state shall obtain a permit. Because many MSW landfills are operated by local governments and because ofthe difficulty and expense these facilities will suffer in obtaining an air quality permit pursuant to 30 TAC Chapter 116, the Office ofAir 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 ofComments: 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 ofAir 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 ofWaste 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 ofWaste 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 ofOil 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 ofthe Texas Register (20 TexReg 8168). Section 116.617 is adopted without changes and will not be republished.

The amendments include the deletion ofsubsections (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 ofchanges 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

1Review permit process ofChapter 116, Subchapter B. The standard permit alternative specifies operating and control requirements, but does not require modeling or a health effects review.

The cmmnission staffhas 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 ofthe Texas Register (20 TexReg 8168), the staffhas incorporated the adopted federal standards into the final rulemaking.
Paragraph (1) of §116.621 specifies sections ofthe 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 ofthe 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 reliefvalves in gaseous service, and pump seals.
Paragraph (8) of §116.621 requires the owner or operator ofeach MSWLF unit to maintain records sufficient to readily determine ifcompliance 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 ofthat assessment. The purpose ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofArlington (Arlington); Browning-Ferris Industries Southern Region (BFI); the City ofBrownwood (Brownwood); the City ofCorpus Christi (Corpus Christi); the EPA; the City ofGarland (Garland); Galveston Houston Association for Smog 3

### Prevention (GHASP); HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR); Lloyd, Gosselink, Fowler, Blevins and Mathews, P.C., on behalfofUSA Waste Services, Inc. (USA Waste); the Texas Lone Star Chapter ofthe Solid Waste Association ofNorth America (TxSWANA); McElroy & 

### Sullivan, L.L.P., on behalfofWaste Management ofTexas, Inc. (WMTX); and the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency (BVSWMA), on the behalfofthe Cities ofBryan 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 TxSWANA 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 orModification 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).

Withthis rulemaking project, no changes were madetothecontent ofthe standardpennit for theinstallation and/ormodification ofoil andgas facilities. Modificationto the oil and gas standardpennit was limitedto the renumbering ofsubsections. Duringthe negotiations for the final oil and gas standardpennit, a tiered approachwas devised to allow oil andgas facilities to be constructed ormodified within certain distances to off-plant receptors under certain conditions. With thetiered approach, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) as well as 4 

# -



# -

-

### protection of public health and welfare are still ensured. Forfurther explanation, see the August 18, 1995, issue ofthe Texas Register (20 TexReg 6324).

GHASP stated that under §116.620(b)(l), the 25,000 gallon cut-offsize 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 thresholdhas been the historical limit for BACT. The conunission finds the 25,000 limitation on tankstorage size to be consistent with its definition ofBACT. Furthermore, there is no provision in this standardpermit 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 approachfor control ofglycol dehydrators is BACT and this approach ensures the protection ofpublic health andwelfare.

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 ofthe rule in order to reduce ozone precursors maximally and further stated that this will result in savings ofproducts and pollution control equipment. GHASP also objected to the phrase "reasonably accessible" under subsection (c)(l)(D) and (2)(D). 5

### Atiered approach for leak detection levels is used to allow oil andgas facilities to be constructed
ormodified within certain distances to off-plantreceptors under certain conditions. Withthe tiered approach, BACT as well as protection ofpublic health and welfare are ensured. As to the comment regarding what valves andfittings are "reasonably accessible," the commission believes thatreasonably accessible valves arethose which would not expose monitoring personnel to immediate danger, such as beingless thantwo meters above a support surface. Forfurther explanation, see the August 18, 1995, issue ofthe Texas Register (20 TexReg 6324).

MSWLFs- Comments. Arlington, Brownwood, BVSWMA, Corpus Christi, Garland, TxSWANA, USA Waste, and WMTX supported the adoption ofa standard air permit for MSWLF. TxSWANA stated that the use ofa 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 ofstandard permits can significantly reduce the red tape and cost associated with obtaining a permit without compromising the benefits obtained.



### The commission agrees that the standardairpennitwill provide equivalent environmental benefit to the Chapter 116, SubchapterB airpennit, atless cost to theregulated community and the TNRCC.

6 

# -



# -

-

### TxSWANA and USA Waste supported the use ofa standard air permit ifnew and modified landfills
are legally required to obtain separate air quality permits.



### The TCAA requires any person who plans to construct any new facility orengage in the modification ofany existing facility which may emit air contaminants into the air ofTexas to obtain an air quality permit. The definitions ofMSWLF andMSW facility in 30 TAC Chapter 101 reflect the agency's view thatlandfills arefacilities. This position is consistent with the federal NSPS for MSWLF.
Corpus Christi, TxSWANA, and USA Waste recommended that the TNRCC postpone adoption ofthe 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 adoptedthe NSPS on March 1, 1996. The final state rule has been revised to be consistent with the adopted NSPS.

TxSWANA recommended that the TNRCC modify the standard permit to directly incorporate the final NSPS.



### The commission agrees with TxSWANA andhas directly incorporatedthe entire final NSPS by reference. 7

### TxSWANA, USA Waste, and Corpus Christi requested an explanation ofwhat physical and operational changes at a MSW facility will trigger the need for a standard permit to authorize the construction ofnew and modified MSW facilities. Arlington and TxSWANA stated that it is important that the TNRCC make clear thatjust 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 mosttypes offacilities receiving air permitsbecause constructionis- an ongoing process as new cells (disposal units withintheMSWLF) are added. The commission intendedthat Chapter 116 authorizationbe required forMSWLF expansions andthat such authorization is not needed for solid waste permit amendments ormodifications 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 ofthe existing MSW facility orjust 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 ofwaste 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 ofthe existing landfill. Garland noted that ifthe standard permit applies to all areas ofan 

### 8 

# -



# -

-

### existing landfill, the standard permit will discourage expansions ofexisting landfills and encourage the construction oflandfills 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 ofGCCS be specifically required only in modified areas. Arlington stated that application ofthe standard permit thresholds to existing landfill areas will unnecessarily complicate compliance. TxSWANA further stated that apermit requirement that tries to include previously deposited waste on previously permitted areas could create significant legal questions regarding the right ofpermittees to rely on prior authorization as well as create extensive practical difficulties in emission estimation and system retrofitting.



### The commission agrees that clarificationis 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 entirelandfill: "all contiguous land, structures, other appurtenances, andimprovements on theland used for processing, storing, ordisposing ofsolid waste." According to Chapter 116, when a facility is modified, the entire facility must obtain a permit. Thus, the area oftheMSWfacility thatis impactedby the standard permitis considered to be the entire facility. This policy is consistent withthe adopted NSPS, which requires emissions control overthe entire landfill, ratherthana portion ofit.

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 ofa standard permit may bethe only practical way to satisfy the permit requirements.



### The commission believes thatmeaningful modeling andhealth effects review cannot be done for
a MSWLF before thelandfill is 

### operating due to the difficulty in determining the characteristics and distribution ofemissions. The control imposed by this standardpermitmeets all ofthe requirements ofthe federal NSPS and is designed to ensurethat the airresources ofthe State of Texas areprotected 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 ofthe consideration ofthe 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 havebeen 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 ofa standard permit. 10 

# --

-

### The conunission agrees with WMTX that paragraph (1) 

### should reflect more certainty ofaction, and has revised it to read, "qualifyfor a standardpermit," 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, "apersonmay claim a standard permit," instead of "a standard permitmay 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 ofsitespecific 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 ofthe strict requirements ofSubtitle D, the waste that is disposed ofin 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 ofthe 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 ofCNMoc = 

### 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 inpre-Subtitle D landfills are generally less than 1,170 ppmv. TxSWANA and USA Waste further requested the development ofa 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 ofFederal Regulations (CPR), §60.753 ofthe proposed NSPS for MSWLFs published 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 (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 inparagraph (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 inthe adopted rule. To be consistent with the adopted NSPS, the commission has modified therulelanguage to directly referencethe NSPS, which addresses default values.

BPI stated that ifthe rule is conformed to the March 1995 draft final NSPS, the commission should authorize the use ofrepresentative data from historic landfill operations.



### The commission believes that representative data from historic landfill operations is not 

# -

transferableto otherMSWLF sites, because MSWLFs are unique in waste characterization and

- 12

### operation. The use ofthe default values incalculating the NMOC emission rates followed by testing provides more accurateinformation. The commission has modified the rulelanguage to directly reference the adoptedNSPS, 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 ofthe 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 ofozone 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 unreasonable and unsupported by current research data.



### The rule as proposed specified that the state rule incorporatethe NMOC emission rate (50 Mg peryear) specified inthe NSPS, provided the federal standard was promulgatedpriorto the adoption ofthe state rule, orthe agency would incorporate the use of 150 Mg per year as the threshold for requiring the installation ofthe active GCCS. The standard permit incorporates the 50 Mg peryearthreshold (emission rate cutoff), since thatis the value incorporated by the adopted NSPS. 13

### HDR noted that paragraph (4)(A) requests the determination ofthe CNMoc and (k) values and does not require a submittal ofthe recalculated NMOC emission rate utilizing the site-specific values. HDR suggested that a second NMOC emission rate calculation in accordance with the procedures of40 CFR, §60.753 ofthe 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 ofthe federal rule is referenced erroneously as 40 CFR, §61.753 when it should be 40 CFR, §60.753.

The commissionhas deleted the specific rule languageto resolve the deficiencies pointed outin HDR's comment. The commission has modified therule languageto 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 ofNMOC. 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 ofthis 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 ofNMOC 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 ofNMOC emissions in each ozone nonattainrnent area.



### VOC is a subset ofNMOC (while all 

### VOCs areNMOC, not all NMOCs are VOC). For landfills, the most predominantNMOCs thatare not VOC are ethane, methylene chloride, trichlorofluoromethane, and chlorodifluoromethane. VOC canbe determined by subtracting out the non-VOC portion ofthe NMOC. Section 116.621(2)(F) has been added to clarify that new major sources ormodifications underthefederal new source review requirements ofthe Federal CleanAirAct (FCAA), Part C (Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration) orPartD (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., inHouston, 25 tons peryear ofVOC constitutes
a major source), the permit holdermay elect to install landfill gas controls to remain below the major source level. Representations to limit the airemissions, madein the registration, become enforceable conditions ofthe standardairpermit.

Arlington, Corpus Christi, Garland, USA Waste, and TxSWANA commented on paragraph (4), concerning the proposed time allowed for submitting 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 15

### oftime, 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. TxSWANA, Arlington, and Garland stated that recent experience conducting Tier 2 testing in the Dallas/FortWorth 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 ofperforming the test.

The commission hasmodified the rule language by eliminating specific reference to time frames intherules, since these time frames are specified inthe adopted NSPS. Any MSWLF construction ormodification which would otherwise result ina majornew source ormodification undertheFCAA, Part C orPartD would need to install andoperatethe GCCS priorto becoming a major source, to eliminatethe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe GCCS take place in phases in accordance with the requirements ofclause (ii).



### The commission eliminated the specific rulelanguage addressed inHDR's comment to be consistent with the requirements ofthe adopted NSPS.

BFI proposed that paragraph (4)(B)(iv)(I) should address the routing oftotal collected gas "to an open flare with a minimum height of30 feet and that is designed, operated, and inspected in accordance with 40 CFR §60.18" and satisfies the requirements ofStandard 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 of30 feet and that reduces the total collected NMOC gas emissions by 98% orto 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 ofexpressing NMOC reductions consistent with the proposed NSPS for MSWLFs (i.e., 20 ppmv as hexane).



### The commissionhas modified therulelanguage to incorporate BFI's comment.

WMTX supported the concept ofemploying reasonable control technologies and methodologies at MSWLFs to limit particulate matter emissions in §116.621(8). WMTX stated that the proposed rule 17identifies the control technologies which can be most effectively employed to control such emissions. However, WMTX stated that the use ofthe phrases "minimize any fugitive particulate matter emissions" and "achieve maximum control ofdust emissions" could be construed to suggest a constantly escalating, but never satisfied requirement to employ any conceivable means ofcontrolling such emissions. In addition, some ofthe control technologies identified are obviously not appropriate for use on all ofthe areas identified (e.g., paving ofa 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 particulatematter emissions, which may also be associated these facilities. The commission believes thattheterm "minimize" contains anelement oftechnical practicability and economical reasonableness and disagrees thattheterm suggests a constantly escalating means ofcontrolling emissions. The commissionmodifiedthe rulelanguage, now paragraph (5), inresponse to the comments concerningthe maximum control ofdust emissions.

BPI stated that it did not support the inclusion ofa mandate that high-volume air sampling be "performed upon request ofthe 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 ofthis 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 (PM 10), 

### for which a NAAQS does exist. BFI proposed that testing be only for PM 10•


### High-volume air sampling provides a mechanism for determining compliance in situations where estimating emissions inadvance ofoperational activity is difficult. The commission believes that high-volume air sampling is useful and economically reasonable inmeasuringemissions. This standard permit is intended to test total suspended particulates, for which state standards exist. If

### necessary, federal standardsmay be addressed under 30 TAC §101.8, concerning Sampling, which provides the commission orexecutive director the authority to request that any person owning oroperating a source which emits air contaminants conduct sampling to determine the opacity, rate, composition, and/or concentration ofsuch emissions.

WMTX suggested deleting §116.621(9) from the proposal. Due to the size and nature ofoperations at MSWLFs, WMTX stated that upwind/downwind high volume air sampling for particulate matter is unlikely to provide data useful to evaluate the control ofparticulate 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 ofidentifiable 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 orderto ensurethe effectiveness ofthe control criteria. Furthermore, the commission believes that it is difficult to 19

### anticipate all the criteriathat would necessitate sampling; thus, thecommission has not modified theruleto attempt to itemizethevarious criteriathatmight 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, andhasrevised §116.621(6) 

### accordingly.

WMTX suggested that ifthe commission adopts §116.621(10), it continue to monitor the status ofthe proposed federal rules and, ifchanges 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 ofspecific meteorological conditions as abasis 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 ofthese instruments.



### Because the adopted NSPS fully treats surface leaks, adding flexibility that was not included in the proposedversion, the commission has eliminated proposed paragraph (10) from thefinal rule. The adoptedNSPS also clarifies thata surfaceleakis measured as methane. The surface leakrequirements are now directly incorporated by referenceto theentirefinal NSPS in §116.621(4). 

### 20 

# -



# -

### GHASP stated that under §116.621(11)(J)(i), allowing ten tons per year (tpy) offugitives per year
seems like a lot.

The commission believes that theten tpy exemptionis appropriate. The commission believes thatrequiring MSWfacilities, often owned by local governments, to implement fugitive emission inspection andmaintenance programs at facilities with less thanten tpy offugitive emissions 

### is not economically reasonable. Since themajority ofcomponents in a GCCS are undernegative pressure, thefugitive monitoring requirements wouldnot begenerally 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 thecomponent monitoring requirements, now renumbered as paragraph (7).

Also, the commission believes thatunder certain circumstances, alternativemethods to implement fugitive emission inspection andmaintenance programs may bereasonable. Therefore, §116.621(7)(E) is addedto provide for use ofalternativemethods offugitive monitoring ifapproved by the executive director.

BFI stated that in paragraph (11)(A), leaks should be defined as "escape ofgas 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, andhas added a clarifying definition in §116.621(7)(A). 21GHASP 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 thatthe 10,000 ppm detection level is a sufficient leakdetection program for reducingVOC emissions from landfill gas collection systems. The fugitive emission andinspection program requires monitoringfor total organiccompounds, which includes methane. BecausetheconcentrationofVOC in landfill gas is low compared to thetotal organic compoundcontent, actual VOC emissions will bewell under 10,000 ppm.

BFI requested that in paragraph (ll)(E), valves installed underground solely for the purpose of isolating sections ofpipe in order to make repairs be made exempt from inspection and maintenance protocols. BFI stated that these buried valves are left in a permanently openposition, 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 ofdesign creates a path for gas to escape the landfill and for air to enter, creating the potential for fugitive leaks ofNMOC and for fires inside the landfill.

Theburied valves referenced inBFI's comments are incontinuous vacuum service andtherefore exemptunder paragraph (7)(D)(i). The commissionhas also added specificlanguagein §116.621(7)(B) to further clarifythis 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 commissionbelieves that addressing the issue ofwhich 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 of0.725 pounds per square inch (psi) is equivalent to 20 inches water column and that this amount ofvacuum is not acceptable in design and operation oflandfill gas extraction systems. BFI further stated that depending upon well location, a vacuum
over 20 inches water column would significantly enhance the probability ofair 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, andhas added anexemptionin §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 ifmonitoring is required for oxygen, as a means ofdetermining 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 ofnitrogen. Because the NSPS fully treats surface leaks, including recordkeeping, the commissionhas eliminated proposed paragraph {10), addressing surfaceleaks, andthe associated recordkeeping in proposed paragraph {12). Recordkeeping is now addressedin 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 ofMSWLFs. 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 ofnegative pressure at all ofthe well heads. HDR stated that ifthe TNRCC believes that maximum gas generation flow rates are necessary, a recommended alternative to Method 25 would be to use one ofseveral available gas generation models such as the one referenced in §60.754 ofthe proposed federal regulations. However, HDR stated that because these models only serve as a theoretical estimate ofthe gas generation rate for a

24 

# -



# -

-

### landfill, HDR stressed that model results should be used for information only, and not to evaluate the adequacy ofan installed GCCS.



### The adopted NSPS does not require Method 2E sampling. Because the NSPS fully treats the issue ofexpected gas generation flow rates, including recordkeeping, the commission has eliminated the specification.

HDR stated that in paragraph (12)(F)(vii), the calculated radius ofinfluence (ROI) ofextraction 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 ofthe landfill surface that require additional control; and ifthe 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 ofthe GCCS in place ofthe 200 meter design default spacing in the proposed NSPS and emission guidelines, the nonhomogeneous characteristics ofa landfill renders the
use ofa uniform calculated ROI to evaluate GCCS performances ineffective. Additionally, HDR stated that the presence ofnegative 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 thanthe proposed version upon which the standard permit proposal was based. Because the NSPS addresses the design layout ofcollection wells 

### 25

### andrelated recordkeeping, thecommission has eliminatedthe 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 ofthe TCAA.



### 26 

# -



# -

-

# STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSSUBCHAPTER 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 ofthe project shall be commenced prior to the effective date ofa 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 ofthe FCAA, Part C (Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Review) or Part D (Nonattainment Review) and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be subject to the requirements of §

### 116.110 ofthis 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 offacilities or physical oroperational changes to facilities listed in this section qualify for a standard permit subject to the conditions stated in §116.610 ofthis title (relating to Applicability) and §116.615 ofthis title (relating to General Conditions).

(1)

- (2) (No change.)



### §116.620. Installation and/or Modification ofOil and Gas Facilities.

(a) Emission specifications.

(1) Venting or flaring more than 0.3 long tons per day oftotal sulfur shall not be allowed.

(2) No facility shall be allowed to emit total uncontrolled emissions ofsulfur 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 reliefvalves that discharge to the atmosphere only
as a result offire or failure ofutilities, 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 ofthe requirements ofStandard Exemption Number 6, except that registration using the Form Pl-7 orPI-8 shall not be required. Emissions from engines or turbines shall be limited to the amounts found in §

### 116.21l(a)(l) ofthis 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) ofthis 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 0.06pounds ofnitrogen 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) ofthis 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) ofthis 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) ofthis 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) ofthis section.

(11) 

### No facility which is located less than 114 mile from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit hydrogen sulfide 

### (H2

### S) or 

### S02 

### process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired accordingto subsection (c)(3) ofthis section. No facility which is located at least 114 mile from the nearest off-plant receptor shall be allowed to emit 

### H2

### S or 

### S02 

### process fugitive emissions unless the equipment is inspected and repaired according to subsection (c)(3) ofthis section or unless the 

### H2

### S or 

### S02 

### emissions are monitored with ambient property line monitors according to subsection (e)(1) ofthis section. Components in sweet crude oil or gas service
as defined by Chapter 101 ofthis title (relating to General Rules) are exempt from these limitations.
(12) Flares shall be designed and operated in accordance with 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CPR), Part 60.18 or equivalent standard approved by the commission, including specifications ofminimum heating values ofwaste gas, maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame monitoring. Ifnecessary 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 ofa continuous pilot. 30 

# -



# -

### (13) Appropriate documentation shall be submitted to demonstrate that compliance with the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review provisions ofthe 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 ofSubchapter B ofthis chapter (relating to New Source Review Permits) instead ofthis subchapter ifa 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 ofany National Ambient Air Quality Standard or regulation property line standards as specified in Chapters 111, 112, and 113 ofthis title (relating to Control ofAir Pollution From Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter; Control ofAir Pollution From Sulfur Compounds; and Control ofAir Pollution From Toxic Materials). Engineeringjudgment and/or computerized air dispersion modeling may be used in this demonstration. To show compliance with §116.610(a)(l) ofthis title (relating to Applicability) for H2

### S emissions from process vents, ten milligrams per cubic meter shall be used as the "L" 

### value instead ofthe value represented by §116.610(a)(l) ofthis 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 oftotal sulfur per 100 dry standard cubic feet (scdt), or field gas. If

### field gas contains more than 1.5 grains ofH2

### S or 30 grains total sulfur 31compounds per 100 scdf, the operator shall maintain records, including at least quarterly measurements offuel H2S and total sulfur content, which demonstrate that the annual SO2emissions from the facility do not exceed the limitations listed in the standard permit registration. Ifa 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 thanpressurized 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.

(C) All floating rooftanks shall comply with the requirements under §l15.112(a)(2)(A)-(F) ofthis title (relating to Control Requirements).

32 

# -



# -(D) In lieu ofa floating roof, tank emissions may be routed to:

(i) a destruction device such that a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of98% is achieved; or
(ii) a vapor recovery system such that a minimum VOC recovery efficiency of95% is achieved.

(E) Independent ofthe exemptions listed in this paragraph, ifthe emissions from any fixed rooftank exceed ten tpy ofVOC or ten tpy ofsulfur compounds, the tank emissions shall be routed to a destruction device, vapor recovery unit, or equivalent method ofcontrol that meets the requirements listed in subparagraph (D) ofthis paragraph.

(2) The VOC emissions from a natural gas glycol dehydration unit shall be controlled

as follows.

(A) Iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than ten tpy, but less than 50 tpy, a minimum of80% 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) Iftotal 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) ofthis 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 10,000parts per million by volume (ppmv) above background as methane, propane, or hexane, orthe 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 ofless than 0.5 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. IfVOC 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 havingjurisdiction. 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 ofthis title (relating to Control ofAir 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. Ifthe repair ofa 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 oftagged 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 reliefvalve 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 reliefvalves 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 ofthe required quarterly inspections for a period ofat least two years, the operator ofthe oil and gas facility may request in writing to the Office ofAir Quality, New Source Review Divisionthat the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent of valves leaking. The percent ofvalves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum ofvalves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has been delayed by the total number ofvalves 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 detectionperiods with the percent ofvalves 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 detectionperiods with the percent ofvalves 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) ofthis 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 ofprocess 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 ofless than 0.044 psia at 100 degrees Fahrenheit are exempt from this requirement. IfVOC 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 havingjurisdiction. 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. Ifthe repair ofa 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 oftagged leaks awaiting shutdown.
(C) New and reworked underground processpipelines 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 onpiping 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 reliefvalve 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 39diaphragm valves) and reliefvalves 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 thanprocess 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, ormagnetic 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 ofthe required quarterly inspections for a period ofat least two years, the operator ofthe oil and gas facility may request in writing to the Office ofAir Quality, New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised based on the percent of valves leaking. The percent ofvalves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum ofvalves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair has beendelayed by the total number ofvalves 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 ofvalves 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 ofvalves 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 ofthe repair and maintenance ofVOC fugitive emission components assisted simultaneously by the use ofan approved gas analyzer such that a minimum concentration ofleaking VOC is obtained for each component being maintained. Replaced components shall be remonitored within 30 days ofbeing placed back into VOC service.
(3) For owners and operators·who are subject to the applicable parts ofsubsection (a)(ll) ofthis section, auditory and visual checks for 

### S02 

### and H2

### S leaks within the operating area shall be made every day. Immediately, but no later than eight hours upon detection ofa leak, operating personnel shall take the following actions:
(A) isolate the leak; and
(B) commence repair or replacement ofthe leaking component; or

(C) 

### use a leak collection/containment system to prevent the leak until repair
or replacement can be made ifimmediate 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) ofthis 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) ofthis section.

(3) Proper operation ofany condenser used as a VOC emissions control device to comply with subsection (a)(5) ofthis section shall be tested to demonstrate compliance with the minimum control efficiency. Sampling shall occur within 60 days after start-up ofnew or modified facilities. The permittee shall contact the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division 45 days prior to sampling for approval ofsampling 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 ofthe "TNRCC Sampling Procedures Manual," Chapter 14 ("Contents ofSampling 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) Ifthe operator elects to install and maintain ambient H2S property line monitors to comply with subsection (a)(ll) ofthis section, the monitors shall be approved by the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division office in Austin, and shall be capable ofdetecting and alarming at H2S concentrations often ppmv. Operations personnel shall perform an initial on-site inspection ofthe facility within 24 hours ofinitial alarm and take corrective actions as listed in subsection (c)(3)(A)-(C) ofthis section within eight hours ofdetection ofa leak.

(2) The results ofthe 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 havingjurisdiction 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 offlange inspections are not required unless
a leak is detected.

43

### (3) Records for repairs and replacements made due to inspections ofH2

### S and S02 

### components shall be maintained.

(4) Records shall be kept for each production, processing, and pipeline tankbattery
or for each storage tank ifnot located at a tankbattery, on a monthly basis, as follows:

(A) tank battery identification or storage tank identification, ifnot located at a tankbattery;
(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) ofthis 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 ofall production facility flow rates (in standard cubic feet per day) and total sulfur content ofprocess vents or flares or gas processing streams. Total sulfur shall be calculated in long tons per day.

44 

# -



# -



# -

### (7) Records shall be kept ofall ambient property line monitor alarms and shall include the date, time, duration, and cause ofalarm, date and time ofinitial on-site inspection, and date and time ofcorrective actions taken.

(8) 

### All required records shall be made available to representatives ofthe 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 ofthe 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) ormunicipal 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 ofthis title (relating to Types ofMunicipal Solid Waste Sites).

(1) 

### An MSWLF and associated waste acceptance and handling facilities which comply with §116.610 ofthis title (relating to Applicability), except §116.610(a)(l) ofthis title; §116.611 of this title (relating to Registration Requirements); §116.614 ofthis title (relating to Standard Permit Fees); and §116.615 ofthis title (relating to General Conditions) qualify for a standard permit.

45

### (2) Separate permit authorization under Subchapter B ofthis 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 ofhazardous waste will be placed;
(E) 

### MSWLF and MSW facilities with passive collection systems as defined in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR), §60.751; and
(F) any project which constitutes a new major source, or major modification under the new source review requirements ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofthefollowing ways by routing the total collected gas to:
(i) an open flare with a minimum height of30 feet and which satisfies all ofthe requirements of§116.211 ofthis 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 of30 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 ofall emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system shall be subject to the requirements ofclause (ii) 

### ofthis subparagraph;
(iv) gas or liquid fuel-fired stationary internal combustion reciprocating engines or gas turbines that satisfy all ofthe requirements of §116.211 ofthis 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 orturbines, that satisfy all ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ortreated with dustsuppressant chemicals as necessary to control particulate matter emissions.
(6) High volume air sampling for net ground level concentrations oftotal particulate matter shall be performed upon request ofthe executive director or a designated representative. Each test shall consist ofat 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 ofAir 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 reliefvalves in gaseous service, flanges, and pump seals) at an MSWLF or MSW facility, where the total ofall 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) ofthis title (relating to Installation and/or Modification ofOil and Gas Facilities), with the following changes and additions.



### 49

### (A) Instead ofthe definition in §116.620(c)(l)(A) ofthis title, a leak shall be defined as the escape ofgas with a total organic compound concentration greater than or equal to 10,000ppmv above background as methane; or the dripping or exuding ofprocess fluid based on sight, smell, or sound.
(B) In §116.620(c)(l)(C) ofthis title, new and reworked underground pipelines containing NMOC that are located within the gas collection area and are in continuous
vacuum service may containburied valves.
(C) In §116.620(c)(l)(E) ofthis 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 reliefvalves which are downstream ofan intact rupture disc; and 50 

# -(iv) reciprocating compressors which are equipped with degassing vents and vent control systems.
(E) Alternate methods offugitive monitoring may be used, subject to the approval ofthe executive director.

(8) The owner or operator ofeach MSWLF unit shall maintain complete and up-todate records sufficient to readily determine continuous compliance with the requirements ofthis section for the previous five years ofoperation. All the records shall be maintained in an operating record in accordance with §330.113(b)(ll) ofthis title (relating to Recordkeeping Requirements). The records shall be available for review upon request by representatives or any local air pollution agency havingjurisdiction. The following recordkeeping requirements shall apply, in addition to those specified in 40CPR 60, Subpart WWW.
(A) Permit holders who are subject to a standard exemption specified in paragraph (4) ofthis section shall maintain any records specified in the exemption.

(B) Permit holders who are subject to paragraph (7) ofthis section shall maintain a leaking-components log in accordance with §116.620(e)(2) ofthis title.

51This agency hereby certifies that the sections as adopted have been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise ofthe 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

# anatl'leseatofofftce on 

### APR**~** 

### 1996 

### AN ORDER adopting amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116, concerning StandardPermits and adopting revisions to the State Implementation Plan, to establish a standard air permit for municipal solid waste landfllls with new, amended, ormodified municipal solid waste permits "and to reorganize the standard permitrule language to allow increased efficiency in proposing new standard permitprovisions; Docket No. 95-1115-RUL WHEREAS, onMarch 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 ofOil and Gas Facilities, and §116.621, concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. The amendments and new sections establish a standard airpermitfor municipal solid waste landfllls with new, amended, ormodified municipal solid waste permits and reorganize the standardpermitrule language to allow increasedefficiency in proposing new standard permitprovisions; 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); and40Code ofFederalRegulations, §51.102, the Commission staff, after proper notice, conducted a public hearing onNovember 6, 1995 to considerrevisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and to the SIP; and WHEREAS, the Commission staffduly circulated to interested persons, the Regional Administrator ofthe U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all applicable local air pollution control agencies, hearing notices ofits intended action; and WHEREAS, interestedpersons were invited to submitdata, views, and recommendations on the proposed revisions, either orally or in writing, at the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies ofthe proposedrevisions were available for public inspection at the Commission's central office and regional offices prior to the scheduled hearing; and

### DocketNo. 95-1115-RUL Page2 -. ··.,

- _!'"·:.- '' ·' 

### WHEREAS, 

### data, views, and recommendations·of**interested,personS)'*~<P!it.lbinitted**

### to the Commission staffatthe hearing and were considered by the Commission staffas reflected in the attached analysis oftestimony; and ., :,;.· ·. 1'**~w!:** 

## ,··p.:,;**·~h**.. , ,..;;)"
.. ' 

### WHEREAS, 

### the TNRCC finds that said analysis oftestimony includes the names ofall 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 withthe policies and purposes of the Texas CleanAirAct; and WHEREAS,

### the Commissionfmds thatthe reasonedjustificationand fa,ctual bases for the proposedrevisions are fully set out inthe analysis oftestimony; and WHEREAS,

### the Commissionherebycertifies thatthe amendments, as adopted, havebeen reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise ofthe Commission's legal authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BEIT ORDEREDBYTHETNRCCTHAT: 1. 

### The revisions to 30

### TAC Chapter 116 

### and the SIP appended to this Order are hereby adopted and promulgated; 2. 

### On behalfofthe Commission, the Chairman should transmit a certified copy ofthis Order, together with the adopted amendments, to the Governor ofTexas for submittal to the Regional Administrator ofthe EPA as a proposed revision to the Texas SIP pursuant to the Federal CleanAir Act, §110, 

### as amended; and 3. TheExecutive Director is instructed to file a certified copy ofthe adopted amendments to 30

### TAC Chapter 116 

### with the Secretary ofState pursuantto the Administrative Procedure Act. Issued date: 

# APR 0R

# 1996

ATTEST:

# &~~;2.

# 'U.,~ Gloria A. Vasquez, Chi lerk TEXAS NATURALRESOURCE**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 objectto 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:Theagencyagrees**~** the changes recommended by the commenlers have been adopled. Comment: Commentersbe6evethallhe instructionsforthe 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: Commentersobject tothe 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: Theagencydisagreesbecause theabstract plantof 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 wherethe abstract plant hasnot beenexamined withinthe 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 arguesthat this requrement is rrelevant because the underwriter is seeking canceDation of its own drect operation. Agency Response: The agency disagreesand be6evesthat 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 ofstaggered renewalfor 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 drectoperations' licensesand17ovidesforthe adop(ion ofa 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 licensesexpre onvariousdatesduring 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 

### OfRules, RaJes, and Formsfor the Writing of Title Insurance in the Stale ofTexas. 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!' TexasDepartment ofInsurance,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· legalcounselandfound to be a validexercise oftheagency'sauthority.

. . '**~** - : 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 Thecommission adoptsamendmentsto§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(20TexReg 8168). Section 116.617isac:lopled without

. changes and will not be republished.

The amendments include the deletion of subsections {d)-(g) of §116.610, e&minating duplicative requiremerts also contained in**para~** graphs in §116. 615, concerning Generai_Conditions. In addition, the amendments involvethe deletion of§116.617(3), relating to Installation ancllor Modificalionof Oil andGas Facilities. This paragraph is renumbered as the new §116.620. The renumbering of specific standard permitsfrom paragraphstosections simp&fies future ac:IOdion or modification ofstandard permits, since Texas Registerrules 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 toconform these sections to· Texas Registerstyle 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 erto modify an existing facility thai may emit air contaminants. The MSWLFstandard permit is not a newrequirement,butprcwijesan aHern81ive tothe New Source Review permit process of Chapter 116, Subchapter B.Tlle

### Standard permit alternative sp8cifies·operating·and 

# :f"e:.requirements, buldoesnot 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 -·.,,.;

- IPara!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~** protocolsforadivegascollection andcontrol 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 lmpadAssessment farthese rules pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2007.043. The following is a summ&ry ofthat assessment.ThePlrPOSB ofthe amendments and new &edions is to eliminate duplicative language, renurrber the standard permit for on andgasfacmties, and establish a standard permit for MSWLFs and munic;;>al solid waste (MSW) facmties. The MSW standard permit prcwides an option for MSWLFsthai are required toobtain an airquality permit.The amendments and oowsections will substantially advance this specific purpose by changing rule _language as appropriate. Promulgation and enforcement ofthe 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 AssociationforSmog 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 ofthe 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 andGHASP suggestedchangeswithout generallysupporting oropposing the prOposed reVisions. Brownwood and BVSWMA supported the comments filed byTxSWANA 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. InstallatiOnor 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 rulemaking projed, no changeswere made tothe 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 andgas**sta~ard** permit, a tiered**approa~ w~**  d:evised**~o.** allow oil and gas facifrties to be construded or modified with1n certain distancestooft-plant receptors undercertain conditions. Withthe 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 downto**5,~0** gallontanksize to ensure that nuisance situationsdo not occurortoxiC 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 the25,000 limitation on tank storage sizeto 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 • • 

## ..·, Atiered 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 aswell 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 useofa standard preconstructionai"permit could provide the MSW industry with significant regulatory and economic relief, and at the sametime, i1!1)1"cwe air quality inTexas. Brownwood further statedthat for landfills, the standard air permit approach appears to**~** the best

.. app-oach, since real reductions in air ponutioncanbe achieved without · the unnecessary expense of having to obtain individual permits. USA Waste further noted that the use of standard permits can significantly reducethe redtape andcostassociated with obtaininga permitwithout compromising the benefits obtained. The commission agreesthai the

### staoolird air permitwill provide equivalent environmental benefit to the Chapter 116, Subchapter B air permit, at less cost tothe regulated community and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission {TNRCC). TxSWANA and USA Waste supported the use oia standard air permit if new and modified landfiDs are legally required to obtain_separate air quality permits. TheTCAA requi"es any person who planstoConstruct any new faCility orengage inthe modification ofany existing facilitywhich may emil air contaminants into the air ofTexasto obtain an air qually permit. The definitions of MSWLF and MSWfacility in 30TACChapter 101 rellect the agency'sviewthai landfills are facilities. This position is consistent**w~h** the federal NSPS for MSWLF.

. Corpus Christi, TxSWANA, and USA Waste reCommended that the TNRCC postponeadoption o!the final standardairpermit untilthe EPA · adopts the final NSPS. TxSWANA noted that the proposed standard permit includeslandfilgas 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 NSPSon March 1, 1996.Thefinal state rule has been revised to be consistent with the adopted NSPS. · . TxSWANA recommended thaithe 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 needfor a standard permit to authorizethe 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 isan ongoing process as new cells (disposal units within the MSWLF)
· areadded.The commission intendedthat Chapter 116authorization be

. · · required tor MS\YLF expansions and that such authorization is not needed forsolid waste permit amendments or modifiCations thatdo 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 USAWaste

### poirit~. outthe need toexplainwhetherthe standard permit appliesto all areas · of the existing MSW facility orjust the modified areas. Garland stated thatthe standardpermit should only apply in newand 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 expandthe size ofthe existing landfiU. Garland notedthat 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 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 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

.. basedonly onthe modified areas and that the installation ofGCCS 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

. regardingthe rightofpermitteesto rely on priorauthorization aswell as , ...

. create extensivepractical 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, ordisposing ofsofld 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 donefor a MSWLFbeforethe landfill is operating due to the difficulty in determining the characteristics and distrbution of emissions.The coritrol imposed bythis standard permit meetsall ofthe 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. TxSWANAurgedtheTNRCCtomore 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 hasdeveloped the foy4SWLF standard arpermit 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 statedthat 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, TxSWANA and USA Waste suggested ch8nges to the • generation rate constant for landfillswithdrierwaste.TxSWANAstaled ·' that because ofthe 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 adetermination be madeto identifywhat 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, 400ppmv for MSWfacilities 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 exceptthose codisposing organiC industrial solid waste. Gar1and stated that the**T~&r** 2testing 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 thedevelopn;entof a regulatory methodtodistinguish between landfills that do and do not accept organic industrial waste in greaterthan de minimis amounts. · ... .. · · · The EPA expressed concern regarding paragraph (3), which statesthat · 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 FederalRegister(56 FR 24468).The EPA notedthat 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 addressthe method for deriving the defaultvalues 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 authorizethe use of representative data from historic landfill operations, ·· The commission believes that representative data from hiStoric landfill operations is nottransferabletootherMSWLF 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 EPAstaledthatthisshould be modified to statethat the threshold value shall be the lower of the two emission rates. GHASPstated that the 150 Mg is particularly inappropriate when the EPA has proposed a 50 Mg threshold. GHASP expressed a concern that the TNRCC needsto 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 NMOCthreshold at 150 Mg peryear and stated thatthe level is consistent with existing TNRCC regulations in30 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 Mgper year) specified in the NSPS, provided ) the'federal standiud was promulgated priortothe adoption ofthe state
· rure;·or the agencywould 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 yearthreshold (emission rate. cuto!f),_since that is the value**.incorporal~** bythe 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 procechiesol 40 CFR, §60.753 ofthe 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 §116.12does 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 clarifythe ambiguity and offered the following suggested language: •... or a NMOC emission rate. equivalent to a VOC emJsslon rate. constituting a [the amount constituting the] majorsoiJ"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 therelationship 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 isa subset of NMOC (while all VOCsare 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' accordancewith §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 forozone nonattainment areas (e.g., in Houston, 25tonsper· yearof VOC constitutes a majorsource),the permit holdermayelectto 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. TxSWANAand 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 andGarlandalsosuggested that the standard permit allow up to 180daysto perform**T~er** 2 testing ratherthan 90 days asproposed. 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 languageby elimiriating SpecifiC -. reference to time. frames in. the rules, since these time lraines are ., specified inthe adopted NSPS:Any MSWLF construction'or mcidifica- · .. tionwhichWOIAd otherwise result in a majorriew SOIJ"ce or modificalion underthe FCAA, PartC or Part D would needto instalandoperatethe ' 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. HDRstatedthatclause (0 requi'estheGCCSto be designedto.'·, accommOdate ga5 Produced by the entire IBndtill. falling under the' proposed stan:iard 

### permit, while cliluse (ii) requres the designed system tocoiled gas from areas or cells olthe pgrmiHed landfill which contain final et:Ner; 

### oiwhere refuse has been in place for over' five years. HDR stated that the conflict is ttial clause (ij requires a GCCS ·· designtoadctessthe 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 lortheGCCSbe submitted conceptuaUywith the

. standardperrm IRJiicationtoadlt'essthe entire facility covered bythe·. . standard permit,and thatthe final design and instaDation of the GCCS**~** .. take placein phases inaccordance with the requrementsof clause (iij. : ·

. "'.:· --. . ·. ":'
. ;::···:**:~** "·_:.f
...**-:.'->~·....** _)
.. The commission eliminated the specific rule language addressed in

.. HDR'scomment to be consistent with the requremeilts of the adoPted' NSPS. .: · ·. . . . ... - . BFI proposedthatpa(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 satisfiesthe requirements ofStandard**ExeJ'T1)t~n** 80_.· The commission haS mOdified the rule lailgilage to iriC:orporate BFI's -comment. ·

BFI proposedthat paragraph (4)(B)(iv)(ll) be changed toread: "thetotal 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% orto 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. .: •.:·· · ··· · WMTXsuppated the concept of employing reasonable controltechnologies and methodologies at MSWLFs to limit particulate matter**emis~** sions in §116.621(8). WMTXstatedthat the proposed rule identifiesthe control technologieswhich can be mosteffectively employed to control such emissions. However, WMTX stated that the use of the phrases · "minimizeanyfugitive 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 meansof 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 toorganic 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 didnot support the inclusion of a mandate that high-. volume arsampling be "performed upon request ofthe 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 arpollutant 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 specifictesting should notbeadcressed 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 arsampling 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 under30TAC § 101.8, concerning Sam-

' plitig,which providesthecommission orexecutive dredortheauthority

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 inparagraph (8) will adequately limit Particulate matter emissions from MSWLFs. WMTX further stated that the lack of · ·identifiable criteria for eithertriggering a sample event orevaluatingthe · re5ulls is further basis for delet!ng**th~** paragraph.. · · .::- •·< .•_,, 

## 'The'commission consi:lers the optionto require L.pNiild/downwind high volume air sampling, which establishes COI!1>1iance status with the standards, necessary in orderto ensuretheeffectivenesS ofthe control

. critena. Furthermore, the commission believes that it is difficult to**~~e** aD the criteria that would necessitate S81!1>1ing; thus, the

commission hasnot 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 notifiedwhen samplingwiD occursothat an opportunityto observe the sairipling. is presented. · · · ' ···



# .- '

. · The commission a11'9es, and has revised §116.621(6) accordingly.

. . 

### WMT.X suggested that ifthe commission adopts §116.621(10), it continue to monitorthe statusofthe proposed federal rules and, ifchanges are made tothem priortofinal 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 itwould require that eitherthe landfiU be located next to a continuously operating National Weather Service stalicin or thai it purchase, install, calitnte, and maintain an operating !lnEimometerand recording rain gauge, andtotrain 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 includediri 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 ismeasured as methane. The slrlaceleakrequirements arenow directly incorporated

### bY refereriCe to the entre final NSPS in §116. 621(4). GHASPstated that under§116.621(11)(J)(i), allowingtenton$ peryear (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 MSWfacilities, often owned by local governments, to i111>lement fugitive emission inspedionand 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 gasprocessing 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 10,000 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 istoo high for a severe ozone nonattainment

# area like ' the Houston·area and stated that the leak detedion level needS tobe· 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 itbecomesnecessaryto uncoverthem and closethem··.· 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,whichpreSents a safety hazard. In addition, BAstated thatthistype ofdesign creates a pathfor gastoescapethe landfiR and forarto enter, creatingthe potentialfor fugitive leaksof NMOCaid 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 onlynew and reworked ppng cc:innedions that areweld9d 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 bywhich uncontrolled fugitive emissions that leak from C0111>009nts should be quantified, i.e:; which emission factors , shouldbeusedto ensure that emissions are lessthan 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 incheswater column and that this amount ofvacuum 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 ofnitrogen. 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): HDRS:tatedthat 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 forthis calculation based onthe fad that perlamance testing will be conducted on the system via the requred strlace monitoring, along with the verification ofnegative pressure at all ofthe · weD heads. HDR statedthat ifthe 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 asthe one referenced in §60.754 ofthe proposedfederal regulations. However, HDR stated that because these models only · serve as a theoretical estimate ofthe 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. Theadopted NSPSdoes notrequire Methcxl 2E**sa~6ng.** Becausethe NSPS fully treats the issue of expected gas generation llow rates, ·· inclooing recatlkeeping, the commission haseliminated 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 ownerswith 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 ifthe requredreparsfaD toresolvetheemission point, owners will ultimatelyinstan adcfrtionalweDs. HDRfurther stated that although available asanoption fordesign ofthe GCCS inplace of the 200 meter design default spacing in the proposed NSPS and emission guidelines, the nonhomogeneous characteristics of a landfill rendersthe use ofa uniformcalculated 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 adoptrules consistent with the pofiCy and 

### purpose of the TCAA. §116.610. Applicability. (a) Pursuant to theTexas Clean AirAct (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 ofthe project shall be commenced prior to the effective date of a revision to this subchapter underwhich theprojectwould no longer meetthe requirements for a standard permit; (3)-(5) (No change.) (b) Any project which constitutes a new·major source, or major modification underthe new sourcereview requirements ofthe 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/orMOdif;caJion 

### OfOiland**GasFaciliti~s.** · (a) · Emission specifications.
..
·. ·. . (1)' Venting or flaririg more than0.3 long tons per day of
.· total sulfur shall not be allowed. ,. · ':··.; ·: · · · · ·· '

· (2) No facility shallbe allowed to 6mittoW uncontrolled
. emissions ofsulfurcompounds, except sulfur dioxide (SO,), from all vents (excluding process fugitives emissions) equal to or greater . than fourpoundsper hour.unless the vapors are collected and routed to a flare. '

-

. (3) ·Any vent,

### ~:XCluding. anysafety'relief valves that
. discharge to the atmosphere. only as a result of fire orfailure 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

# orgaS 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 anatural 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· nearestoff-plantreceptorshallbe allowed to emituncontrolled 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 nearestoff-plant receptor shall be allowed to emituncontrolled VOC processfugitive**er.dso;~ons** equal to orgreater 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 nearestoff-plant receptor shallbe allowed to emituncOntrolled

### voc process fugitive**emissions~ual** to orgreater than 25 tpy unlessthe
. 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,processfugitive emissionsunless 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) ofthis section. Components in sweet crude oil or gas service as defined by Chapter 101 ofthis title (relating to General Rules) are exempt from these limitations.

ADOPTED RULES April 12. 1996 21 Ter.Reg 3197 

# II 

# JJ

IJ

# ~ ! .



### :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 ofFederal Regulations (CFR), Part 60.18 or equivalent standard approved by the commission, including specifications ofminimum heating values ofwaste gas, maximum tip velocity, and pilot flame monitoring. Ifnecessary 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 ofthe Federal Oean Air Act, Parts C and D, and regulations· promulgated thereunder, arebeing melTheoil andgas facility shall berequiredto meetthe requirements ofSubchapterBofthis chapter (relating to New Source Review Permits) instead ofthis 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 CFR60) 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 PollutionFrom VisibleEmissions and Particulate Matter; Control of AirPollutionFrom Sulfur Compounds; and Control ofAir Pollution From Toxic Materials). Engineeringjudgment and/or computerized airdispersion modeling may be used inthis demonstration. To show · compliance with §116.610(a)(l) ofthis title (relating to Applicability) for**~S** emissions from process vents, ten milligrams per cubic meter shall beused as the "L" value instead ofthe 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 oftotal sulfur per 100

## drY.standard cubic feet (scdf),orfield gas. Iffield gas contains more than 15grains of**~S** or 30 grains total sulfur compounds per 100 scdf, the operator shall maintain records, including at least quarterly measurements offuel**~S** and total sulfuT c:Ontent. which demonstrate that the annual SO, emissions from thefacility do notexceed the limitations listedin the standardpermitregistration. Ifaflare is the only combustion uniton a property, the operator shall not be required to maintain such ·records on flare pilot gas. · (b) Control requirements. (1) Aoatingroofs orequivalentcontrols shallberequired 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 compoundto be storedin thetankis less than 0.5 pounds per squareinch 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 ofa floating roof,**t~ emissio~~**  may**~** . routed to: · · . '. ' ·. , . . . : ..;".,. :· ·.', ,;<

· · · (i) adestruction device such that aminimum VOC '.;; destruction

### effic~cy of 98% is achieved; or . :.. •.. ..:,

# I:;<

· · (u) avapor recovery system such that ammmium ·_ .,;. VOC. recavery efficiency of 95% is achieved:' · . .**''.":~'~** • . '
. .· :1 \ ·i

· (E) Independentofthe exemptions listed in this para- ' graph, ifthe emissions f!om any fixed rooftank 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 ofc:Ontrolthatmeets the requirementS listed in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. (2) The VOCemissions from a natural gu.glycol**dehy~**.· dration unit shall be controlled as follows. · · ·· · · ·· · (A) Iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions are equal to : orgreater than ten tpy:but less than 50 tpy, a minimum of80%by ·· weight minimum control efficiency shall be achieved by either · operatingacondenserand aseparator (orflash tank), vaporrecovery ' unit, destruction device, or equivalent control device.
. . .. (B) Iftotal unControlled VOC emissions are equal to or greater than 50 tpy, a minimum of: · (i) 98% byweightminimumdestruction 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) ofthis 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 concentrationgreaterthan 10,000parts permillion by volume (ppmv) above background as methane, propane, or hexane, or the_ dripping orexuding ofprocess 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 equipmentisidentified in a list that is made available upon request by the agc#ncy representatives, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or any other airpollution agency havingjurisdiction. All piping and valves two inchesnominal size and smaller, unless subjectto federal NSPS requiring a fugitive VOC emissions leak detection and repair program orChapter 115 ofthis title (relating to Control ofAir 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 afterthe leakis detected. Ifthe repair ofacomponent would require aunit shutdown, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled shutdown. All leaking components which cannotbe 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 processpipelineS 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 ina list to be made availableupon request. (E) New and reworked piping connections in VOC · serviceshall bewelded 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 begas-teSted or hydraulically-tested at no less than normal operating pressure and. adjustments made as necessary to obtain leak-free performance. AangesinVOC**se~ice** shallbeinspected byvisual, 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 bemonitored byleak-checking for fugitive emissions at leastquarterly using an approved gas analyzer. For valves equipped with rupture discs, a pressure gauge shallbe installedbetween thereliefvalve and rupture "- disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall bereplaced at

, the earliestopportunity, butno later than the next process shutdown. Sealless/leaklessvalves (including, butnotlimitedto, welded bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupturedisc or venting to a controldevice areexempt 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 notlimited 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 OfficeofAir Quality,New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised**~based** on thepercent ofvalvesleaking. Thepercentofvalves 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 ofvalves subject to the requirements. lbis request shall include all data that has been developed tojustifythe following modifications in the monitoring schedule. (i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periodswith the percent ofvalvesleaking equaltoorless 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 lightliquid service. (ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with thepercent ofvalves leaking equal to orless than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip tluee of the quarterly leaic detection periods for thevalvesin gas/vapor and lightliquidservice.

.(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 ofprocess 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 atleast0.725 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 aVOC_leaking process fugitive component within 15 days after the leak is detected. Hthe repair ofa componentwould require a unit shutdown, the repair may be delayed untilthe next scheduled

-shutdown. All leaking components which cannot berepaired 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 aqdreworked undergroundprocesspipelines containing VOCs shall contain no buried valves such, that process fugitive emission inspection and repair is rendered impractical

, ·(D) 

# To ihe-eXtentthatgood 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 ina list to be made available uiX>n**r_~u_;st. -~-** **-~** 

## . .·

. (E) New artd reworked piping connections in VOC service shall be welded**o~** flanged. Screwedconnections 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 bemonitored byleak-checking for fugitive emissions at least quarterlyusing

• ADOPTED RULES April 12, 1996 21 TexReg 3199 

# J

# ·-

- an approved gas analyzer. Forvalves equipped with rupture discs, a pressuregauge shall beinstalled between the reliefvalve and rupture disc to monitor disc integrity. All leaking discs shall be replaced at the earliestopportunity, but no later than the nextprocess shutdown. Sealless/leaklessvalves (including, but notlimited to, welded bonnet bellows and diaphragm valves) and relief valves equipped with a rupture disc orventing to a control device are exemptfrom 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 OfficeofAir Quality,New Source Review Division that the monitoring schedule be revised basedon thepercentofvalves leaking. Thepercentofvalves leaking shall be determined by dividing the sum of valves leaking during current monitoring and valves for which repair hasbeen delayed by the total number ofvalves subject to the requirements. This request shall include all data that have been developed tojustify the following modifications in the monitoring schedule. (i) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periodswith thepercentofvalvesleakingequal to orless than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip one of the quarterly leak detectionperiodsfor thevalves in gas/vapor and light liquid service. (ii) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periodswith thepercentofvalves leakingequal to or less than 2.0%, an owner or operator may begin to skip three of the quarterly leak detectionperiodsfor thevalves in gas/vapor andlightliquid service. (K) A directed maintenance program shall be used and consistofthe repair and maintenance ofVOC 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 beremonitored within 30days ofbeing placed backinto 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 H1S 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 secnon. · . :: . .. ·: · (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 demonstratecompliancewith the minimum · control efficiency. Sampling shall occurwithin 60 days after start-up . ofnew or modified facilities. The permittee shall contact the Engi" neering Services Section,Air QualityEnforcement Division 45 days· prior to samplingfor approval ofsamplingprotocol. The appropriate
. regional office·in the region where the sourceislocated shall also be contacted 45 daysprior to sampl..iilg to provide them the opportunity to viewthesampling.Neithertheregional officenortheEngineering Services Section, 

### Air Quality Enforcement Division personnel are required to view the testing. Sampling reports which comply with
. theprovisions ofthe "JNRCC SamplingProcedures 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) Ifthe operator elects to install and maintain ambient**~S** property line monitors to comply with subsection (a)(ll) ofthis section, the monitors shall be approved by the Engineering Services Section, Air Quality Enforcement Division office in Austin, and shall be capable ofdetecting 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 listedin subsection (c)(3)(A)-(C) ofthis section within eight hours of detection of a leak. (2) The results of the VOC leak detection and repair requirements shallbemade available to the executivedirector, his or her designated representative, or any air pollution control agency havingjurisdiction 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 orfor each storage tank ifnot 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) ofthis section. The demonstration may include, but is notlimited to, monitoring flowrates, temperatures, or other operating parameters. . . ' '
.. ' (6) Records shall be kept.on

## at least

# a monthly baSis of allproductionfacility flow rates (in standardcubic feetper 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 ofinitial on-site inspection. and date and time of corrective actions taken. ;

### .. (8) Allrequired records shallbe made available torepresentatives of the agency, the EPA, or local air pollution control agencies upon request and be kept for at least 

## two years; ·All requiredrecords shallbekept attheplantsite, unless theplantsiteis unmanned during business hours. For plant sites ordiliarily unmannedduringbusinesshours, therecords shallbe maintained at**th~** nearestofficein the statehaving**day·to~y**operationscontrolofthe plant site. . '
. . §116.621. Mlmicipa/SolidWaste Landfills. Aperson may claim a standard permit for the construction or modification to a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) or municipal solid waste facility (MSWfacility) as defined in §101.1 ofthis 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 ofthis title (relating to Types ofMunicipal Solid Waste Sites).
. . . • · (l) An MSWl.F and associated waste acceptance and

, handling facilities which comply with §116.610of

### 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 ofthis 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)
.

### ~asteu;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 ofFederal Regulations (CFR). §60.751; and (F) anyprojectwhich constitutes anewmajor source, or major modillcation under the new source review requirements of the Federal Clean AirAct, PartC(Prevention ofSignificantDeterioration 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 40CFR, §60.757(a)(2).' ·.. -,'
. · ·..
· (4). The permit holder shall comply with the air emissions standards as specified in40CFRPart60, SubpartWWW, 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 openflaCe with aminimum heightof30feet and which satisfies all ofthe requirements of §116.211ofthis 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) agas treatment system that**proce~ th~**  collectedgasfor subsequentuseor sale. The sum ofall emissionsfrom any atrilo5plieric.ventfrom thegas 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, exceptthatregistration using Form PI-7 or PI-8 shall not be required; or · (v) boilers, heaters, or other combustion units, but notincluding stationaryinternal combustionenginesor 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 bepaved and cleaned. watered,ortreated 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 requestofthe executivedirectororadesignatedrepresentative. 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 accordancewith theOfficeofAirQualityManagement 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 reliefvalves 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 ofthe definition in §116.620(c)(l)(A) of this title, a leak shall be defined as the escape ofgas 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 arenot externallyregulated, 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 offugitive 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 havingjurisdiction. Thefollowing 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 andfound to be avali::t exercise ofthe agency'sauthoritY•.·
• - ' - 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) adoptsthe 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 ofthe Texas Register(21 TexReg 21).
- · · The repealsare part ofa rules revision pr*Ctto 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,orinconsistert. Inthiscase, the repealed rules are duplicated in30TACChapter335, SlbchapterQ, 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 1099, relefred to as the Wasle Reduction PoriCy Act of 1991, passed bythe 72nd TexasState Legislature. 30TACChapter 120, Slbchapter B, became redundartwhen theTexasAirControl Board andtheTexas WaterCommission mergedto

### form theTNRCCon 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. 105-120.110.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 believesthatthe repealswin reduce potertialcontusion inthe regulated community and supports the agency's efforts to streamHne existing regulations where possible. Nocomments were received from persons who opposed the proposed changes.

. The repeals are adopled underTexas 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 ofthe TCAA. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counselandfound tobe avalid exercise oftheagency'sauthority. 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 

# .-,**~**