p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

214) ll-J-7 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 214 of 276 
^n . ] M 

ran1"' • i 

AiJ 

II-J-7 

Wednesday 

May 30, 1984 

P.2 

i^ljjLBJUi 

Si'.-1 M \l\ffl H 

"yAA ASS^BOCXF[_ 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources Equipment Leaks of 

VOC, Petroleum Refineries and Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing -Industry; 

Rule 
P.3 

v\ 

Z2548 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

! AD-FRL-2509-5) 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources Equipment Leaks 

of VOC Petroleum Refineries and 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates 

standards of performance for equipment 

leaks of volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) in the petroleum refining 

industry. The standards were proposed 

in the Federal Register on January 4. 

1983 (48 FR 279). This action also 

promulgates minor amendments to 

standards for equipment leaks of VOC 

-.vithin the synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry (SOCMI). The 

promulgated standards implement 

section 111 of the Clean Air Act and are 

based on the Administrator's 

determination that fugitive emissions of 

VOC from the petroleum refining 

industry cause, or contribute 

significantly to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. The intended 

effect of the standards is to require all 

newly constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed refining facilities in the 

petroleum refinery industry to reduce 

emissions to the level achieved by the 

best demonstrated system of continuous 

emission reduction for equipment leaks 

of VOC, considering costs, nonair 

quality health and environmental impact 

and energy requirements. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: May 30,1984. These 

standards of performance become 

effective upon promulgation but apply to 

affected facilities for which construction 

or modification commenced after -

January 4,1983. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of die Clean 

Air Ac t judicial review of these 

standards of performance is available 

only by the filing of a petition for review 

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit within 60 

days of today's publication of this rule. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act. die requirements that are the 

subject of today's notice may not be 

challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications in 40 CFR Part 60 

effective on May 30,1984. 

ADDRESSES: Background Information 

Documents. The background 

information document (BID) for the 

promulgated standards may be obtained 

from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35). 

Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 

27711. telephone number (919) 541-2777. 

Please refer to "Equipment Leaks of 

VOC in Petroleum Refining Industry— 

Background Information for 

Promulgated Standards of Performance" 

(EPA-450/3-80-033b). The BID contains: 

(1) A summary of all the public 

comments made on the proposed 

standards and EPA's responses to the 

comments. (2) a summary of the changes 

made to the standards since proposal. 

(3) final Environmental Impact 

Statement which summarizes the 

impacts of the promulgated standards, 

and (4) the rationale for the technical 

amendments to the standards for 

equipment leaks of VOC within SOCMI. 

The BID for the proposed standards may 

be obtained from die National Technical 

Information Service, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

Please refer to "VOC Fugitive Emissions 

in Petroleum Refining Industry— 

Background Information for Proposed 

Standards," EPA-450/3-81-015a (NTIS 

PB81-157743) 

Docket A docket, number A-80-44. 

containing information considered by 

EPA in the development of the 

promulgated standards for petroleum 

refineries, is available for public 

inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's 

Central Docket Section (A-130), West 

Tower Lobby, Gallery 1,401M Street. 

S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

A docket number A-79-32, containing 

information in category VI on the 

development of die technical 

amendments to the SOCMI standards, is 

available for public inspection at die • 

same time and place as for docket A80-44. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Gilbert Wood, Emission Standards 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 

27711, telephone (919) 541-5578 

concerning policy matters and Mr. James 

Durham, Chemicals and Petroleum 

Branch, telephone (919) 541-5671 

concerning technical matters. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:. 

Summary of Standards 

Standards of performance for new 

sources established under section 111 of 

the Clean Air Act reflect: 

' * * application of the best technological 

system of continuous emission reduction 

which (taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, any • 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated [section 111(a)(1)). 

As prescribed by section 111, 

promulgation of these standards was 

preceded by the tiie Administrator's 

determination (40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR 

49222. dated August 21.1979) that these 

sources contribute significantly to air 

pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public healtii or 

welfare. 

Standards of performance for 

equipment leaks of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) in the petroleum 

refining industry were proposed on 

January 4,1983 (48 FR 279). » The 

promulgated standards apply to specific 

equipment with the potential to leak 

VOC. Two types of "affected facilities" 

apply to the equipment for determining 

applicability of the standards. Each 

refinery compressor in VOC service is 

one type of affected facility. The second 

type of affected facility comprises 

certain equipment with die potential to 

leak VOC, other than compressors, 

within a refinery process unit. A process 

unit is defined as all the components 

assembled to perform any of the 

physical and chemical operations within 

a petroleum refinery. 

Compressors, valves, pumps, pressure 

relief devices, sampling systems, flanges 

and connectors, and open-ended lines in 

VOC service (diat is. contains or 

contacts a process fluid diat is at least 

10 percent VOC by weight) are die 

equipment covered by die standards. 

The standards require (1) a leak 

detection and repair program for valves 

in gas/vapor and light liquid service and. 

pumps in light liquid service: (2) 

equipment for certain compressors, 

sampling systems, and open-ended lines: 

and (3) no detectable emissions (500 

ppm as determined by Reference 

Method 21) for pressure relief devices in 

gas/vapor service during normal 

operation. In response to comments on 

•The proposed standards referred to fugitive 

emission sources of VOC as the air poUution 

emission points covered by the standards. The 

terminology fugitive emission sources can be 

confusing. The proposed and final standards apply 

to-equipment with the potential to leak VOC and. 

therefore, the promulgated standards refer to 

equipment leaks to VOC as the air poUution 

emission points covered by the standards. 
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 225 

the proposed standards, EPA is 

exempting valves and pumps within 

process units located in the North Slope 

of Alaska from the routine leak 

detection and repair program and is 

allowing up to 3 percent of the valves in 

new process units to be designated as 

difficult-to-monitor valves. In addition. 

EPA is providing an alternative 

procedure for determining "capital 

expenditure" and is adding 

requirements for semiannual reports. 

Owners and operators of facilities 

covered by these standards should note 

that some of the releases covered by 

these standards might be covered by 

requirements developed under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response. Compensation, and Liability 

Act. (See 48 FR 23552.) 

Standards for Valves. The standards 

for valves have not changed since, 

proposal and are based on a leak 

detection and repair program that 

requires: (1) Monthly monitoring of 

valves in gas/vapor and light liquid 

service except that valves not found to 

leak for two successive months can be 

monitored quarterly until leaks are 

detected, (2) an initial attempt at 

repairing these valves within 5 days 

after detection of a leak, (3) repair of 

leaking valves within 15 days after 

detection of die leak unless repair would 

require a process unit shutdown, and (4) 

repair of valves during the next process 

unit shutdown if repair is delayed until a 

process unit shutdown. Monitoring of 

equipment to detect leaks is conducted 

in accordance with Reference Method 21 

and a leak is defined as a measured 

organic concentration equal to or greater 

than 10.000 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). Repair means to reduce the 

measured organic concentration to less 

than 10,000 ppmv. 

Two alternative standards have been * 

provided for valves in gas/vapor and 

light liquid service in the final 

standards. These alternatives are (1) a 

limit.of 2.0 percent of valves which may 

be leaking at any one time and (2) a 

skip-period leak detection and repair 

program for process units achieving less 

than 2.0 percent of their valves leaking. 

These alternative standards establish 

standards for owners and operators who 

design and operate low-leak process' 

units. 

Standards for Pumps. The standards 

for pumps have not changed since 

proposal and require leak detection and 

repair of the pump seals or the use of 

dual mechanical seals with controlled 

degassing vents. The leak detection and 

repair program requires: (1) Monthly 

monitoring of pumps in light liquid 

service. (2) weekly visual inspections of 

die seals in pumps in light liquid service, 

(3) an attempt at repairing a pump 

within 5 days after detection of a leak, 

and (4) repair of a leaking pump within 

15 days after detection of a seal failure 

or leak unless repair would require a 

process unit shutdown. Pumps that have 

repair delayed until a process unit 

shutdown must be repaired during the 

next process unit shutdown. If a pump 

cannot be repaired without the use of 

dual mechanical seals with controlled 

degassing vents or other equipment, a 

delay of repair is allowed to install the 

equipment. In this case, an owner or 

operator must install the equipment as 

soon as practicable but may take no 

longer than 6 months. Pumps using dual 

mechanical seals with controlled 

degassing vents and other equipment as 

specified in the standards are not 

subject to the monthly leak detection 

and repair program. 

Standards for Compressors. The 

standards have generally not changed 

since proposal and require compressors 

to be equipped widi seals having a 

barrier fluid system that prevents 

leakage of the process fluid to the 

atmosphere. The system must: (1) Use a 

barrier fluid that is something other than 

a light liquid or gaseous VOC; (2) either 

operate at a pressure greater than die 

compressor seal area pressure, or be 

equipped widi a barrier fluid degassing 

reservoir connected by a closed vent 

system to a control device; and (3) be 

equipped widi a sensor so diat seal 

failures may be detected. When seal 

failure is detected, repair is required 

within 15 days unless repair would 

require a process unit shutdown. An 

initial attempt at repair is required 

within 5 days. If a compressor is 

equipped with a closed vent system to 

transport leakage from the seal to a 

control device, it is exempt from die 

above requirements. 

Compressors in hydrogen service have 

been exempted from the final standards 

based on an analysis of cost 

effectiveness for these compressors. "In 

hydrogen service" means that a 

compressor contains a process fluid diat 

is greater than 50 percent hydrogen by 

volume, as determined by ASTM 

Mediods E-260, E-168, or E-169. Also, 

EPA is exempting existing reciprocating 

compressors mat could become an 

affected facility under provisions of 

Section 60.14 or 80.15 from die standards 

if die owner or operator demonstrates 

that recasting die distance piece or 

replacing the compressor are the only 

options available to bring the 

compressor into compliance with the' 

standards. 

Standards for Sampling Connections. 

The standards require mat VOC purged 

from sampling connections be recycled 

to the process by a closed sampling lc 

or that these VOC be collected in a 

closed collection system for recycle or 

disposal without VOC emissions to 

atmosphere. In-situ sampling systems 

are exempt from these requirements. 

These standards have not changed sin 

proposal. 

Standards for Open-Ended Lines. Th 

standards require diat: (1) Open-endea 

lines be sealed with a second valve, ca 

blind flange or plug except when the 

open-ended lines are in use; and (2) if £ 

second valve is used, the valve on the 

process side must be closed first to 

avoid trapping VOC between the valve 

The only change made to these 

standards since proposal clarifies that 

open-ended lines in double block and 

bleed valve systems may be unsealed 

when they are functioning as the vent 

for these systems. 

Standards for Pressure Relief Device 

The standards require that: (1) Pressure 

relief devices have "no detectable 

emissions" of VOC except in cases of 

overpressure relief; and (2) after each 

overpressure relief, pressure relief 

devices be returned to a state of no 

detectable emissions within 5 days. 

These standards have not changed since 

proposal. As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed standards, pressure relief 

devices are one of die few fugitive 

emission sources for which a 

performance standard can be 

established. There are a variety of 

alternative ways of complying with this 

standard. "No detectable emissions" of 

VOC, in this case, means 500 ppm or 

less above die background level as 

measured by Reference Method 21. 

Standards for Control Devices. The 

standards include requirements for 

control devices used in conjunction with 

control of equipment leaks. In general, 

these requirements have not changed 

since proposal. The standards require: 

(1) That vapor recovery systems be 

designed and operated for at least 95 

percent control, and (2) diat enclosed 

combustion devices be designed and 

operated to provide a minimum 

residence time of 0.75 seconds at a 

n-iinimnm temperature of 816'C or to 

achieve 85 percent reduction. Flares 

used to comply widi these standards 

must (a) be operated with no assist or 

widi air or steam assist (b) be designed 

and operated with no visible emissions 

except for periods of time not to exceed 

5 minutes in any 2-hour period, (c) be 

operated with a flame present and (d) 

meet other operational requirements 

including mfly'ro'"" exit gas velocities 

and minimum heat content values. Some 

specific requirements forflares have • 

been added since proposal The 
P.5 

22600 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday. May 30, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 

s'andards for closed vent systems and 

control devices ensure the use of 

devices that have an efficiency better 

than 95 percent, including steamassisted and nonassisted flares designed 

for and operated with an exit velocity of 

less than 18 m/sec. EPA has been 

studying the question of whether 

additional types of flares will also 

achieve better than 95 percent 

efficiency; if so. the Agency will revise 

the standards accordingly. 

Miscellaneous Provisions. Flanges, 

pressure relief devices in liquid service, 

equipment operating at subatraospheric 

pressures, and all equipment 

components in "heavy liquid" VOC 

service are excluded from die routine 

monitoring requirements of die 

standards. Even though die standards 

do not require monitoring these 

equipment for leaks, the standards 

require that, if indications of VOC leaks 

are visually or otherwise detected from 

these equipment they must be 

monitored using Method 21 to detect 

leaks. If a leak is detected, it must be 

repaired within 15 days. This provision 

improves current industry housekeeping 

practices for these pieces of equipment 

Under section 111(h)(3), any person 

may request the Administrator to permit 

the use of an alternative means of 

emission limitation instead of a design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standard. The Administrator will permit 

the use of such alternative means if die 

Administrator determines, after notice 

and opportunity for a public hearing, 

that it will achieve emission reductions 

at least equivalent to tiiose required by 

the design, equipment, work practice or 

operational standards. The permission 

will take the form of an amendment to 

die appropriate standards. 

The final standards include 

semiannual reports to enable 

enforcement agencies to assess 

compliance widi the standards. The 

semiannual reports provide a summary 

of the data recorded on leak detection 

and repair of valves, pumps, and other 

equipment types. The semiannual 

reports may be waived for affected 

facilities in States where the regulatory 

program has been delegated, if EPA, in 

die course of delegating such authority, 

approves reporting requirements or an 

altemative means of source surveillance 

adopted by the State, m these cases, 

such sources would be required to 

comply widi me requirements adopted 

by die State. 

Compliance with the leak detection 

md repair program and equipment 

eqttirements will also be assessed 

through review of records and 

inspections. Records of leak detection, 

repair attempts, and maintenance for 

equipment leaks of VOC are required by 

the standards. Notifications are also 

required as described in the General 

provisions for new source standards (40 

CFR 60.7). 

The General Provisions for Part 60 are 

being revised to include an 

incorporation by reference in the 

provisions of 40 CFR 60.17. 

Summary of Impacts of the Standards 

Emission Reductions. The standards 

of performance will reduce equipment 

leaks of VOC from newly constructed, 

modified, and reconstructed process 

units and compressors in die petroleum 

refining industry by about 60 percent in 

comparison to those emissions that 

would result in die absence of the 

standards. The standards will reduce 

the emissions by about 31,000 Mg, a 

reduction of emissions from 49.000 Mg/ 

yr to about 18.000 Mg/yr in the fifth year 

after the standards were proposed. 

These impacts are based on current 

industry practices including 

requirements associated with State 

implementation plans. The standards 

will cover about 100 newly constructed 

refining facilities (process units 

including compressors) and up to 182 

modified and reconstructed refining 

facilities in the fifth year after proposal. 

Cost and Economic Impacts. The cost 

and economic impacts of die standards 

are reasonable. The standards will 

require an industry-wide capital 

investment over the initial 5-year period 

after the standards were proposed of 

approximately $7.2 million for newly 

constructed refining facilities and up to 

$17.9 million for modified and 

reconstructed refining facilities. The 

industry-wide net annualized cost for 

newly constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed refining facilities would 

be about $4.1 million in the fifth year 

after proposal. Significant price 

increases are not expected to result from 

these standards because the standards 

will tend to increase average prices by 

less than 0.1 percent 

Other Impacts. These standards of 

performance will not increase die 

energy usage of petroleum refinery 

process units. In general die controls 

required by the standards do not require 

energy. Furthermore, the effect of die 

standirds will be to increase efficiency 

of raw material usage so that a net 

positive energy impact will result 

Implementation of die standards will 

have no impact on solid waste within 

the petroleum refining industry. In 

contrast the standards would also . 

cause a small positive impact on water 

quality by containment of potential 

liquid leaks. Tne recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements will require an 

average of 20 industry person years 

annually for the years 1984 and 1985. 

The environmental, energy, and 

economic impacts are discussed in 

greater detail in the BID for the 

promulgated standards. (See the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble.) 

Public Participation 

Prior to proposal of the standards, 

interested parties were advised by 

public notice in the Federal Register (46 

FR 23982, April 29.1981) of a meeting of 

the National Air Pollution Control 

Techniques Advisory Committee to 

discuss die standards for equipment 

leaks of VOC in the petroleum refining 

industry recommended for proposal. 

This meeting was held on June 3,1981. 

The meeting was open to the public, and 

each attendee was given the opportunity 

to comment on the standards 

recommended for proposal. An 

additional information document (AID), 

entitled "Fugitive Emission Sources of 

Organic Compounds—Additional 

Information on Emissions, Emission 

Reductions, and Costs," was prepared to 

address technical issues on fugitive 

emissions control technology and to set 

forth EPA's most recent position on 

these issues. The AID was distributed 

for public* comment, and 14 comment 

letters were received. The standards 

were proposed in die Federal Register 

on January 4,1983 (48 FR 279). The 

preamble to the proposed standards 

described the availability of the BID for 

the proposed standards*, which 

discussed in detail the regulatory 

alternatives considered and die impacts 

of these alternatives. 

Public comments were solicited at the 

time of proposal, and copies of the BID 

were distributed to interested parties. 

The public was also $ven the 

opportunity to discuss data, views, or 

arguments at a public hearing 

concerning the proposed standards in 

accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the 

Clean Air Act The public comment 

period was from January 4.1983. to 

March 21.1983. Twenty-four comment 

letters were received and. at die request 

of interested parties. EPA met to clarify 

specific aspects of the proposed 

standards. A public hearing, however, 

was not held. Comments on die 

proposed standards have been carefully 

considered and. where determined to be 

appropriate by the Administrator, 

changes have been made in the 

proposed standards. 

Significant Comments and Changes to 

-the Proposed Standards 

Comments were received from 

industry, State and local air poUution 
P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No* 105 / Wednesday, May 30, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 2260 

control agencies, trade associations, and 

environmental groups. A detailed 

discussion of these comments and 

responses can be found in the BID for 

the promulgated standards. (See the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble.) 

The comments and responses in the BID 

serve as the basis for the revisions 

which have been made to the standards 

between proposal and promulgation. 

Major changes made in die standards 

since proposal are indicated in the 

"Summary of Standards" section of the 

preamble. The major comments and 

responses are summarized in die next 

section of the preamble. The comments 

and responses in this preamble have 

been combined into the following areas: 

Basis for the Standards. Applicability of 

Standards, Modification and 

Reconstruction, and Reporting and 

Recordkeeping. 

Basis for the Standards 

Comment: Several commenters 

questioned EPA's selection of the 

proposed standards. The commenters 

felt that less stringent levels of control 

would be more cost effective and. 

therefore, should be chosen. 

Response: Section 111 of the Clean Air 

Act, as amended, requires that 

standards of performance be based on 

the best system of continuous emission 

reduction that has been adequately 

demonstrated, considering costs, nonair 

quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. The 

control techniques for equipment leaks 

of VOC have been adequately 

demonstrated. The nonair quality health 

and evironmental impacts associated 

with implementation of the standards 

are generally beneficial. 

TABLE 1. CONTROL COSTS PER MEGAGRAM OF 

VdCflEDUCEb* 

TABLE 1. CONTROL COSTS PER MEGAGRAM OF 

VOC REDUCED '—Continued 

Equipment typo and control 

technique* 

P-93nm relief deviost 

Quarterly leek detection 

Monthly leak detection and 

rapar 

Compressors* 

ConsoBod degasa-ng vert'.. 

Open-ended anas 

Caps on open-ended inn'. . 

Sampling systems: 

Closed purge sampling' 

Valves: 

Quartan*/ leak detection 

and repair 

Monthly task detection and 

repair '„............ 

Sealed bellows valves 

Pumps: 

Annual leak detection and 

repair.. 

Emission 

reduction 

4.4 

5.3 

9.8 

16.5 

ze 

2.6 

66 

77 

110 

3.0 

Average 

S/Mg« 

•(170) 

(110) 

410 

ISO 

460 

610 

MHO) 

•(60) 

4.700 

860 

Incremental 

S/Mg" 

„ii70) 

2SO 

1.000 

150 

460 

610 

•(110) 

310 

16,700 

860 

Et-r*J*pment type and control 

tech-aqua' 

Quarterly leak detection 

Monthly leak detection and 

repair' 

Oual mechanical seal systems vented lo a Kara ,,„ 

Emission 

reduction 

(Mg/ 

yr) 

98 

• 

11.5 

13.9 

Average 

S/Mg< 

157 

-se 

2.000 

Incremental 

J/Mg* 

MKO) 

170 

10.900 

' Costs and emission reductions based on fugitive emission 

source (component) counts in Model Unit S from the 810 'or 

the proposed standards, EPA-450/3-61-015a. page 6-3. 

- Further discussion ol control techniques can tie found m 

Chapters 3 and 4 of the SIO for (he proposed standards and 

•n Section 2 of the BIO for the promulgated standards. 

'Average dollars per n-egagram (cost otectiv-sness)^-(annualized cost per oompone-m-Mani-uai VOC emis-

« m reduction per component). 

• :-icremental dollars per meg»9ram=IAnno«lizea cost or 

tne control rechnique^net armual-zed cost of tne next less 

restrictive control technique)-rltimual emission reduction of 

control technique—annua! emission reduction of the ne-rt 

less restrictive control tecnnique). 

' Values in parentheses denote savinga. 

' Control technique seleetad as ma basis tor the standard. 

CPA analyzed the annualized cost of 

controlling VOC emissions and the 

resultant emission reduction of VOC for 

each alternative control technique. In 

response to comments, EPA reviewed 

these estimates and, consequently, 

corrected the emission reduction 

estimates associated with valves. The 

control cost per megagram of VOC 

reduced for medium-sized process units 

are presented in Table 1 for each 

equipment type covered by die 

standards. In choosing among the 

control techniques for each type of 

equipment covered by the standards, 

EPA first considered their effectiveness 

and costs. Then, for the control 

techniques which were selected as the 

most effective with reasonable costs, 

EPA considered die economic impact on 

the industry of these control techniques. 

After reviewing die decisions made for 

the proposed standards, EPA concluded 

that die proposed standards generally 

should not be made less stringent on the 

basis of cost effectiveness. However, for 

compressors in hydrogen service the 

cost effectiveness, as explained below, 

is unreasonable, and die standards have 

been revised to exclude them from the 

standards. 

One should note that these costs do 

not represent the actual amounts of 

money spent at any particular plant site. 

The cost of VOC emission reduction 

systems will vary according to the 

petroleum product being produced, 

production equipment, plant layout, 

geographic location, and company 

preferences and policies. However, 

these costs are considered typical of 

most control techniques for equipment 

within petroleum refineries, reflect 

relatively high cost control techniques 

where alternative techniques are 

available, and can be used in selecting 

the level of control to be required by thf 

standards. 

Pressure Relief Devices. The 

annualized costs and VOC emission 

reductions achieved for monthly and 

quarterly leak detection and repair 

programs and for the use of control 

equipment (rupture disks) were 

determined for pressure relief devices in 

gas service. As Table 1 shows, bom die 

quarterly and monthly leak detection 

and repair programs are less expensive 

than installation of rupture disks. Leak 

detection and repair programs result in 

average credits of $170/Mg and $110/.Mg 

of VOC for quarterly and monthly 

programs, respectively. A monthly leak 

detection and repair program achieves 

an additional 0.9 Mg/yr emission 

reduction for medium-sized process 

units at an incremental cost of S250/Mg 

compared to a quarterly leak detection 

and repair program. Rupture disks 

achieve an additional 4.6 Mg/yr 

emission reduction at an incremental 

cost of Sl.OOO/Mg. However, EPA is 

establishing a performance standard (as 

indicated by no detectable emission 

limit) allowing a variety of alternative 

ways of complying with the standard. 

EPA used conservative assumptions in 

making this incremental cost 

calculation; die $1,000/Mg incremental 

cost of achieving this 4.9 Mg/yr of 

emission reduction is more than what 

many process units would experience. 

Thus, a no detectable emission limit was 

selected as the basis for the pressure 

relief device standard. 

Compressors. Only one control 

technique can be considered for 

compressor seals: the installation of 

control equipment such as barrier fluid 

systems. If a compressor is found 

leaking, the repair procedure would be 

die installation of control equipment. 

Because compressors are not generally 

spared, repair would be delayed until 

die next turnaround, thereby reducing 

the effectiveness of a leak detection and 

repair program to essentially zero. The 

installation of control equipment results 

in a cost of $1S0/Mg of VOC. This cost 

is reasonable and, therefore, control 

equipment was selected as the basis for 

the standards for compressors. 

EPA is providing an exemption from 

these equipment requirements for 

existing reciprocating compressors 

which become affected facilities through 

modification or reconstruction 

provisions of §9 60.14 and 60.15 

provided the owner or operator 

demonstrates that recasting die distance 

piece or replacing the compressor are 

the only options available to bring the 

compressor into compliance. This 

exemption is necessary because the cost 
P.7 

22602 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30. 1984 / Rules and Regoiations 

impact of installing the required control 

equipment or replacing the compressor 

is unreasonable under tiiese conditions. 

These compressors will be exempt from 

the standards until they are replaced by 

new compressors or die distance pieces 

are replaced. 

(n response to several commenters' 

concerns, the costs of controlling valves 

and compressors in hydrogen service 

were analyzed. EPA found diat 

significant emission reductions are 

achieved for valves in hydrogen service 

at a reasonable cost ($106/Mg of VOC). 

However, control of compressors in 

hvdrogen service results in a cost 

effectiveness of $4.600/Mg of VOC. EPA. 

therefore, decided to exclude 

compressors in hydrogen service from 

the standards. 

Open-ended Lines and Sampling 

Systems. EPA considered caps or 

closures as die control technique for 

open-ended lines. Caps and closures are 

used in the petroleum refining industry 

and are expected to be used even more 

frequendy in die future. The cost and 

emission reduction presented in Table l 

ire the cost and emission reduction 

which would be realized for an openended line that is not controlled. The 

S460/Mg of VOC cost for controlling 

emissions of VOC irom open-ended 

lines is reasonable. 

EPA considered dosed purge 

sampling as the control technique for 

sampling systems. Closed purge systems 

are becoming increasingly common in 

this industry. The $810/Mg of VOC cost 

for controlling emissions of VOC from 

sampling systems is reasonable. 

Valves. Several leak detection and 

repair programs were considered for 

valves. The costs of seal bellows valves 

are unreasonable. The leak detection 

and repair proyias differed in the 

monitoring rreqaency wfaidi irotld be 

implemented. Aa Table 1 shows, die 

quarterly momtoriag program results in 

savings (ffllO/Mgof VOC on me 

average). This occurs beoMae the value 

of the recovered VOC is greater mas the 

cost to implement the quarterly 

monitoring program. Tie monthlymonitoring pit—am resntts in tbe largest 

emission redaction at an average credit 

of $60/Mg of VOC The incremental cost 

per Mg of VOC emissions reduced for 

the monthly pragma is S310/Mg «rf VOC 

(compared ta tbe quarterly program) 

with an incremental emission redaction 

of 11 Mg/yr for a medium-sued process 

unit. EPA considers tfiese costs to be 

reasonable. Therefore. EPA selected a 

monddy leak detection aod repair 

program as tbe basis for die J 

for valves. 

Pumps. The control costs mcurred for 

each megagram of VOC emissions 

reduced were determined for three leak 

detection and repair programs and for 

die use of dual mechanical seals with 

controlled degassing vents. The leak 

detection and repair programs incur 

lower costs tiian die costs which would 

be incurred with equipment installation. 

The lowest average and incremental 

costs per MG are associated with a 

monthly leak detection and repair 

program. The monthly program achieves 

a higher degree of control than the 

quarterly program, but it achieves a 

lower degree of control than installation 

of control equipment However, even 

though control equipment provides for 

the greatest amount of VOC reduction, 

the S10,900/Mg incremental costs to 

obtain die additional 2.4 Mg/yr are 

judged to be unreasonably high. Because 

the costs for equipment are 

unreasonably high, and the costs for 

monthly leak detection and repair are 

reasonable, monthly leak detection and 

repair was selected as the basis for the 

standards for pumps. 

Economic Impact Considerations. An 

economic analysis was performed which 

evaluated die economic imoacts of the 

selected standards. The results of that 

analysis are presented in detail in die 

BID for Ae promulgated standards. As 

summarized in die Summary of the 

Impacts of the Standards section of this 

preamble, tbe industry-wide net 

annualized cost will be about S4.1 

million in 1966. This cost is not expected 

to result in industry-wide price 

increases. 7-bese impacts are 

reasonable. 

Applicability of Standards 

Comment 1: Commenters questioned 

the use of the group of fugitive emission 

sources within a process unit as an 

"affected facility" Biasing that the 

definition is inconsistent with the terms 

of die Clean Air Act and added tiiat 

control of fugitive emissions through 

new source performance standards is 

unwcekahle. 

Response V In choosing the 

designation of affected facilities. EPA 

examined fugitive emission sources of 

VOC in light of the terms and purpose of 

section 111 of die Clean Air Act The 

Clean Air Act mandates the EPA to set 

standards lor any pollutant emitted from 

a category of new or modified 

"stationary sources." Section 111(a)(3) 

of the Act defines the term "stationary 

source" to mean "any building, 

structure, facility, or jw^allaH/m which 

emits cr may emit *v.y air pollutant." 

The fugitire gmissine eqeipraent pieces 

in VOC sendee in a process suit viewed 

in the aggregate, are a "iaciii>\j" that 

may emit air pollutants and. therefore, 

are appropriately considered as a 

"source." ' Since the purpose of section 

111 is to minimize emissions by 

application of the best demonstrated 

system of emission reduction at new 

and modified sources (considering cost. 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements), tliere is a presumption 

that the narrowest designation (i.e.. 

individual pieces of equipment) is 

proper. However, EPA. for the reasons 

discussed at proposal (48 FR 281-262), 

rejected the equipment component 

(individual fugitive emission sources or 

pieces of equipment) designation for 

fugitive emission. Consequently, the 

next most narrow definition, die tjnap 

of fugitive equipment components in 

VOC service within a process unit was 

considered. Review of the relevant 

statutory factors did not lead to the 

conclusion that designating each group 

of equipment components in a process 

unit as an affected facility would result 

in adverse impacts. 

Some commenters suggested diat EPA 

cannot select the "equipment" in VOC 

service as the affected facility because 

that equipment is not an apparatus to 

which the standards apply, under the 

definition of "affected facility" at 40 

CFR 60.2. On the contrary, since the 

requirements in these standards apply 

only to the "equipment" in VOC service, 

the § 60.2 definition requires EPA to 

limit die affected facility to that 

equipment2 Moreover, for the reasons 

1 This agree* with the dictionary definition ot 

"facility," meaning ''something designed, built, . 

installed, etc.. to serve a specific function or 

pet-fatmed a p»i Iii-aa-i se-r-noe" (The Random House 

College Odin-nary. Ae-rised Edition, 1975). The 

group of equipment in VOC service covered by 

these standards is designed and installed to serve 

the specific function of handrmj* -the yi messing of 

petroleum products into intermediate or more 

refiaed materaab. 

Note in this regard thai the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit has stated that: 

In designating what t*ril constitute a facility in 

each particular induM-ial context. EPA is guided by 

a reasoned application of <he terma of (he statute it 

is charged to enforce. *ot by an abstract 

"dictionary" definition This court would not 

remove this appropriate exercise of the agency's 

discretion. 

ASARCO v. EPA 578 F.2d 3W. 3X4 a. 17 (T97S). 

EPA's selection of the gronpa af f u-uU-wi VOC 

emissioas-related equipment as The affected facility 

reflects a reasoned application of sectiea Ul- Il 

assures that an identifiable subset of peb-aaaan 

eaatMioaa—e^uipne-al leaks af VOC—aK-a-akocW 

as soon as the equipment responsible sir An a 

enissioBs i* either modified, iu.uaulnu.luii ar 

newly constructed. For the reasons expttrined trl 

proposal and in the text betow. a broader definition 

(e.g.. all the components of a process unit) would 

aiiapiy dni-f that re-mlt 

1

 The comment that this pwpof *--aBap-a*-Bt feast 

an "appu-rlas" is without met-*. WibeteTe tfcj-a 

Collegiate Dictionary, 1977. defines "uppaialB-*-* as. 

Inter alia, "the fuactional machinery by means of 

which a systematized activity is narrind out." Tta 

Caaakned 
P.8 

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30, 1964 / Rules and Regulations 32603fc 

discussed in the previous paragraph, a 

broader affected facility would be 

inconsistent with the purposes of section 

111. It would allow emission reductions 

resulting from the incremental control of 

omission points to which the standards 

do not apply to offset increases in 

emissions resulting from emission points 

to which the standards do apply. This 

would simply delay coverage of the 

equipment through the modification 

provisions. Based on these 

considerations.. EPA rejected this 

approach. Therefore, the affected 

facilities for the standards are: (1) 

Compressors in petroleum refineries and 

(2) the group of equipment (pressure 

relief devices, open ended lines, 

sampling systems, valves, and pumps] in 

a process unit. 

One commenter requested that the 

standards apply to each piece of 

equipment in VOC service. As the 

commenter noted, EPA judged that 

implementing a leak detection and 

repair program (the principal control 

technique considered for the standards) 

for a very small proportion of all the 

equipment components at a plant site 

would be too costly. The commenter did 

not agree with this judgement. However, 

explained in detail in the BID for the 

promulgated standards. EPA 

reconsidered this decision and 

concluded that the process unit is an 

appropriate basis for an affected 

facility, except for compressors. 

Comment 2: Other commenters 

requested that the definition of "volatile 

organic compounds (VOCJP specifically 

state which organic compounds are 

excluded. 

Response 2: Volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) are defined as 

organic compounds that participate in 

photochemical reactions. Any organic 

compound is presumed to participate in 

atmospheric reactions unless the 

Administrator determines that it does 

not. EPA considers several organic 

compounds to haveneglipbie 

photochemical reactivity. These are 

methane, ethane, 1,14-trichloraethane, 

methylene chloride, 

trichiaiofluoromethane, 

dichlorodtfluoramethaae. 

chlorodifluoromethane, 

trifluoromethane. 

trichlorotrifluoroethane; 

vagueness of this defaititmsuggptt-thmtttmtBndoes not plainly exclude tha groap of-equipmani 

EPA has selected as the affected facility. Beyond 

lhat. however, the purpose of the 5 80.2 definition is 

merely to identify as the "effatiBd-faaiUtj-" the 

specific equipment actually subject-to a standard of 

performance. Focusing on tkawosd "apparatus." aa 

if the Agency had intended it to have some 

additional effect, is inconsistent with that fairty 

simple purpose. 

dicfaloroterrafluoroethane. and 

chloropentafluoroediane. 

Comment 3: One commenter stated 

that process units with in-place state-ofthe-art hydrocarbon gas detection 

systems should be exempted. This 

commenter requested that units in an 

arctic environment be exempted 

because of several unique aspects of 

refining in the North Slope of Alaska. 

Response 3: The presence of an inplace state-of-the-art hydrocarbon gas 

detection system does not necessarily 

ensure emission reductions. Cas 

detection systems set for 12.500 ppm 

would permit VOC to be emitted 

without notice. Several megagrams of 

VOC would be released to the 

atmosphere annually without the use of 

specific control techniques hke those 

required by the standards. The 

commenter did not demonstrate that 

their system resulted in at least 

equivalent emission reductions as the 

standards. Upon request by EPA. the 

commenter explained the specific, 

control techniques used at their plant, 

many of which are identical to those 

required by the standards. Based on 

EPA experience, gas detection systems 

alone are ineffective for reducing 

equipment leaks erf VOC. Thus, EPA has 

not exempted process units using these 

systems from the standards. The. final 

standards da however, allow an 

existing control program to be continued 

if EPA determines mat the program is at 

least equivalent to the requirements of 

the standards. 

EPA has studied the commenter's 

concerns and acknowledges that there 

are several unique aspects to refining in 

the North Slope of Alaska. Accordingly, 

EPA concluded that the cost* tc* comply 

with the routine leek detection and 

repair requirements of the proposed' 

standards may be unreasonable. These 

operations incur higher labor, 

administrative, and support costs 

associated widi leak detection and 

repair programs because; fl) They are 

located at great distances from ma jot 

population centers. (2) they-must 

necessarily deal with the long-term, 

extremely low temperatures of the 

arctic, and consecjaentiy (3) they most 

provide extraosdeoary services for plant 

personnel. These unique aspects make 

the cost of routine leak detection and. 

repair unreasonable (Document Number 

IV-B-15)L Therefore. EPA has decided 

that refineries is the North Slope of 

Alaska axe exempt from the routine leak 

detection and repair requaxefftents of the 

standards. This exemption dees not — 

include the equipment requirements is 

the standards because the cost of duse 

requirements is reasonable. 

Comment 4: Commenters accused 

EPA of incorporating into the standards 

a bias against small refiners. They 

asserted that small refiners will be 

affected more adversely than will large 

refiners. 

Response 4: In analyzing the economic 

impacts of the standards, EPA assumed 

a reasonably smail throughput for a 

range of process unit types* EPA 

anticipated diat process-units with small 

throughput would show significant 

adverse economic impacts, if any exist, 

much more readily than large throughput 

units. Thus, EPA's impact analysis was 

sensitive to impacts on small refiners. 

However, no adverse economic impacts 

were projected (see Chapter 9 of the BIO 

for the proposed standards). Therefore. 

EPA concluded that the standards are 

reasonable in general and considered 

specifically bow die standards impact 

small firms. 

Modification and Reconstruction 

Comment 1: Commenters-requested 

that the capital expenditure 

determination (as it relates to the 

modification provisions) be revised so 

that it is more practicable. 

Response 1: After reviewing the 

comments concerning die difficulties 

widi using the capital expenditure 

definition, EPA agreed mat die 

definition for capital, expenditure may 

be difficult to use for some refineries. 

Accorefingly, EPA decided to provide an 

alternative to the procedores in the 

General Provisions. Altbmgh the 

implementation of the capital 

expenditure definition has been made 

more practicable, die original intent of 

the definition has been -Maintained. 

The alternative uses an adjusted 

annual asset guideline repair allowance 

(AAGRA) and die replacement costs to 

determine capital expenditure- The 

adjusted AAGRA is determined by a 

formula and is based on a ratio mat 

reflects inflation of cost* over die last 

several years. The adjusted AAGRA is 

multiplied by the replacement costs of 

the equipment within the facility to 

determine the value-of a capital 

expenditure. 

Comment 2: Comm enters held that 

reconstruction costs sfaeuU not he 

accumulated. Two commsntera 

requested EPA to exclude, from the 

reconstruction provisions the costs of 

equipment replacement done for tontine 

maintenance purposes. 

Response 2: EPA h considering'aa 

amendment to the. recoaslrucUan: 

provisions (40 CFR 60.15) so dut 

reconstruction costs are accumulated foi 

a 2-year period. EPA* psnmlgBtKl the 

reconstruction provisions to comply 
P.9 

22604 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday. May 30. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 

with Congressional intent to ensure that 

essentially new facilities due to 

.-(-construction would be subject to "new 

source" performance standards. The 

reconstruction provisions were 

promulgated in 1975 (40 FR 5846). and 

F.PA has applied these provisions 

consistently since that time. 

A source is identified for 

consideration as a reconstructed source 

when: (1) The fixed capital costs of the 

new components exceed 50 percent of 

(he fixed capital costs that would be 

required to construct a comparable, 

entirely new facility, and (2) it is 

technologically and economically 

feasible to meet the applicable 

standards set forth. The final judgment 

on whether a replacement constitutes 

reconstruction will be made by the 

Administrator. The purpose of the 

rpconstruction provisions is to ensure 

that an owner or operator does not 

attempt to avoid the application of 

performance standards to his or her 

essentially new reconstructed facility byretaining minor components such as 

support structures, frames, housing, etc.. 

and claiming that the facility therefore 

does not qualify as "new source." EPA 

authority to subject reconstructed 

sources to new source standards of 

performance has not been questioned in 

any court decision. 

If one considers the 50 percent cost 

factor which triggers reconstruction 

strictly on a project-by-project basis, a 

wide variety of interpretations can arise 

as to what a "project" entails. For 

example, a.process unit with several 

hundred pieces of equipment may 

refurbish one-third of them and then 1 

year later begin to refurbish another 

one-third. If these maintenance efforts 

were interpreted as separate projects, 

neither one would likely exceed the 50 

percent replacement cost to trigger 

reconstruction. If, however, it was the 

owner's original intent to refurbish twothirds of the equipment, the two 

maintenance efforts would be 

interpreted as one project and would 

probably constitute a reconstruction. In 

many cases, it would not be possible to 

determine the original intent of the 

owner or operator. EPA believes that it 

is appropriate to reduce die number of 

subjective determinations concerning an 

owner's intent. One way to do this for 

the reconstruction provisions is to apply 

a criterion which considers the 

expenditures made over a fixed time 

period. This would rely on a reasonable 

objective surrogate for die owner's 

subjective intent. 

The administrative effort to keep the 

required records of expenditures should 

not be a burden on die industry. Section 

60.15 defines the "fixed capital cost" of 

replacement components as the capital 

needed to provide all the "depreciable" 

components. By excluding 

nondepreciable components from 

consideration in calculating component 

replacement costs, many components 

that are replaced frequently to keep the 

plant in proper working order are 

excluded from this recordkeeping. The 

recordkeeping required under the "fixed 

time period" interpretation of 

reconstruction is the same as the 

recordkeeping that would be required 

under a strictly project-by-project 

interpretation. In either case, the dollar 

amount of the component replacements 

taking place at the facility must be 

determined and recorded. 

Accordingly, EPA is clarifying the 

meaning of "proposed" component 

replacements in § 60.15. Specifically. 

EPA has been interpreting "proposed" 

replacement components under § 60.15 

to include components which are 

replaced pursuant to all continuous 

programs of component replacements 

which commence (but are not 

necessarily completed) within the period 

of time determined by EPA to be 

appropriate for the individual NSPS 

involved. Until this revision is 

promulgated in the General Provisions 

of 40 CFR Part 60. EPA is selecting a 2-

year period as die appropriate period for 

purposes of this NSPS (Subpart GGG). 

EPA will count toward the 50 percent 

reconstruction threshold the "fixed 

capital cost" of all depreciable 

components (except those described in 

the next response) replaced pursuant to 

all continuous programs of 

reconstruction which commence within 

any 2-year period following proposal of 

these standards. In EPA's judgment, die 

2-year period provides a reasonable, 

objective method of determining 

whether an owner of facilities within 

petroleum refineries is actually 

"proposing" extensive component 

replacement, within EPA's original 

intent in promulgating § 60.15. 

Reconstruction costs are die fixed 

capital cost or the capital needed to 

provide all the "depreciable" 

components, while most routine 

maintenance practices involve die use of 

nondepreciable components. Because 

routine maintenance items (valve 

packing, pump seals, replacement 

rupture disks, nuts and bolts) cost very 

little compared to die cost of equipment 

(covered by the standards) in a process 

unit, it is very unlikely that even if these 

parts were all depreciable routine 

maintenance would trigger a 

reconstruction even if accumulated over 

several vears. The cost of these items is 

relatively small. In EPA's judgment, 

maintaining records of the repair or 

replacement of these items may 

constitute an unnecessary burden. 

Moreover. EPA does not consider the 

replacement of these items an element 

of the turnover in the life of the facility. 

Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 

60.15(g), the final standards (Subpart 

GGG) will exempt certain frequently 

replaced r -mponents from 

consideration in applying the 

reconstruction provisions to petroleum 

refinery process unit facilities. 

The costs of these frequently replaced 

valve parts will not be considered in 

calculating either the "fixed capital cost 

of the new components" or the "fixed 

capital cost that would be required to 

construct a comparable, entirely new 

facility" under § 60.15. In EPA's 

judgment, these items are pump seals, 

valve packings, nuts and bolts, and 

rupture disks. Replacements of pumps, 

values, and other fugitive equipment at 

turnarounds or at other times are 

included in reconstructions costs. For 

turnarounds that involve significant 

refurbishment of a process unit. EPA 

would likely consider this a 

reconstruction. EPA also considers it 

appropriate to include in reconstruction 

costs the replacement of equipment due 

to the accidental loss of an original 

component, since the reason for an 

owner's refurbishing a facility has no 

bearing on whether the facility itself is 

comparable to a new source for which 

application of the best control systems 

is reasonable. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Comment 1: One commenter remarked 

that the standards are not enforceable 

and another commenter stated that 

reporting should be added to die 

standards. 

Response 1: Reports, records, and 

inspections will be used to ensure 

compliance by all facilities subject to 

these standards. State and EPA 

Regional air quality control authorities 

have successfully implemented 

regulations similar to the standards. At 

proposal EPA stated that routine 

reporting was not required. Reporting 

requirements were limited to 

notifications of construction, anticipated 

startup and actual startup, and an 

intention to comply with one of the 

alternative standards. At that time, EPA 

believed that these reporting 

requirements would not provide a 

mechanism for checking the 

thoroughness of the industry's efforts to 

reduce fugitive emissions of VOC. The 

Agency decided instead that compliance 
P.10 

Federal Register / VoL 49, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 21! 

would be assessed through in-plant 

inspections. 

EPA has now decided diat reporting is 

necessary to assess implementation of 

the work practice and equipment 

requirements of the standards. EPA 

agrees with the commenter that facilities 

not complying with the standards might 

have an unfair advantage (albeit, 

somewhat small). More importantly, 

facilities not complying with the 

standards would not be using BDT as 

required by the Clean Air Act, the 

purpose of which is to prevent new 

pollution problems. EPA believes that 

reporting is important to die effective 

enforcement of the standards. Reporting 

will reduce the necessity for many inplant inspections, while improving the 

enforceability of the standards. EPA's 

conclusion that reports are useful is also 

based on the experience of the State and 

local air quality control boards. 

As explained at proposal, three 

alternatives were considered for 

reporting requirements. The three 

alternatives represented trade-offs 

among varying amounts of in-plant 

inspections and report preparation for 

enforcement. The first alternative 

required no routine reporting and relied 

on inspections for enforcement. The 

third altemative relied almost totally en 

reports and would require minimum 

inspections to judge compliance. Under 

the second alternative, soma reporting 

and some inspections is required and is 

included in the final regulations. These 

reporting requirements, however, have • 

been streamlined to include reporting of 

data on leak detection and repair of 

pumps, valves, and other equipment 

types only. In addition, periodic reports 

are on a semiannual rather than 

quarterly basis. The semiannual 

reporting requirements may be waived 

for affected sources in any State that is * 

delegated authority to enforce these 

standards, provided EPA approves 

reporting requirements or an alternative 

means of source survetOance adopted 

by the State, Such sources would be 

required to comply with the 

requirements adopted by die State, 

Comment 2: Commenters wrote that 

the recordkeeping requirements were 

needlessly complex and burdensome. In 

contrast, another commenter stated that 

more information should be recorded to 

ensure compliance with the standards. 

Response 2: Before the standards 

were proposed, EPA considered three 

alternative levels of recordkeeping. The 

proposed recordkeeping:requirements 

were considered the minimum 

consistent with adequate enforcement 

thus, the paperwork burden on owners 

and operators is the minimum amount 

necessary to enforce the standards 

adequately. At proposal. EPA weighed 

the paperwork burden on the industry 

against the burden on the enforcement 

authority (Federal, State and local) to 

determine compliance with the 

standards and selected the proposed 

requirements. 

Compliance with the final standards 

will be generally determined through 

inspection. However, because the intent 

of the standards is a continuous 

reduction in equipment leaks of VOC 

and continuous inspection by 

enforcement authorities is not passible, 

records must be maintained if an 

inspector is to determine retrospectively 

whether a facility has been in 

compliance with the standards. EPA 

considers the required records for an 

owner or operator's leak detection and 

repair program necessary to document 

the operator's compliance efforts. These 

records would likely already be' 

maintained by a prudent owner or 

operator, and should therefore add little 

additional recordkeeping burden. 

The records required for identifying 

fugitive emission components, and 

control device schematics sad design 

data are not unreasonably burdensome. 

This information would be developed 

only once, and would require changing 

or updating only if the facility were 

changed. The control device schematics 

and design data should be available ta 

plant engineers already, and as such do 

not represent an added busden. For new 

facilities, the reasons why a component 

must be installed in a locatioa whack 

makes it difficult or unsafe to monitor 

must be ctacumazted prior to-installing 

the compommi in such at position. The 

numbered dtffisuit-to-menitor oi unsafeto-monitor components will be saatt 

and, therefore, should not create an 

excessive recordkeeping binden. After 

considering the comments diat the 

recordkeeping requirement* are 

needlessly complex and burdensome 

and the comment that more information 

was needed to enforce the standards 

adequately, EPA decided to promulgate 

the recordkeeping requirements as 

proposed. 

Changes Being Made to SOCMI 

Standaids (Subpart W) 

Several of the decisions made on the 

standards of performance for equipment 

leaks of VOC within petroleum 

refineries (since they were proposed^ 

affect EPA's position on standards of 

performance (Subpart W) for 

equipment leaks of VOC within die 

Synthetic Organic Chemical — 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI). These 

decisions are the result of net* or 

additional technical analysis of die 

control techniques considered in the 

standards for petroleum refineries an 

SOCMI and. therefore, should be ma* 

consistent for these tww standards. T 

decisions concern the alternative for 

determining a "capital expenditure." 

clarification of reconstruction 

provisions, difficult-to-monitor valves 

new units, and double block and bleei 

valve clarification. The discussions oi 

these decisions are found in sections 

2.2.3.1, 2.7, 4.2, and 5.0 of die BID for 

promulgated standards as they apply t 

petroleum refineries. The basis for the 

revisions to Subpart W is consistent 

with these discussions. Since these 

revisions either simply clarify 

ambiguous aspects of the current 

regulation or provide more practicable 

alternatives to current requirements 

consistent with their intent and withouchanging their substance. EPA believes 

that additional notice and comment are 

unnecessary. For this reason, the 

Agency finds "good cause" under 42 

U.S.C. 7607(d)(1) and 5 U.S.C. 553(b), 

subparagraph (B) to promulgate these 

revisions together widi the refinery 

standards. In addition, a few 

typographical errors were printed in die 

Federal Register when Subpart Wwa s 

promulgated. These errors:are also 

corrected in this notice. 

Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

considered by EPA in the development 

of this rulemaking. The docket is a 

dynamic file, since material is added 

throughout the rulemaking process. The 

docketing system is intended to allow 

members of die pubfic and industry 

involved to identify andlocatadocuments so that thejfcan. participate 

effectively in the rulemaking process. 

Along with die statement oi basia and 

purpose of the proposed and 

promulgated standards and EPA 

responses to significant comments, the 

contents of the docket will serve as the 

record in case of judicial review, except 

for interagency review materials 

(section 307[d\{7){A)l. 

Miscellan-Boos 

In accordance with section 117 of die 

Act, publication of tiieaepromulgated 

standaids was preceded hy conwltatftm 

with appropriate advisory committees. 

independent experts, and Federal 

departments and agendas. This 

regulation will be revwwed4-years from 

the date of pronndgatoii as required by 

die Clean Air Act.This mrtarwitt 

include an assessment of snclr factors as 

die need for integration with other 

programs,.the existence of alternative 

methods, enforceability. impRzvements 
P.11 

22606 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday. May 30, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 

in emission control technology, and 

-eporting requirements. 

Section 317 of the Clean Air Act 

requires the Administrator to prepare an 

economic impact assessment for any 

new source standard of performance 

promulgated under section 111(b) of the 

Act. An economic impact assessment 

was prepared for this regulation and for 

other regulatory alternatives. All 

aspects of the assessment were 

considered in the formulation of the 

standards to ensure that cost was 

carefully considered in determining the 

best demonstrated technology. The 

economic impact assessment is included 

in the background information 

documents for tiie proposed standards 

and die promulgated standards. 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. These requirements 

were approved; the OMB control 

number is 2060-0067. 

"Major Rule"Determination. Under 

Executive Order 12291, tiie 

Administrator is required to judge 

whether a regulation is a "major ruie" 

and. therefore, subject to certain 

requirements of the Order. The 

Administrator has determined diat this 

regulation would result in none of die 

adverse economic effects set forth in 

section 1 of the Order as grounds for 

finding a regulation to be a "major rule." 

Fifth-year annualized costs of the 

standards would be as much as $4.1 

million for die projected 282 newly 

constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed refining facilities that 

could be affected by the standards 

during die first 5 years. The economic 

analysis shows diat any combination of 

the control techniques presented in 

Table 1. excluding die use of sealed 

bellows valves, would not have a 

significant impact on petroleum 

refineries. The standards result in no 

adverse impact on profitability 

(decrease less than 0.5 percent), would 

have a potential to increase slightly the 

consumer price of petroleum products 

(0.1 percent or less), and would have no 

adverse impact on capital availability 

for construction of refineries. The 

Administrator has concluded tiiat this 

rule is not "major" under any of die 

ritsria established in the Executive 

"•rder. 

As discussed in the "Basis For the 

Standards" section of this preamble, 

costs per megagram of VOC emission 

reduction were used in selecting die 

standards promulgated by this 

rulemaking. This regulation was 

submitted to die OMB for review as 

required in Executive Order 12291. Any 

comments from OMB to EPA and any 

EPA responses to tiiose comments are 

available for pubic inspection in Docket 

No. A-80-44. Central Docket Section, at 

the address given in the ADDRESSES 

section of this preamble. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 requires that adverse effects 

of all Federal regulations upon small 

businesses be identified. According to 

current Small Business Administration 

guidelines, a small business in the 

petroleum refining industry is one that 

has 1.500 employees or fewer. There are 

many small companies that refine 

petroleum and employ fewer than 1.500 

persons. However, even if facilities 

owned by small businesses do become 

subject to the standards, none will be 

adversely affected. This can be said 

because the price and profitability 

impacts previously described have been 

estimated from the perspective of the 

smaller" refinery units in operation. 

Thus, the economic impact for facilities 

owned by small businesses is not 

considered significant. Pursuant to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby 

certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Air pollution control. Aluminum, 

Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt, 

Cement industry, Coal. Copper, Electric 

power plants. Glass and glass products. 

Grains. Intergovernmental relations, 

Iron. Lead. Metals, Metallic minerals. 

Motor vehicles. Nitric acid plants, Paper 

and paper products industry, Petroleum. 

Phosphate. Sewage disposal. Steel. 

Sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment 

and disposal. Zinc. Tires. Incorporation 

by reference. Can surface coating. 

Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic 

chemicals. Organic solvent cleaners. 

Fossil fuel-fired steam generators. 

Fiberglass insulation. Synthetic fibers. 

Dated: May 15,1984. 

William O. Ruckelshaus, 

Administrator. 

PART 60-{ AMENDED] 

40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows: 

1. By adding a new Subpart GGG as 

follows: 

Subpart GGG—Standards of Performance 

for Equipment Leaks of VOC In Petroleum 

Refineries 

Sec.. 

60.590 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

60.591 Definitions. 

60.592 Standards. 

60.593 Exceptions. 

60.594-60.599 (Reserved) 

Authority: Sections 111 and 301(a) of the 

Clean Air Act. as amended. (42 U.S.Cr7411, 

7601(a)), and additional authority aa noted 

below. 

Subpart GGG—Standards of 

Performance for Equipment Leaks of 

VOC in Petroleum Refineries 

§ 60.590 Applicability snd designation of 

affected facility. 

(a)(1) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to affected facilities in petroleum 

refineries. 

(2) A compressor is an affected 

facility. 

(3) The group of all the equipment 

(defined in § 60.591) within a process 

unit is an affected facility. 

(b) Any affected facility under 

paragraph (a) of this section that 

commences construction or modification 

after January 4,1983, is subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(c) Addition or replacement of 

equipment (defined in § 60.591) for the 

purpose of process improvement which 

is accomplished without a capital 

expenditure shall not by itself be 

considered a modification under this 

subpart. 

(d) Facilities subject to Subpart W or 

Subpart KKK of 40 CFR Part 60 are 

excluded from this subpart. 

§60.591 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein shall have the meaning 

given them in die Act, in Subpart A of 

Part 60. or in Subpart VV of Part 60. and 

the following terms shall have the 

specific meanings given them. 

"Alaskan Nordi Slope" means the 

approximately 69,000 square mile area 

extending from the Brooks Range to die 

Arctic Ocean. 

"Equipment" means each valve, pump, 

pressure relief device, sampling 

connection system, open-ended valve or 

line, and flange or other connector in 

VOC service. For the purposes of 

recordkeeping and reporting only, 

compressors are considered equipment 

"In Hydrogen Service" means mat a 

compressor contains a process fluid that 

meets the conditions specified in 

S 60.593(b). 

"In Light Liquid Service" means diat 

the piece of equipment contains a liquid 

diat meets the conditions specified in 

§ 60.593(c). 

"Petroleum Refinery" means any 

facility engaged in producing gasoline, 

kerosene, liistjilate fuel oils, residual 

f.:el oils, lubricants, orotiier products 

trirough the distillation of petroleum, or 

through the redistillation, cracking, or 

reforming of unfinished petroleum 

derivatives. 
P.12 

Federal Register / VoL 49, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 21 

would be assessed through in-plant 

inspections. 

EPA has now decided diat reporting is 

necessary to assess implementation of 

the work practice and equipment 

requirements of the standards. EPA 

agrees with the commenter that facilities 

not complying with the standards might 

have an unfair advantage (albeit, 

somewhat small). More importantly, 

facilities not complying with the 

standards would not be using BDT as 

required by the Clean Air Act, the 

purpose of which is to prevent new 

pollution problems. EPA believes that 

reporting is important to die effective 

enforcement of the standards. Reporting 

will reduce the necessity for many jnplant inspections, while improving die 

enforceability of the standards. EPA's 

conclusion that reports are useful is also 

based on the experience of the State and 

local air quality control boards. 

As explained at proposal, three 

alternatives were considered for 

reporting requirements. The three 

alternatives represented trade-offs 

among varying amounts of in-plant 

inspections and report preparation for 

enforcement. The first alternative 

required no routine reporting and relied 

on inspections for enforcement. The 

third alternative relied almost totally on 

reports and would require minimum 

inspections to judge compliance. Under 

the second alternative, some reporting 

and some inspections is required and is 

included in the final regulations. These 

reporting requirements, however, have • 

been streamlined to include reporting, of 

data on leak detection and repair of 

pumps, valves, and other equipment 

types only. In addition, periodic reports 

are cn a semiannual rather than 

quarterly basis. The semiannual 

reporting requirements may be waived 

for affected sources in any State that w * 

delegated authority to enforce these 

standards, provided EPA approves 

reporting requirements-or an altemative 

means of source surveillance adopted 

by the State. Such sources would be 

required to comply widi the 

requirements adopted by die State. 

Comment Z- Commenters wrote that 

the recordkeeping requirements were 

needlessly complex and burdensome. In 

contrast, another commenter stated that 

more information should be recorded to 

ensure compliance widi the standards. 

Response 2: Before the standards 

were proposed. EPA considered three 

alternative levels of recordkeeping. The 

proposed recordkeeping: requirements 

were considered me* minimum 

consistent with adequate enforcement 

thus, the paperwork burden on owners 

and operators is the minimum amount 

necessary to enforce the standards 

adequately. At proposal. EPA weighed 

the paperwork burden on the industry 

against the burden on the enforcement 

authority (Federal, State and local) to 

determine compliance with the 

standards and selected the proposed 

requirements. 

Compliance with the final standards 

will be generally determined tiirougb 

inspection. However, because the intent 

of the standards is a continuous 

reduction in equipment leaks of VOC 

and continuous inspection by 

enforcement authorities is not possible, 

records must be maintained if an 

inspector is to determine retrospectively 

whether a facility has been in 

compliance with the standards. EPA 

considers the required records for an 

owner or operator's leak detection and 

repair program necessary to document 

the operator's compliance efforts. These 

records would likely already be 

maintained by a prudent owner or 

operator, and should therefore add little 

additional recordkeeping burden. 

The records required for identifying 

fugitive emission components, and 

control device schematics aad designdata are not unreasonably burdensome. 

This information would be developed 

only once, and would require changing 

or updating oniy if the facility were 

changed. The control device schematics 

and design data should be available ta 

plant engineers already, and as such do 

not represent an added burden. For new 

facilities, the reasons why a component 

must be installed in a locatioa whacfa 

makes it difficult or unsafe to monitor 

must be deeums-tted prior to installing 

the component in such a position. The 

numberef difficult-to-moni tor o» unsafeto-manitor components will be small 

and. therefore, should not cre*te an 

excessive recordkeeping burden. After 

considering the comments that die 

recordkeeping requirements, are 

needlessly complex and burdensome 

and the comment that more information 

was needed to enforce die standards 

adequately, EPA decided to promulgate 

the recordkeeping requirements as 

proposed. 

Changes Being Made to SOCMI 

Standards (Subpart W) 

Several of the decisions made on the 

standards of performance for equipment 

leaks of VOC within petroleum 

refineries (since they were proposed^ 

affect EPA's position on standards of 

performance (Subpart W) for 

equipment leaks of VOC within the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical _ 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI}. These 

decisions are the result of new or 

additional technical analysis of the 

control techniques considered in the 

standards for petroleum refineries ar 

SOCMI and. therefore, should be ma 

consistent for these two standards. T 

decisions concern the alternative for 

determining a "capital expenditure." 

clarification of reconstruction 

provisions, difficult-tc-monitor valve.° 

new units, and double block and blee 

valve clarification. The discussions oi 

these decisions are found in sections 

2.2.3.1,2.7,4.2, and 5.0 of the BID for 

promulgated standards as they apply 

petroleum refineries. The basis for the 

revisions to Subpart W is consistent 

with these discussions. Since these 

revisions either simply clarify 

ambiguous aspects of the current 

regulation or provide more practicable 

alternatives to current requirements 

consistent with their intent and withou 

changing their substance, EPA believe!1 

that additional notice and comment an 

unnecessary. For this reason, the 

Agency finds "good cause" under 42 

U.S.C. 7607(d)(1) and 5 U.S.C. 553(b), 

subparagraph (B) to promulgate these 

revisions together with the refinery 

standards. In addition, a few 

typographical errors were printed in tht 

Federal Register when-Subpart Wwa s 

promulgated. These errors:are also 

corrected in this notice. 

Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

considered by EPA in the development 

of this rulemaking. The docket is a 

dynamic file, since material is added 

throughout the rulemaking process. The 

docketing system is. intended to allow 

members of the pubficamf industry 

involved to identify and locate 

documents so that thejTcan participate 

effectively in the rulemaking process. 

Along with die statement of basis and 

purpose of the proposed and 

promulgated standards and EPA 

responses to significant comments, the 

contents of the docket will serve as the 

record in case of judicial review, except 

for interagency review materials 

(section 307(dj(7)[A)l. 

Miscellaneous 

In accordance with section 117 of the 

Act, pubhcatiao of these-promulgated 

standajds was preceded" hy conauitatfoi» 

with appropriate advisory committees, 

independent experts, and Federal 

departments and agendas*. This 

regulation will be reviewed 4^ years from 

the date of pro,-mdgation.a» required by 

the Clean Air Act. This review wiM 

include an assessment afsodr factors as 

the need for integration wtth other 

programs,, the existence of altemative 

methods, enforceability; iiupruvenients. 
P.13 

22606 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday. May 30. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 

m emission control technology, and 

-eporting requirements. 

Section 317 of the Clean Air Act 

requires the Administrator to prepare an 

economic impact assessment for any 

aew source standard of performance 

promulgated under section 111(b) of the 

Act. An economic impact assessment 

was prepared for this regulation and for 

other regulatory alternatives. All 

aspects of the assessment were 

considered in the formulation of the 

standards to ensure diat cost was 

carefully considered in determining the 

best demonstrated technology. The 

economic impact assessment is included 

in die background information 

documents for the proposed standards 

and die promulgated standards. 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. These requirements 

were approved: the OMB control 

number is 2060-0067. 

"Major Rule"Determination. Under 

Executive Order 12291, die 

Administrator is required to judge 

whether a regulation is a "major rule" 

and. therefore, subject to certain 

requirements of the Order. The 

Administrator has determined mat this 

regulation would result in none of die 

adverse economic effects set forth in 

section 1 of the Order as grounds for 

finding a regulation to be a "major rule." 

Fifth-year annualized costs of the 

standards would be as much as $4.1 

million for die projected 282 newly 

constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed refining facilities diat 

could be affected by die standards 

during die first 5 years. The economic 

analysis shows diat any combination of 

the control techniques presented in 

Table 1, excluding the use of sealed 

bellows valves, would not have a 

significant impact on petroleum 

refineries. The standards result in no 

adverse impact on profitability 

(decrease less than 0.5 percent), would 

have a potential to increase slightiy the 

consumer price of petroleum products 

(0.1 percent or less), and would have no 

adverse impact on capital availability 

for construction of refineries. The 

Administrator has concluded that this 

rule is not "major" under any of the 

-riteria established in the Executive 

"•rder. 

As discussed in the "Basis For die 

Standards" section of this preamble, 

costs per megagram of VOC emission 

reduction were used in selecting die 

standards promulgated by this 

rulemaking. This regulation was 

submitted to die OMB for review as 

required in Executive Order 12291. Any 

comments from OMB to EPA and any 

EPA responses to those comments are 

available for pubic inspection in Docket 

No. A-80-44. Central Docket Section, at 

the address given in the ADDRESSES 

section of this preamble. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 requires that adverse effects 

of all Federal regulations upon small 

businesses be identified. According to 

current Small Business Administration 

guidelines, a small business in the 

petroleum refining industry is one that 

has 1.500 employees or fewer. There are 

many small companies that refine 

petroleum and employ fewer than 1.500 

persons. However, even if facilities 

owned by small businesses do becorrfe 

subject to the standards, none will be 

adversely affected. This can be said 

because die price and profitability 

impacts previously described have been 

estimated from the perspective of the 

smaller" refinery units in operation. 

Thus, die economic impact for facilities 

owned by small businesses is not 

considered significant. Pursuant to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby 

certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Air pollution control. Aluminum, 

Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt, 

Cement industry, Coal, Copper, Electric 

power plants. Glass and glass products. 

Grains. Intergovernmental relations, 

Iron, Lead. Metals, Metallic minerals. 

Motor vehicles. Nitric acid plants, Paper 

and paper products industry, Petroleum. 

Phosphate, Sewage disposal. Steel. 

Sulfuric acid plants, Waste treatment 

and disposal. Zinc. Tires. Incorporation 

by reference. Can surface coating. 

Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic 

chemicals. Organic solvent cleaners. 

Fossil fuel-fired steam generators. 

Fiberglass insulation. Synthetic fibers. 

Dated: May 15,1984. 

William D. Ruckelshaus, 

Administrator. 

PART 60—{AMENDED] 

40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows: 

1. By adding a new Subpart GGG as 

follows: 

Subpart GGG—Standards of Performance 

for Equipment Leaks of VOC In Petroleum 

Refineries 

Sec.. 

60.590 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

. 60.591 Definitions. 

60.592 Standards. 

60.593 Exceptions. 

60.594-60.599 [Reserved] 

Authority: Sections 111 and 301(a) of the 

Clean Air Act. as amended, (42 U.S.cr7411. 

7601(a)), and additional authority as noted 

below. 

Subpart GGG—Standards of 

Performance for Equipment Leaks of 

VOC in Petroleum Refineries 

§ 60.590 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a)(1) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to affected facilities in petroleum 

refineries. 

(2) A compressor is an affected 

facility. 

(3) The group of all the equipment 

(defined in § 60.591) within a process 

unit is an affected facility. 

(b) Any affected facility under 

paragraph (a) of this section that 

commences construction or modification 

after January 4,1983. is subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(c) Addition or replacement of 

equipment (defined in § 60.591) for the 

purpose of process improvement which 

is accomplished without a capital 

expenditure shall not by itself be 

considered a modification under this 

subpart. 

(d) Facilities subject to Subpart VV or 

Subpart KKK of 40 CFR Part 60 are 

excluded from this subpart. 

§ 60.591 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein shall have the meaning 

given diem in die Act, in Subpart A of 

Part 60. or in Subpart VV of Part 60. and 

the following terms shall have the 

specific meanings given them. 

"Alaskan North Slope" means die 

approximately 69,000 square mile area 

extending from die Brooks Range to die 

Arctic Ocean. 

"Equipment" means each valve, pump, 

pressure relief device, sampling 

connection system, open-ended valve or 

line, and flange or other connector in 

VOC service. For the purposes of 

recordkeeping and reporting only, 

compressors are considered equipment 

"In Hydrogen Service" means diat a 

compressor contains a process fluid diat 

meets die conditions specified in 

§ 60.593(b). 

"In Light Liquid Service" means diat 

the piece of equipment contains a liquid 

diat meets die conditions specified in 

§ 60.593(c). 

"Petroleum Refinery" means any 

facility engaged in producing gasoline, 

kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual 

fuel oils, lubricants, or other products 

rnrough die distillation of petroleum, or 

through the redistillation, cracking, or 

reforming of unfinished petroleum 

derivatives. 
I . . 

P.M 

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 226C 

"Petroleum" means the crude oil 

removed from the earth and the oils 

derived from tar sands, shale, and coal. 

"Process Unit" means components 

assembled to produce intermediate or 

final products from petroleum, 

unfinished petroleum derivatives, or 

other intermediates; a process unit can 

operate independently if supplied with 

sufficient feed or raw materials and 

sufficient storage facilities for the 

product. 

§60.592 Standards. 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 60.482-1 to § 60.482-10 as soon as 

practicable, but no later than 180 days 

after initial startup. 

(b) An owner or operator may elect to 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 60.483-1 and § 60.483-2. 

(c) An owner or operator may apply to 

the Administrator for a determination of 

equivalency for any means of emission 

limitation that achieves a reduction in 

emissions of VOC at least equivalent to 

the reduction in emissions of VOC 

achieved by the controls required in this 

subpart. In doing so. the owner or 

operator shall comply with requirements 

of § 60.484. 

(dj Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall 

comply with the provisions of § 60.465 

except as provided in $ 60.593. 

(e) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall 

comply with the provisions of § 60.486 

and § 60.487. 

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

U.S.C. 7414)) 

§ 60.593 Exceptions. 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to * 

the provisions of this subpart may 

comply with the following exceptions to 

the provisions of Subpart W. 

(b)(1) Compressors in hydrogen 

service are exempt from the 

requirements of § 60.592 if an owner or 

operator demonstrates that a 

compressor is in hydrogen service. 

(2) Each compressor is presumed not 

be be in hydrogen service unless an 

owner or operator demonstrates diat the 

piece of equipment is in hydrogen 

service. For a piece of equipment to be 

considered in hydrogen service, it must 

be determined that the percent hydrogen 

content can be reasonably expected 

always to exceed 50 percent by volume. 

For purposes of determining the percent 

hydrogen content in the process fluid 

that is contained in or contacts a 

compressor, procedures that conform to 

the general method described in ASTM 

E-260. E-168, or E-169 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in §60.17) shall be 

used. 

(3)(i) An owner or operator may use 

engineering judgment rather than 

procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section to demonstrate that the percent 

content exceeds 50 percent by volume, 

provided the engineering judgment 

demonstrates that the content clearly 

exceeds 50 percent by volume. When an 

owner or operator and the 

Administrator do not agree on whether 

a piece of equipment is in hydrogen 

service, however, the procedures in 

paragraph (b)(2) shall be used to resolve 

the disagreement. 

(ii) If an owner or operator determines 

that a piece of equipment is in hydrogen 

service, the determination can be 

revised oniy after following the 

procedures in paragraph (b)(2). 

(c) Any existing reciprocating 

compressor that becomes an affected 

facility under provisions of § 60.14 or 

§ 60.15 is exempt from § 60.482 (a), (b), 

(c), (d), (e), and (h) provided the owner 

or operator demonstrates that recasting 

the distance piece or replacing the 

compressor are the only options 

available to bring the compressor into 

compliance with the provisions of 

§ 60.482 (a), (b). (c). (d), (e), and (h). 

(d) An owner or operator may use the 

following provision in addition to 

§ 60.485(e): Equipment is in light liquid 

service if the percent evaporated is 

greater than 10 percent at 150*C as 

determined by ASTM Method D-86 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 60.18). 

(e) Pumps in light liquid service and 

valves in gas/vapor and light liquid 

service within a process unit that is 

located in die Alaskan North Slope are 

exempt from the requirements of 

§ 60.482-2 and $ 60.482-7. 

2. By adding in alphabetical order the 

new terms "capital expenditure," 

"double block and bleed system," and 

"replacement cost" in § 60.481 of 

Subpart W as follows: 

§60.461 Definitions. 

****>*> • 

"Capital expenditure" means, in 

addition to the definition in 40 CFR 60.2, 

an expenditure for a physical or 

operational change to an existing facility 

that: 

(a) Exceeds P, die product of the 

facility's replacement cost, R, and an 

adjusted annual asset guideline repair 

allowance. A, as reflected by die 

following equation: P = R X A, where 

(1) The adjusted annual asset 

guideline repair allowance. A, is the 

product of the percent of the 

replacement cost Y, and the applicable 

basic annual asset guideline repair 

allowance, B. as reflected by the 

following equation: A -= Y X (B -r 100 

(2) The percent Y is determined from 

the following equation: Y = 1.0 — 0.57.--

log X, where X is the year of 

construction; and 

(3) The applicable basic annual asset 

guideline repair allowance. B, is selecte 

from the following table consistent with 

the applicable subpart: 

TABLE FOR DETERMINING APPLICABLE TOR 6 

w 

ODD... 

QGQ.. 

KKK... 

Subpart amXicaMe lo tacitly 

• 

.Value ol e 

10 b*» main aquaoor12.' 

12' 

7.1 

•U 

"Double block and bleed system" 

means two block valves connected in 

series with a bleed valve or line that can 

vent the line between the two block 

valves. 

• *>•« • 

"Replacement cost" means die capital 

needed to purchase all the depreciable 

components in a facility. 

• • * * • 

(Sections ill. 114. and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act as amended (42 U.S.C 7411.7414. 

7601(a))) 

3. By adding paragraph (c) to { 60.482-

6 as follows: 

§ 60.482-6 Standards: Open-ended vslves 

or lines. 

• *•*-* > 

(c) When a double block-and-bleed 

system is being used, the bleed valve or 

line may remain open during operations 

that require venting the line between the 

block valves but shall comply with 

paragraph (a) at all other times. 

(Sections 111. 114. and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act as amended (42 U.S.C 7411. 7414, 

7801(a))) 

4. By revising paragraph (d)(1) of 

S 60.480 as follows: 

§60.460 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

• •••>• » 

(d)(1) If an owner or operator applies 

for one or more of the exemptions in this 

paragraph, then the owner or operator 

shall maintain records as required in 

S 60.486(i). 

• * . ' • * * 

(Sections 111. 114. and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act as amended (42 U.S.C 7411,7414, 

7601(a))) 

5. By revising paragraph (d)'of 

$ 60.482-1 as follows: 
P.15 

22608 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 105 / Wednesday, May 30, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 

* 60.482-1 Standards: General. 

i * * * * 

(d) Equipment that is in vacuum 

service is excluded from the 

requirements of § 60.482-2 to § 60.482-10 

if it is identified as required in 

5 60.486(e)(5). 

iSections 111.114. and 301|a) of the Clean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. 

rnoifa||) 

5. By revising paragraph (c)(2) and 

paragraph (h)(2) of § 60.482-7 as follows: 

j 60.482-7 Standards: Valves In gas/vapor 

and In light liquid service. 

**** * 

ic) * * * 

(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shail 

be monitored monthly until a leak is not 

detected for 2 successive months. 

• * * * • 

th)*- ' 

(2) The process unit within which the 

valve is located either becomes an 

affected facility through § 60.14 or 

§ 60.15 or the owner or operator 

designates less than 3.0 percent of the 

total number of valves as difficult-tomonitor. and 

. . . . 

(Sections 111. 114. and 301(a) of tbe Clean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. 

7601(a))) 

7. By revising paragraphs (c)(2) (ii) 

and (vi) of § 60.487 as follows: 

§ 60.487 Reporting requirements. 

• * • * * * 

fc) 

(2) ' * ' 

f ii) Number of valves for which leaks 

were not repaired as required in 

§ 60.482-7(d)(l), 

.*•*> » 

(vi) Number of compressors for which 

leaks were not repaired as required in 

§ 60.482-3(g)(l), and 

• • * * * 

(Sections 111, 114, and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. 

7601(a))) 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 2060-0067.) 

8. By adding § 60.488 to Subpart W as 

follows: 

$ 60.488 Reconstruction. 

For the purposes of this subpart: 

fa) The cost of the following 

frequently replaced components of the 

facility shall not be considered in 

calculating either the "fixed capital cost 

of the new components" or the "fixed 

capital costs that would be required to 

construct a comparable new facility" 

under § 60.15: pump seals, nuts and 

bolts, rupture disks, and packings. 

(b) Under § 60.15, the "fixed capital 

cost of new components" includes the 

fixed capital cost of all depreciable 

components (except components 

specified in § 60.488 (a)) which are or 

will be replaced pursuant to all 

continuous programs of component 

replacement which are commenced 

within any 2-year period following the 

applicability date for the appropriate 

subpart. (Bee the "Applicability and 

designation of affected facility" section 

of the appropriate subpart.) For 

purposes of this paragraph, 

"commenced" means that an owner or 

operator has undertaken a continuous 

program of component replacement or 

that an owner or operator has entered 

into a contractual obligation to 

undertake and complete, within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of component replacement. 

(Sections 111. 114, and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U.S.C 7411, 7414. 

7601(a))) 

9. By revising paragraphs (a) (34), (35). 

and (36) by adding (a)(4) of § 60.17 of 

Subpart A—General Provisions as 

follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) * * * -

(34) ASTM E169-63 (Reapproved 

1977), General Techniques of Ultraviolet 

Quantitative Analysis, IBR approved for 

§ 60.485(d) and 4 60.593(b). 

(35) ASTME168-67 (Reapproved 

1977), General-Techniques of Infrared 

Quantitative Analysis, IBR approved for 

§ 60.485(d) and § 60.593(b). 

(36) ASTM E260-73, General Gas 

Chromatography Procedures, IBR 

approved for $ 60.485(d) and § 60.593(b). 

(40) ASTM D86-78.-Distillation of 

Petroleum Products, IBR approved for 

§ 60.593(d). 

I Sections 111, 114. and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. 

-fim(a)j) - • 

Appendix A (Amended I 

10. By redesignating the heading "5.2 

Apparatus" as "5.1 Apparatus" in 

Method 18 of Appendix A as follows: 

5.1 Apparatus 

(Sections 111. 114. and 301(a| of theClean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. 

•601(a))) 

11. By revising the first equation in 

Section 6.2.1.1 in Method 18 of Appendix 

A as follows: 

Q* = Q 

/ i-vr, 

V, P.T, 

Et*. 18-1 

(Sections ill. 114. and 301(a) of theClean Air 

Act. as amend($) (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414. 

•OOlfa))) 

12. By revising the citation "Citation 

21 in section &" to "Citation 18 in 

section fl." in 6.2.1.1 in Method 18 of 

Appendix A. 

(Sections 111. 114, and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act. as amended (42JJ.S.C. 7411, 7414. 

7601(affl 

13. By changing the word "caped" to 

"capped" in section 6.2.2.1 in Method 18 

of Appendix A. 

(Sections 111. 114, and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U;S.C. 7411. 7414. 

7601(a))) 

14. By changing all the "mg/liter" to 

"g/liter" in section 6.2.2.3 in Method 18 

of Appendix A. 

(Sections 111. 114, and 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act as amended {42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414. 

7601fa») 

15. By changing the word "with" to 

"within" in section 7.4.4.3 in Method 18 

of Appendix A. 

(Sections 111, 114. and 301(a) of theClean Air 

Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. 

7601(a)}) 

(FR Dot M-UM8 Filed S-29-M: *4S am|