p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 214 ) ll-J- 7

Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 214 of 276

# ^ n

. ] M 

# ran 1 

# "' • i



## AiJ 

## II-J- 7 Wednesda

y Ma y 30 , 198

4 P. 2



# i^ljjLBJU i Si'.- 1 M \l\ffl 

# H "yAA ASS^BOCXF[

_



# Par t I I 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y 4 0 CFR Par

t 6 0 Standard s o

f Performanc

e fo r Ne w Stationar y Source

s Equipment Leak

s o f VOC , Petroleu m Refinerie s an d Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin g -Industry ; Rul eP. 3



# v \ Z254 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 49 . No . 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 . 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF R Part 6 0 ! AD-FRL-2509-5 ) Standard s o f Performanc e fo r New Stationar y Source s Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C Petroleu m Refinerie s an d Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin g Industr y AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) . ACTION : Fina l rule . SUMMARY : Thi s actio n promulgate s standard s o f

performanc e fo r equipmen t leak s o f volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) i n th e petroleu m refinin g industry . Th e standard s wer e propose d i n th e Federa l Registe r o n Januar y 4 . 198 3 (4 8 F

R 279) . Thi s actio n als o promulgate s mino r amendment s t o standard s fo r equipmen tleak s o f VO C -.vithi n th e syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturin g industr y (SOCMI) . Th e promulgate d standard s implemen t sectio n 11 1 o f

th e Clea n Ai r Ac tan d ar e base d o n th e Administrator' s determinatio n tha tfugitiv e emission s o f VO C fro m th e petroleu m refinin g industr y cause , o r contribut e significantl y to , ai r pollutio n whic h ma y reasonabl y b e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healt h o r welfare . Th e intende d effec to f th e standard s i s t o requir e al l newl y constructed , modified , an d reconstructe d refinin g facilitie s i n th e petroleu m refiner y industr y t o reduc e emission s t o th e leve l achieve d b y th e bes tdemonstrate d syste m o f continuou s emissio n reductio n fo r equipmen tleak s o f VOC , considerin g costs , nonai r qualit y healt h an d environmenta l impac t an d energ y requirements . EFFECTIV E DATES : Ma y 30,1984 . Thes e standard s o f

performanc e becom e effectiv e upo n promulgatio n bu tappl y t o affecte d facilitie s fo r whic h constructio n o r modificatio n commence d afte r - Januar y 4,1983 . Unde r sectio n 307(b)(1 ) o f di e Clea n Ai r Ac tjudicia l revie w o f thes e standard s o f

performanc e i s availabl e only b y th e filin g o f

a petitio n fo r revie w i n th e U.S . Cour to f

Appeal s fo r th e Distric to f

Columbi a Circui twithi n 6 0 day s o f today' s publicatio n o f

thi s rule . Unde r sectio n 307(b)(2 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . di e requirement s tha tar e th e subjec to f

today' s notic e ma y no tb e challenge d late r i n civi l o r crimina l proceeding s brough tb y EP A t o enforc e thes e requirements . Th e Directo r o f

th e Federa l Registe r approve s th e incorporatio n b y referenc e o f certai n publication s i n 4 0 CF R Part6 0 effectiv e o n Ma y 30,1984 . ADDRESSES : Background Information Documents. Th e backgroun d informatio n documen t(BID ) fo r th e promulgate d standard s ma y b e obtaine d from th e U.S . EP

A Library (MD-35) . Researc h Triangl e Park . Nort h Carolin a 27711 . telephon e numbe r (919 ) 541-2777 . Pleas e refe r t o "Equipmen tLeak s o f VO C i n Petroleu m Refinin g Industry — Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Promulgate d Standard s o f Performance " (EPA-450/3-80-033b) . Th e BI D contains : (1 ) A summar y o f

al l th e publi c comment s mad e o n th e propose d standard s an d EPA' s response s t o th e comments . (2 ) a summar y o f th e change s mad e t o th e standard s sinc e proposal . (3 ) final Environmenta l Impac t Statemen twhic h summarize s th e impact s o f

th e promulgate d standards , an d (4 ) th e rational e fo r th e technica l amendment s t o th e standard s fo r equipmen tleak s o f

VO C withi n SOCMI . Th e BI D fo r th e propose d standard s ma y b e obtaine d fro m di e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n Service , U.S . Departmen to f Commerce , Springfield , Virgini a 22161 . Pleas e refe r t o "VO C Fugitiv e Emission s i n Petroleu m Refinin g Industry — Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards, " EPA-450/3-81-015 a (NTI S PB81-157743 ) Docket A docket , numbe r A-80-44 . containin g informatio n considere d b y EP A i n th e developmen to f th e promulgate d standard s fo r petroleu m refineries , i s availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n betwee n 8:0 0 a.m . an d 4:0 0 p.m. , Monda y throug h Friday , a tEPA' s Centra l Docke tSectio n (A-130) , Wes t Towe r Lobby , Galler y 1,401 M Street . S.W . Washington , D.C . 20460 . A reasonabl e fe e ma y b e charge d fo r copying . A docke tnumbe r A-79-32 , containin g informatio n i n categor y VI o n th e developmen to f

di e technica l amendment s t o th e SOCM I standards , i s availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n a tdi e • sam e tim e an d plac e a s fo r docke tA 80-44 . FO R FURTHE R INFORMATIO N CONTACT : Mr. Gilber tWood , Emissio n Standard s an d Engineerin g Divisio n (MD-13) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park . Nort h Carolin a 27711 , telephon e (919 ) 541-557 8 concernin g polic y matter s an d Mr . Jame s Durham , Chemical s an d Petroleu m Branch , telephon e (919 ) 541-567 1 concernin g technica l matters . SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION: . Summar y o f

Standard s Standard s o f

performanc e fo r ne w source s establishe d unde r sectio n 11 1 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac treflect : ' * * applicatio n o

f the bes ttechnologica

l system o f continuou s emissio n reduction whic h (takin g int o consideratio n the cos to f achievin g suc

h emissio n reduction , an

y • nonair qualit

y healt h an d environmenta

l impac tan d energ y requirements ) th

e Administrator determine s has bee n adequately demonstrate d [sectio n 111(a)(1)) . A s prescribe d b y sectio n 111 , promulgatio n o f

thes e standard s wa s precede d b y th e tiie Administrator' s determinatio n (4 0 CF

R 60.16 , 4 4 F

R 49222 . date d Augus t21.1979 ) tha tthes e source s contribut e significantl y t o ai r pollutio n whic h ma y reasonabl y b e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healti i o r welfare . Standard s o f

performanc e fo r equipmen tleak s o f

volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) i n th e petroleu m refinin g industr y wer e propose d o n Januar y 4,198 3 (4 8 F

R 279) . » Th e promulgate d standard s appl y t o specifi c equipmen twit h th e potentia l t o lea k VOC . Tw o type s o f

"affecte d facilities " appl y t o th e equipmen tfo r determinin g applicabilit y o f

th e standards . Eac h refiner y compresso r i n VO C servic e i s on e typ e o f

affecte d facility . Th e secon d typ e o f affecte d facilit y comprise s certai n equipmen twit h di e potentia l t o lea k VOC , othe r tha n compressors , withi n a refiner y proces s unit . A proces s uni ti s define d a s al l th e component s assemble d t o perfor m an y o f th e physica l an d chemica l operation s withi n a petroleu m refinery . Compressors , valves , pumps , pressur e relie f devices , samplin g systems , flange s an d connectors , an d open-ende d line s i n VO C servic e (dia tis . contain s o r contact s a proces s flui d dia ti s a tleas t 1 0 percen tVO C b y weight ) ar e di e equipmen tcovere d b y di e standards . Th e standard s requir e (1 ) a lea k detectio n an d repai r progra m fo r valve s i n gas/vapo r an d ligh tliqui d servic e and . pump s i n ligh tliqui d service : (2 ) equipmen tfo r certai n compressors , samplin g systems , an d open-ende d lines : an d (3 ) n o detectabl e emission s (50 0 pp m a s determine d b y Referenc e Metho d 21 ) fo r pressur e relie f device s i n gas/vapo r servic e durin g norma l operation . I n respons e t o comment s o n •Th e propose

d standard s referre

d t o fugitiv e emissio n source s o

f VOC a s th e air poUutio

n emissio n point

s covere d b

y the standards . Th

e terminolog

y fugitiv e emissio n source s ca

n b e confusing . Th

e propose d and fina

l standard s apply to-equipmen

twit h th e potentia

l t o lea k VOC and . therefore , the promulgate d standards refe

r t o equipmen tleak s t o VO C a s the ai r poUutio

n emissio n point

s covere d b

y th e standards .

### Federa l Registe r /

Vol

. 49

. No

. 10

5 / Wednesday , May 30

. 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s 22 5

th e proposed standards , EP

A i s exemptin g valve s an

d pump s withi n proces s unit

s locate d in the Nort

h Slop e o f Alask a fro

m the routin

e leak detectio n an

d repai r progra

m an d i s allowin g u

p t o 3 percen to f th e valve s i n ne w proces s unit

s t o b e designate d a s difficult-to-monito r valves . I n addition . EP A i s providing a

n alternativ e procedur e fo r determinin

g "capita l expenditure " and i s adding requirement

s fo r semiannua

l reports . Owner s an d operator

s o f facilitie s covere d b y thes e standard s shoul d not e tha tsom e o f th e release s covere d b y thes e standard s migh

tb e covere d b y requirement

s develope d unde

r th e Comprehensiv

e Environmenta

l Response . Compensation , an d Liabilit y Act . (Se e 4 8 F

R 23552. ) Standards for

Valves. Th

e standard s fo r valve s hav e no tchanged since , proposa l an d ar e base d o n a leak detectio n an

d repair progra

m tha t requires : (1 ) Monthl

y monitorin

g o f valve s in gas/vapo r an

d ligh tliqui d servic e excep ttha

tvalve s notfoun

d t o lea k for tw o successiv e month s ca n b e monitore d quarterl y unti l leak s ar e detected , (2

) a n initia l attempta

t repairin g thes e valve s withi n 5 day s after detectio n of

a leak , (3 ) repair of leakin g valve s withi n 1 5 day s after detectio n o

f di e lea k unles s repai r woul d requir e a proces s uni

tshutdown , an d (4) repai r of valve s durin

g the nex tproces s uni tshutdow n i f repai r i s delaye d unti

l a proces s uni

tshutdown . Monitorin

g o f equipmen tt o detec tleak s i s conducte d i n accordanc e wit

h Reference Method 2 1 an d a lea k i s defined a s a measure d organi c concentratio n equa l t o o r greate r tha n 10.00 0 part s pe r millio n b

y volum e (ppmv) . Repair mean s t o reduce th e measured organi c concentratio n t o les s tha n 10,00 0 ppmv. Tw o alternativ e standard s hav e bee n * provide d for valve s i n gas/vapo r an d ligh tliqui d servic e i n th e final standards . Thes e alternative s are (1 ) a limit.of 2. 0 percentof

valve s whic

h ma y b e leakin g atan y on e tim e an d (2) a skip-perio d lea k detectio n and repai r progra m for proces s unit

s achievin g les s tha n 2. 0 percen

tof thei r valve s leaking . Thes e alternativ e standard s establis h standard s fo

r owner s an d operator

s wh o desig n an d operat

e low-lea k process ' units . Standards

for Pumps. The standard s fo r pumps hav e no tchange d sinc e proposa l and requir

e leak detectio n an d repai r of th e pum p seal s o r th e us e of dua l mechanica

l seal s wit

h controlle d degassin g vents . Th e lea k detectio n an d repai r progra

m requires : (1 ) Monthl

y monitorin g of pumps i n ligh tliqui d service . (2 ) weekl y visual inspection s o f di e seal s i n pumps i n lightliqui d service , (3) a n attemp ta

trepairin g a pum p withi n 5 day s after detectio n of a leak , an d (4) repair o

f a leakin g pum

p withi n 1 5 day s after detectio n o

f a sea l failur

e o r leak unles s repai r woul d requir e a proces s uni

tshutdown . Pump

s tha thav e repair delaye d unti

l a proces s uni

t shutdown mus

tb e repaire

d durin g th e nex tproces s uni

tshutdown . I

f a pum p canno tb e repaire

d withoutthe us e of dua l mechanica

l seal s wit

h controlle d degassin g vent s o

r othe r equipment

, a dela y of repai r i s allowe d t

o instal l th e equipment

. I n thi s case, a

n owne r o r operato r mustinstal l the equipmen ta s soo n a s practicabl e bu

tma y tak e no longe r tha n 6 months . Pump

s usin g dua

l mechanica

l seal s wit

h controlle d degassin g vent s an

d othe r equipmen

ta s specifie d in th e standard s ar e not subjectt o the monthl

y lea k detectio n and repai r program. Standards forCompressors. Th e standard s hav e generall y no tchanged sinc e proposa

l and requir

e compressors t o b e equipped wid i seal s havin g a barrie r flui d syste m tha

tprevent s leakag e of

th e proces s flui

d t o th e atmosphere . Th

e syste m must : (1 ) Us e a barrie r flui d tha ti s somethin g othe r tha

n a lightliqui d o r gaseou s VOC ; (2 ) eithe r operat e a ta pressur

e greate r tha

n di e compresso r sea l are a pressure , o r b e equippe d wid i a barrie

r flui d degassin g reservoi r connecte d b y a close d ven t syste m t o a contro l device ; an d (3 ) b e equipped wid i a senso r s o diatsea l failure s ma

y b e detected . Whe

n sea l failur e i s detected , repai r i s require d withi n 1 5 day s unles s repai r woul d requir e a proces s uni

tshutdown . A n initia l attemp tatrepai r i s require d withi n 5 days . I

f a compresso r i s equippe d wit

h a close d ven tsyste m t o transpor tleakag e from th e sea l t

o a contro l device , i ti s exemp tfrom di e abov e requirements . Compressor

s i n hydroge

n servic e hav e bee n exempte d from th e final standard s base d o n a

n analysi s of

cos t effectivenes s fo r thes e compressors . "I n hydrogen service " mean s tha ta compresso r contain s a proces s fluid dia t i s greate r tha

n 5 0 percenthydroge

n b y volume , a s determined b y AST M Mediod s E-260 , E-168 , o

r E-169 . Also , EP A i s exemptin g existin g reciprocating compressors ma

tcoul d becom e a

n affecte d facility under provision s o f Sectio n 60.1 4 o

r 80.1 5 fro m di e standard s i f di e owne r o r operato r demonstrate s tha trecastin g di e distanc e piec e o r replacin g th e compresso r are th e onl y option s availabl e t o brin

g th e compresso r int o complianc e wit h the ' standards . Standards forSampling Connections. Th e standard s requir

e ma tVO C purge

d fro m samplin g connection s b e recycle d t o th e proces s b y a close d sampling l c o r tha tthes e VO C b e collecte d in a close d collectio n syste m fo r recycl e o

r disposa l withoutVO C emission s t o atmosphere . In-sit

u sampling system s ar e exemp tfro

m thes e requirements . Thes e standard s hav e notchange d si n proposal . Standards forOpen-Ended Lines. T h standard s requir

e diat : (1 ) Open-ende a line s b e seale d wit

h a secon d valve , c

a blin d flang e o r plu

g excep twhe n th e open-ende d line s ar

e i n use ; and (2 ) i f

£ secon d valv e i s used , th e valv e o n the proces s sid e mus

tb e close d firstt

o avoi d trappin

g VO C betwee n th e valv e The onl y chang e mad e t

o thes e standard s sinc e proposa

l clarifie s tha

t open-ende d line s in doubl e bloc k and blee d valv e system s ma

y b e unseale d when they ar

e functioning a s the vent fo r thes e systems . Standards forPressure Relief Device Th e standard s requir

e that : (1 ) Pressur

e relie f device s hav e "n

o detectabl e emissions " o

f VO C excep ti n case s of overpressur

e relief ; an d (2 ) after eac

h overpressur

e relief , pressur e relief device s b e returne

d t o a stat e of

n o detectabl e emission s withi n 5 days . Thes e standard s hav e notchanged sinc e proposal . A s note d in th e preambl e t o the propose d standards , pressur e relief device s ar

e on e o f di e fe w fugitive emissio n source s fo r which a performanc

e standar d ca n b e established . Ther

e are a variet

y of alternativ e way s of

complyin g wit

h thi s standard . "N

o detectabl e emissions " of VOC , i n thi s case , mean s 50 0 pp m o r les s abov e di e backgroun d leve l a s measure d b y Reference Method 21 . Standards for

Control Devices. The standard s includ e requirement s fo r contro l device s use d i n conjunctio n wit h control of equipmen

tleaks . I n general , thes e requirement

s hav e no tchange d sinc e proposal . Th e standard s require : (1 ) Tha tvapo r recovery system s b e designe d an d operate d for a tleas t9 5 percentcontrol , an d (2 ) dia tenclose d combustio n device s b e designe d an d operate d t o provid e a minimu m residenc e time of

0.75 second s a ta n-iinimn m temperatur

e of 816' C o r t o achiev e 8 5 percen treduction . Flare s use d t o compl y wid i thes e standard s mus t(a ) b e operate d wit

h n o assis to r wid i ai r o r steam assis t(b ) b e designe d and operate d wit

h n o visibl e emission s excep tfo r period s o f

tim e no tt o excee d 5 minute s i n an y 2-hou

r period , (c ) b e operate d wit

h a flam e presen tan d (d ) meetothe r operationa

l requirement

s includin g mfly'ro'" " exi tga s velocitie s and minimu

m hea tconten tvalues . Som e specifi c requirement

s forflare s hav e • bee n adde d sinc e proposa l Th eP. 5

2260 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 49 . No . 10 5 /

Wednesday . Ma y 30 , 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s s'andard s for close d ven tsystem s an d control device s ensure th e us e o f device s tha

thav e a n efficiency better tha n 9 5 percent, including steam assiste d an

d nonassiste d flares designe d fo r an d operate d wit

h a n exi tvelocit

y o f les s tha n 1 8 m/sec . EP

A ha s bee n studyin g th e questio n o

f whethe r additional type s o

f flare s wil l als o achiev e bette r tha

n 9 5 percen t efficiency ; i

f so . the Agency wil l revis e the standard s accordingly . Miscellaneous Provisions. Flanges , pressur e relief device s in liqui d service , equipmen toperating a

tsubatraospheric pressures , an d al l equipmen t components i n "heav

y liquid " VO C servic e ar e exclude d fro

m di e routin

e monitorin g requirement

s o f di e standards . Eve

n thoug h di e standard s d o no trequir

e monitorin

g thes e equipmen tfo r leaks , the standard s requir e that , i f indication s o

f VO C leak s ar e visuall y o r otherwis e detecte d fro m thes e equipmen tthe

y mus tb e monitore d usin g Method 2 1 t

o detec t leaks . I f a leak i s detected , i

tmus tb e repaired withi n 1 5 days . This provisio n improve s curren

tindustr y housekeepin g practice s for thes e piece s o f equipmen t Unde r sectio n 111(h)(3) , an

y perso n ma y reques tthe Administrato r t o permi t th e us e o f a n alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n instea d o f a design , equipment, wor

k practice o

r operationa

l standard . Th

e Administrato r wil l permi t th e us e o f such alternativ e mean s i

f di e Administrato r determines , after notic e an d opportunit

y fo r a publi c hearing , tha ti twil l achiev e emissio n reduction s a tleas tequivalen tt

o tiiose require

d b y th e design , equipment

, wor k practic e o

r operationa

l standards . The permissio n wil l tak e th e for

m o f a n amendmen

tt o di e appropriat

e standards . The final standard s includ e semiannua

l report s t o enabl e enforcementagencie s t o asses s complianc e wid i th e standards . Th e semiannua

l report s provid e a summar

y o f th e dat a recorde d o n lea

k detectio n an d repai r o f

valves , pumps , and other equipmen ttypes . The semiannua

l report s ma y b e waive d fo

r affecte d facilitie s i n State s where th e regulator y progra m ha s bee n delegated , i

f EPA , in di e cours e o f

delegatin g suc h authority , approve s reportin

g requirement

s o r a n altemativ e mean s o

f sourc e surveillanc e adopte d b y th e State , m thes e cases , such source s woul d b e require d t o compl y widi m e requirement s adopte d b y di e State . Compliance wit

h th e lea k detectio n m d repai r progra

m an d equipmen

t eqttirement

s wil l als o b e assesse d throug h revie w of

record s an d inspections . Record s o f

leak detection , repai r attempts , and maintenanc e fo r equipmen

tleak s o f VO C ar e require d b y th e standards . Notification s ar e als o require d a s describe d in the Genera l provision s fo

r ne w sourc e standard s (4 0 CF R 60.7) . Th e Genera l Provision s fo

r Par t6 0 ar e bein g revise d t

o includ e a

n incorporatio n b y reference in the provision s o

f 4 0 CF R 60.17 . Summar y o f Impact s o f the Standards Emission Reductions. Th e standard s o f performanc

e wil l reduce equipmen

t leak s o f VO C fro m newl y constructed , modified , and reconstructe d proces s unit s an d compressor s in di e petroleu m refinin g industr y b y about6 0 percenti n compariso n t

o thos e emission s tha

t woul d resul ti

n di e absenc e o

f th e standards . Th

e standard s wil l reduce th e emission s b y abou

t31,00 0 Mg , a reduction o

f emission s fro

m 49.00 0 Mg / y r t o abou t18.00 0 Mg/y r in the fift

h yea r afte r th e standard s wer e proposed . Thes e impact

s ar e base d o n curren t industr y practice s includin g requirement

s associate d wit

h Stat e implementatio n plans . Th e standard s wil l cove r about100 newl y constructe d refinin g facilitie s (proces s unit

s including compressors ) an d u p t o 18 2 modifie d and reconstructe d refinin g facilitie s i n th e fift

h yea r after proposal . Cost and Economic Impacts. Th

e cos t an d economi c impacts o

f di e standard s ar e reasonable . The standard s wil l requir e a n industry-wid e capital investmen tove r th e initial 5-year perio d after th e standard s wer e propose d o f approximatel y $7. 2 millio n fo r newl y constructe d refining facilitie s and u p t o $17. 9 millio n fo

r modifie d an d reconstructe d refining facilities . The industry-wid e ne tannualize d cos tfor newl y constructed , modified , and reconstructe d refinin g facilitie s woul d b e abou t$4. 1 millio n i n th e fifth yea r afte r proposal . Significantprice increase s ar

e no texpecte d t o resul tfrom thes e standard s becaus e th e standard s wil l ten d t

o increas e averag e price s b y less tha n 0. 1 percen t OtherImpacts. Thes e standard s of performanc

e wil l no tincreas e di e energ y usag e of

petroleu m refiner y proces s units . In genera l di e control s require d b y th e standard s d o no trequir e energy . Furthermore, th e effec to f di e standird s wil l b e t o increas e efficiency o f raw materia

l usag e s o tha

ta ne t positiv e energ

y impac twil l resul t Implementation of

di e standard s wil l hav e n o impacto n soli d wast e withi n the petroleu

m refining industry . I

n contras tth e standard s woul d als o . caus e a smal l positiv e impac to n wate r qualit y b y containmen to

f potential liqui d leaks . Tn

e recordkeepin g an d reportin g requirement

s wil l requir

e a n averag e o

f 2 0 industr y perso n year s annuall y fo

r th e year s 198

4 and 1985 . The environmental , energy , an d economi c impacts ar

e discusse d i

n greate r detai l in the BI

D fo r the promulgate

d standards . (Se e th

e ADDRESSE S sectio n o

f thi s preamble. ) Publi c Participatio n Prio r t o proposa l o f the standards , intereste d partie s wer e advise d b y publi c notic e i n th e Federa l Registe r (46 F R 23982 , Apri

l 29.1981 ) o

f a meetin g o

f th e Nationa l Ai r Pollutio n Contro

l Technique s Advisory Committe e t o discus s di e standard s fo

r equipmen

t leak s o f VOC in the petroleu

m refinin g industr y recommended fo

r proposal . Thi s meetin g wa s hel d o n Jun e 3,1981 . Th e meetin g wa s ope n t

o the public , an

d eac h attende e wa s give n th e opportunit y t o commen to n the standard s recommended fo

r proposal . A n additiona l information documen

t(AID) , entitle d "Fugitiv

e Emissio n Source s o

f Organi c Compounds—Additiona l Informatio

n o n Emissions , Emissio n Reductions , an d Costs, " wa s prepare d t o addres s technica l issue s o n fugitiv e emission s contro l technology and t o se t fort h EPA' s mos trecen tpositio n o n thes e issues . Th

e AI D wa s distribute d fo r public * comment

, and 1 4 commen

t letter s wer e received . Th e standard s wer e propose d i n di e Federa l Registe r o n Januar y 4,198 3 (4 8 F

R 279) . The preambl e t

o the propose d standard s describe d th e availabilit

y of the BI D fo r th e propose d standards* , whic h discusse d i n detai l th e regulator y alternative s considere d and di e impact s o f thes e alternatives . Publi c comment

s wer e solicite d atth e time of proposal , an d copie s o

f the BI D wer e distribute d t

o intereste d parties . The publi c wa s als o $ve n the opportunit

y t o discus s data , views , o r argument s a ta publi c hearing concernin g th e propose d standard s in accordanc e wit h sectio n 307(d)(5 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac tTh e publi c commen t perio d wa s fro

m Januar y 4.1983 . t o Marc h 21.1983 . Twenty-fou r commen t letter s wer e receive d and . a tdi e reques t o f intereste d parties . EP

A me tt o clarif y specifi c aspect s of

th e propose d standards . A publi c hearing , however , wa s no theld . Comment

s o n di e propose d standard s hav e bee n carefully considere d and . wher e determine d t o b e appropriat

e b y th e Administrator , change s hav e bee n mad e i n th e propose d standards . Significan tComment

s an d Change s t o -th e Propose d Standard s Comment s wer e receive d from industry , Stat e an d loca l air poUutio nP. 6

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 49 , No * 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 , 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s 226 0 contro l agencies , trade associations , and environmenta

l groups . A detaile d discussio n o

f thes e comment

s and response s ca n b e foun

d i n the BI D fo r th e promulgate

d standards . (Se e th e ADDRESSE

S sectio n o

f thi s preamble. ) Th e comment

s and response s in the BI

D serv e a s the basi s for th e revision s whic h hav e bee n mad e t

o the standard s betwee n proposa

l and promulgation . Majo r change s mad e i n di e standard s sinc e proposa

l are indicate d i n th e "Summar y of Standards " sectio n of

th e preamble . The majo

r comment

s and response s ar

e summarize

d in di e nex t sectio n o f the preamble . Th

e comment

s an d response s i

n thi s preamble hav e bee n combine d int

o th e followin g areas : Basi s fo r the Standards . Applicabilit y o f Standards , Modificatio n and Reconstruction , and Reportin g an d Recordkeeping . Basi s fo r the Standard s Comment: Several commenter s questione d EPA' s selectio n o f th e proposed standards . The commenter s fel ttha tles s stringen

tlevel s o f contro l woul d b e mor

e cos teffectiv e and . therefore , shoul d b e chosen . Response: Sectio n 11 1 o

f the Clea n Ai r Act, a s amended , requires tha t standard s of

performanc

e b e base d o n th e bes tsyste m of

continuou s emissio n reduction tha

tha s bee n adequatel y demonstrated , considerin g costs , nonai r qualit y healt h an d environmenta

l impact s and energ

y requirements . The contro l technique s for equipmen tleak s o f VO C hav e bee n adequatel y demonstrated . The nonai r qualit y healt h an d evironmenta

l impact s associate d wit h implementatio n of

th e standard s are generall y beneficial . TABL E 1

. CONTRO L COST S PE R MEGAGRA M O F

VdCflEDUCEb * TABL E 1

. CONTRO L COST S PE R MEGAGRA M O F VO C REDUCE D '—Continue d

Equipmen t typ o an d contro l technique *

P-93n m relie

f devios t Quarterl y lee k

detectio n Monthl y lea k

detectio n an d rapa r Compressors * ConsoBo d degasa-n g vert'.

. Open-ende d ana s Cap s o n open-ende d inn'.

. Samplin g systems : Close d purg e sampling ' Valves : Quartan* / lea k detectio n an d repai r Monthl y task

detectio n an d repai r '„............ Seale d bellow

s valve s Pumps : Annua l lea k

detectio n an d repair.

. Emis sio n reduc tio n

4. 4 5. 3 9. 8 16. 5 ze 2. 6

6 6 7 7 11 0

3. 0 Averag e S/Mg «

•(170 ) (110 ) 41 0 IS O 46 0 61 0

MHO ) •(60 ) 4.70 0

86 0 Incre menta l S/Mg "

„ii70 ) 2S O 1.00 0 15 0 46 0 61 0 •(110 ) 31 0 16,70 0

86 0 Et-r*J*pmen

t typ e an d contro l tech-aqua '

Quarterl y lea k

detectio n Monthl y lea k

detectio n an d repair ' Oua l mechanica l sea l sys tem s vente d l o a Kar

a ,, „ Emis sio n reduc tio n (Mg / yr )

9 8 • 11. 5 13. 9 Averag e S/Mg <

15 7 -s e 2.00 0 Incre menta l J/Mg *

MKO ) 17 0 10.90 0

' Costs an d emissio n reduction s base d o n fugitiv e emissio n sourc e (component

) counts i n Mode l Uni t S fro m th e 81 0 'o r th e propose d standards , EPA-450/3-61-015a

. pag e 6-3

.

- Furthe r discussio n o l contro l technique s ca n tie found m Chapters 3 an d 4 o

f th e SI O fo r (h e propose d standard s an d • n Sectio n 2 o

f th e BI O fo r th e promulgate d standards

. 'Averag e dollars pe r n-egagra m (cos t otectiv-s ness)^-(annualize d cos t pe r oompone-m-Mani-ua i VO C emis - « m reductio n pe r component)

. • :-icrementa l dollar

s pe r meg»9ram=IAnno«lize a cos t o r tn e contro l rechnique^ne t armual-zed cos t o f tn e nex

t les s restrictiv e contro l technique) -rltimua l emissio n reductio n o f contro l technique—annua ! emissio n reductio n o f th e ne-r

t les s restrictiv

e contro l tecnnique)

. ' Value s i n parenthese s denot e savinga

. ' Contro l techniqu e seleeta d a s m a basi s tor th e standard

. CP A analyze d the annualize d cos tof controllin g VO C emission s and the resultan temissio n reductio n o f

VO C fo r eac h alternativ e control technique . I n respons e t

o comments , EP

A reviewe d thes e estimate s and , consequently , corrected th e emissio n reductio n estimate s associate d wit

h valves . The contro l cos tpe r megagra

m of VO C reduced for medium-size d proces s unit s ar e presente d in Tabl e 1 for eac h equipmen ttyp e covere d b y di e standards . I

n choosin g amon g th e contro l technique s fo r eac h typ e of equipmen tcovere d b y th e standards , EP A firs tconsidere d thei r effectivenes s and costs . Then , for th e contro l technique s which wer e selecte d a s th e mos teffectiv e wit

h reasonabl e costs, EP A considere d di e economi c impac to n the industr

y of thes e contro l techniques . After reviewin g di e decision s mad e fo r the propose d standards , EP A conclude d thatdi e propose d standard s generall y shoul d no tb e mad e les s stringento n th e basi s of cos teffectiveness . However , fo r compressor

s in hydroge

n servic e th e cos teffectiveness , a s explaine d below , i s unreasonable , an d di e standard s hav e bee n revise d t o exclud e the m fro m th e standards . One shoul d not e tha

tthes e cost s d o no trepresentth e actua

l amount s o f mone y spen tatan y particula r plantsite . Th e cos to f

VO C emissio n reductio n system s wil l var

y accordin g t

o th e petroleu m produc tbein g produced , productio n equipment

, plantlayout , geographi c location , and compan y preference s and policies . However , thes e cost s are considere d typical of mostcontro

l technique s fo r equipmen t withi n petroleu

m refineries , reflect relativel y hig

h cos tcontro

l technique s wher e alternativ e technique s ar e available , and ca

n b e use d in selectin g th e leve l of contro l t o b e require

d b y th f standards . Pressure Relief

Devices. The annualize d cost s an d VO C emissio n reduction s achieve d for monthl y and quarterl y lea k detectio n and repai r program s and fo r th e us e of

contro l equipmen t(ruptur e disks ) wer e determined fo

r pressure relie f

device s in ga s service . A s Tabl e 1 shows , bo m di e quarterl y an d monthl y leak detectio n and repair program

s ar e les s expensiv e tha n installatio n of

ruptur e disks . Lea

k detectio n an

d repai r program

s resul ti n averag e credit

s of $170/M g an

d $110/.M g of VO C fo r quarterl y an d monthl

y programs , respectively . A monthl y lea k detectio n and repai r progra m achieve s a n additiona

l 0. 9 Mg/y r emissio n reductio n fo r medium-size d proces s unit s a ta n incrementa

l cos to f S250/M g compare d t o a quarterl

y leak detectio n an d repair program. Ruptur

e disk s achiev e a n additiona

l 4. 6 Mg/y r emissio n reductio n ata

n incrementa

l cos tof Sl.OOO/Mg

. However , EP

A i s establishin g a performanc e standar d (a s indicate d b y no detectabl e emissio n limit ) allowin g a variet

y o f alternativ e way s of complyin g wit

h th e standard . EP A use d conservativ e assumption s i n makin g thi s incrementa

l cos t calculation ; di e $1,000/M g incrementa l cos tof achievin g thi s 4. 9 Mg/y r of emissio n reductio n i s mor e tha n what man y proces s unit

s woul d experience . Thus , a n o detectabl e emissio n limitwa s selecte d a s the basi s for th e pressur e relief devic e standard . Compressors. Onl y on e control technique ca n b e considere d for compresso r seals : th e installatio n of contro l equipmen

tsuch a s barrie

r flui d systems . I f a compresso r i s found leaking , the repai r procedur e woul d b e di e installatio n o f

contro l equipment. Becaus e compressors are no tgenerall y spared , repai r woul d b e delaye d unti l di e nex tturnaround , thereb y reducing th e effectivenes s o f

a lea k detectio n and repai r progra

m t o essentiall y zero . Th

e installatio n of

contro l equipmen

tresults in a cos to

f $1S0/Mg o f

VOC . Thi s cos t i s reasonabl e and , therefore , control equipmen twa s selecte d a s th e basi s fo r th e standard s fo

r compressors . EP A i s providin g a

n exemptio n fro

m thes e equipmen

trequirement

s for existin g reciprocatin g compressors whic h becom e affecte d facilitie s throug h modification o r reconstructio n provision s of

§ 9 60.1 4 an d 60.1 5 provided th e owne r o r operato r demonstrate s tha

trecastin g di e distanc e piec e o r replacin g the compresso r are th e onl y option s availabl e t

o brin g th e compresso r int

o compliance . Thi s exemptio n i s necessar y becaus e th e cos tP. 7

2260 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 49 . No . 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 . 198 4 / Rule s an d Regoiation s impac to f installin g the required contro l equipmen to r replacin g the compresso r i s unreasonabl e unde

r tiiese conditions . Thes e compressor s wil l b e exemp tfro m the standard s unti

l the y ar e replace d b

y ne w compressors o

r di e distanc e piece s ar e replaced . ( n respons e t

o severa l commenters ' concerns , the cost s o

f controllin g valve s and compressors in hydrogen servic e wer e analyzed . EP

A foun d diat significantemissio n reduction s ar e achieve d fo

r valve s in hydrogen servic e a ta reasonabl e cos t($106/M g o f VOC) . However , control o

f compressor s i n hvdroge n servic e results in a cos t effectivenes s o

f $4.600/M g o

f VOC . EPA

. therefore , decide d t o exclud e compressors in hydroge

n servic e fro

m th e standards . Open-ended

Lines and

Sampling Systems. EP

A considere d cap s o r closure s a s di e contro

l techniqu e fo

r open-ende d lines . Cap s an d closure s ar e use d in th e petroleu m refining industr

y an d ar e expecte d t

o b e use d eve n mor

e frequend y i n di e future . Th e cos tan d emissio n reductio n presente d i n Tabl e l ir e the cos tand emissio n reductio n whic h woul d b e realize d fo

r a n open ende d lin e tha

ti s no tcontrolled . Th

e S460/M g o f VO C cos tfo

r controllin g emission s o

f VO C iro m open-ende d line s i s reasonable . EP A considere d dose d purg e sampling a s th e control techniqu e fo r samplin g systems . Close d purg e system s ar e becoming increasingl y commo n i n thi s industry . Th e $810/M g of VO C cos t fo r controllin g emission s o

f VO C from sampling system s i s reasonable . Valves. Severa l lea k detectio n an d repai r program

s wer e considere d for valves . Th

e cost s o f sea l bellow s valve s ar e unreasonable . Th e lea k detectio n and repai r proyia s differe d i n th e monitorin g rreqaenc

y wfaid i irotl d b e implemented . A a Tabl e 1 shows , di e quarterl y momtoria

g progra m result s i n saving s (ffllO/Mgo f

VO C o n m e average) . Thi s occurs beoMa e th e valu e o f th e recovered VO C i s greate r ma s the cos tt o implemen

tth e quarterly monitorin g program. Ti e monthly monitorin g pit—am resntt s i n tb e larges t emissio n redactio n a ta n averag e credi t o f $60/M g of

VO C Th e incremental cos t pe r M g o f VOC emission s reduce d for th e monthl

y pragm a i s S310/M g «r

f VO C (compared t

a tb e quarterl y program

) wit h a n incrementa

l emissio n redaction o f 1 1 Mg/y r fo r a medium-sue d proces s unit . EP A consider s tfiese cost s to b e reasonable . Therefore . EP A selecte d a mondd y leak detectio n ao d repair progra m a s tb e basi s fo r di e J fo r valves . Pumps. The contro l cost s mcurre d for eac h megagra

m o f VO C emission s reduced wer e determine d fo r three lea k detectio n and repair program s an d fo r di e us e o f dual mechanica

l seal s wit

h controlle d degassin g vents . Th e lea k detectio n and repai r program s incu r lowe r cost s tiian di e cost s whic h woul d b e incurre d wit h equipmen

tinstallation . Th e lowes taverag e an

d incrementa

l cost s pe r M G ar e associate d wit

h a monthl y lea k detectio n an

d repair program . Th e monthl y progra m achieve s a higher degre e o

f control tha

n th e quarterl y program

, bu ti tachieve s a lowe r degre e o

f contro l tha n installatio n o f contro l equipmen tHowever , eve n thoug h contro l equipmen

tprovide s fo

r the greates tamoun

to f VOC reduction , th e S10,900/M

g incrementa

l cost s t o obtai n di e additional 2.

4 Mg/y r ar

e judge d t o b e unreasonabl y high . Becaus e th e cost s fo

r equipmen

tar e unreasonably high , an

d the cost s fo

r monthl y lea k detectio n an

d repair ar

e reasonable , monthl

y lea k detectio n an

d repai r wa s selecte d a s th e basi s fo r th e standard s for pumps . Economic Impact

Considerations. A n economi c analysi s wa s performe d whic h evaluate d di e economi c imoacts o f the selecte d standards . The results of tha t analysi s ar e presente d i n detai l i n di e BI D fo r Ae promulgate

d standards . A s summarize

d i n di e Summar

y o f the Impact s o f th e Standard s sectio n o

f thi s preamble , tb e industry-wid e ne t annualize d cos twil l b e abou tS4. 1 millio n in 1966 . Thi s costi s no texpecte d t o resul ti n industry-wid e pric e increases . 7-bese impact

s ar e reasonable . Applicabilit

y o f Standard s Comment 1: Commenter

s questione d th e us e o f the grou p o f fugitive emissio n source s withi n a proces s uni ta s a n "affecte d facility" Biasin

g tha tth e definitio n i s inconsisten twit h th e term

s o f di e Clea n Ai r Ac tan d adde d tiiat contro l o f fugitiv e emission s throug h ne w sourc e performanc

e standard s i s unwcekahle . Response V

I n choosin g th e designatio n o f

affecte d facilities . EP

A examine d fugitiv e emissio n source s o f VO C i n ligh to f

th e term s an d purpos e o f sectio n 11 1 o f

di e Clea n Ai r Ac tTh

e Clea n Ai r Ac tmandate s th e EP A t o se t standard s lo r an y pollutantemitte d fro m a categor y o f ne w o r modifie d "stationar y sources. " Sectio n 111(a)(3 ) o f the Ac tdefine s the ter

m "stationar

y source " t o mea n "an

y building , structure , facility , o r jw^allaH/ m whic h emit s c r ma y emi t*v.y ai r pollutant. " The fugitir e gmissin e eqeipraen tpiece s i n VO C sende e i n a proces s sui tviewe d i n the aggregate , ar e a "iaciii>\j" tha t ma y emi tai r pollutants and . therefore , ar e appropriatel y considere d a s a "source. " ' Sinc e the purpos e o f sectio n 11 1 i s t o minimiz e emission s b y applicatio n of

th e bes tdemonstrate d syste m o f emissio n reductio n a

tne w an d modified source s (considerin g cost . non-ai r qualit

y healt h an d environmenta

l impacts , and energ

y requirements) , tlier

e i s a presumption tha tthe narrowes tdesignatio n (i.e. . individua l piece s o f equipment

) i s proper. However , EPA

. fo r th e reason s discusse d atproposa

l (48 F R 281-262) , rejecte d the equipmentcomponen t (individua l fugitive emissio n source s o r piece s o f equipment

) designatio n for fugitive emission . Consequently , th e nex tmos tnarro

w definition , di e tjnap o f fugitiv e equipmen

tcomponent

s i n VO C servic e withi n a proces s uni twa s considered . Revie w o

f the relevan t statutor y factor s di d notlea d t

o th e conclusio n tha

tdesignatin g eac h grou

p o f equipmen

tcomponent

s in a proces s uni ta s a n affecte d facilit

y woul d resul t i n advers e impacts . Some commenter

s suggeste d dia

tEP A canno tselec tthe "equipment " in VO C servic e a s th e affecte d facility becaus e tha tequipmen

ti s no ta n apparatu s t

o whic h th e standard s apply , unde r th e definitio n o

f "affected facility " a

t4 0 CF R 60.2 . O n the contrary , sinc e th e requirement

s i n thes e standard s apply onl y t o the "equipment " in VO C service , the § 60.2 definitio n requires EP A t o limi tdi e affecte d facilit

y t o tha t equipment 2 Moreover , fo r the reason s 1 This agree * with the dictionar y definitio n ot "facility, " meanin

g ''somethin

g designed , built , . installed , etc. . t o serv e a specifi c functio n o r pet-fatme d a p» i Iii-aa-

i se-r-noe " (Th e Rando

m Hous e College Odin-nary . Ae-rise d Edition , 1975) . Th

e grou p o f equipmen

ti n VO C servic e covere d b y thes e standard s i s designe d an d installe d t o serv e th e specifi c function o

f handrmj * -th

e y i messin g o

f petroleu m product

s int o intermediat

e o r mor e refiaed materaab . Not e i n thi s regar

d tha i th e Cour

to f Appeal s fo

r th e Distric to f Columbi a Circui tha s state d that : I n designatin g wha

tt*ri l constitut e a facilit y in eac h particula

r induM-ia

l context . EP

A i s guided b

y a reasone d applicatio n o f

<h e term a o f (h e statut e i t i s charge d t

o enforce . *o tb y a

n abstrac t "dictionary " definitio n This cour twoul d no

t remov e thi s appropriat

e exercis e o

f the agency' s discretion . ASARC O v . EP A 57 8 F.2 d 3W. 3X 4 a . 1 7 (T97S)

. EPA' s selectio n o

f th e gronp a a f f u-uU-w i VO C emissioas-relate d equipmen ta s Th e affecte d facilit y reflect s a reasone d applicatio n o f sectie a Ul - I l assure s tha

ta n identifiabl e subse to

f peb-aaaa n eaatMioaa—e^uipne-a

l leak s a f VOC—aK-a-akoc

W a s soo n a s the equipmen

tresponsibl e si r An a enissioB s i * eithe r modified , iu.uaulnu.lui i a r newl y constructed . Fo

r the reason s expttrine

d tr l proposa l an d i n th e textbetow . a broade r definitio n (e.g. . al l the component

s o f a proces s unit

) woul d aiiapi y dni-f thatre-ml t 1 Th e commen ttha tthi s pwpo f

*--aBap-a*-B

tfeast a n "appu-rlas " i s withou

tmet-* . WibeteT e tfcj-

a Collegiat e Dictionary , 1977. define s "uppaialB-*- * as . Interalia, "th

e fuactiona

l machiner

y b y mean s o

f whic h a systematize d activit

y i s narrin d out. " Tt a Caaakne dP. 8

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 49 . No . 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 , 196 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s 32603f c discusse d in th

e previou s paragraph, a broade r affecte d facilit

y woul d b e inconsisten twit

h the purpose s o

f sectio n 111 . I twoul d allo w emissio n reduction s resulting fro

m the incrementa

l contro l o f omissio n point

s t o whic h the standard s do notappl

y t o offsetincrease s i n emission s resultin g fro

m emissio n points t o whic h the standard s d o apply . Thi s woul d simply dela y coverag e o f th e equipmen tthroug h th e modificatio n provisions . Base d o n thes e considerations. . EP

A rejecte d thi s approach . Therefore , the affecte d facilitie s fo

r th e standard s are : (1 ) Compressor

s i n petroleu m refinerie s an d (2 ) th e grou p o f equipmen

t(pressur e relie f devices , ope n ende d lines , samplin g systems , valves , and pumps ] in a proces s unit

. On e commenter requeste d tha tthe standard s appl

y t o each piec e o

f equipmen ti n VO C service . A s th

e commente r noted , EP

A judge d tha t implementin

g a leak detectio n an

d repai r progra m (th e principa

l contro l technique considere d fo

r the standards ) fo r a ver y smal l proportio

n o f all th e equipmen tcomponent

s ata plan

tsit e woul d b e to o costly . Th

e commenter di d no tagre e wit h thi s judgement

. However , explaine d in detai l i n the BI D fo r th e promulgate

d standards . EP

A reconsidere d thi s decisio n and conclude d tha

tthe proces s uniti s a

n appropriat

e basi s for a n affecte d facility , excep tfor compressors . Comment 2: Othe r commenters requested thatth e definitio n o f "volatil e organic compounds (VOCJP specificall y stat e whic h organi c compound s ar

e excluded . Response 2: Volatil e organi c compounds (VOC

) are define d a s organi c compounds tha tparticipat e i n photochemica

l reactions . Any organi c compoun d i s presume d t

o participat

e i n atmospheric reaction s unles s th e Administrato r determine s thati tdoe s not . EP A consider s severa l organi c compounds t

o haveneglipbi e photochemica

l reactivity . Thes e ar e methane , ethane , 1,14-trichloraethane , methylene chloride , trichiaiofluoromethane , dichlorodtfluoramethaae . chlorodifluoromethane , trifluoromethane . trichlorotrifluoroethane ; vaguenes s of

thi s defaititmsuggptt-thmtttmtBndoe s no tplainly exclud e th a groa

p of-equipman

i EP A ha s selecte d a s the affected facility . Beyon d lhat . however , the purpos e of

th e 5 80. 2 definition i s merel y t o identif y a s th e "effatiBd-faaiUtj- " th e specifi c equipmen

tactuall y subject-t

o a standar

d o f performance

. Focusin g o n tkawos d "apparatus. " a a i f th e Agenc y ha d intended i tto hav e som e additiona l effect , i s inconsisten twit

h tha tfairt y simpl e purpose . dicfaloroterrafluoroethane . an d chloropentafluoroediane . Comment 3: One commenter state d tha tproces s unit

s wit h in-plac e state-of

the-ar thydrocarbo

n ga s detectio n system s shoul d b e exempted . This commente r requeste d tha

tunit s in a n arcti c environmen

tb e exempte d becaus e o f severa l unique aspect s o

f refinin g in the Nort

h Slop e o f Alaska . Response 3: Th

e presenc e o

f a n in plac e state-of-the-ar

thydrocarbo

n ga s detectio n syste m doe s no tnecessaril y ensur e emissio n reductions . Ca s detectio n system s se tfo r 12.50 0 pp m woul d permi

tVO C t o b e emitte d withoutnotice . Severa l megagram s o f VO C woul d b e release d t

o th e atmospher

e annually withou

tth e us e o

f specifi c contro

l technique s hk

e thos e require d b y th e standards . Th

e commente r did notdemonstrat

e tha t their syste m resulted in atleas t equivalen temissio n reduction s a s the standards . Upo

n reques tb y EPA

. the commenter explaine d the specific , contro l technique s use d a tthei r plant , man y o f whic h ar e identica l t

o thos e require d b y the standards . Base d o n EP A experience , ga s detectio n system s alon e ar e ineffectiv e fo r reducing equipmen tleak s er f VOC . Thus , EP

A ha s notexempte d proces s unit s usin g thes e system s from the standards . The . fina l standard s d a however , allo w a n existin g contro

l progra m t o b e continue d i f EP A determine s ma

tth e progra

m i s a t leas tequivalen tt o th e requirement s of the standards . EP A ha s studie d th e commenter' s concern s an d acknowledge s thatther e ar e severa l uniqu e aspect s t o refinin

g i n th e Nort h Slop e o f Alaska . Accordingly , EP A conclude d tha

tth e cost * tc

* comply wit h th e routin

e lee k detectio n an d repai r requirement

s of th e proposed ' standard s ma

y b e unreasonable . Thes e operation s incur higher labor , administrative , and suppor tcost s associate d wid i lea k detectio n an d repai r program

s because ; fl ) They ar

e locate d a tgrea tdistance s fro

m m a jo t populatio n centers . (2) they-mus t necessaril y dea l wit

h th e long-term , extremel y lo w temperature s o f th e arctic , an d consecjaentiy (3 ) the y mos t provid e extraosdeoar

y service s fo r plan

t personnel . Thes e unique aspect s mak e the cos to f routin e lea k detectio n and . repair unreasonabl e (Documen tNumbe r IV-B-15) L Therefore . EP

A ha s decide d tha trefinerie s i s th e Nort

h Slop e o f Alask a ax e exemp tfrom th e routin e lea k detectio n an d repai r requaxefftent s o f th e standards . This exemptio n dee s no t— includ e th e equipmen

trequirement

s i s th e standard s becaus e th e cos to f dus e requirement

s i s reasonable . Comment 4: Commenter

s accuse d EP A o f incorporatin

g int o th e standard s a bia s agains tsmal l refiners . The y asserte d tha

tsmall refiner

s wil l b e affected mor

e adversel y than wil l larg e refiners . Response 4: I

n analyzin g th e economi c impact s o f the standards , EP

A assume d a reasonabl y smai

l throughpu

tfor a rang e o f proces s uni ttypes * EP

A anticipate d diatprocess-units wit h smal l throughpu twoul d sho w significan t advers e economi c impacts , i f an y exist , muc h mor e readily tha

n large throughpu

t units . Thus , EPA' s impactanalysi s wa s sensitiv e t

o impact s o n smal l refiners . However , no advers e economi c impact s were projecte d (se e Chapter 9 of th e BI O fo r th e propose d standards) . Therefore . EP A conclude d tha

tth e standard s are reasonabl e i

n general an d considere d specificall y bo w di e standard s impac t smal l firms . Modification an

d Reconstruction Comment 1: Commenters-requeste

d tha tth e capital expenditur e determination (a s i trelate s t o th e modification provisions ) b e revise d s o thati ti s mor

e practicable . Response 1: Afte r reviewin g th e comment s concernin g di e difficultie s wid i usin g the capita

l expenditure definition , EP

A agreed ma

tdi e definitio n fo

r capital , expenditur e ma

y b e difficul tt o us e fo r som e refineries . Accorefingly , EP

A decide d t o provid e a

n alternativ e t

o th e procedore s i n th e Genera l Provisions . Altbmg h th e implementatio n o

f th e capital expenditur e definitio n ha s bee n mad e mor e practicable , di e original intento f th e definitio n ha s bee n -Maintained . Th e alternativ e use s a n adjuste d annua l asse tguidelin e repai r allowanc e (AAGRA) an d di e replacemen tcost s t o determin e capital expenditure - Th e adjuste d AAGR

A i s determine d b y a formul a and i s base d o n a rati o ma t reflect s inflatio n of

cost * ove r di e las t several years . Th

e adjuste d AAGR

A i s multiplie d b y th e replacemen

tcost s o f th e equipmen

twithi n th e facilit

y t o determin e the value-o f

a capital expenditure . Comment 2: Com m enter s hel d tha

t reconstructio n cost s sfaeu U no th e accumulated . Tw o commsnter a requeste d EP

A t o exclude , from th e reconstructio n provision s th e cost s of equipmen treplacementdon e fo r tontin e maintenance purposes . Response 2: EPA h considering'a a amendmen

tt o the. recoaslrucUan : provision s (40 CF

R 60.15 ) s o du t reconstructio n cost s ar e accumulate d fo i a 2-yea r period . EPA

* psnmlgBtK l th e reconstructio n provision s t o compl yP. 9

2260 4 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 49

. No

. 10 5 /

Wednesday

. Ma y 30

. 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s wit h Congressiona l intent

to ensur e tha t essentiall y ne w facilitie s du e t o .-(-constructio n woul d b e subjec t t o "ne w source " performanc e standards

. Th e reconstructio n provision s wer e promulgate d in 197 5 (4

0 F R 5846)

. an d F.P A ha s applie d thes e provision s consistentl y sinc e tha t

time

. A sourc e i s identifie d fo

r consideratio n a s areconstructe d sourc e when : (1 ) Th e fixe d capita l cost s o f th e ne w component s excee d 5 0 percen t o f (h e fixe d capita l cost s tha t

woul d b e require d to construc t

acomparable , entirel y ne w facility , an d (2 ) i t i s technologicall y an d economicall y feasibl e to mee t

th e applicabl e standard s se t

forth

. Th e fina

l judgmen t o n whethe r areplacemen t

constitute s reconstructio n wil l b e mad e b y th e Administrator

. Th e purpos e o f th e rpconstructio n provision s i s to ensur e tha t an owne r

o r operato r doe s no t attemp t to avoi d th e applicatio n o f performanc e standard s to hi s o r he r essentiall y ne w reconstructe d facilit y by

retainin g mino r

component s suc h a s suppor t structures , frames , housing , etc.

. an d claimin g tha t

th e facilit

y therefor e doe s no t qualif y a s "ne w source. " EP

A authorit y to subjec t

reconstructe d source s to ne w sourc e standard s o f performanc e ha s no t

bee n questione d in an y court decision

. I f on e consider s th e 5 0 percen t cos t facto r whic h trigger s reconstructio n strictl y o n aproject-by-projec t basis , a wid e variet y o

f interpretation s ca n aris e a s to wha t

a"project" entails

. For example , a.process uni t

wit h severa l hundre d piece s o

f equipmen t

may refurbis h one-thir d o

f the man d the n 1 yea r late r begi n t o refurbis h anothe r one-third

. I

f thes e maintenanc e effort s wer e interprete d a s separat e projects , neithe r on e woul d likel y excee d th e 5 0 percen t replacemen t

cos t t o trigge r reconstruction

. If

, however , i t

wa s th e owner' s origina l inten t

t o refurbis h two

third s o f th e equipment , th e tw o maintenanc e effort s woul d b e interprete d a s on e projec t an d woul d probabl y constitut e areconstruction

. In man y cases , i t

woul d no t

b e possibl e to determin e th e origina l intent o f th e owne r o r operator

. EP

A believe s tha t

i t i s appropriat e t o reduc e di e numbe r o f subjectiv e determination s concernin g an owner' s intent

. On e wa y t o d o thi s fo r th e reconstructio n provision s i s t o appl y acriterio n whic h consider s th e expenditure s mad e ove r

afixe d tim e period

. Thi s woul d rel y o n areasonabl e objectiv e surrogat e fo

r di e owner' s subjectiv e intent

. Th e administrativ e effor

t t o kee p th e require d records o

f expenditure s shoul d no t b e aburde n o n di e industry

. Sectio n 60.1 5 define s th e "fixe d capita l cost " o f replacemen t

component s a s th e capita l neede d to provid e al l th e "depreciable " components

. B

y excludin g nondepreciabl e component s fro m consideratio n i

n calculatin g componen t replacemen t

costs , man y component s tha t ar e replace d frequentl y to kee p th e plan t i n prope r workin g orde r

ar e exclude d fro

mthi s recordkeeping

. Th e recordkeepin g require d unde r th e "fixe d tim e period " interpretatio n o

f reconstructio n i s th e sam e a s th e recordkeepin g tha t

woul d b e require d unde r astrictl y project-by-projec t interpretation

. I

n eithe r case , th e dollar amoun t o f th e componen t

replacement s takin g plac e a t

th e facilit y mus t b e determine d an d recorded

. Accordingly , EP

A i s clarifyin g th e meanin g o f "proposed " componen t replacement s in § 60.15

. Specifically

. EP A ha s bee n interpretin g "proposed " replacemen t

component s unde r

§ 60.1 5 t o includ e component s whic h ar e replace d pursuan t

to al l continuou s program s o

f componen t

replacement s whic h commenc e (bu t

ar e no t necessaril y completed ) withi n th e perio d o f time determine d b y EP

A to b e appropriat e fo

r th e individua l NSP S involved

. Unti l thi s revisio n i s promulgate d in th e Genera l Provision s o f 4 0 CF R Par t 60

. EP A i s selectin g a2

- year perio d a s di e appropriat e perio d fo r purpose s o

f thi s NSP S (Subpar

t GGG)

. EP A wil l coun t

towar d th e 5 0 percen t reconstructio n threshol d th e "fixe d capita l cost " o

f al l depreciabl e component s (excep t

thos e describe d i

n th e nex t response ) replace d pursuan t to al l continuou s program s o f reconstructio n whic h commenc e withi n an y 2-yea r perio d followin g proposa l o f thes e standards

. I

n EPA' s judgment , di e 2-yea r perio d provide s areasonable , objectiv e metho d o

f determinin g whethe r a n owne r o f facilitie s withi n petroleu mrefinerie s i s actuall y "proposing " extensiv e componen t replacement , withi n EPA' s origina l inten t in promulgatin g § 60.15

. Reconstructio n cost s ar e di e fixe d capita l cos t

o r th e capita l neede d to provid e al l th e "depreciable " components , whil e mos t

routin e maintenanc e practice s involv e di e us e o f nondepreciabl e components

. Becaus e routin e maintenanc e item s (valv e packing , pum

p seals , replacemen t ruptur e disks , nuts an d bolts ) cos t very littl e compare d to di e cos t o f equipmen t (covere d b y th e standards ) in aproces s unit , i t i s ver y unlikel y tha t

eve n i f thes e part s wer e al l depreciabl e routin e maintenanc e woul d trigge r a reconstructio n eve n i

f accumulate d ove r severa l vears . Th e cos t

o f thes e item s i s relativel y small

. I n EPA' s judgment , maintainin g record s o

f th e repai r

o r replacemen t

o f thes e item s ma

y constitut e a n unnecessar y burden

. Moreover

. EP

A doe s no t

conside r th e replacemen t

o f thes e item s a n elemen t o f th e turnove r

i n th e lif e o f th e facility

. Therefore , in accordanc e wit h 40 CF R 60.15(g) , th e fina

l standard s (Subpart GGG ) wil l exemp t

certai n frequentl y replace d r

-mponent s fro

m consideratio n in applyin g th e reconstructio n provision s to petroleu m refiner y proces s uni t

facilities

. Th e cost s o

f thes e frequentl y replace d valv e part s wil l no t

b e considere d i

n calculatin g eithe r

th e "fixe d capita l cos t o f th e ne w components " o r

th e "fixe d capita l cos t

tha t woul d b e require d to construc t acomparable , entirel y ne w facility " unde r

§ 60.15

. I n EPA' s judgment , thes e item s ar e pum p seals , valv e packings , nuts an d bolts , an d ruptur e disks

. Replacement s o f pumps , values , an d othe r

fugitiv e equipmen t

a t turnaround s o

r a t othe r time s ar e include d in reconstruction s costs

. Fo r turnaround s tha t

involv e significan t refurbishmen t

o f aproces s unit

. EP

A woul d likel y conside r

thi s a reconstruction

. EP

A als o consider s i t appropriat e to includ e in reconstructio n cost s th e replacemen t

o f equipmen t

du e t o th e accidenta l los s o

f a n origina l component , sinc e th e reaso n fo r a n owner' s refurbishin g afacilit y ha s n o bearin g o n whethe r

th e facilit y itsel f i s comparabl e to ane w sourc e fo r whic h applicatio n o

f th e bes t contro l system s i s reasonable

. Reportin g an d Recordkeepin g Comment 1: On e commente r

remarke d tha t th e standard s ar e no t

enforceabl e an d anothe r

commente r

state d tha t reportin g shoul d b e adde d to di e standards

. Response 1: Reports , records , an d inspection s wil l b e use d to ensur e complianc e b y al l facilitie s subjec t to thes e standards

. Stat e an d EP A Regiona l ai r qualit y contro l authoritie s hav e successfull y implemente d regulation s similar

t o th e standards

. A

t proposa l EP

A state d tha t

routin e reportin g wa s no t

required

. Reportin g requirement s wer e limite d t o notification s o

f construction , anticipate d startu p an d actua l startup , an d a n intentio n t o compl y wit

h on e of th e alternativ e standards

. A t

tha t time , EP A believe d tha t

thes e reportin g requirement s woul d no t

provid e a mechanis mfo

r checkin g th e thoroughnes s o

f th e industry' s effort s to reduc e fugitiv e emission s o f VOC

. Th e Agenc y decide d instea d tha t complianc eP.1 0

Federa l Registe r /

VoL 49 , No . 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 , 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s 21 !

woul d b e assesse d throug h in-plan t inspections . EP A ha s no w decide d diatreportin g i s necessar y t

o asses s implementatio n o f th e wor k practice and equipmen

t requirement

s o f the standards . EP

A agree s wit h th e commente r tha

tfacilitie s notcomplyin g wit

h th e standard s migh

t hav e a n unfai r advantag e (albeit , somewhatsmall) . Mor

e importantly , facilitie s notcomplying wit h th e standard s woul d no tb e usin g BD T a s require d b y th e Clea

n Ai r Act , the purpos e o f whic h i s t o preven tne w pollutio n problems . EP

A believe s tha

t reportin g i s importan

tt o di e effectiv e enforcemen

to f the standards . Reportin

g wil l reduce the necessit y fo r man y in plan tinspections , whil e improvin g the enforceabilit

y of th e standards . EPA' s conclusio n tha

treport s ar e usefu l i s als o base d o n the experienc e of

the Stat e an d loca l air qualit

y contro l boards . A s explaine d atproposal , thre e alternative s wer e considere d fo r reportin g requirements . Th

e thre e alternative s represente d trade-off s amon g varying amount

s o f in-plan t inspection s an d repor

tpreparation fo

r enforcement. The firstalternativ e require d no routine reportin

g and relie d o n inspection s fo r enforcement. Th e thir d altemativ e relie d almos ttotall y e n report s an d woul d requir

e minimu m inspection s t

o judg e compliance . Unde

r th e secon d alternative , som a reportin g an d som e inspection s i s require d and i s include d i n th e final regulations . Thes e reportin g requirements , however , hav e • bee n streamline d t o includ e reporting of dat a o n lea k detectio n an d repai r o f pumps , valves , an d othe r equipmen t type s only . I

n addition , periodi c report s ar e o n a semiannua

l rather tha

n quarterl y basis . Th e semiannua

l reportin g requirement

s ma y b e waive d fo r affecte d source s i n an y Stat e tha ti s * delegate d authorit

y t o enforc e thes e standards , provided EP

A approve s reportin g requirement

s ora n alternativ e mean s o f sourc e survetOanc

e adopte d b y th e State , Suc

h source s woul d b e require d t o compl y with th e requirement

s adopte d b y di e State , Comment 2: Commenter

s wrot e tha t the recordkeepin g requirement s wer e needlessl y comple

x and burdensome . I n contrast , anothe r commente r state d that mor e informatio n shoul d b e recorded to ensur e complianc e wit h th e standards . Response 2: Befor

e th e standard s wer e proposed , EP

A considere d thre e alternativ e level s o f

recordkeeping . Th e propose d recordkeeping:requirement s wer e considere d th e minimu m consisten twit

h adequat e enforcemen t thus , th e paperwor

k burden o n owner s an d operators i s th e minimu m amoun t necessar y t

o enforc e th e standard s adequately . A tproposal . EP A weighe d the paperwor

k burde n o n th e industr

y agains tth e burde

n o n the enforcemen

t authorit y (Federal , State an

d local ) t o determin e complianc e wit

h the standard s and selecte d the propose d requirements . Complianc

e wit h the fina l standard s will be generall y determined throug h inspection . However , becaus e the inten t o f th e standard s i s a continuou s reduction i n equipmen

tleak s o f VO C an d continuou s inspectio n b y enforcemen

tauthoritie s i s notpassible , records mustb e maintaine d i f a n inspecto r i s t

o determine retrospectivel y whethe r a facilit

y ha s bee n in complianc e wit

h th e standards . EP

A consider s th e require

d record s fo

r a n owne r o r operator' s leak detectio n and repai r progra

m necessar y t o documen

t th e operator' s complianc e efforts . Thes e record s woul d likel y alread y be ' maintained b y a pruden

towne r o r operator, and shoul d therefore ad d littl e additiona l recordkeepin g burden . Th e record s required fo r identifyin g fugitiv e emissio n components , an d contro l devic e schematic s sa d desig n dat a ar e no tunreasonabl y burdensome . Thi s information woul d b e develope d onl y once , an d woul d requir e changing o r updatin

g onl y i f the facilit y wer e changed . Th e contro

l devic e schematic s an d desig n dat

a shoul d b e availabl e t a plan tengineer s already , an d a s suc h d o no trepresenta n adde d busden . Fo r ne w facilities , th e reason s wh y a componen t mus tb e installe d i n a locatio a whac k makes i tdifficul to r unsaf e t o monito r mus tb e ctacumazte

d prio r to-installin g th e compomm

i i n suc h a tposition . Th e numbered dtffisuit-to-menito r o i unsafe to-monitor component s wil l b e saat t and , therefore , shoul d no tcreat e a n excessiv e recordkeeping binden . Afte r considerin g th e comments dia tth e recordkeepin g requirement* ar e needlessl y comple

x an d burdensom e an d th e commen

ttha tmor e informatio

n wa s neede d t

o enforce the standard s adequately , EP

A decide d t o promulgat

e the recordkeepin g requirement s a s proposed . Changes Bein g Mad e t o SOCM I Standaid s (Subpar

tW ) Severa l o f th e decision s mad e o

n th e standard s of

performanc

e fo r equipmen

t leak s o f VO C withi n petroleu

m refinerie s (sinc e the y wer e proposed ^ affectEPA' s positio n o n standard s o f performanc

e (Subpar tW ) fo r equipmen tleak s o f VO C withi n di e Syntheti c Organic Chemica l — Manufacturin

g Industr y (SOCMI) . Thes e decision s ar

e th e resul to f

net * o r additiona l technica l analysi s of

di e contro l technique s considere d i n th e standard s for petroleu m refineries a

n SOCM I and . therefore , shoul d b e ma * consisten tfo

r thes e tw w standards . T decision s concer

n th e alternativ e fo

r determining a "capita

l expenditure. " clarificatio n o

f reconstructio n provisions , difficult-to-monito r valve s ne w units , and doubl e bloc k and blee

i valv e clarification . Th e discussion s o i thes e decision s ar

e foun d in section s 2.2.3.1 , 2.7 , 4.2 , and 5. 0 o f

di e BI D fo r promulgate

d standard s a s the y apply t petroleu m refineries . Th

e basi s for th e revision s t

o Subpar tW i s consisten t wit h thes e discussions . Sinc e thes e revision s eithe r simpl y clarif y ambiguou s aspect s of

th e curren

t regulation o r provid e mor e practicabl e alternative s t

o curren trequirements consisten twit

h thei r inten tan

d withou changin g their substance . EP

A believe s tha tadditiona

l notic e and commen

tar e unnecessary . Fo

r thi s reason , the Agenc y find s "goo

d cause " unde r 4

2 U.S.C . 7607(d)(1 ) an

d 5 U.S.C . 553(b) , subparagraph (B ) t

o promulgat

e thes e revision s togethe r wid i th e refiner y standards . In addition , a fe w typographica

l errors wer e printe

d in di e Federa l Registe r whe n Subpar

tWwa s promulgated . Thes e errors:ar e als o correcte d i n thi s notice . Docke t Th e docke ti s a

n organize d an d complet e file of al l th e informatio n considere d b y EP

A i n th e developmen t o f thi s rulemaking . Th e docke ti s a dynami c file, sinc e materia l i s adde d throughou tthe rulemakin

g process . Th

e docketin g syste m i s intende d t o allo w members o f

di e pubfi c an d industr

y involve d t o identif y andlocata document s s o tha tthejfcan . participat e effectivel y i n th e rulemaking process . Alon g wit h di e statemen to i basi a an d purpos e o f

th e propose d an d promulgate

d standard s an d EP

A response s t o significantcomments , the contents of

th e docke twil l serv e a s th e recor d i n cas e of

judicia l review , excep t fo r interagenc

y revie w material s (sectio n 307[d\{7){A)l. Miscellan-Boo

s I n accordanc e wit

h sectio n 11 7 of

di e Act , publicatio n o f

tiieaepromulgated standaid s wa s precede d h y conwltatft m wit h appropriat

e advisory committees . independentexperts , and Federa l department

s an d agendas . Thi s regulatio n wil l b e revwwed4-year s fro m the dat e o f

pronndgatoi i a s required b y di e Clea n Ai r Act.Thi s mrtarwit t includ e a n assessmen to f

sncl r factor s a s di e nee d fo r integratio n wit h othe r programs,.the existenc e of alternativ e methods , enforceability . impRzvement sP.1 1

2260 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 49 . No . 10 5 /

Wednesday . Ma y 30 , 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s i n emissio n contro

l technology , and -eporting requirements . Sectio n 31 7 o

f the Clea n Ai r Act require s the Administrato r t

o prepar e a n economi c impac

tassessmen tfo

r an y ne w source standar

d o f performanc

e promulgate

d unde r sectio n 111(b) o

f th e Act . A n economi c impac

tassessmen t wa s prepare

d fo r thi s regulation an

d fo r othe r regulator

y alternatives . Al l aspect s o f the assessmen twer e considere d in the formulatio n o f th e standard s t

o ensur e tha tcos twa s carefull y considere d i

n determinin

g the bes tdemonstrate d technology . Th e economi c impac

tassessmen ti s include d i n th e backgroun

d information document s fo r tii e propose d standard s and di e promulgate

d standards . Th e informatio

n collectio n requirement

s in thi s rul

e hav e bee n submitted fo

r approva l t o OM B unde r th e Paperwor

k Reduction Ac

to f 1980 , 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 et

seq. Thes e requirement

s wer e approved ; the OM

B contro l numbe r i s 2060-0067 . "MajorRule"Determination. Unde r Executive Orde

r 12291 , tiie Administrato r i s require

d t o judg e whethe r a regulation i s a "majo r ruie " and . therefore , subjectt

o certai n requirement

s o f th e Order . Th e Administrato r ha s determined diatthi s regulatio n woul d resul tin non e o f di e advers e economi c effect

s se tfort h in sectio n 1 o

f the Orde r a s ground

s fo r findin g a regulation t

o b e a "majo

r rule. " Fifth-yea r annualize d cost s o

f th e standard s woul d b e a s muc h a s $4. 1 millio n fo r di e projected 28

2 newl y constructed , modified , an

d reconstructe d refinin

g facilitie s tha

t coul d b e affecte d b y th

e standard s durin g di e firs t5 years . Th

e economi c analysi s show s diatan

y combinatio n o

f the contro l technique s presente d i n Tabl e 1 . excludin g di e us e o f seale d bellow s valves , woul d no thav e a significantimpac

to n petroleu

m refineries . The standard s resulti n n o advers e impac

to n profitabilit

y (decreas e les s tha

n 0. 5 percent) , woul d hav e a potentia

l t o increas e slightl y th e consume r pric

e o f petroleu m product

s (0. 1 percento

r less) , and woul d hav e n o advers e impac

to n capita l availabilit

y fo r constructio n o

f refineries. The Administrato r ha s conclude d tiiatthi s rul e i s not"major " unde

r an y o f di e ritsri a establishe d i n th e Executiv e "•rder . A s discusse d i

n th e "Basi

s Fo r th e Standards " sectio n o

f thi s preamble , cost s pe r megagra m o f VO C emissio n reductio n wer e use d i n selectin g di e standard s promulgate

d b y thi s rulemaking . Thi s regulatio n wa s submitted t

o di e OM B fo r revie w a s require d i n Executiv e Orde

r 12291 . An y comment s fro m OM B t o EP A an d an y EP A response s t

o tiiose comment

s ar e availabl e fo

r pubic inspectio n in Docke t No . A-80-44 . Centra

l Docke tSection , a

t th e addres s give n in th

e ADDRESSE S sectio n o f thi s preamble . Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification. Th

e Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Ac to f 198 0 require s tha tadvers e effect

s o f all Federa

l regulation s upo

n small businesse s b e identified . According t o curren tSmal l Busines s Administratio n guidelines , a smal l busines s in the petroleu m refinin g industr y i s on e tha

t ha s 1.50 0 employee s o

r fewer . Ther

e ar e man y small companie s tha

trefin e petroleu m an d emplo y fewe r tha

n 1.50 0 persons . However , eve n i f facilitie s owne d b y small businesse s do becom e subjectt o th e standards , non e wil l b e adversel y affected . Thi s ca n be sai d becaus e the pric

e an d profitabilit

y impact s previousl y describe d hav e been estimate d fro

m the perspectiv e o

f the smaller " refiner

y unit s in operation . Thus , the economi c impac tfo r facilitie s owne d b y small businesse s i s not considere d significant . Pursuan tt o the provision s o

f 5 U.S.C . 605(b) , I hereb y certif y tha tthi s rule wil l nothav e a significan teconomi c impac to n a substantial numbe

r o f small entities . Lis to f Subjects in 4

0 CF R Par t6 0 Ai r pollutio n control . Aluminum, Ammoniu m sulfat e plants . Asphalt , Cemen tindustry , Coal . Copper

, Electri c powe r plants . Glas s and glas s products . Grains . Intergovernmenta l relations , Iron. Lead . Metals , Metalli c minerals . Moto r vehicles . Nitri c aci d plants , Pape r an d pape r product

s industry , Petroleum . Phosphate . Sewag e disposal . Steel . Sulfuri c aci d plants . Wast e treatmen t an d disposal . Zinc . Tires . Incorporatio n b y reference . Ca

n surfac e coating . Sulfuric aci d plants . Industria l organi c chemicals . Organic solven tcleaners . Fossi l fuel-fired stea

m generators . Fiberglas s insulation . Syntheti c fibers. Dated : Ma y 15,1984 . Willia m O . Ruckelshaus

, Administrator. PAR T 60- { AMENDED ] 4 0 CF R Par t6 0 i s amende d a s follows : 1 . By addin g a ne w Subpar tGG G a s follows : Subpar t GGG—Standard s o

f Performanc

e fo r Equipmen

t Leak s o f VO C I n Petroleu m Refineries Sec. . 60.59 0 Applicabilit

y an d designatio

n o f affecte d facility . 60.59 1 Definitions

. 60.59 2 Standards

. 60.59 3 Exceptions

. 60.594-60.59

9 (Reserved

) Authority : Section s 11 1 an d 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . a s amended . (4 2 U.S.Cr7411, 7601(a)) , an d additiona

l authorit y a a note d below . Subpart GGG—Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C i n Petroleu m Refinerie s § 60.59 0 Applicabilit

y sn d designatio n o

f affecte d facility

. (a)(1 ) The provision s o

f thi s subpar

t apply t o affecte d facilitie s i

n petroleu m refineries . (2 ) A compresso r i s a

n affected facility . (3 ) Th e grou p o f all the equipmen

t (define d i n § 60.591 ) withi n a proces s uni ti s a n affecte d facility . (b) An y affecte d facilit

y unde r paragrap h (a ) o f thi s sectio n tha

t commence s constructio n o r modificatio n afte r Januar y 4,1983 , i s subjec

tt o the requirement

s o f thi s subpart

. (c) Additio n o

r replacemento

f equipmen t(define d in § 60.591 ) fo

r the purpos e o f proces s improvemen

twhic h i s accomplishe d withouta capita l expenditure shal l notb

y itsel f b e considere d a modificatio n unde r thi s subpart . (d ) Facilitie s subjectt

o Subpar tW o r Subpar tKK K o f 4 0 CF R Par t6 0 ar e exclude d fro

m thi s subpart

. §60.59 1 Definitions

. A s use d in thi s subpart

, all term s no t define d herei n shal l hav e th e meaning give n the m i n di e Act , i n Subpar

tA o f Par t60 . o r in Subpar

tV V o f Par t60 . an d th e followin g term

s shal l hav e th e specifi c meanings give n them . "Alaska n Nord i Slope " means the approximately 69,00

0 squar e mil e are a extendin g from th e Brook s Rang e t o di e Arcti c Ocean . "Equipment " mean s eac h valve , pump , pressur e relief device , sampling connectio n system , open-ende d valv e o r line , an d flang e o

r othe r connecto r i n VO C service . Fo

r the purpose s o

f recordkeepin g and reportin g only , compressor s ar e considere d equipmen t "I n Hydroge

n Service " mean s ma

ta compresso r contain s a proces s fluid tha t meet s th e condition s specifie d i n S 60.593(b) . "I n Ligh tLiqui d Service " mean s diat the piec e o

f equipmen

tcontain s a liqui d dia tmeet s th e condition s specifie d in § 60.593(c) . "Petroleu m Refinery " mean s an y facilit y engage d i n producin

g gasoline , kerosene , liistjilate fue

l oils , residual f.:e l oils , lubricants , orotiie r product s triroug h the distillatio n o

f petroleum , o r throug h th e redistillation , cracking , o r reformin g o f unfinished petroleu

m derivatives .P.1 2



### Federa l Registe r /

Vo L 49 , No

. 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 , 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s 

### 2 1 woul d b e assesse d throug h in-plan t inspections . EP A ha s no w decide d diatreportin g i s necessar y t

o asses s implementatio n o f th e wor k practic e and equipmen

t requirement

s o f the standards . EP

A agree s wit h the commenter tha

tfacilitie s no tcomplying wit

h th e standard s migh

t hav e a n unfair advantag e (albeit , somewha tsmall) . Mor

e importantly , facilitie s notcomplying wit h th e standard s woul d notb e usin g BD T a s require d b y th e Clea

n Ai r Act , th e purpos e o f which i s t

o preven tne w pollutio n problems . EP

A believe s tha

t reportin g i s importan

tt o di e effectiv e enforcemen

to f the standards . Reportin

g will reduc e th e necessit y fo

r man y jn plan tinspections , whil e improvin g di e enforceabilit

y of th e standards . EPA' s conclusio n tha

treport s ar e usefu l i s als o base d o n the experienc e o

f th e State an d loca l air qualit

y contro l boards . A s explaine d a

tproposal , thre

e alternative s wer e considere d fo r reportin g requirements . The thre

e alternative s represente d trade-off s amon g varying amount

s o f in-plan t inspection s and repor

tpreparation for enforcement

. Th e firstalternativ e require d n o routin e reportin

g an d relie d o n inspection s fo r enforcement. Th e thir d alternativ e relie d almos ttotall y o n report s an d woul d requir

e minimu m inspection s t

o judge compliance . Under th e secon d alternative , som e reportin g an d som e inspection s i s require d and i s include d i n th e final regulations . Thes e reportin g requirements , however , hav e • bee n streamline d t o includ e reporting , o f dat a o n lea k detectio n and repai r o f pumps , valves , an d othe r equipment type s only . I

n addition , periodi c report s ar e c n a semiannua

l rather tha

n quarterl y basis . Th e semiannua

l reportin g requirement

s ma y b e waive d fo r affecte d source s in an y Stat e tha tw * delegate d authorit

y t o enforc e thes e standards , provided EP

A approve s reportin g requirements-o r a n altemativ e mean s o f sourc e surveillanc e adopte d b y the State . Such source s woul d b e require d t o compl y wid i th e requirement

s adopte d b y di e State . Comment Z- Commenter

s wrote tha t the recordkeepin g requirement s wer e needlessl y complex and burdensome . I n contrast , anothe r commente r state d that mor e informatio n shoul d b e recorde d to ensur e complianc e wid i th e standards . Response 2: Befor

e th e standard s were proposed . EP

A considere d thre e alternativ e level s o f

recordkeeping . The propose d recordkeeping : requirement s wer e considere d me

* minimu m consisten twit

h adequat e enforcemen t thus , th e paperwor

k burden o n owner s and operators i s th e minimu m amoun t necessar y t

o enforc e th e standard s adequately . A tproposal . EP A weighe d th e paperwor

k burde n o n the industr

y agains tth e burde

n o n th e enforcemen

t authorit y (Federal , State an

d local ) t o determine complianc e wit h the standard s and selecte d the propose d requirements . Complianc

e wit h th e fina l standard s wil l b e generall y determined tiirougb inspection . However , becaus e the intent o f th e standard s i s a continuou s reduction i n equipmen

tleak s o f VO C an d continuou s inspectio n b y enforcemen

tauthoritie s i s notpossible , record s mustb e maintaine d i f a n inspecto r i s t

o determine retrospectively whethe r a facilit

y ha s bee n in complianc e wit

h the standards . EP

A consider s th e require

d records fo

r a n owne r o r operator' s lea

k detectio n and repai r progra

m necessar y t o documen

t th e operator' s complianc e efforts . Thes e records woul d likel y alread y b e maintaine d b y a pruden

towne r o r operator, and shoul d therefor e ad d littl e additiona l recordkeepin g burden . The record s require

d fo r identifyin g fugitive emissio n components , and contro l devic e schematic s aa d design dat a ar e no tunreasonabl y burdensome . Thi s information woul d b e develope d onl y once , an d woul d requir e changing o r updatin

g oni y i f the facilit y wer e changed . Th e contro

l devic e schematic s and desig n dat

a shoul d b e availabl e ta plan tengineer s already , an d a s suc h d o no trepresenta

n adde d burden . Fo r ne w facilities , th e reason s wh y a componen t mus tb e installe d i n a locatio a whacf a make s i tdifficul to r unsaf e to monitor mustb e deeums-tte d prio r to installin g th e componen ti n such a position . Th e numbere f

difficult-to-mon

i to r o» unsafe to-manito r component s wil l b e smal l and . therefore , shoul d no tcre*t e a n excessiv e recordkeeping burden . Afte r considerin g th e comments tha tdi e recordkeepin g requirements, are needlessl y comple

x an d burdensom e and th e commen

ttha tmor e informatio

n wa s neede d t

o enforce di e standard s adequately , EP

A decide d t o promulgat

e th e recordkeepin g requirement s a s proposed . Changes Bein g Mad e t o SOCM I Standards (Subpar

tW ) Severa l of th e decision s mad e o n th e standard s of

performanc

e fo r equipmen

t leak s of VO C withi n petroleu

m refineries (sinc e the y wer e proposed ^ affec tEPA' s positio n o n standard s o f performanc

e (Subpar tW ) fo r equipmen tleak s of VO C withi n th e Syntheti c Organic Chemica l

_ Manufacturin

g Industr y (SOCMI}

. Thes e decision s ar

e th e resul to f

ne w o r additiona l technica l analysi s o f

th e contro l technique s considere d i n th e standard s fo r petroleu m refinerie s a r SOCM I and . therefore , shoul d b e m a consisten tfor thes e tw o standards . T decision s concer

n th e alternativ e for determinin

g a "capita

l expenditure. " clarificatio n o

f reconstructio n provisions , difficult-tc-monito r valve. ° ne w units , an

d doubl e bloc

k and ble e valv e clarification . The discussion s o i thes e decision s ar

e foun d i n section s 2.2.3.1,2.7,4.2 , and 5. 0 of

th e BI D fo r promulgate

d standard s a s the y appl y petroleu m refineries . Th

e basi s fo r the revision s t

o Subpar tW i s consisten t wit h thes e discussions . Sinc e thes e revision s eithe r simpl y clarif y ambiguou s aspect s o

f the curren

t regulation o r provid e mor e practicabl e alternative s t

o curren trequirement

s consisten twit

h thei r inten tan

d withou changing their substance , EP A believe! 1 tha tadditiona

l notic e and commen

ta n unnecessary . Fo

r thi s reason , the Agenc y finds "goo

d cause " unde r 4

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

h (B ) t o promulgat

e thes e revision s togethe r wit

h th e refiner

y standards . I

n addition , a fe w typographica

l errors wer e printe

d i n th t Federa l Registe r when-Subpar

tWwa s promulgated . Thes e errors:ar e als o corrected i n thi s notice . Docke t Th e docke ti s a

n organize d an d complet e file o f al l th e information considere d b y EP

A i n th e developmen t o f thi s rulemaking . Th e docke ti s a dynami c file , sinc e materia l i s adde d throughou tthe rulemakin

g process . The docketin g syste m is . intende d t o allo w member s o f the pubficam f

industr y involve d t o identif y an d locat e document s s o tha tthejTca

n participat

e effectivel y i n the rulemakin g process . Alon g wit h di e statemen tof

basi s an d purpos e o f

th e propose d an d promulgate

d standard s an d EP

A response s t o significan tcomments , th e contents of

th e docke twil l serv e a s th e recor d i n cas e of

judicia l review , excep t fo r interagenc

y revie w material s (sectio n 307(dj(7)[A)l . Miscellaneou s I n accordanc e wit

h sectio n 11 7 o f

th e Act , pubhcatia o o f

these-promulgated standajd s wa s preceded " h y conauitatfoi » wit h appropriat

e advisory committees , independentexperts , and Federa l department

s an d agendas* . Thi s regulation wil l b e reviewe d 4 ^ year s fro

m th e dat e o f

pro,-mdgation.a

» required b y the Clea n Ai r Act . Thi s review wi

M includ e a n assessmen tafsod r factor s a s the nee d fo r integratio n wtt h othe r programs, , th e existenc e o f altemativ e methods , enforceability ; iiupruvenients .P.1 3

2260 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 49 . No . 10 5 /

Wednesday . Ma y 30 . 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s

m emissio n control technology , and -eporting requirements . Sectio n 31 7 o

f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s the Administrato r t

o prepar e a n economi c impac

tassessmen tfo

r an y ae w sourc e standar

d o f performanc

e promulgate

d unde r sectio n 111(b ) o

f th e Act . A n economi c impac

tassessmen t wa s prepare

d fo r thi s regulatio n and fo

r othe r regulator

y alternatives . Al l aspect s o f the assessmen twer e considere d in th

e formulatio

n o f the standard s t

o ensure dia

tcos twa s carefully considere d i

n determining th

e bes tdemonstrate d technology . Th e economi c impac

tassessmen ti s include d i n di e backgroun

d informatio

n document s fo r the propose d standard s and di e promulgate

d standards . Th e information collectio n requirement

s i n thi s rul e hav e bee n submitte d fo

r approva l t o OM B unde r th e Paperwor

k Reductio n Acto

f 1980 . 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 et

seq. Thes e requirement

s were approved : th

e OM B contro l numbe r i s 2060-0067 . "MajorRule"Determination. Unde r Executiv e Orde

r 12291 , di e Administrato r i s require

d t o judg e whethe r a regulatio n i s a "majo r rule " and . therefore , subjectt

o certai n requirement

s o f the Order

. Th e Administrato r ha s determined ma tthi s regulatio n woul d resul tin non e o f di e advers e economi c effect

s se tfort h in sectio n 1 o

f the Orde r a s grounds fo

r finding a regulatio n t

o b e a "majo

r rule. " Fifth-yea r annualize d cost s o

f th e standard s woul d b e a s muc h a s $4. 1 millio n fo r di e projecte d 28

2 newl y constructed , modified , an d reconstructe d refinin

g facilitie s diat coul d b e affecte d b y di e standard s durin g di e first5 years . The economi c analysi s show s diatan y combinatio n o f th e control technique s presente d in Tabl e 1 , excludin g th e us e o f seale d bellow s valves , woul d no thav e a significan timpac

to n petroleu

m refineries . The standard s resul ti n no advers e impac

to n profitabilit

y (decreas e less tha

n 0. 5 percent) , woul d hav e a potentia

l t o increas e slighti y th e consume r pric

e o f petroleu m product

s (0. 1 percento

r less) , an d woul d hav e n o advers e impac

to n capita

l availabilit

y fo r constructio n o

f refineries . The Administrato r ha s conclude d tha tthi s rul e i s not"major " unde

r an y o f th e -riteri a establishe d in th e Executiv e "•rder . A s discusse d i

n the "Basis Fo

r di e Standards " sectio n o

f thi s preamble , cost s per megagra

m o f VO C emissio n reduction wer e use d i n selectin g di e standard s promulgate

d b y thi s rulemaking . Thi s regulatio n wa s submitte d t

o di e OM B fo r revie w a s require d i n Executiv e Orde

r 12291 . An y comment s fro m OM B t o EP A an d an y EP A response s t

o thos e comment

s ar e availabl e fo

r pubi c inspectio n i n Docke t No . A-80-44 . Centra

l Docke tSection , a

t th e addres s given i

n th e ADDRESSE S sectio n o f thi s preamble . Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification. Th

e Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Ac to f 198 0 requires tha

tadvers e effect

s o f al l Federa

l regulation s upo

n smal l businesse s b e identified . Accordin g t o curren tSmal l Busines s Administratio n guidelines , a small busines s in the petroleu m refinin g industr y i s on e tha

t ha s 1.50 0 employee s o

r fewer . Ther

e ar e man y smal l companie s tha

trefin e petroleu m and employ fewe r tha

n 1.50 0 persons . However , eve n i f facilitie s owne d b y smal l businesse s do becorrf e subjectt o th e standards , non e wil l b e adversel y affected . This ca n b e sai d becaus e di e pric

e and profitabilit

y impact s previousl y describe d hav e bee n estimate d fro

m the perspectiv e o

f the smaller " refiner

y unit s in operation . Thus , di e economi c impac tfo r facilitie s owne d b y smal l businesse s i s not considere d significant . Pursuan tt o the provision s o

f 5 U.S.C . 605(b) , I hereb y certif y tha tthi s rule wil l no

thav e a significanteconomi c impac to n a substantial numbe

r o f small entities . Lis to f Subjects in 4

0 CF R Par t6 0 Ai r pollutio n control . Aluminum, Ammoniu m sulfat e plants . Asphalt , Cemen tindustry , Coal , Copper

, Electri c powe r plants . Glas s an

d glas s products . Grains . Intergovernmenta l relations , Iron, Lead . Metals , Metalli c minerals . Moto r vehicles . Nitri c aci d plants , Pape r an d pape r product

s industry , Petroleum . Phosphate , Sewag e disposal . Steel . Sulfuri c aci d plants , Waste treatmen t and disposal . Zinc . Tires . Incorporatio n b y reference . Ca

n surface coating . Sulfuri c aci d plants . Industria

l organi c chemicals . Organic solven tcleaners . Fossi l fuel-fire

d stea m generators . Fiberglas s insulation . Syntheti c fibers . Dated : Ma y 15,1984 . Willia m D . Ruckelshaus

, Administrator. PAR T 60—{AMENDED ] 4 0 CF R Par t6 0 i s amended a s follows : 1 . By addin g a ne w Subpar tGG G a s follows : Subpar t GGG—Standards o

f Performanc

e fo r Equipmen

t Leak s o f VO C I n Petroleu m Refineries Sec. . 60.59 0 Applicabilit

y an d designatio

n o f affecte d facility .

. 60.59 1 Definitions. 60.59 2 Standards

. 60.59 3 Exceptions

. 60.594-60.59

9 [Reserved

] Authority : Section s 11 1 an d 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . a s amended , (4 2 U.S.cr7411 . 7601(a)), an

d additiona

l authorit y a s note d below . Subpar t GGG—Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C i n Petroleu m Refinerie s § 60.590 Applicabilit

y an d designatio n o

f affecte d facility

. (a)(1 ) Th e provision s o

f thi s subpar

t appl y t o affecte d facilitie s i

n petroleu m refineries . (2 ) A compresso r i s a

n affecte d facility . (3) The grou

p o f al l th e equipmen

t (define d i n § 60.591 ) withi n a proces s uni ti s a n affecte d facility . (b) Any affecte d facilit

y unde r paragrap h (a ) o f thi s sectio n tha

t commence s constructio n o r modificatio n afte r Januar y 4,1983 . i s subjectt

o th e requirement

s o f thi s subpart

. (c ) Additio n o

r replacemento

f equipmen t(define d in § 60.591 ) fo

r the purpos e o f proces s improvemen

twhich i s accomplishe d withou ta capital expenditure shal l notb

y itsel f b e considere d a modificatio n unde r thi s subpart . (d ) Facilitie s subjectt

o Subpar tV V o r Subpar tKK K o f 4 0 CF R Par t6 0 ar e exclude d fro

m thi s subpart

. § 60.59 1 Definitions

. A s use d in thi s subpart

, all term s not define d herei n shal l hav e th e meaning give n die m in di e Act , i

n Subpar tA o f Par t60 . o r i n Subpar

tV V o f Par t60 . an d th e followin g term

s shal l hav e the specifi c meaning s give n them . "Alaska n Nort h Slope " mean s di e approximatel y 69,00

0 squar e mil e are a extendin g fro

m di e Brook

s Rang e t o di e Arcti c Ocean . "Equipment " mean s eac h valve , pump , pressur e relief device , sampling connectio n system , open-ende d valv e o r line , and flang e o

r othe r connecto r i n VO C service . For th e purpose s of recordkeepin g an d reportin g only , compressor s are considere d equipmen t "I n Hydrogen Service " mean s dia ta compresso r contain s a proces s fluid diat meet s di e condition s specifie d i n § 60.593(b) . "I n Ligh tLiqui d Service " mean s dia t th e piec e o

f equipmen

tcontain s a liqui d diatmeet s di e condition s specifie d i n § 60.593(c) . "Petroleu m Refinery " mean s an y facilit y engage d in producin

g gasoline , kerosene , distillat e fue

l oils , residual fue l oils , lubricants , o r othe r product s rnroug h di e distillatio n o

f petroleum , o r throug h th e redistillation , cracking , o r reforming o

f unfinished petroleu

m derivatives .

# I .

. P. M

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 49 , No . 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 , 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s 226 C "Petroleum " mean s the crud e oi l remove d fro m the eart

h an d the oil s derive d fro

m ta r sands , shale , an

d coal . "Proces s Unit " mean s component s assemble d t

o produc e intermediat

e o r fina l product s fro m petroleum , unfinishe d petroleu

m derivatives , o

r other intermediates ; a proces s uni tca n operat e independentl y i

f supplie d wit

h sufficien tfeed o r ra

w material s an

d sufficien tstorag e facilitie s fo

r the product . §60.59 2 Standards

. (a ) Eac h owne r o r operato r subjec tt o th e provision s of

thi s subpar

tshal l compl y wit h th e requirement

s o f § 60.482- 1 t

o § 60.482-1 0 a s soo n a s practicable , bu

tn o late r tha

n 18 0 day s afte r initia l startup . (b ) A n owne r o r operato r ma y elec tt o compl y wit h the requirement

s o f § 60.483- 1 an

d § 60.483-2 . (c ) A n owne r o

r operato r ma

y appl y t o th e Administrato r fo

r a determinatio n o

f equivalenc y fo

r an y mean s o

f emissio n limitatio n tha

tachieve s a reduction in emission s o

f VO C a tleas tequivalen tt

o th e reduction in emission s o f VOC achieve d b y th e control s require d i n thi s subpart . I n doin g so . the owne r o r operato r shal l compl y wit h requirement

s o f § 60.484 . (d j Eac h owne r o r operato r subjec

tt o the provision s o

f thi s subpar

tshal l comply wit

h th e provision s of

§ 60.46 5 excep ta s provided i n $ 60.593 . (e ) Eac h owne r o r operato r subjectt o th e provision s of

thi s subpar

tshal l compl y wit h the provision s o f

§ 60.48 6 an d § 60.487 . (Sec . 11 4 o f Clea n Ai r Ac ta s amende d (4 2 U.S.C . 7414) ) § 60.59 3 Exceptions . (a ) Eac h owne r o r operato r subjectt o * th e provision s o f

thi s subpar

tma y comply wit

h th e followin g exception s t o th e provision s of

Subpar tW . (b)(1 ) Compressor

s i n hydroge

n servic e ar e exemp tfro

m th e requirement

s of § 60.59 2 i f a n owne r o r operato r demonstrate s tha ta compresso r i s i n hydroge

n service . (2 ) Eac h compresso r i s presume

d no t b e b e in hydroge

n servic e unles s a n owne r o r operato r demonstrate s dia tth e piec e of equipmen

ti s i n hydroge

n service . Fo

r a piec e of

equipmen

tt o b e considere d i n hydroge

n service , i tmus

t b e determined tha

tth e percenthydroge

n contentca n b e reasonabl y expecte d alway s t o excee d 5 0 percen

tb y volume . Fo r purpose s of

determinin g th e percent hydroge n contenti n th e proces s fluid tha ti s containe d i n o r contact s a compressor , procedure s tha tconfor m t o the genera

l metho d describe d i n AST M E-260 . E-168 , o r E-16 9 (incorporated b y reference a s specifie d i n §60.17 ) shal l b e used . (3)(i ) A n owne r o r operato r ma y us e engineerin g judgmen

trathe r tha n procedure s in paragrap

h (b)(2) o f thi s sectio n t o demonstrat

e tha tth e percen t conten texceed s 5 0 percen tb y volume , provided the engineerin g judgmen t demonstrate s tha

tth e contentclearl y exceed s 50 percentb

y volume . Whe

n a n owne r o r operato r an

d the Administrato r d o no tagre e o n whethe r a piec e o f equipmen

ti s in hydroge

n service , however , th e procedures in paragrap h (b)(2) shal l b e use d t

o resolv e th e disagreement . (ii ) I f a n owne r o r operato r determine s tha ta piec e o

f equipmen

ti s in hydroge

n service , the determinatio n ca n b e revise d oni y after followin g th e procedure s in paragrap

h (b)(2) . (c ) An y existin g reciprocating compresso r tha

tbecome s a

n affected facilit y unde r provision s o

f § 60.1 4 o r § 60.1 5 i s exemp tfro

m § 60.48 2 (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (e) , and (h

) provided th e owne r o r operato r demonstrate s tha trecasting th e distanc e piec e o r replacin g the compresso r ar

e th e onl y option s availabl e t

o brin g th e compresso r int

o complianc e wit

h the provision s of § 60.48 2 (a) , (b) . (c) . (d) , (e) , an d (h) . (d ) A n owne r o r operato r ma y us e th e followin g provisio n i n additio n t o § 60.485(e) : Equipmen

ti s in lightliqui d servic e i f th e percentevaporate d i s greate r tha

n 1 0 percentat150* C a s determine d b y AST

M Method D-8 6 (incorporated b y reference a s specifie d i n § 60.18) . (e ) Pump s i n ligh tliqui d servic e and valve s i n gas/vapo r and lightliqui d servic e withi n a proces s uni ttha ti s locate d i n di e Alaska n Nort h Slop e ar

e exemp tfro

m th e requirements o

f § 60.482- 2 an d $ 60.482-7 . 2 . B y addin g i n alphabetica l orde r th e ne w term s "capita l expenditure, " "double bloc

k an d blee d system, " and "replacemen

tcost " i n § 60.48 1 of Subpar tW a s follows : §60.46 1 Definitions . ****>*> • "Capita l expenditure " means , i n additio n t o th e definitio n in 4 0 CF

R 60.2 , a n expenditure fo

r a physica

l o r operationa

l chang e t o a n existin g facilit

y that : (a ) Exceed s P

, di e produc

to f the facility' s replacementcost , R , an d a n adjuste d annua

l asse tguidelin e repair allowance . A , a s reflecte d b y di e followin g equation : P = R X A , wher e (1 ) Th e adjuste d annua

l asse t guidelin e repai r allowance . A , i s th e produc tof th e percento

f th e replacemen tcos tY

, an d th e applicabl e basi c annua

l asse tguidelin e repai r allowance , B . a s reflecte d b y the followin g equation : A -

= Y X ( B - r 10 0 (2 ) Th e percen tY i s determined fro

m th e followin g equation : Y = 1. 0 —0.57.- - lo g X , where X i s th

e year o f construction ; and (3) The applicabl e basi c annua l asse t guidelin e repair allowance . B , i s select e fro m the followin g tabl e consisten twit h th e applicabl e subpart :

TABL E FO R DETERMININ G APPLICABL E TOR 6

w ODD..

. QGQ.

. KKK..

. Subpar

t amXicaM e l o tacitl y

• .Valu e o l e 1 0 b* » ma i n aquaoor

12. ' 12 ' 7.1

• U

"Doubl e bloc k an d blee d system " means tw o bloc

k valve s connecte d in serie s wit h a blee d valv e o r lin e tha tca n ventth e lin e betwee n th e tw o bloc k valves . • *>•« • "Replacemen

tcost " means di e capita

l neede d t o purchas e al l the depreciabl e component

s in a facility . • • * * • (Section s ill . 114 . an d 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac ta s amende d (4 2 U.S. C 7411.7414

. 7601(a)) ) 3 . B y addin g paragrap

h (c ) t o { 60.482 - 6 a s follows : § 60.482- 6 Standards : Open-ende d vslve s o r lines . • *•*-* > (c ) When a doubl e block-and-blee d syste m i s being used , th e blee d valv e o r lin e ma y remain ope n durin

g operation s tha trequir e ventin g th e lin e betwee n th e bloc k valve s bu

tshal l compl y wit

h paragrap h (a ) a tal l othe r times . (Section s 111 . 114 . an d 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac ta s amende

d (4 2 U.S. C 7411 . 7414

, 7801(a)) ) 4 . By revisin g paragrap

h (d)(1 ) of S 60.48 0 a s follows : §60.46 0 Applicabilit y an d designatio n o f affecte d facility

.

• •••>• » (d)(1 ) I f a n owne r o r operato r applie s fo r on e o r mor

e of the exemption s i n thi s paragraph , the

n the owne r o r operato r shal l maintain record s a s require d i n S 60.486(i) . • * . ' • * * (Section s 111 . 114 . an d 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac ta s amende

d (4 2 U.S. C 7411,7414

, 7601(a)) ) 5 . B y revisin g paragrap

h (d)'of $ 60.482- 1 a s follows :P.1 5

2260 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 49 . No . 10 5 /

Wednesday , Ma y 30 , 198 4 / Rule s an d Regulation s

* 60.482- 1 Standards : General

. i * * * * (d ) Equipmen ttha ti s i n vacuu m servic e i s exclude d from th e requirement s o f

§ 60.482- 2 t o § 60.482-1 0 i f i ti s identifie d a s require d i n 5 60.486(e)(5) . iSection s 111.114 . an

d 301|a) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . a s amende

d (4 2 U.S.C . 7411 . 7414

. rnoif a || ) 5 . B y revisin g paragrap h (c)(2 ) an d paragrap h (h)(2 ) o f

§ 60.482- 7 a s follows : j 60.482- 7 Standards : Valve s I n gas/vapo r an d I n ligh t liqui d service

. 

### **** * ic ) * * * (2 ) I f a lea k i s detected , th e valv e shai l b e monitore d monthl y unti l a lea k i s no t detecte d fo r 2 successiv e months . 

### • * * * • th)*- ' (2 ) Th e proces s uni twithi n whic h th e valv e i s locate d eithe r become s a n affecte d facilit y throug h § 60.1 4 o r § 60.1 5 o r th e owne r o r operato r designate s les s tha n 3. 0 percen to f th e tota l numbe r o f

valve s a s difficult-to monitor . an d

. . . . (Section s 111 . 114 . an

d 301(a ) o f tb e Clea n Ai r Act . a s amended (4 2 U.S.C . 7411 . 7414. 7601(a)) ) 7 . B y revisin g paragraph s (c)(2 ) (ii ) an d (vi ) o f

§ 60.48 7 a s follows : § 60.48 7 Reportin g requirements .

• * • * * * fc ) (2) ' * ' f ii ) Numbe r o f

valve s fo r whic h leak s wer e no trepaire d a s require d i n § 60.482-7(d)(l) , .*•*> » (vi ) Numbe r o f

compressor s fo r whic h leak s wer e no trepaired a s require d i n § 60.482-3(g)(l) , an d

• • * * * (Section s 111 , 114, an

d 301(a ) o f the Clea n Air Act . a s amended (4

2 U.S.C . 7411 . 7414. 7601(a)) ) (Approve d b y th e Offic e o f Managemen

tan d Budge tunde r contro l numbe r 2060-0067. ) 8 . B y addin g § 60.48 8 t o Subpar tW a s follows : $ 60.48 8 Reconstruction . For th e purpose s o f

this subpart : fa ) Th e cos to f

th e followin g frequentl y replace d component s o f th e facilit y shal l no tb e considere d i n calculatin g eithe r th e "fixe d capita l cos t o f th e ne w components " o r th e "fixe d capita l cost s tha twoul d b e require d t o construc ta comparabl e ne w facility " unde r § 60.15 : pum p seals , nut s an d bolts , ruptur e disks , an d packings . (b ) Unde r § 60.15 , th e "fixe d capita l cos to f ne w components " include s th e fixe d capita l cos to f

al l depreciabl e component s (excep tcomponent s specifie d i n § 60.48 8 (a) ) whic h ar e o r wil l b e replace d pursuan tt o al l continuou s program s o f componen t replacemen twhic h ar e commence d withi n an y 2-yea r perio d followin g th e applicabilit y dat e fo r th e appropriat e subpart . (Be e th e "Applicabilit y an d designatio n o f

affecte d facility " sectio n o f th e appropriat e subpart. ) Fo r purpose s o f

thi s paragraph , "commenced " mean s tha ta n owne r o r operato r ha s undertake n a continuou s program o f

componen treplacemen to r tha ta n owne r o r operato r ha s entere d int o a contractua l obligatio n t o undertak e an d complete , withi n a reasonabl e time , a continuou s progra m o f componen treplacement . (Section s 111 . 114 , and 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . a s amended (4

2 U.S. C 7411 , 7414 . 7601(a)) ) 9 . B y revisin g paragraph s (a ) (34) , (35) . an d (36 ) b y addin g (a)(4 ) o f § 60.1 7 o f Subpar tA—Genera l Provision s a s follows : § 60.1 7 Incorporatio n b y reference . (a ) * * * - (34 ) AST M E169-6 3 (Reapprove d 1977) , Genera l Technique s o f Ultraviole t Quantitativ e Analysis , IB R approve d fo r § 60.485(d ) an d 4 60.593(b) . (35 ) ASTME168-6 7 (Reapprove d 1977) , General-Technique s o f Infrare d Quantitativ e Analysis , IBR approve d fo r § 60.485(d ) an d § 60.593(b) . (36 ) AST M E260-73 , Genera l Ga s Chromatograph y Procedures , IBR approve d fo r $ 60.485(d ) an d § 60.593(b) . (40 ) AST M D86-78.-Distillatio n o f Petroleu m Products , IB R approve d fo r § 60.593(d) . I Section s 111 , 114 . an

d 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act. a s amende

d (4 2 U.S.C . 7411 . 7414 . -fim(a)j ) - • Appendi x A (Amende d I 10 . B y redesignatin g th e headin g "5. 2 Apparatus " a s "5. 1 Apparatus " i n Metho d 1 8 o f

Appendi x A a s follows : 5. 1 Apparatu s (Section s 111 . 114. an

d 301(a | o f theClea n Ai

r Act . a s amende

d (4 2 U.S.C . 7411 . 7414 . •601(a)) ) 11 . B y revisin g th e firs tequatio n i n Sectio n 6.2.1. 1 i n Metho d 1 8 o f Appendi x A a s follows : Q * = Q / i-vr , V , P.T , Et* . 18- 1 (Section s ill . 114 . an

d 301(a ) o f theClea n Ai

r Act. a s amend($

) (4 2 U.S.C . 7411 , 7414. •OOlfa)) ) 12 . B y revisin g th e citatio n "Citatio n 2 1 i n sectio n & " t o "Citatio n 1 8 i n sectio n fl." i n 6.2.1. 1 i n Metho d 1 8 o f Appendi x A . (Section s 111 . 114, an

d 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . a s amende

d (42JJ.S.C . 7411 , 7414 . 7601(aff l 13 . B y changin g th e wor d "caped " to "capped " i n sectio n 6.2.2. 1 i n Metho d 1 8 o f Appendi x A . (Section s 111 . 114 , an d 301(a ) o f the Clea n Air Act. a s amende

d (4 2 U;S.C . 7411 . 7414 . 7601(a)) ) 14 . B y changin g al l th e "mg/liter " to "g/liter " i n sectio n 6.2.2. 3 i n Metho d 1 8 o f Appendi x A . (Section s 111 . 114, an

d 301(a ) o f the Clea n Ai r Ac ta s amended {42 U.S.C . 7411 , 7414 . 7601fa» ) 15 . B y changin g th e wor d "with " to "within " i n sectio n 7.4.4. 3 i n Metho d 1 8 o f Appendi x A . (Section s 111 , 114 . and 301(a ) o f theClea n Ai

r Act. a s amende

d (4 2 U.S.C . 7411 . 7414 . 7601(a)} ) (F R Do tM-UM 8 File

d S-29-M : *4 S am |