Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, 65302-65319 [E6-18646]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65302-65319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18646]



[[Page 65301]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





 Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



 40 CFR Part 60



 Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic 
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for 
Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 65302]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-2006-0699; FRL-8239-9]
RIN 2060-AN71


Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the 
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of 
Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA 
has reviewed the emission standards for volatile organic compounds 
contained in the standards of performance for equipment leaks of 
volatile organic compounds in the synthetic organic chemicals 
manufacturing industry and equipment leaks of volatile organic 
compounds in petroleum refineries. This action proposes amendments to 
these standards based on this review. Specifically, we are proposing 
amendments to increase the stringency of the leak definitions for pumps 
and valves. We are also proposing several technical clarifications and 
corrections to existing provisions. The clarifications and corrections 
in the regulations would apply to all sources that are subject to rules 
that reference these regulations.

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed amendments must be received 
on or before January 8, 2007.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by November 27, 2006, a public hearing will be held on 
December 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0699, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and 
Radiation Docket (6102T), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by Courier, deliver comments 
to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West Building, Room B-102, 
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit 
the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal 
Docket Management System index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed 
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 
Docket, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding 
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing 
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary 
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of 
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the 
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal 
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at 
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on 
docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket 
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for 
submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the 
flooding and will remain the same.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Rackley, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-
0634; fax number (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: rackley.karen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category                NAICS* code     potentially regulated
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  32411............  Petroleum refiners
                                Primarily 325110,  Synthetic organic
                                 325192, 325193,    chemicals
                                 and 325199.        manufacturing
                                                    industry (SOCMI)
                                                    units, e.g.,
                                                    producers of
                                                    benzene, toluene, or
                                                    any other chemical
                                                    listed in 40 CFR
                                                    60.489.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65303]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 
CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto 
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Clearly mark the part or all 
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a 
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so 
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the 
comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 
that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted 
for inclusion in the public docket.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander 
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate facility nearby. 
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Karen 
Rackley, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at 
least 2 days in advance of the hearing.
    Docket. The docket number for the proposed amendments to the 
standards of performance (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 
60, subpart GGG) is Docket ID No. OAR-2006-0699. Legacy dockets for the 
standards of performance include Docket ID Nos. A-79-32 and A-80-44.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments?
    B. What are the current equipment leak NSPS?
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
    A. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment 
leaks in the SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV)?
    B. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment 
leaks in other NSPS?
IV. Request for Comments
V. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the impacts for SOCMI process units?
    B. What are the impacts for petroleum refining process units?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments?

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which 
cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The 
primary purpose of the NSPS are to attain and maintain ambient air 
quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission control 
technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is 
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving 
long-term emissions reductions at numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified 
sources.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application 
of the best system of emission reductions which (taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This 
level of control is commonly referred to as best demonstrated 
technology (BDT).
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA periodically to 
review and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to 
reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions.

B. What are the current equipment leak NSPS?

    New source performance standards for equipment leaks of volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) have been developed for four source categories. 
Subpart VV to 40 CFR part 60 applies to SOCMI process units. Subpart 
DDD to 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from 
the Polymer Manufacturing Industry, applies to polypropylene, 
polyethylene, polystyrene, and poly (ethylene terephthalate) process 
units. Subpart GGG to 40 CFR part 60 applies to petroleum refining 
process units. Subpart KKK to 40 CFR part 60 applies to onshore natural 
gas processing plants. Subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK of 40 CFR part 60 
cross-reference the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 
they specify source-category-specific definitions and exceptions to the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    The NSPS for equipment leaks of VOC in the SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV) were originally promulgated on October 18, 1983 (48 FR 
48335) and apply to all equipment, as defined by the rule, within a 
process unit in the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry 
(SOCMI) that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after January 5, 1981. For the purpose of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, 
the SOCMI consists of process units producing any of the chemicals 
listed in 40 CFR 60.489 of subpart VV. The standards apply to pumps, 
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, 
open-ended lines, valves, and flanges or other connectors in VOC 
service. Depending on the type of equipment, the standards require 
either periodic

[[Page 65304]]

monitoring for and repair of leaks, the use of specified equipment to 
minimize leaks, or specified work practices. Monitoring for leaks must 
be conducted using EPA Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 or 
other equivalent monitoring techniques. Owners and operators must keep 
records that identify the equipment that are subject to the standards, 
identify equipment that are leaking, and document attempts at repair. 
Information related to leaks and repair attempts also must be included 
in semiannual reports. This subpart has been amended several times 
between 1984 and 2000. Typically, these amendments added definitions, 
exemptions, alternative compliance options, and clarifications. For 
example, one amendment provides an option to comply with the equipment 
leak provisions in the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) for 
equipment leaks (40 CFR part 65, subpart F). None of these amendments 
increased the intended performance level of the standards.
    The NSPS for equipment leaks of VOC in petroleum refineries (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GGG) apply to petroleum refining process units for 
which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after 
January 4, 1983. Those standards were originally promulgated on May 30, 
1984 (49 FR 22606), and have been amended only once since the original 
promulgation (65 FR 61768, October 17, 2000) to update the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method references.

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing a variety of amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV; most of these amendments would also apply to affected sources under 
other NSPS that cross-reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (i.e., 40 
CFR part 60, subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK). Some of the amendments to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VV would change the leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) standards for pumps and valves in SOCMI process units that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification as of today's 
date. We are also proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG 
that would make the same changes in the LDAR standards for pumps and 
valves in new petroleum refining process units, but these changes would 
not apply to affected sources under 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD and 
KKK. Other amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV would add 
compliance options, add new provisions to ensure that existing 
standards achieve the expected emission reductions, clarify ambiguous 
provisions, and correct miscellaneous errors. These proposed amendments 
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV would apply to affected sources under all 
other NSPS that cross-reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (i.e., 40 
CFR part 60, subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK).
    We are proposing amendments to the LDAR requirements for pumps and 
valves in SOCMI process units that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV and begin construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after November 7, 2006. These amendments would increase the stringency 
of the leak definition for pumps in light liquid service from 10,000 
parts per million (ppm) to 2,000 ppm (5,000 ppm for pumps handling 
polymerizing monomers) and increase the stringency of the leak 
definition for valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid service from 
10,000 ppm to 500 ppm. We are also proposing to amend subpart GGG to 40 
CFR part 60 to specify that the above changes also apply to petroleum 
refining process units that begin construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after November 7, 2006. These proposed amendments reflect 
BDT for these sources based on the performance and cost of the LDAR 
programs.
    We are proposing several amendments to subpart VV of 40 CFR part 60 
which would add provisions designed to ensure that expected emissions 
reductions under the existing standards are being achieved. For 
example, these amendments would require an owner or operator to monitor 
the cap, plug, blind flange, or second valve on open-ended lines once 
per year. In addition, a calibration drift assessment would be required 
at the end of each day of monitoring, and records of monitoring 
instrument calibrations would be required. Finally, flow indicators or 
closure devices would be required on bypass lines that could divert 
flow away from control devices, consistent with requirements in the 
National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Equipment Leaks (HON) (40 CFR part 63, subpart H), the National 
Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks-Control Level 2 Standards 
(Generic MACT) (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU), and the CAR (40 CFR part 
65, subpart F), hereafter referred to as ``other equipment leak 
rules.'' All of these proposed changes would apply to affected sources 
under rules that cross-reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (i.e., 40 
CFR part 60, subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK).
    We are proposing an amendment to simplify the compliance 
requirements for pumps. When indications of liquids dripping are 
observed during weekly inspections, 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV 
currently requires repair of the leak following the same procedures as 
if the leak were detected by monitoring. The proposed amendment would 
allow the owner or operator to either repair the leak by eliminating 
the indications of liquids dripping or determine if it is leaking based 
on the instrument reading obtained by monitoring the pump in accordance 
with EPA Method 21 or other equivalent monitoring techniques. This 
change would make the requirements in subpart VV consistent with the 
requirements in other equipment leak rules. This option would also be 
available for affected sources under subparts DDD, GGG, and KKK of 40 
CFR part 40.
    We are proposing an alternative compliance option consisting of 
less frequent monitoring for pumps and valves in process units that 
operate part-time during the year. This alternative would apply to 
currently required monthly, quarterly, and semiannual monitoring 
intervals; less frequent monitoring would not be allowed for monitoring 
that is currently required on an annual or less frequent basis. For 
example, pumps in a process that operates 5,250 hours per year (about 
60 percent of full-time operation) could be monitored every other month 
rather than monthly. This alternative is consistent with options in 
other equipment leak rules, and it would be available for affected 
facilities at sources subject to other NSPS that cross-reference 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart VV.
    Several proposed amendments are intended to clarify the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. These changes would make 
the rule language consistent with language that has been included in 
more recent equipment leak rules. These amendments include 
clarification of the definition of ``process unit,'' requirements for 
new equipment added to a process unit, requirements for containers in 
closed-purge sampling systems, monitoring requirements for pumps for 
which repair has been delayed, and examples of actions considered to be 
first attempts at repair of pumps. We are also proposing a 
clarification of the definition of ``process unit'' in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GGG that is comparable to the proposed clarification of the 
definition in subpart VV.
    Finally, the proposed amendments include a few technical 
corrections to fix references and other miscellaneous errors in both 
subpart VV and subpart GGG of 40 CFR part 60. The specific changes are 
detailed in sections III.A and III.B of this preamble.

[[Page 65305]]

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

    To determine the need for revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, 
we reviewed requirements in other Federal equipment leak rules (e.g., 
recent National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) and the CAR), State rules, and recent consent decrees between 
many petroleum refiners and the United States government (representing 
EPA and various individual States, depending on the petroleum refining 
company). State rules that were reviewed included rule 1173 in 
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District, rule 8-18 in 
California's Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and requirements 
for highly reactive VOC in title 30, part 1, chapter 115, subchapter H 
of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). An example of the equipment 
leak provisions included in the petroleum refinery consent decrees 
(from the consent decree for Sunoco, Inc.) can be found in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. The consent decrees in their entirety are 
located at https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/. As a result of this 
review, we developed amendments to improve the performance of the 
Equipment Leak NSPS that would require lower leak definitions for pumps 
in light liquid service and valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid 
service. We also considered a second option that would require 
monitoring of connectors in gas/vapor or light liquid service and 
define a leak for all connectors as an instrument reading of 500 ppm or 
greater. We have decided not to propose this second option at this 
time. See section IV of this preamble for a discussion of this option.
    As a result of the review, we identified several other changes that 
would help ensure that the existing standards achieve the intended 
level of control. We also noted the need for a number of clarifications 
to make the requirements in the NSPS consistent with requirements in 
other equipment leak rules.

A. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment leaks in 
the SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV)?

1. Amended Work Practice Standards
    Leak definition for pumps and valves. Typically, reducing the leak 
definition reduces emissions because leaks are identified and fixed 
when they are smaller. Leak definitions for pumps and valves in 
numerous other regulations and requirements are much lower than the 
10,000 ppm leak definitions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. For example, 
all NESHAP for SOCMI sources (e.g., the HON, Generic MACT, and the CAR) 
specify leak definitions of 500 ppm for valves in gas/vapor service and 
light liquid service. The NESHAP also specify a leak definition of 
1,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid service (except for pumps handling 
polymerizing monomers or in food/medical service, which have leak 
definitions of 5,000 ppm and 2,000 ppm, respectively). Although a pump 
is considered to be leaking at 1,000 ppm, repairs are required only if 
the instrument reading is at least 2,000 ppm.
    Requirements in documents other than Federal NESHAP also have lower 
leak definitions than subpart VV. For example, most of the consent 
decrees for petroleum refineries specify leak definitions of 500 ppm 
for valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps. The consent decrees also require 
first attempts to repair valves when instrument readings exceed 100 ppm 
or 200 ppm. This effort has been only marginally successful because 
evidence to date shows such attempts are almost as likely to make 
emissions worse as to fix the valve. These results suggest that there 
are limits below which lowering the leak definition results in 
significantly diminished returns.
    Finally, some State rules also have leak definitions that are lower 
than in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. For example, Air Quality Management 
Districts in California (e.g., BAAQMD rule 8-18) specify leak 
definitions as low as 100 ppm for valves and 500 ppm for pumps. Data on 
leak frequencies and other performance measures for facilities 
implementing LDAR programs with these very low leak definitions are not 
available.
    Based on our experience with NESHAP and the consent decrees with 
petroleum refiners, we have concluded that BDT for pumps and valves 
includes lower leak definitions than in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV as 
currently written. Specifically, these regulations and other 
requirements indicate BDT includes leak definitions of 500 ppm for 
valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps. Even lower leak definitions 
theoretically would result in lower emissions, but available evidence 
to date does not support selection of lower values. Our impacts 
analysis indicates that lowering the leak definitions to 500 ppm for 
valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps would reduce emissions from new SOCMI 
sources by 230 Mg/yr in the fifth year after implementation of such 
requirements, and the cost would be $310/Mg removed. This cost is 
considered to be reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing to lower the 
leak definitions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV to 2,000 ppm for pumps 
and to 500 ppm for valves.
2. New Compliance Demonstration Requirements
    As mentioned previously, the proposed amendments include provisions 
to ensure that intended emissions reductions are being achieved. The 
proposed clarifications summarized in this section would apply to all 
process units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV as well as units 
subject to subparts that reference subpart VV.
    Open-ended lines. Section 60.482-6(a)(1) specifies that, except in 
certain situations, each open-ended valve or line shall be equipped 
with a cap, plug, blind flange, or a second valve. If installed 
properly, the control efficiency of these measures is assumed to be 
essentially 100 percent. Inspections conducted by enforcement agencies, 
however, have found that many of these components are leaking due to 
improper installation. In order to increase compliance with the 
original standards for open-ended lines and achieve the intended 
emission reductions, we are proposing a requirement to monitor each 
open-ended line once per year. An instrument reading of 500 ppm or 
greater would be considered a leak. The 500 ppm level was selected 
because this requirement is comparable to the ``no detectable 
emissions'' option for pumps, compressors, and valves. Repair of leaks 
would be required within 15 days after the leak is detected. Examples 
of repair attempts include tightening or replacing the cap, plug, blind 
flange, or second valve. Records of all monitoring results, each leak 
detected, and each repair attempted would be required. Documentation of 
the total number of leaks and number for which repair was delayed would 
be required in semiannual reports.
    Requirements for Pumps. Sections 60.482-2(b)(2) and (d)(6)(i) of 
subpart VV currently specify that a leak is detected if indications of 
liquids dripping from the pump seal are observed during weekly 
inspections. These leaks must be repaired just as leaks detected by 
instrument readings greater than the leak definition must be repaired. 
We have determined that this requirement is overly burdensome because 
not all liquids dripping are process fluids, and not all drips of 
process fluids would create emissions concentrations greater than the 
applicable leak definitions. To mitigate this burden, we are proposing 
to revise the weekly inspection requirements in a

[[Page 65306]]

manner similar to the requirements in the CAR.
    The proposed amendments would require the owner or operator to 
either monitor the pump or designate visual indications of liquids 
dripping as a leak. If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the 
pump and the instrument reading is greater than or equal to the 
applicable leak definition, then a leak is detected, and it must be 
repaired following the same procedures as any other leak. If the 
instrument reading is less than the applicable leak definition, the 
indications of drips are not a leak, and no further action would be 
required. If the indications of liquids dripping are designated as a 
leak, then the owner or operator would have to repair the leak by 
eliminating the visual indications of liquids dripping. Eliminating 
visual indications of liquids dripping is less burdensome than meeting 
the definition of ``repaired'' because monitoring is not required to 
verify that the repair was successful. (Note that we are also proposing 
to revise the definition of the term ``repaired'' to be consistent with 
the definition in other equipment leak rules and to further clarify the 
definition. See section III.A.3 of this preamble.) Although 40 CFR part 
60, subpart VV does not explicitly specify procedures to follow when 
indications of liquids dripping are observed between scheduled weekly 
inspections, the Agency has determined that owners and operators must 
follow the same requirements as when indications of liquids dripping 
are found during the weekly inspection.
    The most obvious difference between the proposed amendments and the 
requirements in the CAR and Generic MACT is that the proposed 
amendments would explicitly require the owner or operator to designate 
visual indications of liquids dripping as a leak if monitoring is not 
conducted. However, this language is consistent with the intent of the 
CAR and Generic MACT. In the preamble to the proposed CAR (63 FR 57448, 
October 28, 1998), we explained that the new option to eliminate visual 
indications of liquids dripping constitutes leak repair for such 
situations. Another difference between the proposed amendments and the 
CAR is that the CAR essentially requires monitoring twice per month for 
pumps with continuing indications of liquids dripping (i.e., according 
to Sec.  65.107(b)(4)(i), monitoring is required after the first weekly 
inspection each month). The proposed language in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV would require monitoring after only the first weekly 
inspection that revealed indications of liquids dripping. For 
subsequent months, routine monitoring in accordance with Sec.  60.482-
2(a)(1) is still required, but no monitoring would be required after 
any of the weekly inspections. Note, however, that if the pump is 
repaired (by either eliminating indications of liquids dripping or 
other means), then the clock resets and monitoring would again be 
required after the first weekly inspection during which indications of 
liquids dripping are observed.
    Requirements for Closed-vent Systems. We are proposing to add a 
paragraph to the end of Sec.  60.482-10 requiring owners and operators 
to ensure that there is no flow through bypass lines that could divert 
flow away from control devices. This requirement may be fulfilled by 
installing a flow indicator on each bypass line or securing the bypass 
line valve in the non-diverting position. Corresponding recordkeeping 
requirements are being proposed in 40 CFR 60.486(d)(6) and include 
either hourly records of whether the flow indicator was operating and 
whether a diversion into the bypass line was detected or records of 
monthly visual inspections and whether the seal is broken. We are also 
proposing that semiannual reports include records of all periods when 
the vent stream is diverted from the control device through a bypass 
line and all times when maintenance is performed in car-sealed valves, 
when the seal is broken, when the bypass line valve position is 
changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type configuration has been 
checked out. The changes to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements for bypass lines on closed-vent systems are 
being proposed to make 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV consistent with other 
equipment leak rules.
    Testing Requirements. We are proposing two changes to the testing 
methods and procedures in 40 CFR 60.485 of subpart VV: addition of a 
daily calibration drift assessment and clarification of the calibration 
gases that must be used.
    Section 60.485(b)(1) of subpart VV specifies that monitoring 
instruments must be calibrated before use each day. To ensure that the 
monitoring results are as accurate as possible, we are proposing to 
require a drift assessment at the end of each monitoring shift. The 
instrument would be checked with the same calibration gases as before 
use, and the percent difference from the initial calibration value 
would be calculated. If the drift assessment shows a negative drift of 
more than 10 percent, equipment monitored since the previous 
calibration that showed readings between the leak definition and 20 
percent of the leak definition must be re-monitored. For example, 
equipment with readings between 100 ppm and 500 ppm would have to be 
re-monitored if the leak definition is 500 ppm, and equipment with 
readings between 400 ppm and 2,000 ppm would have to be re-monitored if 
the leak definition is 2,000 ppm. We are specifically requesting 
comments on the proposed calibration drift requirement. In particular, 
we are requesting information on the environmental benefit of this 
assessment and any alternatives that should also be considered.
    Section 60.485(b)(1)(ii) of subpart VV currently requires 
calibration with a mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a 
concentration of about, but less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n-hexane. 
This is appropriate for the 10,000 ppm leak definitions as currently 
specified in the rule. However, because we are proposing lower leak 
definitions for pumps and valves, we are also proposing to revise the 
calibration gas requirements to match the requirements in other 
equipment leak rules that specify a variety of leak definition levels, 
such as the Generic MACT (40 CRF 63.1023(b)(4)) and the CAR (40 CFR 
65.104(b)(4)).
    The proposed amendments would require a mixture of methane or n-
hexane and air at a concentration of no more than 2,000 ppm greater 
than the leak definition concentration of the equipment monitored. 
Alternatively, if the monitoring instrument allows for multiple 
calibration scales, then the lower scale should be calibrated with a 
calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 ppm above the applicable 
leak definition, and the highest scale should be calibrated with a 
calibration gas that is approximately equal to 10,000 ppm. If only one 
scale will be used during a day's monitoring, then only that scale will 
need to be calibrated.
    Records of Instrument Calibrations. EPA Method 21 specifies 
instrument calibration requirements, and as discussed above, we are 
proposing additional calibration requirements in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV. Neither the method nor subpart VV, however, require records 
of the calibrations. This information is needed by enforcement agencies 
to ensure compliance. Therefore, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 
60.486(e) of subpart VV to require records of calibrations. The 
proposed amendments would require an owner or operator to maintain 
records of the calibration dates, identification of the operator 
performing the calibration,

[[Page 65307]]

information about the cylinder gas(es) used, a description of any 
corrective action taken if the meter readout could not be adjusted to 
correspond to the calibration gas value, and results of calibration 
drift assessments.
3. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
    We are proposing several technical corrections to the current 
subpart VV of 40 CFR part 60 requirements in the proposed amendments. 
These amendments are being proposed to clarify the intent of the 
current requirements, correct inaccuracies, and correct oversights in 
previous versions that were promulgated. The proposed clarifications 
summarized in this section are consistent with other equipment leak 
rules and apply to all process units subject to subpart VV as well as 
units subject to subparts that reference subpart VV.
    Pumps. We are proposing several clarifications to the standards for 
pumps in light liquid service (40 CFR 60.482-2). The current provisions 
are unclear regarding when a new pump on an affected process unit must 
be monitored for the first time, especially if the new pump is added to 
the process unit between monitoring cycles. We are proposing to revise 
40 CFR 60.482-2(a)(1) to specify that a new pump must be monitored for 
the first time during the next regularly scheduled monitoring cycle for 
existing pumps.
    We are also proposing to amend the delay of repair requirements 
specific to pumps. We are proposing to add 40 CFR 60.482-9(f) to 
clarify that an owner or operator may elect to discontinue monitoring 
for a pump for which repair has been delayed; if this option is chosen, 
the pump is presumed to be leaking until repaired. Alternatively, an 
owner or operator may choose to continue monitoring and consider the 
pump to be repaired if two consecutive monthly monitoring instrument 
readings are below the leak definition.
    Finally, we are proposing several minor clarifications for pumps. 
We are proposing to add specific examples of practices that are 
considered to be options for first attempt at repair. The examples are 
consistent with other equipment leak rules. In a related amendment, we 
are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.482-8(d) to include a reference to 40 
CFR 60.482-2(c)(2) where first attempt at repair is discussed. We are 
also proposing to add 40 CFR 60.486(e)(6) to state explicitly that 
records of the weekly visual inspections must be kept.
    Valves. Similar to pumps, the current provisions are unclear 
regarding when a new valve on an affected process unit must be 
monitored for the first time. We are proposing to add 40 CFR 60.482-
7(a)(2) to specify that a new valve must be monitored for the first 
time within 1 month after installation to ensure that the valve has 
been properly installed, except for valves that are designated for no 
detectable emissions, as unsafe to monitor, or as difficult to monitor. 
Subsequent monitoring for the new valve would begin during the next 
regularly scheduled monitoring cycle for that process unit. Unlike when 
a process unit first becomes subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, 
monitoring in two consecutive months before implementing less frequent 
monitoring would not be required. Similarly, we are proposing to add 40 
CFR 60.483-2(b)(7) to indicate that monitoring is required within 1 
month after installation of a new valve on a process unit being 
monitored according to the skip period frequency; subsequent monitoring 
for the new valve would begin during the quarter in which the existing 
valves on that process unit are monitored. The proposed amendments are 
consistent with the requirement to monitor valves monthly within a 
month after a process becomes subject to subpart VV, and they will 
ensure that a valve added to a process unit complying with 40 CFR 
60.482-7(c) or 40 CFR 60.483-2 does not leak for up to 3 months or 1 
year, respectively, before being monitored.
    We are also proposing to amend the delay of repair requirements 
specific to valves. Similar to pumps, we are proposing to add 40 CFR 
60.482-9(f) to clarify that an owner or operator may elect to 
discontinue monitoring for a valve for which repair has been delayed; 
if this option is chosen, the valve is presumed to be leaking until 
repaired. Alternatively, an owner or operator may choose to continue 
monitoring and consider the valve to be repaired once two consecutive 
monthly monitoring instrument readings are below the leak definition.
    Sampling Connection Systems. For consistency with other equipment 
leak rules, we are proposing to add definitions of ``closed-loop 
system'' and ``closed purge system'' that are consistent with the 
definitions in other equipment leak rules. In addition, we are 
proposing to clarify that containers that are part of a closed-purge 
system must be covered when not being filled or emptied. Stating this 
requirement explicitly in the rule language is consistent with previous 
amendments to other equipment leak rules. Finally, we are proposing to 
rearrange the paragraphs in 40 CFR 60.482-5 for clarity.
    Intermittent Process Operation. When process units operate on a 
variable, part-time basis during the year, there are issues about the 
monitoring requirements, particularly for batch processes. One issue is 
whether the monitoring frequency should be the same as for processes 
operating continuously, and another is how to monitor when the process 
does not operate during a normally scheduled monitoring period. For 
example, it is not clear what an owner or operator should do if a 
process unit is not operating during the first month of a quarter when 
valve monitoring would normally be required. To address these issues, 
we are proposing to add provisions like those in Sec.  
63.1036(c)(3)(iii) and (iv) of the Generic MACT for equipment leaks (40 
CFR part 63, subpart UU). These provisions reduce the frequency of 
monitoring required for part time operation, and specify that the 
monitoring intervals may be adjusted to accommodate process operations, 
provided the monitoring is conducted at a ``reasonable interval'' after 
completion of the last monitoring campaign. For example, monitoring 
pumps in a process that operates about 70 percent of the days in a year 
may be done every other month rather than monthly. In addition, for a 
process that is not operating in the first month of a quarter, a 
``reasonable interval'' is defined as within a period equal to 30 
percent of the monitoring interval (i.e., 30 percent of 3 months, if 
quarterly monitoring is otherwise required).
    Definitions. The current rule does not clearly specify whether 
equipment in lines between storage tanks and process vessels are part 
of the process and therefore part of the affected source. We are 
proposing to revise the definition of ``process unit'' to clarify our 
intent that the pipes and ducts connecting storage tanks and transfer 
racks to process vessels are included as part of a process unit. We are 
also proposing to add definitions of ``storage vessel'' and ``transfer 
rack'' to further clarify the definition of ``process unit.'' All of 
the above definitions are similar to the definitions found in other 
equipment leak rules.
    In a related amendment, we are proposing to add 40 CFR 60.485(b)(3) 
to allow flexibility in the monitoring of the equipment in a process 
unit. At some facilities, the storage tanks and transfer racks may be 
located far from the process vessels. Although the equipment on the 
pipes connecting the storage tanks and transfer racks to the process 
vessels are considered part of the same process unit, it may not make

[[Page 65308]]

geographic sense to monitor all the equipment at the same time. 
Instead, it may be more efficient to monitor all equipment on pipes or 
ducts near the tanks at a different time than the equipment on the 
process vessel. For example, a facility complying with quarterly 
monitoring for valves may choose to monitor the valves near the tanks 
in January and April and monitor the process vessel valves in February 
and May. Our intent in proposing a revision to the definition of 
``process unit'' is not to remove any monitoring flexibility. As long 
as all the equipment that is part of one process unit is monitored at 
the applicable leak definition for that process unit and the overall 
monitoring frequency is maintained as specified by the applicable 
provisions (such as in the example provided above), the process unit 
would be considered to be in compliance with the monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    We are also proposing a revised definition of ``repaired'' to 
reflect our clarifications regarding how a leak is determined. The 
current definition does not explicitly explain how to verify that a 
repair has been successful. One interpretation of this language is that 
a successful repair is any action taken to address one of the three 
indications of a leak as stated in the definition of ``repaired.'' 
However, this interpretation is not consistent with our intent or the 
language in other equipment leak rules. In addition, the current 
definition does not accurately reflect our proposed amendments to 
clarify the procedures when indications of liquids dripping from pumps 
are detected and to lower the leak definitions for new valves and 
pumps. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the definition of 
``repaired'' to address these concerns. The proposed definition does 
not include a specific reference to a leak definition of 10,000 ppm and 
clarifies that, typically, equipment must be monitored after it is 
repaired to verify that it is no longer leaking. The only exception is 
that pumps for which visual indications of liquids dripping were 
observed during weekly inspections may be repaired by eliminating the 
visual indications of liquids dripping.
    Recordkeeping. As specified above, 40 CFR 60.486 would be amended 
to correspond with particular proposed amendments for pumps in light 
liquid service, closed-vent systems with bypass lines, and calibration 
procedures. Specifically, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.486 to 
require records of the weekly visual inspections for pumps and 
documentation of the monitoring of bypass lines on closed-vent systems 
(either continuous records for a flow indicator or monthly visual 
inspections of the valve position).
    We are also proposing to add a requirement to keep records of all 
instrument readings. The information to record would include 
identification of the monitoring instrument, operator, and equipment 
monitored; date and time of monitoring; and the instrument reading. 
This information would be useful as a means of verifying that the 
monitoring was performed, and it would be useful for assessing leak 
growth rates and leak distributions. Many facilities already record 
this information; therefore, we expect this requirement to impose 
minimal burden.
    In addition, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.486(c), which 
specifies the information to record when a leak is detected. Currently, 
40 CFR 60.486(c)(4) requires only a note if an instrument reading above 
10,000 ppm is detected after a repair attempt (i.e., a note that the 
repair attempt was unsuccessful). We are proposing to amend this 
paragraph to require a record of the maximum instrument reading once 
the leak is either repaired or determined to be nonrepairable. This 
change would take into account changes in the leak definitions, as well 
as the fact that the leak definitions may not be the same for all 
components. This language would make this requirement consistent with 
other equipment leak rules.
    Reporting. As specified above, 40 CFR 60.487 would be amended to 
correspond with the proposed amendments for closed-vent systems with 
bypass lines and open-ended lines. Specifically, we are proposing to 
amend 40 CFR 60.487 to require semiannual reports to include records of 
all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device 
through a bypass line; records of all times when maintenance is 
performed in car-sealed valves, when the seal is broken, when the 
bypass line valve position is changed, or the key for a lock-and-key 
type configuration has been checked out; the number of open-ended lines 
for which leaks were detected; and the number of open-ended lines for 
which leaks were not repaired as required.
    Miscellaneous Corrections. We are proposing the following 
miscellaneous technical corrections throughout 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV:
     Replacing ``construction or modification'' with 
``construction, reconstruction, or modification'' throughout subpart 
VV;
     adding the word ``Value'' to the table in the definition 
of the term ``capital expenditure'';
     correcting the spelling of the word ``judgment'' in the 
definition of the term ``hard piping'';
     replacing ``Sec.  60.482(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h)'' 
with ``paragraphs (a) through (e) and (h) of this section'' in 40 CFR 
60.482-3;
     correcting the spelling of the word ``equivalence'' in 40 
CFR 60.484(a); and
     replacing ``demonstrate that an equipment'' with 
``demonstrate that a piece of equipment'' in 40 CFR 60.485(e) to 
correct a grammatical error.

B. How did EPA determine the amended standards for equipment leaks in 
other NSPS?

    Of the four subparts in part 60 that contain NSPS for equipment 
leak emissions, our current review examines only subparts VV and GGG. 
We will review and determine the need for source-specific amendments to 
subparts DDD and KKK of 40 CFR part 60 at a later date. Except for the 
changes to the LDAR standards for pumps and valves, all of the other 
proposed amendments to subpart VV would apply to sources subject to any 
rule that cross-references subpart VV. Other proposed changes to 
subpart GGG are discussed below.
1. LDAR for Pumps and Valves
    The proposed amendments to the standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV (i.e., the increased stringency of the leak definitions for pumps 
and valves) have been written in such a way that they apply only to 
SOCMI affected sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after today's publication of the proposed amendments. 
Based on the requirements in consent decrees and the Petroleum 
Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC), however, it is clear 
that these proposed provisions are also technically viable and in 
widespread use for equipment leaks from petroleum refineries. Our 
impacts analysis (see section VI of this preamble) indicates that their 
implementation would reduce VOC emissions by 13 Mg/yr from new process 
units at refineries in the fifth year after implementing such 
requirements, and the cost to achieve these reductions would be $3,400/
Mg removed. The annual emissions reductions are relatively small 
because more than 76 percent of the refiners are currently complying 
with consent decrees that require compliance with comparable leak 
definitions. If these consent decrees expire at some point in the 
future, the potential emissions reductions would greatly increase. The

[[Page 65309]]

cost to achieve these reductions is considered reasonable. Therefore, 
we are proposing to add an exception in 40 CFR 60.593(f) of subpart GGG 
to specify that these changes to the standards in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV would also apply to petroleum refining process units that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after today's 
publication of proposed amendments.
2. Clarifications for Valves
    Section 60.592(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG currently allows a 
petroleum refiner to comply with the alternative standards for valves 
in 40 CFR 60.483-1 or 40 CFR 60.483-2 of subpart VV. We are proposing 
to allow compliance with the Phase III provisions in 40 CFR 63.168 of 
subpart H in the HON as an additional option. The Phase III provisions 
specify a leak definition of 500 ppm for valves, which we are proposing 
for new petroleum refining process units, as noted above. Many other 
Phase III requirements for monitoring and repairing leaking valves also 
are comparable to the requirements in subpart VV, but the Phase III 
provisions have slightly different ``skip monitoring'' options. 
Similarities include the requirement to conduct monitoring in 
accordance with EPA Method 21, to monitor monthly initially, and, if 
more than 2 percent leak when conducting ``skip-monitoring,'' to make a 
first attempt at repair no later than 5 calendar days after a leak is 
detected and complete repair no later than 15 calendar days after a 
leak is detected, and the requirements for valves that are unsafe-to-
monitor or difficult-to-monitor. The Phase III ``skip monitoring'' 
options allow an owner or operator to choose a monitoring frequency 
depending on the percentage of valves found to be leaking (e.g., if 
less than 1 percent of the valves in a process unit are leaking, the 
owner or operator may monitor once every two quarters; if less than 0.5 
percent of the valves in a process unit are leaking, the owner or 
operator may monitor once every four quarters). Subpart VV allows an 
owner or operator to skip quarterly monitoring periods until annual 
monitoring is established as long as the number of leaking valves 
remains below 2 percent for a process unit.
    Compliance with this option would achieve essentially the same 
emissions reductions as compliance with the proposed changes to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart VV. Many petroleum refiners already have process units 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, as well as other petroleum 
refining process units that are subject to equivalent requirements 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. Allowing compliance with subpart H 
for petroleum refining process units that are subject only to the NSPS 
(i.e., no hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions) may reduce their 
burden if it reduces the number of different LDAR programs they must 
implement.
3. Clarifications for Open-Ended Lines
    There is a potential safety concern with requiring a cap, blind 
flange, plug, or a second valve on an open-ended line containing 
asphalt. Plugs may become stuck and require removal with a torch. If a 
secondary valve is used, some residual asphalt may remain in the line 
between the primary and secondary valves following sampling. This 
residual asphalt can harden in the line, resulting in no flow when the 
secondary valve is opened to obtain the next sample. When the secondary 
valve is opened wider to encourage flow, the hardened asphalt may be 
forced out of the line, splattering hot asphalt on the sampling 
technicians. Because of this safety issue, and because asphalt has a 
lower volatility than other petroleum products, we are proposing to add 
an exemption to the open-ended line requirements for process lines 
containing asphalt. We are also proposing to add a definition of 
``asphalt'' to subpart GGG to clarify which open-ended lines qualify 
for this exemption. Since asphalt is highly variable depending on the 
crude oil from which it is derived and the processing steps, we are 
specifically requesting comment on whether this definition adequately 
defines asphalt at petroleum refineries and whether the exemption 
should be limited to specific types of asphalt.
4. Clarification of Definitions
    We are proposing to make changes to the definition of ``process 
unit'' in 40 CFR 60.591 of subpart GGG consistent with the proposed 
changes to this definition in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. These changes 
would specify that storage tanks and transfer racks are included as 
part of a process unit. As in subpart VV, these changes are needed to 
clarify that equipment in the lines between feed or product storage 
tanks and process units, between process units and transfer racks, or 
between product storage tanks and transfer racks are subject to the 
equipment leak standards. This change will make the definition of 
``process unit'' in the NSPS consistent with the definition of 
``process unit'' in the subpart CC to 40 CFR part 63.
5. Miscellaneous Corrections
    We are proposing the following miscellaneous technical corrections 
throughout 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG:
     Replacing ``construction or modification'' with 
``construction, reconstruction, or modification'' in 40 CFR 60.590;
     changing ``Each compressor is presumed not be in hydrogen 
service'' to ``Each compressor is presumed not to be in hydrogen 
service'' in 40 CFR 60.593(b)(2);
     changing the reference to the section in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV regarding compressors from Sec. Sec.  60.482 through 60.482-
3 in 40 CFR 60.593(c); and
     changing the reference to the section incorporating test 
methods by reference from Sec. Sec.  60.18 through 60.17 in 40 CFR 
60.593(d).

IV. Request for Comments

    We welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments. We 
are specifically requesting comments on two potential amendments that 
we have decided not to propose at this time. These potential amendments 
involve required repair attempts for valves and monitoring for 
connectors in gas/vapor service and light liquid service.

1. Drill and Tap Repair Attempts

    The State of Texas recently promulgated a rule requiring 
``extraordinary efforts'' to repair leaking valves in highly reactive 
volatile organic compound (VOC) service in eight counties before delay 
of repair is allowed (30 TAC 115.780 through 115.789). Similarly, 
recent consent decrees with petroleum refiners also require 
``extraordinary efforts'' to fix valves that are leaking at 
concentrations of either 50,000 ppm or 10,000 ppm before delay of 
repair is allowed. In both the Texas rule and the consent decrees, 
drill and tap procedures are identified as an example of an 
extraordinary repair method. We considered amending 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV to include a similar requirement. However, available 
information indicates that sealant injection procedures such as drill 
and tap methods have advanced in recent years to the point that they 
are a viable on-line repair technique for many leaking valves. Vendors 
market these services for valves in a wide range of service, and they 
indicate success rates greater than 90 percent. Based on this 
information, we believe that drill and tap procedures have evolved past 
``extraordinary'' methods and are more widely feasible. Therefore, we 
believe

[[Page 65310]]

that an amendment is not needed because subpart VV, as currently 
written, can be interpreted to require drill and tap repair attempts, 
at least for valves with leaks at or above the current leak definition 
of 10,000 ppm. According to 40 CFR 60.482-9(a) of subpart VV, delay of 
repair is allowed if repair is technically infeasible without a process 
unit shutdown, and 40 CFR 60.482-9(c) of subpart VV allows delay of 
repair of valves if emissions associated with immediate repair would 
exceed continued emissions from the leak. Since drill and tap is 
technically feasible, and emissions associated with such a repair 
attempt would be negligible, one interpretation of these provisions is 
that drill and tap repair attempts are required before delay of repair 
is allowed.
    We are soliciting comment on our interpretation of the delay of 
repair provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and that an explicit 
requirement to use drill and tap procedures would be redundant. We are 
specifically interested in information regarding any types of valves or 
applications where drill and tap repair attempts are inherently unsafe 
or unlikely to be successful. In addition, given that we are proposing 
to lower the leak definition for valves from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm, we 
are also interested in whether the interpretation that drill and tap is 
feasible should extend to valves with monitoring instrument readings in 
this range. Information on any other repair techniques that should be 
considered ``extraordinary'' and whether the rule should include a 
provision to require such techniques in certain situations is also of 
interest.

2. Leak Detection and Repair for Connectors

    We have considered amending 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (and 
possibly 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG) to require monitoring of 
connectors in gas vapor service and light liquid service. Arguments in 
favor of such amendments are that NESHAP for chemical manufacturing 
sources already require connector monitoring for new processes that 
emit HAP, and our impacts analysis shows the cost of such monitoring 
would be reasonable, at least for SOCMI processes. Furthermore, the 
potential emission reductions from connector LDAR are greater than the 
potential reductions for the proposed amendments to the LDAR for pumps 
and valves. However, because of uncertainties regarding the leak 
frequencies and emission factors, we have decided not to propose LDAR 
requirements for connectors at this time. We are soliciting comments on 
this decision and the underlying data and assumptions; these data and 
the accompanying analyses can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699. Based on information provided by commenters, we may decide 
to propose connector LDAR in the future.
    Many of the SOCMI processes listed in 40 CFR 60.489 of subpart VV 
and subject to subpart VV will also be subject to the HON, the NESHAP 
for Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF), or the NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology Standards (Ethylene NESHAP) (40 CFR part 
63, subpart YY). All of these NESHAP require monitoring of connectors 
at new sources, and the leak definition in each rule is 500 ppm. About 
62 percent of the SOCMI chemicals are chemicals that are also listed in 
Table 1 to subpart F of the HON, 8 percent are ethylene or propylene, 
and the remainder are materials meeting the criteria listed in 40 CFR 
63.2435 of the MON. Only three types of processes would not be subject 
to one of these NESHAP: (1) Processes at area sources for HAP 
emissions; (2) processes that emit VOC, but no HAP; and (3) processes 
making MON materials that are not part o