[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64859-64897]
[DOCID:fr16no07-12]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699; FRL-8492-4]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing final amendments to the standards of
performance for equipment leaks of volatile organic compounds in the
synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry and to the standards
of performance for equipment leaks of volatile organic compounds in
petroleum refineries. The amended standards for the synthetic organic
chemicals manufacturing industry apply to affected facilities that are
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after January 5, 1981, and on
or before November 7, 2006. The amended standards for petroleum
refineries apply to affected facilities that are constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after January 4, 1983, and on or before
November 7, 2006. In this action, EPA is also issuing new standards of
performance for equipment leaks of volatile organic compounds in the
synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry and for equipment
leaks of volatile organic compounds in petroleum refineries which apply
to affected facilities that are constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after November 7, 2006. The final amendments and new standards are
based on the results of our review of the existing regulations as
required by section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 16, 2007. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these
rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
November 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (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
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,

EPA West Building, Room 3334, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the final
amendments and new standards, contact Ms. Karen Rackley, Coatings and
Chemicals Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (E143-01), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-0634; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information concerning compliance and

enforcement of the final amendments and new standards, contact Ms.
Marcia Mia, Air Compliance Branch, Compliance Assessment and Media
Programs Division, Office of Compliance (MC 2223A), Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-
7042; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category               NAICS code\1\    potentially regulated
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  324110...........  Petroleum refiners.
                                Primarily 325110,  Synthetic organic
                                 325192, 325193,    chemical
                                 and 325199.        manufacturing
                                                    industry (SOCMI)
                                                    units, e.g.,
                                                    producers of
                                                    benzene, toluene, or
                                                    any other chemical
                                                    listed in 40 CFR
                                                    60.489.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification Code.

    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, 60.590,
60.480a, and 60.590a. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the final amendments or new standards to a particular
entity, contact the people listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule is available on the WWW through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, EPA will
post a copy of the final rule on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by January 15, 2008. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final rule that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for pubic comment
can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2)
of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[O]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that is was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time

specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for the final amendments and
new standards?
    B. What are the current equipment leak NSPS?
    C. How were the final amendments developed?
II. Summary of the Final Amendments, New Standards, and Changes
Since Proposal
    A. What are the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV?
    B. What are the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG?
    C. What are the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa?
    D. What are the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa?
III. Rationale for Changes Since Proposal
    A. How did EPA develop new standards for 40 CFR part 60,
subparts VVa and GGGa?
    B. How did EPA develop the new compliance requirements in 40 CFR
part 60, subparts VVa and GGGa?
    C. How did EPA develop the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60,
subparts VV and GGG?
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability
    B. Standards
    C. Test Methods and Procedures
    D. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    E. Burden Estimates
V. 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?
VI. 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
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the final amendments and new
standards?

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement CAA section 111
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 that EPA periodically
review and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to
reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. Based on the
results of the review required by CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), we proposed
amendments to the NSPS for equipment leaks of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing
industry (SOCMI) and the petroleum refining industry on November 7,
2006 (71 FR 65302). In this action, EPA is finalizing amendments to 40
CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG and issuing new standards of
performance in 40 CFR part 60, subparts VVa and GGGa.

B. What are the current equipment leak NSPS?

    New source performance standards for equipment leaks of VOC have
been developed for four source categories. Subpart VV of 40 CFR part 60
applies to SOCMI process units. Subpart DDD of 40 CFR part 60,
Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions
from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry, applies to polypropylene,
polyethylene, polystyrene, and poly (ethylene terephthalate) process
units. Subpart GGG of 40 CFR part 60 applies to petroleum refining
process units. Subpart KKK of 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 subpart VV, and they specify source
category-specific definitions and exceptions to the requirements in
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 SOCMI that commenced construction, reconstruction,
or modification after January 5, 1981. For the purpose of 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 valves or lines (OEL), valves, and flanges or other
connectors in VOC service. Depending on the type of equipment, the
standards require either periodic 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-7 to 40 CFR part 60 or other approved equivalent
monitoring techniques. Owners and operators must keep records that
identify the equipment that is subject to the standards, identify
equipment that is 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) (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.

C. How were the final amendments developed?

    We proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGG on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65302). The preamble
for the proposed amendments described the rationale for the proposed
amendments. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal. The
public comment period lasted from November 7, 2006, to February 8,
2007. We offered at proposal the opportunity for a public hearing
concerning the proposed amendments, but no hearing was requested. We
also published a Notice of Additional Data Availability (NODA) on July
9, 2007 (72 FR 37157). The NODA provided additional information
regarding OEL. Public comments were solicited at the time of
publication, and the public comment period lasted from July 9, 2007, to
August 8, 2007.
    We received a total of 28 public comment letters during the comment
periods, 23 on the proposed amendments and five on the NODA. Comments
were submitted by industry trade associations and consultants, chemical
companies and petroleum refineries, state regulatory agencies, local
government agencies, and environmental groups. These final amendments
reflect our consideration of all of the comments received during the
comment periods. Major public comments on the proposed amendments,
along with our responses to those comments, are summarized in this
preamble.

II. Summary of the Final Amendments, New Standards, and Changes Since
Proposal

    In response to public comments, we have revised the scope and
applicability of the proposed amendments to the standards of
performance for equipment leaks of VOC for SOCMI (40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV) and petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG). As
proposed, all of the amendments to subparts VV and GGG, except the
change in leak definitions for pumps and valves, applied to affected
facilities in these industries that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after January 5, 1981, (SOCMI) or
January 4, 1983, (petroleum refineries). In addition, all of the
proposed amendments, except the leak definition change, applied to
affected facilities under all other NSPS that cross-reference subpart
VV (i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD and KKK).
    Based on the public comments, we decided to include only
clarifications, changes that reduce burden, and additional compliance
options in the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG.
The final amendments to both subparts also limit which SOCMI and
petroleum refinery affected sources are subject to the existing
subparts. Specifically, the existing subparts only apply to those
existing affected sources that commenced construction, reconstruction,
or modification after January 5, 1981, (SOCMI) or January 4, 1983,
(petroleum refineries) and on or before November 7, 2006. The final
amendments to subpart VV also apply to affected sources under NSPS that
cross-reference subpart VV (i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD and
KKK).
    In addition to amending 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG, we
also decided to develop new standards in new subparts VVa and GGGa of
40 CFR part 60 that apply only to SOCMI and petroleum refinery affected
sources, respectively, that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after November 7, 2006. These new standards parallel the
standards in the amended subparts VV and GGG, but they also include
different standards for pumps in light liquid service and valves in
gas/vapor or light liquid service (i.e., lower leak definitions than in
subparts VV and GGG), and they include additional recordkeeping and
instrument calibration requirements. Furthermore, the new standards in
40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa include monitoring and repair requirements
for connectors. The new standards do not apply to affected sources
under 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD or KKK because we have not amended
those subparts to reference the requirements in subpart VVa and we have
not completed an analysis to determine if the new standards are BDT for
subparts DDD and KKK.

A. What are the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV?

    The final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV provide
additional compliance options, clarify ambiguous provisions, and make
technical corrections. These changes are summarized in Table 1 in
section III.C of this preamble.
1. Applicability
    The owner or operator of an affected facility subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV may choose to comply with the requirements in new
40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa instead of the requirements in subpart VV.
2. Standards
    The final amendments simplify the compliance requirements for
pumps. When indications of liquids dripping are observed during weekly
inspections, 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV requires repair of the leak
following the same procedures as if the leak were detected by
monitoring. The final amendment in 40 CFR 60.482-2(b)(2) allows 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 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or other approved
equivalent monitoring techniques. This amendment will focus the leak
detection and repair (LDAR) program on finding and repairing VOC leaks.
    The final amendments also include an alternative compliance option
that allows less frequent monitoring for pumps and valves in batch
process units that operate part-time during the year. This alternative
applies to currently required monthly, quarterly, and semiannual
monitoring intervals; less frequent monitoring is not allowed for
monitoring that is currently required on an annual or less frequent
basis. For example, pumps in a process unit that operate 5,250 hours
per year (about 60 percent of full-time operation) may be monitored
every other month rather than monthly. This alternative will ensure
that monitoring occurs consistently while the process unit is
operating. The alternative monitoring schedule for batch processes was
developed as part of the development of the hazardous organic national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) (HON) (57 FR
62680). This alternative has been determined to be comparable to the
provisions for continuous processes. As the time in use increases, the
monitoring frequencies are identical for both batch and continuous
processes.
    In response to public comments, we have revised the proposed
clarification to the initial monitoring requirements for pumps and
valves (that all pumps and valves be monitored within the first month
of operation after installation). The final amendments require the
owner or operator to monitor all pumps

on a monthly basis regardless of whether the pump is new or existing.
The owner or operator of a new valve must monitor the valve for the
first time within 30 days after being placed into service to ensure
proper installation. Any valve for which a leak is not detected for 2
successive months may be monitored the first month of every quarter,
beginning with the next quarter, until a leak is detected. As an
alternative to monitoring a new valve within 30 days, if the valves in
the process unit are monitored under the alternative standards for
valves that allow skip period leak detection and repair in 40 CFR
60.483-2, the owner or operator must count the new valve as leaking
when calculating the percentage of valves leaking. If less than 2.0
percent of the valves are leaking for that process unit, the valve must
be monitored for the first time during the next scheduled monitoring
event for existing valves in the process unit or within 90 days,
whichever comes first.
    As an alternative to monitoring all of the valves in the first
month of a quarter, an owner or operator may elect to subdivide the
process unit into two or three subgroups of valves and monitor each
subgroup in a different month during the quarter, provided each
subgroup is monitored every 3 months. The owner or operator must keep
records of the valves assigned to each subgroup.
    The clarifications to the requirements for sampling connection
systems in 40 CFR 60.482-5 have been revised since proposal to add
additional destinations for purged process fluid. All containers must
be covered when not being filled or emptied. The amendments also
clarify what materials must be captured and returned to the process
during sampling.
    In response to comments, we have revised the proposed option for
delay of repair in 40 CFR 60.482-9. The proposed amendment would have
allowed the owner or operator to discontinue monitoring for equipment
on delay-of-repair. We have not included this in the final amendments
and new standards because a leak may worsen while on delay-of-repair
and require a more immediate shutdown. Therefore, all equipment on
delay-of-repair must be monitored as scheduled. The option to consider
equipment to be repaired if two consecutive readings are below the leak
definition was not removed. If two consecutive readings are below the
applicable leak definition, the owner or operator may remove the
equipment from delay-of-repair.
3. Definitions
    Several amendments clarify the original intent of the definitions
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. These definitions include ``connector,''
``process unit,'' and ``sampling connection system.'' In addition,
definitions of ``closed-loop system,'' ``closed-purge system,''
``storage vessel,'' and ``transfer rack'' were added to further clarify
existing definitions. The definition of ``process unit'' is discussed
in further detail in section IV.A.3 of this preamble. The rationale for
revising and adding the other definitions is included in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699.
4. Miscellaneous Corrections
    Finally, the final amendments include a few technical corrections
to fix references and other miscellaneous errors in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV. No changes have been made to the proposed corrections, and
a number of additional corrections are included in the final
amendments. The technical corrections are identified in section III.A.3
of the preamble to the proposed amendments (71 FR 65307-65308, November
7, 2006) as well as Table 1 of this preamble.

B. What are the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG?

    A few minor changes have been made to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GGG amendments since proposal. The heading and 40 CFR 60.590(b) were
revised to clarify that the subpart applies to sources that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before November 7,
2006, and 40 CFR 60.590(d) was revised to exclude facilities subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa. Proposed revisions that remain in the
final amendments to subpart GGG include a definition of ``asphalt'' and
an exemption from the requirements for OEL in 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)
through (c) for OEL containing asphalt. The definition of ``process
unit'' is comparable to the definition in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    The final amendments also include a few technical corrections to
fix references and other miscellaneous errors in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GGG. These changes are identified in section III.B.5 of the
preamble to the proposed amendments (71 FR 65309, November 7, 2006). No
changes have been made to these corrections since proposal.

C. What are the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa?

    40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa applies to affected facilities in the
SOCMI that are constructed, reconstructed, or modified after November
7, 2006. This new subpart includes all the requirements of 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV, as amended, along with new provisions. The owner or
operator of an affected facility subject to subpart VVa may elect to
comply with the CAR at 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, or the HON at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart H, instead of the requirements in subpart VVa,
provided they still comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 60.482-6a.
    40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa includes lower leak definitions for
pumps and valves than 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. Under subpart VVa,
the leak definition for pumps in light liquid service is 2,000 parts
per million (ppm) (5,000 ppm for pumps handling polymerizing monomers)
instead of 10,000 ppm. The leak definition for valves in gas/vapor
service or light liquid service is 500 ppm instead of 10,000 ppm.
Rationale for this new standard was provided in section III.A.1 of the
preamble to the proposed amendments and is discussed further in section
III.A.1 of this preamble.
    40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa also includes requirements for
monitoring connectors. The owner or operator is required to monitor
connectors at a leak definition of 500 ppm and at a frequency that is
based on the percentage of connectors found to be leaking. The
rationale supporting the LDAR provisions for connectors is located in
section III.A.2 of this preamble.
    40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa includes additional recordkeeping
requirements and quality assurance measures. Records must identify the
monitoring instrument, operator, equipment, the date, and maximum
instrument reading. A calibration drift assessment is required at the
end of each day of monitoring and records of monitoring instrument
calibrations are required. The calibration drift assessment
requirements proposed for 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV were revised based
on public comments. The requirements in the new standards include a
requirement to remonitor equipment if the drift assessment shows
positive drift. The requirements in the new standards provide for a
less stringent remonitoring effort for drift assessments showing
negative drift.

D. What are the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa?

    40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa applies to affected facilities at
petroleum refineries that are constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after November 7, 2006. New subpart GGGa

includes the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG, as amended.
Affected facilities must comply with the requirements in new subpart
VVa of 40 CFR part 60, except for the monitoring requirements
applicable to connectors.

III. Rationale for Changes Since Proposal

A. How did EPA develop new standards for 40 CFR part 60, subparts VVa
and GGGa?

    Five sources of information were considered in reviewing the
appropriateness of the current NSPS requirements for new sources: (1)
Applicable Federal regulations; (2) applicable state and local
regulations; (3) data from National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) inspections; (4) emissions data provided by industry
representatives; and (5) petroleum refinery consent decrees. (A
significant number of refineries, representing about 77 percent of the
national refining capacity, are subject to consent decrees that limit
the emissions from 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG process units.) Once we
identified leak definitions for various equipment types, we evaluated
these leak definitions in conjunction with technical feasibility,
costs, and emission reductions to determine BDT for each type of
equipment.
    The cost methodology incorporates the calculation of annualized
costs and emission reductions associated with each of the options
presented. Cost-effectiveness is the annualized cost of control divided
by the annual emission reductions achieved. For NSPS regulations, the
standard metric for expressing costs and emission reductions is the
impact on all affected facilities accumulated over the first 5 years of
the regulation. Details of the calculations can be found in the public
docket (EPA-OAR-HQ-2006-0699). Our BDT determinations took all relevant
factors into account, including cost considerations.
    For each of the new standards, the predominant method used to
reduce emissions from equipment leaks is the work practice of an LDAR
program that includes periodic monitoring of equipment using EPA Method
21. This method has been used for more than 20 years to detect leaks
and is currently the most widely-used test method. However, other
approved methods may be used to detect leaks.
    We also considered an equipment standard requiring installation of
``leakless'' equipment. ``Leakless'' equipment, such as diaphragm
valves, is less likely to leak than standard equipment, but leaks may
still develop. Therefore, monitoring or other type of observation is
appropriate to ensure that leaks are caught if they develop. In
addition, these types of equipment may not be suitable for all possible
process operating temperatures, pressures, and fluid types. We could
not identify any new ``leakless'' technologies that could be applied in
all applications. Therefore, requiring ``leakless'' equipment is not
technically feasible and this option was not considered to be BDT for
SOCMI or petroleum refining sources. We note that 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV does include provisions for equipment designed for no
detectable emissions, so owners or operators that do replace existing
equipment with ``leakless'' equipment have options for compliance.
1. Leak Definitions for Pumps and Valves
    We previously demonstrated that leak definitions of 2,000 ppm for
pumps and 500 ppm for valves are BDT in the preamble to the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG (November 7, 2006, 71
FR 65305, with additional discussion at 71 FR 65308). Since proposal,
the cost-effectiveness values for this new requirement have changed
slightly based on changes to the assumptions used to develop emission
estimates; section V of this preamble includes details on the specific
changes. For SOCMI, the estimated emission reductions are 94 tons of
VOC per year at a cost savings of $380/ton. For petroleum refineries,
the estimated emission reductions are 13 tons of VOC per year at a cost
of $1,600/ton. The cost to achieve these emission reductions is still
considered to be reasonable; therefore, we maintain our original
conclusion that EPA Method 21 monitoring of pumps and valves and repair
of leaks above 2,000 ppm for pumps and 500 ppm for valves is BDT.
    We have also evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lowering the leak
definitions even further for valves because there are some state rules
and petroleum refinery consent decrees at lower levels. The results of
that analysis show that an LDAR program for valves at a leak definition
lower than 500 ppm is not cost-effective. The analysis shows emission
reductions of 26 tons of additional VOC per year at a cost-
effectiveness of $5,700/ton for SOCMI and emission reductions of 8 tons
of additional VOC per year at a cost-effectiveness of $16,000/ton for
refineries. The additional VOC emission reductions at a leak definition
lower than 500 ppm is not cost-effective. The results of the impacts
analysis is provided in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0699).
    We decided not to consider a lower leak definition for pumps
because we do not have evidence that it will achieve significant
emission reductions at reasonable cost and because such a requirement
would impose an unwarranted increase in the compliance burden. No other
Federal or state rules require repair of pumps with leaks below 2,000
ppm, and concerns have been expressed in the past that repair of pumps
with lower concentrations could result in significant and costly
maintenance. We also cannot estimate the emission reductions because we
are unsure how effective repairs will be for pumps with low leak
concentrations. In addition, many facilities that will be subject to
the new standards have other process units that are subject to other
standards. Including a leak definition in the new standards that
differs from the leak definitions in all other rules would make
compliance more challenging at such facilities and unnecessarily
increase the potential for inadvertent errors.
    We also did not consider increasing the number of times per year
that valves and pumps must be monitored. Valves and pumps are already
subject to monthly monitoring. The cost to monitor more frequently
would outweigh the possible emission reductions. Additionally, pumps
are subject to weekly inspections for indications of liquids dripping.
Therefore, the monitoring frequency was not changed and is still
considered BDT.
2. Other New Standards in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VVa
    Connector Monitoring. The current NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VV limits VOC emissions from connectors by specifying that if a
potential leak is found by visual, audible, olfactory, or any other
detection method, the owner or operator must eliminate the indications
of the potential leak or monitor the connector to determine whether the
potential leak is leaking VOC greater than 10,000 ppm. If the potential
leak is actually a leak, it must be repaired. When the current NSPS
were promulgated, we concluded that this procedure would reduce
emissions by correcting major leaks.
    After consideration of current operating practices, we concluded
that repairing connector leaks as they are discovered is still the
predominant method for reduction of VOC from connectors. However,
during our review of the current requirements, we found a

number of Federal and state regulations that require additional efforts
to reduce emissions, including regular monitoring and repair.
Therefore, we evaluated options to achieve further emission reductions
from connectors. Federal rules in which connector monitoring and repair
of leaks above 500 ppm is required include the National Emission
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks
(HON) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the National Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks--Control Level 2 Standards (Generic MACT) in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control
Technology Standards (Ethylene NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY,
and the CAR. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) in 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF also includes connector monitoring and repair
of leaks above 500 ppm for new sources. In addition, the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum
Refineries (Refinery NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC provides a
higher maximum value for percent of leaking valves under which an owner
or operator may use the skip period provisions if connector monitoring
is included in the LDAR program. Based on this information, we felt
that additional VOC control could be achieved by requiring connector
monitoring and repair, but we needed additional information to
determine whether connector monitoring is BDT. As a result, we
requested comment on whether we should require periodic monitoring and
repair of connectors to ensure that any leaks are corrected more
quickly.
    Upon consideration and review of the public comments, we evaluated
whether the connector monitoring and repair provisions included in the
Generic MACT are BDT for 40 CFR part 60, subparts VVa and GGGa. The
Generic MACT provisions include a leak definition of 500 ppm and a
monitoring frequency based on the number of connectors found to be
leaking during the initial monitoring campaign.
    For SOCMI, the estimated emission reductions achieved by connector
monitoring and repair of leaks above 500 ppm are 230 tons of VOC per
year at a cost of $2,500/ton. For petroleum refineries, the estimated
emission reductions are 92 tons of VOC per year at a cost of $20,000/
ton. The cost to achieve these emission reductions is considered to be
reasonable for SOCMI sources but is not reasonable for petroleum
refineries. Based on these impacts and consideration of current
operating practices, we concluded that BDT for connectors at SOCMI
sources is monitoring using EPA Method 21 or another approved
alternative method at a frequency based on the number of connectors
found leaking during initial monitoring and repair of leaks above 500
ppm. We concluded that BDT for connectors at petroleum refineries is
equivalent to the current 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG requirements.
Therefore, we are promulgating connector monitoring and repair
standards consistent with this determination for SOCMI sources subject
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa that will not apply to petroleum
refinery sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa.

B. How did EPA develop the new compliance requirements in 40 CFR part
60, subparts VVa and GGGa?

    The recordkeeping requirements in the final amendments and new
standards are authorized by section 114 of the CAA. Section 114 of the
CAA allows EPA to require one-time, periodic, or continuous records for
the purpose of determining if the owner or operator is in compliance
with the standard. The recordkeeping requirements in the final
amendments are the minimum necessary for affected facilities to
demonstrate compliance and for EPA to enforce the rule. The
recordkeeping requirements in the new standards include a few
requirements in addition to the requirements in the final amendments.
Most of these requirements are associated with new monitoring and
repair requirements; other additional requirements are minimal and are
necessary for EPA to enforce the rule. Further rationale for the new
requirements is available below and in section IV.D of this preamble.
    We have made significant changes to the proposed recordkeeping
requirements as a result of the changes made to the scope and
applicability of the standards. Because the final amendments to 40 CFR
part 60, subparts VV and GGG include only clarifications to existing
requirements, burden reducing provisions, and new compliance options,
no changes or additions to the recordkeeping requirements in subpart VV
or GGG are needed to document and/or enforce these amendments.
    Sources subject to the new standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa
are required to keep records of the same information required by 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV and certain additional information described below.
Sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa must comply with the
requirements in subpart VVa except for the monitoring requirements
applicable to connectors (and the associated recordkeeping
requirements). Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD, GGG,
or KKK are excluded from the requirement to comply with the
recordkeeping provisions of subpart VVa because these subparts are not
being amended to reference the new standards in subpart VVa.
    The new recordkeeping provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa
require general identifying information for each monitoring activity
required by the rule. As explained in the preamble to the proposed
amendments (71 FR 65308, November 7, 2006), many facilities already
record this information. This information requirement is consistent
with other equipment leak standards and is needed by enforcement
representatives to determine if the facility is complying with the
standards. Specifically, EPA found that the results of the LDAR review
demonstrated that the current requirements are not sufficient to verify
that all monitoring requirements have been performed. For example, EPA
enforcement initiatives have found missed monitoring (monitoring at an
inappropriate interval, monitoring late, or not monitoring),
understated leak rates, leaks not found or repaired, and monitoring
records indicating that more equipment was monitored than physically
possible given the time needed to meet EPA Method 21 requirements,
among other issues. Since we cannot physically inspect every facility
on the schedule required by the LDAR program, these additional records
will provide safeguards that the program is being implemented as
intended.
    Other new recordkeeping requirements include specific information
that is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the new monitoring
provisions for connectors and pumps in light liquid service (weekly
visual inspections for indications of dripping liquids). Records are
also required to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for a
calibration drift assessment at the end of each day and comparison of
the results of the assessment with the most recent calibration results.
We eliminated the proposed requirement to keep records of information
on bypass lines because the new subpart does not include the
requirement to monitor bypass lines. In addition, records of
information related to the proposed initial monitoring requirement for
pumps and valves

added to a process unit are not required because this monitoring
requirement was revised since proposal, making additional records
unnecessary.
    We have reviewed the recordkeeping requirements and believe that
these are the minimum needed to ensure compliance and that the
requirements do not impose excessive costs. The costs of the
recordkeeping requirements for 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa, including
the time required to enter and store additional information, are
included in the information collection request (ICR) (see section V.B
of this preamble).

C. How did EPA develop the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts
VV and GGG?

    The amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV are listed in Table 1
of this preamble. Most of the technical corrections for 40 CFR part 60,
subparts VV and GGG were discussed in the preamble to the proposed
amendments (71 FR 65302, November 7, 2006). Other technical corrections
and amendments are the result of public comments, and these are
discussed in detail in the responses to the applicable comments. For
each amendment that is more significant than an editorial or
grammatical correction, Table 1 to this preamble includes a reference
to the rule language and a reference to the location of the detailed
explanation.

 Table 1.--Summary of Final Amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VV and
    Rationale for Clarifications, Additional Compliance Options, and
                          Technical Corrections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Explanation or
           Citation                location of           Amendment
                                  explanation\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heading.......................  .................  Revised to clarify
                                                    applicability of
                                                    subpart.
60.480(b).....................  .................  Revised to identify
                                                    applicability to
                                                    affected facilities
                                                    that were
                                                    constructed,
                                                    reconstructed, or
                                                    modified after
                                                    January 5, 1981 and
                                                    on or before
                                                    November 7, 2006.
60.480(d)(2)..................  .................  Clarified that design
                                                    capacity refers to a
                                                    chemical listed in
                                                    40 CFR 60.489.
60.480(d)(2)-(5)..............  .................  Revised reference to
                                                    nonexistent 40 CFR
                                                    60.482 to refer to
                                                    40 CFR 60.482-1
                                                    through 60.482-10.
60.480(e)(1)..................  .................  Renumbered paragraph
                                                    (e)(1) as (e)(1)(i)
                                                    and paragraph (e)(2)
                                                    as (e)(1)(ii);
                                                    changed reference to
                                                    paragraph (e)(2) to
                                                    (e)(1)(ii).
60.480(e)(2)..................  .................  Added paragraph that
                                                    allows owners or
                                                    operators to comply
                                                    with 40 CFR part 60,
                                                    subpart VVa as an
                                                    alternative to 40
                                                    CFR part 60, subpart
                                                    VV.
60.481........................  71 FR 65308,       Corrected editorial
                                 column 3.          errors in definition
                                                    of ``Capital
                                                    expenditures.''
60.481........................  71 FR 65307,       Added new definition
                                 column 2 and       for ``Closed-loop
                                 section 5.4.3 of   system.''
                                 RTC.
60.481........................  71 FR 65307,       Added new definition
                                 column 2 and       for ``Closed-purge
                                 section 5.4.3 of   system.''
                                 RTC.
60.481........................  Section 5.3.2 of   Revised definition of
                                 RTC.               ``Connector.''
60.481........................  Added missing      Revised definition of
                                 word ``the''       ``First attempt at
                                 before the word    repair.''
                                 ``atmosphere''
                                 and removed the
                                 word ``rapid''.
60.481........................  71 FR 65308,       Revised definition of
                                 column 3 and       ``Hard piping.''
                                 updated the
                                 mailing address
                                 for ASME.
60.481........................  Section IV.A.2 of  Revised definition of
                                 this preamble.     ``Process unit.''
60.481........................  Section 5.9.3 of   Revised definition of
                                 RTC.               ``Process unit
                                                    shutdown.''
60.481........................  71 FR 65308,       Revised definition of
                                 column 1.          ``Repaired.''
60.481........................  Section 3.2.1 of   Added new definition
                                 RTC.               for ``Storage
                                                    vessel.''
60.481........................  71 FR 65307,       Added new definition
                                 column 3.          for ``Transfer
                                                    rack.''
60.482-1(e)...................  Section 3.3 of     Added paragraph (e)
                                 RTC.               to address equipment
                                                    in service less than
                                                    300 hours per year.
60.482-1(f)...................  71 FR 65304,       Added paragraph (f)
                                 column 3 and       that allows less
                                 sections 5.6.1     frequent monitoring
                                 and 5.6.2 of RTC.  of pumps and valves
                                                    on batch process
                                                    units that operate
                                                    less than 365 days
                                                    per year.
60.482-1(g)...................  Section IV.A.2 of  Added paragraph that
                                 this preamble.     clarifies inclusion
                                                    of shared tanks in a
                                                    process unit subject
                                                    to this subpart.
60.482-2(a)(1)................  71 FR 65307,       Added clarification
                                 column 1, and      for pumps that begin
                                 section IV.B.1     operation in light
                                 of this preamble.  liquid service after
                                                    the initial startup
                                                    date for the process
                                                    unit.
60.482-2(a)(2)................  .................  Added reference to 40
                                                    CFR 60.482-1(f) as
                                                    an exception to the
                                                    requirement for
                                                    weekly visual
                                                    inspections of pumps
                                                    in light liquid
                                                    service.
60.482-2(b)(2)................  71 FR 65304,       Added monitoring and
                                 column 2, 71 FR    repair requirements
                                 65306, column 1,   if weekly visual
                                 and section        inspection of pumps
                                 5.2.2 of RTC.      in light liquid
                                                    service indicates
                                                    liquids dripping
                                                    from pump seal.
60.482-2(c)(2)................  71 FR 65307,       Added examples of
                                 column 1.          first attempt at
                                                    repair practices for
                                                    pumps in light
                                                    liquid service.
60.482-2(d)...................  .................  Editorial correction
                                                    and clarification to
                                                    address renumbering
                                                    of paragraphs (d)(1)
                                                    through (6).
60.482-2(d)(1)(ii)............  .................  Replaced first word
                                                    ``Equipment'' with
                                                    ``Equipped.''
60.482-2(d)(4)(i).............  .................  Renumbered paragraph
                                                    (d)(4) as (d)(4)(i).
60.482-2(d)(4)(ii)............  71 FR 65304,       Added monitoring and
                                 column 2, 71 FR    repair requirements
                                 65306, column 1,   if weekly visual
                                 and section        inspection of a pump
                                 5.2.2 of RTC.      equipped with dual
                                                    mechanical seals
                                                    indicates liquids
                                                    dripping from pump
                                                    seal.
60.482-2(d)(5)(i).............  .................  Removed ``and'' from
                                                    end of sentence.

60.482-2(d)(5)(iii)...........  .................  Added paragraph to
                                                    specify how a leak
                                                    is detected.
60.482-2(d)(6)................  71 FR 65304,       Revised to clarify
                                 column 2 and 71    procedure and time
                                 FR 65306, column   allowed for repair
                                 1.                 of leaks.
60.482-2(e)...................  .................  Revised to add ``s''
                                                    to the end of ``no
                                                    detectable
                                                    emission.''
60.482-3(a)...................  Section 5.3.5 of   Added reference to
                                 RTC.               exemption in 40 CFR
                                                    60.482-3(j).
60.482-3(j)...................  71 FR 65308,       Editorial
                                 column 3.          clarification of
                                                    section and
                                                    paragraph
                                                    references.
60.482-5(a) and (b)...........  71 FR 65307,       Rearranged paragraphs
                                 column 2 and       within these two
                                 section 5.3.5 of   paragraphs and made
                                 RTC.               editorial
                                                    corrections to
                                                    provide clarity.
60.482-5(b)(2)................  71 FR 65307,       Added provision that
                                 column 2, and      containers part of a
                                 section 5.4.3 of   closed-purge system
                                 RTC.               must be covered or
                                                    closed when not
                                                    being filled or
                                                    emptied.
60.482-5(b)(3)................  Section 5.4.1 of   Added provision that
                                 RTC.               gases remaining in
                                                    the tubing or other
                                                    apparatus once the
                                                    closed-purge system
                                                    valve(s) and sample
                                                    container valve(s)
                                                    are closed are not
                                                    required to be
                                                    collected or
                                                    captured.
60.482-5(b)(4)-(b)(4)(iv)(A)-(  Rearranged         Same as current
 C).                             paragraph          paragraph (b)(4)
                                 numbering and      except for editorial
                                 made a few         clarifications.
                                 editorial
                                 clarifications.
60.482-5(b)(4)(iv)(D).........  Section 5.4.2 of   Added provision for
                                 RTC.               use of a waste
                                                    management unit
                                                    meeting the
                                                    requirements of 40
                                                    CFR 61.348(a).
60.482-5(b)(4)(iv)(E).........  Section 5.4.2 of   Added provision for
                                 RTC.               use of a device used
                                                    to burn off-
                                                    specification used
                                                    fuel oil in
                                                    accordance with 40
                                                    CFR part 279,
                                                    subpart G.
60.482-6(a)(1)................  Section 5.3.5 of   Added reference to
                                 RTC.               exemptions in 40 CFR
                                                    60.482-6(d) and (e).
60.482-7(a)(1)................  Corrected section  Clarified current
                                 designations.      paragraph (a) to
                                                    specify that valves
                                                    must be monitored
                                                    monthly except as
                                                    provided in 40 CFR
                                                    60.482-7(f), (g),
                                                    and (h); 40 CFR
                                                    60.482-1(c) and (e);
                                                    and 40 CFR 60.483-1
                                                    and 2.
60.482-7(a)(2)(i) and (ii)....  71 FR 65307,       Added clarification
                                 column 1, and      for valves that
                                 section IV.B.1     begin operation in
                                 of this preamble.  light liquid service
                                                    after the initial
                                                    startup date for the
                                                    process unit.
60.482-7(c)(1)(i).............  .................  Paragraph (c)(1)
                                                    redesignated as
                                                    paragraph (c)(1)(i).
60.482-7(c)(1)(ii)............  71 FR 65307,       Added paragraph to
                                 column 3 through   allow an owner or
                                 71 FR 65308,       operator to
                                 column 1, and      subdivide valves in
                                 section 5.1.2 of   a process unit.
                                 RTC.
60.482-8(a)(2)................  Section 5.7 of     Added clarification
                                 RTC.               that audio visual
                                                    olfactory
                                                    indications of
                                                    potential leaks
                                                    should be eliminated
                                                    within 5 calendar
                                                    days of detection.
60.482-8(d)...................  71 FR 65307,       Revised to require
                                 column 1.          that first attempt
                                                    at repair of pumps
                                                    and valves in heavy
                                                    liquid service,
                                                    pressure relief
                                                    devices in light
                                                    liquid or heavy
                                                    liquid service, and
                                                    connectors must
                                                    include best
                                                    practices under 40
                                                    CFR 60.482-2(c)(2)
                                                    and 40 CFR 60.482-
                                                    7(e).
60.482-9(a)...................  Section 5.9.3 of   Clarified that for
                                 RTC.               repair that occurs
                                                    during a process
                                                    unit shutdown,
                                                    monitoring to verify
                                                    that repair must
                                                    occur within 15 days
                                                    after startup of the
                                                    process unit.
60.482-9(f)...................  Section 5.9.3 of   Added new paragraph
                                 RTC.               for a leaking pump
                                                    or valve for which a
                                                    delay in repair is
                                                    allowed.
60.483-1(d) and 60.483-2(b)(5)  .................  Added reference to
                                                    new 40 CFR 60.485(h)
                                                    that provides more
                                                    detailed explanation
                                                    for calculating the
                                                    percent of valves
                                                    leaking.
60.483-2(a)(7)................  71 FR 65307,       Added clarification
                                 column 1, and      for valves that
                                 section IV.B.1     begin operation in
                                 of this preamble.  light liquid service
                                                    after the initial
                                                    startup date for the
                                                    process unit.
60.483-2(b)(7)................  .................  Added paragraph to
                                                    specify that a new
                                                    valve must be
                                                    monitored according
                                                    to 40 CFR 60.482-
                                                    7(a)(2)(i) or (ii)
                                                    before the
                                                    provisions of 40 CFR
                                                    60.483-2 can be
                                                    applied to the
                                                    valve.
60.484(a).....................  71 FR 65308,       Editorial correction.
                                 column 3.
60.484(b)(2)..................  .................  Editorial
                                                    clarification.
60.485(b).....................  .................  Revised reference to
                                                    nonexistent 40 CFR
                                                    60.482 to refer to
                                                    40 CFR 60.482-1
                                                    through 40 CFR
                                                    60.482-10.
60.485(e).....................  71 FR 65308......  Clarified that the
                                                    requirements apply
                                                    to a piece of
                                                    equipment.
60.485(e)(1) and (2)..........  Section 6.3 of     Clarified to specify
                                 RTC.               that light liquids
                                                    are organic
                                                    compounds.
60.485(g)(4)..................  Corrected          Corrected equation
                                 exponents in       for the net heating
                                 equation.          value of the gas
                                                    being combusted in a
                                                    flare.
60.485(g)(5)..................  .................  Added ASTM D6420-99
                                                    as an alternative to
                                                    EPA Method 18.
60.485(h).....................  Section 5.1.4 of   Added equation and
                                 RTC.               clarifications for
                                                    calculating percent
                                                    of valves leaking.
60.486(e)(2)(ii)..............  Section 7.4 of     Revised to allow an
                                 RTC.               alternative to
                                                    requiring a
                                                    signature for the
                                                    list of equipment
                                                    with no detectable
                                                    emissions.
60.486(e)(6)..................  Section 3.3 of     Added recordkeeping
                                 RTC.               requirements for
                                                    equipment in VOC
                                                    service less than
                                                    300 hours per year.
60.487(c)(2)(i),                These changes are  Corrected references
 60.487(c)(2)(iii),              related to         to specific sections
 60.487(c)(2)(iv).               rearranging of     and other editorial
                                 paragraphs in      corrections.
                                 60.482-2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RTC refers to Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in
  the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry and Standards
  of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries.
  Background Information for Final Standards. Summary of Public Comments
  and Responses. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGG on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65302). We published a
NODA regarding OEL on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37157). A total of 28 comment
letters were received during the comment periods for the two notices.
In response to these public comments, several changes were made in
developing these final amendments and new standards. The major comments
and our responses are summarized in the following sections. A summary
of the remainder of the comments received during the comment period and
responses thereto can be found in the docket for the final amendments
and new standards (EPA-OAR-HQ-2006-0699).

A. Applicability

1. Affected Sources Under the Current NSPS
    Comment: Numerous commenters objected to the proposed application
of substantive new requirements to affected sources that became subject
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV (or any of the subparts that reference
subpart VV) on or before November 7, 2006 (hereafter referred to as
``subpart VV sources''). Proposed provisions that these commenters
considered to be substantive are: (1) Changes to the definition of
process unit; (2) annual EPA Method 21 monitoring of OEL; (3) bypass
monitoring requirements for closed vent systems to control devices; (4)
calibration drift assessments; (5) initial monitoring requirements for
pumps and valves; and (6) maintaining records of all monitoring
results. The commenters argued that applying the new provisions to
subpart VV sources is unlawful.
    To address the issue of compliance dates, several commenters
recommended that EPA amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV so that it
applies only to existing sources and develop a new 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VVa that applies to affected sources that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 7, 2006.
    In contrast, two commenters urged EPA to apply the proposed
requirements to all existing SOCMI and refinery process units, and a
third commenter recommended applying the proposed leak definitions for
pumps and valves to all SOCMI and refinery affected sources. All of
these commenters noted that existing facilities are more likely than
new sources to have problems with leaks and, thus, should receive extra
scrutiny.
    Response: In this action, EPA has decided to include any new
requirements in a new 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa, consistent with the
commenter's suggestions. The new standards in subpart VVa include lower
leak definitions for pumps (2,000 ppm) and valves (500 ppm), monitoring
of connectors, a calibration drift assessment, and expanded
recordkeeping requirements. The proposed requirement to monitor bypass
lines has not been included in the new standards because few facilities
capture and vent equipment leak emissions to a control device.
Additionally, most control devices would be subject to other standards.
The proposed requirement to monitor OEL has not been included in the
new standards because this requirement has been determined to not be
cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness for SOCMI was found to be
$3,800/ton for 25 tons/yr of VOC emission reductions. For petroleum
refineries, the cost-effectiveness was found to be $14,700/ton for 2.4
tons/yr of VOC emission reductions. Taking the low emission reductions
into consideration, the Agency has determined that monitoring OEL is
not BDT. As discussed in sections IV.B.1 and IV.A.2 of this preamble,
the initial monitoring requirements for new pumps and valves and the
changes to the definition of ``process unit'' are not new standards,
and these changes are retained in the final amendments to 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV as well as being included in the new subpart VVa.
    Instead of referencing 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa from 40 CFR part
60, subpart GGG, we decided to create a new 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GGGa that applies to new petroleum refining affected sources. This new
subpart GGGa references all of the new standards in subpart VVa except
for the monitoring requirements for connectors. Reasons for the
differences in standards between subparts VVa and GGGa are described
elsewhere in this preamble.
    Sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD and 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKK, and sources subject to the Refinery NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart CC), but not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV or GGG,
are not required to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa at this
time.
    While we understand there is a concern that existing sources are
more likely to leak, there is no provision in section 111 of the CAA
that allows us to retroactively apply new standards to sources already
subject to the NSPS. EPA agrees with the statements made by the
commenters that relate to the application of new requirements under
NSPS to existing sources. Section 111 of the CAA does state that NSPS
will apply only to new, reconstructed, or modified sources after the
date of proposal. The authority to regulate existing sources under
section 111(d) of the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate criteria
pollutants or precursors to such pollutants. Therefore, we have not
included any new requirements for existing sources in the final
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and subpart GGG. These
requirements will apply only to sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the November 7, 2006 proposal
date.
2. Definition of Process Unit
    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern that the revised
definition of process unit is inconsistent with EPA's original intent
when 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV was proposed (i.e., it expands the
scope), that it complicates compliance, or that it creates additional
confusion. One commenter stated that under the existing definition, a
component is part of a process unit based on its function, not whether
it is classified as a specific type of equipment. The commenter
indicated that since 1981, sources and their regulators have decided
what constitutes a process unit based on what equipment serves the
functions described in the definition, and this process unit may be
different from process units under other rules.
    After reading the preamble discussion of the proposed change, one
commenter expressed concern that the proposed definition inadvertently
includes valves and other equipment on storage tanks. Other commenters
objected to the inclusion of all feed, intermediate, and product
storage vessels and transfer operations in the definition because the
following discussion from the original rulemaking notice for 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV (46 FR 1139, January 5, 1981) makes it clear that
EPA's original intent was to include storage in the process unit only
if it is within the battery limits of the process:
    ``A process unit is specifically defined as equipment assembled to
produce one or more of the chemicals listed in proposed appendix E
which can operate independently if supplied with sufficient feed or raw
materials and sufficient storage facilities for the final product. A
process unit includes intermediate storage or surge tanks and all fluid
transport equipment connecting reaction, separation, and purification
devices. All equipment within the battery limits is included. However,

offsite fluid transport and storage facilities are excluded.''
    Several commenters described ways the proposed change could
complicate compliance. For example, two commenters indicated that it
would increase the difficulty of tracking equipment, process units, and
applicable requirements at refineries where the storage and transfer
areas are consolidated into ``logistical process units'' that support
numerous process units, particularly when storage tanks are shared by
multiple process units. One commenter added that it may also either
restrict the ability of a facility to use its tanks as needed, because
they will have been forced into an arbitrary association with a given
unit, or create a useless recordkeeping exercise each time a tank
switches contents or services a different process. To avoid immediate
compliance problems for affected sources that are currently subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, a commenter requested that existing
facilities be allowed 180 days after promulgation of the amendments so
that they will have time to include the additional equipment in the
applicable LDAR programs. Commenters also noted that the rule should
clarify how to assign storage vessels and transfer racks that are
shared by multiple processes; they suggested using language in the HON
and the Refinery NESHAP as a guide. One commenter stated that EPA
should clarify that a compressor is still a separate affected facility
from the group of equipment in a refinery process unit under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGG.
    Response: The first sentence in the definition of ``process unit''
in the final amendments and new standards includes the term
``components'' as in the existing definition rather than ``equipment''
as in the proposed amendments. This correction distinguishes major
process vessels such as reactors and distillation units (i.e.,
``components'') from pieces of equipment, as defined in the rule, that
are subject to the LDAR standards. In addition, the last sentence of
the proposed definition has been replaced to reference ``equipment'' as
it is defined in the applicable subpart. This change should address
concerns that compressors at petroleum refineries are separate affected
sources. Otherwise, there are no differences between the proposed and
final definitions.
    The amended definition of process unit clarifies EPA's original
intent and is consistent with the language provided by the commenters
from the January 1981 rulemaking. It is clear from the 1981 rulemaking
that all equipment that is located within the battery limits is
included as part of the process unit. Likewise, there is no question
that any fluid transport and storage facilities located outside of the
facility property are not included. However, the 1981 language also
states that a process unit includes storage tanks and all fluid
transport equipment. There is no specification that these components
are only included if within the battery limits. There has been
confusion in the past regarding the inclusion of components outside of
the battery limits but within the property of the facility. To clarify
this issue, EPA previously issued formal guidance (see April 6, 1994
letter from John Rasnic to Raymond Hiley in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ--OAR-
2006-0699).
    We agree that the determination of whether a particular tank is a
storage tank, feed tank, or intermediate tank and part of a process
unit must be done on a site-specific basis, dependent on how the tank
functions within a particular plant site. The physical proximity of the
storage tank to the other processing equipment within a process unit is
not a sole determinate in establishing whether a storage tank is part
of the process or not.
    The final amendments and new standards include provisions for
assigning a shared storage tank to a specific process unit for the
purposes of an LDAR program. The owner or operator will need to
determine what process units the storage tank is associated with. They
will then determine which process unit, or combination of units subject
to the same subpart, has the greatest annual quantity of stored
materials in that tank. The subpart that the process unit (or
combination of units subject to the same subpart) associated with the
greatest use of that tank is subject to will be the applicable subpart
for the tank. The process unit, which is subject to the same subpart as
the tank, with the greatest annual quantity of stored materials in that
tank will be the process unit the tank is assigned to. If a tank is
shared equally between two process units that are subject to 40 CFR
part 60 standards, the process unit with the most stringent
requirements will be the unit the tank is assigned to. For example, if
the predominant use of a storage tank is to service a process unit
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, that storage tank is a part of
that process unit and subject to subpart VV and the equipment must be
monitored at a leak definition of 10,000 ppm.
    Comment: Two commenters wondered how the change in the definition
of ``process unit'' would affect modification and reconstruction
determinations. One commenter expressed concern that it will make it
easier for an owner or operator to add new equipment to an existing
process unit without triggering the threshold that would make the
process unit a new affected source. The second commenter noted that
including feed tanks in the definition changes the basis for the
modification and reconstruction cost test and asked how changes that
have already occurred should be handled in this determination.
    Response: Since the amended definition is a clarification of our
original intent with respect to applicability of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV to equipment on storage tanks and lines between storage
tanks and processing equipment, there will be no impact on modification
or reconstruction determinations. If a facility believes that they have
performed a previous modification or reconstruction determination in
error, they should contact their delegated authority.

B. Standards

1. Initial Monitoring of Pumps and Valves
    Comment: Numerous commenters objected to the proposed
clarifications for the initial monitoring of pumps and valves that are
installed after the startup of the process unit. Several commenters
stated that the proposed provisions are significant new requirements
and cannot be finalized without demonstrating that they represent BDT
and giving the public a chance to comment on the supporting analyses.
Two commenters indicated that they are unaware of any SOCMI facilities
that routinely monitor new pumps and valves within 1 month of startup,
and the supporting documentation for the proposal contains no data from
SOCMI sources. Several commenters requested that EPA allow at least 90
or 180 days because complying within 1 month would be burdensome,
particularly for facilities that use third party contracting for
monitoring; 1 month is not enough time to integrate new equipment into
the monitoring program; 40 CFR 60.8 of the General Provisions provides
180 days for performance tests; and EPA has not explicitly stated how
monitoring within 1 month will reduce emissions. Two commenters noted
that EPA's justification of the requirement for valves is that it is
needed to ensure that the valve does not leak until its first quarterly
or annual monitoring, but no data were presented to show such leakage
occurs or is a problem. The

commenters also requested that when establishing the final requirement
for initial monitoring of pumps and valves, the timeframe be given in
days, not months.
    In contrast with the above comments, three commenters supported the
proposed language or more stringent requirements. One of these
commenters recommended monitoring new pumps within 1 month after
installation to minimize the time period for potential leaks. A second
commenter recommended that monitoring be required even sooner after
installation. This commenter also questioned why a clarification of the
requirements for pumps was needed because the preamble to the proposed
amendments did not explain how industry currently handles new pumps and
why that practice is a problem. This commenter also objected to the
second sentence in 40 CFR 60.482-7(a)(2) because it means valves added
to a process would not have to be monitored for 2 consecutive months
before implementing skip monitoring, which is less stringent than the
requirements for valves in an entirely new process.
    Response: The language pertaining to the initial monitoring of new
pumps and valves was added to the final amendments and new standards to
clarify how new equipment should be handled in the existing monitoring
schedule, but these are not new requirements. Under the current rule,
pumps are to be monitored monthly whether they are newly installed or
installed prior to the process unit becoming an affected source (40 CFR
60.482-2(a)(1)). It is unclear to us how a facility is complying with
the requirements for pumps if they are not being monitored monthly.
Also under the current rule, all new valves are to be monitored monthly
(i.e., base period) until two consecutive monthly readings are found
below the applicable leak definition, at which point the valve may be
monitored quarterly until a subsequent leak is found (40 CFR 60.482-
7(a)). Finding of a subsequent leak reverts the monitoring back to
monthly until two consecutive monthly readings below the applicable
leak definition is reestablished. The current rule also has an
alternative standard for valves at 40 CFR 60.483-2 which allows for
longer ``skip'' periods based on continued performance. Again, we are
uncertain that a facility is complying with the requirements for these
valves if they are not monitoring new valves within the first month of
operation.
    However, to provide operational flexibility, we have decided to add
an option for newly installed valves in the final amendments and new
standards. If a new valve is placed into service during a skip period,
the source has the option to either monitor the valve on the monthly
schedule and establish the skip period for that valve, or count the
valve as a leaker in the percent leaking calculation. If the result of
the percent leaking calculation remains below 2.0 percent with the new
valve counted as a leaker, the owner or operator must monitor the new
valve by the next scheduled skip period or within 90 days, whichever
comes first. We have stated the timeframe for these requirements in
days instead of months in the final amendments and new standards (30
days for pumps and either 30 or 90 days for valves, depending on
whether the owner or operator is complying with the skip monitoring
option).
    Comment: Three commenters requested clarification of the
applicability of the proposed initial monitoring provision. Two
commenters stated that the term ``placed in service'' clearly implies
that pumps and valves should follow the initial monitoring schedule
after they are initially installed. However, the term ``placed in
service'' also implies that previously installed pumps and valves
should be monitored after they have been placed back into service after
maintenance, turnarounds, and repairs. Both commenters recommended
changes to clarify that only newly installed or rebuilt pumps and
valves should be monitored following the schedule for initial
monitoring.
    Response: The initial monitoring requirement is for pumps and
valves that come into VOC service through a process expansion or
replacement not associated with a repair (e.g., preventative
maintenance). These pumps and valves may be newly purchased or they may
be equipment that was previously in service elsewhere in the process
unit or facility. A newly purchased, rebuilt, repaired, or
remanufactured pump or valve installed to repair a leaking pump or
valve is not subject to the initial monitoring requirements. Instead,
the pump or valve should be monitored to verify that there is no longer
a leak (as required in the definition of ``repaired'') and may be
subsequently monitored according to the schedule that applied to the
previously leaking pump or valve.
    To further clarify this issue, we have revised 40 CFR 60.482-
2(a)(1), 40 CFR 60.482-7(a)(2), 40 CFR 60.483-2(b)(7), 40 CFR 60.482-
2a(a)(1), 40 CFR 60.482-7a(a)(2), and 40 CFR 60.483-2a(b)(7).
2. Weekly Pump Inspections
    Comment: Numerous commenters addressed the proposed changes to the
requirements for weekly inspections of pumps. One commenter supported
the proposed changes, including the changes to 40 CFR 60.482-
2(b)(2)(ii), which states that if a visible liquid leak is found, it
may be repaired by removing the visible indication of the leak. Based
on the commenter's experience, a visible leak does not always indicate
a regulatory leak. Another commenter agreed with the clarification
allowing facilities to determine if a leak is emitting VOC using EPA
Method 21 because it will help to focus repairs on pumps leaking
hydrocarbons.
    Three commenters did not support the proposed changes to the weekly
inspection requirements. Two of these commenters disagreed with EPA's
conclusion that the existing requirements are overly burdensome.
According to one commenter, an operator should be required to make a
showing of an undue burden; simply stating that an operator may have to
conduct more inspections and repair more leaks than absolutely
necessary does not demonstrate an undue burden. Two commenters noted
that eliminating evidence of liquids dripping does not guarantee that
the pump is no longer leaking VOC. As a result, these two commenters
stated that monitoring should be required after eliminating evidence of
liquids dripping to verify that repair was successful. Even if liquids
dripping are not process fluid, one commenter noted that the liquid is
probably either seal barrier fluids or condensate from a pump jacket
used for temperature control. Regardless of the cause or fluid, one
commenter noted that any liquid dripping may be a first sign of a
potential maintenance problem that is best addressed as soon as
possible as a matter of good operational practice as well as good
environmental practice.
    Response: The aim of the LDAR program is to find and repair leaks
of VOC. In some instances, the liquids found dripping from pumps are
not VOC-containing liquids or otherwise would not meet the leak
definition. In these cases, the pump would not be required to be
repaired under the LDAR program. Adding the option to monitor allows
the owner or operator to determine if the liquids dripping constitute a
VOC leak, thus focusing their efforts on reducing VOC emissions. If the
owner or operator chooses not to monitor the pump to determine if the
liquids dripping are a VOC leak, the liquids dripping from the pump are

classified as a VOC leak. The leak must be repaired by eliminating
indications of liquids dripping, and the appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for leaks apply to that pump. We agree with the
commenter that persistent liquids dripping may indicate an operation
problem that should be addressed by maintenance. If indications of
liquids dripping are noted for one pump during multiple weekly
inspections, we encourage facilities to ensure that the pump is
operating properly. We do not agree that more frequent EPA Method 21
monitoring is necessary because pumps are currently monitored on a
monthly basis and the additional monitoring would not result in
substantial emission reductions.
3. Connectors
    Comment: In response to our request for comments regarding whether
connector monitoring should be required, three commenters expressed
support for it, and nine commenters opposed it. Supporters argued that
significant reductions could be achieved at a reasonable cost.
Opponents argued that the impacts analysis overstated the emission
reductions and underestimated the costs. According to two of the
opponents, EPA did not require connector monitoring in the MON (40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF) because the cost was determined to be
unreasonable. One commenter indicated that monitoring as proposed is
not worth the effort because most connectors are adjacent to valves,
and these connectors are investigated and monitored when valve
monitoring results in abnormal readings.
    Six commenters objected to some of the assumptions we used to
estimate equipment leak emissions. Some of these commenters stated that
our emission reduction estimates were high because we used assumed leak
frequencies and leak rates from Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995) (the Protocol document)
rather than actual field data. One commenter added that these data
often predict emissions an order of magnitude higher than the actual
emissions. Another commenter submitted a report that concluded there is
no statistical difference in average leak rates between initial and
subsequent monitoring at HON and MON units. This commenter also
questioned the assumption that all leaking connectors would be
successfully repaired after each monitoring cycle. Several commenters
objected to estimating emissions based on leak rates equal to 170
percent of actual observed leak rates. One commenter noted that one
refinery monitored more than 22,000 connectors and found only four
leaking at greater than 1,000 ppm. Less than 0.5 percent of the
connectors in process units subject to the HON at another refinery were
leaking at greater than 500 ppm.
    Four commenters objected to various elements in the cost estimates.
These commenters noted that more connectors than valves are difficult
to monitor, and the cost analysis did not include the cost for the
additional labor and equipment needed to monitor these connectors. One
commenter stated that the unit cost for monitoring connectors should be
more than $1.50 per connector because the time required to monitor a
connector is longer than for other types of equipment. The increased
monitoring time is the result of several factors: (1) The distance that
must be traversed per component is greater; (2) connectors often are in
hard-to-reach locations, requiring the operator to squeeze through
small spaces, often having to remove the monitor backpack; and (3)
connectors tend to be spread out and are hard to find. In addition,
this commenter noted that recordkeeping for connectors is more
burdensome and complicated than for valves. Connectors are not
typically shown on process and instrumentation drawings, making them
difficult to find. The commenter stated that our estimate of 10 hours
per year to complete administrative tasks and reports associated just
with monitoring connectors is inadequate. Finally, the commenter noted
that our cost estimates omit the cost of a data collection system or
monitoring device rental; the commenter estimated these costs to be
$14,500 for data collection systems and $135 per day for monitor
rental. The commenter stated that even if a facility has a data
collection system, additional licenses are needed to add connectors.
Another commenter stated that rationale for requiring monitoring at
SOCMI facilities does not apply to natural gas processing plants; thus,
this commenter requested that an impact analysis be performed to
address natural gas processing plants before making that industry
subject to connector monitoring.
    In contrast with the above comments, three commenters were in favor
of adding connector monitoring to the rule. One commenter suggested
that connectors be monitored annually or biennially because they have
significant leak potential that would go undetected without monitoring.
Regardless of the uncertainties in the leak rates and emissions
factors, another commenter stated that connector monitoring should be
required because emissions reductions can be achieved at a relatively
low cost. The third commenter supported a requirement to monitor
connectors at SOCMI sources because it is technically feasible, our
impacts analysis shows it is economically feasible, and it would
achieve greater reductions than the proposed amendments for pumps and
valves. According to this commenter, more accurate emissions data in
the impacts analysis is unnecessary because emissions inventories based
on monitoring data typically show emissions that are higher than the
emissions estimated using engineering calculations and emission
factors, which would only strengthen the argument for monitoring. This
commenter also argued that refineries should be required to monitor
connectors because such monitoring is technically feasible, it is
already required for some refineries in Texas and California, and our
impacts analysis showed connectors at refineries were more likely to
leak than connectors at SOCMI sources.
    Response: Both the HON and MON regulations are based on emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). NSPS are based on VOC emissions
(both HAP and non-HAP). When calculating the cost-effectiveness for
NSPS, there are more possible emission points and a higher percentage
of regulated pollutants in the emissions because the analysis is not
based only on HAP emissions. This results in a different conclusion for
cost-effectiveness than in the HON or MON.
    The commenter's claim that we used the leak frequencies and leak
rates in the Protocol document for the SOCMI analysis is incorrect. We
used the same initial leak frequency (0.36 percent) as in the MON
analysis. We also started with the same initial leak rate (0.000186
kilogram (kg)/hour (hr)/connector), but we then escalated it in the
same manner that leak rates for pumps and valves were escalated. The
leak frequencies and leak rates in the MON analysis were based on
industry-supplied data for almost 165,000 connectors. We decided not to
use the leak rate data in the report supplied by one of the commenters
because it contains a smaller data set (29,000 connectors), and it is
possible that these data are also included in the larger data set.
However, our assumption that the subsequent leak frequency is the same
as the initial leak frequency is consistent with the conclusion in the
report cited by the commenter.
    The new standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa include connector
monitoring because we have determined

that it is cost-effective at SOCMI sources. The specific monitoring
provisions are the same as in the Generic MACT. However, we have
determined that connector monitoring is not cost-effective for
petroleum refineries. Therefore, an exemption from the provisions for
connector monitoring has been included in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa.
At this time, we are not reviewing 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK;
therefore, no cost analysis has been performed on connector monitoring
for these sources, and natural gas processing plants subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKK are not subject to the connector monitoring
requirements in subpart VVa.
    After reviewing the comments, we revised the impacts analyses to
include two of the suggested changes to the cost estimates. First, we
corrected an error, which increased the estimated time for reporting
and administrative activities related to connectors from 10 hr/year
(yr) to 50 hr/yr. Second, although we are not aware that monitoring
contractors charge a higher fee for connectors than for other
equipment, we accept the commenter's suggested fee of $2.50/connector
because the $1.50/connector that we used in the original analysis may
be closer to the low end of the range than the average. We disagree
with the other changes suggested by the commenters. Details of the
revised impacts analysis, including rationale for not making the
suggested changes, are provided in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0699).

C. Test Methods and Procedures

    Comment: Two commenters supported the requirement to conduct
calibration drift assessments and remonitor when the assessment shows a
negative drift of more than 10 percent. Other commenters acknowledged
that a drift check is a good practice or a useful quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) tool, and one commenter agreed with EPA's
rationale for requiring drift checks.
    On the other hand, four commenters opposed the drift check
requirement, saying it is unnecessary and provides no environmental
benefit. One of these commenters added that monitoring instruments such
as the Foxboro TVA 1000 FID/PID or Foxboro TVA 1000B are quite stable
over a 24-hour period, and EPA has not presented data or an analysis
showing the need for calibration assessments. A second commenter noted
that instruments typically drift in a positive direction. A third
commenter argued that a drift check and re-monitoring is a futile
effort to make the equipment leak monitoring method more accurate than
was originally intended and than the instruments can achieve because of
the following: (1) The Foxboro TVA 1000B instrument accuracy is only
25 percent for readings between 1 and 10,000 parts per
million by volume (ppmv); (2) a response factor as high as 10 is
allowed for compounds of interest; (3) the 10 percent drift limit is
inconsistent with the level of the instrument's accuracy allowed by EPA
Method 21; and (4) leaking equipment does not emit a constant
concentration. In addition, this commenter noted that drift checks
conducted to satisfy consent decrees have shown only about 10 percent
of instruments drift more than 10 percent every 2 to 3 weeks, and the
release of calibration gases would be considered a negative
environmental impact.
    Response: We are removing the requirement for a post-test
calibration drift assessment from the final amendments but retaining
the requirement for the new subparts. Post-test calibration drift
assessments constitute good practice and are a useful QA/QC tool to
validate the proper operation of the monitor during the monitoring
period and, hence, the measurement data. The requirement for a
calibration drift assessment is not an effort to make the method more
accurate than was originally intended, but is intended as an additional
quality assurance check.
    Comment: Numerous commenters considered the proposed re-monitoring
requirement to be excessive. Instead of re-monitoring when instrument
readings are greater than 20 percent of the applicable leak definition,
two commenters suggested changing the threshold to 75 or 80 percent.
Another commenter suggested using a percentage equal to 100 minus the
percent of negative drift. If re-monitoring is required when negative
drift occurs, two commenters stated that an owner or operator should
also have the option of re-monitoring when positive drift occurs and
reclassifying leakers as nonleakers. One of these commenters also
suggested four additional changes: (1) Because monitoring shifts may
vary, require the assessment at the end of each day rather than the end
of each monitoring shift; (2) allow an unlimited number of calibration
drift assessments per day; (3) determine drift relative to the most
recent calibration value rather than the initial value for the day; and
(4) specify that a drift assessment is not required after re-
monitoring.
    Response: We agree with the suggestion to establish the retest
criterion at the percentage equal to 100 minus the percent of negative
drift and are modifying the requirement accordingly. We also agree with
the commenter's suggestion that an owner or operator should have the
option of re-monitoring when positive drift occurs and reclassifying
leakers as non-leakers when the re-monitoring after recalibration due
to positive drift indicates the previously identified leak is below the
leak definition concentration. We agree that monitoring shifts may
vary, and the new standards require the assessment at the end of each
day rather than the end of each monitoring shift. The new standards
allow an unlimited number of calibration drift assessments per day, and
we have clarified that the drift assessment is determined relative to
the most recent calibration value rather than the initial value for the
day. We do not agree that a drift assessment is not required after
remonitoring and have not made this change to the new standards.

D. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: One commenter supported the proposed requirement to keep
records of all monitoring results because more and better data can only
help facility owners and operators efficiently and effectively address
the problem of fugitive emissions. Another commenter stated that
records of weekly pump inspections are needed to make the inspection
requirement enforceable. On the other hand, many commenters either
opposed or urged us to reconsider the need for one or more of the
following proposed recordkeeping requirements: (1) Results of all
monitoring events; (2) time of each monitoring event; (3) information
related to the proposed initial monitoring requirement for pumps and
valves added to a process unit; (4) results of the proposed monitoring
of OEL; (5) information related to the proposed requirement to monitor
bypass lines; (6) results of calibration drift checks; and (7) results
of weekly pump inspections.
    Several commenters stated that the additional recordkeeping would
be burdensome and either would not improve the rule's effectiveness or
is excessive relative to any minimal improvement in performance. In
addition, one commenter stated that the proposal preamble did not
adequately explain how we estimated the cost of the additional
recordkeeping and reporting for SOCMI sources to be $369,000/yr, and
another stated that the proposal preamble did not explain why the
current monitoring requirements are not sufficient to verify that
monitoring was performed. According to one commenter, recording the
time of

monitoring has hindered many programs and reduced productivity, and the
additional records will generate an administrative backlog of data and
create issues with storage and accessibility. Although this commenter
agreed that the proposed records can be useful in verifying quality
control of the LDAR program, the commenter asserted that a more cost-
effective way to achieve quality control is to physically monitor the
program. Furthermore, this commenter stated that by requiring the
records, we are specifying the means by which a facility must implement
the LDAR program rather than outlining the performance standard.
Another commenter expressed concern that the additional recordkeeping
exposes facilities to the potential of incurring deviations for records
that serve no purpose.
    Response: As stated in section III.B of this preamble, the
recordkeeping requirements in the final amendments and new standards
are authorized by section 114 of the CAA. We have made significant
changes to the proposed recordkeeping requirements as a result of the
changes made to the scope and applicability of the standards. Because
the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG include
only clarifications to existing requirements, burden reducing
provisions, and new compliance options, no changes or additions to the
recordkeeping requirements in subpart VV or GGG are needed to document
and/or enforce these amendments. The recordkeeping requirements apply
to the new standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts VVa and GGGa), as
proposed, with a few exceptions. First, we removed the requirement to
record the time of each monitoring event because the total number of
pieces of equipment that are monitored each day should be sufficient
for evaluating the ability of an operator to properly perform EPA
Method 21. Second, records of information on bypass lines are not
required because the new subpart does not include the requirement to
monitor bypass lines. Third, because sources subject to subpart GGGa
are not required to comply with the monitoring requirements applicable
to connectors, the associated recordkeeping requirements do not apply
to those sources. CAA section 114 specifically provides that we may
have access to and copy any records and inspect any monitoring
equipment and compliance method.

E. Burden Estimates

    Comment: According to one commenter, the burden impact analyses of
the proposed new recordkeeping and reporting requirements as presented
in the preamble and docket do not comply with the ICR requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The proposed new requirements of
concern to the commenter are the requirements to keep records of
information for all monitoring events, the time of each monitoring
event, the time a new pump or valve is placed in service and results of
new monitoring requirements for such pumps and valves, results from the
new monitoring requirement for OEL, results of the new calibration
drift checks, and results of weekly pump inspections. Another commenter
also stated that the ICR requirements in the PRA were not met for
recordkeeping and reporting associated with the proposed initial
monitoring requirement for valves. A third commenter expressed a
general concern that the proposed recordkeeping requirements may not
meet the administrative requirements for proposing new NSPS.
    One commenter noted several specific deficiencies and concerns with
the burden impact analyses. First, it is not clear if all of the
proposed new requirements are addressed in the ICR for sources subject
to NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG because the ICR does not discuss
the incremental effects of the new requirements. Second, the ICR for
SOCMI sources appears to address impacts only for those sources that
elect to comply with the CAR option, not those that would comply
directly with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. Third, no ICR analyses were
provided for sources that are subject to other rules that reference
subpart VV (i.e., NSPS subparts DDD and KKK of 40 CFR part 60, and the
Refinery NESHAP). Fourth, the available analyses appear to address
burden impacts only for sources that become subject to subparts VV and
GGG in the future, but the proposed new requirements also would apply
to sources that are currently subject to subpart VV or any of the rules
that reference it. Fifth, even if some facilities voluntarily collect
some of the records of concern, a requirement making their collection
mandatory is still subject to the PRA, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
Executive Order 12866. Sixth, the commenter noted that the claim in the
preamble that records of all monitoring events would be ``useful'' is
not a legal basis for imposing the recordkeeping requirement. Seventh,
if the total burden for all of the sources exceeds $100 million per
year, additional review is triggered under other laws and Executive
Order 12866. Based on the lack of analyses, the commenter stated that
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements cannot be imposed on
any sources, except perhaps new sources subject to subpart GGG, without
additional proposal notice and opportunity for public comment.
    Response: We disagree with the conclusions drawn by the commenters
regarding the availability of the ICR. Document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0699-0038 is the ICR associated with the CAR and all subparts that
reference the CAR. This supporting statement displays the burden for
sources that opt to comply with the CAR and for sources that opt to
comply with their own referenced subpart, including 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV. For reference, pages 2-3, 6-7, 12-16, 33, 53, 77, and 112
all provide information specific to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    For the final amendments and new standards, we have made
adjustments to the supporting statements for all subparts involved. The
burden associated with the amended 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and the
new 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa is included in the supporting statement
for the CAR and all other referenced subparts. The burden associated
with the amended 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG and the new 40 CFR part
60, subpart GGGa is included in the supporting statement that
originally just supplied information for subpart GGG.
    Because this particular rulemaking did not evaluate sources subject
to 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD and KKK or the Refinery NESHAP, we have
not included any changes to the associated ICR for these subparts.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs
and benefits, as well as the energy, solid waste, and other effects. We
are presenting estimates of the impacts for the 500 ppm leak definition
for valves and the 2,000 ppm leak definition for pumps in 40 CFR part
60, subparts VVa and GGGa and connector monitoring in subpart VVa. The
final amendments are clarifications to the existing subpart VV and
subpart GGG to 40 CFR part 60; they have no associated emission
reduction impacts. The cost, environmental, and economic impacts of the
new standards are expressed as incremental differences between the
impacts of SOCMI and petroleum refining process units complying with
the new subparts and the current NSPS requirements (i.e., baseline).
The impacts are presented for SOCMI and petroleum refining process

units constructed, reconstructed, or modified over the next 5 years.
The analyses and the supporting documentation referenced below can be
found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699.
    EPA estimates that there are no significant energy or secondary
environmental impacts as a result of the new standards. The new
standards are changes to work practice requirements and do not require
changes to equipment or control devices. Therefore, use of fuel or
electricity is not expected to increase significantly as a result of
the new standards. Likewise, the new standards do not require physical
changes that have the potential to increase wastewater or solid waste
from SOCMI or petroleum refinery process units.

A. What are the impacts for SOCMI process units?

    The methodology used to estimate impacts for the lower leak
definitions for pumps and valves in the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa
is essentially the same as the methodology described in section VI.A of
the preamble for the proposed amendments (71 FR 65311, November 7,
2006). There are, however, a few changes in the assumptions. We
adjusted the estimates of baseline emissions and monitoring frequencies
for new, modified, and reconstructed process units not subject to the
HON, the MON, or the Ethylene NESHAP to better reflect baseline
conditions.
    In addition, we added emission reduction and cost impacts for the
monitoring of connectors. The analysis completed for the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV was documented in a technical
memorandum (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0035). Based on the leak frequencies
obtained from Revised MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and
Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical Manufacturing
Facilities (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121-0004) at a leak definition of 500 ppm,
we estimated that connectors would be monitored once every 4 years.
SOCMI process units subject to the HON are already required to monitor
connectors, so the baseline impacts for process units subject to these
standards were equivalent to the impacts of the new standards. The
methodology did not change for the analysis of the impacts for
connectors subject to the new subpart VVa of 40 CFR part 60.
    Based on the assumptions described above, we estimate that the new
standards will reduce emissions of VOC about 325 tons/yr from the
baseline. The estimated increase in annual cost, including annualized
initial costs, is about $821,000. The cost-effectiveness is about
$1,700 per ton of VOC removed. The estimated nationwide 5-year
incremental emissions reductions and cost impacts for each of the new
standards are summarized in Table 2 of this preamble.

            Table 2.--National Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for SOCMI Units Subject to Standards Under Subpart VVa of 40 CFR Part 60
                                                                [5th Year After Proposal]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual
                                                             emission      Total initial    Annualized       Recovery      Total annual        Cost-
                       Requirement                          reductions,   cost, $million       cost,        credit,\1\         cost,      effectiveness,
                                                              tons/yr                      $thousand/yr    $thousand/yr    $thousand/yr        $/ton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower leak definition for valves and pumps..............              94            0.15              41              77             -36            -380
Monitor connectors......................................             230            3.1              780             190             590           2,500
                                                         -----------------
    Total...............................................             325            3.25             821             270             554           1,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Value of recovered product is $818/ton.

B. What are the impacts for petroleum refining process units?

    The methodology used to estimate impacts for the new 40 CFR part
60, subpart GGGa is essentially the same as the methodology described
in section VI.B of the preamble for the proposed amendments (71 FR
65311). There are, however, a few changes in the assumptions. For
example, we originally assumed that the leak definitions in the
Refinery NESHAP for valves and pumps on new sources since July 14,
1994, are equivalent to the leak definitions in 40 CFR part 60,
subparts VVa and GGGa. However, the leak definitions in subparts VVa
and GGGa are, in fact, more stringent than the Refinery NESHAP
(proposed amendments at 72 FR 50716, September 4, 2007, did not include
any changes to the equipment leak standards). Therefore, process units
subject to both standards will comply with the leak definitions in
subpart GGGa, so we revised the analysis of the impacts for the
promulgated amendments to include the impacts for sources subject to
both the Refinery NESHAP and subpart GGGa. We also adjusted the
estimates of baseline emissions and monitoring frequencies for process
units not subject to a consent decree. The revised impacts analysis is
described in detail in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699.
    We estimate that the new standards will reduce emissions of VOC
about 13 tons/yr from the baseline. The estimated increase in annual
cost, including annualized initial costs, is about $26,000. The cost-
effectiveness is about $1,600 per ton of VOC removed. The estimated
nationwide 5-year incremental emissions reductions and cost impacts for
the new standards are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.

     Table 3.--National Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for Petroleum Refinery Units Subject to Standards Under Subpart GGGa of 40 CFR Part 60
                                                                [5th Year After Proposal]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual
                                                             emission      Total initial   Total annual      Recovery      Total annual        Cost-
                       Requirement                          reductions,        cost,           cost,        credit,\1\         cost,      effectiveness,
                                                              tons/yr        $thousand     $thousand/yr    $thousand/yr    $thousand/yr        $/ton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower leak definition for valves and pumps..............              13              24              26               7              19          1,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Value of recovered product is $545/ton.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    An economic impact analysis was performed to compare the control
costs associated with producing a product at petroleum refineries and
various types of SOCMI facilities to the average value of shipments
from such facilities. Since we are unable to associate projected
control costs with specific facilities, we examined two polar cases for
each industry, (1) a worst-case and (2) a best-case scenario. For the
SOCMI, the polar cases are: (1) No more than eight complex process
units located at a single facility and (2) no more than one process
unit per facility. For petroleum refineries, the polar cases are: (1)
All of the affected process units associated with one facility in the
industry and (2) no more than one affected process unit at any given
facility. In all cases, the magnitude of the costs is quite small. The
only scenario for which the control costs reach 0.3 percent of the
facility value of shipments is if an average ethyl alcohol
manufacturing facility (in terms of value of shipments) experienced the
worst case scenario of 8 complex processing units requiring control.
Therefore, while the distribution of costs to small entities is
unknown, no significant impact is expected for facilities of any size.
The impact of the regulation on prices and profitability depends on the
extent that the costs of control are passed on in the form of higher
prices or absorbed by the facility. Because the costs are so small, any
price increases or loss of profit would be quite small. No significant
impact is expected as a result of the final amendments or the new
standards of performance for equipment leaks of VOC for the petroleum
refining industry and SOCMI.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final amendments to the standards of performance for SOCMI and
petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG) do not
impose any new information collection burden. The final amendments to
these existing rules contain only clarifications, burden reducing
provisions, and new compliance options. OMB has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0443,
EPA ICR number 1854.04, to the ICR for subpart VV and OMB control
number 2060-0067, EPA ICR number 0983.08, to the ICR for subpart GGG. A
copy of the OMB-approved ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby,
Collection Strategies Division, Environmental Protection Agency
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The information collection requirements in these new final
standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts VVa and GGGa) have been submitted
for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq. The information collection requirements are not enforceable
until OMB approves them.
    The information to be collected for the new standards are based on
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, which are mandatory for all operators
subject to NSPS. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
    Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa are required to
comply with the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for equipment leaks as required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VV, along with certain additional requirements. The new recordkeeping
provisions in subpart VVa require general identifying information for
each monitoring activity required by the rule and specific information
needed to demonstrate compliance with the new monitoring provisions for
connectors and pumps in light liquid service (weekly visual inspections
for indications of dripping liquids). Records are also required to
demonstrate compliance with the QA/QC requirement for a calibration
drift assessment at the end of each day and comparison of the results
of the assessment with the most recent calibration value. A new,
reconstructed, or modified affected facility subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VVa or GGGa must submit a notification of compliance status