

[Federal Register: April 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 66)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 17401-17409]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ap06-26]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199; FRL-8055-2]
RIN 2060-AL98

 
Alternative Work Practice To Detect Leaks From Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Numerous EPA air pollution standards require specific work 
practices for equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR). The current 
work practice requires the use of a monitor which meets required 
performance specifications. This work practice is based on 25-year-old 
technology. New technology has been developed which we believe provides 
equal, or better, environmental protection than that provided by the 
current work practice. This action proposes a voluntary alternative 
work practice (AWP) for finding leaking equipment using optical gas 
imaging.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before June 5, 2006, or 30 days 
after the date of any public hearing, if later.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by April 26, 2006, a public hearing will be held on May 
4, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0199, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Air Docket, EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two 
copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 
B102, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should 
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0199. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by law. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The Web site http://www.regulations.gov 

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in http://www.regulations.gov.
 Although listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by law. 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 in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. and will be held at the EPA facility complex in Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons 
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a 
public hearing is to be held must contact Mr. David Markwordt; Coatings 
and Chemicals Group; Sector Policies and Programs Division; EPA; 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone (919) 541-0837.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on the 
proposed rule amendment, review the reports listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.
    General and technical information. Mr. David Markwordt, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (C439-03), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-0837, facsimile number (919) 541-0942, electronic 
mail (e-mail) address: ``markwordt.david@epa.gov.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected 
by the proposed rule amendment include, but are not limited to:

[[Page 17402]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                      NAICS *                 Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................             325  Chemical manufacturers.
                                                      324  Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal
                                                            products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Information Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the 
national emission standards. To determine whether your facility would 
be affected by the national emission standards, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and 65, including, 
but not limited to: Part 60, subparts A, Kb, VV, XX, DDD, GGG, KKK, 
QQQ, and WWW; part 61, subparts F, L, V, BB, and FF; part 63, subparts 
G, H, I, R, S, U, Y, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, OO, PP, QQ, SS, TT, UU, VV, 
YY, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, MMM, OOO, VVV, FFFF, and GGGGG; and part 65, 
subparts A, F, and G. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of the national emission standards to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule amendment will also be 
available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 
Following signature, a copy of the proposed rule amendment will be 
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
 The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control.
    Reports for Public Comment. We have prepared a summary memorandum 
covering the rationale for the proposed rule amendment. The memorandum 
is entitled: ``Basis and Purpose for the Alternative Leak Detection and 
Repair (LDAR) Work Practice,'' and is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0199. See the preceding Docket section for docket information and 
availability.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background Information
    A. What is the current LDAR work practice?
    B. What are the current LDAR requirements?
    C. What is the statutory basis for these requirements?
    D. How can the existing requirements be changed?
    E. Why is EPA proposing consideration of an alternative LDAR 
work practice?
    F. How does the new optical gas imaging technology work?
    G. How were emission reductions estimated for LDAR programs 
originally?
    H. What did the Agency do to compare existing and proposed work 
practice effectiveness?
    I. How well does the new technology work?
    J. How does this proposed voluntary work practice promote 
development of innovative technology?
    K. Request for comments
II. Summary of the Regulatory Action
III. 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 and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Background Information

A. What is the current LDAR work practice?

    Numerous EPA air pollution control standards require specific work 
practices for LDAR. These practices require plant operators to 
periodically inspect designated equipment for leaks. The work practice 
currently employed requires the use of a monitor which meets the 
performance specifications of EPA Reference Method 21.
    The monitor is a portable instrument that is used to detect leaks 
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) at the leak interface of the equipment component. The work 
practice requires periodic monitoring of the equipment, usually on a 
quarterly basis. A ``leak'' is generally defined under the current 
rules as 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of VOC and 500 ppmv 
of HAP, as measured by the monitor (i.e., the EPA Reference Method 21 
instrument).

B. What are the current LDAR requirements?

    U.S. refineries, chemical manufacturers, and other industries are 
required to identify leaks using EPA Reference Method 21 for processes 
and streams described in various subparts of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 
and 65, including, but not limited to: Part 60, subparts A, Kb, VV, XX, 
DDD, GGG, KKK, QQQ, and WWW; part 61, subparts F, L, V, BB, and FF; 
part 63, subparts G, H, I, R, S, U, Y, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, OO, PP, QQ, 
SS, TT, UU, VV, YY, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, MMM, OOO, VVV, FFFF, and GGGGG; 
and part 65, subparts A, F, and G. Currently, covered facilities must 
periodically monitor each regulated component (e.g., pump, valve, 
connector, closed vent system, etc.) with an EPA Reference Method 21 
instrument. The frequency of such monitoring may vary from each month 
to every 4 years depending on the subpart and the piece of equipment 
being monitored. If equipment is found to be leaking, the equipment is 
tagged and required to be repaired within a specified time.
    The current LDAR work practice involves placing an EPA Reference 
Method 21 instrument probe at the leak interface (seal) of a component 
and registering a VOC and/or HAP concentration. We developed a 
correlation which relates the mass rate of VOC or HAP leaking from the 
component to the concentration registered by the instrument. EPA and 
some State agencies have established different concentration thresholds 
which define a leak. If the concentration exceeds the leak definition, 
then the component must be repaired. EPA's leak definition varies from 
500 ppmv to 10,000 ppmv depending on the type of component and the 
specific subpart.
    After the LDAR program has been used for a few periods, the number 
of leaks detected decreases because pre-existing leaks have been 
repaired and may not leak for extended periods of time. Although repair 
costs decrease as the number of leaks are reduced, the costs of 
conducting EPA Reference Method 21 monitoring remains constant, 
resulting in a decrease in cost-effectiveness.

C. What is the statutory basis for these requirements?

    Current LDAR requirements are primarily applicable to sources 
through EPA work practice standards promulgated under Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 111 (New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)) and section 
112 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP)). These sections authorize EPA to

[[Page 17403]]

promulgate work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission 
standards where ``it is not feasible in the judgment of the 
Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' because 
the regulated pollutants ``cannot be emitted through a conveyance 
designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant * * * or 
[because] the application of measurement methodology to a particular 
class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic 
limitations.'' 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(1), (2); see also 42 U.S.C. 
7411(h)(1), (2).
    In promulgating such standards, we are not required to mandate a 
single work practice applicable to all sources in a source category but 
may instead provide several AWP options. Indeed, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has indicated 
that EPA may provide sources with multiple work practice compliance 
options if EPA demonstrates that at least one of these options is cost 
effective and ``expressly provides for the alternative in the 
standard.'' Arteva Specialties S.R.R.L., d/b/a KoSa v. EPA, 323 F.3d 
1088, 1092 (DC Cir. 2003).

D. How can the existing requirements be changed?

    Once promulgated, EPA retains the authority to provide additional 
work practice alternatives. Such authority exists under EPA's general 
authority to review and amend its regulations as appropriate, e.g., 42 
U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6).

E. Why is EPA proposing to consider an alternative LDAR work practice?

    On November 17, 2000, the American Petroleum Institute (API) 
requested a meeting with EPA to initiate discussion regarding approval 
of an alternative LDAR work practice based on the proposed work 
practice's ``equivalency'' with the current EPA Reference Method 21 
based LDAR work practice. While the request did not indicate if it was 
invoking EPA(s general rulemaking authority or the AWP provisions of 
CAA sections 111 and 112, EPA has treated the request as being for a 
general rulemaking because API's request was not specific to any single 
source category.
    API(s request was based upon ongoing studies involving API, EPA, 
and the Department of Energy designed to provide guidance for 
conducting LDAR programs in a more cost-effective manner. These studies 
began with a 1997 study conducted by API. It evaluated data collected 
under the LDAR program by seven Los Angeles, California, refineries in 
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The data was 
examined to help determine: (1) The design and operational 
characteristics that influence leaks from equipment; and (2) whether a 
sub-population of chronic leakers existed which could be the primary 
focus of a more cost-effective LDAR program. SCAQMD requires refineries 
to screen all accessible components quarterly (valves, connectors etc.) 
and defines a leak as equal to, or greater than, 1,000 ppmv as 
registered with an EPA Reference Method 21 instrument.
    The API study analyzed 11.5 million LDAR program monitoring values 
collected over 5\1/2\ years, 1991 to mid-1996. The data were analyzed 
to determine if certain component designs or component applications 
(e.g., gate valves vs. globe valves, different process units, or 
different frequencies of actuation) are more susceptible to leaks. The 
refinery screening study showed that about 0.13 percent of components 
contribute greater than 90 percent of controllable fugitive emissions. 
This small population of large leakers is random over time, type of 
component, and process unit. Thus, no clear criteria exist for 
predicting which components are likely to leak.
    Consequently, the refining industry began to analyze alternative 
work practices/technologies to find leaking equipment more efficiently. 
The outgrowth of this analysis was the development of a work practice 
based on optical gas imaging.

F. How does the new optical gas imaging technology work?

    Currently available optical gas imaging technologies fall into two 
general classes, active and passive. The active type uses a laser beam 
that is reflected by the background. The attenuation of the beam 
passing through a hydrocarbon cloud provides the optical image. The 
passive type uses ambient illumination to detect the difference in heat 
radiance of the hydrocarbon cloud.
    The principle of operation of the active system is the production 
of an optical image by reflected (backscattered) laser light, where the 
laser wavelength is such that it is strongly absorbed by the gas of 
interest. The system illuminates the scene with infrared light and a 
video camera-type scanner picks up the backscattered infrared light. 
The camera converts this backscattered infrared light to an electronic 
signal, which is displayed in real-time as an image. Since the scanner 
is only sensitive to illumination from the infrared light source and 
not the sun, the camera is capable of displaying an image in either day 
or night conditions.
    The passive instrument has a tuned optical lens, which is in some 
respects like ``night-vision'' glasses. It selects and displays a video 
image of light of a particular frequency range and filters out the 
light outside of that frequency range. In one design, by superimposing 
the filtered light (at a frequency that displays VOC gas) on a normal 
video screen, the instrument (or camera) displays the VOC cloud in real 
time in relationship to the surrounding process equipment. The operator 
can see a plume of VOC gas emanating from a leak.

G. How were emission reductions estimated for LDAR programs originally?

    The most accurate technique for measuring mass emissions from 
leaking equipment requires the ``bagging,'' or physical isolation, of 
each component leak and subsequent measurement. This technique is 
estimated to cost approximately $500 per component. Facilities may have 
as many as a million components, making bagging each component 
impractical and prohibitively expensive.
    The original EPA studies correlated EPA Reference Method 21 
measurement values (i.e., screening values) with a mass emissions rate 
from limited bagging results as a way to estimate emissions from the 
total population of components. The resulting correlation equations 
enable the calculation of emissions from the total population of 
equipment by plugging all measured EPA Reference Method 21 screening 
values into those equations. EPA used the original screening values 
from uncontrolled plants to determine both the amount of uncontrolled 
emissions and which leaks require repair. The original studies showed 
that mass emissions associated with EPA Reference Method 21 screening 
values equal to, or greater than, 10,000 ppmv represented 95 percent of 
the total emissions, but involved only 5 percent of all the equipment. 
Based on the correlation approach, the 10,000 ppmv leak definition, in 
conjunction with the quarterly periodic detection requirement, reduces 
emissions by approximately 70 to 80 percent.
    Because the cost of direct emission measurement, i.e., bagging each 
component, is so expensive, the correlation approach is the only cost-
effective way to estimate emissions. However, there is some uncertainty 
associated with any emission estimates based on using the correlation

[[Page 17404]]

equations. These uncertainties arise because the correlation equations 
do not take into account the inherent variability of equipment leak 
emissions recorded through direct periodic measurements. We are unable 
to determine whether leak rates are constant or intermittent, how 
effective repair is, and whether leaks are chronic or random.
    Also, the calculation of emission estimates from leaking equipment 
using correlation equations cannot be used with instruments other than 
the EPA Reference Method 21 instruments, i.e., organic vapor analyzers. 
In other words, the correlation equations and emission factors are 
directly linked to EPA Reference Method 21. Therefore, it was necessary 
to develop a methodology specifically for the purpose of comparing 
existing and alternative work practices.

H. What did the Agency do to compare existing and proposed work 
practice effectiveness?

    Any new work practice must be as equally protective of the 
environment as the current work practice. Because it is too costly to 
measure mass emissions directly, EPA developed a computer model that 
allows the simulation of leaks as well as the effect of various leak 
definitions and monitoring frequencies. This model performs a side by 
side comparison of alternative work practices to the current EPA 
Reference Method 21 based work practice.
    1. How does the model work? The model's four basic steps can be 
summarized as follows:

--Select an uncontrolled population of process equipment components 
with known EPA Reference Method 21 field data which has been used to 
estimate mass emission rates,
--Simulate each work practice for each equipment component to determine 
the work practice's response to mass emission leak rates,
--Identify leakers by comparing each work practice's response to the 
various leak definitions. Reduce emissions from detected leakers to 
simulate the effect of being repaired, and
--Calculate total emissions for both the current work practice and 
alternative work practices.

    2. What are the issues in developing the comparative work practices 
model?

--To make an equivalency determination of any AWP requires modeling of 
an uncontrolled facility. The control effectiveness of the current EPA 
Reference Method 21 based work practice was based on facility leak 
rates dating from the 1970s. EPA Reference Method 21 plant emissions 
data from the 1970s provided the basis for the regulatory requirements 
for refinery and chemical plants at that time. These facilities were 
uncontrolled; that is, these facilities did not have LDAR programs in 
place at the time. The original uncontrolled baseline EPA Reference 
Method 21 data used to develop the existing work practice would have 
been appropriate to make the comparison. Unfortunately, this 25-year-
old database is no longer available. The only uncontrolled data 
available were from natural gas processing plants which were used in 
the modeled comparison. These plants were screened with EPA Reference 
Method 21 instruments in the early 1990s as part of an EPA/industry 
effort to develop emission factors for the refinery and gas processing 
industries.
--There is a large variance in EPA Reference Method 21 screening values 
for a given mass emission rate. That is, the empirical data show that 
the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument will register different ppmv 
concentrations for the same mass emission leak.

    Based on a 1993 petroleum industry study, EPA developed a 
statistical relationship between measured (bagged) mass emissions and 
the associated measured EPA Reference Method 21 screening values. The 
study contained a database of 337 paired values (i.e., mass emissions 
rate (kg/hr) and screening value (ppmv) for each valve). This 
statistical relationship established the probability of registering an 
EPA Reference Method 21 screening value for a given range of mass 
emissions. The statistical relationship was then used to simulate 
detection of leaks by the EPA Reference Method 21 work practice in the 
computer model. The model selects a screening value for the current EPA 
Reference Method 21 work practice for each mass emission rate 
associated with the population of uncontrolled equipment. The modeling 
program compares the screening value of EPA Reference Method 21 to 
various leak definitions to determine if a leak would be detected. 
Similarly, the model assigns a mass rate detection limit to the AWP. 
For each component with a leak at or above the assigned mass detection 
limit, the program specifies detection by the AWP.

--The model must also consider the frequency of applying the work 
practice. The emission control effectiveness of any work practice is a 
function of both its ability to detect leakage and the frequency of 
monitoring. An equivalent work practice may require more frequent 
monitoring, depending on its mass rate threshold for detecting leaks. A 
work practice which detects leaks at a higher mass rate than the 
current work practice would need to be practiced more frequently than 
the current periodic requirement of once a quarter. A more frequent 
monitoring requirement becomes necessary because higher mass emissions 
reductions from large leaks, found earlier, are offset to some degree 
by smaller leaks which go undetected.
--The AWP mass detection limit and monitoring frequency were varied and 
modeled to determine the equivalent mass emission reduction to the 
existing work practice. For both the existing work practice and the 
AWP, the model then reduces emissions from components found leaking to 
simulate emissions from repaired components. Finally, total emissions 
from the AWP are compared to emissions from the current work practice. 
Modeling results showed a work practice repeated bimonthly with a 
detection limit of 60 grams per hour (g/hr) range was equivalent to the 
existing work practice. The model also showed a work practice repeated 
semi-quarterly with a detection limit of 85 g/hr range was equivalent 
to the existing work practice.

    The model generated different detection limits for the 500 and 
10,000 ppmv thresholds in existing rules. The proposed rule reflects 
the mass detection limit for 500 ppmv, i.e., the more stringent limit 
which provides equivalency for both leak definitions.

I. How well does the new technology work?

    Lab and field data demonstrate that the optical gas imaging 
technology can routinely detect leaks at a mass rate of approximately 
60 g/hr. The imaging technology has negligible variance associated with 
its ability to detect leaks of 60 g/hr.
    Five laboratory and field tests have been conducted using optical 
gas imaging for fugitive emissions monitoring at both refineries and 
petrochemical plants. Each test used at least one of the imager types: 
CO2 laser imager, ``fiber'' laser imager, and passive IR 
imager. In each case, the imager was successfully tested at chemical 
plants or refineries.
    Based on the model used to compare existing and proposed work 
practice effectiveness, a leak mass rate of 60 g/hr was determined as 
the equivalent for

[[Page 17405]]

an AWP. The tests conducted on the optical gas imaging technology 
showed that the imagers could detect a leak with a mass rate of as low 
as 1 g/hr.
    Several evaluations have been conducted to demonstrate the ability 
of the optical gas imaging technology to detect a range of VOC under 
typical plant operating conditions. The technology currently available 
has been shown to detect propylene, ethylene, formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde, isoprene, all butanes, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, all 
pentenes, all pentanes, all trimethybenzenes, all xylenes, all 
ethyletoluenes, and all hexenes.
    In one test, a side-by-side comparison of EPA Reference Method 21 
and the optical gas imaging device was conducted. This study took place 
at two different plants and tested four different imagers: Two passive 
IR imagers, long-wave BAGI imager, and mid-wave BAGI imager. A total of 
66 leaks were discovered at the two sites. The imagers detected 31 
leaks and the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument detected 49 leaks. The 
imagers and the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument found 14 of the same 
leaks. Neither method for detecting leaks discovered all leaking 
equipment at the test sites. Of the leaks discovered by the imagers, 
leak mass rates ranged between 1 g/hr and over 100 g/hr. The imagers 
did detect all leaks with leak mass rates greater than 60 g/hr, thus 
supporting the conclusion that the optical gas imaging device will 
detect leaks above the 60 g/hr threshold.

J. How does the proposed voluntary work practice promote development of 
innovative technology?

    Several field and laboratory studies have been conducted to 
demonstrate the use of optical gas imaging for fugitive emissions 
monitoring. In both the laboratory and field tests, the technology has 
been shown to find leaks. However, some of these laboratory and field 
tested units are prototypes which are not yet commercially available. 
Vendors will only manufacture the technology if there is a demand for 
the equipment. Our current regulations do not allow companies to use 
the new technology. Thus, we propose to add amendatory language to 
allow companies to elect an AWP based on the new technology. Allowing 
this AWP will, therefore, encourage development of this technology 
because it should open the market driven by regulatory requirements to 
optical gas imaging equipment.

K. Request for Comments

    We are requesting comment on the need for clarifying language in 
individual subparts, the use of optical gas imaging technology for 
monitoring closed vent systems, and opportunities for reduced 
recordkeeping and reporting burden.
    We are contemplating incorporating the appropriate rule language 
for the AWP into the General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63, and 
65. The new work practice requirements are nearly identical to the 
existing work practice requirements with the exception of the 
instrument used to detect the leaks. Therefore, rather than amending 
all of the applicable subparts, we are considering amending only the 
General Provision language of each part. These amendments would be 
intended to allow for the use of the optical gas imaging technology. 
Facilities choosing to demonstrate compliance with LDAR requirements by 
using the AWP would continue to comply with all the non-instrumentation 
requirements of the existing subparts. We are requesting public comment 
regarding whether the proposed amendatory language provides sufficient 
legal authority for a source to utilize the AWP for complying with the 
LDAR requirements.
    Additionally, we are requesting public comment on whether the 
amendatory language clearly explains what requirements a source must 
satisfy if using the AWP. Current subparts language includes many 
requirements specific to the EPA Reference Method 21 based work 
practice, specifically to the Method 21 instrument itself. Although the 
specific EPA Reference Method 21 requirements would not be applicable 
to a source using the AWP, that language may confuse a source regarding 
what requirements would apply. We are, therefore, seeking comment on 
whether the amendatory language provided in today's notice sufficiently 
enables a source to identify the applicable requirements for using the 
AWP, or whether it is necessary to amend all of the existing subparts 
to clarify which of the existing requirements apply only to the EPA 
Reference Method 21 based work practice.
    Current requirements specify annual monitoring of closed vent 
systems with an EPA Reference Method 21 instrument. Vent systems used 
to route emissions to control devices are required to be closed. The 
original ppmv threshold was set at 5 percent of the leak definition 
(10,000 ppmv) or 500 ppmv. This threshold has never been changed even 
though the leak definition for many standards was lowered to 500 ppmv.
    The modeled results show a similar mass limit threshold for both 
500 and 10,000 ppmv. This suggests the optical gas imaging technology 
as specified for LDAR could be used to satisfy the closed vent system 
monitoring requirements. We could use the same approach we used 
originally, that is, use 5 percent of the new threshold, i.e., 3 g/hr 
as the basis for monitoring closed vent systems. We are soliciting 
comment on the appropriateness of also using the optical gas imaging 
technology for closed vent systems.
    Facilities subject to current rules will, for the purpose of the 
alternative LDAR work practice, still rely on the current rule language 
for all recordkeeping and reporting requirements which are not specific 
to the use of the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument. We are soliciting 
comment on alternative recordkeeping and reporting requirements which 
may be feasible with the optical gas imaging technology.

II. Summary of the Regulatory Action

    The proposed AWP allows owners or operators to identify leaking 
equipment using an optical gas imaging instrument instead of a leak 
monitor prescribed in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7. The new work 
practice requirements are identical to the existing work practice 
requirements except for those requirements which are directly or 
indirectly associated with the instrument used to detect the leaks. For 
example, owners or operators are still subject to the existing 
difficult to and unsafe to monitor, repair, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements. If a leak is identified using the optical gas 
imaging instrument, then the leak must be re-screened after repair 
using the imaging instrument.
    Owners or operators must use an optical gas imaging instrument 
capable of imaging compounds in the streams that are regulated by the 
applicable rule. The imaging instrument must provide the operator with 
an image of the leak and the leak source.
    Prior to using the optical gas imaging instrument, owners and 
operators must determine the mass flow rate that the imaging instrument 
will be required to image. The optical gas imaging instrument may 
either meet a minimum detection sensitivity mass flow rate (provided in 
the proposed AWP), or owners or operators may calculate the mass flow 
rate for their process by prorating a standard detection sensitivity 
emission rate (provided in the proposed AWP) using equations

[[Page 17406]]

provided in the amendatory language. If the owner or operator chooses 
to prorate the standard detection sensitivity, they must conduct an 
engineering analysis to identify the stream containing the lowest mass 
fraction of chemicals that have to be identified as detectable.
    Owners or operators must conduct a daily instrument check to 
confirm that the optical gas imaging equipment is able to detect leaks 
at the emission rate specified in the amendatory language (or 
calculated by the owner or operator). The instrument check consists of 
using the optical gas imaging instrument to view the mass flow rate 
required to be met exiting a gas cylinder.
    Owners or operators using the AWP must keep records of the 
detection sensitivity level used for the optical gas imaging 
instrument; the analysis to determine the stream containing the lowest 
mass fraction of detectable chemicals; the basis of the mass fraction 
emission rate calculation; documentation of the daily instrument check 
(either with the video recording device, electronically, or written in 
a log book); and the video record of the leak survey.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and, therefore, 
subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    Because the proposed amendments are voluntary and expected to 
reduce burden, it has been determined that the proposed amendment is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive 
Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. et seq. 
Today's proposed decision provides plant operators with an alternative 
method for identifying equipment leaks but does not change the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the various subparts of CFR 
parts 60, 61, 63 and 65. However, EPA anticipates that this proposed 
action will change the burden estimates developed and approved for the 
existing national emission standards by reducing the labor hours 
necessary to identify equipment leaks.
    An ICR document (EPA ICR No. 2210.01) was prepared for this action 
to estimate the costs associated with reading and understanding the 
proposed alternatives, purchasing an optical imaging instrument, and 
initial training of plant personnel. The ICR has been submitted for 
approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The annual public 
burden for this collection of information (averaged over the first 3 
years after the effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 
3,027 labor hours per year and a total annual cost of $2,260,048. EPA 
has established a public docket for this action (Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0199) which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov. The 

ICR for this proposal is included in the public docket.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The ICR for this proposal will be submitted for 
approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. The OMB control numbers for the ICRs developed for the existing 
national emission regulations under CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and 65 are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed amendment 
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
whose parent company has fewer than 100 to 1,500 employees, or a 
maximum of $5 million to $18.5 million in revenues, depending on the 
size definition for the affected North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that the 
small business definition applied to each industry by NAICS code is 
that listed in the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards 
(13 CFR part 121).
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed amendment 
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's 
proposed amendment imposes no additional burden on facilities impacted 
by existing EPA regulations because this action allows for an AWP to 
existing requirements and is voluntary. We continue to be interested in 
the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

[[Page 17407]]

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that today's proposed amendment does not contain 
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector in any 1 year. Therefore, today's proposed amendment 
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 
In addition, today's proposed amendment does not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements 
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. 
Therefore, today's proposed decision is not subject to section 203 of 
the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
The phrase ``policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in 
the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's proposed amendment does not have substantial direct effects 
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 
13132. Thus, the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to 
today's proposed amendment.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' The phrase ``policies that 
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Today's proposed amendment does not have tribal implications. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's proposed 
amendment.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's proposed amendment is not subject to the Executive Order 
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive 
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action presents a 
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Today's proposed amendment is not a ``significant energy action'' 
as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that 
today's proposed amendment is not likely to have any adverse energy 
impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, all Federal 
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in 
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual 
reports to OMB, with explanations when the agency does not use 
available and applicable VCS.
    Today's proposed amendment does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA are not applicable.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Equipment leaks, and Alternative 
monitoring.

    Dated: March 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

[[Page 17408]]

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 60.2 is amended by adding the definitions for 
``Engineering analysis,'' ``Gas imaging instrument,'' ``Imaging,'' and 
``Stream'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
* * * * *
    Engineering analysis means the assessment of the imaging 
technology's capability to detect leaks at the specified sensitivity 
level for each component.
* * * * *
    Imaging means making visible on a screen an emission plume which is 
otherwise invisible to the naked eye.
* * * * *
    Optical gas imaging instrument means an instrument which makes 
visible on a screen an emission plume which is otherwise invisible to 
the naked eye.
* * * * *
    Stream means gasoline or any other stream for which no constituent 
exceeds one percent of the stream by weight.
* * * * *
    3. Section 60.18 is amended by:
    a. The section heading is revised;
    b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and
    c. Adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.18  General Control Device and Work Practice Requirements.

    (a) Introduction. This section contains requirements for control 
devices used to comply with applicable subparts of parts 60 and 61. The 
requirements are here for administrative convenience and only apply to 
facilities covered by subparts referring to this section. This section 
also contains requirements for an alternative work practice used to 
identify leaking equipment. This alternative is placed here for 
administrative convenience and is available to all subparts in 40 CFR 
parts 60, 61, 63, and 65 that require monitoring of leaking equipment 
with a 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7, Method 21 monitor.
* * * * *
    (g) Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks. 
Paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section apply to all leaking equipment.
    (h) This section contains an alternative work practice used to 
identify leaking equipment. Specifically, this section allows a source 
to use an optical gas imaging instrument as described in paragraph 
(i)(1) of this section instead of a 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7, 
Method 21 monitor. This alternative is available to all subparts in 40 
CFR parts 60, 61, 63, and 65 that require monitoring of leaking 
equipment with a 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7, Method 21 monitor.
    (1) An owner or operator of an affected source subject to CFR parts 
60, 61, 63, or 65 can choose to comply with the requirements in 
paragraph (i) of this section instead of using the 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A-7, Method 21 monitor to identify leaking components.
    (2) Any leak identified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section must be 
tagged for repair.
    (3) Re-screening after repairing a leaking component must be 
conducted using the same method used to identify the leaking component.
    (i) Owners or operators of an affected source who choose to use the 
alternative work practice shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section.
    (1) Instrument Specifications. The optical gas imaging instrument 
must meet the following requirements:
    (i) Image the compounds in the streams for which it will be used to 
monitor leaks, and
    (ii) Provide the operator with an image of the potential leak 
points for a component and the regulated species at the standard 
detection sensitivity level selected from Table A, within the distance 
to be used in the daily instrument check of paragraph (i)(2) of this 
section, provided the instrument has been properly adjusted to the 
manufacturer's prescribed settings.
    (2) Daily Instrument Check. Daily prior to beginning any leak 
monitoring work you must test the optical gas imaging instrument at the 
mass flow rate determined in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section in 
accordance with the procedure specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii) 
through (i)(2)(iv) of this section, unless an alternative method to 
demonstrate daily instrument checks has been approved in accordance 
with paragraph (i)(2)(v) of this section.
    (i) The mass flow rate to be used in the daily instrument check 
shall be determined in accordance with either paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A) 
or (i)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
    (A) Calculate a mass flow rate using paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A)(1) and 
(i)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this section.
    (1) For a specified population of components to be imaged by the 
instrument, perform an engineering analysis to identify the stream 
containing the lowest mass fraction of chemicals that have to be 
identified as detectable, within the distance to be used in paragraph 
(i)(2)(iv) of this section, at or below the standard detection 
sensitivity level.
    (2) Multiply the standard detection sensitivity level in Table A by 
the mass fraction of detectable chemicals from the stream identified in 
paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A)(1) of this section to determine the mass flow 
rate to be used in the daily instrument check, using the following 
equation.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AP06.042


Where:

Edic = Mass flow rate for the daily instrument check, grams 
per hour.
Xi = Mass fraction of detectable chemical(s) i seen by the 
optical gas imaging instrument, within the distance to be used in 
paragraph (i)(2)(iv) of this section, at or below the standard 
detection sensitivity level, Esds.
Esds = Standard detection sensitivity from Table A, grams 
per hour.
k = Total number of detectable chemicals emitted from the leaking 
equipment and seen by the optical gas imaging instrument.

    (B) Use the minimum detection sensitivity level specified in Table 
A as the mass flow rate for the daily instrument check. The 
calculations specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A) of this section are 
not required if the daily instrument check is performed at the minimum 
detection sensitivity level.
    (ii) Start the optical gas imaging instrument according to the 
manufacturer's instructions, ensuring that all appropriate settings 
conform to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (iii) Use any gas chosen by the user that can be viewed by the 
optical gas imaging instrument and that has a purity of no less than 98 
percent.
    (iv) Establish a mass flow rate by using the following procedures:
    (A) Position a cylinder of the gas in a secured upright position.
    (B) Set up the optical gas imaging instrument at a recorded 
distance from the outlet or leak orifice of the flow meter that will 
not be exceeded in the actual performance of the leak survey. Do not 
exceed the operating parameters of the flow meter.
    (C) Open the valve on the flow meter to set a flow rate that will 
create a mass emission rate equal to the mass rate specified in 
paragraph (i)(1) of this section while observing the gas flow through 
the optical gas imaging instrument viewfinder. When an image of the gas 
emission is seen through the viewfinder at the required emission rate, 
make a record of the reading on the flow meter.

[[Page 17409]]

    (v) If you wish to use an alternative method to demonstrate daily 
instrument checks, then you must apply to the Administrator for 
approval of the alternative under Sec.  60.13(i).
    (3) Leak Survey Procedure. Operate the optical gas imaging 
equipment to image every regulated component in accordance with the 
instrument manufacturer's operating parameters.
    (4) Recordkeeping. You must keep the following records:
    (i) The detection sensitivity level used for the optical gas 
imaging instrument.
    (ii) The analysis of the component population to determine the 
stream containing the lowest mass fraction of detectable chemicals in 
paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The technical basis for the mass fraction used in the 
equation in paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this section.
    (iv) The daily instrument check. You may document the daily 
instrument check using either a video recording device, electronic 
recordkeeping, or written entry into a log book.
    (v) Recordkeeping requirements in the applicable subpart. A video 
record must be used to document the leak survey results.

                                     Table A.--Detection Sensitivity Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Detection sensitivity level
                                                                    Monitoring           (grams per hour)
                      Monitoring frequency                           frequency   -------------------------------
                                                                      (days)         Standard         Minimum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bi-Monthly......................................................              60              60             6.0
Semi-Quarterly..................................................              45              85             8.5
Monthly.........................................................              30             100            10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E6-5005 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
