[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8844-8860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02811]



[[Page 8844]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299; FRL-8193-01-OAR]


Notice of Final for Approval of Alternative Means of Emission 
Limitation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice, final approval.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces the EPA approval of the request by Flint 
Hills Resources (FHR), under the Clean Air Act (CAA), for an 
alternative means of emission limitation (AMEL) to utilize a leak 
detection sensor network (LDSN) with a detection response framework 
(DRF) at its Meta-Xylene and Mid-Crude process units located at FHR's 
West Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. The EPA received 6 public 
comments on the October 13, 2021, initial notice for this AMEL. This 
approval document specifies the alternative leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) requirements that this facility must follow to demonstrate 
compliance with the approved AMEL. In addition, this notice finalizes a 
framework that facilities can follow to help expedite and streamline 
approval of future AMEL requests for similar systems.

DATES: The approval of the AMEL request from FHR to utilize a LDSN with 
a DRF at its Meta-Xylene and Mid-Crude process units located at FHR's 
West Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, as specified in this document, 
is effective on February 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information 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 electronically 
through https://www.regulations.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action, 
contact Mr. Neil Feinberg, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2214; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in 
this document. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the 
reading of this document and for reference purposes, the EPA defines 
the following terms and acronyms here:

AMEL alternative means of emission limitation
AVO audio, visual, or olfactory
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
DRF detection response framework
DTU upper limit of the detection threshold band
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EST eastern standard time
FHR Flint Hills Resources
FID flame ionization detector
FEMP Fugitive Emissions Management Plan
GPS Global Positioning System
HC hydrocarbon
HON National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry
LDAR leak detection and repair
LDSN leak detection sensor network
LDSN-DRF leak detection sensor network-detection response framework
NC Leaker non-compliant leaker
NSPS new source performance standards
OGI optical gas imaging
ppbe parts per billion equivalent
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PSL potential source location
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QIP quality improvement program
VOC volatile organic compounds
ZIC zone of inadequate coverage

    Organization of this document. The information in this document is 
organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of Public Comments on FHR's AMEL Request and the 
Framework for Streamlining Approval of Future LDSN-DRF AMEL Requests
III. Framework for Streamlining Approval of Future LDSN-DRF AMEL 
Requests
IV. Final Notice of Approval for the Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene 
Process Units at the FHR West Refinery AMEL Request and Required 
Operating Conditions

I. Background

    On April 21, 2020, FHR requested an AMEL under the CAA to use a 
leak detection sensor network-detection response framework (LDSN-DRF) 
at its West and East Refineries located in Corpus Christi, Texas in 
lieu of the traditional LDAR program using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of 
part 60 (EPA Method 21) required by a number of applicable regulations 
in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. See Table 1 in section IV of this 
notice for a complete list of applicable regulations for this AMEL.
    In the initial notice, the EPA solicited comment on all aspects of 
the AMEL request and alternative LDAR requirements that would be 
necessary to achieve a reduction in emissions of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) at least equivalent 
to the reduction in emissions required by the applicable LDAR standards 
listed in Table 1 in section IV of this notice. The initial notice also 
presented and solicited comment on all aspects of a generic framework 
for future LDSN-DRF AMEL requests, which would afford the EPA the 
ability to evaluate those requests in a more efficient and streamlined 
manner.
    FHR included in its AMEL application information to demonstrate 
that the LDSN-DRF will achieve a reduction in emissions at least 
equivalent to the reduction in emissions achieved by the requirements 
in the applicable standards summarized in Table 1 of section IV of this 
notice for the Meta-Xylene and Mid-Crude process units located at FHR's 
West Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. For FHR's AMEL request, 
including any supporting materials FHR submitted, see Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299.
    This action finalizes the EPA's approval of this AMEL request. 
Section II summarizes the comments received on the request and our 
responses thereto. Section III sets forth the final operating 
conditions EPA has established for the LDSN-DRF as part of this AMEL 
approval.

II. Summary of Public Comments on FHR's AMEL Request and the Framework 
for Streamlining Approval of Future LDSN-DRF AMEL Requests

    This section contains a summary of all comments received on the 
October 13, 2021, initial notice,\1\ and the EPA's responses to those 
comments. This section also contains rationale for the alternative LDAR 
requirements that are approved in this notice. The EPA received six 
comments on the initial notice.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 56934 (October 13, 2021).
    \2\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032 (TRICORD 
Consulting, LLC), EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0033 (Anonymous), EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0299-0034 (ATLAS), EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0035 (Molex), EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0299-0036 (FHR), EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0037 (Eastman 
Chemical Company).

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

[[Page 8845]]

A. Comments and Responses Related to General Framework for Future LDSN-
DRF AMEL Requests

    The EPA solicited comment on all aspects of the general framework 
proposed for future AMEL requests using a LDSN-DRF. Two comments were 
received specific to the proposed framework.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0035 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0299-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: In their comments, FHR and Molex, LLC requested that the 
general framework provide flexibility to apply the same Molex LDSN 
design and deployment processes to similar units without the need to 
conduct an additional pilot test. Both commenters stated that the 
science behind the technology is established, and ``substantial'' 
controlled gas release experiments, including the pilot test results 
\4\ presented for this AMEL support their request for flexibility. 
Specifically, FHR and Molex suggested addition of the phrase ``if 
necessary to demonstrate equivalency'' to the language in paragraph 
III.D.(3) regarding submission of the results of the pilot study 
conducted for each unit in a LDSN-DRF AMEL application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Progress on LDAR Innovation, Report on Research Under 
CRADA #914-16'', EPA Publication Number EPA/600/R-20/422, revision 
0.8, located at Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' recommendation 
that test studies are not necessary for each process unit for which an 
AMEL application is submitted. At this time, it is still appropriate to 
require test studies for LDSNs on additional process units in order to 
gather more information on how the networks perform in different types 
of process units. The EPA may reevaluate its position on the necessity 
of test studies in the future if it has more data with which to do so. 
The EPA is providing the framework as described in section III of this 
notice, with no changes from the initial notice. We anticipate this 
framework would enable the Agency to evaluate future AMEL requests for 
LDSN-DRF installations in a more expeditious timeframe because we 
anticipate that the information required by the framework would provide 
sufficient information to evaluate future AMEL requests on a case-by-
case basis. We note that all aspects of future AMEL requests will still 
be subject to the notice and comment process.

B. Comments and Responses Related to the Equivalency Demonstration

    Comment: One commenter \5\ raised concerns with two of the 
assumptions made by FHR when performing simulation modeling to 
demonstrate equivalency of the LDSN-DRF to the applicable EPA Method 21 
LDAR requirements: (1) Leaks would be repaired within 7 days of 
detection and (2) a leak would remain constant from the time it is 
detected until it is repaired. This commenter referenced a statement in 
the EPA's Best Practices Guide for LDAR \6\ that notes a common problem 
related to the repair requirements is that sources fail to complete 
repairs within the specified timeline in the regulation. The commenter 
then states that it is, therefore, inappropriate to assume that a leak 
would be repaired in half the amount of time required by the applicable 
regulation, and instead suggests that FHR should perform new 
simulations assuming 10 to 15 days for repairs. Further, the commenter 
suggests that FHR should conduct more equivalency simulations that do 
not assume a constant leak rate because FHR's discussion on PSL closure 
acknowledges that a PSL cannot be closed if there is an increase in the 
detection level. In the commenter's opinion, this assumes that FHR 
knows that leak rates can change and not remain constant until 
repaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0033.
    \6\ EPA, Leak Detection and Repair: A Best Practices Guide, 
located at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-02/documents-ldarguide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The AMEL requires leaks to be repaired within 15 days of 
detection, with a first attempt within the first five days. During the 
pilot study, there was a median repair time of 2 and 3 days for the 
Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene units, respectively. Based on this 
information, the EPA finds no reason that the average repair time would 
exceed 7 days. The commenter is correct that a leak can increase over 
time, but they fail to note that it could also decrease. The EPA has 
determined the assumption of a constant leak rate between detection and 
repair is appropriate for this AMEL.
    Comment: One commenter noted that some leaks above the upper limit 
of the detection threshold (DTU) were found by EPA Method 21 and not by 
the LDSN and asked how realistic it was that the LDSN would detect 
leaks in a complex process unit.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges that some leaks above the DTU were 
found with EPA Method 21 during the pilot test studies. However, during 
the pilot test studies, FHR continued to adapt and adjust the network. 
Additionally, FHR is adding additional sensors to the network in areas 
that previously had gaps in coverage. These changes should ensure the 
LDSN performs adequately and identifies all leaks above the DTU. The 
annual compliance demonstrations provide added assurance of network 
performance by verifying there are no undetected leaks above the DTU. 
The EPA also notes that the results of the pilot study presented in the 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) showed greater 
emission reductions using the LDSN than with EPA Method 21.
    Comment: One commenter \7\ stated that the sensor network only 
minimally outperformed EPA Method 21 by at most 2 percent. The 
commenter further stated that the size and scope of the study and the 
results suggest this technology still needs scrutiny and that the pilot 
study was performed in controlled conditions with a team of motivated 
researchers present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA has found the performance of the LDSN to be 
equivalent or better than current work practice requirements for the 
Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene process units at FHR's West Refinery in 
Corpus Christi, Texas. Thus, the EPA finds it appropriate to issue this 
AMEL for those process units. Any future approval of this technology 
would be evaluated based on the information provided in that specific 
application.

C. Comments and Responses Related to the LDSN

    Comment: FHR and Molex commented that updating the sensor detection 
floor continuously on a 15-minute basis would result in erroneous 
sensor failure indications and requested the expansion of corrective 
action options to include other appropriate solutions. They stated that 
the sensor detection floor is based on raw sensor readings which are 
collected every second and provided an example where a sensor would be 
shown as failing when updating the sensor detection floor while 
detecting a continuous leak. They stated that no sensor would pass the 
detection floor update requirement once every 15 minutes, as currently 
included in the proposal. Both commenters requested a requirement for 
monthly review of the sensor detection floor, with corrections made if 
the sensor did not pass review. They

[[Page 8846]]

claimed that a bump test is not a calibration, is not performed in a 
``clean'' environment as calibrations are, and adjusting readings based 
on bump tests would create additional uncertainty in sensor readings. 
Additionally, FHR and Molex commented that adjusting the sensor 
detection floor based on a bump test is inappropriate as the sensor 
detection floor is a fixed number set by the manufacturer. 
Additionally, one commenter asked for clarification on how the baseline 
levels are continuously monitored, while another asked for 
clarification on the detection level that indicated emissions. Finally, 
one commenter asked how sensors would be calibrated and verified.
    Response: The EPA is updating the requirements for the sensor 
detection floor. First, the EPA is revising the requirement for a 
continuously updated sensor detection floor such that the data must be 
reviewed each day to confirm each sensor detection floor remains below 
the established threshold of 10 parts-per-billion by volume isobutylene 
equivalent (ppbe) during at least one 10-minute period in the past 72-
hour period. Further, the EPA agrees with FHR and Molex that adjusting 
the sensor detection floor based on a bump test is inappropriate due to 
the variable bump test responses observed during the pilot study, which 
are not related to the baseline noise of the instrument. An emissions 
anomaly is defined as any detection by the sensor network greater than 
the detection floor. Sensors must be calibrated by the manufacturer 
prior to deployment. Once installed, each sensor must be tested for 
responsivity and wireless communication by challenging it with 
isobutylene gas or another appropriate standard. Sensors must pass a 
quarterly bump test or be recalibrated or replaced.
    Comment: FHR and Molex stated in their comments that the collection 
of wind speed and wind direction data is critical to the operation of 
the LDSN. However, both commenters stated that the requirement to have 
a wind sensor located in each individual process unit is not necessary. 
To support their comments, FHR and Molex provided clarification that 
the pilot study conducted for this AMEL at their West Refinery was 
performed with one wind sensor that covered both process units. 
Further, the commenters stated that analysis of wind data from the West 
Refinery and the Corpus Christi airport showed no substantial 
differences between wind sensors at 450 feet apart and wind sensors at 
4 miles apart. Therefore, the commenters recommended that the EPA 
revise the requirement to allow a minimum of one wind sensor covering 
up to a 2-mile radius.
    Another commenter \8\ requested clarification on the acceptance 
criterion for the comparison of the LDSN north orientation wind 
direction sensor with data from the meteorological station located at 
the FHR refinery. This same commenter also asked why wind speed 
information was not included in the LDSN since wind can affect the 
sensitivity of the sensor measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA agrees with FHR and Molex that one meteorological 
station on the FHR site is sufficient for both process units and has 
made this change within the AMEL. As noted by both commenters, only one 
wind sensor was used during the pilot study, and the EPA has determined 
that equivalent emission reductions were achieved based on that pilot 
study. See 86 FR 56941 (October 13, 2021). Regarding the use of wind 
speeds, the EPA notes that wind speeds are continuously collected at 
least once every 15 minutes (paragraph IV.A.(4)), recorded as part of 
the LDSN (paragraph IV.C.(8)), and are used for quality assurance 
checks of the network (paragraph IV.A.(5)(d)). The acceptance criteria 
are listed in the AMEL.
    Comment: FHR requested additional flexibility in meeting quarterly 
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements by allowing QA/
QC tests to be within the same month of the quarter (or no more than 
123 days apart) rather than the 100 days apart included in the initial 
notice. FHR commented that tracking by days would present an additional 
burden and reduce flexibility that the applicable LDAR regulations 
already afford. As an example, FHR stated that new source performance 
standards (NSPS) VV and NSPS VVa require quarterly activities within 
the same month of the quarter (i.e., Month 1 (January/April/July/Oct)) 
and not within a specific number of days. FHR requested this same 
flexibility for the quarterly QA/QC requirements in the AMEL. Finally, 
FHR requests some flexibility if there is an outage of at least 3 weeks 
during the quarter such that either the ``days apart'' requirement does 
not apply for the quarter in which the outage occurs or the number of 
days in the outage are not counted in determining the 123-day 
requirement.
    Response: The EPA agrees with FHR and has changed the requirements 
in paragraph IV.A.(5) to state quarterly QA/QC activities must be 
conducted no more than 123 days apart. EPA disagrees that additional 
flexibility is needed for a prolonged unit outage, as these QA/QC 
procedures are necessary to establish that the LDSN is working as 
intended.
    Comment: FHR and Molex commented that requiring an ambient moisture 
adjustment for all sensors during every bump test is not necessary or 
practical. To support their comments, FHR stated that the Gulf Coast 
experiences significant day-to-day variation in ambient moisture 
levels, citing relative humidity data for Corpus Christi in October 
2021.\9\ Using the proximity of a sensor node to a steam letdown 
station as an example, FHR and Molex further explained that localized 
relative humidity conditions can vary significantly within a specific 
process unit, with moisture levels potentially changing with each steam 
plume that passes a sensor node. Additionally, Molex stated that even 
when a sensor has a response to humidity changes, using a higher gas 
concentration (e.g., 1 part per million (ppm) instead of 0.5 ppm 
isobutylene) may be an appropriate step. Because these localized 
conditions may not affect all sensor nodes in the process unit, FHR and 
Molex recommended allowing ambient moisture adjustments as necessary, 
in place of requiring these adjustments for all sensors during each 
bump test. Finally, FHR requested revisions to the recordkeeping 
requirements related to the ambient moisture level during bump tests if 
the requested changes are made in the AMEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0035 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0299-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: There was not sufficient information provided to 
substantiate the removal of the requirement. The EPA is retaining the 
moisture adjustment requirement due to general sensitivities of sensors 
to humidity. The EPA has clarified the criteria for these adjustments 
in paragraph IV.A.(5)(b)(i). The EPA has not made any adjustments to 
the recordkeeping requirements as a result of this clarification.
    Comment: FHR and Molex requested a correction to the vertical 
sensor placement requirement in the AMEL. Specifically, both commenters 
noted that the initial notice required placement of sensors at least 
every 20 feet vertically. The commenters stated their concern that this 
was an error and that placement every 40 feet vertically was included 
in the LDSN design used for the pilot test study and equivalency 
demonstration. As such, the commenters requested clarification that 
sensor placement within 40 feet vertically is required. Another

[[Page 8847]]

commenter \10\ asked how the AMEL ensures all LDAR components are 
covered under the AMEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA is clarifying that sensors must be spaced no more 
than 40 feet apart vertically, such that no component is more than 20 
feet vertically from a sensor. The data submitted by FHR demonstrates 
that this vertical spacing provides coverage for all applicable 
components. The LDSN-DRF requirements in this AMEL are designed to 
cover all LDAR components in the Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene process 
units at FHR's West Refinery. As part of the AMEL, FHR must document 
that all LDAR components covered by the AMEL are less than the required 
distances from a sensor node both vertically and horizontally. These 
distance limits are based on the pilot test study used in the 
equivalency demonstration.
    Comment: FHR and Molex requested a change in the response factor 
requirement from 3 to 10. FHR stated that EPA Method 21 requires a 
response factor of 10, and FHR requested this same response factor for 
the LDSN because it is equivalent to the EPA Method 21 requirement. 
Further, FHR stated that the response factor for all streams within the 
process units covered by this AMEL is less than 3, which would meet 
their requested limit of 10. Additionally, FHR is concerned that 
limiting the use of the LDSN to streams with a response factor of 3 or 
less will restrict the applicability of the AMEL and may affect the use 
of the AMEL in the Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene process units should 
certain operational changes occur that result in those process units 
having process streams with response factors above 3. Similarly, Molex 
commented that this limit would potentially prevent other facilities 
from applying for an AMEL. Finally, both FHR and Molex commented that 
Molex has significantly improved the ability of their algorithm to 
detect leaks and requested that the allowable response factor limit be 
increased. Another commenter \11\ noted that there was no data to 
support the system would perform adequately for response factors 
greater than 10 and noted that ethylene was particularly difficult to 
detect during the testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In the initial AMEL application, FHR stated that the 
average response factor in the Meta-Xylene unit is 0.8, and that the 
response factor for some LDAR streams in the Mid-Crude unit can be as 
high as 3. While it is possible that the LDSN will perform adequately 
at response factors greater than 3, the data in the pilot test study 
and equivalency demonstration was limited to streams with response 
factors at or below 3. As such, without further data supporting the 
system's performance for streams with higher response factors for these 
process units, the EPA is retaining the response factor limit of 3 at 
the Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene process units at FHR's West Refinery in 
Corpus Christi, Texas. Because each AMEL is site-specific, the EPA 
would evaluate any future AMEL requests, including the appropriate 
response factor limit, based on data provided for the site-specific 
application of the LDSN-DRF system.
    Comment: One commenter \12\ noted that sensor maintenance may be 
extensive with the quarterly bump test requirements and replacements 
within 30 days if the sensor fails. Another commenter \13\ asked why 
the passing criterion of a bump test is only 50 percent of the 
standard's nominal concentration, how initial calibration and set-up of 
sensors would be conducted and verified, and how sensor baseline levels 
are continuously monitored to ensure proper operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
    \13\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Sensors must be calibrated by the manufacturer prior to 
deployment. Once installed, each sensor must be tested for responsivity 
and wireless communication by challenging it with isobutylene gas or 
another appropriate standard. Sensors must pass a quarterly bump test 
or be recalibrated or replaced. These bump tests are not calibrations, 
but simply tests for responsiveness.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the LDSN was similar to a 
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System and asked what repercussions 
there would be for excessive downtime. The commenter noted that an 
appeal of the LDSN is the continuous monitoring, as opposed to 
intermittent EPA Method 21 monitoring, but noted that sensor failure is 
inevitable.
    Response: Each individual sensor is limited to a downtime of no 
more than 10 percent on a rolling 12-month basis. Anything above this 
threshold is a deviation. These deviations must be included in the 
semiannual reports required under the AMEL. Deviations from any 
requirement or obligation established in this AMEL, including the 
individual sensor downtime limitation, are violations that may be 
subject to enforcement.

D. Comments and Responses Related to the DRF

    Comment: The EPA included a 30-day repair requirement for leaks on 
components not subject to LDAR requirements in the initial notice. FHR 
commented that non-LDAR component leaks are outside the scope of the 
regulations covered in this AMEL; therefore, repair should not be 
required under this AMEL. To support their comment, FHR noted these 
non-LDAR component leaks are regulated separately under programs such 
as CERCLA and TCEQ rules, with such leaks reported as title V 
deviations and subject to enforcement. In follow up discussions,\14\ 
FHR requested that if the EPA were to require repair under this AMEL 
for non-LDAR component leaks, then these leaks should also have 
provisions for delay of repair consistent with the provisions for LDAR 
component leaks. Additionally, FHR requested that if a non-LDAR leak is 
identified during an investigation for a potential source location 
(PSL), then repair of that non-LDAR component leak should provide 
allowance to close the PSL. Another commenter \15\ asked if these non-
LDAR component leaks would be subject to a 15-day repair requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supporting materials from May 25, 2022, follow-up 
discussions with FHR located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299.
    \15\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with FHR and has maintained a 
requirement in this AMEL to complete and verify repairs of leaks on 
non-LDAR components within 30 days of identification. The EPA included 
a 30-day repair requirement for leaks on components not subject to LDAR 
requirements in the initial notice both to require repair of leaks 
found (whether or not the leak is from an LDAR component) and to ensure 
that the LDSN is not confounded by the presence of these non-LDAR 
component leaks. 86 FR 56943 (October 13, 2021). The EPA still finds 
that these leaks have the potential to negatively impact the 
performance of the LDSN by potentially masking leaks from covered LDAR 
components which may occur in the same area as the non-LDAR component 
leak. Additionally, these non-LDAR component leaks would already 
require repair under the general duty to reduce emissions in each of 
the applicable subparts. However, the EPA does agree with FHR that 
delay of repair provisions should also apply to non-LDAR

[[Page 8848]]

components; therefore, the AMEL approved in this notice allows for 
delay of repair of non-LDAR component leaks when repair cannot be 
completed within 30 days of identification and either: (1) The repair 
is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown or (2) the 
non-LDAR component is isolated from the process and does not remain in 
contact with process fluids. We also note that these requirements will 
not supersede repair requirements in other regulations to which these 
non-LDAR components may be subject, and that leak sources outside the 
AMEL covered area are not included in this repair requirement.
    Comment: FHR noted that the initial notice did not address their 
request to close a PSL if no emissions source is identified and there 
is no update to the PSL for 14 days (i.e., there are no positive 
detections for more than five percent of the time over a 72-hour 
period). In their comments, FHR again requests the ability to close the 
PSL if, after complying with the initial and secondary surveys, there 
are no updates to the PSL for 14 days, instead of keeping the PSL open 
and conducting a final EPA Method 21 survey after 90 days, as required 
in paragraph IV.B.(4). FHR noted in their comments that the requested 
14-day closure option would not apply to leaks that are ongoing and 
continuing to generate positive detection in the sensor network. They 
further state that if a PSL is closed and the leak reappears, the 
system would generate a new PSL which is then subject to the 
investigation requirements of the DRF. FHR provided suggested revisions 
to paragraph IV.B.(4) of the AMEL to incorporate closure of the PSL at 
both 14 days and 90 days.
    Another commenter \16\ stated that a PSL should not be closed out 
if the leak is unable to be found. This commenter raised concerns that 
the AMEL appeared to allow operations/maintenance to ``close out'' a 
PSL when a leak is unable to be found even when the sensor is detecting 
a leak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FHR recommended specific revisions to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for PSL closures. First, they recommended 
adding records and reporting of a source outside the AMEL-covered 
process unit or a non-LDAR component leak source to paragraph 
IV.C.(11), as applicable. Second, FHR recommended adding records and 
reporting for PSL closures that occur where no cause of the PSL was 
determined after 14 days. Lastly, FHR recommended reporting the number 
of PSLs that are closed because the emissions were authorized, from a 
source outside the AMEL covered process unit, and from a non-LDAR 
component leak source.
    Response: The EPA agrees that there is the potential to have a 
transient leak and it is reasonable to close a PSL if the sensor nodes 
are not showing any indication of leak after 14 days and the required 
investigations have been conducted following generation of the PSL. 
Further, the EPA agrees that if a persistent leak is present, or the 
leak reappears, the LDSN is expected to continue generating a new PSL 
or updates to an existing PSL, thus triggering new investigations for 
the emissions source. Therefore, the EPA has revised paragraph IV.B.(4) 
to include an allowance to close the PSL if the initial and secondary 
investigations failed to identify the leak source and there have been 
no updates to the PSL for 14 days as requested by FHR.
    Further, the EPA is clarifying the requirements for PSL closure in 
situations where 90 days have passed since the original PSL 
notification, but the sensor nodes still indicate the presence of a 
leak. First, we are adding language to paragraph IV.B.(4)(b) to specify 
the requirements of that paragraph apply when 90 days have passed since 
the original PSL notification.\17\ Second, we are clarifying that a 
full survey of all LDAR-applicable components must be conducted within 
10 calendar days following the 90-day period following the original PSL 
notification to verify there are no detectable leaks within that PSL 
before closure of the PSL is allowed. Finally, the EPA is making the 
requested adjustments to the recordkeeping and reporting requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Paragraph IV.B(3) requires initiating a new investigation 
within 3 calendar days when the detections increase by a factor of 2 
since the original PSL notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: FHR commented that the requirements around the accuracy 
and precision of the Global Positioning System (GPS) data collected 
during the 30-minute initial investigation are too narrow and limit the 
use of future technological advancements. Additionally, FHR raised a 
concern regarding how the exact path generated by the GPS tracking may 
be evaluated for compliance. Specifically, FHR noted that the process 
units included in this AMEL are multi-story with dense equipment areas. 
The specific path generated by the GPS tracking may indicate the 
technician was outside the PSL during the investigation or may indicate 
gaps in data. To address these concerns, FHR suggested revisions to the 
language in paragraph IV.B.(1)(g) that include: (1) Record of 
coordinates to an accuracy and precision of 5 or more decimals of a 
degree, and (2) using the North America Datum of 1983 or newer to 
document the path taken by or presence of the technician in the PSL.
    Response: The EPA agrees with this comment and the suggested 
revisions provided by FHR because it is not our intent to limit the 
technology options to meet this GPS tracking requirement. As such, we 
have revised the AMEL to require records of the latitude and longitude 
coordinates in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of 5 or 
more decimals of a degree using the North American Datum of 1983 or 
newer to document the path taken by or presence of the technician in 
the PSL during the screening investigation.
    Comment: One commenter \18\ raised concerns with the requirement to 
conduct an initial investigation within 3 days of a new PSL 
notification. This commenter stated that a first attempt at repair is 
required within 5 days of leak detection, but FHR would not begin 
looking for a leak source until 3 days after the LDSN has identified a 
potential leak. The commenter notes that waiting 3 days to investigate 
the PSL would allow for greater emissions and little time to make a 
good effort at a first attempt to repair the leaking component. 
Further, this commenter points to the requirements at 40 CFR 
63.163(c)(1), which state repairs must be made ``as soon as 
practicable,'' and states their belief that the 3-day gap between LDSN 
detection and PSL investigation does not meet this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA notes that the LDSN is a continuous system, and 
as such, PSLs can form at any time. It is reasonable to allow some 
timeframe for an investigation to begin to ensure that the appropriate 
personnel are onsite to conduct the investigation. Additionally, 
current work practices only require inspections of components on an 
infrequent basis. Allowing a short timeframe after PSL formation to 
begin an investigation still addresses issues much sooner than they 
would be under current work practices. As such, the EPA has found that 
the requirements of this AMEL result in equivalent or better emission 
reductions when compared to the current LDAR requirements.

[[Page 8849]]

    Comment: One commenter \19\ stated that FHR should have to monitor 
all LDAR applicable components in a PSL using EPA Method 21 to ensure 
that no leaks in the PSL are missed. This commenter correctly noted 
that the AMEL would require FHR to perform an investigation to identify 
the source of a leak in a PSL, and that once FHR identifies one 
component with a maximum concentration of 3,000 parts-per-million by 
volume (ppmv) they would not be required to monitor any more components 
in the PSL. The commenter stated their concern that leaking components 
would be missed, and this is counter to a common problem identified in 
the EPA's Best Practices Guide for LDAR,\20\ failure to monitor all 
regulated components. Another commenter \21\ noted that typical 
analyzers that would be used to obtain an EPA Method 21 concentration 
reading will lose 10 times a source concentration measurement for every 
one-inch the sensor or probe moves away from the emission source but 
did not provide additional information on this statement. This same 
commenter noted that the higher leak definition seems to contradict the 
efficacy of the system when compared to EPA Method 21 programs, 
especially where the EPA has lowered leak definitions for petroleum 
refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0033.
    \20\ EPA, Leak Detection and Repair: A Best Practices Guide, 
located at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-02/documents-ldarguide.pdf.
    \21\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Requiring every 
component in every PSL to be monitored would be more stringent than the 
requirements summarized in Table 1. The design of the LDSN is such that 
it will continuously operate and continue to find any additional 
leaking components once a PSL is closed out. The results of the pilot 
test study and equivalence modeling demonstrate, to the Administrator's 
satisfaction, that the emission reductions achieved by the LDSN-DRF are 
equivalent or better than the emissions reductions achieved by the 
current LDAR requirements. While there may be some small leaks that go 
undetected, due to the continuous nature of the network, larger leaks, 
or even clusters of small leaks, can be found and fixed much faster.
    Comment: One commenter \22\ requested that the EPA define what 
facility information would be included or required to issue a PSL. This 
commenter also asked what concentration (in ppmv) defines ``emission 
anomalies'' \23\ and whether this is a fixed concentration or if it 
varies by process unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
    \23\ 86 FR 56939 (October 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: This LDSN uses a web-based analytics platform that 
automatically acquires and analyzes the real-time data from the sensor 
nodes, along with wind and facility component locations, to issue a 
PSL. As stated in response to comment in section II.C, an emissions 
anomaly is defined as any detection by the sensor network greater than 
the detection floor.
    Comment: One commenter asked if a leaking component placed on delay 
of repair will result in the continuous detection of that emission or 
if those sensors detecting the component will be shut down or adjusted.
    Response: Placing a component on delay of repair does not require 
the sensors detecting those emissions to be shut down. Sensors will 
still detect emissions from the component, but a PSL is generated that 
isolates the emissions from that component and allows the system to 
still identify emissions from other nearby areas.
    Comment: One commenter \24\ raised concerns that the DRF is a 
protocol that facility operations will need to follow to support this 
new LDAR approach. The commenter stated that similar to the common 
stereotypes surrounding LDAR technicians/contractors failing to perform 
their duties, an argument can be made on the potential disconnect 
between facility operations and environmental staff. This commenter 
raised questions about incentives for operations to manage the system 
and what potential compliance gaps may occur for failure to report an 
emissions event, ignored sensor readings, failure to investigate a PSL, 
or failure to complete required documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: This AMEL applies to the Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene 
process units at FHR's West Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. FHR must 
comply with all of the conditions in the AMEL. The failure to comply 
with any condition in the AMEL, like the failure to comply with any of 
the work practice standards replaced by the AMEL, is a CAA violation 
subject to enforcement.

E. Comments and Responses Related to Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: FHR requested specific modifications to the requirements 
for documentation related to management of change (MOC) to clarify that 
this documentation requirement is only for MOC in the AMEL covered 
process units.\25\ Another commenter \26\ stated that evaluating sensor 
network MOC would likely require constant involvement with Molex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0036.
    \26\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA agrees with FHR's request and has made this 
change within the AMEL. The comment regarding Molex's involvement in 
MOC is outside the scope of this AMEL.
    Comment: FHR and Molex requested revisions to paragraph IV.C.(7) of 
the AMEL related to the recordkeeping requirements for raw sensor data. 
The EPA included a requirement to maintain records of all raw sensor 
readings, in addition to, the percent of time positive detections were 
registered during the 72-hour lookback, and the minimum, average, and 
maximum detection floor. FHR and Molex commented that this amount of 
recordkeeping would create vast amounts of data that could be better 
managed as part of a batch, periodic evaluation. Further, the 
commenters noted that while the algorithm is constantly performing the 
calculations to provide this data, the data is not specifically 
recorded (i.e., the data elements are not saved as defined in the 
requirement). Both commenters state that these calculations could be 
recreated at any time from the raw data that is saved and requests that 
the AMEL be modified to require records of the raw data, records of any 
notifications, and alerts from the algorithm and periodic validation of 
the algorithm. FHR and Molex suggested specific language for paragraph 
IV.C.(7) in their letters.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0035 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0299-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees that these data are superfluous and 
finds that recording of these data is important to maintain in order to 
establish an enforceable record of performance. Additionally, if 
algorithms for generating alerts change over time, the EPA is concerned 
it would alter the ability of FHR to replicate those original records 
as they were generated. For these reasons, the EPA has not removed the 
requirement to retain these records.
    Comment: FHR commented that some reporting requirements in the 
applicable subparts are no longer meaningful to components covered by 
the AMEL. For example, FHR noted the percent leaker calculation will no 
longer be meaningful because the number of components monitoring with 
EPA Method 21 will be

[[Page 8850]]

minimal compared to the total population of equipment, thus, the 
percent leaker value is no longer a meaningful metric. FHR recommended 
a revision to paragraph IV.D.(1) to state that reporting of required 
information in the relevant subparts be limited to components not 
covered by the AMEL.
    Response: The EPA has added language to clarify reporting 
requirements from relevant subparts that are no longer relevant and 
replaced by the LDSN.
    Comment: One commenter \28\ stated that new reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements are potentially burdensome and would be 
prone to compliance gaps. This commenter further stated there would be 
confusion for the industry on how to properly report information, and 
confusion for the EPA on how to properly evaluate those reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees that the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements within the AMEL are prone to compliance gaps. The 
requirements within the AMEL are necessary to ensure compliance with 
the AMEL and are stated clearly. Without more information on these 
potential gaps, we are not adjusting the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements based on this comment.

F. Comments and Responses Related to Additional Annual Compliance 
Demonstration

    Comment: FHR commented that the proposed method to determine which 
valves to monitor for the annual compliance verification would be 
complicated to execute and proposed an alternative or secondary option 
that would require monitoring all valves in light liquid/gas vapor (LL/
GV) service every 2 years, with half monitored in the first year and 
half monitored in the second year of a 2-year cycle. This monitoring 
alternative would be in addition to monitoring all pumps in every 
annual compliance verification survey. FHR stated that implementing the 
proposed valve monitoring would be difficult to execute in practice, 
requiring field surveys to measure distances of valves both 
horizontally and vertically from individual sensor nodes.
    In their proposed alternative, FHR would monitor 50 percent of the 
LL/GV valves each year (e.g., odd numbered valves monitored in year 1 
and even numbered valves in year 2). They stated that this would result 
in performing EPA Method 21 monitoring on more valves than the method 
proposed by the EPA, and it would provide for easier administration of 
the annual compliance verification as it is based on the current 
tagging system in place at the refinery. FHR further stated that any 
EPA Method 21 instrument readings greater than 18,000 ppmv would be 
plotted on a plot plan showing the sensors and active PSLs, and 
corrective action would be triggered as outlined in paragraph 
IV.E.(1)(e) of the initial notice (86 FR 56949; October 13, 2021). FHR 
also requested the removal of the phrase ``under current 
investigation'' as an investigation may not have been initiated when 
this compliance monitoring is conducted.
    Response: The EPA recognizes that the proposed verification 
strategy in FHR's comments is easier to implement and will result in 
more components monitored with EPA Method 21 during the annual 
compliance demonstration of the LDSN. As such, we are revising the 
final AMEL to allow an alternative verification procedure based in part 
on FHR's comments. The final AMEL will allow FHR to monitor 50 percent 
of the LL/GV valves in the process unit at a time, as suggested in 
their comment.
    Comment: FHR and Molex both commented that, as proposed, a single 
component with a reading of 18,000 ppmv or greater (excluding active 
PSLs or components on delay of repair) would result in noncompliance 
for the entire LDSN, with that noncompliance extending until the 
corrective actions are complete and FHR has re-monitored the process 
unit to demonstrate no components are leaking above 18,000 ppmv outside 
an active PSL. These commenters requested revisions to the AMEL that 
would allow FHR the opportunity to address small gaps in the LDSN 
without considering the entire LDSN out of compliance. FHR stated that 
as written, one single gap in coverage invalidates the entire network 
even if it is working as designed and detecting leaks in the unit, and 
non-compliance with the AMEL would equate to non-compliance with all 
the underlying LDAR regulations. Further, FHR noted that the steps 
required to come back into compliance could extend beyond 120 days, 
especially since the EPA would have to review and approve any changes 
to the LDSN. Therefore, FHR also requested an avenue to come back into 
compliance in less than the 120-day cycle outlined by the EPA.
    FHR provided a recommendation on how gaps they classified as 
``minor'' could be addressed if the EPA were to accept their 
recommendation. FHR proposed using a threshold of 10 percent of 
monitored components above 18,000 ppmv to determine when the entire 
LDSN is out of compliance versus when a more targeted approach to 
addressing compliance issues may be appropriate. Specifically, FHR 
recommended that if less than 10 percent of the components monitored 
during the annual compliance verification were found leaking above 
18,000 ppmv, and these components had not been identified by the LDSN 
(not in an active PSL and not on delay of repair), then FHR would 
conduct EPA Method 21 monitoring of all remaining LL/GV valves and 
pumps within a 15-foot radius of each 18,000 ppmv leaking component and 
repair any leaks identified. FHR would then modify the LDSN, and the 
non-compliance period would end after conducting the described EPA 
Method 21 monitoring and repairing all leaking components (or placing 
them on delay of repair, as applicable). FHR stated that all leaking 
components found above 18,000 ppmv would be considered deviations of 
the AMEL and reported as such. In addition, FHR stated they would 
conduct quarterly EPA Method 21 monitoring of all LL/GV valves and 
pumps within this 15-foot radius until the LDSN modification is 
completed and the modification has been tested through the required EPA 
Method 21 monitoring following the modification. FHR stated that any 
component found leaking above 18,000 ppmv during these quarterly 
monitoring events would be considered a deviation and reported as such 
in the periodic AMEL report and applicable title V deviation report.
    FHR also proposed that, if more than 10 percent of the components 
monitored during the annual compliance verification were leaking above 
18,000 ppmv and these components had not been identified by the LDSN, 
then the LDSN is not working properly and in this circumstance, FHR 
stated that it is appropriate to consider the LDSN out of compliance 
with the AMEL. In this situation, FHR stated that EPA Method 21 
monitoring would be conducted as required in the underlying LDAR 
regulations on all AMEL covered LL/GV valves and pumps until the LDSN 
system is redesigned, approved, implemented, and tested through the 
required EPA Method 21 monitoring following the modification.
    Additionally, FHR requested the timeline for submitting proposed 
revisions to the LDSN be changed to either 45 calendar days or, 
alternatively, 30 business days because it would take 7 to 10 days to 
verify if any identified leaks are within an active PSL or on delay of 
repair. Engagement with Molex for the redesign would take 2 weeks,

[[Page 8851]]

and FHR would need at least 2 weeks to develop the proposal prior to 
submitting the LDSN revisions to the EPA for approval.
    FHR also proposed defining several keys terms related to their 
proposed approach to determining compliance through the annual 
verification discussed in these comments: (1) Active PSL, (2) non-
compliant (NC) leaker, and (3) zone of inadequate coverage (ZIC). 
First, FHR proposed to define an active PSL as ``a PSL where a 
detection or PSL update has occurred within the previous 14 days or a 
PSL that is generated up to 72 hours after the monitoring event, 
indicating that the LDSN algorithm was in the process of determining 
whether a leak had begun when the monitoring took place.'' Next, they 
proposed to define a non-compliant leaker (NC leaker) as ``a component 
exhibiting a 18,000 ppmv leak or greater during annual compliance 
verification monitoring that is outside an active PSL and/or is not a 
leaker currently on delay of repair.'' Finally, FHR proposed to define 
the ZIC as ``a 15-foot radius horizontally and vertically around a 
component that is found to be leaking above 18,000 ppmv during any 
annual compliance verification monitoring conducted pursuant to 
paragraph IV.E.(1)(b)-(c).''
    Response: The EPA agrees with FHR that it is not appropriate to 
consider the entire system out of compliance due to the LDSN failing to 
detect a single leak of 18,000 ppmv or greater. However, we do not 
agree with FHR's proposal that compliance of the entire LDSN is 
achieved until more than 10 percent of monitored components are found 
leaking above 18,000 ppmv during the additional annual compliance 
demonstration. The EPA has revised the additional annual compliance 
demonstration to: (1) define NC leakers, (2) define when a root cause 
analysis and corrective action must be conducted, and (3) define what 
steps must be taken to bring the system back into compliance. First, 
the EPA is requiring FHR to plot all components with leaks above 3,000 
ppmv on a plot plan of the process unit. For any component not already 
identified in a PSL or placed on delay of repair, a NC leaker would be 
defined as either of the following: (1) a component with a leak above 
3,000 ppmv that is within 18 feet of a sensor node or (2) a component 
included in the LDSN-DRF system with a leak equal to or greater than 
18,000 ppmv, regardless of distance to a sensor node. Each NC leaker is 
a deviation of the AMEL and may be subject to enforcement. Each NC 
leaker should be reported as a deviation until repairs are made and 
verified and all other components in the ZIC are monitored with EPA 
Method 21 and repaired or placed on delay of repair as necessary. 
Additionally, FHR must perform a root cause analysis and take 
corrective action to address issues with the LDSN. If 2 or more NC 
leakers are found, the LDSN is out of compliance unless corrective 
action is completed within 45 days.
    Comment: FHR and Molex requested removal of the requirement for 
leak simulations using a controlled release of isobutylene after 
modifying the LDSN. Both commenters stated the 1.4 g/hr controlled 
release is not directly correlated to an 18,000-ppmv leak rate. 
Further, both commenters stated that conducting a controlled release is 
more appropriate for scientific experiments and requires a controlled 
environment with no other interfering gases. Further, both commenters 
noted that the 2-year annual compliance verification clock would reset 
with each non-compliant leaker found, which will ensure at least 2 
additional EPA Method 21 surveys of the redesigned system. Both 
commenters agree with retaining the requirement to conduct a follow up 
survey with EPA Method 21 within 60 days after implementing any changes 
to the LDSN.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters and has made this 
change to remove the requirement to conduct a controlled gas release of 
isobutylene following LDSN modification. However, the EPA notes that 
FHR could utilize a controlled gas release of isobutylene as part of 
the root cause analysis/corrective action requirements in paragraph 
IV.E.(1)(i.)
    Comment: One commenter \29\ expressed concerns that the 
requirements of the additional annual compliance demonstration are not 
more cost-effective than the EPA Method 21 requirements the AMEL would 
replace. They specifically stated that a compliance issue would be 
identified if a ``statistically significant'' number of EPA Method 21 
readings are greater than 1.2 times the DTU but noted that the term 
``statistically significant'' was not clearly defined. Further, the 
commenter noted that random sampling does not seem like an acceptable 
performance metric or a safe mode of operation. Finally, the commenter 
noted the requirements to reevaluate the LDSN and perform additional 
EPA Method 21 upon redesign seems costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA notes that this comment applies to the 
verification proposed by FHR in its AMEL application. In the AMEL 
proposed by the EPA, the EPA did not propose that less than a 
statically significant number of leaks that were greater than 1.2 times 
the DTU would verify the system works. Instead, the EPA proposed that 
there should be no leaks above the DTU in order to verify that the 
system works. The potential cost effectiveness is not a factor in the 
EPA's determination of equivalency of this AMEL and is, therefore, out 
of scope.
    Comment: One commenter \30\ suggested performing 2 additional 
biennial (every other year) compliance demonstrations after FHR 
demonstrates no leaks above 18,000 ppmv during 2 consecutive annual 
demonstrations, before allowing the sunset clause on additional annual 
demonstrations to come into effect. This commenter also asked whether 
FHR or a third-party would be conducting the EPA Method 21 monitoring 
for these compliance demonstrations, stating that use of staff from 
another facility or a third-party may provide a more robust compliance 
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The commenter did not provide any additional information 
to support the necessity of additional biennial demonstrations after 
FHR finds no leaks above the specific thresholds defined in section 
IV.E of the AMEL. The EPA notes that revisions have been made to the 
additional annual compliance demonstration based on feedback from other 
commenters. The EPA does not specify who would perform the EPA Method 
21 monitoring and leaves that to the discretion of FHR.

G. Comments and Responses on Other Topics Related to the AMEL

    Comment: FHR requested additional references be added to Table 5 of 
the initial notice (Table 1 in section IV of this notice) so that they 
are covered under the AMEL. The specific references and provisions 
include the following:

 40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and GGGa (NSPS GGG and NSPS 
GGGa)--NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries
 40 CFR 63.163(d)(2)--National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON) pump quality improvement 
program (QIP)
 40 CFR 63.181(b)(1)(i)--List of identification numbers for 
equipment subject to the HON

[[Page 8852]]

 40 CFR 63.181(b)(4)-(5)--List of instrumentation systems and 
list of screwed connectors
 40 CFR 63.181(h)--QIP program recordkeeping
 40 CFR 60.482-7(h)(2) and 40 CFR 60.482-7a(h)(2)--Criteria for 
a valve to be designated as difficult-to-monitor
 40 CFR 60.486(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.486a(b)(2)--Leak tag removal 
after 2 consecutive months of monitoring with no leaks detected after 
repair
 40 CFR 60.486(e)(1) and 40 CFR 60.486a(e)(1)--List of 
identification numbers of equipment subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
VV and VVa (NSPS VV and NSPS VVa).

    Another commenter \31\ stated their support for the EPA to remove 
requirements for maintaining a list of components or tracking LDAR 
changes on a component-by-component basis because these activities can 
add significant cost to a traditional LDAR monitoring program. This 
commenter also stated that moving away from tracking LDAR changes and 
tagging of individual LDAR components would encourage further 
acceptance of newer technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA agrees with FHR that some of the specific 
references and provisions are appropriate for inclusion in this AMEL. 
As such, Table 1 of the AMEL has been updated to include:
     NSPS GGG and NSPS GGGa because the LDSN-DRF has been 
demonstrated to provide emission reductions at least equivalent to 
those required by the requirements in those subparts.
     HON pump QIP because we are already including the valve 
QIP and view the AMEL as an alternative for pumps as well.
     QIP program recordkeeping because it is not relevant if 
FHR is not using the QIP.
     Criteria for a valve to be designated as difficult-to-
monitor because the AMEL already serves as an alternative for 
difficult-to-monitor monitoring.
     Leak tag removal after 2 consecutive months of monitoring 
with no leaks detected after repair because the 2-month follow up on 
leaking valves is not required under the AMEL.
    We disagree that the other references to the lists of equipment 
identification numbers are appropriate to add to Table 1. Because the 
AMEL requires FHR to maintain records that indicate what equipment is 
complying with the AMEL or the applicable EPA Method 21 requirements, 
the EPA finds that maintaining these lists of equipment are important 
for compliance assurance purposes.
    Comment: Multiple commenters supported the implementation and 
advancement of sensor networks for leak detection. One commenter \32\ 
stated their support for alternative means of compliance that do not 
include duplicative EPA Method 21 monitoring as that decreases the 
creation and adoption of new technology. Another commenter \33\ noted 
that programs such as this LDSN-DRF, should be implemented because they 
can speed up the leak detection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0037.
    \33\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA has noted the support for these sensor networks.
    Comment: One commenter \34\ stated that the abbreviation ``ppbe'' 
was not included in the Table of Abbreviations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: This abbreviation has been added as requested.
    Comment: One commenter \35\ remarked on the CRADA between FHR, 
Molex, and the EPA Office of Research and Development. First, this 
commenter stated that FHR did not present the results of their study at 
a recent conference, thus preventing public scrutiny of its results and 
in direct conflict with one of the longer-term objectives of the CRADA 
to ``disseminate non-proprietary technical learning established in this 
CRADA by publishing aspects of this research as part of scientific 
conferences and in peer reviewed journal articles and reports.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the commenter provided comments comparing the CRADA to EPA 
Method 21. Specifically, the commenter stated that the CRADA postulates 
unsubstantiated claims that are critical of EPA Method 21, such as 
modest emission reduction estimates based on concentration measurements 
at the leak interface, high turnover rates for inspectors, inefficiency 
with monitoring all components to find the few that are leaking, and 
difficulty with interfacing the data management and reporting software 
in multiple touchpoints. This commenter provided counter arguments to 
the statements in the CRADA, specifically noting that data loss is an 
issue also built into the LDSN-DRF.
    Third, the commenter noted that common complaints about EPA Method 
21 could also apply to the LDSN-DRF. The specific complaints noted in 
the comment letter deal with inefficiencies of programs (most 
components are not leaking), expense (safety and human capital), non-
efficacy (all leaks will not be identified, or there may be a long time 
between checks), and proneness to error (recordkeeping for thousands of 
inspection events). The commenter noted that with the wrong incentives 
in place, LDAR can be ineffective. On the other hand, the commenter 
also notes that having an effective LDAR program provides additional 
``eyes and ears'' for operations and maintenance because they can 
proactively inform these programs. The comment is concerned that the 
LDSN-DRF system would remove the presence of LDAR contractors from the 
refinery.
    Response: The EPA made all the information provided by FHR 
available to the public in this docket and provided the opportunity for 
the public to comment on the data. Additionally, the report from the 
CRADA is publicly available.\36\ Whether or not this study was 
presented in other forums is outside the scope of this AMEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=350905&Lab=CEMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter \37\ asked how EPA would perform an audit of 
this AMEL. This commenter also specifically asked how the EPA would 
determine that enough sensors are present in the process unit to 
effectively detect leaks, noting that FHR determined that additional 
sensors were needed during the pilot study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: An additional annual compliance verification procedure 
has been established in section IV.E of the AMEL which includes EPA 
Method 21 monitoring of components to ensure that the LDSN-DRF is 
properly detecting leaks from components covered by this AMEL. This 
procedure includes EPA Method 21 monitoring of components covered by 
this AMEL to verify that the LDSN-DRF is detecting leaks as intended. 
The EPA would also look at records related to sensor downtime, actions 
taken in response to PSLs, and sensor bump tests, among other 
information required by the AMEL to determine compliance with the 
requirements. The procedure for developing the optimized sensor node 
placement is laid out in the CRADA report, and the information provided 
in FHR's AMEL application demonstrates that the LDSN-DRF will provide a 
reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in 
emissions

[[Page 8853]]

required by the applicable LDAR standards.
    Comment: One commenter \38\ stated that this LDSN framework should 
not replace, but instead should supplement, current LDAR practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: For the purposes of this AMEL, the EPA finds the pilot 
test study shows the LDSN provides equivalent or better emission 
reductions as the current LDAR requirements for the Mid-Crude and Meta-
Xylene process units at FHR's West Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.

H. Out of Scope Comments

    Several comments were received that are outside the scope of this 
AMEL.
    Comment: One commenter asked if the LDSN will detect methane leaks 
and if the EPA will ask for methane reductions in the future.
    Response: The AMEL is an alternative to LDAR work practices for VOC 
and HAP emissions. Any use of the LDSN for methane detection is outside 
the scope of this AMEL.
    Comment: One commenter \39\ asked if this AMEL will address how the 
facility will estimate emissions and permitted emission rates for 
equipment leak fugitive sources, and what effect this AMEL will have on 
permitting emission factors and control efficiencies based on 
traditional leak definitions and monitoring frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0299-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: This AMEL does not address how the facility will estimate 
emissions and permitted emission rates for equipment leak fugitive 
sources, as that is outside the scope of this AMEL, and the applicable 
standards summarized in Table 1 of section IV.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the data presented in this AMEL 
shows that nontraditional LDAR components should be monitored too.
    Response: Expanding the requirements of current LDAR programs is 
outside of the scope of this AMEL. Additionally, this AMEL is limited 
in scope to the proposed LDSN-DRF and whether or not it results in 
equivalent or better emissions reductions. However, we note that we are 
requiring the repair of non-LDAR leaks in this AMEL when they 
contribute to a PSL.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the pilot study indicated that 
the facility's LDAR program was not run as well as it could be and 
asked why the LDSN would be any different.
    Response: This is outside the scope of this AMEL.

III. Final Framework for Streamlining Approval of Future LDSN-DRF AMEL 
Requests

    The EPA is finalizing a framework that sources may use to submit an 
AMEL request to the EPA for the use of a LDSN-DRF to comply with the 
LDAR requirements under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. Sources applying 
for use of a LDSN-DRF as a work practice standard should provide the 
EPA with the following information, at a minimum, in their AMEL 
application to demonstrate equivalency of emission reductions.

A. Site-Specific Information Related to All Process Unit(s) Included in 
the Alternative Request

    1. Site name and location and applicable process units.
    2. Detailed list or table of applicable regulatory subparts for 
each included process unit, the citations within each subpart that will 
be replaced or changed by the AMEL and, if changed, how it will be 
changed, and the authority that allows for use of an AMEL.
    3. Details of the specific equipment or components that will be 
inspected and repaired as part of the AMEL and whether any equipment 
within the process unit will not be covered by the AMEL.
    4. A diagram showing the location of each sensor in the process 
unit and the minimum spacing that achieves equivalence (i.e., the 
furthest distance a component can be located from a sensor while 
demonstrating equivalence), taking into consideration multi-level and 
elevated components.
    5. Information on how MOC will be addressed. At a minimum, the MOC 
must include a determination of whether the changes are within the LDSN 
coverage area (i.e., within the specified radius of coverage for each 
individual sensor, including coverage based on elevation) or if changes 
will result in components added to an applicable EPA Method 21 work 
practice where the LDSN would not provide coverage. The MOC must also 
address updates to the diagrams of each sensor or the list of equipment 
identification numbers, as applicable.

B. Identification of Monitoring Techniques Used for Both the LDSN and 
DRF

    1. Identification of the sensors that will be used to detect and 
locate leaks, including the sensor measurement principle, type, and 
manufacturer.
    2. Data recording frequency, the minimum data availability for the 
system and for each sensor, and the process for dealing with periods 
where data is not available.
    3. Initial and ongoing QA/QC measures and the timeframes for 
conducting such measures.
    4. Restrictions on where the sensors cannot be used.
    5. How meteorological data will be collected, the specific data 
that will be collected, and how it will be paired with the sensor data.

C. Defined Work Practice

    1. Description of what triggers action, description of the 
action(s) that is triggered, and the timeline for performing the 
action(s).
    2. Definition for when a leak requires repair.
    3. Identification of repair deadlines, including verification of 
repair.
    4. Description for how repairs will be verified.
    5. Actions that will be taken if an alert is issued by the system, 
but a leak cannot be found.
    6. Initial and continuous compliance procedures, including 
recordkeeping and reporting, if the compliance procedures are different 
than those specified in the applicable subpart(s).
    7. Compliance assurance procedures to ensure the LDSN is operating 
as designed and corrective actions (including timeframes) in response 
to findings.

D. Demonstration of Equivalency

    1. Demonstration of the emission reduction achieved by the 
alternative work practice including restrictions and downtime. 
Restrictions should include any conditions which are not demonstrated 
as equivalent in the request, such as replacement of audio, visual, or 
olfactory (AVO) monitoring or no detectable emissions standards.
    2. Determination of equivalency between the standard work practice 
and the alternative requested, which may include modeling results.
    3. Results of the pilot test study conducted for each unit.
    a. For each PSL generated, the date for each notice, the identified 
emission source, the date the associated emission source was found for 
each PSL, the date the emission source was repaired, the EPA Method 21 
reading associated with the emission source, and the date of the last 
required and next required EPA Method 21 inspection for the emission 
source (or identification of the source as not subject to inspection).
    b. For each leak found with an EPA Method 21 inspection that was 
not found by the LDSN-DRF during the test study, the date the leak was 
found, the EPA Method 21 reading for the leak, the date the leak was 
repaired, and the inspection frequency of the component.

[[Page 8854]]

    c. The results of all EPA Method 21 inspections for the unit during 
the test study.

IV. Final Notice of Approval for the Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene Process 
Units at the FHR West Refinery AMEL Request and Required Operating 
Conditions

    Based on information the EPA received from FHR and the comments 
received through the public comment period, the EPA is approving FHR's 
request for an AMEL for the LDSN-DRF system for the Mid-Crude and Meta-
Xylene process units located at FHR's West Refinery in Corpus Christi, 
Texas. The specific requirements of this LDSN-DRF AMEL are provided in 
this section. The approved work practice requirements for the LDSN-DRF 
will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the 
emissions reductions achieved by the portion of the current LDAR work 
practice specified in Table 1. This AMEL replaces the portions of the 
work practice standards outlined in Table 1. The leak definitions 
specified in Table 2 apply to all EPA Method 21 instrument readings 
required by this AMEL.

            Table 1--Summary of LDAR Requirements To Be Replaced With the LDSN-DRF AMEL Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Applicable  rules with LDAR                                       Requirement replaced with LDSN-DRF AMEL
             requirements                        Citation                            requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSPS VV..............................  60.482-2(a)(1)..............  EPA Method 21 monitoring of pumps in light
                                                                      liquid service.
                                       60.482-7(a) and (c).........  EPA Method 21 monitoring of valves in gas/
                                                                      vapor service and in light liquid service.
                                       60.482-7(h)(2)..............  EPA Method 21 monitoring criteria for
                                                                      difficult-to-monitor.
                                       60.482-7(h)(3)..............  EPA Method 21 monitoring at a reduced
                                                                      frequency for valves in gas/vapor service
                                                                      and in light liquid service that are
                                                                      designated as difficult-to-monitor.
                                       60.486(b)(2)................  Leak tag removal after 2 consecutive months
                                                                      of monitoring with no leaks detected after
                                                                      repair.
                                       60.486(g)...................  Schedule of monitoring and leak percentage
                                                                      for valves utilizing skip periods.
NSPS VVa.............................  60.482-2a(a)(1).............  EPA Method 21 monitoring of pumps in light
                                                                      liquid service.
                                       60.482-7a(a) and (c)........  EPA Method 21 monitoring of valves in gas/
                                                                      vapor service and in light liquid service.
                                       60.482-7a(h)(2).............  EPA Method 21 monitoring criteria for
                                                                      difficult-to-monitor.
                                       60.482-7a(h)(3).............  EPA Method 21 monitoring at a reduced
                                                                      frequency for valves in gas/vapor service
                                                                      and in light liquid service that are
                                                                      designated as difficult-to-monitor.
                                       60.482-11a(a), (b), (b)(1),   EPA Method 21 monitoring of connectors in
                                        (b)(3), (b)(3)(i)-(iv), and   gas/vapor service and in light liquid
                                        (c).                          service.
                                       60.486a(b)(2)...............  Leak tag removal after 2 consecutive months
                                                                      of monitoring with no leaks detected after
                                                                      repair.
                                       60.486a(g)..................  Schedule of monitoring and leak percentage
                                                                      for valves utilizing skip periods.
NSPS GGG.............................  60.482-2(a)(1), by reference  EPA Method 21 monitoring of pumps in light
                                        from 60.592.                  liquid service.
                                       60.482-7(a) and (c), by       EPA Method 21 monitoring of valves in gas/
                                        reference from 60.592.        vapor service and in light liquid service.
                                       60.482-7(h)(3), by reference  EPA Method 21 monitoring at a reduced
                                        from 60.592.                  frequency for valves in gas/vapor service
                                                                      and in light liquid service that are
                                                                      designated as difficult-to-monitor.
                                       60.486(g), by reference from  Schedule of monitoring and leak percentage
                                        60.592.                       for valves utilizing skip periods.
NSPS GGGa............................  60.482-2a(a)(1) by reference  EPA Method 21 monitoring of pumps in light
                                        from 60.592a.                 liquid service.
                                       60.482-7a(a) and (c) by       EPA Method 21 monitoring of valves in gas/
                                        reference from 60.592a.       vapor service and in light liquid service.
                                       60.482-7a(h)(3) by reference  EPA Method 21 monitoring at a reduced
                                        from 60.592a.                 frequency for valves in gas/vapor service
                                                                      and in light liquid service that are
                                                                      designated as difficult-to-monitor.
                                       60.482-11a(a), (b), (b)(1),   EPA Method 21 monitoring of connectors in
                                        (b)(3), (b)(3)(i)-(iv), and   gas/vapor service and in light liquid
                                        (c) by reference from         service.
                                        60.592a.
                                       60.486a(g) by reference from  Schedule of monitoring and leak percentage
                                        60.592a.                      for valves utilizing skip periods.
HON..................................  63.163(b)(1)................  EPA Method 21 monitoring of pumps in light
                                                                      liquid service.
                                       63.163(d)(2)................  Quality improvement program for pumps.
                                       63.168(b)-(d)...............  EPA Method 21 monitoring of valves in gas/
                                                                      vapor service and in light liquid service.
                                       63.168(f)(3)................  EPA Method 21 monitoring following
                                                                      successful repair of valves in gas/vapor
                                                                      service and in light liquid service.
                                       63.173(a)(1)................  EPA Method 21 monitoring of agitators in
                                                                      gas/vapor service and in light liquid
                                                                      service.
                                       63.173(h)...................  EPA Method 21 monitoring at a reduced
                                                                      frequency for agitators in gas/vapor
                                                                      service and in light liquid service that
                                                                      are designated as difficult-to-monitor.
                                       63.174(a)-(c)...............  EPA Method 21 monitoring of connectors in
                                                                      gas/vapor service and in light liquid
                                                                      service.
                                       63.175(c)(3), (d)(1), and     Quality improvement program for valves
                                        (d)(4)(ii).                   where the leak rate is equal to or exceeds
                                                                      2 percent.
                                       63.178(c)(1)-(3)............  EPA Method 21 monitoring of components
                                                                      using the alternative means of emission
                                                                      limitation for batch processes.
                                       63.181(b)(1)(ii)............  Schedule by process unit for connector
                                                                      monitoring.
                                       63.181(b)(7)(i) and (ii)....  Identification, explanation, and monitoring
                                                                      schedule of difficult-to-monitor
                                                                      components.
                                       63.181(d)(7)................  Listing of connectors subject to EPA Method
                                                                      21 monitoring.
                                       63.181(d)(8)................  EPA Method 21 monitoring for batch
                                                                      processes.
                                       63.181(h)...................  Quality improvement program recordkeeping.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       Table 2--Applicable Leak Definitions for Components in the LDSN-DRF System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Initial          Final
  LDSN leak source classification    Leak source component     LDSN leak definition         repair         effective       Final repair  confirmation
                                             class                                      attempt (days)  repair  (days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Agitator--FF.........  500 ppmv..................               5              15  <500 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Agitator--VV.........  2,000 ppmv................               5              15  <2,000 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Agitator--HON........  10,000 ppmv...............               5              15  <10,000 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Compressor--HON......  500 ppmv..................               5              15  <500 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Compressor--non HON..  2,000 ppmv................               5              15  <2,000 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Compressor in          AVO.......................               5              15  No AVO indication.
                                      Hydrogen Service.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Connector............  500 ppmv..................               5              15  <500 ppmv.

[[Page 8855]]

 
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Pump--with permit      500 ppmv..................               5              15  <500 ppmv.
                                      specifying 500 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Pump--HON............  1,000 ppmv................               5              15  <1,000 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Pump--VV.............  2,000 ppmv................               5              15  <2,000 ppmv.
LDAR Component Leak--``LDAR''......  Valve................  500 ppmv..................               5              15  <500 ppmv.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
Non-LDAR Component Leak--``Emission  Agitator--Hydrocarbon  10,000 ppmv...............       Follow emission event      <10,000 ppmv.
 Event''.                             (HC) but non LDAR.                                     reporting and repair
                                                                                                  guidelines.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
Non-LDAR Component Leak--``Emission  Compressor--HC but     2,000 ppmv................       Follow emission event      <2,000 ppmv.
 Event''.                             non LDAR.                                              reporting and repair
                                                                                                  guidelines.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
Non-LDAR Component Leak--``Emission  Connector--HC but non  500 ppmv..................       Follow emission event      <500 ppmv.
 Event''.                             LDAR.                                                  reporting and repair
                                                                                                  guidelines.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
Non-LDAR Component Leak--``Emission  Pump--HC but non LDAR  2,000 ppmv................       Follow emission event      <2,000 ppmv.
 Event''.                                                                                    reporting and repair
                                                                                                  guidelines.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
Non-LDAR Component Leak--``Emission  Relief Device--HC but  500 ppmv..................       Follow emission event      <500 ppmv.
 Event''.                             non LDAR.                                              reporting and repair
                                                                                                  guidelines.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
Non-LDAR Component Leak--``Emission  Valve--HC but non      500 ppmv..................       Follow emission event      <500 ppmv.
 Event''.                             LDAR.                                                  reporting and repair
                                                                                                  guidelines.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
Non-LDAR Component Leak--``Emission  Other................  500 ppmv..................       Follow emission event      <500 ppmv.
 Event''.                                                                                    reporting and repair
                                                                                                  guidelines.
                                                                                       --------------------------------
``Authorized Emission'' \1\........  Authorized Emission..  N/A.......................             N/A             N/A  N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Authorized emissions may include emissions from a stack or otherwise allowed. These emissions are not considered equipment leaks for purposes of
  this AMEL.

A. LDSN Specifications

    1. Sensor Selection.
    A sensor meeting the following specifications is required:
    a. The sensor must respond to the compounds being processed.
    The average response factor of each process stream must be less 
than or equal to 3. If the average response factor of a process stream 
is greater than 3, the components in that service are not covered by 
this AMEL.
    b. The sensor must be capable of maintaining a detection floor of 
less than 10 ppbe on a 10-minute average. The detection floor is 
determined at three times the standard deviation of the previous 10 
minutes of data excluding excursions related to emissions peaks.

Detection FloorSensor n = 3 x SDLocal n

Detection FloorSensor n = Calculated detection floor of 
sensor n (ppbe)
SDLocal n = Local (previous ten minutes) standard 
deviation of measurements excluding transient spikes (sensor raw 
output typically mV)

    c. The sensor must record data at a rate of once per second.
    d. Records of sensor selection must be maintained as specified in 
IV.C(3) and records of detection floor must be maintained as specified 
in IV.C(g).
    2. Sensor placement.
    The sensor placement must meet the following specifications:
    a. The Mid-Crude process unit must have a minimum of 44 sensors and 
the Meta-Xylene process unit must have a minimum of 10 sensors.
    All components covered by the LDSN-DRF must be no further than 50 
feet from a sensor node in the horizontal plane and no more than 20 
feet from a sensor node in the vertical plane. Sensor nodes must be 
placed and must remain in accordance with the single level and multi-
level records required in IV.C(4).
    b. As part of the management of change procedure, FHR must identify 
if the changes (i.e., additions or removals) to process equipment in 
the Mid-Crude and Meta-Xylene process units are within the 50-foot 
radius and 20-foot vertical distance to any single sensor within the 
process unit or whether new process streams exist within the LDSN.
    FHR must identify any LDAR-applicable components associated with 
the changes to the process equipment that are outside of the 50-foot 
radius and 20-foot vertical distance requirements for the LDSN and 
either comply with the standard EPA Method 21 LDAR requirements for 
those components as required in the applicable subpart(s) or add 
additional sensor nodes to the LDSN such that all of the LDAR-
applicable components covered by the LDSN-DRF are no further than 50 
feet from a sensor node in the horizontal plane and no more than 20 
feet from a sensor node in the vertical plane. FHR must identify any 
LDAR-applicable components associated with the changes to the process 
equipment that contain process streams with a response factor of 
greater than three and comply with the standard EPA Method 21 LDAR 
requirements for those components as required in the applicable 
subpart(s). FHR must maintain the management of change records in 
IV.C(5).
    3. PSL Notifications.
    The system must perform a 72-hour lookback a minimum of once per 
day that includes the previous 24-hour period to determine the percent 
of time positive detections were registered. Positive detections are 
defined as peak excursions above the detection floor. If positive 
detections are registered for at least 5 percent of the time during the 
rolling 72-hour lookback, a PSL notification must be issued. Records of 
raw sensor readings and PSL notifications must be maintained in 
accordance with IV.C(7) and (9), respectively.
    4. Meteorological Data.
    FHR must continuously collect wind speed and wind direction data at 
least once every 15 minutes. The wind sensor must be located onsite and 
within 2 miles of each sensor node. FHR must maintain records in 
accordance with IV.C(8).
    5. QA/QC.
    The following QA/QC must be employed for the sensors in the 
network:
    a. Sensors must be calibrated by the manufacturer prior to 
deployment.

[[Page 8856]]

    Once installed, each sensor must be tested for responsivity and 
wireless communication by challenging it with isobutylene gas or 
another appropriate standard. FHR must maintain records in accordance 
with IV.C(6).
    b. FHR must conduct a bump test on each sensor quarterly.
    At a minimum, quarterly bump tests must be conducted no more than 
123 days apart.
    (i) The bump test must be conducted with isobutylene gas or another 
appropriate standard (e.g., with similar response factors) and include 
a mechanism to provide nominally ambient level moisture to the gas 
(within 25 percent of ambient relative humidity).
    (ii) The bump test is successful if the response of the sensor 
exceeds 50 percent of the nominal value of the standard. The bump test 
may be repeated immediately up to 2 additional times if the first bump 
test is unsuccessful.
    (iii) If the bump test is unsuccessful after the third try, the 
sensor must be recalibrated or replaced with a calibrated sensor within 
24 hours of the third unsuccessful try. After recalibration, a new bump 
test must be conducted following the procedure outlined above.
    (iv) FHR must maintain records of the bump test in accordance with 
IV.C(6).
    c. The health of each sensor must be confirmed for power and data 
transmission at least once every 15 minutes.
    Data transmission, which includes data recorded by the sensor every 
second as noted in IV.A(1)(c), must occur at least once every 15 
minutes. Appropriate corrective actions must be taken for any sensors 
that fail to collect data in accordance with IV.A(1)(b) and (c) and 
transmit data in accordance with this paragraph to ensure any errors or 
malfunctions are corrected in a timely manner. Such periods are 
considered downtime until corrected. If a sensor repair is necessary, 
FHR must test the responsivity and wireless communication of the sensor 
through a bump test according to the procedure specified in IV.A(5)(b). 
FHR must maintain records of sensor health in accordance with IV.C(6).
    d. The sensor detection floor shall be reviewed at 00:00 UTC each 
day to confirm each sensor detection floor remains below the 
established threshold of 10 ppbe during at least one 10-minute period 
in the past 72-hour period. If a sensor does not pass the detection 
floor review, then a sensor fault notification shall be issued, and the 
sensor issue shall be corrected through repair, replacement, or another 
appropriate measure, unless FHR can demonstrate the sensor was 
continuously experiencing positive detections during this time.
    e. At least once each calendar quarter, conduct a check for wind 
direction to ensure the wind sensor is properly oriented to the north. 
If the wind sensor is not within 15 degrees of true north, it must be 
adjusted to point to true north. At a minimum, quarterly wind direction 
checks must be conducted no more than 123 days apart. The results of 
the quarterly check for wind direction must be kept in accordance with 
IV.C(8).
    6. Downtime.
    The sensor network must continuously collect data as specified in 
paragraph IV.A(5)(c), except as specified in this paragraph:
    a. The rolling 12-month average operational downtime of each 
individual sensor must be less than or equal to 10 percent.
    b. Operational downtime is defined as a period of time for which 
the sensor fails to collect or transmit data as specified in IV.A(5)(c) 
or the sensor is out-of-control as specified in IV.A(6)(c).
    c. A sensor is out-of-control if it fails a bump test or if the 
sensor output is outside of range.
    The beginning of the out-of-control period for a failed bump test 
is defined as the time of the failure of a bump test. The end of the 
out-of-control period is defined as the time when either the sensor is 
recalibrated and passes a bump test, or a new sensor is installed and 
passes the responsivity and communication challenge. The out-of-control 
period for a sensor outside of range starts at the time when the sensor 
first reads outside of range and ends when the sensor reads within 
range again.
    d. The downtime for each sensor must be calculated each calendar 
month. Once 12 months of data are available, at the end of each 
calendar month, FHR must calculate the 12-month average by averaging 
that month with the previous 11 calendar months. FHR must determine the 
rolling 12-month average by recalculating the 12-month average at the 
end of each month.
    e. FHR must maintain records of the downtime for each sensor in 
accordance with IV.C(13).

B. DRF Specifications

    When a new PSL notification is received, the following requirements 
apply:
    1. An initial screening investigation must begin within 3 calendar 
days of receiving a new PSL notification.
    a. The initial screening investigation must utilize technology that 
can detect hydrocarbons or that is capable of responding to the 
compounds or mixture of compounds in the process streams at levels 
appropriate for locating leaks.
    This technology must be maintained per manufacturer 
recommendations. Technologies that the EPA finds appropriate for use 
are photoionization detectors (PID), flame ionization detectors (FID), 
and optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras.
    b. Each potential leak source identified in the initial screening 
investigation must be monitored by EPA Method 21 as specified in 
section 60.485a(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa.
    c. If an instrument reading equal to or greater than the 
concentrations listed in Table 2 is measured, a leak is detected.
    The maximum instrument reading must be recorded for each leak 
identified. A weatherproof and readily visible identification shall be 
attached to the leaking equipment. The identification may be removed 
once the component has been repaired, with the repair confirmed through 
follow up EPA Method 21 monitoring.
    d. When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as specified in 
the applicable subpart(s), except as specified in this paragraph.
    1. If the leak source is not applicable to LDAR but is within the 
AMEL covered area, repairs must be completed and verified within 30 
calendar days of identification or placed on delay of repair. Delay of 
repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected will be allowed 
when repair cannot be completed within 30 days of identification and 
either the repair is technically infeasible without a process unit 
shutdown or the non-LDAR equipment is isolated from the process and 
does not remain in contact with process fluids. Repair of this 
equipment must occur prior to the end of the next process unit shutdown 
or prior to ending the equipment's isolation from the process and 
returning process fluids to the equipment. These requirements do not 
supersede repair requirements for other regulations.
    2. If the leak source is determined to be associated with 
authorized emissions (e.g., regulated emissions from a stack or process 
equipment that are not fugitive emissions), the facility must document 
this information for the record, and the PSL can be closed.
    e. If a single leak is detected at 3,000 ppmv or greater by EPA 
Method 21, the investigation is complete, and the PSL can be closed 
once this leak and any

[[Page 8857]]

leaks above the leak definitions specified in Table 2 found by Method 
21 during this investigation have been repaired in accordance with the 
applicable subpart(s) or for non-LDAR equipment leaks, when the repair 
has been verified by EPA Method 21.
    f. If a total of 3 leaks are detected below 3,000 ppmv but above 
the leak definitions specified in Table 2 by EPA Method 21, the 
investigation is complete, and the PSL can be closed once these leaks 
and any leaks above the leak definitions specified in Table 2 found by 
Method 21 during this investigation have been repaired in accordance 
with the applicable subpart(s) or for non-LDAR equipment leaks, when 
the repair has been verified by EPA Method 21.
    g. For each initial screening investigation in which a potential 
leak source is not identified after 30 minutes of active screening 
within the PSL, record the latitude and longitude coordinates in 
decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of 5 or more decimals of a 
degree using the North American Datum of 1983 or newer to document the 
path taken by or presence of the technician in the PSL during the 
screening investigation. Include the date and time stamp of the start 
and end of the investigation. The PSL must remain open, but the initial 
screening investigation may stop.
    2. A second screening investigation must be conducted within 7 
calendar days of stopping the initial screening investigation as 
described in IV.B(1)(g). The requirements specified in IV.B(1)(a) 
through (f) apply to this second screening investigation.
    3. If no potential leak sources are identified during the second 
screening investigation, and the PSL detection level increases by 2 
times the initial detection level, a PSL update notification must be 
sent to facility personnel based on the higher detection level. A new 
screening investigation must occur within 3 calendar days of receiving 
the PSL update notification with the higher detection level, following 
the conditions specified in paragraphs IV.B(1)(a) through (f). This 
step must be repeated every time the PSL notification is sent, and a 
leak source is not found in the previous screening. The PSL must remain 
open until the conditions in IV.B(1)(e) or (f) are met.
    4. If no potential leak source has been identified following the 
screening investigations in IV.B(2) and (3), the PSL can be closed 
after meeting the conditions specified in either paragraph IV.B(4)(a) 
or (b).
    a. If 14 days have passed since a positive detection within the PSL 
(i.e., there have been no peak excursions above the detection floor), 
the PSL may be closed.
    b. If 90 days have passed since the original PSL notification, all 
sensors used to create the PSL must be bump tested in accordance with 
IV.A(5)(b) and a full survey of the LDAR-applicable components within 
the PSL must be conducted with EPA Method 21 within 10 calendar days.
    A leak is defined by the applicable subpart(s). All leaks 
identified during this survey must be repaired and verified after which 
the PSL will be closed. If no leaks are identified in this final 
screening, ``no leak source found'' must be recorded and the PSL will 
be closed.
    c. FHR must maintain the records in accordance with IV.C(9)-(11).

C. Recordkeeping

    The following records related to the LDSN-DRF must be maintained in 
addition to the records from the relevant subparts, except as noted in 
Table 1.
    1. Fugitive Emission Management Plan (FEMP) detailing the 
boundaries of the Meta-Xylene and Mid-Crude process units which are 
complying with this AMEL.
    The plan must include the records for the LDSN specified in 
paragraph IV.C(4), a list of identification numbers for equipment 
subject to the EPA Method 21, no detectable emissions, or AVO work 
practice requirements of the applicable subparts, and a map clearly 
depicting which areas in each process unit are covered by the LDSN-DRF 
and which are covered by the EPA Method 21, no detectable emissions, or 
AVO work practices.
    2. Records of the sensor response factors for the applicable 
process streams.
    3. Manufacturer, measurement principle, response factors, and 
detection level for each sensor.
    4. Records of sensor placement, including geographic information 
system (GIS) coordinates and elevation of the sensor from the ground, 
and diagrams showing the location of each sensor and the detection 
radius of each sensor. One diagram must show all sensors, with an 
indication of the level each sensor is located on. Additional diagrams 
showing sensor layout must be provided for each level of the process 
unit.
    5. Records of each MOC in an AMEL covered unit. For each MOC, 
records of the determination that IV.C(5)(a), (5)(b), or (5)(c) 
applies. The MOC must also address updates to the diagrams in the FEMP 
of each sensor or the list of equipment identification numbers, as 
applicable.
    a. The changes are within the LDSN coverage area (i.e., no further 
than 50 feet from a sensor node in the horizontal plane and no more 
than 20 feet from a sensor node in the vertical plane) and the response 
factor of any new process streams is less than or equal to 3.
    b. The response factor any new process streams is less than or 
equal to 3 and additional sensor nodes are being added to the LDSN such 
that all the LDAR-applicable components covered by the LDSN-DRF are no 
further than 50 feet from a sensor node in the horizontal plane and no 
more than 20 feet from a sensor node in the vertical plane.
    c. The components will be added to an applicable EPA Method 21, no 
detectable emissions, or AVO work practice where the LDSN would not 
provide coverage.
    6. Records of initial and subsequent calibrations, bump tests for 
responsivity and wireless communication initially and upon sensor 
repair or reset, quarterly bump tests, bump tests prior to PSL closure 
where leaks have not been found within 90 days, and bump tests 
following out-of-control periods, including dates and results of each 
calibration and bump test, as well as a description of any required 
corrective action and the date the corrective action was performed. 
Records of calibration gases used for the bump tests, the ambient 
moisture level during the bump tests, and the mechanism for providing 
nominally ambient level moisture to the gas during the bump tests. 
Records of sensor health related to power and data transmission.
    7. Raw Sensor Readings. Additionally, for each sensor, the percent 
of time positive detections were registered during the 72-hour lookback 
must be recorded each day and the minimum, average, and maximum 
detection floor.
    8. Network Meteorological Data, Including Wind Direction and Wind 
Speed.
    Record the results of each quarterly check of the wind sensor 
orientation. Record the latitude and longitude coordinates of the 
original location of the wind sensor. The wind sensor must remain 
within 300 feet of the original location. Record each movement of the 
wind sensor, the latitude and longitude coordinates for the new 
location, and the distance in feet between the new location and the 
original location.
    9. PSL Documentation. For each PSL, the record must include the 
notification date, investigation start date, investigation results 
including the date each leak was found, leaking component

[[Page 8858]]

location description, EPA Method 21 reading, repair action taken, date 
of repair, and EPA Method 21 reading after repair. Additionally, for 
equipment placed on delay of repair, note that the equipment was placed 
on delay of repair and the reason for the delay of repair.
    10. PSL documentation where PSL is not closed out after the initial 
investigation.
    For each PSL that cannot be closed out after the initial 
investigation, the record must include each screening investigation 
performed, including the latitude and longitude coordinates indicating 
the path taken during the screening investigation, the start and end 
date and times of the investigation, any OGI video taken during the 
investigation, and any Method 21 readings observed during the 
investigation. The record must also include the date of each PSL update 
notification sent to facility personnel when the PSL detection level 
increases by 2 times the initial detection level.
    11. If a PSL is caused by an authorized emission source or a source 
outside the AMEL-covered process unit, the documentation must include 
the notification date, investigation start date, investigation results, 
emission source identification, and description of the ``authorized 
emissions'' or source outside the AMEL-covered process unit.
    12. Records of PSLs closed out where no cause of the PSL was 
determined. Note whether the PSL was closed because 14 days had passed 
since a positive detection within the PSL or the PSL was closed 
following the EPA Method 21 inspection conducted 90 days after the 
original PSL notification.
    13. For each sensor, the date and time of the beginning and end of 
each period of operational downtime.
    14. For each additional annual compliance demonstration conducted 
under the compliance assurance provisions of IV.E below, the 
documentation must include:
    a. The date of each survey conducted with Method 21 of appendix A-7 
of part 60.
    b. If valves are monitored in accordance with IV.E(1)(b)(i) through 
(v), the plot plan showing the verification zone of each sensor, the 
list of valves in the verification zones, and the total population of 
valves in the process unit.
    c. If valves are monitored in accordance with IV.E(1)(b)(vi), the 
list of all valves in the process unit and identification of each valve 
monitored during the survey.
    d. The EPA Method 21 reading for each valve and pump monitored.
    e. For each leak found, the date each leak was found, leaking 
component location description, repair action taken, date of repair, 
and EPA Method 21 reading after repair.
    Additionally, for equipment placed on delay of repair, note that 
the equipment was placed on delay of repair and the reason for the 
delay of repair. Delay of repair shall be determined and signed-off 
from the relevant process unit supervisor or person of similar 
authority that the piece of equipment is technically infeasible to 
repair without a process unit shutdown.
    f. Plot plan with all components identified with EPA Method 21 
screening values greater than 3,000 ppmv, all active PSLs, and the 
locations of each sensor node, if applicable.
    g. Identification of all non-compliant leakers and each zone of 
incomplete coverage.
    h. For each survey conducted in a zone of incomplete coverage, the 
information in IV.D.(14)(a), (14)(d), and (14)(e), as well as an 
identification of each valve and pump monitored.
    i. The start and end dates and results of any required root cause 
analysis, any corrective action taken in response to a non-compliant 
leaker, and any corrective action plans developed.
    14. Records of deviations where a deviation means FHR fails to meet 
any requirement or obligation established in this AMEL or fails to meet 
any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable 
requirement or obligation in this AMEL and that is included in the 
operating permit for the Mid-Crude or Meta-Xylene process units at FHR.

D. Reporting

    Semiannual reports must be submitted via the Compliance and 
Emissions Reporting Data Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov), 
following the procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.9(k). Semiannual 
reports must include the following information:
    1. All of the information required in the relevant subparts for 
components not covered by this AMEL.
    2. For each PSL, the notification date, investigation start date, 
investigation results including the date each leak was found, type of 
component, EPA Method 21 reading, and date of repair. For each PSL that 
was not closed out after the initial investigation, the date of each 
PSL update notification sent to facility personnel when the PSL 
detection level increases by 2 times the initial detection level, each 
investigation start date, and results for each investigation.
    3. Identification of equipment placed on delay of repair and the 
facts that explain each delay of repair.
    4. The number of PSLs that were closed out where no cause of the 
PSL was determined. Note how many PSLs were closed because 14 days had 
passed since a positive detection within the PSL and how many PSLs were 
closed following the EPA Method 21 inspection conducted 90 days after 
the original PSL notification.
    5. The number of PSLs that were closed because the emissions were 
authorized.
    6. The number of PSLs that were closed because the source was found 
to be outside the AMEL covered process unit.
    7. The operational downtime percentage for each sensor determined 
each month.
    8. For each sensor that fails a bump test, identification of the 
sensor, date of failed bump test, and corrective action taken.
    9. Any changes to the sensor network, including those resulting 
from the compliance assurance actions in IV.E.
    10. For the additional annual compliance demonstration in IV.E:
    a. The date of each EPA Method 21 survey.
    b. The number of valves and pumps monitored.
    c. The number of leaks identified.
    d. The number of non-compliant leakers.
    e. The number of leaks identified above 18,000 ppmv.
    f. Date of each survey conducted in a zone of incomplete coverage, 
and for each survey in a zone of incomplete coverage the number of 
valves and pumps monitored and the number of leaks identified.
    g. Any corrective action taken if there are non-compliant leakers.
    11. Once the criteria in IV.E(3) is met, a statement that FHR has 
met the criteria and additional annual compliance demonstrations are no 
longer required.
    12. Reports of deviations recorded under IV.C(15) which occurred in 
the semi-annual reporting period, including the date, start time, 
duration, description of the deviation, and corrective active.

E. Additional Annual Compliance Demonstration

    In addition to continuous compliance with the LDSN-DRF as required 
by the sections IV.A-D, the following annual compliance demonstration 
actions are required for the LDSN-DRF system located in the Meta-Xylene 
and Mid-Crude process units:

[[Page 8859]]

    1. Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 must be conducted in each 
process unit equipped with the LDSN-DRF according to the following 
requirements:
    a. The first survey must be conducted within 12 calendar months of 
implementation of the AMEL in a given process unit.
    Subsequent surveys must be conducted no sooner than 10 calendar 
months and no later than 12 calendar months after the preceding survey.
    b. Identify the valves to be monitored as described below.
    Monitor the valves as described in IV.E(1)(b)(i) through (v) or 
IV.E(1)(b)(vi) using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 as specified 
in section 60.485a(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa, with the 
exception that the high scale calibration gas must be 20,000.(+/ - 
1000.) ppmv.
    (i) Determine the total number of valves located in the individual 
process unit. The minimum number of valves monitored must equal 20 
percent of the total population of valves in the process unit.
    (ii) Identify each verification zone on a plot plan. The 
verification zone is the area between the radii that are 45 and 50 feet 
from each individual sensor. Determine the total number of valves that 
occur in only one sensor verification zone (i.e., verification zones 
that have no overlap with other verification zones). If the number of 
valves that occur in only one sensor verification zone is greater than 
the minimum number of valves that must be monitored, monitor a random 
selection of these valves according to IV.E(1)(b)(v).
    (iii) If the number of valves that occur in only one sensor 
verification zone is less than the minimum number of valves that must 
be monitored, determine the total number of valves that occur in all 
verification zones, including those that overlap. If the total number 
of valves in all verification zones is greater than the minimum number 
of valves that must be monitored, monitor all the valves that occur in 
only one sensor verification zone. Additionally, monitor a random 
selection of valves, chosen in accordance with IV.E(1)(b)(v), that 
appear in verification zones that overlap until the 20 percent minimum 
is achieved.
    (iv) If the number of valves in all verification zones is less than 
20 percent of the total population, then monitor all of the valves in 
all verification zones. Additionally, monitor a random sample of 
additional valves within the LDSN but outside of the verification 
zones, chosen in accordance with IV.E(1)(b)(v), until the 20 percent 
minimum is achieved.
    (v) Random sampling of valves. To determine the random selection of 
valves to monitor, determine the population of valves that must be 
randomly sampled as determined in IV.E(1)(b)(ii), (iii), or (iv) (i.e., 
the total valve population in one sensor verification zone, the total 
valve population in verification zones that overlap, or the total valve 
population minus the number of valves in the verification zones). 
Divide the population of valves by the number of valves that must be 
sampled and round to the nearest integer to establish the sampling 
interval. Using the valve IDs sequentially, monitor valves at this 
sequential interval (e.g., every 5 valves). Alternatively, use the 
valve IDs and a random number generator to determine the valves to 
monitor. Each survey conducted under IV.E(1)(a) must start on a 
different valve ID such that the same population of valves is not 
monitored in each survey.
    (vi) In lieu of implementing IV.E(1)(b)(i) through (v), FHR may 
elect to monitor 50 percent of the total number of light liquid and gas 
vapor (LL/GV) valves that occur within the LDSN coverage area each 
year. This shall be done by dividing the valves into 2 sets, with each 
set containing every other valve in the given tag range (e.g., all odd 
numbered valves in one set and all even numbered valves in the second 
set). In the first survey, one set of valves shall be monitored, such 
that nominally 50 percent of the valves have been monitored. Each 
subsequent survey must rotate between the 2 sets of valves such that 
the same population of valves is not monitored during 2 consecutive 
surveys.
    c. Monitor each pump located in the process unit using Method 21 of 
appendix A-7 of part 60 as specified in section 60.485a(b) of 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart VVa.
    d. For purposes of this monitoring, a leak is identified as an 
instrument reading above the leak definitions in Table 2 of this AMEL.
    All identified leaks must be repaired or placed on delay of repair 
within 15 calendar days of detection, with a first attempt completed 
within 5 calendar days of detection.
    e. Once the annual monitoring survey is complete, any components 
identified with EPA Method 21 screening values greater than 3,000 ppmv 
shall be plotted on a plot plan of the process unit along with all 
active PSLs and the locations of each sensor node.
    Any LDAR applicable component that is not in an active PSL or which 
was not previously placed on delay of repair, will be considered a NC 
leaker if it meets at least one of the specifications in IV.E(1)(e)(i) 
or (ii):
    (i) A component identified with an EPA Method 21 screening value 
above 3,000 ppmv that is located within 18 feet of any sensor node.
    (ii) A component identified with an EPA Method 21 screening value 
above 18,000 ppmv that is located anywhere in the LDSN coverage area.
    f. For each NC leaker, FHR must identify a ZIC. The ZIC shall be 
defined as the area with a 15-foot radius horizontally and vertically 
around the leaking component.
    Monitoring with Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 shall be 
conducted for all LL/GV valves and pumps in the ZIC that were not 
already monitored during the most recent annual survey. The leak 
definitions in Table 2 shall be used to determine if a leak is 
detected. Any identified leaks shall be repaired or placed on delay of 
repair per IV.E(1)(d).
    g. All NC leakers shall be deviations of the AMEL and reported as 
such. The period of noncompliance shall end when the monitoring under 
IV.E(1)(f) has been completed and repairs for all leaking components 
have been made and verified or the components have been placed on delay 
of repair.
    h. Until the actions in IV.E.(1)(f) are completed, FHR shall 
monitor all LL/GV valves and pumps in the ZIC quarterly using Method 21 
of appendix A-7 of part 60.
    i. For each NC leaker, FHR shall conduct a root cause analysis 
(RCA) to determine the cause of the defect of the sensor network and to 
determine appropriate corrective action. The RCA shall begin within 5 
days and be completed no later than 45 days after completion of the 
most recent annual survey. FHR must submit a corrective action plan 
within 15 days of the completion of the RCA to [email protected]. For any 
NC leaker with an EPA Method 21 screening value above 18,000 ppmv, the 
corrective action plan must include revisions to the sensor network. 
Revisions to the sensor network must include the addition of new 
sensors to reduce the detection radius of each sensor, location changes 
of any previously deployed sensors, and/or the deployment of a 
different sensor type.
    j. If 2 or more NC leakers are found in the same annual survey and 
corrective actions will take longer than 45 days to complete, this 
shall be a deviation of the AMEL for the sensor network and reported as 
such.

[[Page 8860]]

    The period of noncompliance shall end when corrective actions are 
completed.
    2. The EPA or its delegated authority may conduct audits of the 
LDSN at any time, using the same approach as outlined in IV.E(1), to 
determine NC leakers. For each NC leaker found during any inspection by 
the EPA or its delegated authority, the requirements in paragraphs 
IV.E.(1)(f) through (j) apply.
    3. FHR may stop conducting the additional annual compliance 
demonstration required in IV.E(1) if no NC leaks are identified with 
Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 over a period of 2 consecutive 
calendar years.

Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2023-02811 Filed 2-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P