p. 1 

# OAR Box 1168 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 124 ) II-C-3

9 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 4/29/2008 11:23:21 AM Sheet 124 of 131^

- UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTI C . . I ^3ft S Offic e o f Ai rQualit y Plannin g an d Stan d H-t-3 9 \ , y^-^ > #

* Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 277 1 1 * i < opo ^

F © I I ISS I

Dea r Re g Ne g Committe e Member : Pleas e find attache d fo r you r revie w an d commen t a complet e draf t o f th e preambl e t o th e propose d rul e presentin g th e basi s and purpos e fo r th e provisions . Th e draf t discussio n "Dat a an d Informatio n Considered, " whic h yo u previousl y

reviewed , ha s bee n revise d base d on comment s receive d an d ha s bee n incorporate d int o thi s draf t a s section s C an d D . In this draft , I hav e attempte d t o documen t th e principl e basi s fo r th e provisions. , Eve n thoug h th e preambl e stil l ha s som e roug h edges , w e believ e tha t th e mos t efficien t wa y

t o procee d i s t o circulat e i t now fo r revie w

an d comment . Pleas e limi t you r comment s t o thos e tha t chang e th e conten t o r wher e improvemen t i s obviousl y necessary . Mino r comment s an d wordin g edit s consum e tim e bette r spen t o n substantiv e improvements . I wil l the n compar e an d incorporat e comments . I f ther e appea r t o b e outstanding issue s o r disagreements , w e wil l the n schedul e a meetin g o r conferenc e cal l amon g th e intereste d Committe e member s t o resolv e th e issues . Afte r resolutio n o f th e substantiv e issues , w e wil l revie w th e preambl e fo r necessar y editoria l changes . Sinc e th e Committee' s charte r wil l expir e soon , w e woul d appreciat e receivin g you r comment s n o late r tha n Februar y 27 , 1991 . © Thanks , Jafo/pleye r '

,--_. . _» • i M-a---------IMI_______M______l^ ^ ____________ _.i.m- J -I-P_-.,._.UP. IFE B I ! 199 1

VI . Rational e fo

r Negotiate d Rul

e fo r Equipmen

t Leak s A . Background Equipmen t lea k emission s refe

r t o the los s o

f volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) an d volatil e hazardou s ai

r pollutant s (VHAP

) throug h th e sealin g mechanis m separatin g proces s flui d containe d i n equipmen

t fro mthe atmosphere . Becaus e o f th e larg e numbe

r o f valves , pumps , and othe

r component s within aproces s unit , tota l emission s fro

msuc h equipmen

t ca n b e large . Equipmen

t leak s hav e bee

n estimate d t

o contribut e abou t one-thir d o f all routin e (nonaccidental ) VOC emission s fro mth e chemica l industry . Existin g regulation s adopte d unde r Section s 11 1 an

d 11 2 o f th e CA A an d i n Stat e Implementatio n Plan s (SIP's ) have bee n effective i

n heightenin g awarenes s o

f th e significanc e o

f equipmen t leak s an d i n stimulatin g contro l efforts . Thes e rule s basically requir

e tha t pump s an d valve s b e inspecte d periodically fo r leak s wit h a portabl e hydrocarbo n detector . I f aVOC concentratio n greate r tha n 10,00 0 part s pe r millio n (ppm) , a s methane o r hexane , i s found , the componen t i s identifie d a s a "leaker " an

d maintenanc e i s required . Thi s approac h i s know n a s "lea k detectio n an

d repair " (LDAR) . Whe

n thes e rule s wer

e established , EP

A estimate d tha

t emission s woul d b e reduce d b

y abou t 6 0 t o 7 0 percen

t an d tha t afte r control , lea

k frequencie s woul d b e approximatel

y 5 percen t Dat agathere d ove

r th e pas t severa l year s o n equipmen

t leak s a t som e chemica l plant s indicat

e tha t muc h lowe r lea k frequencie s ca

n b e achieved . Thes e data , however , di d not

identif y specifi c factors tha

t le d t o lowe r lea k frequencies , no

rindicat e ho w lo w lea k frequencie s coul d b e obtaine d a t all chemica

l plants . Consequently , EP

A sa w aneed fo

r ane w regulator

y approac h tha t woul d achiev e lo

w lea k frequencie s a

t al l chemica l plants . I t was recognize d tha

t establishin g suc

h a regulatio n fo

r a s broa d an d varie d asourc e categor

y a s chemica l productio n unit s woul d b e difficult . The challenge s include d determinin g ho w t o achiev e low lea

k frequenc y a t al l plant s wit

h asimple se

t o f rules , ho w t o provide mor

e flexibilit y i n achievin g low lea

k rate s tha n tha t provide d b

y LDA R alone , ho

w t o appl y standard s acros s the industr

y usin g dat

afromonl y apar t o f th e industry , an

d EPA' s nee d t

o establis h standard s consisten t wit h the maximu

machievabl e contro l technolog y (MACT ) requirement s o

f th e CAA . O n Apri l 25 , 1989 , EP

A announce d it s intentio n t o establis h acommitte e t

o negotiat e ane w approach fo

r contro l o f volatil e organi c chemica

l equipmen

t leak s (5 4 F R 17944) , an

d conducte d a

n initia l informationa

l meetin g o

n Ma y 15 , 1989 , t

o determin e amon

g intereste d partie s whethe r negotiatio n would b e desirable . Th e participant s a

t th e initia l meetin g responde d favorabl y t o th e concep t o f negotiation , and o n Septembe

r 12 , 1989 , EP

A establishe d anegotiatin g committe e (5 4 F R 37725) . Th e Committee me

t ove r aperio d o

f on e year , holdin g nin

e 2-da y meeting s and on

e 1

- da y meeting , t

o resolv e th

e variou s issue s relate d t

o developin g aMAC

T standar d fo r equipmen t leaks . Th

e Committee member s ar

e liste d i n Appendix 1 . The Committee considere d th e man y factors an

d uncertaintie s associate d wit h regulatin g equipmen

t leak s a t awid e variet y o f chemica l plant s an d develope d a

n acceptabl y balance d approach , weighing th e nee d t o b e flexible , the technica

lP. 5

uncertainties , the requirement fo r MAC T standards , an

d th e datalimitations . A

t th e final negotiatin g session , th e Committee member s conceptuall y resolve d al l outstandin g majo

r issue s an d decide d t

o reach fina

l agreemen

t through atwo-ste

p process . The Committee members would first agre e i n principl e t

o th e regulator

y languag e t o b e propose d an

d the n t o sig n th e final agreemen

t afte r adraf t preambl e t

o th e regulatio n describin g i

n detai l th e scope , application , effect , an d rational e ha s bee

n prepare d an

d concurre d i

n b y th e Committee . Th

e Committe e reache d final agreemen t o n th e draf t preambl e an

d regulation o

n . Al

l Committe e member s hav e agree d t o suppor t th e standar d a s lon g a s EP

A propose s an

d promulgate s th

e standard s an d it s preambl e substantivel y unchanged fro

mthos e tha

t ar e the substanc e o

f th e final agreemen t I t i s importan

t t o not e tha t th e partie s t o th e negotiatio n concurre d wit h th e regulatio n whe

n considere d a s awhole . Inevitabl y i n an y negotiation , thi s mean s tha t som e partie s ma

y hav e mad

e concession s i

n on e are ai n exchang e fo

r concession s fro mothe r partie s i n othe

r areas . A s aresult, i t

i s difficul t t o asses s how change s i n particula r part s o f the negotiate d rul e woul

d affec t the consensus . B . Scop e an

d Applicabilit

y 1 . Sourc e Categorie s Th e negotiator s originally wer e t o develop standard s fo

r equipmen t leak s fo r 1 3 sourc e categorie s tha

t would b e affecte

d b y EPA' s the

n expecte d hazardou s organi c nationa l emissio n standar

d fo r hazardou s ai

r pollutant s (NESHAP) , or

HON . Thes e sourc e categorie s include d bot h syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturing industr

y_-__£ - i i

(SOCMI ) an d non-SOCM

I sourc e categories , an

d th e standard s unde

r developmen

t would onl y hav e applie d t o 8 hazardou s organi c chemicals . Ove r th e cours e o f th e negotiations , an

d i n anticipatio n o

f th e CA A o f 1990 , EP A sa w th e nee d t o expand thi s scop e t

o includ e no t onl y th e origina l HO N sourc e categories , bu

t als o all SOCM

I processe s tha

t use d a s areactan

t or produc e on e o

f the organi c chemical s liste d i n th e CA A lis t o f 189 hazardou s ai

r pollutants . Th

e EP A identifie d 45 3 suc

h processes . I n addition , EP

A determine d tha

t petroleumrefiner

y processe s woul d not

b e covere d b y thes e standard s an

d tha t MAC T standard s fo

r petroleumprocesse s would b e establishe d i

n aseparat

e rulemaking . Thes e standard s als o woul d not b e applicabl e t o othe r petroleum-relate d facilities , includin g thos e engage d i n petroleu mexploration , production , marketing , or

transportation . Refiner

y processe s no

t covere d b

y thi s regulatio n include cracking , reforming , coking , an d othe r processe s tha

t produc e blend s o f petrochemicals . Tabl e VI- 1 present s amor e detaile d lis t

o f refiner y processe s no

t include d i n the scop e o

f thi s rule .

_ B IP. 7

TABL E VI-1 . REFINER

Y PROCESSES EXCLUDE D FRO M TH E NEGOTIATE

D REGULATIO

N Therma l Processe s Gas-oi l crackin g Therma l crackin g Visbreakin g Coking (fluid

) Coking (delayed) Othe r Catalyti c Cracking Flui d Othe r Catalyti c Reformin

g Semiregenerativ e conventiona

l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Cycli c conventiona

l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Othe r conventiona

l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Catalyti c Hydrocracking Distillat e upgradin g Residua l upgrading Lube-oi l manufacturing Othe r

t____k- _P. 8

Catalyti c Hydrorefining Residua l desulfurizing Heav y gas-oi l desulfurizing Cat-cracke r an d cycle-stoc k

fee d pretreatmen

t Middl e distillat

e Othe rP. 9

TABL E VI-1 . (Continued) Catalyti c Hydrotreatin g Pretreatin g cat-reforme

r feed s Naphth adesulfurizing Naphth aolefi

n or aromatic s saturatio n Straight-run distillat

e Othe r distillat e Lube-oi l "polishing " Othe r Alkylatio n Sulfuric aci d Hydrofluori c aci d

— • —P.1 0

2 . Relationshi

p Betwee n thi s Regulatio n an

d Futur e Regulation s fo

r Refiner y Equipmen

t Leak s Th e Committee agree d o

n th e following languag e t

o describ e th

e relationship betwee n thi s regulation an

d futur e regulation s fo

r refiner y equipmen

t leaks : Th e standard s incorporate d i

n thi s agreemen

t wer e establishe d b

y the Committee based primaril

y on dat afro

mwell-controlle d ethylen e oxide plant s an d dat afro ma numbe r o f SOCM I plants . Th

e Committee di d not

review datafro

mpetroleum refinin g processe s becaus e the y wer e outside th

e scop e o f the negotiations , and th

e Committe e di d no

t conside r whethe r th e numerica

l standard s i

n thi s agreemen

t ar e achievabl e b

y refinery processes . Th

e Committee recognizes tha t ther e ar e technica l difference s betwee

n SOCM I categorie s an

d petroleu mprocesse s tha

t ma y affec t th e achievabilit

y o f the numerica

l standard s (includin g percen t leakers) . Potentia

l difference s include th

e availabilit

y an d effectivenes s o

f emissio n contro l technologies , plan t shutdow n practices , line sizes , proces s temperature s an d proces s pressures , and cost . Thes e difference s coul d wor k i n th e directio n o

f making the numerica

l standard s adopte d b y th e Committee mor

e easily achievable , or

les s easily achievable , fo

r refiner y processes . The Committee agree s tha

t th e framework

use d fo r th e regulatio n develope d durin g th e curren t negotiatio n shoul d b e adopte d i n th e MAC T regulatio n fo

r petroleumrefinery equipmen t leak s unles s ther

e ar e soun d technica l reasons wh

y a differen t framewor k woul d b e mor

e effective . AP I understand s tha

t the numerica

l standard s include d i

n thi s negotiate d rul e ar

e mor e stringen t tha n thos e tha

t woul d have bee

n selecte d i

f th e rul e ha d provide d tha

t exceedence s o

f numerica l standards , b

y themselves , constitute d violation s o f th e CAA . AP I recognizes tha

t thi s wil l als o b e tru e o

f th e numerica

l standard s tha

t wil l b e include d i n aMAC T regulatio n fo

r refinery equipmen

t leak s utilizin g th

e framewor

k o f th e currently-negotiate d regulation. I f EP A develop s MAC

T refiner y equipmen

t lea k regulations , i

t will conduc t

a separat e rulemaking . Technica

l difference s betwee

n SOCM I an d refinery processe s tha t ma y affec t the achievabilit

y o f th e standard s will b e considere d b y EP A i n th e refiner y equipmen

t lea k rulemaking . 3 . Equipmen

tP.1 1

Th e negotiate d rul e would appl y t o thos e piece s o

f equipmen t whic h ar e regulate d i n th e existin g section 11 1 an

d 11 2 equipmen

t leak s rules , includin g al

l valves , pumps , compressors , pressur e relief devices , open-ende d valve s o r lines , connectors , close d ven

t system s an

d contro l devices , sampling connectio n systems , an d produc t accumulato

r vessels . I

n th e existin g rules , connector s ar e referre d t

o a s "flange s and othe

r connectors " o r

simpl y a s flanges . T o avoi d potentia l misinterpretation s o

f th e negotiate d rul e an

d t o eliminat e redundanc y within th

e phrase , th e ter mconnector

i s used i n th e negotiate d standar

d t o designat e th e sam e type s o f fittings whic

h wer e previousl

y terme d flange s an

d othe r connectors ; i.e. , all flanged, screwed , or

othe r joine d fittings use

d t o connec t tw o pip e line s or

apip e lin e an d apiec e o

f equipment . Th

e negotiate d rul e would no t appl y t o flange s betwee

n section s o f avessel (e.g. , bod

y flange s on adistillatio n column , on areactor, etc.) , hea d gasket s o

n vessels , or

acces s hatche s (e.g. , manholes) . Thes e type s o f seal s ar e not include d i

n th e definitio n o

f connector . The negotiate d rul e als o contain s provision s fo r agitator s an

d instrumentatio n systems . Th

e rational e fo

r th e inclusio n o

f agitator s an

d th e separat e treatmen t o f component s i

n instrumentatio n system s i n the negotiate d rul e i s discusse d belo w unde r th e basi s fo r th e negotiate d rule . Th e negotiate d rul e woul d appl y t o bot h existin g an

d ne w proces s units . The negotiate d rul e categorize s the regulate d processe s into 5 group s an d use s astaggere d implementatio n scheme , requirin g som e proces s unit s t

o compl y i n 1/ 2 year , whil e other s would compl

y a s lat e a s 1 an d 1/ 2 year s afte

r final promulgatio n o

f th e rule .

___ BP.1 2

Thi s staggere d implementatio n was provide d t o alleviat e th e impac t o f applyin g th

e rule s simultaneousl

y t o all sources . A n affecte d "proces s unit " mean s equipmen t tha t use s or produce s aVHA

P o r it s derivative s a s intermediat e o r final product(s) , includin g all equipmen t associate d wit h the unit proces s operation , storag e an d transfe r o f fee d materia l t o the uni t proces s operatio n an

d final o r intermediat

e produc t fro mth e unit proces s operatio n an

d operation s treatin g wastewate r fro mth e uni t proces s operation . A plan t sit e ma y consis t o f on e or mor e proces s units . Proces s unit s covere d b y th e negotiate d rul e ar

e liste d specificall

y i n Section(s ) XX.XO(b ) an

d (c ) o f th e negotiate d rule . C . Background Information o n Equipmen

t Leaks Thi s sectio n present s a

n overview o

f findings fro

mpreviou s equipmen

t lea k studie s and asummar

y o f information tha

t le d t o EPA' s decisio n t o develo p ane w regulator y approach fo

r equipmen t leak s throug

h negotiation . Thi s synopsi s i s not intende d t o reflect th e Committee discussions . Rather , i t i s intende d t

o provid e basi c information fo

r reader s unfamilia

r wit h th e existin g standards , the underlyin g studies , an d recen t trends . Mor

e detaile d information o

n th e basi s fo r the existin g requirement s an

d underlyin g studie s i s availabl e i n the document s liste d i

n sectio n o f thi s notice . 1 . Overvie w o

f Backgroun

d Information On e o f th e firs t publishe d studie s o

f equipmen t lea k emission s was conducte d i n th e 1950' s i n severa l petroleumrefinerie s i

n th e Lo s Angele s Count

y Ai r Pollutio n Contro l District . Th

e results o f thi s stud y showed tha

t alarg e quantit

y o f 1 0P.1 3

l hydrocarbon s coul d b e los t t o th e atmospher

e fromvariou s source s suc h a s valves , pum p an d compresso

r seals , flanges, an

d pressur e relief devices . I

n the lat e 1970' s an d earl y 1980's , EP

A conducte d severa

l studie s t o evaluat e an d quantif y emission s fro mequipmen

t leak s i n petroleu mrefiner y operation s an

d i n chemica l proces s units . I n thes e studies , EP

A collecte d dataan

d evaluate d lea

k frequency , mas s emissions , an d method s and effectivenes s o f lea k prevention . Thes e studie s showed tha t equipmen t leak s wer e asignifican

t sourc e o f emission s an

d tha t th e majorit y o f emission s a

t tha t tim e wer e associate d wit

h equipmen

t leaks measure d a

t concentration s greate

r tha n 10,000 ppm . I n the EP A Refiner y Assessmen

t Stud y datawer

e gathere d o

n equipmen

t screenin g value s (usin g aportabl e VO C instrument ) an d mas s emissions . Thes e dat a permitte d th

e developmen

t o f averag e emissio n factors and screenin g value/emissio n rat e correlations . Th

e stud y als o provide d othe

r importan t results . Analyse s t

o identif y equipmen

t or proces s variable s (e.g. , equipmen t manufacturer , age , or

line size , proces s pressure , strea mvolatility ) tha

t effec t lea k frequenc y le d t o th e separatio n o f equipmen t componen

t emission s b

y strea mphase : gas/vapor , ligh

t liquid , an d heav y liquid . Thes e classification s have bee n use d t o design regulation s based on lea k potential . I n 1980 , EP

A conducte d astud

y o f equipmen t lea k emission s fro

m2 4 individua l SOCM I proces s units . I

n thi s study , the 24-Uni

t Study , EP

A investigate d lea k frequency (a

t aconcentratio n o

f 10,00 0 ppm ) i n equipmen

t a t 2 4 individua

l chemica l proces s units . A stud

y o f th e effect s o f maintenanc e o

n emission s wa s 1 1 iP.1 4

performed concurrently a

t 6 o f th e unit s screened i

n th e 24-Uni t Study . Th

e datafro m thes e studie s wer

e used t o develop averag e emissio n factor s an d screenin g value/lea

k rat e correlations ; t

o evaluat e lea k frequency a s afunctio

n o f proces s parameter s an

d equipmen t design ; t o evaluat e th e effec t o f instrumen t response factor s o

n lea k frequency ; an

d t o estimat

e th e effec t o f lea k occurrenc e an

d recurrence rate s o

n mas s emissions . Thes e studie s als o demonstrate d tha t aprogra mconsistin g o

f inspectio n o

f equipmen t an d maintenanc e o

f th e leakin g equipmen

t was a n effectiv e mean s o

f reducin g emissions . The contro l measure s identifie d a t tha t tim e wer e estimate d t o achiev e overal l a6 0 t o 7 0 percen t reductio n i

n emission s fromequipmen t leaks . The dat aan d conclusion s fro

mth e studie s o

n petroleu mrefinery unit s an

d chemica l proces s unit s served a s abasi s fo r EPA' s equipmen

t lea k regulations and guidehne s tha t wer e issue d i n th e earl y 1980's . Information obtaine d i n thes e studie s als o showe d tha t lea k frequencie s varie d widel y amon g proces s unit s an

d sourc e type s an

d tha t factors tha

t affec t lea k frequencie s wer

e no t wel l understood . Specifically , studie s suc h a s EPA' s 24-Unit Stud y showe d tha t th e frequency o

f leak s greate

r tha n 10,00 0 pp mrange d from 0 t

o approximatel

y 3 0 percen

t among 1 5 differen

t chemica l processes . Simila

r chemica l processe s als o showed larg e difference s i n lea k frequencies; fo

r example , th

e lea k frequencies fo

r ga s valve s varie d fro

m0 t o 1 8 percen

t fo r 3 ethylen e dichloride units . I n subsequen

t studies , EP

A evaluate d lea

k frequenc y a s afunctio

n o f proces s parameter s and equipmen

t desig n and identifie d no singl e facto r tha t determine d lea

k frequency . Lea

k frequencies ar

e believe d t o b e afunctio

n o f componen

t design , 1 2P.1 5

specifications , construction , material , an d age ; qualit

y an d frequency o

f maintenance ; operatin g an

d trainin g practice s use

d b y th e company , diligence ; proces s fluid s and operatin g conditions ; an

d othe r unidentifie d factors . Curren t regulation s adopte d unde

r Section s 11 1 an

d 11 2 o f th e CA A requir e (1 ) alea k detectio n an

d repair progra mfo r valve s i n gas/vapor

an d ligh t liqui d servic e an

d pump s i n ligh t liqui d service ; (2 ) equipmen

t fo r compressors , sampling systems , an d open-ende d lines ; an

d (3 ) n o detectabl e emission s (50 0 pp ma s determine d b

y Referenc e Metho d 21 ) fo r pressur e relief device s i n gas/vapor

servic e durin g norma

l operation . Thes e rule s d o not requir e source s t o achiev e particula r performanc e level s or

t o instal l lo

w emissio n equipmen

t designs . A s such , residua

l emission s wil

l var y amon g proces s unit s an

d th e bes t controlle d unit s will emi

t les s tha n typicall y o r poore r controlle d units . 2 . Recen t Studie s I n th e las t 3 years , EP

A ha s received information tha t show s significantl

y lowe r lea k frequencie s a

t 10,00 0 pp mfo r som e chemica l processe s tha

n wa s representative fo r the industr

y a s awhole i

n th e earl y 1980's . Thi s information was on e consideratio n i

n EPA' s decisio n t

o develo p ane w regulator

y approac h fo r equipmen t leak s throug

h the regulator

y negotiatio n process . Th

e information i s briefl

y surnmarize d i

n th e paragraph s below . I

n addition , wher

e sufficien t informatio n i s available , thes e dat aar

e include d i

n Tabl e VI- 2 whic

h compare s lea

k frequenc y b y componen t typ e wit h th e previousl

y calculate d SOCM

I averag e lea

k frequency . I

n general , thes e datawer

e collecte d followin

g th e procedure s specifie d i

n Referenc e

1 3P.1 6

Metho d 21 , an

d th e results represen

t asingl e monitorin g surve

y conducte d ove

r a limite d time period . Unit s subject

t o th e Benzen e Equipmen

t Lea k NESHAP . Durin g EPA' s reconsideratio n o

f th e benzen e equipmen

t lea k NESHA P (Septembe

r 14 , 1989 , 5 4 F

R 38044) , EP

A examine d complianc e reports fro m198 7 an d 198 8 fo r arandoml

y selecte d sample o

f 2 5 faciUtie s subjec

t t o th e standard , whic

h require s a10,00

0 pp m lea k detectio n and repair

program . Thi s review showe d tha t man y faciUtie s ha

d n o valve s o r pump s exceedin g 10,00

0 pp man d n o facilitie s ha

d mor e tha n 1. 5 percen t valve s o r mor e tha n 12. 5 percen

t pump s exceedin g 10,000 ppm . Th e averag e frequencie s o

f source s exceedin g 10,00

0 pp mwer e 0.2 7 percen t fo r valve s an d 2. 3 percen t fo r pumps . Thes e frequencies, i n general , ar

e lowe r tha n th e averag e frequencie s o

f 3 t o 5 percen t fo r valve s an d approximatel

y 1 0 percen

t fo r pump s exceedin g 10,00

0 ppmwhic

h ha d bee n expecte d afte

r applicatio n o

f th e standard . Acrolein proces s units . I

n 1989 , EP

A received screenin g dataan d proces s information on tw o acrolein proces s units . Thes e datawer e collecte d voluntarily b

y th e compan y t o provid

e bette r emissio n estimate s tha

n coul d b e obtaine d usin g the SOCM I averag e factors . Th

e monitorin g dat

arepresente d eigh

t type s o f equipmen t (ga s valves , ligh

t liqui d valves , ligh

t liqui d pumps , flanges an

d othe r connectors , pressur e relief valves , sample points , open-ende d line s an d compressors) . Thes e monitorin g dat awer

e collecte d following the procedure s specified i n "Protocol s fo r Generatin g Unit-Specifi c Emissio n Estimate s fo r Equipmen

t Leak s o f VOC an d VHAP" , (Protocols ) EPA-450/3-88-010 . I n general , particula

r car e wa s take n i n 1 4

_______!____

_ u BP.1 7

measurement s o

f equipmen t wit h nea r zer o or les s tha n 20 0 pp memissions . I

n addition , on e o

f th e unit s ha d approximatel

y 6 0 percen

t seale d bellow s valve s an

d th e othe r uni t ha d no seale d bellow s valves . Th e screenin g dataindicate d averag e lea k frequencie s o

f 0.2 6 t o 0.0 9 percen

t fo r valve s and o

f 0.1 3 t o 0 percen

t fo r flange s an

d othe r connector s a

t lea k definition s o

f 100 , 1,000 , an

d 10,000 ppm . Thes e dat aals o demonstrate d tha t bot h conventiona

l an d seale d bello w valv e design s ca n achiev e ver

y goo d performance . Pum p lea k frequencie s wer

e les s tha n 4 percen t a t 100 , 1000 , an

d 10,00 0 ppm . O f all the component s screened , mor e tha n 9 8 percen

t ha d screenin g value s belo w 1 0 ppm . Thes e lea k frequencie s ar

e substantiall

y below th

e level s foun

d b y EP A i n studie s conducte d i

n the early 1980's . Amin e Unit W.VA . I n 1987 , EP

A receive d monitorin g dat afo r tw o proces s unit s handlin g amines . Thes e unit s wer e selecte d fo

r testin g becaus e o

f th e relativel y sever e servic e condition s (i.e. , temperatur e an d pressure ) an

d hig h vapo r pressure s o

f th e proces s materials . On

e uni t (uni t 1 ) was characterize d a s handlin g relatively nontoxi c an

d innocuou s substance s an

d the othe r uni t (uni t 2 ) wa s characterize d a s handlin g amor

e toxi c compound , on

e wit h athreshol d limi t

valu e (TLV ) o

f 1 0 ppm , whic h wa s capabl e o

f causin g apubli c nuisance . Thes e datawer e collecte d voluntarily by th

e compan y t o calculat e aunit specific emissio n estimat

e usin g EPA' s leak/n o lea

k emissio n factors . Monitoring dat awer e provide d fo

r pumps , valves , an

d flanges and othe

r connectors .

1 5

^"*«*' iP.1 8 i I

The monitorin g datafo

r uni t 1 showed 3 3 percen

t o f th e pumps , 1 6 percen

t o f th e ligh t Uqui d valves , 2

7 percen t o f th e ga s valves , an

d 0. 4 percen

t o f th e flanges an

d othe r connector s exceedin g 10,00 0 ppm . Uni

t 2 ha d 5. 6 percen

t o f th e pumps , 0. 8 percen t o f th e ligh t liqui d valves , 1 percen

t o f th e gas valves , an

d 0. 1 percen

t o f th e flanges an

d othe r connector s exceedin g 10,00 0 ppm . Th

e datafo r uni t 2 indicat e tha t technolog y i s availabl e t

o reduc e leak s an

d sugges t tha t healt h an d safet y consideration s ar

e importan

t factor s affectin

g us e o f bette r technologie s an

d maintenanc e practices . Ethylbenzene/Styren e (EB/S ) Unit Tx . Limite d informatio n wa s receive d on screenin g value s measure d a t thi s facility' s ethylbenzene/styren e proces s unit , which i s subject t o th e benzene equipmen

t lea k NESHAP . Screening dat

awer e provide d fo

r a tota l o f approximatel

y 250 0 valve s an

d pumps . Th

e datawer e provide d a s tim

e aggregate d summarie s o

f screenin g valve s fo

r aon e yea r perio d from1987 t

o 1988 . Thes e dataindicate d tha

t 9 9 percen t o f th e time th e valve s an

d 9 0 percen

t o f th e tim e th e pump s ha

d screenin g value s les s tha n 50 0 ppm . Information submitte d fo r complianc e wit

h th e benzene equipmen

t lea k NESHA P showe d on a n annua l averag e basi s 0.0 4 percen t o f th e valve s an

d 3. 6 percen

t o f th e pump s exceede d 10,000 ppm . No descriptio n was provide d o f th e procedure s use d i

n th e datacollection , othe

r tha n tha t Referenc e Metho d 2 1 wa s used . Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Studie s o f Butadien e (BD) , Ethvlen e Oxid e (EO) . an d Phosgen e Proces s Units . I n additio n t o the precedin g information , comprehensiv e screenin g dat awer e als o provide d t

o EP A on 3 3 butadien e (BD) , 1 6

Ei_ HP.1 9

ethylen e oxide (EO) , and phosgene productio n proces s units . The monitorin g dat a represente d eight

type s o f equipmen t (ga s valves , ligh

t liqui d valves , ligh

t liqui d pumps , flanges an

d othe r connectors , pressur

e relief valves , sample points , open-ende d line s and compressors ) a

t essentially al l BD , EO , an d phosgene producer s operatin g i n th e Unite d States . Thes e datawer e collecte d voluntaril

y b y th e CM A committee s t

o provid e EP A wit h bette r industry-wid

e estimate s o

f emission s fro

mequipmen

t leaks a t thes e proces s unit s tha

n coul d b e obtaine d using EP A averag e factors fo

r SOCMI . Thes e monitorin g datawer e coUecte d followin g th e procedure s specified i

n the Protocols . Thes e studie s provid e the mos t comprehensiv e equipmen

t screenin g dat a availabl e tha

t documen t th e ful l rang e o f lea k frequencies fo

r larg e number s o

f proces s unit s use d fo

r the productio n o

f specific chemicals . Th

e EP A als o obtaine d information o

n th e plan t wor k practices , operation s an

d th e equipmen

t desig n specifications . Condition s i n the equipmen

t surveye d spanne d awid

e rang e o f o temperature s an

d pressure s (50° F t

o 55 0 F an

d 5 t o 50 0 psig) . The screenin g dataindicate d tha t mos t proces s unit s a

t thes e facilitie s ar

e characterize d b

y equipmen

t lea k frequencie s fa

r belo w level s foun

d b y EP A i n studie s conducte d i

n the 1970' s an

d 1980's . I

n addition , th

e databas e indicate d muc

h lowe r lea k frequencie s a

t the phosgene proces s unit s tha n a t the E O and B D units , an

d th e E O unit s i n genera l ha d lowe r lea k frequencies tha

n the B D units . Tabl e VI- 2 present s th e plant-specifi c lea k frequenc y datab y componen

t type , a t variou s lea

k definition s fo

r the thre e processes . Th

e dat ashow n i n Tabl e VI- 2 ar

e the screenin g datatha t wer e judge d t o b e consisten

t wit h prope r calibratio n an

d us e o f th e tes t 1 7

___H____M___^____^___^__-^---MII^ H ^^ H H ^^^^ H H ^ H ^^^^^^^HM___--------------------K---H--- S i-- | lP.2 0

equipment . Th e screenin g value s fo r th e te n B D and nin

e E O proces s unit s wer

e als o adjusted fo

r the instrumen

t respons e facto

r t o represen t mor e accurately th

e screenin g concentratio n o

f equipmen t i n B D o r EO service . Th

e datapresente d i

n Tabl e VI- 2 represent proces s unit s i

n variou s stage s o

f contro l an

d operations . Som

e plant s operate d using forma

l LDA R program s an

d other s di d not ; som

e unit s wer

e screene d jus t befor e ashutdow

n fo r maintenanc e and other s wer e screene d jus t

afte r startu p following aschedule d maintenanc e shutdown . The above information , whe n compare d wit

h th e earlie r studie s an

d analyse s indicate d t o EP

A tha t th e performanc e capabilit

y o f availabl e technolog y i s bette r tha n ha d bee n expecte d from a10,00

0 pp mLDA R progra malone . Furthermore , analyse s o f thes e datashowed , lik

e earlie r studies , tha

t no singl e facto

r o r technolog y wa s responsibl e fo

r th e bette r performance . Rather , the recen t dataconfirme d tha

t effective lea k contro l involve s acombinatio n o f factors . For

example , statistica

l analysi s o

f th e recen t E O an d B D datafailed t

o identif y specifi c proces s parameter s o r equipmen t design s tha

t alone would significantl

y affec t lea k frequencies . D . Developmen

t o f Framewor

k and Selectio n o

f MAC T Unlik e man y othe r sourc e types , selectio n o

f MAC T fo r equipmen t leak s require s abalancin g o

f anumbe r o f interrelate d factors an

d i s not base d o n identificatio n o

f aspecific bes t

contro l techniqu e or

approach . Th

e followin g discussio n explain s th

e Committee' s assessmen

t an d consideratio n o

f th e availabl e data i n th e developmen

t o f the framewor

k a s well a s th

e selectio n o

f MACT . 1 . Information considere d 1 8

• E i satP.2 1



### Vl-z. Tabl e A,'-

Sun-nar y o f Equipmen t Screenin g Dat a Uni t I D E O 1 E O 2 E O 3 E O 4 E O 5 E O 6 E O 7 E O 8 E O 9 B D 1 B D 3 B D 4 B D 5 B D 6 B D 7 B D 8 B D 1 0 B D 1 1 B D 1 2 Acrolei n TAC B 

### A B C Averag e SOCM I a t 10,00 0 Valve s %



### 25 0 0. 6 2. 8 1. 4 2 0. 4 1. 6 1. 2 2. 9 5. 3 10. 7 

### 5. 6 7. 3 1 1 7. 5 2. 2 21. 9 

### 2 5 11. 3 

### 5. 9 0. 1

. 

### pp m 50 0 0. 4 2. 2 1. 1 1. 3 0. 2 1. 4 1. 2 2. 5 4. 5 8. 8 4. 8 6. 3 7. 7 5. 4 2. 2 18. 4 19. 8 10. 1 

### 4. 5 0. 1 3. 6 0 0. 7

11. 5 Leaker s 100 0 

### 0. 3 1. 1 1. 1 0. 9 0. 2 1. 3 1. 2 1. 5 4 7. 5 4. 2 5. 4 5- / 3. 3 2. 2 15. 1 17. 1 

### 8 3. 7 0. 1 Pump s %



### 50 0 0 2 3 3 6 0 0 6 2 5 2 4 2. 9 5 0 3 3 n/ a 5 8 0 16. 7 

### 1 0 4 4 4 5 100 0 

### 0 1 8 2 7 0 0 0 2 5 2 1 0 n/ a 5 0 0 16. 7 

### 1 0 4 Leaker s 200 0 500 0 0 0 1 4 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 5 1 5 1 3 0 0 n/ a n/ a 41. 7 41. 7 0 0 16. 7 16. 7 1 0 1 0 4 4



### 9 Connector s %



### 25 0 0 0. 9 3. 2 2. 8 -0 - 4. 1 0 2. 5 7. 6 0 0. 7 1 0 3. 4 n/ a 0 7. 4 5. 1 1. 4 0. 6 0. 1 50 0 0 0. 9 3. 2 1. 5 

### •f r 4. 1 0 2. 5 5. 9 0 0. 7 8. 6 1. 5 n/ a 0 6. 7 2. 5 1. 4 0. 6 0. 1 0 n/ a 2

2. 1 Leaker s 100 0 

### 0 0. 9 3. 2 

# °- 7 

# „._«** . -9 - A * 

### 4. 1 0 2. 5 4. 9 0 0. 7 7. 1 1. 1 n/ a 0 5. 9 1. 9 0. 7 0. 6 0. 1



## R

gjQ UI n deliberation s ove

r the framework , the Committe e considere d screenin g dat a fromthe CM

A survey s o

f EO , BD , an

d phosgene productio n unit s a s wel l a s dat aan

d information fro

mothe r proces s units . The additiona l information considere d include d dataprovide d o

n a n EB/ S proces s uni

t an d o n thre e facUitie s i

n Texa s subject

t o a500 pp mlea k permit condition . Th

e information availabl e fo

r th e EO , BD , an

d phosgene unit s an d fo r th e EB/ S uni t wer e describe d i

n th e precedin g section . Th

e information provide d o

n th e thre e facilitie s i

n Texa s i s describe d below . Texa s Ai r Contro l Boar

d Data . Additiona

l dat afro mthre e plan

t site s wer e provide d b

y th e Committee membe

r representin g th

e Texa s Ai

r Contro l Board . Thes e plant s ar e subject t o aTexa s regulatio n tha

t requires LDA

R wit h directe d maintenanc e a t a50 0 ppm

v lea k definition . Thi s requirement ha s bee n applie d a s par

t o f th e permi t progra mfo r ne w an d modifie d sources . Dat

awer e provide d fo

r cumene , phenol/acetone , an

d butyraldehyde/butano l proces s unit s whic h ha d bee n operatin g a 50 0 ppmLDA

R progra mfo r on e t o six quarters . Thes e unit s ha d averag e lea

k frequencie s a

t 50 0 pp mfo r valve s rangin g from 0 t

o 3. 6 percent . The averag e lea k frequenc y a t 50 0 ppmreporte d fo

r pump s varie d fro

m0 t o 2 0 percen

t i n th e first perio d an d from3. 6 t o 5 percen

t i n th e secon d period . Averag e lea

k frequencie s fo

r flanges varie d fro

m0 t o 2 percent . Thes e datasho w fo r severa l chemical s tha

t a50 0 pp mLDA R progra mi s effective an

d wi U significantl

y decreas e lea

k frequency. I n additio n t

o considerin g th

e availabl e screening data , the Committe e visite d 3 integrate d chemica

l plants , on

e o f whic h ha d 2 0 operatin g unit s includin g aphosgene unit , atoluen e diisocyanat

e unit , an d ahydroge

n fluoride unit . On

e conclusio n draw

n 1 9

H Bfro mthes e visit s wa s tha

t th e acut e toxicit y o f phosgene an

d toluene diisocyanat

e ha s resulte d i n th e routin e us e o

f anumbe r o f effective lea

k contro l practice s i

n thes e proces s units . Measure s take n t o preven t an d minimiz e leak s i

n phosgene an

d isocyanat e unit s includ

e desig n t o minimiz e th

e numbe r o f components , stringen

t qualit y assurance/contro l programs , benc h testin g o

f equipmen t fo r leaks , an d carefu l managemen

t an d extensiv e continuou s monitoring o f th e unit t o detec t leak s an d problems . I

n addition , phosgene and isocyanat e unit s ar e shu t dow n fo r immediat e repair wheneve r an y lea k i s detected . Immediat

e shutdow n i s possibl e becaus e phosgene an

d isocyanat

e proces s unit s ar

e smal l an d ar e no t operate d a s par

t o f a n integrate d process . I

n unit s wher

e les s acutel

y toxi c compound s ar

e use d or produced , suc h measure s wer

e no t observe d an

d th e unit s ar e no t immediatel

y shu t dow n fo r repair wheneve r alea k i s detected . Rather , thes e unit s ar e typically operate d fo

r a fixed time perio d befor

e the y ar e shu t dow n fo r maintenanc e an

d repair . Representativ e operatin g times betwee n schedule d shutdown s rang e fro m6 month s t

o severa l years , wit

h typica l time o f approximatel

y 3 years . Th e Committe e als o conclude d tha t equipmen t desig n an d a n on-goin g quaUt

y control/assuranc e progra

mha s asignifican

t rol e i n achievin g lo

w lea k frequencies . Thi s conclusio n wa s supporte d by remark s mad e t o the Committe e by achemica l industr y representativ e wh

o describe d hi s company' s recent experienc e wit

h tw o ethylen e oxide productio n units . Following completio n o f ascreenin g study , th

e compan y undertoo

k aprogra mt o reduc e th

e lea k frequenc y an d emission s fro

mth e units . Step s take

n consiste d o

f componen

t inspection , complet

e o r partia l replacement 2 0o f ove r 70 0 valve s and 200 0 gaskets , modification o f desig n t o reduc e leaks , an

d regula r monitorin g an

d inspectio n fo

r leaks . Th

e compan y reporte d tha

t ther e was a n overal l reduction o

f abou t 8 0 percen t i n th e numbe r o f leakin g component s following completio n o

f thi s project . 2 . Committe e Analysi s and Consideratio n o f the Dat a The Committee considere d th e dataan d information describe d i

n the precedin g sectio n an d conclude d tha

t th e EO , BD , an

d phosgene dat

ashoul d serv e a s the principl e basi s fo

r establishin g th

e performanc e o

f MAC T fo r SOCM I processes . Th

e EO , BD , an

d phosgene data , however , wer e considere d i

n ligh t o f th e broade r data ; especially , th

e Texa s 500 pp

mLDA R progra man d th e sit e visits . O

n thi s basis , th

e Committe e agree d tha

t phosgene unit s ar

e not simila r i n design , operation , an

d maintenanc e t o mos t

SOCM I processes . Som

e o f th e maintenanc e an d operatin g practice s fo

r phosgene unit s contro l program s wen t beyon d MAC T fo r othe r SOCM I processes . On

e exampl e o

f thi s i s th e practic e o

f immediat e shutdown . Immediat

e shu t dow n i s economically an

d technically infeasibl e fo

r othe r processe s becaus e shu

t dow n o f th e on e unit would require shu

t dow n o f all th e integrate d operation s a

t th e sit e an d i t woul d b e impractica

l t o clea r larg e volume s o

f chemical s i

n shor t tim e frames. I n som e cases , emission s fromclearin g proces s materia l frompar t o r al l o f the unit s coul d greatl

y excee d th

e emission s tha

t would resul t

fro mthe leakin g equipment . Therefore , whil e th e phosgene units ' performanc e di d provid e a n indicatio n o

f the potentia

l fo r lea k reduction , th

e Committe e conclude d tha t th e EO an d B D unit s ar

e mor e representative o

f th e rang e o f processe s i

n SOCM I tha n ar e 2 1P.2 5

phosgene or

toluene diisocyanat

e units . The Committee di d recognize , a s indicate d b y th e framewor

k an d the bas e performanc e levels , tha t ver y lo w lea k frequencie s ar

e generally achievabl e an

d tha t the rul e shoul d encourag e attainin g low emissions . Fro mth e dataan d observations , th

e Committee als o conclude d tha t lo w emissio n performanc e result s fromcombination s o f monitorin g (o

r surveillance) , repai

r o f leakin g equipment , us e o

f qualit y assure d an

d qualit y controlle d equipmen

t suitabl e fo r the proces s operatin g conditions , an d aqualit y controlle d maintenanc e an d repai r program . Th

e Committee conclude d tha t suc h combination s ar

e MAC T fo r SOCM I processes . Th

e information availabl e di d no t identif y an y singl e factor , suc

h a s particula r equipmen t desig n o r specific wor

k practice s o

r maintenanc e program s tha t b y itself woul d guarante e lo

w emissio n performanc e i

n all cases . Furthermore , the Committe e di d not

identif y the results a

t an y on e specifi c proces s uni t o r performanc e leve l a s representing MAC T performanc e becaus e ther e i s no apparen

t brea k poin t tha t represent s alimi

t o f wha t i s achievabl e wit

h acombinatio n o

f technologie s tha

t ar e available . Thus , th

e Committee identifie d th

e bes t performing E O proces s units , th e EB/ S unit , the Texa s 50 0 pp

munits , an

d possibl y th e bes t performing B D proces s unit s a s reflecting th e performanc e o f MAC T fo r toxi c chemica

l processes . 3 . Regulator

y Approac h Becaus e availabl e information indicate d tha t bes t performanc e fo

r equipmen t leak s coul d no

t b e defined or

reflected i

n asingl e numerica

l standard , typ e o

f technology , o r

grou p o f wor k practices , the Committee focused o n developin g a regulator y framework

that , whe n combine d wit

h performanc e levels , woul d reflect 2 2

jlif" "I I MACT . Ke

y principle s tha

t evolve d durin g th

e negotiation s an

d tha t le d t o the regulator y framewor

k are : (1 ) Motivatio n i s amajo

r facto r determinin g performance . Incentive s shoul d b e include d i n the standar

d t o rewar d goo d performanc e an

d prescribe d correctiv e action s shoul d b e include d t

o ensur e poo r performanc e i s correcte d i n atimel y manner . (2 ) Flexibilit

y i n achievin g specified result s i s important . Thi s i s necessar y t o allo w consideratio n o

f proces s t o proces s variation s i

n operatin g condition s an

d equipmen t specification s an

d t o provid e incentive s fo

r identifying th e mos t

effectiv e combinatio n o

f equipmen t an d practices . (3 ) Identifying , designing , an d implementing system s t

o mee t the specifie d result s requires varyin g amount s o f lea d time . Effective contro l requires continua l analysi s an

d adjustmen

t an d ma y involv e severa

l technologie s whic

h canno t b e identifie d or

applie d a t on e tim e or i n on e step . (4 ) Mor e frequen t monitoring an

d maintenanc e or

aprescribe d progra

mshoul d b e employed , a

t aminimum , fo

r thos e proces s unit s tha

t d o no t achiev e th

e specified result s throug

h aprogra mo f thei r ow n design or

throug h quarterly inspectio n an

d maintenanc e alone . (5 ) Ther e i s insufficien

t information availabl e t

o se t anot-to-be-exceede d standard . Th

e existin g information i s to o limite d i n scop e t o predic t wit h certaint y wha t leve l o f performanc e coul d b e achieved b y processe s fo

r which no datawer

e available .

2 3

______U IP.2 7

The majorit

y o f th e Committee deliberation s concerne d developmen t o f a regulator y framewor

k an d performanc e level s tha

t woul d incorporat

e the above ke

y principles , whil e reflectin g th e performanc e o

f MACT . Thes e deliberation s primarily focused o n developin g provision s fo r valves , pumps , an

d flanges becaus e thes e emissio n source s offere

d th e greates t potentia l fo r emissio n reductions . The Committee used th

e existin g LDA

R progra ma s astartin g poin

t fo r developmen

t o f th e framewor k fo r thes e sources . Early-on , th e Committee recognize d th e need fo r a phased-i n approach fo

r valve s an d pump s tha

t would provide tim

e fo r plant s t o develo p an

d implemen

t effective program s an

d t o focu s o

n large r emissio n source s first . The phased-i n approach i s necessar y becaus e effective contro l requires continua l analysi s and adjustmen

t o f program s a

s experienc e i s gained . Th e Committe e defined requirement s fo

r pump s an d valve s i n term s o f thre e phase s o

f increasin g stringency . Eac h phas e a s i t

occur s reflects th

e performanc e o

f MAC T fo r unit s i n tha t phase . Th e Committee als o deliberate d o n severa l method s o

f linkin g monitorin g frequenc y wit h performanc e an

d o f providin g incentive s t

o us e lo w emissio n equipmen t or t o reduc e th

e amoun t o f equipmen t i n VHA P service . Th

e final decisio n wa s t o lin k reduce d monitoring frequenc y wit h lowe r lea k frequencies , an

d t o giv e credi t fo r removal o

f equipmen t o r us e o f lo w lea k desig n equipment . The performanc e forma

t o f the standard s would als o encourag e the us e o f low-lea k technologies . Thi s approach i s consisten t wit h the datawhic

h indicat e tha t ther e ar e combination s o

f technology , maintenanc e practices , an d qualit y assuranc e program s

2 4P.2 8

tha t ca n achiev e ver

y lo w lea k frequencie s whil e usin g les s frequen t monitorin g intervals . The Committee als o debate d whethe r t o require shu

t dow n o f proces s unit s fo

r repair o f leakin g equipmen

t wheneve r performanc e deteriorate s belo w som e specified performanc e level . Th

e Committee ultimately conclude d tha t proces s unit s shoul d not b e shu t dow n t o mee t aperformanc e level . I

t was generall

y agree d tha

t clearin g o f proces s material s coul d caus e greate r emission s tha

n delayin g repair s unti l th

e nex t schedule d shutdown . The Committee als o agree d t o retain th e existin g equipmen

t standard s fo

r pressur e relief devices , sample points , open-ende d lines , produc t accumulator

vessels , an d compressors . Th

e existin g standard s fo

r thes e item s o

f equipmen t requir e installatio n o

f equipmen t o r contro l device s and essentially eliminat e emission s from equipmen t leaks . Th

e Committee considere d thes e requirement s t o b e MACT . For the valve , pump , an

d connector

standards , the Committee primaril y use d th e datafro mth e better-performing EO units , th e best

- performing B D units , the Texa s 50 0 ppmunits , and the EB/ S unit t o establis h the performanc e level s fo r the monitorin g frequency . A majo r consideratio n i

n th e selectio n o

f performanc e level s wa s the understandin g tha

t the level s ar

e interrelate d wit

h th e framewor

k and phasin g an d ar e no t necessarily th

e level s tha

t would hav e bee

n chose n fo r anot-to-be

exceede d standard . I

n th e cas e o f th e valve standard , th

e selectio n o

f th e bas e performanc e level s was als o influenced b y th e inclusio n o

f provision s tha

t provid e a n alternativ e t

o monthl y monitoring . Referred t

o a s th e Qualit y Improvemen

t Progra m 2 5

iaaP.2 9

(QIP) , thi s progra

mensure s tha

t plant s subject

t o thes e provision s instal l lo w emissio n performing replacemen

t equipmen t (during norma

l replacement

) an d implemen

t a qualit y assurance/contro l progra

mt o ensur e tha t a U element s o

f MAC T ar e utilized . Also , th e QIP was include d i

n th e framewor

k t o allo w thos e proces s unit s tha t d o us e all element s o

f MAC T bu t d o no t achiev e th

e specified numerica

l performanc e level s t o remain o

n aquarterly monitorin g schedul e instea d o f increasin g monitorin g frequency . Th e basi s fo r th e selectio n o

f th e bas e performanc e level s an d other element s o

f MAC T fo r valves , pumps , an

d connector s i s discusse d below . Th e basi s fo r the othe r provision s o

f th e valve , pump , an

d connector

standard s a s wel

l a s th e othe r specifi c requirement s o

f th e regulatio n i s give

n i n sectio n F . Valves . For

valve s th e Committee initially considere d bot h equipmen

t standard s an d LDA R program s an

d ultimatel y agree d upo

n athre e phas e LDA

R program . Initially , the Committee considere d requirin g the us e o f equipmen t suc h a s seale d bellow s valve s becaus e th

e equipmen

t i s ofte n believe d t o hav e zer

o emissions . Thi s optio n was no

t selecte d fo

r severa l reasons . First , thes e valve s ar e not suitabl e fo

r us e i n al l operatin g condition s and service s encountere d i n SOCM I processes . Specifically , thes e valve s ca n no t b e used i n corrosiv e streams , wit

h gritt y materials , o r i n extremely hig

h pressur e o r temperatur

e conditions . Second , seale d bellow s valve s ca n lea k internally , an

d will eventually fail . Whe n failur e occurs , ther

e i s potentia l fo r massiv e leaks . Du e t o thi s possiblit y fo r leaks , monitorin g o

f thes e valve s i s necessary . Considerin g this , th e Committee though

t tha t th e lea k detection , 2 6

S H ^ a ^lH^^^^^^^MB|^^^^^^^^MHB«|«^^_^_^_B_M_B__«__^___MB_____^_____ Irepair , an d bas e performanc e leve

l standard s framework

describe d above woul d bes t reflect MACT . Thi s approac

h allow s an

d would giv e credi t

fo r an y low emissio n performing valve regardles s o f it s design . Th e Committe e considere d severa l LDA R program s whic

h tie d monitorin g frequency t

o th e performanc e leve

l achieve d an

d create d aframewor

k tha t consist s o f severa l combination s o

f wor k practice s an

d performanc e levels . I

n determinin g th

e maximu mmonitorin g frequencies fo r Phas e III , th

e Committe e considere d requiring weekl y monitorin g an

d monthl y monitoring . Th

e weekl y monitorin g progra

mwa s rejecte d a s bein g impractica l an d unreasonable . Th

e Committe e agree d tha

t amonthl y progra mwa s the maximu

mfrequenc

y tha t woul d b e generall

y feasible , an

d woul d reduc e emissions , whil e bein g sufficientl y costly t o provid

e a n incentiv e fo

r owner s o f suc h source s t

o identif y mor e cost-effectiv e approaches . Fo r plant s tha t d o no t achiev e th e performanc e leve l require d fo r quarterl y monitorin g o

f valves , th e standar d require s monthl

y monitorin g or

participatio n i

n the QIP program . I

n addition , th

e Committe e als o decide d t

o allo w les s frequen

t monitorin g t

o provide a

n incentiv e t

o achiev e bette

r performanc e tha

n tha t require d fo

r th e bas e quarterly monitorin g program . Annua

l an d semi-annua

l frequencies wer

e selecte d fo

r the incentiv e programs . I n selectin g the bas e performanc e leve l an d lea k definition , th

e Committe e considere d th

e performanc e o

f th e bette r performing E O unit s (and possibl y th e bes t B D units ) and the performanc e o f the unit s subject

t o th e Texa s 50 0 pp mstandard . Usin g thes e data , the Committee considere d lea k definition s i

n the rang e o

f 5 0 t o 100 0 2 7

maP.3 1

ppman d performanc e level s from 1 t o 5 percen t leakin g valves . Thes e dat aan d th e fac t that , i n practice , low lea

k frequencie s wer

e achieve d b

y a50 0 pp mLDA

R progra malone supporte d th

e practicalit

y an d achievabilit

y o f aperformanc e limi

t fo r a quarterly LDA

R progra mo f 2 percen t leakin g valve s a

t a50 0 pp mlea k definition . Lea k definition s lowe

r tha n 500 pp mwer e no t selecte d du e t

o uncertaintie s abou

t th e practica l abilit y t o measur e an d repair smalle r leaks . A lea

k definitio n greate

r tha n 50 0 pp mwa s not

selecte d i n ligh t o f datademonstratin g the practicalit y and current implementatio n o

f a50 0 pp mLDA R program . Th

e Committe e als o agree d tha t unit s wit h les s tha n 1 percen t leaking valve s coul d monito r th e valve s semiannuall

y an d thos e wit h les s tha n 0. 5 percen

t leakin g valve s coul d monito r annually . Thes e performanc e level s wer

e selecte d considerin g the Committe e ha d previously agree d t o exclude nonrepairabl e valve s (u p t o amaximu

mo f 1 percen t o f th e tota l valv e pool ) fro mthe calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g valve s (se e sectio n E. 3 o f thi s notic e fo

r discussio n o

f th e basi s fo r th e nonrepairabl e provision) . Thes e performanc e level s hav e bee n demonstrate d b

y th e bette r performing EO proces s units , th e EB/ S unit , and b y the plant s subject

t o th e Texa s 50 0 ppmregulation . Th e Committe e considere d thes e level s t

o represent

th e performanc e o

f MACT . Pumps . I n deliberation s o

n th e standard , th

e Committee considere d th e data summarize d i

n Tabl e VI-2 , additiona

l analyse s o

f th e EO/B D data , an

d the comment s o f pum p sea l manufacturers . Th

e EO/B D dat

ashowed pum

p lea k frequencie s an

d overal l performanc e t o b e highl y variabl e wit

h lea k frequencie s rangin g from 0 t o 5 0 percen t a t a100 0 pp mlea k definition . Additiona

l analyse s wer

e done t o compar e th e 2 8P.3 2

performanc e o

f dua l mechanica

l sea l (DMS ) an

d singl e mechanica

l sea l (SMS ) pumps . Thes e comparison s showe

d that , i n general , DM

S pump s screene d a

t 0 pp man d tha t SMS pump s performanc e varie d widel y amon g th e proces s units . I

n som e cases , the SMS pump s screene d a

t les s tha n 10 0 pp man d coul d b e viewe d a s havin g comparabl e performanc e t

o tha t o f DMS pumps . For

th e majorit y o f SMS pump s screenin g a

t les s tha n 10,000 ppm , th

e screenin g value s wer

e fairl y uniforml y distribute d from10

0 t o 910 0 ppm . Thus , th

e datadi d no

t provid e aclea r indicatio n o

f th e performanc e leve

l tha t ca n b e achieve d b

y SMS withou

t incurrin g hig

h maintenanc e costs . Fro mit s consideratio n o

f th e availabl e data , th

e Committe e generall

y conclude d tha t pump s equippe d wit

h DMS , a s agroup , have lowe r lea k frequencie s tha

n thos e equippe d wit

h SMS . Consequently , th

e Committee deliberate d a

t grea t lengt h o n whethe r MACT i s reflecte d b

y a n equipmen

t standar d fo r DM S o n all pump s o

r b y a performanc e standard . The Committee decide d no t t o establis h a

n equipmen

t standar d becaus e DM S ar

e no t suitabl e fo

r us e i n all case s an

d becaus e aDM S equipmen t standar d would b e ver

y costl y an d woul d preclud e effective lowe

r cos t options . Dua

l mechanica l seal s canno t

b e use d wit h material s wher

e leakag e o

f the barrie r fluid woul d affec

t produc t purity , wit

h polymerizin g monomers , o r o n reciprocatin g pumps . Also , th e pum

p casin g o f som e existin g packe d sea

l and SMS pump s doe s not allo w installatio n o

f aDMS assembly . I

n suc h cases , aDM S equipmen

t standar d woul d require replacement

o f th e entir e pump . Th

e cos t o f aDM S equipmen

t standar d wa s considere d onl

y i n agenera

l sense ; estimate s o

f the cos t o f pum p replacement s and the cos t o f installatio n o

f DM S system s wer

e no t th e subject o f Committe e discussions . 2 9P.3 3 I

The opinio n tha

t aDM S equipmen

t standar d would b e ver y costly was based o

n genera l knowledg e an

d th e experienc e o

f som e Committee members . However , t o giv e all Committe e member s som e perspectiv e o

n th e potentia l costs , EP

A provide d a

n estimat e o f th e annualize d cos t

fo r retrofittin g a

n existin g pum

p wit h aDM S system . Thi s estimat

e showed th

e cos t would b e approximatel

y $2,200/yea

r (199 0 dollars ) fo

r eac h pump . I

n previou s rulemakings , EP A ha s estimate d tha

t arequiremen

t o f DM S on pump s ha s a

n incrementa

l cos t effectivenes s ove

r a10,000 ppmLDA

R progra mo f $5,600/megagra

mo f tota l VO C (197 8 dollars) , whic h i s comparabl e t

o approximatel

y $15,000/megagra

mi n curren t dollars . Som

e Committee member s expresse d a n additiona l concer n tha t aDM S equipmen

t standar d would have significan

t advers e economi c effec

t o n smal l producers . T o establis h aperformanc e standar d tha t woul d reflec t

MACT fo

r pumps , th

e Committee considere d th

e performanc e capabilitie s o f SM S (an d packe d seals ) compare d t

o th e performance , applicability , an d cos t o f DMS . Discussion s among the Committee members , chemica l industr y representatives, an

d pum p sea l manufacturer s lea d t o the conclusio n tha

t i t i s not possibl e t o identif y precisely bes t

performanc e level s achievabl e b

y SM S an d that , althoug

h advance s i

n technolog y coul d reasonabl y b e expecte d ove

r the nex t 5 years , th

e limit s o n thes e advance s coul d no

t b e established . Becaus e o

f technica l limitation s on the us e o

f DM S on pump s i

n food/medica

l servic e an

d the us e o

f mechanica

l seal s o n pump s handlin g polymerizin g monomers , the Committe e agree d t o establis h separat e performanc e standard s fo r pump s i n thos e tw o services . 3 0P.3 4

For pump s i n genera l service , th

e Committee agree d tha

t 100 0 pp mrepresente d aperformanc e targe

t reflectin g MAC

T an d tha t repair o f pump s with , alea

k rat e les s tha n 200 0 pp mcoul d resul t

i n significan

t an d costl y maintenance , withou

t an y attendan t emissio n reduction. Therefore , 200 0 pp mwas establishe d a s th

e concentratio n a

t whic h repair i s required . Th

e Committee als o conclude d tha t a1 0 percen t lea k frequenc y (o r 3 leakin g pumps ) i s the appropriat e poin t t o impos e a qualit y improvemen

t progra mtha t include s amandator

y replacemen

t provision . O

n balance , i t was believe d tha

t thi s combinatio n o

f requirement s woul d provid e th e tim e an d incentiv e neede d t

o achiev e bes t

performanc e fro

mSMS , woul

d allo w us e o

f SM S wher e the y ca n achiev e lo

w emissions , an

d would allo w us e o

f bot h SMS an d DM S pumps , a s appropriate , t

o achiev e th

e standard . For pump s i n food/medica

l service , th

e Committe e selecte d 200 0 pp man d 1 0 percen t lea k frequency a s th

e performanc e level . The lea k definitio n wa s se

t a t 200 0 pp mt o accoun t fo r th e limite d applicabilit

y o f DMS pump s an

d th e uncertaint

y tha t SMS seal s coul d achiev e lowe r performanc e level s withou t excessiv e replacements i n thi s service . Th

e Committee als o agree d tha t processe s wit

h pump s i n food/medica

l servic e tha

t excee d 1 0 percen

t leakin g pump s woul d no t

b e subjec t

t o th e mandator

y replacemen

t provision s i

n th e qualit y improvemen

t program . Fo r pump s handlin g polymerizin g monomers , the Committe e selecte d 500 0 pp m an d 1 0 percen

t lea k frequenc y fo r th e performanc e level . Thi s decisio n wa s based o n th e lac k o f dataan d uncertaintie s o

n th e limit s o f performanc e o

f SM S or packe d seal s i n thi s service . It

wa s als o agreed tha

t facilitie s tha

t excee d 1 0 percen

t lea k frequency 3 1P.3 5

woul d no t b e subjec t t o the mandator

y replacemen

t provisio n o

f th e qualit y improvemen

t program . Connectors . Provision s fo

r aLDA R progra mfo r connector s wer

e develope d afte r th e Committee generall

y agree d tha

t connector s coul d b e asignifican t sourc e o f emission s a

t awell-controUed plan

t an d tha t emission s coul d b e reduced . I n the developmen

t o f thes e provisions , th

e Committee considere d th e dat asummarized i

n Tabl e VI- 2 and the contributio n o f connector emission s t o tota

l emission s fo

r severa l EO/B D proces s units . Thes e dat ashowe d connector

lea k frequencies a s hig

h a s 3 percent , a t alea k definitio n o

f 10,00 0 ppm , and showe d tha

t connector s contribute d th e majorit y o f th e tota l emissions . Becaus e som

e EO/B D unit s ha

d 0 percen t leakin g connector s a

t variou s lea

k definitions , includin g 25 0 an d 10,00 0 ppm , th e Committe e conclude d tha

t connector leak s ca n b e controlle d t

o lo w levels . Th

e genera l vie w wa s tha t th e relatively hig

h lea k rate s observe d a

t som e proces s unit s wa s aresult o f infrequen t or no inspection s an

d maintenance . A LDA

R progra mwas establishe d t

o ensur e tha t lo w lea k frequencie s ar

e attained . I n developmen

t o f thes e provisions , th

e Committee agree d tha

t LDA R ca n reduc e connector

lea k frequencie s an

d tha t assurin g MAC

T performanc e require s les s frequen t monitorin g tha

n i s necessar

y fo r pump s o r valves . Les s frequent

monitorin g i s neede d becaus e connector s hav e no movin

g part s an d onc e repaire d the

y shoul d remain lea k fre e fo r extende d periods . Information provide d b y industr y member s o

n th e Committee indicate d tha

t anumbe r o f action s ca

n b e take n t o reduc e or

eUminat e leaks . I n mos t cases , i t wa s expecte d tha

t tightenin g th

e flange bolt s on flanged 3 2connector s woul d eUminat e th e leak . I t was als o expecte d tha

t i n othe r case s i t ma y b e necessar

y t o replac e th

e gaske t or t o correc t fault y aUgnmen

t o f surfaces . Thes e latte r case s ar e expecte d t

o b e relatively infrequent . Th e Committee , therefore , decide d tha

t a n annua l monitoring was th

e maximu mfrequenc

y tha t was reasonable . The Committee als o conclude d tha t proces s unit s tha

t demonstrat

e sustaine d performanc e a

t th e leve l o f th e standar d should b e allowe d t

o monitor les s frequentl

y tha n annually . Thi s concep t

i s simila r t o th e skip-perio d provision s fo r valve s i n the existin g equipmen

t lea k regulations . Thi s approac h i s consisten

t wit h qualit y contro l principle s an

d th e Committee conclude d tha t thi s approac

h wil l ensur e MAC T performance . The Committee selecte d th e performanc e level an

d lea k definitio n considerin g the datafro

mthe EO/B D units , th

e Texa s 50 0 pp

munits , an

d th e genera l conclusion s draw n fron th e Committee' s discussions . Thes e dat aan d the fac t that , i n practice , lo

w lea k frequencie s wer

e achievabl e persuade d th

e Committee tha

t alea k definitio n o

f 50 0 pp man d abas e performanc e level o f 0. 5 percen

t leakin g connector s woul d reflec t MACT . Proces s unit s tha

t have 0. 5 percent , o r

greater , leakin g connector s ar e require d t o implemen

t a n annua l LDA R progra mfo r connectors . Proces s unit s tha t have les s tha

n 0. 5 percen

t leakin g connector s ar

e allowe d t

o monitor al l connector s i

n abiennia l or quadrennia

l program . E . Selectio n o

f Forma t o f Standard s Unde r Sectio n 11 2 o

f th e CA A nationa l emissio n standard s must , wheneve r possible , tak

e th e forma t o f anumerica

l emissio n standard . Typically , a n emissio n 3 3P.3 7

standar d i s written i n term s o

f a n allowabl e emissio n rate (mas s pe r unit o f time) , performanc e leve l (e.g. , 9 0 percen t control) , o r

a n allowabl e concentration . Thes e type s o f standard s require the direc t measuremen

t o f emission s t o determin e compliance . For

som e sourc e types , emissio n standard s canno t b e prescribe d becaus e i t i s not feasibl e t o measur

e emissions . Sectio n 11 2 (h)(2 ) recognize s thi s situatio n b y definin g tw o condition s unde r whic h i t i s not feasibl e t o establis h a

n emissio n standard . Thes e condition s are : (1 ) if th e poUutant

s cannot b e emitte d through a conveyanc e designe d an

d constructe d t

o emi t or captur e th e pollutant ; or

(2 ) i f th e applicatio n o

f measuremen

t methodology i s no

t practicabl e du e t

o technologica

l an d economi c limitations . I

f a n emissio n standar

d cannot b e established , EP

A ma y instea d establis h adesign , equipment , wor k practice , or

operationa

l standar d o r combinatio n thereof . For equipmen t lea k sources , suc

h a s pump s an

d valves , EP

A ha s previously determine d tha

t i t i s not feasible t o prescrib e or

enforc e emissio n standards . Except fo r thos e item s o

f equipmen t fo r whic h standard s ca

n b e se t a t aspecifi c concentration , th

e onl y metho d o

f measurin g emission s i s tota l enclosur e o f individua l item s o f equipment , collectio n o

f emission s fo

r aspecifie d time period , and measuremen

t o f the emissions . Thi s procedure , know n a s bagging , i s atimeconsumin g and prohibitively expensiv e techniqu e considerin g th e grea t numbe r o f individua l item s o f equipmen t i n atypica l proces s unit . Moreover , thi s procedur e woul d no t b e usefu l fo r routine monitoring an

d identificatio n o

f leakin g equipmen

t fo r repair . 3 4P.3 8

The propose d standard s incorporat e severa l formats : equipment , design , bas e performanc e levels , wor

k practices , an

d operationa

l practices . Differen

t format s ar

e require d fo

r differen t type s o f equipmen t becaus e o

f th e natur e o f th e equipment , availabl e contro l techniques , an d applicabilit

y o f th e measuremen

t method . I

n th e nex t section , th e rational e fo

r selectin g aparticula

r forma t i s explaine d fo

r eac h typ e o f equipment . For

eac h sourc e type , th

e feasibilit y o f prescribin g or

enforcing a

n emissio n standar

d i s discussed . F . Selectio n o

f Emissio n Limit s an

d Wor k Practic e Requirement s 1 . Applicabilit

y Th e Committee considere d an d ultimatel y establishe d severa

l additiona

l applicabiUt

y criteri atha

t furthe r defined th

e scop e o f th e negotiate d standard . Thi s sectio n present s th

e Committee' s consideratio n o f minimu mVHA P concentration , tim

e i n VHA P service , an

d pilo t plant s an d researc h facilities . Strea mVHA P concentration . Th

e Committee discusse d a

t som e lengt h wha t concentratio n cutof

f shoul d b e used fo

r determinin g applicabilit

y o f the negotiate d standar d fo r specifi c stream s withi

n a n affecte d process . Thi s cutof

f was o f particula r concer n t o industr y members o

f th e Committee becaus e ther

e ar e trac e quantitie s o

f VHA P i n man y proces s streams . The numbe r o f equipmen t component s potentially subject t o th e standar

d an d the associate d cost s increas e substantially a s th e concentratio n i s decreased ; an d the emissio n reductio n become s small . Othe r Committe e member s wer

e concerne d tha

t emission s fro

mequipmen

t handlin g stream s containin g lo w VHA

P concentration s (e.g. , les s tha n 1 0 percent

) becom e increasingl y 3 5

H BP.3 9

significan t a s highe r concentratio n stream s ar

e controlled . Based o

n thes e considerations , the Committee agree d th e standar d woul d appl

y t o equipmen

t containin g o r

contactin g proces s material s tha t ar e 5 percen t VHA P o r greater . I n SOCM I processes , thi s concentratio n wa s viewe d a s being apoin

t o f relativel y low emission s an

d diminishin g returns . Time-in-VHA

P service . I

n certain chemica

l plants , particularly batc

h processe s whic h produc e anumbe

r o f differen t products , ther

e i s equipmen

t tha t i s used i n VHA P servic e onl

y occasionally . I

n suc h case s implementatio n o

f th e standar d coul d b e difficul t an d would achiev e ver

y littl e emissio n reduction. Pump s an d compressor s used onl y durin g startu

p or shutdow n o f aproces s uni

t ar e on e exampl e o

f suc h equipment . Othe

r example s includ

e equipmen

t used i n batc h pharmaceutica

l processe s o r batch step s i n continuou s processes . Fo r thes e situations , th

e Committe e conclude d tha t equipmen t tha t i s operate d 300 hour s pe

r year , or less , i n VHA P servic e shoul d b e exemp t Pilo t plants . Exemption o

f pilot plant s an d research an

d developmen

t facilitie s fro mth e negotiate d standar

d was discusse d o

n severa l occasion s by the Committee . Som e member s though

t tha t frequen t change s i n operation s a

t thes e plant s woul d mak

e complianc e wit

h the standar

d difficul t o r would incu

r unnecessar

y costs . Othe

r Committe e member s wer

e o f th e opinio n tha

t th e negotiate d standar

d applie s equaU

y we U t o pilo t plant s and research facilitie s a s productio n units , an d tha t chemica l industr y pilo t plant s ca n b e quit e larg e and hav e substantia l emissions . A

n additiona

l concer n expresse d b

y som e member s wa s tha

t an y exemptio n shoul d b e base d o n 3 6

^ m asmP.4 0

objectiv e criteria , no

t the intende d us e o

f th e materia l or th e purpos e o

f th e facility . Th e Committe e ultimatel

y agreed , unles s directe d otherwis e b y th e CAA , t o include pilo t plant s i n th e negotiate d standard . Th e CAA A doe s no t exempt pilo t plant s o r researc h facUitie s bu

t rathe r direct s EP A t o establis h aseparat

e categor y fo r thes e facilitie s a s necessar y t o assur e equitabl e treatment . Sinc e th e negotiate d standar

d include s specia

l provision s fo

r smal l plan t site s an d lo w hour s o f operation , i t

i s no t considere d necessar

y t o exempt pilo t plants . 2 . Complianc e Date s I n developin g th

e complianc e schedule an

d framewor

k o f th e standards , the Committee anticipate d th

e CAA A requirement

tha t complianc e date s fo

r eac h categor y appl y a s expeditiously a s practicable , bu t no t late r tha n 3 year s afte

r the effective dat

e o f th e standards . The Committee recognized i n th e selectio n o

f complianc e date s tha

t th e equipmen

t lea k regulatio n i s primaril

y awor k practic e standard . Unlik

e standard s tha t requir e installatio n o

f contro l equipment , th

e equipmen

t lea k regulatio n doe s no

t requir e majo r installatio n o

f equipmen t or larg e capita

l expenditures . Als o the time neede d t o identif y al l component s i

n VHA P service , establis h arecordkeeping system , obtai n monitorin g equipment , an d initiat e a n inspectio n an

d maintenanc e progra

mi s relativel y short . Based on thes e considerations , an d recognizing tha

t advanc e notic e would b e provide d whe

n th e rul e i s proposed i

n 1991 , th e Committe e conclude d tha t 6 month s afte

r promulgatio n was areasonabl e lea d time fo r complianc e wit

h Phas e I .

3 7P.4 1

A n additiona

l concer n t o th e Committee i

n establishin g the complianc e schedul e wa s th e potentia l fo r th e negotiate d rul e t

o overwhel

mth e resource s o

f bot h industr y an d regulator

y agencie s becaus e o

f th e larg e numbe

r o f affecte d facilitie s (abou

t xxx x proces s units ) expected . Th e Committee considere d severa l method s o

f distributin g th e pea k demand fo

r equipmen t an d staff , an d ultimatel y agree d t o astaggere d implementatio n schedul e tha t spread s th

e complianc e ove

r a1

- yea r period . Th

e affecte d sourc e categorie s wer

e divide d into fiv

e group s roughly based o

n th e carcinogenicit

y an d weigh t o f evidenc e fo

r th e chemical s associate d wit

h the category . Source s handlin g chemical s wit h the highes t

healt h hazar d wer e assigne d t o grou

p I an d thos e wit

h the lowes t

wer e assigne d t

o grou p V . I n addition , th

e 7 non-SOCMI sourc e categorie s a s well a s benzene , toluene , an d xylene productio n wer

e include d i

n th e first grou p o f sourc e categories . The Committee agree d tha t thi s woul d allo w industry , contractors , vendor s an d regulatory agencie s th

e tim e necessar y t o manag e successfull y th e increase d deman

d o n resources an

d personne l tha

t i s anticipate d t

o resul t fro mthe negotiate d rule . Th e provision s o

f th e negotiate d rul e would becom e applicabl e t

o thos e processe s Uste

d i n first Grou p 6 month s afte

r promulgatio n o

f th e HON , an

d t o on e additiona l grou p o f productio n processe s eac

h successiv e quarter . The negotiate d rul e would , therefore , becom

e applicabl e t

o th e las t grou p 1 8 month s afte

r promulgatio n o

f th e negotiate d rule . Apar

t fro mstaggere d applicabilit

y dates , all othe

r provision s o

f applicabiUty , includin g the provision s fo r asourc e t o request

a n extension , remain a s provide d fo

r i n th e Genera l Provision s fo

r NESHAP . 3 8

satTh e negotiate d rul e als o allow s a n owne r o r operato r t o elec t t o compl y wit h the applicabiUt

y dat e o f a n earlie r group . The Committee agree d tha t som e owner s or operator s a

t plant s havin g proces s unit s fromtw o or mor e group s migh

t prefe r t o compl y wit h th e provision s o

f th e negotiate d rul e a

U a t once , or i n fewe r phases , i n orde r t o avoi d confusio

n o r misunderstanding s abou

t wha t rule s or procedure s wer

e applicabl e t

o whic h individua

l item s o f equipment . 3 . Phase s o

f Valve an d Pum p Standard s Bot h th e valve an d pum p standard s wer

e structure d i

n thre e phase s t

o allo w tim

e t o improv e performanc e an

d t o achiev e progres s towar

d lowe r emissio n levels . The Committe e designe d Phas e I t o allo w existin g facilitie s unfamilia r wit h th e existin g rule s th e tim e necessar y t o develo p an d implemen

t a10,00 0 pp mLDA R progra ma s we U a s t o asses s th

e necessar y change s i

n operations , maintenance , an d trainin g o

f employees . Phas e I i s considere d necessar y becaus e th

e majorit y o f existin g facilitie s d o not presently implemen

t LDA R program s an

d i t wa s recognized tha

t establishin g program s ca

n b e alength

y process . Th

e Committee agree d Phas e I shoul d begin o n th e applicabilit

y dat e fo r a n existin g uni

t an d las t fo r 1 year . A 1-yea

r interva l wil l allo w 4 quarter s o

f monitorin g whic

h should provid

e sufficien t tim e t o establis h a progra mand t o identif y an d repair valve s an d pump s wit

h th e highes t emissions . Phas e II wa

s establishe d t

o achiev e furthe

r emissio n reductions b

y reducin g th

e lea k definitio n t

o 50 0 pp mfo r valve s an d 5000 pp mfo r pumps . Thi s phas e i s intende d t o expand th

e focu s fro mthe highe

r screenin g valu e leak s t

o lowe r value s an d t o continu e th

e identificatio n o

f proble mequipment . Th

e Committe e agree d tha

t 3 9P.4 3

Phas e I I woul d begin 1 yea r afte r th e applicablit

y dat e fo r a n existin g proces s uni

t an d woul d allo w 1.

5 yea r duratio n befor

e implementin g Phas e III . I n Phas e II I fo

r valves , th e Committee added abas e performanc e leve l requiremen

t t o the wor k practic e requirements o

f Phas e II . The bas e performanc e leve l wa s added t o ensur

e amor e certai n emissio n performanc e tha n achieve d through the wor k practic e requirement

alone and t

o creat e a n economi c incentiv e t o improv e performance . Fo r

Phas e II I o

f th e pum p standard , the Committe e adde d abas e performanc e level requiremen t t o th e wor k practic e requirement s and reduced the concentratio n defined a s aleak . The Committee establishe d separat e lea k definition s fo r thre e categorie s o

f pump s t o ensur e tha t eac h categor y achieve s MACT . For ne w proces s units , th

e Committee agree d tha

t fo r bot h pump s an

d valve s Phas e II shoul d b e implemente d a t startu p an d Phas e H I shoul d b e implemente d beginnin g 1 yea

r afte r startup . I

t was expecte d tha

t ne w unit s will b e designe d usin g bette r equipmen t an d considerin g th

e requirements o

f th e standard . The Committe e provide d a1 yea

r perio d i n Phas e I I t o allo w tim

e neede d fo

r adjustment s t o operation s an

d t o correc t an y problem s encountere d durin g startu p o f th e proces s unit . 4 . Valv e Standar

d A s discusse d earlier , th

e Committee develope d th

e valv e standar

d usin g th e LDA R progra mo f the existin g rul e a s astartin g point . The standar d recommended b

y th e Committee consist s o

f three phase s o

f requirements o

f increasin g stringenc y an

d thes e requirements ar

e acombinatio n o

f LDA R program s an

d performanc e levels . Fiqur e VI- 1 present s th

e conceptua

l approac h fo r th e valv e standard . Th

e rational e fo

r 4 0P.4 4

PhSM l 10,00 0 pp m 

## "SS

Phas e I I

Phat * II I Monthl y

LDA R

Qualit y Improvemen t <2% , 50 0 ppm v

>2% , 50 0 ppm v

>1 % 50 0 p p

>0.5 « 50 0 p p m v

I t m v Quarterl y

LDA R

.

Semi-Annua l LDA R

i

Annua l LDA R 50 !

< 5 0 < 1 % 9 ppm v

:0.5 % D ppm v

VIFigur e 1 . Standar d fo r Valve s 

### J\0 Oy-the framewor k o f th e standar d an d th e selectio n o

f th e bas e performanc e level s was explaine d i

n Sectio n D above . Thi s section explain s the rational e fo r othe r provision s i n th e propose d valv e standard . The Committe e use

d LDA R program s a s th

e startin g poin

t becaus e LDA

R i s a n effective mean s o

f detectin g an

d eliminatin g emission s fro mseal , failure . For

emissio n source s suc

h a s valves , emissio n standard s d o no t provid e appropriat

e contro l procedures . A s previousl

y discussed , a

n equipmen

t standar d was no t selecte d becaus e equipment , suc

h a s seale d bellow s valves , canno t b e uniforml

y applie d t

o all SOCM

I processes . Moreover , prope r us e o f equipmen t suc h a s seale d bellow s valves , als o require s aLDA

R progra mbecaus e thes e valve s ca

n fai l an d ca n have hig

h emissio n rate s upo n failure . Valve repair

intervals . Repai

r o f leak s soo n afte r detectio n i s ake

y featur e i n the propose d rul e an

d i s afacto

r i n th e effectivenes s o

f LDA R programs . Th e Committee agree d t

o retain , i n th e negotiate d standard , the repair interval s (i.e. , first attemp t a t repair i n 5 day s an

d repair withi n 1 5 days ) specified i

n th e existin g rule s (e.g. , 4 0 CF

R Par t 61 , Subpar

t V) . Th e repair interval s i

n th e existin g standard s ar

e intende d t o provid e effective emissio n reduction whil e allowin g the tim e necessar y fo r schedulin g o

f mor e comple x repairs . A s i n th e existin g equipmen

t lea k standards , the first

attemp t a t repai r i s require d a s soo

n a s practicabl e afte

r detectio n o

f the lea k and no late

r tha n 5 day s afte r discovery . Mos t

valv e repairs, suc

h a s tightening the bonne

t bolts , ca n b e performed quickly , and 5 day s shoul d provid e sufficien t tim e t o schedul e simpl e field 4 1P.4 6 I

repair s tha t d o not require isolatio n o

f th e valv e fromth

e process . Attempting t

o repai r alea k withi n 5 day s will hel

p identif y thos e valve s tha

t canno t b e repaired wit

h simpl e field repair

or withou t shutdow n o f th e proces s unit . Valve s tha t ar e no t repairabl e b

y simpl e field procedure s ma y requir e remova l fro mth e proces s fo

r repair . Th e 15-da y repair interva l provide s sufficien

t time t o identif y method s fo

r isolatin g leakin g valve s fo

r repair whe n isolatio n i s necessar

y an d extensiv e repair s ar

e required . Shorte r repair interval s wer

e no t selecte d becaus e the

y coul d caus e problem s i

n performing effectiv e repairs o n valve s tha

t mus t b e isolate d fromth

e process . Th e Committe e als o recognize d tha t som e valve s canno t

b e repaired without shuttin g dow

n th e proces s an

d tha t proces s shutdow

n i s costly and ma

y resul t i n greate r emission s tha

n delayin g repair

unti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . For thes e reasons , the existin g equipmen t lea k regulation s allow , unde

r certai n conditions , dela

y o f repair o f thes e "nonrepairables " unti l th e nex t facilit y shutdown . Thes e rules , i n general , requir

e tha t thes e valve s b e repaired durin g tha t shutdown . Th

e Committe e reviewe d th

e dela y o f repair provision s i

n th e existin g rule s an

d conclude d tha

t thes e provision s ar

e appropriat

e and shoul d b e include d i n the negotiate d standard . Nonrepairables . Ther

e wa s considerabl e discussio n b y the Committee o

f whethe r thos e valve s tha

t cannot b e repaired withou

t aproces s uni

t shutdow n shoul d b e considere d i

n determinin g th

e require d monitoring frequency. On e vie w was , i f unrepairabl e component s wer e included , the potentia

l fo r increase d monitorin g frequenc y woul d provid

e astron g incentiv e fo

r companie s t

o tak e ever y possibl e ste

p t o preven t leak s or t o repair leakin g valves . However , i t wa s als o recognize d tha

t 4 2

_________ !P.4 7

nonrepairabl e valve s ma

y no t b e completel

y preventabl e an

d countin g thes e coul d result i n highe r lea k percentage s i

n proces s unit s or

facilitie s tha

t hav e infrequen

t shutdowns . Moreover , increase d monitoring frequency , i f triggere d b

y nonrepairabl e components , i s o

f littl e direc t

benefi t sinc e th e nonrepairabl e valve s wil

l remain unrepaire d i

n spit e o f mor e frequent inspection . I

n ligh t o f thes e considerations , the Committee sough

t t o provid e amean s t

o provid e motivatio n fo

r plant s t o limi t th e numbe r o f nonrepairabl e valves , whil e a t th e sam e tim e avoidin g impositio n o

f unproductiv e cost s o

r inadvertentl

y increasin g emissions . The agree d upo n approach achieve s suc

h abalanc e b

y excludin g nonrepairabl e valve s u p t o atota l o f on e percen

t o f th e valve s i n VHA P servic e fromth

e calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g valve s fo

r sampling period s afte

r the leakin g valv e wa s first identified . Averagin g period s fo

r calculatio n o

f percen t leaking . I

n establishin g the bas e performanc e level s i

n Phas e IH , th

e Committee considere d the variabilit y inheren t i n measurement s o

f equipmen t leak s an d th e variabilit y i n lea k rate s ove r time. Ther

e wa s considerabl e debat

e a s t o whethe r measurement s o

f equipmen t leak s ar e sufficientl y precis e t

o warran t performanc e criteri aor

ho w t o conside

r thi s variabilit

y i n the framework

o f th e rule . Th

e concep t o f a2-perio d rollin g averag e wa s introduce d a s amean s o

f ensurin g tha

t rando mfluctuations, o

f themselves , d o not forc e afaciUt

y int o mor e frequen t monitoring . I

n additio n t

o th e benefit s o

f averaging , the rollin g averag e o f tw o consecutiv e monitoring period s provide s th e opportunit y fo r th e plan t t o tak e action , suc

h a s increase d surveillanc e o n asubse t o f valves , based o

n highe r tha n norma l lea k rate s i n asingl e period . I

t als o allow s th

e 4 3

ESMMowne r o r operato r th e necessar

y flexibility t o implemen

t supplementa

l quaUt y assuranc e program s t

o ensur e tha t performanc e remain s below bas e levels . Th e 2

- perio d rollin g averag e i s designe d t o encourag e suc

h plan t designe d qualit

y assuranc e program s an

d i t doe s no t penaliz e mor

e frequen t inspectio n an

d maintenance . Th

e Committe e selecte d thi s approac h fo r semiannua

l an d mor e frequen t monitorin g schedules . The Committee di d no

t choos e t o appl y th e 2-perio d averag e approach t o annua l monitorin g program s becaus e o f th e lo w performanc e leve l require d fo r annua l monitorin g an

d concern s tha

t effective contro l program s coul d b e unintentionally penalize d du e t o asingl e hig h monitorin g result . Specifically , aCommitte e membe r describe d the effec

t o f extrem e weathe r tha t cause d a n unplanne d shutdown and resulte d i n a n abnormall

y hig h numbe r o f leakin g valve s afte

r startup . I

n thi s case , th

e plan t woul d hav e t

o revert t o mor e frequen t monitorin g i

f onl y tw o monitorin g period s wer e considere d eve

n thoug h th e lea k frequenc y was normall

y nea r zero . Suc h a penalt y woul d b e inconsisten

t wit h the inten

t t o encourag e effective , plan t designe d qualit y assuranc e program s tha

t achiev e continuin g lo

w lea k performance . I

n ligh t o f this , the Committee agree d t o bas e th e annua l monitoring criterio n on the averag e o f 3 ou t o f 4 year s o f data . Thi s averagin g procedur e i s intende d t

o provid e relie f fo r facilitie s wit

h historie s o

f goo d performanc e fromth e effects o f unusua l an d infrequen

t perturbations . Credit s fo r removing valves . I

n developin g th e negotiate d standard , th e Committe e recognize d tha

t minimizin g th

e numbe r o f component s i

n aproces s i s on e 4 4P.4 9

o f th e mos t effectiv e mean s fo

r reducing leaks . Therefore , the Committe e gav e carefu l consideratio n t

o format s for, or mean s of , providin g a

n incentiv e t

o minimiz e th

e numbe r o f component s an

d the amoun

t o f credi t provided . For ne w proces s units , n

o mechanism s coul d b e identifie d tha t woul d provid

e suc h a n incentiv e fo

r al l SOCM I processes . Ne

w uni t design s diffe

r widel y fro m proces s t o proces s an

d i t wa s not possibl e t o defin e anor mo r baselin e fro

mwhic h componen t reduction s coul d b e determine d fo r ne w units . I n contrast , equipmen

t coun t baseline s ca

n b e establishe d fo

r existin g proces s unit s a

t th e tim e thes e unit s becom e subject t o th e standard s (fo

r ne w unit s a t startup ) an

d ca n b e use d a s th e basi s fo r calculatin g credit s fo

r futur e reductions i

n th e numbe r o f valves . Th

e Committe e electe d t o provid e thes e credit s i

n th e calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g valve s an

d th e associate d determinatio n o

f monitorin g frequency . Th e Committe e als o decide d tha t us e o f the valv e credi t

provision s shoul d b e a

t th e optio n o f th e owne r o r operator o f th e proces s uni

t becaus e o f th e burde n associate d wit

h th e recordkeepin g neede d t

o documen t the reduction . The Committee considere d credit s fo r component s removed rangin g fromful l credi t t o one-half credi t fo r eac h componen

t removed. Th

e ful l credi t optio n was no

t selecte d becaus e i t

coul d b e use d t o achiev e agoo d performanc e leve l without actually reducin g th

e numbe r o f leakin g valves . Based o

n adesir e t o provid e credi t fo r reducin g the numbe

r o f components , whil

e a t th e sam e tim e ensurin g tha

t remova l credit s d o not

reduc e th e incentiv e fo

r low-lea k performanc e i

n th e remainin g components , th

e Committee selecte d a6

7 percen t credi t fo r ne t reduction s i

n th e 4 5P.5 0

numbe r o f valves ; i.e. , 2 ou

t o f ever y 3 valve s removed fro

maproces s unit

ma y continu e t o b e counte d i

n th e tota l numbe r o f valve s whe

n calculatin g lea

k frequency. Unsafe-to-monito

r an d difficult-to-monito

r valves . Th

e Committe e agree d tha

t th e "unsafe-to-monitor " an

d th e "difficult-to-monitor " provision s i n the existin g equipmen t lea k standard s ar

e appropriat

e an d shoul d b e include d i

n th e negotiate d standard . Valve s tha

t ar e "unsafe-to-monitor " ar

e defined a s valve s tha

t coul d expos e personne l t o imminen

t hazard s fro

mtemperature , pressure , or explosiv e proces s conditions . Example s o

f suc h location s include valve s a t the top o f o r locate d nearb y hig h pressur e reactors . Valve s tha

t ar e unsafe-to-monito

r canno t b e eliminate d fro

m ne w or existin g units . Th

e rule , therefore , would exempt valve s i n unsaf e location s fro mroutin e monitorin g requirements, bu t woul d requir

e monitorin g a s frequentl

y a s practicabl e durin g safe-to-monito r periods . A t existin g proces s units , valve s ma y b e locate d wher

e the y ca n b e reached onl

y throug h extraordinar

y means . Th

e Committee conclude d tha t th e criteri afo

r difficult

to-monitor valve s ar e appropriat

e and tha t routin e monitorin g shoul d no t b e require d fo r valve s tha

t require elevatin g personnel mor e tha n 2 meter s abov e an

y permanen

t suppor t surface . Thi s mean s tha

t valve s tha

t canno t b e safel y monitore d fro

maste p ladde r o r portabl e scaffoldin

g coul d b e classifie d a s inaccessibl e an d exempt from routin e monitoring . A s i

n th e existin g rules , th

e difficult-to-monito

r exemptio n would b e availabl e onl

y fo r existin g units . Th

e Committee agree d tha

t routine monitorin g o

f valve s tha t hav e th e potentia l t o lea k should b e considere d i

n the desig n o

f ne w units .

4 6

_fi__-_-_-_H___^__--^--l---^---H---^---^---M----^---^---^--^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BBBHBH___^--i-- lP.5 1

25 0 valv e exemptio n fro

mPhas e II I monthl

y monitoring . Th

e Committee agree d t o requir e aquarterly LDA

R progra mi n Phase s I an

d I I and i n Phas e II I t

o bas e th e monitorin g frequency o

n th e performanc e level achieved . I n Phas e HI , source s tha

t excee d th e bas e performanc e level have th e optio n o f monthl y monitorin g or participatio n i

n aQIP . Fo

r smal l plants , however , ther

e was concer

n tha t eithe r monthl y monitorin g or

QI P would presen

t a n unreasonabl e burden . Becaus e o f th e limite d technica

l an d financia l resources an

d th e relatively lo

w emission s fro

msmall plant s wit h aquarterly LDA

R program , th

e Committee establishe d 25 0 valve s pe r plan t sit e a s th e leve l belo

w whic h quarterly monitorin g would b e th e mos t frequen t monitorin g interva

l required. Th

e Committee defined asmal l plan t a s asit e wit h 25 0 valves , or fewer , based o

n a n industr y estimat e o f representativ e numbe

r o f valve s a t smal l facilitie s an

d th e estimate d emission s fro

msuc h facilities . 5 . Pum p Standar d A s discusse d earlie

r i n "Developmen

t o f Framewor

k an d Selectio n o

f MACT" , th e Committe e develope d th

e pum p standar d using the provision s o

f the existin g standard s a s astartin g point . Th e recommended standar

d consist s o

f thre e phase s o

f requirement s o

f increasin g stringenc y an

d thes e ar e acombinatio n o

f LDA R program s an d performanc e levels . The Committee als o retaine d th e existin g provision s fo

r DMS system s and fo

r sealles s pump s (e.g. , canne d pumps) . Figur e VI- 2 present s th

e conceptua l approac h fo r th e pum p standard . Th

e rational e fo

r the framework

an d the selectio n o f the bas e performanc e level s wa s explaine d earlie r i n thi s notice . Thi s sectio n explain s th

e rational e fo

r othe r provision s i

n th e propose d pum

p standard . 4 7P.5 2

PfJOCOl l

PtiQCOl l

I . toco I

Genera l Pump o Monthly , LDA

R

>10%or 3 ( S mont h rollin g avg . a t 1,00 0 ppm ) (ropai r a t 2,00 0 ppm )

Ful l QI P 20 % RoplGcomcn . poryoo r 10,00 0 pp m

5,00 0 n m

Food/Mcdlco l Monthfy , LDA R

>10%or 3 ( 6 mont h rollin g avg . a t 2,00 0 ppm ) 

### 3_

_ Polymerizin g Monomor

o Monthly , LDAR

QI P N o Replacemen t >10%or 3 ( 6 mont h rollin g avg . a t 5,00 0 ppm )



### \jh Figure 2 . Standar d fo rPump s

____i___t___

_P.5 3

A s wit h valves , th

e Committee used LDA

R program s a s th

e startin g poin

t becaus e i t i s a n effective mean s o

f detectin g an

d controllin g emission s an

d becaus e thes e source s ar

e no t amenable t

o applicatio n o

f a n emissio n standard . A s discusse d previously , th

e Committee di d no

t establis h astandar

d requiring th

e us e o f DM S system s o r seaUes s pum

p design s becaus e thi s equipmen t canno t b e used i n all SOCM

I processes . Moreover , thi s equipmen t ca n fai l an d leak s ca n occur . Thus , prope

r operatio n and maintenanc e o f DMS system s an

d sealles s pump s require s periodi c monitoring . Fo r

thes e reason s the Committee develope d astandar d tha t requires us e o f LDA R program s or

us e o f DM S system s an

d sealles s pum

p design s wit

h periodi c monitoring . Pum p repair intervals . Fo

r th e reason s discusse d i

n th e valv e standard , th

e Committee retaine d th

e 5-da y first attempt an d th e 15-da y repair interval s o

f th e existin g rule s i

n th e pum p standard . Th

e Committee agree d that , wit h amino r clarification , thes e repair

interval s wer

e appropriate . Th

e Committee added languag e t o clarif y th e type s o f simple fiel

d repair tha t ar e intende d t

o represent first

attempt a t repair . Thi s provisio n wa

s added t o reduc e uncertaint

y regardin g complianc e an d t o conside r th e increase d maintenanc e tha t will b e require d wit

h lea k definition s lowe

r tha n 10,00 0 ppm . The Committee als o recognize d tha t som e pump s ar

e not spare d i n chemica l proces s unit s an

d cannot b e repaire d withou

t shuttin g dow

n the process . Th

e dela y o f repair provision s fo

r pump s i n th e existin g standard s wer

e reviewe d an

d th e

4 8

mP.5 4

Committe e conclude d tha

t i t wa s appropriat

e t o include thes e i

n the propose d standard . Averagin g perio d fo

r calculatio n o

f percen t leaking . Durin g developmen t o f th e Phas e H I bas e performanc e level , concern s wer e expresse d by Committe e member s regardin g th

e inheren t variablit y o f percen t leakin g calculation s give

n th e smal l numbe r o f pump s typicall

y presen t i n proces s unit s an

d th e inheren t variabilit y o f th e lea k measurements . WhU

e ther e wer e no dat aavailabl e t

o quantif y th e month-to

mont h variabilit

y o f pum p lea k frequencies , i

t wa s expecte d fro

mgenera l experienc e tha t lea k frequencie s would b e highl y variable . I

t was als o judge d tha

t lea k frequencie s based o

n shor t time period s o

f datawould b e poo

r predictor s o

f th e typ e o f performanc e tha

t th e QE P was intende d t

o remedy . Th

e Committee , therefore , conclude d tha

t pum p lea k frequencie s shoul d b e average d ove r aperio d o

f severa l month s t o provid e a n indicatio n o

f trend s i n performance . A rolling 6-mont h averag e wa s selecte d by the Committe e a s a n appropriat

e measur e fo r indicatin g upwar

d trend s and the nee d t o tak

e additiona

l measure s t o reduce pum

p sea l failures . Calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g pumps . Th e calculatio n procedur e specifie d i

n th e pum p standar d i s designe d t o addres s additiona l concern s abou

t the variabiUt

y o f pum p lea k frequencies an

d t o encourag e th

e us e o f lo w lea k desig n pump s an

d pum p seals . Becaus e o

f the sma U numbe r o f pump s i n typica l proces s units , the Committe e provide d th

e owne r or operator th e optio n o f calculatin g percen

t leakin g on aproces s uni t or plan t sit e basis . Thi s optio n was provide d t o allo w th e necessar y flexibilit y t o conside r furthe r problem s associate d wit

h smal l populatio n statistic s an

d sit e specifi c 4 9

-f______- HP.5 5

concerns . The Committe e als o decide d t o require the owne r o r operato r t o designat

e th e basi s fo r calculatin g percen

t leakin g pump s i

n th e first monitorin g perio d an

d t o us e tha t basi s fo r all subsequen

t calculations . Thi s was require d (1 ) t o preclude source s fro musin g th e mos t

favorable basi s fo

r the perio d and circumventin g the inten t o f th e pum p standar d an d (2 ) t o simplif y enforcement . Th e Committee als o agree d tha t pump s equippe d wit

h DM S system s an

d sealles s pump s (e.g. , canne d o r

magneti c pumps ) coul d b e include d i n th e calculatio n o f percen t leakin g pumps . Fo

r th e purpos e o

f thi s calculation , thes e pump s ar e assumed no t t o leak . Th

e calculatio n procedure , thus , give s credit fo r us e o f inherently low lea k design s an

d i s intende d t o provid

e a n incentiv e t o instal l thes e designs . The negotiate d standar

d would exclud

e pump s tha

t lea k shortly afte

r startu p o f a proces s uni

t fro mth e calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g fo

r tha t monitorin g period . Thi s exclusio n wa s adde d becaus e industr y member s o f

the Committe e reporte d tha t preinstaUation testin g doe s no t necessaril y ensur e tha t apum p wil l not lea k whe n put into service . Th

e industr y member s als o though

t tha t thes e leak s ar

e no t indicativ e o

f alon g ter mproblem . Th

e Committe e conclude d tha t suc h pump s shoul d b e subjec t t o th e repair requirement , bu

t tha t thi s proble

mi s no t indicativ e o

f th e typ e o f poor performanc e tha

t QI P i s intende d t

o remedy . Requirement s fo

r low lea k design pumps . The Committe e retained, wit h sligh t modifications , the provision s i n th e existin g standard s fo

r pump s wit

h DM S system s an d fo r sealles s pump s (e.g. , 4 0 CF R §61.242- 2 (d

) an d (e)) . For

pump s wit

h DMS systems , the Committee agree d tha t i t was onl y necessar y t o prohibit

us e o f light

5 0P.5 6

liqui d VHA

P a s barrie

r fluids . Th

e Committee aUowe

d the us e o

f heavy-liqui d VHA

P barrie r fluids becaus e th

e operatio n an

d monitorin g requirement s fo r DM S system s wer e considere d sufficien

t t o minimiz e an

y emission s fro

mleak s fromth

e DMS system . The Committe e als o reevaluate d the requiremen t fo r annua l demonstratio n o

f n o detectabl e leak s fro

msealles s pump s i

n the existin g standard s (e.g. , §61.242- 2 (e)) . Th e Committee considere d th e cause s o f failure s o f thes e design s an

d conclude d tha

t weekl y visua l inspectio n would achiev e equivalen t performanc e an

d assur e tha t thes e pump s hav e n o emissions . Consequently , unde r th e negotiate d pum

p standar d thes e sealles s desig n pump s would b e subject t o aweekl y visua l inspectio n wor

k practic e standar d and would no

t b e subjec t t o a n annua l performanc e tes t

requiremen

t t o demonstrat

e no emissions . 6 . QI P fo r Valve s an

d Pump s A s discusse d earlie

r i n "Developmen

t o f Framewor k an d Selectio n o

f MACT " sectio n o f thi s notice , th

e Committee recognize d tha t ther e i s uncertaint

y i n the achievabilit

y o f the performanc e level s b

y all SOCM

I processes , give

n tha t thes e level s ar e base d o n information fromasmal

l numbe r o f chemicals . Consequently , th e Committe e develope d provision s tha t woul d requir

e proces s unit s not

achievin g the bas e performanc e level s fo r valve s t o implemen

t mor e frequen t monitorin g or

aqualit y improvemen

t progra m(QIP ) designe d t o ultimatel

y achiev e th

e performanc e level s an

d unit s not achievin g the bas e performanc e level s fo r pump s t o implemen

t aQIP . A proces s uni

t no t abl e t o achiev e th

e performanc e level s i s no

t ou t o f complianc e i

f i t undertake s thes e additiona

l measures . Th

e provision s fo

r qualit y improvemen

t wer e 5 1

l__J____l__ lP.5 7

include d i n th e framework

t o allow thos e owner s or

operator s o

f proces s unit s tha

t d o us e al l element s o

f MAC T bu t d o no t achiev e th

e bas e performanc e level s th e flexibility t o develop proces s unit-specific , cost-effectiv e method s fo r improvin g emissio n performance . Th e QI P als o provide s a

n innovativ e mechanis mfo r focusing efforts o n reducin g emission s whil e avoidin g length y enforcemen

t actions . Onl y afe w proces s unit s ar

e expecte d t

o us e th e valv e QIP . I

t i s expecte d tha

t i n th e majorit y o f cases , asystemati c progra mo f monitorin g individua

l component s an d repair o f thos e tha t lea k will achiev e the performanc e level s o f the standards . It

i s recognized , however , tha

t ther e ma y b e situation s wher

e th e performanc e level s canno t b e achieve d due t

o specifi c proces s an

d operatin g conditions . The valv e an d pum p QIP' s wer e designe d t

o provid e amechanis mfo

r improving performanc e i

n suc h situations . Thes e QI P prescrib e program s tha t will require acommitmen t t o qualit y improvemen

t an d wi U involv e man

y aspect s o

f plan t operation s (e.g. , engineerin g an d maintenance) . Thi s sectio n present s th e basi s fo r th e specific provision s i

n the valv e an d pum p QIP . Valves . The CdtTimitte

e develope d tw o alternativ e QI P fo r valve s an d agree d t o restrict th e availabilit

y o f bot h o f thes e alternatives . Th

e QIP ma y b e aprogra

mtha t eithe r demonstrate s progres s i

n reducing th

e percen t leakin g valve s or

implement s a technolog y review an

d improvemen

t program . Th

e decisio n t

o us e eithe

r o f thes e alternativ e QIP mus t

b e mad e durin g th

e first yea r o f Phas e II I fo

r bot h ne w an d existin g units . Unde

r eithe r alternativ e QIP , afte

r the proces s unit

ha s achieve d les s 5 2

_____ aP.5 8

tha n tw o percen

t leakin g valves , the owne

r o r operato r ma y elec t t o continu e th

e QIP . I f th e owne r or operato r discontinue s the QIP , however.the QI P ma y no t b e use d i n th e futur e i f th e uni t agai n exceed s tw o percen

t leakin g valves . I

n suc h cases , th

e owne r or operator mus t implemen t monthl y monitoring unti l th

e uni t ha s les s tha

n tw o percen t leakin g valves , a . Demonstratio n o

f Progres s QIP . Thi s alternativ e QI

P woul d allo w a n owne r or operator o f asourc e t

o desig n an

d implemen t asit e specific progra

mt o achiev e stead

y progres s i

n lowerin g th

e percen t leakin g valves . An

y combinatio n o

f measure s suc

h a s increase d maintenanc e frequency or

replacemen

t o f component s ma

y b e used , provide d i t

achieve s th

e require d reductions i

n percen t leakin g valves . Unde r thi s QIP . the owne

r o r operato r woul d b e required t o continu e quarterly monitorin g and t

o demonstrat

e a n averag e 1 0 percen

t reduction i

n the percen

t leakin g valve s eac h quarter , based o

n arollin g averag e o

f 2 quarter s o

f monitorin g data . I

f a n owne r or operator fail s fo r 2 consecutiv e averagin g period s t o demonstrat

e a t leas t a n overal l averag e reductio n o f 1 0 percen t pe r quarter , the owne

r or operator mus t either implemen t atechnology review an

d improvemen

t QIP o r monthl y monitoring . I

f thi s QIP i s continue d afte

r aproces s uni

t has les s tha

n tw o percen

t leakin g valves , th

e owne r o r operator mus t continu e quarterl

y monitoring , bu

t doe s not hav e t o continu e t o demonstrat

e th e 1 0 percen

t reduction pe

r quarter . The Committe e develope d thi s QI P t o provid e a n a d ho c performanc e limit

fo r thos e owner s o r

operator s intereste d i

n ales s forma

l improvemen

t progra mtha n tha t 5 3

_____ •P.5 9

specifie d i n the technolog y review an d improvemen

t QIP . I t was envisione d tha

t thi s alternativ e QIP would b e usefu l primaril y fo r thos e proces s unit s wit

h lea k frequencies onl y slightl y greate r tha n 2 percent . Th

e Committe e judge d tha

t a n averag e reductio n i n percen t leakin g valve s o

f 1 0 percen t pe r quarter , calculate d a s arollin g averag e o f 2 quarter s o f monitorin g data , would provid e areasonabl e basi s fo

r determinin g whethe

r progres s wa s bein g mad

e i n approachin g th

e 2 percen t performanc e level . Moreover , i t wa s expecte d tha

t thi s rat e o f reduction would achiev e th e performanc e level s o

f th e bas e monitorin g progra

ma t atim e comparabl e t

o tha t expecte d unde

r th e technolog y review an d improvemen

t QIP . T o ensur

e tha t continua l progres s i s achieved , the Committe e required tha

t unit s failing t

o sho w progress , a s measure d b y th e reduction i n percen t leakin g valves , eithe

r implemen t monthl y monitorin g or

atechnolog y review an d improvemen

t QIP . Wit h eithe r o f thes e mor

e structure d alternatives , i

t wa s expecte d tha

t adherenc e t

o th e progra mwould reduc e emissions , b . Technolog y Revie

w an d Improvemen

t QIP . Thi s QIP was designe d t o provid e ageneri c proces s fo

r identifying appropriat

e solution s t o systemati c problems . Th e Committee develope d thes e provision s considerin g the fundamental s o f proble msolvin g an

d qualit y improvemen

t principles . Th e QIP i s structure d a s thre e classe s o f requirements : datacollectio n an d analysis , performanc e trials , an

d qualit y assuranc e an

d improvement . The principa

l basi s fo r th e provision s i

n the QIP wa s genera

l knowledg e o

f factor s affectin

g equipmen

t leak s an d recent experienc e i

n lea k contro l a t som e chemica l productio n units . Ke

y principle s used i

n developin g thi s QIP ar

e (1 ) the 5 4P.6 0

detati s o f program s (e.g. , specific design s or equipment

) ar e bes t determine d b

y th e sourc e fo r th e condition s i

n th e proces s uni

t an d (2 ) goo d performanc e i s the cumulativ e result

o f analysi s an

d attentio n t

o qualit y improvemen

t ove r aperio d o

f severa l years . Specifi c information tha t the Committe e considere d include d th e reporte d recen

t experienc e o

f on e E O produce

r i n reducing an

d eliminatin g leak s fro

m tw o proces s units . Th

e experienc e o

f CMA' s phosgene pane l an d th e proces s tha

t wa s used ove r the pas t 1 0 or mor e year s t o achiev e thei

r presen t performanc e wer

e als o considered . Ho

w th e Committee weighed th

e variou s factor s i

n arrivin g a

t th e detail s o f thi s QI P i s describe d i

n th e paragraph s below . The Committee include d arequirement fo r extensiv e datacollectio n becaus e thes e dataar

e essentia l t o understandin g th

e cause s o f problem s an

d t o developmen

t o f acorrectiv e program . Th

e QI P would require tha

t specifi c information b e recorde d o n each valve' s design , material s o f construction , packing , type , servic e conditions , an d screenin g values . Engineerin g evaluation s would als o b e require d t o determin e th

e cause s o f failur e o f all valve s removed fro

mthe proces s uni

t due t o leaks . Thes e record s ar e require d t

o ensur e tha t th e datanecessar

y fo r evaluatio n o

f cause s o f leak s i s available . The QIP woul d require analysi s o f the dat at o determin e i

f ther e ar e specifi c proble mservices , operatin g conditions , valv e types , designs , an d material s o

f construction . A second , an d equally important , objectiv e o f the analysi s woul d b e t

o identif y valv e design s an

d operatin g practice s tha

t will operat

e wit h les s tha n 2 percen

t leakin g valve s unde

r condition s comparabl e t o thos e i n the proces s proble

mareas . 5 5P.6 1

Suc h valv e design s o r

technologie s ar

e referre d t o i

n the QI P a s superio r

performin g valv e technologies . Becaus e proces s condition s an d cause s o f valv e leakag e d o var

y amon g proces s unit s an

d th e combination s o

f equipmen t an d procedure s tha

t ar e "superior " ma

y differ , superior

performing valv e technolog y i s not specifie d exclusively i

n term s o f specific valv e type s or

designs . Rather , superior

performanc e i s defined a s includin g an

y combinatio n o

f valv e typ e an

d process , operatin g practices , and maintenanc e practice s tha t achieve s the bas e performanc e leve l o f th e standard . Thi s flexibUity wa

s provide d becaus e i

t was recognize d tha

t bes t performing equipmen t has t o b e determine d i

n context o f th e application . I

n som e cases , superio

r performanc e ma

y b e achievabl e b

y us e o f adifferen t packin g materia

l i n the valve ; i

n othe r cases , us e o

f adifferen t valv e desig n or

desig n change s t

o th e proces s configuratio n ma

y b e required . Suc

h specific decision s ar

e bes t determine d b

y th e sourc e owne

r o r operator . Thes e superior

performin g valve technologie s ma

y b e identifie d throug

h analysi s o f th e proces s uni

t (o r plant ) data , or throug h review o

f availabl e literatur

e an d th e experienc e o

f othe r facilities . Bot

h the proces s unit

(or plant) dat aand outsid e experienc e mus t

b e considere d i

n identificatio n o

f candidat e superior valve s fo r performanc e trials . Thi s wa s specified t o ensur e tha t acomprehensiv e assessmen t wa s conducted . Fo r

simila r reasons, th

e Committee agree d tha

t the analysi s and identificatio n o

f bette r performin g equipmen

t ma y b e conducte d through a

n inte r or intra-compan

y progra man d ma y b e fo r asingl e proces s unit , acompany , or grou p o f proces s units . 5 6Th e Committe e decide d tha t the first dat aanalysi s mus t

b e complete d no late

r tha n 1 8 month s afte

r th e star t o f Phas e HI . Thi s schedul e wa s establishe d considerin g bot h the time necessar

y fo r understandin g th

e problem(s ) an

d the nee d t

o achiev e a reasonabl e rat

e o f progress . Th

e dat aanalysi s mus t

b e reevaluated eac

h yea r th e proces s uni

t i s i n th e QIP an d ha s tw o or

mor e percen t leakin g valves . Thi s was include d t o ensur

e continue d improvement . Performanc e trial s would b e require d wher

e th e dat aanalysi s fo

r th e proces s uni

t doe s not identif y an y superior performing valv e design s o r technologie s tha

t ca n b e applie d t o th e proces s unit . Performanc e trial s o f candidat e equipmen

t will ensur

e tha t possibl e solution s ar

e evaluate d an

d tha t applicatio n o

f ne w equipmen

t or operatin g procedure s make s goo d engineerin g sense . Thes e trial s mus t b e conducte d a s par

t o f a n experimenta

l progra mtha t identifie s all th

e design s an

d technologie s t

o b e evaluated , th

e stage s o f th e evaluation , th

e rang e o f planne d tes t

conditions , estimate d duratio n o f eac h stage , an

d documentatio n o

f the conclusion s fo

r eac h test . Th e purpos e o f th e performanc e trial s provisio n i s t o detennin e i

f candidat e equipmen

t o r operatio n an

d maintenanc e procedure s ca n b e use d i n the condition s i n the proces s unit . Becaus e thes e performanc e trial s ar e primaril y intende d t

o b e test s o

f feasibiUt y o f applicatio n t

o the proces s conditions , th e numbe r o f valve s i n the tria l progra mwa s set a t arealisti c numbe

r fo r experimenta

l evaluation . Th e performanc e trial s ar e no t intende d t o provid

e a n estimat e o f th e lea k frequency . Th

e QIP woul d requir

e performanc e trial s fo

r on e percen

t o f the valve s u

p t o amaximu

mo f 2 0 valve s i

n a singl e proces s uni

t or 5 0 valve s i

n aplan t sit e study . Th

e firs t performanc e trial s shall 5 7

t_t__ ib e complete d b y 2 4 month s afte

r the star t o f Phas e HI , o r

6 month s afte

r conclusio n o

f th e first dataanalysis . A

t tha t time , th e owne r or operator shall hav e identifie d valv e design s or technologie s tha

t combine d wit

h appropriat

e process , operation , and maintenanc e practice s operat e wit h low emissions . The owne r or operato r shall continu e performanc e trial s unti l asuperio r performing technolog y i s identified , th e proces s unit

ha s les s tha

n 2 percen t leakin g valves , o r

ther e ar e no additiona

l technically feasibl e candidat e technolotgie s remaining . A s additiona l information an

d experienc e ar

e gaine d i n th e QIP , th e lis t o f identifie d lo

w emissio n performing equipmen t shall b e updated . The owne r or operator would b e require d t

o prepar e aqualit y assuranc e pla

n tha t i s base d on the result s o

f the dat aanalysis , engineerin g evaluation s o f valves , an

d th e performanc e trials . Th

e pla n mus t includ e procedure s tha

t wil l ensur e tha t eac h valv e tha t i s replace d i s replace d wit h aqualit y assure d valv e tha

t will achiev e low emission s i

n th e proces s unit . Thes e valve s mus t b e valv e technologie s tha

t hav e bee n identifie d a s superio

r emission performanc e technology fo r tha t categor y o f valves , unles s n o superior

performer s coul d b e identified . Wher e thi s occurs , th e valve s mus t b e on e o f th e lowes t technologie s identifie d fo

r th e specifi c application . Th

e qualit y assuranc e pla

n mus t specif y minimu mdesig n standard s fo

r eac h categor y o f valve s establishe d by the owne

r o r operator , awritte

n procedur

e fo r benc h testin g o f

valve s fo r leaks , provide a

n audi t procedur e fo r qualit y contro l o

f purchase d equipment , an

d procedure s t

o ensur e qualit y o f an y rebuilt equipment . Th

e qualit y assuranc e progra

m fo r replacemen

t valve s mus t

b e implemente d a s lon g a s the proces s unit remain s i n the 5 8



### mmP.6 4

QIP . Thes e provision s wer e include d t

o guarante e ther

e woul d b e continue d improvemen

t i n th e emissio n performanc e o

f th e proces s unit . Thi s qualit

y assuranc e pla

n i s t o b e establishe d b

y th e star t o f the thir d yea r o f Phas e III fo

r mos t plan t site s an d b y th e star t o f th e fourt h yea r o f Phas e i n fo

r plan t site s tha t mee t th e exemptio n fo

r smal l facilities . The Committee exempte d plan t site s tha t have fewe

r tha n 40 0 valve s an

d tha t i s owned b y acompan

y wit h fewe r tha n 10 0 employee s fro

mth e requiremen

t t o conduc t performanc e trials . Thi s exemption fro mperformanc e trial s wa s provide d t o conside r th e limite d technica

l resources availabl e fo

r conductin g research a

t smalle r companie s an d t o minimiz e an

y advers e impact s o

f th e standar d o n small companies . The Committe e selecte d th

e exemption criteri abased o n typica l valv e count s i

n asmal l proces s unit

an d a n industr y estimat e o f the typica

l numbe r o f employee s fo

r asma U company . Thes e facilitie s wer e als o allowed a

n additiona

l yea r t o develop aqualit

y assuranc e pla

n an d t o begi n using qualit

y assure d valve s tha

t will operat

e wit h low emission s i

n th e proces s unit . The Committee provide d thi s additiona l tim e t o allo w thes e smalle

r facilitie s th

e time neede d t o obtain th

e necessar y information frompeers , vendors , literature , an

d othe r sources . The Committee considered , bu t rejected , provision s tha

t woul d hav e require d mandator y replacement

o f som e proportio n o

f the valve s i

n th e proces s unit

each year . Suc h aprovisio n wa s not

establishe d fo

r valve s fo r severa l reasons. Leakin g valve s ca n only b e repaire d on-lin e alimite d numbe r o f times befor

e the y ca n n o longe

r b e adjuste d t o achiev e lowe

r emission s and mus t

b e replaced . Typically , o n a n 5 9

________ _P.6 5

industrywid

e basis , 7 t o 1 0 percen

t o f th e valve s ar

e reportedly replace d each yea r fo r reason s othe

r tha n emissio n performanc e (i.e.,they ar e leaking) . I

f valve s tha

t ar e replace d (fo

r an y reason ) ar

e replaced wit

h qualit y assure d valve s appropriat e t o the servic e conditions , a

n improvemen

t i n emissio n performanc e ca n b e achieve d a

t nomina l additiona l cost . The Committee judge d tha t th e norma l replacement

o f 7 t o 1 0 percen t o f th e valve s eac

h yea r was areasonabl e rat

e o f improvemen

t considerin g tha t amandator

y replacement

progra mwould caus e ver

y hig h expenditure s fo

r negligibl e benefit . Pumps . The Committee develope d atechnology review an d improvemen

t QI P a s a mean s fo r proces s unit s (or

plants ) t o ultimatel

y achiev e the performanc e leve l o f the standard . Onl

y thi s QIP was employe d becaus e the Committee believe d tha t fo r pump s th e onl y practica l solutio n wa

s a n engineerin g analysi s t

o determin e th

e cause s o f systemati c problem s (e.g. , design , application , etc.) . Lik e th e valv e QIP , thi s QIP wa s designe d t

o provid e ageneri c approac

h t o evaluat

e th e problem , identif

y solutions , an d improv e equipmen

t an d operations . Th

e Committee als o recognize d tha t sufficien t time mus t b e provide d t

o identif y bot h th e cause s o f leak s an d cost-effectiv e solutions . Thus , th e pum

p QI P specifie s simila

r requirements on th e sam

e schedul e a s the valv e QIP . Th e pum p QI P differs fro

mthe valv e QIP i

n severa l respects du e t o difference s betwee n th e tw o standard s an

d betwee n th e equipment . Thi s sectio n present s the rational e fo

r the difference s betwee

n the provision s fo

r the tw o QI

P an d the additiona

l factor s tha t wer e considere d i

n developin g the pum

p QIP . 6 0

L- i _i-ll- lUnlik e th e valv e provisions , th

e pum p QIP would not

b e a n optio n fo

r selectio n b y the owne

r or operator an d ther e would b e no restriction s on whe n aproces s unit

(o r plant ) enter s aQIP . A

n owne r o r operato r mus t compl y wit h the requirements o f

the QI P wheneve

r th e greate r o f eithe r 1 0 percen t o f th e pump s or

3 pump s i

n aproces s unit (o r a t aplant ) leak . A proces s unit

mus t remain i n the QI P a s lon g a s the percen

t leakin g pump s i s greate

r tha n th e bas e performanc e level . Theoretically , aproces s uni t (or plant ) coul d b e subject

t o th e QIP provision s mor

e tha n on e time . I n case s wher

e aproces s uni

t (o r plant ) agai n become s subject

t o th e QIP , th e QI P mus t

b e resume d startin g a t th e performanc e trial s stage . Resumption a t the performanc e trial s was specifie d becaus e ther

e shoul d b e no nee

d fo r datacollectio n an

d analysi s sinc e tha

t shoul d b e availabl e fromth e earlie r QIP . A s wit h th e valv e technology an

d review QIP , th

e Committee require d tha

t a comprehensiv e databas e b e develope d o n pum p type , design , material s o

f construction , servic e characteristics , an

d screening values . Th

e engineerin g evaluatio n requiremen t differs i n tha

t inspection s ar

e require d fo

r pump s remove d fromthe proces s du e t o leak s an d fo r pum p sea l design s associate d wit

h hig h failur e rates . I t i s specifie d i

n thi s manne

r t o ensur e tha t evaluation s ar

e o f equipmen t wit h apparentl

y fundamenta

l desig n o r applicatio n problem s an

d ar e no t o f equipmen t a t the end o f th e desig n life . Bot h pump s and pum

p seal s wer

e include d t o ensur

e tha t a U possibl e source s o

f leakag e (e.g. , split

casing s o n larg e pumps ) ar

e included .

. A s i n th e valv e QIP , th

e dataar e analyse d t o identif

y problemarea s an

d service s a s wel l a s t o identif

y superior pum p performing technologies . Again , thes e 6 1

l___.___A___i__.i--._- i

_•',_]__.,_,___-.-- • M M - =-__-_=_--—__«==-.-----.--»--- n ^ .___,,.._ - . —. ,.„... . , „..,..„ _technologie s ar e no t considere d t

o solel y includ e particula r pum p o r sea l designs . Superior emissio n performanc e technology ma y includ e materia l or desig n change s t

o existin g pumps , pum

p seals , sea

l suppor t systems , us e o

f multipl e mechanica

l seals , or replacemen

t b y acanne d pum

p or amagneticall

y drive n pump . An

y combinatio n o

f equipmen t an d operatin g practice s tha

t achieve s th

e standar d i s considere d t

o b e superio r emissio n performanc e technology . The pum p performanc e tria

l provisio n set s alowe

r limit tha n th e valv e QIP doe s on th e numbe

r o f performanc e trials ; fo

r pump s the numbe

r o f test s i s on e percen

t o f th e pump s u p t o amaximu

mo f tw o fo r asingl e proces s uni

t an d five fo r aplant . Th

e smalle r numbe r o f trial s i s specified becaus e pum p population s ar

e muc h smalle r tha n valv e populations . Furthermore , wit h pump s ther

e will b e fa

r fewe r change s i n operation , maintenance , an d desig n parameter s tha

t ca n b e evaluated . Again , becaus e th e purpos e o

f th e trial s i s t

o tes t th e feasibilit y o f usin g the technolog y an

d no t t o predic t th e lea k frequency, alarg e numbe

r o f trial s i s no

t necessary . Th e qualit y assuranc e progra

mfo r pump s woul d hav e the sam e basi c objective s and requirement s a s doe s th e valv e program . The mino r difference s betwee

n th e pum p and valv e requirements aris e becaus e benc h testin g o f

pump s i s no t

ausefu l predicto r o f on-lin e performanc e and wa s not required. Fo r pump s i n genera l chemica l service , th e Committe e decide d t o requir e replacemen

t o f 2 0 percen t pe r yea r o f the pump s o r

pum p seal s wit

h equipment , operations , and maintenanc e practice s identifie d a s superior emissio n performanc e technology . A s discusse d earlier , thi s superior emissio n performanc e technolog y i s no t 6 2considere d t o b e exclusively represented b y specific design s suc

h a s canne d pump s or specifi c type s o

f pum p seal s suc

h a s dua l mechanica

l seals . Rather , i

t i s envisione d a

s consistin g o

f the combinatio n o

f pum p an d sea l desig n combine d wit

h appropriat

e process , operatio n an

d maintenac e practice s tha

t will achiev e th

e performanc e leve

l o f the standard . Th e mandator y replacement

provisio n wa s include d fo

r genera l chemica l servic e pump s t

o ensur e tha t proces s unit s (or

plants ) achiev e demonstrate d performanc e levels . Th

e Committee intende d fo

r thi s provisio n t

o serv e a s a

n incentiv e t o improv e performance . Mandator y replacemen

t provision s wer

e not applie d t o pump s i n food/medica

l servic e o r t o pump s handlin g polymerizin g monomer s sinc e i n bot h case s no demonstrate d performanc e level or technology coul d b e identified . N o datawer e availabl e t o th e Committee tha

t showe d th e performanc e leve l tha

t coul d b e achieve d b y thes e services . A s explaine d earlie r i n discussio n o

f th e propose d pum

p standard , th e Committee als o conclude d tha t dua l mechanica

l seal s coul d not

b e used o n pump s i n thes e services . Consequently , the Committee agree d tha t replacemen

t equipmen t mus t b e qualit y assure d and b e on e o

f the lowes t

emissio n performanc e technologie s identified . 7 . Standar d fo r Connector s i

n Gas/Vapo

r an d Ligh t Liqui d Servic e A s discusse d earlier , th

e Committee develope d astandar d fo r connector s tha

t consist s o f aLDA R progra mi n whic h th e monitorin g frequency i s base d o n the percen t leakin g connector s and alea k i s defined a s a

n instrumen

t readin g o f 50 0 pp m or higher . Thi s standar

d would not

b e phase d i

n an d woul d appl

y a s soo n a s th e rul e 6 3P.6 9

i s effectiv e fo

r aproces s unit . Th

e Committee judge d tha

t phas e i n o

f th e standar

d wa s unnecessar

y sinc e onc e connector s ar e lea k tigh t the y shoul d remain lea

k tight . i Figur e VI- 3 present s th

e conceptua

l approac h t o th e connector

standard . I

n additio n t

o th e basi c LDA

R program , th

e Committee als o establishe d severa l provision s t

o addres s situation s uniqu e t

o connectors . Thi s sectio n explain s th e rational e fo

r thes e additiona

l provisions . A s wit h othe r equipment , the Committee judge d tha t i t i s no t technically or economically feasibl e t

o establis h a

n emissio n standar

d fo r connectors . A wor

k practic e standard , consistin g o f aLDA R progra man d abas e performanc e level , was develope d becaus e i t

provide d apractica

l mean s o f detectin g and controllin g emissions . Connector repair intervals . Fo r

the reason s discusse d i n the valv e standard , th e Committee applie d th

e 5-da y first attempt a t repair an d the 15-da

y repair interva l o f th e existin g rule s t

o connectors . Thes e repair interval s wer

e considere d appropriat

e fo r instance s wher

e leaks ca n b e reduced b

y tightening bolt s or

wher e the connector

ca n b e isolate d fro

mth e process . The Committee als o recognize d tha t mos t connector s canno t b e isolate d fromth

e proces s an

d cannot b e repaire d withou

t shuttin g dow

n the process . I n suc h cases , th

e Committee agree d tha

t dela y o f repair unti l th e nex t proces s unit

shutdow n i s appropriat

e an d the dela y o f repair provision s i

n th e existin g rule s shoul d b e allowe d fo

r connectors . I n som e situations , repair

o f aleakin g connecto

r woul d expos e personne l t o imminen t danger . Therefore , aspecia l provisio n wa s added t

o th e connector

standar d tha t allow s th e owne

r o r operator t o designat e unsafe-to-repai

r connector s and t o dela

y 64Annua l

<0.5% , 50 0 ppm v

- >0.5 % - 50 0 ppm v Ever y 2 year s

<0.5% , 50 0 ppm v

E v or y 4 year s >1 % 50 0 ppm v

- >0.5 % - 50 0 ppm v

• / - ^-»nr.*cf"ar ^ 

### Figure 3 . Standar d fo rfteR§es s s 

### OH

_nt_________

_ ___

• -__D HP.7 1

repair o f thes e connector s unti l th

e nex t proces s uni

t shutdown . Connector s whic h ar e unsafe-to-repai

r ar e thos e tha

t would expos e repair

personnel t

o imminen

t hazard s fromtemperature , pressure , or explosiv e proces s conditions . A n exampl e suc

h a hazar d would b e connector s o

n hig h pressur e line s wher

e tightenin g abol

t coul d caus e failur e and resul t

i n amajo r or catastrophi c release . Nonrepairabl e connectors . The Committe e recognize d tha t nonrepairabl e connector s ma

y no t b e completel

y preventabl e an

d tha t increase d monitorin g frequency, i

f triggere d b

y nonrepairabl e components , woul d b e o f littl e benefit . A s wit h valves , the Committee sough t t o strik e abalanc e betwee

n providin g a

n incentiv e t o limit the numbe

r o f nonrepairabl e connector s an d avoidin g impositio n o

f unproductiv e costs . Th

e agree d approach allow s excludin g u p t o tw o percen

t o f the connector s fromth

e calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g if disturbe d connector s ar

e monitore d fo

r leaks within three months . Th e Committee allowe d mor

e connector s tha n valve s t o b e exclude d fromth

e calculatio n (i.e. , 2 vs . 1 percent ) becaus e i t

i s mor e likely tha

t connector s canno t

b e remove d fromth e proces s an d repair woul d have t o b e delaye d unti l th

e nex t proces s uni

t shutdown . The Committe e als o allowe d owner s o r operator s the optio n o

f foregoing followu p monitorin g o

f disturbe d connector s i

n exchang e fo

r not excludin g nonrepairabl e connector s i

n th e calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g connectors . Thi s optio n provide s flexibility an

d encourage s owner s or

operator s t

o develo p their ow n progra m t o ensur e lo w lea k frequencie s fo

r connectors . Exercisin g thi s optio n woul d mea n tha t aproces s unit

would have t

o hav e les s tha n 0. 5 percen

t leakin g connector s t o monito r 6 5

H BP.7 2

les s frequentl

y tha n annually . Th

e Committee als o agree d t o allo w a n owne r o r operator t o switch fromon

e optio n t o th e othe r provide d th

e ne w optio n begin s wit

h annua l monitoring . Thi s optiona l provisio n was develope d becaus e o f som e Committe e member' s concern s tha t th e administrativ e burden s would excee d an y . benefit s provided . Calculatio n o

f percen t leaking . For

connectors , th

e Committe e decide d tha

t th e percen t leakin g shoul d b e calculate d fo r eac h monitorin g perio d an d shoul d not b e based o n rollin g average s o

f severa l monitorin g periods . Thi s decisio n wa s base d o n th e judgement

tha t properl y designed , constructed , and installe d connector s shoul d operat e fo r a n extende d time befor

e failur e an d exhibi t alo w frequency o

f rando m failures . Th

e results o f asingl e monitorin g perio d were , therefore , expecte d t o provide areliabl e estimat

e o f the actua l lea k frequency. Credit s fo r removin g connectors . For the reasons discusse d previously fo r valves , the Committe e electe d t o provid e apartia l credi t i n th e calculatio n o

f percen t leakin g connector s fo

r connector s permanentl

y removed fro

mthe proces s unit . I

f a connector i s remove d fro

maproces s uni

t b y weldin g the connector

o r by weldin g the pip e together , the integrit

y o f the weld mus t

b e verifie d t o b e eligibl e fo r remove d connecto r credits . Thi s was required t o ensur e tha t credit s ar e only provide d fo

r actua l reduction s i

n emissions . Lik

e th e valv e credit , thi s credi t

i s include d t

o provid e a n incentiv e fo

r owner s o f facilitie s t

o minimiz e th

e numbe r o f connectors . Unsafe-to-monito

r an d inaccessibl e connectors . Th e Committe e added provision s t

o the connector

standar d t o conside r situation s wher

e connector s ma

y b e 6 6

_ _ ___3_ nP.7 3

unsaf e t o monitor o r inaccessible . Lik

e valves , unsafe-to-monito

r connector s ar

e connector s tha

t coul d expos e personnel t

o imminen

t hazard s fromtemperature , pressure , or

explosiv e conditions . Thes e connector s mus t b e monitore d a s frequentl

y a s practicabl e durin g safe-to-monito r periods . The Committe e als o exempte d inaccessibl e connector s an d glas s o r glass-line d connector s fromth

e requiremen

t fo r routin e monitoring . Inaccessibl e connector s ar e defined a s buried ; insulate d i n amanne r tha t prevent s acces s b

y the monitor

probe ; obstructe d b

y equipmen

t or piping ; o r no t accessibl e fro

ma25-foot

portabl e scaffol

d o n the ground an

d greate r tha n 6 fee t above asuppor

t surface . Thes e differen

t categorie s o

f inaccessibl e connector s wer e identifie d a s presentin g situation s wher e monitorin g woul d b e extremel y difficult , dangerous , or

physically impossible . Specifically , burie d an

d obstructe d connector s wer e exempte d becaus e i t

i s no t possibl e t o monito

r thes e connectors . Insulate d connector s wer e exempte d becaus e remova l o f th e insulatio n fromcol d system s coul d caus e leak s due t o therma l stres s and woul d b e ver

y costly . Remova

l o f insulatio n fromhot

system s woul d creat

e a safet y hazar d i n additio n t o bein g costly . Connector s tha t canno t b e reache d fro

ma2 5 foo t portabl e scaffol

d o r from aste

p ladde r woul d als o presen

t asafet y hazar d t o monitorin g personnel . Glas s and glass-line d connector s wer e exempte d becaus e the potentia l fo r on-lin e repair

b y tightening bolt s i s limite d due t o th e possibilit

y o f breakag e and attendan

t accidenta l releases. For

bot h inaccessibl e an d glas s o r glass

line d connectors , however , i f leak s ar e detecte d b

y visual , audible , o r

other means , th e leakin g connector

shal l b e repaire d no late

r tha n 1 5 day s afte

r the lea k i s detected . 6 7

l4____t lProvision s fo r screwe d connectors . The connector standar d woul d includ e a provisio n tha

t allow s a n owne r or operator th e optio n o

f exemptin g existin g screwe d connector s o

f 2 inche s o r

smalle r diamete r fro mroutin e monitorin g provide d thes e connector s ar

e monitore d onc e afte

r the standar

d take s effec

t and afte r th e sea l i s broke n o r disturbed . An

y leakin g connector s shal l b e repaired . Thi s provisio n was designe d t o aUeviat

e costl y monitorin g o

f th e larg e numbe

r o f smal l connector s i n som e proces s units . Th e Committe e agree d t

o include thi s provisio n fo

r severa l reasons . Th e genera

l opinio n o f engineer s o

n the Committe e was tha

t screwe d connector s onc e properl y threade d an

d lea k tight shoul d sta

y lea k tigh t sinc e ther e ar e no movin g part s and the sea l doe s not rely o n gasket s or

othe r material s tha

t ca n deteriorate . Thus , a

n initia l chec k an d one-tim e followu p monitorin g afte

r openin g th

e connecto r

wer e judge d t o provid e sufficien

t assuranc e tha

t the connector s ar

e lea k tight . However , becaus e the availabl e dat awer

e insufficien

t t o demonstrat

e this , ne w screwe d connector s o

f an y siz e an d existin g screwe d connector s greate r tha n 2 inche s wer

e not allowe d thi s optio n an d ar e treate d th e sam

e a s an y othe r connector . Th

e standar d woul d als o requir e tha t dat ao n the lea k frequency o

f screwe d connector s b e reported . The EP A intend s t o revie w thi s information and , base d o n th e finding s wil l conside

r whethe r t o amen d the standar

d t o requir e routin e monitorin g fo

r existin g screwe d connector s 2 inches , o r smaller , diamete

r or t o appl y th e initia

l check and one-tim

e follow-u p t o a U connectors . 8 . Provision s fo

r Othe r Equipmen

t 6 8

iB_ BP.7 5

Compressors . A s wit

h othe r equipment , a

n emissio n standar

d wa s not develope d fo r compressor s becaus e applicatio n o f availabl e measuremen

t method s i s not technically o r

economically feasible . The requirement s i n th e existin g standard s wer e judge d t o b e MACT an

d wer e used a s th

e basi s fo r the negotiate d standar

d fo r compressors . Th e standar

d requires the us e o

f mechanica

l seal s equippe d wit

h a barrie r fluid systemand controlle d degassin g vent s o r enclosur e o f th e compresso r

sea l are aan d ventin g o

f emission s through aclose d ven t syste mt o acontro l device . Thes e system s ca n provid e contro l efficiencie s approachin g 10 0 percent . Pressur e relie f device s i n gas/vapor

service . The negotiate d standard , lik e th e existin g standards , i s based on the us e o f ruptur e dis k system s or

contro l devices , whic h ar e considere d t o effectivel

y eliminat e emissions , whe

n properly instaUed , maintaine d an

d operated . The existin g equipmen t lea k standard s establis h a"n

o detectabl e emissio n limit " o f 50 0 ppm v fo r contro l technique s tha

t eliminat e emissions . The Committe e considere d redefinin g th e emissio n limit

fo r pressur e relie f devices , bu t agree d tha

t ther e wer e insufficien

t datat o redefine the limit

belo w 50 0 ppmv . Th

e genera l opinio n was tha

t a50 0 pp mstandar d woul d ensur

e essentiall y zer

o emission s and woul d ensur

e tha t a n effectiv e contro l syste

mwoul d not

b e foun d t o b e i n violatio n du e t

o residua l VHA P i n the ven t exit . Therefore , the negotiate d rul e woul d requir e tha t pressur e retief device s b e operate d wit

h a n instrumen

t reading o f les s tha n 50 0 ppm v abov e background , excep t durin g pressur

e relief. The 50 0 ppm

v abov e background limi t

woul d not

appl y t o discharge s through the relie f devic e durin g pressur

e relief , becaus e the functio

n o f relief device s i s t o 6 9P.7 6

discharg e proces s fluid , thereb y reducing dangerously hig h pressure s witiiin th

e equipment . Relief

device s mus t

operat e wit h a n instrumen

t readin g o f les s tha n 50 0 ppm v abov e background withi

n 5 day s afte

r suc h adischarge . A definitio n o f "se t pressure " was adde d t o the standar d t o clarif y tha t se t pressur e i s wher e aproperly operatin g pressur

e relie f devic e open s t o reUef

atypica l proces s syste

moperatin g pressure . A s a n alternativ e t

o ruptur e disk s an d othe r technique s tha

t wU l achiev e les s tha n 50 0 ppmabov e background , owner s or operator s ma

y ven t pressur e relie f device s t o close d ven

t system s connecte d t o acontro l device . Samplin g connectio n systems . The Committe e agree d th e closed-purg e sampling , closed-loop sampling , and close d ven t vacuu msystem s i

n the existin g rule s represent MAC T fo r sampling connectio n systems . Closed-purg e samplin g system s eliminat e emission s du e t

o purgin g b

y eithe r returnin g the purg e materia l directi y t o the proces s or

b y collectin g the purg e i

n acollectio n syste

mwhic h i s not ope n t o the atmospher e fo r recycle or

disposal . Closed-loo

p sampling system s als o eliminat e emissio n du e t o purgin g b

y returnin g proces s fluid t

o th e proces s throug

h a n enclose d syste mtha t i s not directly vente d t

o th e atmosphere . Close d ven t vacuu msystem s captur e an d transpor t th e purge d proces s fluid t o acontro l device . A n emissio n limi t wa s not specifie d becaus e measurin g mas s emission s fro msamplin g system s woul d requir e enclosin g each syste

m(i.e. , bagging) , ameasuremen t metho d which i s time

consuming , costly , an

d impractical . A concentratio n limit i s als o not

feasibl e becaus e although th e VO C an

d VHA P contro l efficienc

y o n aclosed-purg e or

closed-loo p 7 0

. . -JJ. —•BiTiiiran_____________________~—~~^^TM— | ^ ^ M *—^^——*—= i mmiiinini i mu mP.7 7

samplin g syste

mi s approximatel

y 10 0 percent , som

e VO C and VHA

P coul d b e emitte d durin g it s transfe

r t o aclose d collectio n devic e or durin g it s ultimat

e disposal . Becaus e emissio n standard s canno t feasibl y b e prescribe d fo

r samplin g connectio n systems , severa l alternativ e formats wer

e considere d and equipmen t standard s foun

d t o b e mos t

appropriate . Th

e propose d standard s fo

r sampUn g connectio n system s i n the negotiate d rul e woul d requir e th e us e o

f closed-purg e o r closed-loo p samplin g equipmen t or aclose d ven

t system . I n sit u samplin g system s woul d b e exempte d fro

mthes e regulations. Open-ende d valve s or

lines . Emission s fro

mopen-ende d valve s or

line s ca n b e eliminated , excep t

whe n th e lin e i s used fo

r draining , venting , or

samplin g operations , by enclosin g the ope

n en d b y acap , plug , o r

asecond valve . The contro l efficiency associate d wit

h thes e technique s i s approximatel y 10 0 percen t an d i s considere d t

o b e MACT . A s wit

h othe r item s o f equipment , establishin g a

n emissio n limi t

i s neithe r effectiv e no

r technologically feasible . Therefore , the Committe e base d th e standar d o n th e combinatio n o

f equipmen t an d operationa

l requirements i

n the existin g rules . Th e negotiate d rul e woul d requir e the us e o

f acap , plug , blin d flange , or a second valv e or

othe r equipmen t t o clos e the open-ende d valv e o r line . T o insur

e the prope r operatio n o

f the equipment , open-ende d line s ar e als o covere d b

y operationa

l standards . I

f asecond valv e i s used t

o clos e th e ope n end , the propose d standard s woul d requir

e th e upstrea

mvalv e t o b e close d first. Afte

r the upstrea

mvalv e i s completely closed , th

e downstrea

mvalv e woul d b e closed . Thi s operationa l requiremen

t i s necessar

y i n orde r t o preven t trappin g proces s fluid betwee n the tw o 7 1valves , whic h coul d resul t

i n asituatio n equivalen

t t o the uncontrolle d open-ende d line . Produc t

accumulator

vessels . The techniqu e fo r controUin g produc t accumulato r vessel s i s t o connec t

the vessel t

o aclose d ven

t syste man d contro l device . Anythin g i n complianc e wit

h the requirement s fo

r close d ven

t system s an

d contro l device s i s acceptable . Contro l Devices . Contro l device s woul d b e use d t o dispos e o

f VHA P capture d i n close d ven

t system s fro

mbarrie r fluid degassin g system s an d enclose d pum

p an d compressor

sea l areas . I n all cases , thes e contro l device s woul d receiv e stream s wit h lo w an d intermitten

t flo w rates . Thes e contro l device s woul d i n som e case s b e designe d t o dispos e o

f organi c stream s fromothe r source s i n th e plant , s o tha

t th e VHA P stream s ma

y contribut

e aver y small percentag e o

f the tota l loadin g on th e contro l device . Becaus e i t woul d b e technologically and economically impractica l t o measur e ver y low-flo w stream s an

d differentiat

e thes e stream s fromothers , a n emissio n standar

d was not propose d fo

r thes e contro l devices . Desig n requirements fo

r contro l device s wer

e considere d t o ensur

e tha t appropriat e emissio n reduction s woul d b e achieve d fro mcontro l device s use d i n conjunctio n wit

h close d ven

t systems . Enclose d combustio n sources , flares, and vapo r recover y system s wer

e considere d a s contro l device s fo r the close d ven

t system . Th

e desig n requirements specifie d i n the negotiate d rul e fo

r enclose d combustio n ar

e the attainmen t o f aminimu mtemperatur

e o f 760° C fo r 0. 5 seconds . Unde

r thes e conditions , a

t leas t 9 5 percen t VOC destructio n i s achieved . Flare s use d a s contro l

7 2

as^maam^^m^^^t^^mm^^^mtmmammmm^^^^^^K^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bmmmmmms^device s t o compl y wit h the negotiate d standar

d shal l compl

y wit h the requirement s o

f 4 0 CF R 60.18 . Vapo

r recover y system s woul d als o b e allowe d a s contro l device s fo r VHA P fro mclose d ven

t systems . A contro l efficiency o f a t leas t 9 5 percen

t wa s chose n a s the desig n requiremen t becaus e i t

i s the highes t

contro l efficiency tha

t ha s bee n demonstrate d consistently fo r vapo r recovery system s suc

h a s carbo n adsorptio n or condensatio n units . Agitators . Agitator s wer

e not evaluate d durin g regulator y developmen

t o f the existin g regulation s an

d ar e no t presentl y regulated b

y an y standard . Therefore , ver y limite d informatio n i s availabl e on thi s equipment . The Committe e determine d tha t agitator s shoul d b e include d i n the negotiate d standar

d fo r severa l reasons . First , a limite d amoun

t o f screenin g dataindicat

e tha t agitator s ma

y b e asignifican

t sourc e o f emissions . Second , agitator s ar e technologically simila

r t o pumps , and , lik

e pumps , emission s ca

n b e controlle d usin g sea

l technology . However , agitator s hav e longe r an d large r diamete r shaft s tha n pump s an

d produc e greate

r tangentia l shaf t loadings . Th e performanc e o

f pum p sea l systems , therefore , canno t b e use d t o estimat

e agitato r sea l performance . Considerin g thi s an d th e potentia l fo r larg e leaks , the Committe e agree d t o requir

e amonthl

y LDA R progra monl y an d t o define alea

k a s a concentratio n o

f 10,00 0 ppm v o r higher . Thi s progra

mwil l requir

e replacemen

t o f agitato r seal s wit h significan

t leak s an d wil l encourag e developmen t o f effectiv e bearin g an d sea l systems . Instrumentatio n systems . The Committe e create d thi s equipmen t categor y t o addres s industr

y member s concern s wit

h applicatio n o

f LDA R program s t

o equipmen

t 7 3P.8 0

use d i n monitorin g proces s operations . Smal l diamete r tubin g an d other component s ar e use d t o conve

y proces s sample s t o analyzer s t o determin e chemica

l compositio n an d t o instrument s suc

h a s pressur

e an d flow transducers . Instrumentatio n system s typicall y contai n valve s 0. 5 inch i n diamete r o r les s an d connector s 0.7 5 inc h o r

les s an d ar e locate d i n aconfine d are asuc

h tha t monitorin g o

f individua l component s i s generally infeasible . Becaus e thes e system s provid e critica l proces s operatin g information , the

y ar e subject t o frequen

t surveillanc e an

d maintenanc e t o assur

e the reliabilit y o f measurements . Leakin g equipmen t i n thes e system s woul d b e readil y detecte d by change s i

n temperature , pressure , flow rates , or b y observation . Additionally , i t

i s commo n practic e i

n the industr

y afte r maintenanc e o r

repai r t o verif y th e integrit

y o f thes e system s b

y soa p bubbl e testin g o r

pressur e checks . Therefore , aroutine LDA

R progra mwoul d b e redundant

and woul d provid e n o benefit . The Committe e conclude d fo r thes e reason s tha

t i t wa s appropriat

e t o develop alternativ e provision s fo

r thes e systems . Th e Committe e judge d tha t i t was appropriat

e t o requir e repair o f leakin g instrumentatio n system s i

n atimel y manne r an d agree d t o trea t thes e system s i

n a manne r simila r t o equipmen

t i n heav y liqui d service . I

n addition , th e Committe e agree d tha t monitorin g o

f individua l component s i

n instrumentatio n system s by Metho d 2 1 i s not

necessar y i f the lea k i s repaire d an

d th e repair i s verified . The verificatio n ma

y b e by soa

p testing , apressur

e check , or

an y othe r visible , audible , olefactory , or

othe r means .

74P.8 1

Miscellaneous . A s i

n the existin g equipmen

t lea k standards , pumps , valves , connectors , and agitator s i n heav y liqui d servic e (HA

P fluid s wit

h vapo r pressure s les s tha n 0. 3 kP aa

t 20°C) , an d pressur e relief device s i n ligh

t Uqui d or heav y Uqui d servic e woul d b e exclude d fro mth e routin e monitorin g an

d inspectio n requirements . However , i

f leak s ar e detecte d fromthes e sources , th e sam e allowabl e repai r

interva l tha t applie s t o pumps , valves , connectors , and compressor s woul d apply . Thes e source s wer

e exclude d fromroutin e monitorin g o n the basi s tha

t the y contribut

e only a ver y smal l portio n o

f overa U emission s fro

maproces s unit

an d includin g the

mi n the monitorin g an

d equipmen

t requirement s wa s no

t considere d reasonable . 9 . Alternativ e Standard s Unde r the provision s o

f Sectio n 112(h

) o f the CAA , i

f the Administrato r establishe s wor

k practice , equipment , design , or operationa

l standards , the

n the Administrator

mus t allo w us e o

f alternativ e mean s o

f emissio n reduction s i

f a n owne r or operato r ca n demonstrat

e emissio n reductions equivalen t t o tha t achieve d b

y th e standards . Generally , alternativ e mean s o f emissio n reduction ar

e base d o n specifi c circumstance s a

t individua l plan t site s and mus t

b e handle d individually . Durin g th e cours e o f th e Committee' s deliberations , however , tw o situation s wer e identifie d wher

e developmen

t o f generi c alternativ e standard s was appropriate . Thes e situation s wer e batch processe s an

d enclose d proces s units . Consequently , th e negotiate d rul e include s alternativ e standard s fo

r batc h operation s an

d fo r proces s unit s locate d i

n enclose d building s a s well a s genera l provision s fo

r demonstratio n o

f equivalency .

7 5P.8 2

Batch processes . A

t on e o f th e earl y meeting s o

f th e Committee , th e problem s associate d wit

h applicatio n o

f LDA R program s t

o batch processe s wer

e raised . A

t continuou s processes , equipmen t ca n b e monitore d rapidly , on e afte r anothe r on a n establishe d route , withou

t consideratio n o

f the proces s schedul e becaus e ther e i s alway s proces s fluid i

n th e lines . For

severa l reasons , rapi d monitorin g o f on e componen t afte r anothe r i s not possibl e a

t som e batc h processes . Thi s i s particularl y tru e fo r processe s suc

h a s thos e i

n the pharmaceutica

l industr y wher e equipmen

t ma y not b e dedicate d t o aparticula r proces s an

d wher e differen t component s ar

e use d i n differen t batch operation s t o produc e differen t products . I

n an y particula

r configuration , proces s fluid ma y flow throug

h aserie s o

f valves , connectors , and a pum p into areactor . Severa

l hour s later , the proces s fluid woul d exi t the reacto r through othe

r equipmen t fo r subsequen

t processin g step s an

d storage . Also , th e equipmen t use d wti l contai n proces s fluid s fo r onl y abrie f perio d durin g the batch (e.g. , afe w minute s pe

r batch) . I n thi s case , the monitorin g tea mwoul d hav e t o wai

t fo r a n extende d tim

e betwee n screenin g equipmen

t on the upstrea

mand downstrea

m sid e o f the reactor. Equipmen

t not used i n aparticula

r confiquratio n coul d not

b e monitore d unti l the equipmen t i s i n actua l use . Thus , i t

woul d b e difficul

t t o schedul e monitorin g o

f equipmen t and th e cost , bot

h i n tota l an d o n acomponen

t basis , coul d b e muc h highe r tha n fo r acontinuou s process . Moreover , thi s intermittent operatio n an d low time-in-use o

f individua l component s als o result s i n lowe r annua l emissions . Fo r thes e reasons , the Committe e forme d abatch proces s subcommitte e t o develop alternativ e approache s tha t coul d b e use d fo

r batch processes . Thi s 7 6P.8 3

subcommitte e explore d variou s alternative s which woul d ensur e effectiv e contro l whil e considerin g the natur

e o f batch operations . The subcommitte e develope d alternativ e procedure s tha

t allo w owner s or

operator s o

f batch processe s th e optio n o f meetin g standard s simila

r t o thos e fo r continuou s processe s o r

o f periodicall y pressur

e testin g th e batch equipment . I

f the owne r or operator elect s t o monitor

equipmen t fo r leaks , th e monitorin g frequency i s prorate d t o th e tim e i n us e an d th e equipmen t ma y b e monitore d whe

n i t i s i n VHA P servic e or

i n us e wit h asurrogat

e VO C o r other detectabl e compound . Thes e modification s t o th e continuou s standard s wer e designe d t o provid e roughly comparabl e provision s fo r batch processes . I

n fact , a s tim

e i n us e increase s t o 7 5 percen

t an d higher , the monitorin g frequency become s the sam e fo r bot h continuou s an

d batch processes . Th

e alternativ e provision s allo w pressur e testin g o f batch equipmen

t usin g eithe

r aga s or aliquid . The Committe e allowe d us e o f eithe r procedur e becaus e hydrostati c testin g ca n b e safe r tha n high pressur

e test s usin g gase s an d eithe r techniqu e ca

n b e used t o demonstrat

e th e equipmen

t i s not leaking . The criteri aspecifie d a s defining alea k wer e base d on alimite d amoun t o f field testin g b y the pharmaceutica

l industry , genera

l industr y practic e fo

r pressur e tests , and EPA' s experienc e wit

h vapor-tightnes s testin g o f tan k truck s an d railcars . Althoug h littl e informatio n i s availabl e fo r direc t comparison , the Committe e concluded , base d on genera l knowledg e an

d engineerin g considerations , tha t the relativ e cos t

and effectivenes s o

f th e alternativ e procedure s fo r batc h processe s shoul d b e roughly comparabl e t

o thos e fo r continuou s processes .

7 7Enclose d processes . Processe s operate d i n butiding s or

enclosure s maintaine d unde r negativ e pressur

e and vente d t

o the atmospher

e through a9 5 percent

efficien t contro l devic e woul d b e exempte d fromthe monitorin g requirements. Thi s alternativ e standar d wa s develope d becaus e member s o f th e Committe e wer

e awar e o f case s wher e processe s hav e bee

n isolate d fro

mpersonne l becaus e o

f safet y hazards . I

n suc h instances , n o benefi

t wil l b e achieve d b

y monitorin g the equipment , and i t ma y present asafet y hazar d t o monitorin g personnel . 10 . Dela y o f Repai r A s previously noted , the Committee recognize d tha t ther e ar e circumstance s whe n repai r o f equipmen t i s no t feasibl e withou

t aproces s uni t

shutdown an

d thi s ma y resul t i n greate r emission s tha

n delayin g repair

unti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Th e Committee , therefore , include d the dela y o f repair provision s i n th e existin g rule s i n the negotiate d standard . A primar y consideratio n o

f the Committe e i

n thi s wa s whethe r the provision s reflecte d the actua l feasibilit y o f repairing equipmen

t and avoide d extende d delay s i

n returning aunit

t o productio n afte

r i t i s shutdow n briefl

y du e t o unforesee

n circumstances . Based on thi s evaluation , th e Committe e agree d t o modif y th e definitio n o

f "proces s unit

shutdown " t o reflect

mor e accurately thos e situation s wher

e i t wa s judge d reasonabl e t

o require clearanc e o

f proces s material s an

d repair o f equipment . The revised definitio n specifie s tha t i t mus t b e technically feasibl e t o clea r proces s materia

l fro mthe unit

consisten t within safet

y constraint s an

d tha t unde r certai n circumstance s unschedule d shutdown s o f mor e tha n 2 4 hour s duratio n ar

e not classifie d a s ashutdown . Thes e condition s are : (1 ) the shutdow n 7 8

___ nmus t b e fo r aperio d shorte

r tha n the time required t o clea r proces s material s an

d star t u p the unit an d (2 ) i t mus t resul t i n greate r emission s tha

n delayin g the repair

unti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . The dela y o f repair provision s i

n the negotiate d standar

d als o include the othe

r type s o f dela y o f repair provision s i

n th e existin g standards . The negotiate d standar d woul d allo w dela

y o f repai r fo r spare d equipmen

t tha t doe s no t remain i n VHA

P service . Dela

y o f repair would als o b e allowe d fo

r valves , connectors , an

d agitator s i

f th e owne r or operato r show s tha

t emission s o

f purge d material s fro

mrepai r woul d b e greate r tha n the emission s likel

y t o result fromdela

y o f repair. Whe

n the equipmen

t i s repaired , the purge d materia l mus t b e destroye d or

recovere d i

n acontro l devic e tha

t complie s wit

h the requiremen

t fo r closed-ven

t system s an

d contro l devices . Dela

y o f repai r beyond aproces s unit

shutdow n fo r valve s woul d als o b e allowe d whe n unforesee n circumstance s deplet

e valv e assembl

y supplies . The owne

r or operato r woul d hav e t o documen

t tha t valv e assembl

y supplie s ha

d bee n sufficientl

y stocked . Thi s dela y o f repair ma y no t b e extende d beyond th

e nex t proces s unit

shutdow n unles s the nex

t shutdow n occur s soone

r tha n 6 month s afte

r the first shutdown . I

t i s expecte d tha

t thi s dela y o f repair provisio n will seldo mb e used . A s wit h the othe r type s o f equipment , dela

y o f repair woul d b e allowe d fo

r pump s tha t canno t b e repaire d withou

t aproces s uni

t shutdown . Dela

y o f repair, u p t o 6 month s afte

r detectin g aleak , would als o b e allowe d whe n the owne

r or operato r determine s tha

t repair o f the pum p require s require s replacemen t o f aSM S syste

m wit h aDM S system , apum

p wit h no externally actuate d shaft , or aclosed-ven

t contro l

7 9system . Thi s provisio n differs slightl y fro mthe presen

t standard s i

n tha t i t allow s dela y o f repair fo r replacemen

t o f singl e sea

l pump s wit

h other type s o f lo w lea k technology . Dela

y o f repair i s not expecte d fo

r mos t situations , however , becaus e pump s ar e commonl

y spared . G . Tes t Method s an

d Procedure s Th e negotiate d standar

d basically retain s the us e o f Metho d 2 1 t o detec t

leak s o f organi c compound s fro

mequipment ; however , severa l modification s wer

e mad e t o the existin g procedures . Thes e modification s consis t o f change s t o the calibratio n gase s required , additio n o

f procedure s fo

r respons e facto

r correction , an

d additio n o

f procedure s fo

r pressur e testin g o f batch processes . Th

e base s fo r the change s t

o the provision s ar

e describe d i

n thi s section . Metho d 2 1 specifie s procedure s fo r measurin g the concentratio n o f leak s o f VO C nea r individua l piece s o f proces s equipment . Thi s metho d require s the us e o f a portabl e organi c vapo

r analyze r tha t meet s th e method' s performanc e specification s fo r response , linearity , flo

w rate , an d safety . The instrumen

t detecto r ma y b e an y tha t meet s the method s specification s an d performanc e criteria . Detecto r type s tha t ar e believe d t o mee

t Metho d 2 1 specification s fo r mos t VHA P includ e catalyti c oxidation , flame ionization , infrared absorption , and photoionization . Although thes e detector s hav e bee n show n t o b e broadl

y applicabl e t

o measurement s o

f organi c compounds , n o on e detecto r

ca n b e universally applie d t

o all organi c compounds : som e VHA P ma y requir e evaluatio n o

f othe r type s o f detectors .

8 0

m uTh e negotiate d standar d would require calibratio n o f the portabl e organi c vapo r analyze r befor e eac h monitorin g surve

y wit h calibratio n ga s mixture s consistin g o f methan e and air

an d wit h zer o gas . For

thi s standard , zer

o ga s ha s bee

n specifie d a s containin g les s tha

n 0. 2 ppm v VO C i n air . Zer o ga s was specifie d a

t aconcentratio n belo w th e les s tha

n 1 0 ppm v criterio n use d i

n the existin g standard s i n 4 0 CF R Part s 6 0 an d 6 1 t o improv e the qualit

y o f measurement s nea

r 0 ppm . Th

e negotiate d standar d woul d als o requir

e calibratio n wit

h mixture s o

f methan e i

n air a t concentration s nea

r eac h o f the variou s lea

k definitions . Therefore , i n Phas e III , calibratio n gase s wit

h VO C concentration s nea r 10,00 0 ppm , 5,00 0 ppm , 2,00 0 ppm , 1,00 0 ppm , an d 50 0 pp mma y b e required a

t som e plan t sites , dependin g upo

n the equipmen t tha t i s i n use . T o reduce th

e numbe r o f calibratio n gase s required , the Committe e agree d t o allo w the optio n o f usin g a n analyze r calibrate d a

t ahighe r concentration , u

p t o 200 0 ppm , fo

r monitorin g equipmen

t subject t o alowe r lea k definition . Thi s provisio n wa s include d sinc e tha

t procedur e wil l introduc e onl

y a small positiv e bia s (i.e. , observe d value s wU l b e slightl y highe r tha n actual ) i n th

e instrumen t reading s an

d th e results would b e acceptabl e fo r demonstratin g compliance . The negotiate d standar

d woul d als o limi t

the acceptabl e rang e o

f respons e factors . Th e response facto r i s afacto r whic h adjust s fo

r difference s i

n instrumen

t sensitivit y o r respons e t

o the compound s bein g measure d an d t o the referenc e compound . Fo r

th e negotiate d standard , th

e referenc e compound i s methane . Thes e provision s wer

e adde d t o ensur

e tha t the effec t o f the standar

d i s not significantl

y 8 1

_ maltere d by the instrumen t use d i n conductin g the monitorin g survey s o r the strea m composition . Correctio n o f instrumen t reading s fo

r respons e factor s i s require d wher e the individua

l response factors , a

t 50 0 ppm , fo

r the VHA P tha t accoun t fo r 9 0 percent , or more , b y weigh t o f organi c material s i

n th e proces s strea

mar e 3 o r greater . Th e requiremen

t wa s structure d i

n thi s manne

r t o avoi d impositio n o

f unproductiv e costs . Specifically , the 9 0 percen t b y weigh t criterio n wa s include d i

n orde r t o avoi d th e nee d t o adjus t

respons e factor s du e t

o trac e contaminant s i

n proces s streams . Fo r man y compounds , respons e factor s ma y not b e availabl e an

d canno t b e obtaine d withou t considerabl e difficult

y (e.g. , solids , explosiv e substances.etc) . Wher e thes e compound s represent

onl y asmal l fraction o

f the proces s strea

mcomposition , i t

wa s judge d inappropriat

e t o requir e developmen

t o f respons e factors . The provisio n i s include d a s aserie s o

f check s o n compound s i

n the proces s stream s an

d o n th e proces s streams . The step s ar

e intende d t

o eliminat e quickly thos e stream s fo

r which respons e facto r correctio n i s obviousl

y unnecessary . The first

ste p look s a t the individua

l compound s use d i

n th e process . I

f no compound i

n th e proces s ha s aresponse facto r o f 3 or greater , the

n no furthe

r evaluatio n i s needed . The second ste p look s a t the individua l stream s t

o identif y an y tha t contain a n individua

l compoun d o r

hav e a weighte d averag e facto

r tha t i s 3 o r greater . Th

e thir d ste p look s a t stream s wit

h weighte d averag e factor s o f 3 o r mor e and consider s whethe

r t o adjus t the instrumen

t reading s o r

us e anothe

r instrumen t or calibratio n gas . The Committe e als o added procedure s fo r pressur e testin g o f batch proces s equipmen t t o the negotiate d standard . Thes e procedure s wer e derive d fro

mgenera l 8 2

E______ IP.8 9

industr y practic e an

d experienc e wit

h ga s an d liqui d pressur

e test s o n equipmen

t and EP A experienc e wit

h testin g tan

k truck s an d railcar s fo

r vapor-tightnes s demonstration . The negotiate d standar

d als o woul d specif

y tha t Metho d 1 8 i s t

o b e use d t o determin e the VHA

P conten t o f proces s fluids wheneve

r tha t i s i n question . Metho d 1 8 i s agenera

l procedur e fo r ga s chromatographi c analysi s o f organi c compounds . Th e metho d ca

n b e used t o analyz e roughly 9 0 percen t o f gaseou s organi c compound s emitte d b y sources . I

n mos t cases , engineerin g calculations , knowledg e o f the process , or analyse s o

f th e proces s should provid

e sufficien t demonstratio n o

f VHA P conten t and Metho d 1 8 analysi s wil l no t b e required . H . Recordkeepin g an

d Reportin g Owner s or operator s o

f aproces s uni

t tha t woul d b e covere d b

y the negotiate d standar d ar e subject t o the recordkeepin g an

d reporting requirements o f the standar

d a s we U a s thos e prescribe d i

n the propose d Genera

l Provision s (Subpar

t A ) o f 4 0 CF R par t 63 . Complianc e wit

h th e standard s will b e assesse d throug h inspection s a

t the plan t sit e an d review o

f record s an

d report s tha

t documen t implementatio n o

f th e requirements . 1.Recordkeepin

g Record s o f lea k detection , repair

attempts , an

d maintenanc e fo

r leakin g equipmen t woul d b e required b

y the negotiate d standard . Thes e record s consis t o f the informatio n neede d t

o documen

t complianc e with : (1 ) wor

k practic e standards , (2 ) equipmen t standards , (3 ) operationa

l standards , (4 ) emissio n standards , an d (5 ) 8 3P.9 0

informatio n require d fo

r equipmen t subject t o aQIP . Thes e record s ar e als o necessar

y fo r evaluatin g the effectivenes s o f repair efforts . Fo r

equipmen t subjec t t o equipmen

t standards , record s woul d b e require d o f the date s o

f installation , equipmen

t repair, an d equipmen t modifications . Fo r

close d ven

t system s an

d contro l devices , record s would b e required o

f the locatio n an

d typ e o f equipment , the desig n specifications , and the monitorin g parameters . I n man y respects , the recordkeeping requirement s woul d b e simila r t o thos e i n the existin g standard s fo

r equipmen t leaks . Som

e difference s betwee

n the standard s resul t fro mthe additiona

l provision s o

f th e negotiate d standar

d whil e other s resul t fro mchange s mad

e t o clarif y the requirements. I

n addition , change s wer

e mad e t o simplif y the recordkeeping requirement s an d t o reduce the associate d burden . Thes e record s mus t

b e maintaine d fo

r aperio d o

f 2 year s i n areadily accessibl e recordkeepin g syste

man d mad e availabl e t o th

e EP A upo n request . Thi s syste

mma y b e maintaine d b

y physically locatin g the record s a t the plant sit e o r b y accessin g the record s fro

macentra

l locatio n b

y computer . 2 . Reportin g The negotiate d standar

d woul d require a

n initia l repor t and semiannua

l report s o f lea k detectio n an d repair

efforts a s we

U a s notification s o

f initiatin g monthl

y monitorin g or

aQIP fo r valve s or pumps . The initia

l repor t i s t o b e submitte d fo

r existin g proces s units , or

ne w proces s unit s wit

h startu p date s precedin g th

e effectiv e dat e o f the negotiate d rule , withi

n 9 0 day s afte

r the (earliest

) applicabilit

y dat e coverin g tha

t proces s unit . Th

e initia l repor t fo r all othe r ne w proces s unit s woul d b e 8 4

_B IP.9 1

submitte d wit

h the applicatio n fo

r approva l o f construction , reconstruction , or modificatio n a s require d b

y the Genera

l Provisions . Thi s initia

l repor t woul d notif

y the Administrator

tha t the proces s unit

i s (or will be ) subject

t o thi s subpar

t and identif y th e proces s unit , numbe

r an d typ e o f equipmen t components , and th

e metho d o f complianc e fo

r eac h piec e o f equipment . The planne d monitorin g schedul e fo r eac h typ e o f equipmen t i n each phas e woul d als o b e required . The semiannua

l repor t i s t o includ

e information o

n th e number s o

f leakin g and non-leakin g components ; lea k frequencie s o

f pumps , valves , and connectors ; attempt s t o repair , reason s fo

r dela y o f repair ; proces s unit

shutdowns ; an d change s i n the informatio n submitte d i

n th e initia l report . The report s shal l als o includ e the results o f performanc e test s conducte d within the reportin g perio d fo r equipmen

t subjec t t o a50 0 ppmperformanc e standar

d and notification s o

f initiatio n o

f monthly monitorin g or

QIP fo r valve s o r pumps . En d o f Equipmen t

Leak s Far t

o f th e Notic e

8 5