p.1 

OAR Box 1168 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

80)11-010 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 4/29/2008 11:23:19 AM Sheet 80 of 131 
/ *r 

"" "~"T ' 

A-89-10 

i 2 OCT ibciu 

II-C-1 0 

P.2 

Mr. Bruce V. Bowers 

Standard Chlorine 

PO Box 319 

Delaware City, Delaware 19706 

Dear Bruce, 

BEIIIX^ 

EPAAlREOtr 

At the September 27-28, Reg Neg meeting we committed ourselves to draft 

a "strawman" regulation for equipment leaks for the committee to discuss at 

the November 6-7 meeting as a starting point in the negotiations. Enclosed is 

a first draft we have developed for discussion purposes. This draft does not 

necessarily represent an EPA position, but puts to paper some of the ideas we 

have had insofar as the structure and format such a standard might take. It 

is our intent to provide enough substance here to evoke additional thoughts 

and ideas. 

Our aim was to develop a format that would respond to the various 

interests that have been identified. These include most particularly, the 

need for a rule that will produce predictable, quantifiable results, that is 

enforceable, and that does not unnecessarily constrain sources in their choice 

of control techniques. We welcome any other ideas and realize that the 

regulation could assume other formats. We look forward to your suggestions, 

comments, or alternatives at the next meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Ajax 

Chief 

Standards Development Branch 

Enclosure 

cc: Phil Harter 

Prepared by: OAQPS:ESD:SDB:RColyer:(MD-13):629-5262:10/18/89 
P.3 

October 19, 1989 

"STRAWMAN" EQUIPMENT LEAK REGULATION 

[Following is a rough draft for discussion purposes of the Reg Neg 

Committee of a possible regulation for equipment leaks. It includes 

provisions and concepts that are designed to meet the sorts of interests 

that have been identified. It is not intended to represent EPA's or any 

other Committee member's position. There are numerous references to 

existing Subpart V of 40 CFR Part 61 (NESHAP equipment leaks). The 

following language is quasi-regulatory and is presented to show the sort 

of detail expected in the substantive provisions, not as the final 

regulatory language, especially references to Subpart V, where wording 

changes would still be necessary (e.g., "VHAP", etc.). Values in blanks 

have been assigned arbitrarily. Comments and explanation are contained 

in "[]"•] 

Section 1. Application and designation of sources. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each of the following 

sources that are intended to operate in hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) 

service: pumps, valves, flanges and other connectors, agitator seals, 

compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, and openended valves or lines. 

[The equipment leak standards for the HON, when established, will 

cover the same sources as found in Part 61 Subpart V. This negotiation 

focuses on those sources to which leak detection and repair has been 

applied, namely pumps and valves; we will also include flanges and other 

connectors, from which emissions become proportionally more significant 

as emissions from other controlled equipment decrease, and agitator 

seals. Standards for compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling 

connection systems, and open-ended valves or lines are envisioned to 

remain unchanged and will apply to HON sources as they have applied to 

Subpart V sources because these are essentially zero emission standards. 

For simplicity the rest of this draft regulation will deal only with 

pumps, valves, flanges, and agitator seals. For lack of a better 

descriptor currently, we will refer to "in HON service" as those pieces 

of equipment associated with the HON source categories.] 

(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each piece of equipment in 

HON service regardless of its concentration of HON chemicals. 

[Although in the past, standards have applied to streams 

containing 10 percent or greater of the pollutant covered, it is not 

clear why this exemption is needed or appropriate. Preliminary analysis 

(Radian, 5/22/89) of EO and BD indicate that concentration in the 

equipment may have little effect on leak frequency. In addition, as we 

achieve much lower emissions for those higher concentration sources (10 

percent or greater), equipment handling those streams less than 10 

1 
P.4 

percent become proportionally greater emitters, if the standards do not 

extend to them. On the other hand there may be a need to identify some 

de minimus level of organics in the equipment, e.g. 10 ppmw, that avoids 

regulation of streams with minute contaminant levels. 

(c) The provisions of this subpart apply to each piece of equipment in 

HON service regardless of the amount or volume of HON chemicals handled by the 

facility.

 v 

[Because a piece of equipment is in HON service, it is presumed to 

be handling HON chemicals, which, by definition, are hazardous. 

Equipment handling small volumes of organics potentially can leak as 

much as those handling large volumes. In addition, preliminary analysis 

(Radian, 5/22/89) of BD and EO indicate that flowrate through the 

equipment may have little effect on leak frequency.] 

Section 2. Standards for pumps, valves, flanges, and agitator seals. 

(a) Phase I: On and after (e.g.. 6 months or 1 year from the date of 

promulgation) pumps and valves must meet current leak detection and repair 

(LDAR) requirements as described in 40 CFR 61.242-2 (pumps) and 61.242-7 

(valves). In addition, flanges and agitator seals must meet parallel 

requirements to valves [regulatory language to be worked on]. Other 

applicable provisions would include 61.242-10 (Delay of repair), 61.243-1 and 

-2 (Alternative standards for valves), and 61.244 (Alternative means of 

emission limitation). [These other provisions would also apply to flanges]. 

A leak is defined as an instrument reading of 10,000 ppmv as measured 

according to Method 21. 

[This provision is designed to achieve the degree of control that 

LDAR provides as soon as possible, to heighten awareness of leaks and . 

leak control, to assist plants in identifying the sort of steps that 

will need to be taken to meet the Phase III standards, and to provide 

time to meet those standards. LDAR will also be applied to flanges and 

agitator seals the same way it currently applies to valves. The 

definition .of a leak will remain unchanged during this transition. A 

revised Method 21, Method X, is being developed for these regulations 

and will better address such things as calibration gas and response 

factor correction. For simplicity, we will continue to refer to Method 

21 here, keeping in mind that a similar, but new method will ultimately 

apply.] 

(b) Phase II: On and after (e.g., 1 or 2 years from the start of Phase 

IX pumps, valves, flanges and agitator seals must meet the same requirements 

as (a) above, except that a leak is defined as an instrument reading of 

(e.g.. 500) ppmv as measured according to Method 21. "No detectable 

emissions" is redefined as (e.g.. 25) ppmv. [Standards for other 

equipment, e.g. compressors, pressure relief devices, etc., described in 40 

CFR Subpart V, woiild also be revised to be consistent with the redefinitions 

here.] 
P.5 

[This provision represents a lowering of the standard in the form 

of a lower leak definition. Whereas Phase I was designed to assure that 

a basic leak detection and repair program is started.early and to focus 

on the largest leakers, Phase II is designed to expand the program to 

include smaller leaks. To assure that total emissions are reduced, it 

is necessary to address these sources that leak at rates much lower than 

indicated by a 10,000 ppm monitor reading. Phase II is also intended to 

provide to plant operators the data needed to determine what combination 

of practices and equipment will be needed to meet specific leak rate 

targets. 

(c) Phase III: On and after (e.g.. 1 or 2 years from the start of Phase 

II) the following standards will apply for the specified equipment (Phase II 

LDAR requirement will not apply in Phase III): 

(1) For valves: no more than _W_ percent leaks or WW number of valves 

leaking averaged over (e.g.. 2 quarters) : and no more than (e.g.. 1.5 * W) 

percent leaks or (e.g.. 1.5 * WW) number of valves leaking at any time. 

(2) For pumps: no more than _X_ percent leaks or XX number of pumps 

leaking averaged over (e.g.. 2 quarters) ; and no more than (e.g.. 1.5 * X) 

percent leaks or (e.g.. 1.5 * XX) number of pumps leaking at any time. 

(3) For flanges: no more than _Y_ percent leaks or YY number of 

flanges leaking averaged over (e.g.. 2 quarters) ; and no more than (e.g.. 

1.5 * Y) percent leaks or (e.g.. 1.5 * YY) number of flanges leaking at any 

time. 

(4) For agitator seals: no more than _Z_ percent leaks or ZZ number 

of agitator seals leaking averaged over (e.g.. 2 quarters) ; and no more than 

(e.g.. 1.5 * Z) percent leaks or (e.g.. 1.5 * ZZ) number of agitator seals 

leaking at any time. 

[The performance standards are expressed in terms of percent 

leakers and not emissions, because leaks are a parameter that can be 

directly and easily measured whereas mass fugitive emissions are not. 

Although the relationship between percent leaks and emissions is not 

precise, percent leaks are the best indirect indicator of mass 

emissions. Therefore it makes sense to specify a performance standard 

in terms of leaks.] 

[Other provisions currently in Subpart V will still apply such as 

those for "leakless", difficult to monitor, and unsafe to monitor 

equipment; delay of repair; and alternative means of emission 

limitation.] 

(4) For the purposes of subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this 

paragraph, a leak is defined as (e.g.. 500) ppmv. 

(5) Leak detection sampling shall be performed no less than (e.g.. 

quarterly) . 
P.6 

[Because these are performance standards and not LDAR, the leak 

detection sampling here is a periodic compliance test, analogous to the 

compliance tests required by other NSPS and NESHAP.] 

(6) Leak detection shall be done following the requirements in the 

Section on test methods and procedures. 

(7) Instead of testing all components for compliance, leak detection 

sampling may be performed by testing a random sample of at least J L percent 

of the number of pieces of each type of equipment. 

[This is a new concept for the equipment leak standards. It would 

be desirable to statistically determine compliance by sampling only a 

portion of the equipment. It would be less expensive, time-consuming, 

and burdensome, and would make the rule more easily enforceable. The 

exact details of statistical sampling would be developed by a 

statistician and specified in this section.] 

(8) If a leak is found, it must be repaired within 15 days, with a first 

attempt at repair within 5 days. 

[It makes sense to repair a leak if one is found.] 

(d) Standards for other equipment covered by this subpart remain 

unchanged. 

Section 3. Test methods and procedures. 

(a) The test methods and procedures contained in 61.245 apply 

(substituting the applicable leak, no detectable emissions, and organic 

concentration definitions as specified above). 

Section 4. Recordkeeping. 

(a) A complete description of the Phase III random sampling plan, 

including the procedures used to ensure random sampling selection of equipment 

shall be maintained and readily accessible. 

[The integrity of the statistical sampling to determine compliance 

depends on the adequacy of unbiased sampling. *Such a plan could be 

developed by the owner or operator himself, or could be developed and 

specified in the rule itself.] 

(b) The current recordkeeping requirements of 61.246 shall apply. [This 

will be revised to include flanges and agitator seals, which will have 

requirements similar to valves.] 

(c) The identity of each piece of equipment randomly selected for 

sampling to detennine compliance with Phase III shall be recorded. 
P.7 

[This requirement would be necessary to verify that random 

sampling had been done properly. Records could indicate if certain 

valves were selected more than others on a continuous basis, which could 

indicate a nonrandom selection.] 

Section 5. Reporting 

(a) The same reporting requirements contained in 61.247 apply. In 

addition to the information requested in 61.247(b), this report shall identify 

those sources (e.g., valves in liquid service, valves in gas service, etc.) 

found leaking, the percent leakers of each type of source, and the total 

number of each type of source tested. 

(b) All reports shall be submitted to EPA on electronic media (e.g., 

floppy diskettes) as well as hard copyJ 

[Emissions data are needed by the source and by several EPA 

programs for a number of purposes. Computer-generated information would 

be much more easily accessible and analyzed. It makes sense, therefore, 

to pursue the development of an electronic data format that could meet 

the various needs.]