p. 1



# OAR Box 1168 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 127 ) ll-C-42 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 4/29/200811:23:21 AM Sheet 12 7 of 131_P.2

_

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIOi\ II-C-4 2 £t^L327 1 Offic e ofAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s %y^SilA!?

Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a2771 1 VJ

. \ mo*

0 

## &?n 2 1 m

Dea r Re g Ne g Committe e Member : Enclose d i s a revise d draf t o f th e preambl e t o th e propose d rul e presentin g th e basi s an d purpos e o f th e provisions . A s before , w e hav e show n th e ne wmateria l a s redlin e tex t an d th e replace d provision s a s otrikG"Ou t text . Mos t o f thes e change s wit ha fe wexception s ar e mino r clarification s an d editoria l corrections . Th e substantiv e change s are : (1 ) Th e discussio no n pilo t plant s ha s bee nrevise d t o stat e tha t th e Committe e agree d i t wa s mos t appropriat e t o addres s th e issu e i ncontex t o f th e overal l HO Nan d t o dea l wit hi t outsid e o f th e negotiation . Thi s chang e i s reflecte d o npage s 4 4 throug h 46 . (2 ) Th e descriptio n o f th e performanc e o f dua l mechanica l sea l system s o npump s wa s correcte d t o refe r t o th e level s reporte d i nth e EO/B D data . Thes e change s ar e o npage s 3 4 an d 35 . (3 ) I hav e adde d tex t t o clarif yth e meanin g o f th e phras e "productio no f a chemical" . Thi s materia l i s consisten t wit hth e interpretatio nbein g use d wit hth e ne wsourc e performanc e standar d fo r distillatio n operation s an d th e othe r SOCM I standards . Thi s chang e i s o n pag e 5 . I believ e tha t w e ar e ver yclos e t o "wrapping " thi s u p an d th e nex t draf t shoul d b e th e "agreemen t signer" . Pleas e focu s o n th e changes . W e woul d lik e t o conclud e thi s b yth e thir d wee k i n Ma yand , therefore , woul d lik e t o receiv e you r comment s n o late r tha nMa y3 . I f w e d o no t receiv e anysubstantiv e comment s b y tha t date , w e wil l assum e agreemen t an d wil l sen d yo u th e fina l preambl e an d fina l agreemen t fo r signature . A s always , i f yo u hav e anyquestion s pleas e fee l fre e t o cal l m e o r Rick . Sincerely , 

### ^a n Meyer ^ ©^^ ^ T^M,

. .__••.•.__

___— , 9^*^^* tmmmum *^^^mi^Ba^^^^^Mma^^^^^^^^^^^^m^BS^.-T,P. 3

VII . Rational e fo r Negotiate d Rul e fo r Equipmen t Leak s A . Background Equipmen t leak emission s refe r t o th e los s o f volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) an d volatil e hazardou s ai r pollutant s (VHAP ) throughth e sealing mechanis m separating proces s flui d containe d i nequipmen t fro mth e atmosphere . Becaus e o f th e larg e numbe r o f valves , pumps , an d othe r component s withi n a proces s unit , tota l emission s fro msuc h equipmen t canb e large . Equipmen t leak s hav e bee nestimate d t o contribut e abou t one-third o f al l routin e (nonaccidental ) VO C emission s fro

m th e chemica l industry . Existing regulation s adopte d unde r Section s 11 1 an d 11 2 o f th e CA

A(i.e* , 4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpart s W , GGG , an d KKK , 4 0 CF RPar t $ 1 Subpar t V ) hereafte r referre d t o a s "existing rttl&&

tt } an d i nStat e Implementatio nPlan s (SIP's ) hav e bee n effectiv e i nheightening awarenes s o f th e significanc e o f equipmen t leak s an

d i nstimulating contro l efforts . Thes e rule s basicall yrequir e tha t pump s an d valve s b e inspecte d periodicall yfo r leak s wit ha portabl e hydrocarbo n detector . I f a VO C concentratio ngreate r tha n10,00 0 part s pe r millio n (ppm) , a s methan e o r hexane , i s found , th e componen t i s identifie d a s a "leaker " an d maintenanc e i s require d t o repai r th e leafc . Thi s approac hi s know na s "leak detectio n an d repair " (LDAR) . Whe nthes e rule s wer e established , EPA estimate d tha t emission s woul d b e reduce d b yabou t 6 0 t oP. 4

7 0 percen t an

d tha t afte r control , leak frequencie s woul d b e approximatel y5 percent . Dat a gathere d ove r th e pas t severa l year s o nequipmen t leak s a t some chemica l plant s indicat e tha t muc hlowe r leak frequencie s ca nb e achieved . Thes e data , however , di d no t identif yspecifi c factor s tha t led t o lowe r leak frequencies , no r indicat e ho wlowleak frequencie s coul d b e obtaine d a t al l chemica l plants . Consequently , EPAsawa nee d fo r a newregulatoryapproac htha t woul d achiev e low leak frequencie s a t al l chemica l plants . I t wa s recognize d tha t establishing suc ha regulatio nfo r a s broa d an d varie d a sourc e categorya s chemica l productio nunit s woul d b e difficult . Th e challenge s include d determining ho wt o achiev e lowleak frequencya t al l plant s wit ha simpl e se t o f rules , ho wt o provid e mor e flexibilit yi nachieving low lea k rate s tha ntha t provide d b yLDA Ralone , ho wt o appl y standard s acros s th e industr yusing dat a fro

m onl ya par t o f th e industry , an

d EPA' s nee d t o establis hstandard s consisten t wit hth e maximu machievabl e contro l technology (MACT ) requirement s o f th e CAA . O nApri l 25 , 1989 , EPAannounce d it s intentio nt o establis ha committe e t o negotiat e a ne wapproac hfo r contro l o f volatil e organi c chemica l equipmen t leak s (5 4 FR17944) , an

d conducte d aninitia l informationa l meeting o nMay15 , 1989 , t o determin e among intereste d partie s whethe r negotiatio nwoul d b e desirable . Th eP. 5

participant s a t th e initia l meeting responde d favorabl yt o th e concep t o f negotiation , an d o nSeptembe r 12 , 1989 , EPA establishe d a negotiating committe e (5 4 FR37725) . Th e Committe e me t ove r a perio d o f on e year , holding nin e 2-da y meeting s an

d on e 1-da

ymeeting , t o resolv e th e variou s issue s relate d t o developing a MAC T standard fo r equipmen t leaks . Th e Committe e member s ar e listed i nAppendi-

- 1 Tabl e VTI-X . Th e Committe e considere d th e man yfactor s an

d uncertaintie s associate d wit hregulating equipmen t leak s a t a wid e variet yo f chemica l plant s an d develope d a n acceptabl ybalance d approach , weighing th e nee d t o b e flexible , th e technica l uncertainties , th e reguiremen t fo r MAC T standards , an

d th e dat a limitations . A t th e fina l negotiating session , th e Committe e member s conceptuall y resolve d al l outstanding majo r issue s an d decide d t o reac h fina l agreemen t througha two-step process . Th e Committe e member s woul d firs t agree§ | i nprincipl e t o th e regulatory languag e t o b e propose d an d the nfee sigrt§| § th e fina l agreemen t afte r a draf t preambl e t o th e regulatio n describing i ndetai l th e scope , application , effect , an d rational e ha s bee nprepare d an d concurre d i nb

yth e Committee . Th e Committe e reache d fina l agreemen t o nth e draf t preambl e an

d regulatio no n. Al l Committe e member s hav e agree d t o suppor t th e standard a s long a s EPA propose s an

d promulgate s | § -ih e regulatio nth e standard s an d 3



### a nP. 6

TABL3B VII-1 , LIS T O F NEGOTIATORS , FACILITATORAN D OBSERVE R Negotiator s Affiliation s Rober t L . Aja x Alfre d Bicku

m Bruc e Bower s Linda Curra n Davi d Donige r Alle n Hershkowit z Davi d Dunn LarryGoodhear t Elle nSiegle r Jac k Kac e Thoma s Kittlema n Rober t Majewsk i Le s Montgomery Harve l Roger s Gustav e Vo nBodunge n Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Internationa l Institut e fo r Syntheti c Rubbe r Producer s Standard Chlorin e Amoc o Oi l Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l Sterling Chemicals , Incorporatio n America nPetroleu

mInstitut e Pharmaceutica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Northeas t State s fo r Coordinate d Ai r Us e Managemen t Texa s Ai r Contro l Board Jefferso nCount y(Kentucky ) Ai r Pollutio nContro l Distric t Louisiana Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y

Facilitato r Affiliatio n Philli p J . Harte r Consultan t t o EPA

Observe r Affiliatio n Nicola s Garci a Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge tP. 7

it s preambl e wit hth e sam e substanc e an d affec t a s th e regulatio nan d preambl e tha t ar e th e subjec t o f th e fina l agreemen t substantivel yunchange d fro m thos e tha t ar e th e substanc e o f th e fina l agreement . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e partie s t o th e negotiatio nconcurre d wit hth e regulatio nwhe nconsidere d a s a whole . Inevitabl yi nan ynegotiation , thi s mean s tha t some partie s mayhav e mad e concession s i non e are a i n exchang e fo r concession s fro mothe r partie s i nothe r areas . A s a result,—i t i s difficul t t o asses s ho wchange s i n particula r part s o f th e negotiate d rul e woul d affec t th e consensus . B . Scop e an

d Applicabilit y Th e scop e and applicabilit yo f th e rul e wa s substantiall ydetermine dwhe nEP Amad e th e decisio nt o pursu e regulator ynegotiation . Thes e provisions , theref||§ | wer e no t negotiated * 1 . Sourc e Categorie s Th e negotiator s originall ywer e t o develop standard s fo r equipmen t leak s fo r 1 3 sourc e categorie s tha t woul d b e affecte d b

yEPA' s the nexpecte d hazardou s organi c nationa l emissio nstandard fo r hazardou s ai r pollutant s (NESHAP) , o r HON . Thes e sourc e categorie s include d bot hsyntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturing industr y(SOCMI ) an

d non SOCM I sourc e categories , an d th e standard s unde r developmen t woul d onl yhav e applie d t o 111 1 8 hazardou s organi cP. 8

chemicals . Ove r th e cours e o f th e negotiations , an d i n anticipatio no f th e CAA Ao f 1990 , EPAsawth e nee d t o expand thi s scop e t o includ e no t onl yth e origina l HONsourc e categories , bu t als o al l SOCM I processe s tha t us e a s a reactan t o r produc e on e o f th e organi c chemical s liste d i n th e CA Alis t o f 18 9 hazardou s ai r pollutants . Th e EPA identifie d 45 3 suc hprocesses . Th e EP AConsider s eithe r O f th e followin g downstrea muse s a s indicativ e c f th e productio no f a liste d chemica l a s a product : (1 ) grodudl l fo r sal e a s th e liste d chemical , o r (2 ) use d i nanothe r proces s wher e th e liste d chemica l i s needed * if , a liste i chemica l i s onl ypar t o f a mixe d strea mexitin g a proces s and canno t b e sol d o r use d i nanothe r proces s a s th e iistj | chemical , the ntha t chemica l i s no t considere d t o b e produce d a s a product * I naddition , EPAdetermine d tha t petroleu mrefinery processe s woul d no t b e covere d b ythes e standard s an d tha t MAC T standard s fo r petroleu mprocesse s woul d b e establishe d i na separat e rulemaking . Thes e standard s als o woul d no t b e applicabl e t o othe r petroleum-relate d facilities , including thos e engage d i n petroleu m exploration , production , marketing , o r transportation . Refineryprocesse s no t covere d b

ythi s regulatio ninclude , bu t ar e no t limite d to , cracking , reforming , coking , an d othe r processe s tha t produc e transportatio nfuels , heatin g oils , o r lubricants * blend o o f petrochemicals . Tabl e VII- 2 present s a mor eTABL E VII-2 . EXAMPLE S O F REFINER YPROCESSE S EXCLUDE D FROMTH E NEGOTIATE D REGULATION Therma l Processe s Gas-oi l cracking Therma l cracking Visbreaking Coking (fluid ) Coking (delayed ) Coking (flexi ) Othe r Catalyti c Cracking Flui d Othe r Catalyti c Reforming Semiregenerativ e conventiona l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Cycli c conventiona l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Othe r

~ - continuou s catalyti c reforming conventiona l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Catalyti c Hydrocracking Distillat e upgrading Residua l upgrading Lube-oi l manufacturing Othe r (Continued )P.1 0

TABL E VII-2 . (Continued ) Catalyti c Hydrorefining Residua l desulfurizing Heav ygas-oi l desulfurizing Cat-cracke r an

d cycle-stoc k feed pretreatmen t Middl e distillat e Othe r Fractionatio n Pip e still s Ligh t end s Ga s recoveryunit s On-Sit e Transfe r and Blending Operation s On-sit e tub e Oi l and Specialtie s Processe s Catalyti c Hydrotreating Pretreating cat-reforme r feed s Naphtha desulfurizing Naphtha olefi no r aromatic s saturatio n Straight-rundistillat e Othe r distillat e Lube-oi l "polishing " Othe r Alkylatio n Sulfuri c aci d Hydrofluori c aci d RefineryPolmerizatio n milll l Crud e Unit s (Atmospheri c an d Vacuum ) RefineryIsomerizatio nilllll lP.1 1

detaile d lis t o f example s o f refineryprocesse s no t include d i nth e scop e o f thi s rule . 2 . Relationshi p Betwee nthi s Regulatio nan d Futur e Regulation s fo r RefineryEquipmen t Leak s Th e Committe e agree d o nth e following languag e t o describ e th e relationshi p betwee nthi s regulatio nan d futur e regulation s fo r refineryequipmen t leaks . Th e standard s incorporate d i nthi s agreemen t wer e establishe d b

yth e Committe e base d primaril yo ndat a from well-controlle d ethylen e oxid e plant s an d dat a fro

ma numbe r o f SOCM I plants . Th e Committe e di d no t revie wdat a fro m petroleu

mrefining processe s becaus e theywer e outsid e th e scop e o f th e negotiations , an d th e Committe e di d no t conside r whethe r th e numerica l standard s i nthi s agreemen t ar e achievabl e b

yrefineryprocesses . Th e Committe e recognize s tha t ther e ar e technica l difference s betwee n SOCM I categorie s an d petroleu

mprocesse s tha t mayaffec t th e achievabilit yo f th e numerica l standard s (including percen t leakers) . Potentia l difference s includ e th e availabilit y an d effectivenes s o f emissio ncontro l technologies , plan t shutdow npractices , lin e sizes , proces s temperature s an d proces s pressures , an d cost . Thes e difference s coul d wor k i nth e directio no f making th e numerica l standard s adopte d b yth e Committe e mor e easil yachievable , o r les s easil y achievable , fo r refineryprocesses . Th e Committe e agree s tha t th e framewor k use d fo r th e regulatio ndevelope d during th e curren t negotiatio nshoul d b e adopte d i nth e MAC T regulatio nfo r petroleu mrefinery equipmen t leak s unles s ther e ar e soun d technica l reason s wh y a differen t framework woul d b e mor e effective . Th e America nPetroleu minstitut e &P £ understand s tha t th e numerica l standard s include d i nthi s negotiate d rul e ar e mor e stringen t tha nthos e tha t woul d hav e bee nselecte d i f th e rul e had provide d tha t exceedence s o f numerica l standards , b

ythemselves , constitute d violation s o f th e CAA . Th e America nPetroleu m Institut e AP i recognize s 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 na MAC T regulatio nfo r refineryequipmen t leak s utilizing th e framework o f th e currently-negotiate d regulation . I f EPAdevelop s MAC T refineryequipmen t leak regulations , i t wil l conduc t a separat e rulemaking . Technica l difference s betwee nSOCM I an d refineryprocesse s tha t mayaffec t th e achievabilit yo f th e standard s wil l b e considere d b

yEPAi nth e refineryequipmen t leak rulemaking .P.1 2

3 . Equipmen t Th e negotiate d rul e woul d appl yt o thos e piece s o f equipmen t whic har e regulate d i nth e existing sectio n11 1 an d 11 2 equipmen t leak s rules , including al l valves , pumps , compressors , pressur e relie f devices , open-ende d valve s o r lines , connectors , close d ven t system s an d contro l devices , sampling connectio nsystems , an d produc t accumulato r vessels . I n th e existing rules , connector s ar e referre d t o a s "flange s an

d othe r connectors " o r simpl ya s flanges . T o avoi d potentia l misinterpretation s o f th e negotiate d rul e an d t o eliminat e redundancywithi nth e phrase , th e term connecto r i s use d i nth e negotiate d standard t o designat e th e same type s o f fitting s whic hwer e previousl yterme d flange s an

d othe r connectors ; i.e. , al l flanged , screwed , o r othe r joine d fitting s use d t o connec t tw o pip e line s o r a pip e lin e an

d a piec e o f equipment . Th e negotiate d rul e woul d no t appl yt o flange s betwee nsection s o f a vesse l (e.g. , bod

yflange s o na distillatio ncolumn , o n a reactor
o r hea t exchanger , etc.) , head gasket s o nvessels , o r acces s hatche s (e.g. , manholes) . Thes e type s o f seal s ar e no t include d i nth e definitio no f connector . Th e negotiate d rul e als o contain s provision s fo r agitator s an

d instrumentatio nsystems . Th e rational e fo r th e inclusio no f agitator s an d th e separat e treatmen t o f component s i ninstrumentatio nsystem s i nth e negotiate d rul e i s discusse d belo w§1111 1 unde r th e basi s fo r th e negotiate d rule , 1 0Th e negotiate d rul e woul d appl yt o bot hexisting an d ne wproces s units . Th e negotiate d rul e categorize s th e regulate d processe s int o 5 group s an d use s a staggere d implementatio nscheme , requiring some proces s unit s t o compl yi n1/ 2 year , whil e other s woul d compl ya s lat e a s 1 an d 1/ 2 year s afte r fina l promulgatio no f th e rule . Thi s staggere d implementatio nwa s provide d t o alleviat e th e impac t o f applying th e rule s simultaneousl yt o al l sources . Anaffecte d "proces s unit " mean s equipmen t tha t use s i VHA P a s a reactan t o r produce s a VHA P o r it s derivative s a s intermediat e o r fina l product(s) , including al l equipmen t associate d wit hth e uni t proces s operation , storag e an d transfe r o f feed materia l t o th e uni t proces s operatio n an d fina l o r intermediat e produc t fro mth e uni t proces s operatio nan

d operation s treating wastewate r fro mth e uni t proces s operation . Th e line s withi na uni t proces s operatio ncontaining proces s fluid s ar e considere d t o b e par t o f th e proces s uni t an d thus , subjec t t o regulatoryrequirements , whil e line s an d eguipmen t no t containing proces s fluid s ar e no t subjec t t o thes e requirements , utilities , an d othe r nonproces s lines , suc ha s heating and cooling systems , ar e no t considere d t o b e par t o f a proces s unit * Fo r example , an y direc t heating and cooling systems , whic hgenerall yservic e man yprocesse s a t a plan t an d d o no t commingl e thei r



### 1 1P.1 4



### material s wit hthos e i nth e processe s the yservice , ar e als o no t subjec t t o thes e requirements * Aplan t sit e mayconsis t o f on e o r mor e proces s units . Proces s unit s covere d b yth e negotiate d rul e ar e liste d specificall yi nSection(s ) XX.XO(b ) an d (c ) o f th e negotiate d rule . C . Background Informatio no nEquipmen t Leak s Thi s sectio npresent s a novervie wo f finding s fro m previou s equipmen t leak studie s an d a summaryo f informatio n tha t led t o EPA' s decisio nt o develop a ne wregulatory approac hfo r equipmen t leak s throughnegotiation . Thi s synopsi s i s no t intende d t o reflec t th e Committe e discussions . Rather , i t i s intende d t o provid e basi c informatio nfo r reader s unfamilia r wit hth e existing standards , th e underlying studies , an d recen t trends . Mor e detaile d informatio no nth e basi s fo r th e existing requirement s an

d underlying studie s i s availabl e i nth e document s liste d i nsectio n(t o b e fille d i na t a late r date ] o f thi s notice . 1 . Overvie wo f Background Informatio n On e o f th e firs t publishe d studie s o f equipmen t leak emission s wa s conducte d i nth e 1950' s i nsevera l petroleu m refinerie s i nth e Lo s Angele s Count yAi r Pollutio nContro l District . Th e result s o f thi s stud yshowe d tha t a larg e quantit yo f hydrocarbon s coul d b e los t t o th e atmospher e fro mvariou s source s suc ha s valves , pum p an d compresso r 1 2P.1 5

seals , flanges , an

d pressur e relie f devices . I nth e lat e 1970' s an

d earl y1980's , EPAconducte d severa l studie s t o evaluat e an

d quantif yemission s fro mequipmen t leak s i n petroleu

mrefineryoperation s an d i nchemica l proces s units . I nthes e studies , EPAcollecte d dat a an d evaluate d leak frequency , mas s emissions , an d method s an

d effectivenes s o f leak prevention . Thes e studie s showe d tha t equipmen t leak s wer e a significan t sourc e o f emission s an d tha t th e majorit y o f emission s a t tha t time wer e associate d wit hequipmen t leak s measure d a t concentration s greate r tha n10,00 0 ppm . I nth e EPARefineryAssessmen t Study , dat a wer e gathere d o nequipmen t screening value s (usin g a portabl e VO C instrument ) an

d mas s emissions . Thes e dat a permitte d th e developmen t o f averag e emissio nfactor s an d screening value/emissio n rat e correlations . Th e stud yals o provide d othe r importan t results . Analyse s t o identif yequipmen t o r proces s variable s (e.g. , equipmen t manufacturer , age , o r lin e size , proces s pressure , strea mvolatility ) tha t affec t leak frequencyled t o th e separatio no f equipmen t componen t emission s b

ystrea mphase : gas/vapor , ligh t liquid , an d heav yliquid . Thes e classification s hav e bee nuse d t o designregulation s base d onleak potential . I n1980 , EPAconducte d a stud yo f equipmen t leak emission s fro

m2 4 individua l SOCM I proces s units . I nthi s study , th e 24-Uni t Study , EPAinvestigate d leak frequency (at a concentratio no f 10,00 0 ppm ) i n equipmen t a t 13

__ _P.1 6

2 4 individua l chemica l proces s units . Astud yo f th e effect s o f maintenanc e o nemission s wa s performe d concurrentl ya t 6 o f th e unit s screene d i nth e 24-Uni t Study . Th e dat a fro mthes e studie s wer e use d t o develo p averag e emissio nfactor s an d screening value/lea k rat e correlations ; t o evaluat e leak frequencya s a functio no f proces s parameter s an d equipmen t design ; t o evaluat e th e effec t o f instrumen t respons e factor s o nleak frequency ; an d t o estimat e th e effec t o f leak occurrenc e an d recurrenc e rate s o nmas s emissions . Thes e studie s als o demonstrate d tha t a programconsisting o f inspectio no f equipmen t an d maintenanc e o f th e leaking equipmen t wa s a neffectiv e mean s o f reducing emissions . Th e contro l measure s identifie d a t tha t tim e wer e estimate d t o achiev e overal l a 6 0 t o 7 0 percen t reductio ni nemission s fro mequipmen t leaks . Th e dat a an d conclusion s fro

mth e studie s o npetroleu m refinery unit s an

d chemica l proces s unit s serve d a s a basi s fo r EPA' s equipmen t leak regulation s an d guideline s tha t wer e issue d i nth e earl y1980's . Informatio nobtaine d i nthes e studie s als o showe d tha t leak frequencie s varie d widel yamong proces s unit s an d sourc e type s an

d tha t factor s tha t affec t leak frequencie s wer e no t wel l understood . Specifically , studie s suc ha s EPA' s 24-Uni t Stud

yshowe d tha t th e frequencyo f leak s greate r tha n10,00 0 pp mrange d fro

m0 t o approximatel y 3 0 percen t among 1 5 differen t chemica l processes . Simila r 14P.1 7

chemica l processe s als o showe d larg e difference s i nleak frequencies ; fo r example , th e leak frequencie s fo r ga s valve s varie d fro

m0 t o 1 8 percen t fo r 3 ethylen e dichlorid e units . I nsubsequen t studies , EPAevaluate d leak frequency a s a functio no f proces s parameter s an d equipmen t designan d identifie d n o singl e facto r tha t determine d leak frequency . Lea k frequencie s ar e believe d t o b e a functio no f componen t design , specifications , construction , material , an d age ; qualit yan

d frequencyo f maintenance ; operating an d training practice s use d b

yth e company ; diligence ; proces s fluid s an d operating 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 

### the CA A(e»g* , 4 0 CF RPar t 6Q , subpar t wan d 4 0 CFRPar t 6 1 Subpar t V ) requir e (1 ) a leak detectio nan d repai r program fo r valve s i ngas/vapo r an d ligh t liqui d servic e an d pump s i nligh 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

yReferenc e Metho d 21 ) fo r pressur e relie f device s i ngas/vapo r servic e during norma l operation . Thes e rule s d o no t requir e source s t o achiev e particula r performanc e level s o r t o instal l ie w emissio n fi_^fiufi | equipmen t design s (e.g* , dua l mechanica l seal s o npumps) . A s such , residua l emission s wil l vary among proces s unit s an d th e bes t controlle d unit s wil l emi t les s tha n typicall yo r poore r controlle d units .

15



### wmP.1 8

2 . Recen t Studie s I nth e las t 3 years , EPAha s receive d informatio ntha t show s significantl ylowe r leak frequencie s a t 10,00 0 ppmfo r some chemica l processe s tha nwa s representativ e fo r th e industrya s a whol e i nth e earl y1980's . Thi s informationa l 

### no t necessaril yknow nb yth e industryi n general , wa s on e consideratio ni n EPA' s decisio nt o develop a ne wregulatory approac hfo r equipmen t leak s throughth e regulatory negotiatio n process . Th e informatio nconsidere d b ySP Ai s briefl ysummarize d i nth e paragraph s below . I naddition , wher e sufficien t informatio ni s available , thes e dat a ar e include d i nTabl e VTI- 3 whic hcompare s l|iii i leak frequency a t severa l lealc definition s b ycomponen t type , wit hth e previousl ycalculate d SOCM I averag e leak frequency . I n general , thes e dat a wer e collecte d following th e procedure s specifie d i nReferenc e Metho d 21 , an d th e result s represen t a singl e monitoring surveyconducte d ove r a limite d time period . Unit s subjec t t o th e Benzen e Equipmen t Leak NESHAP . During EPA' s reconsideratio no f th e benzen e equipmen t leak NESHA P (Septembe r 14 , 1989 , 5 4 FR38044) , EPAexamine d complianc e report s fro m198 7 an

d 198 8 fo r a randoml y selecte d sampl e o f 2 5 plant s facilitie s subjec t t o th e standard , whic hrequire s a 10,00 0 pp mleak detectio nan d repai r program . Thi s reviewshowe d tha t man yfacilitie s had n o valve s o r pump s exceeding 10,00 0 pp man d n o facilitie s 16P.1 9

Tabl e VII-3 . Summary

o f Equipmen t Screenin gData a Uni t I DValve s % Leaker s Pump s % Leaker s Connectors' 5 % Leaker s

25 0 50 0 100 0 50 0 100 0 200 0 500 0 25 0 50 0 100 0

E O1 E O2 E O3 E O4 E 0 5 E 0 6 E O7 C E O8 E O9 B D1 B D3 ° B D4 B D5 B D6 B D7 B D8 B D1 0 B D11 B D1 2 Acrolei n 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 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 0. 3 1. 1 1. 1 0. 9 0. 2 1. 3 1. 2 1. 5 4. 1 7. 5 4. 2 5. 4 5. 1 3. 3 2. 2 15. 1 17. 1 8 3. 7 0. 1 -

0 2 3 36 0

- 0 6 2 5

_ . 24 2


## - 3 5 0

. 33 d

- 58 0 16. 7 1 0 4 - 0 1 8 27 0

- 0 0 2 5

_ 2 1 0

- 50 0 16. ; 1 0 4 - 0 1 4 9 0

- 0 0 2 5

_ 1 5 0

- 41 . 0 1 16 . 1 0 4 - 0 9 9 0

- 0 0 2 5

_ 1 3 0

- 7 41. 7 0 7 16. 7 1 0 4 0

0. 9 3. 2 2. 8

- 4. 1 0 2. 5 7. 6 0 0. 7 1 0 3. 4

- 0 7. 4 5. 1 1. 4 0. 6 0. 1 0 0. 9 3. 2 1. 5

- 4. 1 0 2. 5 5. 9 0 0. 7 8. 6 1. 5

- 0 6. 7 2. 5 1. 4 0. 6 0. 1 0 0. 9 3. 2 0. 7

- 4. 1 0 2. 5 4. 9 0 0. 7 7. 1 1. 1

- 0 5. 9 1. 9 0. 7 0. 6 0. 1 Averag e SOCM I 11. 5 9 2. 1 at 10,00 0 pp

m

a I I A I I Lea kfrequencie s ar e no t show nfo r phosgen e unit s sinc e al l observation s ar e 0 ' Dat a include s flanges , threade dfittings , unions , an dan y othe r pipe-to-pip e connection s othe r thanwelds . Th e record s ar e no t sufficien t t o permi t differentiatin gamongtype s o f connectors .
c Certai nrange s o f th e dat a fo r thes e facilitie s wer e discarde ddu e t o excessiv e roundingan dtruncatio nerrors . d Typ e o f pum

psea l i s unknown .


### 1 7

• "" - •- - ii_»^ii^gaB^M-_-----_-______________________________________^_^_B_^_^_^_i_^IIMiiiii i l_M-ilil_ j Llli MP.2 0

had mor e tha n 1. 5 percen t valve s o r mor e tha n12. 5 percen t pump s exceeding 10,00 0 ppm . th e averag e frequencyo f source s exceeding 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 , as e i|| | lowe r tha nth e averag e frequencie s o f 3 t o 5 percen t fo r valve s an

d approximatel y1 0 percen t fo r pump s exceedin g 10,00 0 ppmwhic hhad bee nexpecte d afte r applicatio no f th e standard . Acrolei n proces s units . I n1989 , EPAreceive d screening dat a an

d proces s informatio no ntw o acrolei n proces s units . Thes e dat a wer e collecte d voluntaril yb yth e compan yt o provid e bette r emissio nestimate s tha ncoul d b e obtaine d using th e SOCM I averag e factors . Th e monitorin g dat a represente d eigh t type s o f equipmen t (ga s valves , ligh t liqui d valves , ligh t liqui d pumps , flange s an d othe r connectors , pressur e relie f valves , sampl e points , open ende d line s an

d compressors) . Thes e monitoring dat a wer e collecte d following th e procedure s specifie d i n"Protocol s fo r Generating Unit-Specifi c Emissio nEstimate s fo r Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C an d VHAP" , (Protocols ) EPA-450/3-88

- 010 . I ngeneral , particula r car e wa s take ni nmeasurement s o f equipmen t wit hscreening value s nea r zer o o r ;| | les s tha n 20 0 ppmemissions . I naddition , on e o f th e unit s ha d approximatel y6 0 percen t seale d bellow s valve s an d th e othe r uni t ha d n o seale d bellow s valves .

1 8P.2 1

Th e screening dat a indicate d averag e leak frequencie s o f 0.2 6 t o 0.0 0 percen t fo r valve s an d o f 0.1 3 t o 0 percen t fo r flange s an

d othe r connector s a t leak definition s o f 100 , 1,000 , an

d 10,00 0 ppm.—Thes e dat a als o demonstrate d showe d tha t bot hconventiona l an d seale d bello wvalv e design s ca n achiev e verygoo d performanc e wit hfewleaking valves . Pum p _K-al c frequencie s wer e les s than4 percen t a t 100,—1000,—and 10,00 0 ppm.—O f al l th e component s screened , mor e tha n0 8 percen t had screening value s belo w1 0 ppm . Thes e observe d leak frequencie s o f al l component s wer e a__ e substantiall y belo wth e level s foun d b yEPAi nstudie s conducte d i nth e earl y1980' s an

d th e vas t majorit yo f th e dat a wer e a t 

### screenin g value s les s tha n10 0 ppm . Amin e Uni t W.V-Vr—I n 1007 , EPAreceive d monitoring dat a fo r tw o proces s unit s handling amines.—Thes e unit s wer e selecte d fo r testing becaus e o f th e relativel ysever e servic e conditions—(i.e.,—temperatur e an d pressure)—and high vapo r pressure s o f th e proces s materials.—On e unit—(uni t 1 ) wa s characterise d a s handling relativel ynontoxi c an d innocuou s substance s an d th e othe r uni t (uni t 2 ) wa s characterise d a s handling a mor e toxi c compound,—on e wit ha threshol d limi t value—(TLV)—o f 1 0 ppm , whic hwa s capabl e o f causing a publi c nuisance.—Thos e dat a wer e collecte d voluntaril yb

yth e compan

yt o calculat e a uni t opecifi o emissio nestimat e using EPA' s leak/n o leak emissio nfactors .



### 19

Q UP.2 2

Monitoring dat a wer e provide d fo r pumps , valves , an d flange s an d othe r connectors . Th e monitoring dat a fo r uni t 1 showe d 3 3 percen t o f th e pumps,—1 6 percen t o f th e ligh t liqui d valves,—2 7 percen t o f th e ga s valves,—and 0. 4 percen t o f th e flange s an d othe r connector s exceeding 10,00 0 ppm.—Uni t 2 had 5. 6 percen t o f th e pumps , 0. 0 percen t o f th e ligh t liqui d valves,— 1 percen t o f th e ga a valves , an d 0. 1 percen t o f th e flange s an d othe r connector s exceeding 10,00 0 ppm . Th e dat a fo r uni t 2 indicat e tha t technolog yi s availabl e t o reduc e leak s an d sugges t tha t healt han d safet yconsideration s ar e importan t factor s affecting us e o f bette r technologie s an d maintenanc e practices . Ethylbenzene/styren e .EB/S . Uni t Tx . Limite d informatio nwa s receive d o nscreening value s measure d a t thi s facility' s ethylbenzene/styren e proces s unit , whic hi s subjec t t o th e benzen e equipmen t leak NESHAP . Screening dat a wer e provide d fo r a tota l o f approximatel y2,50 0 valve s an d pumps . Th e dat a wer e provide d a s time aggregate d summarie s o f screening valve s fo r a on e yea r perio d fro m 198 7 t o 1988 . Thes e dat a indicate 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 time th e pump s ha d screening value s les s tha n50 0 ppm . Informatio nsubmitte d fo r complianc e wit hth e benzen e equipmen t leak NESHA P showe d o na nannua 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 10,00 0 ppm . N o 2 0descriptio nwa s provide d o f th e procedure s use d i nth e dat a

collection , othe r thantha t Referenc e Metho d 2 1 wa s used . Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio nStudie s o f Butadien e (BD. . Ethylen e Oxid e (EO) . an d Phosgen e Proces s Units . I nadditio nt o th e preceding information , comprehensiv e screening dat a wer e als o provide d t o EPAo n3 3 butadien e (BD) , ethylen e oxid e (EO) , an d phosgen e productio nproces s units . Th e monitoring dat a represente d eigh t type s o f equipmen t (ga s valves , ligh t liqui d valves , ligh t liqui d pumps , flange s an

d othe r connectors , pressur e relie f valves , sampl e points , open-ende d line s an d compressors ) a t essentiall yal l BD , EO , an d phosgen e producer s operating i n th e Unite d States . Thes e dat a wer e collecte d voluntaril yb y th e CM Acommittee s t o provid e EPAwit hbette r industry-wid e estimate s o f emission s fro mequipmen t leak s a t thes e proces s unit s tha ncoul d b e obtaine d using EPAaverag e factor s fo r SOCMI . Thes e monitoring dat a wer e collecte d following th e procedure s specifie d i nth e Protocols . Thes e studie s provid e th e mos t comprehensiv e equipmen t screening dat a availabl e tha t documen t th e ful l rang e o f leak frequencie s fo r larg e number s o f proces s unit s use d fo r th e productio n o f specifi c chemicals . Th e EPAals o obtaine d informatio no n th e plan t wor k practices , operation s an d th e equipmen t designspecifications . Condition s i n th e equipmen t surveye d spanne d a wid e rang e o f temperature s an d pressure s (5 0 " F t o

2 1P.2 4



### 550° F and 5 t o 50 0 psig ) a s wel l a s a rang e o f lin e diameter s (G» 5 inc ht o greate r tha n6 inches) . Th e screening dat a indicate d tha t mos t proces s unit s a t thes e facilitie s ar e characterize d b yequipmen t leak frequencie s fa r belo wlevel s foun d b yEPAi nstudie s conducte d i nth e 1970' s an d 1980's . I n addition , th e dat a bas e indicate d muc hlowe r leak frequencie s a t th e phosgen e proces s unit s tha n a t th e E O an d BD units , an

d th e E O unit s i ngenera l ha d lowe r leak frequencie s tha nth e BD units . Tabl e Stil l present s th e plant-specifi c leak frequencydat a b ycomponen t type , a t variou s leak definition s fo r th e thre e processes . Th e dat a show ni nTabl e VII~ 3 ar e th e screening dat a tha t wer e judge d t o b e consisten t wit hprope r calibratio nan

d us e o f th e tes t equipment . Th e screening value s fo r th e te n BD an d nin e E O proces s unit s wer e als o adjuste d fo r th e instrumen t respons e facto r t o represen t mor e accuratel yth e screening concentratio no f equipmen t i n BD o r E O service . Th e dat a presente d i nTabl e VII- 3 represen t proces s unit s i nvariou s stage s o f contro l an d operations . Some plant s operate d using forma l LDA Rprogram s an d other s di d not ; some unit s wer e screene d jus t befor e a shutdow nfo r maintenanc e an d other s wer e screene d jus t afte r startu p following a schedule d maintenanc e shutdown . Th e abov e information , whe ncompare d wit hth e earlie r studie s an

d analyse s indicate d t o EPAtha t th e performanc e capabilit yo f availabl e technolog yi s bette r tha nha d bee n 2 2expecte d fro ma 10,00 0 pp

mLDA Rprogra

malone . Furthermore , analyse s o f thes e dat a showed , lik e earlie r studies , tha t n o singl e facto r o r technolog ywa s responsibl e fo r th e bette r performance . Rather , th e recen t dat a confirme d tha t effectiv e leak contro l involve s a combinatio no f factors . Fo r example , statistica l analysi s o f th e recen t E O an d BD dat a failed t o identif yspecifi c proces s parameter s o r equipmen t design s tha t alon e woul d significantl yaffec t leak frequencies . D . Developmen t o f Framewor k an d Selectio no f MAC T Selectio no f MAC T fo r equipmen t leaks , unlik e man y othe r sourc e types , require s a balancing o f a numbe r o f interrelate d factor s an d i s no t base d o nidentificatio no f a specifi c bes t contro l techniqu e o r approach . Th e following discussio nexplain s th e Committee' s assessmen t an d consideratio n o f th e availabl e dat a i nth e developmen t o f th e framewor k a s wel l a s th e selectio no f MACT . 1 . Informatio nconsidere d I ndeliberation s ove r th e framework , th e Committe e considere d screening dat a fro mth e CM

Asurvey s o f EO , BD , an d phosgen e productio nunit s a s wel l a s dat a an d informatio nfro

m othe r proces s units . Th e additiona l informatio nconsidere d include d dat a provide d o na nEB/ S proces s uni t an

d o nthre e facilitie s i nTexa s subjec t t o a 50 0 pp mleak permi t condition . Th e informatio n availabl e fo r th e EO , BD , an

d phosgen e unit s an d fo r th e EB/ S uni t 2 3P.2 6

wer e describe d i nth e preceding section . Th e informatio n provide d o nth e thre e facilitie s i nTexa s i s describe d below . Texa s Ai r Contro l Board Data . Additiona l dat a from thre e plan t site s wer e provide d b yth e Committe e membe r representing th e Texa s Ai r Contro l Board . Thes e plant s ar e subjec t t o a Texa s regulatio ntha t require s LDA Rwit h directe d maintenanc e a t a 50 0 ppm vleak definition . Thi s requiremen t ha s bee napplie d a s par t o f th e permi t program fo r ne wan

d modifie d sources . Dat a wer e provide d fo r cumene , phenol/acetone , an d butyraldehyde/butano l proces s unit s whic hhad bee noperating a 50 0 pp m LDA Rprogramfo r on e t o si xquarters . Thes e unit s had averag e leak frequencie s a t 50 0 ppmfo r valve s ranging fro m0 t o 3. 6 percent . Th e averag e leak frequencya t 50 0 ppmreporte d fo r pump s varie d fro m0 t o 2 0 percen t i nth e firs t perio d an d fro m3. 6 t o 5 percen t i nth e secon d period . Averag e leak frequencie s fo r flange s varie d fro m0 t o 2 percent . Thes e dat a sho wfo r severa l chemical s tha t a 50 0 pp mLDA R programi s effectiv e an d wil l significantl ydecreas e leak frequency . I nadditio nt o considering th e availabl e screening data , severa l member s o f th e Committe e visite d 3 integrate d chemica l plants , on e o f whic hha d 2 0 operating unit s including a phosgen e unit , a toluen e diisocyanat e unit , an

d a hydroge nfluorid e unit . On e conclusio ndraw n 2 4fro mthes e visit s wa s tha t th e acut e toxicit yo f phosgen e an d toluen e diisocyanate , combine d wit hothe r feature s o f thes e units , ha s resulte d i nth e routin e us e o f a numbe r o f effectiv e leak contro l practice s i nthes e proces s units . Measure s take nt o preven t an d minimiz e leak s i nphosgen e an d isocyanat e unit s includ e designt o minimiz e th e numbe r o f components , stringen t qualit yassurance/contro l programs , benc htesting o f equipmen t fo r leaks , an d carefu l managemen t an d extensiv e continuou s monitoring o f th e uni t t o detec t leak s an

d problems . I naddition , phosgen e an d isocyanat e unit s ar e shu t dow

nfo r immediat e repai r wheneve r an yleak i s detected . Immediat e shutdow ni s possibl e becaus e phosgen e 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 anintegrate d process . I nunit s wher e les s acutel ytoxi c compound s ar e use d o r produce d lliBiili l operation s ar e integrated , suc hmeasure s wer e no t observe d an d th e unit s ar e no t (an d canno t be ) immediatel yshu t dow n fo r repai r wheneve r a leak i s detected . Rather , thes e unit s ar e typicall yoperate d fo r a fixed time perio d befor e they ar e shu t dow

n fo r maintenanc e an d repair . Representativ e operating time s betwee nschedule d shutdown s rang e fro m € § month s t o severa l years i , wit htypica l time o f approximatel y3 years . Th e Committe e als o conclude d tha t equipmen t designan d anon-going qualit ycontrol/assuranc e progra m ha s a significan t rol e i nachieving lowleak frequencies . Thi s 2 5

_____ _^ 2 8

conclusio nwa s supporte d b yremark s mad e t o th e Committe e b y a chemica l industryrepresentativ e wh o describe d hi s company' s recen t experienc e wit htw o ethylen e oxid e productio nunits . Following completio no f a screening study , th e compan

yundertoo k a progra mt o reduc e th e leak frequencyan

d emission s fro

m th e units . Step s take n consiste d o f componen t inspection , complet e o r partia l replacemen t o f ove r 70 0 valve s an d 2,00 0 gaskets , modificatio no f designt o reduc e leaks , an d regula r monitoring an

d inspectio nfo r leaks . Th e compan yreporte d tha t ther e wa s a n overal l reductio no f abou t 8 0 percen t i n th e numbe r o f leaking component s following completio no f thi s project . 2 . Committe e Analysi s an d Consideratio no f th e Dat a Th e Committe e considere d th e dat a an d informatio n describe d i nth e preceding sectio nan d conclude d tha t th e EO , BD , an

d phosgen e dat a shoul d serv e a s th e principa l basi s fo r establishing th e performanc e o f MAC T fo r SOCM I processes . Th e EO , BD , an d phosgen e data , however , wer e considere d i nligh t o f th e broade r data ; especially , th e Texa s 50 0 pp

m LDA Rprogra

man d th e sit e visits . O nthi s basis , th e Committe e agree d tha t phosgen e unit s ar e no t simila r i ndesign , operation , an d maintenanc e t o mos t SOCM I processes . Some o f th e maintenanc e an d operating practice s fo r phosgen e unit s contro l program s wen t beyond MAC T fo r othe r SOCM I processes . On e exampl e o f thi s i s th e practic e 2 6o f immediat e shutdown . Immediat e shutdow ni s economicall y an d technicall yinfeasibl e fo r othe r processe s becaus e shu t dow no f th e on e uni t woul d requir e shu t dow no f al l 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 nshor t time frames . I nsome cases , emission s fro mclearing proces s materia l fro

m par t o r al l o f th e unit s coul d greatl yexcee d th e emission s tha t woul d resul t fro mth e leaking equipment . Therefore , whil e th e phosgen e units ' performanc e di d provid e a nindicatio n o f th e potentia l fo r leak reduction , th e Committe e conclude d tha t th e E O an d BD unit s ar e mor e representativ e o f th e rang e o f processe s i nSOCM I tha nar e phosgen e o r toluen e diisocyanat e units . Th e Committe e di d recognize , a s indicate d b yth e framewor k an

d th e bas e performanc e levels , tha t ve^ ylowleak frequencie s ar e generall yachievabl e a t chemica l plant s an d tha t th e rul e shoul d encourag e attaining lowemissions . Fromth e dat a an

d observations , th e Committe e als o conclude d tha t lowemissio nperformanc e result s fro m combination s o f monitoring (or surveillance) , repai r o f leaking eguipment , us e o f qualit yassure d an d qualit y controlle d equipmen t suitabl e fo r th e proces s operating conditions , an

d a qualit ycontrolle d maintenanc e an d repai r program . Th e Committe e conclude d tha t suc hcombination s ar e MAC T fo r SOCM I processes . Th e informatio navailabl e di d no t identif yan

ysingl e factor , suc ha s particula r equipmen t 2 7P.3 0

designo r specifi c wor k practice s o r maintenanc e program s tha t b yitsel f woul d guarante e lowemissio nperformanc e i n al l cases . Furthermore , th e Committe e di d no t identif yth e result s a t an

yon 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 n o apparen t brea k poin t tha t represent s a limi t o f wha t i s achievabl e wit ha combinatio no f technologie s tha t ar e available . Thus , th e Committe e identifie d th e bes t performing E O proces s units , th e EB/ S unit , th e Texa s 50 0 ppmunits , an

d possibl yth e bes t performing BD proces s unit s (fo r pumps ) a s reflecting th e performanc e o f MAC T fo r toxi c chemica l processe s productio nprocesse s involving HAP*S . 3 . RegulatoryApproac h Becaus e availabl e informatio nindicate d tha t bes t performanc e fo r equipmen t leak s coul d no t b e define d o r reflecte d i na singl e numerica l standard , typ e o f technology , o r grou p o f wor k practices , th e Committe e focuse d o ndeveloping a regulatoryframewor k that , whe n combine d wit hperformanc e levels , woul d reflec t MACT . Key principle s tha t evolve d during th e negotiation s an d tha t led t o th e regulatoryframewor k are : (1 ) Motivatio n i s a majo r facto r determining performance . Incentive s shoul d b e include d i nth e standar d t o reward goo d performanc e an d prescribe d correctiv e action s

2 8P.3 1

shoul d b e include d t o ensur e poo r performanc e i s 11^11111 1 correcte d i na timel ymanner . (2 ) Flexibilit yi n achievin g specifie d result s i s important . Thi s i s necessar yt o allo wconsideratio no f proces s t o proces s variation s i noperatin g condition s an d equipmen t specification s and t o provid e incentive s fo r identifyin g th e mos t effectiv e combinatio no f equipmen t an d practices . (3 ) Identifying , designing , an d implementin g system s t o mee t th e specifie d result s require s varyin g amount s o f lea d time . Effectiv e contro l require s continua l analysi s an d adjustmen t an d ma yinvolv e severa l technologie s whic h canno t b e identifie d o r applie d a t on e tim e o r i non e step . (4 ) Mor e frequen t monitorin g an d maintenanc e o r a prescribe d progra m shoul d b e employed , a t a minimum , fo r thos e proces s unit s tha t d o no t achiev e th e specifie d result s throug ha progra mo f thei r owndesig no r throug h quarterl yinspectio n an d maintenanc e alone . (5 ) Ther e i s insufficien t informatio navailabl e t o se t

a niliiillilil i not-to-be-exceede d standard. " Th e existin g informatio ni s to o limite d i n scop e t o predic t wit h certaint ywha t leve l o f performanc e coul d b e achieve d b y processe s fo r whic hn o dat a wer e available . Th e majorit yo f th e Committe e deliberation s concerne d developmen t o f a regulator yframewor k an d performanc e level s tha t woul d incorporat e th e abov e ke yprinciples , whil e 2 9P.3 2

reflecting th e performanc e o f MACT . Thes e deliberation s primaril yfocuse d o ndeveloping provision s fo r valves , pumps , an

d flange s becaus e thes e emissio nsource s offere d th e greates t potentia l fo r emissio nreductions . Th e Committe e use d th e existing LDA Rprogra

m a s a starting poin t fo r developmen t o f th e framewor k fo r thes e sources . Early

on , th e Committe e recognize d th e nee d fo r a phased-i n approac hfo r valve s an d pump s tha t woul d provid e time fo r plant s t o develop an d implemen t effectiv e program s an d t o focu s o nlarge r emissio nsource s first . Th e phased-i n approac hi s necessarybecaus e effectiv e contro l require s continua l analysi s an d adjustmen t o f program s a s experienc e i s gained . Th e Committe e define d MAC T gequirement s fo r pump s an

d valve s i nterm s o f thre e phase s o f requirement s o f increasing stringency . Eac hphas e a s i t occur s reflect s th e performanc e o f MAC T fo r unit s i ntha t phase . Th e Committe e als o deliberate d o nsevera l method s o f linking monitoring frequencywit hperformanc e an d o f providing incentive s t o us e lowemissio nequipmen t o r t o reduc e th e amoun t o f equipmen t i nVHA P service . Th e fina l decisio nwa s t o link reduce d monitoring frequencywit hlowe r leak frequencies , an d t o giv e credi t fo r remova l o f equipmen t o r us e o f lowleak designequipment . Th e performanc e forma t o f th e standard s woul d als o encourag e th e us e o f low-lea k technologies . Thi s approac hi s consisten t wit hth e dat a whic hindicat e tha t ther e ar e combination s o f 3 0technology , maintenanc e practices , an d qualit yassuranc e program s tha t ca nachiev e verylowleak frequencie s whil e using les s frequen t monitoring intervals . Th e Committe e als o debate d whethe r t o requir e shu t dow n o f proces s unit s fo r repai r o f leaking equipmen t wheneve r performanc e deteriorate s belo wsome specifie d performanc e level . Th e Committe e ultimatel yconclude d tha t proces s unit s shoul d no t b e shu t dow nt o mee t a performanc e level . I t wa s generall yagree d tha t clearing o f proces s material s coul d caus e greate r emission s thandelaying repair s unti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Th e Committe e als o agree d t o retai nth e provision s o f i th e existing equipmen t standard s fo r pressur e relie f devices , sampl e points , open-ende d lines , produc t accumulato r vessels , an d compressors . Th e existing standard s fo r thes e items o f equipmen t requir e installatio n o f equipmen t o r contro l device s an d essentiall yeliminat e emission s fro

mequipmen t leaks . Th e Committe e considere d thes e requirement s t o b e MACT . Fo r th e valve , pump , an d connecto r standards , th e Committe e primaril yuse d th e dat a fro mth e better-perfOrming E O units , th e best-performing BD unit s (fo r pump s only) , th e Texa s 50 0 pp

m units , an

d th e EB/ S uni t t o establis hth e performanc e level s fo r th e monitoring frequency . Amajo r consideratio ni nth e selectio no f performanc e level s wa s th e understanding tha t th e level s ar e interrelate d wit hth e 3 1P.3 4

framewor k an

d phasing an

d ar e no t necessaril yth e level s tha t woul d hav e bee nchose nfo r a not-to-be-exceede d standard . I nth e cas e o f th e valv e standard , th e selectio n o f th e bas e performanc e level s wa s als o influence d b yth e inclusio no f provision s tha t provid e analternativ e t o monthl ymonitoring . Referre d t o a s th e Qualit yImprovemen t Progra m(QIP) , thi s progra mensure s tha t plant s subjec t t o thes e QI P replac e poore r provision s instal l lowemissio n 

### performin g valve s (during norma l replacement ) wit hsuperio r performin g technologie s unti l les s tha n2 percen t leaking ; valve s ll;ft|.iiiillil

i replacemen t equipmen t (durin g norma. . geplacement ) an

d implemen t a qualit yassurance/contro l programt o ensur e tha t al l element s o f MAC T ar e utilized . Also , th e QI P wa s include d i nth e framewor k t o allo wthos e 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 specifie d numerica l performanc e level s t o remai n o na quarterl ymonitoring schedul e instead o f increasing monitoring frequency . Th e basi s fo r th e selectio no f th e bas e performanc e level s an

d othe r 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 th e othe r provision s o f th e valve , pump , an d connecto r standard s a s wel l a s th e othe r specifi c requirement s o f th e regulatio ni s give n i nsectio nF . Valves . Fo r valve s th e Committe e initiall yconsidere d bot hequipmen t standard s an d LDA Rprogram s an

d ultimatel y 3 2agree d upo na three-phas e LDA Rprogram . Initially , th e Committe e considere d requiring th e us e o f equipmen t suc ha 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 nwa s no t selecte d fo r severa l reasons . First , thes e valve s ar e no t suitabl e fo r us e i nal l operating condition s an d service s encountere d i nSOCM I processes . Specifically , thes e valve s canno t b e use d i ncorrosiv e streams , wit hgritt ymaterials , o r i nextremel yhighpressur e o r temperatur e conditions . Second , seale d bellow s valve s canleak internally , an d wil l eventuall yfail . Whe nfailur e occurs , ther e i s potentia l fo r massiv e leaks . Du e t o thi s possibilit yfo r leaks , monitoring o f thes e valve s i s necessary . Considering this , th e Committe e though t tha t th e leak detection , repair , an d bas e performanc e leve l standard s framewor k describe d abov e woul d bes t reflec t MACT . Thi s approac hallow s an d woul d giv e credi t fo r an

ylowemissio nperforming valv e regardles s o f it s design . Th e Committe e considere d severa l LDA Rprogram s whic h tie d monitoring frequencyt o th e performanc e leve l achieve d an d create d a framework tha t consist s o f severa l combination s o f wor k practice s an d performanc e levels . I n determining th e maximu mmonitoring frequencie s fo r Phas e III , th e Committe e considere d requiring weekl ymonitorin g an d monthl ymonitoring . Th e weekl ymonitoring program wa s rejecte d a s being impractica l an d unreasonable . Th e 3 3

_________ •P.3 6

Committe e agree d tha t a monthl yprogra mwa s th e maximu

m frequencytha t woul d b e generall yfeasibl e an d woul d reduc e emissions , whil e being sufficientl ycostl yt o provid e a n incentiv e fo r owner s o f suc hsource s t o identif ymor 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 ymonitorin g o f valves , th e standar d require s monthl ymonitorin g o r participatio ni n th e QI P program . I naddition , th e Committe e als o decide d t o allowles s frequen t monitorin g t o provid e anincentiv e t o achiev e bette r performanc e tha n tha t require d fo r th e bas e quarterl ymonitoring program . Annua l an d semi-annua l frequencie s wer e selecte d fo r th e incentiv e programs . I nselecting th e bas e performanc e leve l an d leak definition , th e Committe e considere d th e performanc e o f th e bette r performing E O unit s (an d possibl yth e bes t BD units ) an d th e performanc e o f th e unit s subjec t t o th e Texa s 50 0 pp mstandard . Using thes e data , th e Committe e considere d leak definition s i nth e rang e o f 5 0 t o 2,00 0 pp m and performanc e level s fro m1 t o 5 percen t leaking valves . Thes e dat a an

d th e fac t that , i npractice , lowleak frequencie s wer e achieve d b ya 50 0 pp

m LDA Rprogram

alon e supporte d th e practicalit yan d achievabilit yo f a performanc e limi t fo r a quarterl yLDA Rprogra

mo f 2 percen t leaking valve s a t a 50 0 pp m leak definition . Lea k definition s lowe r tha n50 0 pp mwer e no t selecte d du e t o lllf l
3 4Committe e member s concern s regarding uncertaintie s abou t th e

practica l abilit yt o measur e an d repai r smalle r leaks . If f 

### contrast / othe r member s o f th e committe e favore dlea k definition s lowe r tha n50 0 pp mand coul d no t agre e t o Ul l definition s greate r tha n50 0 ppn u Ultimately , a leak definitio nfflffgreate r than50 0 pp

mwa s ne t selecte d i nligh t o f dat a demonstrating th e practicalit yan d curren t implementatio no f a 50 0 pp mLDA Rprogram . Th e Committe e als o agree d tha t unit s wit hles s tha n1 percen t leaking valve s coul d monito r th e valve s semiannuall yan d thos e wit h les s tha n0. 5 percen t leaking valve s coul d monito r annually . Thes e performanc e level s wer e selecte d considering th e Committe e had previousl yagree d t o exclud e nonrepairabl e valve s (u

p t o a maximu

mo f 1 percen t o f th e tota l i||iiiiiilil valve s i nVHA P Servic e pool ) fro mth e calculatio no f percen t leaking valve s (se e sectio nF. 4 _rr-3

- o f thi s notic e fo r discussio no f th e basi s fo r th e nonrepairabl e provision) . Thes e performanc e level s hav e bee ndemonstrate d b yth e bette r performing E O proces s units , th e EB/ S unit , an d b y th e plant s subjec t t o th e Texa s 50 0 pp mregulation . Th e Committe e considere d thes e level s t o represen t th e performanc e o f MACT . Pumps . I ndeliberation s o nth e standard , th e Committe e considere d th e dat a summarize d i nTabl e VII-3 , additiona l analyse s o f th e EO/B D data , an d th e comment s o f pum p sea l manufacturers . Th e EO/BD dat a showe d pum p leak frequencie s 3 5

tmaj ^ mm —^^^^^^^^^^^ mK ^^^^^ m ^^^^^^^^ a ^^^^^ mguP.3 8

an d overal l performanc e t o b e highl yvariabl e wit hleak frequencie s ranging fro m0 t o 5 0 percen t a t a 1,00 0 pp m leak definition . Additiona l analyse s wer e don e t o compar e th e 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 ngeneral , th e performanc e O f bot hDM S pump s screene d a t 0 pp man d tha t SM S pump s performanc e varie d widel yamong th e 

### process units , i ngeneral / DM S pump s screene da t les s tha n 50 0 t o 100 0 ppm . I nsome cases , th e SM S pump s screene d a t les s tha n 10 0 pp

man d coul d b e viewe d a s having comparabl e performanc e t o tha t o f DM S pumps . Fo r th e majorit yo f SM S pump s screening a t les s tha n10,00 0 ppm , th e screening value s wer e fairl yuniforml ydistribute d fro m 10 0 t o 9,10 0 ppm . Thus , th e dat a di d no t provid e a clea r indicatio no f th e performanc e leve l tha t ca n b e achieve d b y SM S withou t incurring highmaintenanc e costs . Fromit s consideratio no f th e availabl e data , th e Committe e generall yconclude d tha t pump s equippe d wit hDMS , a s a group , hav e lowe r leak frequencie s tha nthos e equippe d wit hSMS . Consequently , th e Committe e deliberate d a t grea t lengt ho nwhethe r MAC T i s reflecte d b ya nequipmen t standar d fo r DM S o nal l pump s o r b ya performanc e standard . Th e Committe e decide d no t t o establis ha nequipmen t standar d becaus e DM S ar e no t suitabl e fo r us e i nal l case s an d becaus e a DM S equipmen t standard woul d b e verycostl yan d woul d preclud e effectiv e lowe r cos t options . Dua l
3 6mechanica l seal s canno t b e use d wit hmaterial s wher e leakag e

o f th e barrie r flui d woul d affec t produc t purit y(sucha s Wit hmedica l products) , wit hpolymerizing monomers , o r o n reciprocating pumps . Also , th e pum p casing o f some existing packe d sea l an

d SM S pump s doe s not*allowinstallatio no f a DM S assembly . I n suc hcases , a DM S equipmen t standar d woul d requir e replacemen t o f th e entir e pump . Th e cos t o f a DM S equipmen t standard wa s considere d onl yi na genera l sense ; however , n o agreemen t wa s reache d o nth e cos t o f installatio no f DK S system s o r o nth e cos t o f a DM S equipmen t standard , including th e cos t o f pum p replacements * estimate s o f th e cos t o f pum p replacement s an

d th e cos t o f installatio no f DM S system s wer e no t th e subjec t o f Committe e discussions.—Th e opinio ntha t a DM S equipmen t standard woul d b e verycostl ywa s base d o ngenera l knowledg e an d th e experienc e o f some Committe e members . However , t o giv e al l Committe e member s some perspectiv e o nth e potentia l costs , EPAprovide d anestimat e o f th e annualize d cos t fo r retrofitting a nexisting pum p wit ha DM S system . Thi s estimat e showe d th e cos t woul d b e approximatel y$2,200/yea r (199 0 dollars ) fo r eac hpum p i nVHA P service . I npreviou s rulemakings , EPAha s estimate d tha t a requiremen t o f DM S o n pump s ha s anincrementa l cos t effectivenes s ove r a 10,00 0 pp

mLDA Rprogra

mo f $5,600/megagra mo f tota l VO C §§ | ||i|^||i l (197 8 dollars ) , whic hi s comparabl e t o approximatel y$15,000/megagra mi nl!! ! curren t dollars . 3 7

..._, . _.^==1-=====^-^ ^P.4 0

Some Committe e member s expresse d anadditiona l concer ntha t a DM S equipmen t standard woul d hav e significan t advers e economi c effec t o n smal l producers . T o establis ha performanc e standard tha t woul d reflec t MAC T fo r pumps , th e Committe e 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 th e Committe e members , chemica l industry representatives , an d pum p sea l manufacturer s led t o th e conclusio ntha t i t i s no t possibl e t o identif yprecisel y bes t performanc e level s achievabl e b ySM S an

d that , although advance s i ntechnolog ycoul d reasonabl yb e expecte d ove r th e nex t 5 years , th e limit s o nthes e advance s coul d no t b e established . Becaus e o f technica l limitation s o nth e us e o f DM S o npump s i nfood/medica l servic e an d th e us e o f mechanica l seal s o n pump s handling polymerizing monomers , th e Committe e agree d t o establis hseparat e performanc e standard s fo r pump s i nthos e tw o services . Fo r pump s i ngenera l chemica l service , th e Committe e agree d t o establis htha t 1,00 0 pp milffrepresented a performanc e targe t reflecting MAC T an d t o establis h2,00 0 ppma s th e concentratio na t whic hrepai r i s require d tha t repai r o f pump s wit ha leak rat e les s tha n2,00 0 ppmcoul d resul t i nsignifican t an d costl ymaintenance , withou t an y attendan t emissio nreduction . Th e Committe e agree d t o 

### requir e repai r o f pump s wit ha ninstrumen t readin g greate r 3 8P.4 1



### tha n2,00 0 pp ma s a resul t o f som e Committe e member s concern s tha t repai r a t lowe r concentration s coul dres||i||| | significan t an d costl ymaintenance , wit hlittl e t o n o emissio nreduction * Therefore , 2,00 0 pp mwa s establishe d a s th e concentratio n a t whic hrepai r i s required . Th e Committe e als o conclude d tha t a 1 0 percen t leak frequency (or 3 leaking pumps ) i s th e appropriat e poin t t o impos e a qualit yimprovemen t progra mtha t include s a mandatory replacemen t provision , i f th e leak frequencyremain s greate r tha n1 0 percent . Onbalance , i t wa s believe d tha t thi s combinatio no f requirement s woul d provid e th e time an d incentiv e neede d t o achiev e bes t performanc e fro m SMS , woul d allo wus e o f SM S wher e theyca nachiev e lowemissions , an d woul d allo wus e o f bot hSM S an d DM S pumps , a s appropriate , t o achiev e th e standard . Fo r pump s i nfood/medica l service , th e Committe e selecte d 2,00 0 pp

man d 1 0 percen t leak frequencya s th e performanc e level . Th e leak definitio n wa s se t a t 2,00 0 pp m t o accoun t fo r th e limite d applicabilit yo f DM S pump s an d th e uncertaint ytha t SM S seal s coul d achiev e lowe r performanc e level s withou t excessiv e replacement s i nthi s service . Th e Committe e als o agree d tha t processe s wit h pump s i nfood/medica l servic e tha t excee d 1 0 percen t leaking pump s woul d no t b e subjec t t o th e mandatoryreplacemen t provision s i n th e qualit yimprovemen t program .



### 3 9

* —— ' —-—_-_^_s_-=__-_---------a---i__________j^ B ^^^^^^j|^^ fc||a|t | mmm. . lll__B._lli__l___hM»---Hli-_- -P.4 2

Fo r pump s handling polymerizing monomers , th e Committe e selecte d 5,00 0 pp

m an d 1 0 percen t leak frequencyfo r th e performanc e level . A s mechanica l seal s canno t b e use do n pump s i npolymeria!ing monome r service , industr y representative s generall yhel dtha t thes e pump s coul dno t achiev e a 2/oo o pp mlea k performanc e level * Th e committe e ultimatel yagree dt o th e 5,00 0 pp mlea k definitio nbase do n exper t judgemen t tha t 5,00 0 pp mwoul dreflec t bes t performanc e and o nth e genera l lack,o f dat a fo r pump s i n thi s service * Thi s decisio nwa s base d o nth e lac k o f dat a an d uncertaintie s o nth e limit s o f performanc e o f SM S o r packe d seal s i n thi s service . I t wa s als o agree d tha t facilitie s tha t excee d 1 0 percen t leak frequencywoul d no t b e subjec t t o th e mandatoryreplacemen t provisio no f th e qualit yimprovemen t program . Connectors . Provision s fo r a LDA Rprogramfo r connector s wer e develope d afte r th e Committe e generall y agree d tha t connector s coul d b e a significan t sourc e o f emission s a t a well-controlle d plan t an d tha t emission s coul d b e reduced . I nth e developmen t o f thes e provisions , th e Committe e considere d th e dat a summarize d i nTabl e VII- 3 an d th e contributio no f connecto r emission s t o tota l emission s fo r severa l EO/B D proces s units . Thes e dat a showe d a rang e O f connecto r leak frequencie s a t differen t lea k definition s (e.g. , 3 percen t a t 10,00 0 ppm t o les s tha n 2 percen t a t 25 0 ppm ) a s higha s 3 percent , a t a leak 4 0P.4 3

definitio no f 10,00 0 ppm , an d showe d tha t connector s 11111 1 b e a significan t sourc e contribute d th e majorit yo f th e tota l emissions . Becaua e some EO/BD unit s had 0 percen t leaking connector s a t variou s leak definitions,—including 25 0 an d 10,00 0 ppm , t o lowlevels . Th e genera l vie wwa s 

### Some committe e member s considere dtha t th e relativel y high leak rate s observe d a t some proces s unit s wa s mil l a resul t o f infrequen t o r n o inspection s an d maintenance . Th e Committe e agree d tha t conclude d tha t connecto r leak s ea n Shoul d b e controlled , therefore , a nALDA Rprogra

m wa s establishe d t o ensur e tha t lowleak frequencie s ar e attained . I ndevelopmen t o f thes e provisions , th e Committe e agree d tha t LDA

Rcanreduc e connecto r leak frequencie s an d tha t assuring MAC T performanc e require s les s frequen t monitoring tha ni s necessaryfo r pump s o r valves . Les s frequen t monitoring i s neede d becaus e connector s hav e n o moving part s an

d onc e repaire d theyshoul d remai nleak fre e fo r extende d periods . Informatio nprovide d b yindustry member s o nth e Committe e indicate d tha t a numbe r o f action s ca nb e take nt o reduc e o r eliminat e leaks . I nmos t cases , i t wa s expecte d tha t tightening th e flang e bolt s o nflange d connector s woul d eliminat e th e leak . I t wa s als o expecte d tha t i nothe r case s i t mayb e necessaryt o replac e th e gaske t o r t o correc t faultyalignmen t o f surfaces . Thes e latte r case s ar e expecte d t o b e relativel yinfrequent . Th e 4 1

___,.__.___•___,___.__•____

__-_._...----. -P.4 4

Committee , therefore , decide d tha t a n annua l monitoring wa s th e maximu

mfrequencytha t wa s reasonable . Th e Committe e 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 standard shoul d b e allowe d t o monito r les s frequentl ytha nannually . Thi s concep t i s simila r t o th e skip-perio d provision s fo r valve s i nth e existing equipmen t leak regulations . Thi s approac hi s consisten t wit hqualit ycontro l principle s an d th e Committe e conclude d tha t thi s approac hwil l ensur e MAC T performance . Th e Committe e selecte d th e performanc e leve l an d leak definitio nconsidering th e dat a fro mth e EO/B D units , th e Texa s 50 0 ppm

units , an

d th e genera l conclusion s draw nfro n th e Committee' s discussions . Thes e dat a an d th e fac t that , i npractice , lowleak frequencie s wer e achievabl e persuade d th e Committe e tha t a leak definitio no f 50 0 pp man d a bas e performanc e leve l o f 0. 5 percen t leaking connector s woul d reflec t MACT . Proces s unit s tha t hav e 0. 5 percent , o r greater , leaking connector s ar e require d t o implemen t a n annua l LDA

Rprogramfo r connectors . Proces s unit s tha t hav e les s tha n 0. 5 percen t leaking connector s ar e allowe d t o monito r al l connector s i na biennia l o r quadrennia l program . E . Selectio n o f Forma t o f Standard s Unde r Sectio n11 2 o f th e CA Anationa l emissio n standard s must , wheneve r possible , tak e th e forma t o f a numerica l emissio nstandard . Typically , a nemissio n standar d i s writte n i nterm s o f anallowabl e emissio nrat e 4 2(mas s pe r uni t o f time) , performanc e leve l (e.g. , 9 0 percen t

control) , o r an allowabl e concentration . Thes e type s o f standard s requir e th e direc t measuremen t o f emission s t o determin e compliance . Fo r some sourc e types , emissio n standard s canno t b e prescribe d becaus e i t i s no t feasibl e t o measur e emissions . Sectio n11 2 (h)(2 ) recognize s thi s situatio nb

ydefining tw o condition s unde r whic hi t i s no t feasibl e t o establis hanemissio nstandard . Thes e condition s are : (1 ) i f th e pollutant s canno t b e emitte d througha conveyanc e designe d an d constructe d t o emi t o r captur e th e pollutant ; o r (2 ) i f th e applicatio no f measuremen t methodolog yi s no t practicabl e du e t o technologica l an

d economi c limitations . I f a nemissio n standard canno t b e established , EPAmayinstead establis ha design , equipment , wor k practice , o r operationa l standar d o r combinatio nthereof . Fo r equipmen t leak sources , suc ha s pump s an d valves , EPAha s previousl ydetermine d tha t i t i s no t feasibl e t o prescrib e o r enforc e emissio nstandards . Excep t fo r thos e item s o f equipmen t fo r whic hstandard s ca nb e se t a t a specifi c concentration , th e onl ymetho d o f measuring emission s i s tota l enclosur e o f individua l item s o f equipment , collectio no f emission s fo r a specifie d time period , an

d measuremen t o f th e emissions . Thi s procedure , know na s bagging , i s a time-consuming an d prohibitivel y expensiv e techniqu e considering th e grea t numbe r o f 4 3

____!P.4 6

individua l item s o f equipmen t i na typica l proces s unit . Moreover , thi s procedur e woul d no t b e usefu l fo r routin e monitoring an

d identificatio no f leaking equipmen t fo r repair . Th e 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 yo f th e measuremen t method . I nth e nex t section , th e rational e fo r selecting a particula r forma t i s explaine d fo r eac htyp e o f equipment . Fo r eac hsourc e type , th e feasibilit yo f prescribing o r enforcing a nemissio n standar d i s discussed . F . Selectio no f Emissio nLimit s an d Wor k Practic e Requirement s 1 . Applicabilit y Th e Committe e considere d an d ultimatel yestablishe d severa l additiona l applicabilit ycriteri a tha t furthe r define d th e scop e o f th e negotiate d standard . Thi s sectio n present s th e Committee' s consideratio no f minimu mVHA P concentration , time i nVHA P service , an d pilo t plant s an

d researc hfacilities . Strea mVHA P concentration . Th e Committe e discusse d a t some lengt hwha t concentratio ncutof f shoul d b e use d fo r determining applicabilit yo f th e negotiate d standar d fo r 4 4specifi c stream s withi nanaffecte d process . Thi s cutof f

wa s o f particula r concernt o industr ymember s o f th e Committe e becaus e there,ar e trac e quantitie s o f VHA P i nman y proces s streams . Th e numbe r o f equipmen t component s potentiall ysubjec t t o th e standard an d th e associate d cost s increas e substantiall ya s th e concentratio ni s decreased ; an d th e emissio nreductio nbecome s small . Othe r Committe e member s wer e concerne d tha t emission s fro m equipmen t handling stream s containing lowVHA P concentration s (e.g. , les s than 1 0 percent ) become relativel ymor e increasingl y significan t a s highe r concentratio nstream s ar e controlled . Base d o nthes e considerations , th e Committe e agree d th e standard woul d appl yt o equipmen t containing o r contacting proces s material s tha t ar e 5 percen t VHA P o r greater . I n SOCM I processes , thi s concentratio nwa s viewe d a s being a poin t o f relativel ylowemission s an d diminishing returns . Time-in-VHAP service . I ncertai nchemica l plants , particularl ybatc hprocesse s whic hproduc e a numbe r o f differen t products , ther e i s equipmen t tha t i s use d i nVHA P servic e onl yoccasionally . I nsuc hcase s implementatio no f th e standard coul d b e difficul t an d woul d achiev e very littl e emissio nreduction . Pump s an d compressor s use d onl y during startu

p o r shutdow

no f a proces s uni t ar e on e exampl e o f suc hequipment . Othe r example s includ e equipmen t use d i n batc hpharmaceutica l processe s o r batc hstep s i ncontinuou s processes . Fo r thes e situations , th e Committe e conclude d
4 5

I.••_••-IliiH-illMi BP.4 8

tha t equipmen t tha t i s operate d 30 0 hour s pe r year , o r less , i nVHA P servic e shoul d b e exempt . Pilo t plants . Exemptio no f pilo t plant s an d researc h an d developmen t facilitie s fro m th e negotiate d standar d wa s discusse d o n severa l occasion s b yth e Committee . Som e member s though t tha t frequen t change s i noperation s a t thes e plant s i^illliiii l woul d mak e complianc e wit hth e standar d difficul t o r woul d incur unnecessarycosts . Othe r Committe e member s wer e o f th e opinio ntha t th e negotiate d standar d applie s shoul d appl yequall ywel l t o pilo t plant s and researc hfacilitie s a s productio nunits , an d tha t chemica l industrypilo t plant s canb e quit e larg e an d hav e substantia l emissions . Anadditiona l concer nexpresse d b y some member s wa s tha t an yexemptio nshoul d b e base d o n objectiv e criteria , no t th e intende d us e o f th e materia l o r th e purpos e o f th e facility . Th e Committe e ultimatel y agreed , unles s directe d otherwis e b yth e CAAA , t o includ e pilo t plant s i n th o negotiate d standard . Th e Committe e di d not.resolv e thi s issue , and conclude d tha t th e fina l CAA A shoul d dictat e th e dispositio no f researc hfacilities , a s severa l version s o f th e pendin g legislatio nprovide d fo r limite d exemptions . Th e fina l amendments f however , ar e no t definit e o n ho w t o dea l wit hresearc hfacilitie s and leav e i t t o EPA* S discretio nt o *****establis ha separat e categor ycoverin g researc ho r laborator yfacilities , a s n^?ess^y y(emphasi s 4 6added) , t o assur e th e equitabl e treatmen t o f suc h

facilities* " [Sectio n 112(c)(7). 3 Th e issu e o f regulating researc hfacilitie s extend s beyond equipmen t leaks , becaus e researc hfacilitie s canals o hav e othe r emissio npoint s suc h a s proces s vent s o r storag e tanks . Th e Committe e conclude d i t wa s mor e appropriat e t o addres s researc hfacilitie s i n th e overal l HONan

d t o dea l wit hi t outsid e th e negotiation: ! sinc e n o consensu s wa s reache d during th e negotiatio nan d th e issu e i s broade r tha nth e negotiate d rule * Consequently , thos e portion s o f today* s notic e addressing th e regulatio no f researc hfacilitie s ar e no t par t o f th e negotiate d agreemen t an d mayb e commente d o nb yth e 

### negotiators * Th e CAA Adoe s no t exemp t pilo t plant s o r researc h facilitie s bu t rathe r direct s EPAt o establis ha separat e categoryfo r thos e facilitie s a s necessaryt 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 lowhour s o f operation,—i t i s no t considere d necessaryt o exemp t pilo t plants . 2 . Complianc e Date s I ndeveloping th e complianc e schedul e an d framewor k o f th e standards , th e Committe e anticipate d th e CAA A reguiremen t tha t complianc e date s fo r eac hcategoryappl ya s expeditiousl ya s practicable , bu t no t late r tha n3 year s afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f th e standards . Th e Committe e 4 7P.5 0

recognize d i n th e selectio no f complianc e date s tha t th e equipmen t leak regulatio ni s primaril ya wor k practic e standard . Unlik e standard s tha t requir e installatio no f contro l equipment , th e equipmen t leak regulatio ndoe s no t requir e majo r installatio no f equipmen t o r larg e capita l expenditures . Als o th e time neede d t o identif yal l component s i n VHA P service , establis ha recordkeeping system , obtai nmonitoring equipment , an d initiat e a n inspectio nan

d maintenanc e progra mi s relativel yshort . Base d o nthes e considerations , an d recognizing tha t advanc e notic e woul d b e provide d whe nth e rul e i s propose d i n1991 , th e Committe e conclude d tha t 6 month s afte r promulgatio n wa s a reasonabl e lead time fo r complianc e wit hPhas e I . Anadditiona l concer nt o th e Committe e i nestablishing th e 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 hindustryan d regulatoryagencie s becaus e o f th e larg e numbe r o f affecte d facilitie s (abou t xxx xproces s units ) expected . Th e Committe e considere d severa l method s o f distributing th e pea k demand fo r equipmen t an d staff , an

d ultimatel yagree d t o a staggere d implementatio nschedul e tha t spread s th e complianc e ove r a 1-year period . Th e affecte d sourc e categorie s wer e divide d int o five group s roughl ybase d o n th e carcinogenicit yan d weigh t o f evidenc e fo r th e chemical s associate d wit hth e category . Source s handling chemical s wit hth e highes t healt hhazard wer e assigne d t o Grou p I an d 4 8P.5 1

thos e wit hth e lowes t wer e assigne d t o Grou p V . I n addition , th e 7 non-SOCM I sourc e categorie s a s wel l a s benzene , toluene , an d xylen e productio nwer e include d i n th e firs t grou

p o f sourc e categories . Th e Committe e agree d tha t thi s woul d allowindustry , contractors , vendor s an d regulatoryagencie s th e time necessaryt o manag e successfull yth e increase d demand o nresource s an d personne l tha t i s anticipate d t o resul t fro mth e negotiate d rule . Th e provision s o f th e negotiate d rul e woul d become applicabl e t o thos e processe s listed i nfirs t 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 nprocesse s eac hsuccessiv e quarter . Th e negotiate d rul e would , therefore , become applicabl e t o th e las t grou

p 1 8 month s afte r promulgatio no f th e negotiate d rule . Apar t fro

mstaggere d applicabilit ydates , al l othe r provision s o f applicability , including th e provision s fo r a sourc e t o reques t anextension , remai na s provide d fo r i n th e Genera l Provision s fo r NESHAP . Th e negotiate d rul e als o allow s anowne r o r operato r t o elec t t o compl ywit hth e applicabilit ydat e o f a nearlie r group . Th e Committe e agree d tha t some owner s o r operator s a t plant s having proces s unit s fro mtw o o r mor e group s migh t prefe r t o compl ywit hth e provision s o f th e negotiate d rul e al l a t once , o r i nfewe r phases , i norde r t o avoi d confusio n o r misunderstanding s abou t wha t rule s o r procedure s wer e applicabl e t o whic hindividua l item s o f equipment . 4 9

j^i^j^^^^^gj^^^^gggl^^^gg^^^^g^g^ggl^^^^ggg^gl^g/^^^^^^g^^^^^^^^j^^g^g^g^^gj^P.5 2

3 . Phase s o f Valv e an d Pum p Standard s Bot hth e valv e an

d pum p standard s wer e structure d i n thre e phase s t o allo wtime t o improve performanc e an d t o achiev e progres s toward lowe r emissio nlevels . Th e Committe e designe d Phas e I t o allowexisting facilitie s unfamilia r wit hth e existing rule s th e time necessaryt o develop an

d implemen t a 10,00 0 pp mLDA Rprograma s wel l a s t o asses s th e necessarychange s i noperations , maintenance , an d training o f employees . Phas e I i s considere d necessary becaus e th e majorit yo f existing facilitie s d o no t presentl y implemen t LDA

Rprogram s an

d i t wa s recognize d tha t establishing program s ca nb e a length yprocess . Th e Committe e agree d Phas e I shoul d begi no nth e applicabilit y dat e fo r a nexisting uni t an d las t fo r 1 year . A1-yea r interva l wil l allo w4 quarter s o f monitoring whic hshoul d provid e sufficien t time t o establis ha progra man d t o identif yan

d repai r valve s an

d pump s wit hth e highes t emissions . Phas e I I wa s establishe d t o achiev e furthe r emissio n reduction s b

yreducing th e leak definitio nt o 50 0 pp m fo r valve s an

d 5,00 0 pp

mfo r pumps . Thi s phas e i s intende d t o expand th e focu s fro mth e highe r screening valu e leak s t o lowe r value s an

d t o continu e th e identificatio n o f problem equipment . Th e Committe e agree d tha t Phas e I I woul d begi n 1 yea r afte r th e applicablit ydat e fo r a nexisting proces s

5 0uni t an d woul d allow1. 5 yea r duratio nbefor e implementing Phas e III . I nPhas e II I fo r valves , th e Committe e adde d a bas e performanc e leve l requiremen t t o th e wor k practic e requirement s o f Phas e II . Th e bas e performanc e leve l wa s use d t o determin e th e monitoring frequencyo r th e applicabilit yO f th e QIP * Th e bas e performanc e leve l wa s adde d t o ensur e a mor e certai nemissio nperformanc e tha n achieve d throughth e wor k practic e requiremen t alon e an d t o creat e a neconomi c incentive t o improve performance . Fo r Phas e II I o f th e pum p standard , th e Committe e adde d a bas e performanc e leve l requiremen t t o th e wor k practic e requirement s an

d reduce d th e concentratio ndefine d a s a leak . Th e Committe e establishe d separat e leak definition s fo r thre e type s o r categorie s o f pump s t o ensur e tha t eac h categoryachieve s MACT . Fo r ne wproces s units , th e Committe e agree d tha t fo r bot hpump s an

d valve s Phas e I I shoul d b e implemente d a t startu p an d Phas e II I shoul d b e implemente d beginning 1 yea r afte r startup . I t wa s expecte d tha t newunit s wil l b e designe d using bette r equipmen t designo r practice s an d considering th e requirement s o f th e standard . Th e Committe e provide d a 1 yea r perio d i nPhas e I I t o allo wtime neede d fo r adjustment s t o operation s an d t o correc t an

yproblem s encountere d during startu p o f .h

e proces s unit .

51P.5 4

4 . Valv e Standar d A s discusse d earlier , th e Committe e develope d th e valv e standar d using th e LDA Rprogra

mo f th e existing rul e a s a starting point . Th e standard recommende d b yth e Committe e consist s o f thre e phase s o f requirement s o f increasing stringenc yan

d thes e requirement s ar e a combinatio no f LDA R program s an

d performanc e levels . Figur e VII- 1 present s th e conceptua l approac hfo r th e valv e standard . Th e rational e fo r th e framewor k o f th e standard an d th e selectio no f th e bas e performanc e level s wa s explaine d i nSectio nD above . Thi s sectio n explain s th e rational e fo r othe r provision s i n th e propose d valv e standard . Th e Committe e use d LDA Rprogram s a s th e starting poin t becaus e LDA

Ri s aneffectiv e mean s o f detecting an d eliminating emission s fro msea l failure . Fo r emissio n source s suc ha s valves , emissio nstandard s d o no t provid e appropriat e contro l procedures . A s previousl ydiscussed , an equipmen t standard wa s no t selecte d becaus e equipment , suc h a s seale d bellow s valves , canno t b e uniforml yapplie d t o al l SOCM I processes . Moreover , prope r us e o f equipmen t suc ha s seale d bellow s valves , als o require s a LDA Rprogram

becaus e thes e valve s ca nfai l an d ca nhav e highemissio nrate s upo n failure . Valv e repai r intervals . Repai r o f leak s soo nafte r detectio ni s a keyfeatur e i nth e propose d rul e an d i s a



### 5 2Phas

e 1

Phase I I

P h ase II I

Monthl y

LDA R

Qualit y Improvemen t (Monitorin g frequenc y quarterl yo rless ) <2% , 50 0 ppm v _s2% , 50 0 ppm v

-»1 % 50 0 p p

_»0.5 C 50 0 p p 10,00 0 pp m

Quarterl yLDA R

• 1 50 0 pp m Quarterl yLDA R

m v

m v 1 Quarteri y LDA R

Semi-Annua l LDA R

i

Annua l LDA R 5 0

1 < 1 % Dppm v

<0.5 % 50 0 ppm v 1

t

Figure VII-1 . Standar d fo rValve s

5 3P.5 6

facto r i nth e effectivenes s o f LDA Rprograms . Th e Committeeagree d t o retain , i nth e negotiate d standard , th e repai r interval s (i.e. , firs t attemp t a t repai r i n5 day s an d repai r withi n1 5 days ) specifie d i nth e existing rule s (e.g. , 4 0 CF RPar t 61 , Subpar t V) . Th e repai r interval s i n th e existing standard s ar e intende d t o provid e effectiv e emissio nreductio nwhil e allowing th e time necessaryfo r scheduling o f mor e comple xrepairs . A s i nth e existing equipmen t leak standards , th e firs t attemp t a t repai r i s require d a s soo na s practicabl e afte r detectio n o f th e leak an d n o late r tha n5 day s afte r discovery . Mos t valv e repairs , suc ha s tightening th e bonne t bolts , Canb e performe d quickly , an d 5 day s shoul d provid e sufficien t time t o schedul e simpl e fiel d repair s tha t d o no t requir e isolatio no f th e valv e fro mth e process . Attempting t o repai r a leak withi n5 day s wil l hel p identif y thos e valve s tha t canno t b e repaire d wit hsimpl e fiel d repai r o r withou t shutdow no f th e proces s unit . Valve s tha t ar e no t repairabl e b ysimpl e fiel d procedure s mayrequir e remova l fro

mth e proces s fo r repair . Th e 15-da yrepai r interva l provide s sufficien t time t o identif ymethod s fo r isolating leaking valve s fo r repai r whe n isolatio n i s necessaryan

d extensiv e repair s ar e required . Shorte r repai r interval s wer e no t selecte d becaus e theycoul d caus e problem s i n performing effectiv e repair s o nvalve s tha t mus t b e isolate d fro

m th e process . 5 4P.5 7

Th e Committe e als o recognize d tha t some valve s canno t b e repaire d withou t shutting dow nth e proces s an

d tha t proces s shutdow

ni s costl yan

d mayresul t i n greate r emission s tha ndelaying repai r unti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Fo r thes e reasons , th e existing equipmen t leak regulation s allow , unde r certai nconditions , delayo f repai r o f thes e "nonrepairables " unti l th e nex t facilit yshutdown . Thes e rules , i ngeneral , requir e tha t thes e valve s b e repaire d during tha t shutdown . Th e Committe e reviewe d th e delayo f repai r provision s i nth e existing rule s an d conclude d tha t thes e provision s ar e appropriat e an d shoul d b e include d i n th e negotiate d standard . Nonrepairables . Ther e wa s considerabl e discussio n b y th e Committe e o f whethe r thos e valve s tha t canno t b e repaire d withou t a proces s uni t shutdow nshoul d b e considere d i ndetermining th e require d monitoring frequency . On e vie wwas , i f unrepairabl e component s wer e included , th e potentia l fo r increase d monitoring frequencywoul d provid e a strong incentiv e fo r companie s t o tak e everypossibl e step t o preven t leak s o r t o repai r leaking valves . However , i t wa s als o recognize d tha t nonrepairabl e valve s mayno t alway s b e completel ypreventabl e an d counting thes e coul d resul t i n highe r leak percentage s i nproces s unit s o r facilitie s tha t hav e infrequen t shutdowns . Moreover , increase d monitoring frequency , i f triggere d b ynonrepairabl e components , i s o f littl e direc t benefi t sinc e th e nonrepairabl e valve s wil l 5 5



### maP.5 8

remai nunrepaire d i nspit e o f mor e frequen t inspection . I n ligh t o f thes e considerations , th e Committe e sough t t o provid e a mean s t o provid e motivatio nfo r plant s t o limi t th e numbe r o f nonrepairabl e valves , whil e a t th e same time avoiding impositio no f unproductiv e cost s o r inadvertentl y increasing emissions . Th e agree d upo napproac hachieve s suc ha balanc e b

yexcluding nonrepairabl e valve s up t o a tota l o f on e percen t o f th e valve s i nVHA P servic e fromth e calculatio no f percen t leaking valve s fo r sampling period s afte r th e leaking valv e wa s firs t identified . Averaging period s fo r calculatio no f percen t leaking . I n establishing th e bas e performanc e level s i nPhas e III , th e Committe e considere d th e variabilit yinheren t i n measurement s o f equipmen t leak s an d th e variabilit yi n leak 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 a o r ho wt o conside r thi s variabilit yi n th e framewor k o f th e rule . Th e concep t o f a 2-period rolling averag e wa s introduce d a s a mean s o f ensuring tha t randomfluctuations , o f themselves , d o no t forc e a facilit yint o mor e frequen t monitoring . I nadditio n t o th e benefit s o f averaging , th e rolling averag e o f tw o consecutiv e monitoring period s provide s th e opportunit yfo r th e plan t t o tak e action , suc ha s increase d surveillanc e o n a subse t o f valves , base d o nhighe r tha nnorma l leak rate s i na singl e period . I t als o allow s th e owne r o r operato r 5 6th e necessaryflexibilit yt o implemen t supplementa l qualit y

assuranc e program s t o ensur e tha t performanc e remain s belo w bas e levels . Th e 2-period rolling averag e i s designe d t o encourag e suc hplan t designe d qualit yassuranc e program s an d i t doe s no t penaliz e mor e frequen t inspectio nan d maintenance . Th e Committe e selecte d thi s approac hfo r semiannua l an

d mor e frequen t monitoring schedules . Th e Committe e di d no t choos e t o appl yth e 2-period averag e approac ht o annua l monitoring program s becaus e o f th e lowperformanc e leve l require d fo r annua l monitoring an d concern s tha t effectiv e contro l program s coul d b e unintentionall ypenalize d du e t o a singl e highmonitoring result . Specifically , a Committe e membe r describe d th e effec t o f extreme weathe r tha t cause d anunplanne d shutdow n an d resulte d i n a nabnormall yhighnumbe r o f leaking valve s afte r startup . I nthi s case , th e plan t woul d hav e t o rever t t o mor e frequen t monitoring i f onl ytw o monitoring period s wer e considere d eve nthoughth e leak frequencywa s normall y nea r zero . Suc ha penalt ywoul d b e inconsisten t wit hth e inten t t o encourag e effective , plan t designe d qualit y assuranc e program s tha t achiev e continuing lowleak performance . I n ligh t o f this , th e Committe e agree d t o bas e th e annua l monitoring criterio nonth e averag e o f 3 ou t o f 4 year s o f data . Thi s averaging procedur e i s intende d t o provid e relie f fo r facilitie s wit hhistorie s o f goo d

5 7P.6 0

performanc e fro

m th e effect s o f unusua l an d infrequen t perturbations . Credit s fo r removing valves . I ndeveloping th e negotiate d standard , th e Committe e recognize d tha t minimizing th e numbe r o f component s i na proces s i s on e o f th e mos t effectiv e mean s fo r reducing leaks . Therefore , th e Committe e gav e carefu l consideratio nt o format s for , o r mean s of , providing anincentiv e t o minimiz e th e numbe r o f component s an

d th e amoun t o f credi t provided . Fo r ne wproces s units , n o mechanism s coul d b e identifie d tha t woul d provid e suc hanincentiv e fo r al l SOCM I processes . Ne wuni t design s diffe r widel yfro m proces s t o proces s an d i t wa s no t possibl e t o defin e a nor m o r baselin e fro

m whic hcomponen t reduction s coul d b e determine d fo r ne wunits . I ncontrast , equipmen t coun t baseline s canb e establishe d fo r existing proces s unit s a t th e time thes e unit s become subjec t t o th e standard s (fo r ne wunit s a t startup ) an d canb e use d a s th e basi s fo r calculating credit s fo r futur e reduction s i nth 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 no f percen t leaking valve s an d th e associate d determinatio no f monitoring frequency . Th e Committe e als o decide d tha t us e o f th e valv e credi t provision s shoul d b e a t th e optio no f th e owne r o r operato r o f th e proces s uni t becaus e o f th e burde nassociate d wit hth e recordkeeping neede d t o documen t th e reduction . 

### 5 8P.6 1

Th e Committe e considere d credit s fo r component s remove d ranging fro

mful l credi t t o one-hal f credi t fo r eac h componen t removed . Th e ful l credi t optio nwa s no t selecte d becaus e som e Committe e member s though t tha t i t coul d b e use d t o achiev e a goo d performanc e leve l withou t actuall y reducing th e numbe r o f leaking valves . Base d o na desir e t o provid e credi t fo r reducing th e numbe r o f components , whil e a t th e same time ensuring tha t remova l credit s d o no t reduc e th e incentive fo r low-leak performanc e i nth e remaining components , th e Committe e selecte d a 6 7 percen t credi t fo r ne t reduction s i nth e numbe r o f valves ; i.e. , 2 ou t o f every3 valve s remove d fro ma proces s uni t may continu e t o b e counte d i nth e tota l numbe r o f valve s whe n calculating leak 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 nth e existing equipmen t leak standard s ar e appropriat e an d shoul d b e include d i nth e negotiate d standard . Valve s tha t ar e "unsafe-to-monitor " ar e define d a s valve s tha t coul d expos e personne l t o imminen t hazard s fro mtemperature , pressure , o r explosiv e proces s conditions . Example s o f suc hlocation s includ e valve s a t th e top o f o r locate d nearb yhighpressur e reactors . Valve s tha t ar e unsafe-to-monito r canno t b e eliminate d fro

m ne wo r existing units . Th e rule , therefore , woul d exemp t valve s i nunsaf e location s fro mroutin e 5 9

u mP.6 2

monitoring requirements , bu t woul d requir e monitoring a s frequentl ya s practicabl e during safe-to-monito r periods . A t existing proces s units , valve s mayb e locate d wher e theyca nb e reache d onl ythroughextraordinarymeans . Th e Committe e conclude d tha t th e criteri a fo r difficult-to

monito r valve s ar e appropriat e an d tha t routin e monitorin g shoul d no t b e require d fo r valve s tha t requir e elevating personne l mor e tha n 2 meter s abov e an ypermanen t suppor t surface . Thi s mean s tha t valve s tha t canno t b e safel y monitore d fro

ma step ladde r o r portabl e scaffolding coul d b e classifie d a s inaccessibl e an d exemp t fro

mroutin e monitoring . A s i n th e existing rules , th e difficult-to

monito r exemptio n woul d b e availabl e onl yfo r existing units . Th e Committe e agree d tha t routin e monitoring o f valve s tha t hav e th e potentia l t o leak shoul d b e considere d i nth e designo f ne wunits . 25 0 valv e exemptio nfro mPhas e II I monthl ymonitoring . Th e Committe e agree d t o requir e a quarterl yLDA Rprogrami n Phase s I an

d I I an d i nPhas e II I t o bas e th e monitorin g frequencyo nth e performanc e leve l achieved . I nPhas e III , source s tha t excee d th e bas e performanc e leve l hav e th e optio no f monthl ymonitoring o r participatio ni na QIP . Fo r smal l plants , however , ther e wa s concer ntha t eithe r monthl y monitoring o r QI P woul d presen t anunreasonabl e burden . Becaus e smal l plant s mayhav e o f th e limite d technica l an d financia l resource s an d th e relativel ylowemission s fro m 6 0smal l plant s wit ha quarterl yLDA Rprogra

mmayb e relativel y low , th e Committe e establishe d 25 0 valve s pe r plan t sit e a s th e leve l belo wwhic hquarterl ymonitoring woul d b e th e mos t frequen t monitoring interva l required . Th e Committe e define d a smal l plan t a s a sit e wit h25 0 valves , o r fewer , base d o na nindustr yestimat 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 m suc hfacilities . 5 . Pum p Standard A s discusse d earlie r i n"Developmen t o f Framewor k an d Selectio no f MACT" , th e Committe e develope d th e pum p standard using th e provision s o f th e existing standard s a s a starting point . Th e recommende d standard consist s o f thre e phase s o f reguirement s o f increasing stringencyan d thes e ar e a combinatio no f LDA Rprogram s an

d performanc e levels . Th e Committe e als o retaine d th e existing provision s fo r DM S system s an

d fo r sealles s pump s (e.g. , canne d pumps) . Figur e VII- 2 present s th e conceptua l approac hfo r th e pum p standard . Th e rational e fo r th e framewor k an d th e selectio n o f th e bas e performanc e level s wa s explaine d earlie r i n thi s notice . Thi s sectio nexplain s th e rational e fo r othe r provision s i n th e propose d pum p standard . A s wit hvalves , th e Committe e use d LDA Rprogram s a s th e starting poin t becaus e i t i s aneffectiv e mean s o f detecting an d controlling emission s an d becaus e thes e source s ar e no t amenabl e t o applicatio no f anemissio nstandard . A s 6 1



### i mP.6 4



### Phas e I 10,00 0 pp m MonthlyLDAR



### Phas e I I 5,00 0 pp m MonthlyLDAR



### Phas e

Genera l Pumps

MonthlyLDAR

<10%or 3 (6 mont h rollin g avg , 1,00 0 ppm ) Food/Medica l MonthlyLDAR

<10%or 3 (6 mont h rollin g avg , 2,00 0 ppm )

2:10% o r3 (6 mont h rollin g avg , 1,00 0 ppm ) (repai r2,00 0 ppm ) Polymerizin g Monomer s MonthlyLDAR •

_»10%or 3 <10%or 3 (6 mont h rollin g (6 mont h rollin g avg , 2,00 0 ppm ) avg , 5,00 0 ppm ) £10 % o r3 (6 mont h rollin g avg , 5,00 0 ppm )

QI P N o Replacemen t

Ful l QI P 20 % Replacemen t pe ryea

### Figure VII-2

. Standar d fo rPump s 62discusse d previously , th e Committe e di d no t establis ha

standard requiring th e us e o f DM S system s o r sealles s pum p design s becaus e thi s equipmen t canno t b e use d i nal l SOCM I processes . Moreover , thi s equipmen t canfai l an d leak s ca n occur . Thus , prope r operatio nan d maintenanc e o f DM S system s an

d sealles s pump s require s some periodi c monitoring . Fo r thes e reason s th e Committe e develope d a standard tha t require s us e o f LDA Rprogram s ||llllliili i 

### QlP*s , i f necessary ) for conventiona l pumps , o r alternativel yallow s th e e_ > us e o f DM S system s o r and sealles s pum

p design s wit hperiodi c monitoring . Pum p repai r intervals . Fo r th e reason s discusse d i n th e valv e standard , th e Committe e retaine d th e 5-da yfirs t attemp t an

d th e 15-da

yrepai r interval s o f th e existing rule s i n th e pum

p standard . Th e Committe e agree d that , wit h a mino r clarification , thes e repai r interval s wer e appropriate . Th e Committe e adde d languag e t o clarif yth e type s o f simpl e fiel d repai r tha t ar e intende d t o represen t firs t attemp t a t repair . Thi s provisio nwa s adde d t o reduc e uncertaint yregarding complianc e an d t o conside r th e increase d maintenanc e tha t wil l b e require d wit hleak definition s lowe r than10,00 0 ppm . Th e Committe e als o recognize d tha t some pump s ar e no t spare d i n chemica l proces s unit s an d canno t b e repaire d withou t shutting dow nth e process . Th e delayo f repai r provision s fo r pump s i nth e existing standard s wer e reviewe d 6 3P.6 6

an d th e Committe e conclude d tha t i t wa s appropriat e t o includ e thes e i nth e propose d standard . Averaging perio d fo r calculatio no f percen t leaking . During developmen t o f th e Phas e II I bas e performanc e level , concern s wer e expresse d b yCommitte e member s regarding th e inheren t variablit yo f percen t leaking calculation s give n th e smal l numbe r o f pump s typicall ypresen t i nproces s unit s an d th e inheren t variabilit yo f th e leak measurements . Whil e ther e wer e n o dat a availabl e t o quantif yth e month-to

mont hvariabilit yo f pum p leak frequencies , i t wa s expecte d fro mgenera l experienc e tha t leak frequencie s woul d b e highl yvariable . I t wa s als o judge d tha t leak frequencie s base d o nshor t time period s o f dat a woul d b e poo r predictor s o f th e typ e o f performanc e tha t th e QI P wa s intende d t o remedy . Th e Committee , therefore , conclude d tha t pum p leak frequencie s shoul d b e average d ove r a perio d o f severa l month s t o provid e anindicatio no f trends-i n performance . A rolling 6-mont haverag e wa s selecte d b yth e Committe e a s an appropriat e measur e fo r indicating upwar d trend s an d th e nee d t o tak e additiona l measure s t o reduc e pum p sea l failures . Calculatio no f percen t leaking pumps . Th e calculatio n procedur e specifie d i nthe.pum p standard i s designe d t o addres s additiona l concern s abou t th e variabilit yo f pum p ; lea k frequencie s an d t o encourag e th e us e o f lowleak design pump s an

d pum p seals . Becaus e o f th e smal l numbe r o f pump s

6 4i ntypica l proces s units , th e Committe e provide d th e owne r

o r operato r th e optio no f calculating percen t leaking o n a proces s uni t o r plan t sit e basis . Thi s optio nwa s provide d t o allo wth e necessaryflexibilit yt o conside r furthe r problem s associate d wit hsmal l populatio nstatistic s an d sit e specifi c concerns . Th e Committe e als o decide d t o requir e th e owne r o r operato r t o designat e th e basi s fo r calculating percen t leaking pump s i nth e firs t monitoring perio d an

d t o us e tha t basi s fo r al l subsequen t calculations . Thi s wa s require d (1 ) t o preclud e source s fro musing th e mos t favorabl e basi s fo r th e perio d an d circumventing th e inten t o f th e pum p standard an

d (2 ) t o simplif yenforcement . Th e Committe e als o agree d tha t pump s equippe d wit hDM 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 nth e calculatio no f percen t leaking pumps . Fo r th e purpos e o f thi s calculation , thes e pump s ar e assume d no t t o leak . Th e calculatio nprocedure , thus , give s credi t fo r us e o f inherentl ylowleak design s an d i s intende d t o provid e a nincentive t o instal l thes e designs . Th e negotiate d standard woul d exclud e pump s tha t leak shortl yafte r startu p o f a proces s uni t o r startup o f a n individua l pum

p afte r maintenanc e o r repai r activitie s o n tha t pum

p fro mth e calculatio no f percen t leaking fo r tha t monitoring period . Thi s exclusio nwa s adde d becaus e industrymember s o f th e Committe e reporte d tha t 6 5P.6 8

preinstallatio ntesting doe s no t necessaril yensur e tha t a pum p wil l no t leak whe npu t int o service . Th e industry member s als o though t tha t thes e leak s ar e no t indicativ e o f a long ter

mproblem . Th e Committe e conclude d tha t suc h pump s shoul d b e subjec t t o th e repai r requirement , bu t tha t thi s problemi s no t indicativ e o f th e typ e o f poo r performanc e tha t QI P i s intende d t o remedy . Requirement s fo r lowleak designpumps . Th e Committe e retained , wit hsligh t modifications , th e provision s i nth e existing standard s fo r pump s wit hDM S system s an d fo r sealles s pump s (e.g. , 4 0 CFR§61.242-2(d ) an d (e)) . Fo r pump s wit hDM S systems , th e Committe e agree d tha t i t wa s onl ynecessaryt o prohibi t us e o f light-liqui d VHA P a s barrie r fluids . Th e Committe e allowe d th e us e o f heavy

liqui d VHA P barrie r fluid s becaus e th e operatio nan d monitoring requirement s fo r DM S system s wer e considere d sufficien t t o minimiz e an yemission s fro

m leak s fro

m th e DM S system . Th e Committe e als o reevaluate d th e requiremen t fo r annua l demonstratio n o f n o detectabl e leak s fro msealles s pump s i nth e existing standard s (e.g. , §61.242-2(e)) . Th e committe e considere d th e cause s o f failure s o f thes e design s an d conclude d tha t weekl yvisua l inspectio n woul d achiev e equivalent.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 designpump s woul d b e subjec t t o a weekl y visua l inspectio nwor k practic e standard an d woul d no t b e 6 6P.6 9

subjec t t o anannua l performanc e tes t requiremen t t o demonstrat e n o 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 no f MACT " sectio no f thi s notice , th e Committe e recognize d tha t ther e i s uncertaint yi nth e achievabilit yo f th e iBIIiH I performanc e level s b yal l SOCM I processes , give ntha t thes e level s ar e base d o ninformatio nfro ma smal 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 no t achieving th e bas e performanc e level s fo r valve s t o implemen t mor e frequen t monitoring o r a qualit yimprovemen t program(QIP)

- designe d t o ultimatel yachiev e th e performanc e level s an

d unit s no t achieving th e bas e performanc e level s fo r pump s t o implemen t a QIP . Aproces s uni t no t abl e t o achiev e th e performanc e level s i s no t ou t of . complianc e i f i t undertake s thes e additiona l measures . Th e provision s fo r qualit yimprovemen t wer e include d i nth e framewor k t o allo w thos e owner s o r 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 flexibilit yt o develop proces s unit-specific , cost-effectiv e method s fo r improving emissio n performance . Th e QI P als o provide s aninnovative mechanis mfo r focusing effort s o nreducing emission s whil e avoiding length y enforcemen t actions .

6 7P.7 0

Onl ya fewproces 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 nth e majorit yo f cases , a systemati c program

o f monitoring individua l component s an d repai r o f thos e tha t leak wil l achiev e th e performanc e level s o f th e standards . I t i s recognized , however , tha t ther e mayb e situation s wher e th e performanc e level s canno t b e achieve d du e t o specifi c proces s an d operating conditions . Th e valv e an d pum p QIP' s wer e designe d t o provid e a mechanis m fo r improving performanc e i nsuc h situations . Thes e QIP' s prescrib e program s tha t wil l requir e a commitmen t t o qualit yimprovemen t an d wil l involv e man

y aspect s o f plan t operation s (e.g. , engineering an d maintenance) . Thi s sectio npresent s th e basi s fo r th e specifi c provision s i nth e valv e an d pum p QIP . Valves . Th e Committe e develope d tw o alternativ e QIP' s fo r valve s an

d agree d t o restric t th e availabilit yo f bot ho f thes e alternatives . Th e QI P mayb e a progra m tha t eithe r demonstrate s progres s i nreducing th e percen t leaking valve s o r implement s a technolog yrevie wan

d improvemen t program . Th e decisio n t o us e eithe r o f thes e alternativ e QI P mus t b e mad e during th e firs t yea r o f Phas e II I fo r bot hne wan d existing units . Unde r eithe r alternativ e QIP , afte r th e proces s uni t ha s achieve d les s thantw o fj j percen t leaking valves , th e owne r o r operato r mayelec t t o continu e th e QIP . I f th e owne r o r operato r discontinue s th e QIP , however,th e 6 8P.7 1

QI P mayno t b e use d i nth e futur e i f th e uni t agai nexceed s few©H percen t leaking valves . I nsuchcases , th e owne r o r operato r mus t implemen t monthl ymonitoring unti l th e uni t ha s les s tha n tw o percen t leaking valves , a . Demonstratio no f Progres s QIP . Thi s alternativ e QI P woul d allowanowne r o r operato r o f a sourc e t o designan d implemen t a sit e specifi c program t o achiev e stead

yprogres s i nlowering th e percen t leaking valves . An

ycombinatio no f measure s suc ha s increase d maintenanc e frequencyo r replacemen t o f component s mayb e used , provide d i t achieve s th e require d reduction s i n percen t leaking valves . Unde r thi s QIP , th e owne r o r operato r woul d b e require d t o continu e quarterl ymonitoring an d t o demonstrat e an averag e 1 0 percen t reductio ni nth e percen t leaking valve s eac hquarter , base d o na rolling averag e o f 2 quarter s o f monitoring data . I f anowne r o r operato r fail s fo r 2 consecutiv e averaging period s t o demonstrat e a t leas t a n overal l averag e reductio no f 1 0 percen t pe r quarter , th e owne r o r operato r mus t eithe r implemen t a technolog yrevie w an d improvemen t QI P o r monthl ymonitoring . I f thi s QI P i s continue d afte r a proces s uni t ha s les s tha ntwo-percen t leaking valves , th e owne r o r operato r mus t continu e quarterl ymonitoring , bu t doe s no t hav e t o continu e t o demonstrat e th e 10-percen t reductio npe r quarter .

6 9

B HP.7 2

Th e Committe e develope d thi s QI P t o provid e ana d ho c performanc e limi t fo r thos e owner s o r operator s intereste d i na les s forma l improvemen t progra mtha ntha t specifie d i n th e technologyrevie wan d improvemen t QIP . I t wa s envisione d tha t thi s alternativ e QI P woul d b e usefu l primaril yfo r thos e proces s unit s wit hleak frequencie s onl y slightl ygreate r tha n2 percent . Th e Committe e judge d tha t a naverag e reductio n i npercen t leaking valve s o f 1 0 percen t pe r quarter , calculate d a s a rolling averag e o f 2 quarter s o f monitoring data , woul d provid e a reasonabl e basi s fo r determining whethe r progres s wa s being mad e i napproaching th e 2 percen t performanc e level . Moreover , i t wa s expecte d tha t thi s rat e o f reductio nwoul d achiev e th e performanc e level s o f th e bas e monitoring progra ma t a time comparabl e t o tha t expecte d unde r th e technolog yrevie wan

d improvemen t QIP . T o ensur e tha t continua l progres s i s achieved , th e Committe e require d tha t unit s failing t o sho wprogress , a s measure d b

yth e reductio ni npercen t leaking valves , eithe r implemen t monthl ymonitoring o r a technolog yrevie wan

d improvemen t QIP . Wit heithe r o f thes e mor e structure d alternatives , i t wa s expecte d tha t adherenc e t o th e program woul d reduc e emissions , b . TechnologyRevie wan d Improvemen t QIP . Thi s QI P wa s designe d t o provid e a generi c proces s fo r identifying appropriat e solution s t o systemati c problems . Th e Committe e develope d thes e provision s considering th e 7 0P.7 3

fundamental s o f problemsolving an d qualit yimprovemen t principles . Th e QI P i s structure d a s thre e classe s o f requirements : dat a collectio nan d analysis , performanc e trials , an

d qualit yassuranc e an d improvement . Th e principa l basi s fo r th e provision s i nth e 

### technology

reviev? an

dimprovemen t QI Pwa s genera l knowledg e o f factor s affecting equipmen t leak s an d recen t experienc e i nleak contro l a t some chemica l productio nunits . Key principle s use d i ndeveloping thi s QI P ar e (1 ) th e detail s o f program s (e.g. , specifi c design s o r equipment ) ar e bes t determine d b

yth 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 th e cumulativ e resul t o f analysi s an

d attentio nt o qualit yimprovemen t ove r a perio d o f severa l years . Specifi c informatio ntha t th e Committe e considere d include d th e reporte d recen t experienc e o f on e E O produce r i nreducing an d eliminating leak s fro mtw o proces s units . Th e experienc e o f CMA' s phosgen e pane l an d th e proces s tha t wa s use d ove r th e pas t 1 0 o r mor e year s t o achiev e thei r presen t performanc e wer e als o considered . Ho w th e Committe e weighe d th e variou s factor s ir i arriving a t th e detail s o f thi s QI P i s describe d i nth e paragraph s below . Th e Committe e include d a requiremen t fo r extensiv e dat a collectio n becaus e thes e dat a ar e essentia l t o understanding th e cause s o f problem s an d t o developmen t o f a correctiv e program . Th e QI P woul d requir e tha t specifi c informatio nb e recorde d o neac hvalve' s design , material s o f construction , 7 1P.7 4

packing , type , servic e conditions , an d screening values . Engineering evaluation s woul d als o b e require d t o determin e th e cause s o f failur e o f al l valve s remove d fro mth e proces s uni t du e t o leaks . Thes e record s ar e require d t o ensur e tha t th e dat a necessaryfo r evaluatio no f cause s o f leak s i s available . Th e technologyrevie wan d improvemen t QI P woul d requir e analysi s o f th e dat a t o determin e i f ther e ar e specifi c problemservices , operating conditions , valv e types , designs , an

d material s o f construction . Asecond , an d equall yimportant , objectiv e o f th e analysi s woul d b e t o identif yvalv e design s an d operating practice s tha t wil l operat e wit hles s tha n2-percen t leaking valve s unde r condition s comparabl e t o thos e i nth e proces s problemareas . Suc hvalv e design s o r technologie s ar e referre d t o i nIU! ! th e QI P a s superio r performing valv e technologies . Becaus e proces s condition s an d cause s o f valv e leakag e d o varyamong proces s unit s an

d th e combination s o f equipmen t an d procedure s tha t ar e "superior " maydiffer , superio r performing valv e technolog yi s no t specifie d exclusivel yi n term s o f specifi c valv e type s o r designs . Rather , superio r performanc e i s define d a s including an ycombinatio no f valv e typ e an d process , operating practices , an d maintenanc e practice s tha t achieve s th e bas e performanc e leve l o f th e standard . Thi s flexibilit ywa s provide d becaus e i t wa s recognize d tha t bes t performing equipmen t ha s t o b e 7 2determine d i n contex t o f th e application . I nsome cases ,

superio r performanc e mayb e achievabl e b yus e o f a differen t packing materia l i nth e valve ; i nothe r cases , us e o f a differen t valv e designo r designchange s t o th e proces s configuratio n mayb e required . Suc hspecifi c decision s ar e bes t determine d b

yth e sourc e owne r o r operator . Thes e superio r performing valv e technologie s mayb e identifie d throughanalysi s o f th e proces s uni t (or plant ) data , o r throughreviewo f availabl e literatur e an d th e experienc e o f othe r facilities . Bot hth e proces s uni t (or plant ) dat a an

d outsid e experienc e mus t b e considere d i n identificatio n o f candidat e superio r performa**e«ih g valv e technologie s fo r performanc e trials . Thi s wa s specifie d t o ensur e tha t a comprehensiv e assessmen t wa s conducted . Fo r simila r reasons , th e Committe e agree d tha t th e analysi s an d identificatio no f bette r performing equipmen t mayb e conducte d throughaninte r o r intra-compan yprogra

man d may b e fo r encompas s a singl e proces s unit , a company , o r grou p o f proces s units . Th e Committe e decide d tha t th e firs t dat a analysi s mus t b e complete d n o later-than 1 8 month s afte r th e star t o f Phas e III . Thi s schedul e wa s establishe d considering H i ||i:|ii|||i i bot hth e time necessaryfo r understanding th e problem(s ) an

d th e nee d t o achiev e a reasonabl e rat e o f progress . Th e dat a analysi s mus t b e reevaluate d eac hyea r th e proces s uni t i s i nth e QI P an d ha s tw o o r mor e percen t 7 3



# _

mleaking valves . Thi s wa s include d t o ensur e continue d

improvement . Performanc e trial s woul d b e require d wher e th e dat a analysi s fo r th e proces s uni t doe s no t identif yan ysuperio r performing valv e design s o r technologie s tha t ca nb e applie d t o th e proces s unit . Performanc e trial s o f candidat e equipmen t wil l ensur e tha t possibl e solution s ar e evaluate d an d tha t applicatio no f ne wequipmen t o r operating procedure s make s goo d engineering sense . Thes e trial s mus t b e conducte d a s par t o f anexperimenta l programtha t identifie s al l 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 no f eac hstage , an d documentatio no f th e conclusion s fo r eac htest . Th e purpos e o f th e performanc e trial s provisio ni s t o determin e i f candidat e equipmen t o r operatio nan d maintenanc e procedure s ca nb e use d i nth e condition s i nth e proces s unit . Becaus e thes e performanc e trial s ar e primaril yintende d t o b e test s o f feasibilit yo f applicatio nt o th e proces s conditions , th e numbe r o f valve s i nth e tria l progra mwa s se t a t a realisti c numbe r fo r experimenta l evaluation . Th e performanc e trial s ar e no t intende d t o provid e anestimat e o f th e leak frequency . Th e QI P woul d requir e performanc e trial s fo r on e percen t o f th e valve s u p t o a maximu

mo f 2 0 valve s i n a singl e proces s uni t o r 5 0 valve s i na plan t sit e study . Th e firs t performanc e trial s shal l b e complete d b y2 4 month s 7 4afte r th e star t o f Phase,III , o r 6 month s afte r conclusio n

o f th e firs t dat a analysis . A t tha t time , th e owne r o r operato r shal l hav e identifie d valv e design s o r technologie s tha t combine d wit happropriat e process , operation , an d maintenanc e practice s operat e wit hlowemissions . Th e owne r o r operato r shal l continu e performanc e trial s unti l a superio r performing technolog yi s identified , th e proces s uni t ha s les s tha n2 percen t leaking valves , o r ther e ar e n o additiona l technicall yfeasibl e candidat e technologie s remaining . A s additiona l informatio nan d experienc e ar e gaine d i nth e QIP , th e lis t o f identifie d lowemissio n performing equipmen t shal l b e updated . Th e owne r o r operato r woul d b e require d t o prepar e a qualit yassuranc e pla ntha t i s base d o n th e result s o f th e dat a analysis , engineering evaluation s o f valves , an d th e performanc e trials . Th e planmus t includ e procedure s tha t wil l ensur e tha t eac hreplacemen t valv e i s a quality-assure d valve , tha t i s replace d i s replace d wit ha qualit yassure d valv e tha t wil l achiev e lowemission s i nth 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 emissio n performanc e technologyfo r tha t categoryo f valves , unles s n o superio r 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 emissio ntechnologie s identifie d fo r th e specifi c application . Th e qualit yassuranc e pla nmust.
— mus t specif yminimu

mdesignstandard s fo r eac hcategoryo f valve s

7 5P.7 8

establishe d b

yth e owne r o r operator , includ e a writte n procedur e fo r benc htesting o f valve s fo r leaks , provid e a n audi t procedur e fo r qualit ycontro l o f purchase d equipment , an d includ e procedure s t o ensur e qualit yo f an yrebuil t equipment . Th e qualit yassuranc e ||il| f progra m fo r replacemen t valve s mus t b e implemente d a s long a s th e proces s uni t remain s i nth e QIP . Thes e provision s wer e include d t o guarante e ther e woul d b e continue d improvemen t i nth e emissio nperformanc e o f th e proces s unit . Thi s qualit yassuranc e pla ni s t o b e establishe d b yth e star t o f th e third yea r o f Phas e II I fo r mos t plan t site s an d b yth e star t o f th e fourt hyea r o f Phas e II I fo r plan t site s tha t mee t th e exemptio nfo r smal l facilities . Th e Committe e exempte d plan t site s tha t hav e fewe r tha n 40 0 valve s an

d tha t ar e i s owne d b ya compan

ywit hfewe r tha n10 0 employee s fro mth e requiremen t t o conduc t performanc e trials . Thi s exemptio nfro mperformanc e trial s wa s provide d t o conside r th e limite d technica l resource s availabl e fo r conducting researc ha t smalle r companie s an d t o minimiz e an

yadvers e cos t impact s o f th e standar d o n smal l companies . Th e Committe e selecte d th e exemptio n criteri a base d o ntypica l valv e count s i na smal l proces s uni t an d a n industryestimat e o f th e typica l numbe r o f employee s fo r a smal l company . Thes e facilitie s wer e als o allowe d a nadditiona l yea r t o develop a qualit yassuranc e pla nan d t o begi n using qualit yassure d valve s tha t wil l
7 6operat e wit hlowemission s i nth e proces s unit . Th e

Committe e provide d thi s additiona l time t o allo wthes e smalle r facilitie s th e time neede d t o obtai nth e necessary informatio nfro

mpeers , vendors , literature , an d othe r sources . Th e Committe e considered , bu t rejected , provision s tha t woul d hav e require d mandatoryreplacemen t o f some proportio n o f th e valve s i n th e proces s uni t eac hyear . Suc ha provisio nwa s no t establishe d fo r valve s fo r severa l reasons . Leaking valve s canonl yb e repaire d on-lin e a limite d numbe r o f time s befor e theycann o longe r b e adjuste d t o achiev e lowe r emission s an d mus t b e replaced . Typically , o n an industrywid e basis , 7 t o 1 0 percen t o f th e valve s ar e reportedl yreplace d eac hyea r fo r reason s othe r tha nleaking emissio nperformance—(i.e.,theyar e leaking) . I f valve s tha t ar e replace d (for an yreason ) ar e replace d wit hqualit yassure d valve s appropriat e t o th e servic e conditions , a nimprovemen t i nemissio nperformanc e ca nb e achieve d a t nomina l additiona l cost . Th e Committe e judge d tha t th e norma l replacemen t o f 7 t o 1 0 percen t o f th e valve s eac hyea r wa s a reasonabl e rat e o f improvemen t considering tha t a mandatoryreplacemen t progra m woul d caus e veryhigh expenditure s fo r negligibl e benefit . Pumps . Th e Committe e develope d a technolog yrevie wan

d improvemen t QI P a s a mean s fo r proces s unit s (or plants ) t o 7 7

__ uP.8 0

ultimatel yachiev e th e performanc e leve l o f th e standard . Onl ythi s S^^^S

- QI P wa s employe d becaus e th e Committe e believe d tha t th e onl ypractica l solutio nfo r pump s wa s a n engineering 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 

### technolog yrevie wand improvemen t valv e QI P fo r valves , thi s QI P wa s designe d t o provid e a generi c approac ht o evaluat e th e problem , identif ysolutions , an d improve equipmen t an d operations . Th e Committe e als o recognize d tha t sufficien t time mus t b e provide d t o identif ybot hth e cause s o f leak s an d cost-effectiv e solutions . Thus , th e pum p QI P specifie s simila r requirement s o nth e same schedul e a s th e valv e QIP . Th e pum p QI P differ s fro

mth e valv e QI P i nsevera l respect s du e t o difference s betwee nth e tw o standard s an d betwee nth e equipment . Thi s sectio npresent s th e rational e fo r th e difference s betwee n th e provision s fo r th e tw o QI P an d th e additiona l factor s tha t wer e considere d i ndeveloping th e pum p QIP . Unlik e th e valv e provisions , th e pum p QI P woul d no t b e a noptio nfo r selectio nb yth e owne r o r operato r an d ther e woul d b e n o restriction s o nwhe na proces s uni t (or plant ) enter s a QIP . Anowne r o r operato r mus t compl ywit hth e reguirement s o f th e QI P wheneve r th e greate r o f eithe r 1 0 percen t o f th e pump s o r 3 pump s i na proces s uni t (or a t a plant ) leak . Aproces s uni t mus t remai ni nth e QI P a s long a s th e percen t leaking pump s i s greate r tha nth e bas e 7 8P.8 1

performanc e level . Theoretically , a proces s uni t (or plant ) coul d b e subjec t t o th e QI P provision s mor e tha non e time . I ncase s wher e a proces s uni t (or plant ) agai n become s subjec t t o th e QIP , th e QI P mus t b e resume d starting a t th e performanc e trial s stage . Resumptio na t th e performanc e trial s wa s specified , rathe r tha nth e stag e a t whic hth e uni t exite d th e QIP , t o ensur e tha t th e QI P result s i na reasonabl e rat e o f progres s towar d th e bas e performanc e level * Furthermore , som e committe e member s though t adequat e dat a and analysi s woul d b e availabl e fro mth e earlie r QIP * I t wa s als o assume d tha t owner s an d operator s o f proces s unit s (or plants ) wit hpum p leak frequencie s nea r th e baef § performanc e leve l woul d b e prepare d t o conduc t performanc e trial s shoul d th e leak frequencyincrease * becaus e ther e shoul d b e n o nee d fo r dat a collectio n an d analysi s sinc e tha t shoul d b o availabl e fro mth e earlie r QIP . 1111111 1 Committe e member s als o though t tha t resumptio na t performanc e trial s va s appropriat e fo r proces s unit s (o r plants ) tha t reente r th e pum p QI P afte r completio no f performanc e trials . Thes e additiona l trial s wer e judge d necessarysinc e technolog y(e.g. , pum

p sea l materials , design , etc* ) ma yhav e change d sinc e th e previou s evaluation s an

d additiona l feature s maynee d invetigation * A s wit hth e valv e technolog yand reviewan

d improvemen t QI P fo r Valves , th e Committe e require d tha t a comprehensiv e databas e b e develope d o npum p type , design , material s o f
7 9P.8 2

construction , servic e characteristics , an d screening values . Th e engineering evaluatio nrequiremen t differ s i ntha t inspection s ar e require d fo r pump s remove d fro mth e proces s du e t o leak s an

d fo r pum

p sea l design s associate d wit hhigh failur e rates . I t i s specifie d i nthi s manne r 1111111 inspection s ar e require d t o ensur e tha t evaluation s ar e o f equipmen t wit happarentl yfundamenta l designo r applicatio n problem s an

d ar e no t o f equipmen t a t th e en d o f th e design life . Bot hpump s an d pum p seal s wer e include d t o ensur e tha t al l possibl e source s o f leakag e (e.g. , spli t casing s o n larg e pumps ) ar e included . A s i nth e valv e QIP , th e dat a ar e analyse d t o identif y problemarea s an

d service s a s wel l a s t o identif ysuperio r performing pum

p technologies . Again , thes e technologie s ar e no t considere d t o solel yinclud e particula r pum p o r sea l designs . Superio r emissio nperformanc e technolog ymay includ e materia l o r designchange s t o existing pumps , pum p seals , sea l suppor t systems , us e o f multipl e mechanica l seals , o r replacemen t b ya canne d pum

p o r a magneticall y drive npump . An

ycombinatio no f equipmen t an d operating practice s tha t achieve s th e standard specifie d leve l o f performanc e i s considere d t o b e superio r emissio n performanc e technology . Th e pum p performanc e tria l provisio nset s a lowe r limi t tha nth e valv e QI P doe s o nth e numbe r o f performanc e trials ; fo r pump s th e numbe r o f test s i s on e percen t o f th e pump s up 8 0t o a maximu m o f tw o fo r a singl e proces s uni t an d five fo r a plant . Th e smalle r numbe r o f trial s i s specifie d becaus e pum p population s ar e muc hsmalle r tha nvalv e populations . Furthermore , wit hpump s ther e wil l b e fa r fewe r change s i n operation , maintenance , an d designparameter s tha t ca nb e evaluated . Again , becaus e th e purpos e o f th e trial s i s t o tes t th e feasibilit yo f using th e technolog yan d no t t o predic t th e leak frequency , a larg e numbe r o f trial s i s no t necessary . Th e qualit yassuranc e progra mpla nfo r pump s woul d hav e th e same basi c objective s an d requirement s a s doe s th e valv e program . Th e mino r difference s betwee nth e pum p an d valv e requirement s aris e becaus e benc htesting o f pump s i s no t a usefu l predicto r o f on-lin e performanc e an d wa s no t required . Fo r pump s i ngenera 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 th e pump s o r pum

p seal s wit hequipment , operations , an d maintenanc e practice s identifie d a s superio r emissio n performanc e technology . A s discusse d earlier , thi s superio r emissio nperformanc e technolog yi s no t considere d t o b e exclusivel yrepresente d b yspecifi c design s suc ha s canne d pump s o r specifi c type s o f pum p seal s suc ha s dua l mechanica l seals . Rather , i t i s envisione d a s consisting o f th e combinatio no f pum p an d sea l designcombine d wit h appropriat e process , operatio nan d maintenac e practice s tha t 8 1

____•___•P.8 4

wil l achiev e th e performanc e leve l o f th e piiilli i standard . Th e mandatoryreplacemen t provisio nwa 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 ) (ultimately ) achiev e demonstrate d performanc e levels . Th e Committe e intende d fo r thi s provisio nt o serv e a s a nincentiv e t o improve performance . Mandatoryreplacemen t provision s wer e no t applie d t o pump s i nfood/medica l servic e o r t o pump s handling polymerizing monomer s sinc e i nbot hcase s n o demonstrate d performanc e leve l o r technolog ycoul d b e identified . N o dat a wer e availabl e t o th e Committe e tha t showe d th e performanc e leve l tha t coul d b e achieve d b ythes e services . A s explaine d earlie r i ndiscussio no f th e propose d pum p standard , th e Committe e als o conclude d tha t dua l mechanica l seal s coul d no t b e use d mayno t b e appropriat e fo r us e o n pump s i nthes e services . Consequently , th e Committe e agree d tha t replacemen t equipmen t mus t b e qualit yassure d an d b e on e o f th e lowes t emissio nperformanc e technologie s identified . 7 . Standar d fo r Connector s i nGas/Vapo r an d Ligh t Liqui d Servic e A s discusse d earlier , th e Committe e develope d a standar d fo r connector s tha t consist s o f a LDA Rprogrami n whic hth e monitoring frequencyi s base d o nth e percen t leaking connector s an d a leak i s define d a s a ninstrumen t reading o f 50 0 pp

mo r higher . Thi s standard woul d no t b e

8 2phase d i nan d woul d appl ya s soo na s th e rul e i s effectiv e fo r a proces s unit . Th e Committe e judge d tha t phas e i n o f th e standard wa s unnecessarysinc e onc e connector s ar e leak tigh t theyshoul d remai nleak tight . Figur e VII- 3 present s th e conceptua l approac ht o th e connecto r standard . I n additio nt o th e basi c LDA Rprogram , th e Committe e als o establishe d severa l provision s t o addres s situation s uniqu e t o connectors . Thi s sectio nexplain s th e rational e fo r thes e additiona l provisions . A s wit hothe r equipment , th e Committe e judge d tha t i t i s no t technicall yo r economicall yfeasibl e t o establis han emissio nstandard fo r connectors . Awor k practic e standard , consisting o f a LDA Rprogra

man d a bas e performanc e level , wa s develope d becaus e i t provide d a practica l mean s o f detecting an

d controlling emissions . Connecto r repai r intervals . Fo r th e reason s discusse d i nth e valv e standard , th e Committe e applie d th e 5-da yfirs t attemp t a t repai r an d th e 15-da

yrepai r interva l o f th e existing rule s t o connectors . Thes e repai r interval s wer e considere d appropriat e fo r instance s wher e leak s ca nb e reduce d b

ytightening bolt s o r wher e th e connecto r ca nb e isolate d fro

mth e process . Th e Committe e als o recognize d tha t mos t connector s canno t b e isolate d fro mth e proces s an

d canno t b e repaire d withou t shutting dow nth e process . I n suc hcases , th e Committe e agree d tha t delayo f repai r unti l th e nex t proces s uni t shutdow ni s appropriat e an d th e delay 8 3

BI HP.8 6

1

50 0 ppmv Annua l LDAR

< <0.5% , 50

C

1 LDAR Ever y2 years

i <0.5% , 50

C

1 i n* °

. L U Ever y .year s Ippm v

)ppm v

20.b % 50 0 ppmv 50 0 ppmv

Figure VII-3 . Standar d fo rConnectors

8 4o f repai r provision s i nth e existing rule s shoul d b e allowe d

fo r connectors . I nsome situations , repai r o f a leaking connecto r woul d expos e personne l t o imminen t danger . Therefore , a specia l provisio n wa s adde d t o th e connecto r standard tha t allow s th e owne r o r operato r t o designat e unsafe-to-repai r connector s an

d t o delayrepai r o f thes e connector s unti l th e nex t proces s uni t shutdown . Connector s whic har e unsafe-to

repai r ar e thos e tha t woul d expos e repai r personne l t o imminen t hazard s fro mtemperature , pressure , o r explosiv e proces s conditions . A nexampl e lif

t suc ha hazar d woul d b e connector s o n highpressur e line s wher e tightening a bol t coul d caus e failur e an d resul t i na majo r o r catastrophi c release . Nonrepairabl e connectors . Th e Committe e recognize d tha t nonrepairabl e connector s mayno t b e completel y preventabl e an

d tha t increase d monitoring frequency , i f triggere d b

ynonrepairabl e components , woul d b e o f littl e benefit . A s wit hvalves , th e Committe e sough t t o strik e a balanc e betwee nproviding anincentive t o limi t th e numbe r o f nonrepairabl e connector s an d avoiding impositio no f unproductiv e costs . Th e agree d approac hallow s excluding u p t o tw o percen t o f th e connector s fro mth e calculatio no f percen t leaking i f disturbe d connector s ar e monitore d fo r leak s withi nthre e months . Th e Committe e allowe d mor e connector s tha nvalve s t o b e exclude d fro mth e calculatio n 8 5



### i mP.8 8

(i.e. , 2 vs . 1 percent ) becaus e i t i s mor e likel ytha t connector s canno t b e remove d fro mth e proces s an

d repai r woul d hav e t o b e delaye d unti l th e nex t proces s uni t shutdown . Th e Committe e als o allowe d owner s o r operator s th e optio no f foregoing followu p monitoring o f disturbe d connector s i nexchang e fo r no t excluding nonrepairabl e connector s i nth e calculatio no f percen t leaking connectors . Thi s optio n provide s flexibilit yan d encourage s owner s o r operator s t o develop thei r ow nprogra

mt o ensur e lowleak frequencie s fo r connectors . Exercising thi s optio nwoul d mea ntha t a proces s uni t woul d hav e t o hav e les s tha n 0. 5 percen t leaking connector s t o monito r les s frequentl y tha nannually . Th e Committe e als o agree d t o allo wan owne r o r operato r t o switc hfro mon e optio nt o th e othe r provide d th e ne woptio nbegin s wit hannua l monitoring . Thi s optiona l provisio n wa s develope d becaus e o f some Committe e members ' concern s tha t th e administrativ e burden s woul d excee d an y benefit s provided . Calculatio no f percen t leaking . Fo r connectors , th e Committe e decide d tha t th e percen t leaking shoul d b e calculate d fo r eac hmonitoring perio d an d shoul d no t b e base d o nrolling average s o f severa l monitoring periods . Thi s decisio nwa s base d o nth e judgemen t tha t properl y designed , constructed , an d installe d connector s shoul d operat e fo r anextende d time befor e failur e an d exhibi t a 8 6lowfrequencyo f randomfailures . Th e result s o f a singl e

monitoring perio d were , therefore , expecte d t o provid e a reliabl e estimat e o f th e actua l leak frequency . Credit s fo r removing connectors . Fo r th e reason s discusse d previousl yfo r valves , th e Committe e electe d t o provid e a partia l credi t i nth e calculatio no f percen t leaking connector s fo r connector s permanentl yremove d fro m th e proces s unit . I f a connecto r i s remove d fro ma proces s uni t b ywelding th e connecto r o r b ywelding th e pip e together , th e integrit yo f th e wel d mus t b e verifie d t o b e eligibl e fo r remove d connecto r credits . Thi s wa s reguire d t o ensur e tha t credit s ar e onl yprovide d fo r actua l reduction s i n emission s successfu l weld s around th e entir e Circumference . Lik e th e valv e credit , thi s credi t i s include d t o provid e anincentive 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 adde d provision s t o th e connecto r standard t o conside r situation s wher e connector s mayb e unsaf e t o monito r o r inaccessible . Lik e valves , unsafe-tp-monito r connector s ar e connector s tha t coul d expos e personne l t o imminen t hazard s fro mtemperature , pressure , o r explosiv e conditions . Thes e connector s mus t b e monitore d a s frequentl ya s practicabl e during safe-to-monito r periods . Th e Committe e als o exempte d inaccessibl e connector s an d glas s o r glass-line d connector s fro mth e reguiremen t fo r 8 7

QJB |routin e monitoring . Inaccessibl e connector s ar e define d a s

buried ; insulate d i na manne r tha t prevent s acces s b yth e monito r probe ; obstructe d b yequipmen t o r piping ; o r no t accessibl e fro

ma 25-foo t portabl e scaffol d o nth e ground an d greate r tha n6 fee t abov e a suppor t surface . Thes e differen t categorie s o f inaccessibl e connector s wer e identifie d a s presenting situation s wher e monitorin g woul d b e extremel ydifficult , dangerous , o r physicall yimpossible . 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 nfro

mcol d system s coul d caus e leak s du e t o therma l stres s an

d woul d b e verycostly . Remova l o f insulatio nfro

mho t system s woul d creat e a safet yhazar d i n additio n t o being costly . Connector s tha t canno t b e reache d fro ma 2 5 foo t portabl e scaffol d o r fro ma step ladde r woul d als o presen t a safet yhazard t o monitoring personnel . Glas s an d glass-line d connector s wer e exempte d becaus e th e potentia l fo r on-lin e repai r b ytightening bolt s i s limite d du e t o th e possibilit yo f breakag e an d attendan t accidenta l releases . Fo r bot hinaccessibl e an d glas s o r glass-line d connectors , however , i f leak s ar e detecte d b yvisual , audible , o r othe r means , th e leaking connecto r shal l b e repaire d n o late r tha n1 5 day s afte r th e leak i s detected . Provision s fo r screwe d connectors . Th e connecto r standar d woul d includ e a provisio ntha t allow s a n owne r o r 8 8P.9 1

operato r th e optio no f exempting existing screwe d connector s o f 2 inche s o r smalle r diamete r fro mroutin e monitoring provide d thes e connector s ar e monitore d onc e afte r th e standard take s effec t an d afte r th e sea l i s broke no r disturbed . An

yleaking connector s shal l b e repaired . Thi s provisio nwa a designe d t o alleviat e costl ymonitoring o f th e larg e numbe r o f smal l connector s i nsome proces s units . Th e Committe e agree d t o includ e thi s provisio nfo r severa l reasons . Th e genera l opinio no f engineer s o nth e Committe e wa s tha t screwe d connector s onc e properl ythreade d an d leak tigh t shoul d sta yleak tight , sinc e ther e ar e n o moving part s an

d th e sea l doe s no t rel yo ngasket s o r othe r material s tha t ca ndeteriorate . Thus , an initia l chec k an d one-time followu

p monitoring afte r opening th e connecto r wer e judge d t o provid e sufficien t assuranc e tha t th e connector s ar e leak tight . However , becaus e th e availabl e dat a wer e insufficien t t o demonstrat e this , ne wscrewe d connector s o f an

ysiz e an

d existing screwe d connector s greate r tha n2 inche s wer e no t allowe d thi s optio nan d ar e treate d th e same a s an yothe r connector . Th e standard woul d als o requir e tha t dat a o nth e leak frequencyo f screwe d connector s b e reported . Th e EPAintend s t o revie wthi s informatio nand , base d o nth e finding s wil l conside r whethe r t o amen d th e standard t o requir e routin e monitoring fo r existing screwe d connector s §f i 2 inches , o r smaller ,

8 9

I4 HP.9 2

diamete r o r t o appl yth e initia l chec k an d one-time follow

up t o al l connectors . 8 . Provision s fo r Othe r Equipmen t Compressors . A s wit hothe r equipment , a nemissio n standar d wa s no t develope d fo r compressor s becaus e applicatio n o f availabl e measuremen t method s i s no t technicall yo r economicall yfeasible . Th e requirement s i n th e existing standard s wer e judge d t o b e MAC T an d wer e use d a s th e basi s fo r th e negotiate d standard fo r compressors . Th e standard require s th e us e o f mechanica l seal s equippe d wit ha barrie r flui d systeman d controlle d degassing vent s o r enclosur e o f th e compresso r sea l are a an d venting o f emission s througha close d ven t system t o a contro l device . Thes e system s ca nprovid e contro l efficiencie s approaching 10 0 percent . Pressur e relie f device s i ngas/vapo r service . Th e negotiate d standard , lik e th e existing standards , i s base d o nth e us e o f ruptur e dis k system s o r contro l devices , whic h ar e considere d t o effectivel yeliminat e emissions , whe n properl yinstalled , maintaine d an d operated . Th e existing equipmen t leak standard s establis ha "no detectabl e emissio n limit " o f 50 0 ppm

vfo r contro l technique s tha t eliminat e emissions . Th e Committe e considere d redefining th e emissio n limi t fo r pressur e relie f devices , bu t agree d tha t ther e wer e insufficien t dat a t o redefin e th e limi t belo w50 0 ppmv . Th e genera l opinio nwa s tha t a 50 0 pp mstandard woul d ensur e 9 0essentiall yzer o emission s an d woul d ensur e tha t a n effectiv e contro l system woul d no t b e foun

d t o b e i n violatio n du e t o residua l VHAP i nth e ven t exit . Therefore , th e negotiate d rul e woul d requir e tha t pressur e relie f device s b e operate d wit haninstrumen t reading o f les s tha n 50 0 ppm vabov e background , excep t during pressur e relief . Th e 50 0 ppm

vabov e background limi t woul d no t appl yt o discharge s throughth e relie f devic e during pressur e relief , becaus e th e functio no f relie f device s i s t o discharg e proces s fluid , thereb yreducing dangerousl yhighpressure s withi nth e equipment . Relie f device s mus t operat e wit han instrumen t reading o f les s than50 0 ppm vabov e background withi n5 day s afte r suc ha discharge . Adefinitio no f "se t pressure " wa s adde d t o th e standard t o clarif ytha t se t pressur e i s wher e a properl yoperating pressur e relieiv e devic e begin s t o open s t o relie||l_
. atypica l proces s system operating pressure . A s a n alternativ e t o ruptur e disk s an d othe r technique s tha t wil l achiev e les s tha n50 0 pp mabov e background , owner s o r operator s mayven t pressur e relie f device s t o close d ven t system s connecte d t o a contro l device . Sampling connectio nsystems . Th e Committe e agree d th e closed-purg e sampling , closed-loop sampling , an d close d ven t vacuu msystem s i n th e existing rule s represen t MAC T fo r sampling connectio nsystems . Closed-purg e sampling system s eliminat e emission s du e t o purging b yeithe r returning th e 9 1

p___ iP.9 4

purg e materia l directl yt o th e proces s o r b ycollecting th e purg e i na collectio nsystemwhic hi s no t ope n t o th e atmospher e fo r recycl e o r disposal . Closed-loop sampling system s als o eliminat e emissio ndu e t o purging b yreturning proces s flui d t o th e proces s throughanenclose d system tha t i s no t directl yvente 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 flui d t o a contro l device . Anemissio nlimi t wa s no t specifie d becaus e measuring mas s emission s fro msampling system s woul d requir e enclosing eac hsystem(i.e. , bagging) , a measuremen t metho d whic hi s time-consuming , costly , an d impractical . Aconcentratio nlimi t i s als o no t feasibl e becaus e althoughth e VO C an d VHA P contro l efficienc yo na closed-purg e o r closed-loop sampling systemi s approximatel y 10 0 percent , some VO C an d VHA P coul d b e emitte d during it s transfe r t o a close d collectio ndevic e o r during it s ultimat e disposal . Becaus e emissio n standard s canno t feasibl yb e prescribe d fo r sampling connectio nsystems , severa l alternativ e format s wer e considere d an d equipmen t standard s foun d t o b e mos t appropriate . Th e propose d standard s fo r sampling connectio nsystem s i nth e negotiate d rul e woul d requir e th e us e o f closed-purg e o r closed-loop sampling equipmen t o r a close d ven t system . I nsit u sampling system s woul d b e exempte d fro m thes e regulations .

9 2P.9 5

Open-ende d valve s o r lines . Emission s fro mopen-ende d valve s o r line s canb e eliminated , excep t whe nth e lin e i s use d fo r draining , venting , o r sampling operations , b y enclosing th e ope nen d b ya cap , plug , o r a secon d valve . Th e contro l efficiencyassociate d wit hthes e technique s i s approximatel y10 0 percen t an d i s considere d t o b e MACT . A s wit hothe r item s o f equipment , establishing a nemissio n limi t i s neithe r effectiv e no r technologicall yfeasible . Therefore , th e Committe e base d th e standard o nth e combinatio no f equipmen t an d operationa l requirement s i nth e existing rules . Th e negotiate d rul e woul d requir e th e us e o f a cap , plug , blind flange , o r a secon d valv e o r othe r equipmen t t o clos e th e open-ende d valv e o r line . T o insur e th e prope r operatio no f th e equipment , open-ende d line s ar e als o covere d b

yoperationa l standards . I f a secon d valv e i s use d t o clos e th e ope nend , th e propose d standard s woul d requir e th e upstrea

mvalv e t o b e close d first . Afte r th e upstream valv e i s completel yclosed , th e downstrea mvalv e woul d b e closed . Thi s operationa l requiremen t i s necessaryi norde r t o preven t trapping proces s flui d betwee nth e tw o valves , whic hcoul d resul t i na situatio nequivalen t t o th e uncontrolle d open-ende d line . Produc t accumulato r vessels . Th e techniqu e fo r controlling produc t accumulato r vessel s i s t o connec t th e vesse l t o a close d ven t systeman d contro l device . Anything 9 3P.96 _

i ncomplianc e wit hth e 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 nclose d ven t system s fro mbarrie r flui d degassing system s an d enclose d pum

p an d compresso r sea l areas . I nal l cases , thes e contro l device s woul d receiv e stream s wit hlowan d intermitten t flowrates . Thes e contro l device s woul d i nsome case s b e designe d t o dispos e o f organi c stream s fro mothe r source s i nth e plant , s o tha t th e VHA P stream s maycontribut e a verysmal l percentag e o f th e tota l loading o nth e contro l device . Becaus e i t woul d b e technologicall yan d economicall yimpractica l t o measur e verylow-flowstream s an d differentiat e thes e stream s fro m others , a nemissio n standard wa s no t propose d fo r thes e contro l devices . Designrequirement s fo r contro l device s wer e considere d t o ensur e tha t appropriat e emissio nreduction s woul d b e achieve d fro

mcontro l device s use d i nconjunctio nwit h close d ven t systems . Enclose d combustio nsources , flares , an d vapo r recoverysystem s wer e considere d a s contro l device s fo r th e close d ven t system . Th e propose d Standar d 

### require s tha t thes e contro l device s reduc e organi c emission s by9 5 percen t o r mee t designrequirement s specifie d i nth e negotiate d rul e fo r enclose d combustio nar o th e attainmen t o f a minimu

m designrequirements , temperatur e o f 760- C fo r 0. 5 seconds.—Unde r thes e conditions , a t leas t 0 5 percen t 9 4VO C destructio n i s achieved . Th e minimu m design requirement s specifie d fo r enclose d combustio ndevice s i s t o provid e a minimu

m residenc e tim e o f 0, 5 second s a t a minimu m temperatur e o f 760°C * Flare s use d a s contro l device s t o compl ywit hth e negotiate d standard shal l compl ywit hth e requirement s o f 4 0 CFR60.18 . Vapo r recoverysystem 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 . Acontro l efficienc yo f a t leas t 9 5 percen t wa s chose na s th e design requiremen t becaus e i t i s th e highes t contro l efficienc y tha t ha s bee ndemonstrate d consistentl yfo r vapo r recovery system s suc ha s carbo nadsorptio no r condensatio nunits . Agitators . Agitator s wer e no t evaluate d during regulatorydevelopmen t o f th e existing regulation s an d ar e no t presentl yregulate d b yan ystandard . Therefore , very limite d informatio ni s availabl e onthi s equipment . Th e Committe e determine d tha t agitator s shoul d b e include d i n th e negotiate d standard fo r severa l reasons . First , a limite d amoun t o f screening dat a indicat e tha t agitator s may b e a significan t sourc e o f emissions . Second , agitator s ar e technologicall ysimila r t o pumps , and , lik e pumps , emission s ca nb e controlle d using sea l technology . However , agitator s hav e longe r an

d large r diamete r shaft s thanpump 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 . Considering thi s an d th e 9 5

m i l-_H.i_ii.iii l i il.l lP__ 3

potentia l fo r larg e leaks , th e Committe e agree d t o requir e a monthl yLDA

Rprogra

monl yan

d t o defin e a leak a s a concentratio n o f 10,00 0 ppm vo r higher . Thi s programwil l requir e replacemen t o f agitato r seal s wit hsignifican t leak s an d wil l encourag e developmen t o f effectiv e bearing an d sea l systems . Instrumentatio nsystems . Th e Committe e create d thi s equipmen t categoryt o addres s industr ymember s concern s wit h applicatio n o f LDA

Rprogram s t o .equipmen t use d i nmonitoring proces s operations . Smal l diamete r tubing an d othe r component s ar e use d t o conveyproces s sample s t o analyzer s t o determin e chemica l compositio nan d t o instrument s suc ha s pressur e an

d flowtransducers . Instrumentatio nsystem s typicall ycontai n valve s 0. 5 inchi ndiamete r o r les s an d connector s 0.7 5 incho r les s an d ar e locate d i na confine d are a suc htha t monitoring o f individua l component s i s generall yinfeasible . Becaus e thes e system s provid e critica l proces s operating information , theyar e subjec t t o frequen t surveillanc e an d maintenanc e t o assur e th e reliabilit yo f measurements . Leaking equipmen t i nthes e system s woul d b e readil ydetecte d b ychange s i ntemperature , pressure , flowrates , o r b yobservation . Additionally , i t i s commo npractic e i nth e industr yafte r maintenanc e o r repai r t o verif yth e integrit yo f thes e system s b ysoap bubbl e testing o r pressur e checks . Therefore , a routin e LDA Rprogramwoul d b e redundan t an d woul d provid e n o 9 6benefit . Th e 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 wa s appropriat e t o requir e repai r o f leaking instrumentatio nsystem s i na timel ymanne r an d agree d t o trea t thes e system s i na manne r simila r t o equipmen t i n heav

yliqui d service . I n addition , th e Committe e agree d tha t monitoring o f individua l component s i n instrumentatio nsystem s b yMetho d 2 1 i s no t necessaryi f th e leak i s repaire d an d th e repai r i s verified . Th e verificatio nmayb e b ysoa p testing , a pressur e check , o r an yothe r visible , audible , olefactory , o r othe r means . Miscellaneous . A s i nth e existing equipmen t leak standards , pumps , valves , connectors , an d agitator s i nheav y liqui d servic e (HA

P fluid s wit hvapo r pressure s les s tha n 0. 3 kP a a t 20 , 'C) , an d pressur e relie f device s i nligh t liqui d o r heav

yliqui d servic e woul d b e exclude d fro mth e routin e monitoring art d inspectio nrequirements . However , i f leak s ar e detecte d fro mthes e sources , th e same allowabl e repai r interva l tha t applie s t o pumps , valves , connectors , an d compressor s woul d apply . Thes e source s wer e exclude d fro mroutin e monitoring o nth e basi s tha t theycontribut e onl ya verysmal l portio no f overal l emission s fro ma proces s uni t an

d including themi nth e monitoring an d equipmen t requirement s wa s no t considere d reasonable .

9 7



## m a9 . Alternativ e Standard s Unde r th e provision s o f Sectio n112(h ) o f th e CAA , i f th e Administrato r establishe s wor k practice , equipment , design , o r operationa l standards , the nth e Administrato r mus t allo wus e o f alternativ e mean s o f emissio nreduction s i f anowne r o r operato r candemonstrat e emissio nreduction s equivalen t t o tha t achieve d b yth e standards . Generally , alternativ e mean s o f emissio nreductio nar e base d o n specifi c circumstance s a t individua l plan t site s an d mus t b e handle d individually . During 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 wa s appropriate . Thes e situation s wer e batc hprocesse s an d enclose d proces s units . Consequently , th e negotiate d rul e include s alternativ e standard s fo r batc hoperation s an d fo r proces s unit s locate d i nenclose d building s a s wel l a s genera l provision s fo r demonstratio no f equivalency . Batc hprocesses . A t on e o f th e earl ymeeting s o f th e Committee , th e problem s associate d wit happlicatio no f LDA R program s t o batc hprocesse s wer e raised . A t continuou s processes , equipmen t ca nb e monitore d rapidly , on e afte r anothe r o na nestablishe d route , withou t consideratio no f th e proces s schedul e becaus e ther e i s alway s proces s flui d i nth e lines . Fo r severa l reasons , rapi d monitoring o f on e componen t afte r anothe r i s no t possibl e a t some batc h processes . Thi s i s particularl ytru e fo r processe s suc ha s 9 8p. 1

thos e i nth e pharmaceutica l industr ywher e equipmen t mayno t b e dedicate d t o a particula r proces s an d wher e differen t component s ar e use d i ndifferen t batc hoperation s t o produc e differen t products . I nan yparticula r configuration , proces s flui d mayflowthrougha serie s o f valves , connectors , an

d a pum p int o a reactor . Severa l hour s later , th e proces s flui d woul d exi t th e reacto r throughothe r equipmen t fo r subsequen t processing step s an d storage . Also , th e equipmen t use d wil l contai nproces s fluid s fo r onl ya brie f perio d during th e batc h(e.g. , a fewminute s pe r batch) . I n thi s case , th e monitoring tea m woul d hav e t o wai t fo r a nextende d time betwee nscreening equipmen t o n th e upstreaman

d downstrea

msid e o f th e reactor . Equipmen t no t use d i na particula r configuratio n coul d no t b e monitore d unti l th e equipmen t i s i nactua l use . Thus , i t woul d b e difficul t t o schedul e monitoring o f equipmen t an d th e cost , bot hi ntota l an

d o na componen t basis , coul d b e muc hhighe r tha nfo r a continuou s process . Moreover , thi s intermitten t operatio nan

d lowtime-in-us e o f individua l component s als o result s i nlowe r annua l emissions . Fo r thes e reasons , th e Committe e formed a batc hproces s subcommitte e t o develop alternativ e approache s tha t coul d b e use d fo r batc hprocesses . Thi s subcommitte e explore d variou s alternative s whic hwoul d ensur e effectiv e contro l whil e considering th e natur e o f batc hoperations . Th e subcommitte e develope d alternativ e procedure s tha t allo w 9 9

H HP. 2

owner s o r operator s o f batc hprocesse s th e optio no f meeting standard s simila r t o thos e fo r continuou s processe s o r o f periodicall ypressur e testing th e batc hequipment . I f th e owne r o r operato r elect s t o monito r equipmen t fo r leaks , th e monitoring frequencyi s prorate d t o th e time i nus e an d th e equipmen t mayb e monitore d whe ni t i s i nVHA P servic e o r i n us e wit ha surrogat e VO C o r othe r detectabl e compound . Thes e modification s t o th e continuou s standard s wer e designe d t o provid e roughl ycomparabl e provision s fo r batc hprocesses . I nfact , a s time i nus e increase s t o 7 5 percen t an d higher , th e monitoring frequencybecome s th e same fo r bot h continuou s an

d batc hprocesses . Th e alternativ e provision s allo wpressur e testing o f batc hequipmen t usin g eithe r a ga s o r a liquid . Th e Committe e allowe d us e o f eithe r procedur e becaus e hydrostati c testing canb e safe r tha nhighpressur e test s usin g gase s an d eithe r techniqu e ca nb e use d t o demonstrat e th e equipmen t i s no t leaking . Th e criteri a specifie d a s defining a leak wer e base d o na limite d amoun t o f fiel d testing b

yth e pharmaceutica l industry , genera l industrypractic e fo r pressur e tests , an d EPA' s experienc e wit hvapor-tightnes s testing o f tank truck s an d railcars . Althoughlittl e informatio n i s availabl e fo r direc t comparison , th e Committe e concluded , base d o ngenera l knowledg e an

d engineering considerations , tha t th e relativ e cos t an d effectivenes s o f th e alternativ e procedure s fo r

10 0P. 3

batc hprocesse s shoul d b e roughl ycomparabl e t o thos e fo r continuou s processes . Enclose d processes . Processe s operate d i n building s o r enclosure s maintaine d unde r negativ e pressur e an d vente d t o th e atmospher e througha 9 5 percen t efficien t contro l devic e woul d b e exempte d fro mth e iil|i | monitoring requirements . Thi s alternativ e standard 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

m personne l becaus e O f safet yhazards . I nsuc h instances , n o benefi t wil l b e achieve d b ymonitoring th e equipment , an

d i t maypresen t a safet yhazar d t o monitoring personnel . 10 . Delayo f Repai r A s previousl ynoted , th e Committe e recognize d tha t ther e ar e circumstance s whe nrepai r o f equipmen t i s no t feasibl e withou t a proces s uni t shutdow nan d thi s mayresul t i ngreate r emission s thandelaying repai r unti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Th e Committee , therefore , include d th e delayo f repai r provision s i nth e existing rule s i nth e negotiate d standard . Aprimaryconsideratio no f th e Committe e i nthi s wa s whethe r th e provision s reflecte d th e actua l feasibilit yo f repairing equipmen t an d avoide d extende d delay s i n returning a uni t t o productio nafte r i t i s shutdow

n briefl ydu e t o unforesee ncircumstances . Base d o nthi s evaluation , th e Committe e agree d t o modif yth e definitio n o f "proces s uni t shutdown " t o reflec t mor e 10 1

E____U IP_4 _

accuratel ythos e situation s wher e i t wa s judge d reasonabl e t o requir e clearanc e o f proces s material s an d repai r o f equipment . Th e revise d definitio nspecifie s tha t i t mus t b e technicall yfeasibl e t o clea r proces s materia l fro mth e uni t consisten t withi nsafet yconstraint s an d tha t unde r certai n circumstance s unschedule d shutdown s o f mor e tha n2 4 hour s duratio n ar e no t classifie d a s a shutdown . Thes e condition s are ; (1 ) th e shutdow nmus t b e fo r a perio d shorte r tha n th e tim e require d t o clea r proces s material s an d star t up th e uni t an d (2 ) i t mus t resul t i ngreate r emission s tha n delaying th e repai r unti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Th e delayo f repai r provision s i nth e negotiate d standar d als o includ e th e othe r type s o f delayo f repai r provision s i nth e existing standards . Th e negotiate d standar d woul d allo wdelayo f repai r fo r spare d equipmen t tha t doe s no t remai ni nVHA P service . Delayo f repai r woul d als o b e allowe d fo r valves , connectors , an d agitator s i f th e owne r o r operato r show s tha t emission s o f purge d material s fro mrepai r woul d b e greate r tha nth e emission s likel yt o resul t fro

mdelayo f repair . Whe nth e equipmen t i s repaired , th e purge d materia l mus t b e destroye d o r recovere d i na contro l devic e tha t complie s wit hth e requiremen t fo r closed-ven t system s an d contro l devices . Delayo f repai r beyond a proces s uni t shutdow nfo r valve s woul d als o b e allowe d whe nunforesee ncircumstance s deplet e valv e assembl y supplies . Th e owne r o r operato r woul d hav e t o documen t tha t 10 2P. 5

valv e assembl ysupplie s had bee n sufficientl ystocked . Thi s delayo f repai r mayno t b e extende d beyond th e nex t proces s uni t shutdow

nunles s th e nex t shutdow noccur s soone r tha n6 month s afte r th e firs t shutdown . I t i s expecte d tha t thi s delayo f repai r provisio nwil l seldomb e used . A s wit hth e othe r type s o f equipment , delayo f repai r woul d b e allowe d fo r pump s tha t canno t b e repaire d withou t a proces s uni t shutdown . Dela yo f repair , u

p t o 6 month s afte r detecting a leak , woul d als o b e allowe d whe nth e owne r o r operato r determine s tha t repai r o f th e pum p require s require s replacemen t o f a SM S systemwit ha DM S system , a pum p wit hn o externall yactuate d shaft , o r a closed-ven t contro l system . Thi s provisio ndiffer s slightl yfro m th e presen t standard s i ntha t i t allow s dela yo f repai r fo r replacemen t o f singl e sea l pump s wit hothe r type s o f low leak technology . Dela yo f repai r i s no t expecte d fo r mos t situations , however , becaus e pump s ar e commonl yspared . G . Tes t Method s an d Procedure s Th e negotiate d standard basicall yretain s th e us e o f Metho d 2 1 t o detec t leak s o f organi c compound s fro m equipment ; however , severa l modification s wer e mad e t o th e existing procedures . Thes e modification s consis t o f change s t o th e calibratio ngase s required , additio no f procedure s fo r respons e facto r correction , an d additio no f procedure s fo r pressur e testing o f batc hprocesses . Th e base s fo r th e change s t o th e provision s ar e describe d i nthi s section . 10 3

EanP. 6

Metho d 2 1 specifie s procedure s fo r measuring th e 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 th e 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 , flow rate , an

d safety . Th e instrumen t detecto r mayb e an ytha t meet s th e 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 , infrare d absorption , an d photoionization . Althoughthes e detector s hav e bee nshow nt 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 universall yapplie d t o al l organi c compounds : some VHA P mayrequir e evaluatio no f othe r type s o f detectors . Th e negotiate d standard woul d requir e calibratio n o f th e portabl e organi c vapo r analyze r befor e eac hmonitorin g surveywit hcalibratio nga s mixture s consisting o f methan e an d ai r an

d wit hzer o gas . Fo r thi s standard , zer o ga s ha s bee nspecifie d a s containing les s tha n0. 2 ppm vVO C i nair . Zer o ga s wa s specifie d a t a concentratio nbelo wth e les s tha n1 0 ppm

vcriterio nuse d i nth e existing standard s i n 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 an

d 6 1 t o improve th e qualit yo f measurement s nea r 0 ppm . Th e negotiate d standard woul d als o requir e calibratio nwit hmixture s o f methan e i nai r a t concentration s nea r eac ho f th e variou s leak definitions . 10 4P. 7

Therefore , i nPhas e III , calibratio ngase s wit hVO 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

mmayb e require d a t some plan t sites , depending upo nth e equipmen t tha t i s i nuse . T o reduc e th e numbe r o f calibratio n gase s required , th e Committe e agree d t o allowth e optio no f using ananalyze r calibrate d a t a highe r concentration , up t o 2,00 0 ppm , fo r monitoring equipmen t subjec t t o a lowe r leak definition . Thi s provisio nwa s include d sinc e tha t procedur e wil l introduc e onl ya smal l positiv e bia s (i.e. , observe d value s wil l b e slightl yhighe r tha nactual ) i nth e instrumen t reading s an d th e result s woul d b e acceptabl e fo r demonstrating compliance . Th e negotiate d standard woul d als o limi t th e acceptabl e rang e o f respons e factors . Th e respons e facto r i s a facto r whic hadjust s fo r difference s i ninstrumen t sensitivit yo r respons e t o th e compound s being measure d an d t o th e 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 th e effec t o f th e standard i s no t significantl yaltere d b yth e instrumen t use d i nconducting th e monitoring survey s o r th e strea mcomposition . Correctio no f instrumen t reading s fo r respons e factor s i s require d wher e th e individua l respons e factors , a t 50 0 ppm , fo r th e VHA P tha t accoun t fo r 9 0 percent , o r more , b yweigh t o f organi c material s i nth e proces s strea mar e 3 o r greater . 10 5



### mmP. 8

Th e requiremen t wa s structure d i nthi s manne r t o avoi d impositio no f unproductiv e costs . Specifically , th e 9 0 percen t b

yweigh t criterio nwa s include d i norde 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 ycompounds , respons e factor s mayno t 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 represen t onl ya smal l fractio no f th e proces s strea mcomposition , i t wa s judge d inappropriat e t o requir e developmen t o f respons e factors . Th e provisio ni s include d a s a serie s o f check s o n compound s i nth e proces s stream s an d o nth e proces s streams . Th e step s ar e intende d t o eliminat e quickl ythos e stream s fo r whic hrespons e facto r correctio ni s obviousl y unnecessary . Th e firs t step look s a t th e individua l compound s use d i nth e process . I f n o compound i nth e proces s ha s a respons e facto r o f 3 o r greater , the nn o furthe r evaluatio ni s needed . Th e secon d step look s a t th e individua l stream s t o identif yan ytha t contai na n individua l compound o r hav e a weighte d averag e facto r tha t i s 3 o r greater . Th e third step look s a t stream s wit h weighte d averag e factor s o f 3 o r mor e an d consider s whethe r t o adjus t th e instrumen t reading s o r us e anothe r instrumen t o r calibratio ngas . Th e Committe e als o adde d procedure s fo r pressur e testing o f batc hproces s equipmen t t o th e negotiate d 10 6P. 9

standard . Thes e procedure s wer e derive d fro mgenera l industrypractic e an d experienc e wit hga s an d liqui d pressur e test s o nequipmen t an d EPAexperienc e wit htesting tank truck s an

d railcar s fo r vapor-tightnes s demonstration . Th e negotiate d standard als o woul d specif ytha t Metho d 1 8 i s t o b e use d t o determin e th e VHA P conten t o f proces s fluid s wheneve r tha t i s i nquestion . Metho d 1 8 i s a genera l procedur e fo r ga s chromatographi c analysi s o f organi c compounds . Th e metho d canb e use d t o analyz e roughl y9 0 percen t o f gaseou s organi c compound s emitte d b y sources . I nmos t cases , engineering calculations , knowledg e o f th e process , o r analyse s o f th e proces s shoul d provid e sufficien t demonstratio no f VHA P conten t an d Metho d 1 8 analysi s wil l no t b e required . H . Recordkeeping an d Reporting Owner s o r operator s o f a proces s uni t tha t woul d b e covere d b

yth e negotiate d standard ar e subjec t t o th e recordkeeping an

d reporting requirement s o f th e standar d a s wel l a s thos e prescribe d i nth e propose d Genera l Provision s (Subpar t A ) o f 4 0 CFRpar t 63 . Complianc e wit hth e standard s wil l b e assesse d throughinspection s a t th e plan t sit e an d revie wo f record s an d report s tha t documen t implementatio no f th e requirements . 1 . Recordkeeping Record s o f leak detection , repai r attempts , an d maintenanc e fo r leaking equipmen t woul d b e require d b yth e 10 7



### warnP.1 0

negotiate d standard . Thes e record s consis t o f th e informatio nneede d t o documen t complianc e with : (1 ) wor k practic e standards , (2 ) equipmen t standards , (3 ) operationa l standards , (4 ) emissio nstandards , an d (5 ) informatio n require d fo r equipmen t subjec t t o a QIP . Thes e record s ar e als o necessaryfo r evaluating th e effectivenes s o f repai r efforts . Fo r equipmen t subjec t t o equipmen t standards , record s woul d b e require d o f th e 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 woul d b e require d o f th e locatio n an

d typ e o f equipment , th e design specifications , an

d th e monitoring parameters . I nman yrespects , th e recordkeeping requirement s woul d b e simila r t o thos e i nth e existing standard s fo r equipmen t leaks . Some difference s betwee nth e standard s resul t fro m th e additiona l provision s o f th e negotiate d standard whil e other s resul t fro

mchange s mad e t o clarif yth e requirements . I naddition , change s wer e mad e t o simplif yth e recordkeeping requirement s an

d t o reduc e th e associate d burden . Thes e record s mus t b e maintaine d fo r a perio d o f 2 year s i na readil yaccessibl e recordkeeping systeman d mad e availabl e t o th e EPAupo nrequest . Thi s systemmayb e maintaine d b

yphysicall ylocating th e record s a t th e plan t sit e o r b

yaccessing th e record s fro ma centra l locatio nb y computer .

10 8P.1 1

2 . Reporting Th e negotiate d standard woul d requir e a ninitia l repor t an d semiannua l report s o f leak detectio nan d repai r effort s a s wel l a s notification s o f initiating monthl ymonitoring o r a QI P fo r valve s o r pumps . Th e initia l repor t i s t o b e submitte d fo r existing proces s units , o r ne wproces s unit s wit hstartu

p date s preceding th e effectiv e dat e o f th e negotiate d rule , withi n9 0 day s afte r th e (earliest ) applicabilit ydat e covering tha t proces s unit . Th e initia l repor t fo r al l othe r ne wproces s unit s woul d b e submitte d wit hth e applicatio nfo r approva l o f construction , reconstruction , o r modificatio na s require d b yth e Genera l Provisions . Thi s initia l repor t woul d notif yth e Administrato r tha t th e proces s uni t i s (or wil l be ) subjec t t o thi s subpar t an

d identif yth e proces s unit , numbe r an d typ e o f equipmen t components , an d th e metho d o f complianc e fo r eac hpiec e o f equipment . Th e planne d monitoring schedul e fo r eac htyp e o f equipmen t i neac hphas e woul d als o b e required . Th e semiannua l repor t i s t o includ e informatio no n th e number s o f leaking an d non-leaking components ; leak frequencie s o f pumps , valves , an d connectors ; attempt s t o repair ; reason s fo r delayo f repair ; proces s uni t shutdowns ; an d change s i nth e informatio nsubmitte d i nth e initia l report . Th e report s shal l als o includ e th e result s o f performanc e test s conducte d withi nth e reporting perio d fo r 10 9

__•_____________-___•___•__

_P.1 2

equipmen t subjec t t o a 50 0 pp mperformanc e standar d an d notification s o f initiatio no f monthl ymonitoring o r QI P fo r valve s o r pumps .

En do f Equipment Leak s Part o f th e Notic e

11 0