To: Karen Rackley, EPA/SPPD

From: Kristin Parrish and David Randall

Subject: Data and Assumptions used in the Equipment Leaks Cost Analysis for the SOCMI

I. Introduction

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing the new source

performance standards (NSPS) for equipment leaks of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the

synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry (SOCMI) (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) and

the petroleum refining industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG). One regulatory option wouldlower the leak definition for pumps from 10,000 parts per million (ppm) to 2,000 ppm and lower

the leak definition for valves from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm; the option would apply to new or

reconstructed process units as of the date of proposal. This option is consistent with the

standards in various other equipment leak rules. Another regulatory option would add

connectors to the monitoring program (with a leak definition of 500 ppm).

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the assumptions and methodology used

to determine the costs and VOC emission reduction impacts for new or reconstructed process

units in the SOCMI in the fifth year after proposal for the two options: 1) lowering the leak

definitions for pumps and valves and 2) Option 1 plus requiring monitoring of coimectors. The

results can be summarized as follows:

Incremental Emissions Incremental Annualized Incremental CostOption Reduction (Mg/yr) Cost ($/yr) Effectiveness (S/Mg)

1 230 72,000 310

2 480 680,000 1,400

II. Number of Impacted Process Units

We used SRI Consulting’s 2004 Directory ofChemical Producers: United States to

estimate the number of currently operating process units in the SOCMI) There areapproximately 1,272 process units that manufacture chemicals listed in §60.489 of subpart VV.

This estimate is based on the total number of manufacturing sites listed in the SRI Directory for

310 of the chemicals listed in subpart VV; the other 68 are not listed in the 2004 SRI directory).

Each site that manufactures a particular chemical was assumed to have one process unit for that

chemical; several sites have multiple process units because they manufacture more than one

turning knowledge in to practice
if they are located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Process units

manufacturing one of the chemicals listed in Table I to subpart

F of the HON would be subject

to the equipment leak standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, of the HON if they use or produce

an organic HAP as a reactant or a product and are located at a facility that is a major source of

HAP emissions. For convenience in the discussion that follows, all of the process units that

manufacture ethylene or a chemical listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart F, are referred to

as “HON sources” or are considered to be “manufacturing HON chemicals,” even if they do not

meet the specified criteria to be subject to the above NESHAP. The remaining 393 process units

are assumed to he manufacturing chemicals that would be subject to the NESHAP for

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) if they

use, process, or generate HAP and are located at major sources of HAP emissions. For

convenience in the discussion that follows, these 393 process units are collectively referred to as

“MON sources” or are considered to be “manufacturing MON chemicals,” even if they do not

meet the criteria to be subject to the MON.

To project the number of new and reconstructed process units at SOCMI facilities over

the next five years, we assumed the industry growth rate (for both new and reconstructed process

units) would parallel the growth in gross domestic product (GDP). According to several sources,

GDP annual growth projection estimates range from 2.7 percent 2to 3.1 percent. 34 Based on

these data, we estimated the overall SOCMI growth rate to be 3 percent per year. Using this

growth rate, we estimate there will be 191 new or reconstructed process units in the SOCMI over

the next five years. However, not all of these process units will be impacted by amendments to

the NSPS subpart VV; as previously mentioned, some of these units are subject to the HON, the

MON, or the Ethylene NESHAP. The impacts of proposing Option 1 or Option 2 as

amendments to subpart VV will be different for the components on each process unit depending

on what Federal rules already require monitoring at these lower leak definitions or monitoring of

connectors. We developed seven scenarios in order to track which process units will be

impacted by each option; these seven include separate scenarios for new and reconstructed

process units to accurately estimate initial costs. Reconstructed units that are covered under an

LDAR program prior to reconstruction will have fewer initial costs, particularly those associated

with identifying the components, updating the tracking software, and other related tasks. See

Table I for a more detailed explanation of the scenarios and section IV of this memorandum for

further details on the cost analysis.

We used several assumptions to determine how many units will he represented by each

scenario. First, we assumed that the 191 process units constructed or reconstructed in the next

five years will be split between HON sources and MON sources in the same ratio as the 1,272

existing process units. Second, we used EPA’s 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)’ and

the Envirofacts Data Warehouse 6to determine how many process units are located at area

sources and, therefore, not subject to any NESHAP. See Attachment 1 for the details of this

2
remaining 393 process units, those making MON chemicals, emit only non-HAP volatile organic compounds (VOCs). However, we do not have detailed process descriptions or other information regarding the manufacture of these chemicals. Therefore, we assumed that a small

percentage (20 percent) of the MON process units at major sources are emitting only VOC, not HAP. Fourth, given the relatively high projected growth rate and the potentially unusually high demand for ethanol as fuel, we assumed that new units would predominate in a 60/40 split with reconstructed units over the next 5 years.

The fifth assumption involved the differences in definitions of “new” and “reconstructed” affecting sources subject to the MON and subpart VV. The definitions of “new” and

“reconstructed” in §63.2440(c) ofthe MON are more limited than the definitions included in the General Provisions to subpart 60. In other words, a process unit that would be subject to subpart VV would not necessarily be considered a new source for purposes of complying with the MON. Therefore, these process units would be affected by any proposed amendments to subpart VV. To be a new affected source under the MON, the potential HAP emissions for the individual

process unit alone must be above the major source thresholds of 10 tons/yr for any single HAP or 25 tons/yr for collective HAP. Given this high threshold, we assumed that only 20 percent of the new and reconstructed process units at existing major source facilities subject to the MON would

meet the definition of “new” or “reconstructed” in §63.2440(c). (This assumption only affects the impacts of Option 2; process units subject to existing source standards under the MON currently have to monitor pumps and valves under an LDAR program equivalent to Option I, but they do not currently have to monitor connectors.) By applying the above calculations to the 191 estimated new and reconstructed process units, we estimate that 39 new and reconstructed

process units will be impacted by amendments to subpart VV (see Attachment 2 for a pictorial representation of the calculations and the resulting estimate).

To determine the number of pumps, valves, and other components on each process unit, we used the component counts for our model SOCMI process units using the simple, medium, and complex models developed for the HON. 7 See Attachment 3 for these component counts. We also assumed that the distribution of these models in the SOCMI is the same as the distribution developed for the HON analysis (33 percent simple, 52 percent medium, and 17 percent complex). 8These process units were divided among the seven scenarios described above; the same calculations were used to perform this division as described in the previous paragraph. It is important to note that a majority of the costs and all ofthe emissions estimates

are determined on a component basis; the appropriate impacts are distributed among the seven scenarios as described in Table I.

3
programs. We began by examining valve emissions data collected for the HON residual risk

analysis (see Attachment 4)9 The average leak frequency from this analysis (0.51 percent) was

selected as the leak frequency for an LDAR program controlling valves at 500 ppm. We then

used infonnation from a similar analysis we performed to examine the impacts of these sameregulatory options on the petroleum refining industry.’ 0The leak frequencies for refineries were

estimated based on information in the 1997 American Petroleum Institute report Analysis ofRefinery Screening Data, 1’a U.S. EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)

publication Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing ‘Fugitive Emissions’

Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs, 2 and a number of assumptions as documented in

the impacts analysis memorandum for petroleum refineries.’ 0

To estimate the leak frequency for SOCMI valves under a baseline LDAR program, we

assumed the ratio of baseline to Option 1 leak frequencies would be the same for SOCMI sources

as for refineries. Similarly, to estimate SOCMT baseline and Option I pump leak frequencies, we

assumed that the leak frequency ratios between pumps and valves estimated for refineries would

also apply to the SOCMI. Attachment 5 presents the estimated leak frequencies for bothrefineries and SOCMI sources as well as a sample calculation for how each leak frequency was

determined.

Average emission rates per pump and per valve under the baseline and Option 1 LDAR

programs were estimated using the correlation equations in Table 2-9 of the ProtocolforEquipment Leak Emission Estimates (the Protocol document).’ 3The relevant data from the

Protocol document and Analysis ofRefinery Screening Data are reproduced in Attachment 6. In

addition, the analysis uses the following procedures and assumptions:

$ 10 screening value ranges were selected as shown in Attachment 7 (e.g., see

page 2 of Attachment 7),

$ within each screening value range, the average screening value was assumed to be

one-third ofthe way above the lower end of the range (e.g., 665 ppm for leaksbetween 500 and 1,000 ppm),

$ the total percentage of valves and pumps leaking above the applicable leak

definition over a monitoring cycle was assumed to be equal to one-half of the leak

frequency just prior to monitoring,

$ the percentage of valves or pumps with screening values within each range above

the leak definition is proportional to the distribution for uncontrolled equipment

with screening values above that leak definition as presented in Figures B-3-2 to

B-3-4 in the Protocol document (similarly, the percentages in screening valueranges below the applicable leak definition were assumed to be proportional to the

distribution of screening values for uncontrolled equipment with screening values

below that leak definition), and

4
determine repair costs). However, U.S. EPA NEIC data on leak frequencies for valves at

17 refineries (as documented in Enforcement Alert) suggest the actual percentage leaking may be higher. We estimated that the actual percentage leaking is 1.7 times higher than typically

measured leak frequencies. This factor represents the 10th percentile of the data set (i.e.,

90 percent of the NEIC leak frequencies were at least 1.7 times higher than the leak frequencies reported by the refmeries). We chose to use a conservative flictor because the report did not

include information such as the leak definition used by each of the refineries, and all

17 refineries may not be representative of the entire petroleum refining industry or the SOCMI.

See Data and Assumptions used in the Equipment Leaks Cost Analysis/or Petroleum Refineries

for additional information on the calculation of this factor. 1°

Our emissions calculations for pumps and valves are documented in Attachment 7. All

calculations are based on the leak frequency distributions presented in Figures B-3-2 to B-3-4 in

the Protocol document. For each type of component, there are five sets of calculations:

Set I — Emissions, no control

The Protocol document leak frequency distributions estimated for pumps and

valves are used to obtain an emissions estimate. This calculation was performed

only to validate the procedure by showing it estimates uncontrolled emissions

close to the average uncontrolled emission factors presented in Table 2-1 of the

Protocol document.

Set 2 — Leak frequency distributions prior to monitoring, baseline leak definition

The leak frequencies estimated for pumps and valves at 10,000 ppm (as described

above) are used to scale the Protocol document distributions for the LDAR

program currently required by subpart VV.

Set 3 - Average emissions, control at baseline leak definition

The Set 2 leak frequencies in concentration ranges above 10,000 ppm are divided

by 2 to estimate the average emissions between monitoring events with a leak

definition of 10,000 ppm.

Set 4 — Leak frequency distributions prior to monitoring, proposed leak definition

The leak frequencies estimated for pumps and valves at the applicable proposed

leak definition (as described above) are used to scale the Protocol document

distributions for an LDAR program with leak definitions of 500 and 1,000 ppm,

depending on the type of component.

Set 5 — Average emissions, control at proposed leak definition

The Set 5 leak frequencies for ranges that are above the appropriate proposed leak

definition for each type of component are divided by 2 to estimate the average

emissions between monitoring events for that control program.

5
factor to a per-component basis. The emission factors estimated in Set 3 and Set 5 are the factors

used to calculate incremental emissions reduction.

Connectors

The leak frequency data presented in Revised MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and

Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaks at C’he,nical Manufacturing Facilities were used as the

starting point for the connectors analysis. 14 This memorandum summarizes initial leak

frequency data for connectors at various types of chemical manufacturing plants that were

conducting their first round of monitoring under an LDAR program. The average leak frequency

(normalized to a leak definition of 500 ppm) was determined to be 0.36 percent. We assumed

this value represents the baseline leak frequency for connectors at SOCMI sources that become

subject to subpart VV. Because this value is less than the performance level of 0.5 percent in the

HON, we made the conservative assumption that subsequent leak frequencies under an LDAR

program based on Option 2 would be the same as the initial leak frequency. However, we also

assumed that these leaking connectors would be fixed so that the average leak frequency over

each monitoring cycle would be equal to one-half of the subsequent leak frequency (i.e.,

0.18 percent). Similar to the analysis for pumps and valves, the NEIC factor of 1.7 was applied

to these leak frequencies for purposes of calculating emission factors. As an alternative to the

emission estimation procedure described above for pumps and valves, we used the average leak

rate equation for connectors at 500 ppm in Table 5-4 of the Protocol document to estimate the

baseline and Option 2 emission factors. The results using this much simpler approach are nearly

the same as using the procedure described above.

IV. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis methodology was originally developed based on information contained

in Impactsfrom the Control of VHAP Emissions from Equipment Leaks in Non-SOMI Process

Units for HON. 15 The methodology has been tailored specifically for this analysis of the

SOCMI. For example, we estimated costs only for pumps, valves, and connectors (including

associated planning and administrative costs) because all other costs would be constant for

implementing either regulatory option. We also assumed there would be no initial costs for

purchasing software to track monitoring or renting or purchasing monitoring equipment because

chemical manufacturers have already purchased or made arrangements for those items under the

current LDAR requirements.

Attachment 8 contains most of the constant values and information used in developing

our cost estimates. Several constant values used in this analysis were developed for previous

analyses and are documented in Impactsfrom the Control of VHAP Emissions from Equipment

6
$17.70 per component was developed for a Group IV Polymers and Resins

NESHAP cost analysis, and it includes initial set-up, tagging of the pumps and

valves, and updating the software. The value also assumes that contractors are

performing this work. 16

$ Initial cost of monitoring components in heavy liquid service: The value of $1.13

per component was used in the cost analysis spreadsheets for the Group IV

$ Monitoring

Polymers and

fee:

Resins

The value

NESHAP.’ 7

of $1.50 per component is an updated value based on

information provided by a monitoring and repair contractor. 18

$ Wage (chemical manufacturing maintenance) and overhead factor: maintenance

and repair: We are assuming that monitoring and many first attempts at repair

will be performed by contractors. The value of $24.30 per hour is the mean wage

rate for Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code 49-90 12 (control and

valve installers, except mechanical doors) in NAICS 325 (Chemical

Manufacturing) in the November 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Employment and Wage Estimates. 19 This wage rate is for chemical

manufacturing personnel, not contractors, so it is likely to be higher than the

actual wage rate. We are also assuming a 50 percent overhead factor (which

correlates to an overhead factor of 1.5).

$ Overhead factor: administration, planning, and training: These tasks would be

performed by chemical manufacturing personnel. We are assuming a 50 percent overhead factor (which correlates to an overhead factor of 1.5).

$ Planning and training labor charge: The value of $57.65 is an update of the

weighted average for technical, management, and clerical labor. The weighted

average assumes 5 hours of management time and 10 hours of clerical effort per

100 hours of technical labor. The updated values were selected from the

November 2004 BLS Employment and Wage Estimates.’ 9The technical rate is

based on the mean wage for enviromnental engineers ($33.92), the management

rate is based on the mean wage for general and operations managers ($56.75), and

the clerical rate is based on the mean for all office and administrative support

occupations ($16.67).

A 50 percent overhead factor was added to these rates.

$ Capital recovery factors: Equation 2.8a in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost

Manual 2°was used to calculate the capital recovery factors (CRF [i * (l+i))J /

— 1], where i is the interest rate and

n is the life span in years). For pump seals, we assumed a life span of 5 years, and for all other equipment and initial

labor, we assumed a life span of 10 years. For both factors, we assumed an

interest rate of 7 percent.

$ VOC Recovery Credit: We estimated a typical recovery credit of $900 per

megagram (Mg). This value is an estimate based on prices for a number of

solvents and intermediates provided by Platts. 21’2 Actual chemical prices vary

7
recovery credit is included in the input values in Attachment 8, and the

intermediate results show estimates of the impacts including the recovery credit

for two scenarios in Option 1. However, we did not include the VOC recovery

credit in our final cost and cost-effectiveness estimates as presented in this

memorandum.

Process unit-based costs

$ Planning and training for LDAR program, current NSPS level: The value of

320 hours per process unit is based on an estimate of318 hours of initial

administration, planning, and training to implement a SOCMI-hased LDAR

program for greater than 500 total components (documented in Attachment 7 to

Equipment Leak Analysisfor Amino and Phenolic Resins AIESHAP). 23

$ Planning and training for LDAR program, current MACT level: The value of

330 hours per process unit is based on an estimate of 340 hours of initial

administration, planning, and training to implement an LDAR program that

includes connector monitoring for greater than 500 total components (documented

in Attachment 7 to Equipment Leak A nalysis jrAmino and Phenolic Resins

NESHAP). 23 We assumed that monitoring at a lower leak definition but not

including connectors in the LDAR program would require a level of effort

between the estimates of 320 and 340 hours.

$ Planning and training for LDAR program, including connectors: The value of

340 hours per process unit is based on the estimate for initial administration,

planning, and training to implement an LDAR program that includes connector

monitoring for greater than 500 total components (documented in Attachment 7 to

Equipment Leak Analysis for Amino and Phenolic Resins NESIIAP): 3

$ Administrative and reports for LDAR program, current NSPS level: The value of

85 hours per process unit is based on an estimate of 85 hours of subsequent

administration and reporting to implement a SOCMI-based LDAR program for

greater than 500 total components (documented in Attachment 7 to Equipment

Leak A nalysis for Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP). 3

$ Administrative and reports for LDAR program, current MACT level: The value of

95 hours per process unit is based on an estimate of 104 hours of subsequent

administration and reporting to implement an LDAR program that includes

connector monitoring for greater than 500 total components (documented in

Attachment 7 to Equipment Leak Analysis for Amino and Phenolic Resins

NESHAP). 23 We assumed that monitoring at a lower leak definition but not

including connectors in the LDAR program would require a level of effort

between the estimates of 85 and 104 hours.

8
Attachment 9 shows the three sets of cost calculations for each of the three models. The

first set is the baseline case for process units that become subject to subpart VV if no changes are made to the current rule. The parameters include a leak definition of 10,000 ppm, monthly monitoring for pumps, annual monitoring for valves (assuming the owner or operator chooses to

use the “skip period” monitoring provisions in §60.483 -2), and no connector monitoring. The second set shows the costs for Option I and Option 2. The parameters include leak definitions of

500 and 2,000 ppm, monthly monitoring for pumps, semiannual monitoring for valves (assuming the owner or operator chooses to use the “skip period” monitoring provisions in §60.483-2), and monitoring once every four years for connectors. The third set of calculations is specifically for

process units currently complying with subpart VV that will meet the definition of

“reconstructed” in the next five years. This set assumes that the leak frequency for the first

monitoring occurrence at a lower leak definition, or the initial leak frequency, will be higher than the subsequent leak frequencies. (The initial leak frequencies are calculated in Attachment 6 andsummarized in Attachment 5.) All other parameters are the same as the second set. (The final

page of this attachment includes an alternative presentation of the method for calculating the impacts of Option 2.)

The last step in the analysis includes determining which initial costs, annual costs,

monitoring frequencies, and other parameters should be applied to each of the seven scenarios

described in section II of this memorandum. Table 1 summarizes the values and parameters defined for each of these scenarios. The baseline, Option 1, and Option 2 costs for each of these

seven scenarios are presented in Attachment 10.

V. Results

The results of the impacts analysis are summarized in Table 2; more detailed results are

also presented in Attachment 11. Results for all seven scenarios are shown, but as expected, there are no emissions reductions or increased costs for the process units already subject to any NESHAP that has requirements equivalent to the options presented in this memorandum. Only the impacts on 17 process units affect the cost-effectiveness result for Option I; the impacts on 71 process units impact the cost-effectiveness result for Option 2.

9
Table 1. Parameters for Each ofthe SOCMI Scenarios

Scenario New units Reconstructed Reconstructed New units Reconstructed New units 

subject to units subject to units (MON (GP def.) units (GP def.) subject to 

HON/MON HON/ethylene def) subject to subject to subject to NSPS 

ethylene MON MON MON

Leak

definition:

Pumps 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 

Valves 500 500 500 500 500 10,000 

Connectors 500 500 500 N/A N/A N/A 

V

C,,

Monitoring

frequency:

Pumps Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly 

Valves Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Annual 

Connectors Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs N/A N/A N/A 

Initial leak Yes — No — Initial No — Initial Yes — No — Initial Yes — 

frequency/ Program costs would costs would Program costs would Program 

costs starts at set have been have been starts at have been starts at set 

leak incurred at incurred at lower leak incurred at leak 

definitions: construction or construction or definitions; construction or definitions; 

initial leak reconstruction reconstruction initial leak reconstruction initial leak 

frequency is frequency is frequency is

same as same as same as

subsequent subsequent subsequent

leak leak leak

frequency frequency frequency

Planning and 340 hours per 340 hours per 340 hours per 330 hours per 330 hours per 320 hours 

training costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process 

unit

Administrative 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 95 hours per 95 hours per 85 hours per 

report costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit 

10
Table 1. (Continued)

Scenario New units Reconstructed Reconstructed New units Reconstructed New units 

subject to units subject to units (MON (GP def.) units (GP def.) subject to 

HON/MON HON/ethylene def.) subject to subject to subject to NSPS 

ethylene MON MON MON

Leak

definition:

Pumps 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000a 

Valves 500 500 500 500 500 500 

Connectors 500 500 500 N/A N/A N/A 

C

C,

0

Monitoring

frequency:

Pumps Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly 

Valves Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual 

Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs N/A N/A N/A 

Initial leak Yes — No — Initial No — Initial Yes — No — Initial Yes — 

frequency/ Program costs would costs would Program costs would Program 

costs starts at set have been have been starts at have been starts at set 

leak incurred at incurred at lower leak incurred at leak 

definitions; construction or construction or definitions: construction or definitions; 

initial leak reconstruction reconstruction initial leak reconstruction initial leak 

frequency is frequency is frequency is 

same as same as same as

subsequent subsequent subsequent

leak leak leak

frequency frequency frequency

Planning and 340 hours per 340 hours per 340 hours per 330 hours per 330 hours per 330 hours 

training costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process 

unit

Administrative 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 95 hours per 95 hours per 95 hours per 

report costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit 

11
Table 1. (Continued)

a Cost analysis performed with pump leak definition of 1.000 ppm; see section III of this memorandum.

Scenario New units Reconstructed Reconstructed New units Reconstructed New units 

subject to units subject to units (MON (OP def.) units (OP def.) subject to 

HON/MON HON/ethylene def.) subject to subject to subject to NSPS 

ethylene MON MON MON

Leak

definition:

Pumps 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000a 

Valves 500 500 500 500 500 500 

Connectors 500 500 500 500 500 500 

C

0

Monitoring

frequency:

Pumps Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly 

Valves Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual 

Connectors Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs 

Initial leak Yes — No — Initial No — Initial Yes Partial — Only Yes — 

frequency/ Program costs would costs would Program includes initial Program 

costs starts at set have been have been starts at costs for starts at set 

leak incurred at incurred at lower leak adding leak 

definitions; construction or construction or definitions: connectors to definitions; 

initial leak reconstruction reconstruction initial leak program initial leak 

frequency is frequency is frequency is 

same as same as same as 

subsequent subsequent subsequent

leak leak leak

frequency frequency frequency

Planning and 340 hours per 340 hours per 340 hours per 340 hours per 340 hours per 340 hours 

training costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process 

unit

Administrative 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours 

report costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process 

unit

12
Table 2. Summary of Impacts for the SOCMIa

New units Reconstructed Reconstructed New units Reconstructed New units Recons

F subject to units subject units (MON (GP def.) units (GP def.) subject to units su

ac or HON/MON to HON! def.) subject subject to subject to NSPS to NSP

ethylene ethylene to MON MON MON

Baseline costs, $/yr 3 2,100,000 700,000 73,000 400,000 [ 180,000 450,000 200

OPTION 1

Emission reduction. 0 0 0 0 0 140 9

Mg/yr

Option 1 costs, 5/yrb 2,100,000 700,000 73,000 400,000 180,000 480,000 240

Incremental costs, 0 0 0 0 0 33,000 40,

S/yr

Cost effectiveness, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 240 44

S/Mg removed

OPTION 2

Emission reduction, 0 0 0 67 45 220 15

Mg/yr

Option 2 costs, $/yrb 2,100,000 700,000 73,000 560,000 290,000 680,000 370

Incremental costs, 0 0 0 170,000 110,000 230,000 170

S/yr

Cost effectiveness, N/A N/A N/A 2,500 2,400 1,000 1,1

S/Mg removed

a Costs and emissions reductions may not sum exactly due to rounding. b Costs are only ongoing costs for pumps and valves.

Costs are only ongoing costs for pumps, valves, and connectors (if applicable), initial repair costs for pumps and valves with leaks between 

and 10,000 ppm, and for planning and training to implement the Option rcquiremcnts.

13
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001-2010.

3. The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. January 2006. The

Budget and Economic Outlook. Fiscal Years 2007-2016.

4. U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Adminisfration. July 2005. “World

Energy and Economic Outlook.” International Energy Outlook 2005. DOE/ETA

0484(2005). http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo05/pdf/0484(2005).pdf.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI), Final

Version 1. February 2006. http://www .epa.gov/ttn!chief/net!2002inventory.html.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts Data Warehouse.

http ://www.epa. gov/enviro/.

7. U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 1992. Hazardous

Air Pollutant Emissions froni Process Vents in the Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry -Background Information for Proposed Standards, Volume ]C.

EPA-453/D-92-0 1 6c.

8. U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 1992. Hazardous

Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Vents in the Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manifacturing industry Background Informationfor Proposed Standards, Volume IA.

EPA-453/D-92-0 1 6a.

9. Memorandum from R. Oommen, Eastern Research Group, to Randy McDonald, USEPA,

OAQPS. June 1, 2006. Cost and Emission Reductions ofLeakless Valves fOr HON

Facilities. Docket Items EPA-HQ-OAR-2005 -0475-0105 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0475-0105.1.

10. Memorandum from K. Parrish, D. Randall, and J. Coburn, RTI International, to K.

Rackley, EPA/SPPD. October 30, 2006. Data and Assumptions used in the Equipment

Leaks Cost Analysis for Petroleum Refineries.

II. American Petroleum Institute, Health and Environmental Affairs Department. November

1997. Analysis ofRefinery Screening Data. Prepared by Hal Taback Company.

Publication Number 310.

14
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. EPA-453/R-95-017.

14. Memorandum from B. Shine, North State Engineering, Inc., and M. Icenhour and D.

Randall, RTI International, to MON Project Files. May 5, 2003. Revised MACTF1oor,

Regulatoiy Alternatives, and Nationwide Inzpactsfor Equiiment Leaks at chemical

Manzfacturing Facilities. Docket No. A-96-04, Item No. IV-B-3; also Docket Item

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003 -0121-0004.

15. Memorandum from D.J. Whitt, Radian, to D. Markwordt, EPA/CPB. June 5, 1991.

Impactsfrom the Control of VI-JAP Emissionsfrom Equipment Leaks in IVon-SOcMI

Process Unitsfor HON. Docket No. A-90-20, Item No. II-B-7.

16. Memorandum to Group IV Polymers and Resins Docket. December 2000. Responses to

Co,m,,;ients. Docket No. A-92-45, Item No. IXc-C-1.

17. Memorandum from K. Barnett, EPA/OAQPS/ESD/OCG, to Group IV Polymers and

Resins Docket A-92-45. December 2000. FinalAnalysis ofEquzment Leak Program

for PETfacilities Subject to the Group IVPolymer and Resins NESI-JAP. Docket No. A92-45, Item No. IXc-B-l.

18. Memorandum from K. Parrish to Docket File. March 27, 2006. Telephone Conference

between Kristin Parrish (‘R TI International) and Timothy Smith ‘TEAMIndustrial

Services, Inc.) regarding procedure and cost ofthe drill and iap method ofvalve repair.

19. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. November 2004. Occupational

Employment Statistics: November 2004 Employment and Wage Estimates.

http://www.bls. gov/oes/oes_2004_n.htm

20. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. January 2002. EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual. Sixth Edition. EPA/452/B-02-00 1.

21. Platts. March 14, 2006. Platts Solventswire. The McGraw Hill Companies, Volume 29,

Issue ii.

22. Platts. March 9, 2006. Plaits Intermediateswire. The McGraw Hill Companies, Volume

11, Issue 10.

23. Memorandum from K. Meardon, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., to J. Schaefer,

EPA/OCG. May 4, 1998. “Attachment 7: Leak Detection and Repair Cost Derivatives.”

15
16
Attachments
Attachment 1

Major/Area Source Analysis

Process units Process units

Number Facility at Area at Major

Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes

2 A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company Duluth MN Area 2 0 0

11 Aceto Corporation Piscataway NJ Unknown 0 0 *

Not in E

*

not in En

2 Adisseo USA Inc. Institute WV Unknown 0 0 2 part of Ba

1 Advanced Aromatics, L.P. Baytown TX Major 0 1 0

1 Agrium US Inc. Kenai AK Major 0 1 0

1 Agrium US Inc. Borger TX Major 0 1 0

10 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Pace FL Major 0 10 0

2 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Wichita KS Area 2 0 0

2 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Calvert City KY Major 0 2 0

1 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Geismar LA Area 1 0 0

4 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. St. Gabriel LA Major 0 4 0

2 Air Products and Chemicals. Inc. Pasadena TX Major 0 2 0

1 Akzo Nobel Axis AL Major 0 1 0

2 Akzo Nobel Chicago IL Unknown 0 0 2 * Not in E

1 Akzo Nobel Pasadena TX Major 0 1 0

1 Albemarle Corporation Magnolia AR Major 0 1 0

3 Albemarle Corporation Orangeburg SC Major 0 3 0

1 American Acryl Pasadena TX Area 1 0 0

3 ANGUS Chemical Company Sterlington LA Major 0 3 0

5 Arch Chemicals, Inc. Brandenburg KY Major 0 5 0

1 Arch Chemicals, Inc. Lake Charles LA Major 0 1 0

1 Ashland Specialty Chemical Company Kenova WV Major 0 1 0

11 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Riverview Ml Major 0 11 0

1 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Genesco NY Major 0 1 0

1 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Beaumont TX Major 0 1 0

2 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Houston TX Major 0 2 0

2 ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc. Port Arthur TX Major 0 2 0

1 Avecia Inc. Mount Pleasant TN Area 1 0 0

1 Baker Petrolite Corporation Taft LA Unknown 0 0 1 * May be 

1 Balchem Corporation Verona MO Major 0 1 0

2 BASE Corporation Gumee IL Area 2 0 0

10 BASE Corporation Geismar LA Major 0 10 0

1 BASF Corporation Washington NJ Area 1 0 0

1 BASE Corporation Rensselaer NY Area 1 0 0

1 BASE Corporation Spartanburg SC Major 0 1 0

10 BASE Corporation Freeport TX Major 0 10 0

4 BASE Corporation Pasadena TX Major 0 4 0

1 BASE Corporation Chemicals Div Ereeport TX Major 0 1 0

2 BASE Corporation Plastics and Fibers Div. Freeport TX Major 0 2 0

3 BASE EINA Petrochemicals LP Port Arthur TX Major 0 3 0

1 Bayer Chemicals Corporation Baytown TX Major 0 1 0

2 Bayer CropScience Institute WV Major 0 2 0

6 Bayer Polymers LLC Baytown TX Major 0 6 0

5 Bayer Polymers LLC New Martinsville WV Major 0 5 0

1 Bell Flavors & Fragrances Inc. Northbrook IL Area 1 0 0

Pct_Area
Process units Process units Number Facility at Area at Major Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Demopolis AL Area 1 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Hope AR Area 1 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Fremont CA Area 1 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Louisville KY Area 1 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Geismar LA Major 0 1 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Missoula MT Area 1 0 0 2 Borden Chemical, Inc. Fayetteville NC Area 2 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. South Glens Falls NY Area 1 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. La Grande OR Area 1 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Springfield OR Major 0 1 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Baytown TX Unknown 0 0 1 *

Not in E

1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Diboll TX Area 1 0 0 1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Sheboygan WI Major 0 1 0 2 BP America Inc. Decatur AL Major 0 2 0 2 BP America Inc. Joliet IL Major 0 2 0 1 BP America Inc. Whiting IN Area 1 0 0 4 BP America Inc. Lima OH Major 0 4 0 1 BP America Inc. Mount Pleasant SC Major 0 1 0 2 BP Amenca Inc. Alvin TX Major 0 2 0 4 BP America Inc. Green Lake TX Major 0 4 0 2 BP America Inc. Pasadena TX Area 2 0 0 5 BP America Inc. Texas City TX Major 0 5 0 1 Buckman Laboratories, Inc. Cadet MO Area 1 0 0 1 Buffalo Color Corporation Buffalo NY Major 0 1 0 I Cambrex Charles City, Inc. Charles City IA Major 0 1 0 1 Capital Resin Corporation Columbus OH Area 1 0 0 1 Carbide Industries Calvert City KY Major 0 1 0 *

Code 03 

1 Carbide Industries Louisville KY Area 1 0 0 permit, hig

1 Carbolabs, Inc. Bethany CT Unknown 0 0 1 *

Not in NE

1 Cargill Inc. Eddyville IA Major 0 1 0 1 Cedar Concepts Corp. Chicago IL Area 1 0 0 2 Celanese Acetate LLC Rock Hill SC Major 0 2 0 2 Celanese Acetate LLC Narrows VA Major 0 2 0 6 Celanese Ltd. Bay City TX Major 0 6 0 4 Celanese Ltd. Bishop TX Major 0 4 0 4 Celanese Ltd. Clear Lake TX Major 0 4 0 7 Celanese Ltd. Pampa TX Major 0 7 0 3 Celanese Ltd. Chemicals Division Bay City TX Major 0 3 0 1 Celanese Ltd. Chemicals Division Bishop TX Major 0 1 0 1 Celanese Ltd. Chemicals Division Pampa TX Major 0 1 0 1 CF Industries, Inc. Donaidsonville LA Major 0 1 0 1 Chattem Chemicals. Inc. Chattanoga TN Major 0 1 0 1 Chemical Products Technologies, LLC Cartersville GA Area 1 0 0 1 Chemtall, Inc Riceboro GA Major 0 1 0 2 Chevron Oronite Company LLC Belle Chasse LA Area 2 0 0

Pct_Area 
Process units Process units

Number Facility at Area at Major

Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes

2 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP St. James LA Major 0 2 0

3 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Pascagoula MS Major 0 3 0

2 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Guayama PR Area 2 0 0

2 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Baytown TX Major 0 2 0

5 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Borger TX Major 0 5 0

3 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Port Arthur TX Major 0 3 0

1 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Sweeny TX Major 0 1 0

2 ChevronPhillips Chemical Company Baytown TX Major 0 2 0

1 ChevronPhillips Chemical Company Port Arthur TX Major 0 1 0

1 ChevronTexaco Corporation Richmond CA Major 0 1 0 SIC 2911

1 Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation Suffolk VA Area 1 0 0

2 CITGO Petroleum Corporation Lemont IL Major 0 2 0

2 CITGO Petroleum Corporation Lake Charles LA Major 0 2 0

4 CITGO Petroleum Corporation Corpus Christi TX Major 0 4 0

1 Clariant Life Science Molecules (Amenca) Inc. Elgin SC Major 0 1 0

1 Clearon Corp. Theodore AL Unknown 0 0 1 *

Not in E

1 Coastal Chem, Inc. Cheyenne NY Major 0 1 0

I Cognis Corporation Charlotte NC Major 0 1 0

2 Cognis Corporation Cincinnati OH Major 0 2 0 *

Not in N

1 Concord Chemical Company, Inc. Camden NJ Area 1 0 0 info

1 ConocoPhillips Alliance LA Major 0 1 0

1 ConocoPhillips Borger TX Major 0 1 0

5 ConocoPhillips Sweeny TX Major 0 5 0

I ConocoPhillips Refining Wood River IL Major 0 1 0

1 ConocoPhillips Refining Alliance LA Major 0 1 0

1 ConocoPhillips Refining Sweeny TX Major 0 1 0

2 Cos-Mar Company Carville LA Major 0 2 0

1 Cyanco Co. Winnemuca NV Area 1 0 0

3 CyPlus Corporation Theodore AL Major 0 3 0

2 Cyro Industries Waggaman LA Area 2 0 0 * Not in N

4 Cytec Industries Inc. Waggaman LA Major 0 4 0

1 Cytec Industries Inc. Mount Pleasant TN Area 1 0 0

1 D.B. Westem, Inc. LaPorte TX Unknown 0 0 1 * Not in N

1 DAK Americas LLC Wilmington NC Major 0 1 0

3 Dakota Gasification Company Beulah ND Area 3 0 0

3 Degussa Corporation Theodore AL Major 0 3 0

1 Degussa Corporation Galena KS Area 1 0 0

1 Deltech Corporation Baton Rouge LA Major 0 1 0

1 Diaz Intermediates Corporation West Memphis AR Area 1 0 0

1 Dixie Chemical Company, Inc. Bayport TX Major 0 1 0

1 Dover Chemical Corporation Dover OH Area 1 0 0

1 Dow AgroSciences LLC Freeport TX Major 0 1 0

18 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Plaquemine LA Major 0 18 0

18 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Taft LA Major 0 18 0

Pct_Area 
Process units Process units Number Facility at Area at Major Processes Company city State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes 12 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Midland Ml Major 0 12 0 1 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Nashua NH Area 1 0 0 3 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Clear Lake TX Major 0 3 0 1 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Deer Park TX Major 0 1 0 32 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Freeport TX Major 0 32 0 2 Dow Chemical U.S.A. La Porte TX Major 0 2 0 5 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Oyster Creek TX Major 0 5 0 12 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Seadrift TX Major 0 12 0 19 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Texas City TX Major 0 ‘19 0 3 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Institute WV Major 0 3 0 1 Dow Chemical U.S.A. South Charleston WV Major 0 1 0 1 Dow Corning Corporation Carrollton KY Major 0 1 0 1 Dow Corning Corporation Midland MI Major 0 1 0 2 DSM Chemicals North America, Inc. Augusta GA Major 0 2 0 1 DTE Energy Services River Rouge MI Major 0 1 0 1 DuPont Louisville KY Major 0 1 0 1 DuPont Wurtland KY Major 0 1 0 4 DuPont La Place LA Major 0 4 0 9 DuPont Deepwater NJ Major 0 9 0 1 DuPont Memphis TN Major 0 1 0 1 DuPont Old Hickory TN Major 0 1 0 5 DuPont Beaumont TX Major 0 5 0 1 DuPont Corpus Christi TX Major 0 1 0 2 DuPont Orange TX Major 0 2 0 1 DuPont Victoria TX Major 0 1 0 5 DuPont Belle WV Major 0 5 0 1 DuPont Parkersburg VN Major 0 1 0 3 DynaChem, Inc. Georgetown IL Major 0 3 0 1 Dynea USA, Inc. Andalusia AL Area 1 0 0 1 Dynea USA, Inc. Winnfield LA Major 0 1 0 1 Dynea USA, Inc. Moncure NC Area 1 0 0 1 Dynea USA, Inc. Toledo OH Area 1 0 0 1 Dynea USA. Inc. Springfield OR Area 1 0 0 3 Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. Lenexa KS Unknown 0 0 3 *

Not in N

I Eastman Longview TX Major 0 1 0 2 Eastman Chemical Company Columbia SC Major 0 2 0 28 Eastman Chemical Company Kingsport TN Major 0 28 0 20 Eastman Chemical Company Longview TX Major 0 20 0 1 Eastman Resins Inc. Pleasant Prairie WI Major 0 1 0 1 El Dorado Chemical Company Cherokee AL Area 1 0 0 1 El Paso Energy Partners, L.P. St. Helens OR Area 1 0 0 1 Equistar Chemicals, LP Clinton IA Major 0 1 0 1 Equistar Chemicals, LP Morris IL Major 0 1 0 1 Equistar Chemicals, LP Tuscola IL Area 1 0 0 1 Equistar Chemicals, LP Sulphur LA Major 0 1 0 5 Equistar Chemicals, LP Alvin TX Major 0 5 0

Pct_Area 
Process units Process units

Number Facility at Area at Major

Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes

14 Equistar Chemicals, LP Bayport TX Major 0 14 0

6 Equistar Chemicals, LP Channelview TX Major 0 6 0

4 Equistar Chemicals, LP Corpus Christi TX Major 0 4 0

2 Equistar Chemicals, LP La Porte TX Major 0 2 0

17 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baton Rouge LA Major 0 17 0

4 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Chalmette LA Major 0 4 0

11 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown TX Major 0 11 0

5 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Beaumont TX Major 0 5 0

1 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Houston TX Major 0 1 0

1 Farmland Industries, Inc. Coffeyville KS Major 0 1 0

1 Farmland Industries, Inc. Lawrence KS Area 1 0 0

1 FBC Industries, Inc. Rochelle IL Area 1 0 0

5 Ferro Corporation Baton Rouge LA Major 0 5 0

2 Ferro Corporation Bridgeport NJ Major 0 2 0

4 First Chemical Corporation Pascagoula MS Major 0 4 0

2 First Chemical Corporation Baytown TX Area 2 0 0

8 Flint Hills Resources L.P. Corpus Christi TX Major ‘ 0 8 0

1 FMC Corporation Baltimore MD Major 0 1 0

1 FMC Corporation Bayport TX Major 0 1 0

2 Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Baton Rouge LA Major 0 2 0

7 Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Point Comfort TX Major 0 7 0

2 Frontier El Dorado Refining Company El Dorado KS Major 0 2 0

1 Gabriel Chemicals, L.L.C. Geismar LA Major 0 1 0

1 Gabriel Performance Products, L.L.C. Ashtabula OH Area 1 0 0

2 Gaylord Chemical Corporation Bogalusa LA Area 2 0 0

1 GE Company Mount Vernon IN Major 0 1 0

1 GE Specialty Chemicals Morgantown \W Area 1 0 0

2 Geismar Vinyls Company LP Geismar LA Major 0 2 0

1 General Electric Company Burkville AL Major 0 1 0

2 General Electric Company Mount Vernon IN Major 0 2 0

2 General Electric Company Selkirk NY Major 0 2 0

1 General Electric Company Waterford NY Major 0 1 0

1 General Electric Company GE Plastics Burkville AL Major 0 1 0

I General Electric Company GE Plastics Mount Vernon IN Major 0 1 0

1 GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Gibbstown NJ Major 0 1 0

1 GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Allentown PA Major 0 1 0

1 Geoliquids. Inc. Prospect Heights IL Unknown 0 0 1 * Not in E

2 Georgia Gulf Corporation Lake Charles LA Major 0 2 0

5 Georgia Gulf Corporation Plaquemine LA Major 0 5 0

4 Georgia Gulf Corporation Pasadena TX Major 0 4 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Crossett AR Major 0 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Vienna GA Area 1 0 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Grayling Ml Major 0 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Louisville MS Major 0 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Taylorsville MS Major 0 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Conway NC Major 0 1 0

Pct Area 
Process units Process units

Unknown Notes

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 *Not in N

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2 *

Not in En

0

0

0

0

o 1 *

Not in En

o o

o a

5 0

6 0

0

o 2 *

Not in En

o 0 *

Not in NE

5 0

o 0

0

Number Facility at Area at Major Processes Company City State Designation Source Source

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Denton NC Area 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Columbus OH Area 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Albany OR Area 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. White City OR Area 1 0

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Russellville SC Major 0 1

1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Lufkin TX Major 0 1

4 GFS Chemicals, Inc. Columbus OH Area 4 0

1 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Pasadena TX Major 0 1

3 Great Lakes Chemical Corporation El Dorado AR Major 0 3

1 Hatco Corporation Fords NJ Major 0 1

2 Hawkins Chemical, Inc. Minneapolis MN Area 2 0

3 Heico Chemicals Delaware Water Gap PA Area 3 0

1 Henkel Corporation Atlanta GA Unknown 0 0

3 Hercules Incorporated Louisiana MO Major 0 3

3 Hercules Incorporated Hopewell VA Major 0 3

1 Honeywell International Inc. El Segundo CA Major 0 1

1 Honeywell International Inc. Baton Rouge LA Major 0 1

3 Honeywell International Inc. Hopewell VA Major 0 3

1 Honeywell Specialty Chemicals Baton Rouge LA Major 0 1

2 HOVENSA, L.L.C St. Croix VI Major 0 2

1 Huntsman LLC Pensacola FL Area 1 0

2 Huntsman LLC Geismar LA Major 0 2

1 Huntsman LLC Alvin TX Area 1 0

1 Huntsman LLC Conroe TX Major 0 1

1 Huntsman LLC Odessa TX Major 0 1

3 Huntsman LLC Port Arthur TX Major 0 3

13 Huntsman LLC Port Neches TX Major 0 13

1 IMC Phosphates Company Faustina LA Major 0 1

2 INDOFINE Chemical Company Somerville NJ Unknown 0 0

2 INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia PA Major 0 2

1 INEOS Oxide Plaquemine LA Major 0 1

2 Ineos Phenol Theodore AL Major 0 2

2 Infineum U.S.A LP Linden NJ Major 0 2

1 Inolex Chemical Company Hopewell VA Unknown 0

1 International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. Jacksonville FL Area 1

I lntertrade Holdings, Inc. Copperhill TN Area 1

5 INVISTA Inc. Orange TX Major 0

6 INVISTA Inc. Victoria TX Major 0

1 J.R. Simplot Co. Pocatello ID Major 0

2 Jarchem Industries Inc. Newark NJ Unknown 0

I Javelina Company Corpus Christi TX Area 1

5 JLM Chemicals, Inc. Blue Island IL Major 0

2 Johnson Matthey, Inc. Ward Hill MA Area 2

1 Kao Specialties Americas LLC High Point NC Major 0

Pct Area 
Process units Process units

Number Facility at Area at Major

Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes *

Not in N

1 Kincaid Enterprises Inc. Nitro yIN Area

1

0

0 info

1 Koch Nitrogen Company Fort Dodge IA Major

0

1

0

1 Koch Nitrogen Company Dodge City KS Area

1

0

0

1 Koch Nitrogen Company Beatrice NE Major

0

1

0

1 Koch Nitrogen Company Enid OK Major

0

10

1 Koppers Inc. Cicero IL Major

0

1

0

3 KoSa Wilmington NC Major

0

3

0

1 Lomac, LLC Muskegon Ml Major

0

10

4 Lonza Inc. Bayport TX Major

0

4

0

2 Lucite International, Inc. Memphis TN Major

0

2

0

2 Lucite International. Inc. Beaumont TX Major

0

2

0

*

not in E

1 Lucite International, Inc. Belle tAW Unknown

0

0

1 DuPont

2 Lyondell Chemical Company Lake Charles LA Major

0

2

0

5 Lyondell Chemical Company Bayport TX Major

0

5

0

3 Lyondell Chemical Company Channelview TX Major

0

3

0

1 Lyondell Methanol Company, LP Channelview TX Major

0

1

0

4 Lyondell-Citgo Refining. LP Houston TX Major

0

4

0

1 MAK Chemical Corporation Muncie IN Area

1

0

0

2 Mallinckrodt Baker, Inc. Phillipsburg NJ Major

0

2

0

5 Mallinckrodt Inc. St. Louis MO Major

0

5

0

1 Mallinckrodt Inc. Raleigh NC Major

0

1

0

3 Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Catlettsburg KY Major

0

3

0

2 Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Texas City TX Major

0

2

0

1 MDA Manufacturing, Inc. Decatur AL Area

1

0

0

2 Merisol Antioxidants LLC Oil City PA Area

2

0

0

7 Merisol USA LLC Houston TX Major

0

7

0

3 Millennium Petrochemicals, Inc. La Porte TX Major

0

3

0

1 MissChem Nitrogen, L.L.C. Yazoo City MS Major

0

10

1 Monsanto Company Muscatine IA Major

0

1

0

1 Monsanto Company Luling LA Major

0

1

0

2 Morfiex, Inc. Greensboro NC Major

0

2

0

2 Motiva Enterprises LLC Delaware City DE Major

0

2

0

1 Nation Ford Chemical Co. Fort Mill SC Major

0

1

0

2 Nepera, Inc. Harriman NY Major

0

2

0

2 Niacet Corporation Niagara Falls NY Area

2

0

0

3 NOVA Chemicals Corp. Bayport TX Area

3

0

0

1 Noveon Inc. Charlotte NC Major

0

1

0

3 Noveon Inc. Cincinnati OH Area

3

0

0

7 Noveon Inc. Kalama WA Major

0

7

0

1 Occidental Chemical Corporation Convent LA Major

0

10

3 Occidental Chemical Corporation Niagara Falls NY Major

0

3

0

1 Occidental Chemical Corporation Corpus Christi TX Major

0

1

0

3 Old World Industries, Inc. Pasadena TX Major

0

3

0

1 ONDEO Nalco Chemical Company Garyville LA Major

0

1

0

Pct Area
Process units Process units

o *

Not in N

o 7 *

Not in E

o 8 *Not in E

*

Not in N

o 0 info

o o

1 0

1 0

o 1 *

Not in E

o 0

o 3 *

Not in N

3 0

6 0

1 0

1 0

4 0

o 0

o 1 * Not in E

1 0

o 0

o 0

o 0

2 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

8 0

1 0

4 0

o 0

o 0

1 0

5 0

1 0

2 0

6 0

Facility at Area at Major

Designation Source Source Unknown Notes

Unknown 0 0 2 *

Not in E

Major 0 2 0

Major 0 2 0

Major 0 1 0

Major 0 1 0

Major 0 1 0

Major 0 1 0

Major 0 4 0

Area 1 0 0

Number

Processes Company City State

2 Oxymar Ingleside TX

2 OxyVinyls LP Deer Park TX

2 OxyVinyls LP La Porte TX

1 PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. Augusta GA

1 PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. Geismar LA

1 PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. Woodstock TN

1 PCS Nitrogen Ohio, L.P. Lima OH

4 PD Glycol Beaumont TX

1 Pelron Corporation Lyons IL

1 Penn Carbose, Inc. Somerset PA Area 1

7 Penta Manufacturing Company East Hanover NJ Unknown 0

8 Penta Manufacturing Company Fairfield NJ Unknown 0

8 Penta Manufacturing Company Livingston NJ Area 8

3 Perstorp Polyols, Inc. Toledo OH Area 3

1 Pfizer Inc. Groton CT Major 0

1 Pfizer Inc. Chemical Division Holland MI Major 0

1 PHH Monomers Lake Charles LA Unknown 0

1 Phillips Puerto Rico Core Inc. Guayama PR Area 1

3 PMC Specialties Group, Inc. Chicago IL Unknown 0

3 PMC Specialties Group, Inc. Cincinnati OH Major 0

6 PPG Industries, Inc. Lake Charles LA Major 0

1 PPG Industries, Inc. Barberton OH Major 0

1 PPG Industries, Inc. La Porte TX Major 0

4 PPG Industries, Inc. Natrium WV Major 0

3 Praxair, Inc. Geismar LA Area 3

1 Primester Kingsport TN Unknown 0

1 Quaker Foods & Beverages Cedar Rapids IA Major 0

1 Quest International Mount Olive NJ Area 1

2 R.S.A. Corporation Danbury CT Area 2

2 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN Area 2

2 Resolution Performance Products LLC Norco LA Major 0

1 Resolution Performance Products LLC Deer Park TX Major 0

1 Rhodia Inc. Baton Rouge LA Major 0

1 Rohm and Haas Company Philadelphia PA Major 0

8 Rohm and Haas Company Deer Park TX Major 0

1 Royster-Clark Inc. East Dubuque IL Major 0

4 Rubicon, Inc. Geismar LA Major 0

2 RUTGERS Organics Corporation Harrison OH Area 2

1 RUTGERS Organics Corporation State College PA Area 1

1 Sabina Petrochemicals LLC Port Arthur TX Major 0

5 Sasol North America Inc. Westlake LA Major 0

I Sasol North America Inc. Baltimore MD Major 0

2 Schenectady International Rotterdam Junction NY Major 0

6 Schenectady International, Inc. Freeport TX Major 0

Pci_Area 
Process units Process units

Number Facility at Area at Major

Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes

8 Shell Chemical Company Geismar LA Major 0 8 0

5 Shell Chemical Company Norco LA Major 0 5 0

13 Shell Chemical Company Deer Park TX Major 0 13 0

1 Shell Oil Products US Anacortes WA Major 0 1 0

1 Shenango Incorporated Pittsburg PA Major 0 1 0

1 Sloss Industries Corporation Birmingham AL Area 1 0 0

I Solutia Inc. Anniston AL Area 1 0 0

3 Solutia Inc. Decatur AL Major 0 3 0

3 Solutia Inc. Pensacola FL Major 0 3 0

7 Solutia Inc. Sauget IL Major 0 7 0

1 Solutia Inc. Springfield MA Major 0 1 0

1 Solutia Inc. Trenton Ml Major 0 1 0

4 Solutia Inc. Alvin TX Major 0 4 0

1 Solvay Solexis, Inc. Thorofare NJ Area 1 0 0

1 South Hampton Refining Co. Silsbee TX Major 0 1 0

1 Stepan Company Millsdale IL Major 0 1 0

8 Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Texas City TX Major 0 8 0

1 Sunoco, Inc. Claymont DE Major 0 1 0

3 Sunoco, Inc. Westville NJ Major 0 3 0

6 Sunoco, Inc. Haverhill OH Major 0 6 0

4 Sunoco, Inc. Toledo OH Area 4 0 0

4 Sunoco, Inc. Marcus Hook PA Major 0 4 0

1 Sunoco, Inc. Neville Island PA Major 0 1 0

5 Sunoco. Inc. Philadelphia PA Major 0 5 0

1 Symrise Inc. Aroma Chemical Division Bushy Park SC Area 1 0 0

I Syngenta Crop Protection Cold Creek AL Major 0 1 0

2 Syngenta Crop Protection St. Gabriel LA Major 0 2 0

1 Terra Industries Inc. Sergeant Btuff IA Major 0 1 0

2 Terra Industries Inc. Woodward OK Major 0 2 0

1 Terra Industries Inc. Beaumont TX Major 0 1 0

1 Terra Nitrogen, Limited Partnership Blytheville AR Major 0 1 0

1 Terra Nitrogen, Limited Partnership Verdigris OK Major 0 1 0

4 Texas Petrochemicals LP Houston TX Major 0 4 0

1 Texmark Chemicals. Inc. Galena Park TX Major 0 1 0

1 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Beaumont TX Major 0 1 0

1 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Pasadena TX Major 0 1 0

1 The Lubrizol Corporation Deer Park TX Major 0 1 0

2 The Premcor Refining Group Inc. Lima OH Major 0 2 0

2 The Procter & Gamble Company Sacramento CA Major 0 2 0

1 The Williams Companies, Inc. Geismar LA Major 0 1 0

1 Triad Nitrogen, L.L.C. Donaldsonville LA Area 1 0 0

1 Twin Lake Chemicals Inc. Lockport NY Area 1 0 0 * Not in N

6 U.S. Amines Ltd. Bucks AL Major 0 6 0

1 U.S. Army Holston Army Ammunition Plant Kingsport TN Major 0 1 0

1 Unitex Chemical Corporation Greensboro NC Major 0 1 0

Pct_Area 
Process units Process units Number Facility at Area at Major Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes 2 Valero Energy Corporation Corpus Christi TX Major 0 2 0 2 Valero Energy Corporation Three Rivers TX Major 0 2 0 1 VanDeMark, Inc. Lockport NY Major 0 1 0 3 Velsicol Chemical Corporation Chattanooga TN Major 0 3 0 1 Vulcan Chloralkali LLC Geismar LA Major 0 1 0 4 Vulcan Materials Company Wichita KS Major 0 4 0 6 Vulcan Materials Company Geismar LA Major 0 6 0 2 Westlake Monomers Corporation Calvert City KY Major 0 2 0 1 Westlake Petrochemicals Corporation Sulphur LA Major 0 1 0 2 Westlake Styrene Corporation Sulphur LA Area 2 0 0 1 Westlake Vinyls, Inc. Calvert City KY Major 0 1 0 2 Wright Chemical Corporation Riegelwood NC Major 0 2 0

Calculation of Percentage of Process Units at Area Soruces

Designation Major Area Total

pber Facilities 303 91 394

Percent of Facilities 76.9% 23.1%

Numberof Processes 916 134 1050

Percent of Processes 87.2% 12.8%

Pct_Area 
Attachment 2

Scenario Determination

Determination of process units subject to SOCMI regulations. The numbers in bold at the bottom of each box indi

of process units described by the text in that box. The numbers in italics and parentheses in the bottom rows indica

and regulation to which those process units are subject: the boxes marked (6) and (7) represent the process units im

amendments to subpart VV.
* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid service

Valves

* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid service

Connectors

* Flanges - gas/vapor

* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquid

Pressure Relief Devices

* Disks* Disk holders, valves,etc.

Open-ended Valves

Sampling Connections

Compressor Vent

Replacement Pump Seals

15 40 56

0 5 36

77 414 1,379

380 1,179 1,980

0 71 1,272

731 2,662 7,410

2 45 762 45 76

33 141 424

8 35 106

0 2 8

15 40 56

Models 1
Attachment 4

Data from the HON Residual Risk Analysis

Shaded rows indicate where actual counts were used from NOCs reports.

Source: Memorandum from R. Oommen, Eastern Research Group: to Randy McDonald, USEPA, OAQPS. June 1, 2006. Cost and Em

Leakiess Valves forHON Facilities. Docket Items EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0475-0105 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0475-0105.1

Gas valve LL valve

Total Valve

Total Equipment HAP

HAP Emissions Emissions Number

HON ID (kg/yr) (kg/yr) of Valves

17 227,886 160,660 15,146

74 209,890 112,081 45,931

235 57,144 47,030 12,676

163 42,121 26,073 3,023

116 13,953 11,037 6,658

183 15,755 - 10,414 6,357

112 13,398 9,620 15,513

30 13,726 8,496 4,643

107 13,091 8,064 11,034

27 12,281 - 7,823 8,596

78 10,628 6,515 17,547

197 10,895 4,837 7,741

80 5,780 3,901 7,454

114 5,730 3,638 5,512

168 6,401 3,373 4,160

51 5,670 2,999 3,347

26 3,175 2,359 145

24 2,004 1,755 332

9 3,608 1,692 331

68 1,100

-

681 4,034

179 5,304 333 135

90 509 - 288 1,111

29 -461 244 4,544

228 213 138 434

81 279 137 1,463

Percent

leakers

2.79

0.58

0.93

2.26

0.37

0.37

0.09

0.42

0.12

0.17

0.02

0.09

0.06

0.10

0.14

0.17

4.32

1.35

1.31

-0.03

0.59

-0.01

-0.06

0.01

-0.05

-0.07

0.54

percent

leakers

2.57

0.50

0.82

2.07

0.30

0.30

0.04

0.35

0.07

0.12

-0.02

0.04

0.02

0.05

0.09

0.11

4.01

1.22

1.18

-0.07

0.51

-0.05

-0.10

-0.03

-0.09

-0.11

0.47

Avg

(50/50)

split

2.68

0.54

0.88

2.16

0.34

0.33

0.07

0.38

0.10

0.14

0.00

0.07

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.14

4.17

1.29

1.24

-0.05

0.55

-0.03

-0.08

-0.01

-0.07

-0.09

0.58

weighted by

number of

valves

0.21

0.13

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.51

0.51

255 30 17 1,094

434,206 188,961

HON RR data 
Attachment 5

Leak Frequencies and Emission Factors

Leak Definition (ppm) 5001 1,0001 10,000 5001 1,0001 10,000

Equipment Option Leak Frequencies, % Emission Factor, kg/hr/component

Gas Valves Baseline 065 0.000559

Option 1 Initial (Nsps)a 7.2

Option 1, Subsequent 0.51 0.000203

Light Liquid Valves Baseline 0.65 0.000628

Option 1 Initial (NSPS)a 4.8

Option 1, Subsequent 0.51 0.000232

Light Liquid Pumps Baseline 1.07 0.004357

Option 1, Initial (NSPS)a 16.0

Option 1, Subsequent 0.62 0.001 05

Connectors Baseline (no control) 0.36 0.000307

Option 2 0.36 0.000162 a Initial leak frequencies calculated to determine repair costs the first time lower leak definition is required. Emissions estimates for the 

program are calculated using subsequent leak frequencies.

Equipment Option Refinery SOCMI Leak Basis for SOCMI Leak Frequency

Leak Frequency,

Frequency, % %a.b

Gas Valves and Baseline 1.28 0.65 Baseline-to-controlled refinery valve leak frequencyc ratio 

Light Liquid Valves Option 1 leak frequency

(1.28/1.00 * 0.51 = 0.65)

Option 1, Subsequent 1.OOe 0.51 Average of data from HON sourcesd

Light Liquid Pumps Baseline 2.12 1.07 Baseline-to-controlled refinery pump leak frequencyc ratio 

Option 1 pump leak frequency

(2.12/1.23 *

0.62 = 1.07)

Option 1, Subsequent i .23e 0.62 Pump-to-valve refinery leak frequency ratio applied to Opti

frequency

(1.23/1.00 *

0.51 = 0.62)

a From 1997 API report Analysis of Refinery Screening Data b From Data and Assumptions used in the Equipment Leaks Cost Analysis for Petroleum Refineries. C From Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing ‘Fugitive Emissions’ Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs d From Cost and Emission Reductions of Leakless Valves for HON Facilities.

Original data are for LDAR programs with leak definitions of 1,000 ppm and quarterly monitoring for both pumps and valves; leak freq

pumps presented in this table adjusted to monthly monitoring.

SOCMI Leak Frequencies and Emission factors

DErivation of SOCMI le ik frequencies from Refinei v leak freque cies

Final Estimates 
Monthly 500 2.0 1.0 0.00046

Quarterly 500 1.5 0.75 000035

Semiannually 500 0.75 0.375 000018

Annually 500 0.5 0.25 000013

Liquid valve Quarterly 10,000 2.61 1.60 0.00159 000159

Annually 10,000 200 1.23 0.001 26

Monthly 500 2.0 1.0 000050

Quarterly 500 1 5 075 0 00038

Semiannually 500 0.75 0.375 0.00020

Annually 500 0.5 025 0.00014

Pump Monthly 10,000 3.53 1 77 0.00613 0.00615

Monthly 1,000 8.04 4.02 0.00488

Gas connector None 500 3.9 39 0.001 80

Annually 500 0.50 0.25 0.00013 0000130

Liquid connector None 500 3.9 3.9 000180

Annually 500 0,50 0.25 0.00013 0000730

Using ALR equations from the November 1995 Protocol document (ALR = X*LKFRAC + Y)

TABLE 5-4. EQUATIONS RELATING AVERAGE LEAK RATE TO FRACTION LEAKING AT SOCMI UNITS

Equipment Leak Definition X Y

Gas Valve 500 0,044 1 .7E-05

1000 0 05 2.8E-05

2000 0.057 4 3E-05

5000 0.068 8 1 E-05

10000 0,078 1.3E-04

Light liquid valve 500 0 047 2.7E-05

1000 0.053 3.9E-05

2000 0 061 5.9E-05

5000 0077 1.1E-04

10000 0.089 1.7E-04

Pump 500 0.095 3.1E-04

1000 0.11 4.6E-04

2000 0.13 67E-045000 0.20 1.4E-03

10000 024 1.9E-03

Connector 500 0.047 1.7E-05

1000 0.060 2.5E-05

2000 0 073 3.5E-05

5000 0.092 5 4E-05

10000 0.11 8.1E-05

Equation is (ALR = X*LKFRAC ÷ Y)

Inputs
Quarterly 10000 7.5 0.0060 0.86 3.80

HON reg neg 500 13.6 0.0060 0.00 2.00

LL Pumps Monthly 10000 7.5 0.0199 0.00 3.53

Quarterly 10000 7.5 0.0199 0.00 750

HONregneg 1000 17.1 0.0199 000 804

Connectors HON reg neg 500 3.9 0.0018 0.00 0.50

2.33 0.00195 67

1.00 000045 921.77 000613 69

3.75 0.01092 45

4.02 0.00501 75

0.25 0.00013 93

Table 2-9. SOCMI Leak Rate/Screening Value CorrelationsTable 2-11. Default-Zero Values: SOCMI Process Units

Table 2-13. 10000 ppmv and 100000 ppmv Screening Value Pegged Emission Rates for SOCMI Process Units

10000 ppmv 100000 ppmv

Default-zero pegged pegged

emission rate emission rate emission rate

(kg/hr/ (kg/hr/ (kg/hr/

Equipment component) X Y component) component) Gas Valves 6.60E-07 1.87E-06 0.873 0.024 0.11

LLVaIves 4.90E-07 6.41E-06 0.797 0.036 0.15

LL Pumps 7.50E-06 1.90E-05 0.824 014 0.62

Connectors 6.1OE-07 3.05E-06 0.885 0.044 0.22Equation is Leak rate (kg/hr) = X * (SV)AY, SV = screening value in ppmv

Inputs
Liquid valve annually 10,000 0 193 0.097 0.000256

semiannually 500 0.502 0.251 0.0001 45

Pump monthly 10,000 3.150 1.575 0.00568

monthly 1 000 6 073 3 036 0 00380

Connector none 500 0360 0360 0000186

every 4 yrs 500 0.360 0.180 0.0001016

Assumed leak frequency at end of monitoring period equals twice the average leak fraction, except for connectors at baseline where the absence

of an LDAR program means the leak fraction doesn’t vary over the year.

Leak fractions calculated using ALR equations in the Protocol document (ALR = X*LKFRAC + Y), except for connectors at baseline where the

leak frequency is always 0 36%

Values used in MON analysis for control under subpart TT (10,000 ppm) and subpart VV (500 ppm).

Calculation of Estimate of Baseline Initial Leak Frequency

Average

Uncontrolled

Emission Rate Initial Leak

(kglhrl Frequency

Component component)a (%)b

Gas Valvesc 3 68E-04 0.305

LL Valves 3 68E-04 0.222

Pumps 7.56E-03 2.358Connectors 1.86E-04 0.360

a From Table 1 Resulting Emission Rates and Program Efficiencies for CMA Data in Revised MACT FIooi Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide

Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities

Leak fractions calculated using ALR equations in the Protocol document (ALR = XLKFRAC + Y)

C Used value for valves in light liquid service

Leak frequencies from the 1997 API report: Analysis of Refinery Screening Data

Direct API Data for Total Leaking at Leak Definition, %

500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves -Gas 0.997 0,878 0.248 0.108 0.081Valves -Light Liquid 1 031 0856 0.289 0.103 0.079

Pumps - Light Liquid 3.543 2.768 0.997 0286 0 186Connectors -Gas 0.272 0236 0.093 0046 0.032

Connectors - Light Liquid 0.180 0.147 0.054 0.020 0.015

Average Valves 1.014 0.867 0.269

Differences (% within the given range)

500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves - Gas 0119 0.630 0.140 0.027 0.081

Valves - Light Liquid 0.175 0567 0 186 0024 0.079

Pumps - Light Liquid 0.775 1.771 0.711 0.100 0.186

Inputs
Attachment 7

Emission Estimates

Gas Valves

EPAs SOCMI data

assumed typical

Protocol no Percent screening value in the

control % leak leakers when range to the next

leakersa concentration monitored thresholda

10 26 500 0.87 Option 665

100 17.5 1000 1330

500 13.6 2000 2990

1000 12 5000 6650

2000 10.5 10000 1.11 Baseline 23200

5000 8.7 50000 66500

10000 7.5 100000 397000 39700

50000 5.5 1000000

100000 4.5

Distribution

Percent

leak leakers when

concentration monitored

500 0.87

1000 0.76

2000 0.67

5000 0.55

50000 0.35

100000 0.29

Leak Freq calcs 500 10000

Baseline 0.65

Option, Initial (NSPS) 7.2

Option, Subsequent 0.51

aFrom figure B-3-3 in the Protocol document

Emissions
Gas Valves

Use correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario

I - No control

CV default zero 0.00000066

2 - Baseline before control

Instantaneous

3 - Baseline con

Average above

10000

Emission rate estimated using

ALR equation

(500 ppm)

0.0060

(10,000 ppm)

0.00100

(1

Leak Range of

Definition concentrations

<10

Percent of

values in

rangea

74.0

Average

screening value

in range

10 lOto 100 8.5 39.7

100 lOOto500 3.9 232

500 500to 1000 1.6 665

1000 l000to2000 1.5 1330

2000 2000 to 5000 1.8 2990

5000 5000to 10000 1.2 6650

10000 10000 to 50000 2.0 23200

50000 50000to 100000 1.0 66500

100000 >100000 4.5 310000

Emission rate,

kg/hr (per 100

valves)

0.00004884

0.000395

0.000847

0.000872

0.001496

0.003642

0.004879

0.024207

0.030350

0.523616

Emission rate

per valve

0.00590

Percent of

values in

rangea

79.6

9.1

4.2

1.7

1.6

1.9

1.3

0.1

0.1

0.3

Emission rate.

kg/hr (per 100

valves)

0.00005221

0.000423

0.000906

0.000932

0.001600

0.003894

0.005216

0.003588

0.004498

0.077609

Emission rate

per valve

0.00099

Em

kg

0

Em

Leak Frequency Calculations

Percent of

values in

rang&

79.1

9.1

4.2

1.7

1.6

1.9

1.3

0.3

0.1

0.7

Baseline

79.5

9.1

4.2

1.7

1.6

1.9

1.3

0.2

0.1

0.4

10

100

500

1000

2000

5000

10000

Pegged value

0.11

0.495

0.00562

<10

10 to 100

100 to 500

500 to 1000

1000 to 2000

2000 to 5000

5000 to 10000

10000 to 50000

50000 to 100000

>100000

<10

lOto 100

100 to 500

500 to 1000

1000 to 2000

2000 to 5000

5000 to 10000

10000 to 50000

74,0

8.5

3.9

1.6

1.5

1.8

1.2

2.0

1.0

4:5

50000 50000 to 100000

100000 >100000

0.51

0.65

Option

85.2

9.8

4.5

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.04

0.07

0.04

0.17

Emissions 
Gas Valves

Use correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)

4 - Option I prior to control 5 - Option I controlled

GV default zero 0.00000066 Average above

500

Emission rate,

kg/hr (per 100

valves)

0.0000563

0.000456

0.000976

0.000028

0.000048

0.000116

0.000155

0.000771

0.000967

0.016688

Emission rate

per valve

Average emission rate

during monitoring period 0.000195

Emission rate estimated using

ALR equation 0.00020771

(HON avg leak rate, kg/hr)

Leak Range of

Definition concentrations

<10

10 lOto 100

100 lOOto500

500 500to 1000

1000 1000 to 2000

2000 2000 to 5000

5000 5000 to 10000

10000 10000 to 50000

50000 50000 to 100000

100000 >100000

Emission

rate after

repair, kg/hr

0.000066

Percent of Average Emission rate, kg/hr

values in screening value (per 100 valves) when

range in range monitored

84.9 0.0000560

9.8 39.7 0.000454

4.5 232 0.000972

0.10 665 0.000056

0.10 1330 0.000095

0.11 2990 0.000232

0.08 6650 0.000311

0.13 23200 0.001 543

0.06 66500 0.001935

0.29 310000 0.033375

Emission rate per

valve

Percent of

values in

ragea

85.3

9.8

4.5

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.04

0.06

0.03

0.14

0.000390 0.00000066 0.000203

Emissions 
Light Liquid Valves

EPA’s SOCMI data

assumed typical

Protocol no Percent screening value in the

control % leak leakers when range to the next

leakersa concentration monitored thresholda

10 18 500 0.87 Option 665

100 11 1000 1330

500 8.5 2000 2990

1000 7 5000 6650

2000 5.8 10000 1.11 Baseline 23200

5000 5.1 50000 66500

10000 4.5 100000 397000 39700

50000 2.9 1000000

100000 2.2

Distribution

Percent

leak leakers when

concentration monitored

500 0.87

1000 0.71

2000 0.59

5000 0.52

10000 0.46

50000 0.30

100000 0.22

Leak Freq calcs 500 Tooco

Baseline 0.65

Option, Initial (NSPS) 4.8

Option, Subsequent , 0.51

aFrom figure B-3-4 in the Protocol document

Emissions 
Light Liquid Valves

Use correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario

I - No control

LLV default zero 4.90E-07

2 - Baseline before control

Instantaneous

3 - Baseline co

Average above

10000

Emission rate per valve 0.00411

Emission rate estimated using

ALR equation

0.00405 0.001 12

(10,000 ppm)

0.00116

(1

Percent of Average Emission rate, Percent of Emission rate, Percent of Em

Leak Range of values in screening value kg/hr (per 100 values in kg/hr (per 100 values in kg

Definition concentrations rangea in range valves) rangea valves) rangea 

<10 82.0 0.0000402 84.9 0.0000416 85.4 

10 lOto 100 7.0 39.7 0.000844 7.2 0.000874 7.3 

100 lOOto500 2.5 232 0.001231 2.6 0.001274 2.6 

500 500 to 1000 1.5 665 0.001709 1.6 0.001770 1.6 

1000 1000 to 2000 1.2 1330 0.002375 1.2 0.002460 1.2 

2000 2000 to 5000 0.7 2990 0.002643 0.7 0.002737 0.7 

5000 5000 to 10000 0.6 6650 0.004283 0.6 0. 004435 0.6 

10000 10000 to 50000 1.6 23200 0.030922 Pegged value 0.4 0.007639 0.2 

50000 50000 to 100000 0.7 66500 0.031314 0.15 0.2 0.007736 0.1 

100000 >100000 2.2 310000 0.335657 0.33 0.5 0.082917 0.3 

Emission rate Emission rate Em

per valve per valve 

Leak Frequency Calculations Baseline Option

(500 ppm)

0.00402

<10 82.0 <10 85.3 89.2

10 lOto 100 7.0 lOto 100 7.3 7.6

100 100 to 500 2.5 100 to 500 2.6 2.7

500 500to 1000 1.5 0.51 500to 1000 1.6 0.09

1000 l000to2000 1.2 l000to2000 1.2 0.07

2000 2000 to 5000 0.7 2000 to 5000 0.7 0.04

5000 5000to 10000 0.6 5000to 10000 0.6 0.04

10000 10000 to 50000 1.6 0.65 10000 to 50000 0.2 0.10

50000 S0000to 100000 0.7 50000to 100000 0.1 0.04

100000 >100000 2.2 >100000 0.3 0.13

Emissions 
Light Liquid Valves

Use correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)

4 - Option I prior to control 5 - Option I controlled

LLV default zero 0.00000049 Average above

500

Percent of Average Emission rate, kg/hr Emission Percent of Emission rate,

Leak Range of values in screening value (per 100 valves) when rate after values in kg/hr (per 100

Definition concentrations range in range monitored repair, kg/hr range 8 valves)

<10 88.8 0.0000435 0.000049 89.2 0.0000437

10 10 to 100 7.6 39.7 0.000914 7.6 0.000918

100 lGOto 500 2.7 232 0.001333 2.7 0.001339

500 500to 1000 0.15 665 0.000174 0.08 0.000087

1000 l000to2000 0.12 1330 0.000242 0.06 0.000121

2000 2000 to 5000 0.07 2990 0.000270 0.04 0.000135

5000 5000to 10000 0.06 6650 0.000437 0.03 0.000218

10000 10000to50000 0.16 23200 0.003154 0.08 0.001577

50000 50000to 100000 0.07 66500 0.003194 0.04 0.001597

100000 >100000 0.22 310000 0.034232 0.11 0.017116

Emission rate per Emission rate

valve per valve

Emission rate per valve 0.000440 0.00000049 0.000232

Average emission rate

during monitoring period 0.000220

vs.

Emission rate estimated using

ALR equation 0.00023071

(HON avg leak rate, kg/hr)

Emissions 
Pumps

EPAs SOCMI data

assumed typical

Protocol no Percent screening value in the

control % leak leakers when range to the next

leakersa concentration monitored thresholda

10 44 500 665

100 30 1000 1.07 Option 1330

500 21 2000 2990

1000 17.1 5000 6550

2000 13.2 10000 1.83 Baseline 23200

5000 9.8 50000 66500

10000 7 100000 397000 39700

50000 3.5 1000000

100000 2

Distribution

Percent

leak leakers when

concentration monitored

500 5.72

1000 1.07

2000 0.82

5000 0.61

10000 0.44

50000 0.22

100000 0.12

Leak Freq calcs 500 10000

Baseline 1.07

Option, Initial (NSPS) 16.0

Option, Subsequent 0.62

2From figure B-3-2 in the Protocol document

Emissions 
Pumps

Use correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario

2 - Baseline before control 3 - Baseline con

P default zero 0.0000075 Average above

10000

Emission rate per valve 0.01991

56.0

14.0

9.0

3.9

3.9

3.4

2.8

3.5

1.5

2.0

(1000 ppm)

0.0193

Instantaneous

0.01958 0.00670

Baseline

59.6

14.9

9.6

4.1

4.1

3.6

3.0

0.5

0.2

0.3

(10,000 ppm)

0.00630

Option

67.1

16.8

10.8

4.7

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.13

0.05

0.07

(1

Percent of Average Emission rate, Percent of Emission rate, Percent of Em

values in screening value kg/hr (per 100 values in kg/hr (per 100 values in kg/

rangea in range pumps) rangea pumps) range 8 

56.0 0.00042 59.1 0.000443328 59.7 0.0

14.0 39.7 0.005524 14.8 0.005831 14.9 0

9.0 232 0.015211 9.5 0.016056 9.6 0

3.9 665 0.015697 4.1 0.016569 4.2 0

3.9 1330 0.027789 4.1 0.029332 4.2 

3.4 2990 0.047226 3.6 0.049850 3.6 0

2.8 6650 0.075148 3.0 0.079322 3.0 

3.5 23200 0.263017 Pegged value 0.9 0.068931 0.5 

1.5 66500 0.268442 0.62 0.4 0.070353 0.2 

2.0 310000 1.272523 1.2400 0.5 0.333500 0.3 

Emission rate Emission rate Em

per pump per pump p

I - No control

Leak Range of

Definition concentrations

<10

10 lOtolOO

100 lOOtoSOO

500 500to 1000

1000 1000 to 2000

2000 2000 to 5000

5000 5000 to 10000

10000 10000 to 50000

50000 50000 to 100000

100000 >100000

Leak Frequency Calculations

<10

10 lOto 100

100 lOOto500

500 500to 1000

1000 1000 to 2000

2000 2000 to 5000

5000 5000to 10000

10000 10000 to 50000

50000 50000 to 100000

100000 >100000

Emission rate estimated using

ALR equation

0.62

1.07

<10

10 to 100

100 to 500

500 to 1000

1000 to 2000

2000 to 5000

5000 to 10000

10000 to 50000

50000 to 100000

>100000

Emissions 
Pumps

Use correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)

4 - Option I prior to control 5 - Option I controlled

P default zero 0.0000075 Average above

500

Percent of Average Emission rate, kg/hr Emission Percent of Emission rate,

Leak Range of values in screening value (per 100 pumps) when rate after values in kg/hr (per 100

Definition concentrations range in range monitored repair, kg/hr rangea . pumps)

<10 66.8 0.000501232 0.00075 67.2 0.000503919

10 lOto 100 16.7 39] 0.006593 16.8 0.006628

100 lOOto500 10.7 232 0.018153 10.8 0.018250

500 500 to 1000 4.7 665 0.018733 4.68 0.018834

1000 l000to2000 0.24 1330 0.001733 0.12 0.000867

2000 2000to5000 0.21 2990 0.002945 0.11 0.001473

5000 5000 to 10000 0.17 6650 0.004687 0.09 0.002343

10000 l0000to50000 0.22 23200 0.016403 0.11 0.008202

50000 50000to 100000 0.09 66500 0.016741 0.05 0.008371

100000 >100000 0.12 310000 0.079361 0.06 0.039680

Emission rate per Emission rate

pump per pump

Emission rate per valve 0.001659 0.0000075 0.00105

Average emission rate

during monitoring period 0.000833

vs.

Emission rate estimated using

ALR equation 0.0010465

(HON avg leak rate, kg/hr)

Emissions 
17.70 Initial cost of monitoring valves and pumps in gas and light liquid service (8)

1.13 Initial cost of monitoring connectors and other components in heavy liquid service ($)1.50 Monitoring Fee (8/component)

24.30 Wage (chemical manufacturing maintenance) ($)

1.5 Overhead factor, maintenance & and repair (assumes contractor)1.5 Overhead factor, administration, planning, and training (assumes in-house)

57.65 Planning and training labor charge (8) *0.244 Capital recovery factor: rupture disks and pump seals (from HON analysis)0.142 Capital recovery factor: all other types of equipment and initial LDAR labor (from HON analysis)

1272 Total number of subpart VV process units nationwide (estimate based on total number of manufacturing sites listed in 2004 SRI

Consulting Directory of Chemical Producers for 310 of the chemicals listed in subpart VV, the other 68 are not listed in the 2004SRI directory)

879 Number of process units making HON/ethylene MACT compounds

393 Number of process units making MON compounds (plus any processes not subject to any MACT, if they have only VOC, no HAP)

20 Percentage of process units at MON major sources emitting VOC only (no HAP)

15 Percentage of process units at area sources (assumed)

3 Percentage of process units that become subject each year (Assumed)

20 Percentage of process units that manufacture MON chemicals that will meet the definition of new or reconstructed in 63.2440(c)60 Percentage of affected process units that are new (Assumed)

40 Percentage of affected process units that are reconstructed (Assumed)

33 Percentage of process units represented by simple model (from HON analysis)

52 Percentage of process units represented by medium model (from HON analysis)

15 Percentage of process units represented by complex model (from HON analysis)

320 Planning and training for LDAR program, current NSPS level, hours

330 Planning and training for LDAR program, current MACT level, hours340 Planning and training for LDAR program including connectors, hours

85 Administrative and reports for LDAR program, current NSPS level, hours95 Administrative and reports for LDAR program, current MACT level, hours

105 Administrative and reports for LDAR program including connectors, hours

900.00 VOC Recovery Credit, s/Mg

1 28 Average valve leak frequency found by 17 refineries (Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing ‘Fugitive Emissions’

Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs)

1 71 NEIC Factor for leak frequency

* Planning and training labor charge calculation

Category Mean Multiplier Result

Environmental engineering 33.92 1 33 92

General and operations managers 56.75 0.05 2.84General office and admin support 16.67 0.1 1.67

38.43

Inputs
Attachment 9

Cost Estimates — Baseline Gasebne Cost estimates before nnplernenbng Option 1. Costs include online and nIfline repairs for natives and pumps leatcing above 10.000 ppm. Annual expenses used to estmate incremental cost.

Initial Monitoring . . Frequency ot Subsequent Aonual Annual In/Sal Leak loilial 38q

Type ot Component Number of Fee or Unit Cost IniSnI LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Monitoring Mooitonng Fee Monitoring Maintenance Frnqunony Number of F

Leak 

ornponents ($/oomp) (S/pt) ( epital) Adirro. osls (Smeu/pr) h0l0 Costs (5/pr) Costs (5/pt) (%) Leaks reqoen

SOCMI model process Pump Seals

simple Light-/iquidsersice 15 t7.70 35938 12 1.50 50693 346.at 1.07 0.16 

baseline S/V program Heavy-liquid service 0 1.13 0.00

Values

Gas/vaporseruiue 77 17.70 t304.t3 1 1.50 115.50 0.65 0.50 

Light-liquid sersice 380 17.70 6030.79 1 1.50 570.00 DeS 2.46 

Heauy-Squid service 0 1.t 3 000

Connectors

Flanges - gas/uapvr 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Flanges- tight liquid 731 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00

Replacennenl Pump Seals 15 180.00 28.90

hr/activity S/hr

Admnirmstratine and Repents 85 57.65

Planning and Traieieg 320 07.65 16448.00

TOTALS 8603.20 184.48.00 1192.43 346.61

Cup/rat Costs 27,051

Annualized Capital Costs 3,844

Annual Eopercses 7,970

Annual Fixed Costs (S/pr) 9,022

Annual Variable Costs (S/pt) 2.792

Type arC np I Compon 51t etMs:°.4° (5/y)/ p1 I) Adno

LDA F5

Dt Mntmp Fnn bldg

Cost /Siy) N

Lk

o b

SOCMI model process Pump Seals

medium Lrght1iquidsersice 40 17.70 958.38 t2 1.50 t351.80 924.83 1.07 8.43 

baselinn S/V program Heooy-tiquid servicn 5 1.13 5.08

Vatoes

Gas/vaporservice 4t4 t7.70 7441.96 1 1.50 621.00 0.65 2.69 

Light-liquid selvica 1.179 17.70 21193,42 1 1.50 1760.50 0.68 7.65 

Heavy-liquid service 71 1.13 80.23

Connectors

Plunges- gas/vapor 0.00 0.00 0 000 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Flanges - light liquid 2 662 0,00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Flanges heavy Squid 0.00 0.00

Replacement Psmp Seals 40 180.00 77.07

hr/actieity Sihr

Admiestration and Repemns 85 57,60

Planning and Trainieg 320 57,65 16448.00

TOTALS 29756.67 18448.00 3741.30 924.83

Capital Costs 40,200

Annuatized Capital Costs 6,853

Annual Expenses 13,750

Annual Fieed Costs /Snyr/ 12,493

Annual Variable Costs (S/pr) 8,1/0

W_baseline
Annual Onbne Percenl Repair Labor Annual Online Monitoring to Annual Annual tipsy.

Type 01 Component Repair Tone Labor Chorue Leak Repair Requinng lime Charge Leak Repair Verity Repair Adnvn. Cost Charges

( ours) ( r) Cost ($Iyr) Rpa (bourn) (s/br) Cost (S//it) (0) (S/pr) (Siyrj

SOCMI model process Pump Seals

simple Light-liquid service 16.00 36.45 1123.66 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 2.89 277.45

baseline ISV program *

Heauy-liquid service

Valves

Gan/vapur survive 0.17 3645 2.28 25 4.00 3645 15.20 0.75

Ught-liqord service 0.17 36.45 11.25 25 4.00 36.45 89.84 3.70

Heauy-Iiquid service

Cennecters

Flanges-gas/vapor 0.t7 38.45 0.00 20 2.00 36.45 0.08 0.00

Flanges - bght liquid 0.t 7 36.45 0,00 25 2.00 36.45 0.00 0.00

Flanges -heavy liquid

Replacement Pump Seals

Adminntralioe and Reperts 4900.25

Place/eq and Training

TOTALS 1137.20 108.04 7.34 4900.25 277.45

. Ansual OnLine Percent Repair Labor Annual Offline Monitoring to Annual Anneal Misc.

Type vi Componenl Repair Time Lebor Charge Leak Repair Rertuinng Time Charge Leek Repair Vetity Repair Adn’n Cost Charges

I Ours) ( r)

Repair (hours) /&“hr) Cost (S/pr) (0) )S.yt) (SJyr

SOCMI model process Pump Seals

nrerlium Light-liquid service 16,00 36,45 2996.44 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 771 739.86

baseline 5/V program Heavy-liqud service

Valves

Gas/vapor sersrce 0.t7 36.45 12.26 25 4.00 36.45 97,88 4.03

Light-liquid service 0,t7 36,45 34.9t 25 4,00 36.45 270.73 11.47

Heavy-liquid service

Cenneoters

Flanges-gus/vapor 0.17 36.45 0.00 25 2.00 36,45 0.00 DOS

Flanges- light liquid 0.t7 38,45 0.00 25 2.00 35.45 0,00 0.00

Flanges -heany liquid

Replacement Pump Seats

Ad,ninstratroe and Reperts 4980.25

Planning and Training

TOTALS 3043.61 37661 23.21 4900,25 739,86

5/V_base/ne
Initial Monitoring Frequency Subsequent Annual Annual Initial Leak IniSal subsequ

Type 01 Coniponont ‘a:

1roSMLDAR Mointonna Fee Mt Mouevance Freqoency Narrrberol Freqoen

SOCMI model process Prrnnp Seals

complen Light-liquid semice 56 1770 1341.68 12 150 189252 1294.76 1.07 0,60 

base/Ire IN program Heauy-hqurd service 36 1.13 40.68

Valves

Gas/vapor sermon 1 379 17.70 24788.57 1 1.50 2060.50 0.65 0.94 

Light-liquid semice 1.999 17,70 35592.00 1 1.50 2970.00 0.65 12.04 

Heavy-/quid service 1.272 1.13 1437.36

Connecters

Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Flanges - Ight Squid 7 410 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Flanges -heavy Sqeid 0.00 0.00

Replacement Pomp Seals 56 180.00 107.90

hrlactinity S/hr

Adminstralive and Reports 85 67.05

Planning and Trarning 320 57.65 10446.00

TOTALS 63300.18 16448.00 6931.02 1294.76

Capilal Costs 81,756

Annua/zed Capital Cods 11.620

Annual Pepanses 19.294

Anneal Fieed Costs /S.r) 17,056

Annual Variable Costs (S.rl 13,356

IN_baseline
Annual OnLinn Percent Repair Labor Annual Opine Monitoring to Annual Annual Misc.

Tppe vi Csntpnnent Repair limo Labor Charge Leak Repair Regoiting time Charge Leak Repair Vori Repair Adrris. Cost Charges

‘ Cost (S/pr) Repair (hoom) )S’Sr) CosI lSiynt IS) tS/er) )$4n)

SOCMI model proness Pemp Seals

complea Light-liquid service 16.50 36.45 4195.01 5 90.50 36.45 0.00 10.79 1035.50

baseline W program Heavy-liquid servion

Valnes

Gasoanarservine 5.17 36.45 40.93 25 4.05 3645 326.02 13.42

Light-Squid service 0.t7 36.45 56.63 25 4.00 36.45 460.15 19.26

Heaoy-l:guid seisice

Ceneecters

Flangen - gasocanor 9.17 36.45 0.06 25 2.06 36.45 0.09 0.00

Flanges - kght liquid 0.t7 3b.45 0.00 25 2.00 36,45 0.00 0.00

Flanges -heavy liquid

Replacement Pemp Seals

Admreslratioe and Reperts 4900.25

Planning and Training

TOTALS 4294.47 794.12 43.47 4900.25 1035.90

Wbasntise
Cost Estimates --Option 1 and Option 2

Cost estimates for implementing Option 1 and Option 2. Costs include initial planning and training for process units not already subject to MACT, 

repairs. Initial capital costs are annualized Annual costs and expenses used to estimate incremental cost.

Subsequent 

Initial Monitonng Initial LDAR Costs Initial LOAF Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annual Initial 

Number of 

Monilonng Maintenance Frequ

Fee or Unit Cost Monitoring Type of Component Components (SIyr) (Capital) Admin. Costs (S/comp) or 

Costs (Slyr) Costs (S/yr) )%

)Slcomp) )tinres/yr) Charge )%) 

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 15 17.70 320.07 12 1.50 506.93 201.60 

simple Heavy-liquid service 0 1.13 0.00 Option I

Valves

• Gas/vapor service 77 17.70 1379.46 2 1.50 231.00 

• Light-liquid service 380 17.70 6807.71 2 1.50 1140.00 

• Heavy-liquid service 0 1.13 0.00

Connectors

• Flanges - gas/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 

• Flanges - light liquid 731 17.70 /3002.62 0.25 1.50 274.13 

Flanges-heavy liquid 1.13 0.00

Connectors (baseline)

• Flanges -gas/vapor 0.00 0.00

• Flanges - light liquid 731 0.00 0.00 • Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00

Replacement Pump Seals 15 180.00 16,80

Adminstrative and Reports hr/activity S/hr

• Wthout connectors 95 57.65

• With connecfors 10 57.65

Planning and Training hr/activity S/hr

‘Wihout connectors 330 57.65 19024.50 • With connectors 10 57.65 576.50

TOTALS without connectors 8524.05 19024.50 1877.93 201.60 TOTALS with conneclors 21526.67 19601,00 2152,05 201,60 TOTALS initial (or connectors only 13002.62 576,50 2152.05 201,60

Without connectors

Capilal Costs w/o OVA and Train 27.549

Annualized Capital Costs 3,914

Annual Enpenses 8,569

Annual Fined Costs ($/yr) 9.552

Annual Variable Costa ($/yr) 2,931

With connectors

Capital Costs wls OVA and Train 41,128

Annualized Capital Costs 5,842

Annual Expenses 9.436

Annual Fixed Costs (Sfyr( 12,056

Annual Variable Costs lS/yr) 3.221

InItial costs for connectors only

Capital Costs w!o OVA and Train 13,579

Annualized Capital Costs 1,928

Annual Expenses 9,436

Annual Fixed Costs (S/yr) 8,143

Annual Vanable Costs (S/yr( 3,221

Option 1 MONdata
Annual Percent Annual OnLine Repair Labor Annual Otfline Monitoring to An

Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repay Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Venly Repair Adrn

Lealto OnLine Cost (5/pr) Repair )hours) )$/hr) Cost (S/pr) (5) t$

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 1.12 100 16.00 3645 653.20 0 60.00 36.45 0.00 1.66 

simple * Heavy-liquid service

Option I

Valves

* Gao/vapor service 0.78 75 0.17 36.45 3.56 25 4.00 36.45 28.39 1.17 Light-liquid service 3.84 75 0.17 36.45 17.55 25 4.00 36.45 140.11 5.77 Heavy-liquid service

Connectors

Plunges-gas/vapor 0.00 75 0.17 36.45 0.00 25 2.00 36.45 0,00 0.00 • Flanges - light liquid 0.66 75 0.17 36.45 3,00 25 2.00 36.45 11.09 0.99 * Flanges -heavy liquid

Connectors (baseline)

- Flangeo - gas/vapor

Flanges - light liquid

• Flanges -heavy liquid

Replacement Pump Seals

Adminstrative and Reports

Without connectors 

• With connectors 

Planning and Training

• Without connectors *

With connectors

TOTALS without Connectors 674.30 168.51 8.61 

TOTALS with connectors 577.31 18050 9,613 

—

-—•--

677.31 180.50 9.60 

OptioniMONdata 
- -- - —-

—

- Subsequent 

Annual Annual Initial 

Initial Monitoring Frequency of Number of Fee or Unit Cost Initial LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Monitonng Monitonng Fee 

Monitoring Maintenance Frequ

Type of Component Components (5/yr) (Capital) Admin. Costs 

($/compl or Costs )$Iyr) Costs (Slyr) (%

(5/comp) (times/yr) Charge (%) 

Pump Seals

SOCMt Model process Light-liquid service 40 17.70 853.53 12 1.50 1351.80 537.61 

medium *

1-leany-liquid service 5 1.13 565 Option 1

Valves

Gas/vapor service 414 17.70 7416.83 2 1.50 1242.00 

Light-liquid uervice 1,179 17.70 21121.83 2 1.50 3537.00 

• Heavy-liquid service 71 1.13 80.23

Connectors

* Flanges-gas/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 

• Flanges - light liquid 2,662 17.70 47350.18 0.25 1.50 998.25 

• Flanges-heavy liquid 1.13 0.00

Connectors (baselIne)

• Flanges -gas/vapor 0.00 0.00

Flanges - light liquid 2.662 0.00 0.00 • Flanges -heavy liquid 0,00 0.00

Replacement Pump Seals 40 180.00 44.80

Adminstrative and Reports hr/activity S/hr

Without cennectors 95 57.65

• With connectors 10 57.65

Planning and Training hr/activity

• Vdthout connectors 330 57.65 19024.50 Wit/i connectors 10 57.65 576.50

TOTALS without connectors 29522.87 19024.50 6130.80 537.61 TOTALS with connectors 76873.04 19601.00 7129,05 537.61 TOTALS initial (or connectors only 47350.18 576.50 7129.05 537.61

Without connectors

Capital Costs w/o OVA and Train 48,547

Annualized Capital Costs 6.898

Annual Expenses 15,007

Annual Fixed Costs (S/yr) 12.805

Annual Variable Couts (S/yr) 9,100

With connectors

Capital Cools wio OVA and Train 96,474

Annualized Capital Costs 13,704

Annual Expenses 16.640

Annual Fixed Costs (S/yr) 20,187

Annual Vanable Costs (5/yr) 10,156

Initial costs for connectors only

Capital Costs w/o OVA and Train 47,927

Annualized Capital Costs 6,806

Annual Expenses 16,640

Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 13.289

Annual Variabte Costs (S/yr) 10,156

Option 1 MONdata 
Annual PerceOt . Annual Onune 1’eent Repair Labor Annual Qffhne Monitonnq to A

Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Venly Repair Adm

Leaks OnLine Cost (S/pr) Repair (hours) (S/hr) Cost (S/pr) (9) (

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 2.99 100 16.00 36.45 1741,85 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 4.48 

medium Heavy-liquid service

Option 1

Valves

• Gas/vapor service 4.19 75 0.17 36.45 19.12 25 4.00 36.45 152.65 6.26 • Light-liquid service 1193 75 0.17 36.45 54.45 25 4.00 36.45 434.72 17.89 • Heavy-liquid service

Connectors

• Flanges-gas/vapor 0.00 75 0.17 36.45 0.00 25 2.00 36.45 0.00 0.00 Flanges - light liquid 2.40 75 0.17 36.45 10 94 25 2.00 36.45 43.66 3.59 • Flanges -heavy liquid

Connectors (baseline)

• Flanges - gas/vapor

* Flanges - light liquid

• Flanges -heavy liquid

Replacement Pump Seals

Adminstrative and Reports

Without connectors 

• With consectoru 

Planning and Training

• Without connectors

• With connectors

TOTALS without connectors 1815.43 587.37 28.65 

TOTALS with connectors 1826.36 631,04 32.25 

TOTALS initial for connectors only 1825.36 631.04 32.25 

Optionl MONdata
Subsequent Initial Monitonng Initial LOAR Couts Initial LDAR Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annual Iniliat 

Number of 

Monitoeng Maintenance Frequ

Type of Component Components Fee or Unit Cost (Siyr) (Capital) Admin. Costs Monitonny 

(5/comp) or Costs ($/yr) Costs (S/yr) (%

(S/comp) (times/yr( Charge (%) 

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 56 17.70 1194.94 12 1.50 1892.52 752.65 

complex Heavy-liquid service 36 1.13 40.68

Option 1

Valves

Gao/vapor service 1,379 17.70 24704.84 2 1.50 4137.00 

* Light-liquid service 1,980 17.70 35471.78 2 1.50 5940.00 

Heavy-liquid service 1272 1.13 1437.36

Connectors

Flanges -gao/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 

• Flanges - light liquid 7.410 17,70 13180497 0.25 1.50 2778.75 

• Flanges -heavy liquid 1.13 0,00

Connectors Ibaseline)

Flanges -gaslvapor 0.00 0.00 • Flanges-light tiquid 7.410 0.00 0.00

* Flanges -heavy liquid 0,00 0.00

Replacement Pump Seals 56 18000 62.72

Adminstrative and Reports hr/activity 5/hr

Without connectors 95 57.65

• With covnectors 10 57.65

Planning and Training or/activity S/hr

• Vihlhout connectors 330 57.65 19024.50 • 55th connectors 10 57,65 576.50

TOTALS without connectors 62912.31 19024.50 11969.52 752.65 TOTALS with connectors 194717.28 19601.00 1474827 752.65 TOTALS inlttal for connectors only 131804.97 576.50 14748,27 752.65

Without connectors

Capital Costs w/n OVA and Train 81,937

Annualized Capital Costs 11,641

Annual Expenses 22,691

Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 17,720

Annual Variable Costs (S/yr) 16,612

With connectors

Capital Costs win OVA and Train 214.318

Annualized Capital Costs 30.440

Annual Expenses 26,208

Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr( 37,095

Annual Variable Costs (S/yr( 19552

InItIal costs for connectors only

Capital Costs w!o OVA and Train 132,381

Annualized Capital Costs 18,798

Annual Expenses 26,208

Annual Fixed Costs (5/yr) 25,454

Annual Vunable Costs (Slyr) 19,552

Optionl MctNdata 
Percent -

Annual Percent Annual OnLine Repair Labor Annual Ofttine Monitonnq to An

Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time aborLharge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Venfy Repair Adrn

Leaks OnLine Cost (5/yr) Repair (hours) tS/lm) Cost (S/till (5) (5

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 4.18 100 16.00 36.45 2438.60 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 6.27 

complex Heavy-liquid service

Option 1

Valves

Gas/vapor service 13.95 75 0.17 36.45 63.69 25 4.00 36.45 508.47 20.92 • Light-liquid service 20.03 75 0.17 36.45 91.44 25 4.00 36.45 730.07 30.04 • Heavy-liquid service

Connectors

* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 75 0.17 36.45 0.00 25 2.00 36.45 0.00 0.00 • Flanges - lignt liquid 6.67 75 0.17 36.45 3045 25 2.00 36.49 121.54 10.00 • Flanges -heavy liquid

Connectors (baselIne)

• flanges - gas/vapor

Flanges - light liquid

Flanges -heavy liquid

Replacement Pump Seals

Adminstrative and Reports

• Without connectors 

* With connecturs 

Planning and Training

• Without csnnectoru

With connectors

TOTALS without connectors 2593.73 1238.53 57.24 

TOTALS with connectors 2624.17 1360.08 67.24 

TOTALS initial lorconnectors only 2624.17 1350.08 67.24 

Optisni MONaata 
Cost Estimates — Option 1 and Option 2, Cost estimates for implementing Option 1 and Option 2 for units currently subject to a teak detinition of 10,000 ppm. Costs include initial planning 

Reconstructed Subpart VV Units not already subject to MACT, initial repair, and online and otttine repairs. Inihal capital costs are annualized. Annual costs and expenses uaed 

incremental cost.

Subsequent 

Initial Monitoring Initial LDAR Costs Initial LOAR Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annuat Initial 

Number of 

Monitoring Maintenance Frequ

Type of Component Fee or Unit Cost Components (S/yrl ICapitall Admin. Costs Monitoring

(Sycompl or Costs ($iyrl Costs (5/yr) (%

(S/compl (bmes/yr) Charge (%) 

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 15 0.00 1345.46 12 1.50 506.93 201.60 

simple * Heavy-liquid service 0 0.00 0.00 Option 1

Valves

Gas/vapor service 77 0.00 219.16 2 1.50 231.00 

Light-liquid service 380 0.00 695.37 2 1.60 1140.00 

* Heavy-liquid service 0 0.00 0.00

Connectors

Flanges - gao/vapor 0 17.70 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 

* Flanges-light liquid 731 17.70 13002.62 0.25 1.50 274.13 

• Flanges -heavy liquid 0 1.13 0.00

Connectors (baseline)

• Flanges -gao/vapor 0 0.00 0.00 * Flanges - light liquid 731 0.00 0.00

• Flanges -heavy liquid 0 0.00 0,00

Replacement Pump Seals 15 180.00 431 00

Adminstrative and Reports hr/activity S/hr

• Without connectors 95 57.65

• With connectsrs 10 57.66

Planning and Training hr/activity S/hr

Without connectors 10 57.65 576,50 With connectors 10 57.65 576.50

TOTALS without connectors 2690.69 576.50 1877.93 201.60 TOTALS with connectors

-

1569362 1153.00 2152.05 201,60

Without connectors

Capital Costs wlo OVA and Train 3.267

Annualized Capital Costs 508

Annual Expenses 8,569

Annual Fised Costs ($/yrl 6.146

Annual Variable Costs (S/yrj 2,931

With connectors

Capital Costs w/o OVA and Train 16.847

Annualized Capital Costs 2,436

Annual Expenses 9.436

Annual Fixed Costs lS/yrl 8,651

Annual Vanable Costs IS/yr> 3,221

Optionl NSPS
Annual Percent Annual OnLine 1’ct Repair Labor Annual Offlirie Monitoring to A

Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Ven Repair Adrn

Leakn OnLine Cost (S/ti) Repair (hours) (S/hr) Coot (5/yr) (5) (

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 112 100 16.00 36.45 653.20 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 1.68 

simple Heavy-liquid service

Oplion 1

Valves

• Gas/vapor service 0.78 75 0.17 36.45 3.56 25 4.00 36.45 28.39 1.17 • Light-liquid service 3.84 75 0.17 36.45 17.55 25 4.00 36.45 140.11 5.77 • Heavy-liquid oervice

Connectorv

• Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 75 0.17 36.45 0.00 25 2.00 36.45 0.00 0.00 • Flangeo - light liquid 066 75 0.17 36.45 3.00 25 2.00 36.45 11.99 0.99 • Flanges -heavy liquid

Connectors (baselIne)

• Flanges- gao/vapor

• Flanges - light liquid

Flanges heavy liquid

Replacement Pump Seals

Adminstrative and Reports

Without connectors 

• Vrith connectors 

Planning and Training

• Without connectors

- Vu/tb connectors

TOTALS without connectors 674.30 168.51 8.61 

TOTALS with connectors

_____________

67731 18050 960 

Optioni NSPS
Subsequent 

Annual Annual Iniba

Initial Monitoring Frequency of Initial LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Number of Monitoring Fee 

Type of Component Fee or Unit Coot Monitoring Moniloring Maintenance Freq

Components (5/yr) (Capital) Admin. Costs (S/csmp) or Costs )SIyr) Costs (Slyr) (

(S/corop( (tirnes/yr) Charge (%)

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 40 000 3587.90 12 1.50 1351.80 537.61 

medium Heavy-liquid service 5 0.00 0.00

Option 1

Valves

• ISas/vaporservice 414 0.00 1178.35 2 1.50 1242.00 

• Light-liquid service 1.179 0.00 2157.47 2 1.50 3537.00 

• Heavy-liquid service 71 0.00 0.00

Connectors

Flanges-gao/vapor 0 17,70 0,00 0.25 1.50 0,00 

• Flanges - light liquid 2,662 17.70 47350,18 0.25 1,50 998.25 

• Flanges -heavy liquid 0 113 0,00

Connectors (baselIne)

Flanges -gas/vapor 0 0 00 0.00

Flanges - light liquid 2 662 0.00 0,00

• Flanges -heavy liquid 0 0,00 0,00

Replacement Pump Seals 40 180.00 1149.34

Adminstrative and Reports hr/activity SThr

* Without connectors 95 57.65

• With connectors 10 57.65

Planning and Training hr/activity

• Without conneclors 10 57.65 576,50

• iMttt connectors 10 57.65 576.50

TOTALS without connectors 8073.06 576.50 6130,80 537.61

TOTALS with connectors 55423.24 1153,00 7129.05 537.61

Without connectors

Capital Costs wio OVA and Train 8,650

Annualized Capital Costs 1,345 -

Annual Expenses 15,007

Annual Fixed Costs /$/yr) 7252

Annual Var/able Costs (Siyr( 9,100

With connectors

Capital Costs win OVA and Train 56,576

Annualized Capital Costs 8,151

Annual Expenses 16,640

Annual Fixed Costs (5/yr) 14,634

Annual Variable Costs IS/yr) 10,156

Optixnl NSPS 
Annual Percent Annual OnLine Percent Repair Labor Annual Offline Monitoring to An

Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Veri Repair Adm

Leaks OnLine Cost (S/pr) Repair (hours) (S/br) Cost (9/pr) (5) (S

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 2.99 100 16.00 36.45 1741.86 0 80.00 36.45 000 4.48 

medium Heavy-liquid service

Option 1

Valves

Gao/vapor service 419 75 0.17 36.45 1912 25 4.00 36.45 152.65 6.28 Light-liquid service 11.93 75 0.17 36.45 54.45 25 4.00 38.45 434.72 17.89 Heavy-liquid service

Connectors

Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 75 0.17 36.45 0.00 25 2.00 36.45 0.00 0.00 ‘Flanges-light liquid 2.40 75 0.17 36.45 10.94 25 2.00 36.45 43.66 3.59 ‘Flanges -heavy liquid

Connectors (baselIne)

• Flanges -gasIvapor

• Flanges - light liquid

Flanges -heavy liquid

Replacement Pump Seals

Adminstrative and Reports

• Wilhout connectors 

• With connectors 

Planning and Training

V/ithout connectors

‘With connectors

TOTALS without connectors 1815.43 587.37 28.65 

TOTALS with connectors 1826.36 631.04 32.25 

OptionlNSPS 
Subsequent 

Initial Monitoring Initial LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annual Initial 

Number of Monitoring Maintenance Frequ

(5/yr) (Capital) Admin. Costs Monitonng Type ot Component Components Fee or Unit Cost ($/comp) or Coats ($/yr) Costa (S/pr) (%

(S/camp) (timea/yr) Charge (%)

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 55 0.00 5023.07 12 1.50 1892.52 752.65 

complex Heavy-liquid service 39 0.00 0.00

Option I

Valves

Gas/vapor service 1.379 0.00 3924.98 2 1.50 4137.00 

Light-liquid service 1 980 0.00 3623.23 2 1.50 5940.00 

Heavy-liquid service 1272 0.00 0.00

Connectors

Flanges - gas/vapor 0 17.70 0.00 025 1.50 0.00 

Flanges-tight liquid 7.410 17.70 131804.97 0.25 1.50 2778.75 

Flanges -heavy liquid 0 1.13 0.00

Connectors (baseline)

Flanges - gaS/vapor 0 0.00 0.00

• Flanges - light liquid 7.410 0.00 0.00

Flanges -heavy liquid 0 0.110 0.00

Replacement Pump Seals 56 180,00 1609.07

Adminstrative and Reports hr/activity $Thr

Without connectors 95 57.65

• With connectors 10 57.65

Planning and Training hr/activity S/hr

Without convectoro 10 57.65 576.50

* With connectors 10 57.65 576.50

TOTALSwithoutconnectors 14180.35 576.50 11969.62 752.65

TOTALS with Conneetces 145955.32 1153.00 1474627 75255

Without connectors

Capital Coots wlo OVA and Train 14,757

Annualized Capital Costa 2.280

Annual Expenses 22,691

Annual Fixed Costs (s/pr) 8,338

Annual Variable Costs (S/pr) 16,612

With Connectors

Capital Costs w/o OVA and Train 147,138

Annualized Capital Costs 21,058

Annual Expenses 26,208

Annual Fixed Costs (5/yr) 27.713

Annual Variable Costs )S/yr) 19,552

Optioni NSPS
Annual Percent . Annual OnLine Percent Repair Labor Annual Offline Monitoring to An

Type of Component Number of Repaired Repmr Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Verify Repair Admi

Leaks OnLine Cost (S/pr) Repair (hours) (S/br) Cost (s/pr) (9) )S

Pump Seals

SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 4.18 100 16.00 36.45 243860 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 5.27 

complex Heavy-liquid service

Option 1

Valves

• Gas/vaporservice 13.95 75 0.17 36.45 63.69 25 4.00 36.45 508.47 20.92 • Light-liquid service 20.03 75 0.17 36.45 91.44 25 4.00 36.45 730.07 30.04

• Heavy-liquid service

Connectors

Flanges-gas/vapor 0.00 75 0.17 36.45 0.00 25 2.00 36.45 0.00 0.00 Flanges - light liquid 6.67 75 0.17 36.45 30.45 25 2.00 36.45 121.54 10.00 • Flanges -heavy liquid

Connectors (baselIne)

• Flanges -gas/vapor

• Flanges - light liquid

• Flanges -heavy liquid

Replacement Pump Seals

Adminstrative and Reports

• Without connectorS 

‘14th connectorS 

Planntng and Training

• Without connectors

• ‘111th connectors

TOTALS without cOnnectors 259373 1238.53 57.24 

TOTALS with connectors 2624 17 136008 6724 

Optioni NSPS
Option 2 (500 ppm LDAR)

initial number of leaks 2.63 9.58 26.68

final leak frequency, percenf 0.36 0.36 0 36

monitoring frequency, times/yr5 0 25 0.25 0.25 —

annual number of leaks 0.66 2.40 6.67

emission rate, kg/hr/connector 0.000162 0.000162 0.0001 62

Time in service, hr/yr 8,760 8,760 8,760

Total emissions reduction, Mg/yr 0.9285 3.381 9.412

Baseline cost, S/yr 0 0 0

Option 2 costs

initial monitoring fee, $/componen 17.70 17.70 17.70

initial LDAR cost (monitoring and repair), $ 12,999 47,336 131,765planning and training costs, $ 577 577 577

monitoring to verify repair for initial leaks, $ 3.95 14.37 40.01

annualized initial LDAR cost, $/y 1928 6,806 18,798

subsequent monitoring fee, $/comporreni 1.50 1.50 1.50

annual monitoring cost, s/yr 274 998 2,779percent of annual leaks repaired online, percenl 75 75 75

online repair time, hr 0.167 0.167 0.167

labor charge, 5/hr 36.45 36.45 36.45

annual online leak repair cost, S/yr 3.00 10.94 30.45percent of annual leaks repaired offline, percent 25 25 25

offline repair time, hr 2 2 2

labor charge, $/hr5 36.45 36.45 36.45

annual offline leak repair cost, S/yr 11.99 43.66 121.54monitoring to verify repair, $ 0.99 3.59 10.00

annual admin and reporting costs, 5 576.50 576.50 576.50

total annual cost, S/yr 2,795 8439 22,315

Cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed 3,010 2,496 2,371

Recovery credits, S/yr

CostNationwide impacts in fifth year after proposa Total Effectiveness

number of affected processes 23.3 36.8 10.6 70.7emission reductions, Mg/yr 21.7 124 100 246

total annual costs, 5/yr 65,216 310,279 236,689 612,185 2,490

total annual costs after recovery credit applied, s/yr 390,951 1,590

Baseline leak frequencies based on industry-supplied data for the MONbSOCMt values based on industry data used in the analysis for the MON.

cAssumed the final leak frequency would be the same as the initial leak frequency (same approach as in PET analysis for P&R IV). dMonitoring frequencies based on assumption that option 3 would require annual monitoring for leak frequencies greater than or equal to 0.5, every 4

years for leak frequencies greater than or equal to 0.25, and every 8 years for leak frequencies less than 0.25. esOCMI values calculated using one-half of assumed subsequent leak frequency in the average leak rate equation for leak definition of 500 ppm

(Table 5-4 in the Protocol document).

9

From PET analysis for P&R IV (memo from K, Barnett to P&R IV docket. December 2000)

Assuming annualized over 10 years at 7 percent interest.

hNovember 2004 wage rates for BLS 0CC Code 4909012 (Control and valve installers and repairers, except mechanical doors) in NAICS 324 and 325;

plus assumed 50 percent overhead.

Assuming 1,272 total processes producing chemicals listed in subpart V’V (from SRI Consulting directory) Of those processes, 392 make MON

compounds and the remainder make HON/ethylene MACT compounds. Of the MON processes. 2 percent become affected sources each year

(assumed value): and distribution of models is 33 percent simple, 52 percent medium: and 17 percent complex (from the HON analysis). Assume

10 percent of the HON/ethylene facilities are area sources and 2 percent of those become subject each year. Of the major sources, assume that

20 percent will be required to monitor connectors at baseline because they meet the definition of new or reconstructed in §63 2440(c).

Assume each affected process unit will be at a different facility

Option 2 Emissions
Attachment 10

Summary of Costs

CALCULATION OF BASELINE AND OPTION COSTS

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Total New Reconstructed Reconstructed New units at Existing New Reconstr

number of process units process units process units existing sources process units process units process 

process complying w/ complying WI complying w/ complying wI complying wI complying wI complyin

units HON/eth. & MON HON/eth. MON MON MON * NSPS NSP

simple 63.0 23.8 14.8 1.1 6.3 4.2 7.7 5.1

medium 99.2 37.5 23.3 1.7 10.0 6.7 12.1 8.0

complex 28.6 10.8 6.7 0.5 2.9 1.9 3.5 2.3

total 190.8 72.1 44.8 3.2 19.2 12.8 23.2 15.5 

Baseline

Initial Costs $ 6908,980 $ - $ 157,972 $ 897,147 $ - $ 1.072,458 $ 

Annual Costs $ 2,112,423 $ 703,704 $ 72,772 $ 397,518 $ 180,032 $ 446,286 $ 19

Option I

Initial Costs $ 6:908980 $ - $ 157,972 $ 897,147 $ - $ 1,081,023 $ 12

Annual Costs $ 2,112.423 $ 703,704 $ 72,772 $ 397.518 $ 180,032 $ 478,992 $ 23

Increment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 32,705 $ 3

Option 2

Initial Costs $ 6,908,980 $ - $ 157,972 $ 1.844,977 $ 631,886 $ 2.223,116 $ 88

Annual Costs $ 2,112,423 $ 703,704 $ 72,772 $ 564,102 $ 291,088 $ 679,719 $ 36

Increment $ - $ - $ - $ 166,584 $ 111,056 $ 233,432 $ 17

* These are individual process units that meet the definition of new and reconstructed in the General Provisions to part 60 but not the MON (i.e

process units would be subject to subpart VV in the absence of the MON.

The numbers in parentheses above each column correspond to the numbers in the diagram in Attachment 2.

Option 1 Summary
Attachment 11

Results

Nationwide Impacts for Future New and Reconstructed SOCMI Plants

VOC Emissions at i Cummulative Initial Cost Annual Cost 

‘ Selected Option Emission Initial Cost Beyond Baseline Annual Cost Beyond Baseline E

Option (Mg/yr) j Reduction (Mg/yr) ($) ($Iyr) ($Iyr) ($/yr) 

Baseline 1443 9,036,557 4,108,631

1 - 1212 - 231 9,165,522 128,965, 4,181,016 72,386 

2 966 477 12,648,726 3,612,169 4,793,201 684,570i 

Option 1: Leak definitions of 500 ppm for valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps, new or reconstructed in the five years after p

of the amended NSPS.

Option 2: Option 1 + Monitor and repair connectors at 500 ppm, new or reconstructed in the five years after proposal of 

amended NSPS.

Nationwide Impacts Summary
Incremental cost increase, $Iyr

Pumps plus valves 669

Pumps, valves, and connectors 3,464

Incremental cost effectiveness, $IMg removed

Pumps plus valves 335

Pumps, valves, and connectors 1,185

Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr

Pumps plus valves 6.55

Pumps, valves, and connectors 9.93

Incremental cost increase, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 1,302

Pumps, valves, and connectors 9,741

Incremental cost effectiveness, $IMg removed

Pumps plus valves 199

Pumps, valves, and connectors 981

Incremental emission reductions, Mglyr

Pumps plus valves 12.81

Pumps, valves, and connectors 22.22

Incremental cost increase, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 3,418

Pumps, valves, and connectors 25,733

Incremental cost effectiveness, $IMg removed

Pumps plus valves 267

Pumps, valves, and connectors 1,158

Option 1 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 12,483

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 15,277

Operating hours/yr 8,760

Annual cost, $/yr

SOCMI model:

medium Using emission

data from the

MON analysis

Subpart VV with valves monitored:

Annually 20,603

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 21,905

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 30,344

Operating hours/yr 8,760

Annual cost, $/yr

SOCMI model:

complex Using emission

.

data from the

MON analysis

Subpart VV with valves monitored:

Annually 30,914

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 34,332

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 56,647

Operating hours/yr 8,760

Option 1 Summary
Option 1 Results

Calculation of Nationwide Emissions Estimtates and Costs — Option 1

Total number of process units potentially subject to subpart VV 1,272

Total number of affected process units in fifth year after proposal 191

Total number of new/reconstructed sources subject to Option 1 in 5th year 39

(assumes 15 percent of processes are at area sources and 20 percent of the process units

at major sources subject to the MON emit VOC only, not HAP; also assumes that these

process units are the only process units not already subject to a NESHAP that has the

same requirements as Option 1)

OPTION 1

Nationwide impacts in fth year after proposal

Emission Incremental Incremental

reduction Number of total emission Co

per process, Total annual cost per process, $ process annual reduction, effectiv

Mg/yr baseline option I Incremental units costs, $/yr Mg/yr $/M

New

simple 2.00 11,814 12,483 669 7.7 5,118 15 33

medium 6.55 20,603 21,905 1,302 12.1 15,702 79 19

complex 12.81 30,914 34,332 3,418 3.5 11,886 45 26

Reconstructed

simple 2.00 7,970 9,077 1,107 5.1 5,649 10 55

medium 6.55 13,750 16.352 2,603 8.0 20,918 53 39

complex 12.81 19,294 24,950 5656 2.3 13,114 30 44

total 38.6 72,386 231.3 31

w/ Credit -135,768 -58

Option 1 Summary