p.1 

OAR Box 1208 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

118) ll-E-4 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 5/9/2008 10:08:23 AM Sheet 118 of 127 
P.2 

A-89-10 

LAW OFFICES 

PHILIP J. HARTER 

SUITE 404 

2301 M STREET, N. W. 

WASHINGTON. O.C. 20037 

II-E- 4 

F^OLLli^ 

(202) 687-1033 

^EE-ORANDUE . 

Septembe r 8, 1989 ^'j l FEB I 5 1991 [L' 

'us 

To: Interested Parties 

Fr: Philip J. Harl 

Re.: EPA's Negotiated Rulemaking on Fugitive Emissions from 

Equipment Leaks 

I enclose the Notice that is scheduled to appear in the Federal Register on Tuesday, September 12. It announces that the 

first meeting of the Committee will be on September 27-28 at the 

Quality Hotel—Capitol Hill; 415 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.; Washington, DC; 202-638-1616. The meeting will begin at 9:00. The 

notice also indicates the parties that are currently represented 

on the Committee. A number of others are considering whether 

they should participate. 

The meeting will start with a discussion of the scope of the 

fugitive emission problem and of the regulatory negotiation itself. We will then take up the composition of the Committee. We 

will next develop the groundrules for the operation of the Committee and the Resource Pool which the Committee will be able to 

draw upon during the negotiations. Following the lunch that will 

be served, the Conservation Foundation will provide an introductory training on the techniques of negotiating public policy 

questions; members of prior negotiated rulemaking committees have 

found similar orientations helpful. Substantive discussions will 

begin on Thursday. That will entail identifying the issues that 

we will need to resolve, the data that will be required to do so, 

and how it will be generated. We will also develop a schedule 

for our meetings and a "flow chart" to provide an order for our 

deliberations. We will conclude by 5:00 on Thursday. 

I will forward draft protocols and a more complete agenda 

shortly. 

If there are any questions, please let me know. 
P.3 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND OPEN MEETING OF THE 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR 

THE VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL EQUIPMENT LEAK RULE 

As required by Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (P.L. 92=463), we are giving notice of the 

establishment of an Advisory Committee to negotiate a rule to 

control fugitive emissions of toxic volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) from chemical equipment leaks. We have determined that this 

is in the public interest and will assist the Agency in performing 

its duties prescribed in Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act, 

as amended. 

Copies of the Committee Charter will be filed with the 

appropriate committees of Congress and the Library of Congress. 

The committee's initial meeting will be held on September 27, 

1989 from 10.00 am to 12;30 pm and on September 28 from 9s00 am to 

5:00 pm at the Quality Hotel Capitol Hill, 415 New Jersey Avenue 

N.W./Washington, D.C. The Committee's facilitator has notified 

interested parties of the meeting dates. The purpose of the 

meeting is to complete outstanding procedural matters, determine 

how best to address the substantive issues and begin to address 

them. 

An orientation for Committee members on September 27, 1989 at 

from 2:00 to 5:00 pm at the Quality Hotel Capitol Hill, Washington, 

D.C. 

Persons needing further information on the substantive matters 

of the rule should call Robert Ajax, Office of Air Quality Planning 
P.4 

2 

and Standards, EPA, (919) 541=5579. Persons needing further 

information on procedural matters should call Deborah Dalton, 

Regulatory Negotiation Project, EPA, at (202) 382=5495 or the 

Committee's facilitator, Philip Harter at (202) 887-1033. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORI-IATION 

Background 

Fugitive emissions of toxics and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) from equipment leaks (valves, etc.) contribute significantly 

to air quality problems. For example, some estimates indicate that 

fugitive emissions account for approximately one third of all rou° 

tine (non-accidental) toxic air emissions. Recent reports 

completed under Section 313 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauth~ 

orization Act (SARA) included 385,878 tons per year from fugitive 

sources. Moreover, because they are released near the ground, the 

impact from fugitive emissions is 10=4 0 times greater than equal 

releases from stacks. 

Current regulations adopted under Sections 111 and 112 of the 

Clean Air Act and in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) have been 

effective in heightening awareness of the significance of the 

source and in stimulating control efforts. The rules basically 

require that equipment in place be inspected quarterly for leaks 

with a portable hydrocarbon detector. If concentrations in excess 

of 10,000 ppm are found, the component is identified as a "leaker" 

and maintenance is required. This approach is known as "leak 

detection and repair" (LDAR). 

EPA studies from the early 1980s indicated that typical 
3 

uncontrolled chemical plants and refineries have a leak frequency 

of 11 to 12 percent. Maintenance studies indicate this can be 

reduced by about 60=70 percent with the current leak detection and 

repair program. The actual frequency rate, and associated 

emissions, varies widely, however, and is believed to be a function 

ofs original design (e.g, number of valves), age of the process 

unit, equipment selected, quality of maintenance, standard 

operating procedures used by the company, training provided to 

employees, and motivation. Recent data for highly toxic chemicals 

demonstrate that leak frequencies in the 0.0 to 2 percent range 

can be achieved in some situations. But, no one is sure what 

combination- of factors guarantees such results, nor how to require 

them through enforceable regulations. 

Accurate quantification of fugitive emissions from chemical 

equipment leaks is becoming a high priority, yet regulatory 

approaches currently being used do not develop accurate profiles 

of emissions. Specific emission levels are necessary for baseline 

and residual risk assessments needed for making regulatory 

decisions. These include setting of new regulations, issuing 

permits for new facilities or establishing appropriate emission 

fees. Further, companies must report emissions under the Community 

Right to Know Act (Title III of the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA)). These figures were widely publicized 

early this summer and sparked^considerable public attention on the 

level of emissions of toxics and VOCs. 

Under the current approach, and in the absence of 
P.6 

4 

comprehensive component by component testing, a company complying 

with the regulations is assumed by EPA to achieve an estimated 

percentage reduction in the baseline emissions. These, in turn, 

are based entirely on an uncontrolled plant using the technology 

that was prevalent at the time the regulations were written. The 

actual emission levels at many facilities are probably 

significantly different than these assumptions. The best 

controlled plants emit less than the typical plants using LDAR, 

Theoretically, the actual emissions from chemical equipment 

leaks could be measured; however, it is expensive and impractical 

to do so. Indirect measurements have been used in relatively few 

plants thus far, but their use is increasing. The accuracy of 

these indirect approaches varies with the procedure, with the more 

expensive ones providing reasonable accuracy; interestingly, 

however, the accuracy of these measurements may be the poorest at 

the best controlled plants. 

Not only does the current regulatory approach not achieve 

accurate estimates of the actual emissions, it does not provide 

incentives or credit to firms for establishing programs and facilities that achieve the best control. Nor does the approach 

ensure that emission rates are reduced to levels that are readily 

achievable with available technology. 

Because of these shortcomings in the current regulatory ap= 

proach to control of VOCs from equipment leaks, EPA decided that 

a new strategy is needed. The new method would provide a more 

accurate picture of the actual emissions from fugitive sources and 
P.7 

5 

would assur® that emissions rates are reduced to levels achievable 

with best technology. New regulations could be based on 

performance and/or emissions and could give credit for original 

plant design. EPA has concluded, however, that developing such a 

regulation using traditional data gathering and analysis would be 

very difficult, costly, time consuming and controversial. 

Scope of the Proposed Negotiation 

On April 25, 1989, EPA announced its intention to form an 

Advisory Committee to Negotiate A New Approach for Control of 

Volatile Organic Chemical Equipment Leaks (54 Fed. Reg. 17,944, 

*» 

17,945).- This notice announced an informational meeting in May, 

1989 with-the start of committee deliberations in June or July 

1989. As a result of information received during and after the 

informational meeting and from comments provided to the docket, the 

decision on whether to proceed with negotiating this rule was 

delayed to consider modification in the scope of the negotiation. 

Discussions with many of the potential parties revealed that 

without addressing actual levels in some manner or another, the 

issue was not ripe for resolution: the level of control would not 

have been defined in the negotiations but rather would have been 

set in a subsequent EPA proceeding. Moreover, the nature of the 

approach might also be a function of the actual requirements. 

Further, without addressing the regulation itself, the parties 

would not be participating in the actual decision as to the 

critical aspect of the rule: what is to be required with respect 

to fugitive emissions. 
P.8 

6 

Equally important, some parties were vitally interested in 

revising the ©mission factors while others were vitally interested 

in ensuring a reduced level of emissions; combining the two would 

make for more productive negotiations. Broadening the negotiations 

to encompass the minimum requirements of technology based controls 

would make the negotiations sufficiently tangible and rip© so that 

the committee could adequately address the issues. 

In subsequent discussions, several parties agreed explicitly 

with the need to include technological stringency and requested EPA 

to include it in the negotiations. EPA and the parties believe 

that this negotiation is not the forum to decide the goals or 

limits of specific risk-based standards. 

EPA has made the decision to focus the negotiation on the 

fugitive emissions from equipment leaks for source categories that 

would be affected by EPA's forthcoming HON (hazardous organic 

NESHAPS (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants)). The source categories and compounds expected to be 

affected by the HON regulation are listed below in Table l. 

The current objectives of the proposed regulatory negotiation 

are: 

o revise the emission factors for fugitive emissions of 

VOCs from equipment leaks, leading to a better 

quantification of the magnitude of the leaks; 

o develop a new standard for control of toxic fugitive 

organic emissions from equipment leaks at HON source 
P.9 

7 

categories based upon best technology and lowest 

achievable rates. This standard would be designed to 

reflect the maximum degree of reduction of emissions of 

toxic organic compounds as defined in the 

Administration's proposed amendments to Section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act (House Bill = H.R. 3030 and Senate Bill 

- S.1490). 

o develop a format that could be used to implement a risk 

based standard for toxic organic emissions from equipment 

leaks. Specific risk limits or goals will not be a topic 

for negotiation. 

Parties to the Negotiation: 

The following parties have been identified as tentative 

committee members. Membership will be finalized at the-initial 

meeting. 

Robert Ajax 

U.S. EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

David Dunn 

Sterling Chemical Corp. 

Texas City, TX 
P.10 

8 

Thomas Kittleman 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. 

Newark, DE 

On Behalf of Chemical Manufacturers Assn. 

David Doniger and Allen Hershkowitz 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Washington, D.C. and New York, NY 

Anupom Ganguli 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

El Monte, CA 

Les Montgomery 

Texas Air Control Board 

Austin, TX' 

Gus Von Bodungen 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Baton Rouge, LA 

Harvele Rogers 

Air Pollution Control District 

Louisville, KY 
P.11 

Bruce Bowers 

Standard Chlorine 

Delaware City, DE 

John Prokop 

Independent Liquid Terminals Assn. 

Washington, D.C. 

International Institute for Synthetic Rubber Producers 

Houston, TX 

Several-other parties have been contacted and are considering 

whether to participate. Organizations or individuals that believe 

these parties do not adequately represent their interests should 

contact the committee facilitator, Philip Harter, at (202) 887=1033 

or attend the initial meeting. 

Dated: q/$fffi 

e^-r^ ... 2J^7*-5> _., , 

Terry Dfflvies 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Policy, Planning and 

Evaluation 
P.1-

TABLE 1 

HON SOURCE CATEGORIES 

AND CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS 

Source Category Compounds 

Butadiene Production BD 

SBR Production BD 

Polybutadiene BD 

Neoprene/Chloroprene BD 

Chlorine Production CT 

CFC Production CT, CF, PCE 

EDC* Production EDC 

EO Production EO 

Pesticide Production CT, EDC, MC 

Chemical Plants CT, MC, PCE, CF, EDC 

(Chlorinated Compound Users) 

Chlorinated HC Production CT, HC,PCE,CF,TCE ' 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing MC, CT 

Other Production Processes BD 

that Use Butadiene 

Compounds are abbreviated as follows: (BD) Butadiene, (CT) Carbon 

Tetrachloride, (CF) Chloroform, (PCE) Perchloroethylene, (EDC) 

Ethylene Dichloride, (EO) Ethylene oxide, (MC) Methylene Chloride, 

(TCE) Trichloroethylene