Ru MemorandumINTERNATIONAl.

I Date: October 31, 2006 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 would lower the leak definition
for pumps from 10,000 parts per million (ppm)
to 2,000 ppm and lower the leak definition
for valves from 10,000ppm 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
of Chemical Producers: United States
to estimate the number of currently operating process units in the SOCMI) There are approximately 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 practicechemical.
Of the

I ,272 process units, 879 units manufacture either ethylene

or a chemical listed in Table

1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart

F (the National Emission Standards
for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Equipment Leaks (HON)). Ethylene process units would be subject
to the equipment leak standards

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, as specified

in the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (Ethylene NESI-IAP)
(40 CFR part 63, subpart YY), 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 2

to 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 6

to 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 2analysis. Based on the analysis results, we estimated that 15 percent of the process units are located

at area sources. Third, we made some assumptions regarding whether
or not HAP are emitted from the process units at major sources. We assumed that the manufacturing

of any of the chemicals listed in Table

1 to subpart

F of the HON would require the use of an organic HAP as a reactant
or produce
an organic HAP as a product. Therefore,
we assumed that the 879 process units manufacturing HON chemicals
are emitting HAP.

It is possible that some of the 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)

of the 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). 8 These 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 of the emissions estimates are determined

on a component basis; the appropriate impacts are distributed among the seven scenarios

as described

in Table

I.

3III. Emissions Estimates Pumps and Valves The analysis uses industry-supplied

data to the extent possible. The first step was to estimate leak frequencies under both baseline and Option

1 leak detection and repair (LDAR) 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 same regulatory options on the petroleum refining industry.’ 0 The leak frequencies
for refineries were estimated based on information

in the 1997 American Petroleum Institute report Analysis
of Refinery 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 both refineries 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 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (the Protocol document).’ 3 The relevant data from the Protocol document and Analysis
of Ref inery 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
of the way above the lower end of the range (e.g., 665 ppm for leaks between 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 value ranges 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$ emission rates for equipment with screening values less than 10 ppm were assumed

to be equal to the default zero emission rates in Table 2-11 of the Protocol document. The leak frequencies presented

in Attachment

5 are assumed

to be representative

of facility-measured
leak frequencies (and, therefore, representative

of the leak frequencies that 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
the10th 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. 5For each set, the column titled “Percent
of values
in range” shows the scaled leak frequency data from the Protocol document

as a percentage

of all valves monitored. The column titled “Emission rate, kg/hr (per 100 valves)” (or pumps) shows the results of the correlation equation for the screening value
in each range multiplied

by the percentage

of all valves
in that range. The sums of the values
in each of those columns are divided by 100 to convert the emission 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 Impacts from 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 Impacts from the Control of VHAP Emissions from Equipment 6Leaks
in Non-SOC’MJ Process Units for HON. 15 Other constants were developed

or estimated

as follows: Component-based
costs $ Initial cost of monitoring components

in gas and light liquid service: The value of $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 Polymers and Resins NESHAP.’ 7 $ Monitoring
fee: The value 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.’ 9 The 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 7over

a wide range. Many organic compounds
are considerably more expensive. On the other hand, common compounds like methanol and ethylene dichloride
are considerably
less costly. The $900/Mg value
is weighted towards the lower end of the range because this value

is representative

of prices for common compounds liked toluene, xylene, and hexane; and it accounts for the fact that higher volume compounds tend to have prices towards the lower end of the range. This VOC 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 Analysis for 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 jr 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 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$ Administrative

and reports for LDAR program, including connectors: The value of 105 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 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 and summarized

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 of the SOCMI Scenarios Scenario New units Reconstructed Reconstructed New units Reconstructed New units Reconstructed subject to units subject to units (MON (GP def.) units (GP def.) subject to units subject to HON/MON HON/ethylene def) subject to subject to subject to NSPS NSPS ethylene MON MON MON Leak definition: Pumps 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 Valves 500 500 500 500 500 10,000 

# 10,000 Connectors 500 500 500 N/A N/A N/A N/A

V C,, 

# Monitoring frequency: Pumps Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Valves Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Annual Annual Connectors Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs N/A N/A N/A N/A Initial leak Yes

— 

# No

— 

# Initial No

— 

# Initial Yes

— 

# No

— 

# Initial Yes

— 

# No

— 

# Initial frequency/ Program costs would costs would Program costs would Program costs would costs starts at set have been have been starts at have been starts at set have been leak incurred at incurred at lower leak incurred at leak incurred at definitions: construction or construction or definitions; construction or definitions; construction or initial leak reconstruction reconstruction initial leak reconstruction initial leak reconstruction 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 320 hours per training costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process process unit unit Administrative 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 95 hours per 95 hours per 85 hours per 85 hours per report costs process unit 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 Reconstructed subject to units subject to units (MON (GP def.) units (GP def.) subject to units subject to HON/MON HON/ethylene def.) subject to subject to subject to NSPS NSPS ethylene MON MON MON Leak definition: 

# Pumps 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000a 2,000a Valves 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Connectors 500 500 500 N/A N/A N/A N/A

C C, 

# 0 Monitoring frequency: Pumps Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Valves Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Semiannual Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs Every 4 yrs N/A N/A N/A N/A Initial leak Yes

— 

# No

— 

# Initial No

— 

# Initial Yes

— 

# No

— 

# Initial Yes

— 

# Partial

— 

# Only frequency/ Program costs would costs would Program costs would Program includes initial costs starts at set have been have been starts at have been starts at set costs associated leak incurred at incurred at lower leak incurred at leak with lowering definitions; construction or construction or definitions: construction or definitions; leak definitions initial leak reconstruction reconstruction initial leak reconstruction initial leak from 10,000 frequency is frequency is frequency is ppm 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 330 hours per training costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process process unit unit Administrative 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 95 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 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 Reconstructed subject to units subject to units (MON (OP def.) units (OP def.) subject to units subject to HON/MON HON/ethylene def.) subject to subject to subject to NSPS NSPS ethylene MON MON MON Leak definition: Pumps 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000a 2,000a Valves 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Connectors 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

C 

# 0 

# Monitoring frequency: Pumps Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Valves Semiannual 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 

# Every 4 yrs Initial leak Yes

— 

# No

— 

# Initial No

— 

# Initial Yes Partial

— 

# Only Yes

— 

# Partial

— 

# frequency/ Program costs would costs would Program includes initial Program Includes initial costs starts at set have been have been starts at costs for starts at set costs associated leak incurred at incurred at lower leak adding leak with lowering definitions; construction or construction or definitions: connectors to definitions; leak definitions initial leak reconstruction reconstruction initial leak program initial leak from 10,000 frequency is frequency is frequency is ppm and adding
same as same as same as connectors 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 340 hours per training costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process process unit unit 

# Administrative 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours per 105 hours 105 hours per report costs process unit process unit process unit process unit process unit per process process unit unit

12

# Table 2. Summary of Impacts for the SOCMIa New units Reconstructed Reconstructed New units Reconstructed New units Reconstructed F subject to units subject units (MON (GP def.) units (GP def.) subject to units subject d

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

# r3 ethylene ethylene to MON MON MON Baseline costs, $/yr 3 2,100,000 700,000 73,000 400,000 

# [ 180,000 450,000 200,000 4,100,000 OPTION 1 Emission reduction. 0 0 0 0 0 140 90 230 Mg/yr 

# Option 1 costs, 5/yrb 2,100,000 700,000 73,000 400,000 180,000 480,000 240,000 4,200,000 Incremental costs, 0 0 0 0 0 33,000 40,000 72,000 S/yr Cost effectiveness, N/A N/A N/A 

# N/A N/A 240 440 310 S/Mg removed OPTION 2 Emission reduction, 0 0 0 67 45 

# 220 150 480 Mg/yr Option 2 costs, $/yrb 

# 2,100,000 700,000 73,000 560,000 290,000 680,000 370,000 4,700,000 Incremental costs, 0 0 0 170,000 110,000 230,000 170,000 680,000 S/yr 

# Cost effectiveness, N/A 

# N/A N/A 2,500 2,400 1,000 1,100 1,400 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 500 or 1,000 ppm and 

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



# 13VI. References SRI Consulting. 2004. 2004 Directory
of Chemical Manufacturers: United States. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Consulting. 2. The Congress
of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. January 2000. The 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 Info rmation 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 ChemicalManifacturing industry Background Information for 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 Reductionsof Leakless 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. Analysisof Re finery Screening Data. Prepared
by Hal Taback Company. Publication Number 310.

1412. U. S. EPA, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance. October 1999. Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential

to Reducing ‘Fugitive Emissions’ Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs.- 13. U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 1995. Protocol for 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 Inzpacts for 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. Impacts from the Control of VI-JAP Emissions from Equipment Leaks
in IVon-SOcMI Process Units for 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 PET facilities 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 of the drill and iap method of valve 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.” 15In Equipment LeakAnalysisforAmino

and Phenolic Resins NESHAP. Docket No. A-92- 19, Item No. 11-B-I

1.

16Attachments

## 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 Envirofacts

* 

## not 

# in Envirofacts; unit included as 2 Adisseo USA Inc. Institute WV Unknown 0 0 2 part of Bayer CropScience permit 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 Envirofacts 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 the same as Dow 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 Envirofacts 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

- 

## Designation based on 1 Carbide Industries Louisville KY Area 1 0 0 permit, high VOC but low HAP 1 Carbolabs, Inc. Bethany CT Unknown 0 0 1 * 

## Not in NEI 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 2

## 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 Envirofacts 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 NEI; based on TRI/Envirofacts 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 NEI; based on Envirofacts info 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 NEI 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 3

## 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 NEI 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 4

## 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 Envirofacts 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 5

## Process units Process units Unknown Notes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 

## Not in NEI

- 

## should be, but missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 * 

## Not in Envirofacts 0 0 0 0 

# o 1 * 

## Not in Envirofacts; no Title V Permit 

# o o o a 5 0 6 0 0 

# o 2 * 

## Not in Envirofacts 

# o 0 * 

## Not in NEt; based on Texas permit 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 6

## Process units Process units Number Facility at Area at Major Processes Company City State Designation Source Source Unknown Notes

* 

## Not in NEI: based on TRI/Envirofacts 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 1 0 1 Koppers Inc. Cicero IL Major 0 1 0 3 KoSa Wilmington NC Major 0 3 0 1 Lomac, LLC Muskegon Ml Major 0 1 0 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 Envirofacts; originally split from 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 1 0 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 1 0 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 NEI; based on Envirofacts info 

# o 7 * 

## Not in Envirofacts 

# o 8 * 

## Not in Envirofacts

* 

## Not in NEI; based on TRI/Envirofacts 

# o 0 

## info 

# o o 1 0 1 0 

# o 1 * 

## Not in Envirofacts 

# o 0 

# o 3 * 

## Not in NEI

- 

## should be, but missing 3 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 

# o 0 

# o 1 * 

## Not in Envirofacts 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 Envirofacts 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 8

## 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 NEI; based on Envirofacts info 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 9

## 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 10

# Attachment 2 Scenario Determination



# Determination of process units subject to SOCMI regulations. The numbers in bold at the bottom of each box indicate the numbers of process units described by the text in that box. The numbers in italics and parentheses in the bottom rows indicate the scenario and regulation to which those process units are subject: the boxes marked (6) and (7) 

# represent the process units impacted by amendments to subpart VV.Attachment3ModelDetailsTypeofComponentPumpSeals*Light-liquidservice*Heavy-liquidserviceValves*Gas/vaporservice*Light-liquidservice*Heavy-liquidserviceConnectors*Flanges-gas/vapor*Flanges-lightliquid*Flanges-heavyliquidPressureReliefDevices*Disks*Diskholders,valves,etc.Open-endedValvesSamplingConnectionsCompressorVentReplacementPumpSealsNumberofComponentssimplemediumcomplex1540560536774141,3793801,1791,9800711,2727312,6627,410245762457633141424835106028154056Models1

# 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 Emission Reductions of 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 Rounded values 2.5 0.5

2 0.5 0.5

0 0.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.5

0 0.5

0 0 0 0 0 0.56 255 30 17 1,094 434,206 188,961

HON RR data 1

# 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 LDAR 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 applied to 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 applied to 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 Option 1 valve leak 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 frequency for 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 1Attachment6EmissionEstimateInputsEmissionsdataInProtocoldocumentComponentMonitoringLeakLeakAverageFinalleakEmissionfrequencydefinition,frequency,leakraterate.ppm%fraction,%(kg/hr)kg/hr/componentsGasvalveQuarterly700003802.330.001950.00195Annually10,0002.001.230.00109Monthly5002.01.00.00046Quarterly5001.50.75000035Semiannually5000.750.375000018Annually5000.50.25000013LiquidvalveQuarterly10,0002.611.600.00159000159Annually10,0002001.230.00126Monthly5002.01.0000050Quarterly50015075000038Semiannually5000.750.3750.00020Annually5000.50250.00014PumpMonthly10,0003.531770.006130.00615Monthly1,0008.044.020.00488GasconnectorNone5003.9390.00180Annually5000.500.250.000130000130LiquidconnectorNone5003.93.9000180Annually5000,500.250.000130000730UsingALRequationsfromtheNovember1995Protocoldocument(ALR=X*LKFRAC+Y)TABLE5-4.EQUATIONSRELATINGAVERAGELEAKRATETOFRACTIONLEAKINGATSOCMIUNITSEquipmentLeakDefinitionXYGasValve5000,0441.7E-0510000052.8E-0520000.05743E-0550000.06881E-05100000,0781.3E-04Lightliquidvalve50000472.7E-0510000.0533.9E-05200000615.9E-05500000771.1E-04100000.0891.7E-04Pump5000.0953.1E-0410000.114.6E-0420000.1367E-0450000.201.4E-03100000241.9E-03Connector5000.0471.7E-0510000.0602.5E-05200000733.5E-0550000.09254E-05100000.118.1E-05Equationis(ALR=X*LKFRAC÷Y)InputsTABLE G-1. DETERMINATION

OF LDAR CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS

AT SOCMI PROCESS UNITS Initial leak Immediately Immediately Equipment Control Leak definition fraction Initial leak after LDAR prior to LDAR type program (ppmv) (percent) rate (kg/hr) monit. monit. LLValves Monthly 10000

4.3 0.0040
0.20
0.88 Quarterly 10000

4.3 0.0040
059
2.61 HON reg neg 500

8.5 0.0040
0.00
2.00 Gas Valves Monthly 10000

7.5 0.0060
0.29
1.29 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

LDAR control Final leak effectiveness Cycle average
rate (kg/hr) (percent) 0.54 0.00064

84 1.60 000159

61 1.00 0.00050

88 0.79 0.00075

87 2.33 0.00195

67 1.00 000045

92 1.77 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 Correlations Table 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
0.22 Equation

is Leak rate (kg/hr)

= X* (SV)AY, SV
= screening value
in ppmv InputsMONdataComponentMonitoringLeakLeakAverageEmissionfrequencydefinition,frequencyleakrate,ppmfraction,%‘kglhrlcomponentCGasvalveannually10000032301620000256semiannually500058202810000145Liquidvalveannually10,00001930.0970.000256semiannually5000.5020.2510.000145Pumpmonthly10,0003.1501.5750.00568monthly100060733036000380Connectornone500036003600000186every4yrs5000.3600.1800.0001016Assumedleakfrequencyatendofmonitoringperiodequalstwicetheaverageleakfraction,exceptforconnectorsatbaselinewheretheabsenceofanLDARprogrammeanstheleakfractiondoesn’tvaryovertheyear.LeakfractionscalculatedusingALRequationsintheProtocoldocument(ALR=X*LKFRAC+Y),exceptforconnectorsatbaselinewheretheleakfrequencyisalways036%ValuesusedinMONanalysisforcontrolundersubpartTT(10,000ppm)andsubpartVV(500ppm).CalculationofEstimateofBaselineInitialLeakFrequencyAverageUncontrolledEmissionRateInitialLeak(kglhrlFrequencyComponentcomponent)a(%)bGasValvesc368E-040.305LLValves368E-040.222Pumps7.56E-032.358Connectors1.86E-040.360aFromTable1ResultingEmissionRatesandProgramEfficienciesforCMADatainRevisedMACTFIooiRegulatoryAlternatives,andNationwideImpactsforEquipmentLeaksatChemicalManufacturingFacilitiesLeakfractionscalculatedusingALRequationsintheProtocoldocument(ALR=XLKFRAC+Y)CUsedvalueforvalvesinlightliquidserviceLeakfrequenciesfromthe1997APIreport:AnalysisofRefineryScreeningDataDirectAPIDataforTotalLeakingatLeakDefinition,%50010001000050000100000Valves-Gas0.9970,8780.2480.1080.081Valves-LightLiquid103108560.2890.1030.079Pumps-LightLiquid3.5432.7680.99702860186Connectors-Gas0.27202360.09300460.032Connectors-LightLiquid0.1800.1470.0540.0200.015AverageValves1.0140.8670.269Differences(%withinthegivenrange)50010001000050000100000Valves-Gas01190.6300.1400.0270.081Valves-LightLiquid0.1750567018600240.079Pumps-LightLiquid0.7751.7710.7110.1000.186Inputs

# 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 controlled Average above 10000

Emission rate estimated using ALR equation (500 ppm) 0.0060 (10,000 ppm) 0.00100 (10,000 ppm) 0.00056 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 Emission rate, kg/hr (per 100 valves) 0.00005250

0.000425 0.000911 0.000937 0.001609 0.003916 0.005245 0.001794 0.002249 0.038805 Emission rate

per valve

0.000559

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 2

# 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 3

# 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 4

# 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 controlled 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 0.000628 (10,000 ppm)

0.00066 Percent of Average Emission rate, Percent of Emission rate, Percent of Emission rate, Leak Range of values in screening value kg/hr (per 100 values in kg/hr (per 100 values in kg/hr (per 100 Definition concentrations rangea in range valves) rangea valves) rangea valves) <10 82.0 0.0000402 84.9 0.0000416 85.4 0.0000418 10 lOto 100 7.0 39.7 0.000844 7.2 0.000874 7.3 0.000879 100 lOOto500 2.5 232 0.001231 2.6 0.001274 2.6 0.001281 500 500 to 1000 1.5 665 0.001709 1.6 0.001770 1.6 0.001780 1000 1000 to 2000 1.2 1330 0.002375 1.2 0.002460 1.2 0.002473 2000 2000 to 5000 0.7 2990 0.002643 0.7 0.002737 0.7 0.002752 5000 5000 to 10000 0.6 6650 0.004283 0.6 0. 004435 0.6 0.004460 10000 10000 to 50000 1.6 23200 0.030922 Pegged value 0.4 0.007639 0.2 0.003819 50000 50000 to 100000 0.7 66500 0.031314 0.15 0.2 0.007736 0.1 0.003868 100000 >100000 2.2 310000 0.335657 0.33 0.5 0.082917 0.3 0.041459 Emission rate Emission rate Emission rate

per valve 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 5

# 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 6

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

Emissions 7

# Pumps Use correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario 2

- 

# Baseline before control 3

- 

# Baseline controlled 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 0.00436 (10.000 ppm)

0.00410 Percent of Average Emission rate, Percent of Emission rate, Percent of Emission rate, values in screening value kg/hr (per 100 values in kg/hr (per 100 values in kg/hr (per 100

rangea in range pumps) rangea pumps) range 8 pumps) 56.0 0.00042 59.1 0.000443328 59.7 0.000447432 14.0 39.7 0.005524 14.8 0.005831 14.9 0.005885 9.0 232 0.015211 9.5 0.016056 9.6 0.016205 3.9 665 0.015697 4.1 0.016569 4.2 0.016722 3.9 1330 0.027789 4.1 0.029332 4.2 0.029604 3.4 2990 0.047226 3.6 0.049850 3.6 0.050311 2.8 6650 0.075148 3.0 0.079322 3.0 0.080056 3.5 23200 0.263017 Pegged value 0.9 0.068931 0.5 0.034465 1.5 66500 0.268442 0.62 0.4 0.070353 0.2 0.035176 2.0 310000 1.272523 1.2400 0.5 0.333500 0.3 0.166750 Emission rate Emission rate Emission rate

per pump per pump per pump 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 8

# 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 9Attachment8CostAnalysisInputsThispageprovidesinputsfortheentireanalysis.Thefirstsection(yellowhighlight)aresinglenumbersfromvarioussourcesthatareusedincostcalculationsThenumbersinbluearecalculatedfromvarioussources18000Costofreplacementpumpseals(8)17.70Initialcostofmonitoringvalvesandpumpsingasandlightliquidservice(8)1.13Initialcostofmonitoringconnectorsandothercomponentsinheavyliquidservice($)1.50MonitoringFee(8/component)24.30Wage(chemicalmanufacturingmaintenance)($)1.5Overheadfactor,maintenance&andrepair(assumescontractor)1.5Overheadfactor,administration,planning,andtraining(assumesin-house)57.65Planningandtraininglaborcharge(8)*0.244Capitalrecoveryfactor:rupturedisksandpumpseals(fromHONanalysis)0.142Capitalrecoveryfactor:allothertypesofequipmentandinitialLDARlabor(fromHONanalysis)1272TotalnumberofsubpartVVprocessunitsnationwide(estimatebasedontotalnumberofmanufacturingsiteslistedin2004SRIConsultingDirectoryofChemicalProducersfor310ofthechemicalslistedinsubpartVV,theother68arenotlistedinthe2004SRIdirectory)879NumberofprocessunitsmakingHON/ethyleneMACTcompounds393NumberofprocessunitsmakingMONcompounds(plusanyprocessesnotsubjecttoanyMACT,iftheyhaveonlyVOC,noHAP)20PercentageofprocessunitsatMONmajorsourcesemittingVOConly(noHAP)15Percentageofprocessunitsatareasources(assumed)3Percentageofprocessunitsthatbecomesubjecteachyear(Assumed)20PercentageofprocessunitsthatmanufactureMONchemicalsthatwillmeetthedefinitionofneworreconstructedin63.2440(c)60Percentageofaffectedprocessunitsthatarenew(Assumed)40Percentageofaffectedprocessunitsthatarereconstructed(Assumed)33Percentageofprocessunitsrepresentedbysimplemodel(fromHONanalysis)52Percentageofprocessunitsrepresentedbymediummodel(fromHONanalysis)15Percentageofprocessunitsrepresentedbycomplexmodel(fromHONanalysis)320PlanningandtrainingforLDARprogram,currentNSPSlevel,hours330PlanningandtrainingforLDARprogram,currentMACTlevel,hours340PlanningandtrainingforLDARprogramincludingconnectors,hours85AdministrativeandreportsforLDARprogram,currentNSPSlevel,hours95AdministrativeandreportsforLDARprogram,currentMACTlevel,hours105AdministrativeandreportsforLDARprogramincludingconnectors,hours900.00VOCRecoveryCredit,s/Mg128Averagevalveleakfrequencyfoundby17refineries(EnforcementAlert:ProperMonitoringEssentialtoReducing‘FugitiveEmissions’UnderLeakDetectionandRepairPrograms)171NEICFactorforleakfrequency*PlanningandtraininglaborchargecalculationCategoryMeanMultiplierResultEnvironmentalengineering33.9213392Generalandoperationsmanagers56.750.052.84Generalofficeandadminsupport16.670.11.6738.43Inputs

# 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 38qosst Annual percent Type ot Component Number of Fee or Unit Cost IniSnI LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Monitoring Mooitonng Fee Monitoring Maintenance Frnqunony Number of F Leak Number of Repaired ornponents ($/oomp) (S/pt) 

### ( epital) Adirro. osls (Smeu/pr) h0l0 Costs (5/pr) Costs (5/pt) 

### (%) Leaks reqoency Leaks OnLine SOCMI model process Pump Seals simple Light-/iquidsersice 15 t7.70 35938 12 1.50 50693 346.at 1.07 0.16 1.07 1.93 100 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 0.65 0.50 75 Light-liquid sersice 380 17.70 6030.79 1 1.50 570.00 DeS 2.46 0.65 2.46 75 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 N/A 0.00 75 Flanges- tight liquid 731 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 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 e tM s:°.4° (5/y)/ p1 I) Adno LDA F5 Dt Mntmp Fnn bldg Cost /Siy) N Lk o bt Nnbe t .e

SOCMI model process Pump Seals medium Lrght1iquidsersice 40 17.70 958.38 t2 1.50 t351.80 924.83 1.07 8.43 1.07 5.14 lOS 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 0.65 2.69 70 Light-liquid selvica 1.179 17.70 21193,42 1 1.50 1760.50 0.68 7.65 0,65 7,65 75 Heavy-liquid service 71 1.13 80.23 Connectors

Plunges- gas/vapor 0.00 0.00 0 000 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 Flanges

- light liquid 2 662 0,00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 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_baselineAnnual 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/neInitial Monitoring Frequency Subsequent Annual Annual Initial Leak IniSal subsequent Annual Percent Type 01 Coniponont ‘a: 1roSMLDAR Mointonna Fee Mt Mouevance Freqoency Narrrberol Freqoency Number of RepoSed

SOCMI model process Prrnnp Seals complen Light-liquid semice 56 1770 1341.68 12 150 189252 1294.76 1.07 0,60 1.07 7.19 tOO 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 0.65 0.94 75 Light-liquid semice 1.999 17,70 35592.00 1 1.50 2970.00 0.65 12.04 0.65 12.64 75 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 N/A 0.00 75 Flanges

- Ight Squid 7 410 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 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_baselineAnnual 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, initial repair, and online and offline repairs. Initial capital costs are annualized Annual costs and expenses used to estimate incremental cost. Subsequent Subsequent Initial Monitonng Initial LDAR Costs Initial LOAF Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annual Initial Leak Initial Number of Leak Monilonng Maintenance Frequency Number of Fee or Unit Cost Monitoring Type of Component Components 

### (SIyr) (Capital) Admin. Costs (S/comp) or Frequency Costs (Slyr) Costs (S/yr) 

### )%) Leaks )Slcomp) )tinres/yr) Charge 

### )%) (%) Pump Seals SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 15 17.70 320.07 12 1.50 506.93 201.60 0.62 0.09 0.62 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 0.51 0.39 0.51 • Light-liquid 

### service 380 17.70 6807.71 2 1.50 1140.00 0.51 1.92 0.51 • Heavy-liquid 

### service 0 1.13 0.00 Connectors

• Flanges

- gas/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 • Flanges

- light liquid 731 17.70 /3002.62 0.25 1.50 274.13 0.36 2.63 0.36 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 MONdataAnnual Percent Annual OnLine Repair Labor Annual Otfline Monitoring to Annual Annual Misc. Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repay Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Venly Repair Adrnin. Cost Charges Lealto OnLine Cost (5/pr) Repair )hours) )$/hr) Cost (S/pr) 

### (5) t$/yr) (5/pr)
Pump Seals SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 1.12 100 16.00 3645 653.20 0 60.00 36.45 0.00 1.66 161.28 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 5476.75

• With connectors 576,50 Planning and Training

• Without connectors

* With connectors

TOTALS without Connectors 674.30 168.51 8.61 5476.75 161.28 TOTALS with connectors 577.31 18050 9,613 6053.25 161.28

—

-—•-- 677.31 180.50 9.60 6053.25 161.28

OptioniMONdata 2- --

-

—-

—

- Subsequent Subsequent Annual Annual Initial Leek Initial Initial Monitoring Frequency of Number of Fee or Unit Cost Initial LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Monitonng Monitonng Fee Leak Monitoring Maintenance Frequency Number of Type of Component Components (5/yr) (Capital) Admin. Costs Frequency ($/compl or Costs )$Iyr) Costs 

### (Slyr) (%) Leaks (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 0.62 0.25 0.62 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 0.51 2.09 0.51 Light-liquid uervice 1,179 17.70 21121.83 2 1.50 3537.00 0.51 5,96 0.51 • Heavy-liquid service 71 1.13 80.23 Connectors

* Flanges-gas/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 • Flanges

- light liquid 2,662 17.70 47350.18 0.25 1.50 998.25 0.36 9.58 0.36 • 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 3Annual PerceOt

. Annual Onune 1’eent Repair Labor Annual Qffhne Monitonnq to Annual Annual Misc Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Venly Repair Admin, Cost Charges Leaks OnLine Cost 

### (S/pr) Repair (hours) (S/hr) Cost (S/pr) (9) (S/yr) (S/yr,
Pump Seals SOCMI Model process Light-liquid 

### service 2.99 100 16.00 36.45 1741,85 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 4.48 430.09 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 5476.75

• With consectoru 576.50 Planning and Training

• Without connectors

• With connectors

TOTALS without connectors 1815.43 587.37 28.65 5476.75 430.09 TOTALS with connectors 1826.36 631,04 32.25 6053.25 430.09 TOTALS initial for connectors only 1825.36 631.04 32.25 6053.25 430.09

Optionl MONdataSubsequent Initial Monitonng Initial LOAR Couts Initial LDAR Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annual Iniliat Leak Initial Subsequent Number of Leak Monitoeng Maintenance Frequency Number of Type of Component Components Fee or Unit Cost (Siyr) (Capital) Admin. Costs Monitonny Frequency (5/comp) or Costs ($/yr) Costs 

### (S/yr) (%) Leaks (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 0.62 0.35 0.62 complex Heavy-liquid service 36 1.13 40.68 Option 1 Valves Gao/vapor service 1,379 17.70 24704.84 2 1.50 4137.00 051 6.97 0.51

* Light-liquid service 1,980 17.70 35471.78 2 1.50 5940.00 051 10.01 0.51 Heavy-liquid service 1272 1.13 1437.36 Connectors

Flanges

- gao/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 036 0,00 0.36 • Flanges

- light liquid 7.410 17,70 13180497 0.25 1.50 2778.75 0.36 26,68 0,36 • 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 5Percent

- Annual Percent Annual OnLine Repair Labor Annual Ofttine Monitonnq to Annual Annual Misc. Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time aborLharge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Venfy Repair Adrnin. Cost Charges Leaks OnLine Cost (5/yr) Repair (hours) tS/lm) Cost 

### (S/till (5) (5/yr) (S/pr)
Pump Seals SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 4.18 100 16.00 36.45 2438.60 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 6.27 602.12 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 5476.75

* With connecturs 576.50 Planning and Training

• Without csnnectoru With connectors

TOTALS without connectors 2593.73 1238.53 57.24 5476.75 602.12 TOTALS with connectors 2624.17 1360.08 67.24 6053.25 602.12 TOTALS initial lorconnectors only 2624.17 1350.08 67.24 6053.25 602.12



### Optisni MONaata 6

# 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 and training for process units 

# 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 to estimate incremental cost. Subsequent Subsequent Initial Monitoring Initial LDAR Costs Initial LOAR Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annuat Initial Leak Initial Number of Leak Monitoring Maintenance Frequency Number of Type of Component Fee or Unit Cost Components (S/yrl ICapitall Admin. Costs Monitoring Frequency (Sycompl or Costs ($iyrl Costs (5/yr) 

### (%l Leaks (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 15.96 2.39 0.62 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 7.20 5.54 0.51 Light-liquid service 380 0.00 695.37 2 1.60 1140.00 4.81 18.28 0.51

* Heavy-liquid service 0 0.00 0.00 Connectors

Flanges

- gao/vapor 0 17.70 

### 0.00 0.25 1.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36

* Flanges-light liquid 731 17.70 13002.62 0.25 1.50 274.13 0.36 2.63 0.36 • 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 NSPSAnnual Percent Annual OnLine 1’ct Repair Labor Annual Offlirie Monitoring to Annual Annual Misc Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Ven Repair Adrnin. CosI Charges Leakn OnLine Cost (S/ti) Repair (hours) (S/hr) Coot (5/yr) (5) (S/yr) (Slyr)
Pump Seals SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 112 100 16.00 36.45 653.20 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 1.68 161.28 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 5476.75

• Vrith connectors 576.50 Planning and Training

• Without connectors

- Vu/tb connectors

TOTALS without 

### connectors 674.30 168.51 8.61 5476.75 161.28 TOTALS with 

### connectors _____________

67731 18050 960 6053.25 16128

Optioni NSPSSubsequent Subsequent Annual Annual Inibal Leak Initial Initial Monitoring Frequency of Initial LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Number of Monitoring Fee Leak Type of Component Fee or Unit Coot Monitoring Moniloring Maintenance Frequency Number 0 f Components (5/yr) (Capital) Admin. Costs (S/csmp) or Costs )SIyr) Costs (Slyr) (%( Leaks Frequency (S/corop( (tirnes/yr) Charge 

### (%) Pump Seals SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 40 000 3587.90 12 1.50 1351.80 537.61 15,96 6.39 0.62 medium Heavy-liquid service 5 0.00 0.00 Option 1 Valves

• ISas/vaporservice 414 0.00 1178.35 2 1.50 1242.00 7.20 29.81 0.51 • Light-liquid service 1.179 0.00 2157.47 2 1.50 3537.00 4.81 56.71 0.51 • Heavy-liquid service 71 0.00 0.00 Connectors

Flanges-gao/vapor 0 17,70 0,00 0.25 1.50 0,00 0.36 0,00 0.36 • Flanges

- light liquid 2,662 17.70 47350,18 0.25 1,50 998.25 0,36 9.58 0,36 • 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 3Annual Percent Annual OnLine Percent Repair Labor Annual Offline Monitoring to Annual Annual Misc. Type of Component Number of Repaired Repair Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Veri Repair Admin. Cost Charges Leaks OnLine Cost (S/pr) Repair (hours) (S/br) Cost (9/pr) (5) (S/yr) (SIyr)
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 43009 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 5476.75

• With connectors 576.50 Planning and Training

V/ithout connectors ‘With connectors

TOTALS without connectors 1815.43 587.37 28.65 5476.75 430.09 TOTALS with connectors 1826.36 631.04 32.25 6053.25 430.09

OptionlNSPS 4Subsequent Subsequent Initial Monitoring Initial LDAR Costs Initial LDAR Frequency of Monitoring Fee Annual Annual Initial Leak Initial Leak Number of Monitoring Maintenance Frequency Number of (5/yr) (Capital) Admin. Costs Monitonng Type ot Component Components Fee or Unit Cost ($/comp) or Coats 

### ($/yr) Costa (S/pr) 

### (%) Leaks Frequency 

### (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 15.96 8.94 0.62 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 7.20 99.29 0.51 Light-liquid service 1 980 0.00 3623.23 2 1.50 5940.00 4.81 95.24 0.51 Heavy-liquid service 1272 0.00 0.00 Connectors

Flanges

- gas/vapor 0 17.70 0.00 025 1.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 Flanges-tight liquid 7.410 17.70 131804.97 0.25 1.50 2778.75 0.36 26.68 0.36 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 NSPSAnnual Percent

. Annual OnLine Percent Repair Labor Annual Offline Monitoring to Annual Annual Misc. Type of Component Number of Repaired Repmr Time Labor Charge Leak Repair Requinng Time Charge Leak Repair Verify Repair Admin. Cost Charges Leaks OnLine Cost (S/pr) Repair (hours) (S/br) Cost 

## (s/pr) (9) )S/yr) (S/pr)

Pump Seals SOCMI Model process Light-liquid service 4.18 100 16.00 36.45 243860 0 80.00 36.45 0.00 5.27 602.12 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 5476.75

‘14th connectorS 576.50
Planntng and Training

• Without connectors

• ‘111th connectors

TOTALS without cOnnectors 259373 1238.53 57.24 5476.75 602,12 TOTALS with connectors 2624 17 136008 6724 6053.29 602 12

Optioni NSPSSUMMARYOFIMPACTSOFLDARFORCONNECTORS(Option2incrementalOnly,withoutOption1)SOCMImodelParametersimplemediumcomplexTotalnumberofconnectors7312,6627,410Baseline(noLDAR)initialleakfrequency,percents0.360.360.36emissionrate,kg/hr/connector5000030700003070.000307Option2(500ppmLDAR)initialnumberofleaks2.639.5826.68finalleakfrequency,percenf0.360.36036monitoringfrequency,times/yr50250.250.25—annualnumberofleaks0.662.406.67emissionrate,kg/hr/connector0.0001620.0001620.000162Timeinservice,hr/yr8,7608,7608,760Totalemissionsreduction,Mg/yr0.92853.3819.412Baselinecost,S/yr000Option2costsinitialmonitoringfee,$/componen17.7017.7017.70initialLDARcost(monitoringandrepair),$12,99947,336131,765planningandtrainingcosts,$577577577monitoringtoverifyrepairforinitialleaks,$3.9514.3740.01annualizedinitialLDARcost,$/y19286,80618,798subsequentmonitoringfee,$/comporreni1.501.501.50annualmonitoringcost,s/yr2749982,779percentofannualleaksrepairedonline,percenl757575onlinerepairtime,hr0.1670.1670.167laborcharge,5/hr36.4536.4536.45annualonlineleakrepaircost,S/yr3.0010.9430.45percentofannualleaksrepairedoffline,percent252525offlinerepairtime,hr222laborcharge,$/hr536.4536.4536.45annualofflineleakrepaircost,S/yr11.9943.66121.54monitoringtoverifyrepair,$0.993.5910.00annualadminandreportingcosts,5576.50576.50576.50totalannualcost,S/yr2,795843922,315Costeffectiveness,$/Mgremoved3,0102,4962,371Recoverycredits,S/yrCostNationwideimpactsinfifthyearafterproposaTotalEffectivenessnumberofaffectedprocesses23.336.810.670.7emissionreductions,Mg/yr21.7124100246totalannualcosts,5/yr65,216310,279236,689612,1852,490totalannualcostsafterrecoverycreditapplied,s/yr390,9511,590Baselineleakfrequenciesbasedonindustry-supplieddatafortheMONbSOCMtvaluesbasedonindustrydatausedintheanalysisfortheMON.cAssumedthefinalleakfrequencywouldbethesameastheinitialleakfrequency(sameapproachasinPETanalysisforP&RIV).dMonitoringfrequenciesbasedonassumptionthatoption3wouldrequireannualmonitoringforleakfrequenciesgreaterthanorequalto0.5,every4yearsforleakfrequenciesgreaterthanorequalto0.25,andevery8yearsforleakfrequencieslessthan0.25.esOCMIvaluescalculatedusingone-halfofassumedsubsequentleakfrequencyintheaverageleakrateequationforleakdefinitionof500ppm(Table5-4intheProtocoldocument).FromPETanalysisforP&RIV(memofromK,BarnetttoP&RIVdocket.December2000)9Assumingannualizedover10yearsat7percentinterest.hNovember2004wageratesforBLS0CCCode4909012(Controlandvalveinstallersandrepairers,exceptmechanicaldoors)inNAICS324and325;plusassumed50percentoverhead.Assuming1,272totalprocessesproducingchemicalslistedinsubpartV’V(fromSRIConsultingdirectory)Ofthoseprocesses,392makeMONcompoundsandtheremaindermakeHON/ethyleneMACTcompounds.OftheMONprocesses.2percentbecomeaffectedsourceseachyear(assumedvalue):anddistributionofmodelsis33percentsimple,52percentmedium:and17percentcomplex(fromtheHONanalysis).Assume10percentoftheHON/ethylenefacilitiesareareasourcesand2percentofthosebecomesubjecteachyear.Ofthemajorsources,assumethat20percentwillberequiredtomonitorconnectorsatbaselinebecausetheymeetthedefinitionofneworreconstructedin§632440(c).AssumeeachaffectedprocessunitwillbeatadifferentfacilityOption2Emissions

# 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 Reconstructed Total number of process units process units process units existing sources process units process units process units

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

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

# NSPS NSPS 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 15.5 190.8

Baseline Initial Costs $ 6908,980 

# $

- 

# $ 157,972 $ 897,147 

# $

- 

# $ 1.072,458 $

- 

# $ 9,036,557 Annual Costs 

# $ 2,112,423 $ 703,704 

# $ 72,772 $ 397,518 $ 180,032 

# $ 446,286 $ 195,895 $ 4,108,631

Option I Initial Costs 

# $ 6:908980 $

- 

# $ 157,972 $ 897,147 $

- 

# $ 1,081,023 

# $ 120,400 $ 9,165,522 Annual Costs $ 2,112.423 $ 703,704 $ 72,772 $ 397.518 $ 180,032 $ 478,992 

# $ 235,575 $ 4,181.016 Increment $

- 

# $

- 

# $

- 

# $

- 

# $

- 

# $ 32,705 $ 39,680 $ 72,386

Option 2 Initial Costs $ 6,908,980 

# $

- 

# $ 157,972 $ 1.844,977 $ 631,886 $ 2.223,116 $ 881,796 $ 12,648.726 Annual Costs 

# $ 2,112,423 

# $ 703,704 $ 72,772 

# $ 564,102 

# $ 291,088 $ 679,719 $ 369,392 $ 4,793,201 Increment 

# $

- 

# $

- 

# $

- 

# $ 166,584 $ 111,056 $ 233,432 $ 173,498 $ 684,570

* 

# 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., these 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 Cost

‘ 

# Selected Option Emission Initial Cost Beyond Baseline Annual Cost Beyond Baseline Effectiveness Option (Mg/yr) j 

# Reduction (Mg/yr) 

# ($) ($Iyr) ($Iyr) ($/yr) (s/Mg) Baseline 1443 9,036,557 4,108,631 1

- 

# 1212

- 

# 231 9,165,522 128,965, 4,181,016 72,386 313 2 966 477 12,648,726 3,612,169 4,793,201 684,570i 1,435

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

Nationwide Impacts SummarySummary

of emissions reductions and cost estimates
for each model Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr Pumps plus valves

2.00 Pumps, valves, and connectors
2.92 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 SOCMI model; simple

Annual cost, $/yr Using emission data from the MON analysis Subpart VV with valves monitored: Annually

11,814 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 Cost per process, Total annual cost per process, 

# $ process annual reduction, effectiveness, Mg/yr baseline option I Incremental units costs, $/yr Mg/yr $/Mg New simple 2.00 11,814 12,483 669 7.7 5,118 15 335 medium 6.55 20,603 21,905 1,302 

# 12.1 15,702 79 199 complex 12.81 30,914 34,332 3,418 3.5 11,886 45 267
Reconstructed simple 2.00 7,970 9,077 1,107 5.1 5,649 10 555 medium 6.55 13,750 16.352 2,603 8.0 20,918 53 397 complex 12.81 19,294 24,950 5656 2.3 13,114 30 442
total 38.6 72,386 231.3 313 w/ Credit -135,768 -587

Option 1 Summary