P. 1



# OAR Box 1338 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 11 ) ll-E-2 2 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:06

PM Sheet 11 of 105P. 2

LA WOFFICE S PHILI PJ
. HARTE R

SUIT E 40 4 230 1 M STREET . N.W . WASHINGTON . D.C . 2003 7 (202 ) 887-103 3 FAX : (202 ) 887.103 6

Jun e 12,199 0 

## MEMORANDU M 

# A-89-1 0

F i • '• • w " ; .

< [ I , p-•••••--•— •

!"t ; W - '
To :
Fr : EPA Negotiate dRulemaking Committe e on Fugitive Emission s fro mEquipment

Leak s an dIntereste dPartie s Philip J
. Harte r Facilitato r Re : Outlin e o

f Agreement ; July Meeting ; Chang e i n location o f July Meetin g Congratulations! W

e didit
. Th e proces s wa s clearly difficul t andevenpainfu

l a t times , bu t

we reache dagreement

on th e contour s o

f asound , workabl e rule
. Muc hwor k remain s on translatin g thos e marked-up flowchart s into regulatoryes e andsom e additional question s still nee dt o b e addressed , s o w e still hav e alot t o d o at th e July meeting
. Rathe r tha nenclos e minute s o

f th e meeting , a s i s customary , I enclos e asummar y prepare dby EPA andRadia no f wha t w e agree dt o plu s alist

o f openissues.
. Pleas e review themcarefull y t o mak e sure the y compor t wit hyou r understanding
. I

f anyon e ha s comment s on th e materials , pleas e call Bo b Aja x o r m e s o tha t we ca n compil e aworking outlin e tha t reflect s th e committee' s agreement . A s w e discussedat

th e en do

f th e meeting , adraftin g committe e meetin g wil l b e scheduled
. Becaus e committee s ar e notoriously unabl e t o draf t complex languag e fro

mth e groundup , EPA wil l update it s strawma nt o reflect

th e agreement , s o it

ca n serv e a s th e basi s fo

r th e committee' s work
. I

n th e meantime , i

f anyon e feel s strongly abou t aparticula

r section , they ar e encourage dt o prepare som e implementin g language
. Th e next meetin g i s Jul y 17-18 . W e decide dt o holdi

t i n Washington , bu t

after acold , hardbudget analysis , i t appear s tha

t i t wouldb e fa

r bette r t o holdi t in Nort hCarolin a(government

trave l budget s ge

t tigh t aroun dthi s time o

f year , especially whens o man y hav e t o travel)
. Sinc e th e committe e didno t appea r t o feel strongly abou t

th e location , I arrogate dit t o mysel f t o relocate th e meeting : It will b e at th e Meredith Suite s atth e Park ; 30 0 Meredith Drive ; Durham , N C 27713 ; 919-361-1234 . Th e hotel i s of f Exit 27 8 on1-40 , whic hi s th e same exit

a s th e Picket

t Suite s where w e met

before
. A bloc

k o f room s ha s been reserved
. Whe

ncalling fo

r reservations , pleas e identif y yourself a s being wit

h"EP A Fugitives"
. Th e meetin g will beginat

10:0 0 o n th e firs t

da y an d9:0 0 on th e second
. It

wil l ru n unti l abou t

6:0 0 o n th e first da y andabou t

5:0 0 o n th e second
.P. 3

a- ' C

REGULATORY NEGOTIATIO NMEETIN

G ONFUGITIV

E EQUIPMEN

T LEAK S JUNE 6-7 , 199 0 COMPR I HOTE L RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK , NORT H CAROLIN A DRAF T MEETIN

G MINUTE S Thi s meetin g focuse d o n ke yaspect s o f the standards . Discussio n centere d primaril yaroun

d timing an

d implementatio n o f the qualit yimprovemen t (Ql ) progra mfo r valves , the valv e nonrepairabl e pool , frequencyo f flang e monitoring , and basi c conceptua l approache s fo r pump s (i.e. , a n enforceabl e standar d wit h a leak definitio n o f 200 0 ppm , a leak definitio n o f 100 0 pp man d Ql , an d dua l seal s fo r ne wpumps. ) I n lie u o f meetin g notes , a summar yo f the genera l agreement s reache d an d miscellaneou s ope n issue s relate d t o th e negotiatio n ar e presented . Th e following presentatio n material s ar e attached . Attachmen t 1 Attachmen t 2 Attachmen t 3 Attachmen t 4 Attachmen t 5 Attachmen t 6 Attachmen t 7 Attachmen t 8 Attachmen t 9 Attachmen t 1 0 Meeting Agend a

Attendee s Jun e 6 , 199 0 Conceptua l Approac h fo r Valve s Timelin e fo r Implementing Valve s Standar d Conceptua l Approac h fo r Pump s Timelin e fo r Implementing Pump s Standar d Conceptua l Approac h fo r Flange s Draf t Recordkeeping an d Reporting Requirement s Batc h Wor k Grou

p Meetin g Minute s EP ASuggeste d Provision s fo r Batc h Processe s Summar yo f PreliminaryAgreement s Valve s Attachmen t 3 present s the conceptua l approac h fo r valves . Attachmen t 4 present s the timelin e fo r implementing the conceptua l approach .

• Plant s wit h les s tha n 25 0 valve s wil l b e exemp t fro mth e monthl y monitorin g an

d Q l provision s outline d i n the valv e standar d bu t wil l b e require d t o compl ywit h th e leak detectio n an d repai r provisions
.

• Phas e I , 10,00 0 pp mLDA R program , start s th e secon d quarte r afte r promulgation
.

• Preliminaryagreemen t wa s reache d tha t the non-repairabl e valv e poo l coul d consis t o f u p t o 1 % o f the valv e population
. Th e non repairabl e poo l woul d exis t withi n an ymonitoring frequencyan d ther e woul d b e n o "sunset " provisio n beyond whic h th e non repairabl e poo l i s eliminated
. Non-repairabl e valve s mus t b e considere d i n calculatio n o f leak frequencythe firs t tim e the y ar e identifie d bu t no t a t subsequen t times
.

• Fo r determining sampling frequency , result s wil l b e calculate d a s a rolling averag e o f tw o consecutiv e monitoring period s fo r triggering o r exiting monthly , quarterl yo r semiannua l monitorin g programs . Thi s calculatio n procedur e wil l als o b e use d fo r the Q l program . Arolling averag e o f thre e ou t o f four consecutiv e monitorin g interval s wil l b e use d t o qualif yfo r o r exi t the annua l monitoring program .P. 4

Mr . Larr

yGoodhear t wil l b e refining the provision s fo r a Q l program . Th e progra mwil l provid e fo r dat a collection , dat a analysis , an

d performanc e trial s a t larg e plants , an d wil l requir e tha t al l component s tha t ar e replace d mus t b e replace d wit h "superior " equipment
. Also , i n eac h plant , an ygroup s o r type s o f significantl ypoore r performer s (SPP ) wil l b e identified , an d 25 % o f the SPP' s mus t b e replace d eac h year . I f significan t difference s ar e no t foun d among type s o r group s o f valves , the n the 25 % replacemen t provisio n doe s no t apply . Pump s Attachmen t 5 present s the conceptua l approac h fo r pumps . Attachmen t 6 present s th e timelin e fo r implementing the conceptua l approach .

• Th e allowabl e limi t wil l b e compute d a s a n averag e o f two consecutiv e monitoring periods
.

• "Small " businesses , whic h wil l b e exemp t fro mthe performanc e trial s outline d i n the Q l program , wil l b e define d a s corporation s havin g a specifie d maximu mnumbe r o f tota l employee s (fo r example , 100 ) an d a minimu

mnumbe r o f pump s (fo r example , 10) .

• N o exemption s wil l b e allowe d fo r pump s (e.g. , food/medica l processes , monomers) . Flange s Attachmen t 7 present s the conceptua l approac h fo r flanges .

Th e conceptua l approac h fo r flange s begin s a t promulgation
. Th e firs t monitoring surveymus t b e complete d withi n 1 2 month s afte r promulgation
. Burie d flange s an

d insulate d flange s wil l b e exempte d fro mthe standar d monitoring program . Th e regulatio n wil l explicitl ystat e tha t i t i s no t necessaryt o physicall ytag flanges . Flange s ma yb e identifie d relativ e t o othe r components , suc h a s valves . Th e percen t leaking flange s wil l b e compute d fo r eac h monitorin g period ; rolling average s ar e no t permitted
. Anon-repairabl e flang e poo l o f u p t o 2 % o f a unit' s flang e populatio n wil l b e allowed . Th e non-repairabl e flange s wil l no t b e include d i n the calculatio n o f th e percen t leaking flanges . Repaire d flange s mus t b e monitore d monthl yunti l a leak i s no t detecte d fo r tw

o consecutiv e months . Flange s tha t hav e bee n disturbe d fo r an yreaso n mus t b e monitore d withi n on e month .P. 5

• Plant s tha t monito r flange s ever y2 year s hav e the optio n o f monitorin g 50 % o f the tota l flang e populatio n on e yea r an d th e othe r 50 % i n the secon d year . Similarly , plant s tha t monito r flange s ever

y4 year s hav e the optio n o f monitorin g 25 % o f the tota l flang e populatio n eac h yea r unti l al l flange s hav e bee n monitored
.

• I n additio n t o the existing definition s o f difficult-to-monito r and unsafe-to-monitor , a third definitio n o f unsafe-to-repai r wil l b e describe d i n the regulatio n fo r flanges . Flange s tha t ar e unsaf e t o repai r mus t b e tagge d during the firs t monitorin g perio d o f the progra

ma s bein g unrepairabl e unti l a plan t shutdown .

• Al l flange s mus t b e monitore d befor e a planne d plan t shutdown . Agitato r Seal s

• Bot h ne wan

d existing agitato r seal s mus t b e monitore d monthly . Agitato r seal s tha t scree n a t 10,00 0 ppm vo r greate r wil l b e classifie d a s leakers . Othe r Equipmen t

• Al l othe r equipmen t currentl ycontrolle d i n the existing SOCM I equipmen t leak s regulatio n (CF R 40 , Par t 60 , Subpar t W ) wil l b e identicall ycontrolle d i n the negotiate d standard . Genera l Th e vapo r pressur e cutof f separating ligh t an d heav yliquid s wil l remai n unchange d fro mthe existing definitio n (i.e. , 0. 3 kP a - 0.04 4 psia)
. Th e d e minimi s concentratio n cutof f wil l b e 5 percen t HAP b y weight
. Pilo t plant s ar e currentl yexemp t fro mregulatio n i n the Hous e versio n o f the propose d Clea n Ai r Ac t amendment s unles s theyar e majo r facilitie s o n thei r own . Th e equipmen t leak rul e wil l no t exemp t pilo t plant s unles s the Clea n Ai r Ac t amendment s retai n thi s exemption
. Miscellaneou s Issue s

Ne wversu s Existing Plants . Th e standar d wil l b e the sam e fo r ne wan

d existing plant s excep t fo r phasin g o f the requirements
. I f a n existing plan t doe s no t begi n it s Q l progra mfo r pump s o r valve s a t the en

d o f Yea r 3 , the n i t canno t op t fo r a Q l progra m a t a late r date . Ne wplant s wil l hav e on e yea r t o decid e whethe r o r no t t o begi n a Q l program .P. 6

Proces s Uni t Shutdown s Propose d languag e require s that , i f possible , equipmen t shoul d b e isolate d fo r repair
. Otherwise , equipmen t repai r ca n b e delaye d unti l shutdown . Th e EP Aagree d conceptuall yt o the languag e suggeste d b

yCM Abu t maymak e mino r modification s upo n furthe r review
. Respons e Factors . Mr . Aja x commente d tha t ther e need s t o b e a maximu mrang e o n allowabl e respons e factors . Ther e wa s n o discussio n o n thi s commen t during the meeting
. Mr . Aja x believe s ther e i s a nee d t o discus s thi s issue ; otherwise , th e effec t o f the standar d coul d varywidely , an

d the potentia l fo r gaming woul d b e larg e (e.g. , b y selecting a n instrumen t wit h a favorabl e respons e factor) . On e approac h woul d b e a one-time calculatio n fo r eac h plan t o f a n averag e respons e factor . I f th e averag e respons e facto r lie s withi n a n acceptabl e rang e (e.g. , 0. 5 t o 1.5) , the n ther e woul d b e n o nee d t o adjus t fo r respons e factor . Otherwise , a n averag e respons e facto r correctio n mus t b e made . Equivalen t Approache s Th e languag e tha t currentl yappear s i n the strawma n regulatio n wil l b e use d t o describ e equivalen t approache s t o the standard . Th e buildin g enclosur e approac h wil l b e describe d a s a n exampl e i n the preamble . D e Minimi s Lin e Size s Th e committe e agree d t o conside r alternative s t o including equipmen t o f 3/8 " o r les s i n th e leak detectio n an d repai r provisions
. CM

Aagree d t o revie wthe issu e an d mayoffe r a n alternativ e proposal . Drafting Sessio n

Adrafting sessio n wil l b e hel d fo r intereste d partie s befor e the nex t committe e meeting
. Th e purpos e o f the sessio n wil l b e t o begi n drafting the regulation , t o identif yunresolve d issues , an d t o discus s recordkeeping an d reporting requirements
. Unresolve d issue s wil l b e discusse d a t the nex t RegulatoryNegotiatio n Committe e meeting
. Adraf t exampl e o f the recordkeeping an d reporting requirement s i s include d a s Attachmen t 8 . Batc h Processe s

Th e result s o f the Batc h Wor k Grou p meeting o n Jun e 1 wer e no t presente d du e t o lac k o f time
. Th e Batc h Wor k Grou p meetin g minute s ar e provide d a s Attachmen t 9 . Subsequen t t o the las t meeting , EP Astaf f reviewe d the Batc h Wor k Grou p minutes
. Thes e provision s ar e suggeste d recognizing the complexit yan

d difficult yo f demonstrating equivalenc yan d ar e intende d t o provid e a practica l progra mtha t i s roughl ycomparabl eP. 7

t o LDAR . I f anyon e feel s strongl yabou t thes e provisions , the y ar e encourage d t o prepar e a n alternativ e se t o f provisions
. Batc h Wor k Group' s propose d definitio n o f batc h processe s an d alternativ e testing provision s an d Attachmen t 1 0 presen t th e staff' s suggeste d modification s t o the propose d provisions
.P. 8

, - < • 

# ATTACHMEN T1
ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOTIATE D RULEMAKIN G

CONCERNIN G CONTRO L O F FUGITIV E EMISSION S FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S 

## AGEND AFO R MEETING O F JUN E 6- 7

ADMINISTRATIV E

• Introduction s

• Review o

f th e Agenda : additions , subtractions , orde r

• Minute s o

f Marc hmeeting : Any major heartburn s

GENERA LPROVISION S O FTH ESTANDAR D

• Exemption s

- Vapor pressure cutoff

s

- De minimis concentration s

- De minimis number

o f component s (on e level for exemptio nfro

mstandard ; anothe r

fo r different type s o f requirements )

- Equipmen t

time inus e

- Diamete r

o f lin e

- Effect s o

f monomer s o npum

p performanc e

- Pilo t plant s

• Reasonabl e further

progres s

• Unrepairabl e component se t asid e

• Equivalent

approache s

• New versu s existing plant s

• Phase-i n

• Tagging requirement s

• Reportin g an drecordkeepin g

• Incentives/award sP. 9



# ATTACHMEN T2
ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOTIATIN GCOMMITTE E FO R CONTRO L O F FUGITIV E EMISSION S O F VOC s FROM EQUIPMEN T LEAK S ATTENDEE S LIS T FORMEETINGO F JUN E 6 , 199 0 NAME E dMorett i Bil l Grimle y Bruc e Davi s Jerr y M . Schro y Leig hMark s Ja nMeye r Walte r Brenne r Do nPiehn Ro nBerglun d Davi dMarkword t Glen nRive s Ric kColye r Elle nSiegle r Bruc e Grumstru p Kari nRitte r Rober t Majewsk i Rober t Aja x Tom Kittlema n Harve l M Roger s Phili pHarte r Jac kKac e Al Bicku m Lind a Curra n L.T . Goodhear t Gu s VonBodunge n Fre dDimmic k Kathy Baile y Charle s Bennet t Davi dGustafso n JohnKitche n Chery l Sutterfiel d Dwigh t Atkinso n Mik e Pop e Bo bRowlan d Jame s Murphy Richar dSigma n Lyma nBusar d Kare nOlso n Alle nHershkowit z Davi dDonige r AFFILIATIO N Radia nCorporatio n EPA Exxo nChemica l Company Monsant o Company El i Lill y

& Company EPA SU N Company JohnCrane , Inc . Unio nCarbid e EP A Radia n EPA AP I Fishe r Control s Company AP I NESCAUM U.S . EPA CM A (DuPont ) Jefferso nCo . APC D(La w Env. ) Facilitato r PM A (HoffmannLa Roche ) IISR P (Goodyear ) Amoc o Oi l Company API/Chevro n L A DEQ-Ai r Qualit y EPA/OAQPS/RT P CM A Ashlan dPetroleu

m Dow Chemica l DuPon t PM A EPA/OPP E DO W Pfize r Inc . W.R . Grac e CM A El i Lill y

an dCompany TAC B NRD C NRD CP.1 0

a r T 

# ATTACHMEN T3
VALVE S

PhSM l

PhaMl l

P h•Mil l
Monthl y

LDA R

Qualit y Improvemen t <2% , 50 0 ppm v

>2% , 50 0 ppm v

> 1 % 50 0 p p

>0.5 ^ 50 0 p p m v

it m v 10,00 0 pp m

LDA R

1 50 0 pp m LDA R

1 Quarterl y LDA R

. Semi-Annua l LDA R

,

Annua l LDA R 50 1

1

« s 50 1 1 < 1 % 3 ppm v

•0.5 % 0 ppm vPhaM l p.1 1



# ATTACHMEN T4

PhaMl l 

## VALVE S

Pha M II I

50 0 pp m 10,00 0 pp m
Quarterl y i Quarterl y Promulgatio n EOY- 1 + 3 month s EOY- 2 EOY- 3 EOY-4 EOY-5 EOY-6

•Q l Analyze i <2% , o r Dat a i Monthl y LDAR , o r aQ I i Qualit y Performance Improvemen t Trial s fo r •collec t dat a Larg e Plants i Q.I . Valv e Replacemen t Progra m fo r Larg e Plant

s t Q.I . Valv e Replacemen t Progra m fo r Smal l Plant

s

EOY= EndofYea rP.1 2



# ATTACHMEN T5

PUMP S

Phaaa l

Phaaal l 10,00 0 pp m LDAR

1,00 0 pp m LDAR

Phasa II I

Qualit

y Improvemen t < 10% , 1,00 0 ppm v

>10% , 1,00 0 ppm v Monthl y LDAR

# ATTACHMEN T6
PUMP S P.1 3

Phaaa l PhaMl l Phase II I

10,00 0 pp m LDA R Monthl y 1,00 0 pp

m 

# ES T
Monthl y Promulgatio n •4- 3 month s EOY- 1 EOY- 2

EO Y= EndofYea r EOY- 3 EOY-4 EOY-5 EOY-6
i Q l Smal l plants instal l superio r equipmen t I n pumps (10 % pe r year

) i Q l Larg e plants Instal l superio r equipmen t i n pump s (10 % pe r year

)

•Q l Analyz

e Dat a

- larg e plant s perfor m trial s o n 10 % (o r 3 , whicheve r I s less) pump s

• <10%o r • Qualit y Improvemen

t(Ql )

- collectdat

aP.1 4



# ATTACHMEN T7

FLANGE S

Annua l

<0.5% , 50 0 ppm v

- >0.5 % 1 Ever y 2 years 50 0 ppm v

<0.5% , 50 0 ppm v

Ever y 4 years >1 % 50 0 ppm v

- >0.5 % - 50 0 ppm vP.1 5



# ATTACHMEN T8

Ne w provision s ar e shown i n bol d itali c print
.

§ 6 . Recordkeepin g Requirement s (a ) A n owne r o r operato r o f mor e tha n on e process unit subjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s subpar t ma ycompl ywit h th e recordkeepin g requirement s fo r thes e facilitie s in on e recordkeepin g syste mi f th e syste midentifie s eac h
recor d b yprocess

unit and the program

being implemented

(e.g., quarterly). (b ) Whe n eac h lea k i s detecte d a s specifie d in , th e followin g requirement s apply : (1 ) Aweatherproo f and readil yvisibl e identification , marke d with.th e equipmen t identificatio n number , shal l b e attache d t o th e leakin g equipment
. (2 ) Th e identificatio n o n a valv e or a flange ma yb e remove d afte r i t ha s bee n monitore d fo r 2 successiv e month s a s specifie d i n § and n o lea k ha s bee n detecte d durin g thos e 2 months . (3 ) Th e identificatio n o n equipmen t excep t o n a valv e or a flange, ma y b e remove d afte r i t ha s bee n repaired
. (c ) Whe n eac h lea k i s detecte d a s specifie d i n , th e followin g informatio n shal l b e recorde d in a lo g and shal l b e kep t fo r 2 year s in a readil yaccessibl e location : (1 ) Th e instrumen t and operato r identificatio n number s and th e equipmen t identificatio n number . (2 ) Th e dat e th e lea k wa s detecte d and th e date s o f eac h attemp t t o repai r th e leak . (3 ) Repai r method s applie d in eac h attemp t t o repai r th e leak . (4 ) Maximu minstrumen t readin g measure d byth e metho d specifie d in § afte r eac h repai r attempt .P.1 6



### (5 ) "Repai r delayed " an dth e reaso nfo r th e dela y i f a lea ki s no t repaire dwithi n1 5 calenda r day s afte r discover y o f th e leak . (6 ) Th e signatur e o f th e owne r o r operato r (o r designate ) whos e decisio ni t wa s tha t repai r coul dno t b e effecte dwithou t a proces s shutdown . (7 ) Th e expecte ddat e o f successfu l repai r o f th e lea ki f a lea ki s no t repaire dwithi n1 5 days . (8 ) Date s o f proces s uni t shutdow ntha t occu r whil e th e equipmen t i s unrepaired . (9 ) Th e dat e o f successfu l repai r o f th e leak . (d ) Th e followin g informatio npertainin g t o th e desig nrequirement s fo r closed-ven t system s an dcontro l device s describe di nshal l b e recorde dan

dkep t i

na readil y

accessibl e location : (1 ) Detaile dschematics , desig nspecifications , an dpipin g an

d instrumentatio ndiagrams . (2 ) Th e date s an

ddescriptio no f an

y change s i

nth e desig n specifications . (3 ) A'descriptio no f th e paramete r o r parameter s monitored , a s require d i n, t o ensur e tha t contro l device s ar e operate dan d maintaine di

nconformanc e wit hthei r desig nan da nexplanatio no f why

tha t paramete r (o r parameters ) wa s selecte dfo r th e monitoring . (4 ) Period s whe nth e closed-ven t system s an dcontro l device s require d i nar e no t operate da s designed , includin g period s whe na flar e pilo t ligh t doe s no t hav e a flame . (5 ) Date s o f startup s an dshutdown s o f th e closed-ven t system s an d contro l device s require di n__ .P.1 7



### (e ) Th e followin g informatio n pertainin g t o al l equipmen t i neach process unit subjec t t o th e requirement s i n § t o § shal l b e recorde d i n a lo g tha t i s kep t in a readil yaccessibl e location : (l)(i) Alis t o f identificatio n number s fo r equipmen t (excep t welde d fittings ) subjec t t o th e requirement s o f thi s subpar t and the location of the equipment

in the process

unit. (ii) The list of equipment

identification

numbers

and locations

shall also include

the line size, pressure, and stream service for each item of equipment. (iii) Physical

tagging

of the equipment

is not required. Equipment subject to the provisions

of this subpart

may be identified

on a plant site plan, in log entries, or

by other appropriate

methods. (2)(i ) Alis t o f identificatio n number s fo r equipmen t tha t th e owne r o r operato r elect s t o designat e fo r n o detectabl e emissions , a s indicate d byan instrumen t readin g o f les s tha n 2 5 ppmabov e background , unde r th e provision s o f an d . (ii ) Th e designatio n o f thi s equipmen t a s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f § , § , o r § shal l b e signe d byth e owne r o r operator . (3 ) Alis t o f equipmen t identificatio n number s fo r pressur e relie f device s require d t o compl ywit h § . (4)(i ) Th e date s o f eac h complianc e tes t require d in (ii ) Th e backgroun d leve l measure d durin g eac h complianc e tes t (iii ) Th e maximu minstrumen t readin g measure d a t th e equipmen t durin g
eac h complianc e test .P.1 8



### (5 ) A lis t o f identificatio nnumber s fo r equipmen t i nvacuu m service . (6) The frequency

of monitoring

and provisions

of the standard

being implemented

for each process unit subject

to the requirements

of the subpart. (f ) Th e followin g informatio npertainin g t o al l valve s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f an d shal l be recorde di na lo g tha t i s kep t i

na readil y

accessibl e location :
NOTE : Unsaf e t o monitor , etc. , provisions . 

### (1 ) A lis t o f identificatio nnumber s fo r valve s tha t ar e designate da s unsafe-to-monitor , a nexplanatio nfo r eac hvalv e statin g why th e valv e i s unsafe-to-monitor , an d th e pla nfo r monitorin g eac hvalve . (2 ) A lis t o f identificatio nnumber s fo r valve s tha t ar e designate da s difficult-to-monitor , a nexplanatio nfo r eac hvalv e statin g why th e valv e i s difficult-to-monitor , an d th e schedul e fo r monitorin g eac hvalve . (g ) Th e followin g informatio nshal l b e recorde dfo r valve s complyin g wit h. NOTE : Ski p perio d provisions
. 

### (1 ) A schedul e o f monitoring . (2 ) Th e percen t o f valve s foundleakin g durin g eac hmonitorin g period . (h) The following

information

pertaining

to all flanges

subject to the requirements

of and

shall

be recorded

in a log that is kept in a readily accessible

location:

NOTE : Unsaf e t o monitor , etc. , provisions
. 

### (1) Alist of identification

numbers

for flanges

that are designated

as unsafe-to-monitor, an explanation

for each flange stating why the flange is unsafe-to-monitor, and the plan for monitoring

each flange.P.1 9



### (2) A list of identification

numbers

for flanges

that are designated

as difficult-to-monitor, an explanation

for each flange stating why the flange is difficult-to-monitor, and the schedule

for monitoring

each flange. (i) The following

information

shall be recorded

for flange complying with . NOTE : Ski pperio dprovisions . 

### (1) A schedule

of monitoring. (2) The percent of flanges

found leaking during each monitoring

period. 

## (j ) Th e followin g informatio nshal l b e recorde di na lo g tha t i s kep t i na readil y

accessibl e location : , c r



## - (1 ) Desig ncriterio nrequire di nandand explanatio no f th e desig ncriterion ; and (2 ) Any change s t o thi s criterio nandth e reason s for?th e changes . (k) Each owner or operator

of a process

unit subject

to the reasonable further progress

program

shall maintain

at the process

unit for a period of 2 years and make available

to the Administrator

upon request

the following records:
NOTE : I t i s assume dtha t ther e wil l b e a separat e sectio ni nth e regulatio ntha t wil l specif y th e specifi c criteri a o f a n.acceptabl e RF P program . Th e recordkeepin g requirement s give nbelo w ar e preliminar y base do ndiscussion s t o date . Thi s sectio ni s intende dt o implemen t th e RF P progra m an dno t t o specif y

it s features . 

### (1) A description

of the program

and a statement

of the performance goals. (2) Results

of bench scale and field evaluations

of low emission performance

technology

including

assessment

of applicability, maintenance needed to ensure low emission

performance, and

specifications

necessary

forP.2 0



### quality control

of purchased

equipment. These

records

will include

the following

information: (i) The instrument

and operator

identification

numbers

and the equipment

identification

number. (ii) Maximum

instrument

reading measured

by the method

specified

in (Hi) If a leak is detected, the

repair methods

applied

in each attempt to repair the leak and the maximum

instrument

reading measured

after each repair attempt. (iv) If a leak is not repaired

within 15 calendar

days after discovery of the leak, the

reason for the delay and the expected

date of successful repair. (3) Evaluations

of operating

practices

and maintenance

programs

needed to achieve

low emission

performance. The

records shall include

the data used to assess the effect of operating

practices

and maintenance

on the emission performance

of equipment. (4) Schedule

and plan for installation

of low emission

potential equipment. (5) Documentation

of the reasons

use of low emission

performance equipment

is not technically

feasible. The

planned

operating

practices

and maintenance

of this equipment

shall also be specified. (6) Documentation

of equipment

specifications

for quality assurance

and control of equipment

purchases. (7) Documentation

of operating

practices, maintenance programs, and personnel

training that will be used to achieve

low emission

performance.P.2 1



### (1 ) Th e followin g informatio n shal l b e recorde d in a lo g tha t i s kep t i n a readil yaccessibl e locatio n fo r us e ih determinin g exemption s a s provide d in . NOTE : Thi s lis t i s preliminar y an di s base do nth e discussion s i nthe Ma y

meeting . 

### (1 ) An analysi s demonstratin g th e desig n capacit yo f th e affecte d facility , (2 ) Astatemen t listin g th e fee d o r ra wmaterial s and product s fro mth e process unit and a n analysi s demonstratin g whethe r thes e chemical s ar e heavy liquids , and ; (3 ) An analysi s demonstratin g tha t equipmen t i s no t in VHAP service , (m ) Informatio n and dat a use d t o demonstrat e tha t a piec e o f equipmen t i s no t i n VHA P servic e shal l b e recorde d in a lo g tha t i s kep t i n a readil y accessibl e location
. (n ) Th e provision s o f §61.14(f ) d o no t appl yt o process units subjec t t o thi s subpart . § 7 . Reportin g Requirement s (a)(1 ) Eac h owne r o r operato r o f a proces s uni t subjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s subpar t shal l submi t a statemen t notifyin g th e Administrato r whic h o f th e requirement s wil l b e implemented
. (2 ) In th e cas e o f a n existin g process unit o r a ne wproces s uni t wit h
a startup dat e precedin g th e effectiv e date , th e statemen t shal l b e submitte d b yday s afte r th e effectiv e dat e an d semiannuall ythereafter . (3 ) I n th e cas e o f ne wprocess units whic h di d no t startup befor e th e effectiv e date , th e statemen t shal l b e submitte d wit h th e applicatio n fo r approva l o f construction , a s describe d in §61.07 .P.2 2



### (4 ) Th e statemen t shal l contai n th e followin g informatio n fo r eac h process unit: (i ) Proces s uni t identificatio n (ii ) Numbe r o f eac h equipment typ e (e.g. , valves , pumps ) excludin g equipment

designate d fo r n o detectabl e emission s servic e unde r th e provision s o f an d thos e i n vacuu m service , (iii ) Metho d o f complianc e wit h th e standar d (fo r example , "monthl ylea k detectio n and repair " o r "equippe d wit h dua l mechanica l seals") . (iv ) Planne d schedul e fo r eac h phas e o f th e requirement s o f thi s subpart . • -••• " (b ) Arepor t shal l b e submitte d t o th e Administrato r semiannuall y startin g 6 month s afte r th e initia l repor t require d i n paragrap h (a ) o f thi s section , tha t include s th e followin g information : (1 ) Proces s uni t identification , frequency of monitoring, and

specific provisions

of this subpart

being implemented. (2 ) Fo r eac h monitorin g perio d durin g th e semiannua l reportin g period , (i ) Numbe r o f valve s fo r whic h leak s wer e detected , the percent leakers , an

d th e tota l numbe r o f valve s teste d (ii ) Numbe r o f valve s fo r whic h leak s wer e no t repaire d a s require d in
(iii ) Numbe r o f pump s fo r whic h leak s wer e detecte d a s describe d in
(iv ) Numbe r o f pump s fo r whic h leak s wer e no t repaire d a s describe d inP.2 3



### (v ) Numbe r o f compressor s fo r whic hleak s wer e detecte da s describe di n § : . . (vi ) Numbe r o f compressor s fo r whic hleak s wer e no t repaire da s require d i n§ . (vii) Mumber

of flanges

for which leaks were detected, the

percent leakers, and

the total number

of flanges

tested. (viii) Mumber

of flanges

for which leaks were not repaired

as required in
. (ix) Mumber

of agitator

seals for which leaks were detected

as described in (xi ) Th e fact s tha t explai nanydela y o f repair s and , wher e appropriate , why a proces s uni t shutdow nwa s technicall y

infeasible . (xii ) A nexampl e forma t fo r reportin g thi s informatio ni s give ni n Appendi x C . (3 ) Date s o f proces s uni t shutdown s whic hoccurre d withi n th e semiannua l reportin g period
. (4 ) Revision s t o item s reporte d accordin g t o paragrap h(a ) i f change s hav e occurre d sinc e th e initia l repor t o r subsequen t revision s t o th e initia l report . NOTE : Complianc e wit hth e requirement s o f §61.10(c ) i s no t require dfo r revision s documente dunde r thi s paragraph . 

### (5 ) Th e result s o f al l performanc e test s t o determin e complianc e wit h
_ conducte d withi n th e semiannua l reportin g period
. (c ) A n applicatio n fo r approva l o f constructio n o r modification , §§61.05(a ) and 61.07 , wil l no t b e require d i f - -P.2 4



### (1 ) Th e new

sourc e complie s wit h th e standard , § . (2 ) Th e new

sourc e i s no t par t o f th e constructio n o f a proces s unit ; 

## an d (3 ) I n th e nex t semiannua l repor t require d b yparagrap h (b ) o f thi s section , th e informatio n in paragrap h (a)(4 ) o f thi s sectio n i s reported . (d ) A n owne r o r operato r o f a proces s uni t tha t fail s t o compl ywit h (phas e II I standar d fo r valves ) shal l notif yth e Administrato r withi n 3 0 day s o f initiatin g th e monthl ymonitorin g progra munde r o r a reasonabl e furthe r progres s progra munde r . (e) Each owner or operator

of a process

unit subject

to this subpart shall submit

a written report each year to the Administrator

that Includes

the fol1 owing

information: (1) Analysis

of trends or associations

between

equipment

service, line pressure, materials

of construction, line

size, and

other relevant

variables and leak frequency (2) Assessment

of performance

of low emission

potential

technology

and operating

practices (3) Annual

assessment

of emission

performance

of equipment

and conclusions

on possible

future improvements

in low emission

technology

and operating

practices. (f) If acceptable

to both the Administrator

and the owner or operator of the process

unit, the

reports may be submitted

on electronic

media.



## 1 0P.2 5



# ATTACHMEN T9

Batc hWorkgrou p Meetin g Minute s —

Jun e 1 , 199 0
Th e definitio n o f batc h proces s equipmen t wa s discussed
. Som e dedicate d batc h equipmen t ha s a relativel ylo wtime-in-us e (I.e. , 5 days/wee k production , 1 o r 2 shifts/day)
. Multipurpos e batc h equipmen t 1 s sometime s ru n 7 days/week , 3 shifts , fo r th e lengt h o f th e campaign
. I t 1 s the n shu t dow n an d reconfigure d t o mak e anothe r product . Th e reacto r siz e o f batc h pharmaceutica l product s i s primaril y1,00 0 gallon s o r less . Th e larges t reactor s ar e generall y5,00 0 gallons . I t wa s decide d t o recommen d tha t th e propose d definitio n o f batc h proces s equipmen t no t b e change d fro mtha t presente d wit h th e las t meetin g minutes
. Th e alternat e o f pressur e testin g wa s discussed. El i Lill yand Compan y prepare d a summar y(cop yattached ) o f th e variable s impactin g o n th e equivalenc ydemonstration
. Thes e variable s includ e syste mtemperature , pressure , volume , liquid/vapo r ratio , an d solven t volatility
. Th e consensu s o f th e grou p wa s tha t a pressur e dro p o f 0. 3 ps1/ l ,00 0 ft 3 

### /1 5 m1n . fo r ai r o r nitroge n represente d a mi d rang e valu e tha t i s nea r th e practica l analytica l limits
. Th e Pfize r Inc . representativ e i s investigatin g a pressur e tes t wit h water . Th e consultan t use d byPfize r i s recommendin g a constan t pressur e test . Th e pressur e i s maintaine d b ypumpin g a metere d amoun t o f wate r int o th e system . I t i s a syste mcurrentl yuse d byundergroun d tan k tester s t o measure th e tightnes s o f pipelines
. Thi s wil l b e investigate d further . Ther e i s likel ya nee d t o includ e a visibl e liqui d lea k requiremen t wit h th e pressur e tes t alternative
. Th e alternat e o f measurin g fugitiv e component s wit h a portabl e mete r wa s discussed
. Th e bookkeeping and paperwor k associate d wit h thi s alternativ e wil l b e ver ycomple x fo r a multipurpos e plant.P.2 6



### PRESSUR E TES TEQUIVALEN TSTUD Y
El i Lill ydi d severa l cas e studie s a s requeste d b yth e PM AFugitiv e Emissio n Workgrou p t o determin e i f pressur e testin g ca n b e equate d t o a lea k

detectio n an d repai r(LDAR ) program . El i Lill ymodele d ai l calculation s concernin g thi s stud yfo rth e equipmen t i n Proces s Z whic h i s describe d i n Appendi xA

. Th e compariso n of a pressur e tes t mode l an d a lea k

detectio n an d repai r(LDAR ) mode l i s extremel y comple xbecaus e bot h test s depen d o n man yvariables

. LDA R LEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FRO M EMISSIO N FACTOR S Th e volatil e hazardou s ai rpollutan t (VHAP ) leakrat e fo ra LDA R progra m i s calculate d fro m th e emissio n factor s distribute d b y th e EP Ao n 3/27/9 0 durin g th e Fugitiv e Emissio n Negotiatin g Committe e (Appendi xB)

. Tabl e 1 compare s th e VHA P leakrate s fo r proces s Z whe n tw o differen t criteri a are use d t o determin e th e emissio n factor s (Appendi xB) : TABL E 1 Criteri a fo remissio n factor s Pumps : 15 % a

t 500 0 ppm Valves : 4 % a

t 100 0 ppm Flanges : 4 % a

t 100 0 ppm Pumps : 5 % a

t 500 0 ppm Valves : 3 % a

t 50 0 ppm Flanges : 2 % a

t 50 0 ppm Instantaneou s Leakrat e Mb/hr , 1.5 4

0.5 0 

### Th e calculate d LDA R leakrat e fo rVHA P als o depend s o n man y variables : o n th e tota l numbe ro f components , th e definitio n o f a lea k fo reac h component , an d th e percentag e o f allowabl e leakers

.
PRESSUR E TES TLEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FRO M EVACUATIO N COMPUTE R MODE L Th e leakrat e fro m a pressur e dro p i s calculate d b ya n evacuatio n mode l use d b yEl i Lill yClinto n Laboratorie s i n thei r198 9 SAR ATitl e II I calculation

. Grap h 1 compare s th e leakrat e fro m proces s Z fo ra pressur e dro p o f 1 PSI G i n 1 5 minute s whe n th e volum e o f th e syste m i s varied

. Grap h 2 compare s th e VHA P leakrat e whe n th e solven t an d startin g pressur e i s varied

.

# GRAP H 1 : PRESSUR E TES TFO R EQUIVALENC

Y



# I UtkK RAT E v » SYSTBll VOLUII

B

1. 8 2J 2 (Thousands ) SYSTB I VOLUII

B (CUBI C FBT )

• METHANO

L

# GRAP H 2 : PRESSUR E TES TFO R EQUIVALENCY LEAK BAT B v s STARTING PBBBSUB B

STARTING PBBBSUB B ( 1 PSI G DROP/1 5 ION )

• TOLUBN

B + METHANO

L

0 0P.2 9



### Th e tabulate d result s fro m graph s 1 an d 2 alon g wit h th e detaile d calculation s fro m th e compute rmode l ar e describe d i n Appendi xC

. Man yothe rfactor s wil l effec t th e actua l leakrate s associate d wit h bot h pressur e testin g an d LDA R monitorin g program s bu t ar e no t reflecte d i n thes e models

. Fo rbatc h processes , a n averag e tim e i n servic e fo rth e componen t typ e wil l b e a n additiona l variable

. Fo rproces s Z , a lea k

i s determine d a s a pressur e dro p o f mor e tha n 0.0 3 PSIG /

1 5 min

. Adescriptio n o f th e calculatio n i s i n Appendi xD

. Ther e are a larg e numbe rof variable s associate d wit h pressur e testin g an d th e LDA R program . Therefore , El i Lill yfeel s 0.0 3 PSIG /

1 5 min

. shoul d no t b e use d a s a generi cstandar d fo ral l th e processe s whic h wil l b e encompasse d b ythi s regulation

. Furthe r stud yi s require d t o determin e generi cstandard s whic h coul d equat e pressur e testin g an d LDA R monitorin g program . Leig h Mark s RayCollin s Proces s Enginee r Clinto n Laborator y El i Lill yan d Compan y O G J

. M

. Colligan Director , Chemical Operation s M

. P

. Kinne

y Manager , Chemical Operations R

. G

. Moenc

h Tea m Leader , Environmental Task

Forc eP.3 0 • 1



### APPENDI XA : PROCES S Z DESCRIPTIO N

SYSTEM : 4 PROCES S TANK S AN D ASSOCIATE D PIPING

.

Volum e = 122 9 c u f t Temperatur e = 2 0 ° C Solven t = Methylen e Chlorid e (MeCl2 )
Descriptio n 

### Singl e mechanica l sea l pump s Agitator s Ga s valve s Liqui d valve s Flange s # o f Compnent s 

### 2 4 2 7 4 9 19 3 Tota l component s 27 5P.3 1



## APPENDI XB : VHA P LEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FRO M EPA EMISSIO

N FACTOR S

CAS E 1 : Criteri a fo remissio n factor s Pump s an d agitators : 15 % a t 500 0 pp m Valves : 4 % a t 100 0 pp m Flanges : 4 % a t 100 0 pp m

COMMPONEN T SINGL E MECHANICA L SEA L PUMP S AGITATOR S GA S VALVE S LIQUI D VALVE S FLANGE S
TOTA L LEAKRAT E EMISSIO N FACTO R 0.00833 6 kg/h r 0.00833 6 kg/h r 0.00031 7 kg/h r 0.00109 9 kg/h r 0.00301 2 kg/h r
0.693 7 kg/h r 1.5 3 Ib/h r QUANTITY 2 4 2 7 2 9 19 3P.3 2



### CAS E 2 : Criteri a fo remissio n factor s Pump s an d agitators : 5 % at 500 0 pp m Valves : 3 % a t 50 0 pp m Flanges : 2 % at 50 0 pp m

COMMPONEN T SINGL E MECHANICA L SEA L PUMP S AGITATOR S GA S VALVE S LIQUI D VALVE S FLANGE S
TOTA L LEAKRAT E EMISSIO N FACTO R 0.00277 9 kg/h r 0.00277 9 kg/h r 0.00020 3 kg/h r 0.00081 9 kg/h r 0.00126 6 kg/h r
0.290 2 kg/h r 0.49 9 Ib/h r QUANTITY 2 4 2 7 2 9 19 3P.3 3 1

500 0 ppm

100 0 ppm 50 0 ppm

500 0 pp m 100 0 ppm 50 0 ppm Assume s 2 9 Calculate d

100 0 ppm 50 0 pp m 25 0 pp m

100 0 ppm 50 0 ppm 25 0 ppm EMISSION FACTORMATRICE S SINGL E MECHANICA L SEAL PUMP S (KG/HR/SOURCE ) 15 X
0.00833 6 0.00676 1 0.00519 8 10

X
0.00S5S 7 0.004S0 7 0.00346 5 5

X
0.0027.7 9 0.00225 4 0.00173 3

PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR )
0.24175 1 0.19607 6 0.15072 8 0.16116 7

0.13071 7 0.10048 5 0.08058 4

0.06535 9 0.05024 3 I

X
0.00055 6 0.00045 1 0.00034 7

0.01611 7 0.01307 2 0.01004 9 pumps/plan t emission s assum e plant' s emission s ar e 25 %

GA S VALVE S 4 X
0.00031 7 0.00026 7 0.00024 2 atatMaiaaB*aiaaaaaSaBaBa«aidaaa>a>aaBaa a — - —

(KG/HR/SOURCE ) 3 X
0.00024 9 0.00020 3 0.00018 1 2

X
0.00018 2 0.0001 4 0.00012 1
PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR )
0.12729 3 0.10715 3 0.09708 3 0.10021 9

0.08161 6 0.07281 2 Assume s 40 2 ga s valves/plan t Calculate d emission s assum e pla n sassaaaaaaaaaasasasasssasasaasa a

FLANGE S (KG/HR/SOURC E

100 0 pp m 50 0 pp m 25 0 ppm

100 0 pp m 50 0 pp m 25 0 pp m 4

X
0.00301 2 0.00253 2 0.00217 5 3

X
0.00225 9 0.00189 9 0.00163 1 0.07314 4

0.05607 9 0,04854 2 

### ir

. 0.00011 5 7.6E-0 5 6.04E-0 5

0.04606 9 0.03054 2 0.02427 1

t' s emission s ar e 25 X
) 2 X
0.00150 6 .0.00126 6 0.00108 7

PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR )
7.228 8 6.076 8 5.2 2 5.421 6

4.557 6 3.91 5 3.614 4

3.038 4 2.6 1 I

X
0.00075 3 0.00063 3 0.00054 4

1.807 2 1.519 2 1.30 5 Assume s 240 0 flanges/plan t Calculate d emission s assum e plant' s emission s ar e 25 X 50 0 ppm 25 0 pp m 10 0 ppm

50 0 pp m 25 0 ppm 10 0 pp m 03/27/9 0 '

DUA L MECHANICA L SEAL PUMP S (KG/HR/SOURCE ) 4 X 3 X 2 X I X
0.00142 7 0.00109 2 0.00075 7 0.00042 1 0.00142 7 0.00109 2 0.00075 7 0.00042 1 0.0011 1 0.00083 2 0.00055 5 0.00027 7

PLAN T EMISSION S (kg/hr )
0.0413 9 0.03166 8 0.02194 6 0.01222 3 0.0413 9 0.03166 8 0.02194 6 0.01222 3 0.0321 9 0.02414 2 0.01609 5 0.00804 7

owe r tha n emission s a t state d percentag e and lea k definition
.

100 0 pp m 50 0 ppm 25 0 pp m

100 0 ppm 50 0 ppm 25 0 pp m Assume s St owe r tha n emi s sasaaaasssssss i

- - LIQUI D VALVES •( KG/HR/SOURCE ) 4 X 3 X 2 X I X
0.00109 9 0.0009 1 0.0007 2 0.0005 3 0.00097 6 0.00081 9 0.00066 2 0.00050 5 0.00083 9 0.0007 1 0.00058 1 0.00045 2
PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR )
0.57613 8 0.47670 9 0.3772 8 0.27785 1 0.51129 3 0.429156"oT347019~>.26488 2 . 0.43976 7 0.37217 1 0.30457 5 0.23697 9 4 1 iqui d valves/plan t sion s a t state d percentag e and lea k definition
.

? ' •

y •

O • " - ' ?'. . -' « •z • '

* • ' " " C

I* 

# y.Ht

lowe r tna n emission s a t state d percentag e and leak definition
.P.3 4



## APPENDI XC :
VHA P LEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FRO M EL I LILLY' S

EVACUATIO N COMPUTE R MODE LP.3 5

... .



# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

# 1

L 

# A psi g dro p i /1 5 mi n i 30-2 9 20-1 9 10.0- 9 40-3 9 130-2 9 9 20-1 9 1 10.0- 9 2 5M 0 3 4 40-3 9 5 30-2 9 6 20-1 9 710.0- 9 8 5M 0 1 9 1 0 20-1 9 2120-1 9 2 2 20-1 9 2 3 20-1 9 2 4 25(20-19-96 8 . 2 6 B

organi c amp . meci 2

neo n

toluen e

i



# meo h !

i 

# mecl 2 PRESTESTIL S

i

i 

# c syste m vol . cu.f L

i

i 

# i

i 122 9

... . . 4



# 122 9

122 9

246 0 369 0 6 1 ! 39 C 122 ! 0 eakrat e bs/hou r

i 

# i

! 

# 13. 3

18. 2 29. 2 0.9 8 1.2 1 1.5 8 2.3 4 2.9 6

- * 

# 0.6 1 0.7 5 0.9 8 1.4 2 1.7 6 3.1 7 4.7 6 0.7S 0. i 0. ! i

m



# Paqe lP.3 6



### ************************** * JO B NO.:938 1 •EL I LILLYVEN T EMISSION S * DATE : 4/19/9 0 ************************** * 3Y « KD D REV. l PROCES S OPERATION : EVACUATIO N w/ o CONDENSE R(IDEA L MIXTURES ) STEP : EQUIVALENC YSYSTEM PRESSUR E TES T ( 1 PSI GPRESSUR E DRO P I N 1 5 MIN. ) VAPORPRESSUR E CHAR T (m m Hg ) METHYLEN E CHLORID E M.W . ANTOINE COEFF. : a b c 84.93 3

16.302 9 2622.4 4 -41. 7

PROCES S CALCULATION S 1 . DETERMIN E LIQUID/VAPORCOMPOSITIO N IN TH E REACTORWHIC H DETERMINE S TH E VAPO RCOMPOSITION GOIN GT O ATMOSPHERE . METHYLEN E CHLORID E INPUT TH E FOLLOWIN GDAT A MARKE D WIT H A

N (•) : •POUND S PRESEN T 1 0 RESIDUAL IN VESSE L •TEMPERATURE(degC ) 2 0 •INITIA L SYSTE M

179 5 (2 0 PSIG ) PRESSUR E (mmHg ) -

' •FINA L SYSTEH-j^ : 174 3 (1 9 PSIG ) PRESSUR E (nmHg

y +++» • f++++f+ 4 ++++++++++++++4H-++4H-+++ + + +++++++H^ ^ ¥

+ + I f H-++++ 4 

### TH E COMPUTE RWIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : #MOLE S 0.11773 9 TOTAL MOLE S 0.11773 9 LIQUI D 1 MOL E FRACTIO N 4 - l- H I I i I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I H I I I I I I f ++++++++++++-H-4 - MltHIIII H INITIA L CONDITIONS :P.3 7



### TEMPERATURE(dp g K ) 29 3 VAPO RPRESSUR E (mmHg ) IDEA L K VAPORMOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTAL y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTAL Pvp^x i 353.330 7 0.19684 1 0.19684 1

0.19684 1 

## 1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7

FINA L CONDITIONS : IDEA L K VAPO RMOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTAL y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTAL Pvp*x i 0.20271 4 0.20271 4

0.20271 4 

## 1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7

f ¥+ I I I t f4.4H-4-4HH-4-4-+4HH-4-4~H-4--H-4-4H-4-4-4-4--f4-4-4- I I I t I I 1 I M M I I I I I I I t M

I t - |--H-H-H-H-H- » 

### A T THI S POINT , TH E NITROGE N MOLES/HRSHOUL D B E CALCULATE D FORTH E SPECIFI C STE P AN D TH E TOTA L MOLE S OF SOLVEN T CALCULATED . TH E TOTAL MOLE S OF SOLVEN T MULTIPLIE D B YY i WILL . GIV

E INDIVIDUAL MOLE S O F EAC H COMPONENTP.3 8



## I NTH E VAPO R PHAS E I NEQUILIBRIU M AT ASPECIFI C PRESSUR E AN D TEMPERATURE . 2 . CALCULAT E TH E #/H R O F INERT S BEIN

G DISPLACED . METHYLENE CHLORID E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II4-4- 1 I I M I H 4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4 - lllllll l 4-4-4-4-4-4-+-H-4-4-4- 4 

## INPU T TH E FOLLOWIN

G DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(• ) :

• M.W . O F INERT 2 9 •EVACUATIO N TIME 1 5 (MINS ) •VAPO RSPACE , C F 122 9 I I I I - I I I- I I I I I I l4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4^H-4-4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-H-4-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4- l I I I I I I I I 4-4-4- » I I f+4-4-4- 4 

## TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : PARTIA L PRESSUR E 1441.66 9 O F INERT (nmHg ) INITIALLY PARTIA L PRESSUR E 1389.66 9 O F INERT (nnaHg ) FINALLY LN(PPi/PPf ) 0.03673 5 LOG MEA N1415.51 0 PARTIA L PRESSUR E yinert s 0.80315 8 INITIALLY yinert s 0.79728 5 FINALLY MOLE S O F INERT S 0.21833 4 DISPLACE D #/H R INERT S 25.3267 8 DISPLACE D HIHItll^ltlfH-I H I-4444-444 4 t I-4-4-4-44444-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4-4- 4 4 f 4 4 f 444+4-444-44444 4 f44-4-4-4- 4 

## 3 . CALCULAT E TH E VOC RAT E OUT O F TH E VESSEL .

METHYLENE CHLORID E I I I I I \ t \ I I I I M M I I I I I » I M

I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H 4 M I I 1- 4 I lllllll l I4-444 4 44-4-4-4-4- 4 

## TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : # VO C 4.62878 5 #/H RVO C 18.5151 4P.3 9

************************** * 

### •EL I LILL Y VEN T EMISSION S • ************************** * 

### PROCES S OPERATION : STEP : JO B NO.:938 1 DATE : 5/15/9 0 BY : KD D REV. l EVACUATIO Nw/ o CONDENSE R (IDEA L EQUIVALENC Y SYSTE M PRESSUR E TES T ( 1 PSI G PRESSUR E DRO P I N1 5 MIN. )

VAPO R PRESSUR E CHAR T (m mHg ) METHYLEN E CHLORID E M.W . ANTOIN E COEFF. : a b c 84.93 3
16.302 9 2622.4 4 -41. 7

PROCES S CALCULATION S 1 . DETERMIN E LIQUID/VAPO R COMPOSITIONI NTH E REACTO R WHIC H TH E VAPO R COMPOSITIO NGOING T O ATMOSPHERE .

METHYLEN E CHLORID E INPUT TH E FOLLOWING DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(•) : 1 0 RESIDUA L •POUND S PRESENT I NVESSE L •TEMPERATURE(degC ) •INITIAL SYSTE M PRESSUR E (mmHg ) t 2 0 179 4 (2 0 PSIG ) 1792. 6 (19.96 8 PSIG ) •FINAL SYSTEM ^ PRESSUR E (mnHS9r £ +4-+++4-+4-4-++4-+4-4-4-4-4-++4-4-4-4-+4-4-+4-4-+4-++4-++++ ^ 

### TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : #MOLE S TOTA L MOLE S LIQUI D MOL E FRACTIO N 0.11773 9 0.11773 9 1
INITIAL CONDITIONS :P.4 0



### TEMPERATURE(de g K ) 29 3 VAPO R PRESSUR E (mmHg ) IDEAL K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTA L y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTA L Pvp^x i 353.330 7 0.19695 1 0.19695 1
0.19695 1 1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7

FINAL CONDITIONS : IDEAL K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTA L y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTA L Pvp^x i 0.19710 5 0.19710 5
0.19710 5 1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7

+++4»+++4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-+4-4-4-4-4-4-+4-4-4-4-4-4-4-+4-++++ ^ 

### A T THI S POINT , TH E NITROGE NMOLES/H R SHOUL D B E CALCULATE D F SPECIFI C STE P AN D TH E TOTA L MOLE S O F SOLVENT CALCULATED . T H O F SOLVENT MULTIPLIE D BY Y i WIL L GIV E INDIVIDUAL MOLE S O F EP.4 1



### I NTH E VAPO R PHAS E I NEQUILIBRIU M A T ASPECIFI C PRESSUR E A N 2 . CALCULAT E TH E #/H R O F INERT S BEING DISPLACED . . METHYLEN E CHLORID E INPUT TH E FOLLOWING DATAMARKE D WIT H A N(•) :

• M.W . O F INER T 2 9 1 5 •EVACUATIONTIM E (MINS ) •VAPO R SPACE , C F 122 9 ++++4-4-4-4-4-++++4-4-4-4-4-++4-+++4-4-++++++++++4-++4+4-4-+++++++++4-4-4-T+4-4

- 

### TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : PARTIAL PRESSUR E 1440.66 9 O F INERT(mmHg ) INITIALL Y PARTIAL PRESSUR E 1439.26 9 O F INERT(mmHg ) FINALL Y LN(PPi/PPf ) LO G MEA N PARTIAL PRESSUR E yinert s INITIALL Y yinert s FINALL Y MOLE S O F INERT S DISPLACE D #/H R INERT S DISPLACE D 0.00097 2 1439.96 9 0.80304 8 0.80289 4 0.00587 8 0.68187 5

3 . CALCULAT E TH E VO C RAT E OU T O F TH E VESSEL .

METHYLEN E CHLORID E ++++++4-4-4-++4-4-4-4-+4-4-++4-4-4-4-++4-4-+4-4-4-4-+-l-+++4-+ ^ 

### TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : # VO C #/H R VO C 0.12250 4

0.49001 7P.4 2



### APPENDI XD : EQUIVALENC YCOMPARISO N
Th e leakrat e fro m EP AEmissio n Factor s fo rProces s Z wa s determine d t o b e 0.5 0 Ib/h r(fo rcalculatio n se e Appendi xB)

. Th e tota l pound s o f VHA P emissio n usin g a tim e i n servic e facto rfro m Batc h Proces s Z woul d be : 0. 5 (Ib/hr ) x4. 5 (hr/lot ) x44 9 (lots/yr ) = 101 0 lbs / yr . Th e leakrat e fro m a 1 PSI G dro p i n 1 5 minute s fo rBatc h Proces s Z i s 18. 5 Ib/h r(fo rcalculatio n se e Appendi xC)

. Th e tota l pound s o f VHA P usin g a tim e i n servic e facto rwoul d be : 18. 5 (Ib/hr ) x4. 5 (hr/lot ) x44 9 (lots/yr ) = 37.37 9 lbs / vr . I f th e pressur e dro p ha d bee n 0.0 3 PSI G i n 1 5 minutes , th e los s woul d hav e corresponde d t o roughl y100 0 lbs/yea rcite d above

. Thus , a pressur e los s o f 0.0 3 PSIG/1 5 minute s i n thi s syste m demonstrate s equivalency

.P.4 3



### ************************** * JO B NO.:938 1 •EL I LILL Y VEN T EMISSION S • DATE : '6/4/9 0 ************************** * BY : KD D REV. l PROCES S OPERATION : EVACUATIONW/ o CONDENSE R (IDEA L MIXTURES ) STEP : EQUIVALENC Y SYSTE M PRESSUR E TES T VAPO R PRESSUR E CHAR T (m mHg ) METHANO L M.W . ANTOIN E COEFF. : a b
c 32.04 2

18.587 5 3626.5 5 -34.2 9

PROCES S CALCULATION S 1 . DETERMIN E LIQUID/VAPO R COMPOSITIONI NTH E REACTO R WHIC H DETERMINE S TH E VAPO R COMPOSITIONGOIN G T O ATMOSPHERE . METHANO L INPUT TH E FOLLOWIN

G DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(•) : •POUND S PRESENT 1 0 RESIDUAL I NVESSE L •TEMPERATURE(degC ) 2 0 •INITIAL SYSTE M 179 5 (2 0 PSIG ) PRESSUR E (mmHg ) •FINAL SYSTE M 177 9 (19.7 0 PSIG ) PRESSUR E (mmHg ) TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : #MOLE S 0.31209 0 TOTA L MOLE S 0.31209 0 LIQUI D 1 MOL E FRACTION INITIAL CONDITIONS :

### TEMPERATURE(de g K ) 29 3

VAPO R PRESSUR E (mmHg ) IDEA L K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTAL y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (PPVOC ) TOTAL Pvp^x i 96.5132 9 0.05376 7 0.05376 7

0.05376 7
1
1 96.5132 9 96.5132 9

FINAL CONDITIONS : IDEAL K 0.05425 1 VAPO R MOL E 0.05425 1 FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTAL y i 0.05425 1 calculate d y i correcte d 1 (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTAL Pvp^x i 1 96.5132 9 96.5132 9

-++++ + 

### AT THI S POINT , TH E NITROGE NMOLES/HR SHOUL D B E CALCULATE D FOR TH E SPECIFI C STE P AND TH E TOTA L MOLE S O F SOLVENT CALCULATED . TH E TOTAL MOLE S O F SOLVENT MULTIPLIE D B Y Y i WIL L GIVE INDIVIDUAL MOLE S O F EAC H COMPONEN TP.4 5



### I NTH E VAPO R PHAS E I NEQUILIBRIU M A T ASPECIFI C PRESSUR E AND TEMPERATURE . 2 . CALCULAT E TH E #/H R O F INERT S BEIN

G DISPLACED . METHANO L INPUT TH E FOLLOWIN

G DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(•) :

• M.W . O F INER T 2 9 •EVACUATIONTIM E 1 5 (MINS ) VAPO R SPACE , C F 122 9
TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : PARTIAL PRESSUR E 1698.48 6 O F INERT(mmHg ) INITIALL Y PARTIAL PRESSUR E 1682.48 6 O F INERT(mmHg ) FINALL Y LN(PPi/PPf ) 0.00946 4 LO G MEA N1690.47 4 PARTIAL PRESSUR E yinert s 0.94623 2 INITIALL Y yinert s 0.94574 8 FINALL Y MOLE S O F INERT S 0.06717 9 DISPLACE D #/H R INERT S 7.79285 7 DISPLACE D ++++++++++4+44+4++++++4++44+++++++++4+++++++4+4-4-4-+4++++++++4+++44+++++4+++ + 

### 3 . CALCULAT E TH E VO C RAT E OU T O F TH E VESSEL .

METHANO L TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : # VO C 0.12289 5 #/H R VO C 0.49158 3P.4 6



# ATTACHMEN T1 0

[NOTE : Thi s i s a draf t outlin e i nregulator

y language . An

y value s i

nblank s are example s only , an dd o no t represent consensus. ] (a ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a batc h proces s ma yelec t t o us e the provision s o f thi s sectio n o r LDA R t o compl ywit h the requirement s o f thi s subpart . (b ) Batc h proces s an d Batc h product-proces s wil l b e define d i n the subpar t a s - - Batc h Proces s mean s a proces s whic h i s intermitten t o r discontinuou s an d the vas t majorit yo f individua l items o f equipmen t i s infrequentl yi n VHA P service
. Th e equipmen t i s fed intermittentl yo r discontinuously
. Processing the n occur s i n thi s equipmen t afte r whic h the equipmen t i s generall yemptied
. Onl ybatc h proces s equipmen t i n us e wit h a hazardou s ai r pollutan t les s than 80 % o f th e tota l availabl e tim e (8,76 0 hours/year ) i s eligibl e fo r treatmen t unde r Sectio n o f thi s rule . Example s o f industrie s tha t us e batc h proces s includ e pharmaceutica l manufacturer s an

d pesticid e manufacturers . Batc h Product-Proces s mean s th e collectio n o f equipmen t (e.g. , reactors , valves , pumps , etc. ) configure d t o produc e a specifi c produc t b ya batc h process . (c ) Eac h owne r o r operato r electing t o us e pressur e testing shal l compl y wit h the following requirements : 1 . Eac h tim

e equipmen t i s reconfigure d fo r batc h productio n o f a produc t (i.e. , fo r eac h batc h product-process ) and eac h tim e a sea l i s disconnecte d ("broken") , th e batc h product-proces s equipmen t shal l b e pressur e teste d befor e VHA P i s firs t fe d t o the equipment
. A t a minimu meac h batc h produc t proces s shal l b e pressur e teste d [fo r example , 1 ] time s pe r year . 2 . Th e proces s equipmen t shal l b e pressurize d using air , nitrogen , o r ' wate r t o the maximu moperating pressur e o f the equipmen t fo r the perio d o f the test . Th e tes t shal l b e conducte d fo r minutes
. 3 . Aleak i s define d a s a pressur e drop o f mor e than ffo r example . 0.0 3 psig/1 5 min i o r visible , audibl e o r olfactoryevidenc e o f flui d loss . [NOTE : I t woul db e preferre d i f th e rul e specifie d a generi c pressur e los s criterio n fo r al l batc h processe s o r an equatio n t o calculat e the pressur e los s representing a leak . T o requir e demonstratio n o f equivalenc yfo r ever ybatc h proces s woul d resul t i n a n unworkabl e provision. ] 4 . I f a leak i s detected , th e equipmen t shal l b e repaire d an d reteste d befor e startu p o f th e process . 5 . An

ysystemtha t fail s th e retes t mus t b e repaire d withi n 3 0 day s unles s i t ca n b e documente d tha t th e replacemen t par t i s unavailable
. I n the latte r case , the repai r mus t b e mad e withi n 1 0 day s o f the deliver ydat e o f th

e replacemen t part .P.4 7

(d ) Eac h owne r o r operato r wh o elect s t o us e LDA R t o compl ywit h thi s subpar t shall : 1 . Scree n equipmen t whe n the equipmen t i s i n VHA P servic e o r i n us e wit h a n acceptabl e surrogat e volatil e organi c compoun d whic h i s no t identifie d a s a VHA P ,o r i n us e wit h an

yothe r detectabl e gas/vapor , (e.g. , the equipmen t mayb e pressurize d wit h an y detectabl e ga s an

d LDA R performed) . 2 . Monito r equipmen t a t the frequencycalculate d i n the equatio n belo wo r onc e pe r year , i f th e calculate d frequenc yi s les s than 

### 1 . f

— T x F •*- b -"-o p •" •* •continuou s Wher e f b- screening frequencyfo r batc h operation s

T o p - averag e tim

e equipmen t i s i n VHA P servic e i n th e previou s year , expresse d a s percentag e o f 876 0 hour s
F contmuou s = monitoring frequencyspecifie d fo r equipmen t i n continuou s service , (e.g. , onc e pe r 9 0 days ; onc e pe r 3 0 days) . RECORDKEEPIN

G REQUIREMENT S FOR BATC H PROCESSE S Additiona l Requirement s - Eac h owne r o r operato r wh o elect s t o us e the provision s fo r batc h processe s shal l maintai n record s demonstrating tha t equipmen t i s i n batc h product-processes . Suc h record s migh t consis t o f documentatio n o f batc h product-processe s tha t hav e equipmen t i n >5 % VHA P servic e an d documentatio n tha t woul d sho wtha t a typica l batc h cycl e conform s t o th e definitio n o f batch , specifie d i n § .P.4 8



# ATTACHMEN T1 1 America n Petroleu m Institute 1220 L Street , Northwest Washington , D.C

. 2000 5 202-682-800 0 % > 

### MEMORANDUM
DATE : Jun e 8 , 199 0 TO : HVO C FUGITIVE EMISSION S REGULATORY NEGOTIATIO NCOMMITTE E FROM : Larr yGoodheart , A^**********

Lind a Curra n &*cU, &4Si*xtM, ^ SUBJECT : Suggeste d Agreement/Preambl e Languag e
I n m ylette r date d Jun e l , 1990 , I sen t yo u draf t languag e fo r th e agreemen t an d preambl e tha t woul d explai n th e relationshi p betwee n th e regulatio n bein g negotiate d fo r SOCM I categorie s an

d th e expecte d subsequen t regulatio n o f fugitiv e emission s o f HAP s frompetroleu moperations
. I t i s ver y importan t t o AP I an d Amoc o tha t bot h th e preambl e and th e agreemen t contai n a shor t discussio n o f thi s issue
. Durin g th e Jun e 6- 7 negotiatin g session , th e suggeste d languag e underwen t severa l revisions
. Finally , EP Aand AP I agree d (subjec t t o back-hom e approvals ) tha t th e languag e se t fort h belo wwoul d b e acceptable . Pleas e cal l m e a t (414 ) 620-414 5 o r Elle n Siegle r a t (202 ) 682-827 1 i f yo u hav e an y comment s o n thi s language . (I f yo u prefer , yo u ma yfa x comment s t o m e a t (415 ) 620-532 0 o r Elle n a t (202 ) 682-8033 . Potentia l Applicabilit yo f Standar d t o Refiner yCategorie s Th e standard s incorporate d i n thi s Agreemen t wer e establishe d b yth e Negotiatin g Committe e base d primaril yo n dat a fromth e best-performin g ethylen e oxid e plant s and dat a fro ma fe wothe r SOCM I plants . Th e Committe e di d no t revie wdat a frompetroleu m refinin g processe s becaus e the ywer e outsid e th e scop e o f th e negotiations , an

d th e Committe e doe s no t kno wwhethe r th e numeri c standard s incorporate d i n thi s agreemen t ar e achievabl e b y refiner yprocesses . I t i s agree d tha t th e regulator yframewor k o f th e negotiate d regulatio n shoul d b e use d whe n EP Adevelop s MAC T regulation s fo r thos e petroleu m processe s tha t ar e t o b e regulate d unde r Titl e II I o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . However , th e Committe e believe s tha t ther e ar e technica l difference s betwee n SOCM I categorie s and petroleu moperation s tha t ma yaffec t th e achievabilit yo f th e numerica l standard s (percen t leakers) . Potentia l difference s includ e th e availabilit yand effectivenes s o f emissio n contro l technologies , plan t shutdown practices , lin e

A n equa l opportunit yemploye rP.4 9



### sizes , proces s temperature s an d pressures , an

d cost . I f an yregulator yauthorit yrepresentate d o n th e Committe e develop s regulations , applicabl e t o refineries , simila r t o thes e negotiate d b

yth e Committee , i t wil l conduc t a separat e rulemaking
. Th e achievabilit yo f th e standard s (includin g percen t leakers ) wil l b e on e o f th e element s considere d i n th e rulemaking
.P.5 0
1990—ASQ C QUALIT YCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O

FUGITIV E EMISSIONS : A N UNTAPPE DAPPLICATIO N FO RTQ C

. R . L . Berglun dJ . L . Hanse n Unio nCarbid e Chemical s andPlastic s Company Inc . Sout hCharleston , W

V 2530 3

ABSTRAC T A t th e dawno f th e qualit y era , J . M . Jura ndevelope dth e concep t o f th e secondo r 'hidden ' plan t fro

m th e understandin g tha t a s a facilit y create s a product , th e secondo r hidde nplan t i s creatin g waste . Th e rea l significanc e o f thi s secondo r 'hidden ' plan t i s no w becomin g recognize d a s many companie s commi t t o a naggressiv e program t o minimiz e th e impac t o f thei r operation s o n employe e an

dcommunit y

healt handth e environment . Yet , whil e bot hth e 'hidden ' plan t concep t an d th e principle s o f Tota l Qualit y Contro l (TO O ar e wel l understoo di nth e manufacturin g andservic e areas , the y

remai nvirtuall y

unrecognize dinth e are a o f environmenta l control . A nare a to whic hth e TQ C principle s ca nb e directl y applie di s tha t associate dwit hfugitiv e emission s fro

m equipmen t leaks . Losse s o f organi c compound s throug hleak s fro m proces s equipmen t (valves , pumps , flanges ) i na typica l chemica l plan t hav e historicall y bee nestimate dt o b e inth e rang e o f 50 0 t o 150 0 g/Mg ( g emissions/millio ng produc t made) . From a neconomi c standpoint , suc h losse s hav e represente da smal l fractio no f production , wer e generall y acceptable , an

dofte nwer e ignored . From

a nenvironmenta l standpoint , suc hlosse s nee dt o b e reassessed , i nterm s o f th e magnitud e o f thes e losses , andi nth e appropriat e tool s fo r improvin g th e productio nsystem t o reduc e thes e losses . T o asses s th e situation , i n1988 , massiv e survey s o f equipmen t leak s i nth e acrolein , ethylen e oxide , butadien e an

dphosgen e productio nindustrie s wer e undertaken . Nearl y 92,00 0 component s a t 3 0 differen t companie s wer e monitored . Th e screenin g result s wer e matche dwit ha detaile d industrywid e survey

o f th e design , monitorin g andmaintenanc e practice s o f the plants . Base do n thes e studies , specifi c guideline s fo r determinin g fugitiv e emission s fro m facilitie s wer e outlined , andselecte dBenchmar koperation s invalv e andpum pselection , maintenanc e an dInspectio n wer e determined . Usin g thes e insights , a long-term TQ C program

t o reduc e fugitiv e emission s fro m equipmen t leak s i s outlined , andadditiona l opportunitie s fo r qualit y improvemen t ar e documented . INTRODUCTIO N Wha t ar e fugitiv e emissions ? Fugitiv e emission s ar e low-leve l diffus e Volatil e Organi c Compoun d (VOC ) emission s tha t occu r when proces s flui d (eithe r gaseou s o r liquid ) escape s fro m plan t equipmen t suc h as valves , flanges , pumps , an d compressor s int o th e atmosphere . Bot h industria l an d regulator y group s ar e tryin g t o determin e source s o f Volatil e Organi c Compound s (VOCs) release s int o th e environment . A s a class , suc h compound s ar e believe d t o b e precursor s I n th e formatio n o ftroposphen' c ozon e o r smo g i n urba n areas , whil e som e specifi c chemical s ar e o f a hig h leve l o fadditiona l concer n becaus e o fthei r toxicity , explosivity , o r flammability . Althoug h a typica l chemica l proces s uni t ma y contai n thousand s o f piece s o f equipment , eac h o f whic h ca n serv e as a potentia l fugitiv e emission s source , mos t fugitiv e emission s wil l b e contri bute d b y onl y a smal l fractio n o fth e possibl e sources . Because ther e hav e bee n man

y question s ove r th e sources , causes , an d control s o f.fugitiv e emissions , program s t o stud y fugitiv e emission s wer e initiate d i n th e 1950' s i n th e Lo s Angele s area , whic h le d t o nationwid e studie s i n th e chemica l an d refinin g industrie s i n th e 1970's . But , interes t wane d i n th e lat e 1970' s afte r th e U S Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y publishe d a serie s o f factor s fo r estimatin g fugitiv e emissions , an d initiate d a specia l progra m o fLea k Detectio n an d Repai r (LDAR) fo r controllin g fugitiv e emission s fro m regulate d sources . Thes e generi c factor s an d th e contro l progra m wer e focuse d o n what ca n bes t b

e terme d th e 'Specia l Causes ' o f fugitiv e emissions . Thi s leakag e wa s cause d b

y uni t upsets , inadequat e maintenance , misdirecte d monitorin g an d inspection , inattention , lowe r qualit y design , an d unconcer n b y th e uni t management . The contro l strateg y wa s focuse d on regula r monitorin g fo r thes e 'special ' (bigger ) leak s an d subsequentl y repairin g them . Usin g th e generi c factors , i t woul d b e estimate d tha t fugitiv e emission s losse s fro m a typica l chemica l proces s Copyrigh t Q l 99 0 Unio n Carbid e Chemical s an d Plastic s Company Inc . Al l Right s Reserve dP.5 1

, 1990—ASQ C QUALIT YCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O facilit y woul dbe smal l relativ e t o the overal l production , o f th e orde r o f 50 0 t o 150 0 g/Mg (gram s emissions/millio ngram s produc t made) . B y directin g th e detectio nandrepai r program t o thes e 'special ' leaks , emission s woul db e reduce db y abou t two-thirds . Ther e ar e question s ove r th e validit y o f applyin g a generi c fugitiv e emissio nfacto r and contro l progra m

t o th e entir e chemica l proces s industry . Independen t o f an y regulator y

guidance , fo r safet y

o r economi c reasons , mos t proces s unit s handlin g chemical s whic har e toxic , explosive , o r otherwis e hazardous , already implemen t specia l guideline s fo r monitorin g an dinspectio no f operatin g equipmen t o r specificall y desig nequipmen t t o limi t organi c losses . Fe w unit s handlin g toxi c o r hazardou s chemical s wer e include dinthe dat a bas e use dt o generat e th e commonl y use d emissio nfactors . Furthermore , th e earlie r program s wer e no t focuse denoug ht o allo w th e 'commo n causes ' o f fugitiv e emission s t o b e determine donc e th e 'specia l causes ' wer e removed , no r coul d they b e use dt o evaluat e th e method s appropriat e fo r mitigatio no f thes e causes . However , suc h method s ca nb e develope dfro m a neffectiv e Tota l Qualit y Contro l (TQC ) program , th e organizatio no f whic hwoul dconsis t o f 1) settin g standards , 2) appraisin g conformance , 3 ) takin g correctiv e action , and4 ) plannin g fo r improvement .
SETTIN GSTANDARD S A majo r activit y

whic hwil l b e strongl y Influencin g futur e operatin g program s withi nmuc ho f th e chemica l proces s industr y i s th e 'Responsibl e Care ' program o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n(CMA) , throug hwhic h'Industry move s t o improv e managemen t o f chemicals. ' On e aspec t o f thi s program , designe dfo r loca l implementation , encourage s membe r companie s t o reduc e environmenta l release s fro m thei r facilitie s b y usin g th e followin g process : 1 ) inventoryin g release s t o al l media , 2 ) evaluatin g releas e reductio nopportunitie s andestablishin g priorities , 3 ) formulatin g releas e reductio nplans , and4 ) periodicall y communicatin g progres s andfutur e plan s t o employee s an dth e public . Th e CM A Responsibl e Car e progra m i s importan t t o th e chemica l Industry , ye t many chemica l companie s hav e develope dthei r ow nprogram s t o eithe r implemen t o r supplemen t th e CM A activity . In lookin g t o th e future . Unio nCarbid e "ha s committe ditsel f t o gettin g exposur e level s o f potentiall y

harmfu l chemical s i nou r communitie s t o a t leas t 1,00 0 time s lowe r tha nworkplac e standard s se t b

y th e Occupationa l Safet y an dHealt hAdministration , o r ou r ow nstandards , whicheve r ar e tougher . Unio nCarbide' s goal , a s existin g technolog y an doperatin g practice s ar e upgraded , i s complet e eliminatio no f emission s o f knowno r suspec t carcinogens. " Suc ha commitmen t require s tha t fugitiv e emissio nsource s b e foundandcorrected . APPRAISIN GCONFORMANC E Atypica l chemica l proces s uni t wil l contai n somewher e i n th e rang e o f 4,00 0 components , eac h o f whic h coul d starv e a s a sourc e o f fugitiv e emission s leakage

. Thes e component s Includ e flange s (60*) , valve s i n ga s servic e (28X) , valve s i n liqui d servic e (9%) , pump s (0.5%) , safet yvalve s (0.5S) , an d open-ende d line s [2%). Determinin g fugitiv e emissio n leakag e fro m thousand s o f component s o n a uni t woul d requir e tha t eac h individua l componen t be wrappe d an d sampled , a costl y comple xlogisti cnightmare

. To hel p simplif yth e problem , th e EP Aprovide d industr ywit h a numbe r o f les s rigorou s alternative s fo restimatin g fugitiv e emissions

. One I s t o scree n th e componen t wit h a n organi cvapo ranalyze r(OVA) , an d estimat e emission s fro m a scatte rplo t lik e tha t i n Figur e 1

. Figur e 1 : EPA Scalie r Plot o fLo g Lea k

Rate vs . Lo g OV

A Readin g Valves-Liqui d Servic e

• 5 X m 3 • Sui m 3 & o z » 3 o- -i- l
- j - - j -
- 4 .
-• -
-• - 1 D O 0. 9 ligantf : •

• A

•

—• * • •

1 0 t. » . t o bMr>tllO» l

•• ? Ot>««a«*<!onf m J 1 0 Otitai*»iliHt t
•
• • • • •t « •

I O ••••

• • •• ••t « • •• ••• •• •••*»«* - ••*'•

« • •••»• ••••

• • -^•"""" ^

• • •• • ••* •• •••• •••• •• • • •

r s 3 0 3 9 LO Q Mna n OV

A floodin g •

• * • •••* ••• » •^ •••• •« ••••*

•• ••••••*• « •• •••»- - •r •••••«t * • f* * •»»aj.^-« i •• « • ••„ - • •• •• * • •*• - « ••• * III I t » ••* •••* •r * « •••• ••*• • ••••• •a t • • * •••• ••• ••••• •••• •• •• ••

4 0 M 5 0 •

• • • • « * • •• •t • %*~^ • • * * • • • • • • •

s s t oP.5 2

1990—ASQ C QUALIT YCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O I n 1988 , CMA

, wit h suppor t fro m th e EPA, initiate d industrywid e fugitiv e emission s studie s t o bette r understan d existin g level s o ffugitiv e emissions . Fou r chemica l productio n industrie s wer e studied : acrolein, ' 1,3-butadiene , ethylen e oxide , an d phosgene , durin g whic h ove r 92,00 0 com ponent s were screened . Th e participant s i n thes e studie s were locate d i n nin e differen t states , but , two-third s o f th e units , an d al l th e butadien e unit s were locate d i n Texas o r Louisiana . Include d i n thi s effor t wer e al l valves , pumps , an d compressors , safet y valve s and a statistica l samplin g o fflanges , an d othe r connectors . Because o f th e exten t an d th e completenes s o f thes e studies , th e result s hav e provide d th e participant s wit h th e uniqu e opportunit y t o compar e th e practice s an d program s i n plac e i n thes e industrie s as the y affec t fugitiv e emissions . Th e OV A screenin g measurements , i n ppm , obtaine d i n thes e studie s ar e summarize d below . Th e distributio n o f'Leakers ' fo r fou r critica l component type s i s show n i n Figur e 2 .

Acrolei n (4573 ) Butadien e (43581 ) Ethylen e Oxid e (17563 ) Phosgen e (25743 ) 454 1 3294 1 1525 8 2558 6 < TO

O 2 3 830 0 181 1 11 7 <M00 0

3 85 9 28 1 4 0 Leaker s

< 10,00 0 > 10,00 0 3 764 11 1 0 2

71 7 10 1 0

EP A Stud y (2 4 Plana ) lutndien e industr y(1 3 Ptanii ) Ethylen e Oilda a Industr y (1 2 Ptima ) AcroM n mdiaB y ( 2 Plants ) Phoscen e Industr y(1 3 Plants )
Vatw a (Uqut d S*rvlc« ) Valv. . fOa i S*raK« ) Figur e 2 : A Compariso n o l Lea k Frequencie s fo rCritica l Component s I n Acrolein , Butadiene , Ethylen e Oxid e an d Phosgen e Industrie s

Relative to th e Origina l EPAStudie s B y regulator y definition , a 'Leaker ' i s a componen t wit h a n OV A screenin g measuremen t abov e 10,00 0 ppm . Overall , abou t 0.04 % ( 3 ou t o f4536) , of th e components i n th e acrolei n unit , 0.6 1 (10 2 ou t o f17563 ) o fth e components screene d i n th e ethylen e oxid e unit s an d 1.65% (71 7 ou t o f 43581 ) o fth e components screene d i n th e butadien e unit s woul d b e classifie d a s 'Leakers. ' Thi s 'leaking ' equipmen t accounte d fo r abou t 90 % o fth e tota l emission s measure d i n th e acrolei n industry , 70

% o fth e tota l emission s measure d i n th e ethylen e oxid e industry , an d 60 % o f th e tota l emission s measure d i n th e butadien e industry . There wer e n o 'Leakers ' i n th e phosgen e industry . Al l o fthes e 'leaking ' source s wer e promptl y repaired . Fro m previou s EP A studies , i t woul d have bee n expecte d tha t 6 % o f th e components woul d hav e bee n 'Leakers. ' Ofal l th e components screened , 99.8 % of th e components i n th e phosgen e unit , 98.6 % o f thos e i n th e acrolei n units , 86 % o fthos e i n a n ethylen e oxid e unit , an d 75 % o f thos e i n a butadien e uni t ha d screenin g value s les s tha n 1 0 pp m (hea r lowe r leve l o f detectio n wit h backgroun d air , 0. 2 pp m fo r phosgene) . Fro m th e screenin g dat a obtaine d i n thes e studie s an d th e appropriat e correlatio n curve , a ne w se t o fIndustr y specifi c fugitiv e emission s factor s were develope d fo r th e components i n th e fou r—_P.5 3 1990—ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O productio nindustries . Wit ha fe w exceptions , fo r mos t componen t types , al l the plant s inthe butadien e industr y

wer e highe r tha nan y o f the plant s i nthe ethylen e oxid e industr y whic hi ntur n wer e al l highe r tha nan y o f the plant s inthe phosgen e industry . Th e tota l emission s fo r thes e industrie s (a s a percentag e o f th e EP A estimates , an

da s a fractio no f the overal l production , g/Mg ) ca nb e summarize da s follows :

Industr y EP A Av g Butadien e Ethylen e Oxid e Acrolei n Phosgen e Relativ e t o EP A Stud y 10 0 % 3 3 % 1 0 % 0.05 % 0.01 % Relativ e T o Productio n 500-150 0 g/M g 45 0 g/M g 35 g/M g 0. 5 g/M g 0. 1 g/M g Thi s represent s a differenc e o f nearl y fou r order s o f magnitud e betwee nth e fou r Industries . Th e critica l questio ntha t continue s t o remai nafte r examinin g thes e trend s was :

"Wha t I s th e Differenc e tha t Make s th e Difference " betwee nthes e industries . T o evaluat e th e differen t 'practices ' use db y th e fou r industrie s whic hmigh t explai nthes e trends , an

dt o determin e the bes t 'Benchmark ' operation s fo r assurin g lo w fugitive emissions , a surve y wa s prepare dan

ddistribute dt o al l the participant s inthes e studies . Thi s surve y focuse d onth e thre e fundamenta l aspect s o f fugitiv e emission s control : (1 ) program s fo r monitorin g fo r a leak , (2 ) practice s fo r maintainin g equipmen t o r repairin g th e leak , onc e I t i s detected , and(3 ) procedure s fo r preventin g th e occurrenc e o f a lea kthroug hspecia l desig nstandards . Th e result s o f thi s indicat e tha t ther e ar e difference s betwee nthes e industrie s wit hrespec t t o th e volatility , corrosivity , acut e toxicit y an dmolecula r propertie s o f the chemical s o f concer nand th e operatin g pressure , temperatures , an dcycle s o f the differen t processes . Al l o f thes e ma y hav e some impac t onth e ultimat e fugitiv e emission s level s achieved . I t appear s tha t thes e measure d level s wer e reache db y th e differen t industrie s a s a nindirec t consequenc e o f thei r existin g interna l an

dexterna l program s fo r safety , employe e health , exposure , an denvironmenta l control . Th e Benchmar kfacilities , th e producer s o f acrolein , phosgen e an di nman y cases , ethylen e oxide , apparentl y

recognizin g the potentia l acut e healt hhazard s o f thes e chemical s see m t o b e operatin g fro

m a strategi c pla nwhic hassure s tha t fugitiv e emission s fro m th e component s whic h handle dthes e chemical s ar e low . Thi s overridin g strategy i s simpl y

tha t equipmen t leak s ar e no t tolerated . Ove r a perio do f year s thes e industrie s hav e develope dspecia l tactic s I nthe area s o f maintenance , monitorin g an ddesig nnecessar y

t o achiev e th e desire dresults . Som e o f thes e tactic s are : Monitoring : I nth e Benchmar kplants , the uni t staf f i s traine dt o b e

sensitiv e t o leaks , an dthe operator s ar e constantl y lookin g fp r leaks . Maintenance : Leak s ar e promptl y repaired , shuttin g dow nth e uni t a s necessary . Design : Unit s ar e designe dt o minimiz e leakage , t o allow rapi dshutdow

n an dstartup , an

dt o minimiz e numbe r o f components . Vendor s ar e evaluate d andcompoent s ar e teste dbefor e an ddurin g installation . A leakles s design , whe nused , i s focuse do ncritica l areas . Overall , severa l key point s ca nb e mad e wit hrespec t t o thes e Benchmar koperations . 1 ) Today' s performanc e inthe Benchmar kunit s didn' t jus t happe nover night , lo

w fugitiv e emissions * ar e th e cumulativ e result s o f year s o f recor dkeeping , analysis , an deffort . 2 ) Low fugitiv e emission s ar e achieve dprimaril y throug hthe us e o f conventiona l technology , no t necessaril y b y universa l applicatio no f ne w leakles s technology . 3 ) Ne w technolog y

i s selectivel y

use dwher e i t make s goo dengineerin g sense .P.5 4
1990—ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O Th e mai ntheme tha t pervade s th e program s i nus e i nthe Benchmar kindustrie s I s tha t whil e they ma y us e advance dtechnology , th e achievemen t o f lo w level s o f fugitiv e emission s i s a resul t o f payin g attentio nt o th e detail s o f th e operation , an drespondin g inanappropriat e manne r t o an y leakage . Th e conclusio ntha t ca nb e reache di s tha t a TQ C progra m t o assur e low

fugitiv e emission s mus t begi nandendwit hth e operation s staf f I nth e proces s uni t wit hcontinuou s improvemen t bein g sough t an dmeasured . But , becaus e fugitiv e emission s fro m th e majorit y

o f the chemica l industr y

ar e no t ye t i

na stat e o f statistica l control , the result s fro m th e Benchmar k industrie s canno t be directl y extende dt o othe r chemica l units . Man y o f the operation s hav e no t considere dthe problem s associate dwit hfugitiv e emissions , s o no effor t ha s bee nmad e t o differentiat e th e 'specia l causes ' fro m th e 'commo ncauses ' o f fugitiv e emissions . Onl y afte r th e specia l causes , suc ha s inattentio nan dpoo r maintenance , ar e identifie dan dcorrecte dca nth e variou s industrie s determin e th e tota l effor t tha t wil l b e require dt o achiev e low fugitiv e emission s fo r thei r existin g se t o f proces s characteristic s (suc ha s pressure , temperature , size , origina l design , o r operatin g cycle) . Tota l Qualit y

Costs : Th e difference s betwee nth e fou r industr y group s ca nb e furthe r explaine dfro

m a nupdate dassessmen t o f th e Tota l Cost s o f Poo r Quality . Fro m a fugitiv e emission s perspective , th e Interna l an dExterna l Failur e Cost s woul db e th e cost s associate dwit hdefect s tha t resul t i nfugitiv e emission s releases . Thes e woul ddisappea r i f ther e ar e n o leaks . Thes e cost s include :

Regulator y

penaltie s OSH A violation s Communit y

odor s Employe e andconmunlt y healt h Explosion s

Respirator y

protectio n Wast e materia l Communit y

goodwil l Appraisa l Cost s woul db e th e cost s incurre dt o monito r th e operatio nfo r defect s an dfugitiv e emissions , whil e th e Preventio nCost s woul db e th e cost s incurre dt o preven t leak s from occurring . I

nth e Benchmar kindustrie s (phosgene , acrolein ) th e Cost s o f Poo r Qualit y ca nb e substantial , relativ e t o th e othe r industries . Hence , managemen t sa w the nee dfo r appraisa l an d preventio nprograms , and , afte r year s o f effort , th e appraisa l an dpreventio ncost s i nthes e Industrie s ar e comparativel y lower . Fugitiv e Emission s andZer o Defects . Many unit s repor t tha t the y hav e zer o leaks . From a regulator y

standpoint , thi s ca nmea nsimpl y tha t al l o f the screene dcomponent s woul db e withi nth e acceptabl e limi t o f th e regulation , tha t no componen t ha s a screenin g valu e abov e 10,00 0 pp m (Figur e 3) . Yet , suc ha brigh t lin e t o determin e whe na componen t shoul db e repaire ddoe s no t appea r t o assur e lo

w fugitiv e emissions . Bette r woul db e t o recogniz e th e 'los s function ' concep t a s I t applie s t o fugitiv e emissions . I nthi s case , whil e the leaker s woul db e repaired , a s require db

y regulation , al l component s wit hscreenin g value s abov e some acceptabl e optimu m woul db e give nsom

e attention . Th e relativ e los s o r cos t t o societ y resultin g fro

m thei r continuin g leakag e woul db e compare dt o th e cost s associate dwit hthei r ultimat e repair . Whil e th e rat e o f Increas e awa y fro m th e optimu

m ma y chang e wit hdifferen t chemical s an ddifferen t component s types , a contro l strateg y fo r fugitiv e emission s woul dno t b e limite dt o th e 'leakers ' (screenin g value s abov e 10,00 0 ppm) , bu t woul dals o addres s othe r component s (Figur e 4) .

LOS S NON-LEAKE R

(N o Impact ) Not Defectiv e LEA&E B (Bi g Impact ) Defectiv e Emission s

0 10,00 0 pp m Screenin g Valu e Optimu m "Target 1 10,00 0 pp m Repai r Zon e
Figur e 3 : Fugitiv e Emission s Regulation s Usin g th e Zer o Defect s Concep t (Th e "Goa l Post " Approach ) Figur e 4 : Los s Functio n Approac h Fo r Assessin g Fugitiv e Emissio n Sourc e Contributio nP.5 5
1990—ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O

TAKIN GCORRECTIV E ACTIO N Ther e ar e thre e commo ncause s o f fugitiv e emission s fro m equipment : 1 ) componen t defects , 2 ) installatio nerrors , an d3 ) wearout , somewha t followin g th e standar dlif e characteristi c ('Bathtub' ) curve . I naddition , ther e ar e numerou s specia l causes , whic hma y be associate dwit h th e environment , o r th e process , andma y includ e simpl e rando m failures . Th e cause s o f fugitiv e emission s vary fo r the differen t proces s units . I nsom e cases , leakag e fro m th e component s wa s no t detected , s o they wer e simpl y

no t maintained . Inothe r cases , hidde n o r laten t defect s inth e desig nma y b e suc htha t the componen t i s no t abl e t o achiev e the desire d low lea klevels , o r th e grou po f component s ma y b e a t th e endo f It s lif e cycle . I nth e firs t case , simpl y

initiatin g th e monitorin g an dmaintenanc e program woul dachiev e the necessar y reductions . I

nbot ho f thes e latte r cases , significan t desig nan dreplacemen t change s woul db e warranted . I

nanothe r case , th e proces s operatio nma y hav e cause da highstres s onthe component , anddesig nchange s i nth e proces s configuratio nitsel f ma y b e warranted . Th e appropriat e respons e ca nonl y b e determine dfro

m a nanalysi s o f the historica l componen t leakag e data . Proces s Screening . Th e firs t ste pindeterminin g the appropriat e correctiv e actio n1 s t o scree nthe component s inth e proces s uni t fo r leakag e (using a nappropriat e analyzer) . Th e screenin g operatio nserve s thre e functions : 1 ) i t separate s the acceptabl e component s fro m th e questionabl e an

dunacceptabl e components , 2 ) i t focuse s attentio nonthe mos t sever e leakin g component s warrantin g immediat e attention , an dthos e component s warrantin g longe r rang e attention , andma y separat e th e 'special ' case s from th e 'common ' leaks , and3 ) i t provide s th e bes t mean s o f estimatin g fugitiv e emission s fo r th e unit . Recor dKeeping . Developin g a program o f continuou s improvemen t whic hfocuse s o nthe component s wit hseriou s leakag e (generall y wit hscreenin g value s abov e 10,00 0 ppm) , ye t als o assure s tha t th e majorit y o f the acceptabl e component s inth e uni t wil l no t b e adversel y affected , require s tha t al l activit y regardin g thes e component s b e well-documente d(screenin g measurements , maintenance , replacement) . Thi s documentatio nwoul db e useful : 1 ) fo r determinin g progres s I n reducin g emissions , 2 ) fo r selectin g the bes t suppliers , 3 ) fo r preparin g anoptimu m installatio n andtestin g strategy , 4 ) fo r determinin g the mos t critica l area s o f th e proces s tha t shoul dreceiv e futur e attentio ni nth e program , 5 ) fo r developin g indicator s whic hwoul dtel l whe na particula r componen t shoul db e replaced , o r repaired , 6 ) fo r determinin g i f leakage s ca nb e attribute dt o commo ncause s requirin g a grou presponse , o r specia l cause s requirin g individua l responses , an d7 ) fo r developin g a Correctiv e Actio nGuidelin e (CAG ) fo r respondin g t o lea kindicators . Ina numbe r o f case s th e appropriat e correctiv e respons e 1 s t o no t attemp t t o directl y fi xth e leak , bu t t o continu e t o monito r th e leak , andpla nfo r futur e improvement . Th e latte r activit y represent s th e fourt hstag e o f th e fugitiv e emission s contro l program . PLANNINGFO RIMPROVEMEN T A long-ter m

program

shoul dconsis t o f tw o focuse dactivities : 1 ) th e monitorin g program , an d subsequen t dat a analysis , whic hrepresen t th e bul ko f th e Diagnosti c portio no f the program , and 2 ) th e Correctiv e Actio nGuideline s (CAGs ) whic hrepresen t the bul ko f th e Correctiv e o r Improvemen t portio no f th e contro l program . T o improv e th e cost , performance , safety , andreliabilit y standard s fo r th e component s I nth e participatin g uni t suc htha t lo w fugitiv e emission s ar e achieved , require s a concerte dmulti disciplinar y

focus . Th e immediat e gain s inapplyin g a TQ C pla nt o fugitiv e emission s wil l b e achieve db

y th e rapi drepai r o f th e component s a t seriou s lea klevels , andreplacemen t o f thes e component s shoul dthey pos e continue dproblems . Th e long-term gain s wil l be achieve db y th e continue dstud

y an dultimat e repai r and replacemen t o f component s a t the lowe r leakag e levels . I n bot hcases , th e record s o f th e monitorin g results , an dth e repai r o r replacemen t result s shoul db e documented , an

danalyze dusin g Statistica l Proces s Contro l (SPC ) principles . Component s a t lo w lea klevel s whic hd o no t ye t warran t repai V shoul db e remonitore dt o assur e tha t th e magnitud e o f th e lea kdoe s no t increase . Similarly , component s whic har e repaire dshoul db e remonitore dt o assur e tha t th e repair s wer e effective . Dat a fro m component s o f bot hhig han dlo w leakag e shoul d be studie dt o determin e i f th e leakag e i s attributabl e t o a specia l caus e (specifi c t o eac h component , likel y

warrantin g repai r o r replacemen t only ) o r t o som e commo ncaus e (multipl e component s wit hsame problems , warrantin g a possibl e desig nchange) . Th e program ca nb e successfu l onl y i f adequat e historica l record s o f th e monitoring , repair , an dreplacemen t activitie s ar e develope dan

dappropriatel y

analyzed .P.5 6
1990—ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O

NE W APPLICATION S FO RTQ C I N A FUGITIV E EMISSION S PROGRA M Th e abov e analysi s provide s severa l key area s wher e th e TQ C concept s ca nb e Incorporate dIna fugitiv e emission s strategy . T o b e effective , suc ha progra m should : 1 ) requir e rigorou s dat a collection , an dappropriat e SP C analysis , 2 ) promot e continuou s improvement , wit hinitia l activitie s maintaine dt o assur e lo

w level s o f fugitiv e emissions , whil e additiona l programs , base d upo nthe dat a analysis , ar e develope dt o reduc e emission s further , 3 ) be establishe dindividuall y fo r eac hparticipatin g unit , focuse do nth e desire dfina l emissio nreductio ngoal , an d 4 ) dedicat e appropriat e resource s o nrecor dkeeping , monitoring , main tenanc e an

ddesig nchange s inth e unit t o ultimatel y assur e lo

w fugitiv e emissions . Controllin g fugitiv e emission s fro m equipmen t leak s i s bu t on e are a I nwhic hth e chemica l industr y ca nstriv e fo r Environmenta l Excellenc e thr uQuality . However , t o be successful , suc ha program requires : 1 ) leadershi pandcommitmen t throughou t th e corporation , 2 ) organizatio nt o provid e trainin g o f th e operation s an dengineerin g staff , suc htha t the y ar e continuall y

sensitiv e t o environmenta l concern s an dknowledgeabl e i nthe us e o f qualit y measuremen t tool s inan environmenta l contro l application , and 3 ) recognitio no f Benchmar kunit s that hav e achieve denvironmenta l excellence . Ultimately , th e progra m wil l requir e Involvemen t b y al l aspect s o f th e operations , maintenance , purchasing , engineerin g andresearc hfunctions , i f sustaine dcontinuou s improvemen t i nth e operation s i s t o b e achieve dsuc htha t th e environmenta l goal s ar e t o b e realized .

BIBLIOGRAPH Y 1 . Berglund , R . L. , J . A . Mullins , L . S . Parrett , R . R . Romano , andJ . L . Randall , "Equipmen t Leaks : Result s o f Industry-wid e Studie s o f 1, 3 Butadiene , Ethylen e Oxide , andPhosgen e Productio nFacilities, " pape r #89-120.4 , proceeding s o f th e 82n dAnnua l Meetin g o f th e Ai r an d Wast e Managemen t Association , Jun e 30 , 1989 . 2 . Berglund , R . L. , D . A . Wood , an dT . J . Covin , "Fugitiv e Emission s fro m th e Acrolei nProductio n Industry, " pape r presente da t th e AWM A Internationa l Specialt y Conference : SAR

A Titl e III , Sectio n313 , Industr y Experienc e i nEstimatin g Chemica l Releases , Apri l 6 , 1989 . 3 . Byrne , D . an

dTaguchi , S . "Th e Taguch i Approac ht o Paramete r Design, " Qualit y Progress , December , 1987 , p 20 . 4 . Feigenbaum , A . V. , Tota l Qualit y Control , Thir dEdition , McGraw-Hil l Boo kCompany , 1983 , Ne w York . 5 . Juran , J . M. , Qualit y Contro l Hanbook , McGraw-Hil l Boo kCompany , Thir dEdition , 1974 . 6 . Unite dState s Environmenta l Protection.Agency , Protocol s fo r Generatin g Unit-Specifi c Emissio n Estimate s fo r Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C an dHAP , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , Publicatio nNo . EPA-450/3-88-010 , Octobe r 1988 .