p.1 

OAR Box 1208 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

125)11-E-11 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 5/9/2008 10:08:24 AM Sheet 125 of 127 
P.2 

•**- > 

tAta OPPWOO 

PEDCLX- J. HAKTER 

SUITH 404 

2301 M STR_OT. N.W. 

W ACH I NOTO M. D.C. 20037 

(203) 007-10SS 

PAX: (203) 007.1030 

II-E-1 1 

January 2, 1990 

MEMORANDUM 

To: EPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Fugitive Emissions from 

Equipment Leaks and Interested Parties 

From: Phillip J. Harter 

Re: Minutes of December 6-7 Meeting; Future Meetings 

Enclosed are the minutes of the December 6-7 meeting that were prepared 

by Radian Corporation under contract with EPA. The minutes also include the 

documents that were distributed at the meeting. 

A work group on batch processin- will meet on Thursday, January 4 at 

10:00 a.m. at the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association offices, 1100 

Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. All committee members are welcome. 

For additional information, interested parties should contact Cheryl 

Sutterfield at (202) 835-3548. 

The next committee meeting will be on January 17-18, 1990 at the 

Pickett Suites Hotel, 2515 Meridian, Durham, NC 27713; 919-361-4660. When 

making reservations, advise the hotel operator that you will be attending 

the "EPA Fugitives" meeting. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. on 

Wednesday, January 17 and run until 5:00 p.m. We will begin again at 9:00 

a.m. on Thursday, January 18 and conclude at 4:00. 

The committee has also scheduled meetings for February 22 and 23 in 

Washington, and for March 27 and 28 in Durham. 
P.3 

•. <% 

REGULATORY NEGOTIATION MEETING ON FUGITIVE EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

DECEMBER 6-7, 1989 

EMBASSY SQUARE HOTEL 

WASHINGTON D.C. 

MEETING MINUTES 

These meeting notes summarize issues discussed.and provide an informal 

record of administrative and logistical decisions made on schedules, and 

action items. All presentation materials distributed during the two-day 

meeting are attached: 

Attachment I 

Attachment 2 

Attachment 3~: 

Attachment 4 

Attachment 5 

Attachment 6 

Attachment 7 

Attachment 8 

Attachment 9: 

Attachment 10: 

Meeting Agenda 

Attendees December 6, 1989 

Revisions to November 7-8, meeting notes 

EPA handout on conceptual Regulatory Approach 

EPA handout "VOC Emission Factors vs Percent Leakers" 

EPA handout "Agitators Fact Sheet" 

EPA handout "Valve Prices From Valve Distributors" 

CMA handout "Discussion of Conceptual Regulatory 

Approach and Related Issues" 

EPA handout containing bar charts and data tables For 

EO and BD plants 

EPA handout "Qualitative Analysis of Follow-up 114 

Letter" 

Minutes of Previous Meeting 

The minutes of the previous full committee meeting (November 7-8, 

1989) were discussed. Changes were recommended in the language in 

the paragraph describing the conceptual approach to a MACT Rule. 

Attachment 3 contains the revised paragraph. 
P.4 

. ^ 

Regulatory Approaches . • 

A conceptual three-phased regulatory approach was presented that 

built upon the principles discussed in the November meeting. 

Attachment 4 is a handout that accompanied this discussion. The 

conceptual three-phased regulatory approach includes examples 

allowable leak frequency limits and equipment monitoring schedules for 

flanges, valves, pumps and agitator seals. Phases I and II of the 

conceptual approach would be similar to the LDAR programs required 

under the current NSPS, with a more stringent leak definition for 

Phase II, which would become effective after Phase I has been 

implemented for some set time. Phases I and II would involve 

quarterly monitoring, an LDAR program, and no penalties based on leak 

rate findings. Specific leak definitions and implementation schedules 

will be determined in future sessions. 

Under Phase III of the conceptual approach, the program would shift 

to a performance standard. Screening results would be used to 

demonstrate compliance. As an incentive, plants that consistently 

demonstrate leak frequencies that are less than or equal to the 

allowable limit would be allowed to use a random sampling approach and 

less frequent screening. In addition, plants that continue to 

demonstrate low leak frequencies would be allowed to use lower default 

emission factors for reporting total plant emissions. Attachment 5 

contains an example graph illustrating three conceptual default 

emission factors. Attachment 5 also contains an excerpt from a 

sequential sampling scheme designed as part of the woodstove NSPS. 

Mr. Ajax described the merits of the sequential sampling approach and 

proposed that something similar could be used to ensure confidence in 

random sampling results while minimizing the number of required 

screening samples. 

The committee discussed several aspects of this conceptual approach. 

Among the issues and objections raised were the following: 
P.5 

•»• \ 

o the magnitude of leaks from agitator seals and the difficulty of 

performing on-line repair (see Attachment 6); 

o the possible addition of a concentration cut-off for defining 

in-service components, and the applicability of this approach to 

batch processes; 

o the limit to the number of times that a component can be repaired 

before additional attempts at repair result in increased 

emissions; 

o the cost of replacing components (attachment 7); 

o constraints on the application of this approach to batch 

processes, especially in the pharmaceuticals industry. 

o the accuracy of random screening in reflecting a plant's true 

leak frequency and its expense relative to more frequent sampling 

of all components in a plant; 

o the complexity of the conceptual approach and the potential for 

simplification through adoption of a skip program; 

o the statistical consistency of the conceptual approach from one 

step to the next; 

o the triggering mechanisms and consequences for moving from one 

monitoring frequency to another during Phase III; and 

o sanctions against plants that monitor monthly and consistently 

exceed the allowable limit. 

A handout' was distributed by CMA (attachment 9) that offered thoughts 

on the conceptual regulatory approach and related issues discussed in 

the November 6-7 meeting. CMA also agreed to take a closer look at 

the statistical basis for the proposed sequential sampling scheme. 
P.6 

\ 

Several committee members were interested in setting up a working 

group specifically to investigate batch processes. A work group 

meeting was scheduled for January 4 at 10:00 at the Pharmaceutical 

Manufacturers Association's office at 1100 Fifteenth Street, NW, 

Washington "DC. For additional information, interested parties should 

contact Ms. Cheryl Sutterfield at (202) 835-3548. 

Emission Factor 

A handout was distributed showing bar charts and tables of leak 

frequencies and emission factors for the EO and BD plants. These are 

the available data for the committee to use in establishing the level 

of the standard. In addition, a tabular summary listing the component 

characteristics (i.e., valve type, material of construction, packing 

type, etc.,) for EO and BD plants was distributed with leak 

frequencies on both ends of the spectrum. 

Two CMA member companies have informed EPA of upcoming equipment 

screening and bagging data collection programs planned at their 

facilities. These and other companies are potentially willing to 

participate with EPA, if modifications to EPA's proposed QC program 

can be made. 

EPA and CMA are still soliciting Industry's help in finding 

participants for the testing program. EPA will provide QA/QC 

guidelines and support, including test observation. EPA may be able 

to provide limited financial support for bagging. 

Work Group Activities 

No work group activities have been completed since the previous full 

committee meeting. CMA is looking at distributions in databases and 

the sensitivity of the conceptual model to various input assumptions. 
P.7 

Future Meetings 

- January 17 and-18, 1990, Picket Suite Hotel, 2515 Meridian, Research 

Triangle Park, NC (919) 361-4660. 

- February -22 and 23; Washington DC 

- March 27 and 28; Research Triangl.e Park, NC 

- April; date and site to be determined at the January meeting. 

J 
P.8 

_ _OT^(Oflift»T _ 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF VOCs FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

AGENDA FOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 6-7 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

° Report on plant tour 

o Ratification of Protocols 

o Status of Resource Pool 

o Statement Distributed with the Minutes 

SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION 

° Regulatory Approaches 

o Emission Factors 

- Data Availability 

- EPA Bagging Data 

~ Report of Workgroup 

FUTURE MEETINGS 

o Need for Workgroups prior to Next Meeting 

- Batch processing 

- Emission factors 

-- Any others 

o January Meeting 

o Time and location of meetings after January 
P.9 

_Tm©_ft»T 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF VOCs FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

NAME 

ATTENDEES LIST FOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 6-7, 1989 

AFFILIATION 

Glen Rives 

Ed Moretti 

Robert Pahel-Short 

Miriam Lev-on 

Scott Throwe 

Kathy Kaufman 

Bill Shikora 

Cheryl Sutterfield 

Bob Rowland 

Mary Ann Gorko 

Karen Fidler 

Ron Berglund 

Jerry Hill 

Walter Brenner 

Betsy Lyons 

Mary Legatski****** 

Jim Manning 

Charles D. Bennett 

Ellen Siegler 

Bob Strieter 

David Markwordt 

Rick Colyer 

Jack Kace 

Larry Goodheart 

Linda Curran 

Robert Majewski 

Bruce V. Bowers 

David Dunn 

Phillip Harter 

Bob Ajax 

Harvel Rogers 

Tom Kittleman 

Karen Hom e 

Allen Hershkowitz 

David Doniger 

Radian-RTP 

Radian-RTP 

EPA-RTP 

ARCO 

EPA-SSCD 

EPA-OAR/OPAR 

Chevron 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 

Association 

Pfizer, Inc. 

DuPont 

DuPont 

CMA 

Union Carbide 

Phillips Petroleum 

Sun Refining and Marketing Co. 

GAO 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals 

Manufacturers Association 

Ashland Petroleum Co. 

Ashland Petroleum Co. 

API 

API 

EPA 

EPA 

Hoffman LaRoche (representing PMA) 

API 

AMOCO 

NYSDEC/NESCAUM 

Standard Chlorine 

Sterling Chemicals 

Facilitator 

EPA 

Jefferson Co. APCO 

CMA 

TACB 

IISRP 

NRDC 

NRDC 

J 
P.10 

AT__©_»ffl__T 

Conceptual Approach to MACT Rule 

One conceptual regulatory approach for the negotiated equipment 

leaks regulation that was discussed would be based on application 

of quality control principles to reduce the number of leaks in a 

plant. The approach that was discussed would build on the "skip 

period" approach in the current regulations. It would allow 

plants to skip inspections if consecutive inspections reveal that 

the number of leaks is less than a stated standard, but would also 

couple this reward for good performance in controlling leaks with 

a disincentive for plants that are less effective in controlling 

the number of leaks. Under this proposal, plants would be 

required to inspect more frequently if leaks were detected in 

excess of the standard. The burden of these additional 

inspections would provide incentive to plants to implement more 

effective measures that would reduce the number of leaking 

components. 
P.11 

ATTACHMENT 4 

STANDARDS FOR FLANGES 

/ 

11/28/89 

: tmission ; ; j - T 

factor | Monitoring requirement j Triggered by: j Exited by: j 

Avg. + Za ! Quarterly LDAR j > Allowable number j 2 consecutive 

All components of leakers (AL) screenings -< AL 

during previous (To quarterly LDAR, 

-. screening all components) 

j Avg. + lo j Annual LDAR j -< Allowable number! Any screening > AL j 

All components of leakers during or 2 consecutive 

previous screening screenings -< AL 

Avg. 9 Std Annual LDAR j -< Allowable number! Any screening > AL ! 

Random sample of leakers for 2 or 2 consecutive 

consec. screenings screenings »< 0.5AL 

0.5 x Avg. Biennial LDAR -< 0.5 x Allowable j Any screening j 

9 Std. Random sample leakers for 2 > D.5AL 

consec. screenings 

i ' i " i i 

STANDARDS FOR VALVES 

j tmission ; i i [ 

factor J Monitoring requirement J Triggered by: \ Exited by: 

Avg. + Za j Monthly LDAR j > Allowable number j 2 consecutive j 

All components of leakers (AL) screenings *< AL 

during previous (To quarterly LDAR, 

screening all components) 

j Avg. + lo j Quarterly LDAR -< Allowable ninber! Any screening > AL j 

All components of leakers during or 2 consecutive 

previous screening screenings •< AL 

Avg. 9 Std Semiannual LDAR -< Allowable number! Any screening > AL ! 

Random sample of leakers for 2 or 2 consecutive 

consec. screenings screenings •< 0.5AL 

j 0.5 x Avg.j Annual LDAR j *< 0.5 x Allowable j Any screening j 

9 Std. Random sample leakers for 2 > 0.5AL 

consec. screenings j . 

i - • i " "" " i i i 

STANDARDS FOR PUMPS AND AGITATOR SEALS 

j tmission j J j j 

factor ! Monitoring requirement j Triggered by: J Exited by: 

! Avg. + Zo J Monthly LDAR J > AL during J 2 consecutive ( 

All components previous screening screenings -< AL 

! Average j Quarterly LDAR | -< AL during j Any screening > AL j 

\ 9 Std. All components previous 

z screenings 

Random sample concept: Components will be divided Into a number 

of fixed groups. Each group would represent a logical sampling 

route. A random generator would select the "group" to be sampled. 
P.12 

Standards for Existing Flanges 

PHASE I 

Leak definition: 10,000 ppm 

Allowable leakers: 2% 

_F 

PHASE II 

Leak definition: 500 ppm 

Allowable leakers: 5% 

PHASE III 

i 

Screen all 

components 

> Allowable leakers 

Quarterly screening 

All components at 

least 2 consec. quarts. 

—J 

I 

-< Allowable leakers 

Annual screening 

All components 

I 

«< Allowable leakers 

2 consec. screenings 

Annual screening 

Random sample 

i r 

- x 0.5 x Allowable leakers 

2 consec. screenings 

Biennial screening 

Random samnk* 
P.13 

Standards for Existing Valves 

PHASE I 

Leak definition: 10,000 ppm 

Allowable leakers: 2% 

PHASE II 

_± 

Leak definition: 500 ppm 

Allowable leakers: 5% 

_____ _ 

PHASE III Screen all 

components 

> Allowable leakers 

Monthly screening 

All components 

At least 2 consec. mos. 

I 

=< Allowable leakers 

Quarterly screening 

All components 

I 

-< Allowable leakers 

2 consec screenings 

Semiannual screening 

Random sample 

.i i 

x 0.5 x Allowable leakers 

2 consec. screenings 

Annual screening 

Random sam*—* 
1 3 

o 

q> 

1 

Allowable Leakers for New Valves 

and Flanges 

200 600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

Number of Components 

K 
standards for Existing Pumpt 

P.15 

Leak definition: 500 ppm 

: 5% 

All 

/ess? S G@m<£§. 
Allowable Leakers for New Pumps 

and Agitator Seals 

3 

kers 

in 5 

o Number 

20 50 

Number of Components 
VOC Emission Factors vs Percent Leakers 

Gas Valves 

CD 

O 

O 

CO 

i 

CO 

o ts 

co 

c 

o 

*co 

CO 

"E 

LU 

U.UU..O 

0.002 

0.0015 

0.001 

0.0005 

f\ r 

• 

* 

Stratified factor 

• 

i 

i 

* 

• 

" - T D 

- / D 

* » 

n n 

* • "••••••-.... 

• • 

• • 

* • 

: mean*2B 

"-"B"r *"" *"" "-*: mean. IsD 

-

D 

-0.000068 

0.000630 

D 

fti 

a 

I 

a 

___________________________ 

10 

Pereent Leakers 

15 

> 

> 

o 

m 

Ol 

20 

at 500 ppm leak definition 

I 
P.18 

I2__i_i*_ 3 SigO a 100 

Ma« IX-Ogo a 23 

CespX. ? a o.os 

Vi©lo _ a 0o20 

Typo £ ° e.og 

Typo 22 a 0.10 

T@_t P_f©eodurQ 

___3@r 

units 

p@ct©d 

r 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Aeeoptaneo 

Nu__©_ 

_ 

_» 

__ 

_o 

e_» 

O _> 

e 

« 

<=3> => -» 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

S@JQetion 

Nu____<__ 

_ 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

T__t Cha_raet__.i§tie_3 

Poreon*-

Stevo n 

Dofoetl. o IS 23 33 45 55 S3 73 83 93 

__vo_rago 

Sa_pl o 

Si_o 

£.71 

13. § 

10. 9 

D . l 

€ . 2 

4 . 9 

3 . 9 

3 . 2 

2 . S 

2 . 2 

P_feba__4.1ifey 

Raj Getin© 

H© 

0.0S 

0.73-

0.9 6 

1.00 1, 1< 1, 00 00 00 

1.00 

lo0 0 

1.00 
P.19 

/OT/.<0__JE_T_ P_n , 

AGITATORS FACT SHEET 

Not regulated under existing VOC equipment leaks NSPS 

- BID states that number of agitators in SOCMI was unknown and 

emission rates were not measured, so agitators were not 

included in the model plants. 

Summary of Refinery Assessment Study (RAS) - Agitators 

No agitators were screened or bagged during the RAS. 

Summary of SOCMI 24-Unit Study - Agitators 

No agitators were bagged during the SOCMI 24-Unit Study 

The following table summarizes the extent of agitator screening during 

the SOCMI 24-Unit Study: 

Plant 

35 

61 

31 

34 

1 

3 

29 

20 

Chemica.1 # S< 

Adipic Acid 

Chlorinated Ethanes 

MEK 

Methyl Methacrylate 

Vinyl Acetate 

Vinyl Acetate 

Vinyl Chloride Monomer/ 

Ethylene Dichloride 

Vinyl Chloride Monomer/ 

Ethylene Dichloride 

:reened 

0 

1 (LL) 

1 (Gas) 

3 (Gas) 

3 (LL) 

1 (HL) 

1 (Gas) 

0 

2 (Gas) 

1 (LL) 

# Leakers 

(10,000 ppmv) 

. 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

-

0 

0 

# Not Screened 

2 (HL) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

4 (Gas) 

0 

0 

o Agitators are np_& Included in the SCAQMD, BAAQMD, or Ventura County 

rules and regulations for equipment leaks of VOC in SOCMI or Refineries 

o No mention of agitators is made in the pharmaceutical Section 114 

questionnaires that EPA sent out several years ago. 

o Agitator seals may bi used to minimize emissions from agitators. 

According to th© VOC equipment leaks BID (pp. 3-15 to 3-16), four seal 

arrangtSGftsnts ars coraonly used with agitators. 

- Pack©_l s©a1s 

- Mechanical s©als 

- Hydraulic seals 

- Lip seals 

o Screening studies from private industrial clients indicate that agitators 

may be a significant source of VOC emissions from equipment. 
P.20 

ATTACHMENT 7 

VALVE PRICES FROM VALVE DISTRIBUTORS 

OEC 1989 

Company Valve 

Type 

Line 

Size 

(in) 

Description of 

Valve 

Price 

(*) 

M 

B 

C 

C 

c 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

A 

B 

C 

c 

c 

A 

B 

C 

C. 

A 

8 non 

A 

B 

C 

C 

c 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Gate 

Globe 

Globe 

Globe 

Globe 

Globe 

Glebe 

Globe 

Globe 

Globe 

Globe 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

8 

8 

OD OD OD 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

Class 150 (max press. - 285 psi) 

Cast Steel with 410 SS trim 

Class ISO (max press. - 28S psi> 

Cast Steel 

Cast Iron 

Cast Steel 

316 Stainless Steel 

Class ISO 

Cast Steel 

Class 190 

Cast Steel 

Cast Iron 

Cast Steel 

316 Stainless Steel 

AVERAGE 

(max press. - 28S psi) 

with -410 SS trim 

(max prsss. - 285 psi) 

AVERAGE 

Class ISO (max press. - 283 psi) 

Cast Steel with 410 SS trim 

Class 150 (max press. - 283 psi) 

Cast Steel 

Cast Iran 

Cast Steel 

316 Stainless Steel 

AVERAGE 

Class 150 (max press. - 285 psi) 

Cast Steel with 410 SS trim 

Class 150 (max press. - 285 psi) 

Cast Steel 

Cast Iron 

Cast Steel 

316 Stainless Steel 

AVERAGE 

Class 150 (m*_x press. - 285 psi) 

Cast Steel with 410 SS trim 

Class 150 (max press. - 285 psi) 

Cast Steel 

Cast Iron 

Cast Steel 

316 Stainless Steel 

173 

205 

118 

269 

402 

233 

306 

360 

197 

385 

918 

433 

763 

860 

372 

1. 127 

3,674 

1,399 

196 

260 

233 

298 

444 

286 

412 

480 

416 

536 

1,164 

602 

•V.•••••.» e- • •**••• • ' 7*'."::.- V .:•.*•,:•• -•- • ,:-_£7~-#^j£--jr- •-:.'.'-• . c c^cg^ 7c-•. •. . 

&.:_*#.:.••..•-• .••_.. %fc_^*.:-V^"V.r-'^**l^ ^ •_.....>'•.-•-

NOW 3 0 '9 9 17:2 3 PCiGE. 00 2 
P.21 

I"*JV jtd a- .o-a_ r<HL<_r_ OJKP Ki r riC P.3 

VALVI PRICES FROM VALVE DISTRIBUTORS 

0aD0O0DO0DDO_8Dsas3tB-ao!!i:riiDaas5ss_r__sr----........o --oo(IDOO00C)n _I ] 0 

Company Volvo 

Typo 

Lino 

iise 

(in) 

Doacriptien o_ 

Valvo 

Pric© 

A 

B 

C 

C. 

c 

Globe. 

Globe 

Globo 

Globe 

Globo 

8 

A 

e 

c 

c 

Ball 

Ball 

fall 

Ball 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Class 130 (max prpco. - 283 psi) 1,230 

Cast Stool with 410 SS trim 

Class 130 (max prooo. - 283 psi) 9C0 

Cast Steel 

Caot Iron I,-559 

Cast Stool 1,367 

316 Stainlooo Stool 6,963 

AVIRASI 2,428 

Class 130 Cast Stool w/.10 SS trim 201 

Cast Iron 240 

Coot Stool 278 

316 Stainless Steel 470 

AVERAGE If? 

A 

C 

C 

c 

Ball 

Ball 

Ball 

Ball 

4 

4 

-} 

4 

Class ISO east Steel *>/4l0 SS trim 

Cast Iron 

Cast Steel 

316 Stainless Stoel 

563 

7?4 

825 

1,296 

A 

C 

c 

c 

c 

e 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

Sail 

Ball 

Ball 

Ball 

Butter-fl y 

Sutter-fly 

Butter •fly 

Hotter*ly 

Butter-fly 

But tor .f ly 

Gutter «?ly 

iuttor^ly 

iutterfly 

i 

8 

8 

a 

2 

2 

2 

4 

« 

-} 

a 

8 

8 

Class 130 Cast Stoel 

Cast Iron 

Coot Stool 

316 Stainless 

Cast Iron 

Cast Steel 

316 Stainless 

Cast Iron 

Coot Stool 

314 Stainless 

C&sfc Iron 

Cast Steel 

316 Stoinlooo 

Steel 

Stool 

Stool 

Stool 

AVERAGE 

w/410 SS trim 

AVERAGE 

AVERAGE 

AV_8A§_ 

823 

1 TT-7 

_ , ' W W 

1, S'8? 

2,2*3 

3,593 

2,290 

-**_iCl ___ 

233 

363 

275 

305 

608 

888 

667 

1,031 

_t'29l 

1,910 

AVgSASi 1,397 

NOU 30 '89 17:23 PAGE.303 
v*_ — ••. / 

COST OF LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR PROGRAMS 

88838888888833 83388388333833388888888888838883 888888 88388888888888333X33888338838838383338 8388888888383888888388 8388 8888 888888888888 

Coapany Cost of Cost of Routine Scrotning Cost of Cosetnts 

Initial (indudos directed aalntenance) Bagging 

Screening (f/caaponent) (f/bag) 

(t/coapontnt) 

. A l.SO (Refineries) 1.00 (Rtftncries > 2,300 components) 100-200 (a/out GC or HS) Screening prices not applicable 

2.50 (SOCHI) 1.23 (Refineries < 2,300 components) 500-730 (nith 6C or HS) for puaps, nhich ara aore expensive 

l.SO (SOCHI) to monitor. Coapany A screens 13 puaps 

at a facility in KY for l67S/«Mith. 

B 1.72 1.00 Hourly (Confidential) 

Average 1.91 1.19 

88883333883883338333333333333333333383333333=333338333333333333333333333333333833383388833333333333383333333838383838888888883838888 

V-J 
r 

P.23 

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

November 29, 1989 

TO: Equipment Leaks Regulatory Negotiation Committee 

FROM: Karen K. Fidler TT %&£ f 

SUBJECT: Equipment Leaks/Regulatory Negotiation - Discussion of 

Conceptual Regulatory Approach and Related Issues 

As a follow-up to the Committee discussions on November 6=7, the 

Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) offers the following thoughts 

and recommendations on the evolving conceptual regulatory approach for 

equipment leaks. The purpose of the attached discussion is to clarify 

and further develop ideas on the conceptual regulatory approach 

presented at the last meeting and to present our initial thoughts on 24 

specific related issues identified during the last meeting. 

CMA looks forward to discussing our enclosed thoughts with you at 

the Committee Meeting on December 6=7. 

2501 M Street, NW. Washington. DC 20037 202-887- tl 00 Telex 8SS17 (CMA WSH) 
P.24 

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

• CLARIFICATION AND ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON 

CONCEPTUAL REGULATORY APPROACH FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

CMA believes it would be useful to elaborate on what we sensed as the 

form of the regulation that seemed to be emerging from the Committee 

during the November 6-7 meeting. We hope this will serve to focus on 

areas where some Committee Members may have misunderstood our 

interpretation or sensed a slightly different direction. 

At the November 6-7 meeting, the Committee discussed three concepts 

that might be embodied in an equipment leak regulation. The three 

concepts are a quality control monitoring approach, an allowable % 

leaking approach, and an equivalency approach. CMA views these three 

concepts in a similar context as in the existing equipment leak 

regulations. That is, we view the three approaches as three separate 

stand-alone provisions, not as different features of one provision. 

More specifically, the extension of the quality control concept to 

achieving and maintaining good performance is a variation of the 

existing skip period provision. The rolling average approach is an 

extension of the existing allowable % leaking concept. Finally, we 

view the need for greater flexibility in demonstrating equivalence as 

addressing the existing alternatives' provision. These three 

approaches are logically set apart in the existing regulation, 

presumably because they embody incompatible concepts. We believe 

retaining that separation is a good idea. 

CMA also views the discussion of both the quality control monitoring 

and allowable % leaking provisions at the last meeting to be applicable 

primarily to valves. We expect that provisions for pumps, compressors, 

agitators, etc., may be approached differently. 

In addition to these clarifications, CMA offers the following 

additional ideas on the various provisions of the conceptual regulatory 

approach presented at ths last meeting: 

1. Quality Control Monitoring, i.e. skip period 

As stated in our handout before the last meeting, CMA believes the 

skip-period approach is the quality control monitoring plan best 

suited to this regulation. However, many perturbations are 

possible, and they all bring with them different advantages and 

disadvantages. Consequently, we believe it is desirable to make 

sure people can separate the basic plan from the individual 

perturbations so they can be addressed with a minimum of 

confusion. Figure 1 is a block diagram of the existing 

regulations and our suggested revision. 

The basic plan would call for monitoring however often is 

necessary to achieve and maintain the specified performance. (For 

example, in the existing regulation, the specified performance 
TJ IA 

C © 

n TJ 

TJ B 

O H 

CA B 

» rf 

(0 0 

t—• 

v j 

i-h 

O 

• . . 

o 

o 

. 

»—• t~ 

B 

9 

•n 

B 

n 

r t 

t»-

© 

i—> 

50 

PS 

3 

a O 

3 

CO 

S3 

SI 

a 

r-> H3 

S9 

o •• © 

3 JS 

O ® 

3 

. cr f t © 

O • -

• . (-• 

p . © 

3 < 

• 09 © 

5? Q. HCO 

M I 

O 3 

H fi 

<D 

© O. 

9 ia 

Ml 

O rf 

r» O 

O 

® cr 

3 fi 

fi 

3 O 

rt O 

3 

O Cfl 

3 * Hfi a . 

o e 

sr •. 

rn 

a 

rt 

3 * 

» 

3" 

H09 

3 * 

e CB 

rt 

rt 

3 " 

0 

<T 

0> 

CO 

I-*-

o 

B 

TJ 

HiT J 

H 

fi 

4 -

c 0 

3 

O 

VJ 

3 

O 

3 

. rt 

O 

n t-. 

3 

00 

t—• 

H3 

••-

r t 

• 

D 

. O 

e> 

o 

o 

3 

3 

O 

3 

Hr t 

O 

ri 

H3 

CQ 

Ml 

• . 

© 

3*_a 

• 

n* fi 

cr 

e 

•—» Mfi 

< fi 

r t 

9 * 

B 

I t 

o O 

3 

CO 

fi 

3 

CA 

e CO 

tS 

B 

CA 

3 

O 

r t 

0> 

o 3 * 

H0 

< 0 

a 

o 

3 

c 0 

3 

o 

. 

*__ 01 

50 3 O B- ca 

» B O « * 0 

_o .yr 3 e C © r t 

. M B i-l r t O *-

H- 3 " t-> 9 

3 H- VJ 

09 CO O 

g TJ tn (a 3 O 

3 " 3 O ea 

C e ca 

r t tr"_ •*• 

fi 

O 

MMl 

3 

O 

9 

rt 

er l-a 

M-VJ 

fi 

a 

TJ 

© 

n M I 

O . O r t o * O 

Q _5 * ••*"• 

9 H-

. * . f t 

JC © O •-•-

o _a *i ® 

C C CO 

!-••-••* -

O . H 3 5 

fi Cfl H0> 3 r t r t 

CA © B 3 " 

Cfl 3 3 

JT C r t o < 

!-»• 3 

0 9 

r t 

3 * 

I--

(_ 

ta 

< Ho •—• 

B 

r t 

•-- O 

3 

i-J 

C 

3 

CO 

o 

o 

e 3 

rt 

9 

• . 

rt 

O 

3 © B 

© Wl - n 

O vs 

r t I-J es •-. 

c r t—• 3 

B rt t—'09 

r t 3 * Q 

© is O 

g KI . g 

0.3 3 

O 09 "O 

j r tS B 

3 © O r t 

Q « O Mr t •_. 

r t J3 •_. i—> 

3 - C 9 H-

© OS C r t 

H-> © VJ 

TJ H- Q. 

. r t a 

D> VJ O t ~ 

O TJ r t 

r t TJ fi 3 " 

t-»- •-• H 

O 0» B> rt 

C. 3 r t 3 * 

H - r t H- © 

CO o 

•—> • 3 i l 

• " -

 C 

3 -S B 

M- O i— 

r t C Hr- rt 

Q.V J 

•-a 3 

_ 

o © 

B 

r t 

r t 

__ 0 

i— 

H3 

•-• 

r t 

3 

0 

0 

a CA 

r t 

O 

cr © 

B 

a 

. 

»-l 

3 

rt 

9* 

HCQ 

O 

B 

ca © 

•9 

CA 

3 * 

C 

rt 

>-t> 

B 

O 

» (_. ca 

§ 

9 

• 

2 

o 

E 

a 

o O 

9 

Q. 

B 

•o r t "O 

3 * 

0 

11 

0 

ca C 

. r t 

O 

«» 

r h 

(B 

Ht— 

C 

n fi 

r t 

O 

a 3 

>i 

0 

CA 

CA 

o 

a 

• 

_r 

0 

n © 

« fi 

r t 

rt 

3 * 

9 

f. 

o B 

O 

9 * 

H-

_ 

rt 

o 

•o C 

rt 

H9 

B 

•_» 

8 

© 

H 

h-

»-• 3 

Hrt. 

-. 

0 

• 09 

• 

< Ho t-a 

B 

rt 

•»• 

o 9 

«» 

« 

i 

w» 

B 

H-

*-a 

c H 

« 

rt 

O 

CO 

r t 

3 " 

fi 

3 

O 

9 I--

rt 

O i i 

i-~ 

9 

09 

x> 

O 

H 

13 

t-a 

B 

9 

rt 

• a 3 H , 

!-• 0 H- 0 

B 0 3 11 

9 rt M- 0 

rt rt 

rt • Q. 

S 3 * HO fi CO 

C -S O 

•-• CO O C 

0-* 0 3 ca 

© H- Cfl 

3 * O rt © 

B H- O O. 

< H , hj 

0 H- M. H i 

© 9 O 

r t O.0 9 H ° «•O- _ -. rt 

o. © o er ©.C O 

D Kl H 

- c a. a H 0 

S 3 cr co 

H- B © rtr t 3 

er o « m © © t i 

h~ • ^3 0 

r t C _0 

CQ H- C 

Ci 

3 

> 

O* 

0 

!-• Hfi 

< © 

CO 

Hrt 

f -

CA 

ca 

rt 

Ht-a 

H- . 

0 o 

Cfl 11 

Cfl 

< O B 

Ml t-* 

rt < 

0 fi 

3 CA 

*• ' rt 

3 * rt 

§r 

o o 3 » 

O H0 Cfl 

r t 

B •*• 

3 

l-V S 09 

B 

9 

J5 •O 

TS 

H 

O 

•-< . © *o Q 9 © 9 

ffl O. rt 

9 rt 

er B 3 18 © •_ O 

H 3 

B 3 i-h t -

O O 1 r t 

rt ca « o 

K rr_ l 1 

O S HB © fi 3 

M « a w rt rt 

*—• 1 i—• i—• 

t * 8 " 4 * -

3 3 3 

M - » a> H -

rt M rt 

CA 

a: i-^ 3 

ar rt 9 

©(-D O 

H O 0 3 

© r* !A © 

s.. :A 

H- o a» c rt 9 M B 

- V} Cfl 

B rt 3 

o 0 

H 

KB 

fi 

B i l 

1 0 

• 09 

e i—• 

59 B 

© r t 

<! I--

t- O 

ca 3 

t--

9 O. 

rt 09 O 

» 

•—• l~-

3 

tart 

. 

« rt Cfl 

er t~ 3 

CA O 

rt 

£ 

B "O 

CA © 

H 

H 3 3 S 

o 

B 

•o 

•a •i 

o B 

O 

3 * 

S 

CA 

O tart rt 

a 3 H- O 

CA 3 

O MC r t 

co o 

CA 11 

0 Ha 3 

- 09 

B 

3 

a 

it> o 

I - O 

B 3 

3 Cfl 

09 H-

© a 

CA ® 

• n 

o 

a 

CO 

o 

-a B 

n B 

rt 

© 

1— 

v j 

Mi 

O 

• . 

» B 

O 

f 

f k 

3 

Hr t 

CA 

O 

9 

3 

O 

9 

•--

r t 

O i-l 

M9 

(9 

M l 

H 

O 

a 

c 

co 3 

O 

3*k 

• • 

o 

a-a 

B H 

CO D 1 

CO HCA 

O 

Ml" 0 

H 

f> O 

O CT 

3 B 

TJ c r 

O . 

9 «< 

0 

3 3 

rt 0 

CA 0 

- a CA 

H-

• r t 

0 O 

• cr 

< © 

» 

»—• 

< 0 

CO 

— 

a" rt 

fi _r 

i— © 

si M 

• 2 § 

3 

0 

H 

Hrt 

(0 

• 

_r 

© 

3 

O Cfl 

rt 

ca 

t~ 

9 HMi 

Ho B 

3 

rt 

0 

Ml 

B 

3 

a 

fi 

e 

cr © 

i—• 

H-

© 

< © 

9 fi 

fi 

(-. 

rt 

O 

cr 

e 

i-_ 

a (» 9 

rt 

•o 0 

M 

rt C 

M 

cr B 

rt 

fo 3 

CA 

rt 

O 

rt 

er 

o 

o 

o 3 

O 

0 

•o rt 

3 

B 

H-VS 

Mi 

H-

© 

a 

CO 

o 

rt 

er © 

rt >< 

er 

» CA 

0 

*-

*\ 0 

a KCA 

O 

c 

ca 

CA 

0 

a 

o B 

3 

cr 0 

o 

o 9 

CO 

HO. 

0 

M 

0 

3 

O 

rt 

er B 

< 

o 

cr 0 

o 9 

B 

(A 

£ 

H-

(-. 0 

•-* 

VJ 

B 

O 

O 

0 

0.1 ) 

o 

9 

rt 

0 

a 

cr 

0 

l__ 

H-

© 

< © 

r t 

er © 

1 

© 

e B 

Cfl 

B 

09 

n 

» 

» 3 

O 

3 

rt 

« 

»-^ r t 

3 " 

r t 

3 * 

HCA 

O 

O 

3 

O 

» 

"3 

rt 

• 

c/> 

O 

3 

© 

O 

Ml 

rt 

er 

« 

c_ 

o 

1 ta-

(A 

•JT 

h^ 

TJ 

I 

rt *o 

rt 

fi 

fi 

H3 

0 

M 

HO 

a 

B 

rt TJ 

g-T J 

fi 

3 

fi 

B 

H 

Ml 

c 

r t 

C 

M 

fi 

• 

. O 

H 

r t 

3 * 

© 

TJ 

11 

» (A 

» 3 

r t 

_ 

M 

o B 

O 

er 

t~-

CA 

c 3 

O. 

0 

M 

s B 

VJ 

• 

o 3 

> 

£ 

Hl__ 

1—• 

01 

C 

TJ 

3"T J 

§ 

© 

< fi 

M 

*• 

c 0 

i__ 

v ; 

rt 

3 * 

HCA 

r t 

o 

r t 

er 

o 

> 

rt 

r t 

3 * 

0 

M 

0 

_3 

d 

0 

CA 

rtO 

Mi 

B 

C_ 

O 

3 

3 

. rtrt0 

fi 

3 fi 

3 

cr fi 

n — 

B 

a. © 

rt 

B 

HH -• 

0 

CL 

C 

TJ 

a. B 

r t 

0 

O 

i-h 

rt 

JT* 

0 

< (0 

I--TJ 

O 

i—> 

B 

rt 

HO 

3 

CO 

o 9 

»—» VJ 

Mi 

O 

•1 

3 

O 

rt 

B 

a. 

er 0 

•1 

H9 

09 

rt 

O 

rt 

er © 

TJ 

1 

O 

39 

•1 

B 

3 

0 

o HMl 

I--

0 

a 

i—i 

3 

CA 

0 

B 

B 

3 

a 

3 

B 

t^-

3 

rt 

B 

H3 

0 

a 

B 

CO 

3 XI 

B 

•1 

VJ 

c Ho "«r 1—• 

rt v j 

er taut 

ta-

» 

B 

« O 

•1 

j r 

TJ 

i 

B 

n rt 

Ho 0 

ca 

rtCD 

3 

a B 

M 

a 

€ 

tart 

3 * 

B 

3 

a. 

0 

M l 

B 

3 

a. 

M 

0 

s B 

M 

a CO 

rt 

o 

t--

9 CO 

c 11 

© 

rt 

3 * 

B 

rtr t 

3 * 

fi 

ca 

MlT J 

Ho HO 

3 

rt 

i—• 

v j 

B 

CA 

TJ 

o CA 

•Jl 

I--

cr i—• 

0 

B 

M 

0 

fi 

o HMl 

H0 

o. 

TJ 

(9 

1 

Ml 

o M 

3 

B 

3 

O 

0 

Mco 

B 

o 

rr H0 

< 0 

QTJ 

0 

M 

Mi 

O 

H 

3 

B 

3 

o 0 

Hco 

B 

O 

er t-k 

0 

< 0 

C-. 

B 

3 

a 

3 

B 

t--

3 

r t 

B 

ta3 

0 

a 

« 

I—I 

3 

(A 

3 * 

O 

M 

rt 

_ 

rt 

er 0 

TJ 

0 

3 

B 

I—• 

rt 

M0 

(A 

M O CO 

0 Ml TJ 

_3 0 

C 3 O 

H- O HM 3 Mi 

fi H- 'H -

3 rt 0 

0 o a 3 M 

rt . TJ 

3 0 

P - W 1 

CA Mi 

H- O 

r t 0 M 

ff- 3 

© Cfl B 

3 

1 H i O 

© H, 0 

S 0 

B J3 . 

M C IA 

a. o 3 cr M I rt 0 

O i—• . 

i l v j 3 . 

- 09 

(-. 0 t-k B 

B • O 

O 0 3 * 

3 • HCA 0 

r t B < 

rl 0 

U n a 

rt 0 -

• -- CO 

3 CA r t 

09 3 * 

Ml 0 

rt M 

3^ 0 TJ 

B - 3 i—• 

rt C B 

0 3 

rt 3 r t 

er rt 

0 er 

3 B 

CA O CO 

TJ 3 

0 H- rt 

O rt zr 

H- O 0 

Mi M 

- 1— o 

fi 3 TJ 

C-.09 rt 

MO 

3 

O O HO O 3 

3 1 3 

< . 0 

0 0 a . 

M O h_ 

rt H 

3 * O 

© 

hi 

0 

(A rt B -31 

0 H- rt 

1— < 0 

VJ 0 •-. 

v j 

B -

. O 

-r rt t~ 

© t ^ • 

9 O 0 

9 • 

n © Ml 3 

TJ O O 

© M M 

B a 

rt 3 

fi O Ml 

Ou rt n 

» 3 3- 3 

O 0 c 

3 0 © 

K- rt 3 

rt H- r t 

O 3 

. 09 3 

H- O 

3 rt 3 

09 er H -

0 rt 

a. o 0 CO M 

3 TJ t~ 

O 0 3 

3 O 09 

0) _.. 

C_ 

I-. 

H 

O 

3 

© 

3 

rt 

Ml 

O 

1 

3 

O 

ri 

fi 

Ml 

M 

0 

- 3 

C 

© 

9 

r t 

B 

O 

9 

. r t 

O 

M 

M3 

rt r n r_- C9 

ri H- CA 

B 0 

rt O. rt 

0 3 * 

(A TJ 0 

0 

rt fl TJ 

3" M, 0 

B O 3 

rt 1 B 

3 rrt B rt 

er 3 v j 

0 o 

0 B 

• 3 

a 

rt 

er 

0 

rcn 

0 

M l 

Ml 

0 

O 

rt 

H-

< 0 

9 

Hrt 

o ti 

i-_ 

3 

0 9 

Cfl 

3 * 

O 

tS 

ca 

r t 

3 * 

B 

rt 

r t 

3 * 

fi 

CA 

TJ 

© 

O 

HM l 

H-

© 

DTJ 

fi 

M 

Ml 

O 

M 

3 

B 

3 

o fi 

. CA 

3 

O 

r t 

B 

O 

3 * 

0 

< © 

ex. 

B 3 9 l__ 

i-_ o 5 » 

i-> g 

t-w 

i—' rt 

© O 

B M 

5- HCA 9 

0 9 

B -

•1 H-

© — 

l-t p . 

© O 

TJ 9 

B © 

H- • 

1 

© 

°-s 

B » 

r t M 

0 

H-* Ml 

fi o 

B 1 

ca © 

r t -

O B 

9 tO 1— 

© 

o TJ O 

© 3 

n T3 

O 

v j 9 

fi © 

a 3 

9 < 

H- © 

r t i—> 

o 

1 >-•• 

© Cfl 

C-

_ H-* 

s 

B CO 

3 W 

o. I t 

B 3 * 

t:§ 

h - M 

© 2K2 

B 

"BT t-a 

H- © 

3 B 

09 7T 

H. 

O 3 

O 09 

3 

TJ B 

O rt 

9 

© i— 

9 O 

r t -

CO o 

O 

B O 

•1 

0 TJ 

TJ 

t i 3 

» • ri rt TJ ^_-

• CA 

B 

HC r| 

er a 

e 3 3 

fi o 

< 9 S HM rt 

O 

•1 

» 

a 

s 

OL 

B 

HM > 

fi t -

O- i -

fi n 

B o 

O 3 

3*T J 

O 

rt 3 

H- © 

3 3 

© rt 

CA 

B 

M 

0 
P.26 

existing regulation, and we believe there was a desire to make it 

more useful. 

A calendar year, or rolling average, time weighted specified 

performance level would be an improvement. In contrast with the 

quality control approach, this provision could provide a lot of 

monitoring flexibility. For instance, monitoring could be allowed 

at about any frequency, and partial random samples could be used. 

Variable specified performance levels could be based on sample 

size. It is not clear to CMA, however, how an agency enforcement 

check could be incorporated. 

3. Alternatives 

The existing regulation has a provision that allows a plant to 

demonstrate equivalence. However, in its present form, it is not 

very usable. CMA believes it should be modified. Preferably it 

should be easier to demonstrate equivalence in general. However, 

if there are fears of misapplication, it should at least be 

possible to define equivalence in some specifically agreed upon 

cases, e.g. building exhausts, area monitors, etc. 

This is discussed more thoroughly in the next section. It seems 

likely that most, if not all, equivalency determinations would be 

based on emissions. This points to the need for a good emission 

model. Model development can proceed on a parallel path. 

If the statistical properties of acceptable monitoring plans are 

adequately spelled out, e.g. 90% of time below X% leaking, it may 

be possible to demonstrate equivalence statistically as well. 
P.27 

In smaller facilities, it may not only be feasible, but preferable to 

monitor all components within a brief period. Small facilities may not 

have personnel available to conduct the monitoring and may therefore 

hire outside contractors. To reduce contractor costs, it would be 

preferable to monitor all the components within a facility in as short 

a time period as possible. Therefore, the regulation should provide 

flexibility for facilities to determine the monitoring schedule that 

best fits their individual needs. 

Issue Wo. 2: 

What guidelines (if any) are needed for determining number and location 

of components to be included as part of a random partial sample? 

Recommendation: 

Statistically based guidelines are needed for determining number and 

location of components to be included as part of a random partial 

sample. In addition, the regulation should provide flexibility to 

permit facilities to select from a range of sample sizes up to 100%, 

with good performance level criteria adjustments made accordingly. 

Rationale: 

Random partial sampling has been discussed as a means of demonstrating 

compliance and as a basis for enforcement checks. In both cases, in 

order for the partial sample to provide an acceptable level of 

confidence, it must be statistically derived and truly random. 

Guidelines for identifying a statistically-based random partial sample 

must be developed before such an approach can be used for demonstrating 

compliance or for enforcement purposes. 

It should also be noted that while, theoretically, random partial 

samples would represent a less costly method of monitoring, this may 

not be true in most cases. In particular, no cost savings would likely 

be felt by larger facilities because of the effozt needed to generate 

the random sample and to locate the selected components from the many 

thousands of components within the plant. Flexibility should be 

provided in the regulation to permit these types of facilities to 

monitor all components instead of a random partial sample where 

preferable. Accordingly, because the level of confidence increases as 

the numbor of components sampled increases it is important that the 

good performance level criteria be adjustable to reflect increased 

confidence levels associated with larger and larger samples. 

Issoa Ko. 3: 

Should the regulation provide for establishment of a baseline number of 

components at existing facilities to provide incentive for replacement 

(or removal) of existing equipment with low-leak technology designs. 
P.28 

Ti 

a> 

3 

O 

cn 

X 

ITJ 

0) 

u_i 

o 

o 

z X 

100 1,000 10,000 

No. of Components 

'Scale on the y axis is not necessarily linear 

FIGURE 2 Example of Process Weight - Type Curve 

10 
P.29 

Reco_aandat ion: 

Under & quality control monitoring option, an exceedance of the good 

performance level during an enforcement audit should trigger more 

frequent monitoring. If the exceedance is found on the basis of a 

random partial sample, the facility should be given the option to 

perform additional monitoring (up to 100% of the components) to 

determine the actual leak rate prior to imposing more frequent 

monitoring. 

Rationale: 

The most effective penalty for failure to achieve a good performance 

level is more frequent monitoring. It is not only costly to a facility 

but it ensures that resources are going toward environmental 

improvement. Violations accompanied by fines may actually cost a 

facility less and have no direct impact on improving the environment. 

ISSTOQ Ko. 7: 

Should the regulation include a provision for a performance test, 

failure of which would trigger an automatic violation? 

Recommendat ion: 

Under a quality control monitoring approach, a performance test with 

violation is unnecessary. Under an allowable % leakers approach, a 

performance test with violation may be appropriate. 

Rationale: 

For quality control monitoring, the penalty in terms of increased 

monitoring, is built in. In this case, there should not be a 

"violation" as well. The immediate requirement for increased 

monitoring is a penalty that will ensure an environmental improvement 

when a plant's quality has slipped; In the case of an allowable % 

leakers regulation, where no immediate mitigation practice is 

specified, the penalty is undefined. Here it may be appropriate to 

equate not meeting the specified performance with a "violation". 

What provisions should be included in the regulation for unrepairable 

components? Should there be a trigger to force a unit shutdown? 

Recommendat ion: 

The provisions in the existing equipment leak regulations are adequate 

and should be retained. A trigger to force a unit shutdown is 

unnecessary. Not exempting unrepaired components from subsequent test 

cycles would ensure that the number remains small. 

12 
P.30 

> I 

related to batch processes. To expedite the Reg-Neg process, we 

recommend that batch processes be considered in a parallel work group 

effort. 

Isaac- Ko. 10: 

Can/Should the monitoring schedule requirements be specified to provide 

maximum benefit on summer ozone levels? 

Recommendat ion: 

Special monitoring schedule requirements for the purpose of achieving 

maximum benefit on summer ozone levels are unnecessary and would be 

difficult to implement. 

Rationale: 

The recommended regulatory approach should achieve a relatively 

constant level of performance, even when monitoring is performed 

annually. Furthermore, it is unclear how a requirement that monitoring 

take place at the beginning of the summer ozone season would be 

coordinated with the skip period approach that has been recommended. 

Specifying the monitoring schedule to coincide with the beginning of 

the ozone season is unnecessary and overly burdensome relative to the 

benefits that would result. 

Issue Ko. 11: 

Should equivalent compliance methods be provided for in the regulation? 

Recommendation: 

There are certain circumstances where an equivalent method can be used 

to demonstrate compliance. The regulation should provide for the use 

of such equivalent approaches and should not require individual 

approval by the Administrator. 

Rationale: 

One typo of equivalent compliance demonstration method that should be 

allowed would involve measuring the fugitive emissions from many 

possible components simultaneously with a single measurement or set of 

measurements. The simplest application of this approach would be on 

emissions from _ continuous process inside an enclosure or buildings 

and exhausted through a ventilation system. Other applications would 

involve area monitors or other work area monitoring techniques. The 

conversion of area monitoring data to an average mass emission rate 

would be more complicated for a batch process (but would be possible). 

14 
P.31 

< / 

Recommendat ion: 

Express the performance level requirements for new and existing 

facilities in terms of a process weight-type curve, with the provision 

that even the smallest facility is allowed at least 1 leaking 

component. A regulatory exemption based on a lower cutoff on the 

number of components should also be considered. 

Rationale: 

If the regulation includes a single performance standard, small 

facilities with relatively few components can exceed the good 

performance level when only a few components are leaking. It is 

conceivable that a single leaking component at a very small facility 

could exceed the good performance level. For example, if the 

performance level is set at 2% leakers as in the current regulation, a 

facility with fewer than 50 components would exceed the good 

performance level if a single component was leaking. The undue burden 

on small facilities that a single performance standard would create, 

can be alleviated by expressing performance level requirements in terms 

of a process weight-type curve as shown in Figure 2. This approach 

would allow the performance level requirements for small facilities to 

be adjusted to alleviate the disproportionate burden that would be 

imposed by a single performance level. 

Issue Ko. 15: 

Should the regulation require that individuals performing equipment 

monitoring record actual screening values or just leak/no leak status? 

Recommendation: 

A blanket requirement to record all screening values should not be 

included in the regulation. 

Rationale: 

The only reason to collect a full screening data set is to calculate 

emissions from an emission correlation curve. The requirement to 

collect screening value data should be optional based on the operators 

desire and need to calculate emissions using this data. In order to 

comply with a % leaker target, all that is needed is a count of the 

valves leaking and not leaking. 

Issue Ko. 16: 

Should the regulation include a requirement that leaking components be 

rescreened within a specified time period after repairs are performed? 

16 
P.32 

What basis can be used to justify a random partial sample in place of 

monitoring the entire facility? 

RecommQndat ion: 

See Issue No. 2 

Issue Ko. 20: 

Should the regulation provide for exemptions based on operating 

characteristics such as vapor pressure, line size, concentration, 

number of components, etc.? 

Recommendations: 

Exemptions such as those listed above should be considered and 

incorporated where appropriate. 

Rationale: 

Regulatory exemptions are a means of ensuring that resources are 

applied where they will result in the greatest environmental benefit. 

Under this regulation, exemptions could be granted based on 

characteristics such as vapor pressure, line size, concentration, 

number of components, etc. Exemptions on these bases should be 

considered and included in the regulation where they can be shown to 

have the desired effect. Another more practical reason for including 

exemptions on the basis of these characteristics is that some State 

programs such as Texas include these exemptions. For example, 

incorporation of the Texas exemptions would avoid the burden of 

multiple regulatory provisions to many facilities already subject to 

the Texas program. 

ISBUQ Ko. 21: 

Should separate leak definitions be considered for different industry 

segments, compounds, component types, etc.? 

RecoEaoadat ion: 

Separate leak definitions should be considered for different industry 

segments, compounds, component types, etc. and incorporated into the 

regulation where appropriate. 

Rationale: 

The performance levels specified in this regulation are likely to take 

the form of a percentage above some leak definition. As a result, the 

stringency will depend on both the % leaking and the leak definition. 

Consequently, the leak definition, by itself, will not determine the 

18 
P.33 

standard is 2% leakers at 10,000 ppm, the source would be allowed the 

mass equivalent of this standard. 

The equivalent' measurement technique requires that screening 

measurements be made for 100% of the components and the mass emissions 

be measured using the ventilation system for the same period. If the 

screening tests demonstrate compliance with the performance standard, 

the equivalent technique has been "calibrated" in terms of the 

allowable mass in the ventilation exhaust. The source can then use the 

ventilation exhaust gas contaminant concentration to determine 

compliance in future tests. 

Issue Ko. 23: 

What requirements should the regulation include for agitator seals? 

Recommendat ion: 

Agitators should be considered with other dynamic seals and this class 

should be studied in more depth. 

Rationale: 

There are many types of agitators (mixers) used in process vessels. 

Side-mounted agitators usually have their seal surfaces exposed to the 

liquid in the tank. Top-mounted agitators have their seal surfaces 

generally exposed to the vapor above the liquid. The type of seal 

mechanisms vary, much as they do in pumps. Agitators are driven by a 

motor and have shafts that pass through a seal, much like a pump. 

Common seal types are double mechanical, lip seals, and packed seals. 

Pumps normally operate at greater rotational speeds and much less 

torque, and at much greater seal face velocities than agitators. To 

ensure proper sealing, the seals are larger iii diameter than pump seals 

to deal with the lateral transverse forces. 

Issue Wo. 24: 

What is the appropriate method for submission/reporting of fugitive 

emission data to the EPA? 

Recoa__endat ion: 

Assuming the amount of information required to be reported in the 

future is the same as in the current regulations, it would be helpful 

if the preamble to the regulation included a sample data sheet. As 

discussed under Issue 15, we believe the regulation should not require 

individual screening values to be recorded (and reported). 

20 
/ 

OEC | 

20 

p 15 

O 

c 

10 

7*. 

(0 

<_ 5 

Leak Frequency 

Gas Valves 

> 

> 

O 

m 

<o 

_o \ > ^^i_^>t>»_V5> f c >>_^_S ) ¥ f £ / / af £ f £ ^ ^ ^ # # # £ ££" ,?'/ / <f 

at 500 ppm leak definition 
P.35 

Percent Leakers 

(at 500 ppm leak definition) 

eo5 

eo7 

eo1 

eo4 

eo10 

bd4 

bd6 

eo3 

bd2 

eo8 

bd7 

bd9 

bd3 

bd5 

eo2 

eo6 

bd1 

bd12 

eo9 

bd11 

bd10 

bd8 

Gas Valves 

0.00 

0.00 

0.25 

0.93 

1.46 

1.56 

1.65 

1.72 

1.77 

2.32 

2.38 

2.54 

2.73 

2.88 

3.08 

3.64 

8.37 

8.45 

10.34 

14.29 

19.05 

19.46 
;,> 

P.36 

(0 

o 

(0 

Li. 

c 

o 

(0 

(A 

• _•_-! E 

LU 

o 

o 

CO alve 

> 

CO 

(0 

CD 

i^^m^i^^mm^^m^mm^m^^^^^fm^^^^^^i^^m^^m^^^^^^^mm^^ —-_-^_* 

% 

5

°_ 

°°9 

> 

CD in 

o o 

o o 

CO o o 

CM o o o 

o 

(eojnos/jij/6>i) sjopej uojssjiua 
OTCDOocomcDCDOTCDrommcDmmmmmcDmaorn 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

COCX)^^O)l>0CO^4^Ol^^O)^COOl^l>0^.fc---»-0 0 O - - N> O -»• CO 

o 

o 

o 4* 

o> 

o> Ol 

o —*• 

o o 

o o 

o o •tt 4^ - J L ___. 

Ol - * 

IV> -N| 

Ol "Nl 

^ 00 

o 

o 

o —v 

- J -

l\> 

•Nl 

CD 

o 

O 

o 

o -__v 

m__ 

«_--> 

CO 

o> CO 

o o 

o o 

o o 

-»• o 

o o> CO 4^ 

CD CO 

4* O 

o o> 

OOOOOOOOO O 

ooooooooo o 

ooooooooo o o 0)0)0)01^0)10^0 0 

IV3OOO0)-*-0lC0004 ^ X0 00-^4^C00)O4^N4-_ . 

.fooooairoo.co ^ oowoitoai^Ni^Njo i 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

CO 4^ 

-»• 00 

4^ O) 

o 

o 

o o o o o Ol 

o 

o o 

o o 

o o o o o o o o o o o o 

o o 

o 

Dl 

CO 

< 

fi) 

< 

CD 

CO 

^ ^ 

(Q 

Eif 

CO 

o 

c 

o 

CD 

o 

o 

m 

3 

55" 

CO 

o 

3 

•n 

fi) o 

CO 
20 

p 15 

O 

c 

CD 

3 

CJ 

CD 

_ . 

LL 

j__ : 

cc 

CD 

10 

Leak Frequency 

Light Liquid Valves 

<p Q> 9) <V _*_S>'„.£&_V&_!_^^_ & _>,£§ > 

at 500 ppm leak definition 

_ 

oo 
GTcrcro-crcrcra r cr or CD 

aaaaaaaaaa o 

00-^^O)-^4^COO1-*--NI^ 4 

o -*> ro 

O" CD (D (D (D 

GL O O O O 

IO 4^ 0) CO -^ 

CD (D (D CD 

OOO O 

ro oo co 01 

oioico-Ni-Njoioicororo-*-*-

• •••••••••• • 

OO^OOO-^OO^NIO-^CA)- * coNi-^o^ot o . aioo w 

-•-oooooo o 

• •••• • • a 

-L-NIO)4-_4^4^4-*I> 0 

O0)0)0)C0N)O0 ) 

— Ol Ho 

(Q o -o 

C <D * * 

x- fi) r-

° - TT <D 

< Q- £ 

5 D CO 

CO ^. 
0.01 

CD 

O 

O 0.008 

CO 

j? 0.006 

CO 

o 

"S 0.004 

o 

CO 0.00 2 

CO 

E 

UJ 

VOC Emission Factors 

Light Liquid Valves 

ci/CH*- * N O, 4> _> <b N Q_»O V <b <b _> **) *•* A. <o <V Ci _9> 

/<_<_«£## <_ &£&£# $$$£$ <_ <_##<_ 

• _ 

4 -
CDODCDGOCDGDOocDaj^ajmmoommmmmmrnm 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

co -* ro 01 ^j -»> -»• co 00 0)4^-^00-^0)4^011^-^-^^-* 

O CO O -*• —» • IV) 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 00 CO CO 

00 0) 0 

-»• -N | 00 

i o co -•> O) Ol 00 

ro -* 4^ 

oooooo o 

oooooo o 

oooooo o 

ro ro ro ro ro -•> -* CO 00 00 CO O Ol Ol 

Ol Ol O 4*. CO CO Ol 

•NJ O) CO CO 00 CO -»• 

O) 4*. 4^ 00 CO O) CO 

4^ oio) ro o NJ w 

o 

o 

o —--

CO 

Ol 

IO 

O) 

—— 

oooo o 

oooo o 

oooo o 

oooo o O) Ol Ol CO IO 

CO CO O) O 4^. 

M G ) -*Nl O 

s|0) 0 W( 0 

CO CO -Nl ro -»> 

o 

o 

o 

o 

"Nl 

O) 

CO 

IO 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o -LO O 

-NI CO CO 

oi o) ro 

co oo ro 

co ro o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o CO o 

-v O 

00 o 

IO o 

r* 

CQ 

3 

•_--•• 

_Q c 

mmmm 

___ 

*_—t < 

CD 

CO 

^m^ 

TT 

CQ 

3 : 

•n 

CO 

0 c 

0 

CD 

0 0 Emi 

CO 

CO 

••• a 0 

Zl 

-n 

fi) 

0 

0 

CO 

• _ 

J -
10 

8 

CD 

ZJ 

O" 

<D 

it 4 

CO 

CD 

Leak Frequency 

Flanges 

^ f-fgf/ff*//fffffff 

at 500 ppm leak definition 

J_ 
CTCTCD CD CTCD CD CTCD CD CTCD D" CT CT CT (D CT 

Q.Q.OOQ.OOQ.OOQ_OGLQ.Q.Q.OQ _ 

cB4^coc_>rocooo-*-^4^oiro-*co-i I Ni-i- r 

o o —^ ro 

CD 

Ol 

O 

O TJ 

23 g CD 

3 (D ^ 

CQ fi) rCD * " CD 

CO rt fi) 

2. ® 

5" 3 

cn cn 4-* -p.. co co —»• ;—»• —»• -^o o ooooo o 

co^b)-^co^cococoio^bob)b)bioo o 

G)-*o)-^coNiooNio)^oiooNiaioo o 

O 

3 
CT O" <D CD O" CD CD 

Q. _ . O O CL O O 

00 4 - (O O) IU U 00 

CJ"CD CD CTCD CT CX O" D" CD CT 

O - O O O- O Q. CL CL CL O CL 

-_-_*_,oiro- ico-^-vj-^- ^ tt 

Ol o 

O TJ 

-a <_> 

23 3 ® 

» — s 

3 <D Zl 

CQ Q) r-

<D pc fl> 

w

 £• £ SB. •* 

5 ' 3 

CJI CJl 4^ 4> CO CO - ^ OOOOOOO O 

CO-vlO.- t CO-»-CDCDCOrOCOOOO>0>OlOO O 

C0-*0)^C0NIOON|0)A0I00VJOIOO O 

o 

-pfc 
0.002 

CD 

Q 

O 

i« 0.0015 

_2 0.001 

o 

*—• o 

cd 

g 0.0005 

"co w 

E 

LU 

0 

VOC Emission Factors 

Flanges 

c-b __S* J_D __V _S .Q^O^O^^Qj.O/to ^ _*• <o *-* *-* 
CO 

CO <D 

U. O 

C 3 

O O 

O O CM CO CM 

o o in CM CM 

o o -r- hN. is. 

O O CM CM m 

O O O O iOOOO O 

OOOO O 

OOOO O 

oooo o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

00 • ^ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

CO 

CD 

TT 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• ^ 

00 

rT— 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

T- CD 

CM in 

CO CO 

CD 00 

CO CO 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

CD 

T— 

Tt 

O) 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

r^ 

O) 

O) 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

CM 

o 

Tt 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

Tt 

o 

in 

Tt 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

m 

Tt 

rTt 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

in 

r^-

m 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CD Tt 

CO o 

CO «rTt 0> 

CD 00 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o 

CO 

o 

CD 

Tt 

O) 

o 

o 

o 

o 

m 

r^ 

CO 

_— 

o 

o 

o 

o 

T -

o> 

Tt 

CD 

CD • ^ 

o 

o 

o 

co »r _2 • ^ __T ___• 

(0 

4> 

c 

(0 

UJ 

O 

O 

O) 

CO O t- O CM . i- . 

S55cowi^.---.-T-wcocMooc^:^_g_-T_-u.T---

OOOOQQOQQO___QQQOOOQQOC _ 

_Jlil_J_JDQCQ_J(DtD_Ja.(_ll_l___JUJ_JI_l__l_l_l 

ii 

j_ 

0) 
I <* 

50 

40 

O 

c 

CD 

CT 

30 

J * 

CO 

CD 

20 

10 

Leak Frequency 

Pumps 

at 500 ppm leak definition 
P.48 

_-

Percent Leakers 

(at 5G0 ppm leak definition) 

Pumps 

eo8 0.00 

bd10 0.00 

eo7 0.00 

eo2 0.00 

bd4 0.00 

eo6 4.17 

bd12 10.00 

eo1 12.00 

bd1 12.50 

bd6 16.67 

bd11 16.67 

bd5 16.67 

eo3 18.18 

bd3 20.90 

bd2 24.00 

eo9 25.00 

eo4 27.27 

eo10 40.91 

bd8 50.00 
VOC Emission Factors 

Pumps 

CD 

_ 

o 

CO 

0.12 

0.1 

0.08 

CD 

__! 0.06 

O 

O 

cd 

LL- 0.04 

CO 0.02 

"E 

UJ 

0 

__• *G O* <o ••_> *"•* ___V <b to K t 0j»^0/O /. O • V •_> 0/ Cb 

££4*£#£ <?<#><?/<§> #/<§>/<§> «#/# 

CO 
o 

LO 

CO ctoi 

CO 

IL 

c 

o 

'3> 

CO 

••__• 

^^^ 

O) 

o 

3 

O 

.CO 

_ w t 

JC 

imps 

____* 

Q . 

CM 

00 

CD 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

O)TtCMTtC0O)TtC0CMinT t (DlO00COMOO)CONN( O 

TtOOCDCOCMCMOTtOOCD O 

o)CD-r-cocoo>CMinomo o 

ot-cMCMmooo>T-T-Tt m 

OOOOOOOCOOOOC M 

OOOOOOOOT-CMC O 

oooooooooo o 

• ••••••••• a 

oooooooooo o 

o>mmcocococMh -

oomr^cocDTtooc M 

0)TtOCDCDO>f-C M 

COCOCDinCOOO-r-CM 

COCOinOOOOOOC O 

OOOCMTtTtCOO ) 

OTTNNCOOO O 

OOOOOOi-^ -

OOOOOOO O 

E 

UJ 

O 

O 

O) 

__ CO CM __ O O 

COiOOlOCOt-CMCOCO----- - c\i-«-r^-- ,*co-»-C D 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

_J(_CD_J_J_J_J_]_1IJJCQ_]_._JI_11D_]0D-J11J 

ri 
ATTACHMENT 10 DEC I (989 

i(-t«.Ei:_>iiux.i-i_:siiB_ i 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Of fOLLOUUP IK LETTER 

Gas Valves 

:____———————XB.SS———————_______-_______ZS=-—-————_S____——_______B£SBody Hatertal 

Packing 

Material and 

Shape 

Manufacturer | 

Valve Typa 

*«• 

Maintenance 

Frequency 

A 

20X SS 

SOX CS 

33X each 

Aabeatoa, 

Graph tte, 

and Teflon 

14 diff. aanuf. 

M X Gate 

2X Control 

11-15 yr 

OirectedAs needed 

High BO 

• 

20X SS 

aox cs 

100X Asbestos 

100X Square 

Majority Saith, 

Henry Vo0t 

SOX Gate 

60X Globe 

SX Ball 

SX Control 

90X 16-20 yr 

10X > 20 yr 

OirectedAs needed 

C 

20X SS 

M X CS 

11X Teflon 

88X Graphite/ 

Asbestos 

IX Plastic 

IS diff. aanuf. 

Majority Vogt, 

Saith 

M X Gate 

SX Globe 

20X Ball 

11X Control 

12X 11 15 yr 

M X > 20 yr 

DireetedAs needed 

High EO 

D 

30X SS 

70X CS 

100X Teflon 

100X Square 

90X Saith-Vogt 

10X Assorted 

60X Gate 

10X Ball 

10X Control 

40X 6-10 yr 

60X 16 20 yr 

DirectedAs needed 

Low BD 

E 

2X SS 

98X CS 

95X Asbestos 

5X Asbestos/ 

Graphite 

IS diff. aanuf. 

97X Gate 

3X Ball 

10X 0 5 yr 

17X 6-10 yr 

73X 16-20 yr 

OirectedAs needed 

f 

100X SS 

B7X Graphite 

7X Teflon 

6X Unknown 

17X Saith. 13X 

Ladish, 11X Kit*. 

10X Bomey, 

9 others 

FAX Gate, 7X 

Needle, 4X Plug, 

2X Check, 2X 

Ball, SX Control 

H X 0 5 yr 

6t 6-10 yr 

BOX 16-20 yr 

Oirected 

As needed 

Low EO 

C 

i 

57X SS 

43X CS 

S6X Teflon 

44X Graphite 

r S4X Square 

34X O-Ring 

Unknowi 

SOX Gate 

2BX BalI 

^7X Needle 

4X Globe 

61X 0-5 yr 

4X 6-10 yr 

34X 11-15 yr 

DirectedQuarterly 

* 

tf 

2X SS 

; 98X Forged Steel 

100X Tefion 

20X each Vogt, 

Saith, Crane, 

Powell, UelMorth 

100X Gate 

1001 11-15 yr 

DireetedAs needed 

"0 

Ol 
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Of FOLLOUUP 114 LETTER 

Gas Valves 

iMUIHunuiiiiiiiUinBUC->iiiiiiiuliiBiiiiD..<.iiii_iiit]ii.E:___iE::-;i:£:8SESsnEE3E_s___Ei_..._____i_:;::::::;;::::::;::£:3::;;;;;::i::: 

Area Monitoring 

Systaa 

non-specific 

Equtpaant 

Monitoring 

Coaponantspecific LOAR 

A 

|60 Gaa detectora 

at SO location* 

|throi_0Mut plant 

Twice dally 

visual Inspection 

|of operating 

aquff-aant 

Weekly viaual 

Inspection of 

|pu«P« 

GV - Monitored 

once per qtr. per 

state rag 

iiv - Monitored 

|once per yr per 

|state rag 

|Puapa • Monthly 

|TLV aonitorlr* 

|Coafwnents under 

|Bl NESHAP are 

|Monitored per 

|that reg 

Nigh SO 

B 

SO Gaa datectora 

at SO locatlona 

throutfwut plant 

Daily viaual 

Inspection of 

co__ponants 

Caaponcnts uvfer 

Sx NESHAP are 

aonltored per 

that rag 

C 

80 Gaa datactors 

at 80 locations 

throughout plant 

Twice daily 

viaual inspection 

of caeponanta 

Coaponanta uider 

Bx NESHAP are 

aonitored per 

that rag 

High EO 

0 

Viaual inspection 

of al l puapa 

several tiaae 

per shift 

Walkthrough with 

portable detector 

once per shift 

GV >10X EO -

Monitored once 

per qtr. per 

state reg 

LV >10X EO -

Monitored once 

per yr. per 

state reg 

Low BO 

E 

45 Gas detectors 

at 45 locations 

throughout plant 

Viaual inspection 

of components 

twice per shift 

Ccaponents under 

Bi NESHAP arc 

aonitored per 

that reg 

F 

37 Gas detectors 

at 37 locations 

throughout plant 

Daily walkthrough 

with HNu to ensure 

eabient readings 

< 50 ppav 

GC for continuous 

aonitoring of 

control rooa and 

analyier building 

Valves -

Monitored 

aonthly/quarterly 

with UV 

Piaps - Monitored 

weekly with UV 

Low EO 

t 

G 

Gas detectors 

throughout 

plant 

Weekly visual 

inspection of 

piapa 

Valves, Piaps -

Monitored 

quarterly by 

contractor 

Periodic 

aonitoring of 

flanges by 

operating crew 

N 

Walkthrough 

with TLV once 

per shift 

Ol 

ro 
I 

High SO 

g 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOW UP 114 LETTER 

Gas Valves 

iiuiiMiiiimilii-_Eiii*iii».>_(i_i»»._a_i-t_:E.---__:___.:£s:s: 

High EO Low BD 

::::::::::CIEI I 

Low £0 

I 

(Valves -

|Tt*tsn packing 

| bolts 

I 

(Flanges -

|Tiflpten f l 

(bolts 

I 

I 

E A tent of 

on-line repair 

Valves -

Tltfiten packing 

bolts; Inject 

sealant 

Flanges -

T10)ten flange 

bolts 

Valves -

Tighten packing 

bolts 

flanges -

Tighten flange 

bolts 

Valves -

Tighten packing 

Consultant 

retained to cli 

leaking equip, 

to stop leak 

until ahutdowi 

Pu-ps • 

Switch to 

spare 

Valves • Tighten 

packing botts 

Flanges -

Titfiten flenge 

gaaket 

Ptape - Switch 

to spare 

Recouree for | Raaove equipaant 

uieucceaaful |froa service, if 

on; I ine rapair|poeaibte; If not, 

|add to shutdown 

(work Mat 

I 

Include on a 

shutdown work 

list 

Inctudt on a 

ahutdoia. work 

list 

Unit or part of 

unit ia shut 

do-_n i need lately 

and equipaent 

is repaired 

Reaove equipaant 

froa service per 

standard safety 

procedurea; 

repaired by 

trained craftsaen 

Reaove equipaent 

froa service to 

repair leak 

Shut down Plant is shut 

affected portions dot*, if severe 

of plant and leaks cannot be 

repair leak repaired 

Ol 

CO 
'/ 

••••-•--•••-(•••••••.•••••-••••••••••••••••(•••-------"-•-- l 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOW-UP 114 LETTER 

Gas Valves 

IUi»EBatEE«iiEBIiuEiiii*EiiiEiEEiisi3>ist-..=--iiE::;ss3E::;sESS_3.:s::c::_-s33iEEB i 

1 * 

Etpilpaant design) Nona given 

•paeIficationa) 

for ealaalon | 

reduction and | 

alacellenaoua ( 

ealaalon | 

reduction | 

strateglea | 

Nigh BO 

B 

Nona given 

C 

None given 

High EO 

0 

Puepe • Oual 

seals with 

barrier fluid; 

presaure atara in 

control rooa if 

inner seal leaks 

Valves - Alt are 

disassembled 

prior to 

installation 

to verify valve 

ataa packing and 

to ensure that a 

Low 60 

E 

Use of coapenyapproved specs. 

for construction 

aethoda and 

aateriata 

use of skilled 

craft seen for 

repaira 

Operator training 

to detect end 

react to leaks 

new gasket aeeting Puaps - Tandea 

specifications is 

installed 

Flanges/Com. 

Gaskets have 

welded taba to 

verify use of 

proper gasket; 

flanges ere 

torqued with 

torque wrench; 

seals with 

pressure alaras; 

eai ssions 

relieve to flare 

systea 

Relief Valves -

Relieve to flare 

systea 

Closed-loop 

saapling systems 

F 

Puaps - Gas 

•onitors on 

seats; currently 

installing 

sealless p~aps 

Valves -

Tighten packing 

ff screening 

values exceed 

300 ppa; -

Grefoil ribbon 

packing in alt 

valves 

Flanges -

Stainless steel, 

Crafoil-filled 

gaskets with 

inner and 

outer rings 

Open-ended tinesOoubte valves 

Low EO 

i 

G 

Compressors -

Barrier gas 

Two Mechanics 

accoapany 

contractor 

during screening 

and fix leaks 

ieaedietely. 

.if possible 

* 

Open-ended LinesCape or plugs 

required 

Flanges -

Teflon-filled, 

spi ral-wound 

gaskets 

Valves -

Teflon valve 

packings and 

Teflon valve 

bonnet gaskets 

CJl 

-pfc 
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOW-UP 114 LETTER 

Gas Valves 

1 

Mlnlalxatlon of 

teaks a factor 

tn plant design? 

Leak testing 

before 

installation? 

A 

Ho 

| All caoponents 

Hiflh BO 

g 

No 

All components 

C 

Yes 

All components 

High EO Low BO 

0 C 

Open-ended LinesAll ere plugged 

prior to piecing 

fn service 

Relief Valves -

Reaoved froa unit 

and tested annually; 

rescreenad after 

release to ensure 

proper reseating 

Coapressors -

Nitrogen buffer 

to prevent 

ataospheric 

leakage; all are 

overhauled every 

five ycara 

Yes Yes 

All components All components 

Low EO 

F C ' 

Yes Ves 

All components All components 

nitrogen pressure 

tested followed 

by soap bubble 

testing 

ItYes 

All components 

CJl 

CJl 
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOWUP 114 LETTER 

Gas Valves 

• U>BllIEE3E_:.-»ElB_-lmEIEEE B = SS-«>I3::E:_a3S«=SEIE:3ESB_C-SSEEE-E3:E:;_::;.:ES3;3E><:EEIiaiEEU I 

QA/QC stepe for | 

reducing leaks 

during plant | 

constructlen 

E*jlfpent 

fhangea to 

reduce ecpjlpaant 

leeks 

A 

Nona given 

None given 

H i * SD 

B 

None given 

None given 

C 

None given 

None given 

High EO 

0 

Niniaize flanges 

Hone given 

Low BO 

E 

Welds are: 

X-rayed and 

dye-checked. 

Hydroetatic 

teetIng 

Ultrasonic 

testing 

Minimization of 

fittings - aore 

welded connections 

Metel, spiralwouid gaskets 

for flanges 

Send relief veive 

discharges to 

flare systea 

f 

Visual inspection 

of work 

Spot X-rays of 

welds 

Spot hydroetatic 

low EO 

« " H 

Welds are 

x-rayed 

All equip, and 

piping is 

leak tested 

testing of et^jip. with inert 

Replaced two 

piape with 

seel less pumps 

with good results 

Reduce n_tf>er 

of flanges 

where possible 

Reaove 

unnecessary 

bleed valves 

gas or 

hydrostatically 

tested 

Outside bolting "Leak reduction 

services to over the pest 

tighten critical, 10-15 years has 

large flanges been driven by 

OSHA regulations 

Screwed and area 

connections are aonitoring" 

backwefded 

CJl 

BIB:EE3BIfEBEBSIEtE;:»C3i:E;s_:i ; = s_-s_ = =_ 
UEC 1989 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOUUP 114 LETTER 

Punps 

i*(aEU-E(EEiES»E>iaci_tiv»sui=_EiB_;sais__:3E_3:-=ssiSE3a-x:__3i_:_;E___i.:s:::_:::;-_; 

High-Ieeking Facilities Low-leaking Facilities 

Manufacturer 46X Sieidyne 

25X Byron Jackson 

i n Pacific 

SX Goulds 

4X ingeraoll Rand 

59X Byron Jackson 

35X Goulds 

3X S_nstrend 

SX Pacific 

2SX Worthington 

25X Goulds 

25X Peerless 

12.SX Alli s Chalaera 

12.5X Suidyne 

55X Ourco 

15X Sc-rafyne 

10X Labour 

10X Peerlese 

10X Sun Flo 

100X Ourco 73X Durco 

14X Goulds 

8X Roy Roth 

SX United 

Pur_p Typa 100X Single 

Stage with 

Single 

Mechanical 

Seel 

65X Multistage Centrifugal 

35X Singlestage Centrifugal 

62.SX Single 

Stege Centrifugal 

with Single 

Mechanical Seat 

25X Vertical with 

Single Mechanical 

Seal 

12.SX Canned 

100X Singlestage Centrifugal 

with Single 

Mechanical Seal 

100X Singlestage Centrifugal 

with Single 

Mechanical Seal 

100X SingleStage Centrifugal 

with Dual 

Mechanical Seal 

(82X Back-to-Back, 

18X Tarcfca) 

Pup Age BIX 26-30 yr 

I W 6-10 yr 

10OX 11-15 100X 20 yr 95X 16-20 yr 

5X 11-15 yr 

100X 6-10 yr 9X 0-5 yr 

S5X 11-15 yr 

36X 16-20 yr 

Maintenance 

Frequency 

36X Semi-annually 

64X Annually 

100X Never 100X Never 100X every 1-3 yr 16X Quarterly 

16X Semi-annually 

21X Annually 

26X Every 2 yrs 

2IX Every 4 yrs 

CJl 
7-

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOUUP 114 LETTER 

Pu_ps 

(••••••M>s«-t-__o_acs---ss----i_=------:is2Ei----Es:s_E-_£--s___._-.s____;s:_-=.._-__-- ; 

fa 

Are* Monitoring 

Systea 

Non-specific 

Equipaent 

Monitoring 

* 

> 

Component-

•pacific LOAR 

A 

Oetactors at 

9 locations 

throughout SO area 

Visual and 

olfactory 

Inspection 

of all 

ecgiipaant 

None 

Hi*-leekir« Facil 

S 

Nona 

Viaual, eudlble. 

and olfactory 

inspection 

of all 

equipaent 

None 

ities 

C 

80 Gaa detectors 

at 80 locations 

throughout plant 

Daily visual 

Inepection of 

components 

Components under 

Sz MESNAP are 

raonltored per 

thet reg 

. 

37 _«» detectors 

at 37 locations 

throughout plant 

Daily walkthrough 

with HNu to enaure 

aabicnt readings 

< SO ppav 

GC for continuous 

aonitoring of 

control rooa and 

analyzer building 

Valvee -

Monitored 

aonth!y/o}_iarter!y 

with TLV 

pr_ape - Monitored 

weekly with TLV 

Low-leaking Facilities 

C 

Gas detectors 

throughout 

plant 

Weekly visual 

inepection of 

(M*»P» 

Valves, Ptape -

Monitored 

quarterly by 

contractor 

Periodic 

aonitoring of 

flanges by 

opereting crew 

F 

Visual inspection 

of all puaps 

several tiaes 

per shift 

Ualkthroutfi with 

portable detector 

once per shift 

GV >10X EO -

Monitored once 

per qtr. per 

state reg 

LV >10X EO -

Monitored once 

per yr. per 

state reg 

CJl 

CO 
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOW-UP 114 LETTER 

p_aps 

Extant of 

on-line rapair 

Racourae for 

unsuccessful 

i on-line repel 

1 

1 * 

|Valves -

J flatten packing 

|bolts and packing 

1 

|Flangea -

|Tiehtan flaf«e 

|bolts and gaskets 

1 

|f_ape -

|Adjuat aaals 

1 

'1 

| Raaove ecpitpasnt 

|froa service, if 

r|poesible; if not. 

|add to shutdown 

|work list 

1 

Hf*-leaking Facil 

g 

Flengee -

Tighten flange 

bolts ahd gaskets 

Inject sealant 

around leaking 

area 

Switch to apare 

for pu_pa 

Isolate valves, 

flanges and 

replace 

it ies 

C 

Valves -

Tighten packing 

bolts; Inject 

sealant 

Flanges -

Tighten flange 

bolts 

Include on a 

shutdown work 

list 

D 

Consul tent 

retained to clasp 

leaking equip, 

to atop leak 

uitll shutdown 

Reaove equipaent 

froa service to 

repair leak 

H>83SBBSS3S3CB3E3 = =3333 = S3 = = =-:S£===3S 

Low-leaking Facilities 

E 

Puape -

Switch to 

apere 

Shut down 

effected portions 

of plant and 

repair leak 

f 

Flanges -

Tighten flange 

bolts 

Unit or part of 

i_ntt is shut 

down immediately 

and equipaent 

is repaired 

CJl 

CO 
. ? 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOUUP 114 LETTER 

Pimps 

IIBIBBIBBBBBBBBBBBll>«IBBIBtBBEBBB<SBIIDE3EBEEEBtBEBES B BEBIEEE33IIBB3Btl3333EE:.::ES:SEE:3S33 E 

Equlpaant deeign 

specifications 

for aaiaaion , 

reduction and | 

alscellaneouo 

ealaalon 

reduction 

etrateglee 

** 

> 

A 

Nona given 

Nigh-leaking Facilities 

a c 

None given None given 

B 

Ptape - Gaa 

aonitors on 

seels; currently 

installing 

sealless pu_pe 

Valves -

Tighten pecking 

if screening 

values eiceed 

300 ppa; 

Grefoll ribbon 

packing in alt 

valves 

Flanges -

Stainless steel, 

Grafoil-filled 

gaskets with 

inner and 

outer rings 

Open-ended LinesDouble valves 

Low-leaking Facilities 

E 

Coapressors -

Barrier gas 

Two mechanics 

eccoapany 

contractor 

during screening 

and fix teaks 

iaaadietely. 

if possible 

f 

Pimps - Dual 

seals with 

barrier fluid; 

pressure aIara in 

control rooa if 

inner seal leaks 

Valves - Alt are 

disassembled 

prior to 

installation 

to verify valve 

staa packing and 

to ensure that a 

new gasket meeting 

specifications is 

installed 

Flanges/Com. 

Gaskets have 

welded teba to 

verify use of 

proper gasket; 

flanges are 

torqued with 

torque wrench; 
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOUUP 114 LETTER 

Ptape 

t 

Nlnlaization of 

leaks a factor 

In plant deal pi? 

Leak testing 

before 

inetatletion? 

A 

Yes 

| All coapanents 

High-leeklr« Fecilities 

B c 

No No 

No Alt components 

a 

Yes 

Alt components 

nitrogen pressure 

tested followed 

by soap bubble 

testing 

Low-leaking 

f 

Yes 

Facilities 

Al 1 components 

r 

Open-ended LinesAll ere plugged 

prior to placing 

in service 

Relief Valves -

Reaoved froa unit 

and tested annual 1 

reacreened after 

release to ensure 

proper reseating 

Coapressors -

Nitrogen buffer 

to prevent 

ataospheric 

teekege; all are 

overhauled every 

five years 

Ves 

All components 
c l 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOLLOW-UP 114 LETTER 

Puepe 

iE3B31HEs>E;;3s::B:a 

1 A 

M/O C steps for | None given 

reducing leaks | 

during plant | 

cone true tion | 

E<t-tf_asnt |liprovad valve 

chenges to |peckIng 

reduce equipaent) 

leeks | 

Nigh-leaking Facilities 

a c 

None given None given 

Pt__p aaela on Hone given 

aoaa puepe are 

being changed 

to tandaa aeals 

systea with 

minere! oil 

barrier fluid 

and water wash 

0 

Visual inspection 

of work 

Spot X-rays of 

welds 

Spot hydrostatic 

testing of equip 

Replaced two 

puape with 

aeatlesa puaps 

with good results 

Reduce mater 

of flanges 

where possible 

Reaove 

unnecessary 

bleed valves 

Low-leaking Facilities 

E F 

Welds ere Niniaize flanges 

X-rayed 

Alt oc»Jlp. end 

piping is 

leek tested 

. with inert 

gas or 

hydrostatically 

tested 

Outside bolting Hone given 

servicee to 

tighten critical. 

large flengea 

Screwed 

connections are 

backwelded 

U>BIBUB»«IIEUBK: *BKiii(i3.:E::3»::::j;;;;::::3:::.-::.:: . - = = - - _ s _ _ = = = _ = _ s = - - = = = ; ~ = _ _ = - - -

ro