p. 1



# OAR Box 1208 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 120 ) ll-E- 6
Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 5/9/200810:08:23 AM

Sheet 120of 127P. 2

; *?,

_

LA W OPPtCHf l PHTU PJ . HARTE R

SUIT E 40 4 230 1 M STREET . N.W . WASHINGTON . O.C . 2003 7 (202 ) 867-103 3 FAX : (202 ) 687. 1 03 9 

### November

13 , 1989

O RA N D U ll-E- 6



# fTISJLIx ^

To : EPA Negotiate dRulemakin g Committe e on Fugitiv e Emission s fro mEquipment Leak s an dIntereste dPartie s Fr : Philip J
. Harte r Re : Minute s o

f November

6-7 Meeting ; Futur e Meeting ; Miscellaneou s Material s
I enclos e th e minute s o

f th e November

6- 7 meetin g that

were prepare db

y Radia n Corporation

. A s before , th e material s that were distribute da

t th e meetin g ar e at
tached

. I hav e include dth e revise dorganizational protocols

. (Note they ar e no t marke ddraft : I hop e that we hav e finall

y put th e matte r

t o rest ; but , jus t

i n case , revie w the mcarefully t o mak e sure. ) I als o include arevise dlis t o f committe e member s an dthos e who shoul dreceiv e al l th e material s distribute dt o th e Committee

. Th e othe r distributio n lis t

i s o f thos e wh o hav e specifically requeste dt o b e kep t informe d o f th e progres s o

f th e negotiations

. Finally , I hav e include da"statement " concernin g th e negotiations

. Several partie s indicate dthat they hadreceive dcall s abou t th e nego tiations , an dit

seeme dappropriat e t o prepar e agenera l statemen t abou t wha t th e Committe e i s doing

. I t

i s largely base do n th e Federal Register notice , supplemente dto describ e wha

t happene dat

th e meeting

. Th e next meetin g will begi n at

10:0 0 o n Wednesday , Decembe r 6 an dwil

l conclude b y 4:00 o n Thursday , Decembe r 7 ; i t will b e hel dat

th e Embass y Square Suite s Hotel , 2000 N Street , NW, Washington

. NOT ETH ECHANG EI N TH ELOCATIO N FRO M THA T ANNOUNCE D DURIN GTH ELAS T MEETING

. Fo r thos e who wishit , I hav e reserve dablock o f room s at

th e hotel ; th e group rat e i s $95/night , whichinclude s breakfas t

( I amafrai dwe ar e subjec t t o "big city " rate s i

n Washington ; that appear s t o b e a s goo da s we coul dget) , T o tak e advantag e o f this , pleas e call th e hote l directl y at

800-424-2999 , an didentif y yourself

a s bein g wit

hth e "EP

A Fugitives " withi n th e next

tw o weeks

. Th e following meetin g will b e January 17-1 8 i n Durham

. W

e will onc e agai n b e meetin g at

th e Picket

t Suite s Hotel , 251 5 Meridian , Durham , NC 27713 ; 919-361-4660

. A s before , ablock

o f room s ha s bee n reserve dunde r th e nam e "EP

A Fugitives. "r ) f

V** -
Novembe r14 , 198 9
STATEMEN T CONCEKMN G EPA' S I&EGULATOIR Y NEGOTIATIO N O N CONTRO LO FFUGITIV EEMISSION S O FVOC S FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S Fugitiv e emission s o

f toxi cchemical s an d volatil e organi ccompound s (VOCs ) from equipmen t leak s - - such as valves , pumps , and flange s - - are asignificantsourc e of airpollution. . Indeed , b y som e estimates , leak s constitute betwee n on e and tw o thirds o f all routine , non-accidental emission s fro m chemical plants . Moreover , becaus e they are release d nea rthe ground , thei rimpacti s 10-4 0 time s greate rthan equa l release s from stacks . Currentregulation s basicall y require thatequipmen tb e inspecte d quarterl y fo rleak s with a portabl e hydrocarbo n detector . I f concentration s excee d 10,00 0 ppm th e sourc e i s identifie d as a"leaker, " and maintenanc e i s required . Thi s approach i s know n a s lea kdetectio n and repair " (LDAR) . Th e currentLDA Rprogra m can reduc e uncontrolle d emission s b y abou t60-7 0 percent . Th e actual frequency rat

e an d th e associate d emission s vary widely , however , a s afunctio n of th e original desig n o f th e proces s unit, such a s th e numbe ro f valves , pumps , and flanges ; th e ag e o f the proces s unit ; desig n and constructio n o f eac h component ; qualit y of maintenance ; standar

d operatin g procedure s
use d b y th e company ; trainin g provide d t o employees ; an d motivatio n t o ensur e lo w emissions . N o on e i s sur e jus twha tcombinatio n o f factor s guarantee s lo w emission s not rho w t o achiev e them through enforceabl e regulations . I n addition , currentregulatory approache s d o no tprovid e tb e mean s fo rcalculatin g th e leve l o f emissions . Ye tth e accurate quantificatio n o f fugitiv e emission s from equipmen tleak s i s becomin g ahig h priority . Specifi cemissio n level s ar e necessar y fo rbaselin e an d residual riskassessment s fo rraw regula tions , fo rissuia g permits fo rne w facilities , and fo restablishin g appropriate emission s fees . Further , companie s mustreportemisaoa s uade rTh e Commuast y Rigfa tT o Kao w Act. " Tfeea e figures wer e widel y publicize d earl y thi s summe rand sparked considerabl e pubEc attentio n m th e leve l o f emission s
of tone s an d VOCs . No tonl y doe s th e cunen tregulatory approach no tachiev e accurate estisaate s of f th e actualP. 4

emissions , itdoe s no tprovid e incentive s o rcredi tt o firms fo restablishin g program s an d facilitie s t o achiev e th e bes tcontrol . No rdoe s th e approach ensur e emissio n rate s tha tare readily achievable . EP A recentl y convene d aregulator y negotiatio n to addres s thes e shortcomings . Representative s o f EPA ; th e chemical , petroleum , rubber , and pharmaceutical industries ; environmental organizations ; and state and local government s are workin g togethe ron th e Committe e to develo p aconsensu s o n a propose d rule tha

twould :
o Revis e the emissio n factors forfugitiv e emission s o f VOC s fro

m equipmen tleaks , leadin g t o abette rquantificatio n o f the magnitud e o

f th e leaks ;

» Develo p ane w standar d base d upo n bes ttechnolog y and lowes tachievabl e rate s forcontro l o f toxi cfugitiv e organi cemission s from equipmen tleak s fo rth e sourc e categorie s o f tha twill b e th e subjectof

EPA' s forthcomin g HO N (Hazardou s Organi cNational Emissio n Standards forHazardou s Ai rPollutants) ; and

o Develo p aformatthatcoul d b e use d t o implemen tariskbase d standard fo rtoxi corgani c emission s from equipmen tleaks . Specifi crisklimits o rgoal s wil l no tb e asubjecto f the negotiations , however . Thu s fa rth e Committe e has reviewe d conceptual approache s tha twoul d provid e incentive s for goo d performanc e an d disincentive s fo rpoo rperformanc e t o induc e th e constructio n and operatio n o f hig h quality , lo w leakplants . Th e discussion s hav e involve d monitorin g strategies , magimiim allowabl e leakfrequencies , wha

tconstitute s aleak , th e regulatory consequence s o f variou s findings during a monitorin g o rfollowin g aserie s o f monitorings , way s t o phas e in ane w rule , and anumbe ro f factors tha tcoul d b e take n int o accoun twhe n developin g astandard . Th e Committe e ha s als o begu n considera tio n o f acoupl e o

f approache s fo rassessin g emissions .P. 5

REGULATOR YNEGOTIATIO N MEETINGON

FUGITIV E EQUIPMEN T LEAK S NOVEMBE R7-8 , 198 9 PICKET T SUITE S HOTE L RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK , N.C .
DRAF T MEETINGMINUTE S

Th e purpos e o f thes e meetin g note s i s t o provid e a novervie w

o f th e issue s discusse di

nth e regulator y

negotiatio nmeeting s an dt o provid e a

n informa l recor do f decision s a s they pertai nt o schedules , actio nitems , an d preliminar y

committe e directions . Minute s o f Previou s Meetin g

- Th e minute s o f th e previou s meetin g o f th e ful l committe e (Septembe r 27-28 , 1989 ) wer e discussed . Objection s t o specifi c provision s an d phrasin g inth e minute s o f th e previou s meetin g wer e raised . Th e rol e o f th e minute s i

nth e negotiation s an dthei r us e b

y th e partie s wa s discussed . Organizationa l Protoco l

- Th e draf t organizationa l protoco l (Septembe r 29 , 1989 ) wa s discussed . Th e EPA Offic e o f Genera l Counse l ha s advise dtha t th e languag e i n paragrap h3.b . o f th e Protoco l shoul dbe amended . Thi s amendmen t woul d reflec t th e Agency' s intentio nt o us e th e Committee' s Agreemen t a s th e basi s fo r propose dregulation s t o th e exten t tha t th e Agreemen t i s consisten t wit hth e requirement s o f th e Clea nAi r Act .

- Th e languag e o f paragrap h6.e . o f th e Protocol , concernin g th e rulemakin g record , wa s discussed . Mr . Aja xrecommende dtha t th e statemen t i nth e Protoco l tha t th e rulemakin g recor dwil l includ e "onl yP. 6

suc hdocument s a s t o whic hn o Committe e Membe r object s t o including " be amende dt o stat e tha t a documen t wil l b e accepte di f a simpl e majorit y doe s no t objec t t o it s inclusion .
Resourc e Protoco l

- Ms . Dalto nexplaine dtha t fund s unde r th e Resourc e Protoco l agreemen t ar e availabl e t o Committe e Member s t o hir e consultants , pa y trave l expenses , an

d offse t certai nothe r expense s involve dinparticipatio n i nth e regulator y

negotiation . Mr . Harte r state dtha t th e Committe e ha dadopte da polic y

o f usin g thes e fund s t o offse t trave l expense s fo r thos e wh o ar e no t bein g pai dt o atten dth e Committe e meetings .

- Ms . Dalto npointe dou t tha t this poo l o f fund s wa s no t full y funde da s o f thi s meetin g becaus e Congres s ha s no t adopte da Federa l budget . Whe nfund s ar e available , the y wil l b e administere db y th e Nationa l Institut e fo r Disput e Resolution . Committe e Member s shoul dwor k wit h Ms . Dalto nwhe nfund s ar e required . Request s fo r fund s fo r consultant s shoul db e mad e a t leas t 3 0 day s i nadvanc e o f nee dt o accommodat e th e tim e require dt o proces s thi s request . Conceptua l Approac ht o MAC T Rul e

- On e conceptua l regulator y approac hfo r th e negotiate dequipmen t leak s regulatio ntha t wa s discusse dwoul db e base donapplicatio no f qualit y

Q^.VtjU*** * contro l P€ffl^r&fflent 5 t o reduc e th e numbe r o f leak s i na plant . Th e curren t requirement s includ e a "ski pperiod " approach . Th e approac h tha t wa s discusse dwoul dallo w plant s t o ski pinspection s i f consecutiv e inspection s revea l tha t th e numbe r o f Teak s i s less tha na state dstandard , bu t woul dals o coupl e thi s rewar dfo r goo dperformanc e i ncontrollin g leak s wit ha disincentiv e fo r plant s tha t ar e les s effectiv e i ncontrollin g th e numbe r o f leaks . Unde r thi s proposal , plant s woul db e require dt o inspec t mor e frequentl y i f leak s wer e detecte di nexces s o f th e standard, " «i£b-4h e frequenc y o f inspectio nP. 7

44uu_£asj_n

g a s th e numbe r o f leak s detecte dincrease . Th e burde no f thes e additiona l inspection s woul dlea da plan t t o reduc e th e numbe r o f leakin g component s throug hcontrol s o r replacement .
Texa s Ai r Contro l Boar d(TACB 1 Regulatio n

- Mr . Montgomer y

an dMs . Hom e presente da discussio no f TACB' s curren t approac ht o controllin g fugitiv e emission s a s par t o f it s permi t progra m fo r new

an dmodifie dsources . Th e basi c provision s o f th e regulatio nar e (1 ) a lea k definitio no f 50 0 ppm , (2 ) a directe d maintenanc e requirement , (3 ) quarterl y monitoring , an

d(4 ) a requiremen t tha t al l new-an dreplacemen t pump s an dcompressor s b e leakless . New

valve s ar e no t requiredt o b e leakless .
EPA' s "Strawman " Eouipmen t Lea k Regulatio n

- Mr . Aja xdiscusse dth e "strawman " regulatio nprepare db y EPA . Thi s strawma nwa s pu t fort ht o hel pdescrib e EPA' s interest s an dwa s no t necessaril y

a nEPA position . Thi s regulatio nwoul db e applicabl e t o pumps , valves , flanges , an dagitato r seals . Othe r component s woul dbe subject t o th e existin g VO C equipmen t lea k NSPS . Th e program woul dbe implemente dinthre e phases . I nPhas e I unde r th e strawma nregulation , ther e woul db e a lea k detectio nan

drepai r program

wit ha lea k definitio nse t a t a hig h valu e (e.g. , 10,00 0 ppm ) an da performanc e standar dbase dona percentag e o f leakin g component s (e.g. , 2 percent) . InPhas e II , th e lea k definitio nwoul db e lowere d(e.g. , 50 0 ppm ) an dth e performanc e standar draise d(e.g. , 5 percent) . Th e Phas e II I regulatio nwoul dthe nshif t t o a performanc e standard . Screenin g result s woul db e use dt o demonstrat e compliance . Th e standar dcoul db e base dona rollin g averag e t o accoun t fo r variability .P. 8

Emissio nFactor s

- Mr . Aja xan

dMr . Hes s discusse dth e us e o f a statistica l mode l t o determin e emissio nfactor s fo r equipmen t leaks . Thi s discussio nwa s a continuatio no f th e wor k grou pmeetin g hel donthi s subject o nOctobe r 24 , 1989 . On e mode l discusse dwa s base dona nassumptio no f a log-norma l distributio no f non-zer o equipmen t screenin g value s an da constan t rati o betwee nth e standar ddeviatio nan dth e mea nvalues . It wa s pointe dou t tha t bot hassumption s nee dfurthe r verification .

- Mr . Hes s state dtha t th e advantage s o f usin g a mathematica l mode l t o estimat e emissio nfactor s ar e tha t (1 ) th e amoun t o f dat a neede di s minimized , (2 ) i t i s no t necessar y t o accep t a s appropriat e th e assumption s fo r individua l plan t estimates , (3 ) estimate s fro m dissimila r plant s d o no t hav e t o b e combine dt o creat e emission s estimates , an

d(4 ) emissio nestimate s ca nb e extende dt o othe r components . Inaddition , estimate s base donmathematica l model s ca nbe don e quickl y

an dcheaply , an

dca nb e don e fo r an

y performanc e standar d t o b e considered . Th e disadvantage s ar e tha t (1 ) th e distribution s wil l hav e t o b e verified , (2 ) th e mode l i s har dt o visualize , (3 ) us e o f th e mode l ma y

reduc e th e incentiv e t o compil e a comprehensiv e dat a base , an d(4 ) some importan t variable s ma y b e overlooked . A

wor k grou p wa s establishe dt o addres s th e lea k rat e definition , th e assumption s i n th e model , how

t o trea t zer o values , how t o trea t pegge dvalues , an d correlatio ninth e data .
Dat a Availabilit y

- Th e availabilit y

o f equipmen t screenin g an dbaggin g dat a fro

m variou s source s wa s discussed . Ms . Fidler , Mr . Bergland , Mr . Kace , Mr . Goodhart , an

dMr . Dun nreviewe deffort s b y thei r association s t o obtai n dat a from

thei r members .P. 9

Summar y o f Existin g Baggin g Dat a

- Mr . Markword t presente da summar y o f existin g equipmen t baggin g data , includin g dat a tha t wer e use dt o develo pth e existin g EPA lea k rate/screenin g valu e correlations , an ddat a tha t wer e collecte d subsequen t t o th e developmen t o f th e correlations . Th e goa l i s t o determin e b

y th e nex t meetin g wha t dat a wil l b e availabl e an dt o mak e plan s a t tha t time fo r fillin g dat a gaps .
Batc hProcessin g

- Mr . Kac e state dtha t plant s usin g batc hprocesses , suc hpharmaceutica l plants , presen t a differen t situatio nfo r regulatin g equipmen t leak s tha nbul k chemica l plants . First , pharmaceutica l plant s tendt o produc e smalle r quantitie s o f chemicals . Second , th e product s manufacture dandth e processe s use ddiffe r durin g th e year . Finally , becaus e al l part s o f a batc hplan t ar e no t inoperatio na t an y give n time , a performanc e tes t woul dtak e mor e time an db e mor e costl y

tha n a t a continuou s process . Mr . Kac e suggeste dtha t monitorin g a buildin g ven t migh t b e use da s a substitut e metho dfo r monitorin g leak s fro m individua l component s tha t ar e locate dwithi na building .
Nex t Meetin g

- Th e nex t meetin g o f th e Negotiatio nCommitte e wa s schedule dfo r Washington , D.C . o nDecembe r 6-7 , 1889 . Mr . Harte r wil l loo k int o hote l andmeetin g roo m arrangement s an

dcommunicat e wit hth e participants . Th e meetin g wil l b e precede db y a plan t tri pt o be arrange db

y CMA .

### Novembe r 13 , 198 9
ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

NAGENC Y NEGOTIATIN

G COMMITTE E FOR CONTRO L O F FUGITIV

E EMISSION S O F VO C FROM EQUIPMEN T LEAK S ORGANIZATIONAL PROTOCOL S
1
. PARTICIPANT S
a . Interest s Represented
. An yinteres t tha t woul d b e sub

stantiall yaffecte d b yan EP

Arul e wit h respec t t o th e contro l o f fugitiv e emission s o f volatil e organi c com pound s (VOCs ) fro

mequipmen t leak s ma yb e a part yt o th e negotiations
. b
. Additiona l Parties
. Afte r negotiation s hav e begun , addi

tiona l partie s ma

yjoi n th e Committe e onl ywit h th e con currenc e o f th e Committe e an d i f withi n th e numbe r o f partie s permitte d unde r th e Committee' s charter
. c . Th e Negotiating Committee
. Th e Negotiating Committe e shal l b e compose d o f on e representativ e fro meac h organi

zatio n tha t i s a part yt o th e negotiation
. Eac h part ymay designat e a Committe e Membe r an d a n alternate
. d
. Attendanc e a t Meetings
. Th e Committe e Membe r fo r eac h part yo r an alternat e mus t mak e a goo d fait h effor t t o atten d eac h ful l negotiating session
. Th e Committe e Mem
be r mayb e accompanie d b ysuc h othe r individual s a s th e Committe e Membe r believe s i s appropriat e t o represen t his/he r interest
. Onl yth e Committe e Membe r o r th e alter

nat e wil l hav e th e privileg e o f sitting a t th e negotiating tabl e an

d o f speakin g fro

mth e floo r durin g th e negotia

tion s withou t Committe e approval , excep t tha t (1 ) an y Committe e Membe r maycal l upo n a technica l advise r t o elaborat e o n a relevan t point , an d (2 ) pursuan t t o th e Federa l AdvisoryCommitte e Act , an yperso n attending th e meeting s o f th e Committe e ma yaddres s th e Committe e i f tim e permits
. e . Constituents ' Interests . Committe e Member s ar e expecte d t o represen t th e concern s an d interest s o f thei r con stituent s an

d t o ensur e tha t an yagreemen t develope d b y th e Committe e i s acceptabl e t o th e organizatio n whic h th e Committe e Membe r represents . 2
. DECISIONMAKIN

G
a . Consensus . Th e Committe e wil l operat e b yconsensus , com mitte e decision s wil l b e mad e onl ywit h th e concurrenc e o fP.1 1



### al l partie s represented
. b
. Workgroups
. Smalle r working group s ma yb e forme d t o ad

dres s specifi c issue s an d t o mak e recommendation s t o th e Committee , workin g Group s ar e ope n t o an yCommitte e Mem
be r o r th e member' s designee , plu s suc h othe r individual s a s th e Committe e believe s woul d enhanc e th e functioning o f th e Working Groups . Working group s ar e no t authorize d t o mak e decision s fo r th e Committe e a s a whole
. Thei r meet
ing s wil l b e hel d betwee n th e ful l session s an d wil l b e schedule d i n th e same locatio n an d time wheneve r possible
. Al l Committe e Member s wil l b e notifie d o f al l working grou p meetings
. c . Discontinu e i f unproductive
. Th e Committe e ma ydiscon

tinu e negotiation s a t an ytime i f theyd o no t appea r pro ductive
. 3
. AGREEMENT a . Writte n Statemen t a s Basi s fo r NPRM . Th e agreemen t wil l tak e th e for

mo f a writte n statemen t tha t wil l b e signe d b yal l Committe e Members
. EP Awil l us e th e writte n state
men t a s th e basi s o f propose d regulation(s ) tha t wil l appl yt o source s o f emission s tha t ar e withi n th e scop e o f th e writte n statement . b
. Fina l Rule
. S o lon g a s i t i s consisten t wit h th e Clea n Ai r Act , EPAintend s t o promulgat e a fina l rul e consisten t wit h th e writte n statemen t unles s comment s submitte d i n respons e t o th e Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking requir e change s i n th e proposal
. EP Awil l submi t th e draf t fina l rul e t o th e Committe e Member s wh o wil l hav e 4 5 day s t o fil e comments . c . Suppor t fo r Propose d an d Fina l Rule
. Th e partie s othe r tha n EPAinten

d t o suppor t th e propose d an d fina l rul e t o th e exten t consisten t wit h th e writte n statement . FACILITATO R Aneutra l facilitato r wil l wor k wit h al l th e partie s t o en sur e tha t th e proces s run s smoothly
. Th e facilitato r serve s a t th e wil l o f th e Committee
. 5 . MEETING S a . FACA . Th e negotiation s wil l b e conducte d unde r th e Feder

a l AdvisoryCommitte e Ac t (FACA)
. b
. Open . Meetings
. Negotiatin g session s wil l b e announce d i n 2P.1 2



### th e Federa l Registe r prio r t o th e meeting and , consisten t wit h FAC

Arequirements , wil l b e ope n t o th e public
. c . Hi-nut®s
. Th e proceeding s wil l no t b e electronicall yre corded , bu t draf t minute s o f Committe e meeting s wil l b e kep t an d approve d b

yth e Committee
. Th e minute s wil l b e mad e availabl e t o th e publi c o n request . d
. Agendas
. Meeting agenda s wil l als o b e develope d b ycon sensus . Th e Committe e wil l determin e i f informatio n re quest s ar e reasonabl e an d relevant
. e . Impasse . I f a deadloc k o r impass e i s declare d b yan y party , th e facilitato r wil l b e availabl e t o hel p th e dead

locke d partie s t o tr yt o resolv e th e impasse
. f
. Caucus . Acaucu s ca n b e declare d a t an ytime
. 6
. SAFEGUARD S FOR TH E PARTIE S
a . Goo d Faith
. Al l partie s agre e t o ac t i n goo d fait h i n al l aspect s o f thes e negotiations
. Specifi c offers , posi

tions , o r statement s mad e durin g th e negotiation s ma yno t b e use d b

yothe r partie s fo r an ypurpos e outsid e th e nego = tiation s o r a s a basi s fo r futur e litigation
. I t i s th e inten t o f th e Committe e tha t othe r attendee s o f th e Com

mittee' s meeting s als o voluntaril ycompl ywit h thi s pro visio n i n orde r t o suppor t th e regulatorynegotiatio n proces s b

yencouragin g th e fre e an d ope n exchang e o f ideas , views , an

d informatio n prio r t o achieving consen sus . Persona l attack s an d prejudice d statement s wil l no t b e tolerated
. b
. Righ t t o Withdraw
. An ypart yma

ywithdrawfro

m th e nego tiation s a t an

ytime withou t prejudice
. c . others ' Positions
. N o part ywil l mak e publi c announce ment s o r hol d discussion s wit h th e pres s characterizing th e positio n o f an yothe r part yeve n i f tha t part ywith

draw s fro

mth e negotiations
. d

. In.fiQraffifr^fflQo 

### (1 ) Al l partie s agre e no t t o withhol d relevan t informa

tion
. I f a part ybelieve s i t canno t o r shoul d no t releas e suc h information , i t wil l provid e th e sub

stanc e o f th

©informatio n i n som e for m(such a s b

y aggregating data , b ydeletin g non-=relevant confiden

tia l information , b yproviding summaries , o r b yfur

nishin g i t t o a neutra l consultan t t o us ®o r abstract ) o r a genera l descriptio n o f i t an d th e reaso n fo r no t providin g i t directly
. Emissio n dat a shal l b ©treate d a s provide d b

y4 0 CF R § 2.30 1 an d canno t b e considere dP.1 3



### confidential
. (2 ) Partie s wil l provid e informatio n calle d fo r b ythi s paragrap h a s muc h i n advanc e o f th e meeting a t whic h suc h informatio n i s t o b e use d a s i s reasonabl ycon venient
. (3 ) Al l partie s agre e no t t o divulg e informatio n share d b y other s i n confidence
. (4 ) informatio n an

d dat a provide d t o th e Committe e i n writing i s a matte r o f a publi c record
. (5 ) Nothing containe d i n thes e protocol s shal l restric t EPA' s authorit ypursuan t t o § 11 4 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . e . Rulemaking Record
. (1 ) Minute s o f meeting s an d an yothe r document s prepare d o r circulate d i n conjunctio n wit h th e Negotiatio n shal l b e place d i n a publi c docke t o f th e negotia

tions , bu t shal l no t b e place d i n an yEPArulemaking docke t o r considere d b yEP Aa s a basi s fo r rulemaking , excep t — (a ) EP Ama ysubmi t a lis t o f document s fo r inclusio n i n a rulemaking docke t i n suppor t o f regulation s propose d i n accordanc e wit h th e Committee' s writ

te n statemen t an

d mayinclud e an

ysuc h liste d documen t i n th e docke t unles s mor e tha n seve n Committe e member s objec t withi n thirt ydays , o r (b ) factua l material , data , o r aggregation s o f dat a tha t i s no t confidentia l an d tha t wa s prepare d i n conjunctio n wit h th e negotiation s an d relevan t t o th e subjec t o f th e negotiation s an d o f th e rule

making
. (2 ) Thi s provisio n doe s no t preven t an ypart yt o thes e negotiation s fro

msubmitting t o an yEPArulemaking docke t an

ydocumen t tha t suc h part yprepare d o r other

wis e generate d fo r us e i n thi s negotiation
. Bu t n o part yma

ymak e suc h us e o f an ydocumen t prepare d o r generate d b

yan yothe r part yfo r us e i n thi s negotia

tion
. 7 . SCHEDUL E Negotiatin g session s wil l initiall yb e hel d onc e eac h month
. Th e firs t negotiatin g sessio n wil l b e hel d Septembe r 27-28 , 1989
. Unles s extende d b yth e Committee , th e deadlin e fo r th e negotiation s i s Apri l 30 , 1990
. 4P.1 4



### November

10, 1989
ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOTIATIN GCOMMITTE EFO R CONTRO LOF-FUGITIV EEMISSION S O FVOC s FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S
COMMITTE EMEMBER S

an d 

### THOS ET O WHO M AL LDISTRIBUTION S SHOUL D B ESEN T

CHEMICAL S 

### Bruc e V
. Bower s 302-834-453 6 StandardChlorin e P.O

. Bo x 31 9 Delaware City , D E1970 6 FAX : 302-834-819 1 Davi dW
. Dunn 409-942-3129 Sterlin g Chemical Corp

. P.O

. Box 131 1 Texa s City , TX 7759 2 FAX : 409-942-344 8 Kare n Fidler

202-887-117 6 Staff to CMA; send

materials for

CMA distribution Chemical Manufacturer s Associatio n 250 1 M Stree t

N.W
. Washington , D C 2003 7 FAX : 202-887-123 7 Thoma s A

. Kittleman 302-366-471 8 Representing Chemical

Manufacturers Association E.I
. DuPon t

d e Nemour s & Co

. Engineerin g Departmen t Lou vi e r s Buildin g Newark , D E1971 4 FAX :P.1 5

ENVIRONMENTA L 

### Davi dDoniger

202-783-7800 Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l Suite 300 1350 Ne w Yor k Avenu e N

W Washington

. D C 20005 FAX : Allen Hershkowitz 212-727-446 6 Natural Resource s Defens e Counci l 40 W
. 20t hStree t Ne w York , New Yor

k 1001 1 FAX : 212-727-177 3 EP A Robert Aja x 919-541-557 9 MD-1 3 Environmental Protectio n Agenc y Researc hTriangl e Park , NC 2771 1 FAX : 919-541-566 1 DeborahDalto n 202-382-549 5 PM-22 3 Environmenta l Protectio n Agency 40 1 M Stree t

S W Washington , D C 2046 0 FAX : 202-382-788 3 Katherin e Kaufma

n 202-475-895 0 Offic e o f Ai r & Radiatio n ANR-44 3 Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 40 1 M Stree t

S W Washington , D C 2046 0 FAX : 202-475-976 6

FACILITATO R 

### Philip J
. Harte r

202-887-103 3 Suite 40 4 230 1 M Stree t

N W Washington , D C 2003 7 FAX : 202-887-103 6P.1 6

OI L 

### Lind aCurra n 312-420-488 9 Amoc o Oi l Company Warrenvill e Road& Mil

l Stree t Naperville

. I

L60540 FAX : 312-420-369 8 Larr y Goodheart

415-620-414 5 Representing American Petroleum Institute Chevro n Corporatio n P.O

. Bo x 162 7 Richmond , CA 94802 FAX : 415-620-5320 Elle n Siegler

202-682-827 1 Staff to API; send

materials for

API distribution American Petroleu mInstitut e 122 0 LStree t

N W Washington , D C 2001 5 FAX :
OM B Nicola s Garci a202/395-308 4 Offic e o f Management

an dBudget 725 17t hStreet , N.W
. NEO B Roo m301 9 Washington , D
. C

. 2050 3 FA X

PHARMACEUTICAL S 

### Jac k Kac e 201-235-377 4 Representing the Pharaceutical Manufacturers Association Director , Environmenta l Affair s Hoffmann-LaRoche , Inc
. 340 Kingslan dStree t Nutley , N J 0711 0 FAX : 201-235-760 6P.1 7

RUBBE R 

### Alfre dW
. Bickum216-796-153 4 Representing International Inst, of Synthetic Rubber

Producers Manager , Valu e Engineerin g Goodyea r 114 4 E
. Marke t

Stree t Akron , O H 4431 6 FAX : 216-796-645 9

STATE/LOCA LGOVERNMENT S 

### Gustav e Vo n Bodungen 504-342-9047 Air Qualit y Divisio n Offic e o f Air Quality an dNuclea

r Energ y Departmen t

o f Environmental Quality P.O

. Box 4409 6 Bato n Rouge , L

A 7080 4 FAX : 504-342-904 8 Anupo mGangul i 818-572-218 3 Sout hCoas t Ai r Qualit y Management

Distric t 915 0 Flai r Driv e El Monte , C

A FAX : Robert V
. Majewsk

i 518-457-768 8 NYSDE C 5 0 Wol f Road Albany , N

Y 12233-325 5 FAX : Le s Montgomer

y 512-451-571 1 Texa s Air Contro l Board 633 0 Highwa

y 29 0 Eas t Austin , TX 7872 3 FAX : 512-371-024 5 Harve l Roger s 502-625-6000 Air Pollutio n Contro l Distric t Suite 20 5 85 0 Barre t

Avenu e Louisville , K

Y 4020 4 FAX : 502-625-530 6

### Novembe r 13 , 198 9
ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

NAGENC Y NEGOTIATIN

G COMMITTE E CONTRO L O F FUGITIVE EMISSION S O F VOC s FROM EQUIPMEN T LEAK S GENERAL DISTRIBUTIO NLIS T Willia mBecke r Executiv e Directo r STAPPA/ALAPC O Suit e 24 0 44 4 N . Capito l .Stree t N W Washington , D C 2000 1 Ro n Berglun

d Unio n Carbid e BOX 8361 , 770-32 0 So . Charleston , W

V 2530 3 Danie l Duffe y Rubbe r Manufacturer s Associatio n 140 0 K Stree t N

W Washington , D C 2000 5 Sta n Edward s Energetics , Inc . 921 0 Rout e 10 8 Columbia , M D 2104 5 Thoma s A . Fe e Nationa l Institut e fo r Disput e Resolutio n 190 1 L Street , N . W . Washington , D . C . 2003 6 Geral d R . Hil l Phillip s Petroleu

mCo . Bartlesville , O K 7400 4 Ti mHolde n Versa r Inc . 685 0 Versa r Cente r Springfield , V

A2215 1 Bets yLyon s EPA/GA O M-200 1 Watersid e Mal l 40 1 M Stree t S W Washington , D C 2046 0P.1 9



### Gen e Matsumot o Johnso n Wax Co . 152 5 How e Stree t Racine , W I 5340 3 Alin e McKenzi e Scienc e New s 171 9 NStreet , N.W . Washington , D . C . 2003 6 Jef f Nejedl y Dane s & Moor e 710 1 Wisconsi n Avenue , N W Bethesda , MD 2081 4 Fran k J . Phoeni x C- E Environmenta l 632 0 Quadrangl e Driv e Chape l Hill , N

C 2751 4 Joh n Proko p Independen t Liqui d Terminal s Associatio n 113 3 15t h Street , N.W . Washington , D . C . 2000 5 Glenn D . Rive s Radia n Corporation/RT P P.O . Box 1300 0 Researc h Triangl e Park , NC 2771 1 Fran k T . Rya n Goodyea r 90 1 15t h Street , N.W . Washington , D . C . Ad a Sala s Ho e Ches t Celanes e 5 0 Meise r Avenu e Branchburg , N

J 0887 6 Willia mTessme r Managin g Directo r Internationa l Institut e o f Syntheti c Rubbe r Producer s Suit e 13 3 207 7 Sout h Gessne r Houston , T X 7706 3 Rober t Va n Voorhee s Bryan , Cave , McPheeter s & McRobert s 101 5 Fifteent h Street , N W Washington , D.C . 2000 5 Ear l Young vic e President , Environmen t an d Energ yP.2 0



### America n Iron an

d Stee l Institut e Suit e 30 0 113 3 15t h Street , N.W . Washington , DC 2000 5P.2 1

Novembe r14 , 198 9
STATEMENT . CONCERNIN G EPA' S REGULATOR Y NEGOTIATIO N O N CONTRO L O F FUGITIV E EMISSION S O F VOC s FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S Fugitiv e emission s o

f toxi cchemical s and volatil e organi ccompound s (VOCs ) from equipmen t leak s - - such a s valves , pumps , and flange s - - are asignificantsourc e o f airpollution . Indeed , b y som e estimates , leak s constitute betwee n on e and tw o third s o f all routine , non-accidental emission s fro m chemical plants . Moreover , becaus e the y are release d nearth e ground , thei rimpacti s 10-4 0 time s greate rtha

n equal release s from stacks . Curren tregulation s basicall y require tha tequipmen tb e inspecte d quarterly fo rleak s wit h a portabl e hydrocarbo n detector . I f concentration s excee d 10,00 0 ppm th e sourc e i s identifie d a s a"leaker, " and maintenanc e i s required . Thi s approach i s know n a s "lea kdetectio n and repair " (LDAR) . Th e currentLDA Rprogra m can reduc e uncontrolle d emission s b y abou t60-7 0 percent . Th e actua l frequency rat

e an d th e associate d emission s var y widely , however , a s afunctio n o f th e original desig n o f th e proces s unit, such a s th e numbe ro f valves , pumps , an d flanges ; th e ag e o f th e proces s unit ; desig n and constructio n o f eac h component ; quaUt y o f maintenance ; standar

d operatin g procedure s
use d b y th e company ; trainin g provide d t o employees ; an d motivatio n t o ensur e lo w emissions . N o on e i s sure jus twhatcombinatio n of factor s guarantee s lo w emission s not rho w t o achiev e them , through enforceabl e regulations . I n addition , currentregulatory approache s d o no tprovid e th e mean s fo rcalculatin g th e leve l o f emissions . Ye tth e accurate quantificatio n of fugitiv e emission s from equipmen tleak s i s becomin g ahig h priority . Specifi cemissio n level s ar e necessar y fo rbaselin e and residual riskassessment s fo rne w regula tions , fo rissuin g permits fo rne w facilities , an d fo restablishin g appropriat e emissio n fees . Further , companie s mus treportemission s unde r"Th e Commumt

y Righ tT o Kno w Act. " Thes e figure s wer e widel y publicize d earl y thi s summe ran d sparke d considerabl e publi cattentio n o n th e leve l o f emission s
o f toxic s and VOCs . No tonl y doe s th e currentregulatory approach no tachiev e accurate estimate s of th e actua

lP.2 2

emissions , i

t doe s not

provide incentive s or

credi t to firms fo

r establishin g program s andfacilitie s t o achiev e the bes t

control

. Nor

doe s th e approac hensure emission rate s tha t ar e readily achievable

. EPA recently convene daregulator y negotiatio n t o addres s thes e shortcomings

. Representative s o f EPA ; the chemical , petroleum , rubber , an dpharmaceutica l industries ; environmenta l organizations ; and state andloca

l government s are working together on the Committe e t o develo p aconsensu s o n a propose drul e tha

t would :
o Revis e the emission factor s fo r fugitiv e emission s o

f VOC s fro

mequipmen

t leaks , leading t o abette r quantificatio n o

f th e magnitude o

f the leaks ;

» Develop ane

w standardbase dupo n bes t technology an dlowes t

achievabl e rate s fo

r contro l o f toxi c fugitive organi c emission s fro mequipment

leak s fo r th e sourc e categorie s o

f tha t wil l b e th e subject

o f EPA' s forthcoming HO N (Hazardou s Organi c Nationa l Emission Standard s fo r Hazardou s Air

Pollutants) ; an d
o Develop aforma

t tha t couldb e usedt o implemen t arisk base dstandardfo

r toxic organic emission s fro

mequipment

leaks

. Specifi

c risk limit s or goal s wil

l no t b e asubject

o f the negotiations , however

. Thu s fa r the Committe e ha s reviewe dconceptua l approache s tha

t wouldprovide incentive s fo r goo dperformanc e anddisincentive s fo r poor performanc e t o induc e th e constructio n andoperatio n o f hig hquality , low lea

k plants

. Th e discussion s hav e involvedmonitorin g strategies , maximu mallowabl e lea k frequencies , wha

t constitute s aleak , th e regulator y consequence s o

f variou s finding s durin g a monitorin g o r

following aserie s o

f monitorings , way s t o phas e i n anew rule , andanumber o f factor s tha t couldb e take n int o account when developin g astandard

. Th e Committe e ha s als o begun considera

tion o f acoupl e o

f approache s for

assessing emissions

.P.2 3

&
CHEMICA L MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIO N

Novembe r 3 , 198 9

TO : Equipmen t Leak s Regulator y Negotiatio nCommitte e

Th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n(CMA ) offer s th e followin g thought s o

na conceptua l regulator y approac hfor the negotiate d equipmen t leak s regulation . Ou r thought s ar e presente d i ntw o forms . First , we describ e a conceptua l framewor k for equipmen t leak regulation s tha t CM A believe s wil l resul t i nsound , effectiv e regulations . Second , we presen t th e characteristic s tha t CM A believe s the negotiate d regulatio nshoul d embody . CM A believe s i t i s inappropriat e a t thi s tim e t o recommend quantitativ e level s for regulator y parameter s suc ha s leak definition s an d allowabl e lea

k frequencies . Instead , we urg e the Committe e t o firs t focu s o nselectio no f a regulator y approach . CM A look s forwar d t o discussin g ou r enclose d thought s wit hyou a t the Committe e Meetin g onNovembe r 6-7 .

250 1 M Street

. NW

. Washington

. D C 2003 7 202-887-110 0 Tele x8961 7 (CM AWSH )P.2 4

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATION CONCEPTUA L FRAMEWOR KFOREQUIPMEN T LEA KREGULATION S

CM A believe s it i s constructiv e fo r purpose s o f thi s regulatio nt o view a tight , i.e . lo w leak , plan t a s a highqualit y plan t an

d a high leak plan t a s a lo w qualit y

plant . Th e objectiv e o f thi s regulatio ni s t o ge t peopl e t o buil d an d operat e highqualit y plants . Onl y

ne w high qualit y

plant s shoul d b

e built , an

d existin g lo

w qualit y

operation s shoul d be modifie d t o improve thei r quality . As a result , we vie w thi s a s a classica l "qualit y control " proble

m an d believ e qualit y contro l principle s shoul d b e applied . Experienc e wit hqualit y contro l for product s ha s taugh t u s som e importan t lessons . On e importan t lesso ni s tha t you can' t inspec t qualit y

int o a product . Qualit y mus t b e buil t int o a produc t o r a plan t an

d retaine d throughdiligen t operatio nan d maintenance . Inspectio ngive s you feedbac k o nho w good qualit y

i s an d wil l demonstrat e a failur e o f the qualit y process . Inspectio ncanno t sto p the productio no f #efects . I f yo u ar e producin g a lo w qualit y

product , yo u wil l nee d a lo t o f inspectio nt o achiev e a nacceptabl e defec t shipmen t rate . I f yo u ar e producin g a hig hqualit y product , the inspection s ar e neeessar y onl y t o mak e sur e qualit y doesn' t deteriorate . I nthi s regulation , ou r objectiv e shoul d b e t o preven t leakag e fro m occurring , no t t o plu g leak s a s the y occur . A

regulatio ntha t relie s solel y

o nfrequen t monitorin g t o contro l a leakin g proces s wil l allo w mor e leakag e thaninfrequen t monitorin g o f a highqualit y plant . S o the problem

is , how

ca nwe build , operate , an d maintai nhighqualit y processes ? The industry i s s o divers e tha t an y attemp t t o se t specification s fo r equipmen t o r proces s operatin g procedure s woul d b e nex t t o impossible . Therefore , CM A believe s i t i s the tas k o f thi s negotiatio nt o arriv e a t a regulatio nbase d o na forma t tha t wil l lea d industry

t o build , operate , an d maintai nhighqualit y processes . There i s mor e tha non e wa y tha t a regulatio ncoul d be structure d t o lead towar d highe>r qualit y processes . Attache d ar e eigh t specifi c characteristic s th e chemica l industr y believe s shoul d b e embodie d i na regulation . CM

A believe s a futur e regulatio nshoul d allo w a variet y

o f approache s t o desonsftrat e complianc e a s the existin g regulatio nno w does . I nfact , thetf e ma y be advantage s t o retainin g som e o f th e concept s i nthr

e existin g regulation . CM A believe s the eigh t characteristic s i nthe attachmen t canbes t b e incorporate d b y modifyin g tw

o o f the existin g regulator y approaches ; Ski p Perio d an

d Wor k Spac e Exposur e Evaluation . Bot har e work practic e approache s tha t wil l assur e am y selecte d leve l o f performance . The concep t o f a wor k practice/performanc e standar d i s importan t t o industry . The Ski p Perio d Approac hwoul d requir e a proces s t o achiev e a designate d performanc e level , e.g . les s tha n2 % leaking , b y adjustin g th e monitorin g frequency . Th e concep t wa s presente d t o the Nationa lP.2 5

Ai r Pollutio nContro l Technique s Advisory Committe e (NAPCTAC ) whe nthe existin g regulatio nwa s bein g considered . A cop y o f tha t presentatio n i s attached . Inou r view , th e majo r drawbac k wit hski p period , a s i t exist s i nthe presen t regulation , i s tha t i t provide s a carrot , bu t n o stick . A

plan t canperfor

m poorl y

an d stil l us e quarterl y Lea k Detectio nan

d Repai r (LDAR) . Industry coul d liv

e wit ha simpl e LDA R rule . Hbwever , tha t requiremen t ha s the th e basi c drawback s o f unpredictabilit y

an d lack o f incentive t o retai neffectiv e practices . I nshort , th

e performanc e qualit y coul d actuall y

decreas e i f mor e effectiv e practice s ar e supplante d b y relianc e o nLDA

Ronly . CM A believe s the existin g skip-perio d provision s caneasil y b e revise d t o becom

e a nefficien t performanc e standar d i f th e rul e i s expanded . Inothe r words , a proces s tha t demonstrate s goo d performanc e coul d stil l monito r les s frequently , bu t on e tha t doe s not , woul d have t o monito r mor e frequently , e.g . quarterl y t o monthly , monthl y t o biweekly , biweekl y t o weekly . Th e latte r i s no t require d i nthe existin g regulations . Whe nproces s qualit y improves , monitorin g coul d decreas e agai na s good performanc e i s demonstrated . Thus , eac hproces s woul d en

d u p monitorin g a s frequentl y a s necessar y

t o mee t the goo d performanc e level . I t woul d be possibl e t o d o les s monitorin g b y improving proces s qualit y i nan y wa y tha t woul d work , i.e . specif y bette r equipment , d o mor e frequen t maintenance , etc . I f somethin g didn' t work , the monitorin g requiremen t wouldn' t change . The Work Spac e Exposur e Evaluatio napproac hi s base d o nthe principl e that , i nsom e situations , the firs t impac t an d the highes t potentia l exposure s fro m fugitiv e emission s wil l b e i nthe wor k space . I f a plan t ca ndemonstrat e tha t work spac e control s wil l insur e proces s quality , maintainin g thos e control s shoul d constitut e compliance . (Fo r instance , monitorin g the ai r discharg e fro m a buildin g migh t be a s good a s monitorin g the equipmen t i nth ©building. ) Th e primar y incentive t o industry

i s tha t on e se t o f procedure s coul d be use d t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hbot hworke r an d publi c exposure . Withi nthi s approach , i t i s conceivabl e tha t some othe r typ ®o f monitorin g woul d be don e continuousl y

o r mor e frequentl y tha t woul d be practica l for LDAR . A n equivalenc y

provisio ni s include d i nth e existin g regulation , bu t it i s s o rigi d tha t i t i s virtuall y unusable . I nconclusion , CM

A believe s thi s regulatio nshoul d b e structure d t o encourag o th o construction , operation , an d maintenanc e o f hig h quality , i.a . lc**

? look , processes . W ®hav e suggeste d tw o way s t o do thi s tha t woul d b o supporte d b y the chemica l industry . We believ e the regulatory

frasowor k shoul d b a identifie d befor e quantitativ e level s for regulator y

parameter s ar e considered . Afte r we hav e identifie d a workabl e regulator y framework , w e shoul d the ndetermin e th e mos t appropriat e number s fo r leak definitio nan d goo d performance .P.2 6 

## "fT

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATION CHARACTERISTIC S FO RNEGOTIATE D EQUIPMEN T LEA KSTANDARD S

CHARACTERISTI C 1 ;

Rationale :

CHARACimRISifl C 2 :

Rationale :

CHARACTERISTI C 3 :

Rationale : The regulatio nshoul d provid e for predictabl e

compliance . I t i s importan t tha t affecte d facilitie s know wit h certaint y

tha t they

candesig na progra m tha t wil l allo w the m t o compl y

wit hth

e regulator y requirements . Thes e requirement s shoul d be framed i nsuc ha wa y

tha t violatio nbecaus e o f statistica l quirk s wil l no t occur . Fo r example , CM A woul d prefe r no t t o se e violatio nbase d o na fixe d percentag e o f leakin g component s no t t o be exceede d ona one-time o r rollin g averag e basis . Inabilit y t o predic t complianc e wit hcertaint y i s the primar y reaso nfacilitie s historicall y hav e no t take n advantag e o f simila r alternativ e complianc e demonstratio nprovision s inexistin g equipmen t leak regulations . The regulatio nshoul d provid e maximu m flexibilit y inachievin g specifie d results . I t i s importan t fo r affecte d facilitie s t o hav e flexibilit y

i nachievin g a specifie d performanc e level . Corporation s an d plan t facilitie s approac h lea k reduction s i ndifferen t way s t o accommodat e uniqu e characteristic s whil e stil l achievin g equivalen t performanc e levels . Fo r example , equipment , design , o r operatin g an d maintenanc e practice s ma y

provid e way s t o compl y bu t othe r app-foa*ehe

s ma y b e equall y

(o r more ) effectiv e an d les s costly : I nfact , performanc e at som e plant s ma y

worse ni f curren t practice s ar e replace d b

y a singl e se t o f rigi d requirements . The regulatio nshoul d retai nconcept s i nthe existin g equipmen t leak regulation s t o th e exten t practicable . Concept' s i nthe existin g regulation s suc ha s moniitorin

g component s t o demonstrat e complianc e ar e wel l understoo d by industry

an d stat e an

d loca l agen*eie"s . Retentio no f suc hconcept s i nfutur e regulation s wil l serv e t o minimiz e confusio ni n thei r implementation . Fo r example , regulator y requirement s tha t measur e complianc e b y specifi c equipmen t an

d desig nrequirement s instea d o f monitoring , ar e les s understoo d an d implementatio n i s mor e likel y

t o be problematic .CHARACTERISTI C 4 :
Rationale :

CHARACTERISTI C 5 :

Rationale :

CHARACTERISTI C 6 :

Rationale :

CHARACTERISTI C 7 :

Rationale : Th e regulatio nshoul d achieve predictable ,

quantifiabl e emissio nresults . Th e curren t regulatory approac hbase d onlea k detectio nan

d repai r (LDAR ) doe s no t resul t i n quantifiabl e emissio nlevels . Therefore , plant s tha t perfor

m poorl y

ma y continu e to perfor m poorl y a s lon g as . procedural , i.e. , LDAR , requirement s ar e met . Althoug hCM A acknowledge s tha t LDA Rha s bee n a nacceptabl e regulatory approach , CM

A feel s tha t a quantifiabl e performanc e standar d tha t ensure s consisten t good performanc e i s a worth y objective . Th e regulation s shoul d provid e incentive s for good performanc e an

d disincentive s fo r poo r performance . Th e curren t regulator y approac hbase d o nLDA R provide s n o incentive for good performanc e o r disincentiv e for poo r performance . Incorporatin g suc hincentive s an d disincentive s ar e importan t for ensurin g tha t maximu m emissio nreduction s ar e achieve d an

d mor e effectiv e control s ar e sought . The regulatio nshould , afte r a phas e inperiod , provid e for immediat e correctiv e actio nfor poo r performanc e an

d rewar d fo r goo d performance . Issuin g a violatio nwhe nthe goo d performanc e leve l i s exceede d wil l no t directl y o r immediatel y insur e anemissio nreduction . Thi s i s especiall y tru e wher e a plan t i s unclea r abou t the bes t way t o achiev e good performance . As a result , issuing suc hviolation s canresul t i nsignifican t expenditure s tha t d o no t improve performance s b y bot hthe regulate d an d th e regulators . I n contrast , th

®requiremen t for mor e intensive monitorin g i s no t onl y a penalt y

bu t force s a

n immediat e correctiv e action . Conversely , wit h clea r ground rule s fo r reduce d monitoring , a plan t wil l kno

w wha t th e incentive s ar e for demonstratin g an d continuin g goo d performance . Suc ha slidin g scal e monitorin g requiremen t direct s resource s towar d environmenta l improvement . Th e regulatio nshoul d b e frame d i na wa y t o avoi d undul y

penalizin g smal l facilities . Smal l facilitie s hav e fewe r number s o f equipmen t component s tha t have th e potentia l t o leak . Th e regulatio nshoul d recogniz e tha t the potentia l for significan t emission s total s fro a suc hfacilitie s ar e les s tha nfo r large r facilities . Regulator y approache s base d o na fixe d percentag e o f leaking component s affec t

iP.2 8

smal l facilitie s mor e stringently , intha t relativel y

fewe r leaking component s canexcee d th e pecformanc e level . CHARACTERXSIEI C 8 : Th e regulation s shoul d provid e incentive s for design s whic hreduc e th e numbe r o f component s wit h the potentia l t o leak. . Rationale : On e approac htha t plant s may us e t o reduc e equipmen t leak s i s to t o incorporat e design s wit h fewe r component s tha t have the potentia l t o leak . Th e regulatio nshoul d no t onl y provid e incentive s for plant s t o incorporat e suc hdesigns , bu t als o guar d agains t disincentives . Fo r example , a performanc e standar d base d on% o f component s leaking actuall y

become s mor e stringen t a s the numfee r o f potentiall y

leaking component s ar e reduced .P.2 9

E . I . d u Pon t d e Nemour s & Co .

Statemen t on

STATISTICAL INSPECTION PLAN S FO RMONITORING FUGITIV E EMISSION S FRO M LEAKIN

GVALVES .

Prepare d B

y R . D . Sne e an

d T . A . Kittlema n Engineerin g Departnen t

for Presentatio nt o Nationa l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Technique s Advisor y Conunitte

e Apri l 16-17 , 198 0 Hilto nHotel , Raleigh , N CP.3 0 | | KfR I ...l

. I|J I

STATISTICA L INSPECTIO N PLAN S FO RMONITORIN G ru<yTIV E EMISSION S FRO M LEAKIN GVALVE S
1 . In t rod-je t io n

Th e NAPCTA C i s reviewin g fugitiv e emission s monitorin g proposal s fo r benzen e an dgenera l volatil e organi c compounds . Althoug hth e logi c o f th e comment s w e wis ht o mak e toda y applie s t o bot hmonitorin g plans , ou r presentatio naddresse s t h e requirement s fo r genera l volatil e organi c compounds .
EPA' s proposa l woul drequir e tha t al l valves , pumps , com pressors , etc . b e checke do na regula r basi s (i.e . monthl y o r quarterly) . Whil e regula r check s o nsom e unit s i s certainl y appropriate , i t seenv s tha t requirin g 100? o inspectio no f al l unit s a t eac hscreenin g perio di s overl y conservativ e an d unnecessaril y

costl y

particularl y

whe ni t ca nb e show ntha t th e lea k frequenc y o f som e unit s i s ver y low . I t i s reason abl e t o ask , therefore , whethe r dat a o nuni t performanc e an d statistica l samplin g procedure s ca nb e use dt o reduc e th e cost s o f screenin g fo r leakin g unit s an dstil l provid e a n adequat e margi no f protection .
Ou r comment s ar e aime- da t tw o aspect s o f th e samplin g requirement : 1 ) Th e bas e samplin g perio dan d2 ) Th e desirabilit y

o f incorporatin g statistica l samplin g plan s t o achiev e a hig hdegre e o f protectio nwhil e minimizin g costs . Ou r followin g discussio nillustrate s a ninspectio n pla nfo r valves . Th e pla ni s general , however , an dwork s equall y

wel l fo r pumps , compressors , etc .P.3 1

2. Bas e Samplin g Perio d

W e believ e th e propose dmonthl y samplin g requiremen t i s encessiv e an dquestio nwhethe r th e environmenta l benefit s
c a njustif y

th e hig hrelativ e cost s o f a monthly , a s oppose d t o a quarterl y

samplin g frequency . D uPon t ha s reporte d cost s o f S 3 t o ti pe r sample . I nviny l acetat e produc - tio na t ou r L a Port e Plan t a nEP A contracto r recentl y sample d123 2 valves . Thi s sampl e b y 1 0 mean s covere dth e entir e plant . Fo r instance , unit s associate dwit hthi s product , suc ha s refining , an d"inaccessible " valve s wer e
no t sampled . Nonetheless , a t S 3 pe r sample , a monthl y samplin g requiremen t a s oppose dt o a quarterl y one , woul d ad dabou t S30 M

annuall y

t o th e cos t t o sampl e onl y thes e valves . W e questio nwhethe r thes e cost s coul djustif y wha t

w e beleiv e woul db e a smal l emissio nreduction . Unfo. r t una t e l > emissio nrat e da^ a ar e no t ye t availabl e fro m thi s samplin g program , le t alon e on e comparin g th e effect s o f monthl y
v ersu s «qu a r t e r 1 y sampling . However , th e dat a tha t ar e availabl e d o clearl y sho w tha t th e percentag e o f leaker s i s
muc hles s tha nreporte dfo r petroleu m refineries .
3 . Skip-Perio dInspectio nPlan s
Ther e ar e statistica l inspectio nplan s whic hwor k fo r an y bas e perio dan dprovid e adequat e protectio nagains t leak s b u t minimiz e cos t b y allowin g reduce dinspectio nwhe ngoo d 

# JP.3 2

- 3 - performanc e i s present . W e believ e th e Skip-Perio dInspectio n Plan s hav e meri t fo r thi s purpose . Thes e plan s assum e tha t
a population r o f N valve s wil l b e monitore do na periodi c basi s (i.e . monthl y o r quarterly) . Th e plan s cal l fo r al l \ valve s t o b e inspecte di na give nperiod . I f acceptabl e performanc e i s foun di n± successiv e period s the non e o r
mor e period s ma y b e skippe ddependin g o nth e desire dleve l
o f protection . Thi s approac hreward s th e plan t fo r goo d performanc e (i.e . fe w leaks ) an dforce s th e plan t t o increas e th e leve l o f inspectio nwhe na nunacceptabl e numbe r o f leak s
ar e found . I t als o insure s tha t al l valve s ar e inspecte d perlodically .
Th e Skip-Perio dInspectio nPla ni s base do nskip-lo t inspec tio nplan s whic hhav e bee nuse di nth e qualit y contro l fiel d fo r mor e tha n2 5 year s (Dodg e 1955) . Th e single-leve l pla n h a s fou r basi c steps :
1 . Inspec t a grou po f N valve s o f a particula r clas s o r typ e fo r ^ successiv e periods .
2 . I f performanc e i s aceptable , inspec t th e grou po f N valve s i nonl y

£ fractio no f th e followin g periods .
3 . Retur nt o inspectio no f al l valve s i nal l period s whe n unacceptabl e performanc e i s found .
4 . Fi xal l leak s found .P.3 3

Th e value s o f i an df ar e selecte dt o giv e th e desire dleve l
o f protection . Severa l alternativ e plans'ar e give ni nTabl e 1 Fo r illustrativ e purpose s w e wil l conside r th e ple nwit his 2
an df=1/2 . Thi s pla nstate s tha t i f acceptabl e performanc e i s foun di n2 successiv e periods , the nth e populatio no f valve s ca nb e inspecte di never y secon dperio d(i.e . inspec t i nperiod s 2 , 4 , 6 , ...) . O f course , a s soo na s unacceptabl e performanc e i s foun dth e pla nrequire s tha t inspectio nb e don e i nal l period s unti l acceptabl e performanc e ha s bee n foun donc e mor e i n2 successiv e periods . I f thi s pla ni s used , o nth e average , th e populatio no f valve s wil l hav e acceptabl e performanc e a t leas t 9 0? ; o f th e time .
I t i s importan t to.recogniz e tha t ther e ar e othe r skip-perio d inspectio nplan s whic hprovid e th e sam e leve l o f protectio n
an dus e th e presenc e o f goo dperformanc e t o reduc e th e
amoun t o f inspection . I nparticula r w e recommen dtn e Multi-Leve l Inspectio nplan s develope db y Lieberma nan d Solomo n(1955 ) an d®relate dse t o f plan s describe di n Departmen t o f Defens e Handboo k H=10 6 (als o se e lreso nan d Biedenbende r 1958) . The9 e plan s switc hbac k an dfort h 2 3 betwee ndifferen t level s o f inspectio n(ie , f , f , f ,... ) dependin g o nth e performanc e o f th e valves . Th e single-leve l skip-perio dpla n(Tabl e 1 ) use s onl y on e leve l o f inspectio n (ie , f ) an dreturn s t o inspectio ni nal l period s i f poo r performanc e i s foun di non y period . Th e singl e leve l pl© nP.3 4 p |iipiipn*i i «1'i »

- 5 -
i s illustrate dher e becaus e o f it s simplicity . W e feel , however , tha t an y pla nwhic hgive s a nequivalen t leve l o f protec t ion . shoul d<b» e acceptable .
Bot hth e single-le*ve l an d multi-leve l inspectio nplan s plac e

• lowe r limi t o nth e averag e percen t o f th e tim e tha t th e populatio no f valve s wil l hav e acceptabl e performance . Th e protectio nleve l i s hig hbecaus e al l leak s ar e fixe dwhe n detecte dand , whe nperformanc e i s poor , al l valve s ar e inspecte di nal l periods .
4 . Definitio no f goo dPerformanc e
Th e skip-perio dinspectio npla nwil l wor k wit han y definitio n
o f "goo dperformanee" . A maximu m

fractio no f valve s leakin g and/o r a maximu m numbe r o f leak s pe r plan t coul ddefin e goo d performance . W e sta bmi t tha t a grou po f valve s i s performin g wel l i f les s tfcan!? • o f the m ar e leaking . Accordin g t o th e pla ndiscusse dearlie r (1:2 , fs1/2 ) a grou po f N value s woul db e inspecte dever y secon dperio di f no t mor e tha n2%
o f th e valve s wer e leakin g i ntw o successiv e period . (Figur e 1 show s ho w thi s particula r pla nwoul doperate. ) Unde r thi s plan , o nth e average , th e populatio no f valve s woul dhav e 2%, o r fewer , leak s a t leas t 90? ; o f th e time . Skip-perio dplan s c* nals o b e use di nsituation s wher e goo d performanc e i s defin-e da- s a maximu m

numbe r o f leaks , MAXL , (KMAXLjOl . I f th e ic2 , fsl/ 2 pla nwer e used , then , o nth e average , th e populatio no f N valve s woul dhav e MAXL , o r fewer , leak s a t leaa t 90 % o f th e time .P.3 5

- 6 -
5 . Grou pDefinitio nan dProtectio nLeve l

A s inspectio ndat a ar e collecte di t wil l becom e (apparen t tha t th e lea k frequenc y wil l var y

wit hth e differen t type s
o f valves . I t i s cexta.inl y appropriat e t o grou pth e valve s int o differen t categorie s accordin g t o leak , frequenc y (e.g . lea k frequently , lea k sometimes , rarel y leak) . I t i s als o possibl e t o hav e differen t inspectio nplan s fo r th e differen t groups . I nth e end , th e objectiv e i s t o focu s the . inspectio n effor t wher e th e leak s occu r mos t often .

I t i s als o appropriat e t o var y th e protectio nleve l dependin g
o nth e effect s o f th e leakin g chemical . Certainl y hazardou s chemical s ma y

requir e a highe r protectio nleve l tha nchemical s whic har e relativel y nontoxic . Plan s ca nals o b e develope d fo r protectio nlevel s othe r tha n9 0 percen t (Sheesle y 1973) .
6 . Assumptlon s
Th e skip-perio dpla nassumes , a s doe s an y inspectio nplan , tha t i f a valv e i s no t a leake r i t wil l no t lea k fo r th e entir e period . I t i s als o assume dtha t th e lea k frequencie s
o f th e differen t period s ar e independen t o f eac hother . Thi s assumptio nma y no t b e appropriate ; however , majo r leak s wil l carr y

ove r an db e detecte di nth e nex t period .P.3 6

- 7 -
Reference s Dodge , H . f. . (1955) , "Skip-Lo t samplin g plan" , Industria l Quality , Control , 1 1 , No . 5 , 3-5 .

Ireson , W . G . an dSiendenhender , R . E . (1958) , "Revie w o f Departmen t o f Defens e Handboo k H-106 , 'Multiple-leve l continuou s samplin g procedures'" , Indus t ria l Qua l it y Contro l , jj> , No . 4 , 10-15 .

Leiberman , G . 0 . arw j Solomon , H . (1955) , "Multi-leve l continuou s samplin g plans" , Annal s o f Mathematica l Statistics, . Ji , 616-704 .

"Multi-leve l continuou s samplin g procedure s an dtable s o f inspectio nby

attributes" , Inspectio nan dQualit y Contro l HaffHjb.6 0 j ( I nter i m ) H-106 , Octobe r 1958 , Offic e
o f th e Assistan t Secretar y o f Defens e (Suppl y an d Logistics) , Washington , D.C .

Sheesley , j* . H . (1975) , " A compute r progra m t o evaluat e Dodge' s continuom s samplin g plans" , Journa l o f Qualit y Technolog y

, 7, , 4 3 <*

- 4 5 .

R . D . Sne e 4/10/8 0P.3 7

### lfl * 'P' i :- l a 

### ''ff-"1 1 

### ' ' - P.3 8

TABL E 1
ALTIiNATa^ E SKIP-PERIO D INSPECTIO N PLAN S -

# Successiv e Period s I n gpxejfte d fractio no f Pgr^od s Inspecte d Lowe r Limi t O n Percen t o f Tim e Wit h Acceptabl e Performanc e
2 4 5 6 1 2 1/ 2 1/ 3 1/ 4 1/ 5 1 /1 4 

### 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0P.3 9

Mode l Approac hto Estimatin g Emission s Detail s o f th

©mode l simulatio npresente d a t th e Octobe r 24 , 198 9 technica l meetin g ar e attached . Thi s approac hestimate s emission s fo r valves . Extension s t o th e mode l whic hwer e no t discusse d in th e meetin g ar e als o suggested* . A basi c understandin g o f wha t i s being attempte d her e (a nunderstandin g a t th e leve l reached durin g th e 10/24/8 9 technica l meeting ) i s assumed . Detail s ar e give nfo r one leak rat e definitio n(10,00 0 ppm ) an d one phas e (liquid) . Simila r analysi s wa s don e fo r othe r lea

k rat e definition s an

d for gas . Th e step s followe d fo r th e simulatio nar e give ninTabl e 1 wit hth e followin g subsections :
* Preliminar y

Wor k * Midrang e Estimate s *" * Zer o an

d Pegge d Estimate s * Combinin g Estimate s ** * Extension s o f Mode l Dat a set s use d for eac hste p ar e liste d inTabl e 2 . Equation s use d ar e give ni nTabl e 3 . Extension s t o the mode l ar e give ni nTabl e 4 , Assumption s mad e ar e give ninTabl e 5 .Tabl e 1 PROCEDUR E FO R ESTIMATIN G TOTA L EMISSION S
PRELIMINAR Y WOR K Calculat e th e mean , standar d deviatio n (std ) an d c v (std/raean^lOO ) fo r actua l screenin g value s fromdat a se t 1
. Chec k whethe r th e c v i s constan t fo r al l dat a sets . Tes t th e lognorma l assumptio n fo r eac h dat a set . I n general , th e definitio n fo r lognorma l i s a s follows : X i s distribute d a s lognormal(mu,sigma ) i f an d onl yi f ln(X ) i s distribute d a s normal(mu,sigma)
. M u an d sigm a refe r t o th e mea n an d standar d deviatio n o f ln(x)
. Estimate d sigm a fo r th e lognorma l distributio n wit h th e c v calculate d abov e usin g th e followin g relationship :

mean(X ) >=

> © ,: ' 6 (mu<-sigaa <: '' s 2/2 ) variance(X ) <=

> (e^ M 2au<-sig®a < "< : *2 ) )*(Q*** ( sigma*"^)-! ) fro mthi s i t ca n b e derive d tha t sigm a «* > sqrt ( ln ( (cv/100)ft*2+l) ) Usin g sigma , th e lea k rat e definition , and percen t leaks , mu ca n b e foun d iteratively
. Fin d a u suc h that ; Pr( x > lea k rat e |mu,sigaa ) <** > fc leak s Tr yan ya u an d adjus t u p o r dow n a s neede d t o obtai n th e correc t %leaks
. (Tria l an d erro r wa s used , a aor e sophisticate d metho d coul d b e used. ) MIDRANG E Give n mu an d sigm a foun d above , fou r set s o f 100 0 screenin g value s eac h wer e readonl ygenerate d fro a th e lognorma l distributio n fo r eac h %leaks
. Thi s gav e twelv e simulation s fo r a lea k rat e definition
. Usin g th e IF Acorrelations , eaission s wer e estimate d fo r eac h o f th e simulate d screenin g values
. Th e averag e emission o wer e calculate d fo r eac h o f th e 1 2 siaulation s fo r a give n lea k rat e definition
. Saoothin g wa s don e t o ge t on e estimat e fo r eac h percen t leak s o f interes t b yregressin g averag e emission s o n % leak s fo r th e 1 2 dat a points
. Eac h equatio n wa s the n use d t o estimat e emission s fo r tha t lea k rate/percen t leak s combination
.P.4 1

ZERO S AND PEGGE D Usin g dat a se t 1 , th e percen t zeros , percen t pegged , an d percen t leakin g wer e calculated . Usin g thes e 5 dat a points , regressio n wa s use d to estimat e th e linea r relationshi p betwee npercen t leak s an

d percen t zero s an d th e linea r relationshi p betwee n percen t leak s an

d percen t pegged . (Se e Figure s 1 an d 2 for examples. ) Usin g dat a set s 2 an d 3 , th

e emission s fro

m zero s an

d pegge d valve s wer e estimated . (Not e tha t th e separat e estimate s for ga s an d liqui d wer e no t mad e fo r pegge d valves . The estimat e applie d to both. ) Usin g th

e relationshi p betwee nfc zero s an d fc leaks , th

e percen t o f zer o valve s wa s estimated . Similarly , the fc pegge d wa s estimated . For zeros , th

e defaul t valu e wa s als o calculate d b y usin g a screenin g valu e o f 8 inth e EP A correlations . COMBININGESTIMATE S Tota l eaission s wer e estimate d usin g equatio n2 for bot hthe defaul t leak rat e for zero s an d the leak rat e estimate d usin g baggin g dat aP.4 2



### Tabl e 2 Dat a Set s an

d Definition s use d for Emission s Estimate s

Dat a set s Onl yvalve dat a wer e used fo r estimate s
Dat a Se t 1 - Dat a use d t o estimat e distributio n value s

fo r simulatio n an

d t o estimat e th

e relationshi p betwee n fc leak s an

d bot h fcpegged an

d fczeros DuPon t Dat a ( 5 sets )
Dat a Se t 2 - Dat a t o estimat e lea k rat e fo r zero s Acrolei n dat a Alabam a Stud ydat a Butadien e dat a Ethylen e Oxid e dat a Vist a Stud

ydat a Maintenanc e Stud

yDat a Dat a Se t 3 - Dat a t o estimat e lea k rat e fo r peg s Maintenanc e Stud

yDat a
Definition s Zer o - Les s tha

n th e limi t o f detectio n Defaul t Zer o Lea

k Rat e - Us e screening valu e o f 8 i n EP Aequation s Pe g - Screening valu e greate r tha n 100,00 0

_ .P.4 3



### Tabl e 3 Equation s use dfo r Emission s Estimate s 1 ) EP A

Equation s fo r estimatin g lea k rat e fro m screenin g valu e Ga s Emission s -**

* 3 . 766 M

IO* * ( -5 . 35+ 0 . 693' ! 

### 'log ( SV ) ) ) Liqui dEmission s -**

> 8.218*(10**(-4.34+0.470*log(SV)) )
2) Tota l Emission s ° 

# ( fc zero s fc pegge dfc aid-rang e \

<*EF(zero ) + *EF ( pegged ) + *EF(aid-range ) 10 0 10 0 10 0 y

3 ) Adjuste dEmission s ° (Emission s a t inspectio n+ Bas e emissions)/ 2

1 / o - *> I

Tota l Eaission s fro a Tabl e 2 + 

### 2 

# V fczero (fcaidrange-fcleaks )

& EF(zero ) + * EF(nonleakers ) 10 0 10 0 100 0 « : —

(fcser o + fcaidrange - fcleaks)



# TM lP.4 4

Tabl e 4 Possibl e Extension s o f th e Mode l Not ' Introduce d a t th e Octobe r 24 , 198 9 meetin g Tota l emission s wer e adjuste d t o allo w fo r repair s assumin g tha t afte r screening , leak s ar e repaire d an d thenleak at th

e averag e rat e o f nonleakers . Equatio n3 wa s use d fo

r thi s calculation . Assumin g th

e mode l plan t split s fro m Tabl e 3- 5 i nth

e AI D stud

y tota l emission s fro m valve s an

d fro m all , source s wer e estimate d b y finding th

e proportio no f emission s du e t o valve s an d the proportio no f valve s t o othe r sources , thenadjustin g th e amoun t o f eaission s accordin g t o th

e proportion s found .



# JP.4 5

Tabl e 5 Assumption s fo

r Emission s Estimate s
1 . Screenin g value s ar e distribute d lognormall y

2 . The simulatio nuse d th e sam e shap e distributio nfo r liqui d an d ga s screenin g values . Separat e EF A equation s wer e use d fo r liqui d an

d ga s valves . 3 . Differen t chemical s leak a t the saa e rate . Dat a wer e coabine d regardles s o f th

e cheaica l being screened . 4 . Dat a wer e coabine d regardles s o f the screenin g or baggin g metho d use d t o gathe r it . 5 . Pegge d screenin g value s hav e the saa e leak rat e for ga s an d liquid . 6 . Afte r screening , leak s ar e r rat e o f nonleakers . Emissio n Rat e paire d an d the nleak a t the averag e

At Screenin g
Table d Valu e
Bas e


## I '

## 2 " Inspectio nPerio d Bas e <** * Averag e o f nonleaker s

## Figur e 1 Regressio no f Percen t Pegge donPercen t Leakin g

r c e n t P e
e d 2.4 0

1.6 0

0.8 0

0. 0 x

0.0 0 t xx

-. "ef , 

### X

X



## 2. 0 4. 0 6. 0 8. 0

percen t leak s 10. 0

## p e r c e n t z e r o s x 9 0

7 5

6 0 - •

< ^ 

## Figur e 2

Regressio no f Percen t Zero s o nPercen t Leakin g

x

x

x

0. 0 2. 0 0 6. 0 percen t leak s 8. 0 10. 0P.4 8



### Advantage s an

d Disadvantage s o f Mode l Approac h t o Estimating Emission s Advantage s
* Minimiz e amoun t o f dat a neede d
* Dat a ca

n be used mor e efficientl yt o validat e assumption s rathe r tha

n t o generat e plan t estimates
. * Emissio n rat e curve s ca n be generate d withou t th e nee d fo r man yplan t estimate s
* Dat a collectio n ca n be directe d t o area s wher e inforaatio n i s mos t neede d
* I t i s no t necessaryt o accep t a s appropriat e assumption s tha t wen t int o differen t plan t estimate s
* Unifor a assuaption s can be aad e acros s al l plant s
* Individua l assuaption s fo r a plan t estiaat e can be broke n dow n an d considere d independentl yi n ligh t o f dat a fro m al l plant s
* Dat a fro a al l plant s can be coabine d t o coa e u p wit h the bes t assuaption s ft Sensitivit yt o variou s assuaption s can be tested
. * Eaission s estimate s fro a dissimila r plant s d o no t hav e t o b e combine d t o creat e eaission s estiaat e curves . <" * Extension s t o othe r coaponent s
** * Provide s an efficien t framewor k fo r estimating eaission s fro m othe r componen t type s
* Ma yb e abl e t o fil l i n wher e ther e ar e fe wdat a fo r othe r coaponent s
* Siaulatio n can be don e quickl yan d cheapl y
* Siaulatio n ca n b e don e fo r an yperformanc e standard t o b e considere d Disadvantage s
**

- Auniformcv an

d a lognorma l distributio n wil l nee d t o b e verifie d
* Harde r t o visualiz e
* Mayreduc e incentiv e t o compil e mor e complet e dat a bas e
* A s wit h an

y"canned " approach , som e importan t variabl e ma yb © overlooke dP.4 9

/)4M4**s >it"t*%__

»

% 

# EXA S AI

RCONTROL BOAR 633 0 HWY . 29 0 EAST , AUSTIN , TEXA S 78723 , 512/451-571 7



# D 4

K i 2.£crp*>/ )

DIC KWHrnTNGTON , PE. CHAIRMAN BOB G.BAILE Y VIC E CHAIRMAN ALLE N EL

I BEL L EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Octobe r 10 , 198 9 

## E C E I V E D . OCTi l I^ S JOH N L . BLAI R MARCU S M . KEY, M.D . OTT O R . KUNZE . PhJ3. , PE. HUBER T OXFORD , H

I WILUA M H . QUORTRU P

C H . RIVER

S MARY ANN E WYAT T

M'MMMIMI T PROGRA M To : Member s o f th e Negotiatin g Committe e fo r Contro l o f Fugitiv e Emission s o f VO C fro m Equipmen t Leak s Thi s i s i nrespons e t o Mr . Bo bAjax' s reques t a t th e Sep tembe r Committe e meetin g tha t Committe e member s provid e a n outlin e o f propose d element s whic hwoul d mak e u p a n"ideal " fugitiv e emission s regulation . I naddition , h e requeste d tha t I provid e informatio no nth e Texa s Ai r Contro l Board' s curren t approac ht o controllin g fugitiv e emission s a s par t o f it s permi t progra m fo r ne

w an d modifie d sources . Attachment s I throughT V ar e designe d t o conve y som e in sigh t int o th e contro l o f fugitiv e emission s throughth e agency' s permi t program . Attachmen t I consist s o f a brie f descriptio no f th e agency' s approac halon g wit hcopie s o f th e mos t recen t version s o f standar d "Genera l Provisions " tha t ar e include d i nappropriat e permits . Attachmen t I I consist s o f a handou t use d i nconjunctio nwit hou r Permit s Workshops . Attachmen t II I provide s som e insigh t int o ou r experienc e i nimplementing Genera l Provisio n28MID , whic h represent s th e mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l currentl y bein g implemente d b y th e agency , b

y providin g informatio n onpermit s fo r new an d modifie d proces s unit s whic hin clude d th e provision . Th e lis t i s designe d t o b e repre sentativ e o f ou r experience , bu t ma y no t b e comprehensiv e i ntha t i t i s base d ona surve y o f individua l permi t en gineer s rathe r tha na comprehensiv e review o f al l ou r files . Attachmen t I V outline s ou r approac hi ndealin g wit h fugitiv e emission s fro m relie f valves . wit hregar d t o th e desig no f a n"ideal " fugitiv e emissio n regulation . Genera l Provisio n28MI D probabl y bes t reflect s ou r understandin g o f a fruitfu l directio nt o head . W e believ e tha t key

element s tha t mak e 28MI D effectiv e i n minimizin g fugitiv e emission s ar e (1 ) requirin g al l new an d replacemen t pump s and compressor s to b e leakless , (2 ) th e us e o f a love r actio nleve l o r lea k definitio no f 50 0 ppm , an d (3 ) th e us e o f directe d maintenanc e t o ensur e maximu m effectivenes s i nal l repai r and maintenanc e activities . Th e progra

m ha s bee nfairl y

wel l accepte d b

y companie s becaus e (1 ) applicatio no f th e progra m result s i nmuc hP.5 0



### -2 - lower predicte

d fugitiv

e emission s o f toxi c compound s base d o ncurrent TACB methodologies , an d (2 ) complianc e i s deter mine d b y factor s eve r whic

hth e companie s hav

e contro l rather tha

na nexternall y

applie d limi t o

nth e "percent leakers, " whichmight b e exceede

d eve nat a diligen t plant sit e du e t o statistica l variation s i nlea k rates . On e directio

nth e Committee might conside r t o encourage companie s t o pus hth e limit s o f current technolog y an d work practice s inminimizin g fugitiv

e emission s i s t o ensur e tha t th e fugitiv

e emissio

nestimatio

nmethodolog

y adopte d b y th e Committe e provide s a mechanis m fo r collectin

g plant specifi c dat a t o demonstrat e lower emissio nrates . I

nthi s er a o f publi c disclosur e throug hSAR A Sectio n31 3 report ing , thi s coul d provide substantia l incentiv e fo r emissio

n reduction s beyon

d wha t woul d b

e achievabl e throug htechno logy , work practise , ara d performanc e standard s develope d t o b e broa d enoug ht ©cove r th

e variety

o f proces s type s tha t produc e fugitiv

e emissions . Pleas e let m

e kno w i f yo u hav e an y question s regardin g th e informatio

nI hav e provided . I loo

k forwar

d t o seein

g yo u at th e next Committe e meeting . Sincerely , 

### MUGHA L 3I W B Y 

# n 

# mmm Le s Montgomery , P.E. , Director Technica l Suppor t an d Regulatio

nDevelopmen t Progra m Enclosure s cc : Mr . Geral d Pentenot , Chief , Ai r Program s Branch , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio

n6 , Dalla s bc c wit hattachments :

op , P . * l P.E. , Permit s Divisio n Wayne Burnop , P.E. , Technica l Service s Divisio n bc c w/ o attachments : Stev e Spaw , P.E. , Deput y Executiv

e Director Ji m Myers , P.E. , Director , Enforcement Progra m Lawrenc e Pewitt , P.E. , Director , Permit s Divisio n Sa m Crowther , P.E. , Permit s Divisio n Pau l Henry , P.E. , Director , Technica l Service s Divisio n JLM/gem/board/fil e (REGNEG2.JLM )P.5 1

Attachmen t I **\ l 1 -f

Descriptio no f Fugirtrv-e/lmissio nContro l Requirement s Implemente d a s Par t o f th e Texa s Ai r Coatxo- 1 Board' s Permi t Progra

m
Th e Texa s Ai r Contro l Board' s (TACB ) Permi t Divisio nimple ment s a volatil e organi c compoun d (VOC ) fugitiv e emissio n contro l progra

m tha t make s us e o f standardize d "Genera l Provisions " designe d t o achiev e severa l differen t level s o f contro l (se e 28M , 28MD , an d 28MI D whic har e enclosed) . Genera l Provisio n28 M i s th e mos t basi c leve l an d i s use d i npermit s requirin g applicatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technology . Genera l Provisio n28M D improve s upo n28 M b y increasin g th e monitorin g frequenc y fro m quarterl y

t o monthl y

and b y requirin g a "directed " maintenance " progra m i nwhic hth e individua l repairin g a leaking componen t use s a nanalyze r dtdrin g th e repair'to . ensur e tha t a minimu m concentratio no f leakin g VO C i s obtained . 28M D i s con sidere d acceptabl e t o mee t lowes t achievabl e emissio nrat e (LAER ) i nrefinerie s fo r component s othe r tha nthos e hand ling toxi c material s suc ha s benzene . Genera l Provisio n28HI D i s th e one'mos t likel y t o b e o f interes t t o th e Negotiatin g Committee . 28MI D i s th e mos t stringen t progra

m an d i s use d i npermit s fo r th e chemica l industry

whe napplicatio nof LAE Ri s require d o r i nan y permi t whe ntoxi c material s ar e involved . Th e ke y strength s o f 28MI D ar e relianc e on. a lowere d lea k defini tio no f 50 0 pp

m an d th e us e o f th e "directe d maintenance " progra m whic hensure s effectiv e repairs . Curren t TAC B staf f opinio ni a tha t thes e tw o factor s ar e fa r mor e impor tan t tha nmonitorin g frequenc y i nensurin g minimu m emis sion s s o quartetly~mor|ltor^|g'i s allowe d i n28MID . Becaus e 28MI D i a a rilSti^eiy.new"typ e o f fugitiv e emissio n monitorin g and repai r program , th e staf f ha s no t bee nabl e t o rel y

o nhistorica l dat a i nestimatin g th e resultin g fugitiv e emission* . Provisio nI of"28MI D i s designe d t o ensur e tha t dat a tha t ma y hel p i nderivatio no f emissio n factor s i s collecte d a t proces s unit s implementing 28MI D (O n10/2/89 , BobAja xaske d u s to se e i f an y suc hdat a i s availabl e - w e ar e checkin g wit haffecte d companies) . Unti l sufficien t dat a i s collecte d an d analyzed , th e Per mit s Divisio nrelie s o n"stratified " emissio nfactor s fo r th e 0-1,00 0 pp

m lea k rang e t o estimat e th e resultin g emis sions . I t i s assume d tha t th e averag e emission s fo r com ponent s affecte d b y 28MI D ar e equa l t o th e averag e fo r component s wit hscreenin g value s les s tha n1,00 0 pp m a t th e plant s (othe r tha nethylen e plants ) use d t o deriv e th e "SOCMI " emissio nfactors .P.5 2

GENERAL PROVISIONS ' 28MI O 3/8 9 Piping , Valves , Flanges , Pump s an dCompressor s i_ Servic e - Intensive Directe dMaintenanc e Excep t a s ma y

b e provide dfo r i nth e specia l provision s o f thi s permit , th e followin g requirement s appl y t o th e abov e reference d equipment . A . Thes e provision s shal l no t appl y (1 ) wher e th e concentratio ni

nth e stream

i s les s tha npercen t b y weight , o r (2 ) wher e th e volatil e organi c comoouna s (VOC ) hav e a naggregat e partia l pressur e o r vapo r pressur e o f les s tha n 0.0 5 psi a at 20* c o r (3 ) t o pipin g an dvalve s smalle r tha ntw o inche s nomina l siz e o r (4 ) operatin g pressur e i s a t leas t 5 kilopascal s (0.72 5 psi ) below ambien t pressure . Eauipmen t exclude dfro

m thi s provisio nshal l be identifie di na lis t t o b e mad e availabl e upo nrequest . 8 . Constructio no f new an dreworke dpiping , valves , pum pan d compresso r system s shal l confor m t o applicabl e ANSI , API , ASM E o r equivalen t codes . C . Ne w an dreworke dundergroun dproces s pipeline s shal l contai n n o burie dvalve s suc htha t fugitiv e emissio nmonitorin g i s rendere dimpractical . 0 . T o th e exten t tha t goo dengineerin g practic e wil l permit , new an dreworke dvalve s an

dpipin g connection s shal l be s o locate d t o b e reasonabl y

accessibl e fo r leak-checkin g durin g plan t operation . Non-accessibl e valve s shal l be identifie di na 11s t t o b e mad e availabl e upo nrequest . E . Ne w an dreworke dpipin g connection s shal l b e welde do r flanged . Screwe dconnection s ar e permissibl e onl y o npipin g smalle r tha ntwo-inc hdiameter . No late r tha nth e nex t schedule dquarterl y

monitorin g afte r initia l installatio no r replacement , al l ne w

o r reworke dconnection s shal l b e ga s teste do r hydraullcall y teste da t n o les s tha nnorma l operat ing pressur e an

dadjustments'mad e a s necessar y t o obtai nleak fre e performance . Flange s shal l b e inspecte dby visual , audibl e and/o r olfactor y mean s a t leas t weekl y by operatin g personne l walkthrough . Eac hopen-ende dvalv e o r lin e shal l b e equippe dwit ha cap , blindflange , plu g o r a secon dvalve . F . Accessibl e valve s shal l b e monitore db y leak-checkin g fo r fugitiv e emission s a t leas t quarterl y usin g a napprove dga s analyze r wit ha directe dmaintenanc e program . Sealless / leakles s valve s (Includin g bu t no t limite dt o bellow s an dP.5 3

GENERAL PROVISION S 28MI 0 3/8 9
diaphragm

valves ) an

drelie f valve s equippe dwit ha ruptur e dis c o r ventin g t o a contro l devic e ar e no t require dt o be monitored . Fo r valve s equippe dwit hruptur e discs , a pressur e gaug e snai l b e installe dbetwee nth e relie f valv e andruptur e dis c t o monito r dis c integrity . Al l leakin g disc s shal l b e replace da t th e earlies t opportunit y bu t n o late r tha nth e nex t proces s shutdown . A directe dmaintenanc e program shal l consis t o f th e repai r an d maintenanc e o f component s assiste dsimultaneousl y b y th e us e o f a napprove dga s analyze r suc htha t a minimum concentratio n o f leakin g VO C i s obtaine dfo r eac hcomponen t bein g mam - tainea . G . Al l new

an dreplacemen t pump s an dcompressor s shal l be equippe dwit ha shaf t sealin g system tha t prevent s o r detect s emission s o f VO C from th e seal . Thes e sea l system s nee dno t be monitore dan

dma y includ e bu t ar e no t limite dt o dua l pum p seal s wit hbarrie r flui da t highe r pressur e tha nproces s pressure , seal s degassin g t o ven t contro l system s kep t ingood workin g orde r o r seal s equippe dwit ha nautomati c sea l failur e detectio nan

dalar m system . Submerge dpump s o r sealles s pump s (includin g bu t no t limite dt o diaphragm , canne do r magneti c drive npumps ) ma y

b e use dt o satisf y

th e requirement s o f thi s provisio nan

dnee dno t b e monitored . Al l othe r pum

pan dcompresso r seal s emittin g VO C shal l b e monitore dwit ha

napprove dga s analyze r a t leas t quarterly . H . (Damage

do r leakin g valves , flanges , compresso r seal s an dpum p seal s foundt o b e emittin g VO C i nexces s o f 50 0 ppm v o r foun d b y visua l inspectio nt o b e leakin g (e.g . drippin g liquids ) shal l b e tagge dan

dreplace do r repaired . Ever y reasonabl e effor t shal l b e mad e t o repai r a leakin g component , a s speci fie dinthi s paragraph , withi n1 5 day s afte r th e leak i s found . I f th e repai r o f a componen t woul drequir e a uni t shutdow nth e rep-ai r ma y

b e delaye dunti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Al l leakin g component s whic hcanno t b e repaire d unti l a schedule dshutdownshal l b e identifie dfo r suc hrepai r b y tagging . Th e Executiv e Director , a t hi s discretion , ma y "equir e earl y

uni t shutdowno r othe r appropriat e actio nbase d th e numbe r an

dseverit y

o f tagge dleak s awaitin g shutdown . I . n e result s o f th e require dfugitiv e monitorin g an dmain tenanc e program

shal l b e mad e availabl e t o th e Executiv e Oirecto r o r hi s designate drepresentativ e upo nrequest . Record s shal l indicat e appropriat e dates , tes t methods ,P.5 4

GENERA L PROVISION S 28MI 0 3/8 9



### J. instrumen t readings , repai r result s an dcorrectiv e action s taken . Record s o f flang e inspection s ar e no t require dunles s a lea ki s detected . Complianc e wit hthe requirement s o f thi s provisio ndoe s no t assur e complianc e wit hrequirement s o f TAC 8 Regulatio nV , a n applicabl e Ne w

Sourc e Performanc e Standar do r a napplicabl e Nationa l Emissio nStandar dfo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s an d doe s no t constitut e approva l o f alternativ e standard s fo r thes e regulations .P.55
_

GENERAL PROVISION S 28M D 9/8 9

Piping , Valves , Flanges , Pump s an dCompressor s J_

nVolatil e Organi c Compound(VOC ) Servic e _ Directe dMaintenanc e A . Thes e provision s shal l no t appl y (1 ) wher e th e VO C ha s a n aggregat e partia l pressur e o r vapo r pressur e o f les s than0. 5 psi a a t 100° F o r a t maximum proces s operatin g temperatur e i f les s tha n100°F , o r (2 ) t o pipin g an dvalve s smalle r thantw o inche s nomina l siz e o r (3 ) wher e th e operatin g pressur e i s at leas t 5 kilopascal s (0.72 5 psi ) belo w ambien t pressure . 8 . Constructio no f new an dreworke dpiping , valve s an dpum pan d compresso r system s shal l conform t o applicabl e ANSI , API , ASM E o r equivalen t codes . C . New an dreworke dundergroun dproces s pipeline s shal l contai n n o burie dvalve s suc htha t fugitiv e emissio nmonitorin g i s rendere dimpractical . 0 . T o th e exten t tha t goo dengineerin g practic e wil l permit , ne w an dreworke dvalve s an

dpipin g connection s shal l b e s o locate d t o b e reasonabl y

accessibl e fo r leak-checkin g durin g plan t operation . Non-accessibl e valve s shal l b e identifie di na lis t t o b e mad e availabl e upo nrequest . E . New andreworke dpipin g connection s shal l b e welde do r flanged . Screwe dconnection s ar e permissibl e onl y o npipin g smalle r tha ntwo-ine hdiameter . No late r tha nth e nex t schedule dmonthl y

monitorin g perio dafte r initia l installatio n o r replacement , al l new o r reworke dconnection s shal l b e ga s teste do r hydraulIcall y teste da t n o les s tha nnorma l operatin g pressur e andadjustment s mad ©a s necessar y t o obtai n leak-fre e performance . Flange s shal l b e Inspecte db y visual , audibl e and/or * olfactor y mean s a t leas t weekl y by operatin g personne l walk-through . Eac hopen-ende dvalv e o r lin e shal l b e equippe dwit ha cap , blindflange , plu g o r a secon dvalve . F . Accessibl e valv© s shal l b ©monitore db y

leak-checkin g fo r fugitiv e emission s a t leas t monthl y usin g anapprove dga s analyzer . Sealless/leakles s valve s (includin g bu t no t limite d t o bellow s anddlaphrap i valves ) andrelie f valve s equippe d wit ha rupture * dis c upstrea m o r ventin g t o a contro l devic e ar e no t require dt o b e monitored . Fo r valve s equippe dwit h ruptur e discs , a pressur e gaug e shal l b e Installe dbetwee nth e relie f valv e an

druptur e dis c t o monito r dis c integrity . Al l leakin g disc s shal l b e replace da t th e earlies t opportunit y bu t n o late r tha nth e nex t proces s shutdown .P.5 6

GENERA L PROVISION S 28M 0 9/8 9

G . Excep t a s ma y be provide dfo r i

nthe specia l provision s o f thi s permit , al l pum

pan dcompresso r seal s shal l b e monitore d wit ha napprove dga s analyze r a t leas t monthl y or be equippe d wit ha shaf t sealin g system tha t prevent s or detect s emission s o f VO C fro

m the seal . Sea l system s designe dan doperate dt o preven t emission s o r seal s equippe dwit ha nautomati c sea l failur e detectio nan

dalarm system nee dno t b e monitored . Sea l system s tha t preven t emission s ma y includ e bu t ar e no t limite dt o dua l pum

pseal s wit hbarrie r flui da t highe r pressur e tha nproces s pressur e o r seal s degassin g t o ven t contro l system s kep t i ngoo dworkin g order . Submerge dpump s o r sealles s pump s (includin g bu t no t limite d t o diaphragm , canne do r magneti c drive npumps ) ma y b e use dt o satisf y th e requirement s o f thi s provisio nan dnee dno t be monitored . H . Damage do r leakin g valves , flanges , compresso r seal s an dpum p seal s foundt o b e emittin g VO C inexces s o f 10,00 0 ppm v o r foundb y visua l inspectiont o b e leakin g (e.g . drippin g liquids ) shal l b e tagge dan dreplace do r repaired . Ever y reasonabl e effor t shal l b e mad e t o repai r a leakin g component , a s specifie di

nthi s paragraph , withi n1 5 day s afte r th e leak i s found . I f th e repai r o f a componen t woul drequir e a uni t shutdown , th e repai r ma y b e delaye dunti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Al l leakin g component s whic hcanno t b e repaire d unti l a schedule dshutdownshal l b e identifie dfo r suc hrepai r b y tagging . Th e Executiv e Oirector , a t hi s discretion , ma y requir e earl y

uni t shutdowno r othe r appropriat e actio nbase d onth e number an

dseverit y

o f tagge dleak s awaitin g shutdown . I . Th e result s o f th e require dfugitiv e monitorin g an d maintenanc e program

shal l b e mad e availabl e t o th e Executiv e Directo r o r hi s designate drepresentativ e upo nrequest . Record s shal l Indicat e appropriat e dates , tes t methods , instrumen t readings , repai r result s an dcorrectiv e action s taken . Record s o f flang e inspection s ar e no t require dunles s a lea k i s detected . J . Complianc e wit hth e requirement s o f thi s provisio ndoe s no t assur e comp11anc e wit hrequirement s o f TAC B Regulatio nV , a n applicabl e New

Sourc e Performanc e Standar do r a napplicabl e Nationa l Emtsslo nStandar dfo r Hazardou s A1 r Pollutant s an d doe s no t constitut e approva l o f alternativ e standard s fo r thes e regulations .P.5 7

GENERAL PROVISION S 28 M 9/8 9 Piping . Valves , Flanges , Pump s an dCompressor s i

nVolatil e Organi c Compound"!VOC ) Servic e A . Thes e provision s shal l no t appl y (1 ) wher e th e VO C ha s a n aggregat e partia l pressur e o r vapo r pressur e o f les s tha n0. 5 psi a a t 100° F o r a t maximum proces s operatin g temperatur e i f les s tha n100°F , o r (2 ) t o pipin g an dvalve s smalle r tha ntw o inche s nomina l siz e o r (3 ) wher e th e operatin g pressur e i s at leas t 5 kilopascal s (0.72 5 psi ) below ambien t pressure . B . Constructio no f ne w andreworked " piping , valve s an dpum pan d compresso r system s shal l confor m t o applicabl e ANSI , API , ASM E o r equivalen t codes . C . New an dreworke dundergroun dproces s pipeline s shal l contai n no burie dvalve s suc htha t fugitiv e emissio nmonitorin g i s rendere dimpractical . D . T o the exten t tha t goo dengineerin g practic e wil l permit , ne w an dreworke dvalve s an

dpiping,connection s shal l b e s o locate d t o b e reasonabl y

accessibl e fo r leak-checkin g durin g plan t operation . Non-accessibl e valve s shal l b e identifie di na 11s t t o b e mad e availabl e upo nrequest . E . New an dreworke dpipin g connection s shal l b e welde do r flanged . Screwe dconnection s ar e permissibl e onl y onpipin g smalle r tha ntwo-Inc hdiameter . No late r tha nth e nex t schedule dquarterl y

monitorin g perio dafte r initia l installa tio no r replacement , al l new o r reworke dconnection s shal l b e ga s teste do r hydraulicall y teste da t n o les s tha nnorma l operatin g pressur e an dadjustment s mad e a s necessar y t o obtai n leak-fre e performance . . Flange s shal l b e inspecte dby visual , audibl e and/o r olfactor y mean s a t leas t weekl y by operatin g personne l walk-through . Eac hopen-ende dvalv e o r lin e shal l b e equippe dwit ha cap , blindflange , plu g o r a secondvalve . F . Accessibl e valve s shal l b e monitore dby leak-checkin g fo r fugitiv e emission s a t leas t quarterl y usin g anapprove dga s analyzer . Sealless/leakles s valve s (Includin g bu t no t limite d t o bellow s anddiaphragm valves ) an

drelie f valve s equippe d wit ha ruptur e dis c upstrea m o r ventin g t o a contro l devic e ar e no t require dt o b e monitored . Fo r valve s equippe dwit h ruptur e discs , a pressur e gaug e shal l b e installe dbetwee nth e relie f valv e andruptur e dis c t e mnitor dis c Integrity . Al l leakin g disc s shal l b e replace da t th e earlies t opportunit y bu t n o late r tha nth e nex t proces s shutdown .P.5 8

GENERAL PROVISION S 28 M 9/8 9
G . Excep t a s ma y b e provide dfo r i

nth e specia l provision s o f thi s permit , al l pum

pan dcompresso r seal s shal l b e monitore d wit ha napprove dga s analyze r a t leas t quarterl y o r be equippe dwit ha shaf t sealin g system tha t prevent s or detect s emission s o f VO C fro

m th e seal . Sea l system s designe dan d operate dt o preven t emission s o r seal s equippe dwit ha n automati c sea l failur e detectio nan dalar m system nee dno t be monitored . Sea l system s tha t preven t emission s ma y includ e bu t ar e no t limite dt o dua l pum pseal s wit hbarrie r flui da t highe r pressur e tha nproces s pressur e o r seal s degassin g t o ven t contro l system s kep t ingoodworkin g order . Submerge dpump s o r sealles s pump s (includin g bu t no t limite d t o diaphragm , canne do r magneti c drive npumps ) ma y b e use dt o satisf y th e requirement s o f thi s provisio nan dnee dno t b e monitored . H . Damage do r leakin g valves , flanges , compresso r seal s an dpum p seal s foundt o b e emittin g VO C inexces s o f 10,00 0 ppm v o r foundb y visua l inspectio nt o b e leakin g (e.g . drippin g liquids ) shal l b e tagge dan dreplace do r repaired . Ever y reasonabl e effor t shal l b e mad e t o repai r a leakin g component , a s specifie di

nthi s paragraph , withi n1 5 day s afte r th e leak i s found . I f th e repai r o f a componen t woul drequir e a uni t shutdown , th e repai r ma y b e delaye dunti l th e nex t schedule d shutdown . Al l leakin g component s whic hcanno t b e repaire d unti l a schedule dshutdow nshal l b e identifie dfo r suc hrepai r b y tagging . Th e Executiv e Director , a t hi s discretion , ma y requir e earl y

uni t shutdow

no r othe r appropriat e actio nbase d onth e numbe r an

dseverit y

o f tagge dleak s awaitin g shutdown . I . Th e result s o f th e require dfugitiv e monitorin g an dmain tenanc e program

shal l b e mad e availabl e t o th e Executiv e Directo r o r li s designate drepresentativ e upo nrequest . Record s shal l indicat e appropriat e dates , tes t methods , instrumen t readings , repai r result s an dcorrectiv e action s taken . Record s o f flang e inspection s ar e no t require dunles s a lea k 1 s defected . J . Fugitiv e emissio nmonitorin g require db y TAC B Regulatio nV , a n applicabl e New

Sourc e Performanc e Standar d(NSPS) , Titl e 4 0 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s Par t 6 0 (4 0 CF R60 ) o r a nappli cabl e Nationa l Emissio nStandar dfo r Hazardou s A1 r Pollutant s (NESHAP'S ) (4 0 CF R61 ) ma y b e use dinHe uo f Item s F throughI o f thi s provision . Complianc e wit hth e requirement s o f thi s provisio ndoe s no t assur e complianc e wit hrequirement s o f TAC B Regulatio nV , NSP S o r NESHAP S an

ddoe s no t constitut e approva l o f alternativ e standard s fo r thes e regulations .P.5 9

ATTACHMEN

T I I

w p

. 3 PER M I T S 3-Z2-9 9 AJORKSHO P VO C "UGITVE S

A . ^OC-fugitiv e sourc e Regulation s i
. Pe f *.,-.er

v a . "AC S Regulatio n V - Brazoria

. Dallas , Z l Paso , 3aiveston , Gregg , -arris , JeHersan

. Nueces

. :>anqe . r ar--ant

. •'ictori a o . MSP S GG G c . NESHAP S J fo rSenzen © d

. r ftC B Permi t Provision s 2
. Gn-snor e Natura l Ga s P-ocessin qPlant s -* . "AC E Regulatio n V - Harri s o . -SP S •'*'< c . "AC S Permi t Provision s SOCM I a . "-C S ^equ.acio n v- Harri s 2

. -iSF S v v c . NESHAP S - fa r vCM , J -fo r Benzen e a . "AC E ^ermi t P-avision s
9
. 'luant:'-/:- ; -near , tro i le d Emission s 1
. a efiner v - ap-4 2 r abl e °.l- 2 .1
. >3a s Processin g - . fro mEPA-43(2/3-93-007 , pag e 2- 9 valves : 1.12 6 Ia/dav/seurc s Peiie r Valves : ^.V i anen-ende a lines : 1.1 7 comoresso r seals : 39. 7 oum o seals : 3.Z flange s an d connections : .03 7 Not e - -actor s ar s fo r tota l hydrocarbon s s o fo r vQ C emission s

yo u hav o t o multipl ybv ti o mol e fractio n non-methane , non-stnan o

- Comoresso r sea l facto r *ou r time s highe r tha n *3/9 2 Do c 3
. SOCM I - average * SOCM I factor s fro mEPA-450/3-82-<aiffl
. - . 2-6 2

- • "AC 2 "reaerived " SOCM I /»/ o rthyien e -: : an : :ac a

an d SOCM I wit n jus t etnyien e slan t dat a

- us o factor s o n attache d tabl o "•ct e - 2-i.£3 Q strat i Tia a a.-.o i3n-;.'ase r •sccur s ar e

onl yaccoetadl e unde r condition s ceocribo d i n Sectio n 3 o f thi s outline. ' Not e - EPA/CM AProtoco l <Leak/N o Leafc , Stratified
. Plan t

soecifi c correlation ) i s generall yNO T ACCEP r ABL E -.** r TAC B Permit s Docoua o o* f inhoren t problow s wit h individualize d aooroache s i n cermits
.P.6 0 

# fT

3
. 2 0 f 4 4
. J O NO T ESTIMAT E r; J G I" . VE S -or : !n Q cuicanc e "cn * £.= A) a . Pa r tubin g siz e ime s an d eauismen ; **on-oipin qtvo e

- i t t ma s 3
. wher e th e coerati.-i g pressur e a t laas c .3. 7 as i :SIQ M amoien t pressur e NSPS * c . wher e -h e VO C r-a s a n aggregat e partia l pressur e or les s tha n 0.00 2 PS I d
. -homogeneou s wate r solution s Option s fo r reducin g Fugitiv e VO C Emission s 1
. Option s chose n deoena s o n th e reaso n ror ^eductio n a . Satisf yBAC T b
. Reduc e amoien t ai r impact s t o aoorovaoi e leve l C . Avoi a "eaera i PSD/non-attainmen t -eview s 2
. Method s a f fugitiv e vO C reduction s
a . Eliminat e Emission s o v Eauipmen t Scec i f ic a c::r * i " Relie f valve s - ven t t o Piar e

- Equi p wit h Ruptur e Dis k Upstrea m 2 ) Pump s - Barrie r Plui d a t Highe r 3 ressur e

- barrie r £ lui d sea l po t ventin g t o flar e

- Canne d

- Magneti c Driv e

- Diapnrag m r ' Valve s - Seilow s

- Diapnrag m 4 ) rlange s - wol d 2 " Compressor s - enclose d distanc e 3iece s and c-anxcas e ventin g t o -Mar e

, b
. Peauc e emission s 1 " Eauipmon t 3 ) Inspectio n Maintenanc e a ) Peu r KS V

criteri a

- wha t ha s t o b o monitored , psi a o r typ e materia l

- frequenc ya t monitoring ,

quarte r ly/mon***!

- L v/arn^ a i

. y

- lea k dQ' f in i tio n , * ppmv

- directe d (D ) o r non-directe d (ND ) b ) differen t arogram s (valves
. :UP*3 S an a icmoressars )



### - NSPS : 

### .0.0 3 psi , CJ/M-3KI=/(A , 

### laea a ppmv , N D

- NESHAPS : 7 . compound , 3/R-skio/A , 1000 0 ppmv , N D

- - s g • ! J . » • T / psi , . — • • - i ~ ' i • - —

- . .-i-i* . . : p .T W , . J

- 28M s >@. S psi , a/Q/Q
. 1000 0 ppmv , N O

- 2SMD : **0. 3 psi
. M/M/M , '.000 0 ppmv , 3

- ZSMID s >0.0S/compoun d soocific
. •3/Q/Q , 52 0 ppmv , D (Noto s 28MI D i s undo r revie w b yTAC B an d TCC , "C C recommondo d lea k i s 10®@ > 2 ) Ambien t Monitorin g i s NO T gonorall yaccepte d a s eouivalen t t o I&F 1 bocaus Q th o lac k o f correlatio n .botwoo n am&ionf c monitore d vaiuo o an d actua l emiooio n rato o o r lea k froeuenc vP.6 1

3

. 3 O f 4 juantir'vin g Pugitiv e E/nissic n Reductio n

-. Choice s * . ) Camo.ay . - Quantitative , calculat e an a tes t pat a 2) Sim.ol e - Cuaiitative , consistent , Pafenaaai e estimat e p . "AC S take s th e = impi. e Approac h 1
. ' Re f inery s a ) SAC T - Re g v , NSPS , NESHAPS . Permi t Provisio n 2S M

- 757 . reductio n ove r AP-a* ? b ) uAE P - Permi t Provisio n 29M D

- 907
. -eductio n ove r AP-4 2 c ) Impacts , aenzen e onl y- 28MI D

- estimat e wit h 0-100 0 stratifie d -actor s 2) Ga s Plant s a > SAC T - Pe g v . NSPS , 28 M

- "'27
. -ecuctio n z^/Qr EP Ar actor< = b ' _.AEP /
.

" ""IPACT3 - h a experienc e 3 ) SOCM I a ) SAC T - Re g V , NSPS . NESHAPS , 28 M

-.727
. reductio n b ) _AER/Impact s - 28MI D

- stratifie d factor s 0-100 0 c ) migh t conside r 28M D wit h 90 % reductio n '-j r pornoou-a s lik e ethylen e an d propylen e 4 ) Specifi c taxic/odorous/lo w vapo r pressur e material s a ) 212 , NH3
. -CN , HF, H2 S

I& M provisio n similia r t o attacne d emissio n estimate s 0-100 0 stratifie a b ) Materia l wit h vapo r orossur o < 0.014 7 pgi a

I&M : pnvsica l inspectio n onl y n o imoact s analysi s emissio n estimate s 0-100 0 stratifie d c ) Materia l wit h vapo r pressur e 0.014 7 - a . 1.47 psi a i f impact s acceptabl e "&M : physica l inspectio n onl y emissio n estimate s SOCM I non-ieaKe r 'actor s i f furthe r reductio n dosire a I&M : 23MI D emissio n estimato s >0-l0@ S stratifie a .moiiflen : -ISi'v. D genera l i ymie n ~-z ..nsac:* * ir.ai/si s

- <o r moaification s th o entir e slan t woul d nav e t o implemen t 29MI D t o avoi d impact s analysi s 6 ) Calculat e emission s fo r al l source s cu t clai m reductio n onl yfo r sourco a actuall yinspocto d a ) flanges : C3 % -eductio n ( ar physica l inspectio nP.6 2

P . 4 o f 4 uMA/EP ASoecifi c Comoounc/p 1 an t studie s

_a ) Butaaiene
. Ethylen e Oxid e an d Ph a S q e n e b ) *"uitip_ e plan t pataoas e -o r carrelafp- s i- \ "AC B ma v P e wiilin g t o us e th e resultin g por-eiation s i f dat a i s complet e an d correspondin g eouiomen t an d I& M specification s are define d - w

©wil l seo . Informatio n neede d i n th e applicat i o n a . ""abu.at e sourc e coun t b ysourc e typ e b
. Sho wfactor s use d p . =ho w-eductio n claime d 3
. Hoeciat e b

ychemica l l ' Qualitativel yb ygroupin g range s o f composition s 2) Cuanitativel yb ycalculatin g eac h sourc e individuall y e . I f a modificatio n sno wexisting , ne wan d tota l no t jus t ne w f
. 5e e attache d example s a f acceptabl e method sEgjio o fl fpcnosiroCC WoBve a

D"ooa( p SG/S*D Q

CooptrGusot r SQOB O Ptrsooofltr Q FBotrege o
©rjuotro—EtraaDoa O Saopf i flung (CffiBB-DGCttfloira

a Secrwflc Q

LflgOoG : B.fl<goafl<r O OOsmwj ; [Lfldgoo

M
[LflsOot t (Uq-oofld Q

(Eoo^Woipot

r

Ca s Vapo r Ligh t Liqui d Meav yLiqui d Mf l

AB U Averag e SOCM H SOCH I

FUCinrDWE
- EMIISSDO N FACTOR S Kp/OOtr^SmoDO-c

e SOCM I SOCM I W/ O C ? C 2 ONL Y .005 6 (U.OO7 0

©.<Q>$9 4 (D.<0)20 4

0.001 7 0.0002 3 0.0000 3 0.00 0 7
0.005 0 0.002 7

0.003 0
0.000 3
0.039 6
0.022 5
0.22 8
0.10 4
0.001 3 0.0002 3 0.0000 3
0.001 8
0.015 0 0.007 3

0.021 2
0.0002 3
0.124 0
0.014 1
0.22 8
0.10 4
0.0024 1 0.0023 6 0.0000 3 0.003 4

0.015 0 Stratifie d O-OOO O ppm v 0.0001 4 (-97.5 ) 1 0.00028 * (-96.0 ) 0.0002 3 Non

Leake r 0.0004 8
0.0017 1
0.0002 3

(-56.0 ) (-02.2 ) 0.0001 2 (-55.0 ) 0.0114 * (-89.0 ) 0.0000 2
0.00 0 0 3 (-92.3 ) 0.012 0
0.013 5
0.089 4
0.044 7
0.0000 6
0.001 5

jiTE s . "ac Joh n S t

u s trDn atroacoOBQcr

o im (patratrtittlhiQsil Q aer o Ctll. Q perrce-ratt : fl-*ic(rea<3ao ait r decrease ® Ccro aaverag e SOCM I factora

. (Radian ) thes e ar s correc t number s 5-9-88 „ 11:3 0 a.D . Fro mCM ADraf t Protoco l (excep t G/V , Ligh t & Heav yLiqui d Flanges , SOCH I W/ O C 2 + C 2 onl yadde d ffrona 1-15-8 7 meeting ' summary. )P.6 4



### 8 . Piping , Valves , Pumps , andCompressor s i nC1 2 Servic e A . Al l operatin g practice s an dprocedure s shal l confor m t o th e recommende ddesig nandsafet y practice s specifie dby th e Chlorin e Institut e Guideline s fo r C^ - B . Audio , olfactor y

andvisua l check s fo r hydroge nchlorid e an d Cl 2 leak s withi nth e operatin g are a shal l b e mad e ever y fou r hours . ' • • C . Immediately , bu t n o late r tha non e hou r upo ndetectio no f a leak , plan t personnel ' shal l tak e th e followin g actions : 1 . Iseiat ©th e leak . 2 . Corem^nc i repai r o r replacemen t o f th e leakin g component . 3 . Us © a lea kcollection/containmen t system t o preven t th e leakunti l repai r o r replacemen t canb e mad e i f immediat e repai r i s no t possible . Record s shal l b e maintaine da t th e plan t sit e o f al l repair s an dreplaegffltgnts mad@ . Thes e record s shal l b e mad e availabl e t o representative s o f th e TAC S upo nrequest .Source * Stree a Coapositio n P I finned SOD) !

Nuaeo p Eaissio n ot ? Focto p Souree s (lb/hp/soupee ) Con t pe l Metho d Centra l

Efficienc y ($ ) Contro l 1G-* J Eaission s (1b/np)(tea/yp )
FU6IT M EMISSIO

N SOUSCE

S I H VO C SERVIC E HIT H US S THA

U 10 $ C2' S Valvos : gas/vape p ligh t liqui d heav y liqui d Puo p ligh t liqui d Seals : heav

y liqui d Mango : gas/vape p ligh t liqui d heav y liqui d Ope n Ende d Valves . BoHof Valves Cocspposse

p seal s Drain s Saopl o Connection s 23 0 0.011 3 61 7 0.01S 7 13 1 O.OOO S 1 7 0.108 9 4 0.047 2 54 4 O.0O3 9 111 7 O.OOO S 19 3 0.0000 8 20 7 0.004 2 4 3 0.229 3 2 0.302 7 2 9 0.002 7 2 4 0.03 3 A A A A A 73 $

73 $ 75 $ 73 $ 73 $ 36 3 30 % 30 $ 

## vm

non o F 0$

Subtota l fop Fugitiv

o EaissionSOUPCQ S withou t C 2 FUGITIV E EMISSIO

N SOUSCE S I

H VO C SERVIC E HIT H 10 $ O S HOS E C2' S Valvos : gas/vape p

ligh t liqui d hoov y liqui d ligh t liqui d Seals : heav

y liqui d Flange : gas/vaoe p light liqui d hoov y liqui d Ope nEnde

dValvo s BoHo f Valvo a Ceopposse psoal a Opsin s Sergi o Ceanoctien s 41 3 21 3 0 4 0 0.01 8 0.046 7 O.OOO S 0.27 3 0.03 1 109 1 0.003 3 39 9 0.003 2 0 0.0068 8 33 9 6 1 2 6 I S 1 7 0.097 4 0.221 3 0.S& 7 0.092 7 0.03 3 A

A A A A 73$

73$
73$ 73 $ 30 $ 30 $ 36 $

neat** F 0$

108 $ 0.70 7 3.61 8

2.42 2 10.60

7 0.01 7 0.07

2 0.46 3 2.62

7 0.04 7 0.28

7 1.483 " 0.39 1 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 9 0.06 9 0.07 8 0.06 S 6.S&T " 1.712 0.836 0.68 9 0.00 9 0.06 9

5.61 8 24.69

7

1.632 7.238 2.54 3 11.14

3 0.00 9 0.06

9 0.27 3 1.1S

6 0.08 9 0.0S9 4.04 8 17.72 1 1.43 2 6.36 1 0.08 9 0.SS

3 0.00 9 0.669 0.08 9 0.6S

9 0.08 9 0.069 0.02 7 0.11 8
o.ee© 0.S6

S S«jM@«a l fo p Fugitive * Eaissio n Soureo s oitf t C 2 9.SS 7 43.78 7 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaooooooooooooooooooaQOQaooooooooQoooooooooooooaooooooooaoooooooooo o Tota l o fFugitiv o Eaission s fo p Afeev a Soupeo s 15.81 3 63.39 4 Assuaptions : 1 . "I n VO C sopvico 0 i s dofino d a s containin g 10 $ O P SSF O VOC s o n a weigh t basis .

2 . SOCH I eaissio n factep s fo p C2' s appl y who n a fle a stpoe a contain s 10 $ O F COF C C2' s o n a csl o basis . 3 . Coun t fo p valve s an

d flango s i n hydpee&rbo n sopvico bu t ne t i n VO C soFvieo i s ppovido d fo p informatio n only . 4 . Coun t fo p al l SOUPCO S i s baso d o n pocon t otftylon o project s o f siaila p dosign . Bofopeneo : Kolleg g Jo b 626 2 5 . Pipin g spoeificatien s dictat e pipin g cennoctien s 2 ° an d boleo t o b

e soefco t welded .
Contpe l Methods : A . Ouaptopl yloa b dotoctie n an d rcpoi p ppe- frm.

8 . guartGPl yloaf e dotoct*ie n an d repai p ppegpao . C . Opo n endo d valvo s cappe d O P blinded . 0 . BoHo fvalvo s connecte d t e th o flap o systea . t. Coaopesso F jea l lest s centime ; m d r.T/ele. t s priests .P.6 6

COMPONEN T PROPYLEN E VAPO R VALVE S LIQUI D VALVE S - . SAMPL E CONN . COMPRESSOR S RV S VAPO R FLANGE S LIQUI D FLANGE S

ALLY L CHLORIO E VAPO R VALVE S LIQUI D VALVE S SAMPl£CONN . COMPRESSOR S RV S VAPO R FLANGE S UOUI D FIANGS S

HEAV YENO S VAPO R VALVE S UQUI D VALVE S SAMPL E CONN . COMPRESSOR S RV S VAPO R FUDGE S UOUI O FLANGE S

LIGH TENO S VAPO R VALVE S UQUI O VALVE S SAMPL E CONN . COMPRESSOR S RV S VAPO R PLANGE S UQUI O FUNGES NE TCOUN T OL O
40 3 167 1 2 3 1 1 1 135 2 473 7

14 0 33 2 0 0 0 41 4 100 0

3 9 12 5 4 0 0 12 5 37 5

S I 7 1 2 0 0 15 3 21 3 NE TCOUN T

NE W
4 7 .16 6 1 0 0 14 3 49 7

7 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 6 6

-
1 5 1 5 1 0 0 4 6 4 5

• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE TCOUN T

TOTA L
45 0 183 7 2 9 1 2 149 5 523 4 PROPYLEN E

14 7 35 4 0 0 0 43 5 106 6 A O
5 4 14 0 5 0 0 17 1 42 0 HEAV YENO S
5 1 7 1 2 0 0 15 3 21 3 LIGH TENO S FACTO R

•/HR/COM P | (<100 0 PPM* . 0.0003 1 0.0006 2 0.0029 0 0.0249 6 0.0251 3 0.0000 4 0.0000 4 TOTA L a f<100 0 PPM" i 0.0003 1 0.0006 2 0.0029 0 0.0249 6 0.0251 3 0.0000 4 0.0000 4 TOTA L a U100 0 PPM 1 0.0003 1 0.0006 2 0.0029 0 0.0249 6 0.0251 3 0.0000 4 0.0000 4 TOTA L a (<100 0 PPM ) 0.0003 1 0.0006 2 0.0029 0 0.0249 6 0.0251 3 0.0000 4 0.0000 4 TOTA L a EMISSION S

LBS/H R
0.1 4 1.1 4 0.0 8 0.0 2 0.0 5 0.0 6 0.2 1 1.7 1
0.0 5 0.2 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.3 3
0.0 2 0.0 9 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.1 4
0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 8 EMISSION S

TPY
0.8 1 4.9 9 0.3 7 0.1 1 0.2 2 0.2 6 0.9 2 7.4 8

0.2 0 0.9 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 0.1 9 1.4 2
0.0 7 0.3f t 0.0 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 7 0.6 2
0.0 7 0.1 9 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 4 I 0.3 5

"Net " coun t mean s actua l componen t coun t multiplied b y th e percentag e o

f flo w throug h it tha

t i s th e constituen t whos e emission s ar e bein g estimated . Tha t is , i f th e flo wthroug h a componen t i s 30 % EDC , an d 70 % VCM , i t i s counte d a s 0. 3 i n th e ED C emission s tabl e an d 0. 7 i n th e VC M emission s table .ATTACHMENT II I

APPLICATIO N O FFUGITIV EKIOMITOKIM GC3IT M IMTEMSIV E DIRECTE D D3AIMTEMAMC E GEMERALPROVISIO N 28C3I D Issue * Dat e Applie d 9/11/8 7
4J/17/8 9 4/18/8 9
7/7/8 9 <t

© Ktet J Pro c C-1807 2
C-1881 S C-1881 7
C-1895 0 Cq-Rraj^if ftflfSliae e@ ® SDonilb

s Polysa r Gul f Coast , In c Phillip s 6<

S Compan y Chemica l Researc h& Licencin g Compan y Do w Chemica l U.S.A

.

Im * Klodlifficaitioin i too Ezsistimng j ttJiraitts 5/12/8 8 R-4825 A Georgi aGul f Corporatio n

9/16/8 8 R-875 8 Mobi l Chemica l 

## ynU t mm

Torna c Rubbe r Ethylen e Uni t 3 3 Pilo t Plan t hydrocarbon s Uni t .

Cumen e Plan t Provision* *

GP 6 Earl yVers . Pollutants** *

VO C Chlorobenzen e GP 6 28MI D (3/89 ) VOC , Benzen e GP 6 28MI D (1/88)* ' GP3 Chemica l Lis t VO C 2 4 Compoun d Lis t GP 7 28MI D (3/89 ) VOC , Benzene , SP1 3 Ga s Analyze r Ethylene , Calibratio n Propylen e

GP 6 28MI D (1/88 ) SP 3 Modifie s t o 3/8 9 28E3I D Polyethylen e Plan t GP 8 28MI D (1/88 ) VOC , Benzen e

VOC , Polyethyl

ene , Ethylene , Hexan e

* Issu e dat e i s th e dat e 28MI D (3/89 ) o r a t simila r intensiv e directe d maintenanc e progra mwa s pu t i n th e permit
. a * Provisio n indicate s th e Genera l Provisio n (GP ) and/o r Specia l Provisio n (SP ) tha t enact s 28MI D (3/89 ) o r a n earlie r o r modifie d version
. ao * Pollutant s note s specifi c ai r contaminant s affecte d byth e fugitiv e provision
.

### Issue * Dat e Numbe r Compan yNam e Uni t Nam e Provision* * Pollutants** * 12/33/8 8 R-908 5 Unio n Carbid e Chemica l & Plastic s Company , Inc . Oxo-80 0 GP 6 28MX D (1/88 ) SP 2 Modifie s t o 3/8 9 28MX D Butyraldehyd e

Butanol , VO C w/10 $ abov e 3/10/8 9 X-1623 1 Texac o Chemica l Compan y
6/10/8 9 R-844 4 7/5/8 9 C-638 2 PP G Industrie s
Do wChemica l U.S.A .
7/6/8 9 C-1877 5 Nalc o Chemica l Compan y 8/7/8 9 C-628 3 Halterman , Ltd
. Pilo t Plan t

Chloroformat e Expansio n G C 28MX D (1/88) '

GP 7 28MI D (3/89 ) Ethylen e Amine s GP 7 28MI D (3/89 ) Uni t Expansio n SP 4 VC M Recover y Unit 4 

### Oxylation/Resi n GP 7 28MI D (3/89 )

Uni t Superfractionatio n GP 7 28MI D (3/89 ) 6 Storag e Facilit y Ethylen e Oxid e 1 , 2 Butylen e Oxid e Pivalyo l Chlorid e Viny l Chlorid e Ethylen e Oxid e
VOC , Approve d Chem
. Lis t ha s 120-4

- compound s

* Issu e dat e i s th e dat e 28MI D (3/89 ) o r a t simila r intensiv e directe d maintenanc e progra mwa s pu t i n th e permit
. * * Provisio n indicate s th e Genera l Provisio n (GP ) and/o r Specia l Provisio n (SP ) tha t enact s 28MI D (3/89 ) o r a n earlie r o r modifie d version
. ** * Pollutant s note s specifi c ai r contaminant s affecte d b yth e fugitiv e provision
.

### Issue * Dat e dumbe r Compan yNam e Uni t Nam e Provision* * Pollutants** * 8/15/8 8 R-1272 ASterlin g Chemica l Acrylonitril e Productio n GP 8 28MI D (1/88 1 SP 2 Modifie s t o vers , simila r t o 28MI D (3/89 )

Acrylonitril e (AN) , V0C/10 S A

N

8/18/8 8 R-343 ' Do wChemica l U.S.A . Pheno l Plan t GP 6 2 8 MI D (1/88 ) SP 4 Modifie s t o 3/8 9 28MI D VOC , Benzen e

Phenol', , Aceton e

1 

### Thi s wa s a n earl yversio n suggeste d b yth e compan

yusin g 1,00 0 ppra

^ leaker , bu t n o specifi c directe d maintenance
. 2 

### Thi s wa s th e versio n o f 28MI D drafte d i n Januar yo f 198 8 (1/88)

- wit h th e exceptio n tha t th e monthl y testin g ha d bee n change d t o quarterly
. 3 

### Th e Specia l Provisio n 1 3 reference s EP A-methodolog yfo r ga s analyze r calibration
. 4 

### Th e Specia l Provisio n 4 note s th e Genera l Provisio n 7 onl yapplie s t o th e VC M recover yunit
. 5 

### Th e actio n leve l i s 1,00 0 ppmrathe r tha n 50 0 ppm w 

### . 6 

### Thi s i s a genera l conditio n place d i n a n exemptio n rathe r tha n a provisio n i n a permit
.

* Issu e dat e i s th e dat e 28MI D (3/89 ) o r a t simila r intensiv e directe d maintenanc e programwa s pu t i n th e permit
. * * Provisio n indicate s th e Genera l Provisio n (GP ) and/o r Specia l Provisio n (SP ) tha t enact s 28MI D (3/89 ) o r a n earlie r o r modifie d version
. ** * Pollutant s note s specifi c ai r contaminant s affecte d b yth e fugitiv e provision
.

# w

C O C O

t o

o t o
o o r Q

_

tt. . C 5 l f l

• a e » a i
3 T J c O a E o «_> c o

- O L

_ •t f E

o

• J V I <4 - tt o c n v i at o v » • r - >t f v i 3 > « — O r —
TJ C r - O 0 -r - 0 1 0- » O . O . v . E

—c u » < J C «- > V I c J C

« - «o - o o V I T J c at o

- o -r - -• - «- » > -r- o T J L . c Q . O o X J . — •t f •t f u E a* a . •/ > v > « o —

•- » u O
- •— a i E o C K< U I j J C L V I

w t u > L

_ *r —It f L

_M r— o « o <« -
-—

_> • C t_ - •t f C U " O o

- —4_> <_ > c o o - o > - X J o i J

_jy j • a
__ s v i o o T J o L

_ c « _ _JTJT J o > , c O-J C < o E O I - T J o o a * ^ «- » u * o o • i - C J ) e «« » . — D I M O « - e o o o

_ Q Q f tt> «

_X J
-. - «_ » .— • M O . — i f l L « 8

—- o x : O > » If l > J : CT > t u c V I X I •. - T J -, - C C X

—3 O «t f O -r0- > O.T J C S O O C o o o

X I V I O L

_ o c o «

_« s

__ l Cf > __r

t o t

_c V I O -r- T J » J I - 3 c o»r - r - J C O O 0- » X a o t i 0- > 

### 5 t
_ ( U O U l «_»*- » cr

> m it f l-L . C c w« c < a Q - C -. - J C O -r - *- » p — C O If l

. —•• - C l/ l K S ' ( U C U x : *-~--T-

-— v i «o - u o - - o c u «o

- c

_ _cn<e - « o c o » A J

. —-. - r o «0 - V I «- » • —o c «s » o

_c u «- » @ l if l O R »

_ C -r - 8 - « _ h - t > « l fi)

O - Q . c o o -r- tet E >.O i . — a t o«y » « s » J c x : V I fl* C V I v i o x : E • r - «_ > C U >.<* - «J > * - t - If l I/ i Q l * U tf) > , > tt» V I O « J r — O « = > » c u at o L. t- O c <u « - > * V 0 9 X TO OL4> J O

— - -r - at L O O J L o a » •> — «_ » c u — e g c «_ D «o
_ L « S I D O a » J C « - c «- » d t cy

> • » - Q . C O V I o •. - C V I V I •• - 01^ - o ^-. —o . c m w < « o x c •• - • — C WT ) > > V I

_ a v i at

- o o m O< J t

_«

_t u 3 a n « J a. a a 3 l O T J O 3 «

. —V I I f l O « J T J C lf l __» . 5 5 O ^ - _ C o_^ - X E O < V O J C O If l « J

I U C V I ••- » o E x > 'J S G «

_at " 3 n g L . t u O » J i>_ » v i I/ I x : v i ° O»« J

—c io - a i a i o » J > V I > . ns n - (

__ s a i
> e » > , o
_ c • — U l - n c u c u >

o o C E « • r - ffl W

9 «J > 0 1 > , V I > C if l re at > •. - c o o «c- *- •*- at <_

_o • — a i u a i ^ - c
_ « J — c o "• c u o v i 0 «- > t . Il l c 0 1 J C C3

J Q

. •«- » > c

» « J I f l «- > a i c n t u «

_o >

__ i « > o . L . o a

_«_ » o l/ > lf l c • 0 V D •~- ra tn c» » i f l • o - C U E «-» a i v i ro

- O 2 Q l «J > lo - rQ O 0 1 l/ l t

_c o o C r - V I V I T J -r- «J 6 3 0) 

### ^ § T J

_ J C if l « 0 > > l f l O L 3 « _ g t U J C o- » •t f O tn L . O t u t
_ nt tn l/ l -rC

_ c 0 *-> -9— tn o v i «- > • ^ E C 01 o fil O J * & o- » tj •r- X xy. at 3 «0 - « _ 0 1 V I J C If l t- » t u O o o > , D - C O l t - > O ^ - « J
* J -r - 3 C 0 O 0 1 E X o O l -r - x : & - «_ > »_ » v i > » J Q O
CtJ AJ ) O l

§ •t f

V I 3 •tf J C « t u G

_ « J c 

# e < y t

_ •^ 3 

### S " 1 - o atx i Q . 3 <t f lf l T S <S) C J O 5 s « J E §



### £

v i v i cc O 5 •— o I f l T J l f l -j c • r - O E — a i X J 3

_v i O -r- »- » J C »- » tJ> c E ^ - o

. —i

_ 0 *» - O 

# ° ^
o T J I f l 3 * J — C O 0 1 X > a i * > c « U O •_ — 8 - o- » 0 a . .«

_c u S

_u 0 1 X O l v g a i x :

_ _U • r - 3 3 lf l tit * M LC« J •t f c C O l O «

_E • r - O 0 1 l f l » J t

_ • r - O -r - > O l 3 o L c r a

_—ffl *—

* <x HZ C M r o c o •r. l f l • — > o l

_ t x ." ~ ro c
_ 0 J c a i _D E o t

_ L L c o

* J • o <T J l f l <T > J C •t f L - < J 0) -r- >>« = 3 E r—C U C t_ J T > o a i T J

a i <— o • —v i •t f -r - E O-* J * o C D O O . L . L

_-r - a > u - 3 x : o * Q.4 J o » v i a . o E v i Etlr - * J X •t f t u O l > 0 1 0 1 r — x : « - <

a XJ J < o * > O lf l JC.
• M a t « 3 •r - « o a i 4- > o » C_n.^ - L . . —« J •t f -r - It f X«J X O 3 * J I f l • r - 10 - T J •oo o

T J •O J tt> -rIt f t

_> J C 3 O _j_»^ - 8 - I f l

C L

_

—O •«-> O l -TX J c O r - E r ^ •t f O JZ *- » V I o c u •/ • o>-. - 3 ^ 3 •tf C7 > 0 1 L

_ a i 3 t

_0- >est •. - f_ L

_ • O a i O l

_ c * J *- » • o T J a i o • o ^- > c fc—•

o c "8 O T J •«- » 3 J C l f l l f l l/ l a i o O L O O l L

_ 91 J O
r— r — *t f 3 Q.J C I f l 3 I f l < - 0 1 «

_T S O - c •t f <c at •> o r— •f- O . E « J I f l < o a> «o - « > r - ( - •t f O > a i H - L

_o o . a » -r - o E a > X L U O l >

_ — • n

> • • r - «» - Z

t — • ttl «0 - C L . O O

•t~ >.•«- > lf l * J . -r - 0 1 3 > <* - lf l O •t f C U L

_ t o « - a . •tf >

. tt" L . •• - «_ > C U l f l •^ ~ O-. — 3 o » L

_ o v i a i •r- x : T J xj- » 0 ) C L

_O l 3 0 1
• J 3 o_<- > 3 a » L

_J 3 I f l

I A o I f l "• — T J L

_ O .

« J X O l c O l J C «- » c •tf J C «- > 8

_ O l 0 1 c

••• - Je t •tf a i r—
r— r- — « <

o

> 1 4 J

• r — l

_ O i a > •- » c •*- < J • o r— o c a > > Ol^ - x : < » 4 J •> E - O « J L

_3 l«

_* J O 4k > <t f Q L E « J 0 1 If l x « - O l — '— ^ O I f l r—" * • a c O CU-r - L

_if l
• O -r - > v i O 0 1 L

_ > Q . r — «.— > «t f e - (7> O l C C • i - 0 1 5 o » O r— tn r —'r * O J C *J > "4 - < J 3 J O O l 10 - J C o >>*- » 0- » c 3 *- » L . O l f l c C o C O — » O • - lf l • r - O J t - •_ > -W- 0 1 •rO U O-T J C E O-T J O 3 O •t f o c 0
I

0 JP.71

.

ATTACHMEN T I V 

# m 

# 'EXA S AI RCONTRO LBOAR

" 633 0 HWY
. 29 0 EAST

. AUSTIN

. TEXA S 78723

. 512/431-571 1
DIC KWHnTINCTON , P.E. CHAIRMAN BO B C . BAILE

Y VICECHAIRMAN ALLE N EL I BEL L EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR JOH N L BLAI R MARCU S M . KEY . M.O . OTT O R . KUNZE . Ph.D. , P.E . HUBER T OXFORD

, II I WILUAM H . QUORTRU P CH . RIVER

S MAR Y ANN E WYAT

T

Augus t 2 , 198 9

Mr , William

E . Jacob s Environmenta l Manage r GA P CHEMICAL S CORPORATION Pos t Offic e So

x214 1 Texa s City , Texa s 77592-214 1

Dea r Mr . Jacobs ; Re ; Relie f Valv e Requirement s
Thi s i s o f emis s response .

inrespons e to you r lette r date dMarc h8 . 198 9 regardin g contro l ion s fro m relie f valves . I apologiz e fo r the dela y inou r

We hav e tw

o emissio nissue s relate dt o safet y relie f valves. * fugitiv e emission s an

d upse t relate demissions . Fo r each , bot hbes t availabl e contro l technolog y

(SACT ) an

d approvabl e emissio nimpact s mus t b e achieved . Th e fugitiv e emission s ca nb e controlle dby , i norde r o f preference, ventin g th e valve s t o a flar e (98 2 control) , installing anupstream ruptur e dis c (1002 ) o r by implementin g a fugitiv e inspectio nan d maintenanc e progra

m (752) . Upse t o r emergenc y emission s may b e con trolle dby , als o inorde r o f preference , relievin g t o a flar e o r b y proces s interlock s tha t rapidl y shu t of f steam , feed , etc . a s a resul t o f pressur e buildup . Ou r conventiona l Provisio n32 M (enclosed ) require s tha t al l relie f valve s b e route dt o a flar e (98 2 efficient) , incinerato r (99.5 2 efficient ) o r a recover y system (95 2 efficient) . W e prefe r th e SAC T approac htha t al l relie f valve s reliev e t o a flar e syste m o r equivalen t withou t exception s fo r pip e siz e o r vapo r pressures,becaus e thi s take s car e o f bot hfugitiv e an d upse t emissions - I f thes e control s ca nb e show nt o b e technicall y

o r economicall y

unreasonable , the nth e applican t mus t propos e som

e othe r metho do f contro l fo r fugitive s and upse t emis sions -Mr . Willia m E . Jacobs. . 2 Augus t 2 , 198 9

Whe nrelie f valv e vent s ar e no t route dt o a nabatemen t system , the nth e nex t mos t preferabl e fugitiv e emissio ncontro l i s a ruptur e dis c up strea m whic hessentiall y

eliminate s fugitiv e emissions . Wher e thi s optio ni s no t feasible , we woul dagre e t o implementatio no f a quarterl y inspectio nan

dmaintenanc e progra m usin g a lea

k definitio nof 50 0 ppmv . T o addres s upse t emission s whe nrelie f stream s ar e no t route dt o an abatemen t system , w

e woul dreques t specia l proces s instrumentation / interlock s tha t woul dpreven t pressur e buildu po r a t leas t minimiz e th e frequency , magnitud e an dduratio no f th e relie f or a multipl e relie f valv e system

i nwhic hsmalle r relie f valves , triggere da t lowe r pres sures , ar e route dt o a flare . Inaddition , fo r relie f valve s no t route dt o abatemen t systems , in cludin g thos e protecte db y a ruptur e disc , we woul drequir e dispersio n modelin g o f the uncontrolle demission s durin g relief s t o demonstrat e acceptabl e impacts . I f impact s fro m norma l relie f situation s o r fro m majo r proces s upset s ar e unacceptabl e the na nimprove ddispersio n alternativ e ma y

b e considere dt o obtai nacceptabl e impacts . Fo r some explosiv e o r toxi c gases , emergenc y scrubbin g ma y

b e anoption . Ther e ma y

be some case s wher e th e relie f emission s ar e s o smal l tha t an y BAC T concer ni s unwarrante dan dtha t relie f o f th e system' s content s to th e atmospher e woul db e expecte dt o hav e n o advers e impacts . Thes e ' case s woul db e considere do nthei r merit s case-by-cas e i na permi t review . W e hav e bee naskin g fo r ruptur e disc s upstream o f relie f valve s fo r abou t 1 0 years . Some applicant s hav e raise dth e concer nidentifie di n you r lette r tha t a pinhol e lea k i nth e dis c coul dleadt o doublin g th e relie f pressur e o f th e system - Thi s wa s andi s o f grea t concer nt o us a s wel l whic hi s wh

y th e pressur e gaug e ha s bee nrequire da s a mean s o f verifyin g dis c integrity . W e understan dther e ar e als o ruptur e disc s availabl e wit helectroni c monitorin g o f dis c integrity . Fo r you r information , some applicant s hav e identifie da concer nabou t piece s o f dis c lodgin g i na relie f valv e an

dpreventin g th e valv e fro m closin g properl y

followin g relief - W e hav e no follow-u pinformatio n tha t confirm s tha t thi s happen s significantl y inpractice . Also , som e applicant s hav e preferre dt o pu t th e safet y valv e upstrea m

of th e dis c t o avoi dtne dis c fragmen t problem . However , we understan dtha t thi s i s no t feasibl e i

nservice s highl y

corrosiv e t o th e relie f valv e components . W e hav e man y

permittee s wh o hav e bee nrequire dt o contro l relie f valv e emission s a s described . Certainl y w e woul dwelcom e furthe r insights , specifi c technica l informatio no r experienc e tha t yo ucoul dshar e wit h us .P.7 3

Mr . Willia m

E . Jacob s 3 Augus t 2 , 198 9

Thank yo ufo r you r interes t i nai r pollutio ncontrol . Le t m e kno w i f yo uhav e furthe r questions . Sincerely , fj.\

Sa m Crowther , P.E . Chief , Chemica l Sectio n Enclosur eP.7 4



# EQUIPMEN TLEA KREGULATOR YNEGOTIATIO N

Revision s t o EP

A Correlation s fo r Estimatin g Equipmen t Lea k Emission s

EP A Presentatio n b y
Mr . Davi d Markword t Emissio n Standar d De visio n U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1P.7 5



# ORGANIZATIO N O F PRESENTATIO N

- Backgroun d fo r Developmen t o f EP A Correlation s

- Nee d fo r Additiona l Baggin g Dat a

- Summar

y o f Equipmen t Baggin g Dat a

- Propose d Samplin g Matri x fo r Baggin g

- Compariso n of Equipmen t Baggin g Dat aP.7 6



# BACKGROUN D FO R DEVELOPMEN T O F EP A CORRELATION S

- Gas Valves , Ligh t Liqui d Valves , Pump s o Al l baggin g dat a fro m SOCM I 6-Uni t Maintenanc e Stud y use d except :

- Screenin g value s < 1 0 ppm v

- Screenin g value s > 100,00 0 ppm v

- Finite screenin g valu e bu t non-detectabl e mas s emissio n rat e

- Flange s o On e correlatio n develope d fo r al l flange s o Baggin g dat a fro m Refiner y Assessmen t Stud y use dP.7 7



# NEE D FO R ADDITIONA L BAGGIN G DATA

- Gas Valves , Ligh t Liqui d Valves , Pump s o Existin g SOCM I baggin g dat a < 50 0 ppm vshoul d b e discarde d an d ne wbaggin g dat a collecte d

- Screenin g value s < 50 0 ppm var e uncertai n because : o Screenin g instrument s calibrate d t o 10,00 0 ppm v o Instrumen t readou t accurat e t o S % o f calibratio n (50 0 ppmv

)

o Existin g SOCM I baggin g dat a >50 0 ppm vshoul d b e retaine d

- Sufficien t QA/Q C guidelines fo r baggin gP.7 8



# NEE D FO R ADDITIONA L BAGGIN G DATA

- Flange s o Ne wcorrelation s shoul d b e develope d fo r entir e rang e of screenin g value s ( 0 - 100,00 0 ppmv)

- Baggin g dat a fro m Refiner y Assessmen t Stud y d o not mee t propose d EP

A QA/Q C guidelines fo r baggin g
o Separat e correlation s fo r ga s flange s an d ligh t liqui d flange sSUMMAR YO F EQUIPMEN T BAGGIN GDAT A

Eau i pmen t Typ e Screen!n q Va l u e <ppmv > Numbe r o f Dat a Pair s

SOCM I 6-Uni t Ma i ntenanc s Stud v Butad i ene /

Ethylen e O Kid s Stud y Unio nCarbid e Acrolei n Stud y Alabam a Conso r t i u m Stud y Vulca n

Chem i ca l Stud y

Ga s Valve s

L i qh t L i qu i d Valve s

Pump s

Ga B Flanqo s

Liqh t Liqui d Flanqe s O l-l O IO-IO O IOO-I.OO O 1,000-10,00 0 > 10,00 0 O l-l O 10-10 0 100-1,00 0 1,000-10,00 0 > 10,00 0 0 l-l O 10-10 0 1OO-1.OO O 1,000-10.00 0 > 10,00 0 O l-l O 10-10 0 100-1,00 0 1,000-10.00 0 > 10,00 0 O l-l O 10-10 0 100-1,00 0 1,000-10.00 0 > 10,00 0 1 3 5 2 4 6 1 10 1

9 7 0 1

1 4 3 9 0 O O O O O O O O O O O B 5 2 3 3 O

O 1 1 1 1 O

O 3 O O 2 6 1 I O 2 O 4 1 

### T T O O 

### o

o o o o o o 4 1 O 1 O 

### o 6 

### o 2 O 1 O 

### o

o I T 

### o o o

o

o 1 

### o o O 

### o O 2 

### o O 

### o o o o O 

### T T O O O 1 3 9 2 4 7 6 3 8 4 2 1 4 6 O "~ 1 1 O 1 2

. 2 2 4 O O O O O O O 

### o o o o o o o o o o 2 4 O O O O OP.8 0



# SUMMAR

YO F EQUIPMEN TBAGGIN G DATA

- SOCM I 6-Uni t Maintenanc e Stud y

- CM A Butadien e an d Ethylen e Oxid e Pane l Studie s

- Unio n Carbid e Acrolei n Stud y

- Alabam a Consortiu m Stud y

- Vulca n Chemica l Stud y

- Refiner y Assessmen t Stud y Ongoin g

- Unio n Carbid e (Taft , LA) Stud yP.8 1



# PROPOSE D SAMPLIN G MATRI XFO R BAGGIN G

Previou s samplin g matri x designe d t o maximize amoun t of baggin g dat a collected ; targete d towar d overal l evaluatio n o

f curve s Revise d samplin g matri x designe d t o eas e burde n o f dat a collectio n an d focu s o n area s o f uncertaintyP.8 2



# PROPOSE D SAMPLIN G MATRI XFO R BAGGIN G

Gas Valves , Ligh t Liqui d Valves , Pump s o Minimu m o

f 3 0 bag s i n screenin g valu e rang e o f 0 - 1,00 0 ppmv o Recommendation : 4 0 bag s (Allows fo r eliminatio n o f bag s o f unacceptabl e o r questionabl e quality) o Calibrat e on e screenin g instrumen t t o 10 0 ppm v(Allow s fo r accurat e concentratio n reading s dow n t o 5 ppmv)
o Calibrat e secon d screenin g instrumen t t o 1,00 0 ppmv o r 10,00 0 ppm vP.8 3



# PROPOSE D SAMPLIN G MATRI XFO R BAGGIN G
Flange s o Minimu m o

f 3 0 bag s i n screenin g valu e rang e o f 0 - 100,00 0 ppm v o Existin g correlatio n develope d fro m 5 2 bag s o Existin g SOCM I correlation s fo r GV , LLV , an d Pump s develope d fro m 99 , 129 , an d 5 2 bag s respectivel yP.8 4

- i



# PROPOSE D SAMPLIN G MATRI XFO R BAGGIN G

- Plan t Selectio n

o Striv e t o collect dat a fro m a wid e variet y o f chemical s



# JP.8 5



# COMPARISO

N O F EXISTIN

GSOCM I BAGGIN GDAT A T O OTHERBAGGIN

GDAT A

- Preliminar

y Assumptio n o Existin g SOCM I baggin g dat a > 50 0 ppm vi s o f sufficien t qualit

y t o retai n fo r propose d revision s t o EP A correlation s



# JP.8 6



# COMPARISO N O F EXISTIN G SOCM I BAGGIN G DATA T O OTHE R BAGGIN G DATA

- Methodolog y fo r Compariso n o Qualitative Analysi s o f Othe r Database s

- Baggin g dat a < 50 0 ppm vwil l b e discarde d i f i f screenin g instrumen t wa s calibrate d t o 10,00 0 ppm v

- Us e engineerin g judgemen t t o discard othe r baggin g dat a i f the y ar e no

t o f comparabl e o r superioi r qualit y t o existin g SOCM I dat aP.8 7



# COMPARISO N O F EXISTIN G SOCM I BAGGIN G DATA T O OTHE R BAGGIN G DATA

o Quantitativ e Analysi s

- Revis e EP

A correlation s t o includ e onl y thos e components screenin g betwee n 50 0 an d 100,00 0 ppm v

- Ad d ne wdat a t o existin g dat a an d develo p secon d se t of correlation s

- Compar

e correlation s an d associate d confidenc e interval s pe r EP

A Protoco l o I f correlation s ar e similar , merg e ne wbaggin g dat a into existin g SOCM I dat a o I f correlation s ar e no t similar , retai n onl y th e SOCM I baggin g dat ai •*

- SUMMAR YO F EQUIPMEN T BAGGIN GDAT A BS=SSZS==S S 

# w

_ ,

• Equipmen t

Typ a

Ga s ValVQ B

Ligh t Liqui d Valvo o

Pump s

G a s Flango s

Ligh t Liqui d Flongo o Screen i n q (ppmv ) SOCM I 6-Uni t

Ma i

O l-l O 10-10 0 100-30 0 500-1,OO O 1,000-10,00 0 > 10.00 0
O 1-1 0 10-10 0 100-50 0 500-1,OO O 1,OOO-10,OO O > 10,OO O
O l-l O 10-10 0 100-30 0 300-1,OO O 1,000-10,00 0 > 10,ooo
o l-l O 10-10 0 100-30 0 SOO-1,oo o 1,000-10,00 0 > 10,ooo
o 1-1 0 10-10 0 100-50 0 300-1,OO O 1,000-10,00 0 > 1O.OO O ntananc e Stud y

1 3 3 5 1 3 1 1 6 1 14 1 1 3 9 1 4 I O 7 6 9 7 6 1 6 1 3 1 4 3 9

> 0 O o o o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o Butad i ene /

Ethylen e Oxid e Stud y
a 5 2 1 2 3 0 3 8 4 O 2 1 4 3
O 1 1 1 0 1 o 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 2 6 1 6 4 2 O Numbe r ol Dat a Pair s Unio nCarbid e Alabam a Acrolei nConsortiu m Stud y S t

4 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 O 0 1 o 0 0 0 o 0 0
o **""" • 4 1 0 o 1 o o 6 0 2 O O 1 0 ud y

O O O O O O O 2
2

O 1

• 5

O 1 o o 0 0 o 0 2 0 O 0 O O o Vulca n Vist a

Chemica l Chemica l Stud y

0 O O <o O 0 O 2 4 O O O O O O
O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 O o 2 4 O O n o o o Stud y

1 2 O 0 O 0 O O 1 5 O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 1 6 O O
= . O 0 O 0