# Date: October 30, 2007

To: Karen Rackley, EPA/SPPD

From: Kristin Parrish and David Randall

Subject: Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the

SOCMI

I. Introduction

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA) is reviewing the new source

performance standards (NSPS) for equipment leak s of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the

synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing indust ry (SOCMI) (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) and

the petroleum refining industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG). During the review, EPA

identified three potential new requirements that were developed into regulatory options for

process units constructed, reconstructed, or modifi ed after the date of proposal: (1) lower the

leak definition for pumps from 10,000 parts pe r million (ppm) to 2,000 ppm and lower the leak

definition for valves from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm; (2) add connectors to the monitoring program

with a leak definition of 500 ppm; and (3) a dd open-ended valves or lines (OEL) to the

monitoring program with a leak definition of 50 0 ppm. Options 1 and 2 are consistent with

requirements in other Federal ru les, and Option 3 was developed because available information

shows significant emissions from OEL under the existing equipment standards. EPA proposed

and/or requested comment on these options on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65302). To clarify the

applicability of any new requirements, EPA has decided to create new subparts VVa and GGGa.

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the assumptions and methodology used

to determine the final estimates of cost and VOC emission reduction impacts for new,

reconstructed, and modified proc ess units in the SOCMI in the fifth year after proposal. The

options presented in this memo randum are defined as follows:

1) Lowering the leak definitions for pumps (2,000 ppm) and valves (500 ppm);

2) Option 1 plus monitoring of connectors; and

3) Option 2 plus monitoring of OEL (in ad dition to already-required caps/plugs).

The following is a summary of the impacts for each option:

# Option Emission

Reduction

(tons/yr) Total Annual

Cost without

Recovery

Credit ($/yr) CostEffectiveness

without Recovery

Credit ($/ton) Total Annual

Cost with

Recovery

Credit ($/yr) CostEffectiveness

with Recovery

Credit ($/ton)

1 94 41,000 430 -36,000 -380

2 328 820,000 2,500 550,000 1,700

3 353 930,000 2,600 640,000 1,800

Throughout the remainder of this memorandum, the term “reconstructed” refers to both

reconstructed and modified process units, and th e term “new” refers to process units that

commence construction after November 7, 2006.

II. Lower Leak Definitions for Pumps and Valves

A. Number of Impacted Sources

We used SRI Consulting’s 2004 Directory of Chemical Producers: United States to

estimate the number of currently-ope rating process units in the SOCMI. 1 

# There are

approximately 1,272 process units that manufacture chemicals listed in §60.489 of subpart VV.

This estimate is based on the total number of manufacturing sites listed in the SRI Directory for

310 of the chemicals listed in subpart VV (the ot her 68 are not listed in the 2004 SRI directory).

Each site that manufactures a particular chemical was assumed to have one process unit for that

chemical; several sites have multiple process un its because they manufacture more than one

chemical. Of the 1,272 process units, 879 units manuf acture either ethylene or a chemical listed

in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart F (the Na tional Emission Standard s for Organic Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks (HON)). Et hylene process units would be subject to the

equipment leak standards in 40 CFR part 63, subp art UU, as specified in the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories: Generic Maximum

Achievable Control Technology Standards (Eth ylene NESHAP) (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY),

if they are located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Process units

manufacturing one of the chemicals listed in Ta ble 1 to subpart F of the HON would be subject

to the equipment leak standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, of the HON if they use or produce

an organic HAP as a reactant or a product and are lo cated at a facility that is a major source of

HAP emissions. For convenience in the discussion that follows, all of the process units that

manufacture ethylene or a chemical listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR pa rt 63, subpart F, are referred to

as “HON sources” or are considered to be “ma nufacturing HON chemicals,” even if they are not

subject to the above NESHAP (e .g., they are located at area sources of HAP). The remaining

393 process units are assumed to be manufactur ing chemicals that would be subject to the

NESHAP for Miscellaneous Orga nic Chemical Manufacturing (M ON) (40 CFR part 63, subpart

FFFF) if they use, process, or generate HAP and are located at major sources of HAP emissions.

For convenience in the discussion that follows, these 393 process units ar e collectively referred

to as “MON sources” or are considered to be “m anufacturing MON chemicals,” even if they are

not subject to the MON (e.g., they ar e located at area sources of HAP).

To project the number of new and reconstruc ted process units at SOCMI facilities over

the next five years, we assumed the industry grow th rate (for both new and reconstructed process

units) would parallel the growth in gross domestic product (GDP). According to several sources,

2

# GDP annual growth projection es timates range from 2.7 percent 2 

# to 3.1 percent. 3

, 4 

# Based on

these data, we estimated the overall SOCMI growth rate to be 3 percent per year. Using this

growth rate, we estimate there will be 191 new or reconstructed process units in the SOCMI over

the next five years. However, the impacts of Option 1 will be different for the pumps and valves

in each process unit depending on what Federal ru les already require mon itoring at these lower

leak definitions. Not all of the 191 process un its will be impacted by amendments to the NSPS

subpart VV; as previously mentioned, some of these units are subject to the HON, the MON, or

the Ethylene NESHAP. We develope d seven scenarios in order to track which process units will

be impacted by each option; these seven include separate scenarios for new and reconstructed

process units to accurately estimate initial costs. Reconstructed units th at are covered under an

LDAR program prior to reconstruction will have fewe r initial costs, particularly those associated

with identifying the equipment, updating the trac king software, and other related tasks. See

Section II.C of this memorandum for fu rther details on the cost analysis.

We used several assumptions to determin e how many units will be represented by each

scenario. First, we assumed that the 191 process units constructed or rec onstructed in the next

five years will be split between HON sources and MON sources in the same ratio as the

1,272 existing process units. Second, we used EPA’s 2002 National Emissi ons Inventory (NEI) 5



# and the Envirofacts Data Warehouse 6 

# to determine how many proce ss units are located at area

sources and, therefore, not subject to any NESH AP. See Attachment A for the details of this

analysis. Based on the analysis results, we es timated that 15 percent of the process units are

located at area sources. Third, we made some assumptions regarding whether or not HAP are

emitted from the process units at major sources. We assumed that the manufacturing of any of

the chemicals listed in Table 1 to subpart F of the HON would require the use of an organic HAP

as a reactant or produce an or ganic HAP as a product. Therefore, we assumed that the

879 process units manufacturing HON chemicals are emitting HAP. It is possible that some of

the remaining 393 process units , those making MON chemicals, emit only non-HAP volatile

organic compounds (VOC). However, we do not have detailed process descriptions or other

information regarding the manufacture of these ch emicals. Therefore, we assumed that a small

percentage (20 percent) of the MON process units at majo r sources are emitting only non-HAP

VOC. Fourth, given the relatively high projecte d growth rate and the potentially unusually high

demand for ethanol as fuel, we assumed that ne w units would predominate in a 60/40 split with

reconstructed units ove r the next 5 years.

The fifth assumption involved the differences in definitions of “new” and “reconstructed”

affecting sources subject to the MON and subpart VV. The definitions of “new” and

“reconstructed” in § 63.2440(c) of the MON are more limited than the definitions included in the

General Provisions to subpart 60. In other words, a process unit that woul d be subject to subpart

VV would not necessarily be considered a new source for purposes of complying with the MON.

Therefore, these process units would be affected by any proposed amendments to subpart VV.

To be a new affected source under the MON, th e potential HAP emissions for the individual

process unit alone must be above the major source thresholds of 10 tons/yr for any single HAP or

25 tons/yr for collective HAP. Given this high threshold, we assumed that only 20 percent of the

new and reconstructed process units at existing major source facili ties subject to the MON would

meet the definition of “new” or “reconstructed” in § 63.2440(c). (This assumption only affects

the impacts of Option 2; process units subj ect to existing source standards under the MON

3

# currently have to monitor pumps and valves unde r an LDAR program equivalent to Option 1, but

they do not currently have to monitor connector s.) By applying the above calculations to the

191 estimated new and reconstructed process unit s, we estimate that 39 new and reconstructed

process units will be impacted by amendments to subpart VV (see Attachment B for a pictorial

representation of the calculations and the resulting estimate).

A majority of the costs and all of the emissi ons estimates are functions of the number of

pumps and valves. Therefore, we estimated the number of pumps and valves in model process

units that represent the 191 affected process unit s. We represented the affected process units

with the simple, medium, and complex models developed for the HON. 7 

# See Attachment C for

the equipment counts for each model process unit. We also assumed that the distribution of

these models in the SOCMI is the same as th e distribution in the original SOCMI analysis

(52 percent simple, 33 percent me dium, and 17 percent complex). 8 

# These process units were

divided among the seven scenarios in accordance with the number of process units subject to

each scenario as described above. The number of pumps and valves in the process units subject

to each scenario were estimated by multiplying th e number of pumps and valves in the simple,

medium, and complex models by the estimated numb er of process units. The results are shown

in Table 1.

B. Emission Estimates

The analysis uses industry-suppl ied data to the extent possible. The first step was to

estimate leak frequencies under both baseline an d Option 1 leak detec tion and repair (LDAR)

programs. We began by examining valve emissi ons data collected for the HON residual risk

analysis (see Attachment D). 9 

# The average leak frequency from this analysis (0.51 percent) was

selected as the leak frequency for an LDAR pr ogram controlling valves at 500 ppm. We then

used information from a similar analysis we pe rformed to examine the impacts of these same

regulatory options on the pe troleum refining industry. 10



# To estimate the leak frequency for SOCMI valves under a baseline LDAR program, we

assumed the ratio of baseline to Option 1 leak fr equencies would be the same for SOCMI sources

as for refineries. Similarly, to estimate SOCMI baseline and Option 1 pump leak frequencies, we

assumed that the leak frequency ratios between pumps and valves estimated for refineries would

also apply to the SOCMI. Attachment E presents the estimated leak frequencies for both

refineries and SOCMI sources as well as a samp le calculation for how each leak frequency was

determined. Table 2 summarizes the resulting es timated leak frequencies for SOCMI sources.

Average emission rates per pump and per va lve under the baseline and Option 1 LDAR

programs were estimated using the corre lation equations in Table 2-9 of the Protocol for

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (the Protocol document). 11 

# The relevant data from the

Protocol document and the 1997 American Petroleum Institute report Analysis of Refinery

Screening Data 12 

# are reproduced in Attachment F. In addition, the analysis uses the following

procedures and assumptions:

 10 screening value ranges were selected as shown in Attachment G (e.g., see page 2

of Attachment G),

4

#  screening values are lognorma lly distributed, and the geom etric mean represents the

typical screening value in each concentra tion range; as an approximation of the

geometric mean, the average screening value was assumed to be one-third of the way

above the lower end of the range (e .g., 665 ppm for leaks between 500 and 1,000

ppm),

 the total percentage of valves and pumps l eaking above the applicable leak definition

over a monitoring cycle was assumed to be equal to one-half of the leak frequency

just prior to monitoring,

 the percentage of valves or pumps with sc reening values within each range above the

leak definition is proportional to the di stribution for uncontrolled equipment with

screening values above that leak definition as presented in Figures B-3-2 to B-3-4 in

the Protocol document (similarly, the percen tages in screening value ranges below the

applicable leak definition were assumed to be proportional to the distribution of

screening values for uncontrolled equipment with screening values below that leak

definition), and

 emission rates for equipment with screening values less than 10 ppm were assumed to

be equal to the default zero emission rate s in Table 2-11 of the Protocol document.

The leak frequencies presented in Attachment E are assumed to be representative of

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

determine repair costs). However, U.S. EPA NEIC data on leak frequencies for valves at

17 refineries (as documented in Enforcement Alert ) suggest the actual per centage leaking may be

higher. We estimated that the actual percenta ge leaking is 1.7 times higher than typically

measured leak frequencies. This factor represents the 10 th 

# percentile of the data set (i.e.,

90 percent of the NEIC leak frequencies were at least 1.7 times higher than the leak frequencies

reported by the refineries). We chose to use a conservative factor because the report did not

include information such as the leak defin ition used by each of th e refineries, and all

17 refineries may not be represen tative of the entire petroleum refining industry or the SOCMI.

A more rigorous statistical anal ysis provided in a separate me morandum shows that the actual

leak fractions are at least 2.6 times higher than the industry-measured leak fractions at the

99 percent confidence interval. We did not use this higher factor in the final impacts analysis

because it did not change the regulatory conclusi ons. Furthermore, the 1.7 factor is more

conservative, which ensures that emissions estimat es are not overestimated due to any limitations

in the data used in the statistical analysis. 13



# Our emissions calculations for pumps and valv es are documented in Attachment G. All

calculations are based on the leak frequency distributions presente d in Figures B-3-2 to B-3-4 in

the Protocol document. For each type of com ponent, there are five sets of calculations:

Set 1 – Emissions, no control

The Protocol document leak frequency distributions estimated for pumps and

valves are used to obtain an emissions estimate. This calculation was performed

only to validate the proce dure by showing it estimates uncontrolled emissions

close to the average uncontrolled emissi on factors presented in Table 2-1 of the

Protocol document.

5

# Set 2 – Leak frequency dist ributions prior to monitori ng, baseline leak definition

The leak frequencies estimated for pump s and valves at 10,000 ppm (as described

above) are used to scale the Protocol document distributions for the LDAR

program currently required by subpart VV.

Set 3 – Average emissions, contro l at baseline leak definition

The Set 2 leak frequencies in concentr ation ranges above 10,000 ppm are divided

by 2 to estimate the average emissions be tween monitoring events with a leak

definition of 10,000 ppm.

Set 4 – Leak frequency distributions prio r to monitoring, proposed leak definition

The leak frequencies estimated for pump s and valves at the applicable proposed

leak definition (as described above) are used to scale the Protocol document

distributions for an LDAR program with leak defi nitions of 500 and 1,000 ppm,

depending on the type of component.

Set 5 – Average emissions, contro l at proposed leak definition

The Set 5 leak frequencies for ranges that are above the appropriate proposed leak

definition for each type of component ar e divided by 2 to estimate the average

emissions between monitoring events for that control program.

For each set in Attachment G, the column titled “Percent of values in range” shows the

scaled leak frequency data from the Protocol document as a percentage of all valves monitored.

The column titled “Emission rate, kg/hr (per 100 valves)” (or pump s) shows the results of the

correlation equation for the screening value in each range multiplied by the percentage of all

valves in that range. The sums of the values in each of those columns are divided by 100 to

convert the emission factor to a per-component basis. The emi ssion factors estimated in Set 3

and Set 5 are the factors used to calc ulate incremental emissions reduction.

C. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis uses a methodology that was originally presented in Impacts from the

Control of VHAP Emissions from Equipment Leaks in Non-SOCMI Process Units for HON

. 14



# The methodology has been tailored specifically for this analysis of the SOCMI. In other words,

we estimated costs only for pumps and valves (i ncluding associated planning and administrative

costs) because all other costs would be constant for implementing Option 1. We also assumed

there would be no initial costs for purchasing software to track monitoring or renting or

purchasing monitoring equipment because chemi cal manufacturers have already purchased or

made arrangements for those items under the current LDAR requirements.

Attachment H contains most of the constant values and information used in developing

our cost estimates. Several consta nt values used in this analys is were developed for previous

analyses and are documented in Impacts from the Control of VHAP Emissions from Equipment

Leaks in Non-SOCMI Process Units for HON

. Other constants were de veloped or estimated as

follows:

6

# Equipment-based costs

 Initial cost of monitoring equipment in gas and light liquid service: The value of

$17.70 per component includes fi eld identification of subj ect equipment; creating and

issuing drawings; creating data forms and tags; tagging of the pu mps and valves; and

populating the software. The value also assu mes that contractors are performing this

work. 15



#  Initial cost of monitoring equipment in heavy liquid service: The value of $1.13 per

component includes revising or developing drawings to identify equipment in heavy

liquid service. 16



#  Monitoring fee (equipment other than connectors): The value of $1.50 per

component is based on information provide d by a monitoring and repair contractor. 17



#  Wage (chemical manufacturing maintenance) and overhead factor: maintenance and

repair: We are assuming that monitoring and many first attempts at repair will be

performed by contractors. The value of $23.19 per hour is the mean wage rate for

Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code 49-9012 (control and valve

installers, except mechanical doors) in NAICS 325 ( Chemical Manufacturing ) in the

May 2006 Bureau of Labor Statistics (B LS) Employment and Wage Estimates. 18



# (This wage rate is for chemical manufactur ing personnel, not contractors, so it is

likely to be higher than the actual wage ra te.) We are also assuming a 200 percent

overhead factor (which correla tes to an overhead factor of 3) based on the overhead

factor used for performance testing contractors in the Continuous Emission

Monitoring System Cost Model (summarized in Section 2, Chapter 4.4 of the EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual 19 

# ).

 Overhead factor: administration, planning, and training: These tasks would be

performed by chemical manufacturing personnel. The overhead factor of 1.6

correlates to the average overhead factor of 60 percent sugg ested in Section 1,

Chapter 2.5 of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual for combined payroll and

plant overhead.

 Planning and training labor ch arge: The value of $64.21 is a weighted average for

technical, management, and cl erical labor. The weighted average assumes 5 hours of

management time and 10 hours of clerical effort per 100 hours of technical labor.

The values were selected from the Ma y 2006 BLS Employment and Wage Estimates.

The technical rate is based on the mean wage for environmental engineers ($35.41),

the management rate is based on the mean wage for general and operations managers

($59.94), and the clerical rate is based on th e mean for all office and administrative

support occupations ($17.16). A 60 percent ove rhead factor was added to these rates.

 Capital recovery factors: Equation 2.8a in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost

Manual 19 

# was used to calculate the capital recovery factors (CRF = [i * (1+i) n 

# )] /

[(1+i) n 

# – 1], where i is the intere st rate and n is the life span in years). For pump

seals, we assumed a life span of 5 years, and for all other equipment and initial labor,

we assumed a life span of 10 years. For both factors, we assumed an interest rate of

7 percent.

 VOC Recovery Credit: We estimated a t ypical recovery credit of $900 per megagram

(Mg). This value is an estimate based on prices for a number of solvents and

7

# intermediates provided by Platts. 20

, 21 

# Actual chemical prices vary over a wide range.

Many organic compounds are considerably more expensive. On the other hand,

common compounds like methanol and ethylen e dichloride are considerably less

costly. The $900/Mg value is weighted to wards the lower end of the range because

this value is representative of prices for common com pounds liked toluene, xylene,

and hexane; and it accounts for the fact that higher volume compounds tend to have

prices towards the lower end of the range.

Process unit-based costs

 Planning and training for LDAR program, current NSPS level and current MON

level: The value of 320 hours per process unit is based on an estimate of 318 hours of

initial administration, planning, and trai ning to implement a SOCMI-based LDAR

program for greater than 500 total pieces of equipment (documented in Attachment 7

to Equipment Leak Analysis for Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP ). 22



#  Planning and training for LDAR program, including connectors (current HON and

new source MON level): The value of 340 hours per process unit is based on the

estimate for initial administration, planni ng, and training to implement an LDAR

program that includes connector monitoring for greater than 5 00 total pieces of

equipment (documented in Attachment 7 to Equipment Leak Analysis for Amino and

Phenolic Resins NESHAP ).

 Administrative and reports for LDAR pr ogram, current NSPS level and current MON

level: Equipment Leak Analysis for PET Fac ilities Subject to the Group IV Polymers

and Resins NESHAP includes an estimate of 300 hours per year for an LDAR

program that includes connectors; 23 

# the value of 250 hours per process unit is scaled

down from that estimate based on the ratio of the amount of hours required for LDAR

programs with and without connectors in Equipment Leak Analysis for Amino and

Phenolic Resins NESHAP

.

 Administrative and reports for LDAR program, including conn ectors (current HON

and new source MON level): The value of 300 hours per process unit is from

Equipment Leak Analysis for PET Facil ities Subject to the Group IV Polymers and

Resins NESHAP

.

Attachment I shows the cost calc ulations for each of the three models. Pages I-1 to I-4 of

the cost calculations show the baseline case for pr ocess units that become subject to subpart VV

if no changes are made to the current rule. The parameters include a leak definition of

10,000 ppm, monthly monitoring for pumps, semi annual monitoring for valves (assuming the

owner or operator chooses to use the “skip period” monitoring provisions in §60.483-2), and no

connector monitoring. Pages I-5 to I-10 show the costs for Option 1 for most of the process units

in the analysis. The third set of calculations, pa ges I-11 to I-16, is specif ically for process units

currently complying with subpart VV that will m eet the definition of “reconstructed” in the next

five years. This set assumes that the leak fr equency for the first monitoring occurrence at a

lower leak definition, or the in itial leak frequency, will be hi gher than the subsequent leak

frequencies. (The initial leak frequencies are calculated in Attachment G and summarized in

Attachment E.) All other parameters are the same as the second set.

8

# The last step in the analysis includes dete rmining which initial costs, annual costs,

monitoring frequencies, and other parameters shou ld be applied to each of the seven scenarios

described in Section II.A of this memorandum. Table 3 summarizes the values and parameters

defined for each of these scenarios. The baseli ne and Option 1 costs for each of these seven

scenarios are presented in Attachment J.

III. Monitoring of Connectors

A. Number of Impacted Sources

We calculated the numbers of impacted conne ctors and process units using the procedure

and the seven scenarios described in Section II. A. As mentioned previously, Attachment B

shows a pictorial representation of the determin ation of the number of connectors and process

units in each of the scenarios, and Table 1 s hows the estimated connectors in process units

subject to each of the seven scenarios. Pr ocess units subject to the HON or to new source

requirements in the MON are already required to monitor connectors; process units subject to

existing source requirements in th e MON are not (i.e., new or r econstructed process units under

the General Provisions that do not meet the criteria for a new a ffected source under the MON).

Therefore, Option 2 will affect some new and reconstructed proce ss units subject to the MON as

well as process units only subject to subpa rt VVa (i.e., model scenarios 4 through 7).

B. Emission Estimates

The leak frequency data presented in Revised MACT Floor, Regul atory Alternatives, and

Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities were used as the

starting point for the connectors analysis. 24 

# This memorandum summarizes initial leak

frequency data for connectors at various types of chemical ma nufacturing plants that were

conducting their first round of m onitoring under an LDAR program. The average leak frequency

(normalized to a leak definiti on of 500 ppm) was determined to be 0.36 percent. We assumed

this value represents the baseline leak freque ncy for connectors at SOCMI sources that become

subject to subpart VV. Because this value is le ss than the performance level of 0.5 percent in the

HON, we made the conservative assumption that subsequent l eak frequencies under an LDAR

program based on Option 2 would be the same as th e initial leak frequency. However, we also

assumed that these leaking connectors would be fixed so that the average leak frequency over

each monitoring cycle would be equal to one-hal f of the subsequent leak frequency (i.e.,

0.18 percent). Similar to the analysis for pumps and valves, the NEIC factor of 1.7 was applied

to these leak frequencies for pur poses of calculating emission factor s. As an alternative to the

emission estimation procedure described in Sec tion II.B for pumps and valves, we used the

average leak rate equation for connectors at 500 ppm in Table 5- 4 of the Protocol document to

estimate the baseline and Option 2 emission fact ors. The results using this much simpler

approach are nearly the same as using the procedure describe d in Section II.B.

C. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis methodology is similar to the methodology described in Section II.C.

The methodology has been tailored specifically for this analysis of the SOCMI. To calculate the

9

# cost of Option 2, we estimated costs only for connectors (including asso ciated planning and

administrative costs) and then added the connector costs to the costs associ ated with lowering the

leak definition for pumps and valves. As a check of this method, we also calculated the cost and

emission reductions for Option 2 overall (inclu ding monitoring pumps and valves at 2,000 and

500 ppm, respectively). Both methods are presented in Attachment I.

In addition to the unit costs pr ovided in Section II.C, we estimated a monitoring fee for

connectors. Although we are not aware that mo nitoring contractors charge a higher fee for

connectors than for other equipment, industry note d that connectors are more difficult to monitor

than valves. 25 

# Therefore, we decided to use a valu e of $2.50 per connector to account for any

additional potential difficulties associated wi th monitoring connectors. This value likely

overstates the actual monitoring costs slightly but does not change the regulatory conclusions.

Attachment I shows the cost ca lculations for each of the three models using both methods

described in this section. Page s I-11 to I-16 show the Option 2 co sts for each model, and page I17 shows the costs for connectors only. Page I- 17 also includes the nationwide emission costs

for connectors. The Option 2 costs for each of the seven scenarios are presented in

Attachment J.

We considered including a few other costs as well, but we decided they were not needed.

A list of these additional costs and the rationale for not including them is provided below:

 We did not include the cost of a monitoring instrument or instrument rental because

most facilities contract for monitoring services. In the event that they perform the

monitoring in-house or conduct monitoring to ve rify repairs, it is likely that an

instrument already needed to monitor pumps and valves could also be used to monitor

connectors.

 We did not include the cost of a data colle ction system because a facility that needs

one would already have it for the pump a nd valve data. Although we are aware that

at least some vendors charge higher software license fees as the amount of equipment

increases, these fees increase in a stair-s tep fashion, eventually reaching a constant

fee for unlimited additional equipment. We suspect that many fac ilities already have

enough equipment to be charged the top fee, so adding connector s would not drive up

the costs. We do not have sufficient data to estimate the number of facilities with less

equipment that would incur higher costs by adding connectors. However, if we

assumed each process unit incurred an additional $6,000 in license fees, the

nationwide increase in the cost effectiv eness would be less than 10 percent.

IV. Monitoring of Open-Ended Lines or Valves

Option 3 includes monitoring of OEL at 500 pp m at the same monitoring frequency as

the associated valve (as well as a requirement to report the number of leaking OEL.) These

requirements are in addition to th e caps, plugs, blind flanges, or secondary valves required by the

existing NSPS. To estimate emission reductions and costs of monitoring OEL, EPA collected

data from the National Enforcement Investig ations Center (NEIC) and EPA’s Region 5

documenting leaks from OEL that currently are subj ect to standards that require the use of a cap,

10

# plug, blind flange, or second valve to control emissions from leaks. 26

, 27 

# Industry also provided

additional data on monitoring and repa ir of OEL at SOCMI facilities. 28

, 29 

# These data were used

to estimate baseline emissions for the impacts an alysis. We anticipate that Option 3 will affect

all of the new and reconstructed process units in this analysis; no Federal regulations currently

require SOCMI sources to include OEL in th eir LDAR programs. See Attachment L for

calculations supporting th e following analysis.

A. Number of Impacted Sources

As described in Section II.A, we estimated that there will be 191 new or reconstructed

process units in the SOCMI over the next five years. We estimated the number of OEL per

process unit based on the total number of O EL per model process (simple, medium, and

complex) as developed for the HON analysis and the distribution of these models across the

SOCMI as developed for the orig inal SOCMI impacts analysis. As a result, each process unit

has an estimated 127 OEL (on average) for a total of 24,300 OEL nationwide.

To estimate the percent of the total OEL that are in gas/vapor service or light liquid

service, we reviewed the dist ribution of the OEL among gas/vapor , light liquid, and heavy liquid

service as developed for the original SOCMI equipment leak analysis. 30 

# That analysis indicated

that 9 percent of OEL are in gas/vapor service and 91 percent are in liquid service, and the OEL

in liquid service were assumed to be evenly split between light liquid service and heavy liquid

service. However, data from a study of 24 SOCM I process units indicate d that of the OEL in

liquid service, 87 percent are in light liquid service and 13 per cent are in heavy liquid service. 31



# We used this split in this analysis. As a result, we estimate that 12 percent of all OEL are in

heavy liquid service (13 percent of 91 percent). Based on these assumptions, the average

number of OEL in gas/vapor and light liquid service per process unit is 112 (i.e., 88 percent of

127 OEL), and the total number of OEL in gas/va por and light liquid service is 21,411. Finally,

we assumed that 20 percent of OEL are in sampling connection sy stems and would therefore not

be monitored, leaving a to tal of 17,129 affected OEL.

The original SOCMI models are based on data from 62 SOCMI processes from an

analysis in the 1970s. 8 

# The HON models are based on data for 56 SOCMI processes from two

studies in the 1980s. 7 

# We have no reason to conclude that one set of models is superior to the

other in terms of how well it represents SOCMI processes. If we were to use the original

SOCMI models in the OEL analysis, the emission s, emission reductions, and every cost element

except the reporting and administrative costs wo uld increase in direct proportion with the

number of OEL (by a factor of a bout 3). The reporting and administrative cost s are related to the

number of facilities with affect ed sources rather than the number of OEL. Because the number

of facilities does not increase when switching from the HON to the SOCMI models, the net

effect of using models with more OEL (assumi ng other parameters in the analysis like the

percent leaking and the concentratio n profile remain constant) is to reduce the cost-effectiveness.

The magnitude of the increase in costs would not trigger different stat utory requirements, and

using the HON models and increasing the OEL c ounts did not affect the regulatory conclusion.

Therefore, we decided not to change the SOCMI model equipment counts.

11

# B. Emissions Estimates

Several industry representatives provided le ak frequency data for OEL in 15 facilities. 28

, 29



# We consider this information to be sufficiently representative of th e SOCMI industry for the

purposes of estimating impacts of a standard for OEL. These data are from a variety of chemical

process units, both SOCMI and non-SOCMI. Most facilities provided data for one process unit,

but some provided average values for as many as seven process units. All of the data were

collected using Method 21, which is consistent with the requirement in the new standard in

subpart VVa. Some of the data are for process un its that are subject to the standards for highly

reactive VOC in Texas, which requires monitoring only of OEL at the end of lines that contain

HRVOC (and the HRVOC rule also requires monitori ng of caps and plugs in direct contact with

process fluid, which are not OEL in the new stan dards in subpart VVa). Given the high vapor

pressure of these compounds, it is possible that the percent leaking in th ese process units would

be higher than average for SOCM I process units, but two of these process units reported zero

leakers. Some facilities also reported the highest leak rate found over several rounds of

monitoring. On the other hand, the reported percent leaking values for some of the processes are

averages over 4 or 5 quarters. Presumably th ese average leak frequencies are lower than the

initial leak frequencies. Most, if not all, of the data for the HRVOC processes are likely in

gas/vapor or light liquid service, consistent with the requirements in the new standards in subpart

VVa. One facility specifically noted that the data were for OEL in gas/vapor and liquid service,

and another one noted the data were for OEL in heavy liquid service. For other facilities, the

type of service is not clear. Finally, the reported number of OEL per process unit varied over a

wide range (although the nu mber for process units subject to the HRVOC rules in Texas may not

be the total number because only those in HRVOC service have to be monitored).

Although industry provided equipm ent counts, leak frequencies, and brief descriptions of

processes at which OEL monitoring has been conducted, they did not provide individual

instrument readings or screening values for the leaking OEL. Therefore, a SOCMI-specific

analysis comparable to the refinery analysis was not possible using thes e data. However, we

have no reason to suspect that the distribution of screening values w ould be significantly

different than at refineries. In the absence of data that conflict with the NEIC data, we decided to

use the same concentration profile for both the SOCMI and petroleum refinery OEL. The data

from NEIC included 157 leaking OEL at various screening values, which we subdivided into six

concentration intervals. A re presentative screening value for each interval (e.g., 500 ppm to

1,000 ppm) was calculated as the ar ithmetic average of the screening values for OEL leaking in

that interval from the NEIC data set. These representative scre ening values were plugged into

the correlation equation for connectors in Table 2-10 of the Protocol document to estimate the

leak rate associated with that screening value. The fraction of OEL w ith screening values less

than 500 ppm, but not zero, is not available from the NEIC monitoring data . Therefore, all OEL

with screening values less than 500 ppm were represented with the default zero leak rate.

Based on the industry-provided data, we estimated the initial leak frequency to be

0.9 percent. We then scaled the fractions of OEL leaking in each interv al above 500 ppm in the

NEIC data such that the overall percent leaking was 0.9 percent. We multiplied each fraction by

the corresponding leak rate for each concentration range to estimate weighted average leak rates

and calculated the baseline emission estimat e by summing those weighted leak rates.

12

# We chose the correlation equation for conn ectors rather than the equation for OEL

because we expect that the openings th rough which VOC would be emitted around an

improperly installed cap or plug would be more si milar to the opening for a connector than to an

uncapped open-ended line. We acknowledge that ther e are no directly applicable equipment leak

correlations that were developed for capped OEL; however, our technical approach for

estimating emissions from OEL is logical and provides a reasonabl y accurate estimate of OEL

emissions. Depending on how poorly the upstream valve seats, it is quite reasonable that the

plug acts exactly like a connector. We see two likely scenarios in which capped OEL will leak.

One scenario is that the cap is poorly seated an d offers minimal resistance to any process fluid

that passes by the upstream valve. In this ca se, the emissions would be very similar to an

uncapped OEL. The second scenario is that the cap is seated reas onably well and offers

significant resistance to flow, but th e upstream valve is not seated well. In this case, leaks would

only occur when pressure builds in the line, and the emissions would parallel releases from inservice connectors. Thus, we believe that the actual emissions from improperly capped OEL will

fall somewhere between those fo r uncapped OEL and connectors.

We do not have equipment leak correlation equations for OEL for the SOCMI, but we do

have equipment leak correlation equations for OEL for the petroleum refinery industry. For

petroleum refineries, we estimated the baseli ne emissions for OEL using the uncapped OEL

correlation equation and compared them to the baseline emission estimates generated using the

correlation for connectors. The baseline emission estimates for petroleum refineries using the

OEL correlation versus the connectors correl ation were 3.24 Mg/yr (3.57 tons/yr) versus

3.45 Mg/yr (3.80 tons/yr), respectively. These values, which are within 7 percent of each other,

along with the likely scenarios for which OEL w ill leak, strongly suggest that the connectors

correlation provides a reasonable proxy fo r estimating leaks from capped OEL.

This comparison cannot be made directly fo r the SOCMI plants because no correlation

equation exists for OEL. However, we reject the notion that the connectors correlation will overestimate capped OEL based on the le ak factors provided in Table 2- 5 of the Protocol document.

In fact, using these correlations and the assumed distribution of leaks, ap plication of Table 2-5

emission factors actually predicts that emissions from OEL would be three times higher than for

connectors. The emission factor s developed for Table 2-5 pres upposes a distribution of leak

frequency and sizes for the “leakers” and “nonleake rs” and that the distribution of leaks will be

much different for capped OEL versus uncappe d OEL. Therefore, we do not believe the

emission factors presented in Table 2-5 are dire ctly applicable for capped OEL; the correlation

equations will provide a much better estimate beca use they directly accoun t for the distribution

of leaks.

We acknowledge that the connectors correla tion developed for SOCMI plants includes

flanges, whereas the refinery correlation does not . To estimate the potential difference in the

emission estimates for connectors versus flange s, we again used the petroleum refinery

correlations with the projected leak size/freque ncy distribution develope d for capped OEL. The

baseline petroleum refinery emissions were 6.53 Mg/yr (7.20 tons/yr) when using the flanges

correlation versus 3.45 Mg/yr (3.80 tons/yr) usin g the connectors correlation. This analysis

indicates flanges at these screen ing levels have emissions levels nearly two times greater than

connectors. Although there are more flanges th an threaded connectors in service at SOCMI

13

# plants, threaded connectors leak more frequently than flanges. To assess how biased the SOCMI

correlation may be for estimating leaks solely from threaded connectors, the relative number of

threaded connectors to the number of flanges used to develop the correlation equation, not the

number in service, is needed to estimate the pot ential bias. Based on the relative number of light

liquid and gas service flanges and connectors used in developing th e refinery correlations, there

are twice as many leaking connectors as leaking fl anges for which bagging data were collected.

We anticipate that the SOCMI correlation will have a similar fraction of threaded connectors to

flanges based on the higher frequency of leaks fo r threaded connectors. As such, we estimate

that the use of the SOCMI co rrelation equation may over-estim ate the emissions from OEL,

which are nearly all threaded connectors, by 29 percent. Therefore, we divided the emission

estimates by a factor of 1.29 to account for the potential bias in this estimate. Based on the

analyses just described, we concluded that the using the equipment leak correlation for

connectors provides a reasonable approach fo r estimating emissions from capped OEL.

The number of times an OEL is opened in a ye ar will have an impact on the effectiveness

of monitoring at reducing emissions. The pur pose of the OEL generall y determines how many

times it is opened during a year. As noted pr eviously, Option 3 does not require monitoring of

OEL used for sampling. These OEL may be opened as frequently as daily, and it is not practical

to conduct monitoring and repair these OEL frequently enough to realize emission reductions

(since the tightened cap or plug is likely to be removed the day af ter a repair). The remaining

OEL are used mainly in intermittent service fo r purging, venting, and draining. Some of these

OEL may be opened only once or twice a year, a nd others may be opened only when the process

unit is being shut down. For this analysis, we assumed that one-third of the non-sampling OEL

are opened once per quarter, one-third are opene d once per year, and one-third are opened once

every 2 years. These frequencies are referred to as opening scenarios thr oughout the rest of this

memorandum.

Another factor that will affect the emission re duction is the subsequent leak frequency for

each monitoring event. Of all the OEL that ar e opened between monitoring events, we assumed

that 0.9 percent (the same percentage as at base line) will be leaking. We made this assumption

because the subsequent leak frequency is due prim arily to the care and technique of the operators

installing the cap or other control equipment. Properly installed, there should be no leak. For

this analysis, however, we assu med that operators would conti nue to install caps and other

control equipment in the same manner that they currently use. This means that OEL that are

opened between monitoring events will have the same leak frequency as at baseline, regardless

of the number of times they are opened or the monitoring interval. Because OEL are monitored

at the same frequency as the valves in a proce ss unit, we assumed for this analysis that on

average, monitoring is conducted semiannually. In this case, all OEL that are opened quarterly

will be opened between monitoring events. Thus, the subsequent leak frequency for these OEL

is 0.9 percent. On the other ha nd, only half of the OEL that are opened annually will be opened

between monitoring events. Thus, the subsequent leak frequency for all OEL opened annually is

one-half of the baseline level, or 0.45 percent. Finally, we assumed that OEL opened biennially

are used only for startup and shutdown. Any initial leaks would be repaired the first time these

OEL are monitored, and they would not leak again because they would not be opened until

shutdown. Therefore, the assumed emission reduc tion is 100 percent and the subsequent leak

14

# frequency is 0 percent. These assumptions may ove rstate the actual subse quent leak frequencies,

so the repair costs may be slightly overstated.

The overall subsequent leak frequency for monitoring semia nnually is calculated as a

weighted average of the subsequent leak fre quencies for the OEL that are opened quarterly,

annually, and biannually. The we ighting is based on the percent opened quarterly, annually, and

biannually. The resulting overa ll subsequent leak frequenc y of the semiannual monitoring

option is 0.45 percent. To estim ate the percent reduction in emi ssions, we assumed that OEL are

opened with an even distributi on (e.g., if three OEL are opened in a quarter, one is opened

halfway through each month).

Semiannual monitoring will aff ect each opening scenario differently. For example,

suppose semiannual monitoring occurs in January. The OEL that are opened quarterly would

have been last opened in October, November, or December, and 0.9 percent of them are leaking.

We assume that the monitoring event locates al l the leaks and they are subsequently fixed.

However, during the quarter, each of these OEL is opened, so by the end of March, 0.9 percent

are leaking again. Until the next monitoring event in July of that year, an average 2.3 percent of

these OEL will continue to leak (the actual OEL that are leaking may vary because a different

mix of OEL may have the cap installed imprope rly the second time they are opened during the

semiannual period). Therefore, in this case, emission reductions are on ly realized during the

quarter in which the monitoring occurs, and we assumed an average reduction of 50 percent for

that quarter (based on the assumption of an even distribution). This reasoning can be described

by Equation 1, which we used to estimate the em ission reductions for OEL that are opened more

frequently than they are monitored.

PR = %100*

M 2 O

M

1

M M

M



# ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

−

− 

# Equation 1

where

PR = percent reduction in emissions from baseline

M M 

# = number of months be tween monitoring events

O M 

# = number of months between times an OEL is opened

Our analysis also includes OEL that are monito red more frequently than they are opened.

For example, suppose a monitoring event occurs in April. The OEL that are opened annually are

assumed to be distributed even ly throughout the year (i.e., one- twelfth are opened each month).

Thus, in the semiannual period preceding the mon itoring event, about half of these OEL would

be opened. On average, those that are opened in the previous semiannual period would have

been opened three months before the monitoring event. We assume that the monitoring event

locates all of the leaks and they are subsequently fixed, and we assumed that they will not leak

again until they are opened the following year. This means 9 months’ worth of emissions are

prevented (for a 75 percent reduction). This reasoning can be describe d by Equation 2, which we

15

# used to estimate the emission re ductions for OEL that are monitored more frequently than they

are opened.

PR = 

# %100*

O M*5.0 1

M M 

# ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

− Equation 2

where

PR = percent reduction in emissions from baseline

M M 

# = number of months be tween monitoring events

O M 

# = number of months between times an OEL is opened

Finally, we used the specific percent reducti on values to calculate an average percent

reduction, weighted by the percentage of OEL in each opening scenario. See Attachment I for

the results of these calculations.

C. Cost Analysis

The cost impacts analysis includes estimated initial costs and annual costs. The initial

costs include costs for identifying and integratin g open-ended lines into the monitoring program,

initial monitoring, and repair of initial leakers. Annual costs incl ude capital recove ry for initial

costs, periodic monitoring costs, costs to repair leaking equipment, and additional time to prepare

semiannual reports.

Unit costs for initial setup and monitoring were assume d to be $17.70 per OEL, and unit

costs for annual monitoring were assumed to be $1.50 per OEL; both of these are the same as for

pumps and valves, as described in Section II.C. These costs were estimated only for OEL in

gas/vapor or light liquid service that are not part of sampling connection systems because, as

noted above, we assumed the monitoring requirements would apply only to those OEL.

Repair costs were estimated assuming that 95 percent of the leaks can be repaired online

in an average of 10 minutes by re latively simple techniques such as tightening the second valve,

replacing a worn plug, or reinstal ling a cap properly. We assume d that 5 percent of the leaks

would need an offline repair requiring 4 hours to replace the second valv e. The number of OEL

needing repair was estimated based on the baseline and subsequent leak fre quencies. Labor rates

and overhead factors were assumed to be the same as described in Sect ion II.C for the proposed

changes in the leak definitions for pumps and valves.

Capital recovery for initial costs wa s estimated using Equation 2.8a in the EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual, 19 

# assuming an interest rate of 7 percent and a process life of

15 years. One hour was added to the time to prepar e each semiannual report. We expect that the

additional reporting burden will be minimal because only the total number of leaks and the

number for which repair is delayed would have to be reported. We al so included a recovery

credit for the material that is not emitted. As de scribed in Section II.C, the credit is $900/Mg for

emission reductions at SOCMI facilities.

16

# V. Alternate Leak Definition for Valves

We estimated the incremental impacts of lowering the leak definition for valves from the

500 ppm level in Option 1 to 100 ppm. The alterna tive applies to all 191 a ffected process units,

73,000 gas valves, and 169,000 light liquid valves over the next five years. To determine the

percent of valves leaking betw een 100 ppm and 500 ppm under Op tion 1, we started with the

uncontrolled percentages in con centration ranges up to 500 ppm fr om Figures B-3-3 and B-3-4

of the Protocol document and scaled them up based on the estimate for Option 1 that

0.87 percent of valves have leak concentrations greater than 500 ppm. In the 100 to 500 ppm

range, the uncontrolled leak fre quencies of 3.9 percent and 2.5 percent were scaled up to

4.47 percent and 2.71 percent for gas valves and light liquid valves, respectively. These are

estimated average leak frequencies over a semiannual monitoring period. The overall

distributions are presented in th e “Percent of values in range” co lumn of Set 4 of the emission

estimate calculations shown in Attachment G. Multiplying these average leak frequencies by the

total number of affected valves resulted in es timates that, on average, there would be 3,271 gas

valves and 4,569 light liquid valves nationwid e leaking between 100 and 500 ppm at any given

time during the semiannual monitoring period.

The baseline emission factors for valves with leak concentrations between 100 and

500 ppm were estimated by using a screening value of 232 ppm in the SOCMI correlation

equations for gas valves and light liquid valves . This representative screening value was

estimated following the procedures described in Section II.A. We estimated the baseline

emissions to be 28.5 tons/yr by multiplying thes e emission factors by the average number of

valves leaking.

We estimated a range of potential emissi on reductions for the option because data

showing the subsequent leak fr equency for an LDAR program w ith a leak definition of 100 ppm

are unavailable. Under Option 1, the estimated reduction in the leak frequencies between

500 and 10,000 ppm is about 95 to 97 percent. This is a reas onable proxy for the emission

reduction because repaired valves are assumed to have emissions near zer o. This is also the

upper bound on reductions for repairing leaks betw een 100 and 500 ppm. One petroleum refiner,

however, has observed that repairs of leaks in th is range often make the emissions worse rather

than better. 32 

# Thus, the actual emissions reduction may be considerably less than 95 to 97

percent. For the purposes of this analysis we assumed a reduction of 90 percent, so that the

emission reductions are estimated to be no more than 25.7 tons/yr.

There are two elements in the cost estimate: monitoring costs and repair costs. We

calculated only the increase in repair costs beca use it is not clear what fraction of the process

units would need to be monitored more frequen tly than under Option 1. Thus, this approach

provides a lower bound on the incremental costs that is based on the assumption that the

monitoring frequency will be the same for both this alternative and Option 1 fo r all process units.

To estimate the repair cost, we first doubled the average leak frequencies to estimate the

actual leak frequencies when semiannual monito ring is conducted. These values include the

escalation due to the NEIC factor described in Section II.A. Thus, we divided the actual leak

frequencies by 1.7 to estimate the subsequent leak frequencies that would be observed by

monitoring crews in the field. We then calcula ted the number of leaking valves by multiplying

17

# the subsequent leak frequencies by the number of total valves and by 2 monitoring events per

year. To estimate the repair costs, we used th e same procedure that we used to estimate repair

costs for Option 1 (see Attachment I). This pro cedure assumes that 75 per cent of the valves can

be repaired online in 10 minutes and 25 percent of the valves must be repaired offline, which

takes 4 hours. Finally, we calculated the cost of monitoring to verify repair for each of the

leaking valves.

The resulting lower bound on the incremental cost associated with lowering the valve

leak definition from 500 to 100 ppm is $150,000 per year. As noted above, the estimated

maximum emission reduction is 25.7 tons/yr. U nder these conditions, the cost-effectiveness of

this alternative is $5,700 per ton of VOC. Howeve r, because the emission reductions are likely

overstated and the monitoring costs are likely und erstated, the actual cost -effectiveness is likely

significantly worse (i.e., it is likely that the cost to reduce 1 ton of VO C is much higher than

$5,700). The calculations described in this section are summarized in Attachment K. Because

this cost effectiveness value is high, we reco mmend not lowering the leak definition below the

level in Option 1.

VI. Results

The results of the impacts analysis without a nd with recovery credit s are summarized in

Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Detaile d results are also presented in Attachment M. Results of the

emissions reductions and annual costs are shown for all seven scenarios. As discussed in

Section II.C, there are no emissi ons reductions or increased cost s for the process units already

subject to any NESHAP that ha s requirements equivalent to the options presented in this

memorandum. Only the impacts on 17 process un its affect the cost-e ffectiveness result for

Option 1, the impacts on 71 process units affect the cost-effectiveness result for Option 2, and

the impacts on all 191 process units affect the cost-effectivene ss result for Option 3. Without

considering recovery credit, cost-effectiven ess ranges from $430/ton of VOC reduced under

Option 1 to $2,600/ton of VOC reduced under Option 3. Recovery credits lower each of these

cost-effectiveness values by $800/ton.

18Table 1. Number of Affected Process Units and Equipment in the Three ModelsModelNumber of:New unitssubject toHON/MONethyleneReconstructedunitssubject toHON/ethyleneReconstructedunits subjecttoMONNew units atexistingsourcessubject toMONExistingunitssubject toMONNewunitssubject toNSPSReconstructedunitssubject toNSPSTotalProcessunitssimple37.523.31.710.06.712.18.099.2medium23.814.81.16.34.27.75.163.0complex10.86.70.52.91.93.52.328.6total72.144.83.219.212.823.215.5190.8Pumpssimple562350251501001811211,488medium951592422541693062042,519complex605377271621081951301,603total2,1181,318945663776824545,610Gasvalvessimple2,8851,7951287705149286197,640medium9,8446,1254382,6291,7523,1682,11226,067complex14,9049,2736633,9802,6534,7963,19739,467total27,63317,1921,2307,3794,9198,8925,92873,174Light liquidvalvessimple14,2388,8586343,8022,5354,5813,05437,702medium28,03417,4421,2487,4864,9919,0216,01474,235complex21,40013,3149525,7153,8106,8864,59156,668total63,67239,6142,83417,00311,33520,48813,659168,604Connectorssimple27,38917,0401,2197,3144,8768,8135,87572,527medium63,29639,3802,81716,90311,26820,36713,578167,610complex80,08849,8273,56421,38714,25825,77017,180212,074total170,773106,2487,60145,60330,40254,95036,633452,21119

# Table 2. Summary of Leak Frequency Values a



# Monitoring Frequency Monthly Quarterly Semiannual Annual

Component and Leak Definition Leak Frequency, percent

Pumps

10,000 ppm 0.23 0.64

1,000 ppm 0.26 0.72 1.36 2.61

Valves

10,000 ppm 0.17 0.33 0.65

1,000 ppm 0.23 0.44 0.85

500 ppm 0.26 0.51 0.98

Connectors

Baseline 0.36

500 ppm 0.36

a 

# Italic font indicates baseline leak frequencies used in this analysis

Bold font indicates subsequent leak frequencies used for Option 1 and Option 2.

20Table 3. Parameters for Each of the SOCMI ScenariosScenarioNew unitssubject toHON/MONethyleneReconstructedunits subjecttoHON/ethyleneReconstructedunits (MONdef.) subject toMONNew units(GP def.)subject toMONReconstructedunits (GP def.)subject toMONNew unitssubject toNSPSReconstructedunits subject toNSPSLeakdefinition:PumpsValvesConnectors1,0005005001,0005005001,0005005001,000500N/A1,000500N/A10,00010,000N/A10,00010,000N/AMonitoringfrequency:PumpsValvesConnectorsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlyAnnualN/AMonthlyAnnualN/AInitial leakfrequency/costsYes –Programstarts at setleakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionYes –Programstarts atlower leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionYes –Programstarts at setleakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionPlanning andtraining costs340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hoursper processunit320 hours perprocess unit

BaselineAdministrativereport costs300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hoursper processunit250 hours perprocess unit21Table 3. (Continued)ScenarioNew unitsReconstructedReconstructedNew unitsReconstructedNew unitsReconstructedsubject toHON/MONethyleneunits subjecttoHON/ethyleneunits (MONdef.) subject toMON(GP def.)subject toMONunits (GP def.)subject toMONsubject tounits subject toNSPSNSPSLeakdefinition:PumpsValvesConnectors1,0005005001,0005005001,0005005001,000500N/A1,000500N/A2,000a500N/A2,000a500N/AMonitoringfrequency:PumpsValvesConnectorsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AInitial leakfrequency/costsYes –Programstarts at setleakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionYes –Programstarts atlower leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionYes –Programstarts at setleakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyPartial – Onlyincludes initialcosts associatedwith loweringleak definitionsfrom 10,000ppmPlanning andtraining costs340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hoursper processunit320 hours perprocess unit

Option 1Administrativereport costs300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hoursper processunit250 hours perprocess unit22Table 3. (Continued)ScenarioNew unitsReconstructedReconstructedNew unitsReconstructedNew unitsReconstructedsubject toHON/MONethyleneunits subjecttoHON/ethyleneunits (MONdef.) subject toMON(GP def.)subject toMONunits (GP def.)subject toMONsubject tounits subject toNSPSNSPSLeakdefinition:PumpsValvesConnectors1,0005005001,0005005001,0005005001,0005005001,0005005002,000a5005002,000a500500Monitoringfrequency:PumpsValvesConnectorsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsMonthlySemiannualEvery 4 yrsInitial leakfrequency/costsYes –Programstarts at setleakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionNo – Initialcosts wouldhave beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionYes –Programstarts atlower leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyPartial – Onlyincludes initialcosts foraddingconnectors toprogramYes –Programstarts at setleakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequentleakfrequencyPartial –Includes initialcosts associatedwith loweringleak definitionsfrom 10,000ppm and addingconnectorsPlanning andtraining costs340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hoursper processunit340 hours perprocess unit

Option 2Administrativereport costs300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hoursper processunit300 hours perprocess unitaCost analysis performed with pump leak definition of 1,000 ppm; see Section II.C of this memorandum.23Table 4. Summary of Impacts for theSOCMI Not Including Recovery CreditsaFactorNew unitssubject toHON/ethyleneReconstructedunits subjectto HON/ethyleneReconstructedunits (MONdef.) subjectto MONNew units(GP def.)subject toMONReconstructedunits (GP def.)subject toMONNew unitssubject toNSPSReconstructedunits subjectto NSPSIndustryTotalBaseline costs, $/yrb2,900,0001,300,000110,000580,000300,000680,000360,0006,200,000Emission reduction,tons/yr00000563794Option 1 costs, $/yrc2,900,0001,300,000110,000580,000300,000690,000390,0006,300,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr0000012,00029,00041,000

OPTION 1Cost effectiveness,$/ton removedN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A210770430Emission reduction,tons/yr000644313089328Option 2 costs, $/yrc2,900,0001,300,000110,000790,000440,000950,000560,0007,100,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr000210,000140,000270,000200,000820,000

OPTION 2Cost effectiveness,$/ton removedN/AN/AN/A3,3003,3002,0002,2002,500Emission reduction,tons/yr353Option 3 costs, $/yrc7,200,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr930,000

OPTION 3Cost effectiveness,$/ton removed2,600aCosts and emission reductions may not sum exactly due to rounding.bCosts are only ongoing costs for pumps and valves.cCosts are only ongoing costs for pumps, valves, connectors, andOEL (if applicable); initial repair costs for pumps, valves, and connectors (if applicable); andfor planning and training to implement the Option requirements.24Table 5. Summary of Impacts for the SOCMI Including Recovery CreditsaFactorNew unitssubject toHON/ethyleneReconstructedunits subjectto HON/ethyleneReconstructedunits (MONdef.) subjectto MONNew units(GP def.)subject toMONReconstructedunits (GP def.)subject toMONNew unitssubject toNSPSReconstructedunits subjectto NSPSIndustryTotalBaseline costs, $/yrb2,900,0001,300,000110,000580,000300,000680,000360,0006,200,000Emission reduction,tons/yr00000563794Option 1 costs, $/yrc2,900,0001,300,000110,000580,000300,000650,000360,0006,200,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr00000(34,000)(1,700)(36,000)

OPTION 1Cost effectiveness,$/ton removedN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A(610)(46)(380)Emission reduction,tons/yr000644313089328Option 2 costs, $/yrc2,900,0001,300,000110,000730,000410,000840,000480,0006,800,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr000160,000110,000160,000130,000550,000

OPTION 2Cost effectiveness,$/ton removedN/AN/AN/A2,5002,5001,2001,4001,700Emission reduction,tons/yr353Option 3 costs, $/yrc6,900,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr640,000

OPTION 3Cost effectiveness,$/ton removed1,800aCosts and emission reductions may not sum exactly due to rounding.bCosts are only ongoing costs for pumps and valves.cCosts are only ongoing costs for pumps, valves, connectors, andOEL (if applicable); initial repair costs for pumps, valves, and connectors (if applicable); andfor planning and training to implement the Option requirements.25

# VII. References

1 . SRI Consulting. 2004. 2004 Directory of Chemical M anufacturers: United States

. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Consulting.

2 . The Congress of the United States, Congr essional Budget Office. January 2000. The

Budget and Economic Outlook : Fiscal Years 2001-2010

.

3 . The Congress of the United States, Congr essional Budget Office. January 2006. The

Budget and Economic Outlook : Fiscal Years 2007-2016

.

4 . U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. July 2005. “World

Energy and Economic Outlook.” International Energy Outlook 2005 . DOE/EIA0484(2005). http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ar chive/ieo05/pdf/0484(2005).pdf

.

5 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002 National Emission Inve ntory (NEI), Final

Version 1. February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html

.

6 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy. Envirofacts Data Warehouse.

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/

.

7 . U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Pl anning and Standards. November 1992. Hazardous

Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Ve nts in the Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry – Background Informat ion for Proposed Standards, Volume 1C

. EPA-453/D-92-016c.

8 . U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Pl anning and Standards. November 1980. VOC

Fugitive Emissions in Synthetic Orga nic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry –

Background Information for Proposed Standards . EPA-450/3-80-033a.

9 . Memorandum from R. Oommen, Eastern Re search Group, to Randy McDonald, USEPA,

OAQPS. June 1, 2006. Cost and Emission Reductions of Leakless Valves for HON

Facilities . Docket Items EPA-HQ-OAR -2005-0475-0105 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0475-0105.1.

10 . Memorandum from K. Parrish, D. Randall, and J. Coburn, RTI Inte rnational, to K.

Rackley, EPA/SPPD. October 30, 2007. Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options

for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries

.

11 . U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Pl anning and Standards. November 1995. Protocol for

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates . EPA-453/R-95-017.

12 . American Petroleum Institute, Health and Environmental Affairs Department. November

1997. Analysis of Refinery Screening Data . Prepared by Hal Taback Company.

Publication Number 310.

26

# 13 . Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI Internati onal, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30,

2007. Statistical Analysis of Valve Leak Fr equencies Obtained by Industry and EPA for

Petroleum Refining Process Units.

14 . Memorandum from D.J. Whitt, Radian, to D. Markwordt, EPA/CPB. June 5, 1991.

Impacts from the Control of VHAP Emissi ons from Equipment Leaks in Non-SOCMI

Process Units for HON . Docket No. A-90-20, Item No. II-B-7.

15 . Memorandum to Group IV Polymers and Resins Docket. December 2000. Responses to

Comments . Docket No. A-92-45, Item No. IXc-C-1.

16 . Memorandum from K. Barnett, EPA/OAQ PS/ESD/OCG, to Group IV Polymers and

Resins Docket A-92-45. December 2000. Final Analysis of E quipment Leak Program

for PET Facilities Subject to the Gr oup IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP . Docket No.

A-92-45, Item No. IXc-B-1.

17 . Memorandum from K. Parrish to Docket File. March 27, 2006. Telephone Conference

between Kristin Parrish (RTI Interna tional) and Timothy Smith (TEAM Industrial

Services, Inc.) regarding procedure and cost of the drill and tap me thod of valve repair

.

18

. U.S. Department of Labor, B ureau of Labor Statistics . May 2006. Occupational

Employment Statistics: May 2006 Employment and Wage Estimates

. http://www.bls.gov/oes/home.htm

.

19 . U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Pl anning and Standards. January 2002. EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual . Sixth Edition. EPA/452/B-02-001.

20 . Platts. March 14, 2006. Platts Solventswire . The McGraw Hill Companies, Volume 29,

Issue 11.

21 . Platts. March 9, 2006. Platts Intermediateswire . The McGraw Hill Companies, Volume

11, Issue 10.

22 . Memorandum from K. Meardon, Pacific Enviro nmental Services, Inc., to J. Schaefer,

EPA/OCG. May 4, 1998. “Attachment 7: Leak Detection and Repair Cost Derivatives.”

In Equipment Leak Analysis for Am ino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP . Docket No. A-92-

19, Item No. II-B-11.

23 . Memorandum from K. Meardon, Pacific Envi ronmental Services, Inc., to Group IV

Polymers and Resins Docket A-92-45. October 28, 1998. Equipment Leak Analysis for

PET Facilities Subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP. Docket Item No.

VIc-B-1.

27

# 24 . Memorandum from B. Shine, North State E ngineering, Inc., and M. Icenhour and D.

Randall, RTI International, to MON Project Files. May 5, 2003. Revised MACT Floor,

Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide Impac ts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical

Manufacturing Facilities . Docket No. A-96-04, Item N o. IV-B-3; also Docket Item

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121-0004.

25 . Elam, R.A. February 13, 2007. Public Comment submitted by the American Chemistry

Council. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0066.

26 . Wilwerding, J. June 14, 2007. Refinery Plug Monitoring Data from the National

Enforcement Investigations Center. Transmitted via email to Karen Rackley.

27 . Loukeris, C. November 28, 2006. Cap/Plug Mo nitoring Data from U.S. EPA Region 5.

Transmitted via e-mail to Karen Rackley.

28 . Elam, R.A. August 8, 2007. Public Co mment submitted by American Chemistry

Council. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0075.

29 . Wesson, D.F. August 8, 2007. Public Comment submitted by Dow Chemical Company.

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0076.

30 . U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. April 1982. Fugitive Emission

Sources of Organic Compounds – Additional Information on Emissions, Emission

Reductions, and Costs . EPA-450/3-82-010. Page 3-4.

31 . U. S. EPA, Office of Air Qualit y Planning and Standards. April 1982. Fugitive Emission

Sources of Organic Compounds – Additional Information on Emissions, Emission

Reductions, and Costs . EPA-450/3-82-010. Page 3-7.

32 . Baker, S. October 17, 2005. Response to Questions on Enhanced Leak Detection and

Repair (LDAR) Requirements from Shell. Transmitted via e-mail to Karen Rackley.

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0024.

28

# Attachment A

Major/Area Source AnalysisNumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes2 A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company Duluth MN Area 2 0 011 Aceto Corporation Piscataway NJ Unknown 0 0 11* Not in Envirofacts2 Adisseo USA Inc. Institute WV Unknown 0 0 2* not in Envirofacts; unit included aspart of Bayer CropScience permit1 Advanced Aromatics, L.P. Baytown TX Major 0 1 01 Agrium US Inc. Kenai AK Major 0 1 01 Agrium US Inc. Borger TX Major 0 1 010 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Pace FL Major 0 10 02 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Wichita KS Area 2 0 02 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Calvert City KY Major 0 2 01 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Geismar LA Area 1 0 04 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. St. Gabriel LA Major 0 4 02 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Pasadena TX Major 0 2 01 Akzo Nobel Axis AL Major 0 1 02 Akzo Nobel Chicago IL Unknown 0 0 2* Not in Envirofacts1 Akzo Nobel Pasadena TX Major 0 1 01 Albemarle Corporation Magnolia AR Major 0 1 03 Albemarle Corporation Orangeburg SC Major 0 3 01 American Acryl Pasadena TX Area 1 0 03 ANGUS Chemical Company Sterlington LA Major 0 3 05 Arch Chemicals, Inc. Brandenburg KY Major 0 5 01 Arch Chemicals, Inc. Lake Charles LA Major 0 1 01 Ashland Specialty Chemical Company Kenova WV Major 0 1 011 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Riverview MI Major 0 11 01 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Genesco NY Major 0 1 01 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Beaumont TX Major 0 1 02 ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Houston TX Major 0 2 02 ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc. Port Arthur TX Major 0 2 01 Avecia Inc. Mount Pleasant TN Area 1 0 01 Baker Petrolite Corporation Taft LA Unknown 0 0 1* May be the same as Dow1 Balchem Corporation Verona MO Major 0 1 02 BASF Corporation Gurnee IL Area 2 0 010 BASF Corporation Geismar LA Major 0 10 01 BASF Corporation Washington NJ Area 1 0 01 BASF Corporation Rensselaer NY Area 1 0 01 BASF Corporation Spartanburg SC Major 0 1 010 BASF Corporation Freeport TX Major 0 10 04 BASF Corporation Pasadena TX Major 0 4 01 BASF Corporation Chemicals Div Freeport TX Major 0 1 02 BASF Corporation Plastics and Fibers Div. Freeport TX Major 0 2 03 BASF FINA Petrochemicals LP Port Arthur TX Major 0 3 01 Bayer Chemicals Corporation Baytown TX Major 0 1 02 Bayer CropScience Institute WV Major 0 2 06 Bayer Polymers LLC Baytown TX Major 0 6 05 Bayer Polymers LLC New Martinsville WV Major 0 5 01 Bell Flavors & Fragrances Inc. Northbrook IL Area 1 0 0Pct_AreaA-1NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Demopolis AL Area 1 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Hope AR Area 1 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Fremont CA Area 1 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Louisville KY Area 1 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Geismar LA Major 0 1 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Missoula MT Area 1 0 02 Borden Chemical, Inc. Fayetteville NC Area 2 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. South Glens Falls NY Area 1 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. La Grande OR Area 1 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Springfield OR Major 0 1 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Baytown TX Unknown 0 0 1* Not in Envirofacts1 Borden Chemical, Inc. Diboll TX Area 1 0 01 Borden Chemical, Inc. Sheboygan WI Major 0 1 02 BP America Inc. Decatur AL Major 0 2 02 BP America Inc. Joliet IL Major 0 2 01 BP America Inc. Whiting IN Area 1 0 04 BP America Inc. Lima OH Major 0 4 01 BP America Inc. Mount Pleasant SC Major 0 1 02 BP America Inc. Alvin TX Major 0 2 04 BP America Inc. Green Lake TX Major 0 4 02 BP America Inc. Pasadena TX Area 2 0 05 BP America Inc. Texas City TX Major 0 5 01 Buckman Laboratories, Inc. Cadet MO Area 1 0 01 Buffalo Color Corporation Buffalo NY Major 0 1 01 Cambrex Charles City, Inc. Charles City IA Major 0 1 01 Capital Resin Corporation Columbus OH Area 1 0 01 Carbide Industries Calvert City KY Major 0 1 01 Carbide Industries Louisville KY Area 1 0 0* Code 03 - Designation based onpermit, high VOC but low HAP1 Carbolabs, Inc. Bethany CT Unknown 0 0 1* Not in NEI1 Cargill Inc. Eddyville IA Major 0 1 01 Cedar Concepts Corp. Chicago IL Area 1 0 02 Celanese Acetate LLC Rock Hill SC Major 0 2 02 Celanese Acetate LLC Narrows VA Major 0 2 06 Celanese Ltd. Bay City TX Major 0 6 04 Celanese Ltd. Bishop TX Major 0 4 04 Celanese Ltd. Clear Lake TX Major 0 4 07 Celanese Ltd. Pampa TX Major 0 7 03 Celanese Ltd. Chemicals Division Bay City TX Major 0 3 01 Celanese Ltd. Chemicals Division Bishop TX Major 0 1 01 Celanese Ltd. Chemicals Division Pampa TX Major 0 1 01 CF Industries, Inc. Donaldsonville LA Major 0 1 01 Chattem Chemicals, Inc. Chattanoga TN Major 0 1 01 Chemical Products Technologies, LLC Cartersville GA Area 1 0 01 Chemtall, Inc Riceboro GA Major 0 1 02 Chevron Oronite Company LLC Belle Chasse LA Area 2 0 0Pct_AreaA-2NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes2 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP St. James LA Major 0 2 03 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Pascagoula MS Major 0 3 02 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Guayama PR Area 2 0 02 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Baytown TX Major 0 2 05 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Borger TX Major 0 5 03 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Port Arthur TX Major 0 3 01 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Sweeny TX Major 0 1 02 ChevronPhillips Chemical Company Baytown TX Major 0 2 01 ChevronPhillips Chemical Company Port Arthur TX Major 0 1 01 ChevronTexaco Corporation Richmond CA Major 0 1 0SIC 29111 Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation Suffolk VA Area 1 0 02 CITGO Petroleum Corporation Lemont IL Major 0 2 02 CITGO Petroleum Corporation Lake Charles LA Major 0 2 04 CITGO Petroleum Corporation Corpus Christi TX Major 0 4 01 Clariant Life Science Molecules (America) Inc. Elgin SC Major 0 1 01 Clearon Corp. Theodore AL Unknown 0 0 1* Not in Envirofacts1 Coastal Chem, Inc. Cheyenne WY Major 0 1 01 Cognis Corporation Charlotte NC Major 0 1 02 Cognis Corporation Cincinnati OH Major 0 2 01 Concord Chemical Company, Inc. Camden NJ Area 1 0 0* Not in NEI; based on TRI/Envirofactsinfo1 ConocoPhillips Alliance LA Major 0 1 01 ConocoPhillips Borger TX Major 0 1 05 ConocoPhillips Sweeny TX Major 0 5 01 ConocoPhillips Refining Wood River IL Major 0 1 01 ConocoPhillips Refining Alliance LA Major 0 1 01 ConocoPhillips Refining Sweeny TX Major 0 1 02 Cos-Mar Company Carville LA Major 0 2 01 Cyanco Co. Winnemuca NV Area 1 0 03 CyPlus Corporation Theodore AL Major 0 3 02 Cyro Industries Waggaman LA Area 2 0 0* Not in NEI; based on Envirofacts info4 Cytec Industries Inc. Waggaman LA Major 0 4 01 Cytec Industries Inc. Mount Pleasant TN Area 1 0 01 D.B. Western, Inc. LaPorte TX Unknown 0 0 1* Not in NEI1 DAK Americas LLC Wilmington NC Major 0 1 03 Dakota Gasification Company Beulah ND Area 3 0 03 Degussa Corporation Theodore AL Major 0 3 01 Degussa Corporation Galena KS Area 1 0 01 Deltech Corporation Baton Rouge LA Major 0 1 01 Diaz Intermediates Corporation West Memphis AR Area 1 0 01 Dixie Chemical Company, Inc. Bayport TX Major 0 1 01 Dover Chemical Corporation Dover OH Area 1 0 01 Dow AgroSciences LLC Freeport TX Major 0 1 018 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Plaquemine LA Major 0 18 018 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Taft LA Major 0 18 0Pct_AreaA-3NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes12 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Midland MI Major 0 12 01 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Nashua NH Area 1 0 03 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Clear Lake TX Major 0 3 01 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Deer Park TX Major 0 1 032 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Freeport TX Major 0 32 02 Dow Chemical U.S.A. La Porte TX Major 0 2 05 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Oyster Creek TX Major 0 5 012 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Seadrift TX Major 0 12 019 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Texas City TX Major 0 19 03 Dow Chemical U.S.A. Institute WV Major 0 3 01 Dow Chemical U.S.A. South Charleston WV Major 0 1 01 Dow Corning Corporation Carrollton KY Major 0 1 01 Dow Corning Corporation Midland MI Major 0 1 02 DSM Chemicals North America, Inc. Augusta GA Major 0 2 01 DTE Energy Services River Rouge MI Major 0 1 01 DuPont Louisville KY Major 0 1 01 DuPont Wurtland KY Major 0 1 04 DuPont La Place LA Major 0 4 09 DuPont Deepwater NJ Major 0 9 01 DuPont Memphis TN Major 0 1 01 DuPont Old Hickory TN Major 0 1 05 DuPont Beaumont TX Major 0 5 01 DuPont Corpus Christi TX Major 0 1 02 DuPont Orange TX Major 0 2 01 DuPont Victoria TX Major 0 1 05 DuPont Belle WV Major 0 5 01 DuPont Parkersburg WV Major 0 1 03 DynaChem, Inc. Georgetown IL Major 0 3 01 Dynea USA, Inc. Andalusia AL Area 1 0 01 Dynea USA, Inc. Winnfield LA Major 0 1 01 Dynea USA, Inc. Moncure NC Area 1 0 01 Dynea USA, Inc. Toledo OH Area 1 0 01 Dynea USA, Inc. Springfield OR Area 1 0 03 Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. Lenexa KS Unknown 0 0 3* Not in NEI1 Eastman Longview TX Major 0 1 02 Eastman Chemical Company Columbia SC Major 0 2 028 Eastman Chemical Company Kingsport TN Major 0 28 020 Eastman Chemical Company Longview TX Major 0 20 01 Eastman Resins Inc. Pleasant Prairie WI Major 0 1 01 El Dorado Chemical Company Cherokee AL Area 1 0 01 El Paso Energy Partners, L.P. St. Helens OR Area 1 0 01 Equistar Chemicals, LP Clinton IA Major 0 1 01 Equistar Chemicals, LP Morris IL Major 0 1 01 Equistar Chemicals, LP Tuscola IL Area 1 0 01 Equistar Chemicals, LP Sulphur LA Major 0 1 05 Equistar Chemicals, LP Alvin TX Major 0 5 0Pct_AreaA-4NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes14 Equistar Chemicals, LP Bayport TX Major 0 14 06 Equistar Chemicals, LP Channelview TX Major 0 6 04 Equistar Chemicals, LP Corpus Christi TX Major 0 4 02 Equistar Chemicals, LP La Porte TX Major 0 2 017 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baton Rouge LA Major 0 17 04 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Chalmette LA Major 0 4 011 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown TX Major 0 11 05 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Beaumont TX Major 0 5 01 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Houston TX Major 0 1 01 Farmland Industries, Inc. Coffeyville KS Major 0 1 01 Farmland Industries, Inc. Lawrence KS Area 1 0 01 FBC Industries, Inc. Rochelle IL Area 1 0 05 Ferro Corporation Baton Rouge LA Major 0 5 02 Ferro Corporation Bridgeport NJ Major 0 2 04 First Chemical Corporation Pascagoula MS Major 0 4 02 First Chemical Corporation Baytown TX Area 2 0 08 Flint Hills Resources L.P. Corpus Christi TX Major 0 8 01 FMC Corporation Baltimore MD Major 0 1 01 FMC Corporation Bayport TX Major 0 1 02 Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Baton Rouge LA Major 0 2 07 Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Point Comfort TX Major 0 7 02 Frontier El Dorado Refining Company El Dorado KS Major 0 2 01 Gabriel Chemicals, L.L.C. Geismar LA Major 0 1 01 Gabriel Performance Products, L.L.C. Ashtabula OH Area 1 0 02 Gaylord Chemical Corporation Bogalusa LA Area 2 0 01 GE Company Mount Vernon IN Major 0 1 01 GE Specialty Chemicals Morgantown WV Area 1 0 02 Geismar Vinyls Company LP Geismar LA Major 0 2 01 General Electric Company Burkville AL Major 0 1 02 General Electric Company Mount Vernon IN Major 0 2 02 General Electric Company Selkirk NY Major 0 2 01 General Electric Company Waterford NY Major 0 1 01 General Electric Company GE Plastics Burkville AL Major 0 1 01 General Electric Company GE Plastics Mount Vernon IN Major 0 1 01 GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Gibbstown NJ Major 0 1 01 GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Allentown PA Major 0 1 01 Geoliquids, Inc. Prospect Heights IL Unknown 0 0 1* Not in Envirofacts2 Georgia Gulf Corporation Lake Charles LA Major 0 2 05 Georgia Gulf Corporation Plaquemine LA Major 0 5 04 Georgia Gulf Corporation Pasadena TX Major 0 4 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Crossett AR Major 0 1 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Vienna GA Area 1 0 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Grayling MI Major 0 1 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Louisville MS Major 0 1 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Taylorsville MS Major 0 1 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Conway NC Major 0 1 0Pct_AreaA-5NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes1 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Denton NC Area 1 0 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Columbus OH Area 1 0 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Albany OR Area 1 0 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. White City OR Area 1 0 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Russellville SC Major 0 1 01 Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. Lufkin TX Major 0 1 04 GFS Chemicals, Inc. Columbus OH Area 4 0 01 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Pasadena TX Major 0 1 03 Great Lakes Chemical Corporation El Dorado AR Major 0 3 01 Hatco Corporation Fords NJ Major 0 1 02 Hawkins Chemical, Inc. Minneapolis MN Area 2 0 03 Heico Chemicals Delaware Water Gap PA Area 3 0 01 Henkel Corporation Atlanta GA Unknown 0 0 1* Not in NEI - should be, but missing3 Hercules Incorporated Louisiana MO Major 0 3 03 Hercules Incorporated Hopewell VA Major 0 3 01 Honeywell International Inc. El Segundo CA Major 0 1 01 Honeywell International Inc. Baton Rouge LA Major 0 1 03 Honeywell International Inc. Hopewell VA Major 0 3 01 Honeywell Specialty Chemicals Baton Rouge LA Major 0 1 02 HOVENSA, L.L.C St. Croix VI Major 0 2 01 Huntsman LLC Pensacola FL Area 1 0 02 Huntsman LLC Geismar LA Major 0 2 01 Huntsman LLC Alvin TX Area 1 0 01 Huntsman LLC Conroe TX Major 0 1 01 Huntsman LLC Odessa TX Major 0 1 03 Huntsman LLC Port Arthur TX Major 0 3 013 Huntsman LLC Port Neches TX Major 0 13 01 IMC Phosphates Company Faustina LA Major 0 1 02 INDOFINE Chemical Company Somerville NJ Unknown 0 0 2* Not in Envirofacts2 INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia PA Major 0 2 01 INEOS Oxide Plaquemine LA Major 0 1 02 Ineos Phenol Theodore AL Major 0 2 02 Infineum U.S.A LP Linden NJ Major 0 2 01 Inolex Chemical Company Hopewell VA Unknown 0 0 1* Not in Envirofacts; no Title V Permit1 International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. Jacksonville FL Area 1 0 01 Intertrade Holdings, Inc. Copperhill TN Area 1 0 05 INVISTA Inc. Orange TX Major 0 5 06 INVISTA Inc. Victoria TX Major 0 6 01 J.R. Simplot Co. Pocatello ID Major 0 1 02 Jarchem Industries Inc. Newark NJ Unknown 0 0 2* Not in Envirofacts1 Javelina Company Corpus Christi TX Area 1 0 0* Not in NEI; based on Texas permit5 JLM Chemicals, Inc. Blue Island IL Major 0 5 02 Johnson Matthey, Inc. Ward Hill MA Area 2 0 01 Kao Specialties Americas LLC High Point NC Major 0 1 0Pct_AreaA-6NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes1 Kincaid Enterprises Inc. Nitro WV Area 1 0 0* Not in NEI; based on TRI/Envirofactsinfo1 Koch Nitrogen Company Fort Dodge IA Major 0 1 01 Koch Nitrogen Company Dodge City KS Area 1 0 01 Koch Nitrogen Company Beatrice NE Major 0 1 01 Koch Nitrogen Company Enid OK Major 0 1 01 Koppers Inc. Cicero IL Major 0 1 03 KoSa Wilmington NC Major 0 3 01 Lomac, LLC Muskegon MI Major 0 1 04 Lonza Inc. Bayport TX Major 0 4 02 Lucite International, Inc. Memphis TN Major 0 2 02 Lucite International, Inc. Beaumont TX Major 0 2 01 Lucite International, Inc. Belle WV Unknown 0 0 1* not in Envirofacts; originally split fromDuPont2 Lyondell Chemical Company Lake Charles LA Major 0 2 05 Lyondell Chemical Company Bayport TX Major 0 5 03 Lyondell Chemical Company Channelview TX Major 0 3 01 Lyondell Methanol Company, LP Channelview TX Major 0 1 04 Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP Houston TX Major 0 4 01 MAK Chemical Corporation Muncie IN Area 1 0 02 Mallinckrodt Baker, Inc. Phillipsburg NJ Major 0 2 05 Mallinckrodt Inc. St. Louis MO Major 0 5 01 Mallinckrodt Inc. Raleigh NC Major 0 1 03 Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Catlettsburg KY Major 0 3 02 Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Texas City TX Major 0 2 01 MDA Manufacturing, Inc. Decatur AL Area 1 0 02 Merisol Antioxidants LLC Oil City PA Area 2 0 07 Merisol USA LLC Houston TX Major 0 7 03 Millennium Petrochemicals, Inc. La Porte TX Major 0 3 01 MissChem Nitrogen, L.L.C. Yazoo City MS Major 0 1 01 Monsanto Company Muscatine IA Major 0 1 01 Monsanto Company Luling LA Major 0 1 02 Morflex, Inc. Greensboro NC Major 0 2 02 Motiva Enterprises LLC Delaware City DE Major 0 2 01 Nation Ford Chemical Co. Fort Mill SC Major 0 1 02 Nepera, Inc. Harriman NY Major 0 2 02 Niacet Corporation Niagara Falls NY Area 2 0 03 NOVA Chemicals Corp. Bayport TX Area 3 0 01 Noveon Inc. Charlotte NC Major 0 1 03 Noveon Inc. Cincinnati OH Area 3 0 07 Noveon Inc. Kalama WA Major 0 7 01 Occidental Chemical Corporation Convent LA Major 0 1 03 Occidental Chemical Corporation Niagara Falls NY Major 0 3 01 Occidental Chemical Corporation Corpus Christi TX Major 0 1 03 Old World Industries, Inc. Pasadena TX Major 0 3 01 ONDEO Nalco Chemical Company Garyville LA Major 0 1 0Pct_AreaA-7NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes2 Oxymar Ingleside TX Unknown 0 0 2* Not in Envirofacts2 OxyVinyls LP Deer Park TX Major 0 2 02 OxyVinyls LP La Porte TX Major 0 2 01 PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. Augusta GA Major 0 1 01 PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. Geismar LA Major 0 1 01 PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. Woodstock TN Major 0 1 01 PCS Nitrogen Ohio, L.P. Lima OH Major 0 1 04 PD Glycol Beaumont TX Major 0 4 01 Pelron Corporation Lyons IL Area 1 0 01 Penn Carbose, Inc. Somerset PA Area 1 0 0* Not in NEI; based on Envirofacts info7 Penta Manufacturing Company East Hanover NJ Unknown 0 0 7* Not in Envirofacts8 Penta Manufacturing Company Fairfield NJ Unknown 0 0 8* Not in Envirofacts8 Penta Manufacturing Company Livingston NJ Area 8 0 0* Not in NEI; based on TRI/Envirofactsinfo3 Perstorp Polyols, Inc. Toledo OH Area 3 0 01 Pfizer Inc. Groton CT Major 0 1 01 Pfizer Inc. Chemical Division Holland MI Major 0 1 01 PHH Monomers Lake Charles LA Unknown 0 0 1* Not in Envirofacts1 Phillips Puerto Rico Core Inc. Guayama PR Area 1 0 03 PMC Specialties Group, Inc. Chicago IL Unknown 0 0 3* Not in NEI - should be, but missing3 PMC Specialties Group, Inc. Cincinnati OH Major 0 3 06 PPG Industries, Inc. Lake Charles LA Major 0 6 01 PPG Industries, Inc. Barberton OH Major 0 1 01 PPG Industries, Inc. La Porte TX Major 0 1 04 PPG Industries, Inc. Natrium WV Major 0 4 03 Praxair, Inc. Geismar LA Area 3 0 01 Primester Kingsport TN Unknown 0 0 1* Not in Envirofacts1 Quaker Foods & Beverages Cedar Rapids IA Major 0 1 01 Quest International Mount Olive NJ Area 1 0 02 R.S.A. Corporation Danbury CT Area 2 0 02 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN Area 2 0 02 Resolution Performance Products LLC Norco LA Major 0 2 01 Resolution Performance Products LLC Deer Park TX Major 0 1 01 Rhodia Inc. Baton Rouge LA Major 0 1 01 Rohm and Haas Company Philadelphia PA Major 0 1 08 Rohm and Haas Company Deer Park TX Major 0 8 01 Royster-Clark Inc. East Dubuque IL Major 0 1 04 Rubicon, Inc. Geismar LA Major 0 4 02 RUTGERS Organics Corporation Harrison OH Area 2 0 01 RUTGERS Organics Corporation State College PA Area 1 0 01 Sabina Petrochemicals LLC Port Arthur TX Major 0 1 05 Sasol North America Inc. Westlake LA Major 0 5 01 Sasol North America Inc. Baltimore MD Major 0 1 02 Schenectady International Rotterdam Junction NY Major 0 2 06 Schenectady International, Inc. Freeport TX Major 0 6 0Pct_AreaA-8NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes8 Shell Chemical Company Geismar LA Major 0 8 05 Shell Chemical Company Norco LA Major 0 5 013 Shell Chemical Company Deer Park TX Major 0 13 01 Shell Oil Products US Anacortes WA Major 0 1 01 Shenango Incorporated Pittsburg PA Major 0 1 01 Sloss Industries Corporation Birmingham AL Area 1 0 01 Solutia Inc. Anniston AL Area 1 0 03 Solutia Inc. Decatur AL Major 0 3 03 Solutia Inc. Pensacola FL Major 0 3 07 Solutia Inc. Sauget IL Major 0 7 01 Solutia Inc. Springfield MA Major 0 1 01 Solutia Inc. Trenton MI Major 0 1 04 Solutia Inc. Alvin TX Major 0 4 01 Solvay Solexis, Inc. Thorofare NJ Area 1 0 01 South Hampton Refining Co. Silsbee TX Major 0 1 01 Stepan Company Millsdale IL Major 0 1 08 Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Texas City TX Major 0 8 01 Sunoco, Inc. Claymont DE Major 0 1 03 Sunoco, Inc. Westville NJ Major 0 3 06 Sunoco, Inc. Haverhill OH Major 0 6 04 Sunoco, Inc. Toledo OH Area 4 0 04 Sunoco, Inc. Marcus Hook PA Major 0 4 01 Sunoco, Inc. Neville Island PA Major 0 1 05 Sunoco, Inc. Philadelphia PA Major 0 5 01 Symrise Inc. Aroma Chemical Division Bushy Park SC Area 1 0 01 Syngenta Crop Protection Cold Creek AL Major 0 1 02 Syngenta Crop Protection St. Gabriel LA Major 0 2 01 Terra Industries Inc. Sergeant Bluff IA Major 0 1 02 Terra Industries Inc. Woodward OK Major 0 2 01 Terra Industries Inc. Beaumont TX Major 0 1 01 Terra Nitrogen, Limited Partnership Blytheville AR Major 0 1 01 Terra Nitrogen, Limited Partnership Verdigris OK Major 0 1 04 Texas Petrochemicals LP Houston TX Major 0 4 01 Texmark Chemicals, Inc. Galena Park TX Major 0 1 01 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Beaumont TX Major 0 1 01 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Pasadena TX Major 0 1 01 The Lubrizol Corporation Deer Park TX Major 0 1 02 The Premcor Refining Group Inc. Lima OH Major 0 2 02 The Procter & Gamble Company Sacramento CA Major 0 2 01 The Williams Companies, Inc. Geismar LA Major 0 1 01 Triad Nitrogen, L.L.C. Donaldsonville LA Area 1 0 01 Twin Lake Chemicals Inc. Lockport NY Area 1 0 0* Not in NEI; based on Envirofacts info6 U.S. Amines Ltd. Bucks AL Major 0 6 01 U.S. Army Holston Army Ammunition Plant Kingsport TN Major 0 1 01 Unitex Chemical Corporation Greensboro NC Major 0 1 0Pct_AreaA-9NumberProcesses Company City StateFacilityDesignationProcess unitsat AreaSourceProcess unitsat MajorSource Unknown Notes2 Valero Energy Corporation Corpus Christi TX Major 0 2 02 Valero Energy Corporation Three Rivers TX Major 0 2 01 VanDeMark, Inc. Lockport NY Major 0 1 03 Velsicol Chemical Corporation Chattanooga TN Major 0 3 01 Vulcan Chloralkali LLC Geismar LA Major 0 1 04 Vulcan Materials Company Wichita KS Major 0 4 06 Vulcan Materials Company Geismar LA Major 0 6 02 Westlake Monomers Corporation Calvert City KY Major 0 2 01 Westlake Petrochemicals Corporation Sulphur LA Major 0 1 02 Westlake Styrene Corporation Sulphur LA Area 2 0 01 Westlake Vinyls, Inc. Calvert City KY Major 0 1 02 Wright Chemical Corporation Riegelwood NC Major 0 2 0Calculation of Percentage of Process Units at Area SorucesDesignation Major Area TotalNumber Facilities 303 91 394Percent of Facilities 76.9% 23.1%Number of Processes916 134 1050Percent of Processes 87.2% 12.8%Pct_AreaA-10

# Attachment B

Scenario Determination

# Process units in

VOC service

1 9 1

Units manufacturing

HON compounds

1 3 2 Units manufacturing

MON compounds

59

Area Source

20 Major Source

112

Units

emitting

HAP

40 Units

emitting non

HAP VOC

10

( 4 ) New

(GP)

19 (6) New

5 .3

(3) Reconstructed

(MO N)

3 .2 (7) Reconstructed

3.5



# Determination of process units subject t o SOCMI regulations . The numbers in bold at the bottom of each box indicate the numbers

of process units described by the text in that box. The numbers in italics and parentheses in the bottom row s indicate the scenario

and regulation to which those proc ess units are subject ; the boxes marked (6) and (7) represent the process units impacted by

amendments to subpart VV. (6) New

12 (7) Reconstructed

7.9 ( 1 ) New

67 ( 2 ) Reconstructed

45 Major Source

5 0 Area Source

8.8

(6) New

6 .0 (7) Reconstructed

4 .0 ( 1 ) New

(MON )

4.8 ( 5 ) Reconstructed

(GP )

13

# Attachment C

Model Details

# Models

Type of Component

simple medium complex

Pump Seals

* Light-liquid service 15 40 56

* Heavy-liquid service 0 5 36

V alves

* Gas/vapor service 77 414 1,379

* Light-liquid service 380 1,179 1,980

* Heavy-liquid service 0 71 1,272

Connectors

* Flanges - gas/vapor

* Flanges - light liquid 731 2,662 7,410

* Flanges -heavy liquid

Pressure Relief Devices

* Disks 2 45 76

* Disk holders, valves,etc. 2 45 76

Open-ended Valves 33 141 424

Sampling Connections 8 35 106

Compressor Vent 028

Replacement Pump Seals 15 40 56 Number of Components

Models C-1

# Attachment D

Data from the HON Residual Risk AnalysisData from the HON Residual Risk AnalysisGas valvePercentleakersLL valvepercentleakersAvg(50/50)splitweighted bynumber ofvalvesRoundedvalues17 227,886160,66015,1462.79 2.57 2.68 0.212.574 209,890112,08145,9310.58 0.50 0.54 0.13 0.5235 57,14447,03012,6760.93 0.82 0.88 0.061163 42,12126,0733,0232.26 2.07 2.16 0.03 2116 13,95311,0376,6580.37 0.30 0.34 0.010.5183 15,75510,4146,3570.37 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.5112 13,3989,62015,5130.09 0.04 0.07 0.01 030 13,7268,4964,6430.42 0.35 0.38 0.01 0.5107 13,0918,06411,0340.12 0.07 0.10 0.01027 12,2817,8238,5960.17 0.12 0.14 0.01078 10,6286,51517,5470.02 -0.02 0.00 0.000197 10,8954,8377,7410.09 0.04 0.07 0.00080 5,7803,9017,4540.06 0.02 0.04 0.000114 5,7303,6385,5120.10 0.05 0.08 0.000168 6,4013,3734,1600.14 0.09 0.12 0.00 051 5,6702,9993,3470.17 0.11 0.14 0.00026 3,1752,3591454.32 4.01 4.17 0.00424 2,0041,7553321.35 1.22 1.29 0.00 1.59 3,6081,6923311.31 1.18 1.24 0.00168 1,1006814,034-0.03 -0.07 -0.05 0.000179 5,3043331350.59 0.51 0.55 0.000.590 5092881,111-0.01 -0.05 -0.03 0.00029 4612444,544-0.06 -0.10 -0.08 0.000228 2131384340.01 -0.03 -0.01 0.00081 2791371,463-0.05 -0.09 -0.07 0.00 0255 30171,094-0.07 -0.11 -0.09 0.000434,206188,9610.54 0.470.58 0.51 0.560.51Shaded rows indicate where actual counts were used from NOCs reports. 18Source: Memorandum from R. Oommen, Eastern Research Group, to Randy McDonald, USEPA, OAQPS. June 1, 2006.Cost and Emission ReductionsLeakless Valves for HON Facilities.Docket Items EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0475-0105 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0475-0105.1HON IDTotal EquipmentHAP Emissions(kg/yr)Total ValveHAPEmissions(kg/yr)Numberof ValvesHON RR data D-1

# Attachment E

Leak Frequencies and Emission FactorsSOCMI Leak Frequencies and Emission factors500 1,000 10,000 500 1,000 10,000Equipment OptionGas Valves Baseline 0.33 0.000352Option 1, Initial (NSPS)a6.9Option 1, Subsequent 0.51 0.000203Light Liquid Valves Baseline 0.33 0.000390Option 1, Initial (NSPS)a4.5Option 1, Subsequent 0.51 0.000232Light Liquid Pumps Baseline 0.23 0.002512Option 1, Initial (NSPS)a15.2Option 1, Subsequent 0.26 0.00069Connectors Baseline (no control) 0.36 0.000307Option 2 0.36 0.000162aInitial leak frequencies calculated to determine repair costs the first time lower leak definition is required. Emissions estimates for the LDARprogram are calculated using subsequent leak frequencies.Derivation of SOCMI leak frequencies from Refinery leak frequenciesEquipment OptionRefineryLeakFrequency,%a,bSOCMI LeakFrequency,%Basis for SOCMI Leak FrequencyGas Valves andLight Liquid ValvesBaseline 1.28 0.33Option 1, Subsequent1.94e0.51Light Liquid Pumps Baseline 0.88 0.23Option 1, Subsequent0.98e0.26aFrom 1997 API reportAnalysis of RefineryScreeningDatabFromData and Assumptions used in the Final Equipment Leaks Cost Analysis for Petroleum Refineries.cFromEnforcement Alert: Proper MonitoringEssential to Reducing'Fugitive Emissions' Under Leak Detection and Repair ProgramsdFromCost and Emission Reductions of Leakless Valves for HON Facilities.eOriginal data are for LDARprograms with leak definitions of 1,000ppm andquarterlymonitoringfor bothpumps and valves; leak frequencyfopumps presented in this table adjusted to monthly monitoring.Baseline-to-controlled refinery pump leak frequencycratio applied toOption 1 pump leak frequency(0.88/0.98 * 0.26 = 0.23)Pump-to-valve refinery leak frequency applied to Option 1 valve leakfrequency(0.98/3.78 * 0.98 = 0.26)Leak Definition (ppm)Leak Frequencies, % Emission Factor, kg/hr/componentBaseline-to-controlled refinery valve leak frequencycratio applied toOption 1 leak frequency (all values converted to semiannual monitoring(1.28/1.94 * 0.51 = 0.33)Average of data from HON sourcesdFinal Estimates E-1

# Attachment F

Emission Estimate Inputs

# Emissions data in Protocol document

Component Monitoring Leak Leak Average Final leak Emission

frequency definition, frequency, leak rate rate,

ppm % fraction, % (kg/hr) kg/hr/component a



# Gas valve Quarterly 10,000 3.80 2.33 0.00195 0.00195

Annually 10,000 2.00 1.23 0.00109

Monthly 500 2.0 1.0 0.00046

Quarterly 500 1.5 0.75 0.00035

Semiannually 500 0.75 0.375 0.00018

Annually 500 0.5 0.25 0.00013

Liquid valve Quarterly 10,000 2.61 1.60 0.00159 0.00159

Annually 10,000 2.00 1.23 0.00126

Monthly 500 2.0 1.0 0.00050

Quarterly 500 1.5 0.75 0.00038

Semiannually 500 0.75 0.375 0.00020

Annually 500 0.5 0.25 0.00014

Pump Monthly 10,000 3.53 1.77 0.00613 0.00615

Monthly 1,000 8.04 4.02 0.00488

Gas connector None 500 3.9 3.9 0.00180

Annually 500 0.50 0.25 0.00013 0.000130

Liquid connector None 500 3.9 3.9 0.00180

Annually 500 0.50 0.25 0.00013 0.000130

a 

# Using ALR equations from the November 1995 Protocol document (ALR = X*LKFRAC + Y)

TABLE 5-4. EQUATIONS RELATING AVERAGE LEAK RATE TO FRACTION LEAKING AT SOCMI UNITS

Equipment Leak Definition X Y

Gas Valve 500 0.044 1.7E-05

1000 0.05 2.8E-05

2000 0.057 4.3E-05

5000 0.068 8.1E-05

10000 0.078 1.3E-04

Light liquid valve 500 0.047 2.7E-05

1000 0.053 3.9E-05

2000 0.061 5.9E-05

5000 0.077 1.1E-04

10000 0.089 1.7E-04

Pump 500 0.095 3.1E-04

1000 0.11 4.6E-04

2000 0.13 6.7E-04

5000 0.20 1.4E-03

10000 0.24 1.9E-03

Connector 500 0.047 1.7E-05

1000 0.060 2.5E-05

2000 0.073 3.5E-05

5000 0.092 5.4E-05

10000 0.11 8.1E-05

Equation is (ALR = X*LKFRAC + Y)

Inputs F-1

# TABLE G-1. DETERMINATION OF LDAR CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS AT SOCMI PROCESS UNITS

Equipment

type Control

program Leak definition

(ppmv) Initial leak

fraction

(percent) Initial leak

rate (kg/hr) Immediately

after LDAR

monit. Immediately

prior to LDAR

monit. Cycle average Final leak

rate (kg/hr) LDAR control

effectiveness

(percent)

LL Valves Monthly 10000 4.3 0.0040 0.20 0.88 0.54 0.00064 84

Quarterly 10000 4.3 0.0040 0.59 2.61 1.60 0.00159 61

HON reg neg 500 8.5 0.0040 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00050 88

Gas Valves Monthly 10000 7.5 0.0060 0.29 1.29 0.79 0.00075 87

Quarterly 10000 7.5 0.0060 0.86 3.80 2.33 0.00195 67

HON reg neg 500 13.6 0.0060 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00045 92

LL Pumps Monthly 10000 7.5 0.0199 0.00 3.53 1.77 0.00613 69

Quarterly 10000 7.5 0.0199 0.00 7.50 3.75 0.01092 45

HON reg neg 1000 17.1 0.0199 0.00 8.04 4.02 0.00501 75

Connectors HON reg neg 500 3.9 0.0018 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00013 93

Table 2-9. SOCMI Leak Rate/Screening Value Correlations

Table 2-11. Default-Zero Values: SOCMI Process Units

Table 2-13. 10,000 ppmv and 100,000 ppmv Screening Value Pegged Emission Rates for SOCMI Process Units

Equipment Default-zero

emission rate

(kg/hr/

component) X Y 10,000 ppmv

pegged

emission rate

(kg/hr/

component) 100,000 ppmv

pegged

emission rate

(kg/hr/

component)

Gas Valves 6.60E-07 1.87E-06 0.873 0.024 0.11

LL Valves 4.90E-07 6.41E-06 0.797 0.036 0.15

LL Pumps 7.50E-06 1.90E-05 0.824 0.14 0.62

Connectors 6.10E-07 3.05E-06 0.885 0.044 0.22

Equation is Leak rate (kg/hr) = X * (SV)^Y, SV = screening value in ppmv

Inputs F- 2

# MON data

Component Monitoring Leak Leak Average Emission

frequency definition, frequency a 

# leak rate,

ppm fraction, % b 

# kg/hr/component c



# Gas valve annually 10,000 0.323 0.162 0.000256

semiannually 500 0.582 0.291 0.000145

Liquid valve annually 10,000 0.193 0.097 0.000256

semiannually 500 0.502 0.251 0.000145

Pump monthly 10,000 3.150 1.575 0.00568

monthly 1,000 6.073 3.036 0.00380

Connector none 500 0.360 0.360 0.000186

every 4 yrs 500 0.360 0.180 0.0001016

a 

# Assumed leak frequency at end of monitoring period equals twice the average leak fraction, except for connectors at baseline wh ere the absence

of an LDAR program means the leak fraction doesn't vary over the year.

b 

# Leak fractions calculated using ALR equations in the Protocol document (ALR = X*LKFRAC + Y), except for connectors at baseline where the

leak frequency is always 0.36%.

c 

# Values used in MON analysis for control under subpart TT (10,000 ppm) and subpart VV (500 ppm).

Calculation of Estimate of Baseline Initial Leak Frequency

Component Average

Uncontrolled

Emission Rate

(kg/hr/

component) a 

# Initial Leak

Frequency

(%) b



# Gas Valves c 

# 3.68E-04 0.305

LL Valves 3.68E-04 0.222

Pumps 7.56E-03 2.358

Connectors 1.86E-04 0.360

a 

# From Table 1. Resulting Emission Rates and Program Efficiencies for CMA Data in Revised MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide

Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities

b 

# Leak fractions calculated using ALR equations in the Protocol document (ALR = X*LKFRAC + Y)

c 

# Used value for valves in light liquid service

Leak frequencies from the 1997 API report: Analysis of Refinery Screening Data

Direct API Data for Total Leaking at Leak Definition, %

500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves - Gas 0.997 0.878 0.248 0.108 0.081

Valves - Light Liquid 1.031 0.856 0.289 0.103 0.079

Pumps - Light Liquid 3.543 2.768 0.997 0.286 0.186

Connectors - Gas 0.272 0.236 0.093 0.046 0.032

Connectors - Light Liquid 0.180 0.147 0.054 0.020 0.015

Average Valves 1.014 0.867 0.269

Differences (% within the given range)

500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves - Gas 0.119 0.630 0.140 0.027 0.081

Valves - Light Liquid 0.175 0.567 0.186 0.024 0.079

Pumps - Light Liquid 0.775 1.771 0.711 0.100 0.186

Inputs F- 3

# Attachment G

Emission Factors and Emission EstimatesGas Valves - NSPSEPA's SOCMI dataProtocol nocontrol %leakersaleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitoredassumed typicalscreening value in therange to the nextthresholda10 26 500 0.87 Option 665100 17.5 1000 1330500 13.6 2000 29901000 12 5000 66502000 10.5 10000 0.57 Baseline 232005000 8.7 50000 6650010000 7.5 100000 397000 3970050000 5.5 1000000100000 4.5DistributionleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitored500 0.871000 0.762000 0.675000 0.5550000 0.35100000 0.29Leak Freq calcs 500 10000Baseline 0.33Option, Initial (NSPS) 6.9Option, Subsequent 0.51aFrom figure B-3-3 in the Protocol documentEmissionsG-1Gas ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario1 - No control2 - Baseline before control3 - Baseline controlledGV default zero 6.60E-07 Average aboveInstantaneous 10000LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeaAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<10 74.0 0.00004884 79.5 0.00005250 79.8 0.0000526510 10 to 100 8.5 39.7 0.000395 9.1 0.000425 9.2 0.000426100 100 to 500 3.9 232 0.000847 4.2 0.000911 4.2 0.000913500 500 to 1000 1.6 665 0.000872 1.7 0.000937 1.7 0.0009391000 1000 to 2000 1.5 1330 0.001496 1.6 0.001608 1.6 0.0016132000 2000 to 5000 1.8 2990 0.003642 1.9 0.003915 1.9 0.0039265000 5000 to 10000 1.2 6650 0.004879 1.3 0.005245 1.3 0.00526010000 10000 to 50000 2.0 23200 0.024207 Pegged value 0.2 0.001848 0.1 0.00092450000 50000 to 100000 1.0 66500 0.030350 0.11 0.1 0.002317 0.0 0.001158100000 >100000 4.5 310000 0.523616 0.495 0.3 0.039972 0.2 0.019986Emission rateper valveEmission rateper valveEmission rateper valve0.00590 0.00562 0.000570.000352Emission rate estimated using (500 ppm) (10,000 ppm) (10,000 ppm)ALR equation 0.0060 0.00058 0.00035Leak Frequency Calculations Baseline Option<10 74.0 <10 79.7 85.210 10 to 100 8.5 10 to 100 9.2 9.8100 100 to 500 3.9 100 to 500 4.2 4.5500 500 to 1000 1.6 0.51 500 to 1000 1.7 0.061000 1000 to 2000 1.5 1000 to 2000 1.6 0.062000 2000 to 5000 1.8 2000 to 5000 1.9 0.075000 5000 to 10000 1.2 5000 to 10000 1.3 0.0410000 10000 to 50000 2.0 0.33 10000 to 50000 0.1 0.0750000 50000 to 100000 1.0 50000 to 100000 0.0 0.04100000 >100000 4.5 >100000 0.2 0.17EmissionsG-2Gas ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)4 - Option 1 prior to control5 - Option 1 controlledGV default zero 0.00000066 Average above500LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate, kg/hr(per 100 valves) whenmonitoredEmissionrate afterrepair, kg/hrPercent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<10 84.9 0.0000560 0.000066 85.3 0.000056310 10 to 100 9.8 39.7 0.000454 9.8 0.000456100 100 to 500 4.5 232 0.000217 4.5 0.000976500 500 to 1000 0.10 665 0.000056 0.05 0.0000281000 1000 to 2000 0.10 1330 0.000095 0.05 0.0000482000 2000 to 5000 0.11 2990 0.000232 0.06 0.0001165000 5000 to 10000 0.08 6650 0.000311 0.04 0.00015510000 10000 to 50000 0.13 23200 0.001543 0.06 0.00077150000 50000 to 100000 0.06 66500 0.001935 0.03 0.000967100000 >100000 0.29 310000 0.033375 0.14 0.016688Emission rate pervalveEmission rateper valve0.000383 0.000000660.000203Average emission rateduring monitoring period 0.000192Emission rate estimated usingALR equation 0.00020771(HON avg leak rate, kg/hr)EmissionsG-3Light Liquid Valves - NSPSEPA's SOCMI dataProtocol nocontrol %leakersaleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitoredassumed typicalscreening value in therange to the nextthresholda10 18 500 0.87 Option 665100 11 1000 1330500 8.5 2000 29901000 7 5000 66502000 5.8 10000 0.57 Baseline 232005000 5.1 50000 6650010000 4.5 100000 397000 3970050000 2.9 1000000100000 2.2DistributionleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitored500 0.871000 0.712000 0.595000 0.5210000 0.4650000 0.30100000 0.22Leak Freq calcs 500 10000Baseline 0.33Option, Initial (NSPS) 4.5Option, Subsequent 0.51aFrom figure B-3-4 in the Protocol documentEmissionsG-4Light Liquid ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario1 - No control2 - Baseline before control3 - Baseline controlledLLV default zero 4.90E-07 Average aboveInstantaneous 10000LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeaAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<10 82.0 0.0000402 85.4 0.0000418 85.6 0.000042010 10 to 100 7.0 39.7 0.000844 7.3 0.000878 7.3 0.000881100 100 to 500 2.5 232 0.001231 2.6 0.001281 2.6 0.001285500 500 to 1000 1.5 665 0.001709 1.6 0.001779 1.6 0.0017841000 1000 to 2000 1.2 1330 0.002375 1.2 0.002473 1.3 0.0024802000 2000 to 5000 0.7 2990 0.002643 0.7 0.002751 0.7 0.0027595000 5000 to 10000 0.6 6650 0.004283 0.6 0.004460 0.6 0.00447210000 10000 to 50000 1.6 23200 0.030922 Pegged value 0.2 0.003934 0.1 0.00196750000 50000 to 100000 0.7 66500 0.031314 0.15 0.1 0.003984 0.0 0.001992100000 >100000 2.2 310000 0.335657 0.33 0.3 0.042706 0.1 0.021353Emission rateper valveEmission rateper valveEmission rateper valveEmission rate per valve 0.00411 0.00405 0.000640.000390Emission rate estimated using (500 ppm) (10,000 ppm) (10,000 ppm)ALR equation 0.00402 0.00068 0.00042Leak Frequency Calculations Baseline Option<10 82.0 <10 85.6 89.210 10 to 100 7.0 10 to 100 7.3 7.6100 100 to 500 2.5 100 to 500 2.6 2.7500 500 to 1000 1.5 0.51 500 to 1000 1.6 0.091000 1000 to 2000 1.2 1000 to 2000 1.3 0.072000 2000 to 5000 0.7 2000 to 5000 0.7 0.045000 5000 to 10000 0.6 5000 to 10000 0.6 0.0410000 10000 to 50000 1.6 0.33 10000 to 50000 0.1 0.1050000 50000 to 100000 0.7 50000 to 100000 0.1 0.04100000 >100000 2.2 >100000 0.2 0.13EmissionsG-5Light Liquid ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)4 - Option 1 prior to control5 - Option 1 controlledLLV default zero 0.00000049 Average above500LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate, kg/hr(per 100 valves) whenmonitoredEmissionrate afterrepair, kg/hrPercent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<10 88.8 0.0000435 0.000049 89.2 0.000043710 10 to 100 7.6 39.7 0.000914 7.6 0.000918100 100 to 500 2.7 232 0.001333 2.7 0.001339500 500 to 1000 0.15 665 0.000174 0.08 0.0000871000 1000 to 2000 0.12 1330 0.000242 0.06 0.0001212000 2000 to 5000 0.07 2990 0.000270 0.04 0.0001355000 5000 to 10000 0.06 6650 0.000437 0.03 0.00021810000 10000 to 50000 0.16 23200 0.003154 0.08 0.00157750000 50000 to 100000 0.07 66500 0.003194 0.04 0.001597100000 >100000 0.22 310000 0.034232 0.11 0.017116Emission rate pervalveEmission rateper valveEmission rate per valve 0.000440 0.000000490.000232Average emission rateduring monitoring period 0.000220vs.Emission rate estimated usingALR equation 0.00023071(HON avg leak rate, kg/hr)EmissionsG-6PumpsEPA's SOCMI dataProtocol nocontrol %leakersaleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitoredassumed typicalscreening value in therange to the nextthresholda10 44 500 665100 30 1000 0.44 Option 1330500 21 2000 29901000 17.1 5000 66502000 13.2 10000 0.39 Baseline 232005000 9.8 50000 6650010000 7 100000 397000 3970050000 3.5 1000000100000 2DistributionleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitored500 5.121000 0.442000 0.345000 0.2510000 0.1850000 0.09100000 0.05Leak Freq calcs 500 10000Baseline 0.23Option, Initial (NSPS) 15.2Option, Subsequent 0.26aFrom figure B-3-2 in the Protocol documentEmissionsG-7PumpsUse correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario1 - No control2 - Baseline before control3 - Baseline controlledP default zero 0.0000075 Average aboveInstantaneous 10000LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeaAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)<10 56.0 0.00042 60.0 0.000449844 60.1 0.00045072710 10 to 100 14.0 39.7 0.005524 15.0 0.005917 15.0 0.005929100 100 to 500 9.0 232 0.015211 9.6 0.016292 9.7 0.016324500 500 to 1000 3.9 665 0.015697 4.2 0.016813 4.2 0.0168461000 1000 to 2000 3.9 1330 0.027789 4.2 0.029764 4.2 0.0298222000 2000 to 5000 3.4 2990 0.047226 3.6 0.050582 3.6 0.0506815000 5000 to 10000 2.8 6650 0.075148 3.0 0.080488 3.0 0.08064610000 10000 to 50000 3.5 23200 0.263017 Pegged value 0.2 0.014720 0.1 0.00736050000 50000 to 100000 1.5 66500 0.268442 0.62 0.1 0.015024 0.0 0.007512100000 >100000 2.0 310000 1.272523 1.2400 0.1 0.071220 0.1 0.035610Emission rateper pumpEmission rateper pumpEmission rateper pumpEmission rate per valve 0.01991 0.01958 0.003010.00251Emission rate estimated using (1,000 ppm) (10,000 ppm) (10,000 ppm)ALR equation 0.0193 0.00284 0.00237Leak Frequency Calculations Baseline Option<10 56.0 <10 60.1 67.410 10 to 100 14.0 10 to 100 15.0 16.8100 100 to 500 9.0 100 to 500 9.7 10.8500 500 to 1000 3.9 500 to 1000 4.2 4.71000 1000 to 2000 3.9 0.26 1000 to 2000 4.2 0.062000 2000 to 5000 3.4 2000 to 5000 3.6 0.055000 5000 to 10000 2.8 5000 to 10000 3.0 0.0410000 10000 to 50000 3.5 0.23 10000 to 50000 0.1 0.0550000 50000 to 100000 1.5 50000 to 100000 0.0 0.02100000 >100000 2.0 >100000 0.1 0.03EmissionsG-8PumpsUse correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)4 - Option 1 prior to control5 - Option 1 controlledP default zero 0.0000075 Average above1000LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate, kg/hr(per 100 pumps) whenmonitoredEmissionrate afterrepair, kg/hrPercent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)<10 67.3 0.000504408 0.00075 67.4 0.00050551910 10 to 100 16.8 39.7 0.006635 16.9 0.006649100 100 to 500 10.8 232 0.018268 10.8 0.018308500 500 to 1000 4.7 665 0.018852 4.69 0.0188931000 1000 to 2000 0.10 1330 0.000714 0.05 0.0003572000 2000 to 5000 0.09 2990 0.001214 0.04 0.0006075000 5000 to 10000 0.07 6650 0.001931 0.04 0.00096510000 10000 to 50000 0.09 23200 0.006758 0.04 0.00337950000 50000 to 100000 0.04 66500 0.006898 0.02 0.003449100000 >100000 0.05 310000 0.032698 0.03 0.016349Emission rate perpumpEmission rateper pumpEmission rate per valve 0.000945 0.00000750.00069Average emission rateduring monitoring period 0.000476vs.Emission rate estimated usingALR equation 0.0007017(HON avg leak rate, kg/hr)EmissionsG-9

# Attachment H

Cost Analysis Inputs

# This page provides inputs for the entire analysis. The first section (yellow highlight) are single numbers from various source s that are used in cost

calculations. The numbers in blue are calculated from various sources.

180.00 Cost of replacement pump seals ($)

17.70 Initial cost of monitoring valves and pumps in gas and light liquid service ($)

1.13 Initial cost of monitoring connectors and other components in heavy liquid service ($)

1.50 Monitoring Fee ($/component) (excludes connectors)

2.50 Monitoring Fee ($/connector)

23.19 Wage (chemical manufacturing maintenance) ($, May 2006)

3 Overhead factor, maintenance & and repair (assumes contractor)

1.6 Overhead factor, administration, planning, and training (assumes in-house)

64.21 Planning and training labor charge ($) *

0.244 Capital recovery factor: rupture disks and pump seals (from HON analysis)

0.142 Capital recovery factor: all other types of equipment and initial LDAR labor (from HON analysis)

1272 Total number of subpart VV process units nationwide (estimate based on total number of manufacturing sites listed in 2004 S RI

Consulting Directory of Chemical Producers for 310 of the chemicals listed in subpart VV; the other 68 are not listed in the 2004

SRI directory)

879 Number of process units making HON/ethylene MACT compounds

393 Number of process units making MON compounds (plus any processes not subject to any MACT, if they have only VOC, no HAP)

20 Percentage of process units at MON major sources emitting VOC only (no HAP)

15 Percentage of process units at area sources (assumed)

3 Percentage of process units that become subject each year (Assumed)

20 Percentage of process units that manufacture MON chemicals that will meet the definition of new or reconstructed in 63.2440(c )

60 Percentage of affected process units that are new (Assumed)

40 Percentage of affected process units that are reconstructed (Assumed)

52 Percentage of process units represented by simple model (from HON analysis)

33 Percentage of process units represented by medium model (from HON analysis)

15 Percentage of process units represented by complex model (from HON analysis)

320 Planning and training for LDAR program, current NSPS level, hours

320 Planning and training for LDAR program, current MON level, hours

340 Planning and training for LDAR program including connectors, hours

250 Administrative and reports for LDAR program, current NSPS level, hours

250 Administrative and reports for LDAR program, current MON level, hours

300 Administrative and reports for LDAR program including connectors, hours

900.00 VOC Recovery Credit, $/Mg

1.28 Average valve leak frequency found by 17 refineries (Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing 'Fugitive Emissions'

Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs )

1.71 NEIC Factor for leak frequency

1.10 tons/Mg

* Planning and training labor charge calculation (May 2006)

Category Mean Multiplier Result

Environmental engineering 35.41 1 35.41

General and operations managers 59.94 0.05 3

General office and admin support 17.16 0.1 1.72

40.13

Inputs H-1

# Attachment I

Cost EstimatesBaseline cost estimates before implementing Option 1. Costs include online and offline repairs for valves and pumps leaking above 10,000 ppm.Annual expenses used in "Option 1 Emissions" to estimate incremental cost.Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)SOCMI model processPump Sealssimple * Light-liquid service 15 17.70 303.72 12 1.50 722.21 74.06 0.23 0.03 0.23 0.41 100 16.00baseline VV program * Heavy-liquid service 0 1.13 0.00Valves* Gas/vapor service 77 17.70 1383.42 2 1.50 231.00 0.33 0.26 0.33 0.51 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 380 17.70 6827.28 2 1.50 1140.00 0.33 1.27 0.33 2.54 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 0 1.13 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 731 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals15 180.00 6.17hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports25064.21Planning and Training320 64.21 20547.20TOTALS8520.59 20547.20 2093.21 74.06Capital Costs 29,068Annualized Capital Costs4,128Annual Expenses 18,981Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 20,240Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 2,869Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)SOCMI model processPump Sealsmedium * Light-liquid service 40 17.70 809.91 12 1.50 1925.88 197.50 0.23 0.09 0.23 1.10 100 16.00baseline VV program * Heavy-liquid service 5 1.13 5.65Valves* Gas/vapor service 414 17.70 7438.14 2 1.50 1242.00 0.33 1.38 0.33 2.77 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 1,179 17.70 21182.53 2 1.50 3537.00 0.33 3.94 0.33 7.88 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 71 1.13 80.23Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 2,662 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals40 180.00 16.46hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports25064.21Planning and Training320 64.21 20547.20TOTALS29532.93 20547.20 6704.88 197.50Capital Costs 50,080Annualized Capital Costs7,113Annual Expenses 25,185Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 23,324Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 8,975VV_baselineI-1Type of ComponentSOCMI model processPump Sealssimple * Light-liquid servicebaseline VV program * Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentSOCMI model processPump Sealsmedium * Light-liquid servicebaseline VV program * Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSLabor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.57 458.00 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 0.62 59.2569.57 4.48 25 4.00 69.57 35.79 0.7769.57 22.12 25 4.00 69.57 176.63 3.8169.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.0069.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.0016052.50484.60 212.42 5.20 16052.50 59.25Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.57 1221.33 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 1.65 158.0069.57 24.10 25 4.00 69.57 192.43 4.1569.57 68.64 25 4.00 69.57 548.01 11.8269.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.0069.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.0016052.501314.07 740.44 17.61 16052.50 158.00VV_baselineI-2Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)SOCMI model processPump Sealscomplex * Light-liquid service 56 17.70 1133.88 12 1.50 2696.23 276.50 0.23 0.13 0.23 1.54 100 16.00baseline VV program * Heavy-liquid service 36 1.13 40.68Valves* Gas/vapor service 1,379 17.70 24775.84 2 1.50 4137.00 0.33 4.61 0.33 9.21 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 1,980 17.70 35573.72 2 1.50 5940.00 0.33 6.61 0.33 13.23 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 1,272 1.13 1437.36Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 7,410 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals56 180.00 23.04hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports25064.21Planning and Training320 64.21 20547.20TOTALS62984.52 20547.20 12773.23 276.50Capital Costs 83,532Annualized Capital Costs11,864Annual Expenses 32,826Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 28,138Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 16,552VV_baselineI-3Type of ComponentSOCMI model processPump Sealscomplex * Light-liquid servicebaseline VV program * Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSLabor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.57 1709.86 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 2.30 221.2069.57 80.28 25 4.00 69.57 640.97 13.8269.57 115.27 25 4.00 69.57 920.33 19.8469.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.0069.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.0016052.501905.42 1561.30 35.97 16052.50 221.20VV_baselineI-4Cost estimates for implementing Option 1. Costs include initial planning and training for process units not already subject toMACT, initial repair, and online and offlinerepairs. Initial capital costs are annualized. Annual costs and expenses used in "Option 1 Emissions" to estimate incremental cost.Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid service 15 17.70 308.36 12 1.50 722.21 83.06 0.26 0.04 0.26simple * Heavy-liquid service 0 1.13 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 77 17.70 1393.97 2 1.50 231.00 0.51 0.39 0.51* Light-liquid service 380 17.70 6879.34 2 1.50 1140.00 0.51 1.92 0.51* Heavy-liquid service 0 1.13 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 2.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36* Flanges - light liquid 731 17.70 13059.75 0.25 2.50 456.88 0.36 2.63 0.360.00 * Flanges -heavy liquid 1.13 0.00Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 0.00* Flanges - light liquid 731 0.00 0.00* Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals15 180.00 0.07Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* Without connectors 250 64.21* With connectors 50 64.21Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* Without connectors 320 64.21 20547.20* With connectors 20 64.21 1284.20TOTALS without connectors8581.75 20547.20 2093.21 83.06TOTALS with connectors21641.50 21831.40 2550.08 83.06TOTALS initial for connectors only13059.75 1284.20 2550.08 83.06Without connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 29,129Annualized Capital Costs4,136Annual Expenses 19,178Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 20,255Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 3,059With connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 43,473Annualized Capital Costs6,173Annual Expenses 22,876Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 25,503Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 3,547Initial costs for connectors onlyCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 14,344Annualized Capital Costs2,037Annual Expenses 22,876Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 21,366Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 3,547Option1MONdataI-5Type of ComponentPump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid servicesimple * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid0.00 * Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* Without connectors* With connectorsPlanning and Training* Without connectors* With connectorsTOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsTOTALS initial for connectors onlyAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)0.46 100 16.00 69.57 513.67 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 0.69 66.450.78 75 0.17 69.57 6.79 25 4.00 69.57 54.19 1.173.84 75 0.17 69.57 33.50 25 4.00 69.57 267.43 5.770.00 75 0.17 69.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.000.66 75 0.17 69.57 5.73 25 2.00 69.57 22.89 1.6416052.503210.50553.95 321.62 7.63 16052.50 66.45559.68 344.50 9.27 19263.00 66.45559.68 344.50 9.27 19263.00 66.45Option1MONdataI-6Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid service 40 17.70 822.30 12 1.50 1925.88 221.50 0.26 0.10 0.26medium * Heavy-liquid service 5 1.13 5.65Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 414 17.70 7494.86 2 1.50 1242.00 0.51 2.09 0.51* Light-liquid service 1,179 17.70 21344.07 2 1.50 3537.00 0.51 5.96 0.51* Heavy-liquid service 71 1.13 80.23Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 2.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36* Flanges - light liquid 2,662 17.70 47558.21 0.25 2.50 1663.75 0.36 9.58 0.36* Flanges -heavy liquid 1.13 0.00Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 0.00* Flanges - light liquid 2,662 0.00 0.00* Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals40 180.00 0.18Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* Without connectors 250 64.21* With connectors 50 64.21Planning and Traininghr/activity* Without connectors 320 64.21 20547.20* With connectors 20 64.21 1284.20TOTALS without connectors29747.30 20547.20 6704.88 221.50TOTALS with connectors77305.52 21831.40 8368.63 221.50TOTALS initial for connectors only47558.21 1284.20 8368.63 221.50Without connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 50,295Annualized Capital Costs7,142Annual Expenses 25,813Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 23,372Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 9,584With connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 99,137Annualized Capital Costs14,077Annual Expenses 30,798Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 33,518Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 11,358Initial costs for connectors onlyCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 48,842Annualized Capital Costs6,936Annual Expenses 30,798Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 26,376Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 11,358Option1MONdataI-7Type of ComponentPump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid servicemedium * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* Without connectors* With connectorsPlanning and Training* Without connectors* With connectorsTOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsTOTALS initial for connectors onlyAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)1.23 100 16.00 69.57 1369.78 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 1.85 177.204.19 75 0.17 69.57 36.49 25 4.00 69.57 291.36 6.2811.93 75 0.17 69.57 103.92 25 4.00 69.57 829.73 17.890.00 75 0.17 69.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.002.40 75 0.17 69.57 20.88 25 2.00 69.57 83.34 5.9916052.503210.501510.20 1121.08 26.02 16052.50 177.201531.08 1204.42 32.01 19263.00 177.201531.08 1204.42 32.01 19263.00 177.20Option1MONdataI-8Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid service 56 17.70 1151.22 12 1.50 2696.23 310.11 0.26 0.14 0.26complex * Heavy-liquid service 36 1.13 40.68Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 1,379 17.70 24964.78 2 1.50 4137.00 0.51 6.97 0.51* Light-liquid service 1,980 17.70 35845.00 2 1.50 5940.00 0.51 10.01 0.51* Heavy-liquid service 1,272 1.13 1437.36Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 17.70 0.00 0.25 2.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36* Flanges - light liquid 7,410 17.70 132384.06 0.25 2.50 4631.25 0.36 26.68 0.36* Flanges -heavy liquid 1.13 0.00Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.00 0.00* Flanges - light liquid 7,410 0.00 0.00* Flanges -heavy liquid 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals56 180.00 0.26Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* Without connectors 250 64.21* With connectors 50 64.21Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* Without connectors 320 64.21 20547.20* With connectors 20 64.21 1284.20TOTALS without connectors63439.31 20547.20 12773.23 310.11TOTALS with connectors195823.36 21831.40 17404.48 310.11TOTALS initial for connectors only132384.06 1284.20 17404.48 310.11Without connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 83,987Annualized Capital Costs11,926Annual Expenses 34,015Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 28,227Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 17,715With connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 217,655Annualized Capital Costs30,907Annual Expenses 42,164 27129Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 50,418Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 22,653Initial costs for connectors onlyCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 133,668Annualized Capital Costs18,981Annual Expenses 42,164Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 38,492Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 22,653Option1MONdataI-9Type of ComponentPump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid servicecomplex * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* Without connectors* With connectorsPlanning and Training* Without connectors* With connectorsTOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsTOTALS initial for connectors onlyAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)1.72 100 16.00 69.57 1917.70 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 2.58 248.0913.95 75 0.17 69.57 121.55 25 4.00 69.57 970.48 20.9220.03 75 0.17 69.57 174.53 25 4.00 69.57 1393.44 30.040.00 75 0.17 69.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.006.67 75 0.17 69.57 58.11 25 2.00 69.57 231.98 16.6716052.503210.502213.78 2363.92 53.55 16052.50 248.092271.89 2595.90 70.23 19263.00 248.092271.89 2595.90 70.23 19263.00 248.09Option1MONdataI-10Cost estimates for implementing Option 1 for units currently subject to a leak definition of 10,000 ppm. Costs include initialplanning and training for process units not alreadysubject to MACT, initial repair, and online and offline repairs. Initial capital costs are annualized. Annual costs andexpenses used in "Option 1 Emissions" to estimateincremental cost.Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid service 15 0.00 2506.49 12 1.50 722.21 83.06 15.25 2.29 0.26simple * Heavy-liquid service 0 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 77 0.00 393.23 2 1.50 231.00 6.91 5.32 0.51* Light-liquid service 380 0.00 1213.55 2 1.50 1140.00 4.51 17.13 0.51* Heavy-liquid service 0 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0 17.70 0.00 0.25 2.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36* Flanges - light liquid 731 17.70 13059.75 0.25 2.50 456.88 0.36 2.63 0.36* Flanges -heavy liquid 0 1.13 0.00Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 0 0.00 0.00* Flanges - light liquid 731 0.00 0.00* Flanges -heavy liquid 0 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals15 180.00 4.12Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* Without connectors 250 64.21* With connectors 50 64.21Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* Without connectors 0 64.21 0.00* With connectors 20 64.21 1284.20TOTALS without connectors4117.38 0.00 2093.21 83.06TOTALS with connectors17177.13 1284.20 2550.08 83.06Without connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 4,117Annualized Capital Costs585Annual Expenses 19,178Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 16,704Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 3,059With connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 18,461Annualized Capital Costs2,622Annual Expenses 22,876Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 21,951Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 3,547Option1NSPSI-11Type of ComponentPump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid servicesimple * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* Without connectors* With connectorsPlanning and Training* Without connectors* With connectorsTOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)0.46 100 16.00 69.57 513.67 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 0.69 66.450.78 75 0.17 69.57 6.79 25 4.00 69.57 54.19 1.173.84 75 0.17 69.57 33.50 25 4.00 69.57 267.43 5.770.00 75 0.17 69.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.000.66 75 0.17 69.57 5.73 25 2.00 69.57 22.89 1.6416052.503210.50553.95 321.62 7.63 16052.50 66.45559.68 344.50 9.27 19263.00 66.45Option1NSPSI-12Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid service 40 0.00 6683.96 12 1.50 1925.88 221.50 15.25 6.10 0.26medium * Heavy-liquid service 5 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 414 0.00 2114.22 2 1.50 1242.00 6.91 28.59 0.51* Light-liquid service 1,179 0.00 3765.19 2 1.50 3537.00 4.51 53.16 0.51* Heavy-liquid service 71 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0 17.70 0.00 0.25 2.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36* Flanges - light liquid 2,662 17.70 47558.21 0.25 2.50 1663.75 0.36 9.58 0.36* Flanges -heavy liquid 0 1.13 0.00Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 0 0.00 0.00* Flanges - light liquid 2,662 0.00 0.00* Flanges -heavy liquid 0 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals40 180.00 10.98Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* Without connectors 250 64.21* With connectors 50 64.21Planning and Traininghr/activity* Without connectors 0 64.21 0.00* With connectors 20 64.21 1284.20TOTALS without connectors12574.35 0.00 6704.88 221.50TOTALS with connectors60132.57 1284.20 8368.63 221.50Without connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 12,574Annualized Capital Costs1,787Annual Expenses 25,813Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 18,016Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 9,584With connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 61,417Annualized Capital Costs8,722Annual Expenses 30,798Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 28,163Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 11,358Option1NSPSI-13Type of ComponentPump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid servicemedium * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* Without connectors* With connectorsPlanning and Training* Without connectors* With connectorsTOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)1.23 100 16.00 69.57 1369.78 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 1.85 177.204.19 75 0.17 69.57 36.49 25 4.00 69.57 291.36 6.2811.93 75 0.17 69.57 103.92 25 4.00 69.57 829.73 17.890.00 75 0.17 69.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.002.40 75 0.17 69.57 20.88 25 2.00 69.57 83.34 5.9916052.503210.501510.20 1121.08 26.02 16052.50 177.201531.08 1204.42 32.01 19263.00 177.20Option1NSPSI-14Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid service 56 0.00 9357.54 12 1.50 2696.23 310.11 15.25 8.54 0.26complex * Heavy-liquid service 36 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 1,379 0.00 7042.30 2 1.50 4137.00 6.91 95.24 0.51* Light-liquid service 1,980 0.00 6323.22 2 1.50 5940.00 4.51 89.27 0.51* Heavy-liquid service 1,272 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0 17.70 0.00 0.25 2.50 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36* Flanges - light liquid 7,410 17.70 132384.06 0.25 2.50 4631.25 0.36 26.68 0.36* Flanges -heavy liquid 0 1.13 0.00Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 0 0.00 0.00* Flanges - light liquid 7,410 0.00 0.00* Flanges -heavy liquid 0 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals56 180.00 15.37Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* Without connectors 250 64.21* With connectors 50 64.21Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* Without connectors 0 64.21 0.00* With connectors 20 64.21 1284.20TOTALS without connectors22738.44 0.00 12773.23 310.11TOTALS with connectors155122.50 1284.20 17404.48 310.11Without connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 22,738Annualized Capital Costs3,230Annual Expenses 34,015Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 19,531Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 17,715With connectorsCapital Costs w/o OVA and Train 156,407Annualized Capital Costs22,211Annual Expenses 42,164Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 41,722Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 22,653Option1NSPSI-15Type of ComponentPump SealsSOCMI Model process * Light-liquid servicecomplex * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* Without connectors* With connectorsPlanning and Training* Without connectors* With connectorsTOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)1.72 100 16.00 69.57 1917.70 0 80.00 69.57 0.00 2.58 248.0913.95 75 0.17 69.57 121.55 25 4.00 69.57 970.48 20.9220.03 75 0.17 69.57 174.53 25 4.00 69.57 1393.44 30.040.00 75 0.17 69.57 0.00 25 2.00 69.57 0.00 0.006.67 75 0.17 69.57 58.11 25 2.00 69.57 231.98 16.6716052.503210.502213.78 2363.92 53.55 16052.50 248.092271.89 2595.90 70.23 19263.00 248.09Option1NSPSI-16

# SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF LDAR FOR CONNECTORS (Option 2 incremental only, without Option 1)

Parameter simple medium complex

Total number of connectors 731 2,662 7,410

Baseline (no LDAR)

initial leak frequency, percent a 

# 0.36 0.36 0.36

emission rate, kg/hr/connector b 

# 0.000307 0.000307 0.000307

Option 2 (500 ppm LDAR)

initial number of leaks 2.63 9.58 26.68

final leak frequency, percent c 

# 0.36 0.36 0.36

monitoring frequency, times/yr d 

# 0.25 0.25 0.25

annual number of leaks 0.66 2.40 6.67

emission rate, kg/hr/connector e 

# 0.000162 0.000162 0.000162

Time in service, hr/yr 8,760 8,760 8,760

Total emissions reduction, Mg/yr 0.9285 3.381 9.412

Baseline cost, $/yr 0 0 0

Option 2 costs

initial monitoring fee, $/component f 

# 17.70 17.70 17.70

initial LDAR cost (monitoring and repair), $ 13,053 47,534 132,317

planning and training costs, $ 1,284 1,284 1,284

monitoring to verify repair for initial leaks, $ 6.58 23.96 66.69

annualized initial LDAR cost, $/yr g 

# 2,037 6,936 18,981

subsequent monitoring fee, $/component 2.50 2.50 2.50

annual monitoring cost, $/yr 457 1,664 4,631

percent of annual leaks repaired online, percent 75 75 75

online repair time, hr 0.167 0.167 0.167

labor charge, $/hr h 

# 69.57 69.57 69.57

annual online leak repair cost, $/yr 5.73 20.88 58.11

percent of annual leaks repaired offline, percent 25 25 25

offline repair time, hr 2 2 2

labor charge, $/hr h 

# 69.57 69.57 69.57

annual offline leak repair cost, $/yr 22.89 83.34 231.98

monitoring to verify repair, $ 1.64 5.99 16.67

annual admin and reporting costs, $ 3210.50 3210.50 3210.50

total annual cost, $/yr 5,734 11,920 27,129

Cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed 6,176 3,525 2,882

Recovery credits, $/yr

CostNationwide impacts in fifth year after proposal Total Effectiveness

number of affected processes i 

# 36.8 23.3 10.6 70.7

emission reductions, Mg/yr 34.1 79 100 213

total annual costs, $/yr 210,853 278,148 287,749 776,750 3,649

total annual costs after recovery credit applied, $/yr 585,172 2,749

a 

# Baseline leak frequencies based on industry-supplied data for the MON.

b 

# SOCMI values based on industry data used in the analysis for the MON.

c 

# Assumed the final leak frequency would be the same as the initial leak frequency (same approach as in PET analysis for P&R IV).

d 

# Monitoring frequencies based on assumption that option 3 would require annual monitoring for leak frequencies greater than or e qual to 0.5, every 4

years for leak frequencies greater than or equal to 0.25, and every 8 years for leak frequencies less than 0.25.

e 

# SOCMI values calculated using one-half of assumed subsequent leak frequency in the average leak rate equation for leak definiti on of 500 ppm

(Table 5-4 in the Protocol document).

f 

# From PET analysis for P&R IV (memo from K. Barnett to P&R IV docket. December 2000)

g 

# Assuming annualized over 10 years at 7 percent interest.

h 

# May 200 6 wage rates for BLS OCC Code 4909012 (Control and valve installers and repairers, except mechanical doors) in NAICS 324 and 325;

plus assumed 50 percent overhead.

i 

# Assuming 1,272 total processes producing chemicals listed in subpart VV (from SRI Consulting directory) Of those processes, 39 2 make MON

compounds and the remainder make HON/ethylene MACT compounds. Of the MON processes, 2 percent become affected sources each y ear

(assumed value); and distribution of models is 33 percent simple, 52 percent medium; and 17 percent complex (from the HON ana lysis). Assume

10 percent of the HON/ethylene facilities are area sources and 2 percent of those become subject each year. Of the major sou rces, assume that

20 percent will be required to monitor connectors at baseline because they meet the definition of new or reconstructed in §63 .2440(c).

j 

# Assume each affected process unit will be at a different facility. SOCMI model

Option 2 Emissions I-17

# Attachment J

Final Cost EstimatesCALCULATION OF BASELINE AND OPTION COSTS(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)Total New Reconstructed Reconstructed New units at Existing New Reconstructed Totalnumber of process units process units process units existing sources process units process units process unitsprocess complying w/ complying w/ complying w/ complying w/ complying w/ complying w/ complying w/units HON/eth. & MON HON/eth. MON MON * MON * NSPS NSPSsimple 99.2 37.5 23.3 1.7 10.0 6.7 12.1 8.0medium 63.0 23.8 14.8 1.1 6.3 4.2 7.7 5.1complex 28.6 10.8 6.7 0.5 2.9 1.9 3.5 2.3total 190.8 72.1 44.8 3.2 19.2 12.8 23.2 15.5 190.8BaselineInitial Costs 6,338,524$ -$ 139,907$ 853,201$ -$ 1,024,111$ -$ 8,355,743$Annual Costs 2,945,203$ 1,272,399$ 110,889$ 575,123$ 302,646$ 681,144$ 357,128$ 6,244,532$Option 1Initial Costs 6,338,524$ -$ 139,907$ 853,201$ -$ 1,028,070$ 149,950$ 8,509,652$Annual Costs 2,945,203$ 1,272,399$ 110,889$ 575,123$ 302,646$ 692,998$ 385,980$ 6,285,239$Increment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,854$ 28,852$ 40,707$Option 2Initial Costs 6,338,524$ -$ 139,907$ 1,692,642$ 559,627$ 2,039,560$ 824,276$ 11,594,536$Annual Costs 2,945,203$ 1,272,399$ 110,889$ 786,488$ 443,556$ 947,684$ 555,771$ 7,061,989$Increment -$ -$ -$ 211,365$ 140,910$ 266,539$ 198,643$ 817,457$* These are individual process units that meet the definition of new and reconstructed in the General Provisions to part 60 butnot the MON (i.e., theseprocess units would be subject to subpart VV in the absence of the MON.The numbers in parentheses above each column correspond to the numbers in the diagram in Attachment B.Option 1 Summary J-1

# Attachment K

Open Ended LinesBaseline CalculationsBaseline conditions = caps/plugs, but not properly installedNumber of OELs (based on total number per model process in the HON analysis, distributedamong gas, LL, and HL service as in the original SOCMI EL analysis in 1980)Original Model gas LL* HL* totalA 9 82.65 12.35 104B 37 328.86 49.14 415C 115 1010.94 151.06 1277* Original model units assumed 50/50 split between light liquid and heavy liquid. The ratio of light liquid to heavy liquid components for this analysisis based on the 24 individual units.Proportion to fit HON model Model gas LL HL total (from model) Fraction splitA 2.9 26.2 3.9 33 0.52B 12.6 111.7 16.7 141 0.33C 38.2 335.7 50.2 424 0.15Avg per 11.4 100.9 15.1processG&LL All112.2 127.3# of new processes 190.8 190.8 Consistent with number in analysis for lower pump and valve leak definitionFraction in sampling systems 0.2Nationwide # of OELs 17,129 24,287Calculate baseline emissions assuming emissions from OELs with plugs/caps poorly installed is better represented by correlationequations forconnectors than by the correlation equation for OELs.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 0.9percent in range 89.100 10.0000 0.1146 0.3669 0.2580 0.0975 0.0631 100.00representative value default 0 758 3,318 22,898 73,829 350,727zeroemissions (kg/hr/OEL) connectors 0.00000061 0.00000061 0.0010785 0.003984 0.022015 0.062042 0.246376Baseline emissionskg/hr/OEL0.0003kg/d/OEL 0.0069kg/yr/OEL 2.532Mg/yr/OEL 0.0025Mg/yr nationwide 43.375 Assuming 17,129 OELs in G or LL service subject to NSPS in 5th year after proposaland not in sampling systemsEmission ReductionsBasis: 100 OELsAssume OEL valves are opened with the following frequencies Monitoring Opening No. times opened/yrtime percentWhat are the percent reductions for semi-annualmonitoring?Subsequent leak frequencyperiod opened 6 1 8.333333 0.90once per month 0 6 3 25 0.90once per quarter 33.333 6 12 75 0.45once per year 33.333 6 24 100 0once per 2 years 33.333 overall66.7Average subsequent leak frequency:0.45Months betweenOELK-1

# 1.29 Emission overestimate factor for flange equation



# Cost Analysis

Notes

Monitoring events per year 2

Percent reduction in emissions 66.67

Mass reduction, nationwide Mg/yr 22

Mass reduction, nationwide kg/yr 2,249

Total number of OELs at new and 24,287

reconstructed units in 5 years after

proposal

Number of OELs in gas/vapor or light 17,129 assuming OELs in G/V and LL service are 88% of total

liquid service and that OELs not in sampling connection systems are 80%

of those in G/V and LL service.

Initial costs

Equipment, $

$/cap 0 because they should already be using caps, plugs, etc.

$/process 0

Initial monitoring, $

$/OEL 17.7 probably overstated since the affected OELs are all related to

known valves.

nationwide $ 303,186 assuming only monitor OELs in gas and LL service that are not in

Initial repair, $ sampling connection systems

initial percentage leaking 0.9 based on industry comments

repair costs, $ nationwide 4,078 using same assumptions for online vs offline repair fractions,

wage rates, and repair time as for ongoing repair

Total Initial Costs, $ 307,264

Annual costs, nationwide $/yr

Annualized initial costs 33,738 CRF=0.1098 (7% interest and 15 year life)

Annual monitoring cost

monitoring frequency, times/yr 2

cost per OEL 1.50

nationwide cost, $/yr 51,387 assuming only monitor OELs in gas and LL service that are not in

sampling connection systems

Maintenance 0 factor based on equipment cost, which should not change with

monitoring

Miscellaneous 0 factor based on equipment cost, which should not change with

monitoring

OEL K-2

# Repair

subsequent leak frequency 0.45

subsequent number leaking 77.08

percentage repaired attempted 95 assuming tightening the valve, or properly installing the plug/cap

online is attempted for all that are found to be leaking, and it works

for all leaking OELs, except those with second valves

time to repair online, hr 0.167

wage rate for repair labor, $/hr 23.19

overhead factor 3

online repair cost, $/OEL 13.12 includes monitoring to verify repair

online repair cost, nationwide $ 1,921

percentage repaired offline 5 assumed fraction of OELs with second valves

time to repair offline, hr 4 assume same as for repairing valve when it has an external leak

offline repair cost, $/OEL 280 includes monitoring to verify repair

offline repair cost, nationwide $ 2,157

Administrative and Reports

additional time to prepare

each semiannual report, hr 1 should be minimal effort to ensure that info about leakers is

documented

wage rate, $/hr 64.21

annual cost, nationwide $/yr 24,503 assuming each process unit is at a different facility

Total annual cost, nationwide $/yr 113,705

Recovery credit

product value, $/Mg 900

total recovered, Mg nationwid e 22.49

total recovered, ton nationwid e 24.79

total savings, nationwide $/yr 20,237

TAC with recovery savings, $/y r 93,468

Cost effectiveness, $/ton remove d

with recovery credi t 3,771

without recovery credi t 4,587

OEL K- 3

# Attachment L

Valve Leak Definition of 100 ppm

# Valve Leak Definition of 100 ppm

Emissions Assume 90 percent reduction

Gas Valves Light Liquid Valves Total

Number of Valves 73,174 168,604 241,778

Percent leaking between 100 ppm and 500 ppm 4.47 2.71

Number of valves leaking 3,274 4,567 7,841

Baseline emission factor 0.000217 0.000492

Baseline emissions 6.23 19.7 25.9

Maximum emission reductions, Mg 5.61 17.7 23.3

Maximum emission reductions, tons 6.18 19.5 25.7

Monitoring Costs Not estimated

Repair Costs

Percent leaking 0.5222 0.316

Number of valves leaking 764 1,066 1,830

Percent of annual leaks repaired online 75 75

Online repair time, hr 0.167 0.167

Labor charge, $/hr 69.57 69.57

Annual online leak repair cost, $/yr $6,659 $9,287 $15,946

percent of annual leaks repaired offline, percent 25 25

offline repair time, hr 4 4

labor charge, $/hr h 

# 69.57 69.57

annual offline leak repair cost, $/yr $53,165 $74,149 $127,314

Monitoring fee 1.50 1.50

monitoring to verify repair, $ $1,146 $1,599 $2,745

Total Repair Costs $146,005

Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) $5,678

100 ppm Leak Def L-1

# Attachment M

ResultsNationwide Impacts for Future New and Reconstructed SOCMI PlantsOptionVOC Emissionsat SelectedOption (Mg/yr)CumulativeEmissionReduction(Mg/yr)Initial Cost($)Initial CostBeyondBaseline ($)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/Mg)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/Mg)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/Mg)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/Mg)Baseline 1478 8,355,743 6,244,532 6,244,5321 1393 85 8,509,652 153,909 6,285,239 40,707 479 6,208,801 -35,731 -4212 1180 298 11,594,536 3,238,793 7,061,989 817,457 2,745 3,649 6,793,974 549,441 1,845 2,7493 1158 320 11,901,800 3,546,057 7,175,694 931,162 2,907 5,057 6,887,442 642,910 2,007 4,157OptionVOC Emissionsat SelectedOption (tons/yr)CumulativeEmissionReduction(tons/yr)Initial Cost($)Initial CostBeyondBaseline ($)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/ton)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/ton)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/ton)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/ton)Baseline 1629 8,355,743 6,244,532 6,244,5321 1384 94 8,509,652 153,909 6,285,239 40,707 435 6,208,801 -35,731 -3822 1150 328 11,594,536 3,238,793 7,061,989 817,457 2,490 3,310 6,793,974 549,441 1,674 2,4943 1125 353 11,901,800 3,546,057 7,175,694 931,162 2,637 4,587 6,887,442 642,910 1,821 3,771Option 1: Leak definitions of 500 ppm for valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps, new or reconstructed in the five years after proposalof the amended NSPS.Option 2: Option 1 + Monitor and repair connectors at 500 ppm, new or reconstructed in the five years of thenew subpartOption 3: Option 1 + semiannual monitoring of open-ended linesWithout Recovery Credit With Recovery CreditWithout Recovery Credit With Recovery CreditNationwide Impacts SummaryM-1

# New NSPS

Annual cost, $/yr

SOCMI model:

simple Using emission

data from the

MON analysis Incremental emission reductions

Mg/yr tons/yr

Subpart VV with valves monitored: Pumps plus valves 0.87 0.96

Semiannually 23,109 Pumps, valves, and connectors 1.80 1.98

Option 1 with valves monitored: Incremental cost increase, $/yr

Semiannually 23,315 w/out credit w/ credit

Pumps plus valves 205 -576

Option 2 with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 5,940 4,323

Semiannually 29,049

Incremental cost effectiveness

Operating hours/yr 8,760 w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Pumps plus valves 237 -663 215 -602

Pumps, valves, and connectors 3,307 2,407 3,000 2,184

Annual cost, $/yr

SOCMI model:

medium Using emission

data from the

MON analysis Incremental emission reductions

Mg/yr tons/yr

Subpart VV with valves monitored: Pumps plus valves 2.82 3.11

Semiannually 32,298 Pumps, valves, and connectors 6.20 6.83

Option 2 with valves monitored: Incremental cost increase, $/yr

Semiannually 32,955 w/out credit w/ credit

Pumps plus valves 657 -1,878

Option 3 with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 12,577 6,999

Semiannually 44,875

Incremental cost effectiveness

Operating hours/yr 8,760 w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Pumps plus valves 233 -667 212 -605

Pumps, valves, and connectors 2,029 1,129 1,841 1,024

Annual cost, $/yr

SOCMI model:

complex Using emission

data from the

MON analysis Incremental emission reductions

Mg/yr tons/yr

Subpart VV with valves monitored: Pumps plus valves 5.45 6.00

Semiannually 44,690 Pumps, valves, and connectors 14.86 16.38

Option 2 with valves monitored: Incremental cost increase, $/yr

Semiannually 45,941 w/out credit w/ credit

Pumps plus valves 1,251 -3,652

Option 3 with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 28,381 15,007

Semiannually 73,071

Incremental cost effectiveness

w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps plus valves 230 -670 208 -608

Pumps, valves, and connectors 1,910 1,010 1,733 916 $/Mg removed $/ton removed

$/Mg removed $/ton removed $/Mg removed $/ton removed

Option 1 Summary M-2Calculation of Nationwide Emissions Estimates and Costs -- Option 1Total number of process units potentially subject to subpart VV 1,272Total number of affected process units in fifth year after proposal 191Total number of new/reconstructed sources subject to Option 1 in 5th year 39(assumes 15 percent of processes are at area sources and 20 percent of the process unitsat major sources subject to the MON emit VOC only, not HAP; also assumes that theseprocess units are the only process units not already subject to a NESHAP that has thesame requirements as Option 1)OPTION 1EmissionIncremental Incrementalreduction Number of total emission Costper process, process annual reduction, effectiveness,Mg/yr baseline option 1 Incremental units costs, $/yr Mg/yr $/MgNewsimple 0.87 23,109 23,315 205 12.1 2,474 10 237medium 2.82 32,298 32,955 657 7.7 5,028 22 233complex 5.45 44,690 45,941 1,251 3.5 4,352 19 230Reconstructedsimple 0.87 18,981 19,764 782 8.0 6,287 7 902medium 2.82 25,185 27,600 2,415 5.1 12,318 14 857complex 5.45 32,826 37,246 4,419 2.3 10,247 13 811total38.6 40,707 84.9 479w/ Credit-35,731 -421Total annual cost per process, $Nationwide impacts in fifth year after proposalOption 1 Summary M-3