P.1 

OAR Box 1338 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

13) ll-E-24 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:06 PM Sheet 13 of 105 
P.2 

u»w orFieia A-89-10 

JHTLIP J. HAHTER II-E-2 4 

SUITE 404 

2301 M STREET. N.W. 

WASHINGTON. D.C 20037 

(202)887.1033 P.; . ' 

FAX: (202) 887.1030 

JL}tf 

August 3, 1990 i . J1 .„.«. , 

W A 

MEMORANDU M 

To: EPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Fugitive Emissions from Equipment Leaks and Interested 

Parties 

Fr: Philip J. Harter,; 

Facilitator 

Re: Minutes of the July 17-18 Meeting 

I enclose the minutes of the July 17-18 meeting that were prepared by Radian Corporation. Draft minutes 

were previously circulated to the Committee for its review and comment. Revisions have been made in several 

instances as a result. In some cases, disagreements were pointed out and tentative compromises were worked 

out; they are indicated. In still others, differing views went unresolved; those are also highlighted. 

EPA will be revising the draft rule to take into account the comments it received on the draft distributed 

at the meeting and to reflect the decisions made at the meeting. Since we did not reach closure on everything 

and in some instances the consensus was only on a conceptual approach, EPA will be filling in some of the gaps 

as it produces that next draft. That draft will be ready for distribution in a couple of weeks. 

As we discussed at the meeting, we will then hold a drafting session to review the strawman draft carefully 

and to reach closure on the remaining issues. The result of that session will then be circulated for final review. 

We will then be ready to execute the agreement on the rule. The contours of the agreement, when it is to 

executed, and what it covers will also be discussed at the drafting session. 
P.3 

REGULATORY NEGOTIATION MEETING ON FUGITIVE EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

JULY 17-18, 1990 

MEREDITH GUEST HOUSE 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES 

Revised as of August 6, 1990 

Revisions to the previous edition of these meeting minutes are indicated 

by vertical bars in the right hand column of each page. 

These meeting notes summarize issues discussed and provide an informal 

record of administrative and logistical decisions made on schedules and action 

items. All presentation materials distributed during the two-day meeting are 

attached: 

Attachment 1: 

Attachment 2: 

Attachment 3: 

Attachment 4: 

Attachment 5: 

Attachment 6: 

Attachment 7: 

Attachment 8: 

Attachment 8a: 

Attachment 9: 

Attachment 10: 

Attachment 11: 

Attachment 12: 

Attachment 13: 

Meeting Agenda 

Attendees July 17, 1990 

Alternative Means of Emission Limitation - Batch 

Processes 

Proposal for Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) Program 

Revised Proposal for QIP Program 

Scope of the Standard 

Non-SOCMI Processes Included in Scope of Negotiated 

Equipment Leaks Standard [Not distributed at meeting] 

Proposed Language on Applicability of the Standard to 

Petroleum Refineries 

Revised Language on Applicability of the Standard to 

Petroleum Refineries [Not distributed at meeting] 

Response Factor Correction for Equipment Screening 

Values 

Language for Instrumentation Systems 

Alternative Means of Emission Limitation 

Draft Equipment Leaks Regulation Agreement 

Draft Equipment Leaks Rule 

Batch Processes 

• At the batch work group meeting on July 16, 1990, a draft proposal 

outlining alternative compliance provisions to the negotiated 

standard was presented. The draft proposal was distributed at the 

Reg Neg meeting and is included as Attachment 3. The alternative 

provisions were acceptable to the Committee, but it was noted that 

details of the provisions need to be worked out. For example, the 

Committee needs to agree to a definition of batch processes. 

Also, the accuracy of pressure gauges used for the pressure tests 

should be specified and details of a liquid pressure test must be 

described. Mr. David Dunn offered to assist with the details of a 

liquid pressure test. 

• The draft proposal for batch processes includes a delay of repair 

provision. Details of the delay of repair provision need to be 

refined. 

Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) Program 

• The issue of a QIP program for valves and pumps was a major 

discussion area during the meeting. Several drafts of a QIP 

program were presented and are included as Attachments 4 and 5. 
~ Y ~ 

££_ 

Pumps 

The Committee was unable to agree whether mandatory replacement or 

other measures are needed in the QIP programs to ensure 

compliance. There appeared to be a need for a subcommittee to 

resolve this issue. Members of the subcommittee were to include 

Mr. Bob Ajax, Mr. Tom Kittleman, Mr. David Doniger, and Mr. Larry 

Goodheart. 

The EPA expressed the view that an existing plant must opt for the 

QIP program only at the end of Year 3 following promulgation of 

the regulation. API and CMA thought that a longer time was needed 

before foreclosing the QIP option. The Committee agreed that new 

plants will have one year to decide whether or not to begin a QIP 

program. 

Valve or pump performance trials for large plants and data 

analysis will begin one year after the start of Phase III of the 

regulations. Valve or pump replacement/modification programs for 

large plants will begin two years after the start of Phase III; 

similar programs for small companies or corporations will begin 

three years after the start of Phase III. 

Concensus appeared to be reached on an option that would establish 

a pump leak definition of 5,000 ppm during Phase II of the 

standard. 

The Committee discussed an approach for Phase III of the pump 

standard that would include a 1,000 ppmv leak definition (i.e., 

all, pumps exceeding this concentration must be included in the 

calculation of allowable leakers) and a 2,000 ppmv action level 

(i.e., all pumps exceeding this concentration must be repaired 

within 15 days of detection). There would be separate action 

levels of 2,000 ppm for pumps that handle food and medical 

products and of 5,000 ppm for certain monomers. 

The Committee did appear to agree that pump populations may be 

counted on either a process unit basis, or across the group of all 

processes that are subject to the rule and at a single contiguous 

site, for determining percentage of leakers, as long as the choice 

is clearly documented and elected in the facility permit. 

The Committee also appeared to agree that a plant with more than 

two leaking pumps or more than 10 percent leaking pumps, whichever 

is greater, must undertake the QIP program for pumps. After the 

data collection and analysis phases of the QIP program, plants 

that still exceed 10 percent leaking pumps would be required to 

replace 20 percent of their pumps annually with effective, proven 

technologies. (CMA does not recall any discussion of the specific 

proposal described in the last statement.) 

The issue of unrepairable pumps was discussed only within the 

context of the leak definition of pumps. It was agreed that 

unrepairable pumps will be treated the same as under the current 

rule. 
P.5 

No Detectable Emissions 

The EPA expressed the opinion that the no detectable emissions 

(NDE) limit should be a single number -25 ppmv- for all equipment 

components. The NDE designation would be applicable to certain 

pumps, compressors, and all pressure relief devices. Equipment 

that is designated for NDE could be monitored annually to 

demonstrate compliance with the NDE definition or could be 

monitored on the same frequency as other pumps and valves using 

the appropriate leak definition. All equipment designated for NDE 

could be included in determining percentage leaking components. 

CMA's view is that separate NDE provisions are not needed for 

pumps. Instead, the regulation should describe equipment designs 

which are believed to represent "low leak" or "leakless 

technology" and provide for annual monitoring of these equipment 

components at the corresponding pump leak definition. The 

existing NDE provisions for pumps already specify the design 

requirements which EPA believes should qualify for annual 

monitoring. There are no data to support EPA's contention that 

these equipment designs can meet leak definitions of 50 ppm. The 

regulation should either permit annual monitoring based on the 

pump design or treat these pumps like any other pump subject to 

the monthly monitoring requirements. For compressors, pressure 

relief devices, and closed vent systems, EPA has failed to supply 

any data to support the achievability of NDE limits of 25 ppm. 

The consequences of failing to meet the NDE limits has not been 

addressed. CMA sees no reason to change the current requirements 

in the existing standard for these components from 500 ppm. 

Scope of the Standard 

The EPA presented a brief summary of the source categories to 

which the negotiated regulation is planned to apply (Attachment 

6 ). Some committee members had questions about the applicability 

of the standard to eight specific non-SOCMI source categories. 

Attachment 7, which was prepared after the meeting in response to 

the questions, presents more detailed descriptions of the eight 

non-SOCMI source categories. 

No agreement was reached on the issue of the applicability of the 

negotiated standard to benzene/toluene/xylene (BTX) units. API 

suggested that, if the inclusion of BTX units at refineries is 

non-negotiable, API would reserve the right to comment on, and 

perhaps litigate, this issue. Also, no agreement was reached on 

the proposed language for limiting the applicability of the 

standard to petroleum refineries. The proposed language presented 

at the meeting is included as Attachment 8. API believes there 

was general agreement on language (included as Attachment 8a) that 

was transmitted to the Committee after the meeting. 

The Committee discussed whether the Agreement should include a 

schedule for applying MACT standards for equipment leaks to the 

sources described in Attachment 6. One proposal was to include a 

schedule in the agreement that would require EPA to issue MACT 
P.6 

Valves 

standards for equipment leaks from source categories that 

contribute 80-90% of total HAP emissions (based on TRI data) 

within 2 years of Clear Air Act passage with the remaining source 

categories to be regulated one year later. This schedule would be 

independent of rulemaking schedules for the other MACT standards 

that EPA plans to apply to chemical industry source categories. 

CMA continues to evaluate this option. 

General agreement was reached for exempting equipment in volatile 

hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service less than 300 hours per 

year. 

There appeared to be agreement that the rule would exempt pilot 

plants only if the proposed Clear Air Act amendments exempt them. 

If the proposed CAA amendments do not exempt pilot plants, then 

those pilot plants subject to the major source definition (e.g., 

> 10 TPY VHAP emissions) would be subject to the negotiated 

standard. 

Sources that have less than 250 total components would be exempt 

from the monthly LDAR and QIP program provisions of the valve 

standard but would still be required to perform quarterly LDAR. 

Corporations that have less than a total of 500 valves and flanges 

and 100 employees would be exempt from the performance trials 

outlined in the QIP. 

It was agreed that the rule would treat leakless valves (e.g., 

sealed bellows valves, diaphragm valves) and other valve designs 

equivalently. There are presently no data to demonstrate the 

performance that leakless designs could achieve. The leakless 

valves will be subject to the same monitoring requirements as 

other valves and will be included in the calculation of percentage 

of leakers. 

There was discussion about the credit for removal of valves. 

Options discussed ranged from 50 percent to 100 percent credit. 

Further discussion is needed on this issue. 

There was discussion whether repaired valves must be monitored one 

time per month for two months following valve repair. Further 

discussion is needed on this issue. 

Flanges 

The Committee agreed to exempt unsafe-to-monitor flanges from the 

regulation. 

The Committee agreed that body flanges are not (and never were) 

included in the negotiated regulation. 

The Committee agreed that repaired flanges must be monitored once 

within 60 days of returning to VHAP service. 
P.7 

Phasing of Standards 

The Committee agreed that Phase I of the regulation will begin 6 

months after promulgation of the equipment leaks regulation. 

The Committee agreed that Phase II of the regulation will begin 18 

months after promulgation of the equipment leaks regulation. 

The Committee agreed that Phase III of the regulation will begin 

36 months after promulgation of the equipment leaks regulation. 

The Committee agreed that the first percent leaker determination 

will be performed with data collected in Phase III of the 

regulations. A source may elect to enter Phase III at a date 

earlier than the required date. 

The Committee agreed that all equipment controls (e.g., caps for 

open-ended lines, closed-loop sampling systems) must be installed 

and operating within two years after promulgation of the standard. 

Response Factors 

The EPA presented a proposal for equipment screening value 

response factor correction that is included as Attachment 9. 

The Committee agreed to the following procedure for response 

factor correction: If all of the individual HAPs in a process 

have a response factor less than or equal to 3 (in the range of 

500 to 2,000 ppm), then response factor correction is not 

necessary. If any response factors are greater than 3, then a 

weighted average response factor must be calculated for any stream 

containing such compounds. If this RF is still greater than 3, 

then equipment screening values must be corrected by this RF or 

another instrument must be used for this stream or another 

calibrant must be used. If the stream-weighted average response 

factor is less than or equal to 3, then response factor correction 

is not required. CMA has agreed to work with EPA to refine these 

requirements. 

Standards for Other Equipment 

The Committee did not discuss this issue beyond the discussion of 

NDE summarized earlier. 

Analyzer Systems 

CMA prepared a proposal for regulating analyzer systems that is 

included as Attachment 10. The Committee seemed to agree that the 

substance of the idea is acceptable, but that details need to be 

refined. The EPA will work with CMA on this and will include it 

in the next draft of the regulation for review by the Committee. 
P.8 

New versus Existing Process Units 

The Committee agreed that the standard will be the same for new 

and existing plants except for phasing of the requirements. New 

plants would start in Phase II of the regulations and would start 

Phase III one year after start-up. 

Equivalence 

CMA prepared a provision for equivalency determination that is 

included as Attachment 11. The EPA will review the proposal with 

its attorneys. 

Draft Agreement 

Draft Rule 

Phil Harter distributed a draft agreement that is included as 

Attachment 12. The EPA requested comments on the draft agreement 

by Friday, July 27, 1990. 

A copy of the draft equipment leaks rule was distributed and is 

included as Attachment 13. The EPA requested comments on the 

draft rule by Friday, July 27, 1990. 
P.9 

f 

4. si. ATTACHMENT 1 

Tuesday, July 17 

10:00-10:05 

10:05-10:15 

10:15-10:30 

10:30-10:45 

10:45-12:30 

12:30- 1:00 

1:00- 2:00 

2:00- 2:30 

2:30- 2:45 

2:45- 4:45 

4:45- 5:00 

5:00- 5:30 

5:30- 6:00 

Introductions 

Revieu of the revised minutes 

Review of the agenda: neu and open issues that need 

to be considered, as uell as the order in uhich they 

are considered 

Report of the Drafting Committee 

Batch processes 

-- Application of alternative approach: everyone or 

definition of batch process 

— Format of standard 

— Numerical limits 

— Measurement methodology 

Lunch 

01 

— General requirement 

— Small business exemption from performance trials 

Pumps 

-- Hou are percentage leakers counted: process unit 

or facility 

-- Exemptions for specific processes or included 

uithin 01 

— Is minimum number for 01 2 or 3 pumps 

Break 

Scope of the standard 

— Application to BTX units 

— Limitations language re application to refineries 

-- Storage and end users 

-- Time in use 

— Pilot plants 

Break 

Values 

— Monitoring of "leakless" valves 

-- Credit for removing valves. 

-- Follou up frequency for repaired valves — 1 or 2 

months 

Flanges 

— Exemption for "unsafe to monitor" 

— Exemption for body flanges 

— Follou up frequency for repaired flanges — 1 or 

2 months 
P.10 

Wednesday, July 18 

9:00-10:00 Phasing of Standards 

— Effective date 

— Equipment standards 

— Start of Phases I, II, and III 

-- 01 program availability 

— 01 program timing of replacements 

— bihen does first percent leaker determination 

start: Data only from Phase III or also from 

Phase II 

10:00-12:00 Miscellaneous 

-- Response factors 

— Standards for other equipment 

— Definition of no detectable emissions 

— Analyzer/sampling systems 

— Neu versus existing process units 

— Notification when entering monthly monitoring or 

01 program for valves 

12:00-12:30 Lunch 

12:30- Other issues, unfinished issues 

-- Draft agreement 

— Iiftat needs to be done, by whom, when 
P.11 

ATTACHMENT 2 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF VOCs FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

ATTENDEES LIST FOR MEETING OF JULY 17, 1990 

Name 

Deborah Dal ton 

Ed Moretti 

Jan Meyer 

Kathy Kaufman 

Glenn Rives 

Rick Colyer 

Fred Dimmick 

Dwight Atkinson 

Bruce Grumstrup 

Meredith Mil Her 

Ron Berglund 

Bruce Davis 

David Gustafson 

Cheryl Sutterfield 

Bill Grimley 

Karen Fidler 

Kathy Bailey 

Richard Sigman 

John Kitchens 

Bill Carpenter 

Edan Dionne 

Don Piehn 

Herb Wurstner 

Ellen Sieglfir 

Joanne Schaich 

Tom Kelly 

Bob Majewski 

Harvel Rogers 

Les Montgomery 

Linda Curran 

Larry Goodheart 

Philip Harter 

Bob Ajax 

David Dunn 

Tom Kittleman 

David Doniger 

Allen Hershkowitz 

Bob Rowland 

Al Bickum 

Gus VonBodungen 

Bruce Bowers 

Affiliation 

U.S. EPA 

Radian Corp 

EPA 

EPA 

Radian Corp 

EPA 

EPA 

EPA 

Fisher Controls Co 

Fisher Controls Co 

Union Carbide 

Exxon Chemical Co 

DOW 

PMA 

EPA 

CMA 

CMA 

CMA 

DuPont 

Durametallic 

IBM 

John Crane Inc 

Goulds Pumps 

API 

Tennessee Eastman Co 

U. S. EPA 

NESCAUM 

Law Environmental 

TACB 

Amoco 011 Co 

Chevron/API 

Facilitator 

U. S. EPA 

Sterling Chemicals 

DuPont/CMA 

NRDC 

NRDC 

Pfizer 

IISRP 

LA DEQ 

Standard Chlorine 

J 
P.12 

i < 

ATTACHMENT 3 

DRAFT 

XX.X4-2. Alternative means of emission limitation - Batch processes. 

& L.,- Y t hr£-f o ^ provisions . n y^.Xl'll ^ht^ou^h^.n-^d, X*.kl-llt )tJC.M Z^oynef **.* 3 

Pfi.jj-ht- «-J (a)^An owner or operator of a batch process which haff'IffiTffiirt in VHAP 

servicenmay elect to either pressure test or monitor the equipment for leakso.Sprcviclec 

f The owner or operator shall comply with one of the alternative requirements /^^.K J 

(vmbwiy specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Section o*-

rr\\lJk«< (b) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator ^rfe^v v vEK 

^e^ elects to use pressure testing of batch product process equipment to 

demonstrate compliance with this subpart. An owner or operator who complies 

with the provisions of this paragraph is exempt from the provisions of 

§XX.X2-U. through XX.X2-10, §XX.X2-12, §XX.X2-13, and §XX.X3 of this subpart. 

*~ or-

(1) Each time equipment is reconfigured for production of a product ,and"^ 

each time the seal between any two pieces of equipment is broken, the batch 

product process equipment shall be pressure tested for leaks before VHAP is 

first fed to the equipment and the equipment is placed in VHAP service. Each 

batch product process that operates anytime during a calendar year shall be 

pressure tested at least [e.g., once] during that calendar year. in yf-Hr-P S7tt^viCt 

(2) The batch product process equipment shall be tested using the 

procedures specified in §XX.X5(f). 

/ psicj in I hr 

(3) If the change in pressure is greater than 0.3 psig/16 min or if 

there is visible, audible, or olfactory evidence of fluid loss, a leak is 

detected. 

(4) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired and the batch productprocess equipment shall be prsssurdf^ested before VHAP is fed to the 

equipment ^ -tf^rd^f a-44*. sej^nd o-A 

(i) Aey batch product-process that fails'* 2 consecutive pressure tests, \~t 

shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 20. calendar days 

after the equipment is placed in VHAP service, except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section. 

(c) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator 

elects to monitor the equipment to detect leaks by the method specified in 

§XX.X5(b) to demonstrate compliance with this subpart. 

(1) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 

§§XX.X2-2 to XX.X2-9, §§XX.X2-11 to XX.X2-13, and §XX.X3. 

(2) The equipment shall be monitored for leaks by the method specified 

in §XX.X5(b) when the equipment is in VHAP service, in use with an acceptable 

surrogate volatile organic compound which is not a VHAP or 1s in use with any 

other detectable gas or vapor. Wo^rtonn a shoal ngt # £ meekUi r-t.$ u>h&>\ e<*u.iptmc* 

is nc+ M VWrtP ser-v/'ec. -* . v 

(3) The equipment shall be monitored for leaks as specified below: 

(i) Each time the equipment is reconfigured for the production of a 
P.13 

product and each time a seal is broken between any two pieces of equipment, 

(li j McunCfS SWLII b t WOtfit+oreld iirx CLtCdr&a*C£. Uf44- VX.XZ-'S. 

(iii) AtNt^he frequency calculated in the following equatwrn' or times 

per year if thev6alculated frequency is less than tiffins per year: 

^continuous 

Where 

screening frequ£«i*y for batch operations 

, o \ Too

 = average time equipment*^ in VHAP service in the 

\f)tXj POU**- J previous year^expressed as percentage of 8760 hours 

^ y 0 U S = monitoring frequency spe^tfcied for equipment in 

continuous service, (e.g., oncefres^O days; once 

per 30 days). 

l/*(sj±jLn£-

(4) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable 

but not later than IS calendar days after it is detected, except as provided 

in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(d) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected is 

allowed if the replacement equipment is not available providing the following 

conditions are met: 

(i) Equipment supplies have been depleted and supplies have been 

sufficiently stocked before the supplies were depleted. 

(ii) The repair is made no later than 10 days after delivery of the 

replacement equipment. 

-fo '^yv.^1 m 

Batch Process, means a process^which >s- intermittent or diacontinuous and 

t h a Vnit "aJ^H y n* inHiwiHin. i»«m« wf n^nipwnt <i& inf>-^ii»H»1y in 

VHAP service, the equipment is fed intermittently or discontinuously. 

Processing then occurs in this equipment after which the equipment is UJ->A€> 

generally emptied. Only bateh proeess equipment in use with a-haea.'dsuj ^ 

lir pnlliitnnt Inn thin flfll nf thr tntnl nviiiliilili Mini In I In i ilimlir 

yniir n sligihlr fnr tr^at""""* HHH M iTtinn H.o.. 8-ZfiO 

hours/ycai1) of th IA rule-. Examples of industries that use batch process 

include pharmaceutical manufacturers and pesticide manufacturers. 

Batch Product-Process equipment train means the collection of equipment 

(e.g., flanges, reactors, valves, pumps, etc.) configured to produce a 

specific productJjy a batch process. 

.^jt^KoTes t Methods 

§XX.X5 

(f) The following procedures shall be used to pressure test batch 
P.M 

product-process equipment to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 

§XX.X4-2. 

(1) The batch.BToJuct-process equipment train shall be pressurized with a. aa- S 

(o A. air, nitrogen) or %tt4riToctr?e operating pressure of the equipment. The 

equipment shall not be tested at to a pressure greater than the pressure 

setting of the lowest relief valve setting. 

(2) Once the test pressure is obtained, the air, nitrogont or water 

source shalil be shut off. , , . ., ._ , _. * .• ,._ 

(3)(f')At thon end of - • minuteo [hours], the pressuie in the balih

 ,£"u

"

uJ

~

es 

product-process equipment ttuin shall bn nim;,uretl. The change in pressure \r -hfttz* bahz. 

Drodutf -^shall be calculated using the following equation: 

P = Pf - Pi 

where P = change in pressure 

Pf = final pressure 

2(1 i) for 4H^pr^e<£^Jz^TMTMcih. a. li^d^e^. sha.0 be no i//S/'6/e^ /•ecdc.a^e

(4) The pressure shall be measured using a pressure measurement device Lfakitko" 

(gauge, manometer, or equivalent) which has a precision of in the TTiJb. )s 

range of test pressure and is capable of measuring pressures up to the relief fyejna 

set pressure of the pressure relief device. reAues^€A 

-V s^s to-eJovu • _2_ 

fefnO-x-P- eoucr\ "\nd'tvlduaJ r+eM cfc- efyup/henrr is i* VrMP service. 

JrrJL \ICL,\VCS Sho-li be innoru-forz-d l</i/eoLr- pumps and CL^I+OLJ?} t~ 

Sted* \ >c/ qLLa-r-rvr, 

OL MM*? \r\ os. caje*d^ ^&XJT> 

i ^^, v /A ctiwur+erls, iP .Setm^ruud, 

$0% -7 ^ bi-nntfvtfh/y i^/yr- P-x/'/ ^ 

~~T6 / ^ OU)n*r- **- operator- r^tLpl^ WA. ^Q_ ^J^
P.15 

ATTACHMENT 4 

Quality Improvement Program 

During Phases I and II of the program for any facility and/or 

component, monitoring will be conducted and data collected that 

will give the owner/operator a good idea of whether the facility 

and/or component will be able to meet the requirements associated 

with the base period in terms of leak definition and percent 

leakers. 

After a facility is in Phase II, a deoision should be made that the 

base period requirements can be met or that a Quality Improvement 

Plan (QIP) program should be initiated. The following criteria 

will be established for any facility choosing the QIP option of the 

program. 

1. Tor a period of two years or 2 monitoring cycles from the 

beginning of Phase III, a facility may elect to begin a 

QIP. The facility may discontinue the QIP at any time 

providing the facility's emission performance (% leaking) 

is superior to the base requirements of the program. 

2. After a facility has completed a QIP, the facility may 

enter into future QIP programs provided the facility 

remain in subsequent QIP programs for a minimum period of 

three years. 

If a facility chooses the QIP option, that program should have the 

following characteristics: 

Option A - Demonstration of Progress 

A source may design a site-specific program to significantly reduce 

emissions over time. Such a program would require: 

a) Continuation of the base period LDAR program. 

b) Documentation of efforts to reduce the number of leaking 

components and the concentration of monitored leaks. 

c) Documentation of emission reductions of at least 10% per 

monitoring cycle from the level determined by an average 

of the two previous monitoring cycles until the base 

period requirements are satisfied. 

If a source cannot make the demonstration required in (c) within 

two monitoring cycles, the source will automatically be required to 

implement option B. 

Option B - Low Emission Performance Technology Review 

A source can enter a program designed to reduce emissions by 

replacement or modification of existing technology with technology 

regarded "low leak". Such a program would require: 
P.16 

I. Data Collection 

A. Monitoring data is to be collected for each component to 

be covered by the Quality Improvement Program at the base 

period of frequency. 

B. Data collected shall include leak rate, service 

characteristics ; (constituents, temperature, pressure, 

other stream variables) and equipment parameters (design, 

materials, labor, etc.). 

II. Data Analysis 

A. Leak rate data shall be analyzed to determine the 

services, operating practices and equipment that have 

significantly poorer emission performance. This analysis 

shall be completed for each process not later than the 

end of the first year of the QIP program and shall be 

repeated annually for each year that the QIP provision is 

exercised. 

B. All data collected, including any data obtained during on-line 

trials, shall be submitted to an intercompany or intracompany 

program for analysis. The purpose of the data analysis is to 

provide a focus on the equipment and operating parameters that 

are associated with the best emission performance for specific 

services. The results of this effort shall provide facilities 

management with enough information on the appropriate 

technology and operating practices needed to achieve low 

emission performance. The initial analysis of data from two 

monitoring periods or two years, which ever is longer, shall 

be completed before the end of the second year of the QIP 

program. The analysis shall be repeated each year the QIP 

program continues. 

C. The data analysis will form the basis of an action plan 

to identify, replace or modify those types of equipment, 

process services and operating practices which result in 

poor emission performance. 

III. Action Plan 

A. Development and implementation of a purchasing, 

specification and maintenance plan to improve emission 

performance not later than the end of the second year of 

the QIP program. The plan shall incorporate the data 

analysis performed in II.C and shall document how the 

results will be used to improve the facilities emission 

performance. 
P.17 

B. Replacement Requirements 

1. All components that are replaced are to be replaced with 

technology identified in II.B as low emission technology. 

2. Twenty-five percent of those components identified in 

Section II.A as significantly poor performers that can be 

replaced or modified on-line shall be replaced or 

modified each year with alternate technology to test its 

performance. Replacement shall be with components 

identified in II.B as low emission technology. All other 

leakers will be repaired or replaced with existing 

technology. 

3. Further, twenty five percent of the components identified 

ih Section II.A as poor performers that cannot be 

replaced on-line shall be replaced or modified with 

alternate technology during each planned process unit 

shutdown. 

4. If, in reviewing the data analysis described in Section 

B above, significant differences in leak performance are 

not found among types or groups of valves, then the 

provisions of Section III.B.1-4 do not apply. 

5. Monitoring data for components replaced with low emission 

technology will be segregated to insure that actual 

performance results in emission rates significantly less 

than the component which was replaced. 

6. Based on analysis of this data, the plant shall develop 

and implement improvements in its equipment purchasing, 

specification, inspection and testing practices to assure 

that low emission technology is incorporated into regular 

practices of the plant. 
P.18 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Quality Improvement Program 

During Phases I and II of the program for any facility and/or 

component, monitoring will be conducted and data collected that 

will give the owner/operator a good idea of whether the facility 

and/or component will be able to meet the requirements associated 

with the base period in terms of leak definition and percent 

leakers. 

After a facility is in Phase II, a decision should be made that 

the base period requirements can be met or that a Quality 

Improvement Plan (QIP) program should be initiated. The following 

criteria will be established for any facility choosing the QIP 

option of the program. 

1. Within first year of Phase III, a facility may elect to 

begin a QIP. The facility may discontinue the QIP at any 

time providing the facility's emission performance (% 

leaking) is superior to the base requirements of the 

program. 

2. After a facility in QIP returns to <2% leaking valves, 

the facility may remain in QIP (without the need for 

vavle replacement). If a facility in QIP leaves QIP, the 

facility can not reenter QIP unless the facility becomes 

a modified source. 

If a facility chooses the QIP option, that program should have the 

following characteristics: 

Option A - Demonstration of Progress 

A source may design a site-specific program to significantly reduce 

emissions over time. Such a program would require: 

a) Continuation of the base period LDAR program. 

b) Documentation of efforts to reduce the number of leaking 

components and the concentration of monitored leaks. 

c) Documentation of emission reductions of at least 10% per 

monitoring cycle from the level determined by an average 

of the two previous monitoring cycles until the base 

period requirements are satisfied. 

If a source cannot make the demonstration required in (c) within 

two monitoring cycles, the source will automatically be required 

to implement option B. 
P.19 

Option B - Low Emission Performance Technology Review 

A source can enter a program designed to reduce emissions by 

replacement or modification of existing technology with technology 

regarded "low leak". Such a program would require: 

I. Data Collection 

A. Monitoring data is to be collected for each component to 

be covered by the Quality Improvement Program at the base 

period of frequency. 

B. Data collected shall include leak rate, service 

characteristics ; (constituents, temperature, pressure, 

other stream variables) and equipment parameters (design, 

materials, labor, etc.). 

II. Data Analysis 

A. Leak rate data shall be analyzed to determine the 

services, operating practices and equipment that have 

significantly poorer emission performance. This analysis 

shall be completed for each process not. later than the 

end of the first year of the QIP program and shall be 

repeated annually for each year that the QIP provision 

is exercised. 

B. All data collected, including any data obtained during on-line 

trials, shall be submitted to an intercompany or intracompany 

program for analysis. The purpose of the data analysis is to 

provide a focus, on the equipment and operating parameters that 

are associated with the best emission performance for specific 

services. The results of this effort shall provide facilities 

management with enough information on the appropriate 

technology and operating practices needed to achieve low 

emission performance. The initial analysis of data from two 

monitoring periods or two years, which ever is longer, shall 

be completed before the end of the second year of the QIP 

program. The analysis shall be repeated each year the QIP 

program continues. 

C. The data analysis will form the basis of an action plan 

to identify, replace or modify those types of equipment1, 

process services and operating practices which result in 

poor emission performance. 

The data collection and analysis will be based on at least 12 

categories with the following parameters: services, operating 

practices, and equipment. These parameters will be based on: 

two services (gas and liquid), 

two operating practices(frequently operated and infrequently 

operated), and 
P.20 

three types of equipment (reputed-to-be-low leaking by 

manufacturer claims, demostratrated-to-be low leaking by 

"performance trials, and other). 

Additional parameters may be used if it provides a determination 

of significantly poorer and best performance with a comparable 

number of components being replaced under the Action Plan. 

The leak rate (% of leaking components within the cross-category) 

will be assigned to each cross-category. 

"Significantly poorer performance" means performance by those 

components in the cross-categories containing the highest 5 (or at 

the 60th percentile for larger groups of categories) leak rates. 

"Best performance" means lowest leak rate performance by a 

different type of equipment within a cross-category with the same 

service and operating practices. 

III. Action Plan 

A. Based on Data Analysis in II to identify low-emitting 

technologies and best operating practices, develop and 

implement a purchasing, specification and maintenance plan. 

The plan shall 

(1) Specify purchase of those technologies identified as 

low-emitters, based on the parameters identified in the 

data analysis associated with such technologies and 

appropriate applications (e.g., sealed bellows valves in 

low-pressure, non-corrosive light liquid service, etc.) 

(2) Establish manufacturer specifications (e.g., 

materials, bellows type, gasket material, leak-tightness 

per x cycles, etc.) for low-emitting technologies. 

(3) Specify a written procedure for bench testing prior 

to field installation. Perform bench testing according 

to the procedure to ensure components initially meet 

leak-tightness specifications identified in the previous 

paragraph. 

(4) Perform an audit of x percent of the components 

prior to replacement to ensure that all specifications 

are met. 

(4) Include maintenance provisions to ensure that low 

emitting technologies perform as specified, including a 

monitoring schedule for checking leaks (including at 

installation), visual inspection for valve integrity and 

deterioration, etc. 
P.21 

(5) Thoroughly document basis for determining lowemitters, development of specifications, development of 

bench testing parameters and results of bench tests, the 

maintenance plan to be implemented, dates and results of 

maintenance implementation. These records shall include 

all aspects of this plan. 

B. Replacement Requirements 

1. All components that are replaced are to be replaced with 

technology identified in II.B as low emission technology. 

2. a. Twenty-five percent of those components identified 

in Section II.A as significantly poor performers 

that can be replaced or modified on-line shall be 

replaced or modified each year with alternate 

technology to test its performance. Replacement 

shall be with components identified in II.B as low 

emission technology. All other leakers will be 

repaired or replaced with existing technology. 

b. Low emission performance technology trials for 

unrepairable components to test new technology as 

follows, to be installed at a turn around. 

i. 50 percent of unrepairable valves. 

ii. At least one unrepairable pump. 

3. Further, twenty five percent of the components identified 

in Section II. A as poor performers that cannot be 

replaced on-line shall be replaced or modified with 

> alternate technology during each planned process unit 

shutdown. 

4. If, in reviewing the data analysis described in Section 

B above, significant differences in leak performance are 

not found among types or groups of valves, then the 

provisions of Section III.B.1-4 do not apply. 

5. Monitoring data for components replaced with low emission 

technology will be segregated to insure that actual 

performance results in emission rates significantly less 

than the component which was replaced. 

6. (a) Based on analysis of this data, the owner or 

operator shall develop a quality control program to 

minimize emissions. Approval of the program will 

be granted by the administrator provided he finds 

that: 
P.22 

i. the plant establishes minimum design standards for 

the categories ,of valves. The design standards 

shall specify known critical parameters such as 

tolerance, manufacturer, materials of construction, 

previous usage. 

ii. all equipment orders shall specify the equipment 

the design standard (or minimum tolerances) for the 

equipment. 

iii. the plant establishes a written procedure for bench 

testing for leaks. All valves purchased after 

conclusion of the performance trials shall be bench 

tested for leaks. Only nonleaking valves can be 

installed in the process unit. 

iv. all replacement valves are tested for leaks during 

installation. 

v. the plant conducts an audit on percent of equipment 

purchased to ensure it conforms with the purchase 

specifications. • 

vi. the plant specifies the operating practices and 

maintenance program for the low emission potential 

equipment. 

(b) The owner or operator shall maintain records of 

purchase specifications, audit procedures, bench 

scale test results, and all other data needed to 

document the quality control program. 
P.23 

ATTACHMENT 6 '"IT. *° 

THE HAZARDOUS ORGANIC NESHAP (HON) STANDARD THAT EPA IS PLANNING TO ADOPT 

UNDER SECTION 112 IS EXPECTED TO INCLUDE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 

PROCESSES: 

SOCMI PROCESSES THAT PRODUCE A HAP ON THE CAA LIST OF 191 OR USE AS 

A REACTANT ONE OR MORE HAP TO PRODUCE A SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL. 

EMISSION SOURCES TO BE COVERED ARE: 

PROCESS VENTS (CONTINUOUS PROCESSES ONLY, NOT BATCH) 

EQUIPMENT LEAKS (FOR BOTH CONTINUOUS AND BATCH PROCESSES) 

STORAGE VESSELS 

TRANSFER 

WASTEWATER 

THE FOLLOWING NON-SOCMI PROCESSES THAT USE ANY OF 8 CHEMICALS*: 

PRODUCTION OF NEOPRENE, STYRENE-BUTADIENE RESINS, POLYBUTADIENE, 

PHARMACEUTICALS, PESTICIDES, CHLORINE, CHLORINATED SOLVENT USERS, 

AND MISCELLANEOUS BUTADIENE USERS. EMISSION SOURCES TO BE COVERED 

ARE: 

EQUIPMENT LEAKS (FOR BOTH CONTINUOUS AND BATCH PROCESSES) 

STORAGE VESSELS 

*THE 8 CHEMICALS ARE METHYLENE CHLORIDE, PERCHLOROETHYLENE, 

TRICHLOROETHYLENE, CARBON TETRACHLORIDE, CHLORINE, BUTADIENE, 

ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE, AND ETHYLENE OXIDE. 
P.24 

ATTACHMENT 7 

Non-SOCMI Processes Included in Scope of Negotiated Equipment Leaks Standard 

At the 7/17 & 18 meeting, there were questions regarding the processes 

or facilities included in the list of 8 non-SOCMI processes. The following 

definitions are an attempt to describe these non-SOCMI operations. 

"Neoprene/Chloroprene process unit" means a process unit that 

manufactures chloroprene through the chlorination of 1,3-butadiene and 

subsequently polymerizes the chloroprene to manufacture 

polychloroprene/neoprene. 

[Note: Facilities that produce neoprene starting from chloroprene do not 

handle butadiene and, hence, are not included in this source category.] 

"Styrene-butadiene rubber production process unit" means a process unit 

that manufactures styrene-butadiene copolymers, whether in solid (elastomer) 

or emulsion (latex) form. 

"Polybutadiene process unit" means a process unit that manufactures 

polybutadiene through the polymerization of 1,3-butadiene. 

"Pharmaceutical production process unit" means a process unit that uses 

any of the 8 Intent-to-List chemicals in reactions, in product separation, in 

purification or in formulation (e.g., tablet coating). Pharmaceutical 

operations are not included in other categories such as "Chlorinated 

hydrocarbons use". 

"Pesticides production process unit" means a process unit that 

manufactures, formulates, or packages pesticides using any one or more of the 

8 Intent-to-List chemicals. 

"Chlorine production process unit" means a process unit that uses carbon 

tetrachloride in the manufacture of chlorine. Uses of carbon tetrachloride in 

the manufacture of chlorine are as a diluent for nitrogen trichloride and as a 

scrubbing liquid to recover chlorine from tail gas. 

"Chlorinated hydrocarbon use in chemical process" means use of one or 

more of the 8 Intent-to-List chemicals as a reactant or a process solvent by a 

chemical plant process unit. Examples of products that are manufactured by 

processes in this category are polycarbonates, ethylene amines, and 

chlorinated paraffins. 

"Miscellaneous butadiene users" means a process unit that produces one 

or more of the following miscellaneous butadiene products: tetrahydrophtalic 

andydride [THPA], methylmethacrylate-butadiene styrene [MBS] resins, Captan, 

Captafol, 1,4-hexadiene, adiponitrile, dodecanedionic acid, butadiene-furfural 

cotrimer, methylmethacrylate acrylonitrile-butadiene styrene [MABS] resins, 

and ethylidene norbornene. 
P.25 

ATTACHMENT 8 ifa/fi 

>tir^ 

r 

Potential Applicability of Standard to Refinery Categories 

The standards incorporated in this Agreement were established 

by the Negotiating Committee based primarily on data from the 

best-performing ethylene oxide plants and data from a few other 

SOCMI plants. The Committee did not review data from petroleum 

refining processes because they were outside the scope of the 

negotiations, and the Committee does not know whether the numeric 

standards incorporated in this agreement are achievable by 

refinery processes. It is agreed that the regulatory framework 

of the negotiated regulation should be used when EPA develops 

Ltions for those petroleum processes that are to be 

regulated unengEfrfifela I M of the Clean Air Act. However, the 

Committee believes that thereYewre technical differences between 

SOCMI categories and petroleum operations that may affect the 

achievability of the numerical standards ftfpercent leakers). 

Potential differences include the availability and effectiveness 

of emission control technologies, plant shutdown practices, line 

sizes, process temperatures and pressures), and cost. 

If any regulatory authority representated on the Committee 

develops regulations, applicable to refineries, similar to these 

negotiated by the Committee, it will conduct a separate 

rulemaking. The achieva/bility of the standards (Aneluding 

percent leakoys) will be one of the eleitjents considered in the 

rulemaking. 

rn f? k 
P.26 

ATTACHMENT 8 A 

Relationship between this Regulation and Future Regulation 

for Refinery Equipment Leaks 

The standards incorporated in this agreement were established by the 

Negotiating Committee based primarily on data from well-controlled ethylene 

oxide plants and data from a number of SOCMI plants. The Committee did not 

review data from petroleum refining processes because they were outside the 

scope of the negotiations, and the Committee has not determined whether the 

numerical standards in this agreement are achievable by refinery processes. 

The Committee agrees that the framework used for the regulation 

developed during the current negotiation should be adopted in the MACT 

regulation for petroleum refinery equipment leaks unless there are sound 

technical reasons why a different framework would be more effective. 

API understands that the numerical standards adopted included in this 

negotiated regulation are more stringent than those that would have been 

selected if the rule had provided that exceedences of numerical standards, by 

themselves, constituted violations of the Act. API recognizes that this will 

also be true of the numerical standards that will be included in a MACT 

regulation for refinery equipment leaks utilizing the framework of the 

currently-negotiated regulation. 

If EPA develops MACT refinery equipment leak regulations, it will 

conduct a separate rulemaking. Technical differences between SOCMI and 

refinery processes that may affect the achievability of the numeric standards 

(including percent leakers) will be considered in the refinery equipment leak 

rulemaking. 
P.27 

ATTACHMENT 9 

MEMORANDUM 

Subject: Response Factor Correction for Equipment Screening Values 

The purpose of this memorandum is to present EPA's suggested guidelines 

for correcting equipment screening values for instrument response factor. As 

mentioned at previous Reg Neg meetings, EPA is concerned that, without 

response factor correction, the potential exists for selecting a monitoring 

instrument with a biased response factor. Therefore, plants could demonstrate 

compliance with the negotiated standard without actually achieving the 

objectives of the standard. 

For clarification, response factor is defined by: 

Actual concentration of compound 

Response Factor 

Observed concentration from detector 

It is a correction factor that accounts for the fact that the monitoring 

instrument is usually calibrated to a compound different from the compounds in 

the stream. The EPA has previously published instrument response factors 

determined at a concentration of 10,000 ppmv. However, response factor varies 

with concentration. Therefore, EPA is currently planning to develop 

instrument response factors at 500 ppmv, one of the action levels in the 

negotiated standard. The EPA will allow use of these new response factors in 

the methodology described below for equipment screening value response factor 

correction. 

Figure 1 presents a flowchart outlining the methodology EPA proposes for 

response factor correction. The product of the proposed methodology would be 

a plant-specific average response factor that could be applied to all 

equipment screening values in the plant. The plant-specific average response 

factor would be developed from a weighted average of stream-specific average 

response factors. These stream-specific average response factors would be 

developed from a weighted average of response factors for all HAP's in the 

stream that the monitoring instrument can detect. Figure 2 presents an 

example of how a weighted average response factor would be calculated. 

If a plant-specific average response factor is less than or equal to a 

certain default value (EPA proposes 1.5), then equipment screening value 

response factor correction would not be necessary for compliance with the 

negotiated standard. However, if the plant-specific average response factor 

is above the default value, then one of several options may be exercised. 

First, a plant may elect to correct all of its equipment screening values by 

the plant-specific average response factor. Second, a plant may elect to 

recalculate response factors for smaller subsets of the plant equipment 

population (e.g., individual process units or some other aggregation of 

equipment). (A plant may elect this option before developing a single plantspecific average response factor.) Third, the methodology outlined 1n Figure 

1 may be repeated using another type of monitoring Instrument. Finally, the 

plant-specific response factor could be redetermined by recalibrating the 

monitoring instrument with a HAP in the stream. 

The methodology described in this memo for correcting equipment 

screening values for response factor requires that a plant utilize Information 
P.28 

about stream compositions and Instrument response factors. The EPA believes 

that adjustment of the screening values for response factor does not represent 

an additional regulatory burden for plants, since In all likelihood most 

plants adjust screening values for estimating emissions for other regulatory 

reDortina nurnosps In a . SARA rennrtlnn)

 J reporting purposes (e.g., SARA reporting). 
P.29 

Select Monitoring 

Instrument 

- & 

Obtain experimentally or through literature the 

response factors at 500 ppmv for each HAP at the plant 

No &s 

^L 

The RF's for these HAPs cannot be 

incorporated into the weighted average 

RF. One of two options remains: 

1) A plant may identify another 

appropriate monitoring instrument 

to perform its screening survey; or 

2) A plant may estimate the emissions 

of a non-responding HAP based on its 

relative concentration to other 

compounds in the stream that respond 

to the instrument being used. 

± 

Determine average RF for 

each stream from weighted 

average of RF's for all 

HAPs 1n the stream that are 

detectable by the 

instrument. See Figure 2 

for an example of how to 

calculate a weighted 

average RF. 

AZ 

Determine plant-average RF 

from weighted average of 

RF's for all streams. 

Y£S 

AZ 

No RF Correction 

Necessary 

4. 

Options: 

Correct all SV's by the plant 

average RF. 

Recalculate RF's based on smaller 

subset of equipment. 

Select another monitoring 

instrument and return to top of 

flowchart. 

Calibrate monitoring instrument 

with HAP in stream and determine 

new RF's. 

Figure 1, 
P.30 

Calculating a Weighted Average Response Factor 

1. Stream-specific average response factors 

Response Factor 

N 

I (%HAPl)(RFttfl) 

i-l 

N 

I (% HAPJ 

i-l 

Stream Composition: Ethylene Oxide - 7% 

Ethylene - 11% 

Water - 85% 

Response Factors: Ethylene Oxide - 1.56 

at 500 ppmv Ethylene - 0.71 

Response Factor 

(0.07)(1.56) + (0.11)(0.71) 

0.07 + 0.11 

1.04 

2. Unit-specific average response factor 

N 

Response Factor » I (RFJ(% of valves1 with RFJ 

i-l 

Stream 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

Number of Val 

19 

36 

10 

10 

48 

84 

ves % of Y*1ve$ 

9.2 

17.4 

4.8 

4.8 

23.2 

40.6 

Hvoothetical RF 

1.04 

1.3 

1.4 

0.8 

0.9 

1.1 

Response Factor - (1.04)(0.092) + (1.3)(0.174) + (1.4)(0.048) + 

(0.8)(0.048) + (0.9)(0.232) + (M)(0.406) 

1.1 

Figure 2. 

Waives are used as an example. Other representative combinations of 

equipment may be selected. 
P.31 

JUL-18-'30 UIED 10:52 ID: DOW CHEM ENU I3UPLITY TEL ...NO: 517-638-9933 «675 F06 

ATTACHMENT 10 

LA1KUAGI FOR DOTWHWIATMel SYBTBB 

KXAMPL1S OF DBTHMWlATiaS SYSTEMS 

Tubing systems, and their associated components which are 1/2" or less In 

diameter, are tha primary equipment that fall Into this category. These 

tubing systems are used extensively in the following two areas< 

1) ANALYZER SYSTEMS to determine the chemical composition of the 

pr<M?«a>>* #1n4«1 nr- rn anilyx * •fn-r product " purif y an d trac e iattUritia S 

in tho atvaaa . Tha» manifold* tha t tr«n«pAi>f » v»*»y amal 1 side 

stream to the analyzer, and the analyser itaelf, use tubing due to 

the small flow, ease of installation and to provide for the 

necessary maintenance, and reliability. 

2) INSTRUMENTATION such as flow and pressure transmitters also 

use tubing for similar reasons as analyzers. Another area would be 

the 1/2" valves that tro used to isolate an axtarnal pressure gauge 

from the process stream. 

cuKiuait von FIACTIGES rat nmmuwimai SYSTEMS 

Analysers and instrumentation are a critical part of any operating process. 

The readings that result from these systems provide criticel process operating 

parameters that operetiona personnel used to adjust, monitor, control, and 

optimise the process. A high degree of importance is placed in these units to 

ensure that they achieve the highest possible "on-line" tiae due to their 

ufLau ut/lLlwal u*tUaV*a Many o£ the analyse r and inafcrunanfcation rootiltea* m 

fed directly into computer control schemes that require precise real-time 

inputs. ' Historical experience has determined which material and vendors 

provide tne Desc reliability for U w parLiuulax. upeieLlng conditions of • 

given stream to ensure that these units do not create unnecessary down-time. 

In addition, other work practices listed below are often incorporated to 

provide additional reliability! 

- where possible, these components are at ground level or at relatively 

eaay-to-access locations due to their routine maintenance needa auch as 

calibrations, transmitter sero and span, regulator adjustments, gas cylinder 

checks, filter replacements, etc. Analyser/instrument personnel and 

operations personnel males frequent rounds in theso areas to collect pressure 

readings, aonltor flows, and record temperature readings. Tha high traffic In 

these areas help to detect potential problems before they become significant. 

- after maintenance or repairs, "snoop" checks or pressure cheeks ere 

usually perrormeo to demonstrate tne integrity uf the sysieoi uu help eusuave 

the reliable operation prior to releasing it back into the operation service. 

- many analyzer systems often regulate the line pressure down at the 

header take-off and incorporate the use of sample coolers to condition the 

small sample stream prior to being analyzed. Also, uny systems are often 
P.32 

located in enclosed buildings to protect the sensitive operating conditions of 

the analyser internal parts and to provide more consistent results without 

regard to external ambient weether conditions a 

*e*e*********#»******«»«**««»»««»»**«^ 

PROPOSAL WK BKDLATOKY USCUACI 

f 

Instnunent systems should follow similar regulatory language that applies in 

Section XX.X2-8. Changes to the 7/17/90 draft are in bold print and 

underlined. 

SECTION xz.xi numinous 

Inatn—mtetlon Syst— - means analyser and instr amen tat ion srwt—e that are *Mtn—BHIHIB B jy f - •UUIIU «MiTMtt M B ins^n—nana'cxon stsi—ecna c are 

used for H»t-fT»4fHng p><w»eee operating conditions ("Tgr T*—position, pre—ure. 

flow, etc.). Otalv components 1/2" or less la dimmmtmr tutntm wed in 

- _ttii_deff JaifclSBv 

ii..'44i...» ir>. 

SKTION XX.X2-8 SIANDAKD6 

Pumps, valves, flanges and other connectors and agitator seals in heavy liquid 

service, and pressure relief devices in liquid service* end inetreaatttatloa 

ITffTrT-

(e) Pumps, valves, flanges and other connectors, and agitator aeala in 

heavy liquid service, and pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy 

liquid service, and instrumentation systeas shall be monitored within five 

calendar days by the method specified in Section XX.XS(b) if evidence of e 

potential leek is found by visual, audible, olfactory, or any other detection 

method, except as provided in Section XX.X2-l(c). Monitoring for 

lnstrtaeritatlrin svste— le not neceaaerr ** »*»• reoulrsasntitss of C (el(ll i . (2). 

and (d) of this section ere laolMmtcd for a potential leak. 

(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or graeter for egitator 

seala, 1,000 ppa or greater for pumps, and 500 ppm or greeter for valves, 

flanges and other connectors, and pressure relief devices is measured, a leak 

is detected. 

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repelred as soon as 

practicable, but net later than IS calendar daya after it <• AmtmrtmA, avr.apt 

ea provided in Section XX.X2-10. 

(2) The first attempt at repair shall be made no later than five 

calendar days after each leak is detected. 

(d) First attempts at repair include, but ere not limited to, the best 

practices described under Section XX.X2-7(e). 

{») T«,»^—»»T»i<m systems are exempt from the recordk—Pins and 

reporting, ** «fr"*lon n.16 end JX.TJ. 
P.33 

ATTACHMENT 11 

Alternative means of emission limitation 

The Administrator shall approve an alternative emission limitation when 

(a) The owner or operator of a source subject to a standard under this 

subsection submits data to demonstrate that the proposed 

alternative emission limitation will result in an emission level no 

greater than the s tandard; (0/~d— 

(b) The alternative emission limitation includes enforceable 

requirements to assure compliance. 

\ 

July 17, 1990 
P.34 

ATTACHMENTS 

Draft 

June 28, 1990 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

CONCERNING 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

AGREEMEN T 

The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee considered the technical and policy issues involved in controlling fugitive 

emissions of toxic chemicals from equipment leaks pursuant to the Clean Air Act and has reached a consensus 

on a recommended proposed rule. 

, a party to the negotiations, agrees that: 

1. The person signing this agreement is authorized to commit the party to its terms. 

2. When considered as a whole, the party concurs in the recommended proposed rule entitled -

__, dated , that is attached to this agreement. 

3. a. EPA agrees to draft a preamble consistent with the recommended proposed rule and to publish that 

preamble and the recommended proposed rule as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Controlling 

Fugitive Emissions of Toxic Chemicals from Equipment Leaks. 

b. Each other party agrees that it will not file negative comments on the proposed rule or the preamble 

if they are consistent with the recommended proposed rule. 

4. a. EPA will consider all relevant comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and will make such modifications in the proposed rule and the preamble as is necessary when issuing 

a final rule. 

b. Each other party agrees not take any action to inhibit the adoption of the recommended proposed rule 

as a final rule. 

5. Each party other than EPA agrees not to challenge the final rule in court if the fmal rule and its preamble 

are consistent with the recommended proposed rule. 

6. Each party other than EPA agrees to file a memorandum informing the agency or the court that it 

participated in the negotiations and that it concurred in the recommended proposed rule when considered 

as a whole -

a. if adverse comments are filed with the agency or if the final rule is challenged in court, and 

b. the preamble and final rule are consistent with the recommended proposed rule. 
P.35 

ATTACHMENT 13 

Draft 7/17/90 

National Emission Standard 

For Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) 

§XX.X0 Applicability and designation of sources. 

(a) Tho provisions of this subpart apply to oach of tho following 

sources that aro intended to operate in volatile hazardous air pollutant 

(VHAP) service:—pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling 

connection systems, open ended valves or linos, valves, flanges and other 

connectors, product accumulator vessels, and control devices or systems 

required by this subpart. 

(b) Tho provisions of this subpart apply to the sources listed ifl 

paragraph (a) after the dato of promulgation of a specific subpart in Part 61. 

(a) The provisions of-this subpart apply to the following equipment, 

that are intended to operate in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) 

service during the calendar year within a. process unit that uses as a reactant 

or makes as an intermediate or final product any of the; chemfcals:listed; in 

Appendix : pumps, compressors, agitator seals, pressure relief devices, 

sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, flanges and 

other connectors, product accumulator vessels, and control devices or systems 

required by this subpart. 

(efa) While the provisions of this subpart are effective, a source to 

which this subpart applies that is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 

Part 60 &rr? will be required to comply only with the provisions of this 

subpart, except for each pump and compressor equipped with a dual mechanical 

sea! system that is in VOC service. 

§XX.X1 Definitions. 
Draft 7/17/90 

not defined herein shall have the 

* all terms not aer m=« 

As Used in this subpart, ^ ^ ^ ^ jp specjfic 

«.... - -• • - 1 ; ; 4 ;o;;owin; _ *.,, - „-..«. - — 

subparts of Part 61; and 

them: „h tch is intermittent or discontinuous 

. .B atch Process" means a process ^ ^ ^ „ w . 

,n d the vast majority of individual^ d1sco „ tinuously . Processing 

, „ m equipment 1s fed ,ntermittently ^ . 

service. TM « h the eq„,pment is gen 

«... occurs m this equipment *f ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ,f m ^ 

0„1y batch process equipment ,. ^ ^ ^ ^ , ^ 

.... {« the calendar year is ef y fa t ^ 

mailable time in the e Examples . „f industries that . 

(1..., 8 . 7 « hours/year) of e manufacturers.. 

prK e s s include pharmaceutical man c - ^ ^ ^ rf 

•Batch product-process e,u,p en ^ ^ ^ u produ ce 

equipment (..,.. "«•« • """"' " 

-CosW-vent system means ^ ^ flow.inducing 

• - " — • ' :::;:!:::""•:* - - • » -—* • 

. devices that transport gas or 

control device. ^ ^

 or other joined fittings 

•xonnector" means flanged, sere ^ ^ ^ pjece ^ equ)pment. 

- » ^ ^ " ^ ^ " " „d h ircumference of the interfac -

Fitttn os welded completed around _ ^ ^ purpose of 

cons1de r ed connectors for th, purpos o ^ ^ ^ „„t 

reporting and recordkeeping, connector 
P.37 

Draft 7/17/90 

covered by insulation or other materials that prevent location of the 

fittings. 

"Control device" means an enclosed combustion device, vapor recovery 

system (including devices used for temporary recovery and ultimate disposal, 

such as carbon adsorption), or flare. 

"Double block and bleed system" means two block valves connected in 

series with a bleed valve or line that can vent the line between the two block 

valves. 

"Equipment" means each pump, compressor, i|||i|li||I||, pressure relief 

device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, flange or 

other connector, product accumulator vessel in VHAP service, and any control 

devices or systems required by this subpart. 

"First attempt at repair" means to take rapid action for the purpose of 

stopping or reducing leakage of organic material to atmosphere using best 

practices. 

"In gas/vapor service" means that a piece of equipment in VHAP: service 

contains a gas or vapor at operating conditions. 

"In heavy liquid service* means that a piece of equipment in VHAPi 

service is not in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service. 

"In light liquid service" means that a piece of equipment in VHA| 

service contains a liquid that meets the following conditions: 

(a) The vapor pressure af one or more of the components is greater than 

.0.3 kPa at 20*C; 
P.38 

Draft 7/17/90 

(b) The total concentration of the pure components having a vapor 

pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20*C is equal to ot* greater than 20 percenli 

by weight; and 

(c) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions. 

[Note: Vapor pressures may be obtained from standard reference texts or 

may be determined by ASTK D-2879 (incorporated by reference as specified in 

§60.17).J 

"In liquid service" means that a piece of equipment in VHAP service, is 

not in gas/vapor service. 

"In-situ sampling systems" means nonextractive samplers or in-line 

samplers. 

"In vacuum service" means that equipment is operating at an internal 

pressure which is.at least 5 kilopascals (kPa) below ambient pressure. 

"In VHAP service" means that a piece of equipment either contains or 

contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least W 5 percent by weight a 

hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) as determined according to the provisions of 

§XX.X5(d). The provisions of §XX.X5(d) also specify how to determine that a 

piece of equipment is not in VHAP service. 

"In VOC service" means, for the purposes of this subpart, that (a) the 

piece of equipment contains or contacts a process fluid that is at least 10 

percent VOC by weight (see 40 CFR 60.2 for the definition of volatile organic 

compound or VOC and 40 CFR 60.485(d) to determine whether a piece of equipment 

is not in VOC service) and (b) the piece of equipment is not in heavy liquid 

service as defined in 40 CFR 60.481. 
P.39 

Draft 7/17/90 

* Mai function* means any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control equipment or process equipment or of a process to operate in a normal 

or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in part by poor 

maintenance, careless operation, or any other preventable upset condition or 

preventable equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions. 

"Open-ended valve or line" means any valve, except pressure relief 

valves, having one side of the valve seat in contact with process fluid and 

one side open to atmosphere, either directly or through open piping. 

"Pressure release" means the emission of materials resulting from the 

system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure relief 

device. 

"Process unit" means equipment assembled to produce a VHAP or its 

derivatives as intermediates or final products, or equipment assembled to use 

as a reactant a VHAP in the production of a product. A process unit can 

operate independently if supplied with sufficient feed or raw materials and 

sufficient product storage facilities. 

"Process unit shutdown" means a work practice or operational procedure 

that stops production from a process unit or part of a process unit results in 

clearing of all process material from a process unit or part of a process unit 

and during which repairs can be effected. An unscheduled work practice or 

operational procedure that stops production from a process unit or part of a 

process unit for less than 24 hours is not a process unit shutdown. The use 

of spare equipment and technically feasible bypassing of equipment without 

stopping production are not process unit shutdowns. 
P.40 

Draft 7/17/90 

"Product accumulator vessel" means any distillate receiver, bottoms 

receiver, surge control vessel, or product separator in VHAP service that is 

vented to atmosphere either directly or through a vacuum producing system. A 

product accumulator vessel is in VHAP service if the liquid or the vapor in 

the vessel is at least W § percent by weight VHAP. 

"Repaired" means that equipment is adjusted, or otherwise altered, to 

eliminate a leak as indicated by one of tho following!—an instrument reading 

of 10,000 ppm or greater, indication of liquids dripping, or indication by a 

sensor that a seal or barrier fluid system has failed |||||e|||||||| 

appropriate sections of this subpart. 

"Semiannual" means a 6-month period; the first semiannual period 

concludes on the last day of the last month during the 180 calendar days 

following initial startup for new sources; and the first semiannual period 

concludes on the last day of the last &ri4 month during the 180 calendar days 

after the effective date of a specific subpart that references this subpart 

for existing sources. 

"Sensor" means a device that measures a physical quantity or the change 

in a physical quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or 

liquid level. 

"Shutdown" means the cessation of operation of a source for any purpose. 

"Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or "VHAP" means a substance regulated 

under this part for which a standard for equipment leaks of tho substance has 

boon proposed and promulgated.—Benzene is a VHAP.—Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. 

listed- in Appendix . 

§XX.X2-1 Standards: General. 
P.41 

Draft 7/17/90 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of §XX.X2-1 to §XX.X2-44-13 

for each new and existing source as required in 40 CFR 61.05, except as 

provided in §XX.X3 and §XX.X4. 

(b) Compliance with this subpart will be determined by review of 

records, review of performance test results, and inspection using the methods 

and procedures specified in §XX.X5. 

(c)(1) An owner or operator may request a determination of alternative 

means of emission limitation to the requirements of §XX.X2-2, §XX.X2-3, 

§XX.X2-5, §XX.X2-6, §XX.X2-7, §XX.X2-8, §XX.X2-9, an* §XX.X2-11, §XX.X2-I2, 

and §XX.X2-13 as provided in §XX.X4. 

(2) If the Administrator makes a determination that a means of emission 

limitation is at least a permissible alternative to the requirements of 

§XX.X2-2, §XX.X2-3, §XX.X2-5, §XX.X2-6, §XX.X2-7, §XX.X2-8, §XX.X2-9 Of 

§XX.X2-11, §XX.X2-12, or §XX.X2-13, the owner or operator shall comply with 

the requirements of that determination. 

(d) Each piece of equipment in a process unit to which this subpart 

applies shall be marked identified by process unit 4* such a manner that it 

can be distinguished readily from other pieces of equipment equipment that is 

not subject to this subpart. Identification of the equipment does not require 

physical tagging of the equipment. For example, the equipment may be 

identified on a plant site plan, in log entries* or by designation of process 

unit boundaries by spray paint. 
P.42 

Draft 7/17/90 

(e) Equipment that is in vacuum service is excluded from the 

requirements of §XX.X2-2 to §XX.X2-44l| if it is identified as required in 

§XX.X6(eb)(5). 

§XX.X2-2 Standards: Pumps in light liquid service. 

(a)(1) Each pump shall bo monitored monthly to detect leaks by tho 

methods specified in §XX.X5(b), except as provided in §XX.X2 1(c) and 

paragraphs (d), (o), and (f) of this section. 

(2) Each pump shall bo chocked by visual inspection each calendar week 

for indications of liquids dripping from tho pump seal. 

(b)(1) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a 

leak is detected. 

(2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from tho pump seal, a 

leak is detected. 

(a) The provisions of this section apply to each pump in VHAP service 

that is in light liquid service. 

(I) The provisions are implemented for existing and new-process units 

in the stages specified below: 

(i) For existing process units, the phases of the standard are: 

(A) Phase I, beginning [90, 180?] calendar days after promulgation of 

this subpart and ending 1 year after promulgation; 

(B) Phase II, beginning after the conclusion of Phase I (i.e.* 366 

calendar days after promulgation) and ending 3 years after promulgation of 

this subpart; and 

(C) Phase III, beginning 3 years and 1 day after promulgation of this 

subpart. 

8 
P.43 

Draft 7/17/90 

(ii) For new process units, the applicable phases of the standard are: 

(A) At startup* comply with the Phase II requirements. 

(B) Beginning 1 year after startup, comply with the Phase III 

requirements. 

(2) The owner or operator of an affected process unit may elect to meet 

the requirements of a later phase during the time period specified for an 

earlier phase-

(3) The provisions for existing process units apply to process units 

that commenced construction before fdate of orooosal in the FEDERAL 

RESISTER1 : the provisions far new process units apply to units the 

construction or modification of which commences after fdate of proposal in 

the FEDERAL REGISTER! . 

(b) The owner or operator of an affected process unit shall monitor each 

pump in VHAP service monthly and shall comply with the requirements of 

paragraphs (c) - (d), except as provided in paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of 

this section. 

(1) The pumps shall be monitored to detect.::.leaks-: by the: mbthod|specified 

in §XX.X5(b). 

(2) The instrument reading that defines a leak in each Phase of the 

standard i$j-

(i) Hf phase I, an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm, or greater. 

(ii> For phase II» an instrument reading of 1,000 ppmr or greater, 

(iii) For phase HI , an instrument reading of 1,000 ppm, or greater. 
P.44 

Draft 7/17/90 

(3) Each pump shall be checked by visual inspection each calendar week 

for indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal. If there are 

indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal, a leak is detected. 

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except 

as provided in §XX.X2-10. 

(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after the leak is detected. 

(d) In Phase III, if the greater of 10 percent of the pumps or 3 pumps 

in a process unit leak, the owner or operator shall implement a quality 

improvement program for pumps that complies with the requirements of §XX.X3(! 

) . The number bf pumps at a process unit shall be the sura of all the pumps in 

VHAP service. 

(de) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes 

a barrier fluid system is included in the calculation of percent leaking 

pumps, but is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (at>), provided the 

following requirements are met: 

(1) Each dual mechanical seal system is: 

(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all times 

greater than the pump stuffing box pressure; or 

(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is connected 

by a closed-vent system to a control device that complies with the 

requirements of §XX.X2-11; or 

(iii) Equipped with a closed-loop system that purges the barrier fluid 

into a process stream with zero VHAP omissions to atmosphere. 

10 
P.45 

Draft 7/17/90 

(2) The barrier fluid is not in VHAP service and, if tho pump is covered 

by standards under 40 CFR Part 60, is not in VOC service. 

(3) Each, barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will detect 

failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both. 

(4) Each pump is checked by visual inspection each calendar week for 

indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal. 

(i) If there are indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal at 

the time of the weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified in 

§XX.X5 to determine the presence of VOC and VHAP in the barrier fluid. 

(ii) If tho monitor reading (taking into account any background 

readings) indicates tho presence of VHAP, a leak is detected.—For tho purpose 

of this paragraph, tho monitor may be calibrated with VHAP, or may employ a 

gas chromatography column to limit tho response of tho monitor to VHAP, at tho 

option of tho owner or operator. 

(444 ii) If an instrument reading of 10,000 110001 ppm or greater (total 

VO€4 is measured, a leak is detected. 

(5) Each sensor as described in paragraph (de)(3) of this section is 

checked daily or is equipped with an audible alarm unless;;t^ 

within the boundary on an unmanned plant site. 

(6)(i) The owner or operator determines, based on design considerations 

and operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency of 

drips and to the sensor that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier 

fluid system, or both. 

(ii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed the 

criteria established in paragraph (6)(i), or if, based on the criteria 

11 
P.46 

Draft 7/17/90 

established in paragraph (6)(i), the sensor indicates failure of the seal 

system, the barrier fluid system, or both, a leak is detected. 

(iii) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except 

as provided in §XX.X2-10. 

(iv) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(e|) Any pump that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(e)(2), for no 

detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm above background during Phase I and less than 50 ppm above background 

during Phases II and III, is included in the calculation of percent leaking 

pumps but is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (af), (e|), and (d£) 

if the pump: 

(1) Has no externally actuated shaft penetrating the pump housing, 

(2) Is demonstrated to be operating with no detectable emissions, as 

indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background 

during Phase I and less than 50 ppm above background during Phases II and III, 

as measured by the method specified in §XX.X5(c), and 

(3) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (ef)(2) initially upon 

designation, annually, and at other times requested by the Administrator. 

(-fg) If any pump is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of 

capturing and transporting any leakage from the seal or seals to a control 

device that complies with the requirements of §XX.X2-11, it is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a§)-(e|). 

12 
P.47 

Draft 7/17/90 

(§1) Any pump that is located within the boundary of an unmanned plant 

site is exempt from the weekly visual inspection requirement of paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (d)(4) (b)(3) and (e)(4) of this section, and the daily 

requirements of paragraph (df)(5.) of this section, provided that each pump is 

visually inspected as often as practicable and at least monthly. 

§XX.X2-3 Standards: Compressors. 

(a) Each compressor shall be equipped with a seal system that includes a 

barrier fluid system and that prevents leakage of process fluid to atmosphere, 

except as provided in §XX.X2-l(c) and paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section. 

(b) Each compressor seal system as required in paragraph (a) shall be: 

(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is greater than 

the compressor stuffing box pressure; or 

(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid system that is connected by a 

closed-vent system to a control device that complies with the requirements of 

§XX.X2-11; or 

(3) Equipped with a closed-looR system that purges the barrier fluid 

directly into a process stream. 

(c) The barrier fluid shall not be in VHAP service and, if the 

compressor is covered by standards under 40 CFR Part 60, shall not be in VOC 

service. 

(d) Each barrier fluid system as described in paragraphs (a)-(c) shall 

be equipped with a sensor that will detect failure of the seal system, barrier 

fluid system, or both. 

13 
P.48 

Draft 7/17/90 

(e)(1) Each sensor as required in paragraph (d) shall be checked daily 

or shall be equipped with an audible llarm unless the compressor is located 

within the boundary on an unmanned plant site. 

(2) The owner or operator shall determine, based on design 

considerations and operating experience, a criterion that indicates failure of 

the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both. 

(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier 

fluid system, or both based on the criterion determined under paragraph (e)(2) 

of this section, a leak is detected. 

(g)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except 

as provided in §XX.X2-10. 

(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(h) A compressor is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and 

(b) if it is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and 

transporting any leakage from the seal to a control device that complies with 

the requirements of §XX.X2-11, except as provided in paragraph (i). 

(i) Any compressor that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(e) (2), for 

no detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 

25 ppm above background is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a)-(h) 

if the compressor: 

(1) Is demonstrated to be operating with no detectable emissions., as 

indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 || ppm above background, 

as measured by the method specified in §XX.X5(c); and 

14 
P.49 

Draft 7/17/90 

(2) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (i)(l) initially upon 

designation, annually, and at other times requested by the Administrator. 

§XX.X2-4 Standards: Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service. 

(a) Except during pressure releases, each pressure relief device in 

gas/vapor service shall be operated with no detectable emissions, as indicated 

by an instrument reading of less than 500 If ppm above background, as measured 

by the method specified in §XX.X5(c). 

(b)(1) After each pressure release, the pressure relief device shall be 

returned to a condition of no detectable emissions, as indicated by an 

instrument reading of less than 500 25 ppm above background, as soon as 

practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days after each pressure release. 

(2) No later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release, the 

pressure relief device shall be monitored to confirm the condition of no 

detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 

25 ppm above background, as measured by the method specified in §XX.X5(c). 

(c) Any pressure relief device that is equipped with a closed-vent 

system capable of capturing and transporting leakage from the pressure relief 

device to a control device as described in §XX.X2-11 is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b). 

§XX.X2-5 Standards: Sampling connection systems. 

(a) Each sampling connection system shall be equipped with a 

closed-purge system or closed vent system, except as provided in §XX.X2-l(c). 

(b) Each closed-purge system or closed vent system as required in 

paragraph (a) shall: 

15 
P.50 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line w44H 

zero VHAP omissions to atmosphere; or 

(2) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid with zero VHAP 

emissions to atmosphere; or 

(3) Be designed and operated to capture and transport all the purged 

process fluid to a control device that complies with the requirements of 

§XX.X2-11. 

(c) In-situ sampling systems are exempt from the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (b). 

§XX.X2-6 Standards: Open-ended valves or lines. 

(a)(1) Each open-ended valve or line shall-be equipped with a cap, blind 

flange, plug, or a second valve, except as provided in §XX.X2-l(c). 

(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve shall seal the open end 

at all times except during operations requiring process fluid flow through the 

open-ended valve or line, maintenance, or repair. 

(b) Each open-ended valve or line equipped with a second valve shall be 

operated in a manner such that the valve on the process fluid end is closed 

before the second valve is closed. 

(c) When a double block and bleed system is being used, the bleed valve 

or line may remain open, during operations that require venting the line 

between the block valves but shall comply with paragraph (a) at all other 

times. 

§XX.X2-7 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. 

(a) Each valve shall bo monitored monthly to detect leaks by the method 

specified in §XX.X5(b) and shall comply with paragraphs (b) (o)> except as 

16 
P.51 

Draft 7/17/90 

provided in paragraphs (f), (g)> and (h) of this section, §XX.X3 1 or 

§XX.X3 2, and §XX.X2 1(c). 

(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a 

leak is dotoctcd. 

(c)(1) Any valve for which a leak is not detected for 2 successive 

months may be monitored tho first month of every quarter, beginning with tho 

next quarter, until a leak is detected. 

(2) If a leak is detected, tho valve shall be monitored monthly until a 

leak io not dotoctcd for 2 successive months. 

(a) The provisions of this section apply to valves Xn VHAP service that 

are either in gas service or in light liquid service*. 

(I) The provisions are implemented for existing and new process units 

in the stages specified below: 

(i) For existing process units, the phases of the standard are: 

(A) Phase I, beginning [90, 180?} calendar days after promulgation of 

this subpart and ending 1 year after promulgation; 

(B) Phase II, beginning after the conclusion of Phase I (i.e., 366 

calendar days after promulgation) and ending 3 years after promulgation of 

this subpart; and 

(C) Phase III, beginning 3 years and 1 day after promulgation of this 

ItiBpart. 

(ii) For new process units, the applicable phases of the standard are: 

(A) At startup, comply with the Phase II requirements. 

(B) Beginning 1 year after startup, comply with the Phase U I 

fl$l||efflents| 

17 
P.52 

Draft 7/17/90 

(2) The owner or operator of an affected process unit may elect to meet 

the requirements of a later phase during the time period specified for an 

earlier phase. 

(3) The provisions for existing process units apply to process units 

that commenced construction before [ date of proposal in the FEDERAL REGISTER 

]: the provisions for new process units apply to units the construction or 

modification of which commences after [ date of proposal in the FEDERAL 

REGISTER] 

(b) The owner or operator of an affected process unit shall monitor all 

valves in VHAP service, except as provided in paragraphs (g), (h), and (1) of 

this section, at the intervals specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this 

section and shall comply with paragraphs (e) - (k) of this section, except as* 

provided in §XX.X2-10 and §XX.X4-1. 

(1) The valves shall be.monitored to detect leaks by the method 

specified in §XX.X5 (b). 

(2) The instrument reading; that defines; a leak in eachsPhase of- the 

standard is : 

(i) For phase I, in instrument reading of 10,000 ppm, or greater, 

(ii) For phase II, an instrument reading of 500 ppm, or greater, 

(iii) For phase Iii? an instrument reading of 500 ppm, or greater. 

(c) In Phases I and II, each valve shall be monitored quarterly. 

(d) In Phase III, the owner or operator shall monitor valves for leaks 

at the intervals specified below: 

18 
P.53 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) At process units with 2 percent or greater leaking valves, 

calculated as a rolling average of 2 consecutive periods, the owner or 

operator shall either: 

(i) monitor each valve once per month; or 

(ii) implement a quality improvement program for valves that complies 

with the requirements of §XX.X3. 

(2) At process units with less than 2 percent leaking valves, the owner 

or operator shall monitor each valve in VHAP service once each quarter, except 

as provided in the following paragraphs (3) and (4). 

(3) At process units with less than 1 percent leaking valves, the owner 

or operator may elect to monitor each valve in VHAP service once every Z 

quarters.. 

(4) At process units with less than 0.5 percent leaking valves, the 

owner or operator may elect to monitor each valve in VHAP service once every 4 

quarters. 

(e) Percent leaking valves shall be determined by the following 

equation: 

%LV * (LV/(VT + VC)} X 100 

where 

%LV - percent leaking valves 

LV - number of valves found leaking 

Vr - Total valves monitored 

VC » Credit for removed valves [Mote: needs to be determined] 

19 
P.54 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected, 

except as provided in §XX.X2-10. 

(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(3) When a leak is detected, the valve shall be monitored monthly until 

a leak is not detected for 2 successive months. 

(eg) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the 

following bes4 practices where practicable: 

(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts; 

(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts; 

(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts; and 

(4) Injection of lubricant into lubricated packing. 

(f) Any valve that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(b)(2), for no 

detectable omissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 

ppm above,background, is exempt from tho requirements of paragraph (a) if tho 

valve; 

(1) Has no external actuating mechanism in contact with tho process 

fluid; 

(2) Is operated with omissions loss than 500 ppm above background, as 

measured by tho method specified in §XX.X5(c); and 

(3) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (f)(2) initially upon 

designation, annually, and at other times requested by tho Administrator. 

(§|) Any valve that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(g)(l), as an 

unsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b) if: 

20 
P.55 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) The owner or operator of the valve determines that the valve is 

unsafe to monitor because monitoring personnel would be exposed to an 

immediate danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph (b); and 

(2) The owner or operator of the valve has a written plan that requires 

monitoring of the valve as frequent as practicable during safe-to-monitor 

times. 

(h|) Any valve that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(g)(2), as a 

difficult-to-monitor valve is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b) 

if: 

(1) The owner or operator of the valve determines that the valve cannot 

be monitored without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters 

above a support surface; 

(2) The process unit within which the valve is located is an existing 

process unit; and 

(3) The owner or operator of the valve follows a written plan that 

requires monitoring of the valve at least once per calendar year. 

(j) Any equipment located at a plant site with fewer than 250 valves in 

VHAP service is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. The owner or operator shall monitor each valve in VHAP service for 

leaks once each quarter, or comply with paragraphs (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this 

section. 

(k) For use in determining monitoring frequency, as specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section, the percent leaking valves shall be calculated 

as a rolling average of 2 consecutive monitoring periods for monthly, 

21 
P.56 

Draft 7/17/90 

quarterly, a*.>e»fannual monitoring programs: as an average of any 3 out of 4 

consecutive monitoring periods for annual monitoring programs. 

(1) Nonrepairable valves shall be included in the calculation of percent 

leaking valves the first time the valve is identified as leaking and 

nonrepairable and as required to comply with paragraph (k)(2). Otherwise, a 

number of nonrepairable valves up to a maximum of 1 percent of the total 

number of valves in VHAP service may be excluded from calculation of percent 

leaking valves for subsequent monitoring periods. 

(2) If the number of nonrepairable valves exceeds 1 percent of the total 

number of valves in VHAP service at a process unit, the number of 

nonrepairable valves exceeding 1 percent shall be included in the calculation; 

of percent leaking valves. 

§XX.X2-8 Standards: Pumps, valves, flanges and other connectors, and 

agitator seals in heavy liquid service,:and pressure relief devices in liquid 

service and flanges and other connectors. 

(a) Pumps, valves, flanges and-other connectors, and agitator seals iri 

heavy liquid, service, and pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy 

liquid service and flanges and other connectors shall be monitored within 5 

calendar days by the method specified in §XX.X5(b) if evidence of a potential 

leak is found by visual, audible, olfactory, or any other detection method, 

except as provided in §XX.X2-l(c). 

(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater far agitator 

seals, 1,000 ppm or greater for pumps, and 500 ppm or greater for valves, 

flanges and other connectors, and pressure relief devices is measured, a leak 

is detected. 

22 
P.57 

Draft 7/17/90 

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except 

as provided in §XX.X2-10. 

(2) The first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

(d) First attempts at repair include, but are.not limited to, the best 

practices described under §XX.X2-7(e). 

§XX.X2-9 Standards: Product accumulator vessels. 

(a) Each product accumulator vessel shall be equipped with a closed-vent 

system capable of capturing and transporting any leakage from the vessel to a 

control device as described in §XX.X2-11, except as provided in §XX.X2-l(c). 

§XX.X2-10 Standards: Delay of repair. 

(a) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected w444 

be is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible without a process unit 

shutdown. Repair of this equipment shall .occur before the end of the next 

process unit shutdown. 

(b) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected w444 

be iii allowed for equipment that is isolated from the process and that does 

not remain in VHAP service. 

(c) Delay of repair for valves will bo and agitator seals is also 

allowed if: 

(1) The owner or operator determines that emissions of purged material 

resulting from immediate repair are greater than the fugitive emissions likely 

to result from delay of repair, and 

23 
P.58 

Draft 7/17/90 

(2) When repair procedures are effected, the purged material is 

collected and destroyed or recovered in a control device complying with 

§XX.X2-11. 

(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be is also allowed if: 

(1) Repair requires the use of a dual mechanical seal system that 

includes a barrier fluid system, and 

(2) Repair is completed as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 

months after the leak was detected. 

(e) Delay of repair beyond a process unit shutdown will be allowed for a 

valve if valve assembly replacement is necessary during the process unit 

shutdown, valve assembly supplies have been depleted, and valve assembly 

supplies had been sufficiently stocked before the supplies were depleted. 

Delay of repair beyond the next process unit shutdown will not be allowed 

unless the next process unit shutdown occurs sooner than 6 months after the 

first process unit shutdown. 

§XX.X2-11 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices. 

(a) Owners or operators of closed-vent systems and control devices used 

to comply with provisions of this subpart shall comply with the provisions of 

this section, except as provided in §XX.X2-l(c). 

(b) Vapor recovery systems (for example, condensers and adsorbers) shall 

be designed and operated to recover the organic vapors vented to them with an 

efficiency of 95 percent or greater. 

(c) Enclosed combustion devices shall be designed and operated to reduce 

the VHAP emissions vented to them with an efficiency of 95 percent or greater 

24 
P.59 

Draft 7/17/90 

or to provide a minimum residence time of 0.50 seconds at a minimum 

temperature of 760'C. 

(d) Flares used to comply with this subpart shall comply with the 

requirements of §60.18. 

(e) Owners or operators of control devices that are used to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart shall monitor these control devices to ensure 

that they are operated and maintained in conformance with their design. 

(f)(1) Closed-vent systems shall be designed for and operated with no 

detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 

If ppm above background and by visual inspections, as determined by the 

methods specified as §XX.X5(c). 

(2) Closed-vent systems shall be monitored to determine compliance with 

this section initially in accordance with §61.05, annually, and at other times 

requested by the Administrator. 

(3) Leaks, as indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500 25 ppm 

above background and visual inspections, shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected. 

(4) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after the leak is detected. 

(g) Closed-vent systems and control devices used to comply with 

provisions of this subpart shall be operated at all times when emissions may 

be vented to them, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

at which times the owner or operator shall, to the extent practicable, 

maintain and operate the source in a manner consistent with good air pollution 

control practice for minimizing emissions. 

25 
P.60 

Draft 7/17/90 

S.XX.X2-12 Standards: Agitator seals in gas/vapor service and in Hght liquid 

service* 

(a)(1) Each agitator seal shall be monitored monthly to detect leaks by 

the methods specified in §XX.X5(b), except as provided in §XX.X2-l(c). 

(2) Each agitator seal shall be checked by visual inspection each 

calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from the agitator seal. 

(b)(1) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a 

leak is detected. 

(2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the agitator seal* 

a leak is detected. 

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it 1$ detected. 

(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after each leak is detected. 

§XX.X2-13 Standards: Flanges in Gas/ Vapor Service and in Light Liquid 

Serviiiel 

(a) The owner or operator of an affected process unit shall monitor all 

flanges in VHAP service, except as provided in paragraphs (f) through (j) of 

this section, at the intervals specified in paragraph (b) of this section and 

shall comply with paragraphs (c)-(k) of this section. 

(i) The flanges shall be monitored to detect leaks by the method 

specified in SXX.X5. 

(2) If an instrument reading greater than or equal to 500 ppm is 

measured, a leak is detected. 

26 
P.61 

Draft 7/17/90 

(b) Th&$*wer or operator shall monitor for leaks at the intervals 

specified btfwN 

(1) Within the first 12 months after promulgation of this subpart for 

existing process units or within the first 12 months after startup for new 

process units, the owner or operator shall monitor all flanges,except as 

provided in paragraphs (f) through (j) of this section. 

(2) After conducting the initial survey required in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section, the owner or operator shall perform all subsequent monitoring of 

flanges at the following frequencies; 

(I) Once per calendar year, if the percent leaking flanges in the process 

unit is 0.5 percent or greater. 

(II) Once every two calendar years, if the percent leaking flanges is 

less than 0.5 percent. An owner or operator may comply with this paragraph by 

monitoring any portion of the flanges in the first year and the remainder of 

the flanges in the second year. The percent leaking flanges will be 

calculated for the total of the two monitoring periods. 

(3) If a process unit in a biennial leak detection and repair program has 

less than 0.5 percent leaking flanges at the 2 year demonstration, the owner 

or operator may monitor the flanges I time every 4 years. An owner or 

operator may comply with the requirements of this paragraph by monitoring any 

portion of the flanges each year until all flanges have been monitored within 

4 years. 

(4) If a process unit complying with the requirements of paragraph (b) 

using a 4 year monitoring interval program has greater than 0.5 percent but 

less than 1 percent leaking flanges, the owner or operator shall Increase the 

27 
P.62 

Draft 7/17/90 

monitoring frequency to 1 time every 2 years. An owner or operator may comply 

with the requlrements of this paragraph by monitoring any portion of the 

flanges in the first year and the remainder of the flanges In the second year. 

The owner or operator may again elect to use the provisions of paragraph 

(b)(3) when the percent leaking flanges decreases to less than 0.5 percent. 

(5) If a process unit complying with requirements of paragraph (b) using 

a 4 year monitoring interval program has X percent or greater leaking flanges, 

the owner or operator shall increase the monitoring frequency to I time per 

year. The owner or operator may again elect to use the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(3) when the percent leaking flanges decreases to less than 0.5 

percent. 

(c) Each flange that has been opened or has otherwise had the seal 

blolen shall be monitored for leaks within 60 calendar days "of being returned 

tqtfHAP service. 

(d) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected, 

except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section and in §XX.X2-10. A first 

attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after the leak 

is detected. 

(e) If a leak is detected, the flange shall be monitored monthly after 

its repair until a leak is not detected for 2 successive months. 

(f) Any flange that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(g)(l), as an 

unsafe-tormonitor flange is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) if: 

28 
P.63 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) The owner or operator determines that the flange is unsafe-tomonitor because personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a result 

of complying with paragraphs (a) - (e); and 

(2) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires monitoring^bf 

the flange as frequent as practicable during safe to monitor periods. 

(g) Any flange that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(g)(2), as a 

difficult-to-monitor flange is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) 

111 

(1) The owner or operator determines that the flange cannot be monitored 

without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters above a support 

surface, and 

(2) The owner or operator follows a written plan that requires 

monitoring of the flange at least once within the prescribed monitoring 

period. 

(h) Any flange that is designated, as described in §XX.X6(g)(3), as an 

unsafe-to-repair fTangeiis' exempt1 from the requirements of paragraphs, (a), 

(d), and (e) of this section if: 

(1) The owner or operator determines that repair personnel would be 

exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph 

(d) of this section; and 

(2) The flange will be repaired before the end of the next sch|$u|j2$ 

shutdown of the process unit. 

(i)(l) Any flange that is inaccessible, or is glass or glass-lined is 

exempt from the monitoring requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and 

29 
P.64 

Draft 7/17/90 

from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of §XX.X6 and §XX.X7. An 

inaccessible flange is one that is 

(A) Buried, 

(B) Insulated, or 

(C) Obstructed by equipment or piping that prevent access to the flange 

by a monitor probe. 

(2) If any inaccessible, or glass or glass-lined flange 1s observed by 

visual, audible, olfactory, or other means to be leaking, the leak shall be 

repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 1$ calendar days after th^j 

leak 1s detected, except as provided in §XX.X2-10 and paragraph (h) of this 

section. 

(3) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar 

days after the leak is detected. 

(k) For use in determining the monitoring frequency, as specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the percent leaking flanges shall be calculated 

as follows: 

(1) For the first monitoring, survey,, use the: following equation: 

X L - { NL/Ft) x 100 

Where 

% L • percent leaking flanges 

ML « number of flanges measured at 500 ppm or greater, by the 

method specified in §XX.X5 

Ft » total number of monitored flanges in the process unit. 

(2) For subsequent monitoring cycles, use the following equation: 

% L » [( NL - NN )/( Ft - NM )] x 100 

30 
P.65 

Draft 7/17/90 

Where 

% L - percent leaking flanges 

NL » number of flanges measured at 500 ppm or greater, by the 

method specified in §XX.X5. 

NN * number of nonrepairable flanges no to exceed 2 percent of 

the total flange population, F| 

Ft « total number of monitored flanges, including 

nonrepairables, in the process unit. 

§XX.X3 1—Alternative standards for valvos in VHAP sorvlco—allowablo 

porcontago of valvos leaking. 

(a) An owner or operator may elect to have all valves within a process 

unit to comply with an allowablo percentage of valves leaking of equal to or 

loss than 2.0 percent. 

(b) The following requirements shall bo mot if an owner or operator 

decides to comply with an allowable percentage of valves leaking; 

(1) An owner or operator must notify tho Administrator that tho owner or 

operator has elected to have all valvos within a process unit to comply with 

tho allowable porcontago of valvos leaking before implementing this 

alternative standard, as specified in §XX.X7(d). 

(2) A porformanco tost as specified in paragraph (c) of this section 

shall bo conducted initially upon designation, annually, and at other times 

requested by tho Administrator. 

(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall be repaired in accordance with 

§XX.X2 7(d) and (o). 

(c) Porformanco tests shall bo conducted in tho following manner; 

31 
P.66 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) All valvos in VHAP service within the process unit shall bo 

monitored within 1 week by tho methods specified in §XX.X5(b). 

(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a 

leak is detected. 

(3) Tho leak percentage shall be dotorminod by dividing tho number of 

valves in VHAP service for which leaks are detected by tho number of valves in 

VHAP sorvico within tho process unit. 

(d) Owners or operators who elect to have all valvos comply with this 

alternative standard shall not have a process unit with a leak percentage 

groator than 2.0 percent. 

(o) If an owner or operator decides no longer to comply with §XX.X3 1, 

the owner or operator must notify tho Administrator in writing that tho work 

practice standard described in §XX.X2 7(a) (o) will bo followed. 

§XX.X3 2—Altornativo standards for Valvos in VHAP sorvico Skip period leak 

detection and repair. 

(a)(1) An owner or operator may elect for all valves within a process 

unit to comply with ono of tho alternative work practices specified in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section. 

(2) An owner or operator must notify the Administrator before 

implomonting ono of tho alternative work practices, as specified in §XX.X7(d). 

(b)(1) An owner or operator shall comply initially with tho requirements 

for valvos, as described in §XX.X2 7. 

(2) After 2 consocutivo quarterly leak detection periods with tho 

percentage of valvos leaking oqual to or less than 2.0, an owner or operator 

32 
P.67 

Draft 7/17/90 

may begin to skip 1 of tho quarterly leak detection periods for tho valves in 

VHAP sorvico. 

(3) After 5 consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with tho 

percentage of valves leaking equal to or loss than 2.0, an owner or operator 

may begin to skip 3 of tho quarterly leak detection periods for tho valvos in 

VHAP service. 

(4) If tho porcontago of valvos leaking is greater than 2.0, tho owner 

or operator shall comply with tho requirements as described in §XX.X2 7 but 

may again oloct to use this section. 

§XX.X3 Quality improvement program. 

§XX.X4|I Alternative means of emission limitation. 

(a) Permission to use an alternative means of emission limitation under 

section 112(e)(3) of the Clean Air Act shall be governed by the following 

procedures: 

(b) Where the standard is an equipment, design, or operational 

requirement: 

(1) Each owner or operator applying for permission shall be responsible 

for collecting and verifying test data for an alternative means of emission 

limitation. 

(2) The Administrator will compare test data for the means of emission 

limitation to test data for the equipment, design, and operational 

requirements. 

(3) The Administrator may condition the permission on requirements that 

may be necessary to assure operation and maintenance to achieve the same 

emission reduction as the equipment, design, and operational requirements. 

33 
P.68 

Draft 7/17/90 

(c) Where the standard is a work practice: 

(1) Each owner or operator applying for permission shall be responsible 

for collecting and verifying test data for an alternative means of emission 

1 imitation. 

(2) For each source for which permission is requested, the emission 

reduction achieved by the required work practices shall be demonstrated for a 

minimum period of 12 months. 

(3) For each source for which permission is requested, the emission 

reduction achieved by the alternative means of emission limitation shall be 

demonstrated. 

(4) Each owner or operator applying for permission shall commit, in 

writing, for each source to work practices that provide for emission 

reductions equal to or greater than the emission reductions achieved by the 

required work practices. 

(5) The Administrator will compare the demonstrated emission reduction 

for the alternative means of emission limitation to the demonstrated emission 

reduction for the required work practices and will consider the commitment in 

paragraph (c)(4). 

(6) The Administrator may condition the permission on requirements that 

may be necessary to assure operation and maintenance to achieve the same 

emission reduction as the required work practices of this subpart. 

(d) An owner or operator may offer a unique approach to demonstrate the 

alternative means of emission limitation. 

(e)(1) Manufacturers of equipment used to control equipment leaks of a 

VHAP may apply to the Administrator for permission for an alternative means of 

34 
P.69 

Draft 7/17/90 

emission limitation that achieves a reduction in emissions of the VHAP 

achieved by the equipment, design, and operational requirements of this 

subpart. 

(2) The Administrator will grant permission according to the provisions 

of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). 

§XX.X4-2 Alternative means of emission limitation: Batch processes 

(a) An owner or operator of a batch process which has equipment in VHAP 

service may elect to either pressure test or monitor the equipment for leaks. 

The owner or operator shall comply with one of the alternative requirements 

specified in.paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b). The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator 

elects to use pressure testing of batch product process equipment to 

demonstrate compliance with this subpart. An owner or operator who complies 

with the provisions of this paragraph is exempt from the provisions of 

§XX.X2-13 through XX.X2-10, §XX.X2-12, §XX.X2-13, and §XX.X3 of this subparts 

(1) .Each time equipment is reconfigured for production of a product or 

each time the seal between any two pieces of equipment is broken, the batch 

product process equipment shall be pressure tested for leaks before VHAP is 

first fed to the equipment and the equipment is placed in VHAP service. Each1 

batch product process that operates anytime during a calendar year shall be 

pressure tested at least [e.g., once] during that calendar year. 

(2) The batch product process equipment shall be tested using the 

procedures specified in §XX.X5(f). 

35 
P.70 

Draft 7/17/90 

(3) If the change in pressure is greater than (e.o.. 1 osio/hrl of 

if there is visible, audible, or olfactory evidence of fluid loss, a leak is 

detected. 

(4) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired and the batch productprocess equipment shall be pressure tested before VHAP is fed to the 

equipment. 

(i) Any batch product-process that fails 2 consecutive pressure tests 

shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 3& calendar days 

after the equipment is placed in VHAP service, except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section; 

(c) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator 

elects to monitor the equipment to detect leaks by the'method specified in 

§XX.X5(b) to demonstrate compliance with this subpart. 

(1) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 

§§XX.X2-2 to XX.X2-9, §§XX.X2-11 to XX.X2-13, and §XX.X3. 

(2) The equipment shall be monitored for leaks by the method specified 

in §XX.X5(b) when the equipment is in VHAP service, in use with an acceptable 

surrogate volatile organic compound which is not a VHAP or is in use with anyother detectable gas or vapor. 

(3) The equipment shall be monitored for leaks as specified below: 

(i) Each time the equipment is reconfigured for the production of a 

product and each time a seal is broken between any two pieces of equipment. 

(ii) At the frequency calculated in the following equation or times 

per year if the calculated frequency is less than times per year: 

M» * 'op * ' con«»nuou« 

36 
P.71 

Draft 7/17/90 

Where 

fto - screening frequency for batch operations 

T ^ = average time equipment is in VHAP service in the 

previous year, expressed as percentage of 8760 hours 

Fcontfnuou*3 monitoring frequency specified for equipment in 

continuous service, (e.g., once per 90 calendar days; 

once per 30 calendar days). 

(4) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable 

but not later than ii calendar days after it is detected, except as provided 

in paragraph (d) of this section. 

[Mote: if the Committee allows delay of repair for batch processes, the 

following paragraph will be included.J 

(d) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected is 

allowed if the replacement equipment is not available providing the following 

conditions are met: 

(i) Equipment supplies have been depleted and suppl i|s:;have;'--beeni 

sufficiently stocked before the supplies were depleted. 

(ii) The repair is made no later than 10 calendar days after delivery of 

the .....re pi acement equipment. 

§XX.X5 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall comply with the test methods and procedures requirements provided in 

this section. 

(b) Monitoring, as required in §XX.X2, §XX.X3, and §XX.X4, shall comply 

with the following requirements: 

37 
P.72 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) Monitoring shall comply with Reference Method 21. 

(2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of 

Reference Method 21. 

(3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of its use 

by the procedures specified in Reference Method 21. 

(4) Calibration gases shall be: 

(i) Zero air (less than iO 0.2 ppm of hydrocarbon in air); and 

(ii) A mixture of methane or n hexane and air at a concentration of 

approximately, but less than, 10,000 ppm methane for agitator seals, 1,000 ppm 

for pumps, and 500 ppm for all other equipment or n hexano. 

(5) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak 

interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in Reference 

Method 21. 

(c) When equipment is tested for compliance with no detectable 

emissions, as required in §XX.X2-2(e), §XX..X2-3(i), §XX.X2-4, §XX.X2-7(f), and 

§XX.X2-ll(f), the test shall comply with the following requirements: 

(1) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) shall apply. 

(2) The background level shall be determined, as set forth in Reference 

Method 21. 

(3) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak 

interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in Reference 

Method 21. 

(4) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration 

indicated by the instrument and the background level is compared with 500 ppm 

38 
P.73 

Draft 7/17/90 

for agitator seals, 50 ppm for pumps, and 25 ppm for all other equipment for 

determining compliance. 

[If response factor is considered, a paragraph will be added here to describe 

how the response factor adjustment will be made.] 

(d)(1) Each piece of equipment within a process unit that can reasonably 

be expected to conceivably contain equipment in VHAP service is presumed to be 

in VHAP service unless an owner or operator demonstrates that the piece of 

equipment is not in VHAP service. For a piece of equipment to be considered 

not in VHAP service, it must be determined that the percent VHAP content can 

be reasonably expected novor rid! to exceed 10 | percent by weight during the 

calendar year. For purposes of determining the percent VHAP content of the 

process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment, procedures that 

conform to the methods described in ASTM Method D 2267 (incorporated by 

refcronco as specified in §61.18) Metfiadfll shall be used. 

(2)(i) An owner or operator may use good engineering judgment rather 

than the procedures in paragraph (1) to determine that the percent VHAP 

content does not exceed -10 § percent by weight, provided that the engineering 

judgment demonstrates that tho VHAP content cloarly docs not oxceed 10 percent 

by weight. When an owner or operator and the Administrator do not agree on 

whether a piece of equipment is not in VHAP service, however, the procedures 

in paragraph (d)(1) shall be used to resolve the disagreement. 

(ii) Conversely, the owner or operator may determine that the VHAP 

content of the process fluid does not exceed 5 percent by weight by, for 

example, accounting for 98 percent of the content and showing that VHAP is 

less than 3 percent. 

39 
P.74 

Draft 7/17/90 

(3) If an owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment is in 

VHAP service, the determination can be revised eely after following the 

procedures in paragraph (d)(1), or by documenting that a change in the process 

or raw materials no longer causes the equipment to be in VHAP service. 

(4) Samples used in determining the percent VHAP content shall be 

representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts the 

equipment, or tho gas being combusted in the flare. 

(e)(1) Roforonco Method 22 shall bo used to determine compliance of 

flaros with tho visible omission provisions of this subpart. 

(2) The presence of a flaro pilot flame shall bo monitored using a 

thermocouple or any other equivalent device to detect tho presence of a flame. 

(3) Tho not heating value of the gas being combusted in a flare shall bo 

calculated using tho following equation; 

HT • M^C t H t 4 

whore; '-HT Not heating value of tho sample, MJ/ocm; whore tho not 

enthalpy per molo of offgas is based on combustion at 

25°C and 760 mm Hg, but tho standard temperature for 

determining the volume corresponding to ono mole is 20"C. 

K Constant, 1.740 x 10- (1/ppm) (g molo/scm) (MJ/kcal), 

whoro standard temperature for (g molo/scm) is 20"C 

€t - Concentration of sample component i in ppm, as measured 

by Roforonco Method 18 of Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 

40 
P.75 

Draft 7/17/90 

and ASTM D2501 67 (roapprovod 1977) (incorporated by 

roforonco as specified in §61.18). 

Ht - Net heat of combustion of sample component i, kcal/g 

molo.—The heats of combustion may. bo determined using 

ASTM D2382 76 (incorporated by roforonco as specified in 

§61.18) if published values arc not available or cannot 

bo calculated. 

(4) Tho actual exit velocity of a flare shall bo determined by dividing 

tho volumetric flowrato (in units of standard tomporaturo and pressure^ as 

determined by Roforonco Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, as appropriate, by tho 

unobstructed (free) cross sectional area of tho flare tip. 

(5) The maximum permitted velocity, V,^, for air assisted flares shall 

bo determined by tho following equation; 

V ^ • 8.76 i 0.7081(HT4 

whoro; V,^ - Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec 

8.706 - Constant. 

0.7084 - Constant. 

4T - Tho not heating value as dotorminod in paragraph (e)(3) of 

this section. Reference methods used in determining: compliance with flares . 

are those required in §60.18. 

(f) The following procedures shall be used to pressure test batch 

product-process equipment to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 

§XX.X4-2. 

(1) The batch product-process equipment train shall be pressurized with 

air, nitrogen or water to the operating pressure of the equipment. The 

41 
P.76 

Draft 7/17/90 

equipment shall not be tested at to a pressure greater than the pressure 

setting of the lowest relief valve setting. 

(2) Once the test pressure is obtained, the air, nitrogen, or water 

source shall be shut off. 

(3) At then end of minutes [hours], the pressure in the batch 

product-process equipment train shall be measured. The change in pressure 

shall be calculated using the following equation: 

where P • change in pressure 

Pf - final pressure 

P< » initial pressure 

(4) The pressure shall be measured using a pressure measurement device 

(gauge, manometer, or equivalent) which has a precision of : in the 

range of test pressure and is capable of measuring pressures up to the relief 

set pressure of the pressure relief device. 

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414).) 

§XX.X6 Recordkeeping requirements. 

[Note: Recordkeeping provisions for batch processes to be added subsequent to 

identification of batch process standards.] 

(a)(1) Each owner or operator subject to tho provisions of this subpart 

shall comply with tho recordkeeping requirements of this section. 

f24 An owner or operator of more than one process unit subject to the 

provisions of this subpart may comply with the recordkeeping requirements for 

these process units in one recordkeeping system if the system identifies each 

42 
P.77 

Draft 7/17/90 

record by eaeh process unit and the program being implemented (e.g., quarterly 

monitoring* quality improvement) for each type of equipment. 

(b) [Note: Most of this paragraph was formerly paragraph (e)] Ex:ce|l 

as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, the following 

information pertaining to all equipment in each process unit subject to the 

requirements in §XX.X2-1 to §XX.X2-H-l| shall be recorded in a log that is 

kept in a readily accessible location: 

(l)(i) A list of identification numbers for equipment (except connectors 

exempt from monitoring and recordkeeping identified in §XX.X2-13) subject to 

the requirements of this subpart and a site layout showing the relative 

location of the equipment in the process unit. 

(ii) A table listing by equipment identification number the line size, 

pressure, and stream service (i.e., light liquid, heavy liquid, or gas) of 

each item of equipment. The table shall also list the monitoring frequency 

and other provisions of this subpart that are being implemented for each item 

of equipment^ 

(iii) Physical tagging of the equipment to indicate that it is in VHAP 

service is not required. Equipment subject to the provisions of this subpart 

may be identified on a plant site plan, in log entries, or by other 

appropriate methods. 

(2)(i) A list of identification numbers for equipment that the owner or 

operator elects to designate for no detectable emissions, as indicated by an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, under tho provisions 

of §§XX.X2 2(o), XX.X2 3(i), and XX.X2 7(f) as specified in the appropriate 

sectjons of this subpart. 

43 
P.78 

Draft 7/17/90 

(ii) The designation of this equipment as subject to the requirements of 

§§XX.X2 2(e), XX.X2 3(1), and XX.X2 7 no detectable emissions requirements 

shall be signed by the owner or operator. 

(3) A list of equipment identification numbers for pressure relief 

devices required to comply with §XX.X2-4(a). 

(4)(i) The dates of each compliance test required in §§XX.X2-2(e|), 

XX.X2-3(i), and XX.X2-4., and 61 242 7(f). 

(ii) The background level measured during each compliance test 

(iii) The maximum instrument reading measured at the equipment during 

each compliance test. 

(5) A list of identification numbers for equipment in vacuum service. 

(be) When each leak is detected as specified in §XX.X2-2, §XX.X2-3, 

§XX.X2-7, am* §XX.X2-8, §XX.X2-11, §XX.X2-12, and §XX.X2-13, the following 

requirements apply: 

(1) A weatherproof and readily visible identification, marked with the 

equipment identification number, shall be attached to the leaking equipment. 

(2) The identification on a valve or flange may be removed after it has 

been monitored for 2 successive months as specified in §XX.X2-7(c) and no leak 

has been detected during those 2 months. 

(3) The identification on equipment, except on a valve or flange, may be 

removed after it has been repaired. 

(ed) When each leak is detected as specified in §XX.X2-2, §XX.X2-3, 

§XX.X2-7, aed §XX.X2-8, §XX.X2-1I, §XXaX2-12, and §XX.X2-13, the following 

information shall be recorded in a log and shall be kept for 2 years, or as 

specified in the facility permit if longerf in a readily accessible location: 

44 
Draft 7/17/90 

(1) The instrument and operator identification numbers and the equipment 

identification number. 

(2) The date the leak was detected and the dates of each attempt to 

repair the leak. 

(3) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak. 

(4) "Above 10,000" if tho maximum instrument reading measured by tho 

methods spocifiod in §XX.X5(a) after each repair attempt is equal to or 

greater than 10,000 ppm. Maximum instrument reading measured by the method 

specified in §XX.X5(b) after it is sucessfully repaired or determined to be 

nonrepairable. 

(5) "Repair delayed" and the reason for the delay if a leak is not 

repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak. 

(6) The signature of the owner or operator (or designate) whose decision 

it was that repair could not be effected without a process shutdown. 

(7) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if a leak is not 

repaired .within 15 calendar days. 

(8) Dates of process unit shutdowns that' occur while the equipment is 

unrepaired. 

(9) The date of successful repair of the leak. 

(e) The following'information shall be recorded for each process unit; 

subject to the requirements of §XX.X2-2 to §XX.X2-13: 

(1) A schedule of monitoring for valves and for flanges. 

(2) The number of leaking pumps, the total number of pumps,f:a^&'t:fie 

percent leaking pumps during each monitoring period. 

45 
P.80 

Draft 7/17/90 

(3) The number of leaking valves, the total number of valves, all 

credits for removed valves, the number of nonrepairable valves, and the 

percent leaking valves during each monitoring period. 

(4) The number of leaking flanges, the total number of monitored 

flanges, all credits for removed flanges, the number of nonrepairable flanges, 

and the percent leaking flanges during each monitoring period. 

(f) The owner or operator of a batch product proces who elects to. 

pressure test the batch product process equipment train to demonstrate 

compliance with this subpart is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs 

(t>), (c), (d), (i), and 1) of this section. Instead, the owner or operator 

shall maintain records of the following informalton in a readily accessible 

location: 

(1) A list of identification numbers for each batch product process 

equipment train used to produce products during the calendar year and the area 

of the facility where the equpment train is located. 

(2) Records demonstrating- the quipment is in use in a batch process 

during the calendar year. Examples of suitable documentation are records of 

time in use for individual pieces of equipment or average time in use for the 

process unit. 

(3) Physical tagging of the equipment to identifiy that 1t is in VHAP 

service and subject to the provisions of this subpart is not required. 

Equipment in a batch product process subject to the provisions of this subpart 

may be identified on a plant site plan, in log entries, or by other 

appropriate methods. 

46 
P.81 

Draft 7/17/90 

(4) The dates of each pressure test required in §XX.X4-2(b), the test 

pressure, and the pressure drop observed during the test. 

(5) Records of any visible, audible, or olfactory evidence of fluid 

loss. 

(g) When a batch product process equipment train does not pass 2 

consecutive pressure tests, the following information shall be recorded in a 

lag and kept for 2 years, or for the period specified in the facility's permit 

if longer, in a readily accessible location: 

(1} The date of each pressure test and the date of each leak repair 

attempt. 

(2) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak. 

(3) The reason for the delay of repair. 

(4) The expected date for delivery of the replacement equipment!-and the 

actual date of delivery of the replacement equipment. 

(5) The date of successful repair. 

(dh) The following information pertaining to the design requirements for 

closed-vent systems and control devices described in §XX.X2-11 shall be 

recorded and kept in a readily accessible location: 

(1) Detailed schematics, design specifications, and piping and 

instrumentation diagrams. 

(2) The dates and descriptions of any changes in the design 

specifications. 

(3) A description of the parameter or parameters monitored, as required 

in §XX.X2-ll(e), to ensure that control devices are operated and maintained in 

47 
P.82 

Draft 7/17/90 

conformance with their design and an explanation of why that parameter (or 

parameters) was selected for the monitoring. 

(4) Periods when the closed-vent systems and control devices required in 

§XX.X2-2, §XX.X2-3, §XX.X2-4, §XX.X2-5, and §XX.X2-9 are not operated as 

designed, including periods when a flare pilot light does not have a flame. 

(5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of the closed-vent systems and 

control devices required in §XX.X2-2, §XX.X2-3, §XX.X2-4, §XX.X2-5, and 

§XX.X2-9. 

(e) The following information pertaining to all equipment subject to the 

requirements in §XX.X2 1 to §XX.X2 11 shall bo recorded in a log that is kept 

in a readily occossiblo location; 

(1) A list of identification numbers for oquipmont subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(2)(i) A list of identification numbers for oquipmont that tho owner or 

operator elects to designate for no detectable omissions, as indicated by an 

instrument reading of loss than 500 ppm above background, under tho provisions 

of §XX.X2 2(e), §XX.X2 3(1), and §XX.X2 7(f). 

(ii) Tho designation of this equipment as subject to tho requirements of 

§XX.X2 2(e), §XX.X2 3(i), or §XX.X2 7(f) shall bo signed by the owner or 

operator. 

(3) A list of oquipmont identification numbers for pressure relief 

devices required to comply with §XX.X2 4(a). 

(4)(i) Tho dates of each compliance test required in §XX.X2 2(e), 

§XX.X2 3(i), §XX.X2 4, and §XX.X2 7(f). 

(ii) Tho background level measured during each compliance tost. 

48 
P.83 

Draft 7/17/90 

(iii) Tho maximum instrument reading measured at tho oquipmont during 

each compliance tost. 

(5) A list of identification numbers for oquipmont in vacuum service. 

(f$) The following information pertaining to all valves subject to the 

requirements of §XX.X2-7(§|) and (hi) and all flanges subject to the 

requirements of §XX.X2-13(f), (g), and (h) shall be recorded in a log that is 

kept in a readily accessible location: 

(1) A list of identification numbers for valves and flanges that are 

designated as unsafe-to-monitor, an explanation for each valve |n|i|fll||i 

stating why the valve or flange is unsafe-to-monitor, and the plan for 

monitoring each valve and flange. 

(2) A list of identification numbers for valves an||;||inge| that are 

designated as difficult-to-monitor, an explanation for each valve ahdCflange 

stating why the valve or flange is difficult-to-monitor, and the planned 

schedule for monitoring each valve and; flangO. 

(3) A 11st: of identification numbers for flanges that are designated as 

unsafe-to-repair and an explanation for each flange stating why the flange is 

unsafe-to-repair. 

(4) A list of identification numbers for flanges that are designated as 

inaccessible and an explanation for each flange stating why the flange is 

inaccessible.: 

(h|) The following information shall be recorded in a log that is kept 

in a readily accessible location: 

(1) Design criterion required in §XX.X2-2(ef)(5) and §XX.X2-3(e)(2) and 

an explanation of the design criterion; and 

49 
P.84 

Draft 7/17/90 

(2) Any changes to this criterion and the reasons for /the changes. 

(4|) The following information shall be recorded in a log that is kept 

in a readily accessible location for use in determining exemptions as provided 

in the applicability section of this subpart and other specific subparts: 

(1) An analysis demonstrating the design capacity of the process unit, 

tnnj 

(2) A statement listing the feed or raw materials and products from the 

process unit and an analysis demonstrating whether these chemicals are heavy 

liquids, and 

(2§) An analysis demonstrating that equipment is not in VHAP service. 

(4|) Information and data used to determine that a piece of equipment is 

not in VHAP service shall be recorded in a log that is kept in a readily 

accessible location. 

(m) The date and duration of each process unit startup and shutdown, and 

each control device malfunction shall be recorded in a log that is kept in a 

readily accesible location. 

(n) Each owner or operator of a an affected process unit subject to thei 

requirements of §XX.X3 shall amintain the following recofds for the period ofi 

the quality improvement program, or for the period specified in the permit for 

the affected process unit, whichever is longer: 

NOTEt ft \* t$BUttd that there will be a separate section in the regulation that will specify the 

specific criteria ef en acceptable at program. The recordkeeping requirements (fven below are preliminary 

based on dfseuseioo* te date. This Bectien is intended te inclement the Ot prograa and not te specify its 

feature*. 

50 
P.85 

Draft 7/17/90 

(1) A description Of the program and a statement of the performance 

(2) Records of all data collected on the pumps or valves subject to the 

requirements of §XX.X3. These records will include at a minimum the following 

inforfflation: 

(1) The date, the instrument and operator identification numbers, and 

the equipment identification number. 

(ii) Maximum instrument reading measured by the method specified in 

§XX.X5£b). 

(iii) If a leak is detected, the repair methods applied in each attempt 

to repair the leak and the maximum instrument reading measured after each 

successful repair or is determined to be nonrepairable. 

(iv) If a leak is not repaired within'lS calendar days after discovery 

of the leak, the reason for the delay and the expected date of successful 

repair. 

(v) Records of materials of construction, manufacturer, manufacturing or 

purchasing tolerances, and any quality assurance procedures.used in purchase,; 

installation or operation of the component. 

[Note: The next 2 paragraphs will be elaborated on after the Ql program is 

defined, i.e., what kinds of analyses would be appropriate.] 

(3) Evaluations of component parameters, services, operation practices; 

or maintenance programs associated with significantly greater leak 

frequencies, which may include analyses of trends or associations between 

equipment service, line pressure, materials of construction, line size, and 

other relevant variables and leak frequency.. 

51 
P.86 

Draft 7/17/90 

(4)(1) Results of bench scale and field evaluations of low emission 

performance technology including assessment of applicability, maintenance 

needed to ensure low emission performance, and specifications necessary for 

quality control of purchased equipment. These evaluations shall Include a 

list of equipment specifications, design criteria, etc., that are candidates 

of performance trial evaluation. 

(ii) Evaluations of operating practices and maintenance programs needed 

to assure continued low emission performance, which may include analyses of 

trends or associations between equipment service, line pressure, materials of 

construction, line size, and other relevant variables and leak frequency. The 

records shall include the data used to assess the effect of operating 

practices and maintenance on the emission performance of equipment. 

(5) Schedule and plan for performance trials of low emission potential 

equipment. 

(6)(i) A schedule and plan for installation of low emission equipment in 

the process unit subject tothe requirements in §XX.X3. 

(ii) Where equipment is not replaced by superior equipment, the owner or 

operator must certify the reasons that use of low emission performance 

equipment is not technically feasible. 

(7) Records indicating that all equipment purchased during the period oi 

the quality improvement program is in compliance with the quality assurance 

requirements in §XX.X3( ) . 

(8) Documentation of operating practices, maintenance programs, and 

personnel training that will be used to achieve low emission performance. 

52 
P.87 

Draft 7/17/90 

(9) Infestation and data to show the company has fewer than 

employees, including employees providing contracted services, and is a small 

business. 

(o) The provisions of §61.14(f) do not apply to process units subject to 

this subpart., 

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414).) 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 

_ • ) 

§XX.X7 Reporting requirements. 

(a)(1) An owner or operator of any piece of oquipmont to which this 

subpart applico a process unit subject to the provisions of this subpart shall 

submit a statement in writing so notifying the Administrator that the 

roquiromonto of §XX.X2, XX.X5, XX.X6, and XX.X7 aro being which of the 

requirements will bo implemented. 

(2) In the case of an existing sewee.process unit or a new source 

process unit which has an initial startup date preceding the effective date, 

the statement is to be submitted within 90 calendar days of the effective 

date, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under §61.11, along with the 

information required under §61.10. If a waiver of compliance is granted, the 

statement is to be submitted on a date scheduled.by the Administrator. 

(3) In the case of new sources process units which did not have an 

initial startup date preceding the effective date, the statement shall be 

submitted with the application for approval of construction, as described in 

§61.07. 

53 
P.88 

Draft 7/17/90 

(4) The statement is to contain the following information for each 

oourco process; unit, except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section: 

(i) Equipment identification number and process unit identification. 

(ii) Typo of oquipmont (for example, a pump or pipeline valvo). 

(iii) Percent by weight VHAP in tho fluid at tho oquipmont. 

(iv) Process fluid state at tho oquipmont (gas/vapor or liquid). Number 

of each equipment type (e.g., valves, pumps) excluding equipment designated 

for no detectable emissions under the provisions of §XX.X2-2 and those in 

vacuum service, 

(viii) Method of compliance with the standard (for example, "monthly 

leak detection and repair" or "equipped with dual mechanical seals"). 

(iv) Planned schedule for each phase of the requirements of this 

subpart. 

(5) The statement is to contain the following enformatian for each 

process unit subject to the requirements in §XX.X4-2(b): 

(i) Batch product process equipment train identification, and 

(ii) Planned schedule for pressure testing the batch product process 

equipment train. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a report shall 

be submitted to the Administrator semiannually starting 6 months after the 

initial report required in paragraph (a) of this section, that includes the 

following information: 

(1) Process unit identification, frequency of monitoring, and specific 

provisions of this subpart being implemented. 

54 
P.89 

•i. 

Draft 7/17/90 

(2) For each meetb monitoring period during the semiannual reporting 

period, 

(i) The number of valves for which leaks were detected, as described in 

§XX.X2 7(b) or §XX.X3 2. the percent leakers, and the total number of valves 

tested; 

(ii) The number of valves for which leaks were not repaired as required 

in . 

(iii) The number of pumps for which leaks were detected as described in 

(iv) The number of pumps for which leaks were not repaired as required 

in . . 

(v) The number of compressors for which leaks were detected as described 

in §XX.X2-3(f). 

(vi) The number of compressors for which leaks were not repaired as 

required in §XX.X2-3(g). 

(vii) The number of flanges for which leaks were detected, the percent 

of flanges leaking, and the total number of flanges tested. 

(viii) The number of flanges for which leaks were not repaired as 

required in „ 

(ix) Th* number of agitator seals for which leaks were detected as 

||||ribed 1ft 

(x) The number of agitator seals for which leaks were not repaired as 

required 1n .. 

(v44xi) The facts that explain any delay of repairs and, where 

appropriate, why a process unit shutdown was technically infeasible. 

55 
P.90 

Draft 7/17/90 

(3) Dates of process unit shutdowns which occurred within the 

semiannual reporting period. 

(4) Revisions to items reported according to paragraph (a) if changes 

have occurred since the initial report or subsequent revisions to the initial 

report. 

Note: Compliance yith the requirements of 961.10(c) is not required for revisions documented under 

this paragraph. 

(5) The results of all performance tests to determine compliance with 

§XX.X2-2(e), §XX.X2-3(i), §XX.X2-4(a), §XX.X2 7(f), §XX.X2-ll(f), §XX.X3-1, 

and §XX.X3-2 conducted within the semiannual reporting period. 

(c) for owners or operators electing to meet the requirements of .§XX.X4NI 

2(b), a report shall be submitted to the Administrator semiannually starting 6 

months after the initial report required in paragraph (a) of this section. 

The semiannual report shall include the following information: 

(1) Batch product process equipment train identification, 

(2) The number of pressure tests conducted, 

(3) The number of pressure tests where the equipment train failed the 

pressure test, 

(4) The facts that explain any delay of repairs, and 

(5) The; results of all performance tests to determine compliance with 

§xx.xa-n<fJ1 

(c) In the first report submitted as rbquirod in paragraph (a) of this 

section, tho report shall include a reporting schedule stating the months that 

56 
P.91 

Draft 7/17/90 

semiannual reports shall bo submittod.—Subsequent reports shall bo submittod 

according to that schedule, unless a revised schedule has been submitted 1n a 

previous semiannual report. 

(d) An owner or operator electing to comply with the provisions of 

§XX.X3 1 and §XX.X2 2 shall notify tho Administrator of tho altornativo 

standard selected 00 calendar days before implomonting either of the 

provisions. 

(e|) An application for approval of construction or modification, 

§61.05(a) and §61.07, will not be required if 

(1) The new source |l||i|||u||| complies with the applicable standard in 

§XX.X2 or §XX.X4~2; 

(2) Tho now source is not part of the construction of a process unit; 

and 

(3|) In the next semiannual report required by paragraph (b) of this 

section, the information in paragraph (a)(4) of this section is reported. 

(e) An owner or operator of a process unit that does not achieve (Phase 

III percent leaker standard for valves! shall notify the Administrator 

within 30 calendar days of initiating the monthly monitoring program underv__ 

or a quality improvement program under . . 

(f) If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of 

the process unit, the reports may be submitted on electronic media. 

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414).) 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number .) 

57 
P.92 

A. ' 

August 23, 1990 

Relationship between this Regulation and Future Regulations 

for Refinery Equipment Leaks 

The standards incorporated in this agreement were established 

by the Negotiating Committee based primarily on data from 

well-controlled ethylene oxide plants and data from a number of 

SOCMI plants. The Committee did not review data from petroleum 

refining processes because they were outside the scope of the 

negotiations, and the Committee did not consider whether the 

numerical standards in this agreement are achievable by refinery 

processes. The Committee recognizes that there are technical 

differences between SOCMI categories and petroleum processes that 

may affect the achievability of the numerical standards 

(including percent leakers). Potential differences include the 

availability and effectiveness of emission control technologies, 

plant shutdown practices, line sizes, process temperatures and 

process pressures, and cost. These differences could work in the 

direction of making the numerical standards adopted by the 

Committee more easily achievable, or less easily achievable, for 

refinery processes. 

The Committee agrees that the framework used for the 

regulation developed during the current negotiation should be 

adopted in the MACT regulation for petroleum refinery equipment 

leaks unless there are sound technical reasons why a different 

framework would be more effective. 

API understands that the numerical standards included in this 

negotiated rule are more stringent than those that would have 

been selected if the rule had provided that exceedences of 

numerical standards, by themselves, constituted violations of the 

Act. API recognizes that this will also be true of the numerical 

standards that will be included in a MACT regulation for refinery 

equipment leaks utilizing the framework of the 

currently-negotiated regulation. 

If EPA develops MACT refinery equipment leak regulations, it 

will conduct a separate rulemaking. Technical differences 

between SOCMI and refinery processes that may affect the 

achievability of the standards will be considered by EPA in the 

refinery equipment leak rulemaking. 
P.93 

August 23, 1990 

Relationship between this Regulation and Future Regulations 

for Refinery Equipment Leaks 

The standards incorporated in this agreement were established 

by the Negotiating Committee based primarily on data from 

well-controlled ethylene oxide plants and data from a number of 

SOCMI plants. The Committee did not review data from petroleum 

refining processes because they were outside the scope of the 

negotiations, and the Committee did not consider whether the 

numerical standards in this agreement are achievable by refinery 

processes. The Committee recognizes that there are technical 

differences between SOCMI categories and petroleum processes that 

may affect the achievability of the numerical standards 

(including percent leakers). Potential differences include the 

availability and effectiveness of emission control technologies, 

plant shutdown practices, line sizes, process temperatures and 

process pressures, and cost. These differences could work in the 

direction of making the numerical standards adopted by the 

Committee more easily achievable, or less easily achievable, for 

refinery processes. 

The Committee agrees that the framework used for the 

regulation developed during the current negotiation should be 

adopted in the MACT regulation for petroleum refinery equipment 

leaks unless there are sound technical reasons why a different 

framework would be more effective. 

API understands that the numerical standards included in this 

negotiated rule are more stringent than those that would have 

been selected if the rule had provided that exceedences of 

numerical standards, by themselves, constituted violations of the 

Act. API recognizes that this will also be true of the numerical 

standards that will be included in a MACT regulation for refinery 

equipment leaks utilizing the framework of the 

currently-negotiated regulation. 

If EPA develops MACT refinery equipment leak regulations, it 

will conduct a separate rulemaking. Technical differences 

between SOCMI and refinery processes that may affect the 

achievability of the standards will be considered by EPA in the 

refinery equipment leak rulemaking.