p.1 

OAR Box 1168 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

109) ll-C-38 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 4/29/2008 11:23:20 AM Sheet 109 of 131 
P.2 

V 

•SOS.M , 

•J- .' f 

UNITED STATES E^VSOINMENTA L PRQTECriO 

Office oi A,r Gudiity Planning and Stan."!; 

Research Frit-Male P,KK. North Carohnn _

;

 7 

12/19/90 

A-89-10 

II-C-38 

^ « LLU. ; 

I 4199! 

' I 

Dear Reg Neg Committee Member: 

Please find enclosed a draft of our "quickie" Federal Register notice 

announcing the results of the negotiations. Accompanying this short notice in 

the FR will be the draft regulation that you already have. 

The EPA plans to have a press briefing on this successful negotiation 

(tentatively on January 9). I understand some or all of the negotiators will 

be asked to attend. We would like to have the FR notice ready to be signed by 

then. I am asking for a quick as possible turnaround review of this short, 

noncontroversial document so that we may have the final package prepared by 

the press briefing. Please get any comments you may have to Jan (919 541-

5254) or me (919 541-5262) by January 2. Our fax number is (919) 541-5661. 

We cannot wait longer and also meet our schedule. Thanks. 

Have a happy hoiiday. 

Rick Colyer 

Enclosure 
P.3 

Draft 12/19/90 

[6560-50] 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

[FRL- ] 

NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 

Equipment Leaks 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of results of rulemaking negotiation. 

SUMMARY: On April 25, 1989 (54 FR 17944), EPA announced its intent to 

form an advisory committee to negotiate issues leading to a new approach for 

regulation of fugitive emissions of volatile organics from equipment leaks 

(pumps, valves, etc.) associated with chemical production process units. A 

meeting with interested parties was held in Washington, D. C. on May 15, 1989, 

to discuss the establishment of such a committee, and on September 12, 1989, 

EPA announced the formation of the committee under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (54 FR 37725). 

The Committee met periodically over a one year period and has agreed in 

principle to the provisions and language of an equipment leak regulation. 

This announcement summarizes the major provisions and concepts of the 

recommended rule. The EPA plans to propose this rule in late 1991 as part of 

a larger rule that will cover other emission points as well as equipment leaks 

at organic chemical plants. 

ADDRESSES: Docket. A docket, number A-89-10, containing information 

considered by the Committee in development of the recommended standards, is 

available for public inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, at Air Docket Section (LE-131), Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 
P.4 

Draft 12/19/90 

U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Janet Meyer or Mr. Rick Colyer, 

telephone (919) 541-5254 or 5262, respectively. The address for both is 

Standards Development Branch (MD-13), Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Fugitive emissions of hazardous organics from process equipment leaks 

(pumps, valves, etc.) contribute significantly to air quality problems. 

Equipment leak emissions have been estimated to account for roughly one third 

of total organic emissions from chemical plants. Moreover, because they are 

released near the ground, the impact from fugitive emissions is 10 to 40 times 

greater than equal releases from stacks. 

Existing regulations adopted under Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air 

Act and in State Implementation Plans (SIP's) have been effective in 

heightening awareness of the significance of the source and in stimulating 

control efforts. The existing rules basically require that equipment in place 

be inspected periodically for leaks with a portable hydrocarbon detector. If 

concentrations in excess of 10,000 parts per million (ppm) are found, the 

component is identified as a "leaker" and maintenance is required. This 

approach is known as "leak detection and repair" (LDAR). 

Studies conducted by EPA in the early 1980s indicated that typical 

uncontrolled chemical plants and refineries have a leak frequency of 11 to 

son 
P.5 

Draft 12/19/90 

12 percent. Maintenance studies indicate this; can be reduced by about 60 to 

70 percent with the current LDAR program. 

Data gathered over the past couple of years on equipment leaks at 

various chemical plants indicate that much lower leak frequencies can be 

achieved. No one specific factor can be identified to achieve these results, 

but leak frequencies in general depend on original design (e.g., number of 

components), age of the process unit, type of equipment selected, quality of 

maintenance, standard operating procedures used by the company, training 

provided to employees, and level of concern over health and safety. 

Attempting to establish an effective regulation for as broad and varied 

a source category as chemical production units presents several challenges. 

Some of these challenges are the inability to determine for all plants how to 

achieve low leak frequency with a simple set of rules, desire expressed by the 

industry to have more flexibility in achieving low leak rates than that 

provided by LDAR alone, data availability limited to only a part of the 

industry, and EPA's need to establish standards under the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) that would be reflective of maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) for equipment leaks. The EPA considered the 

formation of a committee to negotiate a new standard as an appropriate and 

efficient means to address these challenges. 

On April 25, 1989, EPA announced its intention to establish a committee 

to negotiate a new approach for control of volatile organic chemical equipment 

leaks (54 FR 17944), and conducted an initial informational meeting on May 15, 

1989, to determine among potentially interested parties whether negotiation 

would be a desirable approach. The participants at the initial meeting 
P.6 

Draft 12/19/90 

responded favorably to the concept of negotiation, and on September 12, 1989, 

EPA established a negotiating committee (54 FR 37725). The Committee met over 

a period of one year, holding nine 2-day meetings and one 1-day meeting, to 

resolve the various issues related to developing a MACT standard for equipment 

leaks. The Committee members are listed in Appendix A. 

The negotiators originally were to develop standards for equipment leaks 

for 13 source categories that would be affected by EPA's forthcoming hazardous 

organic national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), or 

HON. These source categories included both synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry (SOCMI) and some non-SOCMI source categories, and the 

standards under development would only have applied to 8 organic chemicals. 

Over the course of the negotiations, EPA saw the need to expand this scope to 

include not only the original HON source categories, but also all SOCMI 

processes that used as a reactant or produce one of the 149 organics listed in 

the CAAA list Of 189 hazardous air pollutants. The EPA identified 453 such 

processes. .In addition, EPA announced that petroleum refinery processes would 

not be covered at this time by these standards. 

Following the final negotiating session, EPA drafted the regulatory 

language for comment and review by the Committee members. The Committee also 

agreed to sign an agreement in principle based on the regulatory language, and 

agreed to sign the final agreement after a draft preamble to the regulation 

describing in detail the scope, application, effect, and rationale has been 

prepared and reviewed by the Committee. All Committee members have signed the 

agreement in principle. Appendix B is the regulation in its entirety to which 

they have agreed. Upon signing the final agreement, the Committee members 
P.7 

Draft 12/19/90 

agree to support the standards as long as EPA proposes and promulgates them 

substantively unchanged. 

The consensus agreement reached by the Committee, as spelled out in the 

attached regulatory language, also serves to initiate voluntary action 

previously committed to by nine chemical companies. These companies were 

identified prior to these negotiations by EPA in its Air Toxics Exposure and 

Risk Information System (ATERIS) database as having some plants with 

relatively high health risk. After several meetings between representatives 

of these companies and EPA, the companies agreed to voluntary timely 

implementation of the negotiated standards as soon as the regulatory • 

requirements were available, before formal proposal and promulgation. 

II. Summary of Negotiated Standards 

The following is a general summary of the requirements and concepts of 

the negotiated regulation. It is not a detailed description of the 

provisions, nor does it contain the rationale or basis developed by the 

Committee for the various provisions. The reader is referred to the actual 

negotiated regulatory language (Appendix B) for detail of specific provisions. 

The purpose of this announcement is to make interested parties and 

owners or operators potentially subject to these standards aware of the 

forthcoming regulatory requirements so that they will be better prepared when 

the rule is actually issued. The covered chemicals and processes are listed 

respectively in Sections XX.X8-1 and XX.X8-2 of the negotiated rule (Appendix 

B ). A detailed preamble describing the rationale and basis for the regulatory 

requirements for equipment leaks will accompany the actual proposal of the HON 

rule. The HON proposal, covering equipment leaks and four additional source 
P.8 

Draft 12/19/90 

categories, is scheduled for proposal in Fall 1991, with promulgation 

scheduled for Fall 1992. 

Applicability. The standards would apply to equipment in volatile 

hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service 300 or more hours per year associated 

with any of the 453 processes listed in the negotiated regulation. They would 

also apply to equipment handling specific chemicals for a limited number of 

listed non-SOCMI processes. The equipment affected are valves, pumps, 

connectors, compressors, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, sampling 

connection systems, instrumentation systems, agitators, product accumulator 

vessels, and closed-vent systems and control devices. In VHAP service means 

that equipment contains or contacts a fluid that is 5 percent or greater 

VHAP's. 

The standards would also stagger the applicability of the standards to 

the covered processes over an 18-month period. The rule creates 5 groups of 

covered processes. The rule would apply to the first group 6 months after 

promulgation. Thereafter, the rule would become applicable to another group 

every 3 months for a period of a year. 

Pumps and Valves. The regulation is structured similarly for pumps and 

valves. Standards for both would be implemented in three phases and both 

standards have associated quality improvement programs (QIP's). The first and 

second phases for both types of equipment consist of a LDAR program, with 

lower leak definitions in the second phase.' The LDAR program involves a 

periodic check for organic vapor leaks with a portable instrument; if leaks 

are found, they must be repaired within a certain period of time. In the 

third phase, the periodic monitoring (a work practice standard) would be 
P.9 

Draft 12/19/90 

coupled with a target performance level (i.e., allowable percent leaking 

components). Process units not meeting the target performance level would be 

required either to monitor the equipment more frequently or to implement a 

QIP. 

Pumps would require monthly monitoring using an instrument and weekly 

visual inspection. Valves, would initially require quarterly monitoring, but 

the length of time between monitoring could be increased if the percent 

leaking valves demonstrate incrementally better performance, as specified in 

the rule, over the target performance level. 

Special provisions apply to pumps in food/medical service, pumps in 

polymerizing monomer service, "leakless" pumps, and unsafe- and difficult-tomonitor valves. Owners or operators can take partial credit in the 

calculation of percent leaking valves for valves permanently removed from the 

i 

process units. Plants with less than 250 valves in VHAP service are subject 

only to LDAR and not the target performance level. A limited number of 

"nonrepairable" valves, i.e., those that cannot be repaired without a process 

unit shutdown, may be excluded in the calculation of percent leaking valves. 

If the target performance levels for a type of equipment are not 

achieved, based on a rolling average of monitoring results, owners or 

operators must, in the case of pumps, enter into a QIP, and in the case of 

valves may either enter into a QIP or implement monthly LDAR. The QIP is a 

concept that enables plants exceeding the target performance levels to 

eventually achieve the desired levels without incurring penalty or being in a 

noncompliance status. As long as the requirements of the QIP are met, the 

plant is in compliance. The QIP basically consists of information gathering, 

7 

Hi 
P.10 

Draft 12/19/90 

determining superior performing technologies, and replacing poorer performers 

with the superior technologies until the target performance levels are 

achieved. 

Connectors. The rule also provides for performance standards for 

connectors in terms of percent leaking connectors in each process unit. The 

negotiated standard for connectors is not phased in, i.e., the performance 

level applies as soon as the rule is effective for the process unit. 

Consistent achievement of the target performance level would result in 

monitoring being required less frequently. Failure to achieve the target 

performance level would cause the plant to remain in an annual monitoring 

cycle. 

Special provisions would apply to connectors that are inaccessible or 

unsafe to monitor or repair. A limited allowance for "nonrepairable" 

connectors would be allowed if disturbed connectors are monitored within 3 

months. Credits for connectors removed from the process unit would be allowed 

in the calculation of percent leaking connectors (or performance level). 

Other equipment. Standards for compressors, open-ended lines, pressure 

relief devices, sampling connection systems, and closed vent systems and 

control devices remain essentially unchanged from existing regulations (See 

40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V) . Agitators must meet LDAR requirements, but not 

target performance levels. Pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy 

liquid service; instrumentation systems; and pressure relief devices in liquid 

service are subject to instrument monitoring only if evidence of a potential 

leak is found through sight, sound, or smell. Instrumentation systems are 

cam 
P.11 

Draft. 12/19/90 

bundles of smaller pipes and tubing that carry samples of process fluids to be 

analyzed to determine process operating conditions. 

Delay of repair. Under certain conditions delay of repair beyond the 

required 15 days may be acceptable. Examples of these situations include 

where 1) a piece of equipment cannot be repaired without a process unit 

shutdown, 2) equipment is taken out of VHAP service, 3) emissions from repair 

will exceed emissions from delay of repair until the next shutdown, 4) pumps 

with single mechanical seals are replaced with dual mechanical seals, and 5) 

valves assembly supplies have been depleted from stocks. 

Alternative standards. Generally, an alternative means of emission 

limitation may be used if an owner or operator can demonstrate emission 

reductions equal to or better than that required by the standards. Specific 

alternative standards have been written for batch processes and enclosed 

buildings. Batch processes can choose either to meet similar standards to 

those for continuous processes, with monitoring frequency prorated to time in 

use, or to periodically pressure test the entire system. Enclosed buildings 

may forego monitoring if the building is kept under a negative pressure and 

all emissions are routed through a closed vent system to an approved control 

device. 

Test methods and procedures. The standards would retain the use of 

Method 21 to detect leaks. Method 21 requires a portable organic vapor 

analyzer to monitor for leaks from equipment in use. The observed screening 

value may require adjustment for response factor if the weighted response 

factor of the stream exceeds a specified multiplier. Method 18 is to be used 

to determine organic content of a process stream. Test procedures using 
P.12 

Draft 12/19/90 

either a gas or a liquid for pressure testing the batch system are specified 

to detect for leaks. 

Recordkeeping. The standards would require a readily accessible 

recordkeeping system. Records required include identification of equipment 

that would be covered by the standards, identification of equipment that is 

found to be leaking during a monitoring period and when it is repaired, 

testing associated with batch processes, design specifications of closed vent 

systems and control devices, test results from performance tests or testing 

process streams for organic content, and information required by equipment in 

QIP. Other recordkeeping requirements also apply, and the reader is referred 

to that section of the negotiated rule for more detail (see Appendix B). 

Reporting. Owners and operators would be required to submit an initial 

report that describes the source and all equipment subject to these standards. 

Every six months, a report must be submitted that summarizes the results of 

monitoring and performance tests conducted during that period, changes to the 

process unit, changes in monitoring frequency or monitoring alternatives, 

and/or initiation of a QIP. Reports can be submitted on electronic media 

where acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator. 

Date Deputy Administrator 

1 0 J 

i 
P.13 

Draft 12/19/90 

Appendix A. List of Negotiators 

Neqot i ator/Affi1i ati on 

Robert L. Ajax, EPA 

Alfred Bickum, International Institute for Synthetic Rubber Producers 

Bruce Bowers, Standard Chlorine 

Linda Curran, Amoco 

David Doniger/Allen Hershkowitz, Natural Resources Defense Council 

David Dunn, Sterling Chemical 

Larry Goodheart/Ellen Seigler, American Petroleum Institute 

Jack Kace, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association 

Thomas Kittleman, Chemical Manufacturers Association 

Robert Majewski, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

Les Montgomery, Texas Air Control Board 

HarvelRogers, Jefferson County (Kentucky) Air Pollution Control District 

Gustave Von Bodungen, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Facilitator 

Philip J. Harter, Esq., Consultant to EPA 

Observer 

Nicolas Garcia, Office of Management and Budget 

11 

i 
Appendix B 

[Regulation] 

12 

P.14 

Draft 12/19/90