# Date: October 30, 2007

To: Karen Rackley, EPA/SPPD

From: Kristin Parrish, Davi d Randall, and Jeff Coburn

Subject: Final Impacts Analysis for Regulator y Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in

Petroleum Refineries

I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reconstructed, and modified proce ss units in the petroleum refining industry in the fifth year after

proposal. The options presented in this memorandum are defined as follows:

1) Lowering the leak definitions fo r pumps (2,000 ppm) a nd valves (500 ppm);

2) Option 1 plus monitoring of connectors; and

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

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

Option Emission

Reduction

(tons/yr) Total Annual

Cost without

Recovery

Credit ($/yr) CostEffectiveness

without Recovery

Credit ($/ton) Total Annual

Cost with

Recovery

Credit ($/yr) CostEffectiveness

with Recovery

Credit ($/ton)

1 13 26,000 2,100 20,000 1,500

2 105 1,900,000 18,000 1,800,000 18,000

3 107 1,900,000 18,000 1,900,000 17,000

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

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

commence construction after November 7, 2006.

II. Lower Leak Definitions for Pumps and Valves

A. Number of Impacted Sources

We estimate that there are approximately 150 currently operating petroleum refineries,

including asphalt refineri es, according to the Oil and Gas Journal 1 

# and the Energy Information

Administration. 2 

# Based on 2004 reported crude capacity, we estimate that about two-thirds of

the existing refineries are classi fied as “large” (i.e., crude capacity of 50,000 barrels per day or

greater) and the remaining one-third are classi fied as “small” (i.e., crude capacity below

50,000 barrels per day).

To project the number of new and reconstruc ted process units at petroleum refineries

over the next five years, we reviewed inform ation on construction projects reported in the Oil

and Gas Journal between 2000 and 2005. However, this re view revealed that most of the

construction projects undertaken over the past five years were hydrotreating units and sulfur

recovery units installed in response to new low-sulfur fuel standards; this tr end is not expected to

be representative of future project s. Also, in the past five year s, there have only been a limited

number of new and reconstructed processes beyond those required to meet the new fuel

standards. However, the new energy bill, which includes some capital investment incentives, is

expected to trigger several si gnificant capacity expansion projects. For example, Wynnewood

Refining in Oklahoma announced an expansion project that will significantly expand the

refinery’s capacity. 3 

# BP also recently announced a major renovation project at its refinery in

Whiting, Indiana. 4 

# Following proposal, Motiva Ente rprises announced plans to begin

construction on an expansion that will more than double the capacity at th eir refinery in Port

Arthur, Texas. 5 

# Based on discussions with refinery repres entatives, future projects such as these

are expected to encompass the full range of refine ry process units. In other words, the process

mix of new projects is expected to look like the overall process mi x of existing refineries. Based

on the above information, we assumed that the new and reconstructed projects over the next five

years would be equivalent to th ree complete refineries (crude unit, vacuum distillation unit,

cracking and reforming units, etc.), two large refi neries and one small refinery. This assumption

is equivalent to assuming an overall refining i ndustry growth rate of 2 percent per year.

2

# We then estimated the average number of each type of process unit at one refinery using

information about the number of proce ss units across the industry from the Oil and Gas Journal

and information collected for the development of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Petroleum Refi neries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic

Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU). 6 

# Based on

knowledge of the typical inlet and outlet streams for each process unit, we then estimated the

fraction of the equipment associated with those process units that are expected to be in VOC

service and in non-hazardous air pollutant (non-HAP) VO C service. Using these calculations

and the growth rate described above, we estim ate that there will be 217 new or reconstructed

petroleum refining process units in the next five y ears, that 195 of those process units will be in

VOC service, and that 70 of those process units will be in non-HAP VOC service (equivalent to

about 36 percent of the units in VOC service).

To determine the total (nationwide) number of pumps and valves in these process units,

we used the equipment counts presente d for small and large refineries in Locating and

Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Benzene

. 7 

# We assumed that the proportion of small to

large new and reconstructed process units would be equal to the proportion of small to large

existing refineries. In other words, we assume d that two-thirds of the new and reconstructed

process units would be at large refineries and used the associated equipment counts for those

process units. We then calcu lated the number of pumps and va lves in VOC service and in nonHAP VOC service using the fractions described in the previous para graph. All the calculations

described up to this point are documented in Attachment A.

The impacts of Option 1 will be different for the equipment in each process unit

depending on what Federal rules, regulations, an d consent decrees alrea dy require monitoring at

these lower leak definitions. (Some State regula tions may require chemical plants and petroleum

refineries to meet lower leak definitions as well. Therefore, the actual cost and emissions

impacts of Option 1 may be less than our estimate , but the cost-effectiveness of Option 1 will not

be affected.) To account for the differences in baseline conditions (e .g., initial costs incurred,

current leak definition), we developed six models representing new and reconstructed equipment

and process units subject to the NSPS or more st ringent regulations. Assuming that 60 percent

of the equipment and process units are new a nd 40 percent are recons tructed, we developed

separate models for new and reconstructed equi pment and process units to accurately estimate

initial costs. Reconstructed units that are covered under an LDAR program prior to

reconstruction will have fewer initial costs, part icularly those associated with identifying the

equipment, updating the tracking soft ware, and other related tasks. We also estimated that on a

refining capacity basis, 76.5 percen t of the petroleum refining indus try is subject to a consent

decree. 1

, 8 

# (See Section II.C for a mo re detailed explanation of how the models differ.)

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

pumps and valves. Therefore, we estimated the nu mber of valves in gas service and light liquid

service and the number of pumps in light liquid service. We also estimated the number of

process units for each model in order to calculate the administrative costs that are determined on

a process unit basis. Table 1 explains how the numbers of process units and equipment in each

model were developed and shows the number of pro cess units per model as an example. Table 2

shows the numbers of process units and equipm ent calculated for each model. Attachment B

3

# includes a pictorial representati on of the model development, again using the number of process

units as an example.

B. Emission Estimates

The analysis uses industry-supplie d data to the extent possible. We started with the data

that the American Petroleum Institute (API) summarized in the 1997 report Analysis of Refinery

Screening Data

. 9 

# The API report summarizes leak frequenc ies (in leak concentration ranges) for

leak detection and repair (LDAR ) programs that have a leak de finition of 1,000 ppm and require

quarterly monitoring. To estimate baseline emissi ons (i.e., LDAR programs with leak definitions

of 10,000 ppm for pumps and valves under NSPS and leak definitions of 2,000 and 1,000 ppm

for pumps and valves, respectively, under the NE SHAP for Petroleum Refi neries (40 CFR part

63, subpart CC) (MACT)) and emissions for Op tion 1 (i.e., leak definitions of 500 and 2,000

ppm), we used data from the API report (inclu ding the distribution of leaking equipment over

seven concentration ranges), the correla tion equations found in Table 2-10 of the Protocol for

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates 10 

# (Protocol document), and the following information and

assumptions:

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

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

geometric mean, an average concentration wa s chosen for each range one-third of the

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

ppm);

 the data presented in the API report for va lves leaking above 500 ppm when the leak

definition is 1,000 ppm will reas onably represent the percent of valves leaking above

500 ppm when the leak definition is 500 ppm

 ninety percent of the equipment with emission rates below 500 ppm have a

concentration of 0 ppm and 10 percent of the equipment actually have leak

concentrations between 0 and 500 ppm; and

 the data provided in the API report for pumps leaking above 1,000 ppm when the leak

definition is 1,000 ppm will r easonably represent the percentage of pumps leaking

above 2,000 ppm when the leak definition is 2,000 ppm.

The relevant data from the Protocol document and Analysis of Refinery Screening Data are

reproduced in Attachment C.

Before performing our calculations to estim ate emissions for the different monitoring

programs as described above, we a pplied a factor of 1.7 to the orig inal API leak frequency values

(“NEIC factor”). The factor was based on a co mparison of industry versus U.S. EPA National

Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) data on leak frequency for valves at 17 refineries in

Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essentia l to Reducing 'Fugitive Emissions' Under Leak

Detection and Repair Programs

. 11 

# Specifically, the NEIC factor represents the 10 th 

# percentile of

the data set (i.e., 90 percent of the NEIC leak fr equencies were at least 1.7 times higher than the

leak frequencies reported by the refineries). We chose to use a conservative factor because the

report did not include information such as the le ak definition used by each of the refineries, and

all 17 refineries may not be representative of th e entire industry. A mo re rigorous statistical

4

# analysis provided in a separate memorandum show s that the actual leak fractions are at least

2.6 times higher than the industry-m easured leak fractions at the 99 percent confidence interval.

We did not use this higher fact or in the final impacts analysis because it did not change the

regulatory conclusions. Furthermore, a value of 1.7 for the NEIC factor is more conservative,

which ensures that emissions estimates are not ov erestimated due to any limitations in the data

used in the statistical analysis. 12



# Our emissions calculations are documented in Attachment D. The first step was to

calculate leak frequencies for pumps and valv es above the leak definition under the various

LDAR programs (baseline and Option 1). The API data include leak frequencies for gas and

light liquid valves leaking a bove 500 ppm and 1,000 ppm as well as a leak frequency for pumps

leaking above 1,000 ppm. These values are based on quarterly monitoring. The other leak

frequencies needed for this analysis are as follows:

 Leak frequencies for semiannual and annual monitoring of valves at 500 and 1,000

ppm

 Leak frequencies for valves at 10,000 ppm at various monitoring frequencies

 Leak frequency for monthly m onitoring of pumps at 1,000 ppm

 Leak frequencies for quarterly and m onthly monitoring of pumps at 10,000 ppm

The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3 and Attachment D.

Valves – 500 and 1,000 ppm, Semiannual and annual monitoring

To estimate leak frequencies for valves at m onitoring frequencies other than quarterly for

leak definitions of 500 and 1,000 ppm, we used th e numbers of each type of equipment found to

be leaking more than once in f our consecutive quarters as provi ded in the API report (“repeat

leakers”) to determine the numbe r of unique leaks found during a particular monitoring event.

This approach ensures that each leaking valv e is counted only once for semiannual and annual

monitoring scenarios. The calculations can be described by Equations 1 and 2:

VF S 

# =

Q Q

Q 

# VL VF

VR VR VR VL *

3 *2

3 *2

4 3 2 

# ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

−−− 

# Equation 1

where

VF S 

# = Leak frequency for se miannual monitoring, percent

VF Q 

# = Leak frequency for quarterly monitoring, percent

VL Q 

# = Number of valves leaking per quarter

VR 2 

# = Number of valves leaking tw ice in four consecutive quarters

VR 3 

# = Number of valves leaking three times in four consecutive quarters

VR 4 

# = Number of valves leaking four times in four cons ecutive quarters

5

# VF A 

# = 

# ( ) ( )( ) 

# ( )

Q Q

Q 

# VL VF

VR VR VRVL **3*2 *4

4 3 2 

# −−− 

# Equation 2

where

VF A 

# = Leak frequency for annual monitoring, percent

VF Q 

# = Leak frequency for quarterly monitoring, percent

VL Q 

# = Number of valves leaking per quarter

VR 2 

# = Number of valves leaking tw ice in four consecutive quarters

VR 3 

# = Number of valves leaking three times in four consecutive quarters

VR 4 

# = Number of valves leaking four times in four consecutive quarters

Valves – 10,000 ppm

The average leak frequency for valves from the NEIC data is 1.28 percent; we assumed

that these valves are subject to the existing NSPS or equivalent requ irements and that half of the

valves monitored were in gas service and the othe r half were in light liquid service. Based on

information provided by the petroleum refining industry, 13 

# we estimated that the average valve

monitoring frequency for fac ilities currently subject to NSPS subpart GGG is semiannual

monitoring. Based on the relationshi p between the leak frequency of valves in gas/vapor service

and valves in light liquid service presented in th e API report, we calculated leak frequencies of

1.18 percent for gas valves and 1.38 percent for li ght liquid valves when monitoring is conducted

semiannually. To estimate the leak frequenc y for quarterly monito ring at 10,000 ppm, we

assumed that the ratio of the leak frequencies for quarterly monitoring to semiannual monitoring

is equal to the ratio of the leak frequencies fo r monitoring at 1,000 ppm. The leak frequency for

annual monitoring was estimated using the same approach.

Pumps – 1,000 ppm

For quarterly monitoring of pumps at 1,000 pp m, we selected the leak frequency value

directly from the API data (2.77 percent). We used this leak frequenc y and data in the API

report on the number of repeat l eakers to estimate the leak frequency for a monthly monitoring

program. If there were no repeat leakers, the l eak frequency for a mont hly program would be

equal to one-third of the leak frequency under the quarterly monitoring program (i.e., 2.77

percent/3 = 0.92 percent). However, because of re peat leakers, the actual leak frequency for a

monthly monitoring program will be higher than 0.92 percent. To estimate the additional

number of leakers that would be found under a monthly monitoring program, we first assumed

that all of the pumps in the API study that leak ed in each of four consecutive quarters (i.e., 12

pumps) actually begin leaking in th e first month after repair attemp ts, so that this same number

of leakers also would be found in the second and third months of a mont hly monitoring program.

We then considered the number of pumps in th e API study that leaked twice over four quarters

(i.e., 207 pumps). Under a monthly monitoring program, one-third of these leakers (i.e., 69

pumps) would be found to be leaking in each of th e three months. We assumed that after repair,

these pumps would still leak two times per year. Thus, on average, one-sixth of them (i.e., 11.5

pumps) would leak again in each of the six mont hs after repair. We assumed that this same

pattern applies to the 11.5 pumps that are repaired after being found leaking in the second month,

so that one-sixth of them (i.e., 1.9 pumps) will be found leaking in the third month. We followed

6

# a similar strategy to estimate the additional num ber of leakers from the group of pumps that

leaked three times in four quarters in the AP I study. Finally, we a dded the total number of

additional leakers to the numb er of leakers under the quarter ly monitoring program. This

number divided by the number of leakers in the quarterly monitoring program is the escalation

factor that was multiplied by 0.92 percent. This approach may slightly overstate the leak

frequency for a monthly monitoring program becau se the repaired pumps would not necessarily

continue leaking the same number of times per year. Thus, the actual leak frequency for a

monthly monitoring program may be between 0.92 percent and the es timate of 0.98 percent

calculated using the approach described a bove. This approach can be represented

mathematically using Equation 3:

Q Q Q

M 

# PL PF PR PRPR PRPR PL

PF *

3 *2

4*4*34*3 *2

6*6*36*3 *2

4 3 3 2 2



# ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

+++++

= 

# Equation 3

where

PF M 

# = Leak frequency for monthly monitoring, percent

PF Q 

# = Leak frequency for quarterly monitoring, percent

PL Q 

# = Number of pumps leaking per quarter

PR 2 

# = Number of pumps leaking twi ce in four consecutive quarters

PR 3 

# = Number of pumps leaking three times in four consecutive quarters

PR 4 

# = Number of pumps leaking four times in four consecutive quarters

Pumps – 10,000 ppm

We calculated the quarterly leak frequenc y value for pumps at 10,000 ppm assuming that

the ratio of the leak frequency for valves leaking greater than 10,000 ppm at a leak definition of

10,000 ppm to the leak frequency fo r valves leaking greater than 10,000 ppm at a leak definition

of 1,000 ppm is equal to the same ratio for pumps (all monitored quarterly). Specifically, this

value was calculated using Equation 4:



# ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

+

= 2 * 000,1; 000,10;

000,1; 000,10;

000,1 000,10 LL LL

G G



# VF VF

VF VF

PF PF Equation 4

where all variables are for equi pment leaking greater than 10, 000 ppm and monitored quarterly

and

PF 10,000 

# = Leak frequency for pumps with a leak definition of 10,000 ppm, percent

PF 1,000 

# = Leak frequency for pumps with a leak definition of 1,000 ppm, percent

(from API data)

7

# VF G;10,000 

# = Leak frequency for gas valves with a leak definition of 10,000 ppm,

percent

VF G;1,000 

# = Leak frequency for gas valves with a leak definition of 1,000 ppm, percent

(from API data)

VF LL;10,000 

# = Leak frequency for light liquid valves with a leak definition of 10,000

ppm, percent

VF LL;1,000 

# = Leak frequency for light liquid valv es with a leak definition of 1,000 ppm,

percent (from API data)

We assumed that the ratio of leak frequency va lues for pumps at a leak definition of 10,000 ppm

monitored monthly to those monito red quarterly is equal to the ra tio of pumps monitored at those

frequencies with a leak definition of 1,000 ppm.

Once we calculated the necessary leak freque ncies, the next step was to calculate

emission factors. Our general approach was to calculate an emission rate for each of seven

concentration ranges using the estimated represen tative screening value for that range in the

appropriate correlation equa tion from the Protocol document. We then scaled the distributions

presented in the API data based on the leak frequency and multiplied the percent of pumps or

valves leaking in each range by the emission rate for that range and summed these values to

estimate the emission factor.

There are four sets of calculations associat ed with determining emission factors, two for

Option 1 (Set 1 and Set 2) and two for baseline (Set 3 and Set 4):

Set 1 – Leak frequency distribution prio r to monitoring, option leak definition

The appropriate subsequent leak frequenc ies (shown in bold type in Table 3) and

the NEIC factor are used to determine act ual leak frequency di stributions at leak

definitions of 500 or 1,000 ppm, depending on the type of equipment, just prior to

monitoring. Although an emi ssion factor is shown in Attachment D, the purpose

of this Set is solely to determine the leak frequency distribution for Option 1.

Set 2 – Average leak frequency, control at option leak definition

The Set 1 leak frequencies for ranges that are above the appropriate proposed leak

definition for each type of equipment are divided by 2 to estimate the average leak

frequency between monitoring events fo r that control program. The resulting

emission factor for this set is used to calculate emissions fo r Option 1 conditions.

Set 3 – Leak frequency prior to m onitoring, baseline leak definition

The appropriate baseline leak frequencies (shown in italics in Table 3) are used to

scale the API data and obtain an estimat e of the leak frequency distribution at

baseline (e.g., a leak definition of 10,000 ppm for process units complying with

subpart GGG). Although an emission factor is shown in Attachment D, the

purpose of this Set is solely to determ ine the leak freque ncy distribution at

baseline.

Set 4 – Average leak frequency, c ontrol at baseline leak definition

The Set 3 leak frequencies in concentr ation ranges above the baseline leak

definition are divided by 2 to estimate the average leak frequency between

monitoring events at that leak defi nition (e.g., 10,000 ppm for process units

8

# complying with subpart GGG). The resulti ng emission factor for this set is used

to calculate emissions for baseline conditions.

The last row of each set of calcu lations shows the emission rate fo r each range of concentrations.

As described previously, we calculated the overall emission rates by multiplying the emission

rate for each range by the pe rcent of equipment in that range and summing those seven

intermediate values. The resulting emission factors are summarized in kilograms per hour

(kg/hr) per piece of equipment in the first table in Attachment E. (As a side note, we first

compared the results of Set 1 for each type of equipment to the emissions documented in the API

report, and the results were similar. Theref ore, we concluded that the procedure could

reasonably approximate the emissions fo r baseline and for the two options.)

Finally, we calculated total emission reductions by determining the difference between

the baseline and Option 1 emission factors appr opriate for each model and multiplying those

values by the number of pumps a nd valves in that model. Th e nationwide emission reductions

are the sum of the emission reductions for each mode l. All of the emission reduction values are

presented in Tables 5 and 6.

There is one final set of calculations below the emission factor calculations, which is

used to calculate the initial leak frequencies for the models in which the leak definitions change

from baseline to Option 1. The initial leak freq uency is the leak frequency at the lower leak

definition the first time the equipment are monitore d at that definition rath er than the baseline

leak definition. Set 5 uses the subsequent leak frequency for base line conditions to scale the leak

frequency distribution calculated in Set 3. We then calculated the initial leak frequency by

summing the leak frequencies in all ranges above the new leak definition. For example, the

baseline subsequent leak frequency for gas valves subject to subpart GGG is 1.18 percent; to find

the initial leak frequenc y the first time those valves are monitored at 500 ppm, we added the

leaks found in the ranges 500 to 1,000 ppm and 1,000 to 10,000 ppm, for an initial leak

frequency of 4.76 percent. The initial leak freque ncies used in the analysis are presented in the

third table of Attachment E.

C. Cost Analysis

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

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

. 14



# The methodology has been tailored specifically for this analys is of the petroleum refining

industry. In other words, we estimated costs only for pumps and valves (including associated

planning and administrative costs) because all ot her costs would be constant for implementing

Option 1. We also assumed there would be no initial costs for purchas ing software to track

monitoring or renting or purchasing monitoring instruments because petroleum refiners have

already purchased or made arrangements for those items under the current LDAR requirements.

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

our cost estimates. Several constant values used in this analysis were developed for previous

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

Leaks in Non-SOCMI Process Units for HON

. Other constants were de veloped or estimated as

follows:

9

# Equipment-based costs

 

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

$17.70 per piece of equipment includes field identification of subject equipment;

creating and issuing drawings ; creating data forms and tags; tagging of the pumps,

valves, and connectors; and populating the software. The value also assumes that

contractors are perf orming this work. 15



#  

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

piece of equipment includes revising or develo ping drawings to identify equipment in

heavy liquid service. 16



#  

# Monitoring fee (equipment other than conn ectors): The value of $1.50 per piece of

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



#  

# Wage (refinery maintenance) and overhead factor: maintenance and repair: We are

assuming that monitoring and many first attempts at repair will be performed by

contractors. The value of $23.30 per hour is the mean wage rate for Standard

Occupational Classification (SOC) Code 49-9012 (control and valve installers, except

mechanical doors) in NAICS 324 ( Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing ) in

the May 2006 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment and Wage Estimates. 18



# (This wage rate is for refinery personnel, not contractors, so it is likely to be higher

than the actual wage rate.) We are al so assuming a 200 percent overhead factor

(which correlates to an overhead factor of 3) based on the overhead factor used for

performance testing contractors in the Continuous Emission Mon itoring System Cost

Model (summarized in Section 2, Chapter 4.4 of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost

Manual 19 

# ).

 

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

performed by refinery personnel. The overhead factor of 1.6 corre lates to the average

overhead factor of 60 per cent suggested in Section 1, Chapter 2.5 of the EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual for combined payrol l and plant overhead.

 

# Planning and training labor ch arge: The value of $68.78 is a weighted average for

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

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

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

The technical rate is based on the mean wage for environmental engineers ($38.29),

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

($59.15), and the clerical rate is based on the mean for all office and administrative

support occupations ($17.46). A 60 percent overhead factor was added to these rates.

 

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

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

# )] /

[(1+i) n 

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

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

we assumed a life span of 10 years. For both factors, we assumed an interest rate of 7

percent.

 

# VOC Recovery Credit: The value of $600 per megagram (Mg) is an approximate

conversion from an estimate of $1.50 per ga llon. That estimate assumes that the

value of recovered VOC would fall between the average of the pr ice of crude ($56.45

10

# per barrel on January 20, 2006) and the na tionwide average pri ce of gasoline ($1.849

per gallon without taxes in January 2006). 20



# Process unit-based costs

 

# Planning and training for LDAR program, current NSPS level and current MACT

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

initial administration, planning, and tr aining to implement a SOCMI-based LDAR

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

to Equipment Leak Analysis for Am ino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP ). 21



#  

# Administrative and reports for LDAR program, current NSPS level and current

MACT level: Equipment Leak Analysis for PET Facilities Subject to the Group IV

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

LDAR program that includes connectors; 22 

# the value of 250 hours per process unit is

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

LDAR programs with a nd without connectors in Equipment Leak Analysis for Amino

and Phenolic Resins NESHAP

.

The last step in the analysis set-up was to de termine values for parameters that influence

each of the six models, such as initial costs and reporting costs. Table 4 summarizes the values

and parameters defined for each model. One of these parameters is the monitoring frequency.

All models have monthly monitoring for pumps at baseline because all of the applicable rules or

consent decrees require monthly monitoring. Monthly monito ring of pumps is also assumed for

Option 1 because other rules with leak definitions of 2,000 ppm also require monthly monitoring.

The monitoring frequency for valves is quarterly for some models and semiannual for others,

depending on the applicable requirements.

For the models “New CD” and “Reconstr ucted CD,” we assumed the monitoring

frequency would be quarterly for valves both at baseline and under Option 1. Most consent

decrees require quarterly monitoring for valves, and many do not allow any quarterly monitoring

periods to be skipped based on the leak fr equency. For the m odels “New MACT” and

“Reconstructed MACT,” we assumed the monitoring frequency would be semiannual for valves

both at baseline and under Option 1. The MACT allows less frequent monitoring for valves in

new and reconstructed process units depending on the percent of valv es determined to be leaking

(see §63.648(c)(2) and Table 8 to subpart CC to 40 CFR part 63). Annual monitoring is allowed

if the leak frequency is less than 2 percent, se miannual monitoring is a llowed for if the leak

frequency is less than 3 percent, and quarterly monitoring is allowed if the leak frequency is less

than 4 percent. As shown in Table 3, leak frequencies for valves are greater than 2 percent when

monitored annually under an LDAR program with either a 1eak definition of 1,000 or 500 ppm

(baseline and Option 1, respectively), which suggests that for an average process unit,

semiannual monitoring would be required.

For the models “New NSPS” and “Reconstr ucted NSPS,” we assumed that the “skip

period” monitoring provisions in §60.483-2 would be followed. As noted in the discussion of

the average leak frequency for valves at base line, we assumed that the baseline monitoring

frequency for valves is semiannual. At the lower leak definitions of Option 1, we estimated that

the leak frequencies would increase but would remain less than 2 percent for semiannual

11

# monitoring (see Table 3). Therefore, we assume d that most valves would continue to be

monitored semiannually. See Attachment G for detailed costs for each of the six models.

III. Monitoring of Connectors



# A. Number of Impacted Sources

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

and the six models described in Section II.A. The number of connectors used in the analysis is

shown in Table 2; we note that similar to th e analysis for pumps and valves, we focused on

connectors in gas and light liquid service. No Federal regulations currently require petroleum

refineries to include connectors in their LDAR programs. Theref ore, we anticipate that Option 2

will affect all of the new and reconstructed process units in this analysis.

B. Emission Estimates

We estimated the emissions from leaking c onnectors using the procedures described in

Section II.B with different leak frequencie s and a few additional assumptions. Because

petroleum refiners are not currently required to monitor connectors, we assumed that baseline

emissions per connector are the same across all si x models. We assumed that the initial leak

frequency in Table G-2 of the Protocol document (1.7 percent) reasonably represents connectors

at baseline conditions becau se this is the only av ailable leak frequency data for connectors at

refineries subject to the existi ng NSPS. We did not escalate th is leak frequency by the NEIC

factor because the monitoring that generated the data in the Protocol document was assumed to

be conducted in a manner consistent with monitoring conducted by NEIC.

The subsequent leak frequency for connectors is based on the data in the API report and

the assumptions that monitoring is conducted annua lly. The API report includes leak frequencies

for connectors in gas service a nd light liquid service that comply with LDAR programs that

require quarterly monitoring and a leak definition of 1,000 ppm. Similar to valves, we assumed

that the data presented in the API report fo r connectors leaking above 500 ppm will reasonably

represent the percent of connectors leaking abov e 500 ppm when the leak definition is 500 ppm.

We also assumed that half of the affected connecto rs are in gas service and half are in light liquid

service, so we averaged the two leak frequenc ies. To estimate the leak frequency for annual

monitoring, we used a simplified version of Equation 2 that assumes that multiplying the

quarterly leak frequency by 4 resu lts in an annual leak frequency that is 10 percent high (i.e., 10

percent of the leaking connectors leak more than once in a year). The re sulting subsequent leak

frequency is 0.81 percent.

Once we calculated the necessary leak freque ncies, the next step was to calculate

emission factors. We assumed that half of the connectors are flanges and half are other types of

connectors. Therefore, we calculated the emissi on rate in each concentration rate by averaging

the flange and connector correl ation equation results. We then used the same approach as

described in Section II.B, although we only needed three sets of cal culations (Set 1 and Set 2 to

estimate the Option 2 emissions and Set 3 to esti mate baseline emissions). Set 4 and Set 5 are

not needed because the baseline for connectors is no control. We calcu lated the overall emission

rates by multiplying the emission rate for each range by the percent of equipment in that range

12

# and summing those seven intermediate values. Th e resulting emission factors are summarized in

kilograms per hour (kg/hr) per piece of equipment in the first table in Attachment E.

Finally, we calculated total emission reductions by determining the difference between

the baseline and Option 1 emission factors appr opriate for each model and multiplying those

values by the number of connectors in that mode l. The nationwide emission reductions are the

sum of the emission reductions for each model. All of the emission reduction values are

presented in Tables 5 and 6.

C. Cost Analysis

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

The methodology has been tailored specifically for this analys is of the petroleum refining

industry. To calculate the cost of Option 2, we estimated costs only for connectors (including

associated planning and administ rative costs) and then added th e connector costs to the costs

associated with lowering the leak definition for pumps and valves.

In addition to the unit costs provided in Section II.C, we estimated costs as follows:

Equipment-based costs

 

# Monitoring fee (connectors): Although we are not aware th at monitoring contractors

charge a higher fee for connectors than for other equipment, industry noted that

connectors are more difficult to monitor than valves. 23 

# Therefore, we decided to use

a value of $2.50 per connector to account for any additional potential difficulties

associated with monitoring connectors. This value likely overstates the actual

monitoring costs slightly but does no t change the regulatory conclusions.

Process unit-based costs

 

# Planning and training for LDAR program, including connectors: The value of 340

hours per process unit is based on the estima te for initial administration, planning,

and training to implement an LDAR program that includes connector monitoring for

greater than 500 total pie ces of equipment (documented in Attachment 7 to

Equipment Leak Analysis for Am ino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP ).

 

# Administrative and reports for LDAR progr am, including connectors: The value of

300 hours per process unit is from Equipment Leak Analysis for PET Facilities

Subject to the Group IV Po lymers and Resins NESHAP

.

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

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

 

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

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

monitoring in-house or conduct m onitoring to verify repairs, it is likely that an

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

connectors.

13

#  

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

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

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

increases, these fees increase in a stair-ste p fashion, eventually reaching a constant

fee for unlimited additional equipment. We suspect that nearly all (if not all)

facilities already have enough equipment to be charged the top fee, so adding

connectors would not drive up the costs.

IV. Monitoring of Open-Ended Lines or Valves



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

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

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

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

data from the National Enforcement Investigatio ns Center (NEIC) docum enting leaks from OEL

that currently are subject to standards that requi re the use of a cap, plug, blind flange, or second

valve to control emissions from leaks. 24 

# Industry also provided additional data on monitoring

and repair of OEL at petroleum refineries. 25

, , 26 27 

# These data were used to estimate baseline

emissions for the impacts analysis. We anticipat e that Option 3 will affect all of the new and

reconstructed process units in th is analysis; no Federa l regulations currently require petroleum

refineries to include OEL in their LDAR programs.

A. Number of Impacted Sources

To estimate the number of OEL impacted nationw ide, we used the analysis described in

Section II.A (although we did not allocate the OEL to the six m odels because OEL in all new

and reconstructed process units w ould be affected, and there is no difference in the costs for new

versus reconstructed process units). As menti oned previously, we estimated that there will be

195 new and reconstructed refinery process units in VOC service ove r the next five years. The

number of OEL in these process units was estimat ed to be 7,349 based on the estimates of the

number of OEL for different types of process units at small and large model refineries, the

weighted distribution of the diffe rent types of process units at an average refinery, and the

fraction of OEL per process in VOC service. This analysis is base d on monitoring OEL in

gas/vapor service and light liqui d service (not OEL in heavy li quid service). Based on data

collected prior to proposal of subpart CC to 40 CFR part 63 (presented in Attachment A),

73 percent of all valves, pumps, and flanges are in gas/vapor and light liquid service. Since OEL

are in contact with the same t ypes of fluid as other equipment, we assumed that 73 percent of

OEL, or 5,365 OEL, are also in gas/vapor or light liquid service. Finally, we assumed that

5 percent of OEL are in sampling connection sy stems and would therefore not be monitored,

leaving a total of 5,097 affected OEL. The rationale for not monitoring OEL in sampling

connection systems is provided below.

These OEL counts were derived from a su mmary of equipment counts supplied by the

industry about 15 years ago in res ponses to an information collection request that was distributed

during development of the MACT standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. However, recentlyprovided industry data included OEL counts that are orders of magnitude higher than those

earlier counts. 25

- 27 

# They also are at least an order of magnitude higher than the counts that would

14

# be obtained using models on page 6-3 of the Background Information Document for the

proposed standards in subpart GGG. 28 

# The reason for the discrepancy is not clear. We

conducted a sensitivity analysis as part of the revised analysis to assess the impact of higher

counts and found that the emissions and emissi on reduction increase in direct proportion with

number of OEL, but the costs increase at a slower rate.

B. Emission Estimates

The data from NEIC included 157 leaking O EL at various screening values, which we

subdivided into six concentration intervals. A representative sc reening value for each interval

(e.g., 500 ppm to 1,000 ppm) was calculated as the ar ithmetic average of the screening values for

OEL leaking in that interval from the NEIC data set. These representative screening values were

plugged into the correlation e quation for connectors in Table 2-10 of the Protocol document to

estimate the leak rate associated with that scr eening value. The fraction of OEL with screening

values less than 500 ppm, but not zero, is not available from the NEIC monitoring data.

Therefore, all OEL with screen ing values less than 500 ppm were represented with the default

zero leak rate. Industry also provided additional leak fre quency data for OEL. 25

, 27 

# The baseline

leak frequency was estimated to be 2.3 percent, th e highest value provided in the industry data.

(Using the average of the data ra ther than the maximum leak fr equency would result in smaller

emission reductions with little reduction in cost; the maximum leak frequency results in a bestcase cost-effectiveness.) We then scaled the fractions of OEL leaking in each interval above

500 ppm in the NEIC data such that the overall pe rcent leaking was 2.3 percent. We multiplied

each fraction by the corresponding leak rate for e ach concentration range to estimate weighted

average leak rates and calculated the baseline emission estimate by summing those weighted leak

rates.

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

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

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

uncapped open-ended line. We acknow ledge that there are no direc tly applicable equipment leak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fall somewhere between those fo r uncapped OEL and connectors.

We estimated the baseline emissions for OEL using the uncapped OEL correlation

equation and compared them to the baseline em ission estimates generated using the correlation

for connectors. The baseline emission estimat es for petroleum refi neries using the OEL

correlation versus the connectors correlation we re 3.24 Mg/yr (3.57 tons/yr) versus 3.45 Mg/yr

(3.80 tons/yr), respectively. These values, whic h are within 7 percent of each other, along with

15

# the likely scenarios for which OEL will leak, strongly suggest th at the connectors correlation

provides a reasonable proxy for esti mating leaks from capped OEL.

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

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

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

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

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

(since the tightened cap or plug is likely to be remove d the day after a repair). The remaining

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

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

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

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

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

memorandum.

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

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

that 2.3 percent (the same percentage as at base line) will be leaking. We made this assumption

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

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

this analysis, however, we assumed that operato rs would continue to install caps and other

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

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

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

at the same frequency as the valv es in a process unit, we assumed for this analysis that on

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

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

is 2.3 percent. On the other hand, only half of the OEL that are opened annually will be opened

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

one-half of the baseline level, or 1.15 percent. Finally, we assumed that OEL opened biennially

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

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

shutdown. Therefore, the assumed emission redu ction is 100 percent an d the subsequent leak

frequency is 0 percent. These assumptions may ove rstate the actual subseque nt leak frequencies,

so the repair costs may be slightly overstated.

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

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

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

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

option is 1.2 percent. To estimate the percent reduction in emissions, we assumed that OEL are

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

halfway through each month).

Semiannual monitoring will affect each openi ng scenario differently. For example,

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

16

# have been last opened in October, November, or December, and 2.3 percent of them are leaking.

We assume that the monitoring ev ent locates all the leaks and th ey are subsequently fixed.

However, during the quarter, each of these OEL is opened, so by the end of March, 2.3 percent

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Equation 5, which we used to estimate the em ission reductions for OEL that are opened more

frequently than they are monitored.

PR = %100*

M 2 O

M

1

M M

M



# ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

−

− 

# Equation 5

where

PR = percent reduction in emissions from baseline

M M 

# = number of months be tween monitoring events

O M 

# = number of months betw een times an OEL is opened

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

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

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

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

be opened. On average, thos e that are opened in the previ ous semiannual period would have

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

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

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

prevented (for a 75 percent reduction). This reasoning can be de scribed by Equation 6, which we

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

are opened.

PR = 

# %100*

O M*5.0 1

M M 

# ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

− Equation 6

where

PR = percent reduction in emissions from baseline

M M 

# = number of months be tween monitoring events

O M 

# = number of months betw een times an OEL is opened

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

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

17

# the results of these calculations. The nationw ide emission reduction is estimated to be

2.2 tons/yr, as shown in Tables 5 and 6.

C. Cost Analysis

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

costs include costs for identifying and integrat ing OEL into the monitoring program, initial

monitoring, and repair of initial leakers. Annual costs include capital recovery for initial costs,

periodic monitoring costs, costs to repair leaking equipment, a nd additional time to prepare

semiannual reports.

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

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

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

gas/vapor or light liquid servic e that are not part of sampli ng connection systems because, as

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

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

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

replacing a worn plug, or reinst alling a cap properly. We assu med that 5 percent of the leaks

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

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

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

changes in the leak definitions for pumps and valves.

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

Pollution Control Cost Manual, assuming an interest rate of 7 percent and a process life of

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

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

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

credit for the material that is not emitted. As described in Section II.C, the credit is $600/Mg for

emission reductions at petroleum refineries.

V. Alternate Leak Definition for Valves



# We also estimated the incremental impacts of lowering the leak defini tion for valves from

the 500 ppm level in Option 1 to 100 ppm. The nu mber of affected valv es in each of the six

models is the same as calculated in Section II.A. The procedures used to calculate the emission

reduction and cost estimates were similar to the procedures described above for a leak definition

of 500 ppm. Details of the calcu lations for this option are provid ed in the following paragraphs

and Attachment I.

As described previously, we calculated leak frequency values for semiannual monitoring

and repair of leaks at leak definitions of 10,000, 1,000, and 500 ppm. The best fit for these

values was a logarithmic curve, and we used this curve to extrapolate the trend and estimate the

percent of valves leaking at 100 ppm. These values were calculated to be 2.45 percent for gas

valves and 2.25 percent for light liquid valves. Because these values are greater than 2.0 percent,

we concluded that these valves w ould require quarterly monitoring. We assumed that the ratio of

18

# the leak frequency for semiannua l monitoring to the le ak frequency for quarterly monitoring at

100 ppm is equivalent to the same ratio at 500 ppm.

For this analysis, we assumed that the di stribution of leaking valves above 500 ppm

remained the same as for the analysis with a l eak definition of 500 ppm, so the additional leaking

valves were all assumed to have a magnitude between 100 ppm and 500 ppm. Emission

reductions were calculated as described in Sec tion II.B; the only additio nal calculation needed

was the initial leak frequency for reconstructed and modified process unit s subject to a consent

decree. See Attachment I for the emission f actor calculations. The incremental emission

reduction, or the emission reduction achieved by lowering the valve leak definition from 500 to

100 ppm, is 8.1 tons per year.

The unit costs for this analysis are the same as described in Section II.C, and the cost

calculations are shown in Attachment I. The total cost to re pair valves leaking above 100 ppm is

greater than repairing valves l eaking above 500 ppm (Option 1) becau se more valves need repair.

In addition, monitoring costs are higher because the additional leaking va lves raise the average

leak frequencies for semiannual monitoring to grea ter than 2 percent. Therefore, all process

units are expected to monitor quarterly, not just those process units at refineries subject to a

consent decree. The incremental cost, or the co st incurred by lowering the valve leak definition

from 500 to 100 ppm, is $130,000 per year. The cost-effectiveness of achieving the additional

emission reductions is $16,000 per ton of VOC. Because this cost effectiveness value is high,

we recommend not lowering the leak defi nition below the level in Option 1.

VI. Results



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

Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Detailed results are also presented in Attachment J. Results of the

emissions reductions and annual costs of both options are shown for all six models. As

discussed in Section II.A, there are no emissions reductions or increased costs under Option 1 for

process units subject to a consent decree. On ly the impacts on the process units subject to

MACT for new sources or subpa rt GGG affect the Option 1 cost -effectiveness result. All

process units show emissions re ductions and increased costs fo r Options 2 and 3. Without

considering recovery credit, cost-effectiveness ranges from $2,100/ton of VOC reduced under

Option 1 to $18,000/ton of VOC reduced under bot h Option 2 and Option 3. When recovery

credits are included, the cost-effectiveness ranges from $1,500/ton of VOC reduced under

Option 1 to $18,000/ton of VOC reduced under Opti on 2; the cost-effectiveness for Option 3 is

$17,000/ton. Increasing the tota l number of OEL by a factorof 20 decreases the costeffectiveness for Option 3 slightly to $16,000/ton.

19Table 1. Development of Process Unitand Equipment Counts for Six ModelsModelBasis forApplicabilityServiceMost StringentRequirement atBaselineCalculation of Number ofProcess Units and EquipmentaNumber ofProcessUnits1“New CD”ConstructionTotal VOCConsent decree= X * CD * N892“New MACT”ConstructionHAP40 CFR part 63,subpart CC= X * (1 – CD) * HAP * N183“New NSPS”ConstructionNon-HAPVOC40 CFR part 60,subpart GGG= X * (1 – CD) * (1 – HAP) * N104“Reconstructed CD”Reconstruction orModificationTotal VOCConsent decree= X * CD * R605“ReconstructedMACT”Reconstruction orModificationHAP40 CFR part 63,subpart CC= X * (1 – CD) * HAP * R126“Reconstructed NSPS”Reconstruction orModificationNon-HAPVOC40 CFR part 60,subpart GGG= X * (1 – CD) * (1 – HAP) * R7aVariables are defined as follows:X = Total number of process unitsor equipment (e.g., pumps, valves)CD = Fraction of refinery process units subject to consent decree (0.765)HAP = Fraction of processunits processing HAP (0.64)N = Fraction of process units subject to GGGa through construction (0.60)R = Fraction of process units subject to GGGathrough reconstruction ormodification (0.40)20Table 2. Number of Affected Process Units and Equipment in the Six ModelsModelNumber of:“New CD”“NewMACT”“NewNSPS”“ReconstructedCD”“ReconstructedMACT”“ReconstructedNSPS”TotalProcess Units89181060126.6195Gas Valves14,0142,8371,4749,3431,89298230,543Light Liquid Valves28,2235,4983,18418,8153,6652,12361,508Light Liquid Pumps80215888535105591,748Gas Connectors33,1696,7393,46422,1134,4932,31072,288Light Liquid Connectors61,92612,0806,97041,2848,0534,647134,960Gas and Light LiquidOELa5,097aExcludes OEL in sampling connection systems21

# Table 3. Summary of Leak Frequency Values a



# Monitoring Frequency Monthly Quarterly Semiannual Annual

Component and Leak Definition Leak Frequency, percent



# Pumps

10,000 ppm 0.88 2.47

1,000 ppm 0.98 

# 2.77

Gas Valves

10,000 ppm 0.61 1.18 2.32

1,000 ppm 0.88 1.69 3.31

500 ppm 1.00 1.91 

# 3.73

Light Liquid Valves

10,000 ppm 0.72 1.38 2.70

1,000 ppm 0.86 1.65 3.23

500 ppm 1.03 1.97 

# 3.83

Connectors

Baseline 1.7

500 ppm 0.81



# a Italic font indicates baseline leak frequencies used in this analysis.

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

22Table 4. Model Parameters for Eachof the Petroleum Refinery ModelsModel“New CD”“New MACT”“New NSPS”“ReconstructedCD”“ReconstructedMACT”“ReconstructedNSPS”Leak definition:PumpsaValvesConnectors2,000500N/A2,000500N/A10,00010,000N/A2,000500N/A2,000500N/A10,00010,000N/AMonitoringfrequency:PumpsValvesConnectorsMonthlyQuarterlyN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlyQuarterlyN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AInitial leakfrequency/ costsYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyNo – Initial costswould have beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionNo – Initial costswould have beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionNo – Initial costswould have beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionPlanning andtraining costs320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit

BaselineAdministrativereport costs250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit23Table 4. (Continued)“Reconstructed“Reconstructed“ReconstructedModel“New CD”“New MACT”“New NSPS”CD”MACT”NSPS”Leak definition:PumpsaValvesConnectors2,000500N/A2,000500N/A2,000500N/A2,000500N/A2,000500N/A2,000500N/AMonitoringfrequency:PumpsValvesConnectorsMonthlyQuarterlyN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlyQuarterlyN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AMonthlySemiannualN/AInitial leakfrequency/ costsYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyNo – Initial costswould have beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionNo – Initial costswould have beenincurred atconstruction orreconstructionPartial – Onlyincludes initialcosts associatedwith loweringleak definitionsfrom 10,000 ppmPlanning andtraining costs320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit320 hours perprocess unit

Option 1Administrativereport costs250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit250 hours perprocess unit24Table 4. (Continued)“Reconstructed“Reconstructed“ReconstructedModel“New CD”“New MACT”“New NSPS”CD”MACT”NSPS”Leak definition:PumpsaValvesConnectors2,0005005002,0005005002,0005005002,0005005002,0005005002,000500500Monitoringfrequency:PumpsValvesConnectorsMonthlyQuarterlyAnnualMonthlySemiannualAnnualMonthlySemiannualAnnualMonthlyQuarterlyAnnualMonthlySemiannualAnnualMonthlySemiannualAnnualInitial leakfrequency/ costsYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyYes – Programstarts at set leakdefinitions;initial leakfrequency issame assubsequent leakfrequencyPartial – Onlyincludes initialcosts for addingconnectors toprogramPartial – Onlyincludes initialcosts for addingconnectors toprogramPartial – Onlyincludes initialcosts associatedwith loweringleak definitionsfrom 10,000 ppmand addingconnectorsPlanning andtraining costs340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit340 hours perprocess unit

Option 2Administrativereport costs300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unit300 hours perprocess unitaCost analysis performed with pump leak definition of 1,000 ppm; see Section II.C of this memorandum.25Table 5. Summary of Impacts for PetroleumRefineries Not Including Recovery CreditsFactorNew CDNewMACTNew NSPSReconstructedCDReconstructedMACTReconstructedNSPSIndustryTotalcBaseline costs, $/yra2,500,000670,000250,0001,400,000310,000140,0005,300,000Emission reduction,tons/yr01.26.400.784.313Option costs, $/yrb2,500,000670,000260,0001,400,000310,000150,0005,300,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr07,4006,40006,4006,30026,000

Option 1Cost effectiveness, $/tonVOC removedN/A6,3001,000N/A8,1001,5002,100Emission reduction,tons/yr429.511286.37.3105Option costs, $/yrb3,300,000840,000350,0002,000,000430,000210,0007,200,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr850,000180,000100,000570,000120,00069,0001,900,000

Option 2Cost effectiveness, $/tonVOC removed20,00019,0009,10020,00019,0009,40018,000Emission reduction,tons/yr107Option costs, $/yrb7,200,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr1,900,000

Option 3Cost effectiveness, $/tonVOC removed18,000aCosts are only initial costs (if applicable) and ongoing costs for pumps and valves.bCosts are only ongoing costs for pumps, valves, connectors, and OEL; initial repair costs for pumps, valves, and connectors (if applicable); and planning andtraining costs to implement the Option requirements.cTotals may not sum exactly due to rounding.26Table 6. Summary of Impacts for Petroleum Refineries Including Recovery CreditsFactorNew CDNewMACTNew NSPSReconstructedCDReconstructedMACTReconstructedNSPSIndustryTotalcBaseline costs, $/yra2,500,000670,000250,0001,400,000310,000140,0005,300,000Emission reduction,tons/yr01.26.400.784.313Option costs, $/yrb2,500,000670,000260,0001,400,000310,000140,0005,300,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr06,7002,90006,0003,90020,000

Option 1Cost effectiveness, $/tonVOC removedN/A5,700450N/A7,6009201,500Emission reduction,tons/yr429.511286.37.3105Option costs, $/yrb3,300,000840,000350,0002,000,000420,000210,0007,100,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr830,000170,00094,000550,000120,00065,0001,800,000

Option 2Cost effectiveness, $/tonVOC removed20,00018,0008,60020,00018,0008,80018,000Emission reduction,tons/yr107Option costs, $/yrb7,100,000Annual cost beyondbaseline, $/yr1,900,000

Option 3Cost effectiveness, $/tonVOC removed17,000aCosts are only initial costs (if applicable) and ongoing costs for pumps and valves.bCosts are only ongoing costs for pumps, valves, connectors, and OEL; initial repair costs for pumps, valves, and connectors (if applicable); and planning andtraining costs to implement the Option requirements.cTotals may not sum exactly due to rounding.27

# VII. References



# 1 . Stell, J., Ed. “2004 Worldwide Re fining Survey.” December 20, 2004. Oil and Gas

Journal . (Available online only:

http://www.ogj.com/resourcecenter/survey.cfm#worldref .)

2 . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy In formation Administration. June 2005. Petroleum

Supply Annual 2004, Volume 1 . DOE/EIA-0340(04)/1.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrol eum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annu

al/psa_volume1/historical/ 2004/psa_volume1_2004.html

.

3 . OGJ Editors. October 24, 2005. “OGJ Newsletter.” Oil & Gas Journal , Vol. 103, Issue

40. “Oklahoma refinery e xpansion planned,” p. 9.

4 . BP Global. September 20, 2006. “Midwest in vestment at Whiting, Indiana refinery also

brings potential to add about 1.7 million gallons per day of motor fuels.” Press Release.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle .do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7022964

.

5. Motiva Enterprises LLC. September 21, 2007. “Motiva Port Arthur Refinery to Become

Largest Refinery in United St ates.” Press Release.

http://www.motivaenterprises.com/home/Framework?siteId=motiva-en&FC2=/motivaen/html/iwgen/motiva_media_center/press_releases/2007/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/motivaen/html/iwgen/motiva_media_center/press_releases/2007/port_arthur_expansion_092107

.html

.

6 . U.S. EPA, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards. June 1998. Petroleum

Refineries – Background Information for Propos ed Standards: Catalytic Cracking (Fluid

and Other) Units, Catalytic Reform ing Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units . EPA-453/R98-003.

7 . U.S. EPA, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards. June 1998. Locating and

Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Benzene . EPA-454/R-98-011.

8 . U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Compliance and

Enforcement: Cases and Settlements.” http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/

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

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

Publication Number 310.

10 . U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Pla nning and Standards. November 1995. Protocol for

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

28

# 11 . U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. October 1999.

Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Esse ntial to Reducing 'Fugitive Emissions' Under

Leak Detection and Repair Programs

.

12 . Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI Internationa l, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30,

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

Petroleum Refining Process Units

.

13 . Dee, N. March 16, 2006. NSPS VV GGG indus try cost-effectiveness data. Email to

Karen Rackley, USEPA. Do cket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for PET facilities Subje ct to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP . Docket No. A92-45, Item No. IXc-B-1.

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

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

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

.

18

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

Employment Statistics: May 2006 Employment and Wage Estimates

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

.

19 . U.S. EPA, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Sta ndards. January 2002. EPA Air

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

20 . Stell, J., Ed. “Statistics.” February 6, 2006. Oil and Gas Journal , Vol. 104, Issue 5.

“OGJ Gasoline Prices” and “World Crude Prices,” p. 65.

21 . Memorandum from K. Meardon, Pacific Environmental Servi ces, Inc., to J. Schaefer,

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

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

19, Item No. II-B-11.

22 . Memorandum from K. Meardon, Pacific Environmental Se rvices, Inc., to Group IV

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

29

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

VIc-B-1.

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

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

24 . Wilwerding, J. June 14, 2007. Refine ry Plug Monitoring Data from the National

Enforcement Investigations Center. Tr ansmitted via email to Karen Rackley.

25 . Chittim, R.A. August 8, 2007. Public Comment submitted by American Petroleum

Institute, National Petrochemical and Refi ners Association, and Western States

Petroleum Association. Do cket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0077.

26 . Greene, A. August 7, 2007. Public Comment submitted by Citgo Petroleum

Corporation. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0078.

27 . Hamilton, K. August 8, 2007. Public Comment submitted by Marathon Petroleum

Company LLC. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0079.

28 . U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Pla nning and Standards. November 1982. VOC

Fugitive Emissions in Petroleum Refini ng Industry: Background Information for

Proposed Standards . EPA-450/3-81-015a.

30

# Attachment A

Projection of Affected SourcesEstimation of number of new refinery process units and total components nationwide over the next 5 years. Used in all four models to estimate nationwide impacts.Assumptions: new processes reflect overall refinery processes3 new refineries' worth of processes per year / 150 refineries2 % new/modified processes per year15 new refineries' worth of processes over 5 yearsAssume: 10 large refineries5 small refineriesEach refinery consists of:VOCnon-HAPVOC VOCnon-HAPVOC1 Crude Distillation 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.30.3 Alkylation (sulfuric acid) 1 0.7 0.3 0.210.3 Alkylation (HF) 1 0.7 0.3 0.211 Catalytic Reforming 1 0.1 1 0.10.3 Hydrocracking 0.8 0.1 0.24 0.032 Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining 1 0.3 2 0.60.8 Catalytic Cracking 1 0.3 0.8 0.240 Thermal Cracking (visbreaking) 0.8 0.1 0 00.4 Thermal Cracking (coking) 0.8 0.1 0.32 0.040.6 Hydrogen Plant 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.060.4 Asphalt Plant 0.1 0 0.04 01 Product Blending 1 0.3 1 0.31.3 Sulfur Plant00000.9 Vacuum Distillation 0.6 0.3 0.54 0.273 Full-Range Distillation 1 0.4 3 1.20.5 Isomerization 1 0.8 0.5 0.40.2 Polymerization 1 0.5 0.2 0.10.05 MEK Dewaxing00000.1 Other Lube Oil Processes00000.3 Aromatics 1 0 0.3 0Total No. Processes over 5 years216.75Total No. Processes over 5 years with at least one component in VOC service 195Total No. Processes over 5 years with components in non-HAP VOC service 70Fraction Unit by Typeof SrvcFraction Comp byType of SrvcNewProcessEstA-1Total components across all new process unitsGasLightLiquidHeavyLiquidLightLiquidHeavyLiquidCompressors GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquid GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquidCrude Distillation 2415 5655 6060 190 180 30 100 80 145 6310 12595 12730 945 140Alkylation (sulfuric acid) 993 2664 51 90 15 7.5 57 34.5 6 2530.5 5928 2977.5 135 42Alkylation (HF) 465 2475 477 58.5 28.5 6 45 52.5 3 1440 5700 1242 159 54Catalytic Reforming 3790 5000 2305 160 45 45 105 125 15 8255 11250 4980 615 120Hydrocracking 1320 2515.5 1383 84 49.5 9 43.5 42 6 2811 5421 2455.5 1024.5 99Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining 5480 7140 6180 190 170 60 230 110 210 11680 16180 15000 1180 220Catalytic Cracking 2960 3756 5360 148 152 24 120 104 132 6704 9748 10872 504 152Thermal Cracking (visbreaking)00000 00000000 0Thermal Cracking (coking) 1056 1584 1554 66 60 8 46 52 66 3028 3636 4082 426 56Hydrogen Plant 2310 471 0 51 2160 24 36 840 0 1884 1122 0 378 138Asphalt Plant 544 840 500 26 16 4 22 48 18 734 1312 1800 128 108Product Blending 1085 5215 2870 130 155 25 140 190 170 3420 8630 6435 405 150Sulfur Plant 1677 2249 2255.5 143 78 32.5 71.5 624 149.5 4712.5 7540 4569.5 611 110.5Vacuum Distillation 2304 1089 4401 45 135 18 54 31.5 45 4729.5 1768.5 10683 72 81Full-Range Distillation 7155 21525 3960 525 120 90 285 300 150 19425 48795 11790 1920 270Isomerization 1495 2380 550 67.5 30 15 92.5 50 12.5 2580 5127.5 1932.5 197.5 55Polymerization 482 1265 179 24 4 1 24 29 59 958 1600 367 39 25MEK Dewaxing 245.75 839.5 115 23.25 14.75 2.75 19 6.5 10 951 2306.5 895.25 4.75 7.75Other Lube Oil Processes 185.5 309 475.5 8.5 18.5 4 10.5 8.5 22.5 263.5 340.5 1384.5 48 12Aromatics 1137 1500 691.5 48 13.5 13.5 31.5 37.5 4.5 2476.5 3375 1494 184.5 36Sum components 37,099.3 68,472.0 39,367.5 2,077.8 3,444.8 419.3 1,532.5 2,765.0 1,224.0 84,892.5 152,375.0 95,689.8 8,976.3 1,876.3Sum VOC Srvc 30,542.6 61,508.1 32,511.7 1,747.7 1,263.2 338.2 1,319.8 1,279.4 964.4 72,287.7 134,959.6 79,093.8 7,349.2 1,433.2Non-HAP VOC Svc 10,440.4 22,557.4 10,468.6 627.0 573.5 113.7 487.7 496.0 325.1 24,543.2 49,379.0 27,266.9 2,327.5 495.9Pressure Relief ValvesFlangesOpenendedLinesSamplingConnectionsProcess UnitValvesPumpsNewProcessEstA-2Source: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Benzene, US EPA OAQPS, RTP, NC EPA-454/R-98-011, June 1998.Reference 142Small Model RefineryaProcess Unit GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquidLightLiquidHeavyLiquidCompressors GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquid GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquidCrude Distillation 75 251 216 8 82 6 6 5 164 555 454 39 10Alkylation (sulfuric acid) 278 582 34 18 10 1 12 15 4 705 1296 785 20 16Alkylation (HF) 102 402 62 13 3 2 12 13 0 300 1200 468 26 8Catalytic Reforming 138 234 293 8 53 5 3 3 345 566 732 27 6Hydrocracking 300 375 306 12 929441038 892 623 25 10Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining 100 208 218 5 52 5 3 5 290 456 538 20 6Catalytic Cracking 186 375 450 13 142 8 8 7 490 943 938 8 8Thermal Cracking (visbreaking) 206 197 0 7 00 4 0 0 515 405 0 0 4Thermal Cracking (coking) 148 174 277 9 8 2 7 16 13 260 322 459 13 8Hydrogen Plant 168 41 0 3 02 4 2 0 304 78 0 8 4Asphalt Plant 120 334 250 5 8 2 5 10 9 187 476 900 16 6Product Blending 67 205 202 6 11 1 10 6 22 230 398 341 33 14Sulfur Plant 58 96 127 6 6 3 3 88 15 165 240 345 50 3Vacuum Distillation 54 26 84 6 62 2 5 2 105 121 230 16 4Full-Range Distillation 157 313 118 7 42 5 4 6 171 481 210 20 6Isomerization 270 352 64 9 2 2 7 10 1 432 971 243 7 8Polymerization 224 563 15 12 0 1 10 5 3 150 450 27 5 7MEK Dewaxing 145 1208 200 35 39 3 10 14 4 452 1486 2645 19 17Other Lube Oil Processes 153 242 201 7 52 5 5 5 167 307 249 60 6Aromatics 138 234 293 8 53 5 3 3 345 566 732 27 6aRefineries with crude charge capacities less than 50,000 bbl/sd.Large Model RefineryaProcess Unit GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquidLightLiquidHeavyLiquidCompressors GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquid GasLightLiquidHeavyLiquidCrude Distillation 204 440 498 15 14 2 7 5 12 549 982 1046 75 9Alkylation (sulfuric acid) 192 597 0 21 0 2 13 4 0 491 1328 600 35 6Alkylation (HF) 104 624 128 13 8 1 9 11 1 330 1300 180 40 14Catalytic Reforming 310 383 84 12 2 3 8 11 0 653 842 132 48 9Hydrocracking 290 651 308 22 12 2 10 12 0 418 1361 507 329 28Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining 224 253 200 7 62 9 4 8 439 581 481 49 8Catalytic Cracking 277 282 445 12 12 2 11 9 13 593 747 890 59 15Thermal Cracking (visbreaking) 110 246 130 7 6 1 6 3 15 277 563 468 30 7Thermal Cracking (coking) 190 309 250 12 11 1 8 5 10 627 748 791 100 10Hydrogen Plant 301 58 0 7 360 3 4 139 0 162 148 0 59 21Asphalt Plant 76 43 0 4 00 3 7 0 90 90 0 24 24Product Blending 75 419 186 10 10 2 9 16 6 227 664 473 24 8Sulfur Plant 100 125 110 8 31 4 4 4 280 460 179 22 7Vacuum Distillation 229 108 447 2 121 5 1 4 473 1361072 0 7Full-Range Distillation 160 561 73 14 22 7 8 2 5621386 288 54 6Isomerization 164 300 78 9 5 2 15 5 2 300 540 265 36 7Polymerization 129 351 82 6 2 0 7 12 28 404 575 170 17 9MEK Dewaxing 419 1075 130 29 10 4 33 6 18 1676 3870 468 0 7Other Lube Oil Processes 109 188 375 5 16 3 8 6 20 180 187 1260 18 9Aromatics 310 383 84 12 2 3 8 11 0 653 842 132 48 9aRefineries with crude charge capacities greater than 50,000 bbl/sd.SamplingConnectionsOpenendedLinesSamplingConnectionsFlangesFlangesOpenendedLinesPressure Relief ValvesValvesPumpsPressure Relief ValvesValvesPumpsNewProcessEstA-3

# Attachment B

Model Determination

# B-1 Process units in

VOC service

195

Subject to

consent decree

149 Not subject to

consent decree

46

(1) New

89 (4)

Reconstructed

60 Units in

HAP service

29 Units in

non-HAP

service

16

(2) New

18 (3) New

10 (5)

Reconstructed

12 (6)

Reconstructed

7



# Determination of six petroleum refinery models – Process unit example. The

numbers in bold at the bottom of each box indicate the numbers of process units

described by the text in that box. The numbers in italics and parentheses in the

bottom six boxes indicate the model that repr esents those process units. The same

methodology was used to determine the number of each type of component (gas

valves, light liquid valves, light liquid pumps, gas connectors, and light liquid

connectors ) in each of the six models.

# Model Details

Type of Component

New CD New MACT New

NSPS Reconstructed

CD Reconstructed

MACT Reconstructed

NSPS A ll Subject VOC

units

Number of Processes

* Total Processes 195 195 195 195 195 195 195

* Affected Processes 89 18 10 60 12 6.6 195

Pump Seals

* Light-liquid service 802 158 88 535 105 59 1748

* Heavy-liquid service 580 97 81 386 65 54 1263

Valves

* Gas/vapor service 14014 2837 1474 9343 1892 982 30543

* Light-liquid service 28223 5498 3184 18815 3665 2123 61508

* Heavy-liquid service 14918 3111 1478 9945 2074 985 32512

Connectors

* Flanges - gas/vapor 33169 6739 3464 22113 4493 2310 72288

* Flanges - light liquid 61926 12080 6970 41284 8053 4647 134960

* Flanges - heavy liquid 36292 7315 3849 24195 4877 2566 79094

Pressure Relief Devices

* Disks 1635 318 185 1090 212 123 3564

* Disk holders, valves,etc. 1635 318 185 1090 212 123 3564

Open-ended Valves 3372 709 329 2248 473 219 7349

Sampling Connections 658 132 70 438 88 47 1433

Compressor Vent 155 32 16 103 21 11 338

Replacement Pump Seals 802 158 88 535 105 59 1748 Number of Components

Models B-2

# Attachment C

Emission Estimate Inputs

# Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates , USEPA, November 1995 (EPA-453/R-95-017)

Data from:

Table 2-10. Petroleum Industry Leak Rate/Screening Value Correlations

Table 2-12. Default-Zero Values: Petroleum Industry

Equipment Default-zero

emission rate

(kg/hr/

component) X Y

Valves 7.8E-06 2.29E-06 0.746

LL Pumps 2.4E-05 5.03E-05 0.610

Connectors 7.5E-06 1.53E-06 0.735

Flanges 3.1E-07 4.61E-06 0.703

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

TABLE G-2. DETERMINATION OF LDAR CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS AT REFINERY PROCESS UNITS

Equipment

type Control

program Leak

definition

(ppmv) Initial leak

fraction

(percent) Initial leak

rate (kg/hr) Immediately

after LDAR

monit. Immediately

prior to

LDAR monit. Cycle

average Final leak

rate (kg/hr) LDAR control

effectiveness

(percent)

LL Valves Monthly 10000 11.0 0.0109 0.39 1.72 1.06 0.00258 76

Quarterly 10000 11.0 0.0109 1.15 5.07 3.11 0.00430 61

HON reg neg 500 28.5 0.0109 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00057 95

Gas Valves Monthly 10000 10.0 0.0268 0.36 1.60 0.98 0.00317 88

Quarterly 10000 10.0 0.0268 1.06 4.69 2.88 0.00813 70

HON reg neg 500 24.0 0.0268 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00120 96

LL Pumps Monthly 10000 24.0 0.1140 0.00 11.28 5.64 0.03597 68

Quarterly 10000 24.0 0.1140 0.00 24.00 12.00 0.06300 45

HON reg neg 1000 48.0 0.1140 0.00 10.00 5.00 0.01137 88

Connectors HON reg neg 500 1.7 0.00025 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00005 81

Inputs C-1

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

(Leak frequencies used to estimate monitoring frequency and repair costs)

Direct API Data for Total Leaking at Leak Definition, %

500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves - Gas 0.997 0.878 0.248 0.108 0.081

Valves - Light Liquid 1.031 0.856 0.289 0.103 0.079

Pumps - Light Liquid 3.543 2.768 0.997 0.286 0.186

Connectors - Gas 0.272 0.236 0.093 0.046 0.032

Connectors - Light Liquid 0.180 0.147 0.054 0.020 0.015

Average Valves 1.014 0.867 0.269

Differences (% within the given range)

500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves - Gas 0.119 0.630 0.140 0.027 0.081

Valves - Light Liquid 0.175 0.567 0.186 0.024 0.079

Pumps - Light Liquid 0.775 1.771 0.711 0.100 0.186

Connectors - Gas 0.036 0.143 0.047 0.014 0.032

Connectors - Light Liquid 0.033 0.093 0.034 0.005 0.015

Leak frequencies from the 1997 API report: Analysis of Refinery Screening Data with NEIC factor applied

(Leak frequencies used to estimate emissions)

Percent Leaking at Leak Definition used in emission estimates

500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves - Gas 1.709 1.505 0.425 0.185 0.139

Valves - Light Liquid 1.767 1.467 0.495 0.177 0.135

Pumps - Light Liquid 6.072 4.744 1.709 0.490 0.319

Connectors - Gas 0.466 0.404 0.159 0.079 0.055

Connectors - Light Liquid 0.309 0.252 0.093 0.034 0.026

Average Valves 1.738 1.486 0.460

Differences (% within the given range)

Differences (%) 500 1000 10000 50000 100000

Valves - Gas 0.204 1.080 0.240 0.046 0.139

Valves - Light Liquid 0.300 0.972 0.319 0.041 0.135

Pumps - Light Liquid 1.328 3.035 1.219 0.171 0.319

Connectors - Gas 0.062 0.245 0.081 0.024 0.055

Connectors - Light Liquid 0.057 0.159 0.058 0.009 0.026

Inputs C-2

# Attachment D

Leak Frequencies and Emission Estimates

# Leak Def leaks/quarter 2 times/yr 3 times/yr 4 times/yr

VL Q 

# VR 2 

# VR 3 

# VR 4



# 1000 Pumps 861 207 45 12

1000 G Valves 12731 1962 392 48

1000 LL Valves 11472 1777 349 45

500 G Valves 14453 2503 511 81

500 LL Valves 13817 2567 569 94

Subsequent monthly quarterly semiannual annual

Pumps, 10,000 0.88 2.47

Pumps, 1,000 0.98 2.77 5.20 10.00

Gas Valves, 10,000 0.61 1.18 2.32

Gas Valves, 1,000 0.88 1.69 3.31

Gas Valves, 500 1.00 1.91 3.73

LL Valves, 10,000 0.72 1.38 2.70

LL Valves, 1,000 0.86 1.65 3.23

LL Valves, 500 1.03 1.97 3.83

Black = given by API

Red = calc using NEIC average (1.28)

Blue = converted from different leak frequency using API repeat leakers

Purple = calculated using NEIC average and API repeat leakers

Analysis uses shaded values

SubLeakFreq D-1Emissions estimation calculations for both controlled and baseline scenarios. Distributions for all scenarios based on distribution of leakers reported by API.Results summarized in "Final Estimates" and used to calculate incremental emissions reductions for the amendments.Assumes 90% of values below 500 are zero and 10% are between 0 and 500 ppmAssumed average point in range 0.3384.535 9.393 1.33 3.04 1.22 0.17 0.32PUMPSNew = Monthly 1000, baseline = Monthly 10,000 (VV to VVa)1Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period) converted to monthly monitoringleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 1.69 <-- (this value for monthly monitoring)percent in range 88.057 9.784 0.472 1.079 0.433 0.061 0.113 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 0.00113301 0.00265149 0.00788552 0.023148116 0.0440037 0.130867010.00050503This is very close to the average of 0.00066 in Figure 3-4of the API report. Therefore, assume this distributionof leakers is reasonable.2Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequency, converted to monthly monitoringleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 1.69 <-- (this value for monthly monitoring)percent in range 88.816 9.868 0.472 0.540 0.217 0.030 0.057 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 0.00113301 0.00265149 0.00788552 0.023148116 0.0440037 0.130867010.000325913Baseline estimate - Apply the industry-based baseline-to-controlled percent leakers ratio for valves to the controlled leak frequency reported by industry for pumps above 10,000 ppm (adjusted to monthly monitoring).Then determine the percent leaking at other leak definitions by assuming the same distribution of leaking pumps as reported byAPI.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 1.50 4.18 (at 1,000 ppm)percent in range 85.190 9.466 1.169 2.671 1.072 0.151 0.281 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 0.00113301 0.00265149 0.00788552 0.023148116 0.0440037 0.130867010.001051144Baseline estimate - Apply the industry-based baseline-to-controlled percent leakers ratio for valves to the controlled leak frequency reported by industry for pumps above 10,000 ppm (adjusted to monthly monitoring).Then determine the percent leaking at other leak definitions by assuming the same distribution of leaking pumps as reported byAPI.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 1.50percent in range 85.867 9.541 1.169 2.671 0.536 0.075 0.140 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000average for values above 10,000 zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 0.00113301 0.00265149 0.00788552 0.023148116 0.0440037 0.130867010.000711265Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 0.88 2.44 (at 1,000 ppm)percent in range 87.194 9.688 0.682 1.559 0.626 0.088 0.164Emissions Estimates CalcsD-2New = Monthly 1,000, baseline = Quarterly 1,000 (MACT to VVa)Quarterly monitoring3Baseline estimate - Apply the industry-based baseline-to-controlled percent leakers ratio for valves to the controlled leak frequency reported by industry for pumps above 10,000 ppm.Then determine the percent leaking at other leak definitions by assuming the same distribution of leaking pumps as reported byAPI.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 4.74 4.74 (at 1,000 ppm)percent in range 84.535 9.393 1.328 3.035 1.219 0.171 0.319 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 0.00113301 0.00265149 0.00788552 0.023148116 0.044003699 0.130867010.001175954Baseline estimate - Apply the industry-based baseline-to-controlled percent leakers ratio for valves to the controlled leak frequency reported by industry for pumps above 10,000 ppm.Then determine the percent leaking at other leak definitions by assuming the same distribution of leaking pumps as reported byAPI.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 4.74percent in range 86.670 9.630 1.328 1.518 0.609 0.086 0.159 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000average for values above 10,000 zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 0.00113301 0.00265149 0.00788552 0.023148116 0.044003699 0.130867010.000672145Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.77 2.77 (at 1,000 ppm)percent in range 86.811 9.646 0.775 1.771 0.711 0.100 0.186Emissions Estimates CalcsD-3GAS VALVES88.462 9.829 0.20395278 1.07975 0.239944444 0.046275 0.138825New = Semiannual, 500, Baseline = Annual, 10,000 (VV to VVa)1Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.28percent in range 87.049 9.672 0.391 2.072 0.460 0.089 0.266 0.816representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.00015962Only 44% of average for GV and LLV in API report.Possibly LLV average is a little high in the API reportbecause of outliers.2Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.28This level would require quarterly monitoring, as was thepercent in range 88.524 9.836 0.196 1.036 0.230 0.044 0.133 100.000 case for the data summarized by API.representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000088483Baseline estimateleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.03 8.161 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 82.655 9.184 0.974 5.157 1.146 0.221 0.663 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000371424Baseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.03 8.161 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 83.569 9.285 0.974 5.157 0.573 0.111 0.332 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000223845Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 1.18 4.762 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 85.715 9.524 0.568 3.009 0.669 0.129 0.387Emissions Estimates CalcsD-4New = Semiannual, 500, Baseline = Semiannual, 1,000 (mod HON to VVa)1bControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.28percent in range 87.049 9.672 0.391 2.072 0.460 0.089 0.266 0.816representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000159622bControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.28percent in range 88.524 9.836 0.196 1.036 0.230 0.044 0.133 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000088483bBaseline estimateleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.90 3.297 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 87.033 9.670 0.394 2.083 0.463 0.089 0.268 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000160394bBaseline estimate - average above 1,000 ppmleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.90percent in range 88.339 9.815 0.394 1.042 0.231 0.045 0.134 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000089415bBaseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 1.69 1.924 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 88.269 9.808 0.230 1.216 0.270 0.052 0.156Emissions Estimates CalcsD-5LIGHT LIQUID VALVES88.410 9.823 0.29993056 0.971775 0.318783333 0.04113333 0.135397221Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.38percent in range 86.961 9.662 0.573 1.857 0.609 0.079 0.259 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.00016031Only 44% of average for GV and LLV in API report.Possibly LLV average is a little high in the API reportbecause of outliers.2Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.38This level would require quarterly monitoring, as was thepercent in range 88.481 9.831 0.287 0.928 0.305 0.039 0.129 100.000 case for the data summarized by API.representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000088833Baseline estimateleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.37 8.439 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 82.405 9.156 1.432 4.641 1.523 0.196 0.647 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000374714Baseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.37 8.439 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 83.469 9.274 1.432 4.641 0.761 0.098 0.323 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000223315Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 1.38 4.924 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 85.568 9.508 0.836 2.708 0.888 0.115 0.377Emissions Estimates CalcsD-6New = Semiannual, 500, Baseline = Semiannual, 1,000 (mod HON to VVa)1bControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.38percent in range 86.961 9.662 0.573 1.857 0.609 0.079 0.259 0.946representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000160312bControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 3.38percent in range 88.481 9.831 0.287 0.928 0.305 0.039 0.129 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000088833bBaseline estimateleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.83 3.409 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 86.932 9.659 0.579 1.875 0.615 0.079 0.261 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000161704bBaseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.83 3.409 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 87.362 9.707 0.579 1.875 0.308 0.040 0.131 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 0.00010329 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000100545bBaseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 1.65 1.989 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 88.210 9.801 0.338 1.094 0.359 0.046 0.152Emissions Estimates CalcsD-7GAS CONNECTORS1Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period) - 50/50 split of gas flanges and connectorsleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency, percent 0.47percent in range 89.580 9.953 0.062 0.245 0.081 0.024 0.055 100.000 This is close to values of 0.0000156 and 0.00002712 forrepresentative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000 GC and LLC in figures 3-5 and 3-6 of API report ofzeroSCAQMD screening data, so assume that these averageemissions (kg/hr/flange) 0.00000031 0.00016695 0.00044478 0.00156189 0.00540305 0.01132777 0.039778710.00004988 0.00003954screening values in the correlation equation are ok andemissions (kg/hr/connector) 0.0000075 0.00006524 0.00018175 0.00067578 0.00247358 0.00536371 0.019943550.00002920use to estimate average emissions (assuming quarterlymonitoring) over the monitoring period as noted below2Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequency - 50/50 split of gas flanges and connectors, converted to annual monitoring assuming 10% repeat leakersleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000 Since revised NSPS would not require monitoring moreleak frequency, percent 1.68frequently than once per year, the leak frequency wouldpercent in range 89.245 9.916 0.111 0.441 0.145 0.043 0.099 100.000 likely be higher than 0.272 percent (up to 4 times higherrepresentative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000 if all leaks are new). Assumed 3.6 times for this analysiszerobecause API report indicated about 10 are repeat leakersemissions (kg/hr/flange) 0.00000031 0.00016695 0.00044478 0.00156189 0.00540305 0.01132777 0.039778710.00007621 0.00005907over 4 quarters.emissions (kg/hr/connector) 0.0000075 0.00006524 0.00018175 0.00067578 0.00247358 0.00536371 0.019943550.000041943Baseline estimate - no monitoring, 50/50 split of gas flanges and connectorsleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency, percent 1.7Same distribution as in API summary of data, but forpercent in range 88.47 9.83 0.225 0.894 0.294 0.088 0.200 100 1.7 percent leakers >500 ppm (from HON reg neg)representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/flange) 0.00000031 0.00016695 0.00044478 0.00156189 0.00540305 0.01132777 0.039778710.00013699 0.00010417emissions (kg/hr/connector) 0.0000075 0.00006524 0.00018175 0.00067578 0.00247358 0.00536371 0.019943550.00007134Emissions Estimates CalcsD-8LIGHT LIQUID CONNECTORS1Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period) - 50/50 split of gas flanges and connectorsleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency, percent 0.31percent in range 89.722 9.969 0.057 0.159 0.058 0.009 0.026 100.000 This is close to values of 0.0000156 and 0.00002712 forrepresentative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000 GC and LLC in figures 3-5 and 3-6 of API report ofzeroSCAQMD screening data, so assume that these averageemissions (kg/hr/flange) 0.00000031 0.00016695 0.00044478 0.00156189 0.00540305 0.01132777 0.039778710.00003401 0.00002773screening values in the correlation equation are ok andemissions (kg/hr/connector) 0.0000075 0.00006524 0.00018175 0.00067578 0.00247358 0.00536371 0.019943550.00002144use to estimate average emissions (assuming quarterlymonitoring) over the monitoring period as noted below2Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequency - 50/50 split of gas flanges and connectors, converted to annual monitoring assuming 10% repeat leakersleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000 Since revised NSPS would not require monitoring moreleak frequency, percent 1.111frequently than once per year, the leak frequency wouldpercent in range 89.500 9.944 0.102 0.287 0.105 0.015 0.046 100.000 likely be higher than 0.272 percent (up to 4 times higherrepresentative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000 if all leaks are new). Assumed 3.6 times for this analysiszerobecause API report indicated about 10 are repeat leakersemissions (kg/hr/flange) 0.00000031 0.00016695 0.00044478 0.00156189 0.00540305 0.01132777 0.039778710.00004764 0.00003781over 4 quarters.emissions (kg/hr/connector) 0.0000075 0.00006524 0.00018175 0.00067578 0.00247358 0.00536371 0.019943550.000027983Baseline estimate - no monitoring, 50/50 split of gas flanges and connectorsleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency, percent 1.7Same distribution as in API summary of data, but forpercent in range 88.470 9.830 0.312 0.878 0.321 0.047 0.142 100 1.7 percent leakers >500 ppm (from HON reg neg)representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/flange) 0.00000031 0.00016695 0.00044478 0.00156189 0.00540305 0.01132777 0.039778710.00011084 0.00008456emissions (kg/hr/connector) 0.0000075 0.00006524 0.00018175 0.00067578 0.00247358 0.00536371 0.019943550.00005828Emissions Estimates CalcsD-9

# Attachment E

Emission Factors and Emissions EstimatesEmission Factors (kg/hr/component) Pumps LL Valves Gas LL AverageNSPS Baseline, average above 10,000 ppm0.0007113 0.0002238 0.0002233 0.0002236Estimated controlled over monitoring periodassuming average leak fraction2,000 ppmquarterly0.00067211,000 ppm,semiannual0.0000894 0.0001005 0.0000950Estimated controlled over monitoring periodassuming average leak fraction2,000 ppmmonthly0.0003259500 ppm,semiannual0.0000885 0.0000888 0.0000887Estimated controlled over monitoring periodassuming average leak fraction2,000 ppmmonthly0.0003259500 ppm,quarterly0.0000544 0.0000548 0.0000546Emission Factors (kg/hr/component) Gas FlangesGasConnectorsAvg. GConnectors LL FlangesLLConnectorsAvg. LLConnectorsAvg.ConnectorsBaseline (10,000)0.0001370 0.0000713 0.0001042 0.0001108 0.0000583 0.0000846 0.00009436Baseline, average above 10,000 ppmControlled, leak definition of 500 ppm0.00004990.0000292 0.0000395 0.0000340 0.0000214 0.0000277 0.00003363Estimated controlled over monitoring periodassuming average leak fraction0.0000762 0.0000419 0.0000591 0.0000476 0.0000280 0.0000378 0.00004844Uncontrolled CD MACT NSPSPumps0.435596 0.1772139 0.1049032 6.287 0.5696 4.990 1.3Gas Valves1.271050 0.4228288 0.5497852 19.654 1.9068 16.704 3.0LL Valves2.575894 0.9213070 1.1850020 41.016 3.8613 33.825 7.2Connectors19.5565 171.315 10.0391 87.943 83.4238.273 143.461 94.8Leak Frequencies (from VV to VVa)Leak Definition (ppm) 500 1000 10000Initial and Baseline, Gas Valves (%)4.762 1.184Initial and Baseline, Light Liquid Valves (%)4.924 1.380Initial and Baseline, Pumps (%)2.436 0.877Leak Frequencies (from MACT to VVa)Leak Definition (ppm)500 10002000 M 2000 QInitial and Baseline, Gas Valves (%)1.924 1.694Initial and Baseline, Light Liquid Valves (%)1.989 1.651Initial and Baseline, Pumps (%)2.768 2.768Difference(Mg/yr)TotalEmissions(Mg/yr)Baseline and Controlled EmissionsEmissions ifall controlled(kg/hr)Emissions ifallcontrolledBaseline emissions from facilities complying with eachrule (kg/hr)Final EstimatesE-1

# Attachment F

Cost Analysis Inputs

# This page provides inputs for the entire analysis. The cells in yellow highlight are single numbers from various sources that are used

in cost calculations. The numbers in blue are calculated from various sources (e.g., "NEIC Factor," consent decrees) and a re used

to estimate baseline emissions.

180.00 Cost of replacement pump seals ($)

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

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

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

2.50 Monitoring Fee ($/connector)

23.3 Wage (refinery maintenance) ($, May 2006)

3 Overhead factor, maintenance & and repair (assumes in-house)

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

68.78 Planning and training labor charge ($)

0.244 Capital recovery factor: rupture disks and pump seals (from HON analysis), 5 years @ 7%

0.142 Capital recovery factor: all other types of equipment and initial LDAR labor (from HON analysis), 10 years @ 7%

3 Number of refineries' worth of process units that become subject each year (Assumed)

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

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

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

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

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

340 Planning and training for LDAR program including connectors, hours

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

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

300 Administrative and reports for LDAR program including connectors, hours

600 VOC Recovery Credit, $/Mg (assumes $1.50/gallon VOC credit)

1.7 NEIC Factor for leak frequency

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

Emissions' Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs )

0.765 Fraction of the industry subject to a consent decree that lowers the leak definitions to Option 1 levels

1.10 tons/Mg

Planning and training labor charge calculation (May 2006)

Category Mean Multiplier Result

Environmental engineering 38.29 1 38.29

General and operations managers 59.15 0.05 2.96

General office and admin support 17.46 0.1 1.746

42.99

Inputs F-1

# Attachment G

Cost EstimatesBaseline cost estimates before implementing Option 1. Costs include online and offline repairs for valves and pumps leaking above 10,000 ppm. Annual expensesused in "Summary" (page 2) to estimate incremental cost.Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Pump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid service 802 17.70 14,194.21 12 1.50 38725.32 17046.82 N/A 0.00 0.98 94.70 100 16.00New CD * Heavy-liquid service 580 1.13 654.97baseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service 14,014 17.70 248,056.28 4 1.50 84086.88 N/A 0.00 1.00 558.90 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 28,223 17.70 499,547.21 4 1.50 169338.04 N/A 0.00 1.03 1163.92 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 14,918 1.13 16,857.34Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 33,169 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 61,926 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 36,292 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals802 180.00 0.00hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports8925068.78Planning and Training89 320 68.78 1969326.48TOTALS779,310.01 1,969,326.48 292,150.23 17,046.82Initial Costs w/o OVA and Train 2,748,636Annualized Initial Costs390,306Annual Expenses 2,105,523Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,942,480Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 553,349Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Pump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid service 158 17.70 2,800.03 4 1.50 5740.85 3152.74 N/A 0.00 2.77 17.52 100 16.00New MACT * Heavy-liquid service 97 1.13 110.01baseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service 2,837 17.70 50,222.35 2 1.50 8512.26 N/A 0.00 1.69 96.14 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 5,498 17.70 97,312.64 2 1.50 16493.67 N/A 0.00 1.65 181.59 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 3,111 1.13 3,515.86Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 6,739 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 12,080 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 7,315 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals158 180.00 0.00hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports1825068.78Planning and Training18 320 68.78 388631.69TOTALS1,036,791.23 388,631.69 31,224.19 47,294.25Initial Costs w/o OVA and Train 1,425,423Annualized Initial Costs204,942Annual Expenses 461,848Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 546,396Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 120,395GGG_baseline_APIdataG-1Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid serviceNew CD * Heavy-liquid servicebaseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentPump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid serviceNew MACT * Heavy-liquid servicebaseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSLabor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.90 105917.60 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 142.06 13637.4669.90 4893.13 25 4.00 69.90 39066.93 838.3569.90 10190.06 25 4.00 69.90 81357.78 1745.8869.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.0069.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.001538536.31121,000.79 120,424.71 2,726.28 1,538,536.31 13,637.46Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.90 19588.99 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 26.27 2522.1969.90 841.67 25 4.00 69.90 6719.89 144.2069.90 1589.79 25 4.00 69.90 12692.93 272.3869.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.0069.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00303618.5122,020.45 19,412.81 442.86 303,618.51 37,835.40GGG_baseline_APIdataG-2Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Pump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid service 88 17.70 1,566.34 12 1.50 4273.37 1677.26 N/A 0.00 0.88 9.32 100 16.00New NSPS * Heavy-liquid service 81 1.13 91.47baseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service 1,474 17.70 26,083.78 2 1.50 4420.98 N/A 0.00 1.18 34.91 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 3,184 17.70 56,356.17 2 1.50 9551.89 N/A 0.00 1.38 87.89 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 1,478 1.13 1,669.73Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 3,464 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 6,970 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 3,849 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals88 180.00 0.00hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports1025068.78Planning and Training10 320 68.78 217165.04TOTALS85,767.50 217165.04 18246.24 1677.26Initial Costs w/o OVA and Train 302,933Annualized Initial Costs43,016Annual Expenses 211,204Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 214,018Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 40,202Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Pump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid service 535 0.00 0.00 12 1.50 25816.88 11364.55 N/A 0.00 0.98 63.14 100 16.00Reconstructed CD * Heavy-liquid service 386 0.00 0.00baseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service 9,343 0.00 0.00 4 1.50 56057.92 N/A 0.00 1.00 372.60 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 18,815 0.00 0.00 4 1.50 112892.02 N/A 0.00 1.03 775.94 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 9,945 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 22,113 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 41,284 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 24,195Replacement Pump Seals535 180.00 0.00hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports6025068.78Planning and Training60 0 68.78 0.00TOTALS0.00 0.00 194766.82 11364.55Initial Costs w/o OVA and Train 0Annualized Initial Costs0Annual Expenses 1,403,682Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,034,783Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 368,899GGG_baseline_APIdataG-3Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid serviceNew NSPS * Heavy-liquid servicebaseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentPump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed CD * Heavy-liquid servicebaseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSLabor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.90 10421.38 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 13.98 1341.8169.90 305.63 25 4.00 69.90 2440.17 52.3669.90 769.51 25 4.00 69.90 6143.79 131.8469.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.0069.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00169660.1911496.52 8583.96 198.18 169660.19 1341.81Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.90 70611.73 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 94.70 9091.6469.90 3262.09 25 4.00 69.90 26044.62 558.9069.90 6793.37 25 4.00 69.90 54238.52 1163.9269.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.0069.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.001025690.8780667.20 80283.14 1,817.52 1025690.87 9091.64GGG_baseline_APIdataG-4Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Pump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid service 105 0.00 0.00 4 1.50 3827.23 2101.82 N/A 0.00 2.77 11.68 100 16.00Reconstructed MACT * Heavy-liquid service 65 0.00 0.00baseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service 1,892 0.00 0.00 2 1.50 5674.84 N/A 0.00 1.69 64.09 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 3,665 0.00 0.00 2 1.50 10995.78 N/A 0.00 1.65 121.06 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 2,074 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 4,493 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 8,053 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 4,877Replacement Pump Seals105 180.00 0.00hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports1225068.78Planning and Training12 0 68.78 0.00TOTALS0.00 0.00 20816.13 31529.50Initial Costs w/o OVA and Train 0Annualized Initial Costs0Annual Expenses 307,899Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 227,636Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 80,263Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Pump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid service 59 0.00 0.00 12 1.50 2848.91 1118.17 N/A 0.00 0.88 6.21 100 16.00Reconstructed NSPS * Heavy-liquid service 54 0.00 0.00baseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service 982 0.00 0.00 2 1.50 2947.32 N/A 0.00 1.18 23.27 75 0.17* Light-liquid service 2,123 0.00 0.00 2 1.50 6367.93 N/A 0.00 1.38 58.60 75 0.17* Heavy-liquid service 985 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 2,310 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges - light liquid 4,647 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 75 0.17* Flanges -heavy liquid 2,566Replacement Pump Seals59 180.00 0.00hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports725068.78Planning and Training7 0 68.78 0.00TOTALS0.00 0.00 12164.16 1118.17Initial Costs w/o OVA and Train 0Annualized Initial Costs0Annual Expenses 140,803Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 114,001Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 26,801GGG_baseline_APIdataG-5Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed MACT * Heavy-liquid servicebaseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentPump SealsRefinery model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed NSPS * Heavy-liquid servicebaseline GGG programValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSLabor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.90 13059.33 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 17.52 1681.4669.90 561.11 25 4.00 69.90 4479.93 96.1469.90 1059.86 25 4.00 69.90 8461.95 181.5969.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.0069.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00202412.3414680.30 12941.88 295.24 202412.34 25223.60Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)69.90 6947.58 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 9.32 894.5469.90 203.75 25 4.00 69.90 1626.78 34.9169.90 513.01 25 4.00 69.90 4095.86 87.8969.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.0069.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00113106.797664.34 5722.64 132.12 113106.79 894.54GGG_baseline_APIdataG-6Cost estimates for implementing Option 1. Costs include initial planning and training for process units not already subject toMACT, initial repair, and online and offlinerepairs. Initial capital costs are annualized. Annual costs and expenses used in "Option 1 Emissions" to estimate incremental cost.NOTE: The estimate including connectors is meant to be a check for the impacts of Option 2. These values are not directly used in estimating the impacts of Option 2.Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 802 17.70 14,194.21 12 1.50 38725.32 17046.82 N/A 0.00 0.98New CD * Heavy-liquid service 580 1.13 654.97Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 14,014 17.70 248,056.28 4 1.50 84086.88 N/A 0.00 1.00* Light-liquid service 28,223 17.70 499,547.21 4 1.50 169338.04 N/A 0.00 1.03* Heavy-liquid service 14,918 1.13 16,857.34Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 33,169 17.70 613,149.25 1 2.50 82923.07 1.7 563.88 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 61,926 17.70 1,144,736.63 1 2.50 154815.61 1.7 1052.75 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 36,292 1.13 41,010.20Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 33,169 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 61,926 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 36,292 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals802 180.00 0.00Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 89 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 89 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 89 320 68.78 1,969,326.48* No. Processes (connectors) 89 20 68.78 123,082.90TOTALS without connectors779,310.01 1,969,326.48 292,150.23 17,046.82TOTALS with connectors2,578,206.09 2,092,409.38 529,888.92 17,046.82Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 2,748,636Annualized Initial Costs390,306Annual Expenses 2,105,523Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,942,480Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 553,349With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 4,670,615Annualized Initial Costs663,227Annual Expenses 2,686,717Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 2,523,108Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 826,836Option1APIdataG-7Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceNew CD * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)94.70 100 16.00 69.90 105917.60 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 142.06 13637.46558.90 75 0.17 69.90 4893.13 25 4.00 69.90 39066.93 838.351163.92 75 0.17 69.90 10190.06 25 4.00 69.90 81357.78 1745.88269.86 75 0.17 69.90 2362.66 25 2.00 69.90 9431.78 674.66503.83 75 0.17 69.90 4411.04 25 2.00 69.90 17608.93 1259.580.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.001538536.31307707.26121,000.79 120,424.71 2,726.28 1,538,536.31 13,637.46127,774.49 147,465.41 4,660.52 1,846,243.57 13,637.46Option1APIdataG-8Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 158 17.70 2,800.03 12 1.50 7639.17 3362.75 N/A 0.00 0.98New MACT * Heavy-liquid service 97 1.13 110.01Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 2,837 17.70 50,222.35 2 1.50 8512.26 N/A 0.00 1.91* Light-liquid service 5,498 17.70 97,312.64 2 1.50 16493.67 N/A 0.00 1.97* Heavy-liquid service 3,111 1.13 3,515.86Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 6,739 17.70 124,575.99 1 2.50 16847.81 1.7 114.57 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 12,080 17.70 223,298.90 1 2.50 30199.22 1.7 205.35 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 7,315 1.13 8,266.35Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 6,739 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 12,080 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 7,315 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals158 180.00 0.00Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 18 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 18 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 18 320 68.78 388,631.69* No. Processes (connectors) 18 20 68.78 24,289.48TOTALS without connectors1,036,791.23 388,631.69 33,122.52 47,504.27TOTALS with connectors1,392,932.47 412,921.17 80,169.55 47,504.27Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 1,425,423Annualized Initial Costs204,942Annual Expenses 469,235Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 546,564Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 127,613With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 1,805,854Annualized Initial Costs258,963Annual Expenses 584,081Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 661,309Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 181,735Option1APIdataG-9Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceNew MACT * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)18.68 100 16.00 69.90 20893.88 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 28.02 2690.20108.57 75 0.17 69.90 950.55 25 4.00 69.90 7589.25 162.86216.61 75 0.17 69.90 1896.39 25 4.00 69.90 15140.81 324.9154.83 75 0.17 69.90 480.03 25 2.00 69.90 1916.29 137.0798.28 75 0.17 69.90 860.44 25 2.00 69.90 3434.90 245.700.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00303618.5160723.7023,740.83 22,730.06 515.79 303,618.51 38,003.4125,081.30 28,081.25 898.57 364,342.21 38,003.41Option1APIdataG-10Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 88 17.70 1,566.34 12 1.50 4273.37 1881.13 N/A 0.00 0.98New NSPS * Heavy-liquid service 81 1.13 91.47Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 1,474 17.70 26,083.78 2 1.50 4420.98 N/A 0.00 1.91* Light-liquid service 3,184 17.70 56,356.17 2 1.50 9551.89 N/A 0.00 1.97* Heavy-liquid service 1,478 1.13 1,669.73Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 3,464 17.70 64,038.65 1 2.50 8660.67 1.70 58.89 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 6,970 17.70 128,840.63 1 2.50 17424.57 1.70 118.49 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 3,849 1.13 4,349.05Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 3,464 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 6,970 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 3,849 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals88 180.00 0.00Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 10 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 10 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 10 320 68.78 217,165.04* No. Processes (connectors) 10 20 68.78 13,572.81TOTALS without connectors85,767.50 217,165.04 18246.24 1881.13TOTALS with connectors282,995.84 230,737.85 44331.48 1881.13Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 302,933Annualized Initial Costs43,016Annual Expenses 217,571Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 214,182Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 46,406With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 513,734Annualized Initial Costs72,950Annual Expenses 281,511Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 278,047Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 76,413Option1APIdataG-11Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceNew NSPS * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)10.45 100 16.00 69.90 11688.08 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 15.68 1504.9056.39 75 0.17 69.90 493.69 25 4.00 69.90 3941.60 84.58125.44 75 0.17 69.90 1098.25 25 4.00 69.90 8768.42 188.1628.19 75 0.17 69.90 246.76 25 2.00 69.90 985.08 70.4656.71 75 0.17 69.90 496.46 25 2.00 69.90 1981.89 141.770.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00169660.1933932.0413280.01 12710.02 288.42 169660.19 1504.9014023.24 15676.99 500.65 203592.22 1504.90Option1APIdataG-12Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 535 0.00 0.00 12 1.50 25816.88 11364.55 N/A 0.00 0.98Reconstructed CD * Heavy-liquid service 386 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 9,343 0.00 0.00 4 1.50 56057.92 N/A 0.00 1.00* Light-liquid service 18,815 0.00 0.00 4 1.50 112892.02 N/A 0.00 1.03* Heavy-liquid service 9,945 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 22,113 17.70 408,766.17 1 2.50 55282.05 1.7 375.92 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 41,284 17.70 763,157.75 1 2.50 103210.41 1.7 701.83 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 24,195 1.13 27,340.13Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 22,113 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 41,284 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 24,195 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals535 180.00 0.00Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 60 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 60 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 60 0 68.78 0.00* No. Processes (connectors) 60 20 68.78 82,055.27TOTALS without connectors0.00 0.00 194,766.82 11,364.55TOTALS with connectors1,199,264.05 82,055.27 353,259.28 11,364.55Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 0Annualized Initial Costs0Annual Expenses 1,403,682Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,034,783Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 368,899With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 1,281,319Annualized Initial Costs181,947Annual Expenses 1,791,145Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,421,868Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 551,224Option1APIdataG-13Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed CD * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)63.14 100 16.00 69.90 70611.73 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 94.70 9091.64372.60 75 0.17 69.90 3262.09 25 4.00 69.90 26044.62 558.90775.94 75 0.17 69.90 6793.37 25 4.00 69.90 54238.52 1163.92179.91 75 0.17 69.90 1575.11 25 2.00 69.90 6287.85 449.77335.89 75 0.17 69.90 2940.69 25 2.00 69.90 11739.28 839.720.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.001025690.87205138.1780,667.20 80,283.14 1,817.52 1,025,690.87 9,091.6485,182.99 98,310.28 3,107.01 1,230,829.05 9,091.644515.80 18027.13 1289.49 205138.17 0.00Option1APIdataG-14Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 105 0.00 1,162.33 12 1.50 5092.78 2241.83 0.98 1.04 0.98Reconstructed MACT * Heavy-liquid service 65 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 1,892 0.00 2,916.72 2 1.50 5674.84 1.92 36.39 1.91* Light-liquid service 3,665 0.00 5,843.58 2 1.50 10995.78 1.99 72.90 1.97* Heavy-liquid service 2,074 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 4,493 17.70 83,050.66 1 2.50 11231.87 1.7 76.38 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 8,053 17.70 148,865.93 1 2.50 20132.81 1.7 136.90 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 4,877 1.13 5,510.90Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 4,493 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 8,053 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 4,877 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals105 180.00 186.82Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 12 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 12 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 12 0 68.78 0.00* No. Processes (connectors) 12 20 68.78 16,192.99TOTALS without connectors10,109.44 0.00 22,081.68 31,669.51TOTALS with connectors247,536.94 16,192.99 53,446.37 31,669.51Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 10,109Annualized Initial Costs1,455Annual Expenses 312,824Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 229,203Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 85,076With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 263,730Annualized Initial Costs37,469Annual Expenses 389,387Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 305,699Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 121,157Option1APIdataG-15Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed MACT * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)12.45 100 16.00 69.90 13929.26 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 18.68 1793.4772.38 75 0.17 69.90 633.70 25 4.00 69.90 5059.50 108.57144.40 75 0.17 69.90 1264.26 25 4.00 69.90 10093.88 216.6136.55 75 0.17 69.90 320.02 25 2.00 69.90 1277.53 91.3865.52 75 0.17 69.90 573.63 25 2.00 69.90 2289.93 163.800.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00202412.3440482.4715,827.22 15,153.38 343.86 202,412.34 25,335.6116,720.87 18,720.84 599.04 242,894.80 25,335.61893.65 3567.46 255.18 40482.47 0.00Option1APIdataG-16Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 59 0.00 1,609.55 12 1.50 2848.91 1254.09 2.44 1.44 0.98Reconstructed NSPS * Heavy-liquid service 54 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 982 0.00 3,749.69 2 1.50 2947.32 4.76 46.78 1.91* Light-liquid service 2,123 0.00 8,377.79 2 1.50 6367.93 4.92 104.52 1.97* Heavy-liquid service 985 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 2,310 17.70 42,692.44 1 2.50 5773.78 1.70 39.26 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 4,647 17.70 85,893.76 1 2.50 11616.38 1.70 78.99 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 2,566 1.13 2,899.37Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 2,310 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 4,647 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 2,566 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals59 180.00 258.70Administrative and Reportshr/activity$/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 7 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 7 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 7 0 68.78 0.00* No. Processes (connectors) 7 20 68.78 9,048.54TOTALS without connectors13,995.73 0.00 12164.16 1254.09TOTALS with connectors145,481.29 9,048.54 29554.32 1254.09Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 13,996Annualized Initial Costs2,014Annual Expenses 145,047Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 116,124Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 30,937With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 154,530Annualized Initial Costs21,970Annual Expenses 187,674Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 158,701Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 50,942Option1APIdataG-17Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed NSPS * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)6.97 100 16.00 69.90 7792.06 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 10.45 1003.2737.59 75 0.17 69.90 329.12 25 4.00 69.90 2627.73 56.3983.63 75 0.17 69.90 732.16 25 4.00 69.90 5845.62 125.4418.79 75 0.17 69.90 164.51 25 2.00 69.90 656.72 46.9837.80 75 0.17 69.90 330.98 25 2.00 69.90 1321.26 94.510.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00113106.7922621.368853.34 8473.35 192.28 113106.79 1003.279348.83 10451.33 333.77 135728.15 1003.27Option1APIdataG-18

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

Parameter New CD New MACT New NSPS Reconstructed

CD Reconstructed

MACT Reconstructed

NSPS

Total number of processes 89 18 10 60 12 7

Total number of connectors 95,095 18,819 10,434 63,397 12,546 6,956

Total number of heavy liquid connectors 36,292 7,315 3,849 24,195 4,877 2,566

Baseline (no LDAR)

initial leak frequency, percent a 

# 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

emission rate, kg/hr/connector b 

# 0.0000944 0.0000944 0.0000944 0.0000944 0.0000944 0.0000944

Option 3 (500 ppm LDAR)

initial number of leaks 1,616.62 319.92 177.38 1,077.75 213.28 118.25

final leak frequency, percent c 

# 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81

monitoring frequency, times/yr d 

# 111111

annual number of leaks 773.70 153.11 84.89 515.80 102.07 56.59

emission rate, kg/hr/connector e 

# 0.0000484 0.0000484 0.0000484 0.0000484 0.0000484 0.0000484

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

Total emissions reduction, Mg/yr 38.26 7.57 4.20 25.50 5.05 2.80

Baseline cost, $/yr 000000

Option 3 costs

initial monitoring, gas and light liquid, $/component f 

# 17.70 17.70 17.70 17.70 17.70 17.70

initial monitoring, heavy liquid, $/component f 

# 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

initial LDAR cost (monitoring and repair), $ 1,798,896 356,141 197,228 1,199,264 237,427 131,486

planning and training costs, $ 123,083 24,289 13,573 82,055 16,193 9,049

monitoring to verify repair for initial leaks, $ 4,042 800 443 2,694 533 296

annualized initial LDAR cost, $/yr g 

# 273,495 54,135 29,997 182,330 36,090 19,998

subsequent monitoring fee, $/component 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

annual monitoring cost, $/yr 237,739 47,047 26,085 158,492 31,365 17,390

percent of annual leaks repaired online, percent 75 75 75 75 75 75

online repair time, hr 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

labor charge, $/hr h 

# 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9

annual online leak repair cost, $/yr 6773.70 1340.47 743.23 4515.80 893.65 495.48

percent of annual leaks repaired offline, percent 25 25 25 25 25 25

offline repair time, hr 222222

labor charge, $/hr h 

# 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9

annual offline leak repair cost, $/yr 27,041 5,351 2966.97 18027.13 3,567 1977.98

monitoring to verify repair, $ 1934.24 382.77 212.23 1289.49 255.18 141.49

annual admin and reporting costs, $ 307,707 60,724 33,932 205,138 40,482 22,621

total annual cost, $/yr 854,689 168,980 93,936 569,793 112,653 62,624

Cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed 22,342 22,321 22,379 22,342 22,321 22,379

Recovery credits, $/Mg 600 600 600 600 600 600

Nationwide impacts in fifth year after proposal Total

emission reductions, Mg/yr 38.3 7.6 4.2 26 5.0 2.8 83.4

total annual costs, $/yr 854,689 168,980 93,936 569,793 112,653 62,624 1,862,676

total annual costs after recovery credit applied, $/yr 831,736 164,438 91,418 554,491 109,625 60,945 1,812,653

a 

# Refinery baseline leak frequencies assumed to be 1.7 percent, as in Table G-2 of the Protocol document.

b 

# Refinery values calculated using the correlation equations with assumed average screening values and 1.7 percent leakers (same as in Protocol

document) with the same distribution among the concentration ranges as for the controlled emission rate calculation.

c 

# The API report Analysis of Refinery Screening Values identified about 0.27 percent leakers for connectors in gas service and 0.18 percent for light

liquid service when monitoring was conducted quarterly. The NSPS would not likely require monitoring more frequently than on ce per year. At this

monitoring frequency, the leak frequency could be as much as four times greater (if all leaks are new). The API report indic ates that about 10 percent

of the leaks are repeats over 4 quarters. Thus, assumed 0.81 percent would leak under an annual monitoring program (i.e., (0 .27+0.18)/2*4*0.9=0.81).

d 

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

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

e 

# For refineries, the emission rates were estimated using the correlation equation with the same average screening values as in t he est i mate of the

uncontrolled emission rate, an average leak fraction equal to one-half of the final leak frequency, and the same distribution of leak concentrations as

reported in Table 3-1 of the API report Analysis of Refinery Screening Data

.

f 

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

g 

# Assuming annualized over 10 years at 7 percent interest.

h 

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

and 325; plus assumed 50 percent overhead. Refinery Model

Option 2 Emissions G-19

# Attachment H

Open Ended LinesBaseline CalculationsBaseline conditions = caps/plugs, but not properly installedCalculate baseline emissions assuming emissions from OELs with plugs/caps poorly installed is better represented by correlationequations forflanges and connectors than by the correlation equation for OELs.leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 2.3percent in range 87.700 10.0000 0.2930 0.9376 0.6592 0.2490 0.1611 100.00representative value default 0 758 3,318 22,898 73,829 350,727zeroemissions (kg/hr/OEL) connectors0.0000075 0.0000075 0.0002001 0.000592 0.00245 0.005792 0.018207emissions (kg/hr/OEL) flanges 0.00000031 0.00000031 0.0004877 0.001377 0.005353 0.012192 0.03646uncapped OEL correlation 0.000002 0.000002 0.0002343 0.000662 0.002581 0.005884 0.017623Baseline emissionsTotal number of process units subject 195 from Refinery Impacts Analysis memorandumto NSPS in 5th year after proposalTotal number of OELs 7349 from Refinery Impacts Analysis memorandumNumber of OELs in G/V or LL service 5365 fraction in G/V and LL service assumed to be 73 percent based on MACT I data for valves, pumps, and flangesFraction in sampling systems 0.05Number of OELs to be monitored 5097kg/hr/OEL in G/V or LL service0.00007assuming emissions represented using only connectors equationkg/hr nationwide0.374kg/d nationwide 8.976kg/yr nationwide 3276.236Mg/yr nationwide3.276Emission ReductionsAssume OEL valves are opened with the following frequencies Monitoring Openingtime percentSubsequentperiod openedWhat are percent reductions for semi-annualmonitoring?leak frequencyonce per month 0 6 1 8.333333 2.30once per quarter 33.333 6 3 25 2.30once per year 33.333 6 12 75 1.15once per 2 years 33.333 6 24 100 0overall66.7Average subsequent leak frequency:1.2Months betweenOELH-1

# Cost Analysis

Notes

Monitoring events per year 2

Percent reduction in emissions 66.67

Mass reduction, nationwide Mg/yr 43.689

Mass reduction, nationwide kg/yr 43,689

Total number of OELs at new and 147,000 From Refinery Impacts Analysis memorandum

reconstructed units in 5 years after

proposal

Number of OELs in gas/vapor or light 101,945 assuming OEL in G/V and LL service are 73% of total (see

liquid service valves, pumps, and flanges in MACT I data in pumps/

valves refinery spreadsheet and impacts memo) and

5 percent OEL are in sampling connection systems

Initial costs

Equipment, $

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

$/refinery 0

Initial monitoring, $

$/OEL 17.70

nationwide $ 1,804,418

Initial repair, $

initial percentage leaking 2.3 based on max from industry comments

repair costs, $ nationwide 58,781 using same assumptions for online vs offline repair fractions

wage rates, and repair time as for ongoing repair

Total Initial Costs, $ 1,863,199

Annual costs, nationwide $/yr

Annualized initial costs 204,579 CRF=0.1098 (7% interest and 15 year life)

Annual monitoring cost

monitoring frequency, times/yr 2

cost per OEL 1.50

nationwide cost, $/yr 305,834 assuming only monitor OELs in gas and LL service

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

with monitoring

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

with monitoring

OEL H-2

# Repair

subsequent leak frequency 1.15

subsequent number leaking 1172.36

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

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

it works for all leaking OELs, except those with second

valves

time to repair online, hr 0.167

wage rate for repair labor, $/hr 23.3

overhead factor 3

online repair cost, $/OEL 13.17 includes monitoring to verify repair

online repair cost, nationwide $ 29,343

percentage repaired offline 5 assumed fraction of OELs with second valves

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

leak

offline repair cost, $/OEL 281

offline repair cost, nationwide $ 32,955

Administrative and Reports

additional time to prepare

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

documented

wage rate, $/hr 68.78

annual cost, nationwide $/yr 6,878 assuming 50 of the 150 refineries have at least one process

unit subject to NSPS

Total annual cost, nationwide $/yr 579,589

Recovery credit

product value, $/Mg 600

total recovered, Mg nationwide 43.69

total recovered, tons nationwide 48.16

total savings, nationwide $/yr 26,213

TAC with recovery savings, $/y r 553,376

Cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed (with

recovery credit, OEL only) 12,666

Cost effectiveness, $/ton remove d

Sensitivity Analysis Number

of OEL Option 3

Emission

Reduction

(tons) Option 3

Cost Beyond

Baseline ($) CostEffectiveness

($/ton)

If number of OEL is increased: 7,349 107 1,924,577 18,000

14,700 109 1,953,217 17,866

36,700 117 2,038,929 17,496

73,500 129 2,182,301 16,971

110,200 141 2,325,284 16,536

147,000 153 2,468,657 16,170

OEL H-3

# Attachment I

Valve Leak Definition of 100 ppm

# monthly quarterly semiannual annual

Subseque n Pumps, 10,000 0.88 2.47

Pumps, 1,000 0.98 2.77 5.20 10.00

Gas Valves, 10,000 10,000 0.61 1.18 2.32

Gas Valves, 1,000 1000 0.88 1.69 3.31

Gas Valves, 500 500 1.00 1.91 3.73

Gas Valves, 100 100 1.28 2.45 4.77

LL Valves, 10,000 10,000 0.72 1.38 2.70

LL Valves, 1,000 1000 0.86 1.65 3.23

LL Valves, 500 500 1.03 1.97 3.83

LL Valves, 100 100 1.18 2.25 4.37

Black = given by API

Red = calc using NEIC average (1.28)

Blue = converted from different leak frequency using API repeat leakers

Gray = figure out how to calculate

Purple = calculated using NEIC average and API repeat leakers

Using highlighted values

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Series1

Log. (Series1)



# SubLeakFreq I-1GAS VALVES88.462 9.829 0.20395278 1.07975 0.239944444 0.046275 0.138825New = Quarterly, 100, Baseline = Annual, 10,000 (VV to VVa)1Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), % 4.20percent in range 86.221 9.580 0.920 0.391 2.072 0.460 0.089 0.266 0.816representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.00015376Only 44% of average for GV and LLV in API report.Possibly LLV average is a little high in the API reportbecause of outliers.2Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %4.20This level would require quarterly monitoring, as was thepercent in range 87.972 9.775 0.613 0.196 1.036 0.230 0.044 0.133 100.000 case for the data summarized by API.representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.11E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000082143Baseline estimateleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.03 10.451 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 80.595 8.955 2.290 0.974 5.157 1.146 0.221 0.663 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000367614Baseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.03 10.451 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 81.508 9.056 2.290 0.974 5.157 0.573 0.111 0.332 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.11E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000219965Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 1.18 6.098 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 84.512 9.390 1.336 0.568 3.009 0.669 0.129 0.387Emissions Estimates CalcsI-2New =Quarterly,100, Baseline = Semiannual, 1,000 (mod HON to VVa)1bControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %4.20percent in range 86.221 9.580 0.920 0.391 2.072 0.460 0.089 0.266 0.816representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000153762bControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %4.20percent in range88.1109.790 0.460 0.196 1.036 0.230 0.044 0.133 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000081953bBaseline estimateleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.90 4.222 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 86.200 9.578 0.925 0.394 2.083 0.463 0.089 0.268 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000154554bBaseline estimate - average above 1,000 ppmleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.90percent in range 87.507 9.723 0.925 0.394 1.042 0.231 0.045 0.134 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000083465bBaseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 1.69 2.463 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 87.783 9.754 0.540 0.230 1.216 0.270 0.052 0.156Emissions Estimates CalcsI-3Quarterly,1001cControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), % 2.19percent in range 88.031 9.781 0.479 0.204 1.080 0.240 0.046 0.139 0.425representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000084982cControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), % 2.19percent in range 89.015 9.891 0.240 0.102 0.540 0.120 0.023 0.069 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000047553cControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 1.71 2.692 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 87.578 9.731 0.983 0.204 1.080 0.240 0.046 0.139 0.425representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 1.33E-04 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000085604cControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 1.71percent in range 88.346 9.816 0.983 0.102 0.540 0.120 0.023 0.069 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000048475cBaseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 1.00 1.570 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 88.587 9.843 0.573 0.119 0.630 0.140 0.027 0.081Emissions Estimates CalcsI-4LIGHT LIQUID VALVES88.410 9.823 0.29993056 0.971775 0.318783333 0.04113333 0.135397221Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %3.86percent in range 86.529 9.614 0.480 0.573 1.857 0.609 0.079 0.259 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.11E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.00015393Only 44% of average for GV and LLV in API report.Possibly LLV average is a little high in the API reportbecause of outliers.2Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %3.86This level would require quarterly monitoring, as was thepercent in range 88.265 9.807 0.240 0.287 0.928 0.305 0.039 0.129 100.000 case for the data summarized by API.representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.11E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000082033Baseline estimateleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.37 9.639 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 81.325 9.036 1.200 1.432 4.641 1.523 0.196 0.647 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000369574Baseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 2.37 9.639 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 82.389 9.154 1.200 1.432 4.641 0.761 0.098 0.323 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000218095Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (10,000 ppm), % 1.38 5.624 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 85.568 9.438 0.700 0.836 2.708 0.888 0.115 0.377Emissions Estimates CalcsI-5New =Quarterly,100, Baseline = Semiannual, 1,000 (mod HON to VVa)1bControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %3.86percent in range 86.529 9.614 0.480 0.573 1.857 0.609 0.079 0.259 0.946representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000153932bControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %3.86percent in range88.2659.807 0.240 0.287 0.928 0.305 0.039 0.129 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000082033bBaseline estimateleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.83 3.894 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 86.496 9.611 0.485 0.579 1.875 0.615 0.079 0.261 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000155334bBaseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 2.83 3.894 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 86.926 9.658 0.485 0.579 1.875 0.308 0.040 0.131 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.10919E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.00110798 0.004135133 0.00907111 0.0343980.000094135bBaseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 1.65 2.272 (at 500 ppm)percent in range 88.210 9.773 0.283 0.338 1.094 0.359 0.046 0.152Emissions Estimates CalcsI-6Quarterly,1001cControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %2.02percent in range 88.184 9.798 0.251 0.300 0.972 0.319 0.041 0.135 0.495representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000085392cControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %2.02percent in range89.092 9.899 0.126 0.1500.486 0.159 0.021 0.068 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 6653,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000047763cControlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 1.77 2.749 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 87.526 9.725 0.982 0.300 0.972 0.319 0.041 0.135 0.495representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000086294cControlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 1.77percent in range 88.321 9.813 0.982 0.150 0.486 0.159 0.021 0.068 100.000representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.1092E-05 0.0001332 0.00029219 0.001107983 0.00413513 0.00907111 0.0343980010.000048815cBaseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), % 1.03 1.604 (at 100 ppm)percent in range 88.556 9.840 0.573 0.175 0.567 0.186 0.024 0.079Emissions Estimates CalcsI-7Cost estimates for implementing Option 1. Costs include initial planning and training for process units not already subject toMACT, initial repair, and online and offlinerepairs. Initial capital costs are annualized. Annual costs and expenses used in "Option 1 Emissions" to estimate incremental cost.NOTE: The estimate including connectors is meant to be a check for the impacts of Option 2. These values are not directly used in estimating the impacts of Option 2.Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 802 17.70 14,194.21 12 1.50 38725.32 17046.82 N/A 0.00 0.98New CD * Heavy-liquid service 580 1.13 654.97Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 14,014 17.70 248,056.28 4 1.50 84086.88 N/A 0.00 1.28* Light-liquid service 28,223 17.70 499,547.21 4 1.50 169338.04 N/A 0.00 1.18* Heavy-liquid service 14,918 1.13 16,857.34Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 33,169 17.70 612,585.38 1 2.50 82923.07 1.7 563.88 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 61,926 17.70 1,143,683.88 1 2.50 154815.61 1.7 1052.75 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 36,292 1.13 41,010.20Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 33,169 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 61,926 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 36,292 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals802 180.00 0.00Adminstrative and Reportshr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 89 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 89 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 89 320 68.78 1,969,326.48* No. Processes (connectors) 89 20 68.78 123,082.90TOTALS without connectors779,310.01 1,969,326.48 292,150.23 17,046.82TOTALS with connectors2,576,589.47 2,092,409.38 529,888.92 17,046.82Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 2,748,636Annualized Initial Costs390,306Annual Expenses 2,131,356Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,942,480Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 579,182With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 4,668,999Annualized Initial Costs662,998Annual Expenses 2,712,551Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 2,522,879Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 852,670Option1APIdataI-8Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceNew CD * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdminstrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)94.70 100 16.00 69.90 105917.60 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 142.06 13637.46715.70 75 0.17 69.90 6265.92 25 4.00 69.90 50027.34 1073.551329.41 75 0.17 69.90 11638.94 25 4.00 69.90 92925.63 1994.11269.86 75 0.17 69.90 2362.66 25 2.00 69.90 9431.78 674.66503.83 75 0.17 69.90 4411.04 25 2.00 69.90 17608.93 1259.580.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.001538536.31307707.26123,822.46 142,952.98 3,209.72 1,538,536.31 13,637.46130,596.16 169,993.68 5,143.96 1,846,243.57 13,637.46Option1APIdataI-9Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 158 17.70 2,800.03 12 1.50 7639.17 3362.75 N/A 0.00 0.98New MACT * Heavy-liquid service 97 1.13 110.01Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 2,837 17.70 50,222.35 4 1.50 17024.52 N/A 0.00 1.28* Light-liquid service 5,498 17.70 97,312.64 4 1.50 32987.34 N/A 0.00 1.18* Heavy-liquid service 3,111 1.13 3,515.86Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 6,739 17.70 124,461.43 1 2.50 16847.81 1.7 114.57 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 12,080 17.70 223,093.54 1 2.50 30199.22 1.7 205.35 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 7,315 1.13 8,266.35Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 6,739 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 12,080 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 7,315 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals158 180.00 0.00Adminstrative and Reportshr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 18 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 18 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 18 320 68.78 388,631.69* No. Processes (connectors) 18 20 68.78 24,289.48TOTALS without connectors1,036,791.23 388,631.69 58,128.45 47,504.27TOTALS with connectors1,392,612.55 412,921.17 105,175.48 47,504.27Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 1,425,423Annualized Initial Costs204,942Annual Expenses 500,549Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 546,564Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 158,927With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 1,805,534Annualized Initial Costs258,918Annual Expenses 615,394Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 661,264Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 213,049Option1APIdataI-10Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceNew MACT * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdminstrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)18.68 100 16.00 69.90 20893.88 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 28.02 2690.20144.90 75 0.17 69.90 1268.62 25 4.00 69.90 10128.71 217.35258.97 75 0.17 69.90 2267.28 25 4.00 69.90 18102.07 388.4654.83 75 0.17 69.90 480.03 25 2.00 69.90 1916.29 137.0798.28 75 0.17 69.90 860.44 25 2.00 69.90 3434.90 245.700.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00303618.5160723.7024,429.79 28,230.78 633.83 303,618.51 38,003.4125,770.26 33,581.97 1,016.61 364,342.21 38,003.41Option1APIdataI-11Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 88 17.70 1,566.34 12 1.50 4273.37 1881.13 N/A 0.00 0.98New NSPS * Heavy-liquid service 81 1.13 91.47Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 1,474 17.70 26,083.78 4 1.50 8841.96 N/A 0.00 1.28* Light-liquid service 3,184 17.70 56,356.17 4 1.50 19103.79 N/A 0.00 1.18* Heavy-liquid service 1,478 1.13 1,669.73Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 3,464 17.70 63,979.76 1 2.50 8660.67 1.70 58.89 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 6,970 17.70 128,722.15 1 2.50 17424.57 1.70 118.49 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 3,849 1.13 4,349.05Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 3,464 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 6,970 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 3,849 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals88 180.00 0.00Adminstrative and Reportshr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 10 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 10 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 10 320 68.78 217,165.04* No. Processes (connectors) 10 20 68.78 13,572.81TOTALS without connectors85,767.50 217,165.04 32219.12 1881.13TOTALS with connectors282,818.46 230,737.85 58304.35 1881.13Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 302,933Annualized Initial Costs43,016Annual Expenses 235,023Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 214,182Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 63,858With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 513,556Annualized Initial Costs72,925Annual Expenses 298,962Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 278,022Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 93,865Option1APIdataI-12Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceNew NSPS * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdminstrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)10.45 100 16.00 69.90 11688.08 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 15.68 1504.9075.26 75 0.17 69.90 658.88 25 4.00 69.90 5260.51 112.89149.98 75 0.17 69.90 1313.04 25 4.00 69.90 10483.36 224.9628.19 75 0.17 69.90 246.76 25 2.00 69.90 985.08 70.4656.71 75 0.17 69.90 496.46 25 2.00 69.90 1981.89 141.770.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00169660.1933932.0413660.00 15743.87 353.53 169660.19 1504.9014403.23 18710.84 565.76 203592.22 1504.90Option1APIdataI-13Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 535 0.00 0.00 12 1.50 25816.88 11364.55 N/A 0.00 0.98Reconstructed CD * Heavy-liquid service 386 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 9,343 0.00 11,761.26 4 1.50 56057.92 1.57 146.73 1.28* Light-liquid service 18,815 0.00 24,193.00 4 1.50 112892.02 1.60 301.83 1.18* Heavy-liquid service 9,945 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 22,113 17.70 408,390.25 1 2.50 55282.05 1.7 375.92 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 41,284 17.70 762,455.92 1 2.50 103210.41 1.7 701.83 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 24,195 1.13 27,340.13Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 22,113 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 41,284 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 24,195 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals535 180.00 0.00Adminstrative and Reportshr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 60 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 60 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 60 0 68.78 0.00* No. Processes (connectors) 60 20 68.78 82,055.27TOTALS without connectors35,954.26 0.00 194,766.82 11,364.55TOTALS with connectors1,234,140.56 82,055.27 353,259.28 11,364.55Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 35,954Annualized Initial Costs5,106Annual Expenses 1,420,904Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,039,888Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 386,121With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 1,316,196Annualized Initial Costs186,900Annual Expenses 1,808,367Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 1,426,820Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 568,446Option1APIdataI-14Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed CD * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdminstrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)63.14 100 16.00 69.90 70611.73 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 94.70 9091.64477.13 75 0.17 69.90 4177.28 25 4.00 69.90 33351.56 715.70886.27 75 0.17 69.90 7759.29 25 4.00 69.90 61950.42 1329.41179.91 75 0.17 69.90 1575.11 25 2.00 69.90 6287.85 449.77335.89 75 0.17 69.90 2940.69 25 2.00 69.90 11739.28 839.720.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.001025690.87205138.1782,548.31 95,301.98 2,139.81 1,025,690.87 9,091.6487,064.10 113,329.12 3,429.31 1,230,829.05 9,091.644515.80 18027.13 1289.49 205138.17 0.00Option1APIdataI-15Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 105 0.00 1,162.33 12 1.50 5092.78 2241.83 0.98 1.04 0.98Reconstructed MACT * Heavy-liquid service 65 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 1,892 0.00 3,735.02 4 1.50 11349.68 2.46 46.60 1.28* Light-liquid service 3,665 0.00 6,674.44 4 1.50 21991.56 2.27 83.27 1.18* Heavy-liquid service 2,074 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 4,493 17.70 82,974.28 1 2.50 11231.87 1.7 76.38 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 8,053 17.70 148,729.03 1 2.50 20132.81 1.7 136.90 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 4,877 1.13 5,510.90Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 4,493 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 8,053 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 4,877 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals105 180.00 186.82Adminstrative and Reportshr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 12 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 12 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 12 0 68.78 0.00* No. Processes (connectors) 12 20 68.78 16,192.99TOTALS without connectors11,758.61 0.00 38,752.30 31,669.51TOTALS with connectors248,972.82 16,192.99 70,116.99 31,669.51Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 11,759Annualized Initial Costs1,689Annual Expenses 333,699Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 229,437Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 105,951With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 265,166Annualized Initial Costs37,673Annual Expenses 410,263Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 305,903Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 142,032Option1APIdataI-16Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed MACT * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdminstrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)12.45 100 16.00 69.90 13929.26 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 18.68 1793.4796.60 75 0.17 69.90 845.75 25 4.00 69.90 6752.47 144.90172.65 75 0.17 69.90 1511.52 25 4.00 69.90 12068.05 258.9736.55 75 0.17 69.90 320.02 25 2.00 69.90 1277.53 91.3865.52 75 0.17 69.90 573.63 25 2.00 69.90 2289.93 163.800.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00202412.3440482.4716,286.53 18,820.52 422.56 202,412.34 25,335.6117,180.18 22,387.98 677.74 242,894.80 25,335.61893.65 3567.46 255.18 40482.47 0.00Option1APIdataI-17Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDAR Costs($/yr) (Capital)Initial LDARAdmin. CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoring Fee($/comp) orCharge (%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumber ofLeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)Pump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid service 59 0.00 1,609.55 12 1.50 2848.91 1254.09 2.44 1.44 0.98Reconstructed NSPS * Heavy-liquid service 54 0.00 0.00Option 1Valves* Gas/vapor service 982 0.00 4,801.68 4 1.50 5894.64 6.10 59.90 1.28* Light-liquid service 2,123 0.00 9,568.98 4 1.50 12735.86 5.62 119.38 1.18* Heavy-liquid service 985 0.00 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 2,310 17.70 42,653.17 1 2.50 5773.78 1.70 39.26 0.81* Flanges - light liquid 4,647 17.70 85,814.76 1 2.50 11616.38 1.70 78.99 0.81* Flanges -heavy liquid 2,566 1.13 2,899.37Connectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor 2,310 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges - light liquid 4,647 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A* Flanges -heavy liquid 2,566 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals59 180.00 258.70Adminstrative and Reportshr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 7 250 68.78* No. Processes (connectors) 7 50 68.78Planning and Traininghr/activity $/hr* No. Processes (valves and pumps) 7 0 68.78 0.00* No. Processes (connectors) 7 20 68.78 9,048.54TOTALS without connectors16,238.92 0.00 21479.41 1254.09TOTALS with connectors147,606.22 9,048.54 38869.57 1254.09Without connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 16,239Annualized Initial Costs2,332Annual Expenses 156,682Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 116,442Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 42,572With connectorsInitial Costs w/o OVA and Train 156,655Annualized Initial Costs22,271Annual Expenses 199,308Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 159,003Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 62,577Option1APIdataI-18Type of ComponentPump SealsRefinery Model process * Light-liquid serviceReconstructed NSPS * Heavy-liquid serviceOption 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidConnectors (baseline)* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidReplacement Pump SealsAdminstrative and Reports* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)Planning and Training* No. Processes (valves and pumps)* No. Processes (connectors)TOTALS without connectorsTOTALS with connectorsAnnualNumber ofLeaksPercentRepairedOnLineRepair Time(hours)Labor Charge($/hr)Annual OnLineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)Annual OfflineLeak RepairCost ($/yr)Monitoring toVerify Repair($)AnnualAdmin. Cost($/yr)Annual Misc.Charges($/yr)6.97 100 16.00 69.90 7792.06 0 80.00 69.90 0.00 10.45 1003.2750.17 75 0.17 69.90 439.25 25 4.00 69.90 3507.01 75.2699.98 75 0.17 69.90 875.36 25 4.00 69.90 6988.91 149.9818.79 75 0.17 69.90 164.51 25 2.00 69.90 656.72 46.9837.80 75 0.17 69.90 330.98 25 2.00 69.90 1321.26 94.510.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.000.00 75 0.17 69.90 0.00 25 2.00 69.90 0.00 0.00113106.7922621.369106.67 10495.91 235.68 113106.79 1003.279602.15 12473.89 377.17 135728.15 1003.27Option1APIdataI-19

# Nationwide Impacts of 100 ppm Leak

Definition Cost-Effectiveness

(Mg/yr) (tons/yr) Cost ($/Mg) ($/ton)

Alternate Option Impacts 19 21 156,381 8,338 7,564

Incremental Impacts 7.3 8 129,990 17,767 16,118

Summary of emissions reductions and cost estimates for six refinery models

Refinery model

New CD Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr

Annual cost, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 0.4

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 38.63

Quarterly 2,495,829

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 2,521,662 Pumps plus valves 25,833 25,610

Pumps, valves, and connectors 879,719 856,542

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 3,375,548 Incremental cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed

Pumps plus valves 69,267 68,667

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps, valves, and connectors 22,774 22,174

Refinery model

New MACT Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr

Annual cost, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 3.6

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 41.86

Semiannually 666,791

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 705,491 Pumps plus valves 38,701 36,537

Pumps, valves, and connectors 207,521 182,405

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 874,312 Incremental cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed

Pumps plus valves 10,733 10,133

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps, valves, and connectors 4,957 4,357

Refinery model

New NSPS Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr

Annual cost, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 7.28

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 11.47

Semiannually 254,221

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 278,039 Pumps plus valves 23,819 19,454

Pumps, valves, and connectors 117,667 110,783

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 371,887 Incremental cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed

Pumps plus valves 3,274 2,674

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps, valves, and connectors 10,256 9,656 Emission Reduction

Option 1 Emissions I-20

# Refinery model

Reconstructed CD Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr

Annual cost, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 0.25

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 25.75

Quarterly 1,403,682

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 1,426,009 Pumps plus valves 22,328 22,179

Pumps, valves, and connectors 591,585 576,134

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 1,995,267 Incremental cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed

Pumps plus valves 89,802 89,202

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps, valves, and connectors 22,972 22,372

Refinery model

Reconstructed MACT Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr

Annual cost, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 2.4

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 40.66

Semiannually 307,899

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 335,388 Pumps plus valves 27,489 26,047

Pumps, valves, and connectors 140,036 115,641

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 447,935 Incremental cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed

Pumps plus valves 11,436 10,836

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps, valves, and connectors 3,444 2,844

Refinery model

Reconstructed NSPS Incremental emission reductions, Mg/yr

Annual cost, $/yr

Pumps plus valves 4.85

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 7.65

Semiannually 140,803

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 159,014 Pumps plus valves 18,211 15,301

Pumps, valves, and connectors 80,777 76,188

Option 3 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 221,580 Incremental cost effectiveness, $/Mg removed

Pumps plus valves 3,755 3,155

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps, valves, and connectors 10,561 9,961

Option 1 Emissions I-21

# Attachment J

ResultsNationwide Impacts for Future New and Reconstructed Petroleum RefineriesOptionVOCEmissions atSelectedOption (Mg/yr)CumulativeEmissionReduction(Mg/yr)Initial Cost($)Initial CostBeyondBaseline ($)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/Mg)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/Mg)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/Mg)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/Mg)Baseline 303.8 4,476,992 5,269,224 5,269,2241 292.4 11 4,501,097 24,105 5,295,615 26,391 2,307 5,288,751 19,527 1,7072 209.0 95 6,620,198 2,143,206 7,158,291 1,889,068 19,924 22,342 7,101,404 1,832,180 19,324 21,7423 165.3 139 8,483,397 4,006,405 7,737,881 2,468,657 17,824 13,266 7,654,780 2,385,556 17,224 12,666OptionVOCEmissions atSelectedOption (tons/yr)CumulativeEmissionReduction(tons/yr)Initial Cost($)Initial CostBeyondBaseline ($)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/ton)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/ton)Annual Cost($/yr)Annual CostBeyondBaseline ($/yr)CostEffectiveness($/ton)IncrementalCostEffectiveness($/ton)Baseline 334.9 4,476,992 5,269,224 5,269,2241 322.3 13 4,501,097 24,105 5,295,615 26,391 2,093 5,288,751 19,527 1,5492 230.4 105 6,620,198 2,143,206 7,158,291 1,889,068 18,075 20,268 7,101,404 1,832,180 17,531 19,7243 182.2 153 8,483,397 4,006,405 7,737,881 2,468,657 16,170 12,035 7,654,780 2,385,556 15,625 11,491Option 1: Leak definitions of 500 ppm for valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps, new or reconstructed in the five years after proposalof the amended NSPS.Option 2: Option 1 + Monitor and repair connectors at 500 ppm, new or reconstructed in the five years of thenew subpartOption 3: Option 1 + semiannual monitoring of open-ended linesBaseline represents emissions and costs over the next five years if no changes are made to subparts VV and GGG. TheBaseline and the two Options account for the facilities subject to consent decree and new-source MACT.Annual cost includes annualized initial cost - Initial costs are included for reference onlyWithout Recovery Credit With Recovery CreditWithout Recovery Credit With Recovery CreditNationwide Impacts SummaryJ-1

# Summary of emissions reductions and cost estimates for six refinery models

Refinery model

New CD Incremental emission reductions

Annual cost, $/yr Mg/yr tons/yr

Pumps plus valves 0.0 0.0

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 38.26 42.2

Quarterly 2,495,829

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 1 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 2,495,829 Pumps plus valves 0 0

Pumps, valves, and connectors 854,116 831,162

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 3,349,945 Incremental cost effectiveness

w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps plus valves N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pumps, valves, and connectors 22,327 21,727 20,254 19,710

Refinery model

New MACT Incremental emission reductions

Annual cost, $/yr Mg/yr tons/yr

Pumps plus valves 1.1 1.2

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 8.64 9.5

Semiannually 666,791

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 1 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 674,178 Pumps plus valves 7,387 6,747

Pumps, valves, and connectors 176,253 171,071

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 843,044 Incremental cost effectiveness

w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps plus valves 6,923 6,323 6,281 5,736

Pumps, valves, and connectors 20,406 19,806 18,512 17,967

Refinery model

New NSPS Incremental emission reductions

Annual cost, $/yr Mg/yr tons/yr

Pumps plus valves 5.80 6.4

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 9.99 11.0

Semiannually 254,221

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 1 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 260,587 Pumps plus valves 6,367 2,889

Pumps, valves, and connectors 100,240 94,244

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 354,461 Incremental cost effectiveness

w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps plus valves 1,098 498 996 452

Pumps, valves, and connectors 10,030 9,430 9,099 8,554 $/Mg removed $/ton removed $/Mg removed $/ton removed

$/Mg removed $/ton removed

Option 1 Emissions J-2

# Refinery model

Reconstructed CD Incremental emission reductions

Annual cost, $/yr Mg/yr tons/yr

Pumps plus valves 0.00 0.0

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 25.50 28.1

Quarterly 1,403,682

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 1 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 1,403,682 Pumps plus valves 0 0

Pumps, valves, and connectors 569,410 554,108

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Quarterly 1,973,092 Incremental cost effectiveness

w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps plus valves N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pumps, valves, and connectors 22,327 21,727 20,254 19,710

Refinery model

Reconstructed MACT Incremental emission reductions

Annual cost, $/yr Mg/yr tons/yr

Pumps plus valves 0.7 0.8

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 5.76 6.3

Semiannually 307,899

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 1 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 314,278 Pumps plus valves 6,379 5,952

Pumps, valves, and connectors 118,957 115,502

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 426,856 Incremental cost effectiveness

w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps plus valves 8,968 8,368 8,136 7,591

Pumps, valves, and connectors 20,658 20,058 18,741 18,196

Refinery model

Reconstructed NSPS Incremental emission reductions

Annual cost, $/yr Mg/yr tons/yr

Pumps plus valves 3.86 4.3

Subpart GGG with valves monitored: Pumps, valves, and connectors 6.66 7.3

Semiannually 140,803

Incremental cost increase, $/yr w/out credit w/ credit

Option 1 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 147,061 Pumps plus valves 6,258 3,940

Pumps, valves, and connectors 68,841 64,843

Option 2 with valves monitored:

Semiannually 209,643 Incremental cost effectiveness

w/out credit w/ credit w/out credit w/ credit

Operating hours/yr 8,760 Pumps plus valves 1,619 1,019 1,469 925

Pumps, valves, and connectors 10,332 9,732 9,373 8,829 $/Mg removed $/ton removed

$/Mg removed $/ton removed $/Mg removed $/ton removed

Option 1 Emissions J-3