p.1 

OAR Box 1168 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

81) ll-C-9 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 4/29/2008 11:23:19 AM Sheet 81 of 131 
P.2 

* A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC A.QQ H ft 

I ^WP? 3 Office of Air Quality Planning and St r\, O WTM I W 

y^JIfi*'/ Research Triangle Park, North Carolin n-c- 9 

%««< / 

EP 15 

Dr. Terry F. Yosie , FEB 1 #5 

Vice President 

American Petroleum Institute ioA/S ~;i , ^ ^r 

1220 L Street, Northwest LJZZZrrrtrr^r 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Dear Dr. Yosie: 

This is in response to your letter of September 13, 1989, regarding the 

regulatory negotiation for equipment leaks. In your letter you asked for my 

views on how the outcome of the negotiation may affect the future regulation 

of refineries and other petroleum facilities, and specifically whether the 

technologies and emission factors developed in the negotiations would be 

applied to other substances at petroleum facilities. 

I understand that these are important questions to be considered in 

making a decision to participate in the negotiation, and I will attempt to 

answer your questions as directly as possible. First, however, I think it is 

important to consider in the broad perspective, that the motivation for the 

negotiation stems from the conclusion that current leak detection and repair 

rules do not result in the emission reductions that can be achieved with the 

best technology. This is so both for refineries and chemical plants. In 

addition, the emission rates that result after application of current rules 

appear to vary widely from plant to plant and the actual emission levels are 

not readily quantifiable. These problems were evident in the recent benzene 

rulemaking for equipment leaks and are described in the preamble to that rule. 

Clearly, there is a need to develop new rules that are consistent with 

available control technology and that will achieve air quality goals. This 

need applies to all source categories including refineries. 

The negotiation is intended to overcome the current deficiencies. It is 

possible that the negotiated rule will be different conceptually from the 

current rules, and will include a number of new provisions designed to meet 

the interests of the affected parties. Assuming the negotiation is 

successful, it would be reasonable to expect that EPA would extend these 

concepts and provisions to other source categories and substances that will be 

regulated in the future. 

Regarding emission factors, it is our intention that the factors that 

will be developed in the negotiation will apply broadly to synthetic organic 

chemicals, not only those listed in the September 12 Federal Reaister. It is 

not our intention at this time to apply these factors to refinery emissions 

unless subsequent analysis should support such extrapolation. 
P.3 

With regard to the "technology basis" for regulation, it is clear that 

effective leak prevention involves a combination of many technologies and 

practices beyond leak detection and repair. This is discussed briefly in the 

Federal Register and is true for both organic chemical plants and refineries. 

A goal of the negotiation will be to identify a performance standard that is 

achievable through combinations of the available technologies and which 

achieves maximum emission reduction. I expect that there would be one 

performance standard (not chemical by chemical standards) that would apply to 

all the categories and chemicals listed in the Federal Rgg_M§r announcement. 

This standard would not necessarily be applied in future regulations for other 

source categories and chemicals. However, this would certainly be an option 

and probably a presumptive starting point in decisions on future rules for 

organic chemicals. 

Finally, you may want also to consider that a new regulatory approach 

will encompass a number of elements beyond emission factors and performance 

levels. The list of "interests" that are described in the September 12, 1989 

ESiiin_l Register announcement gives insight into the elements that might 

result from the negotiation. For example, the current rule does not contain 

enforceable emission limits for valves and pumps. As such, EPA's interest is 

in a new rule that is directly enforceable. For example, a rule that would 

allow an inspector to perform a quick on-site inspection to determine 

compliance would be optimum. In contrast, the occurrence of leaks is not 

completely predictable and industry has the need to be able to predict 

compliance status. A goal of the negotiation would, therefore, be regulatory 

provisions that meet both interests. The potential to develop new and perhaps 

innovative approaches which respond to such interests is on® of the major 

benefits of negotiation. If the negotiation is successful, I would think that 

these sorts of provisions would extend to any future rules or rule revisions 

that would apply to other organic compounds'or to refineries. 

Thus, in short, I would anticipate that the results of the negotiation 

could be extended directly for the regulation of other organic chemicals and 

source categories. I would not expect that EPA would extend the negotiated 

rule directly to refineries. However, the conceptual framework of the rule 

would likely be a basis for future rules affecting refineries. 

I hope that this information is useful to you in deciding to participate 

in the negotiations. If I can be of further assistance, please call me. 

Sincerely, 

a^4*/ Oy^y 

Robert L. Ajax, Chief 

Standards Development Branch 

Emission Standards Division