p. 1



# OAR Box 1168 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 101 ) ll-C-30 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 4/29/200811:23:20AM

Sheet 101 of 131P. 2

ft LA WOFFICE S PHILI PJ . HARTE R

SUIT E 40 4 230 1 M STREET . N.W . WASHINGTON , D.C . 2003 7 (202 ) 887.103 3 FAX : (202 ) 887.103 6 

## LER AAI R pec: < Octobe r 5 , 199 0 

## MEMORANDU M

-> To : EPANegotiate d Rulemaking Committe e o n Fugitiv e Emission s Fr : Phili p J . Harte r Re : Propose d Chang e i n Flang e Standar d CM Aha s propose d a revisio n i n th e flang e standar d base d o n furthe r analysi s an d comment s fro

mconstituen t companie s afte r ou r Augus t workgrou

p meeting . Th e proposa l woul d provid e a compan y wit ha n option : I t coul d (1 ) follo wth e rul e a s currentl ywritte n i n whic hi t woul d hav e t o monito r eac hflang e withi n 6 0 day s an d i t woul d hav e th e benefi t o f an unrepairabl e pool . Or , (2 ) th e compan ycoul d elec t t o forg o th e unrepairabl e poo l an d woul d no t hav e t o separatel ymonito r th e opene d flange s (i.e. , theywoul d b e treate d a s an

yothe r flang e fo r purpose s o f monitoring) . Acompan y woul d hav e t o elec t a t th e outse t whic hoptio n i t choose s t o follow . I t maychang e fro mon e t o th e other , bu t onl yb ystarting ane wwit hannua l monitoring . Th e resul t o f exercising thi s optio n woul d b e tha t 0.5 % o f al l flange s i n th e plan t mus t b e belo w50 0 pp ma t al l times , an

d henc e th e performanc e requiremen t i s actuall y tighte r tha n th e curren t proposa l whil e affording flexibility . CMA' s .explanation an d propose d chang e i s attached . Becaus e tim e i s veryshort , unles s I hea r t o th e contraryb y Friday , Octobe r 12 , I wil l assume yo u assen t t o th e change . Thanks .P. 3

Octobe r 4 , 199 0 A s w e ge t mor e int o the detail s o f thi s plan an d ge t mor e specifi c plan t inpu t on howsom e o f thes e provision s coul d b e carrie d out , a particula r proble mare a ha s bee n uncovered . Th

©requirement s fo r flange s ar o primaril ynew , an d w ®hav e mad e educate d guesse s abou t thei r results . Du e t o th s muo hlarge r numbe r o f flange s than an yothe r component , includin g flange s wil l have a majo r effect . Fo r th e mos t part , th e Committe e ha s take n precaution s t o preven t th e cost s o f (Socuaeatia g control s t o overwhel m th e cost s e f th e controls * A s w e ge t mor s an d mor e plan t feedbeok , ©n e provisio n stand s ou t a s havin g a burdensome recordkeeping requiremen t eve n wher e ther e woul d b e minima l environmenta l benefit . Currentl yVHAP System s hav e no reportin g requirement s fo r flanges . Wit hthe curren t draf t language , eac hindividua l opene d flang e i n VHAP servic e wil l have t o b e located, " idantifisd , actio n take n an d recorded , al l withi n a 6 0 da y period s Thi s i s a multipl e ste p actio n tha t wil l requir e multipl e visit s t o th e flange . (Thi s migh t mak e i t necessar

yt o tag flange s even thoug hw e wer e carefu l t o sp©l l ou t i n th e draf t regulatio n tha t thi s woul d no t b e required. ) Afte r a flang e ha a bee n opene d i n th e field , somebod ymus t figur e ou t whic hon e i t i s an d record the .information , A t times , i t woul d b e ver ydifficul t fo r peopl e no t involved in th e maintenanc e wor k t o eve n know wha t pipe s g o where , sinc e disassembl yan d reassembl ywoul d b e occurring continuously , somebod ywoul d nee d t o chec k ou t al l opene d pipe s on a regula r basis . Larg e unit s wa y

______ •P. 4

I i ._ > _I i J U1L"1.'

_• '_IH_.l l Ul '

-2- requir e a ful l time "open=f,lange " technician , in fact , lot s o f disassembl yca n tak e plac e awa yfro mth e proces s i n a maintenanc e wor k area . I n addition , conside r the discussion s w e had abou t partia l sample s versu s monitoring al l flanges . I t woul d tak e almos t a o lon g t o monito r jus t th e opened flange s (i.e . 5-30% ) a s t e monito r al l flanges . Thi s i s th e cas e becaus e o f al l th e tim ©spen t looking fo r specifi c opene d flange s rathe r than ful l monitoring . X n actua l practice , man yplant s ar e leak-checke d a t o r bafor o start-up . Th e majo r differenc e i s the constraint® tha t th e documenting an d recordkeeping provision s impose . Thi s recordkeeping i s an unnecessar yburde n fo r plant s tha t hav ©adequat e maintenanc e an d wor k practic e procedure s - alread yi n plac e tha t hav e eliminate d o r greatl yminimize d flang e leaks . I n fact , th e cos t an d complexit yo f th e 6 0 da yfollow-u

p monitoring i s completel yindependen t o f emissions . Plant s tha t fin d n o leak s wil l spen d virtuall y a s muc htim e an

d effor t o n monitoring an d recordkeeping a s plant s wit ha significan t fraction leaking . Plant s wit h frsquen t shutdown s ma yfin d themselve s monitoring almos t constantly . Tn ©advantag e t o industr yfo r the follow-u

p monitoring i s tha t i t establishe s th e nonrepairabl e poo l (2%) .P. 5

RECOMMENDATIO

N W e proposls-tha

t plants , willing t o exercis e th e optio n o f giving u p th e nonrepairabl e pool , no t b e require d t o d o th e follow-u p monitoring fo r opene d flange s (i.e . § XX.X2-13(c ) o n pag e 3 3 o f th e Septembe r 2 6 draft) . Mor e specificall yw e propos e changin g th e curren t (c ) t o (c)(1 ) an d adding two ne wsubsections : (c)(2 ) Aproces s uni t ma yexercis e an optio n no t t o d o thi s monitoring along wit hrelinquishing th e unrepairabl e poo l an d using C n = 0 i n th e equatio n o n pp . 3 5 an d 36 . (c)(3 ) Aproces s uni t ma yno t g o fro

moptio n (1 ) o r (2 ) t o th e othe r withou t starting bac k agai n wit hannua l monitoring . f j-^y. ~>r*

,•

.* J Exercising thi s optio n wil l limi t a plan t t o n o mor e tha n 0.5 % instea d o f 2. 0 + 0.5 % exceeding 50 0 ppm . Thi s option , whil e providin g mor e flexibility , wil l als o b e mor e stringent .Octobe r 4 , 199 0 P. 6

w e ge t mor e int o the detail s o f thi s plan an d ge t mor e specifi c plan t inpu t on howsome o f thes e provision s coul d b e carrie d out , a particula r proble mare a ha s bee n uncovored . Th e requirement s fo r flange s ar ®primaril ynew , an d w e hav e mad e educate d guesse s abou t thei r results . Du e t o th e muc hlarge r numbe r o f flange s than an yothe r component , includin g flange s wil l have a majo r effect . Fo r th e mos t part , th e Committe e ha s take n precaution s t o preven t th e cost s o f documentin g control s t o overwhel mth e cost s o f th e controls . Ae w e ge t mor e an d mor e plan t feadbaok , en e provisio n Btand e ou t a s havin g a burdensome recordkeeping requiremen t eve n wher e ther e woul d b e minima l environmenta l benefit . Currentl yVHAP System s hav e no reportin g requirement s for flanges . Wit hth e curren t draf t language , eachindividua l opene d flang e i n VHAP servic e wil l have t o b e located, ' identified , actio n take n an d recorded , al l withi n a 6 0 da y period . Thi s i s a multipl e ste p actio n tha t wil l requir e multipl e visit s t o th e flange . (Thi s migh t mak e i t necessar

yt o tag flange s eve n thoug hw e wer e carefu l t o spel l ou t i n th e draf t regulatio n tha t thi s woul d no t b e required. ) Afte r a flang e ha s bee n opene d in th e field , somebod ymus t figur e ou t whic hon e i t i s an d record the .information , A t times , i t woul d b e ver ydifficul t fo r peopl e no t involve d i n th e maintenanc e wor k t o eve n know wha t pipe s g o where , sinc e disassembl yan d reassembl ywoul d b e occurring continuouslyusomebod ywoul d need t o chec k ou t al l opene d pipe s on a regula r basis . Larg e unit s ma yP. 7

-2

- roquir e a ful l time "open-flange " technician . in fact , lot s o f disassembl ycan tak e plac e awa yfro mthe proces s in a maintenance * wor k area . I n addition , conside r the discussion s w e ha d abou t partia l sample s vorsu s monitoring al l flanges . I t woul d tak e almos t a s lon g t o monito r jus t the opened flange s (i.e . 5-30% ) a s t o monito r al l flanges . Thi e i s th e cas e becaus e o f al l the tia a spen t lookin

g fo r specifi c opened flange s rathe r than ful l monitoring o S n actua l practice , man yplant s ar e leak°checke d a t o r bofor o start-up . Th e majo r differenc e i s the constraint® tha t th e documenting an d recordkeepin

g provision s impose . Thi s recordkeeping i s a n unnecessar

yburde n fo r plant s tha t hav ©adequat e maintenanc e an d wor k practic e procedure s alread yi n plac e tha t hav e eliminate d o r greatl yminimize d flang e leaks . I n fact , th e cos t an d complexit yo f the 6 0 da yfollow=u

p monitoring i s completel yindependen t o f emissions . Plant s tha t fin d n o leak s wil l spen d virtuall y a s muc htime an

d effor t on monitoring an d recordkeeping a s plant s wit ha significan t fraction leaking . Plant s wit h fr®quen t shutdown s ma yfin d themselve s monitoring almos t constantly . Th o advantag e t o industr yfo r the follow=u

p monitoring i s tha t i t establishe s the nonrepairabl e poo l (2%) .

_______ _P. 8

RECOMMENDATION W e propo5e-tha t plants , willing t o exercis e th e optio n o f giving up th e nonrepairabl e pool , no t b e require d t o d o th e follow-u p monitoring fo r opene d flange s (i.e . § XX.X2-13(c ) o n pag e 3 3 o f the Septembe r 2 6 draft) . Mor e specificall yw e propos e changin g th e curren t (c ) t o (c)(1 ) an d adding two ne wsubsections : (c)(2 ) (c)(3 ) Aproces s uni t ma yexercis e an optio n no t t o do thi s monitoring along wit hrelinquishing th e unrepairabl e poo l an d using C n = 0 i n th e equatio n o n pp . 3 5 an d 36 . Aproces s uni t ma

yno t g o fro

moptio n (1 ) o r (2 ) t o th e othe r withou t starting bac k agai n wit hannua l monitoring . u .*

- " / Exercising thi s optio n wil l limi t a plan t t o n o mor e than 0.5 % instea d o f 2. 0 + 0.5 % exceeding 50 0 ppm . Thi s option , whil e providin g mor e flexibility , wil l als o b e mor e stringent .