P. 1


# OAR Box 1672 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# ojzf) ll-B-2 1 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/30/200811:01:00AM

Sheet 27 of 132P. 2 

## A-iZ-13 jr-3-21
Selecte d material from Memo :
From : Kennet

h R
. Meardon To : Grou

p IV Polymer s andResin s Docke t A-92-4 5 Date : Octobe

r 26,199 8 Subject : Equipmen

t Lea k Analysi s fo

r PE T Facilitie s Subject

to th e Grou

p I V Polymer s andResin s NESHA

P
Thi s itemha s been placedi n th e docke t fo r th e Organi c Liquid s Distributio n (non

Gasoline ) NESHA

P becaus e it

wa s useda s referenc e materia l i n determinin g th e environmenta l andcos t impact s o f

equipmen t lea k detectio n an

drepair programs . Thes e analyse s are describedi n Mem o No
. 6 o f th e technica

l suppor t document , whic hi s documen t no . III-B- 1 i n thi s docket
.P. 3

ATTACHMENT S
"DETERMINATIO

N O F MACT FLOOR

S FO REQUIPMEN

T LEAKS " Memorandum

. K . Meardon, PES , to Grou

p I V Resin s Docke tNo . A-92-45 . Marc h 24,199 5



# 2P. 4

/H 7 PACIFI C ENVIRONMENTA L SERVICES , INC . Centra l Park Wes t 500 1 Sout h Miam i Boulevar d P O Bo x 1207 7 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 27709-207 7 (919)941-033 3 FA

X (919 ) 941-023 4

MEMORANDU M TO : Grou p T

V Resin s Docke tNo . A-924 5 FROM : Ke n Meardo n

Pacifi c Environmental Services , Inc . DATE : Marc

h 24,199 5 SUBJECT : Determinatio n o f MAC T Floor s forEquipmen tLeak s Th e purpos e o f

thi s mem o i s t o describ e th e methodolog y use d t o calculat e th e MAC T floor s fo rth e sourc e categorie s covere d b y th e Grou p I V Resin s nationa l emissio n standard s fo rhazardou s ai rpollutants (NESHAP) . Th e sam e basi c methodology , a s describe d below , wa s use d fo reac h sourc e category/subcategory . Basi c Methodolog y Th e basi c methodolog y consiste d o f estimatin g uncontrolle d equipmen tleak emissions , identifying th e leve l o f contro l ateach facult

y base d o n tha tfacility' s specifi c lea k and detectio n repai r(LDAR ) progra m (if one wa s i n place) , applyin g th e "controlled " equipmen tlea k factor s t o estimate emission s afte rcontrol , an d the n calculatin g th e percen temissio n reductio n achieve d a teac h facilit y withi n each sourc e category/subcategory . Th e informatio n o n th e percen treductio n achieve d b y th e specifi c programs wa s the n use d t o determin e th e MAC T floors fo reac h sourc e category/subcategory . Eac h individua

l plan twa s groupe d wit

h all othe rplants o n th e basi s o f th e typ e o f polyme ro rresi n produced . Where aplantproduced polymers o rresin s i n mor e tha n on e sourc e category/subcategory , th e equipmentcomponents wer e separated , where possible , accordin g t o th e typ e o f polyme ro rresin . I

f thi s wa s no tpossible , the n al l o f th e component s wer e include d i n eac h applicabl e sourc e category/subcategory for purpose s o f

determinin g th e MAC T floors . Estimatin g Uncontrolle d Emission s Thi s ste p required determinin g (1 ) th e equipmentcomponen tcount s a teach plan t and (2 ) th e emissio n factors fo reac h componen tcategor y (e.g. , valv e i n gas service , pum p i n ligh tliquid service) .

WASHMGTON . O. C •RESEARC H TRIANGL E PAR KM C •LO S ANGELES . C A •CMCMNATI . O HP. 5

A numbe ro f

facilitie s provided informatio n o n th e componentcounts a taplant . Where thes e counts wer e provided , they wer e use d directl y i n th e estimation . Fo rfacilitie s tha tdi d no tprovide equipmen tcomponentcounts , a n estimat e ha d t o b e mad e fo reac h componen ttype . Ther e ar e man y variables tha taffec tth e numbe r o f component s a tafacility . Such variable s include , bu tare no tlimite d to , th e ag e o f th e facility , th e numbe ro f

proces s lines , and th e capacit y o f each lin e an d o f

th e facility . Thus , fo rexample , i ti s generally recognize d thatth e numbero f Component

s an d thu s emission s ar e relate d t o th e capacit y o f afacility . However , sufficien tinformatio n wa s notavailabl e t o perfor

m an y sophisticate d analysis fo restimating th e numbe ro f components fo rthos e facilities . Th e availabl e information o n equipmen tcomponents wa s identifie d an d estimate s o f th e numbe ro f

eac h componen twa

s mad e i n term s o f

componentpe rproces s lin e and componentpe rdesig n capacity . Th e results o f thi s analysis showed , tha tfo rthi s industry , butunlike fo rth e syntheti c organic chemicalindustry (SOCMI) , estimatin g th e numbe ro f components b y components-per-capacit y wa s no tnecessarily unreasonable . Th e siz e o f individua l proces s line s withi n asubcategor y wa s fairl

y simila rand many o f

th e facilitie s are o f th e sam e generation . Therefore , fo restimatio n purposes , i twa s decide d t o us e th e informatio n provide d o n individua l facilitie s within th e sourc e category/subcategory , calculat e an averag e coun tforeach componen ttype , an d then rati o th e desig n capacit y o f th e targe tplantwit

h th e average desig n capacit y o f th e plant s thatprovide d actual equipmentcounts . T o estimate uncontrolle d emissions , th e emissio n factor s reporte d i n th e 199 3 Protoco l document 1 wer e used . Thes e factors wer e use d t o provid e aconsisten tbaselin e forestimatin g th e impac to f various LDA Rprograms i n us e i n th e sourc e categories . Fo rth e several facilitie s thatprovided specifi c an d clea rinformation , th e estimate s o f emission s wer e adjuste d t o accountfo rlo w HA Pconcentrations an d reduce d hour s o f operation . Identifying Leve l o f

Controls A numbero f

facilitie s provided informatio n o n th e control programs bein g use d t o reduc e emission s fro m equipmentleaks . Othe rfacilitie s simpl y identifie d aLDA R program, butdi d no tprovid e an y details . Stil l othe rfacilitie s did no tindicate an y contro l program s fo requipmen tleaks . Fo rfacilitie s tha tprovided information o n th e specifi c programs , thes e programs were use d directly . Fo rfacilitie s tha tindicate d thataLDA Rprogra m wa s bein g used ,

1 U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Offic

e o f AirQualit

y Plannin g an d Standards. Protoco l forEquipmen

tLea k Emissio n Estimates . EPA-453/R-93-026 , Jun e 1993 .P. 6

butdi d no tprovid e specifics , th e Stat e regulatio n thatappears t o b e applicabl e t o th e plan twa s use d t o estimat e th e specifics . I n mos tcases , thi s resulte d i n assumin g aCTGlik e leve l o f

control . I n on e o rtw o instances , aLDA Rprogra m wa s indicated , bu tn o Stat e progra

m coul d b e identified . Iti s assume d tha tth e LDARprogram wa s therefor e du e t o plantpolicy . Fo rfacilitie s thatdid no tindicate an y program s fo requipmen tleaks, n o contro l wa s assume d unles s th e facilit y wa s locate d i n aStat e with aLDA Rprogra m thatwa s obviousl y directe d toward thatplanto rtyp e o f plan t Controlle d Emissio n Factor s Th e controlle d emissio n factor s associate d wit h variou s LDA Rprograms use d i n determinin g th e MAC T floors are summarized in Tabl e 1 . Tabl e 2 show s th e percen t reductio n o f

th e controlle d emissio n factors ove rth e uncontrolle d emissio n factors . I n mos tinstances , th e controlle d emissio n factors ar e base d primaril y o n informatio n foun d i n th e 199 3 Protoco l documen tTh e footnote s t o Tabl e 1 detai l th e derivatio n o f th e controlle d emissio n factors . Calculatio n o f

Emissio n Reductio n and Controlle d Emissio n Rate s Usin g th e equipmen tcomponen tcounts , uncontrolle d emissio n factors , and controlle d emissio n factors , th e amounto f emissio n reductio n achieve d b y componen t and fo rth e entir e plantwa s calculate d fo reac h plan tTh e percen temissio n reduction s wer e the n calculated . Tabl e 3 summarize s th e estimate d percen treduction s fo reac h facilit y withi n eac h sourc e category/subcategory . MAC T Floo rDeterminatio n MAC T floor s wer e the n determine d fo rexistin g and ne w facilitie s withi n eac h sourc e category/subcategory . Fo rsourc e categorie s wit h les s than 5 sourc e categorie s al l o f th e facilitie s wer e use d t o estimat e th e MAC T floor . Th e MAC T floo rwas calculate d b y takin g th e averag e o f

th e percen temissio n reductions achieve d b y eac h o f th e facilities . Thus , fo rexample , th e fou rfacilitie s producing AB S usin g th e batch emulsio n proces s wer e estimate d t o reduc e equipmentleak emission s b y 91.2 , 84.1 , 82.0 , and 79. 5 percent . Th e averag e o f thes e fou rpercen treductions i s 84. 2 percent , which wa s use d t o represen tth e MAC T floo rfo rexistin g source s in thi s subcategory . Fo rsourc e categories/subcategorie s wit h mor e than five facilities , th e five facilitie s wit h th e highes tpercen treduction s wer e identified , an d th e MAC T floo rwa s calculate d a s th e averag e percen treductio n achieve d by thes e fiv e facilities . Fo rexample , th e to p five polystyren e facilitie s using acontinuou s proces s were identifie d a s achievin g 85.8 , 81.9 , 80.8 , 79.6 , and 78. 6 percen treduction . Th e average o f thes e five percen treduction s is 81. 3 percent .P. 7



### Fo r new facilities , th e MACT floo r wa s identifieda s th e bes t

performin g facilit

y withi n th e sourc e category/subcategor y base do n th e estimate dpercen t reduction
. Fo r example , i n th e ABS , batc h emulsio

n sourc e category , th e Monsanto , Addyston , OH , facilit y wa s estimate dt o b e reducing equipment lea k emission s by 91. 2 percen t Thi s wa s the n selecte da s th e MAC T floo r fo r new source s i n thi s subcategory
. I n all cases , th e MAC T floors estimate dfo r existin g an d new source s wer e equivalen t t o o r les s stringent

than th e HON .



## £TABL E 1 SUMMAR YO F EMISSIO

N FACTOR S (llM/tir ) FO

RVARIOU S EOUIPMEM

T LEA KCONTRO L PROGRAM S



### > l

— ^ > | PROGRA

M j Uncontrolleo * | Annua l | Annua l Sen l annua l | Quarterl y

LDA R Quarterl y

LDA R Quarterl y

LDA R Quarterl y

LDAR " Quarterl y

LDA R Monthl y LDA R Monthl y LDA R Monthl y LDA R Monthl y LDA R M o Detectabl e Ea t salons " MO M Maintai nLea s Then— ^ Z XLeaker* ' Maintai nles s than I Xleakers 4 Maintai nles s than 0.S Xleakers ' Lea k Definitio n (Pf» >

— 10,00 0 1,00 0 10.00 0 10.00 0 1,00 0 50 0 

### zo o 100 10,00 0 1,00 0 50 0 10 0 50 0 varie s 10,00 0 1.00 0 10,00 0 10,00 0 V. G

0.013 1 0.0087 ° 0.008 3 • 0.0043 ° 0.00345 " 0.00323 ° 0.003Z 3
0.00165 s 0.0013 ° 0.0012 ° 0.001 0

0.001 ° 0.0020 1 0.00033 6

0.00071 8 EQUIPMEN T CATEGORY * J V.L I 0.0088 7 0.0062 ° 0.00395 *

0.0035 * 0.00273 * 0.00257 * 0.0025 7
0.00141 * 0.00106 * 0.001 * 0.00 1

0.0011 ° 0.0023 2 0.00037 9

0.00085 3 V,H L

0.00050 6

• " P.LL 0.043 8 0.034 ° 0.030 5

0.024 " 0.0172 " 0.0157 * 0.015 7

0.0135 " 0.011 " 0.011 " 0.01 1

0.011 ° 0.0094 2 0.0022 5 0.0067 6 P.H

L 0.0189 6

' . / PRV S 0.228 8 0.1784 ° 0.172 4

0.128 * 0.1166 " 0.1152 * 0.115 2

0.00 7 0.00 7 0.13 5
0.116 4 OEL s

0.0037 4

• Coop * 0.501 6 0.419 °

0.3366 1

0.00 7

0.2 3
0.21 3 Samp .

Com . 0.03 3 Connector s

0.0040 3 0.00052 d 0.000334 d 0.000392 * 0.000349 * 0.000194* " 0.000166 d 0.00016 6 0.00016 6 0.000264° * 0.000124 ° 0.0001* *

0.000286 d 0.00265 5 0.0005 5 0.0014 2TABL E 1 SUMMAR YO F EMISSION

FACTOR S (lta/hr ) FO

RVARIOU S EQUIPMEN T LEA KCONTRO L PROGRAM S

O Q PROGRA

M
N o Evidenc e o f Leaks * "Inspec t a s suspect " Closed-ven t System DN S w/Bsrrle r Fluid " Ruptur e Disk* * Uel dTogether " Blind , Cap , Plug , SecondValv e Closed-loo p Sampling " Lea k Definitio n <PP» )
10,00 0 * • •

V, 0 0.0012 2 V,L L

0.0012 9 V,K L P.L L 0.0099 9

0.00438 " 0 EQUIPMEN T CATEGORY *

P,H L 0.00 7

0.001896 " 0 PRV s

0.097 8

V
0

• 0EL S 0.003 3

0 Coap .

0.18 6

0.05016 " 0 Sasp . Com . "

0 Connector s

0.0005 4 0.00334 '

0

• No t Applicabl e

T J C OP.1 0

FOOTNOTE S T O TABL E 1 * V • valves ; P• pumps ; PRV s • pressur e relie f

valves ; OEL

e » open-ende d lines ; Coop . • compressors ; Samp . Com . samplin g connections ; G * ga s service ; L L • ligh tliqui d service ; H L • heav y liqui d service . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Protoco l fo rEquipmen tLea kEmissio n Estimates . EPA-453/R-93-026 . 1993 . pag e 2-10 . (199 3 Protoco l document) . Converte d fro m kg/h rt o Ibs/h rby : kg/h rx 2. 2 • Ibs/hr . Jun e Estimate db e averagin g uncontrolle demissionfactor s an demissio nfactor s fo r quarterl y LDA Rwit hlea k definitio no f 10,00 0 ppm . For example , fo r valve s i nga s service s (0.013 1 • 0.0043)/ 2 • 0.008 7 Ibs/hr . Fo r some components , thi s I s e conservativ e estimat e a s annua l programs ma y no t b e effectiv e i nreducin g emissions . Derivatio no f emissio nfactor s base do ntakin g know nvalue s (show

ni ndouble-line dboxe s i nth e followin g tables) , bounding unknow

nvalues , an dtakin g mid-point s s s estimate s o f unknow nemissionfactors . Th e firs t tabl e shows know nandestimate dlea k frequencies . Th e secon dtabl e show s th e know

nan destimate demissio nfactors . Thes e value s wer e base dupo nth e 199 3 Protoco l documen t dat a en dequations , an dappl y onl y t o connector s i ngas/vapo r servic e an

dt o connector s I nligh t liqui dservice . CONNECTORLEA

KFREQUENCIE S LDA RPERIO D

Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y Uncontrolle d 500

I 0.2 5

0.12 5 0.06 3 3. 9 LEA

KDEFINITION

(ppm ) 100 0 0.21 3 0.10 6 0.05 3 3.7 8 1000 0

. 0.13 8 0.06 9 0.034 5 1.5 5 Uncontrolle d

I 1.5 5
CONNECTO REMISSION

FACTOR S (Ibs/hr ) LDA RPERIO D

Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y Uncontrolle d 500

| 0.00028 6 |
" - - ' 0.00016 6 0.00010 2 LEA

KDEFINITIO N

(ppm ) 100 0 0.00033 4 0.00019 4 0.00012 4 1000 0 0.0005 2 0.00034 9 0.00026 4 Uncontrolle d

1.5 5 Detaile dDiscussio n Fo r annua l LDAR , th e lee k frequency endemissio nfacto r a t 50 0 pp m ar e know n(0.25 Xen d0.00028 6 Ibs/hr) . A s lea k definitio ngoe s fro

m 50 0 t o 1000 , th e lea

k frequenc y

wil l decrease . U e als o kno w tha t th e emissio nfacto r wil l increas e a s th e leak frequenc y increase s (withi nth e seme LDA Rmonitoring period) . Usin g thi s Information , emtssio n factor s fo r 1,00 0 and10,00 0 ppm wer e calculate de s follows : Annua l a t 1.00 0 pom . Th e leak frequency e t 1,00 0 pp

m wil l b e les s tha n0.25X . Usin g thi s lea k frequenc y an d the appropriat e equatio nfrom pag e 5-1 9 o f th e 199 3 Protoco l document , w e ca ncalculat e a "maximum 1 1 emissio nfactor , whic hi s calculate dt o b e 0.0001 7 kg/hr . Next , th e emissio nfacto r a t 1,00 0 pp m mus t b e greete r tha ntha t a t 50 0 ppm , whic hw e kno

w t o b e 0.00013 4 kg/hr . Thes e tw o emissio nfactor s "bound " th e estimat e fo r annua l LDA Ra t 1,00 0 ppa . Th e emissio nfacto r for 1,00 0 pp m wa s the nestimate da s th e mid-poin t o f thes e two numbers , whic hI s 0.00015 2 kg/hr ( * (0.00013 4 • 0.00017)/2 ) o r 0.00033 4 Ibs/hr . Annua l a t 10.00 0 pom . Th e firs t ste pwa s t o estimat e th e leak frequency a t 1,00 0 ppm . I nth e previou s step , w e estimatedth e emissio nfacto r a t 1,00 0 pp m t o b e 0.00013 4 kg/hr . Using th e appropriat e equatio no npag e S-1 9 o f th e 199 3 Protoco l document , w e ca n"back-calculate " th e equivalen t lea k frequency , whic hi t calculate dt o b e 0.21 3 percent . Th e lea k frequenc y e t 10,00 0 pp

m wil l b e les s tha n0.21 3 percent . Usin g thi s lea k frequenc y I nth e appropriat e equatio no npag e 5-1 9 yield s a nemissio nfacto r o f 0.00032 1 kg/hr . U e els o kno w tha t th e emissio n factor wil l b e greate r tha ntha t a t 1,00 0 ppm , whic hwa s estimate dt o b e 0.0001 5 kg/hr . Th e emissio nfacto r fo r 10,00 0 pp m I s the nbounde db y

thes e tw

o emtssio nfactors , 0.00015 2 an d0.00032 1 kg/hr . Th e emissio nfacto r fo r 10,00 0 i s the ntake nagai na s th e mid-poin t betwee nthes e tw o estimate s (0.00023 6 kg/h r o r 0.0005 2 Ibs/hr) . Emissio nFactor s fo r Quarterl y an dMonthl y LDAR . I nth e absenc e o f any information , lea k frequencie s wer e assumedt o decreas e b y

5 0 percen t fro

m annua l t o quarterl y

en d5 0 percen t fro

m quarterl y

t o monthly . Th e resultin g lea k frequencie s wer e the nuse dI nthe appropriat e equation s o npag e 5-1 9 t o estimat e emissio nfactors .P.1 1

FOOTNOTE S T O TABL E 1 (continued )
* Derivatio no f emissionfactor s base do ntaking know nvalue s (show

nI ndouble-line dboxes ' i nth e followin g tables) , boundin g unknow

nvalues , andtakin g mid-point s a s estimate s o f unknownemissio nfactors . Th e firs t tabl e show s knownan destimatedleak frequencies . Th e secon dtabl e show s th e know nan destimate demissio nfactors . Thes e value s wer e base dupo nth e 199 3 Protoco l docunen t dat a andequations . Se e footnot e d fo r a detaile ddiscussio no f th e methodology

use dt o estimat e th e unknow nvalues . Th e leak frequenc y fo r annua l a t 1,00 0 pp m wa s baae do nth e mid-poin t o f uncontrolle dendquarterl y a t 1,00 0 pp

m leak frequencies .

LDA RPERIO D
Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y Uncontrolle d LIGH T LIQUID SERVIC

E VALVE S LEA KFREQUENCIES LEA KDEFINITIO N (ppm ) 50 0
2.4 2 0.89 6 8. 5 100 0 3. 3 2.2 6 0.8 3 8. 3 1000 0 

# 1 

# u. 1 1 0.5

4 | 4.3 4 Uncontrolle d

, 

# 1 1 4.34
LIGH T LIQUI D SERVIC E VALVE S EMISSION FACTORS (Ibs/hr ) 

## ' ' ' " 1 LDA R PERIO D Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y Uncontrolle d 50 0

0.0025 7 0.0009 9 LEA KDEFINITIO N (ppm ) 100 0 0.0039 5 0.0027 3 0.0010 6 1000 0

I 0.003

5 | I 0.0014 1 I Uncontrolle d

I 0.00887 |

1 Estimate dby

averaging th e emtssio nfactor s fo r annua l LDA Randmonthl y

LDA Rbot hwit hlee k definitio no f 10,00 0 PP" » ° Derivatio no f emissionfactor s base do n taking know nvalue s (show

ni ndouble-line dboxe s i nth e followin g tables) , boundin g unknow

nvalues , andtakin g mid-point s a s estimate s o f unknownemissio nfactors . Th e firs t tabl e show s knownandestimate dlea

k frequencies . Th e secon dtabl e show s th e knownandestimate demissio nfactors . Thes e value s wer e base dupo nth e 199 3 Protoco l documen t dat a andequations . Se e footnot e d fo r e detetle ddiscussio no f th e methodolog

y use dt o estimat e th e unknow nvalues . Th e lea

k frequenc y

fo r annua l a t 1,00 0 pp m wa a base do nthe ' mid-poin t o f uncontrolle dan dquarterl y a t 1,00 0 pp

m lea k frequencies .

LDA R PERIO D

Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y HO N Uncontrolle

d 50 0

1.0 0 13. 6 GA

S SERVIC E VALVE

S LEA KFREQUENCIE

S LEA KDEFINITIO N (ppm ) 100 0

3.09 5 1.1 3

13. 3 

# I 1000 0
2.3 3 | 0.7 9 n 

# I
7.4 8 Uncontrolle d



## I | 7.4 8 

### JOP.1 2

FOOTNOTE S T O TABL E 1 (continued ) GA S SERVIC E VALVE S EMISSIO N FACTOR S (Ibs/hr ) LDA RPERIO D

Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y HO N Uncontrolle d 500

0.0032 3 0.0012 1 0.0009 9 | LEA

KDEFINITION

(ppm ) 100 0

0.0034 5 0.00129 8 1000 0

| 0.0042 9 | 0.0016 5 | Uncontrolle d

I 0.013 1

" Derivatio no f emissio nfactor s baae do ntaking know nvalue s (show

nt ndouble-line dboxe s I nth e followin g tables) , boundin g unknow

nvalues , en dtaking mid-point s a s estimate s o f unknow nemissio nfactors . Th e ftra t tabl e show s know nan destimate dleak frequencies . Th e secon dtabl e show s th e know

nandestimate demtssio nfactors . Thes e value s wer e base dupo nth e 199 3 Protoco l docunen t dat a an dequations . Se e footnot e dfo r a detelle ddiscussio no f th e methodology

use dt o estimat e th e unknow nvalues . Th e lea k frequenc y fo r annua l a t 1,00 0 ppm wa s baae do nth e mid-poin t o f uncontrolle dandquarterl y a t 1,00 0 pp a lea k frequencies . LIGH T LIQUI D SERVIC E PUMP S LEA KFREQUENCIE S LDA RPERIO D

Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y HO N Uncontrolle d 500
7. 2 4.4 9

17. 6 LEA

KDEFINITION

(ppm ) 100 0
6. 5 

## | 4.0 2 j

j I *.0 2 1 17. 1 I 1000 0

3.7 5 | 1.7 7 |

7.4 8 Uncontrolle d

1 7.4 8 LIGH T LIQUI D SERVIC E PUMP S EMISSION FACTOR S (Ibs/hr ) LDA RPERIO D

Annua l Quarterl y Monthl y HO N Uncontrolle d 50 0
0.015 7 0.01 0 LEA

KDEFINITION

(ppm ) 100 0
0.017 2 

### I 0.01 1 1 I 0.01 1 1000 0 | 0.02 4 | 0.013 5 | Uncontrolle d

, 

# 1
' I 0.043 8
1 Base donemissio nreductio no f 4 4 percen t fro m uncontrolle dlevel . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . Fugitiv e Emissio nSource s o f Organi c Compound s — Additiona l Informatio no nEmissions , Emissio nReductions , an dCosta . EP A 450/3-82-010 . Apri l 1982 . (198 2 AI D document ) p . 4-61 . I Base do n3 3 percen t reduction , CTQ .
" Tota l estimate demissio nreductio neffectivenes s o f 4 9 percent . Base do na nestimate dpercen t reductio no f 4 4 percen t fo r e quarterl y LDA Rprogra m wit ha leak definitio no f 10,00 0 pp m (se e footnot e dabove ) plu s 5 percen t base do nincrease deffectivenes s o f decreasing th e lea k definitio nfro m 10,00 0 ppm

t o 1,000 . 1 Assune dt o b e 1 percen t mor e effectiv e tha nwit hleak definitio no f 1,00 0 ppm . 

## KP.1 3

FOOTNOTE S T O TABL E 1 (continued )

" Assume d20 0 pp

m lea k definitio nha dsam e emissio nfacto r e s 50 0 ppa . * 199 3 Protoco l docunent , p . 2-21 : 1.90x10 * x(500)** * > 0.0031 8 k g pe r hou r 0.00 7 lb s pe r hou r
° 199 3 Protoco l document , p . F-4 . Th e emissio nfacto r fo r pups , light liqui dservic e als o applte s t o agitators . 0 Calculate dusin g th e following equation : (Uncontrolle dEmissio nRat e - Emissio nBat e a t IX )

Uncontrolle dEmissio nRat e Emissio nrate s s t 1 Xwer e calculate dusin g th e equation s o np . 5-1 9 o f th e 199 3 Protoco l document . Fo r example , th e averag e lea k rat e (kg/hr ) for valve s I nga s servic e wit ha leak definitio no f 10,00 0 pp a ca nb e calculate da s follows : Averag e Lea k Rat e • (0.078 1 x0.01 ) • 0.00013 1 •0.00091 2 kg/h r •0.0020 1 Ibs/h r

4 Assume maintai nI Xleaker s mean s a navereg e o f 0.5 Xleaker e actuall y occur . Use dth e lea k rate s fo r >10,00 0 an dfo r •00,00 0 (ae e firs t tabl e infootnot e e ) t o estimat e emissio nfactor s base do npercen t leakin g andno t leaking . Fo r example . Fo r PRVs : kg/hr - (1.69 1 x0.005 ) • (0.044 7 X0.995 ) • 0.0529 3

Ibs/hr > 0.0529 3 x2. 2 • 0.116 4

' Assume maintai n0.5 Xleaker * mean s a naverag e o f 0.25 Xleaker s actuall y occur . Use dth e lea k rate s fo r >10,00 0 an d fo r <10,00 0 (se e firs t tabl e I nfootnot e s ) t o estimat e emissio nfactor s base do npercen t leaking andno t leaking . Fo r example . Fo r valve s Inga s service : kg/h r • (0.078 2 x0.0025 ) • (0.00013 1 x0.9975 ) • 0.00032 6 Ibs/h r > 0.00032 6 x2. 2 - 0.00071 8 * Calculatio no f Emissio nFactor s fo r "N o Evidenc e o f Leaks " Program ; Lea k Definitio no f 10,00 0 ppa . CALCULATIO

N O F PERCEN T O F COMPONENT S WIT H <10,00 0 PP M AND >10,00 0 PP M j EQUIPMENT TYP E

f j Valves , ga s servic e H Valves , light liqui d Rservic e 1 Valves , heav

y liqui d fl servic e H Pum pseals , ligh t liqui d nservic e nPum pseals , heav

y liqui d servic e Pressur e relie f valve s Ope nende dline s Compresso r seal a Connector s AVERAG E EMISSION FACTO R (kg/hr) " 0.0059 7
• 0.0040 3 0.0002 3 0.019 9 0.0086 2 0.10 4 0.001 7 0.22 8 0.0018 3 > 10,00 0 pp m Emissio nFacto r (kg/hr) ° 0.078 2 0.089 2 0.0002 3 0.24 3 0.21 6 1.69 1 0.0119 5 1.60 8 0.11 3 < 10,00 0 pp a

Emissio nFacto r (kg/hr) " 0.00013 1 0.00016 5 0.0002 3 0.0018 7 0.0021 0 0.044 7 0.0015 0 0.089 4 0.00008 1 PERCEN T O F

COMPONENT S >10,00 0 PPM 6
7.4 8 4.34 1 N A 7.4 8 3.04 8 3. 6 1.9 1 9.1 3 1.5 5 PERCENT O F

COMPONENT S <10,00 0 PPM * 92.5 2 95.65 9 N A 92.5 2 96.95 2 96. 4 1 98.0 9 90.6 7 98.4 5 NOTE : Progra

m assume dno t applicabl e t o samplin g connections .P.1 4

FOOTNOTE S T O TABL E 1 (concluded ) Footnote s t o firs t tabl e I nfootnot e s i
* 199 3 Protoco l document , p . 2-10 . b199 3 Protoco l document , p . 2-16 . ° Calculate dbase do naverag e emissio nfacto r an dth e > 10,00 0 en d<10,00 0 pp a emissio nfactors . Fo r example , solving fo r valve s f nga s servic e a s follows : 0.0059 7 kg/h r • 0.078 2 (X ) • 0.00013 1 <Y >

1.0 0 • X• T where : X• percen t o f component s wit h>10,00 0 pp a Y• percen t o f component s wit h<10,00 0 pp m

CALCULATION

O F N O EVIDENC E O F LEAK S (10,00 0 PP M LEA KDEFINITION ) EMISSIO

N FACTOR S
1 EQUIPMEN T TYP E 

# 1
I I Valves , ga

a servic e n Valves , ligh t liqui d servic e H Valves , heav

y liqui d servic e | Pumps , ligh t liqui d servic e 1 Pumps, heav

y liqui d servic e | Pressur e relie f valve * 1 Open-ende d lines ' 1 Compresso r seal a H Connector a EMISSIO N FACTO R (kg/hr ) a t 10,00 0 ppa * 0.00580 6 0.009882 3 0.00023 ° 0.0375 6 0.0375 6 0.0375 6 0.0015 ° 0.0375 6 0.0105 8 PERCEN T <10,00 0 PP M 92.5 2 95.65 9 N A 92.5 2 96.95 2 96. 4 98.0 9 90.8 7 98.4 5 PROGRA M EMISSIO N FACTO

R kg/h r 0.00055 5 .00058 7 0.0002 3 0.00453 9 0.0031 8 0.044 4 0.0014 7 0.084 5 0.00024 4 Ibs/h r

0.0012 2 0.0012 9 0.00050 6 0.0099 9 0.00 7 0.097 7 0.0032 4 0.18 6 0.0005 4
* Calculate dusin g correlatio nequation s foundo npag e 2-2 1 o f th e 199 3 Protoco l document . 0 Base do naverag e emissio nfacto r fo r source . ° Assume dsame a s <10,00 0 pp a emissio nfactor . Sampl e calculation : Valves , ga s service : 0.00055 5 kg/h r > (0.00580 6 x0.0748 ) • (0.00013 1 x0.9252 ) 1 Assune dt o b e midwa y

i neffectivenes s betwee n"uncontrolled " and"maintai nles s tha n2 Xleaker s (10,00 0 ppa). "

" Base do n9 0 percen t contro l efficiency . 199 3 Protoco l document , p.5-2 . Actua l efficienc y o f a closed-ven t system depend s o npercentag e o f vapor a collecte dan defficienc y

o f contro l devic e t o whic hth e vapor s ar e routed . * Contro l efficienc y

o f closed-ven t system

installe do ne pressur e relie f device ma y b e lowe r tha nothe r closed-ven t systems , becaus e the y

mus t b e designe dt o handl e bot hpotentiall y larg e andsmal l volum e o f vapor . 199 3 Protoco l docunent , p . 5*2 .
" Base do n10 0 percen t contro l efficiency . 199 3 Protoco l document , P . 5-2 .



## / 3TABL E 2 SUMMAR YO F PERCEN T REDUCTIO N

B YCOMPONEN T FO

RVARIOU S EQUIPMEN T LEAKCONTRO L PROGRAMS *

PROGRA M
Uncontrolle d Annua l Annua l Semiannua l Quarterl y

LDA R Quarterl y

LDA R Quarterl y

LDA R Quarterl y

LDA R Quarterl y

LOA R Monthl y LDA R Monthl y LDA R Monthl y LDA R Monthl y LDA R N o Detectabl e Emission s HO N Msintal nLes s Tha n 2 XLeaker s Maintai nles s than I Xleaker s Maintai nles s tha n 0.5 Xleaker s 1 N o Evidenc e o f Leak s Lea k Definitio n

• • . 10.00 0 1,00 0 10.00 0 10,00 0 1.00 0 50 0 20 0 10 0 10.00 0 1,00 0 50 0 10 0 50 0
varie s 10.00 0 1.00 0 10,00 0 10,00 0 10,00 0 V, 8

33. 6 36. 6

67. 2 73. 7 75. 3 75. 3

87. 4 90. 1 90. 8 92. 4

92. 4 84. 7 97. 4

94. 5
90. 7 V.L L

30. 1 55. 5

60. 5 69. 2 71. 0 71. 0

84. 1 88. 0 88. 7 88. 7

87. 6 73. 8 95. 7

90. 4
85. 5 V,H L 

### M l

22. 4 30. 4

45. 2 60. 7 64. 2 64. 2

69. 2 74. 9 77. 2 77. 2 •
74. 9 78. 5 94. 9 84. 6

77. 2 EQUIPMEN

T CATEGORY "

P,HL

63. 1 PRV s

22. 0 24. 7

44. 1 49. 0 49. 7 49. 7

96. 9
96. 9 41. 0

49. 1

57. 3 OEL s

11. 8 Coop .

16. 5

32. 9

98. 6

54. 1

57. 5

62. 9 Samp .

Com . Connector s

87. 1 91. 7 90. 3 91. 3 95. 2 95. 9 95. 9 95. 9 93. 4 96. 9 97. 5

92. 9 34. 1 86. 4 64. 8

86. 6 1<* . TABL E 2 SUMMAR YO F PERCEN TREDUCTIO N B YCOMPONEN TFO R VARIOU S EQUIPMEN TLEA KCONTRO L PROGRAMS *

PROGRA M
"Inspec t e s suspect " Closed-ven t Syste

m DM S w/Borrte r Flui d Ruptur e Dis k wel d Togethe r Blind , Cap , Plug , Second Valv e Closed-loo p Sampling lea k Definitio n «PP» >

. .

. .

. .

. .

—

- - V,G V.L L

* V.B L P. U

90. 0 10 0 EQUIPMEN T CATEGORY 0

P,H L

90. 0 10 0 PRVa

10 0 OE

U

10 0 Coop .

90. 0 100 Samp .

Conn .

10 0 I Connector s

17. 1

10 0 

# 1

* Calculate d usin g th e controlle d emissio n factor s an d th e uncontrolle d emissio n factor s reporte d i n Tabl e 1 .

" v •valves ; P •pumps ; PRV a » pressur e relie f valves ; OEL s •open-ended lines ; Coap . •compressors ; Saap.Com . •samplin g connections ; 6 •ga s service ; L L ligh t liqui d service ; HL •heav y liqui d service .

at. 1

. 1 1 1 1 1 " 1 1 H ?
,? 2 2 2 2 , *
, 2 2 .3 1 * S > 3 . J . 3 . ,3 1 3 3 1 3 1 « < 4 4 ' 4 : 1 * r ? n 1 

### ty i4 ! i« « = f ? > 53 /S 4 f w 5 7 s s * » 6 0 M i l n • A a s 1 . 2 Fwlllt y > . . . . . <_BASF . , 5 , Lo*sn 0 . ' 1 . . . 1 9 1 * 3 4 S , S . 7 S . • ) 1 . . . . 2 3 4 * . . 1 .. . 7 » "*•"!« . » ftv
a _ r i t . . . < 2 No . o f Monitorin g Day s . ' 1 NUflUlOl O

f SUbCataQOflaP . . ; PreportmofGas/Vago r s andUtflUoMCofiv . > , . r Pitjpoftqng f Hsav *
' UQ M OOffaPWMnta

' » >

. ! >

. S .

. ,
.

.

. " T

Proc.. *

U 1 1 J

_ JM» , c Typs ) o f Cofflporan l

. . .

.
. PumpS.il . .. . . . . - •UoftUauldsavlca . . , . *HeawtaMnrvk M ... . . •- . . —. . Vslvs s . .. . - rUoJiMouldsantct . . . . . . .. . —• *Hsaw4aiMssfVlc a . .. . .. . - . . Connactor a . . . A . . * Flame s •aasAnDc r _. . •.Ranges-lojitlqul d . . . . . . . . Pf*«.ur a Ralls f Dsvlco s . . . . •as* * - ..... . •DlsKlwMeri.vrtMW.ote . -- . „ , Opaivsnda d Vatva s . ,

A Samplin g Connactfon a .... .

c Compresso r Van t Raplacamon t Pum p Ssat e . Monitorin g Davie s * Bu y MonHorlng.Dsvlc s - Rarr t . . Dat a Collodio n Ovstsr a Hoav y Ltau M Comoonan t TrfpQharga s . . Admlnstratlv e an d R.port s . .

. . . . . Trac k Maavyllquld a Plannin g an d Trainin g .

Haav y Liqui d Trainin g HMvvUQuMTaa t

TOTAL S . Caetts l Cost s . _ 1 1 0 '
Nuifbte* flt* Contpoiwnl i

_^
. . • . ^

. . 8 m. ^

13 5 . . .... . . . . 16 0 . ..._..... .

47 1 . .. . 31S4\6 . . . 4 j
3 9 . . . 9 •_...... .

. . . 0 ...... . . . ••O S .. .

. 0 ...... . . 1 . •1*B3 5 «1*B3 8 •12*B3 5 ' •300-B35 . . . . . ••638*0. 5 •340*B3 S . . •20*03 6 .

•»SUWF20^48VF2W : 414G4 6

. Am-MCanria j Cost s -«4F2»^«f23»f284f27mi4TMrai'M1>W^ ^

. . . Atia-alBcaarea t ,
. RecovaryCrsat s

• . . Nt t Annua l Coal s . Emission s . . _^^^_ a t

. RaAfClonfJfkjgfr} . . . 1 OoMEHMftaMnfSJMa ) •J4S«K4ei04eiW4e»X4S*Y4 a AnualFtodOqs»f(S>V- l A m * Vttar * Costs rtAr l 2685.8 6

. . WO5HO04-D8 6 . .. .

. ES S

, e H M Morflortrsj Fa a o r UnT t Cos t (Stamp )

_
1.1 3 * . . . . . .

_ 4.6 5 4.6 5 .. . 1.1 3
4.6 8 .. . 4.6 9 1.1 3
7 8 385 2 10 2 40 9 . , .. . 624 2 18 0 650 0 116.2 5 14S0 O 136 . 100 0 36.9 5 36.9 5 36.9 8 36J 8 1

.

.

. •D51+X46tY4 e •OS4JU8-Y4 8

MoaoDt a 1P
H M LOA R Cost s (Vf)

(Ctpjt-I ) 1 2 3 4 » 6 «ffD6-E6H*tenP6/1MH36*R6 1 7 «rojrT7iHi7TRnoororR n 8 9 i o •(((Dio*EtDVMNionpio/iooraio-RioHMioTrio>ioo)-uiovio ) n •«(Oii*EiiHMii-iPii/ioorQii*Riiw«ti , nii/iooiniii , v m 1 2 •f«Di«i2>Mirrfpi2rtooroi»i2>4»,i2TTi2riooruirvi a 1 3 1 4 1 5 »mD15*E1SHM18*IP15r100rQ15 ,, R15H*IJ5TT15/1()0»*U15*V15 ) I B M((O16*E16H*(16TP16*l00rQie-Rl6Wl(lie*(T16*l00ru16-V16 ) 1 7 •f(roi7^17WI17TM7n00rO17^17W«17TT17n00TUirV17 1 1 8 I S 2 0 «D20*E2 0 2 1 .D21-E2 1 2 2 2 3 •D23*E2 3 2 4 2 3 •D29*C2 9 2 8 2 7 •D27*E2 7 2 8 2 9 •4MTE2 9 3 0 3 1 •D3113 1 ,3 2 «3 3 •033*E3 3 •3 4 «4034*E3 4 3S " 3 6 —- ~ 1 7 *^L 1 3 8 ^ 3 9 4 0 •4O4rrE4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 8 4 6 -«UM(F«F48 ) 4 7 4 8 4 9 S O 8 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 8 5 7 5 8 5 9 8 0 8 1 6 2 6 1 8 4 6 6 O HialLDA R Ada* . Cost s

•403S-E3 9

•SUM(G*UMS ) H

Frsrsjancyof MuiluiIn Q (stass** )

• 2
4 „ , , „ « . . . .

1 .. . .... . r 1

. . ^ ^ 1 . 1 ... . , . .. .

. .

1 2

_ ^ 1 aubsaquaraMortk-rtngPa a (tfcem? ) o r Cnsrg a (% )

, U

. 2J5 Z 8 .

Z S 2 4

- 2 . .. . 8 ...,- . . 8 8 8 . .. . . „

. c

.

.
. J
Amua j Horttortn g Cost s (SA O

-^D6T«3T6>HD6-6rrOA60rR6 1

«fD10"H10110 » •fDi1*H11111 )

. -4D16-H15116 1 -4D16*H16ni m

•O20*H20*l2 0 . .

. . .

»+e32"E3 2
MD35T3 5

. •sumJtMm

.

.

I I . _ K

t^KWavam

amajWWaWWntm

\MMM

•406*18 0

-D20-E20TI21/100 ) 'D21*E21TI2V100 ) •D23*E23*(123/100 ) «O28-E281t28r100 ) •OZ7-E27f|Z7/100 )

•+O31M2S 0

. •4042*E4 2

•SUMflOMOS )

.

" L kMallaa k Frerjwieyni )

17. 1

13. 6 BJS

3. 8 M

. M

Mss J NisnTM r o f Laafc a

•OffUS/IOO l
•OK-aioriot n •oi : iLii/io m

•O18TL16/100 ) •016*0.161100 ) N Subsa^isn t Las k Fraquaney(« )

8.0 4 0.2 8
2 2 02 8
0. 5 0. 8 0.2 8

TJ C O0

Ansa * rUttia r o f Last s 1 2 3 . 4 . 8 . . .8 . 'OKtmnaorm _7 . »D7*(N7f100 » . , 8 .

. » i o "Oio*mio/ioomu > 1 1 •omNii/iooi-H n 1 2 «D12*(N12*I00 1 1 3 1 4 •- 1 5 'D.16*fN15/1O01-H U .1 8 •O16TN1671O0VH1 6 1 7 •O1TTN17/100 1 1 8 . . • 1 9 . 2 0 . ••

' 21 . 2 2 2 3 ,2 4 25 2 8 2 7 2 1 , 2 9 ~^ . .3 0 ry % 3 1 . " * i M X 3 4 , 35 . . 3 8 37 , 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 ,. ._ , . . 4 2 -4074012401 7 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 8 47 48 . 49 5 0 , 8 1 82 S3 . . 8 4 5 8 5 8 57 , 5 8 8 0 . . .6 1 a £ a i , . a s . p Partar * Rspak M OnUn a

10 0

7 8 7 5

7 5 . 7 5

, a

Raps * Tim

s (hows )

1 6

0.16 7 0.167 .

. . 0.16 7 0.16 7 R

Loba r Cnsrj a

22 4

22. 8 22 4

22 4 22 4

,

, . 6

Annua l OnUn s Lsa k

RapaaCoat(Sr|t )

•SO6*lP6r100rO6*R 6 , «soio*(Pio/ioo)*Qion-i o «S0111P11/10BK>11*R1 1

•SO15*rP15rt00l*O16*R1 8 -JO16*(P16rt00)*Q16*R1 6

. •SUM(S8:S4S ) T

PfffOHs t RaMfsBTaTa J nstiarRapa r

•100* 6

•100rP1 0 •100*1 1

•.100-P1 6 •100->1 6

. u

RspsJrTkn a (hours)

8 0

4 4

2 2

am* V

Labo r Charg i (S»t 1

22 4

22 4 22 4

22 4 22 4

, actrvreaM* w

Amus l OMn a Lsa k

RapskCost(*Ar )

•SO6*rT6/100rU6*V 6 •joio-aioriooruiovt o •soiiTTii/iooruiivi i

. •SO«*ai8r100rU16V « •SO16TT16/100nJ16V1 6

.

•SUM(W6.VV45 )

. X
Amus l Admh . Ccst(*y )

,.

.

.

.

.

••037*63 7 •4038*E38*H3 8

. . .. . •SUM(X6X45 )

. Y
Amus l Mse . Cnsrgs s (*Ar )

•4K6-0 4

.

. . .
•D20*E20*0.0 4 •D21*E21*0.0 4 . . •D23*E23*0.0 4 >D25*E28*04 4 . . . , •027*E27*04 4

•D31f31*0.0 4 •300-D33-385.4/3e«. 7 •D33*E33*0.0 4

•SUVKY6.-Y45 )

# r

. 1 2 3 4 8 8 i i • 8 g 1 0 .1 1 IT J J 1 4 J I 1 8 JL 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 n 2 3 i M 2 5 1 » 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 8 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 42 4 3 4 4 4 5 48 4 | 4 8 4 9 f> 5 1 M s. 5 4 SS " 6 57 ft 8 9

- 0 * 1 62
8 6 A

Facilit y I d HOJMWea l H O N nOiafev n

NlffRtMTO f 5U>C«aa*flfJrtat l

Proportio n o f GMArtpo r •n d Uflh t UQaat

d Cottp . Piuouffono f IfMv y UOJl M GOfeVOslaWsQ l

^ — —ft

- 8

PlDCatM l DMT- B

1

f
1 c Typ o o f Componan t

Pum p Saal s •UgM-aidsarvk w •Hsavy-oMsarvte a Valva a •Gastapo r servlca •UohMoJ d sanie s •HeawJou M service Connactor a * Flange s - gasAnpe r •Flange s -IghtloU d •Flanoe s -heav y taid Praaaur e RaHa

f Oavlca a •ask s •Dis k holders . vsNeajt- . OpotMnds d Vslvs e Samplin g Connactlon a Compraaso r Van t Raplacaman t Pum p 8aal a Monitorin g Davle a .Bu y Monitorin g Davle a •Ran t Dat a Coflactto n Syata m

Heav y Liqui d Componen t
Admlnatiatlv a an d Rapoit a

Trac k Heavy UquM a Plannin g an d Trainin g

H.avyUqul d Trainin g Dat a Entr

y -Initia l Heav y Liquid , Tag a Dat a Entry - Subaaqusn t
TOTAL S Cso M Cost s

Anruelze d Cao M Cost s

Recover y CreoTt s NstAirus J Cost s Brtaton s RedBlt o (Mote l D NsjitM r o f Ocnfumtrttt

3 « 5 9 7 0 38 8
208. 1 . , 1372 4 2 2 1 7 . 4 . ••.. .

. 0 •40 6 0 1 •1*B3 3 •1*B3 8
•60*83 5 •.638*0 4 •170*63 8 •20*B3 8 -(•064010*01140164018 ) •0364010401140184016 )

•SUM(F2aF45M : 28-F4H04 8

. •ff4R04FW4F234f2S*F27mi4Z>«ro*(W 1 WITO*^ ^

Anrust Fhe d Cost s fSNrt Anus ) VartatS s Cost s (SM I 1277/4 8 ••06140544 W 104 1
•406006 2 e imitators * FaoarUrt t CosttSltanp )

3.7 5 1.1 3
0.7 5 0.7 8 1.1 3
0.7 5 0.7 8 1.1 3
7 8 386 2 10 2 40 9 624 2 18 0 650 0 120 0 13 8
38.9 3 36.9 5 364 8 364 8 14 8 1 . 0.7 5

•0S14X464Y4 6



# . . 1

T J h op
H M LDA R Coal s (SM ) (CspM ) 1 2 3

• *5 ... .

. 6 -i(DrE6>»*l61P8fl00)-Q6*R6 ) ..... . 7 -((D7^7W«TIP7/100«J71-7 I ..... . 8 9 1 0 •(«Dio-Eiowi«ibnp^onooi-Qio^io)tMio*rTi(vioo)-uio-vio ) n •(i(Dii-EiiwniiiPi.i/i(xrt-Qii-RiiH*iiiTrii/iooruii-vii i « -(«O12^1214«l12-r*>12rt0nroi2-R12>4M12-(T12f100rU12-Vi a « 1 4 - 1 8 •l«O16*615)4»Jl5fP15Yt00l*Q15-R15HM15"lT1»10Ol-m5'V.15 l .1 8 '(UD16^16>tM16W16^DOrai6^16)4M16*rri6f100ni1ffVi m 1 7 -(((Oi7^i7>»4iirrpi7/i«nroiTMi7i«*ii7rrTi77iooruirvi7 > 1 8 1 9 , ! . zS. *i*arc « 2 1 -DZ113 1 2 2 . .2 3 -023-E2 3 24 . . :

. 2 8 •D2S'E2 5

• » - - 2 7 "D27-E2 7 2 » 2 9 •4M6*E2 B 3 0 ... . ... v 3 1 «03.1*E3 1 . "33 -D33-E3 J V * J 4 •4034*E3 4 I V 3 8 r* j . s e . . y • 3 7 . 3 8 4 0 •4O4Q*E4 0 4 1 .+D41-E4 1 4 2 .4 3 4 4 , 4 5 ...... . .. . 4 8 •SUM(Fef4S) . 47 . . . . 4 8 , 4 9 . S O . . 6 1 .. . , 8 2 5 4 6 5 sr . . . . 5 8 .89 . . .6 0 . S t .8 2 . 6 4 6 5 a HMLOA R Adn* v Costs

1

•

. •403S-E3 9

' , •SUM(Gft04B )

.
. H

Frecjuancyo

f MonSorthg (OnssM )

1 2 .

4 4 .

1 1

. . . 1

i 1 2

,

. 1 SiiMaquan l MorOorks

* Fa a (Stamp ) o r Cnarg s W

3.7 8

0.7 8 0.7 8

0.7 8 0.7 8

• • S 8 8 8

,

.
, J
Annua l Morfortn g Coats (SM )

«<D6*r«Te><D6*82-(04«))-Re )

«CD10*H10*I10 ) •foii-Minii i
»(D15*H15-I16 ) «fD16*H161i m

•annmnm

j •40614P6 1

•+D43-E4 3
•SUMM6J46 )

, " . '*.. . .,, . AataUa l MtaTamVaatfaOa ) Cost s (SM )

•406*18 0

•021*121*021/100 ) a.O23*E23*(l23r*10O2 H * •D26*E2S*02SrtOO ) •D27*E27*O27/10O )

A ^ •4031*428 0

^ •4042-E4 2

•8U^I0KK48 ] , L . M M Lea k RelQJLaWnT

y <% )

17. 1 ,

13. 6 8 4

3 4 3 4

•

MorOortn o In a

. Jo . o f Days n Renta l M

MMNURtlSTO f Laat a

•O6U6/100 )

•D10TL10/100 ) •011*0.11/100 )

•016U1VI00 1 •016*0.167100 )

•

" ' •

io . o r dental . Panot J Parlods M

. 1 I 2 3 ! « , 1 1

I .

CovaTttolSSSS : N Sutieaqusn l LsakFrstMnc )

8.0 4 039

_ 2 2 02 8
0 4 0 4 035. .

.

~ostoa r Jenta l >erlo d •180*SN$8 2 •190-N6 2 -245-N6 2 •406*146 2 •630146 2

. . •388.4/389. 2 

## I

• O

Amia l Numbe r o f Leaks

-O61N6/100»*H 6 •07*iN77100 ) •D10"fN10/100)-H1 0 •DinNu/ioorm i •D12W12M00 ) . . «bl5tNJ5/1001*H1 8 »D16*fN16fl00l"H16 . •O17TN17/1001. .

iL

.

.

.

•4O740124O1 7

- ienta r Cost s
MM56-N5 6 •4M57*N5 7 •4M5B-N5 8 •4M59*N5 9 •4M60-N60 . . -SUI«O9KO60 )

. . P Percar s Rapaka d OnUn a

10 0

7 8 7 8

7 8 7 8

• "

. - Sall y CaUralo n Cost s .41.25*355.4/358. 7 •+L56*M56*SP-5 5 •4L57*M57*SP85 5 •4L58*M58*SPS5 5 ML59-M59*$P»8 8 •4f40*M60**PS6 6 .SUM1P66TP60 )

.

•o h oa

Rapes-Ten s (nous ) 2 3 * 5 . 8 1 6 7

- a 9 1 0 0.16 7 1 1 0.16 7 1 2 « 1 4 . 1 8 0.16 7 1 6 0.16 7 1 7 I B 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 8 2 S 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 S 1 V > 3 2 N '3 3 J 4 3 9 3 8 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 44 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 9 1 8 2 S 3 8 4 5 5 5 8 5 7 8 8 8 9 . 8 0 6 1 8 2 S 3 6 4 8 6 R Labo r Charg e <*H )

. . 22 4

22 4 22 4

22 4 22 4

* 8

Amue J OnUn s Lea k

RapesCos t (SM )

-SO6*(P67100rO6-R 6
-sowtpio/iooraio-Ri o •SO11*(P11r100y-O11*R1 1

•sois*iPi»ioorais*Ri B •$O16*-Pl6*l00rQ18*R1 6

»SUM(S&S44 ) T Par-ar t Requirin g FurtarRapal r

•10OP 6

•10OP1 0 •10tH>1 1

•1Ck%P1 8 •1004>1 B U Repai r Tta e (hows )

6 0

4 4

2 2 v

Labo r Charg e (**-)

22 4

22 4 22 4

22 4 22 4 W

Amus l OfBJn

e Lea k Rape * Csst(-M )

•soerrerioorue'V B

•soioTrionooruKrvi o •soii*mi/iooruii*vi i
•SO1STT1-r100)-U1S*V1 6 -SO1OT16fl00rU16*V1 6

'

•suucNemsi

, X

Annua l AOnt i Cos t (SM )

.

•4037*63 7 •4038*E38*H3 8

•SUMOuUUS ) V
Annua l Us e Chargs s (SM )

•4+03*04

•D20*E20*0.0 4 •D21*E21*04 4 •D23*E23*04 4 •O2S*E26*04 4

. •O27*E27*04 4

•D31*E31-04 4 •300-355.4056, 7 «O33*£33*04 4

•«UM(YKY48 )P.2 3

MEMORANDU

M
FROM : Ke n Meardon DATE : Septembe

r 23,199 8 SUBJECT : Summar

y Table s fo

r Cost s fo r PET Equipmen

t Lea k Progra m
Th e majorit

y o f th e costin g conducte dfo

r thi s projec t

wa s base do n th e costin g algorithm s use di n th e HO

N equipmen

t lea k costin g program . Th e primar y mem o use dfromth e HO N equipmen

t lea k costing i s attache dt o th e en do f thi s memo . Man y change s have been made , however , t o th e HO N equipmen

t lea k costin g procedure s i n tw o mai n area s —component s subject t o Metho d2 1 monitorin g andcomponent s that are i n heavy liqui dservice
. Tabl e 1 present s th e mai n component s of th e costin g use dfor

component s tha t ar e subjec t t o Metho d2 1 monitoring
. Tabl e 2 present s amor e detaile dbreakdow n o f

th e derivatio n o f

initial an dsubsequen

t monitorin g costs . Tabl e 3 present s th e costin g element s use dfo r component s i n heavy liqui dservice
. Additiona l information o n th e costin g conducte dfo r th e PET equipment

lea k progra mcan b e foun di n th e "Summar

y o f Response s t o Petitioners ' Comments " memo , Docke t Ite mVI-B

19 , docket A-92-45
.



## 22P.2 4

TABL E 1 . SUMMAR

Y O F LDA RCOS T COMPONENT S AN D VALUE S

Cos tComponen

t In-hous

e LDA R Progra m Locat e an d Lo g Subcontracto

rLDA R Progra m Locat e an d Ta g Monitorin g Cos tFee s —Initial/Subsequen t($/component )

Valve s Pump s Connector s ' 0.75/0.7 5

3.75/3.7 5 0.75/0.7 5 4.65/2.5 0

4.65/2.5 0 4.65/2.5 0 Monitorin g Instrumen t(Selec tth e leas texpensiv e option )

Purchas e

Rental

Maintenanc e

Dail y calibratio n

Calibratio n gase s 1 @ $6,50 0

Thi s wil l b e avariabl e rat e a s follows : Each 1 day rental : $18 0 (includin g shipping ) Each 2 day rental : $19 0 (includin g shipping ) Each 3 day rental : $24 5 (includin g shipping ) Each 4 day rental : $30 0 (includin g shipping ) Each 5 day rental : $35 5 (includin g shipping ) Each 6 o r7 day rental : $40 5 (includin g shipping ) Renta

l - non e Purchas e - 4,280/yea r

Rental : $41.25/da y Purchas e • non e

Rental : $300/y r Purchas e - non e 

# 1 References/Comment

s

InHous e Program : Petroleu m Refiner y EquipmentLeak CTG . Se e Tabl e 2 . Subcontracto rProgram : Fro m th e petitioners ' estimate , Docke tIte m VI-B 13 , AttachmentF .
Reference : 2/28/9 2 HO N memo . Adjuste d t o Jul y 198 9 $ ; reference s teleco n o f

10/26/9 0 betwee n DJ . Whht , Radian , an d J. Johnson , Foxbor o EquipmentCompany . Purchas e on e instrumenta s abacku p t o th e contractor' s instrumentan d woul d b e use d t o verif

y thatcomponent s identifie d a s requirin g repai rb y th e contracto r hav e bee n repaired . Basis : Rental rate s from IntekSouth' s websit e (attached ) forOVA-10 8 o r OVA-128 . Shippin g charges : tw o da y deliver y - $30 ; on e overnigh tretur n • $50 . Total $8 0 eac h rental perio d for shipping .

Rental : assume d no tincurre d becaus e renta l Purchase : 2/28/9 2 HO N memo . Update d SOCMI AI D usin g C E Plan t1 Cos tIndex ratio . Rental : Petroleum Refinery MAC T (A 93-48 , n-B-27 ) Purchase : include d i n maintenanc e cos t abov e (SOCM I AID , pp . 5-3 5 an d 5-36 ) Rental : Petroleum Refinery MAC T (A 93-48 , II-B-27 ) Purchase : include d i n maintenanc e cos t abov e (SOCM I AID , pp . 5-3 5 an d 5-36 )



## 23P.2 5

TABL E 1
. SUMMAR

Y O FLDARCOS T COMPONENT S AN D VALUE S (continued )

Cos tComponen

t Trip s In-hous e LDA R Progra m Locat e an d Log None . Subcontracto rLDA R Progra m Locat e an d Ta g $l,000/tri p References/Comment s InHous e program : no tapplicabl e Subcontracto rprogram : From petitioners ' estimate , VI-A-2 , Exhibi tA , p.6 . Administrative/Reporting/Recordkeeping 1 Initia l Plannin g an d Trainin g (hours ) Annua l Administrativ e an d Reportin g (hours ) Databas e Syste m 6 0
17 0
$ 0 34 0

30 0
$14,50 0 InHouse : Estimated .

Subcontracto rFro m petitioners ' estimate , VI-A-2 , Exhibi tA , pp . 5 an d 6 . InHouse : Estimated . Subcontracto rFrom petitioners ' estimate , VI-A-2 , Exhibi tA , pp . 5 an d 6 . Dat aAcquisitio n an d Recordkeepin g ($/component) Initia l Maste r Databas e Acquisitio n

Subsequen t Recordkeepin g 1.8 8

0.7 5 non e

non e InHouse : Harris mem o (A-93-48 , II-D 343) , whic h state s thatthi s include s determinin g an d recordin g proces s unit , componen tservice , strea m name/ID , and locatio n informatio n an d include s determinatio n o f

values , fiel d dat

a logging , an d keypunchin g into th e database . Subcontracto rAssume d include d i n monitorin g fe e (VI-B-13 , Attachmen tF) . InHouse : Harris memo . Cover s subsequentroutin e recordkeeping . 1 Subcontracto rAssume d include d i n J monitorin g fe e (VI-B-13 , Attachmen tF) .

1 For

th e reason s state di n the ''Summar y of Response s t o Petitioners ' Comments " memo , thes e cost s replac e i n their entiret y th e previously use destimate o f 40 % o f total costs . The revise dcostin g procedure s d o no t us e th e 40 % factor
. 

# WP.2 6



### TABL E 1 . SUMMAR Y O F LDA R COS T COMPONENT S AN D VALUE S (continued )

Cos tComponen

t
Labo rCost s ($/hr )

Monitorin g Admi/Record/Report In-hous e LDA R Progra m Locat e an d Log Subcontracto

rLDA R Progra m Locat e an d Ta g
22.5 0 36.9 5 References/Comment s
Monitoring : 2/28/9 2 HO N memo . Admi/Record/Reporting : Derive d from Par tA o f th e Supportin g Statement , where th e labo rcost s fo rth e reportin g and recordkeepin g reporte d var y dependin g o n th e typ e o f labo r— technical at$33/hr , clerica l a t$15/hr , and administrativ e at$49/hr . I n addition , clerical labo ri s estimate d a t 10 % o f th e technica l labo ran d administrative labo ra

t5 % o f th e technical labor . Thi s result s i n a weighte d cos to f

$36.9 5 pe rtechnica l hour .



## ASP.2 7

TABL E 2 . INITIA L AN D SUBSEQUENT MONITORIN G ($/component

)
COMPONENT/ITEM
Valve s Pump s Flange s Locat e an d Ta g Locate and Lo g Firs tAttemp tatRepai r(valve s only ) Remonito rafterRepai r Valve s Pump s Flange s IN-HOUS E

PROGRA M $0.7 5 $3.7 5 $0.7 5 $2.1 5 $0.5 0 $3.7 5

$0.7 5 $3.7 5 $0.7 5 SUBCONTRACTO R

PROGRA M $2.5 0 $2.5 0 $2.5 0 $2.1 5 $0.5 0 $3.7 5

$2.5 0 $2.5 0 $2.5 0 Se e NOT E

1, 2 

### U U 3 3 4

5 5

» NOT E 1 . In-hous e monitorin g cost s ar e base d o n th e followin g requirements : 2 minutes/valve ; 1 0 minutes/pump ; 2 0 minutes/compressor , 1 6 minute s pe rpressure relie f devices . Flange s wer e assume d th e sam e a s fo rvalves . Labo r cos to f $22.50/h ruse d t o conver tthes e time s t o $/componen tTh e monitorin g times are from th e Petroleu m Refinery EquipmentLea kCTG . NOT E 2 . Th e subcontracto rmonitorin g cost s ar e base d o n th e petitioners ' Attachmen tF quotatio n (VI-B-13) . Th e HO N als o use d $2.50/componen t NOT E 3 . Th e cost s fo rlocatin g and eithe rtaggin g o rloggin g wer e take n from th e petitioners ' AttachmentF (VI-B 13 ) NOT E 4 . Th e cos tfo rfirs tattempta trepai ri s base d o n 1 0 minute s pe rleakin g componen tan d $22.50/h rlabo rrate . Th e 1 0 minute s perleakin g componen tfigure i s taken from th e Petroleum Refinery CT G and wa s als o reported i n th e petitioners * AttachmentF (VI-B-13) . NOT E 5 . Th e cos tfo rremonitonn g afte rrepai rt o ensure th e componen ti s n o longe rleaking . Th e in-hous e cost s are assume d t o b e th e sam e a s fo rth e initial monitoring . Fo rth e subcontracto rprogram , di e cost s show n ar e thos e reported i n th e petitioners ' AttachmentF (VI-B-13) .



## 2 £P.2 8

TABLE 3 . SUMMAR

Y OF HEAV

Y LIQUI D COMPONEN T COST S CostIte m Identif y equipmen ti n heav y liqui d servic e Ta g leakin g components

Se tu p fil e t o kee p tag s

Train staf

f

Maintai n record s Cos t $1.13/heav y liqui d componen t $1.00/ta g

$13 6

$73 9
$222/yea r Reference/Commen t Petitioners ' comment s (VI-A-2 , Exhibi tA , p . 7) . Base d o n petitioner s estimate (VI-B 13 , AttachmentF ) includin g estimat e o f

0.25 % o f

heav y liqui d component s leakin g pe ryea r(Vl-A 2 , Exhibi tA , p . 8) . Estimate base d o n th e purchas e o f on e 4-drawe rfil e cabine t( = $12 5 from offic e suppl y catalogue ) an d 3 0 minute s (a t$22.5 0 pe rhour ) fo r movin g furnitur

e around . Estimate base d o n trainin g 1 0 people , 2 hour s pe rperson , $36.9 5 pe rhour . Estimate d base d o n 0. 5 hour s pe r month , 1 2 month s pe ryear , an d $36.9 5 perhour .



# * 7P.2 9 

# A-93-4 8 ll-D-34 3

MEMORANDUM

• TO : R . V . Oomme n FROM : G . E . Harri s DATE : 9-15-9 3 SUBJECT : Equipmen tLeaks Inspection and Maintenanc e Startup Costs I n atru e startup situatio n (on e where n o previous I&M wa s bein g conducte d o n th e subjec tcomponents) , th e startup costs would include :

• permanen ttagging , • acquisitio n o f

screenin g instruments , additional datalogging , an d
• i dat aprocessing/softwar e costs . Thes e ar e cost s abov e an d beyon d th e norma l cos to f aregula rfollow-u p inspection . fjjjjffSIHPft- ^ b e affixe d t o th e source s subjec tt o mos tI&M regulations , wit

h th e exceptio n o f

flanges whic

h ar e usuall y identifie d b y th e componen t the y ar e closes tt o (i f

the y ar e monitored a

tall) . Tag s ar e mos tcommonl y embosse d stainles s steel , bu ti n som e case s aluminu m tags o rpape rtag s i n aplasti c envelop e ma y provid e suitabl e durability . Thes e tags rang e i n cos tfrom abou t$05 0 t o $2.0 0 eac h dependin g o n th e typ e an d th e numberpurchased . Tag s ma y b e attache d using stainles s stee l wir e o r"zi

p strips " mad e o f

meta l o rplastic . Th e cos to f

th e attachmentequipmen t i s usuall y negligibl e compare d t o th e costof th e ta g and th e labo rrequire d t o install i tI woul d estimat e th e installatio n labo rt o average 2 person-minute s pe rcomponent , which i s equivalen tt o on e perso n taggin g abou t25 0 components pe rday . |g0BBKMif|R^PpllB^whic h mee tEP A Metho d 2 1 performanc e criteri awil l cos tfrom $1,20 0 t o $17,000 . Th e flam e ionizatio n detectors thatar e mos tcommonl y use d wil l cos t a n averag e o f

$7,00 0 t o $9,00 0 whe n full y equipped wit

h dilutio n probe , carryin g case , hydroge n fill line , charger , and extr abatter y pack . Phot o ionizatio n detector s tha tare ofte n use d fo rmonitorin g aromatics emissions cos ta n averag e o f $4,00 0 t o $5,000 . Simpl e combustibl e ga s analyzers an d som e soli d stat e analyzer s ca n cos ta s littl e a s $1,20 0 t o $2,000 . A portabl e infrared analyze rtop s th e lis ta tacos to f $17,100 . Man

y o f thes e analyzers ar e availabl e wit h built-in dat

aloggers , whic h may rais e th e pric e considerably . A compan y woul d requir e a tleas tasecond analyze rt o provid e backup . M y experienc e i s tha tth e primar

y analyze rwil l b e available fo rus e abou t70 % t o 80 % o f th e time . Thi s include s a n estimat e o f afactor y overhau l ever y si x month s requirin g about2 weeks , whic h accounts fo rabou t8 % unavailability . In addition , ther e i s routin e calibratio n an d 

# 22 ,P.3 0

preventiv e maintenanc e thatrequires abouta n hou raday , accountin g fo ranothe r12 % unavailability . Excessiv e drif tan d mechanica

l problem s wil l caus e additional downtim e o n a n unpredictabl e basis . Thi s leve l o f availabilit

y indicate s anee d fo ron e share d backup instrumentfo rup t o thre e o rfourprimar y instruments . In addition , asmal l stoc k o f parts tha tcommonly fail shoul d b e maintaine d o n hand . Thatshoul d includ e a t leas ton e spar e batter

y pack . Otherspare s thatmigh tb e kep ti n asophisticate d syste m includ e detectors , ignitors , filters , tubing , tubin g fittings , etc . I twoul d b e goo d t o allo w abou t$30 0 pe rprimar

y instrumen

tfo radditional spar e parts . A goo d rul e o f

thumb woul d b e tha

tan analyze rca n scree n abou t40 0 component s pe r day unde ridea l condition s and assuming a n 8-hou rwork day . Thatwoul d translate int o a n idea l capacit

y o f 200 0 component

s pe rwee k(assumin g a5 da y wor k week ) o r8,00 0 component s pe rmont

h o r24,00 0 components pe rquarter . Takin g availabilit y int o account , however , results i n actua l capacitie s o f

abou t30 0 components pe rday ; 1,50 0 component s pe rweek ; 6,00 0 component s pe rmonth ; 18,00 0 components pe rquarter ; 36,00 0 component s pe rsix months ; o r72,00 0 component s pe ryear . Ther e need s t o b e anothe rcontingenc y facto radded t o assure complianc e time s an d t o accoun tfo rnon analyze rlos s o f

capacit y (such a s weather , illnes s o f operators , downtime s fo runit s schedule d t o b e screened , etc) . Assumin g a n additional contingency o f 10% , acompan y shoul d purchas e on e analyzerfo rever y 16,00 0 component s i f

they ar e require d t o d o quarterly monitoring , buti n n o cas e les s tha n tw o instruments an d assorte d spares . Area s with very col d and inclemen twinters shoul d probabl y allo w agreate rtha n 10 % contingency , sinc e batter y lif e and othe rinstrumentperformanc e characteristic s deterio rat e rapidl y belo w about40° F and/o rduring rai n episodes . Thes e analyzer s ar e widely availabl e fo rren talso , s o acompany coul d tak e tha tap proach rathe rtha n purchasing abackup . Sinc e rental rate s run around 2 % t o 3 % o f th e instrumen tpurchas e price pe rwf>e k o f rental , i twoul d no tusually b e cos teffectiv e t o ren tal l backu p instrumentation . I ti s reasonabl e t o ren tinstrument s fo rth e unusual situation s wher e tw o o rmore primar y instrument

s fai l a tth e sam e time , o rt o provid e backu p fo rth e tim e durin g schedule d factor

y overhaul s o f

th e primar

y instruments .

' tife^Si^ins^e ^ \vm^Qt7have7toJbe7re ^ normally includ e proces s unit , componen ttype , componen tservice , stream name/ID , an d locatio n information . Th e facility may choos e t o includ e amor e robus tdescriptio n o f th e componen tincludin g componen tsubtype , size , gasket/packin g materia l age , vibratio n levels , etc . Som e companie s wil l choos e t o d o thi s befor e th e firstinstrumental screenin g an d other s wO l combin e th e tagging , maste rdataacquisition , an d firs tscreenin g into on e operation . I n eithe rcase , determinin g and recordin g al l o f thi s informatio n ca n tak e tw o t o thre e time s a s lon g a s anormal screenin g inspection . esUmateditftiake ^ values , field dat alogging , an d keypunching int o th e database. - Th e actual valu e forany compan y wil l depen d o n th e dataloggin g metho d (dat asheet s & keypunc h vs . automati c fiel d dat alogging ) and o n th e numbe ro f parameter s tracke d i n th e maste rdatabase . 

## 2 ?P.3 1

iSubs^uentSoutm e recordkeepin g I s 1 ^ tp^tpninu|e^ ^ Fugitivefl& M generat e alarg e quantit y o f data.^ T ^ t o manag e thi s dat aca n range from simpl e spreadsheets and off-the-shelf database s t o custo m designe d databas es . Small facilities , thos e wit h afew thousand romr^nents u p t o afe w ten s o f thousand ^ •WBI^$& r WESI&^ th e fugitive s inspectio n dat ao n aspreadshee tcostin g afe w hundre d ' dollars (an d Likel

y t o already b e availabl e i n house) . Th e spreadshee tapproac h i s bes t suite d t o emission s estimatin g usin g th e screenin g range emissio n factors , although i tma y b e feasibl e t o us e th e correlatio n equation s fo ronly thos e leakin g component s which ar e repaired . Large rfacilitie s can ofte n us e acommercia l databas e program and se tu p thei r own databas e application . Agai n th e softwar e i s ofte n alread y availabl e i n house , bu t mor e labo rhour s wil l b e require d t o structur e th e databas e application . CJusfo m delg&aata^^^^ ^ about{$l,00 0 t o $20,00 0 dependin g o n th e complexit y o f th e software an d th e numbe ro f cgpjejs/sitesslicensed . Eve n wit h acustom-designed fugitiv e emission s dat amanagemen t packagether e wil l b e intern? ! labo rrost s frfrjearning th e new'SvstenL ) Ther e wil l als o b e $eme!im e require d a teac h reporting periodT ) I ti s very difficul tt o estimat e th e tim e required fo^th e reportpreparation ] sinc e i twil l var y from on e require d forma tt o anothe ran d from on e datamanagementsystem t o another . I tca n b e generall y note d thatth e reportin g labo rshoul d decreas e a s th e sophisticatio n o f th e dat amanagement softwar e increases . Fo rinstance , aspreadsheet-base d syste m may requir e asubstantial tim e investmen tateac h successiv e reporting period . A databas e managemen tpackag e ma y hav e ahig h labo rrequiremen tt o generate th e firstrepor to f agive n type , bu ttha t shoul d decreas e markedly fo rsuccessiv e repor to f th e sam e type . A custom-designe d fugitives datamanagemen tpackag e shoul d com e wit h pre-designe d repor tformat s t o reduc e reportin g effort, bu tlabo rwill b e required t o modif y thos e reports i n respons e t o future change s i n regulator y requirements . Whe n considerin g startup costs fo rI&M activitie s require d unde rane w MACT , no tal l o f th e abov e ar e likel y t o apply . Mos tindustria l facilitie s ar e already covere d unde ra VO C regulatio n requirin g periodi c I&M . Thi s mean s tha tmany o f th e source s wil l already b e tagge d and amaste rdatabas e i n place . Existin g analyzer s wil l b e sufficien t fo rMAC T us e i n som e cases , bu tforhighl y substitute d chemical s (halogenated , oxygen ated , etc) , a n analyze rwhic h ha s abette rrespons e facto rma y nee d t o b e acquired . Existin g software system s ma y als o b e acceptabl e fo rMAC T use , althoug h they wQ l almos talways nee d som e form o f modificatio n t o mee tth e specifi c reportin g require- . ments . Th e actual startup costs fo ra n MAC T I& M program i n refinerie s ma y var y from insignificantt o quite substantial dependin g o n th e I& M progra m alread y i n use . Th e abov e informatio n ca n no tb e reference d t o an y singl e repor to rstudy . I tha s bee n accumulate d through 1 7 year s experienc e i n th e fugitiv e emission s field. I n thattime, I hav e directly worke d o n around te n majorfugitive emission s measuremen tresearch studie s fo rvariou s industrie s (petroleu m refining , organi c chemicals , natura l ga s process ing , marketing terminals , etc.) . I have als o ha d th e experienc e o f

helpin g one domesti c 

## 3oP.3 2



### refiner y establish acomplianc

e fugitiv e I& M program

, a s wel l a s helpin g fou rforeign facilities establish fugitiv

e I& M program

s o n aproactiv

e basis . I hav

e attended , spoken at, an d chaire d anumbe

ro f workshops, conferences , an d symposi ai n the fugitiv

e emission s field, whic

h gav e m e the opportunit

y t o hea rth e experience

s of other s i n thi s field.



## 3 /P.3 3 

# RADIA N CORPORATIO N 

# A-90-2 0 I I B- 6 MEMORANDU

M Progres s Come r 320 0 E . Chape l Hil l Rd . SeKo n Hu> .

P O Bo \ I3««H ) 

### DATE: Februar y 28 , 199 2 D 

### . _ . . a

### . v 

### - >-- lk l J 

### Researc h Triangl e Park . N.C . T I N . 

### TO : Davi dMarkwordt , EP A i9r*) » >-*l-*J|tm FROM : K . J . Hausl e and D . J . Whitt , Radia ncorporatio n SUBJECT : Fina l Cos t Impact s Analysi s fo r HO N Equipmen t Leak s Th e purpos e o f thi s memorandu m i s t o presen t th e revise d estimate dcos t impact s analysi s associate dwit hth e regulator y suppor t wor k fo r th e equipmen t leak s Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON) . Th e analysi s presente dher e replace s th e informatio ni n al l previou s cos t impact s memoranda . Th e si xmode l unit s A- F use dher e refe r t o th e mode l unit s develope dfo r th e regulator y impac t analysi s (se e Hohenstei nmemorandum , "Revise d'Reg Neg ' Controlle dMode l Uni t Emission s fro m Equipmen t Leaks, " Marc h29 , 1991) . Mode l unit s A , B , an d C ar e uncontrolle da t baselin e and hav e low , medium , and hig hequipmen t counts , respectively . Mode l unit s D , E , an d F ar e controlled , a t baselin e andals o hav e low , medium , and hig hequipmen t counts , respectively . Th e analysi s presente dher e i s base do n th e contro l requirement s specifie di n th e equipmen t leak s negotiate d regulatio n(Reg Neg). 1 

### Th e Re g Neg 1 

### require s quarterl y valv e monitorin g fo r unit s demonstratin g leak frequencie s below 2 percent . Unit s wit hvalv e lea k frequencie s o f 2 percen t o r greate r mus t monito r o n a monthl y basis . Th e cos t impact s analysi s presented ; her e include s separat e cos t estimate s fo r bot h :o f these-mbnitoi^^KscehariOi . • :Th^';afia <; 

### l^ii^^ihd : 

### ic>tes that-. ' '-••*• . implementatio no f th e controls ; wil l resul t i n an 5 

### annua l saving s ' fo r al l si xmode l units , i f valve s ar e monitore dquarterly . Fo r monthl y valv e monitoring , th e analysi s indicate s a n annua l saving s fo r mode l unit s A , B , and C , and a nannua l expens e fo r mode l unit s D , E , an d F . Th e cos t effectivenes s range s fro m a saving s o f $1,060/Mg HA P fo r mode l uni t C wit hquarterl y valv e monitorin g t o a cos t o f $390/Mg HA P fo r mode l uni t D wit hmonthl y valv e monitoring . 

## ; 3 ZP.3 4

Cos t Basi s
T o determin e the cos t impact s associate d wit himplementatio n o f Re g Neg 1 Control s fo r th e HON fo r equipmen t leaks , th e firs t step wa s t o determin e a bas e cos t fo r eac htyp e o f equipmen t regulated . Thes e bas e cost s ar e use d i n al l subsequen t calculation s i n thi s analysis . Th e type s o f regulate d equipmen t are : (1 ) Valve s i n gas/vapo r an d ligh t liqui d service , (2 ) Pum

p seal s in ligh t liqui d service , (3 ) Connector s ingas/vapo r an d ligh t liqui d service , (4 ) Compresso r seals , N (5) - Pressur e relie f seal s i n gas/vapo r service , (6 ) Open-ende d lines , (7 ) Produc t accumulators , (8 ) Sampl e connections , and (95 ) Agitato r seal s i ngas/vapo r an d ligh t liqui d service . Fo r pumps , valves , agitators , and connectors , th e Re g Neg 1 require s routin e lea k detectio n an

d repai r (LDAR) . Fo r al l othe r type s o f equipment , the . Re g Ne g call s fo r equipmen t modifications . Th e bas e cost s fo r eac htyp e o f equipmen t ar e presente d i n Tabl e 1 . Thes e bas e cost s wer e develope d fro m severa l source s o f information including vendo r quotes , costing manuals , and previou s documentatio no n contro l o f equipmen t leaks . Op e o f th e primar y source s o f information use d wa s th e Fugitiv e Emissio n Source s o f Organi c Compound s - Additiona l Informatio n o n Emissions , Emissio n Reductions , an d Costs* 2 Thi s documen t i s re f erre d t o a s th e Fugitive s Emission s AID . Th e .'7/ihr£riSa v fci&Jr ^ " V 77'' : 'V ; '7-'

-

• •' '\\ : .\£ r '-- : 'i? yy *? '"•••'• Wpf~ , .'ii ':>i-.'-'-'. •'•77••'•;^h•"7•^ ;: :^7 ; ^•;''•fi , •:•:' • ':': V ' • '•''•:••• '• : : 7-. :

- . •'•
. : i<~ •••' ..•••»•.•:•;•.:••>• • Pumps , valves , connectors , an d agitator s i n heav y liqui d service , instrumentation systems, , an d pressur e relie f device s i n liqui d servic e ar e als o covere d by th e standard . Fo r thes e components , th e standard require s tha t th e leakin g componen t b e monitore d wit ha n organi c vapo r detectio ninstrumen t withi n fiv e

cost* . I 

# 3 3TABL E 1 . BAS E COS T DAT A

Equipmen t Typ e Phase Item Cos t (July'8 9 dollar- ) Bati a
Monitorin g Monitorin g Instrumen t 6.50 0 /instr . / Quote o f $6,500/lnstr .
Valve s Gat/Vapo r

Ugh t Liqui d Heav y Liqui d
Pum p Seal s Ligh t Liqui d

Heav y Liqui d Connectors Al l Compresso r Seal s Gas/Vapo r

•

Pressur e Relie f Seal s :7;U':; ' : /s£v^ : (n*4- •

• LOAR . LDA R Non e

LOA R Replacemen t Seal s
Non e
LOA R
Close d Ven t Syste m fo r Degassin g Reservoir s -122 m o

f 8. 1 e m schedul e 4 0 stee l pip e -Installatio n (6 8 hrs ) -thre e 5. 1 c m cast stee l plu g valves -Installatio n ( 6 hrs)

- on e meta l gauz e flame arreste r

•-Installatio n {1 0 hrs) TOTAL :

. : 7:7RM^^^;A^mbl y ' -;<we 7 A c m «alnies s stee l ruptur

e dis K -orteTjBcrri i carbo n stee l ruptur

e dis k holde r 2 /comp/tss t 2 /compAes

t

2 /compAes

t IS O /sea l

2 /compAes

t

1.08 0 1.49 0 2.44 0 13 5 66 2 22 5 / 6.24 2 J

•

f . :-7 ; .TT'^-

•••'•%/ i ••;••-?. %

• • •. . "• ' 57 9 Vendo r informatio n (1989 )

Vendo r informatio n (1989 )

•

Vendo r informatio n (1889 ) Updat e fro m AI D S113/sea l wit h 504 * credi t fo r ol d sea l C E Inde x (356/224.7 )

Vendo r Informatio n (1989 )

$261.03/10 0 ft . (Richardson ) C E lndex(356.0/342.5 ) 16. 6 hrs710 0 ft . (Richardson ) $783.75/valv e (Richardson ) CEIndex(356.0/342.5 ) 2 hrsTvalv

e (Richardson ) Vendo r quot e o

f $869.0 0 C E lndex(356.0/3S8.7 ) Labo r 822.50/h r

•'"'••.''" . ". . •'• ••' ' * '•• •*. ' Vendo r quot e of $235/3-oa k

.. . CE1ndex(356.0/358.7 ) 10/9 0 quote o

f S583/holds r



## 3 4

### TABL E 1 . (Continued ) P.3 6

Equipmen t Type Phas e Ite m Cos t (July'8 9 dollars) Basi s

All (retrofit)

Open-Ende d Line s •on e 0. 6 c m pressur e gauge , dia l lac e •on e 0: 6 c m blee d valve , carbo n stee l

•Installatio n (1 6 hrs)

- on e 7. 6 c m gat e valv

e -Installatio n (1. 5 hrs) -Offset : on e 10. 2 c m tee an d on e 10. 2 c m elbo w 2 4 4 0 36 0 40 1 3 4
4 9 C E lndex(356.0/358.7 )

Updat e fro m SOCM I NSP S AI D C E lndex(356.0/224.7 ) Updat e fro m SOCM I NSP S AI D CEIndex(356.0/224.7 ) Labo r S22.50/tw 3385.60/vatv e (Richardson ) C E lndex(356.0/342.5 ) 1. 5 hrsTvalv

e (Richardson )
$35.63/tee . $11.73/tlbo w

-Installatio n (8. 8 hrs) TOTA L Cost s ar e th e sam e a s fo r a ne wassembl y plu s a new relie f valve .

- on e 7. 6 c m stainles s stee l bod y an d tri m relie f valv e -Installatio n (1 0 hrs) TOTAL : 19 1 1.75 8 \<fft (Richardson ) CEIndex(356.0/34&5 ) 8. 7 hraJtee . 2. 8 hrs7eibo w (Richardson )

Al l

Connectio n

Alt '

i '

• > - » \ on e 2. 8 c m gat e vatv e

- Installatio n (1. 4 hr

)
Closed Purg e Syste m -6mof2.5c m schedul e 4 0 stee l pipe

- Installatio n (Ihr V -thre e 2. 5 cmbal l valves , carbo n stee l -Installatio n (4. 2 hrs ) * . rOTAL :

TOTAL : 7

0 3 1 10 2

2 5 23 26 7 95 40 9 1.95 0 Updat e fro m SOCM I NSP 8 AI D C E lndex(356.0/224.7 ) 22 5 Labo r 822.50/h r - 3.93 0 -XlS--1f?oi~-\<i\0: O ^ ^
W7.50/valv e (Richardson ) CEIndex(356.07342J ) 1. 4 hrsTvalv

e (Richardson )

3120.64/10 0 ft . (Richardson ) C E lndex(356.0/342J5 ) 12. 6 hrai/io o f L (Richardson ) $as.60/vatve (Richardson ) CEIndex(356.W3415)\ ; ' 1. 4 hrsTvalv

e (Richardson ) .••: ; ^-'>>i i



## \3S~day s o f findin g evidenc e o f a lea k b yvisual , audible , olfactory , o r anyothe r detectio n method . However , thes e component s needno t b e monitore d if , withi n fiv e day s o f detection , th e visual , audible , olfactory , o r otherwis e detecte d evidenc e o f a lea k i s eliminate d b

ybes t repai r practices . Sinc e thes e component s ar e no t require d t o underg o regula r monitorin g o r increase d maintenanc e b

yth e standard , the yar e no t include d i n thi s > »- ( analysis . Informatio n o n th e cost s o f contro l equipment , th e controlle d and uncontrolle d emissio n rates , an d th e lea k frequencies , fo r agitator s ar e no t available . Al l o f thes e factor s affec t th e fina l cos t o f control . Therefore , agitator s hav e no t bee n include d i n thi s cos t impact s analysis . Th e equipmen t specificatio n fo r produc t accumulator s require s a closed-ven t syste mwhic h i s connecte d t o a h additiona l contro l devic e (e.g. , flare ) o r vapo r recover yheader . Som e produc t accumulato r vents , suc h a s distillat e receive r vents , ar e covere d byth e broa d definitio n o f proces s vents . A s wit h agitators , ther e i s limite d availabl e informatio n o n produc t accumulators , and therefore , produc t accumulato r vessel s ar e no t include d i n thi s cos t analysis . I t wa s assume d tha t eac h proces s uni t woul d b e require d t o purchas e on e portabl e organi c vapo r analyze r monitorin g device . Thi s devic e woul d b e require d eithe r fo r occasiona l us e b ya unit-employe d monitorin g team , o r a s a back-u p uni t fo r us e b ya sub-contracte d monitorin g team , shoul d th e subcontractor' s instrumen t fai l durin g a monitorin g visit . Th e cos t o f thi s analyze r wa s determine d t o b e $6,50 0 per^uiiit&basfed° n 'ipric e '\&:--.&:'-'&&-y.-.-i-,'-.'-ik;T?.r^ •'%>•. • . . "•• ' "•-.'•:. '•'•:.T't'j.^^Mi .-fyx-.&•:. '-x.-':*'-^ W^iitwi^v.-V??^^ ^ •'' * xse.!i&;yan37 ^ program . Th e cos t fo r replacemen t pum p seal s wa s estimate d t o b e $18 0 pe r seal . Thi s cos t wa s adjuste d fro m fina l quarte r 197 8 dollar s t o July , 198 9 dollar s usin g th e cos t i n th e Fugitive s Emission s AID * and th e Chemica l Engineerin g (CE ) plan t cos t inde x rati o o f (356.0/224.7) . Thi s rati o i s th e fina l Jul y198 * C E plan t cos t

COSt S .-M

Minde x(356.0) 5 divide d b y th e averag e o f th e fina l 197 8 October , November , an

d Decembe r plan t cos t indexe s (224.7 ) , 6,7, 8 Th e bas e cost s fo r valve s ar e onl y thos e fo r monitorin g an d repai r labor associate d wit hth e LDA Rprogram . Replacemen t seal s fo r valve s ar e no t include d her e becaus e they ar e typicall y

lo w cos t items , an

d ar e considere d t o b e covere d b y routin e maintenanc e cost s fo r th e unit . Th e contro l equipmen t requirement s fo r compressors , pressur e relie f devices , open-ende d lines , an d sampl e connection s wer e al l update d fro

m componen t requirement s specifie d i n th e Fugitive s Emission s AID. 2 Th e cos t fo r thes e component s wa s estimate d b y usin g Richardson Proces s Plan t ConstructionEstimatio n Standards 9 an

d b y requestin g curren t pric e quote s fro m vendor s on equipmen t components. 10,1 1 Thes e price s wer e the nadjuste d t o July , 198 9 dollars . T o updat e price s obtaine d fro m Richardson's , a plan t cos t inde xo f 342.5 , whic hi s th e annua l cos t inde xfo r 1988 , wa s used. 9 T o updat e pric e quote s fro m vendors , a plan t cos t inde xO f 358.7 , whic hi s th e fina l cos t inde xfo r Jul y

o f 1990 , wa s used . Quote s coul d no t b e

. obtaine d fo r al l equipmen t components . Fo r retrofitte d replacemen t pressur e relie f valves , pressur e gauges , an d blee d valve s t o b e used wit hruptur e dis k assemblies , th e cost s use d i n th e Fugitive s Emission s AID 2 wer e adjusted usin g th e C E plan t cos t inde xrati o o f (356.0/224.7) . Th e labor-hour requirement s fo r equipmen t installatio n fo r retrofitte d pressur e relie f valves , pressur e gauges , blee d valves , an

d flame'arrestors , a s show n i nTabl e 1 , wer e take nfro m the^Fugimves v

Emis s ion s AID . TTh e - ^

Estimatio nStandards. * Th e cos t fo r installatio nlabo r wa s estimate d t o b e $22.5 0 pe r hour. 13 ' 1 * Thi s labo r cos t wa s estimate d using th e labo r cos t i nRichardson' s an d updating i t t o Jul y 198 9 dollars . 

# 3 7 cost* , a m

" ' 6 , vanP.3 9

Capita l Cost s Th e capita l cost s fo r bringin g existing unit s u p t o th e leve l o f contro l state d i n th e Re g Neg 1 wer e estimate d using th e bas e cost s discusse d abov e an d the mode l uni t equipmen t counts . Tabl e 2 present s th e capita l cost s for equipmen t fo r al l si x mode l units . Th e cost s fo r mode l unit s A , B , an d C ar e highe r tha n fo r mode l unit s D , E , an d F , whic har e o f th e sam e respective sizes . Th e cost s ar e highe r fo r unit s A , B , an d C becaus e thes e unit s ar e define d a s uncontrolled , and mus t purchas e a monitoring instrument . Unit s D , E , an d F ar e assume d t o alread

y hav e a LDA

R progra

m inplace , an

d therefore , alread y hav e a monitoring instrument . Al l othe r capita l cost s ar e equivalen t fo r th e uncontrolle d an d controlle d mode l units . Lea k Detectio n an

d Repai r Cost s Th e cos t for maintainin g a LDA Rprogra

m i s considere d t o b e « a n annua l operating expense . Thi s expens e i s a function , o f th e monitoring frequency , lea k frequency , an d labo r cost * The cost s fo r operating an LDA R progra

m ar e estimate d t o b e componen t pe r monitorin g even t based o nmonitoring s performe d b y S^2£2J22^mmiaaiaaaa%%aaaaaaaf ' a vflHHMRBr!^, ) Thi s cos t wa s multiplie d b y th e appropriat e equipmen t count s an d require d monitoring frequencie s fo r eac h mode l uni t t o obtai n th e estimated annua l costs . Thi s monitoring cos t include s labo r cost s fo r the us e o f a portabl e organi c vapo r detecto r an

d aninitia l repai r attemp t t o b e mad e b y th e monitoring team. " I t i s assumed tha t i f a proces s uni t chos e t o ^ conduc t monitoring .internally, , an d no t brin g i n a subcontractor , fo r monitoring , th e monitorin g cost ' woul d b e th e same . Th e standard require s tha t valve s i n gas/vapo r servic e and valve s i n light liqui d servic e b e monitore d quarterl y i f th e proces s uni t ha s demonstrate d throug hpreviou s monitoring an d reporting tha t les s tha n 2 percen t o f it s valve s ar e leaking . Th e cost s for thi s monitorin g frequency ar e presente d i n 

# 38

COStS.-M

B 7

# I B TABL

E 2 . CAPITA L COST S FO REQUIPMEN

T FO REXISTIN G UNIT S Mode l Uni tIdentification * B 

# , v Wlv C D Cos t($ ) E j /Monitoring Instrumen t / Compresso r Sea l Ven t Syste m i Ruptur e Dis k Assemblie s * 7-J —

Disk s 

## ny* ~ Holders , valves ,

installation /Cap s for open-ende d J line s 6,50 0 12,48 5
\ 3,49 8 173,34 0 6,50 0

49,94 0

5^90 9 292,75 3 0 D0 b0 °

0 C 12,48 5 49,94 0

15 5 3,49 8 5,90 9 7,70 4 173,34 0 292,75 3

0 d O

d 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 d p9 * <£ " I Closed-purg e sampl e ^ connection s i/o * * 2 TOTAL 14.31 1 43.31 2 3,26 9 14.30 1 43.31 2
• 210,12 5 398,41 3 11,12 8 203,62 5 391,91 3

a Mode l unit s A , B , an d C ar e simple , moderate , an d complex , uncontrolle d units . Mode l unit s D , E , an d F ar e simpl e moderate , an d complexunit s controlle d t o th e leve l specifie d i n th e SOCM I CT G (EPA-450/3-83-006) . b Mode l unit s D , E , an d F have LDA

R monitoring instruments . c Mode l unit s A

an d D d o not . have compressors , therefore , th e cos t for compresso r sea l ven t systems i s $0.00 . °-I t i s assumed tha t al l mode l unit a alread y hav e installe d cap s on open-ende d lines .

<:•.•:'.;?. . , -

' viV:V!;.r^'KV-;;J'v\;i>;>Ti.'-<^r^' . 'o ! '•' ' s " •i'-: - '.*• * ". -V; 1 . vCy.-*.'.v^:•>».-.-.V.•.- : X^M: - • • ;.•-.*• • .'...i'.." . •;'••.-•' • : \ . v . • '•:-.-''" v ••••• • •:::\-.;-Vi.y>; :•:•'•:''$$*•?•



## 3< J cost s . 1P.4 1

Tabl e 3A . Th e standar d require s tha t valve s b e monitore d monthl y if , throug hpreviou s monitorin g an d reporting , th e proces s uni t ha s 2 percen t o r mor e o f it s valve s leaking . Th e cost s fo r thismonitoring frequenc y ar e presente d i nTabl e 3B . Th e valv e monitorin

g frequencie s ar e the onl y difference s betwee nTable s 3 A an d 3B . Th e Re g Neg 1 require s tha t proces s unit s wit hconnector s havin g lea k frequencie s o f 0. 5 percen t o r greate r monito r onc e annually . A t connecto r lea k frequencie s les s than 0. 5 percent , proces s unit s ar e allowe d t o monito r a t les s frequen t intervals . Sinc e no t al l proces s unit s ar e expecte d t o b e belo w 0. 5 percen t leaking , annua l monitoring s wit ha 0. 5 percen t leak frequenc y wer e assumed fo r connector s for thi s cos t impact s analysis . Pump s i n ligh t liqui d servic e ar e t o b e monitore d monthly . Althoug hpressur e relie f seal s hav e anequipmen t standard , annua l monitoring s ar e recommende d t o ensur e compliance . Therefore , annua l monitorin g o f thes e source s i s als o included i n thes e cos t estimates . N o repai r cost s ar e include d for pressur e relie f valves , sinc e th e Re g Neg 1 specifie s a n equipmen t standard fo r thes e sources . Additiona l cost s fo r th e LDA R progra

m wil l includ e th e cost s fo r subsequen t repai r o f al l component s tha t coul d no t b e adequatel y

repaire d a t th e tim e o f monitoring . Th e labo r cos t for thes e subsequen t repair s i s estimate d t o b e $22.5 0 pe r hour. 1 3 Fo r valves , 72 5 percen t o f al l leak s ar e estimate d t o requir e furthe r repair. 1 6 I t wa s assume d tha t th e sam e percentag e o f connector s wil l requir e furthe r repair . An y pressur e relie f devic e leak s requirin g subsequen t repai r ar e assumed t o be'covere d b y routine maintenanc e costs . < * ,i i ^ Th e percentage^o f leakin g pumps ' requiring furthe r repai r wa s

, determined ^to\be^7S^e f 6Mt * -Thi s was~'bVsed>o n th e Reg*Neg 1 rul e Phas e II I definitio n tha t al l pump s wit hMonito r reading s ove r 1,00 0 ppm

v ar e leaking , bu t tha t onl y pump s wit hreading s ove r 2,00 0 ppm

v mus t b e repaired . Usin g th e Ethylen e Oxid e and Butadiene plan t surve y screenin

g data , i t wa s determine d tha t approximatel y

7 5 percen t o f th e pump s leaking a t level s greate r

costs.aw n9tha n 1,00 0 ppm v wer e als o leakin

g a t level s greate r tha n 2,00 0 ppmv. 1 7 Th e pum p lea k frequency

-of 1 0 percen t wa s take n fro m th e Re g Neg 1 as . th e maximu

m leak frequenc y

allowe d fo r Phas e II I withou t requiring a Qualit y Improvemen t Program . For thi s analysis , i t wa s assume d tha t unit s woul d mee t th e performanc e standar d o f les s than 1 0 percen t o f thei r pump s leaking . I n Phas e III , th e negotiate d rul e als o state s tha t 3 pump s ma y b e leaking i f thi s i s greate r tha n 1 0 percen t o f th e tota l numbe r o f pump s i n the proces s unit . Thi s claus e woul d permi t simpl e proces s unit s t o hav e mor e tha n 1 0 percen t o f th e pump s leakin g a t th e tim

e o f an y on e monitorin g even t withou t requiring th e implementation o f a Qualit y Improvemen t Program . Sinc e an y pump s determine d t o b e leaking woul d stil l requir e repair s a t a monitorin g reading o f 2,00 0 ppmv , thi s claus e i s no t expecte d to . chang e th e repai r requirement s fo r simpl e proces s units . Therefore , a 1 0 percen t lea k frequenc y wa s used t o estimat e cos t impact s fo r thes e proces s units , an d n o cos t difference s ar e expecte d o r reflecte d i n thi s cos t analysi s fo r mode l unit s A an d D . I n Table s 3 A

an d 3B , monitorin g cost s an d lea k repai r cost s (base d on 22.50/hou r o f labor 13 ) ar e presented.fo r eac hequipmen t type . A t th e botto m o f eac htable , tota l monitorin g an d lea k repai r cost s ar e presented . Additionally , administrative and suppor t cost s ar e presented . Administrative and suppor t cost s ar e estimate d a s 4 0 percen t o f monitorin g an d lea k repai r costs . Finally , tota l LDA R cost s ar e presented . im

cos t determinations . Thes e cost s ar e presente d i n Tabl e 4 whic hfollow s th e sam e forma t a s Table s 3 A an d 3B . «^^efi«-:4KS(9ja£'^^ra^^llf^bv"'"'JB'^eia^^^eSirfe*tiy'^li^ ^ a-LDA R program^d^.^pejpatipn,,; ^ .••tf-A 1 '
• •• c .'.vV-- . •'•i'# 6



# 4 /
coats . 

### 1 0.:--.3-."-' :: -.. :
. • y'CSi ••••'• • .•.••• ' : !;iv^TABL

E 3A . ANNUAL MONITORIN G AN D LEA

KREPAI RCOS T ESTIMATE S WIT H QUARTERL YVALVE MONITORING

~ ' ' > -I*? - *- * Sourc e Typ e Mon l
t ^ 

## V Estimate d Percen t Numbe ro fLeak s Requirin g Repai rLea k Repai rLabor Type i of";'•'•'•. : •'.i-t^^nd ^ Monitorin g Costs' * Lea k Pe r Yea r Furthe r Time" " Hour s Require d . Lea k Repai r Costs Pe r Yea r AID

B/ E C/ F Frequenc y A/ D B/ E C/ F Repair* " (hrs ) A/ D B/ E C/ F A/ D B/ E C/ F • • ^^Timee: , . „

M P Valve s

Gas/Vapo r Instrument '
\ S 2^ ° Ugh t Liqui d Instrumen t

Pum p Seal s Ugh t Liqui d Instrumen t l > Visua l Connectors Instrumen t 1 2 OASTS , 

## f t

1 es*

'I 3.31 2 11.03 2 0.0 2 6 4 33. 1 110. 3
9.43 2 15.84 0 0.0 2 30. 4 04. 3 158. 4



## /•T 96 0 1.344 0. 1 (18.0" ) 48. 0 07 4 39 0 54 8 ^- ^ '5.32 4 14.82 0 0.00 5 3. 7 13. 3 37. 1 I. l - V 1 *

2 5 4 - 30. 4 94 4 158. 4

7 5 '* * 16-^-216. 0 576. 0 808. 4

2 5 1. 8 6. 7 18. 5 74 5 2.48 2
2.12 2 3.56 4

12.96 0 18.14 4
15 0 41 7
H Pressur

e Relief Instrumen t Seals ' $* 9 0 . 15 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 

### <U t o TOTA L COS T (S) MODE L UNIT 8 A/ D B/E C/ F Tota l Monitorin g Cost Tota l Leak, Repai r Costs Admlnjstratlv

e an d Suppor

t Cost * 4o* U Tota l Quarterl y LDA R Cost s k# . 19.50 8 15.97 7 14.19 4 49.67 9 43,73 4

24.60 7 27,33 6 95.67 7 

## *,ivi

\ J . Althoug h LDA R I s no t require d lofpjessur e Relie f Seals . H i s estimate d that on e monitorin g wff l b e pe r formed eac h yea r t o ensure compliance wit h equipmen t standard . (
' * Monitorin g coats ar e base d o n a.subcorltractor' e fe e o f $2.00/eoniponent/monftorln g even t * * * Percentage s requiring : furthefrepai r anc i repai r time s wer e take n from Referenc e 2 Bectio n S . wit h th e exceptio n o f Ih e 75 H o f pumps requirin g furthe r repair . Tha t vaiu e wa e calculate d usin g dat a from Gmyle m Oxid e an d Butadien e plan t eurveya .



## L S

### TABL E 3B . ANNUA L MONITORIN

G AN D LEA KREPAI R COS T ESTIMATE S WITH MONTHL YVALV E MONITORIN

G

Sourc e Typ e ,,-:-_ . Estimate d Percen

t ,T[jnes Numbe r o f Leak e Requirin g . Repai r Lea k Repai r Labor

Typ e o f ^'^pnjtgre d , ^ Monitorin g Costs' * Lea k Pe

r Yea r Further Time** * Hour s Requite d Leak

Repai r Cost

s Monitoring ^gerYoa r A/ D B/ E C/F Frequenc y A/ D B/ E C/ F Repair** * (hrs

) A/ D B/ E C/F A/

D B/ E C/ F
Valve s Oas/Vapor Instrumen t JT 7 1 2 1,84

8 9.03 6 33.09 6 0.0 2 t8. 6 99. 4 331. 0 2 5 4 18. S 99. 4 331. 0 41 6 2.23 6 7.44 7 Ligh tLiqui d Instrumen

t Pum p Seal s 1 2 9,12 0 2849 6 47.62 0 0.0 2 91 4 283. 0 475 4 2 5 4 91 4 283. 0 476 4 2.05 2 6.36 7 10.69 2
Ligh t Liqui d Instrumen

t visua l 1 2 360 96 0 144 4

6 2 14

6 39 0 646

* 0. 1 18. 0 48. 0 674 ' 7 5 1 6 216. 0 576. 0 806. 4 446 0 12.96 0 18.14 4

t o Connector s Instrumen t 1 1.46

2 6,324 14,82 0 0.00 5 3. 7 13 4 37. 1 2 5 2 1. 8 6. 7 18. 6 4 1 15 0 41 7
- f c Pressur

e Relie f Instrumen

t U ) Seal s * 9 0 16 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

TOTAL COS

T ($ ) A/ D B/ E C/

F Tota l Monitorin g Cos

t Tota l Lea k

Repai r Cost

s -- £ Administrativ

e an d Suppor

t Cost*- ' v Tota l Monthl

y LDA R Cost s v 12.940

746 9 8.12 4 28,43 3 44.99 6

21.71 2 26,66 3 9349 1 97.478

36,69 9 53.67 1 187,84 8

* Althoug h LOA

R i s no t require d lor Pressur

e Relie f Seals , i t i s estimate

d tha t on e monitorin

g wil l b e performe

d eac h yea

r to ensur e complianc

e wit h equipmen

t standard . * * Monitorin g cost

s ar e base d o n v <Sibj-ortractor" e fe

e o f $2.00/eoinponent/monrtoring even t • " Percentage

s requirin g rurtfi«jnip£i r en d repaf r time a wer e take n frxxn Referenc

e 2 Sectio n S.wi m th e excep t Tha t value wa

s calculate

d using 'dat

a from EmyleneOxld ^ an d Butadiene plameurveya.

< rT'•$$jj$& 4 . INITIA L MONITORING AN D LEA KREPAI RCOS T ESTIMATE S

iJv'-r^VS-' V

_

• %;i^fe| 7 '•

• • • Typ e o f 77: : .;'^iferin g Costs

* Percen t initial " Estimate

d Requiring Repai r Leak Repai r Labor

Leak Numbe

r o f Leak s Further Time** ' Hour s Require d Lea

k Repai r Cost

s

M ' Valve

s Sourc e Typ e Monttorir^ :: ;..^^t; , B C Frequenc y AB C Repair*** (hrs ) B B •Hkxm>:% 

### ' ; 

### '$f?i : 

### i y 

### -':\ y~7y^\ Gas/Vapo

rInstrument

! •T-am • «-* ! ' Ligh

t Uqui d Instrur^**••"*»«*«»-— ' I C T Pump \ * * )d ^ Ugh

t Uqui d In i 

# S»*lH

_

lector s I m 1o-W 5


### 4 : T > 1.03 5 3.448 10.11 4 ) v8.8 ) 47 4 167 4 V 2 8 / V 4 ) i 8
- 8 r 7 - 2 •*>7- 2 * « S *»• *

'2.948 446 0 0.065 24.7 76. 6 128. 7 26 4 24. 7 76. 6 128. 7 ) '1.06 2 3.53 7

* 1.72 4 2,896

10 0 140 0. 2 3. 0 8. 0 11 4 76 1 6 36. 0 96. 0 134. 4 HP * 2.16 0 3.024

16.626 0.02 1 15.4 55 4 165. 6 25 2 7. 7 28. 0 77. 8 17 3 62 9 1.76 1

TOTA L COS T ($) '?•&$&!$£. '".A. MODE L UNIT S 

## BliPtf-- A - B C - & 

## (TZJLH<^VS+ T 

## ^ LJ 

## ^ '^~ vo.^t

* Monitoring cost

s ar e base d .crt;'a".sur>«xrtiact8

1 " I t wa a assume d tha t leattaguehclet i wire 2 time e the lea k frequencies presente

d I n Tebl e 3 for pumpe

. Al l other lea k

frequencie

s wer e taken *omfWanr«ic*^-^y^ ^ . -** ' Percentage

c requiring! ^ 

# VfX 

# J** * ..arid repai r time e wer e taken from Referenc

e 2 SecUo

n 5 . wl m th e exception o

f th e 75 % o

f pump s requirin g further repair . Wk^^^M^'^&bUA usin g dat a from Ethylene Oxide artrJ-ButadTen e ptan t surveys. •>P

* #

'•'•-IJ*: : !(.

-Fo r thes e initia l monitoring s the monitorin g cos t increase s t o $2.5 0 pe r componen t du e t o first-tim e difficultie s suc ha s locatin g al l components , increased number s o f component s requirin g tagging , an d highe r lea

k frequencies . Thi s monitoring cos t wa s determined b y contacting monitoring subcontractors. 1 9 Th e initia l lea

k frequencie s fo r valve s an d connector s wer e take n fro m th e 24-Uni t Study. 1 8 Th e initia l leak frequenc y fo r pump s liste d i n Tabl e 4 wa s estimate d a s tw o time s th e lea k frequency presente d inTabl e 3 t o reflec t a highe r initia l lea k frequency , a s woul d be expected . Th e valu e fro m the 24-Uni t Stud

y for pump s wa s no t used becaus e i t i s lowe r than th e valu e used fo r subsequen t annua l LDAR . Annua l Contro l Cos t Estimate s Th e annua l cost s wer e calculate d based o nth e procedur e develope d durin

g the SOCM I Fugitive s NSP S development. 2 Table s 5 A

an d 5 B presen t th e annua l contro l cost s fo r al l si x mode l units , for quarterl y and monthl y

valve monitoring , respectively . Thes e annua l cost s ar e based o nth e cost s develope d i n Table s 1 throug h4. . Th e annualized capita l cost s ar e based o n a 6-yea r lif e a t 1 0 percen t interes t fo r th e monitoring instrument , a 2-yea r lif e a t 1 0 percen t interes t fo r ruptur e disks , an d a 10-yea r lif e a t 1 0 percen t interes t fo r al l othe r contro l equipment. 2 Th e capita l recover

y factor s ar e then , 0.23 , 0.58 , an d 0.163 , respectively . Not e tha t unit s A , B , an d C , hav e initia l LDA R

••••••^M

-

rial's-'.' - 7 c 'w-;-vv A ' • ;• ' ' "1 9 • , maintenanc e presented i n th e SOCM I Fugitive s AI D wa s $2,700 , an d updatin g thi s cos t t o Jul y 198 9 dollar s give s a presen t da y cos t o f $4,280 . The charg e fo r replacemen t pum p seal s wa s determine d b

y multiplying th e numbe r o f seal s requirin g subsequen t repair , b y th e replacemen t sea l cos t o f $180 . Al l
cost s .na

m 1 4TABL E 5A . ANNUA L CONTRO L COST S FOR MODE L UNIT S WIT H QUARTERLYVALV

E MONITORING *

Cos t He m Uni t A Unit B Unit O Unit D Unlt E Untt F

Annualize d capita l charges
i f Contro l Equipmen t Ja . Monitorin g Instrumen t J b . Compresso r Sea l Ven t System I c . Ruptur

e Dis k Assemblie

s Disk s 0 - Dis k

holders , valves , etc . d . Cap s to r Open-Ende d Line s e . Closed-Loo p Samplin g 2 . Initia l Lea k

Repai r a . Labor , Admin , an d Suppor t 

# i r « 

### c« »

I O 1.49 5 2.03 5 J 8. ' 1.49 5 14 0
2.02 9 3.427 

## jr*/ 

## o o "Y\,l 1> JlBf ^ 2.33 1 7.06 0 \\|1 > Maw * 3.72 3 8.73 3 b . Replacemen t Pum p Seal s Lfof- x t flp, 62 6 87 7 0

2.03 5

0 0 0 8.14 0
8 0 2.02 9 3.42 7 1.25 6 28.26 4 47.71 9 0 0 0 53 3 243 1 7.00 0

Subtotal : $40.49 4 77.45 1 1.87 9 34.65 0 6644 6 Operatin g Costs iv^u ^ M-Jnt.runc s Croros . f ..^rtpringj^umw t b . Compresso r Sea l Ven t Syste m c . Ruptur

e Dis k Assemblie

s

- Ruptur e disk s

- Dis k holders , valves , etc . d . Cap s fo r Open-Ende d Lines "V*-C- o '«.©*- * e . Closed-Loo p Samplin g A **,*•*> » rQ* ^ * • PumpSeaJajTp*\t ° ,

•$&W0dr/ f fy(\^LReplacemen t Pum p y/a.. MonitoringInstrumen t y/ b . Compresso r Sea l Ven t Systs m V * o . compresso r sea t ven t systs m . (

- y/c . Ruptur

s Olskstf-ulit*--/i£^>itorr>rt\< t ;7.. : .fltfAd.Capsfor^Open-EndedUnes %>j^*V«t M ±/~e . Closed-Loop Sampling ' v*^V) r **«•" » <i/ f . Replacemen

t Pump Seal

s * I^V^^^^ y a . LDA R Monitoring D . Subsequen

t Repai r c . Administrativ

e an d Suppor t 448 0 62 4 17 5 8,66 7 71 7 71 5 '6.48 0 

# «B * 7.07 4 57 3 ,97 2 5.18 4 1940 8 15.97 7 14.19 4 448 0

2.49 7 29 5 14.63 8 2.15 6 2.16 6 9,07 2
26 0 1.996 11.94 6
, 1.7 H <t.7M v 746 6 43.73 4 24.60 7 27.33 6 4.28 0

0 8 38 5 16 8

. 10 3 2.43 0
26 0 0 31 + 13 4 13 1 1.94 4 6.62 8 6.72 4 444 1 4.28 0

62 4 17 8 8.06 7 71 7 71 6 6,48 0
'..'26 0 7499 - ••7^ 4 ••- . •:$$&*% •



### - : 

### mim -8;il4 7 19.50 6 15,97 7 14.19 4 448 0

2.49 7 29 6 1443 8 2.15 5 2,16 6 9,07 2
•;&B0

:
. 149 8 

### 7$$ £ ^3t!72 $ w«fiji r i ••i;!i-v.;.;'\ i 43.73 4 24,60 7 2743 6 .-•;« & •••;&•¥



## W

Subtotal : 85.50 0 155.69 9 26,11 0 85,50 0 156,00 9
Tota l I ijaflSOfr r 125.99 3 233.14 9 27.98 9 120.14 9 222.04 4 |

a 

### Thes e annua l cost s d o no tinclud e recover y credit s fo rVO C emissio n reductions . LL£, 1 5P.4 8



### TABL E 5B . ANNUAL CONTRO L COST S FOR MODE L UNIT S

WIT H MONTHL YVALVE MONITORING f

Cos t He m Uni t A Unit B Unit e Unlt D Unit E Unit P

Annualize d capita l charges
1 . Contro l Equipmen t a . Monitorin g Instrumen t b . Compresso r Sea l Ven t Syste m c . Ruptur

e Dis k Assemblie

s -Disk s

- Dis k holders , valves , etc . d . Cep e for Open-Ende d Line s e . Closed-Loo p Samplin g 2 . Initia l Lea k

Repai r a . Labor . Admin , an d Suppor t b . Replacemen t Pum p Seal s 1.495 0
9 0 145 6 0 63 3
1.08 2 23 5 1.495 2.03 5
2.02 9 2845 4 0 2.33 1
3.72 3 62 6 1.49 5 8.14 0
3.42 7 47.71 9 0 7.06 0
8.73 3 87 7 0

0
9 0 1.25 6 0 53 3
0 0 0 2.03 8
2.02 9 2845 4 0 2.33 1
0 0 . 0 8.14 0
3.42 7 47.71 9 0 7.06 0
0 0
Subtotal : 4.69 1 40.49 4 77.45 1 1.87 9 34.65 0 66.34 6 Operatin g Cost

a 1 . Annua l Maintenance Charges a . Monitorin g Instrument b . Compresso r Sea l Ven t Syste m c . Ruptur

e Dic k Assemblie

s -Ruptur e disk

s

- Dis k holders , valves , etc . d . Cap s lorOpen-Ende d Line s e . Closed-Loo p Samplin g f . Replacemen t Pump

' Seal s 2 . Annua l Miscellaneou s {taxes , insurance , administration ) a . Mooitorjir^^lni^men t

. b . Cc^pfiir^/S^IVe m Syste m ; r ..y ^f^&^M^^'.x.'hLW^. • ;.-'. ' w::,d7cipe;%6|pprided:Llne i ,;, v .^sXiose^l ^ Sarnty% ^ -• ; •vV^i:^Be•plac^meW|PMp!Seah>.•• . •-''i'Ufioy^hsrges^ ^ '--•'#•"• ' •'* '
' a . LOA R Monitorin g b . Subsequen t Repai r c . Administrativ

e an d Suppor

t Subtotal : .*R>\r- ' 4.28 0

0 8 38 5 16 8 16 3 2.43 0
•7MQ *
'••••;<$,• 4.28 0

62 4 17 6 8.66 7 71 7 71 8 6.48 0

260 . ...•499.- . 4.28 0

2.49 7 29 5 14,63 8 2.18 6 2.16 6 9.07 2

..; ; 280 . 1.99 8 . 448 0

0 8 38 5 16 8 16 3 2.43 0
,4.26 0 •0 4.28 0

62 4 17 8 8.66 7 71 7 71 6 6.48 0 .•Mfc-i.. ,

'

. ••.••(•:»•,.: ; \S \ 4.28 0

2.49 7 29 8 14.63 8 2.16 8 2.18 8 .847 2 

## : , M "•71^94

r 

## f^'M^^^m^'^^ii?W^^M^^^k- : 

## -T-: 12.94 0 44,99 6 97.47 8 12.94 0 44.99 6 97.47 8 746 9 21.71 2 36.69 9 746 9 21.71 2 36.69 9 8.12 4 26.68 3 53.67 1 8.12 4 26.68 3 53.67 1 38.85 0 12941 1 247.87 0 38.65 0 12941 1 24747 0
Tota l | 43.34 1 169.70 5 325.32 0 40.52 9 163.86 1 314.215 1
a 

### Thes e annua l cost s d o no t includ e recover y credit s fo r VO C emissio nreductions . n-y , 1 cothe r annua l maintenanc e charge s wer e calculate d using a facto r o f 0.0 5 time s th e capita l cos t fo r eac hcomponent. 2 0 Th e annua l miscellaneou s charge s wer e calculate d using a facto r o f 0.0 4 time s th e capita l cos t fo r eac hcomponent, 2 0 wit h th e exception o f the replacemen t pum p seals . Thei r cos t wa s calculate d a s 0*8 0 time s the annua l maintenanc e charge . Thi s give s a n annua l miscellaneou s charg e fo r pum p seal s proportiona l t o th e miscellaneou s charge s fo r othe r items . Cos t Effectivenes s Th e cos t effectivenes s for eac ho f th e si xmode l unit s i s presente d in Table s 6 A an d 6B . Th e value s i n Tabl e 6A reflec t quarterl y

valve monitoring , an d th e value s i n Tabl e 6 B reflec t monthl y

valv e monitoring . Th e cos t effectivenes s fo r eac ho f th e mode l unit s wa s determine d b

y multiplying the annua l emissio n reductio n i n megagram s (Mg ) o f VO C fo r eachmode l uni t time s th e averag e HA P t o VO C rati o t o obtai n the averag e HA P emissio n reductio nfo r eac hmode l unit . Th e annua l emissio n reduction s wer e take nfro m th e Marc h29 , 199 1 memorandu m fro m Bil l Hohenstein , Radian/RT P t o D . Markwordt , EPA/CP B "Revised 'Re g Neg ' Controlle d Mode l Uni t Emission s fro

m Equipmen t Leaks. nTh e VO C emission reduction s wer e the nmultiplie d b y the averag e chemica l cos t o f $1,590/M g o f VO C t o produc e th e recovere d VO C credits . Th e averag e HA P t o VO C rati o an

d the chemica l cos t wer e determine d b y th e HO N industrie s profil e base d on 13 5 product-proces s entrie s (containin g cos t informatio n fo r 16 8 VOC's ) i nth e HON-CHEM database. 1 1 The . recovere d VO C credit s wer e subtracte d fro m th e contro l cost s t o obtai n th e tota l annua l costs . Th e tota l annua l cost s were"the n divide d b

y the VO C an

d HA P emissio nreduction s respectively / t o provid e th e cos t effectivenes s fo r eac hmode l uni t o na VO C and a HA P basis . Thes e calculation s indicat e a ne t saving s fo r al l si xmode l unit s wit hquarterl y valve monitoring . Th e cos t effectivenes s

• • w costs,aa a 1 7 ! J, " V JTABL E 6A . COS T EFFECTIVENES S FO RMODE L UNIT S WIT H QUARTERL YVALV E MONITORIN G

Uni t A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E • •

Uni t F P.5 0

Annua l Cost* $/y r Emissio n Reduc . M g VOC/y r Averag e HAP/VO C rati o Emissio n Reduc . M g HAP/y r Solven t Cos

t $/M g VO C Recovered Credi t $/y r Tota l Annua l Cos

t $/y r Cos t Effect . $/M g VO C Cost Effect . $/M g HA P 30,80 1 125,99 3 233.14 9 27,98 9 120,14 9 222,04 4 36.4 7 149.1 9 306.1 1 21.3 9 92.5 7 187.9 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 28.4 5 116.3 7 238.7 7 16.6 8 72.2 0 146.6 2 1,59 0 1.59 0 1.59 0 1.59 0 1.59 0 1.59 0 57.98 7 237.21 2 486.71 5 34,01 0 147,18 6 298,88 8 (27,186 ) (111,219 ) (253,565 ) (6,021 ) (27.037 ) (76.844 ) (750 ) (75Q

) . (830 ) (280 ) (290 ) (410 ) (960 ) (960 ) (1.060 ) (360 ) (370 ) (520 )
Annua l cos

t valu e i s take n fro m tabl e 5A . NOTE : Parentheses indicate negativ e values (ie . savings) .

:-:'&S5^«Vv

V ' . .• ' •ivv:;i..''^ v vJ-.VA';*'iV'.i' r ::*fcv,•v.!.* . /•&•:$>.!•••'• ''•i]-y:T

1 8 

# mP.5 1

TABL E 6B . COS T EFFECTIVENES S FORMODE L UNIT S

WIT H MONTHLYVALV

E MONITORIN

G

Uni t A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit F
Annua l Cost * $/y r 43.34 1 169,70 5 325,32 0 40,52 9 163,86 1 314,21 5 Emissio n Reduc . M g VOC/y r 36.4 7 149.1 9 306.1 1 21.3 9 92.5 7 187.9 8 Averag e HAP/VO C rati o 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 0.7 8 Emissio n Reduc . M g HAP/y r 28.4 5 116.3 7 238.7 7 16.6 8 72.2 0 146.6 2 Solven t Cost $/M g VO C 1,59 0 1,59 0 1.59 0 1,59 0 1.59 0 1.59 0 Recovere d Credi t $/y r 57,98 7 237,21 2 486,71 5 34.01 0 147.18 6 298.88 8 Tota l Annua l Cos t $/y r (14,646 ) (67,507 ) (161,394 ) 6,51 9 16,67 5 15.32 7 Cos t Effect . $/M g VO C (400 ) (450 ) {530 ) 30 0 18 0 8 0 Cos t Effect . $/M g HA P (510 ) (580 ) (680 ) 39 0 23 0 10 0

* Annua l cos

t valu e i s fro m tabl e 58 . NOTE : Parenthese s indicat e negativ e value s fie . savings) .


# Ji '

" sovalue s rang e fro m a saving s o f $i,060/Mg HA P for mode l uni t C t o a saving s o f $360/Mg HAP fo r mode l uni t D . Fo r monthl y valu e monitorin

g ther e i s a ne t saving s fo r mode l unit s A , B and C , an d a netexpens e fo r mode l unit s D , E , an d F . Fo r th e monthl y valv e monitorin

g frequency ; th e cos t effectivenes s value s rang e fro m a saving s o f $680/M

g HAP for mode l uni t C , t o an expens e o f $390/Mg HA P fo r mode l uni t D . • \

• ; ": - '. : : : &::M^"A'-T : T '••: ' 77'-^^''-'77:' 7 ' ' ; 

### i-T-''^%§i^:;T

.'•:>•••• ' ..;>&'•.Slav- : : .- ; •' ' y*\%77 - .• •'" .

'•_ ••:;•:•::•'• • • •• •'>.'•:•«!'*' . •X\'': .'V-'» V '

. ' •'.'•yyT\

: .'--' • • v.\\ *

. , •"•h

. : .ii$®:
< • : V-H^IM A •• ••.S.Vfs-S ' 7 '• :"£$ &
•••':• : ••••'rS&K



# SI

costs . ' 0P.5 3

REFERENCE S
1 . Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants . Announcemen t o f th e Negotiate d Regulatio n for Equipmen t Leaks . Federa l Register . Volume 56 , No . 44 , pp . 9315-9339 , Marc h6 , 1991 . 2 . U . S . Environmenta l Protection Agency . Fugitiv e Emission Source s o f Organi c Compound s - Additiona l Informationo n Emission , Emission Reductions , an d Costs . Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . PublicationNo . EPA-450/3-82-010 . April , 1982 . Section 5 . 3 . Johnson » J. , Charlotte , Nort hCarolina , representativ e o f Foxbor o Equipmen t Company . Persona l communicatio nwit h D . J . Whitt , Radia n Corporation . Octobe r 26 , 199 0 (documented fo r th e file s o f D . J . Whitt. ) 4 . Referenc e 2 , p . 5-19 . 5 . Economi c Indicators . Fina l Jul y 198 9 C E Plan t Cos t Index , an d Annua l 198 8 C E Plan t Cos t Index . Chemica l Engineering . 9j7.(9):262 . 6 . Economi c Indicators . Fina l Octobe r 197 8 C E Plan t Cos t Index . Chemica l Engineering . 86(3);7 . 7 . Economi c Indicators . Chemica l Engineering . 86(7);7 . 8 . Economi c Indicators . Fina l Decembe r 197 8 C E Plan t Cos t Index . Chemica l Engineering . §1(8):7 . 9 . Richardso n Proces s Plan t Construction Estimatio nStandards : Mechanica l an

d Electrical . Volum e 3 , Richardso nEngineering Services , Inc. , Mesa , Arizona , 1988 . Section s 15-42 , 15-43 , 15-55 . 10 . Lette r fro

m Caracciolo , D. , NA O Inc. , t o D . J . Whitt , Radia n Corporation . Octobe r 31 , 1990. ' 4 p . Cos t dat a for flam e arrestor . 11 . Nagy , D. , Charlotte , Nort h.Carolina , representativ e o f BS& B Safet y Systems , Inc . Persona l communicationwit h D . J . Whitt , Radia nCorporation . Octobe r 30 , ,1990 . :'?•''•'•• • \' v-: ' - ; ^'V?^'K--^ : ' - , : V •'"•••?'" • ' ' ' " ' ' '•'• ' '"•; ••••••••<••••'.'•• • ••;•;• ' . ; .. . •'..'. . 12 . Economi c indicators . Fina l Jul y 199 0 C E Plan t Cost . Index . '•'•.TM Chemical^Engineering , „£2(10 ) :.27t).a2 . >•< . . *iy. . . ; f ^*I | 13 . Referenc e 9 , Sectio n 15-0.13 . 14 . Economi c Indicators . ConstructionLabo r Cos t Inde x (198 8 Annua l Averag e Valu e an d Fina l Jul y

198 9 Value) . Chemica l Engineering . 96(3 ) throug h97(2) , an

d 97(9) . 15 . Summar

y o f T . Ponder , PE I Associates , Dallas , Texas , Februar y 2 , 199 0 an

d Novembe r 22 , 199 0 an d Darbonne , Darbonn e Service s Inc. , Lak e Charles , Louisiana , Novembe r 27 , 1989 . Persona l communication s wit hE . Moretti , Radia n Corporation . COStS.M S 2 1 ::•.>."£< ;16 . Referenc e 2 , p . 5-3 . 17 . Memorandu

m fro m Moretti , E . Radia nCorporatio n t o Markwordt , D . EPA/CPB . May 22 , 1989 . Summar y o f Wor k Assignmen t 4 2 - Equipmen t Lea k Emissio n Estimates , VOC/HAP . 18 . Blacksmith . J . R. , G . E . Harris , an d G . L . Langley . Problem-Oriente d Report : Frequency o f Lea k Occurrenc e fo r Fitting s i nSyntheti c Organi c Chemica l Plan t Proces s Plants , U . S . Environmenta l ProtectionAgency . Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . EPA

Contrac t No . 68-02-3171 . Septembe r 1980 . p . 5 . 19 . Referenc e 2 , p . 5-34 . 

### 20 . U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Draf tVO C Fugitiv e Emission s i n Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin g Industr y - Backgroun d Informatio n fo rPropose d Standards . Researc h Triangl e Park , NC. Publicatio n No . EPA-450/3-80-033a . November , 1980 . p . 8-10 . 21 . Radia n Corporation . HO N Industria l Profil e Produc t Processes . Projec tfiles . EP A Contrac tNo . 68-02-437B , Wor kAssignmen tNo . 103 . 1990 .

'KViVuSji.'^K:::-y-;-.',.-.^>\.i.' . : v ••A»*!> t

•;•.-'!*••.' • ••_•>. • **••.;J
. ,;•'•
. vr . ;*
. •

'•::• •-. ^ •?•' ' ••'.. ' ....fl'Wtf.' !



# 5 3 coats . 2 2

# A-93-4 8 Gai 

# * MEMORANDU

M " . &L*t*W DATE : Jun e 27 , 199 4 SUBJECT : Methodolog y fo r Estimatin

g National * Impact s o f Controllin

g Leakin

g Refiner

y Equipment FROM : Ro

y V . Oomaen RadianCorporation/RT P TO : Jame s Durha m U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Chemica l an

d Petroleu

m Branc h(MD-13 ) 1. 0 INTRODUCTIO

N Th e purpos e o f thi s memorandu m i s t o present th

e methodolog

y used t o estimat e the nationa l impact s o f controllin g emissions fro m leakin g refiner

y equipment . Th

e result s o f th

e impact s analysi s are presented inanother memorandum. 1 

### Th e result s wer e use d t o decide whic hcontro l option s wil l b e chose nfo r regulatin

g petroleu

m refiner

y equipment leaks . Response s t o surve

y questionnaire sent t o th e petroleu

m refiner y industr

y indicate

d tha t fou

r contro l level s are use d a t refinerie s acros s th e Unite d States : (l ) no.control ; (2 ) petroleu

m refiner

y contro l technique s guidelin e (CTG) ; (3 ) the syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturin g industr

y (SOCMI ) CTG ; o r (4 ) th e petroleu

m refiner

y ne w sourc e performanc e standar d (NSPS) . Impact s wer e estimate d for controllin

g refiner

y proces s unit s fro

m the existin

g leve l o f contro l t o 3 contro l options : (1 ) th e petroleu

m refiner

y NSPS ; (2 ) the hazardou s organi c NESHA P (HON ) negotiate

d regulatio

nfor equipment leaks , without connecto

r monitorin

g provisions , an

d (3 ) the negotiate d regulatio

n for equipment leaks . The best-controlle d proces s unit s i n th

e equipment leaks dat a bas e contro l emissions usin g the requirement s i n the petroleu m refiner

y NSPS . Th

e negotiate

d regulatio

noption s represent option s mor e stringent tha nthe MAC T floor leve l o f control . Cos t impact s o f achievin g the contro l requirement s i neac h progra m wer e estimate

d usin g cos t factor s fro

m previou s analyses . 

# StP.5 6



### an d survey

s sen t t o equipment lea

k contro l vendor s an d industry . Emission s impact s wer e estimate d usin g contro l efficiencie s develope

d i npreviou s EP

A studies . Sectio n 2. 0 present s contro l progra m requirement s fo

r existin g level s o f contro l an d contro l option s analyze d inthi s analysis . Sectio

n3. 0 present s cos t factor s fo r eac hcontro l requirement . Sectio n 4. 0 present s th

e methodolog

y for estimatin

g emissions . 2. 0 REQUIREMENT S FO R CONTRO

L PROGRAM

S

. Th e contro l requirement s fo r th e existin

g equipmen t lea

k contro l program

s an d fo r the negotiate

d regulatio

nar e summarize

d i nTabl e 1 . Eacho f the contro l requirement s i nTabl e 1 are als o classifie

d a s one o f tw

o basi c contro l technique s fo r reducin

g emission s fro

m leakin g equipment ina proces s unit : equipment modification s o r par t o f the lea k detectio

nan d repai r (LOAR ) program . The LDA

Rrequirement s includ e the frequenc

y tha t component s ar e require d t o b e monitore

d wit ha hydrocarbo n analyze r an

d "th e VO C concentratio

na t whicha componen t i s considere

d leaking , an

d visua l inspection . Equipmen t modification s include al l control s adde d t o equipmen t t o reduc e emissions , sucha s closed-vent system s o ncompressor s or cap s o r blin d flange s o

nopen-ende

d lines . 3. 0 ESTIMATIO

N O F NATIONA

L IMPACT S Impact s fro

m controllin

g leakin

g refiner

y equipmen t includ

e emission s reductions , tota l annua l cost , an d capita l investmen t costs . Emission s reduction s ar e estimate d b y multiplyin

g th e contro l efficienc

y o f eac hequipment modificatio n o r LDA R requiremen t b

y th e baselin

e emission s fro

m eac hequipment . Th e efficiencie s o f eachcontro l requirement an d baseline emission s ar e presented , i n a previou s memorandum ; the y ar e no t discusse

d here. 2 

### Th e cos t factor s used t o estimat e tota l annua l cos t an d capita l investmen t cost s ar e presente d i nthe followin

g sections . 3. 1 Genera l Cos t Variable s A s used i nthi s discussion , annua l expense s includ e an y cost s tha t occur eachyear , suc ha s annua l maintenanc e cost s or


# SSTABL E 1 . CONTROL S REQUIRE D B Y EQUIPMEN T LEAKCONTRO L PROGRAMS Equipmen t typ e Servic e Petrolcu n refiner y CT O SOCMI CT

G Petroleu m refiner yUSP S HO H negotiate d rul e Valve s

Pimp s

Compressor s

Connector s

Pressur e relie f device s Sampling connection s Ca

t
Ligh t liqui d Ligh t liqui d

Ga t

Ga s an d Ligh t liqui d Ga s Al l Open-ende dline s Al l Quarterl y LDA R 810,00 0 ppr

a

Annua l LDA

R 810,00 0 pp

m

Annua l LDA

R 810,00 0 ppm ; Weekl y visua l Inspectio n Quarterl y

LDA R 810,00 0 ppm

Ren t
Quarterl y

LOA R 810,00 0 ppm

Cap , blin dflange , plug , o r secon dvalv e Quarterl y LDA R 810,00 0 pp

m Quarterl y

LDA R 810,00 0 pp

m Quarterl y

LDA R 810,00 0 ppm ; Weekl y visua l Inspectio n Quarterl y

LDA R 810,00 0 pp

m

Non e Quarterl y

LDA R 810,00 0 pp

m Non e Cap , blindflange , »lug , o r secondvalv e Monthl y LOA R810,000 ; Decreasin g frequenc y

wit hgoo dperformanc e
Monthl y LDA R810,000 ; Decreasin g frequenc y

wit hgoo dperformanc e
Monthl y LDA R810,00 0 ppm ; Weekl y visua l inspection ; o r dua l mechanica l seal s wit hcontrolle d degassin g vent s Dall y visua l Inspection ; Dua l mechanica l ses l wit hbarrie r flui dan d closed-ven t system

o r maintaine da t a higher pressur e tha nth e compresse dga s Non e Monthl y LDA Rwit h> 2 Xleakers ; Quarterl y

LDA Rwit h< 2 % leakers ; Decreasin g frequenc y

wit hgoo dperformance ; Initiall y 810,00 0 ppm , annuall y

850 0 ppm Monthl y LDA Rwit h> 2 Xleakers ; Quarterl y

LOA Rwit h< 2 % leakers ; Decreasin g frequenc y

wit hgoo dperformance ; Initiall y 810,00 0 ppm , annuall y

850 0 pp m Monthl y LDAR ; Weekl y

visua l Inspection ; Lea k definitio ndecrease s from 10,00 0 ppm ; o r dua l mechanica l seal s o r closed-ven t system Dall y visua l inspection ; Dua l mechanica l sea l wit hbarrie r flui dan d closed-ven t system

e r maintaine da t a highe r pressur e tha nth e compresse dga s Annua l LDA

R850 0 pp

m wit h> 0.5 Xleakers ; Decreasin g frequenc y

wit hgoo dperformanc e N o detectabl e emission s o r closed * ven t system H o detectabl e emission s Closed-loo po r f nsit usampling Cap , blin dflange , plug , o r secon dvalv e Cap , blin dflange , plug , o r secon dvalv e

Closed-loop , closed-purge , closed*ven t o r I n sit usamplin gP.5 8



### administrativ

e an d suppor t costs . Th e tota l annua l cos t o f equipmen t lea

k control s i s calculate d usin g the followin

g equation : * TA C « = VA C + FA C - R C where : TA

C « = Tota l annua l cos t VA C = Variabl e annua l cos t FA C « = Fixe d annua l cos t R C « = Recover

y credit s Variabl e cost s ar e cost s tha t are dependent onoperatin g conditions . Thes e includ e utilities , ra

w materials , maintenance , replacemen t parts , an d labor . Fixe

d cost s ar e thos e cost s tha t ar e independent o f operatin g conditions . They includ e overhead , administrativ

e charges , propert

y taxes , insurance , an d capita l recovery . Capita l recover

y cost s ar e capita l investmen t cost s converted t o a nannua l cost . Capita l investment cost s includ e th e cos t o f purchasin g an d installin

g contro l equipment . A capita l investment cos t i s converte d t o capita l recover y cos t (annualize

d capita l costs ) b

y multiplyin

g i t b y th e capita l recover y factor . Th e capita l recover y factor i s base

d o nth e economi c lif e o f th e capita l an d the interes t rate , an d i t ca nb e calculated usin

g th e followin

g equation : CR F - [i*(l+i) B 

### ]/[(l+i) B 

### -1 ] where : CR

F = Capita l recover y factor i « = Interes t rat e - n«- » Economi c lif e o f equipmen t Detailed capita l investment cost s an d annua l cost s for eac h contro l requiremen t presente d i nTabl e 1 ar e discussed i n section 3.2 . . . Recover y credit s ar e saving s equa l t o th e valu e o f materia l remainin

g i n th e proces s whichwoul d otherwis e hav e been release d t o th e atmospher e ha d the equipment lea k contro l no t bee

n implemented . Recover y credi t i s calculate d b y multiplyin

g the



## S7P.5 9



### amount o f VO C recovere d or save

d becaus e o f upgradin g contro l option s an

d th e recover

y credi t cost . A

nEP A analysi s i n198 2 presente

d a recover

y credi t cos t fro

m controllin

g refiner

y equipment leak s o f $215/M g o f volatil e organi c compound s (VOC), 3 

### Thi s factor wa s converte d t o firs t quarte r 199 2 dollar s b y multiplyin

g i t b y th e rati o o f produce r pric e inde xfro m firs t quarter 199 2 an

d th e annua l valu

e fro m 198 2 (59.7/10 0 or 0.597) . Base d o nthi s data , a recover y credi t o f $130/M

g o f vo c wa s use

d for thi s analysis . 3. 2 Cos t Factors ' fo r Estimatin

g Nationa l Impact s Cos t factor s fo

r equipmen

t modificatio

n an d LDA R requirement s wer e obtaine d fro m previou s analyse s an d surve y response s fro

m equipmen

t lea k contro l vendor s an d facilitie s usin g a n LDA Rprogram . Thi s sectio ndescribe s thes e dat a source s an d th e cos t factor determinatio nmethodology . Al l cost s ar e i n firs t quarte r 199 2 dollars . 3.2. 1 Equipmen t Modificatio nCost s Capita l cost s fo

r equipmen

t modification s includ e th e cos t o f purchase

d equipment an

d the cost s t o instal l the equipment . tt. 

### Tabl e 1 indicate s tha t fo r component s requir e equipment modifications : compressors , open-ende d lines , sampl e connections , an

d pressure relie f devices . For eac hequipment modification , i t i s assume d tha t th e equipmen t requirement s ar e th e sam e a s describe

d i nth e
CtenneiAuiiiiii8MCiiaM3*-f l 

### . , hereafte r referre d t o a s th

e equipment leaks enabling.document. \ Tabl e 2 summarize s tota l capita l investmen t cost s fo

r modification s t o compressors , open-ende

d lines , sampl e connections , an d pressur e relie f devices . I t i s assume d compressor s wil l b e controlle d wit ha closed-vent syste

m route d t o a combustio

ndevice ; open-ende d line s wit ha secon

d valve ; samplin

g connection s wit ha closed loo p samplin

g system ; an

d pressur e relie f device s wit ha rupture dis k assembly . A

detaile

d discussio

no f th e development o f thes e cost s ar e presente

d inth e equipmen t leak s enablin g document .


## SSP.6 0



### TABL E 2 . EQUIPMEN

T MODIFICATIO

N CAPITA L INVESTMEN

T COSTS * Equipment typ

e Contro l Cos t Compresso

r Open-ende

d line s Sampl e connection s Pressur e relie f valve s Closed-vent syste m Secon d valv e Closed-loo

p syste m Ruptur e dis k $6,28 0 $10 2 $41 3 $3,96 0 ^

a 

### Cost s wer e obtaine d fro m th e equipment leak s enablin g document



# 51P.6 1



### Tota l annua l cost s fo r equipmen

t modification s includ e only fixe d cost s (capita l recover y costs , annua l maintenanc e cost , an d annua l miscellaneou s costs) , an d recover

y credits . Th

e assumption s use d t o calculat e thes e cost s are th e sam e a s thos e presente

d i n th e equipmen

t leaks enablin

g document . Al l o f th e contro l equipment wit hth e exceptio

no f rupture disk s are assume d t o hav e a n economi c lif e o f 1 0 years ; rupture disk s ar e assume d t o hav e a n economi c lif e o f 5 years . Base d o n a n interes t rat e o f 7 percent , th e capita l recover y factor fo

r al l contro l equipment excep t rupture disk s i s 0.143,-an d the capita l recover y factor fo

r ruptur e disk s i s 0.244 . Th e cos t o f maintainin g th e contro l equipment i s assume d t o b e 5 percent o f the capita l investment costs . Miscellaneou s cost s includ e taxes , insurance , an d administrativ

e expenses , an

d ar e assume

d t o b e 4 percent o f th e capita l investmen t costs . Annua l cost s fo r equipment modification s ar e summarize d i nTabl e 3 . Fo r mos t equipment modifications , emission s fro m th e controlle

d equipment ar e prevente d fro m occurring , and , therefore , materia l tha t woul d otherwis e be emitte d i s recovere

d an d remain s i n th

e proces s resultin

g i na cos t savings . The recover y credi t i s calculate d b y multiplyin

g the emissio

n reductio

n b y the valu

e o f th e material . A

n exceptio

n i s fo r a closed-vent syste

m tha t route s vapor s t o a combustio ndevic e wher e th

e collecte

d vapor s ma

y hav e som e energ y value , however the y ar e no t recovere

d for reus e i nth e process , an d recover

y credit s ar e assume

d t o be negligible . 3.2. 2 Leak Detectio nan d Repai r Cost s Thi s sectio

n present s the cost s associate d wit hth

e initiatio

n an d continuatio

no f a LDA

Rprogra

m for the contro l o f VO C o r volatil e organi c hazardou s ai r pollutan t (VHAP ) emissions fro m pumps , valves , an

d connectors . Tabl e 4 list s eac ho f the LDA Rcost s considere

d i nthi s analysis . Cos t informatio

nwa s obtaine

d fro m previou s analyse s an d response s t o surve

y questionnaire s sen t t o equipment lea k vendor s an d facilitie s tha t us e contro l programs . Questionnair e 7 

## &o

### TABL E 3 . ANNUA

L BASI S Equipment • Modificatio

n Close d vent syste m Secon d valv e Close d loo p syste m Ruptur e dis k COST S O F EQUIPMEN

T MODIFICATIONS , O

N A COMPONEN

T • 

### Capita l Recover y 89 0 1 5 5 9 96 6 Cost s ($/component )

Miscellaneou s 25 1 4 1 6 15 8 Maintenanc e

31 4 5 2 1 19 8 Tota l

1,45 5

# 

### 2 4 9 6 1,32 2 P.6 2

8 

# 6 /

### recipient s were requeste d t o supply

a range o f cost s fo r eac h variabl e identifie

d a s contributin

g t o LDA

Rcosts . Fiv

e vendor s an d on e facilit

y supplie

d information. 5 

### "" 1 0 

### Thi s informatio nwa s combine d t o develo

p average cos t factor s tha t coul d be use d fo r th e nationa l impact s analysis . Tabl e 5 present s th e averag e o f th e capita l investmen t cost s for LDA

Rprogram

s supplie

d b y vendor s an

d facilities . 3.2.2. 1 Capita l Investment Cost s fo r LDA RProgram

s Capita l investment cost s o f initiatin g a LDA Rprogra

m includ e purchasin

g hardwar e an

d start-u

p expenses . Th

e start-u

p o f a LDA

R progra

m i s considere

d a capita l cos t becaus e i t include s certain first-tim e expense s associate d wit hth

e initia l monitorin

g survey . . Th e monitorin g cost s reflec t the expens e fo r a monitorin

g surve y tea m t o "screen " eac

hpiec e o f equipmen t / using, a portabl e monitorin g instrumen

t t o determine whic hpiece s of^eqiiipmen

t require maintenance' . Th e monitorin

g tea m $ls o tag s leakin g component s - t o b e regularl y monitored* . Th e taggin g 'an d ' identificatio

ncost s als o includ e th e cos t o f th e tags. ' Fo r thi s analysis , i t i s assume d tha t a nelectroni c LDA R progra m (i.e. , computerize

d dat a gatherin

g an d storage ) wil l be used instea

d o f recordkeepin

g onpaper . Equipmen t lea k monitorin

g hardware includ

e a hydrocarbo

nanalyzer , reader , dat a logger , dat a management system^compute r an d accessories) , an

d softwar e t o ru

nth e dat a management system . Additionally , there woul d b e cost s for initiall y enterin

g data , settin

g u p th e dat a managemen t system , an d trainin

g personne l t o us e the dat a managemen t system . Base d o n vendor responses , on e hydrocarbo

nanalyzer.i s required for . ever

y 16,00 0 component s monitore d ona quarterly basis , an

d fo r ever y 7,00 0 component s monitored o na monthl y basis . I t i s als o assume d tha t thi s estimat e i s als o applicabl e fo r readers . Th

e remainin

g hardwar e cost s ar e assume d t o be independent o f th

e numbe r o f component s monitored . Whena facility

ha s component s tha t ar e monitore d bot hquarterly

an d
1 0 

# £ ZTABL E 4 . LDA RCOS T PARAMETER S

Capita l Investmen t £ Taggin g an didentifyin g ^ Initia l Monitorin g

- ^ Simpl e valv e maintenanc e *) C Monitorin g close dven t system s J Dat a collectio nsyste m

- Dat a managemen t syste m

- Settin g u pdat a managemen t syste m

- Trainin g

- Softwar e

- Dat a logge r

- Reade r

- Hydrocarbo nanalyze r

- Dat a entr y v/pum psea l replacemen t part s ^ Initial repai r Annua l

<5 \ <J 0 t o Variabl e annua l expense s y"- Monitorin g * ^ - Simpl e valv e maintenanc e *s - Dat a loggin g o f monitore dcomponent s > C - Monitorin g close dven t system s

- Tri pcharge s

~ //
- > Calibratio ngase s w /
- Calibration s - quarterl y * /
- * Calibration s - dail y * /
- Visua l inspection/weekl y - pump s -/- Visua l inspection/dail y - compressor s

- Pum psea l replacemen t part s

- Repai r Fixe dannua l expense s

- Miscellaneou s expense s T. Maintenanc e expense s

- Capita l recover y cos tP.6 5

TABL E 5 . INITIA

L LDA RCOSTS a

LDAR Paramete r -¥- Averag e Cost* 0 Taggin g an d identifying Initia l monitorin g Simpl e valv e maintenanc e Monitorin g close d ven t system s Dat a collectio n syste m $2.15/comp r $3.20/comp . $-2.60/comp-r -
?" — Dat a managemen t syste m

- Settin g u p dat a managemen t syste m

- Trainin g $16,00 0 ' $57,70 0 $25,06 0
" ^ Softwar e 

### ' . ^—Dats T logge r

- Reade r ^ v 

### - Hydrocarbo n analyze r a * M J A A\ l

- Dat a entr y $4,40 0 $1,62 5 1 \ $7.500'[ / $0.80/comp . informatio n obtaine d fro m surve y

responses . Reference s 5-^0 . -^Averag

e o f cos t dat a fro m Reference s 5-10 .



### 1 1 

# WP.6 6



### monthly , the followin g equatio

nwa s use

d t o estimat e the number o f analyzer s an

d reader s required :

. 

### • analyzer s «

= ( # quarterl y

components/16,000 ) + ( # monthl y

components/7,000 ) The monitorin

g tea m make s a firs t attemp t a t repair , eac h lea k b y tightenin

g the packin

g glan d o nvalve s (simpl e maintenance ) o r b

y som e other techniqu

e tha t doe s no t requir e removin g the equipment fro m service . Repai r cost s are fo r repair s necessar

y i f a mor e significan t proble

m exist s an

d th e firs t attemp

t a t repai r b

y th e monitorin

g tea m i s unsuccessful . Initia l repai r cost s ar e estimate d b y multiplyin

g th e followin

g factor s fo

r eac hequipment type : • •' - The number o f leak s detecte d b y th e monitorin

g team ; • the percentage o f leakin g component s tha t coul d not ' b e repaire d o n the firs t attemp

t (simpl e maintenance) ; • th e tim e require

d t o repai r th

e equipment piece ; an d
Annua l repai r cost s ar e estimate d b y multiplyin

g th e sam e factors , an

d th e number o f time s a yea r th e component s ar e monitored (monitorin g frequency) • Th e numbe r o f leak s detecte d b y the monitorin

g tea m i n a one-year period i s estimate d fro m th e number o f component s monitored , th e monitorin g frequency , an

d the lea

k frequency . Fo r example , i f a proces s uni t ha s 1 0 pump s tha t ar e monitore d monthl y an d have a lea

k frequenc

y o f 1 0 percen t (i.e. , 1 0 percen t o f the pump s scree

na t a value abov

e th e lea

k definition ) the numbe r o f leak s i na yea r is : 1 0 pump s * 1 2 times/y r * 0.1 0 •

» 1 2 leak s ove r a year Th e equipment leak s enablin g documen

t presente

d lea k frequencie s fo r th e initia l surve

y an d fo r al l subsequent surveys fo r variou s contro l programs . Th e initia l lea k frequenc

y i s normally

highe r tha n subsequent leak frequencie s becaus e i t i s prior t o implementin

g the require

d LDA Rprogram . Tabl e 6 present s lea k frequencie s fo r eachcontro l program . 1 2 

# GSP.6 7

TABL E 6 . LEA

KFREQUENCIE S FO

RCONTRO L PROGRAMS a =^ =
Componen t Contro l Program s fl Petroleu

m Refiner y CT G SOCM I CT G Petroleu m Refinery NSP S Negotiate d I



### Rul e 1 I Initia l lea k frequency 1 Ga s valve s fl Ligh t liqui d valve s 1 Ligh t liqui d pump s fl Compressor s fl Connector s (% ) 

### 1 0 1 1 2 4 50. 7

. — . 1 0



### 1 1 2 4 50. 7

- 

### 1 0

1 1 2 4

—

— 

# 2 4 

# 1 28. 5 

### 4 8



## — ' 1 1. 7 | 1 Subsequen t leak frequency (% ) Ga s valve s Ligh t liqui d valve s Ligh t liqui d pump s Compressor s I Connector s 4.6 9 3.1 1 

### 2 4 2 4

- 4.6 9

3.1 1 

### 2 4 2 4

- 1.6 0

1.7 2 11. 3

-

- 

### 2

2 

## 1 1

- 0.00 5 | informatio n fro

m th e equipmen t leak s enablin g document .



### 1 3 

## 66P.6 8



### The equipment leaks enablin g document als o supplie d th e tim e require d t o repai r eac

ho f th e component s tha t ar e monitored , an d the percent o f component s tha t ma y be assume

d t o b e unsuccessfully

repaire

d afte r simpl e maintenance . Thi s informatio

n i s presente

d i nTabl e 7 . I nthi s analysi s only valve s underg

o simpl e maintenanc e procedures . Therefore , valve s ar e the only

component s tha t are considere d t o be successfull y repaire d t o som

e degree usin

g simpl e maintenanc e procedures . When a pum

p i s identifie

d a s leaking , the sea l mus t b e replaced . Th

e cos t o f th

e sea l an

d miscellaneou s expense s associate

d wit hthe sea l are considere d par t o f th e LDA

Rcosts . Th e firs t quarter 199 2 cos t fo r eac hreplacement singl e sea l i s estimate

d t o b e $180 , whic

hinclude s a 5 0 percent credi t for the ol d seal . Th

e cos t o f replacemen t pum p seal s i s estimate d b y multiplyin

g the replacement cos t an d the lea

k frequenc

y o f pump s presente

d i n Tabl e 6 . Replacement part s use d t o repai r valve s an d flange s ar e inexpensiv e an d th e cost s o f thes e part s canb e assume d t o be par t o f routin e maintenanc e costs . 3.2.2. 2 Tota l Annua l Cost s fo r LDA RProgram

s Total ' annua l cost s fo r LDA Rprogram

s are th

e su m o f fixe

d cost s (capita l recover y costs , miscellaneou s costs , an d maintenanc e costs) , annua l expenses , an d recover

y credits . Tabl e 8 present s th

e average o f th

e annua l cost s o f conductin g anLDA

R progra m supplie

d b y vendor s an

d facilities . The annua l expense s o f conductin

g a LDA Rprogra

m includ e suchcost s a s monitoring , dat a entry , complianc e tests , monitorin g close d ven t systems , tri p charges , calibratio ngases , quarterl y

calibrations , an

d dail y calibrations . Th e cost s o f the initia l surve y ar e highe r than the cost s o f subsequent survey s becaus e o f difficultie s i n initiall y

locatin

g al l components , increase d number s o f leakin g components , an

d increase

d tim e neede d t o numbe

r an d ta g equipment / Visual-inspectio n cost s wer e calculate d assumin

g "second s t o inspec t equipment , an d a labor charg

e rat e o f $22.50/hour . 1 4 

# aP.6 9

TABL E 7 . REPAI R TIM E AN D PERCEN T UNSUCCESSFULL YREPAIRED *
Componen t Repai r tim e (hours ) Component s

unsuccessfull y repaired(%) b Ga s valve s Ligh t liqui d valve s Ligh t liqui d pump s Compressors " Connector s

a Data . ar e fro

m th e equipmen t leak s enabling document . -^Unsuccessfull y

repaire d afte r simpl e maintenance ^ -. .



### 1 5 

# 6 8P.7 0

TABL E 8 . ANNUA

L LDA RCOSTS a

LDAR Paramete r Averag e Cost* 3 Monitorin g ^Simpl e /valv

e maintenanc e Dat a logging Monitorin g close d ven t system s Tri p charges , trave l expense s Calibratio n gase s Calibration s - quarterl y Calibration s - dail y $2.20/compu $3.20/com^ . *?0.56/comp

v - $2_ij60/comp . 

## $i,ooo/tr 1 ~~§300/y r $80/analyze r $41.25/analyzer ^ ' •—•

'•(.

^Informatio n obtaine d fro m surve y responses . Reference s 5-10 . ^Average'o f cos t informatio n fro m Reference s 5-10 .



# 0

1 6 

# 61P.7 1

Annua l cost s als o includ e maintenanc e and miscellaneou s -osts , pump s sea l replacemen t costs , and repai r costs , (aintenanc e cost s ar e assume d t o b e 5 percen t o f th e capita l investmen t costs , excep t fo r th e hydrocarbo nanalyzer . Maintenanc e cost s fo r th e hydrocarbo nanalyze r ar e assumed t o b e

dta l investmen t cost . nMXscellaneou s cost s ar e 

### ^69£_p J assume d t o b e 4 percen t o f capita l investmen t costs; ) an d pum p sea l replacemen^_ci*5ts-ar«-^18i]^pumpmultiplied b y th e pum

p le s [requency . ^Repai r cost s wer e discusse d previously . ' Th e initia l LDA R expense s (excep- c fo r replacemen t pum p seal s an d th e hydrocarbo n analyzer ) ar e annualize d base d o na 1 0 yea r lif e an d 7 percen t interes t rate , givin g a capita l recovery facto r o f 0.14 . Replacemen t pum p seal s ar e assume d t o hav e a n economi c lif e o f 5 year s which , assuming a 7 percen t interes t rate , give s a capita l recovery facto r o f 0.244 . Th e hydrocarbo n analyzer > i s assume d t o hav e a six-yea r economi c lif e which , assuming a 7 percen c interes t rate , give s a capita l recovery facto r o f 0.21 . Emissio n reduction s a s a resul t o f implementin g th e LDA R program s ar e multiplie d b y th e materia l cost s t o determine__therecovery credits . . ; ETOMETHODOLOG YFO R ESTIMATIN G NATIONAL IMPACT S Nationa l impact s o f controlling leakin g refiner y equipmen t fro m th e curren t leve l o f contro l t o th e option s wer e estimate d b y following a 3-ste p process : (1 ) Cost s and emission s reduction s o f goin g fro m n o contro l t o th e existin g leve l o f contro l requirements , (II) , wer e estimated . (2 ) Cost s and emission s reduction s o f goin g fro m n o contro l t o th e contro l require d b y th e option , (12) , wer e calculated . (3 ) Impact s wer e estimate d by subtractin g th e cos t an d emission s reduction s o f th e existing ; leve l o f contro l fro m th e option , (1 2 - II) . Nationa l impact s wer e estimate d fro m componen t specifi c impact s an

d refinery

impacts . Th e estimatio no f emission s an d emission s reduction s fro m controllin g leakin g equipmen t ar e 1 7 <



# loP.7 2



### component specifi c calculations . Emission s impact s o n a refiner

y basi s wer e estimate d b y summin g the emission s reduction s from - th e affecte d equipment . Nationa l emission s impact s wer e estimate d b y summin g the emissions reduction s fro m al l the refinerie s i nth e Unite d States . Th

e cos t factor s describe d i nsectio

n3. 0 ma

y be component specifi c o r refiner

y specifi c factors . Tabl e 9 identifie s whichfactor s ar e treate d a s refiner

y specifi c factor s for thi s analysis . Cos t impact s wer e calculate d o na component basi s b y multiplyin

g th e applicabl e cos t factor , th e number o f component s affecte d (controlled) , and , whe napplicable , th e number o f time s a yea r th

e componen

t i s monitored . Refiner y cost s wer e estimate d b y addin g the refiner

y specifi c cos t factor s t o th e su m o f th e component costs . Nationa l impact s cost s wer e estimate d b y summin g th e refiner

y costs . Appendi xA present s a sampl e calculatio

n tha t illustrate s th e impact s estimatio nmethodology .

1 8 

# 7 /P.7 3

TABL E 9 . REFINERYSPECIFI C

COS T FACTOR S Dat a managemen t syste m Setting u p dat a managemen t syste m Training Softwar e Dat a logge r Reade r Hydrocarbo n analyze r Tri p charge s Calibratio ngase s Calibration s

1 9 

# 72 .P.7 4



### 5. 0 REFERENCE S 1 . Cost s fo

r the MAC T Floor Leve l o f Contro l an d Contro l Options Abov

e th e Floor fo

r Controllin

g Emission s fro

m Leakin g Refiner

y Equipment . Memorandu m fro m Ro y Oommen , Radia n Corporatio

n t o Ji m Durham , EPA . Novembe r 23 , 1993 . 2 . Contro l Effectivenes s o f Refiner y Equipment Lea

k Contro l Programs . Memorandu m fro m Ro y Oommen , Radia

nCorporatio

n t o Jame s Durham , EPA . December 26 , 1993 . 3 . Interna l Instructio nManua l fo

r ES P Regulatio

nDevelopment : Leakin g Refiner

y Equipment —

Pumps , Valves , Compressors , Safet y Relie f Valves . U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NorthCarolina . Jul y 1992 . 4 . vo c Emission s i nPetroleu m Refinin

g Industr

y - Backgroun

d Informatio

nfo r Propose

d Standards . U . S . Environmenta l Protectio

n Agency , Researc

hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . November 1992 . p . 8-15 . 5 . Surve

y respons e fro

m Michae l Smyli e o f System s Application s International , Sa

nRafael , C

A t o Ro y Oommen , Radia

nIJ-o~3^<\ Corporation . Leak Detectio nan d Repai r Costs . November , 1993 . 6 . Surve

y respons e fro

m Ton y Scatagli a an

d Mik e Hebert , TEA

M Environmenta l Services , Inc. , Webster , Texa s t o Ro y Oommen , LT-0-3W- | Radia nCorporation . Lea k Detectio

nan d Repai r Costs . November 1993 . 7 . Surve

y respons e fro

m Gar y Anderle , Internationa l Technolog y tf-o-%^ Corporatio

nt o Ro y Oommen , Radia

nCorporation . Leak Detectio

nan d Repai r Costs . Novembe r 1993 . 8 . Surve

y respons e fro

m Ji m Rouge , RadianCorporatio nt o Ro y -jv 0 

### -?1* - Oommen , RadianCorporation . Leak Detectio nan d Repai r Costs . Novembe r 1993 . 9 . Equipment Lea k Inspectio nan d Maintenanc e Start-up-Costs . -. . Memorandu

m fro m G . E . Harris , Radia nCorporatio

nt o Ro y l-l-O-S\$ Oommen , RadianCorporation . September 1993 . 10 . Surve

y respons e fro

m Eri c Landofsky , Shel l Chemica l t o Ro y 0 ,3M- ) 

### Oommen , RadianCorporation . Lea k Detectio nan d Repai r (rU - M



### ' Costs . Novembe r 1993 . —

2 0 

# 7 3P.7 5
INTEK COPRPORATION-SOUTH Renta l Equipmen

t Pag e 1 of2 

# INTE KCORPORATION-SOUT H RENTAL
. SERVICE S 

# Renta l Equipmen

t FOXBOR O OVA-108&OVA-12 8 TVA-1000 B PID/FI D Dual Detecto r MIRANSapphIRe3 0 LeakTracker20 0 LealcTracke

r20 0 ftOV A 10 8 LeakTracker20 0 ftTVA-1000 B Dual THERM O ENVIRONMENTA L OVM580 S H-N U PI-lOUOJeVLam p LUDLU M MODE L 3 (NORM Survey ) MODE L 1 9 (NORM Survey ) BACHARAC H MODEL S03A(LEL/O2 ) MODE L SO

S (LEL/02/H2S ) SOLINS T MODE L 10 1 WaterLeve l Mete r MODEL 2 1 Oil/Wate rInterface Prob e SK C MODE L 224-PCXR 3 Sampl e Pump GILLIA N GUJBRATO RDIAGNOSTI C KIT HyDA C pH/CONDUCTTVlTY/TEMPERATUR E HAC H TURBIDIT Y MICROSENSO RSYSTEM S MS I 30 1 PP B ORGANI C VAPO RMONITOR STAC K GA S MONITO R 02/00 2 Detectio n VICIMetroiiic s Fiel d -Calibrato r• Permeation DA Y DAIL Y $10 0 5 5 

### 10 0 12 5

5 5 5 5 3 0 3 0 45 45 25 45 2 5 4 5 3 0 3 0 WEEKL Y 

### 32 5 425 47 5 45 0 725 85 0 27 5 20 0 175 175 175 200 7 5 15 0 7 5 12 5 15 0 15 0 MONTHL

Y 

### 95 0 127 5 1400 127 5 165 0 1900 

### 82 5 70 0 400 400 45 0 50 0 200 35 0 17 5 300 25 0 25 0 Cal l for Pricin g Cal l for Pricin g Price s Subjec tT o Chang e Withou tNotic e


### Part s I n Stoc k 

# SERVIC E CENTE

R OV A SPECIALIS T Fas t Tur n Aroun d
Friday , Februar

y 20,199 8 

# 7H 11:3 9 AM