TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds Alternative Leak Detection and Repair ( LDAR ) Work Practice (AWP)

Docket ID: EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2010

- 0611

December 2014

Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 submitted July 2, 2010

No material in this submittal package was designated as Confidential Business Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Huser
, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, Air Permits Section (6PD

- R), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202

- 2733, (214) 665

- 7347Background

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA promulgated an 8

- hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts p er million (ppm), which is more protective than the previous 1

- hour ozone standard (62 FR 38855, July 18, 1997). On April 30, 2004, EPA published designations and classifications for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard (69 FR 23858). The Dallas

- Fort Worth 1997 ozone nonattainment area (DFW area), which consists of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant Counties, was initially classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area. The DFW area was reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard (75 FR 79302, December 20, 2010). The Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria ozone nonattainment area (HGB area) consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties. The HGB a rea is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment for the 1997

ozone national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS ). See 73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008. The Beaumont

- Port Arthur area (BPA area) consists of Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties and was redesi

gnated to attainment for the 1997 ozone standard (75 FR 64675, October 20, 2010). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are known as “ozone precursors , ” as they react with oxygen and sunlight to form ozone. Motor vehicle exhaust an d industrial emissions, gasoline vapors and chemical solvents emit NOx and VOCs. Controlling sources of NOx and VOC emissions can lower ozone levels in the ambient air.
Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the CAA require ozone nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate or above for ozone nonattainment to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for sources that are subject to Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA and for “major sources” of VOCs and NOx. Major sources are defined as the following for each affected nonattainment area: in areas classified as moderate, are those

sources that have the potential to emit at least 100 tons per year of VOCs or NOx ; for areas

c lassified as serious
, are those that have the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOx ; and in areas classified as severe, are those sources that have the potential to emit at least 25 tons per year of VOCs or NOx (CAA § 182(c)). RACT is def ined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979). As a part of the RACT requirements, EPA requires emission control techniques which are considered RACT. The techniques include work practice standards, such as leak detection and repair programs
, which states are required to implement to ensure emissions from fugitive sources are identified through routine monitoring and reduced by timel y repair of leaking equipment. Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) is a fundamental aspect of air pollution control by reducing fugitive emissions from leaking piping components and instrum entation. Unlike standard add on controls, the emission reductions achieved from an LDAR program are through timely identification and repair of leaks. Certain industries are required to identify equipment leaks pursuant to 40 CFR P arts 60, 61, 63, and 65. M ethod 21 is time

- consuming and costly, since an individual must spend an average of 2

- 15 minutes per monitoring event per component, depending on its size, and larger petrochemical facilities can have upwards of 300,000components per site. Additionally, Method 21 require s the use of a monitor which meets specific

performance standards , and is based on technology that is twenty five years old. New technology has been developed which utilizes an optical gas imaging instrument, and i s believed by EPA to provide equal, or better, environmental protection than that provided by the Method 21 work practice. On April 6, 2006, EPA proposed through notice and comment rulemaking a voluntary alternative work practice for leak detection and rep air of fugitive emission sources using optical gas imaging , titled “Alternative Work Practice To Detect Leaks From Equipment

. ” See 71 FR 17401

. EPA’s final alternative work practice (AWP) rule was effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Reg ister on December 22, 2008. See 73 FR 78200. Th is final rulemaking revised the General Provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60, 63, and 65 , as well as any references to leak detection and repair throughout 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 6 3, and 65, to include the AWP. The final action also included a requirement to conduct instrument monitoring once per year using the current Method 21 leak detection instrument.

T he optical gas imaging devices prescribed in the AWP are not capable of quantifying emissions, and the existing LDAR standards are based on a quantitative leak threshold

. In the final federal AWP rule, EPA established through comparative bagging studies and modeling that using the AWP bimonthly, detecting a mass emission rate of 60 grams per hour, is equivalent to a Method 21 le ak detection level of 500 ppm. Because the modeling effort could not account for all of the uncertainties associated with equipment leaks, such as varying leak rates, and to address the potential for leaks to exist below the detection threshol d of 60 grams per hour, EPA included the requirement to conduct an annual screening using Method 21. See 73 FR 78202. The general VOC fugitive emission LDAR rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Ch apter 115
, S ubchapter D
, Divisions 2 and 3 were impl emented to satis fy RACT requirements under the CAA ( see 73 FR 10383, February 27, 2008 for Division 2; and 73 FR 40972, July 17, 2008 for Division 3)

. The highly

- reactive volatile organic compound ( HRVOC ) fugitive emissions LDAR rules are in 30 TAC Subchapter H, Division 3 and were implemented as part of the HGB attainment demonstration for the one

- hour ozone NAAQS ( 71 FR 52655

- 56
, September 6, 200 6 )

.

SIP Revision Adopted on June 2, 2010 and Submitted to EPA on July 2, 2010
On June 2, 2010, the Tex as Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that revise the LDAR rules to allow an optional AWP to detect fugitive emission leaks using op tical gas imaging instruments. The adopted amendments revis ed 30 TAC Chapter 115.322

– 115.326, 115352

– 115.357, 115.781, 115.782, and 115.786

– 115.788 (denoted as 30 TAC 115) and added new 30 TAC 115.358 and 115.784 . 30 TAC 115 addresses Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds. A discussion of the changes made by TCEQ can be found in Appendix A

– Excerpt fro m June 18, 2010 Texas Register. The final adopted rule can be found in Appendix B

– 30 TAC 115 .322

- 115.326
, Subchapter D (Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas Processing, and Petrochemical Process es), Division 2 (Fugitive Emission Control in Petroleum Refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and VictoriaCounties), and 30 TAC 115.352

- 115.358, Division 3 (Fugitive Emission Control in Petroleum

Refining, Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing, and Petrochemical Process es in Ozone Nonattainment Areas), and 30 TAC 115.781, 115.782, 115.784, 115.786

- 115.788, Subchapter H (Highly

- Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds) , Division 3 (Fugitive Emissions)

.

Evaluation of SIP Revision

Review of the SIP Revision

Review of the SIP revision found the following amendments to the existing Chapter 115 rules:

 TCEQ adopted or incorporated by reference the requirements for the AWP promulgated by EPA in 40 CFR Part 60.18.

 TCEQ adopted additional requirements beyond those found in the federa l AWP published in 40 CFR Part 60.18 to provide for adequate enforceability and ensure that the AWP is at least as stringent as the existing SIP requirements.

 TCEQ included substantive additions to the ir LDAR rules that went beyond EPA’s final AWP rule. These additional requirements , outlined below, were included to ensure that personnel using optical gas imaging instruments have adequate training and to address quality assurance and enforcement concerns with the federal AWP as written in 40 CFR Part 60.1 8. The addition al requirements i nclude:

- Each person operating an optical gas imaging instrument for the purposes of the AWP will be required to conduct the daily instrument check. [ 30 TAC 115.358(c)(2)]

- Owners or operators electing to use the AWP are required to submit notification to the appropriate Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regional office at least 30 days prior to implementation. [ 30 TAC 115.358(g)]

- Operator training is required for personnel performing the AWP . [ 30 TAC 115.3 58(h)]

- A specific subset of components (e.g., blind flanges, heat exchanger heads, sight glasses, etc.) subject to 30 TAC 115.781(b)(3) may be sampled at alternative frequencies for the annual Method 21 test required under the AWP if the components are not subject to a federal L D AR Method 21 requirements under 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 63, or 65. [ 30 TAC 115.781(h)(6)] Because TCEQ currently implement s specific LDAR requirements in the state’s LDAR

rules in 30 TAC 115 Subchapter H, Division 3 (HRVOC rules), TCEQ included additional provisions to ensure the AWP would not result in backsliding under the CAA

. These provisions include:

- For leaks more than 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv), rapid repair times are re quired under 30 TAC 115.782(b) and extraordinary efforts must be undertaken within a shorter time period to qualify for delay of repair under 30 TAC 115.782(c). The rulemaking require s any leak detected using the AWP to meet the more stringent repair time limits of 30 TAC 115.782(b) and (c) unless a Method 21 test is done to demonstrate the leak is 10,000 ppmv or less.

- The rule retain s the third

- party audit requirements of 30 TAC 115,788; however, an alternative audit procedure will be required if the compa ny is using the AWP

.

- Consistent with EPA guidance (Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA

- 453/R

- 95

- 017, November 1995)
, 30 TAC 115.782(c) requires companies to use EPA correlation equat ions for calculating emissions. For leaks detected using t

he AWP , a company will be required to use the 100,000 ppmv pegged emission rates from the EPA guidance document.

 The AWP adopted by TCEQ is stated to be voluntary and optional, affording sites flexibility by not adopting an “all

- in or all

- out” approach, a llowing companies to identify which components, even within a process unit, may be monitored with the AWP. This accounts for the fact that the optical gas imaging instrument is not capable of detecting all chemicals.

 TCEQ has stated that the rule revisions will not change a site’s applicable permits . I f an owner or operator want s to use the AWP, they will still need to change the permit LDAR requirements through the state’s NSR permitting process. Implementation of the AWP without a corresponding change to the permit LDAR requirements could be a violation of the permit and the SIP.

 TCEQ made the annual M ethod 21 monitoring optional for c ertain components regulated by S ubchapter H, Div ision 3 (HRVOC) but not by a federal CAA LDAR regulation.

CAA 110(l) Analysis The general VOC fugitive emis sion LDAR rules in 30 TAC 115 S ubchapter D
, Divisions 2 and 3 were implemented to satisfy RACT requirements under the CAA . The HRVOC fugitive emissions LDAR rules are in 30 TAC 115, Subchapter H, Division 3 and were implemented as part of the HGB attainment demonstration for the one

- hour ozone NAAQS

. In finalizing the federal AWP, EPA indicated (73 FR 78202) that the leak threshold of 60 grams per hour ( g/hr ) for the optical gas imagi ng was equivalent to the l eak definition of 500 ppmv. The applicableleak definitions in S ubchapter D division 2 is 10,000 ppmv; the ap plicable leak definition under

Subchapter D, D ivision 3 is 10,000 ppmv for pump seals and compressor seals, and 500 ppmv for all other components subject to the division. For Subchapter H, Division 3, these LDAR rules were implemented as part of the HGB attainment demonstration for the one

- hour ozone NAAQS. The a pplicable leak definition is 500 ppm, which is equivalent to th e 60 g/hr threshold set by EPA for the AWP

. TCEQ considered that while the method was determined to be equivalent to a leak detection limit of 500 ppmv, there are certain control requirements in the HRVOC fugitive rules that are not tied specif ically to th

e leak definition. CAA section 110(l) requires that a SIP revision submitted to EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Texas adopted the SIP revision after reasonable notice and public hearing. TCEQ received written comments from seven organizations/individuals, including EPA Region 6, on the prop osed revisions to 30 TAC 115. EPA’s comment pertained to a clarification necessary in the preamble to the rule, and was addressed in the final rulemaking. TCEQ also held three public hearings: Irving, Texas (January 19, 2010), Austin, Texas (January 20, 2010), and Hous ton, Texas (January 21, 2010). No comments were receiv ed during the public hearings. Section 110(l) also requires that we not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. T he revisions are consistent with or incorporate verbatim EPA’s federal alternative work practice method for the detecti on of fugitive emissions. Further , the rule revision maintains all other LDAR RACT controls, therefore approval will not interfere with any app licable requirement of the CAA.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the revision to the Texas SIP be approved because:

• It improves upon the SIP

- approved rules in that it provides for a voluntary alternative method for the detection of fugitive emi ssions from leaking components.

• Approval would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA

.

• Is consistent with a n EPA federal rule that provides an alternative to required monitoring for fugitive components to ensure facilities identify and repair leaking equipment in a
t imely and effective manner to reduce fugitive air emissions.