p. 1 

# OAR Box 1208 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 117 ) ll-E- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 5/9/2008 10:08:23 AM

Sheet 117 of 127

# A May 15 , 13&s o II-E- 3 P. 2

EWV 2 ROra^WTia L P*ROCTECTXQW I WIOSWIC V FU0ET2V E EM2BS20W 8 O F VOC s FRO M EG5y2PMEW) TLEWKSJJ.^ .

tBOEWDK

) FO R 2WFQRM«T20Wm . WEE TX W O lOsO O Introduction s lOsl S "Developmen to f aMe w Approac h fo rQuantificatio n an d Minimizatio n o f

Equipmen tLeaks " Rober t L . Aja x Standard s Developmen t Branch , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 1181 5 Brea k llsS O Presentatio n b yThoma s fl. Kittleman , E« , 2 . d u Pon t d e

Nemour s an d Company , o n behal f o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n IZ.OO Begi n Discussio n

—Issue s raise d

—Scop e o f th e th e undertakin g

—Shoul d EP Aconven e a negotiatio n t o develo p a ne w approac h 1 2 sS O Lunc h serve d isO O Resum e discussio n ls3 0 I f negotiation s ar e recommended :

—Par t i e s

—Preliminar yschedul e

—Preliminar ydiscussio n o f Organizationa l Protocol sP. 3 1 5 MA Y;93 9 

## Developmen t o

fa Ne wApproac h Fo r Quantificatio n an d Minimizatio n O fEquipmen t Leak

s
I . Histor

yofEquipmen t Lea k

Regulatio n II . Significanc e ofEquipmen t Lea k Emission s

. Th e Quantificatio n Proble m IV . Th e Regulator

yProble mP. 4



### HISTOR YO F EQUIPMEN TLEA KREGULATIO N 1 . Source Assessments :

- Petroleu m Refiner

y Fugitiv e Emissio n Stud y - 1 3 refineries ; 50 0 to 60 0 sources pe rrefinery .

- SOCM I 2 4 Uni t Stud y

- Si xUni t Maintenanc e Stud y

- Cok e Ove n By-Produc

t Plan t an d Ga s Plan t Studie s 

### 2 . Assessmen t Approach :

- Screenin g value s usin g portabl e organi c vapo r detector .

- Mas s rate s determine d b y baggin g components

page 2P. 5

PACKIN G GLAN D PACKIN G — VALV E " STE M \ r A ^ ff

Tft* ^ <*

A / / 1 I 7 —POSSIBL E / LEA KAREAS



### Diagra m ofa Gat e Valv e

pag e 3P. 6

Surgica l Tubin g Pressur e Ta p

Outlet t o Pum p



### Ten t Constructio n Aroun d th e Sea l Area o fa Vertica l Pum p

pag e 4P. 7 

### 3 . Results :

- Screenin g valu e - Mas s rate correlation s

- Averag e emissio n factors derive d fro m correlation s an d screenin g valu e distribution s

- Estimate s o

flea k occurrence an d recurrenc e rates , an d th e effect o fmaintenance .

- LDA R mode l an d estimate s o femissio n reductio n effectivenes s

- SIP , Sectio n 111 , an d Sectio n 11 2 rules adopte d

- •I n th e cas e o

fvalves , a majo r focu s wa s o n lowerin g th e lea k

frequency an d th e emission s at mos t plants throug h LDAR . A t plants wit h lea k frequencie s typicall y belo w1% , LDA R coul d b e waived .

pag e 5P. 8



### SIGNIFICANC E O F EQUIPMEN TLEA KEMISSION S
1 . SAR A 31 3 Data : Ai rfugitiv

e emission s reporte

d - 390,00 0 tp

y Ai rpoint sourc

e emission s reporte

d - 840,00 0 tp

y
2 . Relativ e groun d leve l impac t o ffugitiv e vs . stac k

emission s

- fugitiv e emissio n impac

t is about 1 0 t

o 4 0 time s greate rtha n impac

t resultin g from equa l releases o

fstac k emissions .

page SP. 9



### 3 . Regulator

y Direction s

- Viny l chlorid e cour

t decisio n require s tha t §11 2 rule s achiev e safe , o racceptabl e level s ofrisk .

- Benzen e MI R at proposa l = 6x10-4 , base d o n estimate d emission s an d LDAR .

- NIT L 8 additiona l organi ccompound s unde r§11 2

- Uni t Ris k

Estimate s oforgani ccompounds : Compoun d Benzen e Acrylonitril e Butadien e Carbo n Tetrachlorid e Chlorofor m Ethylen e dichlorid e Ethylen e dibromid e Ethylen e oxid e Formaldehyd e UR E 8. 3 x10- 6 6. 8 x10- 5 2. 8 x10- 4 1.5x10- 5 2. 3 x10- 5 2. 6 x10- 5 2. 2 x10- 4 1 x10- 4 1. 3 X10-5 Rel . t o Bz

1 x 8x 33x 2 x 3x 3x 26x 12 x 1.3 x

- Possibl e §11 2 revision s tha t woul d involv e listing , rankin g an d regulatin g a s man yas 15 0 organi c sources .P.1 0



### TH E QUANTIFICATIO N PROBLE M 1 . Accurate quantificatio n i s becomin g hig h priorit y

- Communit

y right-to-kno

wresponsibilities

- Litigatio n exposur

e

- Case-b y cas e permitting/emissio n fee s

- Wast e minimizatio m initiatives

- Publi c pressur

e fo r absolute healt h protectio n an d associate d emphasi s o n quantitativ e ris k assessments 

### 2 . Direc t measuremen t o

fequipmen t leak

s i s impractica l - ^ 3 . Indirect measuremen t method s are availabl e

- Use d i n a relativel y fe wplants t

o date

- Us e ha s increase d i n th e pas t yea r

- Accurac

y i s relate d t

o complexity . Th e simples t approache s have poo r accuracy ; mor e costl y approache s hav e reasonabl e accurac

y

- Accurac

y ma y b e poores

t at th e bes

t controlled plants .
pag e 8

### E

O i _ 3 O tn c/ > — o "co c o E U J c o c o ( 0 

### FACTO R V S Ga s Valve s 

### ICREENIN G VALU E 0. 1 - 0.0 8 - 0.0 6 - 0.0 4 - 0.0 2 -

1 0 10 0 1,000 10,00 0 100,00 0 1,000,00 0 Screenin g Valu e (ppmv

) o n lo g scal e EP

A Correlatio n
pago 9P.1 2

. 600- 1

Screenin g Valu e



### Frequenc

y o fScreenin g Value s Ethylen e Gas/Vapo rValue s

pag a 1 0C D O L - r > o w k _ " & __. C O c o "c o C O " E U J C O C O C O 

### MAS S EMISSIO N FACTO R V S SCREENIN G VALU E Gas Valves 0. 1 - 0.0 8 -

__ 2 0.0 6 - 0.0 4 0.0 2 - 1 0 10 0 1,00 0 10,00 0 Screenin g Valu e (ppmv

) on log scal e Averag e E F i 1 100,00 0 1,000,00 0 EPA Correlatio n pag a 1 1 XIC D O 1 3 O CO
C O c o 'c o C O 0.01 0 Q.00 8 - 0.00 6 -

^ 0.00 4 E U J c o C O c d 0.00 2 

### Averag e Emissio n Facto r Ga s Valve s

Lea k Frequenc

y(% )

pag a 1 2< D U

__ = 3 O C O
C O c g C O C O " e U J c o co C D 2 

### MAS S EMISSIO N FACTO R V S SCREENIN G VALU E Gas Valve s 0. 1 - 0.0 8 - 0.0 6 - 0.0 4 - 0.0 2 - 100 1,000 10,00 0 Screenin g Valu e (ppmv

) o n log scal e Lea k / No-Lea k E F i 1

100,00 0 1,000,00 0 EP A Correlatio n pago1 3 XIC D

O u _ O C O O ) C O c o C O C O 0.00 5 0.00 4 - 0.00 3 - £0.00 2 - E U J co c o C O 0.00 1 - 0 - 

### FACTO RV J Ga s Valves 

### ICREENIN G VALUE 1 0 100 1,000 Screenin g Valu e (ppmv

) o n log scal e No-Lea k E F 10,00 0 EP A Correlatio n
pag a 1 4 X I©

O b _ O C O
C O c o C O C O E U J C O C O C O 0.01 0 

### Leak/No-Lea k Emissio n Facto r Ga s Valve s
0.00 8 H 0.00 6 \k\ 0.00 4 H 0.00 2 H
Lea k Frequenc

y (% ) Averag e E F •= —Lea k / No-Lea k E F

pag a 1 5 

### E

### E

0.00 5 

### FACTO R V ! Ga s Valve s 

### ICREENIN G VALU E

1 0 100 1,00 0 Screenin g Valu e (ppmv

) o n lo g scal e Stratified E F - — 10,00 0 EP A Correlatio n
pag e 1 6 XI 0 0C D O i — O C O 

# I C O C o C O C O 0.01 0 

### e d Emissio n Facto r Gas Valve s
0.00 8 - 0.00 6 - j 2 0.00 4 - E L U C O C O lf l 0.00 2 - 0 - f Averag e E F Lea k Frequenc

y (% )

—Lea k

/ No-Lea k E F Stratified E F

pag a 1 7 X I CO

### iCRE I E

0.001 4

Screenin g Valu e (ppmv) EP A Correlatio n 10 0

—Stratifie d E F
pag a 1 8 XI h oP.2 1

0 0 C O CV JCV J o o d d • * . °o. 

# V

• % > ••"•f t \ s % /t 

# X S > \ 

### «b . .** . ' * 

# V • * 

# V \ 

# °* <i>. <i>. \ \ 

### <b. i-0)OOS(Olfl**0(Mr- 0 OOOOOOOOO O 0 '00000000 0 dddddddd d < £ ^ 4, (90Jn0S/JL|/6>| ) J0J0B J U0!SS|LU 3P.2 2 

### 4 . Needed improvements

- Bette rcorrelation s fo r lo wlea k rate facilities ; fo r flanges .

- More accurate estimatin g factors base d o n th e simples t possibl e screenin g techniques , e.g. . leak\n o lea k data . f- •-^ J Jfh

f o f^-f: ,v^SS^' v

—* * ""^ U

Vv. . -_ 0 fV 1 -— > - More detaile d reporting ; possibl y throug h SAR A fo r baselin e emissions ; throug h stat e regulator y program s fo r regulate d sources 

### 5 . Negotiatio n Approac h

- Basicall y a technica l problem ; variou s partie s shoul d hav e simila rinterests

- Firs t ste p i s to identif

y al l o fth e needs ; develo p a workpla n

- Muc h o

fth e wor k

coul d likel y b e don e i n a technica l subcommittee .

- Thi s issu e probabl y wil l no t requir e a lo t o f"negotiation " time .

pag e 2 0P.2 3

o

o C O

o CV J

o —• E O L Q . O O O T - A O ) C c ffl C D U C O C O C O o t _ 3 o CO >J — o *- • c & - C D C L

C M O d 0 0

v — o o C

O o •• o <*•$ •

V - o o CV

J —• o o v - o o 0 0 o o o C

O o o d •<• * o o d CV

J o q d (eojnos/jq/6> 0 suo|SS!UJ 3 SSBJA IP.2 4



### TH E REGULATOR

YPROBLEM S 1 . Th e principl e basi s availabl e t o EP A fo r estimatin g curren t emission s i s th e 1980 averag e emissio n factors .

- I n mos

t case s dat a base d upo n screenin g i s no t availabl e

- Wher e screenin g base d dat a ar e available , it i s ofte n limited i n scope (eg. , CM A an d Sterlin g Benzen e data) .

- Net resul t i s that th e averag e facto r data , wit h recognitio n o

fth e considerabl e uncertainties , i s used to calculate baselin e risk s at eac h facilit

y unde r consideration .

pag a 2 2

### COMPARISO N O F BENZEN E EMISSIO N FACTOR S Gas Valves

cu o 1 _ * D O C O O )

... o C O c o 'c o C O * E U J 0.0 2 -

0.0 1 -

0 J CM A Sterlin g A vSOCM I A

vSOCM I Av

g Refiner y Av g Refiner y Controlle d Uncont r Controlled Uncont r

pag»2 3P.2 6



### 2 . Th e principl e regulator y approac h i s lea k detectio n an d repai r(LDAR) .

- LDA R i s assume d to achiev e a n estimate d percentag e reductio n i n baselin e emissions . EQUIPMEN T COMPONEN T Pum p Seal s Packe d an d Mechanica l Valve s Ga s Liqui d Flange s CONTRO L EFF . (percent) 60. 8 73. 0 59. 0 0. 0

- Residua l emission s an d risk s are thu s calculate d a s a percentag e o

fbaselin e emission s an d risks . Fo rrelativel y uncontrolled plants , thi s i s probabl y a reasonabl e estimate .

- Net resul t i s th e assumptio n tha t al l facilitie s woul d be controlled t

o th e leve l assume d fo rLDA R applie d to baselin e emissions .

pag«2 4P.2 7



### 3 . Th e actua l contro l approaches an d emission s a

t many facilitie s are probabl y muc h differen t tha n th e abov e assumptions .

- Bes t controlled plants emi t les s tha n estimate s fo r typica l plants wit h LDA R alone .

- Bes t contro l likel y consist

s o fcombination s o

f origina l plan t design , componen t desig n an d materials , operatin g an d maintenanc e practices , lea k detectio n programs , etc .

- Curren t regulator

y approache s d o no

t provid e incentives o rcredi t fo r th e type s o fprogram s that achieve bes

t control .

- Regulator

y approache s are no

t availabl e that woul d assure achievemen t o fquantifiable , lo

w emissio n rates . 

### 4 . Need - A regulator

y approac h tha

t wil l achiev e desire d , quantifie d emissio n results .

pag a 2 5P.2 8

0 0 C O CV JCV J o o r0)00N(0lflt(0N-- O

ooooooooo o 0 '00000000 0 ci<6cic_ios_ic_i<5o (90jnos/jg/6^ ) JOPB J uoissjiu gP.2 9



### 5 . Possibl e solution s

- More effectiv

e LDAR , possibl y usin g a lowe r lea k definitio n

- Limit s o n th e percen t leakin g components ; o r o n th e emission s pe r componen t

- Limit s o n emissions ; o r o n th e numbe r o fleakin g components pe rfacilit

y

- A combinatio n o

fth e above , (e.g. , us e o fLDA R initiall y wit h a slidin g scal e emissio n limi t to b e met at som e futur

e time )

pag a 2 6Numbe ro fLeakin g Component s Not t o b e Exceede d 

### m o - * s-

o t o o Jj100500Number 

### aIIII1000Componentsin •=• 0 3

I O o I I' l ' / ^ f\ 3 ^ ^aio—acocDO-^rv .

1 i i i

|\* w P O cr * III I(1.0%) >

o 

### " 0 r * m n n

m



### " 0 H 

## m

r; H

oe* dP.3 1 

### 6 . Negotiatio n approac h

- Any ne wregulator

y approac h wil l hav

e importan t cos t an d environmenta l impacts , an d policy , legal , an d technica l consideration s

- Developin g a regulator y approac h that meet s th e need s an d th e interests o fal l partie s wil l be th e goa l o fth e negotiatio n

- A possibl e wor k

pla n fo r th e negotiatio n migh t b e a s follows : a . Develo p a basi c format , wit h examples , fo r th e option s that are identified . Asses s technica l an d lega l feasibilit y o fthese . Asses s th e potentia l fo r agreement . b . Pla n fo ran d develo p necessar y dat a to asses s specifi c provisions . c . Negotiate solution s

pag a 2 80.01 0 

## COMPARISO N O F BENZEN E EMISSIO N FACTOR S Ga s Valve s 0.00 8 c u o i _ O c o £0.00 6 H C O __. o t s c o L L c o C O C O E U J 0.00 4 H 0.00 2 H 0.0002 7

CM A Sterlin g Av g Refiner y Controlled

c o