p.1 

OAR Box 1208 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

117) ll-E-3 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 5/9/2008 10:08:23 AM Sheet 117 of 127 
A 

May 15 , 13&s 

o 

II-E- 3 

P.2 

EWV2 ROra^WTiaL P*ROCTECTXQWI WIOSWICV 

FU0ET2VE EM2BS20W8 OF VOCs FROM EG5y2PMEW)T LEWKSJJ.^. 

tBOEWDK) FOR 2WFQRM«T20Wm. WEET X WO 

lOsOO Introduction s 

lOsl S "Development of a Mew Approach fo r Quantificatio n and 

Minimization o f Equipment Leaks" 

Robert L. Ajax 

Standards Development Branch, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards 

Environmental Protection Agency 

11815 Break 

llsSO Presentation by Thomas fl. Kittleman, E«, 2. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company, on behalf of the Chemical 

Manufacturers Association 

IZ.OO Begin Discussion 

— Issues raised 

— Scope of the the undertaking 

— Should EPA convene a negotiation to develop a new 

approach 

12sSO Lunch served 

isOO Resume discussion 

ls30 If negotiations are recommended: 

— Part i es 

— Preliminary schedule 

— Preliminary discussion of Organizational Protocols 
P.3 

1 5 MAY ;939 

Development of a New Approach 

For Quantification and Minimization 

Of Equipment Leaks 

I. History of Equipment Leak Regulation 

II. Significance of Equipment Leak Emissions 

. The Quantification Problem 

IV. The Regulatory Problem 
P.4 

HISTORY OF EQUIPMENT LEAK REGULATION 

1. Source Assessments: 

- Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emission Study - 13 

refineries; 500 to 600 sources per refinery. 

- SOCMI 24 Unit Study 

- Six Unit Maintenance Study 

- Coke Oven By-Product Plant and Gas Plant 

Studies 

2. Assessment Approach: 

- Screening values using portable organic vapor 

detector. 

- Mass rates determined by bagging components 

page 2 
P.5 

PACKING 

GLAND 

PACKING — 

VALVE " 

STEM 

\ r 

A^ 

ff Tft*^ <*A // 1 I 

7 — POSSIBLE 

/

 LEAK AREAS 

Diagram of a Gate Valve 

page 3 
P.6 

Surgical 

Tubing 

Pressure Tap 

Outlet 

to Pump 

Tent Construction Around the Seal Area of a 

Vertical Pump 

page 4 
P.7 

3. Results: 

- Screening value - Mass rate correlations 

- Average emission factors derived from correlations 

and screening value distributions 

- Estimates of leak occurrence and recurrence 

rates, and the effect of maintenance. 

- LDAR model and estimates of emission reduction 

effectiveness 

- SIP, Section 111, and Section 112 rules adopted 

-• In the case of valves, a major focus was on 

lowering the leak frequency and the emissions at 

most plants through LDAR. At plants with leak 

frequencies typically below 1%, LDAR could be 

waived. 

page 5 
P.8 

SIGNIFICANCE OF EQUIPMENT LEAK EMISSIONS 

1. SARA 313 Data: 

Air fugitive emissions reported - 390,000 tpy 

Air point source emissions reported - 840,000 tpy 

2. Relative ground level impact of fugitive 

vs. stack emissions 

- fugitive emission impact is about 10 to 40 

times greater than impact resulting from equal 

releases of stack emissions. 

pageS 
P.9 

3. Regulatory Directions 

- Vinyl chloride court decision requires that §112 

rules achieve safe, or acceptable levels of risk. 

- Benzene MIR at proposal = 6x10-4, based on 

estimated emissions and LDAR. 

- NITL 8 additional organic compounds under §112 

- Unit Risk Estimates of organic compounds: 

Compound 

Benzene 

Acrylonitrile 

Butadiene 

Carbon Tetrachloride 

Chloroform 

Ethylene dichloride 

Ethylene dibromide 

Ethylene oxide 

Formaldehyde 

URE 

8.3 x 10-6 

6.8 x 10-5 

2.8 x 10-4 

1.5x10-5 

2.3 x 10-5 

2.6 x 10-5 

2.2 x 10-4 

1 x 10-4 

1.3 X10-5 

Rel. to Bz 

1x 

8x 

33x 

2x 

3x 

3x 

26x 

12x 

1.3x 

- Possible §112 revisions that would involve listing, 

ranking and regulating as many as 150 organic 

sources. 
P.10 

THE QUANTIFICATION PROBLEM 

1. Accurate quantification is becoming high priority 

- Community right-to-know responsibilities 

- Litigation exposure 

- Case-by case permitting/emission fees 

- Waste minimizatiom initiatives 

- Public pressure for absolute health protection and 

associated emphasis on quantitative risk assessments 

2. Direct measurement of equipment leaks is 

impractical - ^ 

3. Indirect measurement methods are available 

- Used in a relatively few plants to date 

- Use has increased in the past year 

- Accuracy is related to complexity. The simplest 

approaches have poor accuracy; more costly approaches 

have reasonable accuracy 

- Accuracy may be poorest at the best controlled plants. 

page 8 
E 

O 

i _ 

3 

O 

tn 

c/> — 

o 

"co 

co 

E 

UJ 

co 

co 

(0 

FACTOR VS 

Gas Valves 

ICREENING VALUE 

0.1 -

0.08 -

0.06 -

0.04 -

0.02 -

1 0

 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 

Screening Value (ppmv) on log scale 

EPA Correlation 

pago9 
P.12 

. 600-1 

Screening Value 

Frequency of Screening Values 

Ethylene Gas/Vapor Values 

paga 10 
CD 

O 

L -

r> 

o 

w 

k _ 

"& 

__. 

CO 

c 

o 

"co 

CO 

"E 

UJ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

MASS EMISSION FACTOR VS SCREENING VALUE 

Gas Valves 

0.1 -

0.08 -

__2 0.06 -

0.04 

0.02 -

10 100 1,000 10,000 

Screening Value (ppmv) on log scale 

Average EF 

i 1 

100,000 1,000,000 

EPA Correlation 

paga 11 

XI 
CD 

O 

13 

O 

CO 

CO 

c 

o 

'co 

CO 

0.010 

Q.008 -

0.006 -

^ 0.004 

E 

UJ 

co 

CO 

cd 

0.002 

Average Emission Factor 

Gas Valves 

Leak Frequency (%) 

paga 12 
<D 

U 

__ 

=3 

O 

CO 

CO 

c 

g 

CO 

CO 

"e 

UJ 

co 

co 

CD 

2 

MASS EMISSION FACTOR VS SCREENING VALUE 

Gas Valves 

0.1 -

0.08 -

0.06 -

0.04 -

0.02 -

100 1,000 10,000 

Screening Value (ppmv) on log scale 

Leak / No-Leak EF 

i 1 

100,000 1,000,000 

EPA Correlation 

pago13 

XI 
CD 

O 

u_ 

O 

CO 

O) 

CO 

c 

o 

CO 

CO 

0.005 

0.004 -

0.003 -

£ 0.002 - E 

UJ 

co 

co 

CO 

0.001 -

0 -

FACTOR VJ 

Gas Valves 

ICREENING VALUE10 100 1,000 

Screening Value (ppmv) on log scale 

No-Leak EF 

10,000 

EPA Correlation 

paga 14 

XI 
© 

O 

b_ 

O 

CO 

CO 

c 

o 

CO 

CO 

E 

UJ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

0.010 

Leak/No-Leak Emission Factor 

Gas Valves 

0.008 H 

0.006 

\k\ 0.004 H 

0.002 H 

Leak Frequency (%) 

Average EF •=— Leak / No-Leak EF 

paga 15 

E 
E 

0.005 

FACTOR V! 

Gas Valves 

ICREENING VALUE 

10 100 1,000 

Screening Value (ppmv) on log scale 

Stratified EF - — 

10,000 

EPA Correlation 

page 16 

XI 

00 
CD 

O 

i— 

O 

CO 

I 

CO 

C 

o 

CO 

CO 

0.010 

ed Emission Factor 

Gas Valves 

0.008 -

0.006 -

j2 0.004 - E 

LU 

CO 

CO lfl 

0.002 -

0 -f 

Average EF 

Leak Frequency (%) 

— Leak / No-Leak EF Stratified EF 

paga 1 7 

XI 

CO 
iCREI E 

0.0014 

Screening Value (ppmv) 

EPA Correlation 

100 

— Stratified EF 

paga 18 

XI 

ho 
P.21 

00 C O 

CVJ CVJ o o 

d d 

• * . °o. V 

• % > 

••"•ft 

\ 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>|) J0J0BJ U0!SS|LU3 
P.22 

4. Needed improvements 

- Better correlations for low leak rate facilities; for flanges. 

- More accurate estimating factors based on the simplest 

possible screening techniques, e.g.. leak\no leak data. 

f- •-^J Jfh f o f^-f: ,v^SS^'v— * * ""^ 

U 

Vv.. -_0 fV1

-—> 

- More detailed reporting; possibly through SARA for 

baseline emissions; through state regulatory programs for 

regulated sources 

5. Negotiation Approach 

- Basically a technical problem; various parties should have 

similar interests 

- First step is to identify all of the needs; develop a 

workplan 

- Much of the work could likely be done in a technical 

subcommittee. 

- This issue probably will not require a lot of "negotiation" 

time. 

page 20 
P.23 

o 

o CO 

o CVJ 

o 

—• 

E 

OL 

Q. 

O 

O 

O 

T

-

A 

O) 

C 

c ffl 

CD 

U 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o t _ 

3 

o CO 

>J— 

o *-• 

c 

&-

CD 

CL 

CM 

O 

d 

00 

v— 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o • • 

<*•$• 

V -

o 

o 

CVJ 

—• 

o 

o 

v -

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

d 

•<•* 

o 

o 

d 

CVJ 

o 

q 

d 

(eojnos/jq/6>0 suo|SS!UJ3 SSBJAI 
P.24 

THE REGULATORY PROBLEMS 

1. The principle basis available to EPA for 

estimating current emissions is the 1980 

average emission factors. 

- In most cases data based upon screening is not 

available 

- Where screening based data are available, it is 

often limited in scope (eg., CMA and Sterling 

Benzene data). 

- Net result is that the average factor data, with 

recognition of the considerable uncertainties, is 

used to calculate baseline risks at each facility 

under consideration. 

paga 22 
COMPARISON OF BENZENE EMISSION FACTORS 

Gas Valves 

cu 

o 

1 _ 

*D 

O 

CO 

O) 

... 

o 

CO 

c 

o 

'co 

CO 

*E 

UJ 

0.02 -

0.01 -

0

 J 

CMA Sterling Av SOCMI Av SOCMI Avg Refinery Avg Refinery 

Controlled Uncontr Controlled Uncontr 

pag»23 
P.26 

2. The principle regulatory approach is leak 

detection and repair (LDAR). 

- LDAR is assumed to achieve an estimated 

percentage reduction in baseline emissions. 

EQUIPMENT 

COMPONENT 

Pump Seals 

Packed and Mechanical 

Valves 

Gas 

Liquid 

Flanges 

CONTROL EFF. 

(percent) 

60.8 

73.0 

59.0 

0.0 

- Residual emissions and risks are thus calculated 

as a percentage of baseline emissions and risks. 

For relatively uncontrolled plants, this is probably a 

reasonable estimate. 

- Net result is the assumption that all facilities 

would be controlled to the level assumed for LDAR 

applied to baseline emissions. 

pag«24 
P.27 

3. The actual control approaches and 

emissions at many facilities are probably 

much different than the above 

assumptions. 

- Best controlled plants emit less than estimates for 

typical plants with LDAR alone. 

- Best control likely consists of combinations of 

original plant design, component design and 

materials, operating and maintenance practices, 

leak detection programs, etc. 

- Current regulatory approaches do not provide 

incentives or credit for the types of programs that 

achieve best control. 

- Regulatory approaches are not available that 

would assure achievement of quantifiable, low 

emission rates. 

4. Need - A regulatory approach that will 

achieve desired , quantified emission 

results. 

paga 25 
P.28 

0 0 CO 

CVJ CVJ 

o o 

r0)00N(0lflt(0N-- O 

ooooooooo o 

0 '00000000 0 

ci<6cic_ios_ic_i<5o 

(90jnos/jg/6^) JOPBJ uoissjiug 
P.29 

5. Possible solutions 

- More effective LDAR, possibly using a lower leak 

definition 

- Limits on the percent leaking components; or on 

the emissions per component 

- Limits on emissions; or on the number of leaking 

components per facility 

- A combination of the above, (e.g., use of LDAR 

initially with a sliding scale emission limit to be met 

at some future time) 

paga 26 
Number of Leaking Components 

Not to be Exceeded 

m 

o -* s-o to 

o J j 100 500 

Number a 

III I 

1000 

Components in •=•0 

3 

IO 

o 

I I' l 

' / ^ f\3 ^ 

^aio—acocDO-^rv . 

1 i i i 

|\* w 

PO 

cr* 

III I (1.0%) 

> 

o 

"0 

r* 

m 

nn 

m 

"0 

H 

m 

r; 

H 

oe*d 
P.31 

6. Negotiation approach 

- Any new regulatory approach will have important 

cost and environmental impacts, and policy, legal, 

and technical considerations 

- Developing a regulatory approach that meets the 

needs and the interests of all parties will be the 

goal of the negotiation 

- A possible work plan for the negotiation might be 

as follows: 

a. Develop a basic format, with examples, 

for the options that are identified. Assess 

technical and legal feasibility of these. 

Assess the potential for agreement. 

b. Plan for and develop necessary data to 

assess specific provisions. 

c. Negotiate solutions 

paga 28 
0.010 

COMPARISON OF BENZENE EMISSION FACTORS 

Gas Valves 

0.008 

cu 

o 

i _ 

O 

£co 0.006 H 

CO 

__. 

o ts 

co 

LL 

c 

o 

CO 

CO 

E 

UJ 

0.004 H 

0.002 H 

0.00027 

CMA Sterling Avg Refinery 

Controlled 

co