United States


Environmental Protection and Compliance


Agency Assurance (2201A)


Office of Enforcement EPA 300-N-99-014 

Enforcement Alert 

Volume 2, Number 9 Office of Regulatory Enforcement October 1999 

Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing ‘Fugitive 

Emissions’ Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs 

The Clean Air Act requires refineries to develop and implement a Leak Detection and Repair 

(LDAR) program to control fugitive 

emissions. Fugitive emissions occur 

from valves, pumps, compressors, 

pressure relief valves, flanges, connectors and other piping components. 

Comparison monitoring conducted by the U.S. Environmental


Protection Agency’s (EPA) National


Enforcement Investigations Center


(NEIC) shows that the number of


leaking valves and components is up


to 10 times greater than had been re-


ported by certain re-


fineries (see Table,


Page 2). EPA believes
EPA estimates 

What the Law Requires 

Specific requirements for refinery


fugitive emissions are identified in 40


CFR Part 60, New Source Perfor­


mance Standards (NSPS), and 40


CFR Parts 61 and 63,


National Emission


This publication is found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/enfalert 

About 

Enforcement Alert 

“Enforcement is 

published periodically by the 

Office 

Enforcement 

educate the public and regulated 

community 

environmental 

issues, 

significant enforcement actions. 

This information should help the 

regulated community anticipate 

and prevent violations of federal 

environmental law that could 

otherwise lead to enforcement 

action. 

dissemination of this newsletter 

is encouraged. 

See Page 4 for useful EPA 

Websites 

resources. 

Eric V. Schaeffer 

Director, Office of 

Regulatory Enforcement 

Editor: Virginia Bueno 

(202) 564-8684 

bueno.virginia@epamail.epa.gov 

(Please email all address and 

name changes or subscription 

requests for this newsletter.) Continued on page 2 

tween what refineries 

are reporting and what 

EPA is finding may be 

attributable to refineries not monitoring in 

the manner prescribed 

in 40 CFR Part 60, 

Appendix A, Method 

21. 

Federal regulations 

require refiners to routinely monitor for leaks 

and to fix any equipment found leaking. 

Failure to identify 

leaking equipment results in necessary repairs not being 

made and continuing fugitive emissions of 

(VOCs) and other hazardous chemicals. EPA estimates that the 

to identify and repair leaks at petroleum refineries 

additional VOC emissions of 80 million pounds annually. VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone, a principal 

component of smog, which can cause 

significant health and environmental 

problems. 

various regulations require refineries to 

implement an LDAR 

program to reduce fugitive emissions from 

valves, pumps, compressors, pressure relief valves, flanges, 

connectors, and other 

piping components. 

Valves are usually the single largest source of fugitive emissions. Emissions from any single piece of equipment are usually small. Based on the 

large number of equipment components 

LDAR requirements, however, cumulative emissions can be very large. To 

obtain a proper reading of emissions 

from leaking components the monitoring equipment must be calibrated corthat leaks not 

found and 

repaired could be 

resulting in additional 

volatile 

chemical emissions 

of 80 million pounds 

annually. 

Alert”

of Regulatory 

to inform and 

of important 

enforcement 

recent trends and 

Reproduction and wide 

and additional 

volatile organic chemicals 

failure 

could be resulting in that can leak and are subject to 

organic 

Standards for Hazard­


ous Air Pollutants
 this great disparity be- (NESHAP). Many


State and local air 

agencies incorporate 

federal requirements 

but some have established more stringent 

requirements as authorized by law. The 
�

EnforcementAlert 

Continued from 

page 1 

rectly and held at the 

component interface 

where leakage could occur (e.g., at the seal between the valve stem 

and housing) for a sufficient length of time to 

obtain a valid measurement. 

LDAR Programs 

Should Consist of 

Several 

Processes 

LDAR programs are 

generally comprised of 

four processes. Regulations vary but usually 

require refineries to: 

� Identify components to be included in 

the program; 

� Conduct routine 

monitoring of identified 

components; 

� Repair any leaking components; and 

� Report monitoring results. 

Compliance issues associated with 

each of these processes have resulted 

in numerous enforcement actions by 

EPA Regional offices, State agencies, 

or local air boards, depending on the 

specific regulations. Common violations include: 

� Failure to identify process 

units and components that must be 

monitored; 

� Failure to follow prescribed 

monitoring procedures; 

� Use of incorrect or expired 

calibration gasses; 

OCTOBER 1999 

2,775.5 

A 7,694/170 3,363/354 2.3/10.5 38.8/106.6 67.8 

B 7,879/223 3,407/216 2.8/6.3 44.0/73.5 29.5 

C 3,913/22 2,008/108 0.6/5.4 18.3/90.1 71.8 

D 2,229/26 1,784/24 1.2/1.4 15.5/17.1 1.6 

E 5,555/96 0.7/5.3 50.7/125.8 75.1 

F 42,505/124 3,053/53 0.3/1.7 154.7/382.3 227.6 

G 14,307/226 3,852/236 1.6/6.1 122.2/369.7 247.5 

H 20,719/736 3,351/179 3.6/5.3 332.2/469.7 

I 5,339/9 0.2/3.1 16.9/76.6 59.7 

J 8,374/78 2,981/55 0.9/1.8 50.8/78.5 27.7 

K 6,997/101 1,658/114 1.4/6.9 56.1/201.2 145.1 

L 12,686/26 3,228/125 0.2/3.8 34.9/84.0 49.1 

M 4,160/40 1,926/222 1.0/11.5 25.7/192.2 166.5 

N 5,944/29 2,487/106 0.5/4.3 26.1/112.3 86.2 

O 7,181/112 2,897/130 1.6/4.5 60.8/140.9 80.1 

P 8,532/203 4,060/181 2.4/4.5 98.8/167.5 68.7 

Q 6,640/36 2,608/74 0.5/2.8 30.5/87.5 57.0 

Total 170,717/2,266 47,526/2,372 1.3/5.0 (avg) 

Comparative Monitoring Results 

Refinery 

Company 

Monitoring: 

Valves/Leaks 

NEIC 

Monitoring: 

Valves/Leaks 

Leak Rate: 

Company/ 

NEIC (%) 

Emissions 

Rate: 

Company/ 

NEIC (lb/hr) 

Potential 

Emissions: 

Undetected 

Leaks (lb/hr) 

2,109/112

137.5 

2,754/84 

1,177.0/ 1,598.5 

Failure to repair components 

within specified timeframes; and 

� Failure to submit quarterly reports and maintain appropriate calibration and/or monitoring records. 

Refinery Monitoring 

Reports; What EPA is 

Finding 

During the past several years, 

NEIC has monitored for leaking components at refineries. For 17 facilities 

investigated by NEIC, the average 

leak rate reported by the facilities was 

1.3 percent. The average leak rate determined by NEIC and confirmed by 

the facilities was 5.0 percent. One explanation for this difference in leak 

rates may be found in a report published by the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (“Rule Effectiveness Study”). The Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District determined that when valves were inspected at a distance of one centimeter (0.4 inches) from the component 

instead of at the interface with the 

component, as the regulations require, 

Continued on page 3 

2 
EnforcementAlert 

Continued from page 2 

57 percent of the leaking valves would 

be missed when monitoring above the 

500 ppm level. 

Fugitive emissions account for 22 

percent of all emissions from non-refineries but account for more than 55 

percent of all refinery emissions identified in the 1996 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Since TRI includes 

only “reportable” hydrocarbons, total 

fugitive emissions were significantly 

larger than the 33 million pounds then 

identified by reporting refineries. 

The failure to identify leaks means 

that they remain unrepaired and will 

continue to release VOCs and hazardous substances into the atmosphere. 

Emission estimates using a 50/50 split 

between components in gas/light liquid service (see Table, Page 2) suggest that these 17 refineries’ annual 

fugitive emissions could be more than 

6,000 tons per year greater than previously believed. Extrapolating this difference to all refineries larger than the 

smallest refinery investigated by NEIC 

also suggests that there may be an 

additional 80 million pounds of VOCs 

EPA Policies for 

Reducing, Eliminating 

Penalties for 

Self-Policing 

EPA has adopted two policies 

designed to encourage the regulated community to comply with 

environmental laws. 

For more information, see 

EPA’s Audit Policy Website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ 

auditpol.html, and the Small Business Policy at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oeca/smbusi.html. 

being emitted each year because refinery leaks are not being identified 

properly and repaired promptly, as required by LDAR programs. Significantly and as recognized by industry, 

fugitive emissions can be reduced by 

up to 90 percent if leaks are detected 

and repaired in a timely manner. 

Regulatory Impacts of 

Inadequate Fugitive 

Monitoring 

By not fully identifying all leaking 

components, refineries are likely causing the unnecessary release of excess 

hydrocarbons. The impacts of these 

additional hydrocarbon releases may 

result in: 

� Additional VOC emissions 

that could worsen local or 

transboundry smog problems; 

� Under reporting of fugitive 

emissions on the annual Toxic Reporting Inventory; 

� Under reporting of various 

TRI chemicals on annual Form R submissions; and 

� Delayed or denied permits for 

expansion. 

Most LDAR regulations allow for 

decreased monitoring frequency if certain performance standards are consistently achieved. Monitoring frequency is decreased from quarterly to 

annual monitoring if less than two percent of the valves within a process 

unit are found leaking. Conversely, if 

greater than two percent of the valves 

are found to be leaking, monitoring 

must be conducted quarterly. EPA 

monitoring showing a greater than two 

percent leak rate has resulted in refineries reverting back to quarterly 

monitoring. 

Improving Leak Detection 

Monitoring Reliability 

Although not required under current LDAR programs, several practices appear to improve the reliability 

of monitoring data and LDAR compliance: 

� Energetic LDAR coordinators (advocates) with the responsibility and authority to make things happen; 

� Continuing education/refresher programs for plant operators. 

Plant operators can have a major impact on LDAR compliance; 

� Diligent and well-motivated 

monitoring personnel; 

� Use of a lower than required 

leak definition. Several refineries use 

a leak definition lower than the regulatory limit. For example, several refineries use a 500 ppm limit rather than 

the regulatory limit of 10,000 ppm; 

� More frequent monitoring 

than required. Rather than monitoring annually, some refineries monitor 

quarterly. More frequent monitoring 

also may permit lower emissions to 

be reported on the annual Toxic Reporting Inventory and/or Form Rs; and 

� Established Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures. Several refineries have initiated a program 

to check the monitoring results submitted by the monitoring team (inhouse or contractor). 

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance is encouraged 

by efforts currently underway by the 

National Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and Technology 

(NACEPT) petroluem refining 

workgroup to find more cost-effective ways to identify significant leaks 

Continued on page 4 

OCTOBER 1999 3 
EnforcementAlert

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Regulatory Enforcement

2248A

Washington, D.C. 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that contains at least 30% recycled fiber

Useful Websites

EPA's Technical Web site for

Information Transfer and Sharing

Related to Air Pollution Topics:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI):

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/

EPA Home Page:

http://www.epa.gov/epahome

National Enforcement Investigations

Center:

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/oceft/neic/

index.html

EPCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346. For

callers in the DC area, please call

(703) 412-9810. Also, the TDD is (800)

553-7672.

Office of 

http://www.EPA.gov/oeca/ore.html

EPA Compliance Assistance

Centers: 

oeca/mfcac.html

Small Business Gateway:

http://www.epa/gov/smallbusiness

Continued from page 3

through new technology that allows

for quick identification of the most significant losses. ,

the regulated industry is expected to

comply fully with existing LDAR requirements.

Contact Ken Garing, National

Enforcement Investigations Center, 

garing.ken@epa.gov; Tom Ripp,

Office of Compliance, Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation

Division, 

ripp.tom@epamail.epa.gov; or Jim

Jackson, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air Enforcement Division, 

jackson.james@epamail.epa.gov.

EPA’S Y2K Enforcement

Policy

EPA’s “Y2K Enforcement Policy is

designed to encourage the expeditious

testing of computer associated hardware and software that may be potentially vulnerable to Y2K problems.

Under this policy, which was published in the Federal Register on March

10, 1999, A intends to waive 100

percent of the civil penalties and recommend against criminal prosecution

for environmental violations resulting

from Y2K testing designed to identify

and eliminate Y2K-related malfunctions.

To receive the policy’s benefits (e.g.,

waiver of penalties due to testing), regulated entities must address specific criteria and conditions identified in the

policy.

For 

Enforcement Policy, contact Gary

Jonesi, 

Enforcement, (202) 564-4002 or Email: jonesi.gary@epa.gov.

Regulatory Enforcement

http://www.epa.gov/

Meanwhile, however

(303)236-6658;Email:

(202564-7003;Email:

(202) 564-2002;Email:

EP

more about the Y2K

Office of Regulatory