United States Environmental Protection and Compliance Agency Assurance (2201A) Office of Enforcement EPA 300-N-99-014 

# E nf or cement 

# A ler t

V

olume 2, Number 9 Office of Regulatory Enforcement October 1999 

# Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing ‘Fugitive Emissions’ Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs 

# T he Clean Air Act requiresrefineries 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 (EP A) 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 T able, Page 2). E P A believes 

# E P A 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



### T

his pub lication is f ound on the Internet at http://www .epa.go v/oeca/ore/enfaler t 

### 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 EP A is finding may beattributable to refineries not monitoring in the manner prescribed in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 21. Federal regulationsrequire refiners to routinely monitor for leaksand to fix any equipment found leaking. Failure to identifyleaking equipment results in necessary repairs not beingmade and continuing fugitive emissions of(VOCs) and other hazardous chemicals. EP A estimates that theto identify and repair leaks at petroleum refineriesadditional 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 LDARprogram to reduce fugitive emissions fromvalves, pumps, compressors, pressure relief valves, flanges, connectors, and other piping components.
V

alves are usually the single lar gest source of fugitive emissions. Emissions from any single piece of equipment are usually small. Based on thelarge number of equipment components LDAR requirements, however, cumulative emissions can be very lar ge. T o obtain a proper reading of emissionsfrom leaking components the monitoring equipment must be calibrated cor

## that leaks not

found and repaired could be resulting in additional volatile chemical emissions of 80 million pounds annually

. Alert”
Regulatory of and inform to
important of enforcement and trends recent

Reproduction and wide

additional and 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 requirementsbut some have established more stringentrequirements as authorized by law

. The

### � 

# E nforcement 

# A lert

Continued from page 1
rectly and held at the component interfacewhere leakage could occur (e.g., at the seal between the valve stemand housing) for a sufficient length of time toobtain a valid measurement. 

### LDAR Programs Should Consist of Several Processes LDAR programs are generally comprised offour 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 EP A Regional of fices, 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

T

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

### Comparative Monitoring Results

Refinery Company Monitoring: V

alves/Leaks NEIC Monitoring: V

alves/Leaks Leak Rate: Company/ NEIC (%) Emissions Rate: Company/ NEIC (lb/hr) P otential Emissions: Undetected Leaks (lb/hr)

2,109/112

137.5 2,754/84

1,598.5 1,177.0/

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 EP A 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 bythe facilities was 5.0 percent. One explanation for this difference in leakrates may be found in a report published by the Bay Area Air QualityManagement District (“Rule Effectiveness Study”). The Bay Area AirQuality 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

# E nforcement 

# A lert

Continued from page 2

57 percent of the leaking valves would be missed when monitoring above the 500 ppm level. Fugitive emissions account for 22percent of all emissions from non-refineries but account for more than 55percent 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 willcontinue to release VOCs and hazardous substances into the atmosphere. Emission estimates using a 50/50 splitbetween components in gas/light liquid service ( see T able, Page 2 ) suggest that these 17 refineries’ annual fugitive emissions could be more than6,000 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



### EP A Policies for Reducing, Eliminating Penalties for Self-Policing

EP A has adopted two policies designed to encourage the regulated community to comply with environmental laws. For more information, see EP A

’ s Audit Policy W ebsite 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 leakingcomponents, 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 variousTRI chemicals on annual Form R submissions; and

� Delayed or denied permits for expansion. Most LDAR regulations allow fordecreased monitoring frequency if certain performance standards are consistently achieved. Monitoring frequency is decreased from quarterly toannual 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 . EP A monitoring showing a greater than twopercent leak rate has resulted in refineries reverting back to quarterly monitoring. 

### Improving Leak Detection Monitoring ReliabilityAlthough not required under current LDAR programs, several practices appear to improve the reliabilityof 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 usea 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 monitoringthan 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 programto check the monitoring results submitted by the monitoring team (inhouse or contractor).
EP A

’ s Of fice of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is encouraged by efforts currently underway by theNational Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and T echnology (NACEPT) petroluem refiningworkgroup to find more cost-effective ways to identify significant leaks
Continued on page 4

OCTOBER 1999 3

# E nforcement 

# A lert

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 T echnical W eb site for Information T ransfer and Sharing Related to Air Pollution T opics: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

T

oxics Release Inventory (TRI): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/

EP

A 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

. E P A.gov/oeca/ore.html

EPA Compliance Assistance Centers: oeca/mfcac.html
Small Business Gateway: http://www.epa/gov/sm all business Continued from page 3

through new technology that allowsfor quick identification of the most significant losses.
, the regulated industry is expected tocomply fully with existing LDAR requirements. Contact Ken Garing, NationalEnforcement Investigations Center , garing.ken@epa.gov; T om Ripp,Office of Compliance, Manufacturing, Energy and T ransportation Division, ripp.tom@epamail.epa.gov; or JimJackson, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air Enforcement Division, jackson.james@epamail.epa.gov

. 

### EP A ’S Y2K Enforcement Policy
EP A

’ s “Y2K Enforcement Policy is designed to encourage the expeditioustesting 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 100percent of the civil penalties and recommend against criminal prosecution for environmental violations resulting from Y2K testing designed to identify and eliminate Y2K-related malfunctions. T

o 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:

564-2002;Email: (202) EP

Y2K the about more
Regulatory of Office