P. 1


# OAR Box 1338 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 10 ) ll-E-2 1 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:05 PM

Sheet 10 of 105r.

LA W OFFICE S PHILI PJ . HARTE R

SUIT E 40 4 230 1 M STREET . N.W . WASHINGTON . D.C . 2003 7 

# A-89-1 0 II-E-2 1

(202 ) 887-103 3 FAX : (202 ) 887-103 6 

# /l?,Ji-JU_J_l J JiT! :



# FEB ! l\m 

# T' ; 

# w Ma y 16 , 199 0 

# MEMORANDU M
To : EP A Negotiate dRulemakin g Committe e on Fugitiv e Emission s fromEquipment Leak s andIntereste d Partie s Fr : Philip J
. Harte r Facilitato r 

# fii

Re : Minute s o

f Ma y 10-1 1 Meeting ; Futur e Meeting ; BatchWorkgroup Meetin g I enclos e th e minute s o

f th e Ma y 10-1 1 meetin g that

were prepare db y Radia n Corporation
. A s before , th e material s that wer e distribute da t

th e meetin g ar e attached
. Th e agend afor th e next meetin g i s rathe r simpl e t o describ e bu t

perhap s more difficul

t t o execute : reac ha

n agreemen t

on an outlin e o

f th e entir e rule
. Thus , w e wil

l addres s th e ful

l rang e o f issues
. Th e Batc h Processin g workgrou p will mee t at 10:00 o n Jun e 1 at

th e Pharmaceutical Manufacturer s Association , 110

0 Fifteent hStree t NW , Washington , DC
. A s always , all Committe e member s andthei r designee s ar e welcome
. Th e next meetin g wil

l o n Jun e 6-7
. It

wil l b e at th e Compr

i Hotel, 462 0 S
. Miam

i Boulevard , Mor

risville , NC 27560;
. 919-941r6066
. Th e hote l i s jus t of f Exi t 28 1 on 1-40

, whichi s th e secondexit fro mth e airpor t o n th e wa

y t o Durham
. A bloc

k o f room s ha s bee n reserved
. Whe n calling fo

r reservations , pleas e identif y yourself a s bein g wit

h"EP A Fugitives"
. Th e meetin g wil

l begi n at 10:00 on th e firs t

da y an d9:0 0 on th e second
. I

t wil l ru n unti l abou t

6:0 0 o n th e firs t da y an dabou t

5:0 0 o n th e second
. A s wa s clea r a t th e las t meeting , thing s often get

hair y a t th e end , an di t i s quit e disruptiv e t o los e committe e member s whe n th e res t ar e strugglin g wit

hth e bi g issues
. Therefore , i t

i s importan t

that al l committe e member s pla n t o stay th e whol e time
. W e schedule danothe r

meetin g t o b e hel dJul y 17-1 8 t o fleshou t th e conceptual agreement . But, the July meeting will

be held only if we reach a conceptual

agreement

in June: the deadline is upon us.P. 3 

# i .* *

REGULATOR Y NEGOTIATIO

NMEETIN

G O NFUGITIV

E EQUIPMEN

T LEAK S MA Y 10-11 , 199 0 TH E CONSERVATIO

NFOUNDATIO

N WASHINGTON , D.C . DRAF T MEETIN

G MINUTE S Thes e meetin g note s summariz e issue s discusse d an d provid e a n informa l recor d o f administrativ e an d logistica l decision s mad e o n schedule s an d actio n items . Al l presentatio n material s distribute d during the two-da ymeetin g ar e attached : Attachmen t 1 Attachmen t 2 Attachmen t 3 Attachmen t 4 Attachmen t 5 Attachmen t 6 Attachmen t 7 Attachmen t 8 Attachmen t 9 Attachmen t 1 0 Attachmen t 1 1 Administrativ e Not e Meeting Agend a Attendee s Ma y10 , 199 0 Revision s t o Marc h 27-2 8 meeting note s CM AMemo : RegulatoryExemption s CM AFigure : Conceptua l Approac h fo r Valve s CM AMemo : RegulatoryProposa l fo r Valve s Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s Criteri a CM AFigure : Conceptua l Approac h fo r Pump s CM AMemo : RegulatoryProposa l fo r Flange s Batc h wor k grou

p meeting minute s EP ADraf t Wor k Pla n fo r Developmen t o f OV ARespons e Factor s
Ms . Deborah Dalto n o f th e Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) reporte d tha t the Committee' s charte r ha s bee n extende d throug

h Septembe r 1990 , pending approva l b ythe Genera l Service s Administratio n (GSA) . Minute s o f Previou s Meetin g

Th e minute s o f the previou s ful l committe e meeting (Marc h 27-28 , 1990 ) wer e discussed . Change s i n the minute s suggeste d b yMr . Larr yGoodhear t [representin g the America n Petroleu mInstitut e (API) ] an

d Mr . Jac k Kac e [representin g the Pharmaceutica l Manufacturer s Associatio n (PMA) ] ar e containe d i n Attachmen t 3 . Scop e o f the Standar d

Mr . Bo b Aja x o f EPA , responding t o a questio n fro mMr . Goodheart , tol d th e committe e tha t th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP (HON) , o f whic h the negotiate d standar d wil l b e a part , wil l regulat e 15 0 t o 25 0 sourc e categorie s tha t produc e o r us e a s a n intermediat e an y o f the 19 1 hazardou s ai r pollutant s (HAPs ) liste d i n the propose d Clea n Ai r Ac t amendments . ANationa l Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Technique s AdvisoryCommitte e (NAPCTAC ) meeting discussing the HO N wil l probabl yb e hel d i n lat e summe r o r fal l 1990 . Mr . Kac e note d tha t the scop e o f th e HONi s muc h broade r than the scop e o f the existing EP ANe w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d (NSPS ) fo r equipmen t leak s (4 0 CF R Par t 60 , Subpar t W) , whic h regulate s 37 8 liste d Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin g Industr y (SOCMI ) chemicals .P. 4

Mr . Goodhear t expresse d a though t tha t benzene/toluene/xylen e (BTX ) facilitie s possibl yshoul d b e include d a s a refiner ysourc e category , no t a SOCM I sourc e category . Mr . Aja x responde d tha t EP Awa s defining sourc e categorie s fo r the HONoutsid e o f the negotiation . H e indicate d tha t the sourc e categorie s t o b e regulate d woul d b e propose d fo r comment . H e fel t BTX unit s woul d likel yb e considere d a s SOCM I sources . Exemption s fro

mthe Standar d Committe e member s discusse d possibl e exemption s fro mthe negotiate d standar d fo r pilo t plant s an d researc h an

d developmen t (R&D ) facilities . Mr . Kac e state d tha t the Senat e clea n ai r bil l currentl yexclude s pilo t plants , whil e the Hous e bil l doe s no t clearl yaddres s thi s issue . H e recommende d a delayi n the decisio n t o includ e o r exclud e pilo t plant s fro mtri e standar d unti l the Congressiona l languag e i s finalized . Mr . Kac e fel t tha t pilo t plant s an

d R& D facilitie s shoul d b e exempte d fro mthe standar d unles s the yar e par t o f a majo r emitting facility . Mr . Aja x replie d tha t th e equipmen t leak Maximu m Achievabl e Contro l Technolog

y(MACT ) tha t the committe e member s ar e negotiatin g coul d appl yequall ywel l t o pilo t plant s an d R& D facilitie s an d tha t h e wa s no t clea r o n th e reaso n (excep t fo r a Congressiona l decisio n o r simila r broa d exemption ) t o exemp t the mfro mthe negotiate d standard . H e note d tha t chemica l industr ypilo t plant s ca n b e quit e large . Mr . Aja x an d Mr . Harve l Roger s (representing the Jefferso n Count y(Kentucky ) Ai r Pollutio n Contro l District ) agree d tha t pilo t plant s an d R& D facilitie s shoul d no t b e exempte d merel y becaus e th

e material s produce d ar e no t intende d fo r sale . The y adde d tha t an

yexemptio n shoul d b e base d o n objectiv e criteria , suc h a s size . Mr . TomKittleman , representing the Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n (CMA) , discusse d CMA' s propose d genera l exemption s fro mth e negotiate d standar d (include d i n Attachmen t 4) . Committe e member s commente d o n two proposal s t o exemp t facilitie s wit h les s tha n a de minimi s numbe r o f valve s o r pumps . Mr . Roger s recommende d combining the proposal s t o exemp t facilitie s wit h les s than a d e minimi s numbe r o f tota l equipmen t component s (excep t flanges) . Mr . Le s Montgomeryo f the Texa s Ai r Contro l Boar d (TACB ) suggeste d a two-stag e exemptio n criterio n whereb y facilitie s wit h les s than a d e minimi s numbe r o f equipmen t component s (
- 50 ) woul d b e exemp t fro mthe standar d an

d facilitie s wit h a n intermediat e numbe r o f equipmen t component s (
- 200 ) woul d b e subjec t t o the standar d bu t no t the penalt yo f mor e frequen t monitoring resulting fro mfailur e t o compl ywit h the standard . Mr . Kittlema n wa s intereste d i n the TAC B suggestion . Mr . Aja x expresse d concer n tha t 5 0 uncontrolle d component s woul d represen t a significan t quantit yo f emissions . Committe e member s als o commente d o n a CM Aproposa l t o exemp t equipmen t component s i n HAP servic e les s than a d e minimi s tim e perio d (fo r example , some component s i n batc h processe s o r component s use d onl yi n plan t start-up s o r shutdowns) . Committe e member s wer e no t abl e t o agre e t o a d e minimi s time limit . Committe e member s discusse d exemption s fo r glas s and glass-line d pipe , whic h i s use d i n the pharmaceutica l industry . Mr . Aja x fel t tha t glass-line d component s migh t b e include d indefinitel yi n a n unrepairabl e pool .

## ._-£ .

Standard s fo r Valve s

Mr . Kittlema n presente d CMA' s regulator yproposal s fo r controlling HAP emission s fro

mvalve s (include d a s Attachment s 5 an d 6) . Comment s fro

mcommitte e member s ar e summarize d below . Phase-i n Time s Committe e member s discusse d the timelin e fo r implementatio n o f th e standard . Phas e 3 o f the standar d wa s anticipate d t o begi n five t o si x year s fro

mtoday , according t o EP Aan d CM Arecommendations , respectively . Mr . Davi d Donige r o f the Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l (NRDC ) questione d the rational e fo r delaying implementatio n o f the standar d fo r fiv e year s whe n the standar d wil l basicall yb e agree d upo n b ythe en

d o f the negotiations . Unrepairabl e Valv e Poo l Whil e committe e member s generall yagree d wit h the concep t o f a n unrepairabl e valv e poo l fo r valve s tha t repeatedl yleak , they differe d i n the implementatio n tim e fo r the pool . Mr . Kittlema n suggeste d tha t the unrepairabl e valv e poo l exis t fo r tw o year s o r two schedule d shutdow n period s afte r Phas e 3 begins , whicheve r i s longer . Mr . Aja x suggeste d tha t th e unrepairabl e valv e poo l exis t fo r two year s o r tw o schedule d shutdow n period s afte r promulgatio n o f the standard . Mr . Donige r fel t tha t the maximu mtim e allowanc e o f two shutdown s wa s to o long . Some member s suggeste d tha t the unrepairabl e poo l onl yb e allowe d unde r a quarterl ymonitorin g progra man d no t b e use d a s a mean s fo r movin g fro mquarterl yt o semiannua l monitoring . Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s Provisio n Mr . Goodhear t discusse d API' s an d CMA' s thought s o n a QA/Q C progra mtha t woul d respon d t o Mr . Ajax' s suggestion s a t the las t meeting . Adraf t tha t wa s describe d a s demonstrating reasonabl e furthe r progres s (RFP ) i s include d a s Attachmen t 7 . Actio n items woul d includ e participatio n i n a progra mt o identif ylow-lea k characteristics , documentatio n o f leak frequenc yversu s severa l parameter s lik e typ e o f valve , valv e manufacturer , strea mphase , an d valv e age , an

d verificatio n o f a good-fait h effor t t o us e low
leaking valves . Mr . Aja x adde d tha t a RF P provisio n shoul d b e designe d t o identif yth e type s o f component s an d service s i n a plan t tha t ha d the highes t leak frequencie s an d includ e replacemen t o f a fractio n o f facility' s valve s ove r tim e an d documentatio n o f wh yleakles s equipmen t coul d no t b e applie d i f al l othe r attempt s t o repai r a valv e failed . Mr . Roger s fel t tha t facilitie s shoul d verif yi n som e waytha t a leve l o f effor t ha s bee n expende d t o tr yt o reduc e valv e leak s an d tha t a reductio n i n leak frequenc yha s bee n achieved . Mr . Davi d Dunn o f Sterling Chemica l Compan

ywarne d tha t smal l an d intermediat e chemica l producer s mayhav e troubl e meeting the RF P provision s becaus e o f insufficien t technica l staff . Mr . Aja x note d tha t the requiremen t coul d b e me t i n par t b yparticipating i n CMA' s POSSE E program . Mr . Goodhear t planne d t o revis e the RF P provision s an d resubmi t the mt o the committe e member s i n approximatel yon e week .P. 6

Provision s fo r Process-Specifi c Regulation s Th e CM Aconceptua l approac h fo r valve s include d a provisio n fo r EP At o rewrit e th

e standar d fo r produc t processe s tha t canno t mee t it . Som

e committe e member s fel t thi s provisio n wa s necessary sinc e dat a fro

ma limite d numbe r o f chemica l processe s wil l b e use d t o se t a standar d reflecting MAC T fo r al l 19 1 chemical s liste d i n the propose d Clea n Ai r Ac t amendments . Mr . Aja x note d tha t CMA' s suggeste d provisio n woul d b e triggere d befor e the effectivenes s o f leak contro l program s wa s measured . H e als o fel t tha t the provisio n shoul d no t allo w non-complyin g produc t processe s t o hav e the benefi t o f les s frequen t monitorin g b y redefining the allowabl e leaker s limit . Mr . Kac e an d Mr . Goodhear t fel t tha t thi s restrictio n woul d penaliz e non-complying produc t processes . Mr . Aja x expresse d th e vie w tha t the othe r provision s being negotiate d provide d ful l assuranc e tha t plant s following the rule s woul d no t b e i n violatio n an d ther e i s n o nee d fo r a n ad ho c standar d provision . RegulatoryExemption s Mr . Kittlema n presente d propose d exemption s fro mmonitorin g an

d maintenanc e requirement s fo r valves . Subsequen t discussio n focuse d o n thre e exemptions : valve s o n stream s wit h vapo r pressure s o f 0.0 5 psi a o r les s a t 20°C , valve s smalle r than tw o inches , an

d valve s o n stream s wit h a d e minimi s concentratio n o f HAPs . Severa l committe e member s fel t the vapo r pressur e cutof f wa s high ; theyplanne d t o examin e the issu e i n greate r detai l befor e the nex t meeting . Severa l committe e member s fel t ther e i s n o objectiv e rational e fo r exempting valve s smalle r than tw o inches ; thi s issu e wil l als o b e revisite d a t the nex t meeting . Committe e member s di d no t agre e o n a d e minimi s concentratio n cutoff ; suggeste d proposal s range s fro mon e t o fiv e percent . Mr . Aja x questione d wh

yseparat e de minimi s concentratio n cutoff s snoul d b e specifie d fo r singl e HAP stream s versu s HA P mixtures . Mr . Kittlema n clarifie d thi s wit h a n edi t t o CMA' s suggeste d language . Lea k Definitio n an

d Allowabl e Leaker s Committe e member s discusse d severa l combination s o f lea k definition s an

d allowabl e leaker s limit s fo r valve s during Phas e 3 o f the standard . Committe e member s coul d no t agre e upo n an yo f the proposals . Agreemen t wa s reache d tha t Phas e 1 o f the standar d woul d requir e a LDA R progra

msimila r t o the existing SOCM I equipmen t standar d an d tha t Phas e 2 woul d b e identica l t o Phas e 1 excep t fo r a ne w lea k definitio n o f 50 0 ppmv . Severa l proposal s wer e discusse d o n the leak frequencycriteri a fo r defining monitorin g frequenc yduring Phas e 3 o f the standard . Proposal s o n the criteri.o

n fo r movin g fro

mquarterl yt o monthl ymonitorin g range d fro

mtw o percen t t o four percent . Proposal s fo r movin g fro mquarterl yt o semiannua l monitoring range d fro mon e percen t t o tw o percent . Proposal s fo r movin g fro msemiannua l t o annua l monitoring wer e 0. 5 percen t a t 50 0 ppm , on e percen t a t 25 0 pp m an d on e percen t a t 50 0 ppm . Mr . Aja x note d tha t EP Awa s considering the frequencycriteri a i n the contex t o f th e othe r provisions . H e fel t tha t the criteri a wer e no w mor e lik e goal s withou t significan t penalties . A s such , h e fel t tha t tigh t number s wer e clearl ysuggeste d b ythe Texa s an

d E O data .P. 7

Standard s fo r Pump s

Mr . Kittlema n presente d CMA' s regulator yproposal s fo r controlling HAP emission s fro

mpump s (include d a s Attachmen t 8 an d par t o f Attachmen t 4) . Comment s fro mcommitte e member s ar e summarize d below . RegulatoryExemption s Th e exemption s fo r pump s wer e simila r t o th e exemption s fo r valves . Severa l committe e member s reiterate d thei r intention s t o examin e the issue s o f vapo r pressur e an d d e minimi s concentratio n cutoff s i n greate r detail . Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s Provision s Mr . Aja x wa s no t sur e ho w a RF P provisio n woul d b e develope d fo r pumps . Mr . Roger s suggeste d tha t the RF P provisio n exis t fo r thre e years , afte r whic h installatio n o f dua l mechanica l seal s b e require d fo r non-complying pump s o r a "safet yvalve " b e applie d t o non-complying produc t processes . Pump s Handling Food/Medical/Monome r Product s Th e CM Aconceptua l approac h fo r pump s recommend s tha t non-complying pump s handlin g foo d o r medica l product s o r monomer s b e exemp t fro

mdemonstrating RFP , sinc e concern s wit h maintainin g produc t purit ypreclud e us e o f contro l technique s lik e dua l mechanica l seal s wit h a barrie r fluid . Instead , thes e pump s woul d b e subjec t t o weekl yvisua l inspection s an d timel yrepair . Mr . Aja x questione d wh

ythes e pump s coul d no t b e subjec t t o a LDA R progra mi n additio n t o weekl yvisua l inspections . H e als o note d tha t a hoo d ducte d t o a contro l devic e i s a n alternativ e t o dua l seals . Lea k Definitio n an

d Allowabl e Leaker s Limit s Committe e member s propose d severa l combination s o f leak definition s an

d allowabl e leaker s limit s fo r pumps . Committe e member s coul d no t agre e upo n an yo f the proposals . Th e rang e o f lea k definition s range s fro m1,00 0 ppm

v t o 5,00 0 ppmv . Mr . Kac e an d Mr . Goodhear t expresse d concer n tha t man yexisting pump s wil l excee d an

yo f thes e leak definitions . Cos t t o repai r thes e pump s coul d b e prohibitive . Mr . Roger s state d tha t the phase-i n perio d befor e implementatio n o f thi s standar d shoul d allo w sufficien t tim e t o identif ypum

p problem s an

d avoi d widesprea d immediat e replacement . Dua l Mechanica l Seal s Th e CM Aproposa l woul d requir e installatio n o f dua l mechanica l seal s (o r equivalen t contro l technolog yunles s a n appropriat e exemptio n i s proposed ) i f a facilit ycanno t demonstrat e RFP . Ms . Deborah Sheima n o f NRD C questione d wh yfacilitie s woul d b e allowe d a minimu

mo f thre e year s t o instal l dua l mechanica l seal s whe n th e technology , whic h ma yrepresen t MAC T fo r pumps , i s alread yused . Mr . Dunn state d tha t the pum p proposa l mayb e unfai r t o smal lP. 8

companies , sinc e installatio n o f dua l mechanica l seal s mayb e prohibitivel yexpensiv e fo r them . Mr . Roger s suggeste d tha t ne w pump s b e require d t o us e dua l mechanica l seal s an d tha t existing pump s instal l dua l mechanica l seal s (i f technicall yfeasible ) a t the en d o f the existing sea l life . Standard s fo r Flange s

Mr . Kittlema n discusse d CMA' s regulator yproposal s fo r controlling HA P emission s fro

mflanges . ( Aportio n o f the discussio n i s include d a s Attachmen t 9. ) CM Asuggeste d a one-time monitorin g o f al l flanges . Remonitoring woul d b e require d onl yi f a flang e ha s bee n disturbed . CM Afel t tha t a one-time monitorin g woul d b e sufficien t sinc e flange s d o no t hav e movin g part s tha t coul d lead t o earl yfailur e an d tha t flang e dat a fro mvariou s studie s indicat e lo w lea k frequencie s fro mflang e populations . Mr . Aja x responde d tha t the butadien e an d ethylen e oxid e flang e dat a snow tha t unit-specifi c equipmen t emission s ar e dominate d b yflange s i n som e plants . Proposal s fo r LDA

R program s wer e suggeste d b yMr . Aja x an

d Mr . Rober t Majewski , representing severa l stat e regulatorycontro l agencies . Th e LDA

R program s wer e simila r t o the progra mfo r valves , bu t wit h les s frequen t monitorin g requirements . Committe e member s di d no t agre e o n a regulator yproposa l fo r flanges . Mr . Aja x aske d i f rando msampling fo r flange s shoul d b e incorporate d int o th e standard . N o on e expresse d a desir e t o includ e rando

msampling o f flanges . Batc h Processing Issue s

Mr . Kac e presente d result s o f the batc h processing wor k grou p meeting hel d o n Apri l 2 4 (include d a s Attachmen t 10) . Th e wor k grou p develope d a definitio n fo r batc h processes . Testing requirement s fo r batc h processe s wer e discussed . Result s o f a pressur e tes t relating a syste mpressur e drop t o equipmen t lea k emission s wer e presented . Mr . Kac e state d tha t the wor k grou p wa s attempting t o identif ya n alternativ e methodolog yfo r estimating equipmen t lea k frequencies . Th e wor k grou

p suggeste d tha t monitorin g o f buildin g ventilatio n ai r an d a compariso n o f the monitoring result s t o calculate d allowabl e equipmen t emission s b e use d a s a n exampl e o f a n equivalen t standar d i n the strawma n rule . Mr . Aja x though t i t woul d b e unnecessaryt o writ e specifi c equivalenc ystandards ; equivalenc ywoul d b e describe d i n genera l term s wit h objectiv e criteri a (e.g. , emissions) . Miscellaneou s Issue s

Committe e member s discusse d the rol e o f instrumen t respons e factor s fo r correcting observe d instrumen t readings . Mr . Aja x fel t tha t ther e wa s n o technicall ysoun d reaso n t o ignor e respons e factors . H e distribute d a n EP Adraf t wor k pla n fo r determinin g OV Arespons e factor s (include d a s Attachmen t 11) . Mr . Kac e suggeste d tha t EP

Aals o investigat e respons e factor s fo r a fe w mixe d HAP stream s a s wel l a s non-HAPs . Industr ymember s emphasize d the practica l difficult yo f requiring respons e facto r correctio n during fiel d testing .P. 9

Committe e member s briefl ydiscusse d equivalen t approache s t o the standard s fo r valves , pumps , an d flanges . Mr . Kittlema n referre d committe e member s t o a previou s submitta l (include d a s Attachmen t 6 i n the Januarymeeting minutes ) fo r CMA' s thought s abou t equivalen t regulator yapproaches . Committe e member s discusse d recordkeeping an d reporting requirement s fo r the negotiate d standards . Mr . Montgomery stresse d the logistica l nee d fo r developing a simpl e reporting format . Mr . Aja x sai d tha t th e EP Awil l tak e the lead i n developing minimu

mrecordkeeping an

d reporting requirements . Mr . Aja x state d tha t existing agitato r seal s wil l b e controlle d a s outline d i n the strawma n rul e (i.e. , LDAR) . Equipmen t tagging requirement s wer e briefl ydiscussed . Becaus e flange s coul d b e difficul t t o tag , som e committe e member s suggeste d tha t th

e flange s b e reference d t o a nearb yvalv e o r othe r equipmen t componen t fo r recordkeeping purposes . Actio n Item sMr . Goodhear t wil l revis e th e reasonabl e furthe r progres s criteri a an d distribut e the

mt o al l committe e members . EP Awil l tak e the lea d i n developing minimu mrecordkeeping an

d reporting requirements . Severa l committe e member s wil l examin e the following issue s i n greate r detai l befor e the nex t meeting : vapo r pressur e cutoffs , d e minimi s concentratio n cutoffs , equipmen t time-in-us e cutoffs , the effec t o f monomer s o n pum p performance , siz e cutoff s fo r valves , an

d leak definition s an d allowabl e leak limit s fo r th e valve , pump , an

d flang e standards . Th e batc h wor k grou p wil l continu e t o examin e pressur e testing an d equivalen t approache s fo r complying wit h the negotiate d standard . I n addition , theywil l als o addres s i n greate r detai l the issu e o f regulator

yexemption s fo r pilo t plant s an d R& D facilities . Futur e Meeting s

Th e nex t meetin g o f the ful l committe e i s schedule d t o b e hel d o n Jun e 6-7 , 199 0 a t the Compr i Hotel , locate d a t the intersectio n o f Interstat e 4 0 an

d Miam i Boulevard , i n Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina . Th e nex t meeting o f the batc h processing work , grou p i s schedule d t o b e hel d o n Jun e 1 , 199 0 a t 10:0 0 a.m . a t the Pharmaceutica l Manufacturer s Association , locate d a t 110 0 Fifteent h Stree t NW , Washington , D.C . Ameetin g o f the ful l committe e i s schedule d t o hel d o n Jul y17
- 18 , 199 0 i n Washington , D.C . (locatio n t o b e announced) .P.1 0



# ATTACHMEN T1 ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOTIATE D RULEMAKIN G '•-_ ' CONCERNIN G CONTRO L O F FUGITIV E EMISSION S FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S 

## AGEND A FO RMEETIN GO FMA Y 10-1 1
ADMINISTRATIV E • Induction s into Lame Duc k Societ y
• Introduction s
• Extensio n o

f the Charte r Hote l reservation s fo

r Jun e Meeting : Compr

i Hotel ; 919-941-6066 ; bloc k reserve dfo

r "EP A Fugitives " Lunchon Frida

y Revie w o f the Agenda : additions , subtractions , orde r Minute s o f Marchmeeting : An

y major heartburn s SCOP E O FTH E STANDAR D

• BT X Facilitie s
• Exemption s VALVE S
• u^n y ne w proposals , thoughts , or

discussion s wit

hrespec t to conceptual approac h

• Unrepairabl e component set-asid e
• Reasonabl e further

progress/QAQ C

• "Safet y Valve " fo

r process-specifi c regulation s
• Exemption s fro

mmonitorin g an dmaintenanc e requirement s
• Respons e factor s FLANGE S

• Conceptual approac h

• Exemption s fro

mmonitorin g an dmaintenanc e requirement s PUMP S

• Discussio n o

f basi c dat a
• Conceptual approac h

• "Safet y Valve " fo

r process-specifi c regulation s
• Exemption s fro

mmonitorin g an dmaintenanc e requirement s OTHE REQUIPMEN T
• Typ e o f equipment
• Conceptual approac hP.1 1



# ATTACHMEN T 2 ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOTIATIN GCOMMITTE E FO R CONTRO L O F FUGITIV E EMISSION S O F VOC s FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S ATTENDEE S LIS T FORMEETIN GO F MA Y10 , 199 0 NAM E E dMorett i Bil l Grimle y Bruc e Davi s Jerr y M . Schro y Raymon dA . Collin s Leig hMark s Ja nMeye r Walte r Brenne r Scot t Throw e Do nPieh n Miriam Lev-O n RonBerglun d Davi dMarkword t Glen nRive s Kathy Kaufma n Ric k Colye r Elle nSiegle r Bruc e Grumstru p Kare nFidle r Kari nRitte r Mar y An nGork o Rober t Majewski Davi dDun n Rober t Aja x To m Kittlema n Harve l M Roger s Le s Montgomer y Phili pHarte r Debora hDa l ton Jac k Kac e Debora hSleima n A l Bicku m Lind a Curra n L.T . Goodhear t Gu s VonBodunge n Chuc k Kneb l Fre dDimmic k Kathy Baile y Bo bStriete r Bil l Schikor a Meredit hMille r Mauree nHeale y Charle s Bennet t Michae l Mahone y Davi dGustafso n Des i M Char i Joh nKitche n Edwi n(Bill ) Carpente r Chery l Sutterfiel d AFFILIATIO N Radia nCorporatio n EPA Exxo nChemica l Compan y Monsant o Company El i Lill y

& Compan y El i Lill y

& Compan y EPA SU N Company EPA Joh nCrane , Inc . ARC O Unio nCarbid e EPA Radia n EPA EPA AP I Fishe r Control s Compan y CM A AP I DuPon t NESCAU M Sterlin g Chemicals , Inc . U.S . EPA CM A (DuPont ) Jefferso nCo . APC D (La w Env. ) Texa s Ai r Contro l Boar d Facilitato r EPA PM A (Hoffman nLa Roche ) NRD C IISR P (Goodyear ) Amoc o Oi l Compan y API/Chevro n L A DEQ-Ai r Qualit y Bus . Publ . Toxi c Material s New s EPA/OAQPS/RT P CM A AP I Chevro n Fishe r Control s Soc . of th e Plastic s Ind . Ashlan dPetroleum Pfize r Inc . Dow Chemica l Safety-Klee nCor p DuPont Durametalli c (STLE ) PM AP.1 2



# ATTACHMEN T 3

REVISION S T O MARC H MEETIN GMINUTE S Firs t bulle t unde r Scop e o f th e Standar d(pag e 1 )
• Mr . Larr y

Goodheart , representin g API , reporte dtha t AP I i s awaitin g dat a fro

m severa l refinerie s tha t ma y impac t th e scop e o f th e equipmen t leak s standard . H e requeste da dela y i nth e discussio no f th e scop e o f th e standar dunti l AP I receive s thos e data . Secon dbullet , thir dparagrap hunde r Ancillar y Factor s o f th e Standar d (pag e 5 )
• Th e worksho pals o plan s t o discus s a LDA Rfrequenc y

fo r batc h component s base do ntim e i nus e o f th e components . Futur e discussion s includ e th e possibl e exclusion s o f pilo t plant s int o th e standard , alternativ e tes t methods , an da d e minimi s tim e i n us e cutoff .P.1 3



# ATTACHMEN T 4

iz a
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO N

Ma y 7 , 199 0

TO : Equipment Leak s Regulator y Negotiatio

nCommitte e FROM : Kare

nK . Fidle r ^G^W^ / SUBJECT : Regulator y Exemptions . Attache d ar e CMA' s suggestion s fo r th e followin

g type s o f regulator

y exemptions :
1 ) Exemption s fro

m monitorin

g an d maintenanc e requirement s fo

r pumps . 2 ) Genera l exemption s fro m equipment lea

k regulations .

250 1 M Street , NW

. Washington . D C 2003 7 202-887-110 0 Tele x 8961 7 (CM A WSH )P.1 4

GENERA L EXEMPTION S FRO

M EQUIPMEN

T LEA KREGULATIO

N

Exemptio

n Rational e

1 ) Facilitie s tha t emi t les s tha n 1 0 tp y o f a singl e HA

P o r 2 5 tp y o f al l HAP . Consisten t wit hCA A Legislation .

2 ) Facilitie s withles s tha n valve s i

n HA P service . Exemp t fro m valv e an d flange requirement s base

d o nde minimi s emissions . 3 ) Facilitie s wit hles s tha n pump s i

nHA P service . Exemp t fro m pum p requirement s base d o nd e minimi s emissions .

« ) Pilo t facilitie s emittin g les s tha n tpy . Pilo t facility operation s ca

nbe highl y variabl e a s wel l a s short lived- * makin

g routin

g monitorin

g requirement difficul t t o implement . 5 ) Empt

y equipment . Doe s no t emi t HAP . 6 ) Component s inHA P servic e les s tha n months * includin g temporar

y connections . Potentia l t o emi t HA P i s low ;Exemptio

n Pump s equipe

d withclosed-ven t syste m t o a contro l devic e Pump s i nunmanne

d plant site s
Pump s i nvacuu m servic e Pump s o nstream

s wit h aggregat e partia l pressur e o r vapor pressure o f 0.0 5 psi a o r les s a

t 2 0 C Pump s o nstream

s tha t averag e les s tha

n_ Xb y weight HA

P mixtur e an

d X b y weigh t o f an y pur e HA

P Pump s o nstream

s handlin

g HAP' s fo r whic hn o monitorin

g metho d i s availabl e PUMP S EXEMPTION S FRO

M MONITORIN

G AN D MAINTENANC E REQUIREMENT S Current Regulation s 

### EP A TACB 40CFR61.242-21f ) 40CFR61.242-2(g )

40CFR61.242-11e ) 2 8 HID , paragrap hA
2 8 MID , paragrap

hA

4 0 CFR61.241Cb ) 2 8 MID , paragrap hA

Metho d 2 1 RATIONAL E Emission s ar e capture d an d controlle

d b y 95 % or more . Exempt fro

m weekl y visua l inspections ; however , periodi c monitorin g wffc hscreenin

g instrumen t stil l required . Equipmen t in vacuu

m servic e generall y

d o no t lea k t o atmosphere . Focuse s effort s o

nVO C an d chemical s o f greates t concern .

Focuse s effort s o

nth e mos t significan t emission s sources .
Monitorin

g method s mus t b e develope d befor e leak detectio nprograms ca

nb e applie d t o thes e compounds .

* 0BASIS :

1 . THISCHAR

T APPUE S T

O A PROCES

S UNI T 2 . AVERAG

E O PTW O CONSBCUTIV

B MONITORIN

O -PERIOD S (AT SPECIFIE

D LEA KRATE ) AR B REQUIRE

D T O CHANG E (INCREAS

B O RDECREASE

) IH E MONITORIN

G FREQUENC

Y I N PHASED ! 3 . PHAS E I I AN D i n LEA KDEFINITIO

N IS 50 0 BASE

D O N METHO D 21 .
• FO R2 YEAR

S O R2 SCHEDULE

D SHUTDOW

N PERIOD

S AFTE RPHAS B I D BEGINS . WHICHEVE

RI S LONGER

. COMPONENT

S FO RWHIC H AL L RBPAI RATTEMPT

S FAILE D WIL L NO T B E COUNTE

D WHE N CALCULATIN

G % LEAKER

S START

YEA R2 PHAS E I LDA R

10,00 0 PP M NOR F

YEA R5 

# I VALVE S

PHAS E I I LDA R 50 0 PP M NOR F



## ES3SSS52SS S <2 % FO R2 CONSEC . PERIODS . OPTIO N T O ELEC T VOLUNTARY EXI T 

## <xxx><x>Wsy>^^

—<4% - MONTHLY AL L VALVE S

L-YES 

# I ->4% - QUARTERL Y AL L VALVE S
>4% O R REASONABL E FURTHER PROGRES S (SE E ATTACHED ) >2 %

OR PROCES S SPECIFI C REGULATION S (SE E ATTACHED ) — I — <2 % CANNO T RETUR N T O PHAS E I O

RI I

SEMI-ANNUA L AL L VALVE S

- r > U % <\5% IL >

> 

# o m O l

-<05%-
->0J% - ANNUA L AL L VALVE S 

# X SEMI-ANNUA L O F 25 % VALVE SP.1 7



# ATTACHMEN T6

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO N

Ma y 3 , 199 0

TO FRO M SUBJEC T Equipment Leak s Regulator y Negotiatin

g Committe e Kare nFidle r Regulator

y Proposa l fo

r Valve s

Attache d ar e CMA' s suggestion s o nth e followin

g element s o f th

e regulator

y framewor

k fo r valve s discusse

d b y th e Committe e a

t th e March 26-2 7 Reg-Neg meeting :

1 ) Unrepairabl e Component Set-Aside . 2 ) Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s Criteria . 3 ) Provisio

nfo r Process-Specifi c Regulations . 4 ) Exemption s fro

m Monitorin

g an d Maintenanc e Requirements .

250 1 M Street
. NW, Washington , O C 2003 7 202-887-110 0 Tele x8961 7 (CM A WSH )P.1 8

Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s Criteri a

Th e Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s (RFP ) demonstratio ni s a noptio n fo r th e individua l proces s uni t whe ni t ca nno t mee t the Phas e 3 performance goals . Th e RF P demonstratio nwoul d documen t ho w th e plan t i s strivin g t o mee t the performance goals . The element s o f the RF P demonstratio nshoul d include :

1 ) Documentatio no f th e effort s b y the plan t t o review technolog y

option s fo r replacin g leakin g components . 2 ) Documentatio no f th e exten t t o whic hreplacemen t technolog y

ha s bee nuse d t o reduc e leaks . 3 ) Schedul e and plan s fo r futur e applicatio no f replacemen t technolog y

t o reduc e leaks . 4 ) Documentatio no f qualit y assurance/qualit y contro l (QA/QC ) procedure s use d i nth e specification , inspection , an d testin g o f component s prio r t o installation .

5 ) Documentatio no f plan t effort s t o minimize th e component s o na lis t fo r repai r a t th e nex t turnaround .

6 ) Documentatio no f ho w plan t ha s attempte d to assur e tha t off-line repai r readines s i s maintaine d In the even t o f a nunplanne d shutdown .P.1 9

Unrepairabl e Componen t Set-Aside

Often , leaking component s canno t b e repaire d successfull ywithou t taking th e equipmen t off-line . T o avoi d exces s emission s an d cos t impact s associate d wit h shutting dow n equipmen t t o repai r it , thes e component s shoul d b e place d o n a lis t fo r repai r a t th e nex t turnaround . Some plant s an d processe s operat e continuousl yfo r u p t o eigh t year s betwee n schedule d turnarounds . Fo r suc h plants , i t i s possibl e t o accumulat e a poo l o f unrepairabl e component s i n exces s o f th e Phas e 3 performanc e targets . Recognizin g tha t i t wil l tak e severa l year s an d severa l turnaround s fo r plant s t o gai n enough experienc e wit h ne w technologie s an d practice s t o mee t th e Phas e 3 performanc e targets , plant s shoul d no t b e penalize d wit h mor e frequen t monitorin g requirement s becaus e o f unrepairabl e componen t accumulation s durin g th e initia l stage s o f a lea k reductio n program . Accordingly , th e regulatio n shoul d contai n th e following provision s fo r an unrepairabl e componen t se t aside .

1 ) Unti l 2 year s o r 2 schedule d shutdown s hav e passe d (whicheve r i s longer ) afte r Phas e 3 begins , unrepairabl e component s wil l b e exclude d fro mcalculatio n o f % leaking components . 2 ) Thi s exclusio n applie s t o proces s unit s tha t ar e unabl e t o mee t th e Phas e 3 quarterl ymonitorin g performanc e targets .P.2 0

Provision s fo

r Proces s Specifi c Regulation s Recognizin g tha t some sourc e categorie s mayhav e problem s achieving th e Phas e 3 performanc e targets , th e regulatio n shoul d contai n provision s fo r EP At o develo p process-specifi c regulation s whe n needed . Th e nee d fo r process-specifi c regulation s woul d becom e apparen t a t th e beginnin g o f Phas e 3 whe n th e majorit yo f individua l facilitie s withi n a sourc e categoryar e unabl e t o mee t th e Phas e 3 performanc e targets . Th e provision s fo r process-specifi c regulation s shoul d include :

1 ) Sourc e categorie s mayappl yfo r an alternativ e process-specifi c regulatio n i f fewe r than 10 % o f facilitie s i n th e sourc e categor y(o r 3 i f th e tota l numbe r o f facilitie s i n th e sourc e categoryi s les s tha n 30 ) ar e meetin g th e Phas e 3 performanc e targets . 2 ) Facilitie s withi n th e sourc e categorymus t provid e adequat e dat a an

d othe r informatio n t o demonstrat e th e nee d fo r an alternativ e standard s an d t o serv e a s th e basi s fo r setting th e ne w standard . 3 ) EP Amus t propos e an d tak e comment s o n th e alternativ e standard s an

d o n an ynegativ e determinatio n mad e i n respons e t o sourc e categoryapplications .P.2 1

Exemption s Fro a Monitorin g an d Maintenanc e Requirement s

Attache d i s a tabl e listing exemption s fro mmonitorin g an

d maintenanc e requirement s tha t shoul d b e include d i n th e regulatio n fo r valves . Eac h o f thes e exemption s appea r i n EPA' s and/o r TACB' s existing regulation s fo r equipmen t leaks .Exemptio

n VALVE S EXEMPTION S FRO

M MONITORIN

G AN D MAINTENANC E REQUIREMENT S Current Regulation s EP A TAC B Rational e Inaccessibl e and/o

r Unsafe-to-Monitor Valve s

Valve s o

nequipment in vacuu m servic e Valve s o

nstream

s wit h aggregat e partia l pressur e o

r vapor pressur e o f 0.0 5 psi a or les s a

t 2 0 C Valve s smaller tha

n2 inche s Valve s o

nstream

s tha t average les s tha

nX b y weight HA

P mixtur e an d % b y weight o f an y pur e HAP . Valve s o

nstream

s handlin g HAP s fo

r wher e n o monitorin

g metho d i s availabl e (i.e. , inorgani c vapor s o

nmeta l salts ) 4 0 CF R61.242-7(g )

4 0 CF R61.242-l(e ) 2 8 MID , paragrap hD

2 8 MID , paragrap

hA

2 8 MID , paragrap

hA

4 0 CF R 61.241(b ) 2 8 MID , paragrap hA
2 8 MID , paragrap

hA

Method 2 1 Monitorin g component s tha t are inaccessibl e and/o r unsafe-to monito r pos e unnecessar y ris k t o plant personnel . Equipmen t invacuu

m servic e generall y

d o no t lea

k t o atmosphere . Focuse s effort s o

nVO C an d chemical s o f greates t concern .

Focuse s effort s o

nlin e size s o f greates t concern . Focuse s effort s o

nth e mos t significan t emission s sources .

Monitorin

g method s mus t be developed befor e lea k detectio

n program s ca nb e applie

d t o thes e compounds .P.2 3



# ATTACHMEN T7

REASONABL E FURTHE R PROGRES S CRITERI A Date : Ma y

10 , 199 0 BACKCRO0ND Th e element s o f reasonabl e furthe r progres s wer e discusse d a t the May 1 0 regulator y

negotiatin g meeting . A s a result * o f the discussions , modifications/clarification s o f th e industry proposa l follow . DISCUaSSIO

N Th e Reasonable Furthe r Progres s (RFP ) demonstratio ni s a n optio nfo r the individua l proces s uni t whe ni t ca nno t aoe t th e Phase 3 performanc e goals . Th e RF P demonstratio nwoul d documen t hova - the plan t i s strivin g t o nee t the perfonmanc e goals . The element s o f th e RF P demonstratio nshoul d include : 1 . Lo w Emissio n Performanc e Technolog y Review Actio nItem s fo r thi s review shal l include : A . Participat e i naninto r -coapan y o r intra~compan

y program

whic hreview s th e emissio nperformance o f coapononts . Th o progra m shal l includ e a nwf-for t t o relate equipment , proces s an d operatin g variable s t o emission s performance . Th e CM A Plan t Organizationa l Softwar e Syste m

fo r Emission s fro m Equipmen t (POSSEE ) i s anexampl e o f an effor t to review* th e detail s relate d t o emissio nperformance fo r equipmen t emissions . Th e result s o f thi s effor t shal l provid e detail s o nth e appropriat e technology an d operatin g practic e change s neede d i nth e plan t t o achieve low . emissio n performance . I naddition , thi s effor t wil l provid e informatio n o n technology/operatin g practice s wher e emission s are difficul t t o control . B . Analyz e th e emissio nperformanc e dat a an d determine whic hii xo f technology and operatin g practice s wil l resul t inth e lo

w emissio nperformanc e goal s se t b y thes e standards . C . Implemen t the technology and operatin g option s identifie d b

y th e eaissio n performanc e review . At a minimum , thes e option s coul d includ e items suc has : 1 . Earl y

plan t trial s t o establis hth e succes s o r failur e o f potentia l technology o r operatin g changes . I f possible th e trial s shal l b e conducte d o

nequipmen t whic hi s accessibl e prior * t o tur naround .P.2 4

2.. Low-emissio n per-forfcsner o Lculiftotog y trial s fo r

- '-_unrepai r abl e cvmputttrtj.t s t o tes t new technolog y a s follows , t o b e installe da t atur n around : a . 5 0 |^nx«i t

o f (ati>*pa i tabl e valves
. b
. A t leas t on e unrepairable * pump . 2
. Develo p *od

Pwplcaen t

th e Qualit y Coatro l an dQualit y Assuranc e Procedure s t o Achiev e Lo w Emissio n Perforra«*ivef t Actio n It<-.« s fo r

thi s revie w shal l include : A
. Base do n th e infui-wetio n gaine dfroi * th e Lo w Emissio n £t*ifor»&nc e Techaelos y Review , th e plan t shal l develo p an dimplem*.** ! change s t o it s equipaea l pairchasiag , speci f

ication
. ia*.:p^tio n .aadtestin g practice s t o assur e tha t lo w emissio n performanc e technolog y au do^eiatia g practice s ar e inoorpoi-«*to d int o th e plan t

busines s practio?t>
. 3
. Iff^fltKR^iitatio n P-l&n s aa dSchedul e fo r Achievin g Lo

w E&ttissio n Perfor&aftc e Tii e plan s aftdschedule r fo r achievin g la v emissio n performanc e ahal l includ e th e followin g elemeatu : A
. (le w th e pt**u t

wil l wininriz e th e membe r o f cempoixmt s o n atur n aroua dlis t fo r repair
. 8
. So w th e plao t

wil l assur e thai uff-4in e r<s-pai r readines s i s maintetine di n th e even t o f a n unplajou** 4 turnaround
. C
. Th e schedul e an dplan s fo r th e instal l a t

iu » o f lo w emissio n (< « fu**»KHn. T technology
. D
. D©eumeai><*tiof

i o f th e opet-Ating * practice s an dth e i-alcrte dtrainin g t o aichiuv o low
. oaissi-w i per f <J I iiixntca>
. I n tin ; cv*sn t

tha t l-.W e RF P desoA&fcratic * ds*?t> * no t xtrsul t i n th e achiev*:ui&**«4i

* u f th e pe ; f

unaaab- e goal s o f

th e staadard , an dn o furthe r technolag y o r

v**fi*atin g impi-ov^m*?;*!-
. ar e passible , thc ath e facilit y shal l remai z i aquarterl y lea k

detectiG n am i repai r wit h b i -asaua l revie w o f

technology

- ad*-*«v>?>iic*vt.s
.

### i?-' ; H--£?J 'tii^B'^iW^M^'

*''.$$?> 

# PUMP S

->20% -

>10 % <10%OR2PUMP S

>5 % <5 % O

RON E PUM P



### ANNUA L FOOD/MEDICAL PRODUC T PURIT Y MONOMER S 

## YE S
N O 

# i DEMONSTRATE REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRES S (Se e attached ) 

# I AFTE R3 YEA R

DUAL MEC

H SEALS O R EQUIVALEN

T WEEKL Y VISUA L OBSERVATIONS (^SsiRVABL> \ V^DRIP^-^ 7 

# r YE S APPROPRIAT E REPAI R 

# 1 OTHE R EXEMPTION S IA S APPROPRIAT E N O >

> 

# o m o oP.2 6



# ATTACHMEN T9

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO N

Ma y 7 , 199 0

ReguLator 1 TO : Equipmen t Leak s ReguLator y Negotiatio nCommitte e FROM : Kare nK . Fidle r SUBJECT : Regulator y Proposa l fo r Flange s
Attache d i s the followin g informatio nprepare d b y CM A pertainin g t o th e regulator y framewor k fo r flange s discusse d b y th e Committe e a t th e Marc h26-2 7 Reg-Ne g meeting :

1 ) Analysi s o f flang e emission s presente d b y Ro nBerglun d o f Unio nCarbid e Corporatio n a t Marc h26-2 7 meeting . 2 ) Descriptio no f basi s fo r CMA' s proposa l fo r flange s a t Marc h26-2 7 meeting . 3 ) Suggeste d exemption s fro m monitorin g an

d maintenanc e requirement s fo r flanges .

250 1 M Street . NW

. Washington . D C 2003 7 202-887-110 0 Tele x 8961 7 (CM A WSH )P.2 7

BASI S FORCMA' s PROPOSA L FORFLANGE S A t Marc h26-2 7 Meetin g

Flange s CM A believe s i t may

b e helpfu l t o othe r Committe e member s t o kno w wha t industry' s basi c belief s abou t leakag e fro m flange s ar e an

d wh y we hav e thes e beliefs . We believ e tha t onc e connection s ar e properl y made , i t i s unlikel y tha t a lea k wil l occu r fo r a long time . Unlike pump s an d valves , ther e shoul d b e n o mechanica l actio no nflange s whic hcoul d lead t o earl y failure . Flang e dat a fro m variou s screenin g studie s verif y thi s belief . Th e similarit y o f flang e screenin g result s acros s divers e industr y

sector s als o support s th e contentio ntha t ther e i s n o performance difference du e t o maintenanc e practices . We believ e tha t flang e emission s ar e lo w eve nthoug hthe y dominat e th e numbe r o f components . A t th e las t meeting , potentia l emissio nfactor s fo r flange s were presented . W e have reviewe d thos e factor s an d believe the y significantl y

overestimate flang e emission s du e t o over-predictio n at th e hig hemissio nend . Fo r example , al l flang e dat a wer e base d o npartia l samples . Wit h partia l samples , ther e i s alway s th e ris k tha t th e sampl e wil l no t be representativ e fo r on e reaso no r another . A s i t turn s out , the emissio nrat e fo r on e flang e a t on e plan t wa s estimate d i na n inappropriat e wa y tha t probabl y

gav e a highprediction . Th e effec t o f thi s one flang e o nth e resultin g emissio nfacto r estimate s wa s enormou s an d lead s t o anomalou s conclusions . I t wil l b e som

e tim e before al l th e informatio nnecessar y t o arriv e at a goo d emissio nfacto r fo r flange s i s available . W e expec t t o hav e opportunitie s t o discus s th e subjec t i ngreate r detai l before tha t time . Likewise , w e believe tha t th e emissio nfactor s presente d a t th e las t meetin g als o ove r predicte d a t th e lo w en d suc htha t a highportio n o f the emissio nestimate s come s fro m th e "defaul t zeros. " Fo r instance , abou t one-thir d o f th e emission s usin g wha t we believ e t o be th e bes t estimat e fo r a plan t a t 1 % abov e 50 0 pp m i s due t o flange s a t th e defaul t zero . Indeed , some o f th e plant s i nth e stud y ha d n o emission s abov e th e defaul t zero . W e don' t believe th e defaul t zer o itsel f i s realistic ; nonetheless , th e obviou s conclusio ni s tha t ther e i s littl e tha t ca nb e don e t o reduc e thes e flang e emission s whethe r thes e emission s ar e rea l o r imagined . I nshort , we believe ther e i s ver y littl e t o b e gaine d by an y flang e monitorin g requirement .P.2 8 Flange s 2

At the . las t meeting , w e propose d a wa y t o focu s a flang e monitorin g program-o n thos e component s mos t likel y t o lea k (i.e . thos e recentl y disassemble d for maintenance) . I t appear s t o b e industr y practic e t o ope nabou t 1 0 t o 20 % o f th e flange s durin g a maintenance "turnaround" . We discusse d thi s wit hplan t peopl e i nthre e companie s an d go t basicall y

th e same answe r fro m all . Fo r instance , som e process-specifi c number s ar e give nbelow .

Proces s No . 1 2 3 4 5 6 No . o f Flange s Opene d Durin g Turnaroun d 36 7 9 0 37 8 41 4 15 0 29 0 Tota l Numbe r o f Flange s i n Proces s 1,73 0 70 0 1,82 0 1,73 0 70 0 1,33 8 W e stil l believe tha t a one-time monitorin g o f al l flange s an d follow-u p screenin g o f onl y thos e tha t hav e bee nopened , woul d b e effectiv e emissio ncontro l approach . W e recognize , however , tha t thi s approac hwa s no t wel l receive d b y som e committe e members . Indeed , som e industr y

people prefe r monitorin g al l flanges , rathe r thanhav e th e recordkeepin g hassle s o f selectiv e monitoring . B y the nex t meeting , we wil l hav e a specifi c proposa l t o make . N o matte r how

tha t proposa l i s structured , w e don' t believ e i t i s appropriat e t o thin k i nterm s o f the same type s o f monHorJn g frequencie s considere d fo r valves .P.2 9

CM A ANALYSI S O F FUGITIVE EMISSION S FROM FLANGE S AND CONNECTOR S

Prepare d By Ronal d Berglun d Unio n Carbid e Corporatio

n

Fo rPresentation Befor

e THE ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOIIA11N G COMMITTEE FO R CONTRO L O F FUGITIVE EMISSION S O F VO C FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S

Marc h 26-27 , 1990P.3 0



### Introductio n Flange s andothe r connector s compris e th e singl e larges t clas s o f fugitiv e emissio nsource s 1 na proces s unit , ofte nrepresentin g 60 1 o f the tota l component s 1 na unit . Flange s ar e gasket-seale djunction s use dt o joi n pip e andothe r equipmen t suc ha s valves , vessel s andpumps . Flange s ar e usuall y use donpipe s o f size s o f 2 Inche s o r greate r 1 ndiameter . Fo r pip e size s les s tha n2 inches , othe r type s o f connector s suc ha s threade d connection s andnut-and-ferrul e connection s ar e usuall y use d(1) . Hhil e flange s wil l compris e th e greates t numbe r o f fugitiv e emissio n source s 1 na typica l proces s unit , 1 t 1 s generall y agree dtha t emission s fro m Individua l flange s wil l b e smal l relativ e t o othe r emissio nsource s (2) . Usin g th e Averag e EPA

SOCM I factors , 1 t woul db e expecte dtha t emission s fro m a typica l flang e woul dcompris e les s tha nI Xo f tha t from a pump , o r on e tent h tha t from

a valve . Th e differenc e betwee na non-1eakln g flang e (screenin g valu e les s tha n10,00 0 ppm ) an da non-1eakln g valv e o r pum p1 s eve ngreater . Inth e baggin g studie s conducte daroun drefineries , 1 t wa s estimate dtha t leakag e fro

m a flang e woul db e abou t 2 1 o f tha t from a valv e (3) . Yet , despit e th e smal l emission s associate dwit hflanges , continue dconcer nha s bee nraise dove r th e exclusio no f thes e component s 1 nth e existin g fugitiv e emissio nregulations .

Recen t Studie s o nFiance s I nth e recen t Industrywid e fugitiv e emission s studie s i nth e acrolein , phosgene , butadiene , andethylen e oxid e productio nindustrie s (4,5) , ove r 35,00 0 flange s andconnector s wer e monitored . Becaus e o f th e larg e numbe r o f flange s 1 na unit , eac hparticipatin g uni t wa s require dt o onl y sampl e a percentag e o f it s flange s (1 5 t o 301 ) (6) . Som e unit s sample dal l o f thei r flanges , but , overall , i t 1 s expecte dtha t betwee non e quarte r an don e thir d o f th e flange s 1 nthes e industrie s wer e Include di nthi s population .P.3 1



### Th e screenin g value s fo r flange s fo r th e fou r Industr y group s ar e summarize dI nFigur e 1 . A s expected , ver y few leakin g flange s wer e foun d1 n thes e studies . Fo r th e ethylen e oxid e an dbutadien e Industries , 14,70 5 flange s wer e monitored ; 90 1 o f th e flange s hadscreenin g value s les s tha n1 0 ppm , wit honl y

0.26 1 o f th e flange s 'Leaking ' (screenin g value s abov e 10,00 0 ppm) , and0.6 1 havin g screenin g value s abov e 1,00 0 ppm . Previously , i t wa s reporte dtha t 2.1 1 o f th e flange s monitore d1nthe SOCM I program

hadscreenin g value s abov e 10,00 0 ppm . However , 1 nth e earlie r refiner y studies , n o leakin g flange s wer e found(ou t o f 2,00 0 screened) , an d onl y 3.1 1 o f th e flange s hadscreenin g value s abov e 20 0 ppm . Clearly , leakag e fro m flange s ha s alway s bee nlow . Cause s o f Fugitiv e Emission s fro m Flange s Accordin g t o th e EPA

(1,2) , flange s andothe r connector s ma y lea k Volatil e Organi c Chemical s (VOC ) a s a resul t of :

- improperl y

selecte dgasket s

- poorl y assemble dflange s

- poorl y assemble dnut-and-ferrul e combinations , o r

- cross-threade dpip e connection s Al l o f thes e cause s shoul db e apparen t shortl y afte r installation . Th e EPA ha s als o Indicate dtha t th e majo r caus e o f VO C leakag e fro m flange s andothe r connector s 1 s deformatio no f sealin g surface s a s a resul t o f therma l stres s (2) . Othe r cause s o f leakag e fro m flange s migh t b e imprope r desig no r application , stres s o nth e join t throug hexterna l loading , wea k o r poorl y locate dsupports , o r chemica l o r environmenta l corrosion . A s wit han

y othe r piec e o f equipment , th e rat e o f appearanc e o f leakag e fro m a flang e cangenerall y be expecte dt o follow reliabilit y

principles .P.3 2

Reliabilit y 

### Reliabilit y

(7 ) i s "th e probabilit y tha t a componen t wil l perform U s Intende dfunction , satisfactorily , fo r it s Intende dlif e whe noperatin g unde r specifie dconditions. " Suc ha definitio nca nb e see na s a probabilisti c concep t Involvin g a product' s planne duse , it s operatin g environmen t an dtime , an dcanonl y

b e expresse da s a probability . Severa l type s o f dat a ar e neede d t o asses s produc t reliability : cumulativ e operatin g time , numbe r o f failures , an dcondition s presen t a t th e time o f eac hfailure . From a fugitiv e emission s standpoint , th e ter

m 'failure ' wil l b e lef t undefined . But , historically , 1 t coul dmea n(a ) th e complet e failur e o f th e component , andresultin g sever e leakage , (b ) a componen t wit ha screenin g valu e abov e 10,00 0 ppm , o r (c ) a componen t wit ha screenin g value abov e some lowe r level . I nth e broadest sense , onl y two type s o f informatio nar e require dt o calculat e th e overal l reliabilit y o f a component : 1 ) tota l numbe r o f failure s 1 nthe perio do f Interest , an d2 ) tota l cumulativ e operatin g time fo r tha t component . Th e mos t commo nuni t o f reliabilit y 1 s th e Mea nTim e t o Failur e (MTTF) . I f th e componen t ca nb e repaired , a term Mea nTim e Betwee nFailur e (MTBF ) ma y

als o be use d(8) . Th e mea ntime betwee nfailur e 1 s th e mea ntime tha t a componen t ca nbe expecte dt o operat e befor e 1 t fall s (leaks) . I nthi s analysis , a term , th e Mea nTim e Betwee nLeak s (MTBL ) wil l b e use dt o estimat e th e expecte dlea k rat e fo r a flang e 1 nth e ethylen e oxid e o r butadien e industries . A term , th e Reliabilit y Functio nwoul drepresen t th e probabilit y tha t a componen t wil l surviv e t o a give ntime , give nI t ha s survive dt o th e present . Fo r any lea k definition , th e reliabilit y functio nwoul drepresen t th e fractio n o f component s whic hhav e no t begu nt o lea k durin g th e appropriat e monitorin g period . Th e Reliabilit y Function , R(t) , ca nb e define dby th e relationship : R(t ) - exp(-t/MTBL ) wher e t 1 s th e tim e perio dove r whic hth e leak s ha daccumulated .P.3 3



### 5 Whil e th e failur e rat e curv e (th e 'bath-tub ' curv e i n Figur e 2 ) include s failure s appearin g durin g bot h th e Initia l break-I n perio d and th e late r wear-ou t period , th e reliabilit yequatio n applie s t o th e fla t middl e portio n o f th e failur e rat e curv e wher e th e failur e rat e 1 s constant , and woul d b e a cumulativ e representatio n o f al l failure s u p t o tha t tim e (Figur e 3 ) . Thi s portio n o f th e curv e represent s th e desig n failur e rat e fo r th e specifi c produc t a s presen t durin g It s usefu l lif e i n th e operatin g unit . Example : Flange s Som e Insight s o n expecte d leakag e fro muncontrolle d flange s ca n b e develope d b

yapplyin g th e concept s o f Reliabilit yt o th e flang e monitorin g dat a obtaine d 1 n th e ethylen e oxid e and butadien e fugitiv e emission s studies . Thi s dat a represent s fugitiv e emission s fro mflange s whic h hav e no t bee n regularl ymonitored . I t i s estimate d tha t the yhav e bee n 1 n plac e fo r abou t fiv e years , wit h minimu mcheckin g fo r leakage . Th e result s fro mthes e studie s ar e summarize d below :

Screenin g Valu e Ranoe
. co

m MO.OO O > 1.00 0 > 10 0 

## 1 I n

Caifiaan y 0.26 1 0.32 1 0.61 1 Tota l 1 Abov e Level 0.26 1 0.58 1 1.20 1 

### Whil e i t 1 s recognize d tha t a goo d proportio n o f th e leakag e woul d appea r durin g th e break-I n period , shortl yafte r installation , an d coul d b e detecte d an d repaire d a t tha t time , a wors t cas e assumptio n woul d b e t o assum e tha t th e leakag e wil l accumulat e regularl yove r a five-yea r period . I n thi s case , a Mea n Tim e Betwee n Lea k (MTBL ) ca n b e calculate d fro mth e abov e data , usin g th e relationship :

Fractio n Leakin g - 1 - exp[-t/(MTBD ]P.3 4

* "



### Whil e th e failur e rat e curv e (th e 'bath-tub ' curv e i n Figur e 2 )

include s failure s appearin g durin g bot h th e initia l break-I n perio d and th e late r wear-ou t period , th e reliabilit yequatio n applie s t o th e fla t middl e portio n o f th e failur e rat e curv e wher e th e failur e rat e 1 s constant , and woul d b e a cumulativ e representatio n o f al l failure s u p t o tha t tim e (Figur e 3 ) . Thi s portio n o f th e curv e represent s th e desig n failur e rat e fo r th e specifi c produc t a s presen t durin g It s usefu l lif e 1 n th e operatin g unit . Example : Flange s Som e insight s o n expecte d leakag e fro m uncontrolle d flange s ca n b e develope d b

yapplyin g th e concept s o f Reliabilit yt o th e flang e monitorin g dat a obtaine d i n th e ethylen e oxid e and butadien e fugitiv e emission s studies . Thi s dat a represent s fugitiv e emission s fro mflange s whic h hav e no t bee n regularl ymonitored . I t 1 s estimate d tha t the yhav e bee n 1 n plac e fo r abou t fiv e years , wit h minimu mcheckin g fo r leakage . Th e result s fro mthes e studie s ar e summarize d below :

Screenin g Valu e Range . DDI D 

### >10.00 0 > 1,00 0 > 10 0 1 i n



### Cateqor y 0.26 1 0.32 1 0.61 1 Tota l 1 Abov e Leve l 0.26 1 0.58 1 1.20 1 

### Whil e 1 t 1 s recognize d tha t a goo d proportio n o f th e leakag e woul d appea r durin g th e break-i n period , shortl yafte r Installation , an d coul d b e detecte d an d repaire d a t tha t time , a wors t cas e assumptio n woul d b e t o assum e tha t th e leakag e wil l accumulat e regularl yove r a five-yea r period . I n thi s case , a Mea n Tim e Betwee n Lea k (MTBL ) ca n b e calculate d fro mth e abov e data , usin g th e relationship :

Fractio n Leakin g - 1 - ex p[-t/(MTBD ]P.3 5



### Usin g thi s equation , wit h th e abov e data , and assumin g tha t t 1 s fiv e year s fo r th e unit s include d i n th e study , th e followin g tabl e ca n b e developed : Screenin g Valu e 1 I n o r MTB L Percen t Exceedin g Range , pp

m abov e leve l Year s Pe r Yea r 2 0 Yea r >10,00 0 0.26 1 192 2 yr s 0.05 1 1.00 1 > 1,00 0 0.58 1 86 0 yr s 0.11 1 2.30 1 > 10 0 1.20 1 41 4 yr s 0.24 1 4.70 1 Thes e observe d leak s ar e representativ e o f thes e Industrie s durin g a tim e whe n the yha d n o comprehensiv e fugitiv e emission s contro l progra mfo r flange s (althoug h sever e leak s wer e rapidl yrepaired) . Considerin g tha t th e representativ e tim e tha t th e component s wer e I n th e uni t woul d b e o f th e orde r o f fiv e years , thi s tabl e present s th e fractio n o f component s tha t woul d b e expecte d t o begi n t o lea k (a t variou s levels ) a t th e en d o f a year , fiv e i 

### years , o r ove r a twenty-yea r cycl e fo r th e unit .

### EP A Stud y (2 4 Plants ) Ethylen e Oxid e Industr y (1 2 Plants

) Butadiene Industr

y (1 3 Plants

) Acrolei n Industr

y ( 2 Plants

) Phosgen e Industr y (1 3 Plants

) (*100ppm ) (»1,00 0 ppm ) (>10.000 ) 

### Screenin g Value

s
Rgur e 1 : A Compariso n o f Lea k Frequencie s fo r Range s I n Acrolein , Butadiene , Ettiyten e Oxid e an d Phosgen e Industrie s Relativ e t o th e Orginba l EP A Studie sP.3 7



### -HEN- - EQUIPMEN T LEAKAG E 

# t O 

## z 5 5 

# 5 O C 

## u BR.EAK-I N PERIO D NORMA L

OPERATIN G PERIO D WEAROU T PERIO D TIM E


### RGUR E 2 : Typica l Lif

e Characteristi c Curv e Fo r a Populatio n o

f Range s (Th e 'Bathtub ' Curve ) CUMULATIV E LEAKAG E (N O REPAIR ) 

# 1
O 

## z V) 

# a c u z 

# i y""

Je / • / / ! / a / / | 7 | / | / • / / ..,- ' / '



### BREAK-I N PERIO D NORMA L

OPERATIN G PERIO D WEAROU T PERIO D TIM E


### RGUR E 3 : Cumulativ e Leakag e .For a Populatio n o

f Flange sExceptio

n FLANGE S

EXEMPTION S FRO

M MONITORIN

G AN D MAINTENANC E REQUIRENENT S Curren t Regulation s EP A TACB Inaccessibl e and/or unsafe-to aionito r flanges .
Insulate

d flange s 40CFR61.242-7(g ) 2 8 MID , paragrap hD

Equipmen

t bod y flange s
Flange s o

noquipaont I n vecuu a servic e Flange s o

nstreea s wit h partia l pressur e or vapor pressur e o f 0.0 5 psi a o r los s a t 2 0 C Flange s saaller than2 inche s Flange s o

nstroaa s tha t average les s tha

n_X b y weight HA

P Mixture an

d X b y weigh t o f an y pur e HA P 4 0 CFR61.242-l(e ) 2 8 MID , paragrap hA
2 8 HID , paragrap

hA

4 0 CFR61.241(b ) 2 8 HID , paragrap hA
2 8 HID , paragrap

hA

Flange s o

nstreaa s handlin

g HAP S fo r whic hn o Monitorin

g Metho d i s availabl e Metho d 2 1 RATIONA L Monitorin

g cpaponent s tha t ar e inacceslbl e and/o r unsafe-to-aonito r pos e unnecessar

y ris k t o plap t personnel . Insulatio

nplay s aniaportan t rol e in assurin g stable r energy-efficien t operatio

n o f processe s an

d equipment . Reaova l an

d replaceaen t o f insulatio n ca ninterfer e wit hplan t operationa s wel l a s resul t insubstantia l cos t penalties . I nseencases , reaova l o f insulatio

naa y lea d t o foraation o f leak s fro a gaske t aaterials . Dependin

g o nsiz e an

d location , thes e aa y be extreael y

difficul t t o Monito r usin g portabl e detectors . Equipaent i nvacuu a servic e generall y d o no t lea

k t o ataosphere . Focuse s effort s o

nV0 C an

d cheaical s o f greates t concern .

Focuse s effort s o

nlin e size s o f greates t concern . Focuse s effort s o

nthe aos t significan t aaissio n sources .
Monitorin

g aethod s aus t be developed befor e lea

k detectionprograat s ca nbe applie d t o thes e coapounds .P.3 9



# ATTACHMEN T1 0

Batc hWorkgrou pMeetin g Minute s - Apri l 24 , 199 0 Attendee s

Jac k Kac e Bo b Rowlan d Ric h Vaccar o Leig h Mark s Raymon d Collin s Leona r £ . Samuelso n Laur a Greninge r A l Bicku m Mar yLegatsk i Chery l Sutterfiel d Hoffmann-L a Roch e Inc . Pfize r America n Cyanami d El i Lill y El i Lill y Bristol-Myer s Squib b Sterlin g Dru g IISR P SOCM A PM AP.4 0

Batc hWorkgrou p Meetin g Minute s

Apri l 24 , 199 0

Th e definitio n o f batc h proces s equipmen t wa s agree d to . Batc h Proces s equipmen t i s define d a s proces s equipmen t whic h i s fe d intermittentl y o r discontinuously . Processin g the n occur s i n thi s equipmen t afte r whic h th e equipmen t i s generall yemptied . Onl ybatc h proces s equipmen t i n us e wit h a hazardou s ai r pollutan t les s tha n 80 % o f th e tota l availabl e tim e (8,76 0 hours/year ) i s eligibl e fo r treatmen t unde r Sectio n 4 b o f thi s rule . Th e testin g requiremen t fo r batc h proces s equipmen t wa s discussed . Th e suggeste d additio n t o Sectio n 4 b o f th e Strawman . was : Th e followin g requirement s appl yt o batc h proces s equipmen t tha t i s i n us e wit h a hazardou s ai r pollutan t durin g an ypar t o f th e calenda r year . Facilitie s tha t hav e bot h continuou s an d batc h processe s ma ychoos e t o monito r accordin g t o th e continuou s . facilit y' requirement s specifie d above , o r choos e t o hav e thei r fugitiv e component s o n batc h proces s equipmen t subjec t t o th e requirement s below : 1 . Apressur e tes t prio r t o operatio n o f th e batc h proces s equipmen t wit h a hazardou s ai r pollutant . Th e proces s equipmen t shoul d b e pressurize d wit h ai r o r nitrogen , althoug h wate r ma yb e use d i n hig h pressur e testing . Th e syste mshoul d b e pressurize d t o th e maximu m operatin g pressur e fo r th e perio d o f th e test . Alea k i s define d a s a pressur e dro p o f mor e tha n 0.3 3 PSIG/1 5 min . An ysyste m tha t .leak s mus t b e repaire d an d reteste d prio r t o star t up o f th e process . An ysyste mtha t fail s th e retes t mus t b e repaire d withi n 3 0 day s unles s i t ca n b e documente d tha t th e replacemen t par t i s unavailable . In th e latte r case , th e repai r mus t b e mad e withi n 1 0 day s o f th e deliver y dat e o f th e replacemen t part . 2 . Screenin g leve l testin g o f component s covere d bythi s rul e whe n th e batc h proces s equipmen t i s i n us e wit h eithe r th e hazardou s ai r pollutan t o r a n acceptabl e surrogate . A n acceptabl e surrogat e i s an yvolatil e organi c compoun d no t o n th e hazardou s ai r pollutan t list , o r an ydetectabl e gas . Th e testin g frequenc yshal l b e determine d b ymultiplyin g th e averag e tim e i n us e wit h a hazardou s ai r pollutan t i n th e previou s year , expresse d a s a percentag e o f tota l availabl e tim e (8,76 0 hours/year) , b yth e testin g frequenc yspecifie d fo r continuou s proces s equipmen t i n Sectio n IV . Fo r example , i f th e requirement s 1 n Sectio n I V woul d dictat e quarterl ytesting , a syste m wit h 25 2 usag e woul d tes t annually . Th e facilit ymus t maintai n writte n record s t o documen t th e tim e i n use . Acalculatio n don e b yrepresentative s o f El i Lill y& Compan yo n a typica l batc h pharmaceutica l proces s wa s discusse d ( a cop y1 s attached) . Th e calculatio n demonstrate s a roug h equivalenc ybetwee n th e pressur e tes t an d th e "allowable " fugitiv e losse s fro mcontinuou s systems .P.4 1

Thre e othe r issue s o f interes t t o th e groupwer e discusse dwhic hma y als o impac t oncontinuou s proces s equipment . Thes e are :
• A nexemptio nfo r Researc h& Developmen t (R&D ) facilities . R& D facilitie s includin g pilo t plants , coul dbe covere db y thi s rul e i f locate da t th e same sit e a s a productio nfacility . Th e propose dadditio nt o Sectio n 1 o f th e Strawma nis : Thi s rul e doe s no t appl y t o laborator y

facilitie s includin g researc hpilo t plants . Researc hpilo t plant s ar e facilitie s use dt o ru

nlarge r scal e version s o f laborator y experiment s whic happea r t o hol dth e promis e o f a ne w produc t o r a bette r wa y t o manufactur e anexistin g product . Pilo t Plant s ma y b e eithe r single-purpos e o r multipurpose . Th e single-purpos e facilit y i s designe dt o tes t a singl e proces s o r produc e a singl e product , ofte nove r a shor t time period , an dma y possibl y

b e use dagai nafte r th e experiment . Multipurpos e researc hpilo t plant s onth e othe r han dar e intende dt o remai ninus e indefinitel y

an dar e ofte nfoundt o contai na variet y o f equipmen t whic hcanbe configure di nman y differen t combination s dependin g upo n th e experimen t t o b e conducted . Th e pilo t plan t wil l produc e materia l primaril y

fo r th e purpos e o f R&D , rathe r tha nfo r sale .

• I t wa s suggeste dtha t monitorin g o f buildin g ventilatio nai r an da compariso no f th e monitorin g result s t o calculate dallowabl e fugitiv e emission s b e use da s a nexampl e o f anequivalen t standar di nsectio n 4 c o f th e Strawman . I f th e ventilatio nai r i s treatedi na contro l device , th e fugitiv e emission s shoul dno t b e regulate dunde r thi s section , bu t th e emission s from th e contro l devic e shoul dbe regulate d unde r th e poin t sourc e program .
• A sectio n1(d ) b e adde dt o th e Strawma nstating : Th e provision s o f thi s sub-par t appl y t o an y

proces s whos e fugitiv e component s ar e i nus e wit ha HON chemica l mor e tha n20 % o f th e calenda r year .
Distribution : Attendee s Mr . R . Aja x Mr . P . Harte r•-ft'H't !



# mm: 

# I il l ii - 

# i I I
_ ! j ' 

# j -

rZ °

- - S 3 \ r

HZP.4 3



### EQUIVALENC YCOMPARISON "Allowable " VO C leakag e fro mfugitiv e component s i n typica l pharmaceutica l batc h syste mbase d o n continuou s emission s and EP Aemissio n factor s (fro m pag e 1 o f calculations) . 1.531b/hou r x 8,76 0 hours/yea r = 13,40 3 lbs/yea r Leakag e fro mtypica l batc h syste m tha t result s i n 1 PSI G dro p i n 1 5 minute s i s 18. 5 lbs/hou r (als o pag e 1 o f calculations) . > (18. 5 lb/hour ) (4. 5 hours/lot ) (44 9 lots/year ) ** • 37,37 9 lbs/yea r I f thi s los s ha d bee n 1/ 3 PSI G i n 1 5 minutes , th e los s woul d hav e corresponde d t o roughl yth e 13,40 3 lbs/yea r cite d above . Apressur e los s o f 1/ 3 PSI G i n 1 5 minute s i n thi s syte m demonstrate s equivalency .P.4 4



### PRESSUR E TES T EQUIVALENC Y Evaluatio ncomplete d b y CP I Plant s an

d El i Lill y Apri l 20 , 199 0 Syste m : 4 proces s tank s an d associate d piping

LEA KRAT E CALCULATE D FRO M EPA EMISSIO

N FACTOR S
Singl e mechanica l sea l pump s Agitator s Ga s valve s Liqui d valve s Flange s Tota l lea k rat e Emissio n Facto r 0.008 3 3 6 kg/h r 0.00833 6 kg/h r 0.00031 7 kg/h r 0.00109 9 kg/h r 0.00301 2 kg/h r 0.693 7 kg/h r 1.5 3 lb/h r • #



### Com p 

## 9t onent s 2 4 2 7 4 9 19 3

LEA KRAT E CALCULATE D FRO M SYSTEM

EVACUATIO

N : Volume • 122 9 c u f t Temperatur e = 2 0 C Initia l Pressur e • 2 0 psi g Cas e 1 : Assum

e 1 psi g pressur e los s i n1 5 minute s Lea k Rat e =18. 5 lb/h r Cas e 2 : Assume 1 psi g los s wit h1.5 3 lb/h r lea k rat e

Time • 3 hour s Cas e 3 : Assume 1.5 3 lb/hr lea k i n1 5 minute s

Pressur e los s a 4. 5 mmH g



# tf



# _ JP.4 5

*************************** * 

### *EL I LILL Y VEN T EMISSION S * ************************** * 

### PROCES S OPERATION : STEP : JO B NO.:938 1 DATE : 4/19/9 0 BY : KD D REV. l EVACUATIO Nw/ o CONDENSE R (IDEA L MIXTURES ) EQUIVALENC Y SYSTE M PRESSUR E TES T ( 1 PSI G PRESSUR E DRO P I N1 5 MIN. )

VAPO R PRESSUR E CHAR T (m mHg ) METHYLEN E CHLORID E M.W . ANTOIN E COEFF. : 

### a b 

### c 84.93 3
16.302 9 2622.4 4 -41. 7
PROCES S CALCULATION S 1 . DETERMIN E LIQUID/VAPO R COMPOSITIO NI NTH E REACTO R WHIC H DETERMINE S TH E VAPO R COMPOSITIO NGOIN G T O ATMOSPHERE .

METHYLEN E CHLORID E INPU T TH E FOLLOWIN G DATAMARKE D WIT H AN(*) : 1 0 RESIDUA L •POUND S PRESEN T I NVESSE L •TEMPERATURE(degC ) •INITIA L SYSTE M PRESSUR E (mmHg ) •FINA L SYSTE M PRESSUR E (mmHg ) 2 0 179 5 (2 0 PSIG ) 174 3 (1 9 PSIG ) TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : #MOLE S 0.11773 9 TOTA L MOLE S 0.11773 9 LIQUI D 1 MOL E FRACTIO N INITIA L CONDITIONS :



# v >P.4 6



### TEMPERATURE(de g K ) 29 3 VAPO R PRESSUR E (mmHg ) IDEA L K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTA L y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTA L Pvp^x i FINA L CONDITIONS : IDEA L K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTA L y i correcte d Pvp+x i (ppVOC ) TOTA L Pvp^x i 353.330 7 0.19684 1 0.19684 1
0.19684 1

1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7

0.20271 4 0.20271 4
0.20271 4

1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7 

# o

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + A T THI S POINT , TH E NITROGE NMOLES/H R SHOUL D B E CALCULATE D FO R TH E SPECIFI C STE P AN

D TH E TOTA

L MOLE S O F SOLVEN

T CALCULATED . TH E TOTA L MOLE S O F SOLVEN

T MULTIPLIE D B

Y Y i WIL L GIV

E INDIVIDUA

L MOLE S O F EAC H COMPONEN TP.4 7



### I NTH E VAPOR PHAS E I NEQUILIBRIU M AT ASPECIFI C PRES ! 2 . CALCULAT E TH E #/H R O F INERT S BEIN

G DISPLACED . METHYLENE CHLORID E INPU T TH E FOLLOWIN

G DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(•) :

• M.W . O F INERT 2 9 •EVACUATIO

NTIM E 1 5 (MINS ) •VAPO R SPACE , C F 122 9 TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : PARTIA L PRESSUR E 1441.66 9 O F INERT(mmHg ) INITIALLY PARTIA L PRESSUR E 1389.66 9 O F INERT(mmHg ) FINALLY LN(PPi/PPf ) 0.03673 5 LO G MEA N1415.51 0 PARTIA L PRESSUR E yinert s 0.80315 8 INITIALLY yinert s 0.79728 5 FINALLY MOLE S O F INERT S 0.21833 4 DISPLACE D #/H R INERT S 25.3267 8 DISPLACE D
3 . CALCULAT E TH E VO C RAT E OUT O F TH E VESSEL .

METHYLEN

E CHLORID E ++++-H-+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ H TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : # VO C 4.62878 5 #/H R VO C 18.5151 4

^P.4 8

' a •



### r+++++++++++++++++++++- . ••PRES S F 9 T

O CALCULAT

E TOTA L #VO C 4.628 7P.4 9



# ATTACHMEN T1 1

DRAF T

GENERA LWOR K

PLAN
DETERMINATIO N O FOV A RESPONS E FACTOR S FO RORGANI C

COMPOUND S LISTE D I N TH E CLEAN AI RAC T

AND EVALUATIO N OFALTERNAT E INSTRUMENTATIO N FO RCOMPOUND S

WHIC H AR E NO T RESPONSIV E T O TH E OV A

Wor k Assignment

1 2 Contrac t No
. 68D9005 4
Prepare dfor : Mr
. K
. Willia

mGrimle y Wor k Assignment

Manager Emissio n Measuremen t

Branc h U
. S
. Environmental Protectio n Agency Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a2771 1
Prepare dby : Radian Corporatio n Pos t Office Bo

x 1300 0 Researc hTriangl e Park , NorthCarolin a2770 9

Apri l 16 , 1990P.5 0



### SECTIO N 1 SUMMAR Y O FTH E WOR K ASSIGNMEN T Backgroun d Investigation s o

f fugitive Volatil e Organi c Compoun d(VOC ) emission s hav e gaine dattentio n over

th e pas t several year s du e t o concern for releas e o

f toxi c ai r component s an dozon e precursors . Severa l researc heffort s hav e bee n conducte dto measure fugitive emissio n level s an dto asses s th e effectivenes s o f propose dcontro l schemes
. Leak s aroun dpip e flanges , valves , an dseal s ar e o f primary interest
. uA

n actio n level fo

r lea k detectio n o

f 10,00 0 pp mha s bee n set

b y th e U
. S
. Environmental Protectio n Agency
. A screenin g procedur e ha s bee n develope dfor measuremen t

o f VO C a t thi s concentratio n clos e t o th e lea k site
. Severa l studie s hav e als o bee n conducte do n lea k detectio n equipment
. Mos t measurement s ar e mad e wit haportabl e hydrocarbo n detector , primaril y th e Centur y System s "OV

A 108. " Whil e th e OV A 108 wil l respon dt o almos t

an y combustibl e material , th e instrumen t

exhibit s differen

t sensitivitie s to variou s type s o f hydrocarbon s an dsubstitute dorgani c chemicals
. Th e "respons e factor " i s acorrectio n factor which quantifie s thes e difference s i n sensitivity
. Th e Toxi c Waste Releas e Inventor y (TRI) , publishe din th e February 198 8 Federa l Register , contain s alistin g o f 309 chemical s whichmus t b e reporte dwhen intentiona l or

accidental release s into th e environmen t occur . Th e propose dClean Ai r Ac t contain s alis t

o f approximatel y 19

0 chemical s whichwill b e regulated
. Fugitiv e emission s fal

l unde r apropose dHazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON ) an daregulator y level o f 500 pp mha s bee n propose db y EPA fo r lea k detection. Thi s new regulator y leve l an dth e lis t

o f chemical s i n th e Clean Ai r Ac t pos e tw o problems :

• publishe drespons e factor s fo r OV A ar e availabl e for

concentration s betwee n 100

0 an d10,00

0 ppm . Respons e factor s at 50 0 pp mmus t

b e determine dfo

r eac ho f th e compound s t o b e regulated
.P.5 1



### • . man

y o f th e compound s o n th e Clean Air Ac t lis t d o no t respon dto th e OV A o r hav e respons e factor s outsid e th e rang e o f 0. 3 t o 3.0
. Appropriat e instrumentatio n t o measur e thes e compound s mus t b e selecte dan devaluate di

f thes e compound s ar e t o b e regulated
. Objective s Thi s wor k assignment

ha s th e following objectives : 1 ) t o defin e alis t

o f compound s o

f interes t t o th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency fo r th e regulatio n o

f fugitive emissions ; 2 ) t o complete acompilatio n o f publishe dOV A respons e factor s fo r th e compound s o

f interes t whichwill ai di n th e assessmen t o f instrumen t

t o instrumen t

variability ; 3 ) to determin e OV A respons e factor s fo r a s man y o f th e compound s o

f interes t a s possibl e at

alevel o f 500 pp man dt o asses s whethe r instrument s consistentl y confor mt o publishe drespons e factors ; an d 4 ) t o selec t

an devaluat e an appropriat e instrumen t fo r th e determinatio n o

f compound s o

f interes t whichdo no t

respon dt o th e OVA
. Approac h Tas k 1 Th e definitio n o

f th e compound s o

f interes t mus t b e don e b

y th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency
. Appendi x A show s th e compound s whichar e liste di n th e propose d Clean Air Act
. Inorgani c compound s an dother s ar e liste di n aseparat e table
. However , th e lis t

o f organi c compound s presentl y include s pesticide s an dothe r compound s whichar e no t amenabl e t o an

y methodolog y whichinvolve s measuremen t o f volatil e compounds
. Entrie s o n th e lis t sucha s "glyco

l ethers " o r

"cresols " mus t

b e bette r define din orde r

t o permi t

determinatio n o

f arespons e factor
. Othe r compound s such a s diazomethan e canno t

b e handle da s apur e compound
. Hydrazine , no t an organi c

cah.OOSo pP.5 2



### compound , i s Uste

damon g organi c compounds
. Th e lis t o f compound s fromth e Clea n uAi r Act provide s astartin g poin t bu t aclea r defimtio n o

f organi c compound s t o b e regulate dmus t

b e made
. Radia n wil

l assis t EP A i n th e preparatio n o f th e lis t o f compound s o

f interes t b y providin g chemica

l dat asucha s vapo r

pressure s an dan

y othe r chemical characteristic s whichEP A ma y requir e in formulatin g alis t o f compound s t o b e regulated
. Tas k , 2 Whe n th e compound s o

f interes t hav e been defined , th e compilatio n o f publishe d dat awhichha s bee n begu n b y Radia n wil

l b e completed
. Thi s compilatio n consist s o f a tabl e o f th e respons e factor s whichhav e been determine dexperimentall y b y Radia n using at leas t tw o OV A instrument s an darang e o f concentrations , a s well a s respons e factor s determine db

y th e manufacture r

o f th e instrumentation
. Th e literatur e availabl e fo r compilatio n o

f respons e factor s includes : 1 ) respons e factor s determine db y Th e Foxboro Company , th e manufacturer s o f th e instrumentatio n use di n th e fieldfo r leak measurement s (Mode l OV A 108 ) 2 ) variou s report s writte n b y Radia n and/o r

TR Wo f studie s t o determin e respons e factor s o

f VO C analyzer s a ) "Respons e Factor s o f VO C Analyzer s Calibrate dwit hMethan e fo

r Selecte dOrgani c Chemicals. " EP A Repor t Numbe r 600/2-81-002
. EP A Contrac t

No
. 68-02-3171-01
. Prepare dby G
. E
. Brown , D
. A
. DuBose , W
. R
. Phillips , an dG
. E
. Harris , Radia n Corporation , Austin , Texas
. b ) "Volatil e Organi c Compoun dRespons e Characterizatio n fo r Flam e Ionizatio n Analyzers. " EP A Contrac t No
. 68-02-3545
. Prepare db y M
. Hartman , A
. Blackard , an dC
. Stackhouse , TRW , Energ y an d Environmenta l Division , Researc hTriangl e Park , NorthCarolina
. c ) "Respons e Factor s o f VO C uAnalyzer

s a t aMete r Readin g o

f 10,000 ppm v fo r Selecte dOrgani c Compounds. " EP A Repor t Number 600/2-81-051
. EP A Contrac t No
. 68-02-3171-28
. Prepare db y D
. A
. DuBos e an dG
. E
. Harris , Radia n Corporation , Austin , Texas
.

cah.00So pP.5 3
* »


### d ) "Respons e o f Portabl e VO C Analyzer s t o Chemical Mixtures. " EP A Repor t Numbe r 600/2-81-110
. EP A Contrac t No
. 68-02-3171-28
. Prepare db

y D
. A
. DuBose , G
. E
. Brown , an dG
. E
. Harris , Radia n Corporation , Austin , Texas
. e ) "Fiel dStudy : Estimatin g Fugitiv e Emission s fromth e Ethylen e Oxide Productio n Industry. " Prepare dfo r Th e Ethylen e Oxide Industr y Counci l o

f th e Chemical Manufacturer s Association
. Prepare db

y J
. Randall , G
. Harris , S
. Wevill , Radia n Corporation , Austin , Texas
. Apri l 1989
. f ) "Fugitiv e Emission s fro mth e 1,3-Butadiene Productio n Industry : A Fiel dStudy. " Prepare dfo r Th e 1,3-Butadiene Pane l o f th e Chemical Manufacturer s Association
. Prepare db y J
. L
. Randall , G
. E
. Harris , S
. L
. Wevill , Radia n Corporation , Austin , Texas
. Apri l 1989
. Thes e source s were use dto assembl e apreliminar y tabl e o f OV A respons e factor s availabl e fro

mth e literature
. T o complete acompilatio n o f publishe drespons e factor data , Radia n wil

l revis e thi s preliminary tabl e to includ e al l o f th e compound s o

f interes t (a s define db

y EPA ) an dinclud e an

y additional informatio n availabl e fo r respons e factor s fo r compound s o

f interes t determine dat

different concentratio n level s an don different instruments
. In addition , th e respons e factor s availabl e fromsource s (e ) an d (f ) will b e examine dan da n attemp t will b e mad e t o asses s th e day-to-da y variatio n o

f respons e factor s an dth e instrument-to-instrumen t variations
. Tas k 3 T o provid e acompilatio n o f respons e factor s fo

r al l o f th e compound s o

f interes t a t th e regulator

y level , Radia n will determin e OV A respons e factor s fo r th e compound s o

f interes t at alevel o f 500 ppm . Experimenta l procedure s use dt o determin e respons e factor s ar e straightforward , requirin g tha t acalibrate dinstrumen t

b e use dt o sampl e a ga s o f known concentration
. Th e respons e factor i s then define da s th e rati o o f th e actual concentratio n t o th e concentratio n indicate do n th e meter . Tw o instrument s wil l b e use din th e testin g t o chec k fo r normal varianc e betwee n individual instrument s an d t o chec k fo r an y operatin g problems
. Th e OV A i s aportabl e flame ionizatio n detecto r

cah.008o pP.5 4



### (FID ) wit h aga s chromatograp hoption
. I n th e tota l hydrocarbo n mod e whichi s use d fo r fugitive emissio n screening , th e chromatograp hcolum n i s bypasse dan dth e sampl e ga s i s introduce ddirectly t o th e detector
. Th e uni t i s battery-powere dan dha s it s own hydroge n cylinde

r wit henoug hfue

l fo r 8 t o 1 0 hour s o

f continuou s operation. Th e uni t i s certifie dintrinsically saf e fo r operatio n i n Clas s I , Group s A , B , C , D , Divisio n I hazardou s location s b

y Factor y Mutua l an dBASEEFA
. Th e readou t o n th e OVA-10 8 i s logarithmi c an dha s arang e fro m1 t o 10,00

0 ppmv . Th e rang e o n th e OVA-12 8 i s linear an dha s thre e ranges : 0-1 0 ppmv , 0-10 0 ppmv , an d0-1000 ppmv . Th e instrumentatio n will b e calibrate dagains t methan e "Clas s A " standards , s o that al l respons e factor s wil

l b e determine drelativ e t o methane
. Methan e i s easily available , volatile , an di s use da s th e factor y calibratio n standar dfo

r th e OVA
. Also , mos t

o f th e respons e factor s whic

har e availabl e fro

mth e literatur e were determine drelativ e t o methane
. Determinatio n o

f respons e factor s require s tha t ga s sample s o

f known concentratio n b e prepared
. Concentration s o f chemical s whichar e liquid s a t roo m temperatur e wil

l b e calculate dgravimetrically , fromameasure dweight o f th e liqui d injecte dinto ameasure dvolume o f "zero-grade " (hydrocarbon-free ) air
. Concentration s o f chemical s whichar e gase s a t roo mtemperatur e wil

l b e calculate dvolumetrically
. Sampl e preparatio n wil

l requir e preparatio n o

f canisters , preparatio n o

f standard s fro

m liquids , or preparatio n o

f standard s fromgases . Th e standar dga s mixture s use dfo r thi s stud y wil l b e prepare do r

collecte din chemically-iner t canisters
. Canister s ar e iner t an d resistan t to adsorptio n o r

permeation , an dca

n b e equippe dwit

htw o valve s to facilitate flushing betwee n runs . Obtainin g respons e factor dat afro mth e prepare dstandard s will b e straightforward
. Instrument s t o b e teste dwill b e connecte dt o amanifol dt o allo w al l o f th e instrument s t o sampl e fromth e sam e stoc k standard , whichwill b e dilute dt o alevel o f 50 0 ppm . Th e canister s will b e cleane dan dblanke dbetwee n use s t o insure agains t compoun dcarryover , an dth e samplin g manifol dwill b e flushe dwit hzero-grad e ai r betwee n sample s t o reduc e an y cross-contamination
. At th e completio n o

f flushing , th e

cah.008o pP.5 5



### zero-grad e ai r

will b e route dthroug hth e manifol dt o th e instrument s t o allo w the mt o b e zeroed
. Al l o

f th e instrument s t o b e teste dwill b e connecte dt o th e sam e manifol d t o allo w simultaneou s testin g i n th e mos t efficien t manne r possible
. Th e instrument s propose dfo

r testin g include : 1 ) 2 OVA-12 8 instruments
. Th e full-s-cal e readin g o

f 1000 pp mseem s ideal fo r ates t leve l o f 500 ppm , whichshoul db e approximatel y mid-scale
. 2 ) 1 OV A 10 8 instrument
. Th e OV A 10 8 i s ver y commo n an di n curren t use , an dwill n o doub t

continu e t o b e use deve n whe n th e regulatory level i s change dfrom10,00

0 pp mt o 500 ppm . On e o f thes e instrument s i s include dfo

r th e sake o

f comparabilit

y t o th e OV A 128
. 3 ) 1 HNU
. Th e HN U i s aportabl e trac e ga s analyzer whichmeasure s awide rang e o f organi c an dinorgani c compound s b y photoionizatio n detection
. Application s fo

r whichth e HN U i s recommende dinclud e non-methan e hydrocarbons , aromatics , an dmos t chlorinate dsolvents
. Chlorinate d solvent s ar e on e are awhere th e OV A perform s poorly , becaus e th e flam e ionizatio n detecto r

show s alo

w respons e t o chlorinate dsolvents , i f an y respons e at

al l i s obtained
. 4 ) 1 MIRAN
. Th e MIRAN Portabl e Ambien t Ai r Analyzer i s aportable infrare dga s analyzer

whichca n perfor mai r measurements agains t

alibrar y o f OSHA-cite dgases . Th e infrare ddetecto r i s responsiv e t o virtuall y al l organic , plu s some inorganic , gase s an dvapor s whic habsor b infrare d energ y in th e 2. 5 t o 14. 5 micromete r regio n o f th e infrare dspectrum . Fo r example , th e MIRAN respond s t o oxygenate dcompound s suc ha s formaldehyd e an dhalogenate dcompound s sucha s carbo n tetrachloride , botho f whichrespon dpoorl y to th e OVA
. However , th e MIRAN ma y suffe r fromawider

rang e o f respons e factor

value s du e to it s operatin g principle
. Th e propose dmanifol di s shown schematically i n Figur e 1
. Whe n th e tes t vapo r i s flowin g throug hth e manifold , reading s will b e repeate da s frequentl y a s possible
. Radian' s estimat e i s tha t

chemical testin g can b e performe da t arat e o f fou r chemical s pe r testin g day
.

cah.OOSo pAI R MAS S FLO W CONTROLLE R FO R DILUTIO N HEA T TRACE D LIN E

EXI T ROTAMETE R



# Figur e 1 . Schemati c o f testin g equipment .

* DP.5 7

.* > •


### Thi s battery o f instrumentatio n will b e evaluate dfo r th e compound s o

f interes t t o EP A fo r regulation
. Respons e factor s will b e determine drelativ e t o methan e at aleve l o f 500 ppmv . Dat aobtaine dwil l b e formatte dfo

r straightforwardpresentatio n an d statisticall y evaluated
. Qualit y assuranc e check s will b e performe dthroughou t th e program . A standar d ga s will b e rea dat

interval s b

y eac hinstrumen t

i n use , independentl y o

f th e routin e calibrations
. Qualit

y assuranc e will b e achieve do n dat atransmitta l b y adherenc e t o stric t procedure s fo

r dat aentry an ddat averification
. Dat awill b e entere dint o a computerize ddatabas e t o allo w productio n o f bot htabular an dgraphi c presentation s o f data , a s appropriate
. Compute r outpu t wil l b e validate db

y experimenta l staff

, who wil l verif y th e dat aan dcheck

fo r anomalies
. I f ther e ar e stil l compound s fo r whichn o respons e ha s bee n obtaine dfroman y o f th e instrumentatio n tested , aliteratur e searc hwil l b e undertake n t o identif y appropriat e instrumentatio n fo

r thes e compounds
. A tes t programfo

r existin g instrumentatio n o r a n instrumentatio n development/constructio n programca n b e develope dwhen compound s an dappropriat e technique s o r instrumentatio n ar e identified
. Sinc e man

y o r mos t o f th e material s t o b e teste dwill b e hazardous , explosive , flammable , or

carcinogenic , acomprehensiv e Healthan dSafet y Pla n wil

l b e required
. In summary , th e activitie s whichwil l b e performe dunde r

thi s wor k assignment are :

• identification/determinatio n o f th e appropriat e lis t

of compound s o

f regulatory interes t

to EPA ;

• compilatio n o

f atabl e o f OV A respons e factor s availabl e fromliteratur e sources , wit

h some assessment , i

f possible , o

f instrument-to-instrumen t variatio n an dstabilit

y ove r time
.
• determinatio n o

f respons e factor s at

50 0 pp mfo

r th e compound s determine dt o b e o

f regulator y interes t t o EPA
. cah.OOSop 8 ' , 'P.5 8 1 V rsH'f



### evaluatio n o f HN U an dMIRA N fo

r applicabilit

y t o thos e compound s which d o no t

sho w a n OV A response . identificatio n o

f appropriat e methodolog y fo r measuremen t

o f th e compound s (i

f any ) whichd o no t

respon dt o an

y o f th e technique s evaluate di n thi s program . Th e projec t

organization , descriptio n o f th e tasks , estimate dprojec t costs , an d major milestone s ar e discusse di n th e following section s o f thi s Wor k Plan
.

oh.008o p