p. 1 

# OAR Box 1168 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 128 ) ll-C-4 3 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 4/29/2008 11:23:21 AM Sheet 128 of 131P. 2 

# A- n-m

• y° ST ^c ]3 fi^ 3 o UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENCY f^3 ^ S Offic e ofAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s \<_^j£> /

Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 277 1 1 

### JUL | 199 1 Subject : Revise d page s fo r 4/25/9 1 draf t preambl e an d draf t fina l agreemen t To : Re g Ne g Committe e Pleas e fin

d enclose d revise d page s 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 32 , 35 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 59 , 69 , an d 8 9 t o the . draf t preamble . Replac e th e corresponding page s i n th e 4/25/9 1 draf t wit hthes e pages . Thes e page s reflec t th e following corrections : 1 . Th e introductorytex t t o sectio n B o n pag e 5 tha t wa s adde d i n th e 4/25/9 1 draf t ha s bee n remove d becaus e i t di d no t addres s th e origina l concer n o f a Committe e membe r an d i t create d additiona l questions . Languag e ha s bee n adde d t o pag e 6 tha t bette r represent s th e facts . 2 . W e hav e revise d th e discussio n o n applicabilit yan d affecte d proces s unit s t o clarif ytha t th e standar d applie s t o unit s manufacturing th e liste d chemical s fro mothe r chemical s o r mixture s o f chemical s an d t o seve n liste d non-SOCM I categories . W e hav e als o adde d languag e t o clarif ytha t th e standar d doe s no t appl yt o us e o f th e liste d chemical s a s a solven t i n a SOCM I proces s o r t o solven t reclamatio n operations . Thes e change s ar e reflecte d o n page s 6 , 11 , an d 12 . 3 . W e hav e clarifie d th e languag e o n pag e 4 6 regarding pilo t plant s an

d researc hfacilitie s t o refe r t o researc h facilitie s sinc e tha t i s th e terminolog yuse d i n th e Act . Th e regulatio n o f researc hfacilitie s wil l b e addresse d i n th e overal l HON , sinc e th e issu e i s broade r tha n thi s rule . 4 . W e hav e mad e mino r editoria l change s t o th e remaining page s t o clarif yth e tex t o r t o respond t o comments . Al l o f thes e change s ar e attempt s a t bette r expressing ou r inten t an

d d o no t chang e th e substanc e o f th e preambl e o r th e standard . I f w e d o no t hea r fro myo u b yJul y22 , w e wil l assume tha t yo u agre e wit hth e change s an d tha t w e ar e read

yt o sen

d ou t th e fina l preambl e an d agreemen t fo r signature .



### EP APAM DOCKET .

a nP. 3

Also , pleas e revie wth e enclose d draf t fina l agreement . I f anyon e ha s strong feeling s abou t thi s draft , theyshoul d contac t Phi l s o h e ca n revis e i t a s necessary . A s always , fee l fre e t o contac t m e o r Ric k i f yo u hav e an y question s o n th e statu s o f things , etc .

Sincerely ,
Ja n Meye rTABL E VII-1 . LIS T O F NEGOTIATORS , FACILITATOR AND OBSERVE R P. 4

Negotiator s Affiliation s Rober t L . Aja x Alfre d Bicku

m Bruc e Bower s Lind a Curra n Davi d Donige r Alle n Hershkowit z Davi d Dun

n LarryGoodhear t Elle n Siegle r Jac k Kac e Thoma s Kittlema n Rober t Majewsk i Le s Montgomery Harve l Roger s Gustav e Vo n Bodunge n Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Internationa l Institut e _f_- ? |ji§ | Syntheti c Rubbe r Producer s Standar d Chlorin e Amoc o Oi l Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l Sterling Chemicals , Incorporatio n America n Petroleu

mInstitut e Pharmaceutica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Northeas t State s fo r Coordinate d Ai r Us e Managemen t Texa s Ai r Contro l Boar d Jefferso n Count y(Kentucky ) Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Distric t Louisiana Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y Facilitato r Affiliatio n Philli p J . Harte r Consultan t t o EPA
Observe r Affiliatio n Nicola s Garci a Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge tP. 5

it s preambl e wit hth e same substanc e an d a-lffec t a s th e regulatio n an

d preambl e tha t ar e th e subjec t o f th e fina l agreement . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e partie s t o th e negotiatio n concurre d wit hth e regulatio n whe n considere d a s a whole . Inevitabl yi n an ynegotiation , thi s mean s tha t some partie s mayhav e mad e concession s i n on e are a i n exchang e fo r concession s fro m othe r partie s i n othe r areas . B . Scop e an

d Applicabilit y Th e scop e an

d applicabilit yo f th e rul e wa s substantiall ydetermine d whe n EPAmad e th e decisio n t o pursu e regulatorynegotiation . Thes e provisions,—therefore , wer e no t negotiated . 1 . Sourc e Categorie s Th e negotiator s originall ywer e t o develo p standard s fo r equipmen t leak s fo r 1 3 sourc e categorie s tha t woul d b e affecte d b

yEPA' s the n expecte d hazardou s organi c nationa l emissio n standar d fo r hazardou s ai r pollutant s (NESHAP) , o r HON . Thes e sourc e categorie s include d bot hsyntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturing industry(SOCMI ) an d non SOCM I sourc e categories , an d th e standard s unde r developmen t woul d onl yhav e applie d t o onl y8 hazardou s organi cP. 6

chemicals . Ove r th e cours e o f th e negotiations , an d i n anticipatio n o f th e CAA Ao f 1990 , EPAsawth e nee d t o expand thi s scop e t o includ e no t onl yth e origina l HONsourc e categories , bu t als o al l SOCM I processe s tha t us e a s a reactan t o r produc e on e o f th e organi c chemical s liste d i n th e CA Alis t o f 18 9 hazardou s ai r pollutants . Th e EPA identifie d 45 3 suc hprocesses . Th e Committe e agree d t o expand th e scop e o f th e negotiation s t o th e large r group o f SOCH I processe s an

d t o retai n th e non-SOCM I categories . Th e EPAconsider s eithe r o f th e following downstrea muse s a s indicativ e o f th e productio n o f a liste d chemica l a a a product 5 (4r)—produce d fo r sal e a s th e liste d chemical,—e_ ? (2 ) use d i n anothe r proces s wher e th e liste d chemica l i s needed . £€-, —a liste d chemica l i s onl ypar t o f a mixe d strea mexiting a proces s an d canno t b e sol d o r use d i n anothe r proces s a s th e liste d chemical,—fehen tha t chemica l i s no t considere d t o b e produce d a s a product . I n addition , EPAdetermine d tha t petroleu m refinery processe s woul d no t b e covere d b ythes e standards f 

### regardles s o f whethe r th e uni t supplie s feedstock s tha t includ e chemical s liste d i n sectio n £X.X8~1 , and tha t MAC T standard s fo r petroleu mprocesse s woul d b e establishe d i n a separat e rulemaking . Thes e standard s als o woul d no t b e applicabl e t o othe r petroleum-relate d facilities , including thos e engage d i n petroleu mexploration , production , marketing , o r transportation . Refineryprocesse s no t

•- - *.~.-~—9.—.—9mm—«m—^^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ffiY l ___,-

_iiiii__i_iii__i__iiii„

_P. 7

covere d b

ythi s regulatio n include , bu t ar e no t limite d to , cracking , reforming , coking , an d othe r processe s tha t produc e transportatio n fuels , heating oils , o r lubricants . Tabl e VII- 2 present s a mor e



### 6- aTABL E VII-2 . (Continued ) Catalyti c Hydrorefining Residua l desulfurizing Heav ygas-oi l desulfurizing Cat-cracke r an

d cycle-stoc k fee d pretreatmen t Middl e distillat e Othe r Fractionatio n Pip e still s Ligh t end s Ga s recoveryunit s On-Sit e Transfe r an d Blending Operation s 

### O f gasolin e and othe r fuel s on-sit e Lub e Oi l an

d Specialtie s Processe s Catalyti c Hydrotreating Pretreating cat-reforme r feed s Naphtha desulfurizing Naphtha olefi n o r aromatic s saturatio n Straight-run distillat e Othe r distillat e Lube-oi l "polishing " Othe r Alkylatio n Sulfuri c aci d Hydrofluori c aci d RefineryPolmerizatio n Processe s Crud e Unit s (Atmospheri c an d Vacuum ) RefineryIsomerizatio n Proces sP. 9

Th e negotiate d rul e woul d appl yt o bot hexisting an d ne wproces s units . Th e negotiate d rul e categorize s th e regulate d processe s int o 5 group s an d use s a staggere d implementatio n scheme , requiring some proces s unit s t o compl yi n 1/ 2 year , whil e other s woul d compl ya s lat e a s 1 an d 1/ 2 year s afte r fina l promulgatio n o f th e rule . Thi s staggere d implementatio n wa s provide d t o alleviat e th e impac t o f applying th e rule s simultaneousl yt o al l sources . An affecte d "proces s unit " mean s equipmen t tha t use s a VHA P a s a reactan t o r produce s a VHA P o r it s derivative s a s intermediat e o r fina l product(s) , including al l equipmen t associate d wit hth e uni t proces s operation , storag e an d transfe r o f feed materia l t o th e uni t proces s operatio n an d fina l o r intermediat e produc t fro m th e uni t proces s operatio n an

d operation s treating wastewate r (e*g, , strippers , decanters ) fro mth e uni t proces s operation . Th e propose d standard s woul d appl yt o chemica l manufacturin g processe s operate d t o produc e on e o r mor e o f th e chemical s liste d i n sectio n xx*X8-2 „ Example s o f SOCM I productio n processe s tha t woul d b e subjec t ar e a uni t proces s operatio n tha t produce s ethylbenzen e fro mbenzene , j uni t tha t produce s pheno l and aceton e fro m cumene , an d a uni t tha t produce s methy l methacrylat e Sflt Abypurificatio n o f a n impur e mixe d feedstoc k receive d fro manothe r plan t site * Example s o f operation s tha t woul d no t b e considere d

nP.1 0

subjec t t o thi s standar d ar e wast e solven t reclamatio n o r a SOCM I proces s using o f an yo f th e chemical s liste d i n sectio n xx«X8- i o r XX.X8- 2 a s a solvent * Th e standar d woul d als o appl yt o equipmen t handlin g specifi c chemical s fo r th e non-SOCM I sourc e categorie s liste d i n Sectio n XX*x o (c) • Thes e sourc e categorie s an d chemical s are : styrene-butadien e rubbe r productio n (styrene , butadiene) , polybutadien e productio n (butadili|§ § chlorin e productio n (carbon tetrachloride) , pesticid e productio n (carbo n tetrachloride , methylen e chloride , tetrachloroethylene , chloroform yand ethylen e dichloril§§§ § chlorinate d hydrocarbo n us e i n SOCM I unit s (carbo n tetrac hlo r ide , methylen e chlorid e t tetrachloroethyieneff j chloroform , and ethylen e dichloride ) pharmaceutica l productio n (carbon tetrachloride , methylen e chloride) t an d miscellaneou s butadien e us e (butadiene) * Th e line s withi n a uni t proces s operatio n containin g proces s fluid s ar e considere d t o b e par t o f th e proces s uni t an d thus , subjec t t o regulatoryrequirements , whil e line s an d equipmen t no t containing proces s fluid s ar e no t subjec t t o thes e requirements . Utilities , an d othe r nonproces s lines , suc ha s heating an d cooling systems , ar e no t considere d t o b e par t o f a proces s unit . Fo r example , an y direc t heatin g an

d cooling systems , whic hgenerall yservic e man yprocesse s a t a plan t an d d o no t commingl e combin e thei r

11- aP.1 1

material s wit hthos e i n th e processe s theyservice , ar e als o no t subjec t t o thes e requirements . Aplan t sit e mayconsis t o f on e o r mor e proces s units . Proces s unit s covere d b yth e negotiate d rul e ar e liste d specificall yi n Section(s ) XX.XO(b ) an d (c ) o f th e negotiate d rule . C . Background Informatio n o n Equipmen t Leak s Thi s sectio n present s a n overvie wo f finding s fro m previou s equipmen t leak studie s an d a summaryo f informatio n tha t led t o EPA' s decisio n t o develo p a ne wregulatory approac hfo r equipmen t leak s throughnegotiation . Thi s synopsi s i s no t intende d t o reflec t th e Committe e discussions . Rather , i t i s intende d t o provid e basi c informatio n fo r reader s unfamilia r wit hth e existin g standards , th e underlying studies , an d recen t trends . Mor e detaile d informatio n o n th e basi s fo r th e existing requirement s an

d underlying studie s i s availabl e i n th e document s liste d i n sectio n [t o b e fille d i n a t a late r date ] o f thi s notice-.

- docket s and FEDERAL WS&I8TER notice s
1 . Overvie wo f Background Informatio n

• On e o f th e firs t publishe d studie s o f equipmen t lea k emission s wa s conducte d i n th e 1950' s i n severa l petroleu m refinerie s i n th e Lo s Angele s Count yAi r Pollutio n Contro l District . Th e result s o f thi s stud yshowe d tha t a larg e

1 2P.1 2

quantit yo f hydrocarbon s coul d b e los t t o th e atmospher e fromvariou s source s suc ha s valves , pum p an d compresso r

12- aP.1 3

2 . Recen t Studie s I n th e las t 3 years , EPAha s receive d informatio n tha t show s significantl ylowe r leak frequencie s a t 10,00 0 pp mfo r some chemica l processe s tha n wa s representativ e fo r th e industrya s a whol e i n th e earl y1980's . Thi s information , no t necessaril yknow n b yth e industr

yi n general , wa s on e consideratio n i n EPA' s decisio n t o develo p a ne wregulatory approac hfo r equipmen t leak s throughth e regulatory negotiatio n process . Th e informatio n considere d b yEPAi s briefl ysummarize d i n th e paragraph s below . I n addition , wher e sufficien t informatio n i s available , thes e dat a ar e include d i n Tabl e VII- 3 whic hshow s lea k frequenc ya t severa l lea k definition s b ycomponen t type . I n general , thes e dat a wer e collecte d following th e procedure s specifie d i n Referenc e Metho d 21 , an d th e result s represen t a singl e monitorin g surveyconducte d ove r a limite d tim e period . Unit s subjec t t o th e Benzen e Equipmen t Lea k NESHAP . During EPA' s reconsideratio n o f th e benzen e equipmen t lea k NESHA P (Septembe r 14 , 1989 , 5 4 FR 38044) , EPAexamine d complianc e report s fro m198 7 an

d 198 8 fo r a randoml y selecte d sampl e o f 2 5 plant s subjec t t o th e standard , whic h require s a 10,00 0 pp mleak detectio n an d repai r program . Thi s revie wshowe d tha t man yplUH l facilitie s ha d n o valve s o r pump s exceeding 10,00 0 pp man d n o plant s facilitie s

1 6

mamaP.1 4

Tabl e VII-3 : Summar y

o f Equipmen t Screenin gData 3 Uni t I D

E O1 EO2 EO3 EO4 EO5 EO6 EO7 C EO8 EO9 B D1 BD3 C BD4 BD5 B D6 BD7 B D8 BD1 0 BD1 1 BD1 2 Acrolei n Averag e SOCM I a t 10,00 0 <



### 25 0 0. 6 2. 8 1. 4 2 0. 4 1. 6 1. 2 2. 9 5. 3 10. 7 

### 5. 6 7. 3 1 1 7. 5 2. 2 21. 9 

### 2 5 11. 3 

### 5. 9 0. 1

pp m

a Lea kfrequen c 

## "o " IU V

a Ive s

_Leaker s 

### 50 0 0. 4 2. 2 1. 1 1. 3 0. 2 1. 4 1. 2 2. 5 4. 5 8. 8 4. 8 6. 3 7. 7 5. 4 2. 2 18. 4 19. 8 10. 1 

### 4. 5 0. 1 100 0 

### 0. 3 1. 1 1. 1 0. 9 0. 2 1. 3 1. 2 1. 5 4. 1 7. 5 4. 2 5. 4 5. 1 3. 3 2. 2 15. 1 17. 1 

### 8 3. 7 0. 1

11. 5
ies ar e no t 

# il l 50 0



### 0 2 3 3 6 0

- 

### 0 6 2 5

_ 

### 2 4 50 a 

### 33 d

- 

### 5 8 0 Pump s % Leaker s 100 0 

### 0 1 8 2 7 0

- 

### 0 0 2 5

_ 

### 2 1 0

- 

### 5 0 0 16. 7 16. 7 

### 1 0 4

show nfo r 

### 1 0 4 200 0 

### 0 1 4 9 0

- 

### 0 0 2 5

_ 

### 1 5 0

- 41. 7 

### 0 16. 7 

### 1 0 4

phosgen e un i 500 0 j| |



### 0 9 9 0

- 

### 0 0 2 5

_ 

### 1 3 0

- 41. 7 

### 0 16. 7 

### 1 0 4
9

t s sinc e Connectors' 5

% Leaker s | 25 0 50 0 0 0 0. 9 0. 9 3. 2 3. 2 2. 8 1. 5

- 4. 1 4. 1 0 0 2. 5 2. 5 7. 6 5. 9 0 0 0. 7 0. 7 1 0 8. 6 3. 4 1. 5

- 0 0 7. 4 6. 7 5. 1 2. 5 1. 4 1. 4 0. 6 0. 6 0. 1 0. 1 100 0 §f §



### 0 0. 9 3. 2 0. 7

- 

### 4. 1 0 2. 5 4. 9 0 0. 7 7. 1 1. 1

- 

### 0 5. 9 1. 9 0. 7 0. 6 0. 1
2. 1

al l observation s ar e Dat a include s flanges , threade dfittings , unions , an dan y othe r pipe-to-pip e connection s othe r tha nwelds . Th e record s ar e no t sufficien t t o permi t differentiatin gamon gtype s o f connectors . c Certai nrange s o f th e dat a fo r thes e facilitie s wer e discarde ddu e t o excessiv e roundin gan

dtruncatio nerrors . d Typ e o f pum

psea l i s unknown . 1 7

__ •P.1 5

ha d mor e tha n 1. 5 percen t valve s o r mor e tha n 12. 5 percen t pump s exceeding 10,00 0 ppm . Th e averag e frequenc yo f source s exceeding 10,00 0 pp mwer e 0.2 7 percen t fo r valve s an d 2. 3 percen t fo r pumps . Thes e frequencies,—i n general , eHe e wa s lowe r tha n th e averag e frequencie s o f 3 t o 5 percen t fo r valve s an

d approximatel y1 0 percen t fo r pump s exceedin g 10,00 0 pp

mwhic hhad bee n expecte d afte r applicatio n o f th e standard . Acrolei n proces s units . I n 1989 , EPAreceive d screening dat a an

d proces s informatio n o n tw o acrolei n proces s units . Thes e dat a wer e collecte d voluntaril yb yth e compan yt o provid e bette r emissio n estimate s tha n coul d b e obtaine d using th e SOCM I averag e factors . Th e monitorin g dat a represente d eigh t type s o f eguipmen t (ga s valves , ligh t liqui d valves , ligh t liqui d pumps , flange s an d othe r connectors , pressur e relie f valves , sampl e points , open ende d line s an

d compressors) . Thes e monitorin g dat a wer e collecte d following th e procedure s specifie d i n "Protocol s fo r Generating Unit-Specifi c Emissio n Estimate s fo r Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C an d VHAP" , (Protocols ) EPA-450/3-88

- 010 . I n general , particula r car e wa s take n i n measurement s o f equipmen t wit hscreening value s o f les s tha n 20 0 ppm . I n addition , on e o f th e unit s ha d approximatel y6 0 percen t seale d bellow s valve s an d th e othe r uni t ha d n o seale d bellow s valves .

1 8

IS HP.1 6

Th e screening dat a indicate d averag e lea k frequencie s o f 0.2 6 t o 0.0 9 percen t fo r valve s an d o f 0.1 3 t o 0 percen t fo r flange s an

d othe r connector s a t leak definition s o f 100 , 1,000 , an

d 10,00 0 ppm . Thes e dat a als o demonstrate d Thil l dat a showe d tha t bot hconventiona l an d seale d bello wvalv e design s ca n achiev e verygoo d performanc e wit hfewleaking valves . Pum

p lea k frequencie s wer e les s tha n 4 percen t a t 100,—1000,—and 10,00 0 ppm.—Th e observe d lea k frequencie s o f al l component s wer e substantiall ybelo wth e level s foun d b y EPAi n studie s conducte d i n th e earl y1980's . an d th e vas t majorit yo f th e dat a wer e a t screening value s les s tha n 10 0 ppm 

### ^tepffMLMA. , i n 1987 , EP Areceive d monitorin g dat a fo r tw o proces s unit s handlin g amines * Thes e unit s wer e selecte d fo r testin g becaus e o f th e relatdvely'''Sever e servic e condition s <i*e* , hig htemperatur e an d hig h pressure ) an d hig hvapo r pressure s o f th e proces s materials , on e uni t (uni t 1 } wa s characterise d a s handling"relativel y nontoxi c an d innocuou s substance s an d th e othe r uni t (uni t 2 ) wa s characterise d a s handlin g a mor e toxi c compound , on e vit ha threshol d limi t valu e (TLV ) o f 1 0 ppm * which"'Waci'''Oapable'"'O i 

### f'"Oauolng''''<x

iii 

### pttbl'io'''nuiS'ano<!. ^ Uies e dat a wer e collecte d voluntaril yb yth e compan yt o calculat e a uni t specifi c emissio n estimat e usin g J5PA* s leafc/no lea k emissio n factors *

1 9P.1 7

Konitoring . dat a wer e provide d fo r pumps , valves , an d flange s an d othe r connectors . Th e monitorin g dat a fo r uni t 1 showe d 3 3 percen t o f th e pumps , 1 6 percen t o f th e ligh t liqui d valves , 2 7 percen t o f th e ga s valves , and 0* 4 percen t o f th e flange s an d othe r connector s exceedin g IO,DO Q ppm * uni t 2 ha d 5* 6 percen t o f th e pumps , 0* 8 percen t o f th e ligh t ligui d valves , 1 percen t o f th e ga s valves , an d <h i percen t o f th e flange s and othe r connector s exceedin g 10,00 0 ppm * Th e dat a fo r uni t a indicat e tha t technolog yi s availabl e t o reduc e leak s an d sugges t tha t healt han d safet yconsideration s ar e importan t factor s affecting us e o f bette r technologie s an d maintenanc e practices . Ethvlbenzene/Styren e (EB/S . Uni t Tx . Limite d informatio n wa s receive d o n screening value s measure d a t thi s facility' s ethylbenzene/styren e proces s unit , whic hi s subjec t t o th e benzen e equipmen t lea k NESHAP . Screening dat a wer e provide d fo r a tota l o f approximatel y2,50 0 valve s an d pumps . Th e dat a wer e provide d a s tim e aggregate d summarie s o f screening valve s fo r a on e yea r perio d fro m 198 7 t o 1988 . Thes e dat a indicate d tha t 9 9 percen t o f th e tim e th e valve s an

d 9 0 percen t o f th e tim e th e pump s ha d screening value s les s tha n 50 0 ppm . Informatio n submitte d fo r complianc e wit hth e benzen e equipmen t lea k NESHA P showe d o n a n annua l averag e basi s 0.0 4 percen t o f th e valve s an d 3. 6 percen t o f th e pump s exceede d 10,00 0 ppm . N o 2 0fro mthes e visit s wa s tha t th e acut e toxicit yo f phosgen e an d toluen e diisocyanate , combine d wit hothe r feature s o f thes e units , ha s resulte d i n th e routin e us e o f a numbe r o f effectiv e leak contro l practice s i n thes e proces s units . Measure s take n t o preven t an d minimiz e leak s i n phosgen e an d isocyanat e unit s includ e design t o minimiz e th e numbe r o f components , stringen t qualit yassurance/contro l programs , benc htesting o f eguipmen t fo r leaks , an d carefu l managemen t an d extensiv e continuou s monitoring o f th e uni t t o detec t leak s an

d problems . I n addition , phosgen e an d isocyanat e unit s ar e shu t dow

n fo r immediat e repai r wheneve r an ylea k i s detected . Immediat e shutdow n i s possibl e becaus e phosgen e an

d isocyanat e proces s unit s ar e smal l an d ar e no t operate d a s par t o f an integrate d process . I n unit s wher e les s acutel ytoxi c compound s ar e use d o r produce d an d |§ § facilitie s wher e operation s ar e larg e scal e an d highl y integrated , suc hmeasure s wer e no t observe d an d th e unit s ar e no t (an

d canno t be ) immediatel yshu t dow n fo r repai r wheneve r a leak i s detected . Rather , shutdow n o f facilitie s wit hlarg e integrate d processe s ca n requir e severa l day s t o ceas e production , followe d b yaftse. u p t o severa l week s t o drai n an

d decontaminat e th e proces s equipmen t fehafe-"requires prio r t o actuall yinitiating repair * Tfehes e unit s ar e typicall yoperate d fo r a fixe d time perio d befor e the yar e shu t dow

n fo r maintenanc e an d repair . Representativ e

2 5

UU_I_MI_I_I_H_M__________-P.1 9

operating time s betwee n schedule d shutdown s rang e fro m 3 month s t o severa l years . Th e Committe e als o conclude d tha t equipmen t design an d a n on-going qualit ycontrol/assuranc e progra m ha s a significan t rol e i n achieving lowleak frequencies . Thi s

25- aP.2 0

framewor k an

d phasing an

d ar e no t necessaril yth e level s tha t woul d hav e bee n chose n fo r a not-to-be-exceede d standard . I n th e cas e o f th e valv e standard , th e selectio n o f th e bas e performanc e level s wa s als o influence d b yth e inclusio n o f provision s tha t provid e a n alternativ e t o monthl ymonitoring . Referre d t o a s th e Qualit yImprovemen t Progra m(QIP) , thi s progra mensure s tha t plant s subjec t t o thiss « QI P replac e poore r provision s instal l lowemissio n 

### performin g valve s (during norma l replacement ) wit hsuperio r performin g technologie s unti l les s tha n 2 percen t leakin g valve s i s achieve d replacemen t equipment—^during norma l replacement ) an

d implemen t a qualit yassurance/contro l programt o ensur e tha t al l element s o f MAC T ar e utilized . Also , th e QI P wa s include d i n th e framewor k t o allo wthos e proces s unit s tha t d o us e al l element s o f MAC T bu t d o no t achiev e th e specifie d numerica l performanc e level s t o remai n o n a quarterl ymonitoring schedul e instead o f increasing monitorin g frequency . Th e basi s fo r th e selectio n o f th e bas e performanc e level s an

d othe r element s o f MAC T fo r valves , pumps , an d connector s i s discusse d below . Th e basi s fo r th e othe r provision s o f th e valve , pump , an d connecto r standard s a s wel l a s th e othe r specifi c requirement s o f th e regulatio n i s give n i n sectio n F . Valves . Fo r valve s th e Committe e initiall yconsidere d bot hequipmen t standard s an d LDA R program s an

d ultimatel y 3 2

TI______H___ iP.2 1



### Committe e member s concern s regarding th e practica l abilit y t o measur e an

d repai r smalle r leaks . I n contrast , othe r member s o f th e Committe e favore d leak definition s lowe r tha n 50 0 ppm . an

d coul d no t agge e t o lea k definition s greate r tha n 50 0 ppm . Ultimately , a lea k definitio n o f 50 0 ppmwa s ne t selecte d i n ligh t o f dat a demonstrating th e practicalit y an d curren t implementatio n o f a 50 0 ppmLDA R program . Th e Committe e als o agree d tha t unit s wit hles s tha n 1 percen t leaking valve s coul d monito r th e valve s semiannuall yan d thos e wit hles s tha n 0. 5 percen t leaking valve s coul d monito r annually . Thes e performanc e level s wer e selecte d considering th e Committe e had previousl yagree d t o exclud e nonrepairabl e valve s (u p t o a maximu

mo f 1 percen t o f th e 

### tota l numbe r o f valve s i nVHA F 

### Servic e peei ) fro m th e calculatio n o f percen t leaking valve s (se e sectio n Ull : ° f thi s notic e fo r discussio n o f th e basi s fo r th e nonrepairabl e provision) . Thes e performanc e level s hav e bee n demonstrate d b yth e bette r performing E O proces s units , th e EB/ S unit , an

d b yth e plant s subjec t t o th e Texa s 50 0 ppmregulation . Th e Committe e considere d thes e level s t o represen t th e performanc e o f MACT . Pumps . I n deliberation s o n th e standard , th e Committe e considere d th e dat a summarize d i n Tabl e VII-3 , additiona l analyse s o f th e EO/B D data , an d th e comment s o f pum p sea l manufacturers . Th e EO/B D dat a Showe d pum p lea k frequencie s

3 5Fo r pump s handling polymerizing monomers , th e Committe e

selecte d 5,00 0 pp

man d 1 0 percen t lea k frequenc yfo r th e performanc e level . A s mechanica l seal s canno t b e use d o n pump s i n polymerizing monome r service , industry representative s generall yhel d maintaine d tha t thes e pump s i n thi s servic e coul d no t achiev e a 2,00 0 pp mlea k performanc e level . Th e Committe e ultimatel yagree d t o th e 5,00 0 pp

mlea k definitio n base d o n exper t judgemen t tha t 5,00 0 pp

mwoul d reflec t bes t performanc e an d o n th e genera l lac k o f dat a fo r pump s i n thi s service . Thi s decisio n wa s base d o n th e lac k o f dat a an d uncertaintie s o n th e limit s o f performanc e o f SM S o r packe d seal s i n thi s service . I t wa s als o agree d tha t facilitie s tha t excee d 1 0 percen t lea k frequenc ywoul d no t b e subjec t t o th e mandatoryreplacemen t provisio n o f th e qualit yimprovemen t program . Connectors . Provision s fo r a LDA R progra

mfo r connector s wer e develope d afte r th e Committe e generall y agree d tha t connector s coul d b e a significan t sourc e o f emission s a t a well-controlle d plan t an d tha t emission s coul d b e reduced . I n th e developmen t o f thes e provisions , th e Committe e considere d th e dat a summarize d i n Tabl e VII- 3 an d th e contributio n o f connecto r emission s t o tota l emission s fo r severa l EO/B D proces s units . Thes e dat a showe d a rang e o f connecto r lea k frequencie s a t differen t lea k definition s (e.g. , 3 percen t a t 10,00 0 ppmt o les s tha n 2 percen t a t 25 0 ppm ) 4 0an d showe d tha t connector s coul d b e a significan t sourc e o f th e tota l emissions . Some Committe e member s ^BlSi H considere d tha t th e relativel yhighlea k rate s observe d a t some proces s unit s wa s illf l a resul t o f infrequen t o r n o inspection s an

d maintenance . Th e Committe e illHliiilii i conclude d tha t connecto r leak s erm§|||§lli b e controlled , therefore , a n ALDA R progra

mwa s establishe d t o ensur e tha t lo wlea k frequencie s ar e attained . I n developmen t o f thes e provisions , th e Committe e agree d tha t LDA

R ca n reduc e connecto r lea k frequencie s an d tha t assuring MAC T performanc e require s les s frequen t monitorin g tha n i s necessaryfo r pump s o r valves . Les s frequen t monitorin g i s neede d becaus e connector s hav e n o movin g part s an

d onc e repaire d the yshoul d remai n lea k fre e fo r extende d periods . Informatio n provide d b yindustry member s o n th e Committe e indicate d tha t a numbe r o f action s ca n b e take n t o reduc e o r eliminat e leaks . I n mos t cases , i t wa s expecte d tha t tightening th e flang e bolt s o n flange d connector s woul d eliminat e th e leak . I t wa s als o expecte d tha t i n othe r case s i t mayb e necessaryt o replac e th e gaske t o r t o correc t fault yalignmen t o f surfaces . Thes e latte r case s ar e expecte d t o b e relativel yinfrequent . Th e

4 1P.2 4

individua l item s o f equipmen t i n a typica l proces s unit . Moreover , thi s procedur e woul d no t b e usefu l fo r routin e monitorin g an

d identificatio n o f leaking equipmen t fo r repair . Th e propose d standard s incorporat e severa l formats : equipment , design , bas e performanc e levels , wor k practices , an d operationa l practices . Differen t format s ar e require d fo r differen t type s o f equipmen t becaus e o f th e natur e o f th e equipment , availabl e contro l techniques , an d applicabilit yo f th e measuremen t method . I n th e nex t section , th e rational e fo r selecting a particula r forma t i s explaine d fo r eac htyp e o f equipment . Fo r eac hsourc e type , th e feasibilit yo f prescribing o r enforcing a n emissio n standar d i s discussed . F . Selectio n o f Emissio n Limit s an d Wor k Practic e Requirement s 1 . Applicabilit y Th e Committe e considere d an d ultimatel yestablishe d severa l additiona l applicabilit ycriteri a tha t furthe r define d th e scop e o f th e negotiate d standard . Thi s sectio n present s th e Committee' s consideratio n o f minimu mVHA P concentration , time i n VHA P service , an d pilo t plant s an

d researc hfacilities . Strea m VHA P concentration . Th e Committe e discusse d a t some lengt hwha t minimu mconcentratio n cutof f shoul d b e use d fo r determining applicabilit yo f th e negotiate d standar d fo r 4 4

B lP.2 5

specifi c stream s withi n a n affecte d process . Thi s |||||l||ii i concentratio n cutof f wa s o f particula r concer n t o industry member s o f th e Committe e becaus e ther e ar e trac e quantitie s o f VHA P i n man

yproces s streams . Th e numbe r o f equipmen t component s potentiall ysubjec t t o th e standar d an d th e associate d cost s increas e substantiall ya s th e concentratio n i s decreased ; an

d th e emissio n reductio n become s small . Othe r Committe e member s wer e concerne d tha t emission s fro m equipmen t handling stream s containing lowVHA P concentration s (e.g. , les s tha n 1 0 percent ) becom e relativel ymor e increasingl ysignifican t a s highe r concentratio n stream s ar e controlled . Base d o n thes e considerations , th e Committe e agree d th e standar d woul d appl yt o equipmen t containing o r contacting proces s material s tha t ar e 5 percen t VHA P o r greater . I n SOCM I processes , thi s concentratio n wa s viewe d a s bein g a poin t o f relativel ylowemission s an d diminishing returns . Time-in-VHA P service . I n certai n chemica l plants , particularl ybatc hprocesse s whic hproduc e a numbe r o f differen t products , ther e i s equipmen t tha t i s use d i n VHA P servic e onl yoccasionally . I n suc hcase s implementatio n o f th e standar d coul d b e difficul t an d woul d achiev e very littl e emissio n reduction . Pump s an d compressor s use d onl y during startu

p o r shutdow

n o f a proces s uni t ar e on e exampl e o f suc hequipment . Othe r example s includ e equipmen t use d i n

4 5

BTjjH BP.2 6

batc hpharmaceutica l processe s o r batc hstep s i n continuou s processes . Fo r thes e situations , th e Committe e conclude d

45- aP.2 7

tha t equipmen t tha t i s operate d 30 0 hour s pe r year , o r less , i n VHA P servic e shoul d b e exempt .

IMlilllill l Pilo t plants . Exemptio n o f researc hfacilitie s (includin g pilo t plants ) fro mth e negotiate d standar d wa s discusse d o n severa l occasion s b y th e Committee . Some member s though t tha t frequen t change s i n operation s a t thes e facilitie s woul d mak e complianc e wit h th e standar d difficul t o r woul d incu r unnecessarycosts . Othe r Committe e member s wer e o f th e opinio n tha t th e negotiate d standar d shoul d appl yequall ywel l t o pilo t plant s an

d researc hfacilitie s a s productio n units , an d tha t chemica l industrypilo t plant s ca n b e quit e larg e an d hav e substantia l emissions . A n additiona l concer n expresse d b y some member s wa s tha t an yexemptio n shoul d b e base d o n objectiv e criteria , no t th e intende d us e o f th e materia l o r th e purpos e o f th e facility . Th e Committe e di d no t resolv e thi s issue , an

d conclude d tha t th e fina l CAA Ashoul d dictat e th e dispositio n o f researc hfacilities , a s severa l version s o f th e pending legislatio n provide d fo r limite d exemptions . Th e fina l amendments , however , ar e no t definit e o n ho w t o dea l wit hresearc hfacilitie s an d leav e i t t o EPA' s discretio n t o ".. . establis ha separat e categorycovering researc ho r laboratoryfacilities , a s necessary(emphasi s

4 6added) , t o assur e th e equitabl e treatmen t o f suc h

facilities. " [Sectio n 112(c)(7). ] Th e issu e o f regulating researc hfacilitie s extend s beyond equipmen t leaks , becaus e researc hfacilitie s ca n als o hav e othe r emissio n point s suc h a s proces s vent s o r storag e tanks . Th e Committe e conclude d During preparatio n o f thi s preamble , afte r enactmen t o f th e CA Aamendments , a consensu s o f Committe e member s wa s reache d tha t i t wa s mor e appropriat e t o addres s researc hfacilitie s i n th e overal l HONan d t o dea l wit hi t outsid e th e negotiation , sinc e n o consensu s wa s reache d during th e negotiatio n an

d th e issu e i s broade r tha n th e negotiate d rule . Consequently , thos e portion s o f today' s notic e addressing th e regulatio n o f researc hfacilitie s ar e no t par t o f th e negotiate d agreemen t an d mayb e commente d o n b y th e negotiators . 2 . Complianc e Date s I n developing th e complianc e schedul e an d framewor k o f th e standards , th e Committe e anticipate d th e CAA A requiremen t tha t complianc e date s fo r eac hcategoryappl ya s expeditiousl ya s practicable , bu t no t late r tha n 3 year s afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f th e standards . Th e Committe e

4 7

i mP.2 9

uni t an d woul d allo w1. 5 yea r duratio n befor e implementing Phas e III . I n Phas e II I fo r valves , th e Committe e adde d a bas e performanc e leve l t o th e wor k practic e requirement s o f Phas e II . Th e bas e performanc e leve l wa s use d t o determin e th e monitorin g frequencyo r th e applicabilit yo f th e QIP . Th e bas e performanc e leve l wa s adde d t o ensur e a mor e certai n emissio n performanc e tha n achieve d throughth e wor k practic e requiremen t alon e an d t o creat e an economi c incentiv e t o improv e performance . Fo r Phas e II I o f th e pum p standard , th e Committe e adde d a bas e performanc e leve l t o th e wor k practic e requirement s an d reduce d th e concentratio n define d a s a leak . Th e Committe e establishe d separat e lea k definition s fo r thre e type s o r categorie s o f pump s t o ensur e tha t eac hcategoryachieve s MACT . Fo r ne wproces s units , th e Committe e agree d tha t fo r bot hpump s an

d valve s Phas e I I shoul d b e implemente d a t startu p an d Phas e II I shoul d b e implemente d beginnin g 1 yea r afte r startup . I t wa s expecte d tha t ne wunit s wil l b e designe d usin g bette r equipmen t design o r practice s an d considering th e requirement s o f th e standard . Th e Committe e provide d a 1 yea r perio d i n Phas e I I t o allo wtim e neede d fo r adjustment s t o operation s an d t o correc t an

yproblem s encountere d during startu p o f th e proces s unit .

5 1

HO ITh e Committe e considere d credit s fo r component s remove d

ranging fro

mful l credi t t o one-hal f credi t fo r eac h componen t removed . Th e ful l credi t optio n wa s no t selecte d becaus e some Committe e member s though t tha t i t coul d b e use d t o achiev e a goo d sho wa specifi c performanc e leve l withou t actuall yreducing th e numbe r o f leaking valves . Base d o n a desir e t o provid e credi t fo r reducing th e numbe r o f components , whil e a t th e same time ensuring tha t remova l credit s d o no t reduc e th e incentiv e fo r low-lea k performanc e i n th e remaining components , th e Committe e selecte d a 6 7 percen t credi t fo r ne t reduction s i n th e numbe r o f valves ; i.e. , 2 ou t o f every3 valve s remove d fro m a proces s uni t maycontinu e t o b e counte d i n th e tota l numbe r o f valve s whe n calculating leak frequency . Unsafe-to-monito r an d difficult-to-monito r valves . Th e Committe e agree d tha t th e "unsafe-to-monitor " an d th e "difficult-to-monitor " provision s i n th e existing eguipmen t lea k standard s ar e appropriat e an d shoul d b e include d i n th e negotiate d standard . Valve s tha t ar e "unsafe-to-monitor " ar e define d a s valve s tha t coul d expos e personne l t o imminen t hazard s fro mtemperature , pressure , o r explosiv e proces s conditions . Example s o f suc hlocation s includ e valve s a t th e to p o f o r locate d nearb yhighpressur e reactors . Valve s tha t ar e unsafe-to-monito r canno t b e eliminate d fro

mne wo r existing units . Th e rule , therefore , woul d exemp t valve s i n unsaf e location s fro mroutin e 5 9P.3 1

QI P mayno t b e use d i n th e futur e i f th e uni t agai n exceed s tw e 1 percen t leaking valves . I n suc hcases , th e owne r o r operato r mus t implemen t monthl ymonitorin g unti l th e uni t ha s les s tha n tw o percen t leaking valves . 

### Th e availabilit yo f thi s QI P wa s restricte d du e t o concern s o f som e committe e member s tha t th e QI P migh t b e use d t o dela yimprovin g performance * Thes e Committe e member s wer e concerne d tha t unrestricte d th e QI P coul d provid e fo r extende d studyand woul d neve r resul t I n any improvement s i n performance . Th e committe e als o agree d t o allo wfacilitie s t o remai n indefinitel yi n th e QI P afte r achievin g les s tha n 2 percen t leakin g valves * Thi s optio n wa s provide d sinc e i t woul d assur e continue d goo d performanc e and wa s consisten t wit hth e objective s o f the f QIP * a . Demonstratio n o f Progres s QIP . Thi s alternativ e QI P woul d allo wa n owne r o r operato r o f a sourc e t o design an d implemen t a sit e specifi c program t o achiev e stead

yprogres s i n lowering th e percen t leaking valves . An

ycombinatio n o f measure s suc ha s increase d maintenanc e frequenc yo r replacemen t o f component s mayb e used , provide d i t achieve s th e require d reduction s i n percen t leaking valves . Unde r thi s QIP , th e owne r o r operato r woul d b e require d t o continu e quarterl ymonitorin g an d t o demonstrat e a n averag e 1 0 percen t reductio n i n th e percen t leaking valve s 6 9P.3 2

eac hquarter , base d o n a rolling averag e o f 2 quarter s o f monitorin g data . I f an owne r o r operato r fail s fo r 2 consecutiv e averaging period s t o demonstrat e a t leas t a n overal l averag e reductio n o f 1 0 percen t pe r quarter , th e owne r o r operato r mus t eithe r implemen t a technologyrevie w an d improvemen t QI P o r monthl ymonitoring . I f thi s QI P i s continue d afte r a proces s uni t ha s les s tha n two-percen t leaking valves , th e owne r o r operato r mus t continu e quarterl ymonitoring , bu t doe s no t hav e t o continu e t o demonstrat e th e 10-percen t reductio n pe r quarter .

69- a

B Boperato r th e optio n o f exempting existing screwe d connector s

o f 2 inche s o r smalle r diamete r fro mroutin e monitorin g provide d thes e connector s ar e monitore d onc e afte r th e standar d take s effec t an d afte r th e sea l i s broke n o r disturbed . An

yleaking connector s shal l b e repaired . Som e Committe e member s fel t tha t i t woul d b e ver ycostl yt o monito r larg e number s o f smal l connector s i n som e proces s unit s an

d th e emissio n reductio n achieve d woul d b e small * Th e Committe e agree d t o includ e thi s provisio n fo r severa l reasons . Th e genera l opinio n o f engineer s o n th e Committe e wa s tha t screwe d connector s onc e properl ythreade d an d lea k tigh t shoul d sta ylea k tight , sinc e ther e ar e n o movin g part s an

d th e sea l doe s no t rel yo n gasket s o r othe r material s tha t ca n deteriorate . Thus , an initia l chec k an d one-time followu

p monitoring afte r opening th e connecto r wer e judge d t o provid e sufficien t assuranc e tha t th e connector s ar e lea k tight . However , becaus e th e availabl e dat a wer e insufficien t t o demonstrat e this , ne wscrewe d connector s o f an

ysiz e an

d existing screwe d connector s greate r tha n 2 inche s wer e no t allowe d thi s optio n an d ar e treate d th e same a s an yothe r connector . Th e standar d woul d als o requir e tha t dat a o n th e leak frequenc yo f screwe d connector s b e reported . Th e EPAintend s t o revie wthi s informatio n and , base d o n th e finding s wil l conside r whethe r t o amend th e standar d t o requir e routin e monitorin g fo r existing screwe d connector s ii i 2 inches , o r smaller , 8 9

iliu mP.3 4

diamete r o r t o appl yth e initia l chec k an d one-time follow

up t o al l connectors . 8 . Provision s fo r Othe r Equipmen t Compressors . A s wit hothe r equipment , an emissio n standar d wa s no t develope d fo r compressor s becaus e applicatio n o f availabl e measuremen t method s i s no t technicall yo r economicall yfeasible . Th e requirement s i n th e existing standard s wer e judge d t o b e MAC T an d wer e use d a s th e basi s fo r th e negotiate d standar d fo r compressors . Th e standar d require s th e us e o f mechanica l seal s equippe d wit ha barrie r flui d systeman d controlle d degassing vent s o r enclosur e o f th e compresso r sea l are a an d ventin g o f emission s througha close d ven t systemt o a contro l device . Thes e system s ca n provid e contro l efficiencie s approaching 10 0 percent . Pressur e relie f device s i n gas/vapo r service . Th e negotiate d standard , lik e th e existing standards , i s base d o n th e us e o f ruptur e dis k system s o r contro l devices , whic h ar e considere d t o effectivel yeliminat e emissions , whe n properl yinstalled , maintaine d an d operated . Th e existin g eguipmen t lea k standard s establis ha "n o detectabl e emissio n limit " o f 50 0 ppm

vfo r contro l technique s tha t eliminat e emissions . Th e Committe e considere d redefining th e emissio n limi t fo r pressur e relie f devices , bu t agree d tha t ther e wer e insufficien t dat a t o redefin e th e limi t belo w50 0 ppmv . Th e genera l opinio n wa s tha t a 50 0 pp m standar d woul d ensur e 9 0

E BP.3 5

LA WOFFICE S PHILI PJ . HARTE R

SUIT E 40 4 230 1 M STREET . N . W . WASHINGTON . D.C . 2003 7 (202 ) 687-103 3 Apri l 19 , 199 1 

## MEMORANDU M To : Th eFugitive s Fr : Phili p J . Harte r Re : Draf t Final Agreemen t Iattac harevise ddraf

t o f th efinal agreemen t

tha t reflect s afew comment s tha t Ireceive do n th eMarc h1 1 edition . Thre echange s hav ebee nmade —

• Paragrap h2 wa s streamline dt o refer t o th eFederal Register a s th esourc eo

f th e recommende dpropose drul einstea do f referrin g t o it

b y nam ean ddate .

• Paragrap h1 2 wa s clarified .

• Paragrap h1 3 wa s change dt o delet eth enee dfor submittin g aseparat ememorandu m"i f advers ecomment s ar efiledwithth eagency. " Somepointe dou t tha t (a ) advers e comment s wil l inevitabl y b efiled , bu t tha t (b ) th eagreement s themselve s wil l b efiledin th edocke t

an dwil l serv eth epurpos eo f amemorandu minsupport . If , however , th e fugitiv eportio no

f th erul ei s judiciall y challenged , aseparat ememorandu mwoul dserv e th eimportan t

purpos eb y callin g th econcurrenc et o th eattentio no f th ecourt . Acoupl eo

f othe r comment s wer ereceived , bu t Ifelt the y modifie dth elanguag eagree dt o i nth eAgreemen t

i nPrinciple , s o the y ar eno t reflecte dhere . I

f anyon eha s stron g feeling s abou t anythin g i nthi s draft , pleas ecal l m esoo ns o Icanrevis e(an dperhap s negotiat eou t an y disagreements ) accordingly . Thank s fo

r everyone' s hardwork . Wedevelope dsomethin g t o b eprou dof—bot h substantivel y an dprocedurally .P.3 6

Draf t Apri l 19,199 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y NEGOTIATE

D RULEMAKING COMMITTE E CONCERNIN

G CONTROL O

F FUGITIV

E EMISSION S FRO

M EQUIPMENT LEAK

S 

### A GREEMEN T Th eNegotiate dRulemakin g Committe econsidere dth etechnical an dpolic y issue s involve d i ncontrollin g fugitiv eemission s o f hazardou s ai r

pollutant s fro mequipmen t leak s an dha s reache d aconsensu s o narecommende dpropose drul et o implemen t Sectio n11 2 o

f th eCleanAi r

Act , a s amende di n1990 .

, apart y t o th enegotiations , agree s that : 1 . Th eperso nsignin g thi s agreemen t i s authorize dt o commi t th epart y t o it s terms . 2 . Th epart y concur s i nth erecommende dpropose drul ean dit s preambl ewhe nconsidere da s awhole . Th erecommende dpropose drul ewa s publishe da t 5 6 Fed . Reg . 931 8 (Marc h6 , 1991) . Th epreambl ei s date dan di s attache dt o thi s Agreement . 3 . Th epart y agree s t o th eexplanatio no f th e"Relationshi p betwee nthi s Regulatio nan dFutur e Regulation s for

Refiner y Equipmen t

Leaks " tha t

i s date dAugus t

23,199 0 an di s attache dt o thi s Agreement . Th epart y als o agree s tha t th eAugus t

23,1990 , explanatio nshal l b einclude d i nth epreamble s t o th eNotic eo f Propose dRulemakin g an dth eFinal Rule . 4 . EP Awil l publis hth erecommende dpropose drul ea s aNotic eo f Propose dRulemaking . EP A agree s to draf

t apreambl eto th eNotic eo f Propose dRulemakin g concernin g equipmen t leak s tha t ha s th esam esubstanc ean deffec t a s th epreambl econcurre dinb y th eCommitte ean d attache dto thi s Agreement . EP Amay modif

y th epreambl econcurre dinb y th eCommitte e t o clarif y point s raise dan dt o incorporat eth eequipmen t leak standar dint o abroade r propose drul econsisten t withth eCleanAi r

Ac t Amendment s o

f 1990 . 5 . EP Awil l sen dth eindividual s o nth eCommitte ecopies o f thos eportion s o

f th epreambl ean d o f th epropose drul ei nth eNotic eo f Propose dRulemakin g tha t concernequipmen t

leaks fo r thei r revie w an dcommen t

prio r t o th esignatur eo

f th eAdministrato r

o nth eNotic e o

f Propose dRulemaking . 6 . Eachpart y othe r

tha nEP Aagree s not

t o filenegativ ecomment s o nth epropose drul eo r th e preambl econcernin g equipmen t leak s t o th eexten t

th epropose drul ean dth epreambl e to th e propose drul ehav eth esam esubstanc ean deffect a s th erecommende dpropose drul ean dth e preambl etha t

ar eth esubjec t

o f th efinal agreement . 7 . Eachpart y othe r

tha nEP Amay commen t

o nthos eportion s o

f th epreambl ei nth eNotic eo f Propose dRulemakin g that explai nEPA' s positio no nissue s that wer eno t

th esubjec t

o fP.3 7

negotiation s o r

ar eno t containe di nth epreambl et o whic hth eCommitte econcurred. Suc h issue s includ ebu t

ar eno t limite dt o ananalysi s o

f th ecosts , th ecos t

effectiveness , an dothe r impact s o f th epropose drule . 8 . EP Awil l conside r

al l relevan t

comment s submitte dconcernin g th eNotic eo f Propose d Rulemakin g an di nrespons et o suc hcomment s wil l mak eonl y suc hmodification s i nth epro pose drul ean dth epreambl ea s ar enecessary whe nissuin g afinal rule . 9 . EP Awil l provid ecopies o

f th efina l rul ean dit s preambl et o member s o f th eCommitte eprio r t o thei r signatur eb y th eAdministrator . 10 . Eachpart y othe r

tha nEP Aagree s no t

t o tak e an y actio nt o inhibi t th eadoptio no

f th e recommende dpropose drul ea s afina l rul et o th eexten t

th efinal rul ean dit s preambl ehav e th esam esubstanc ean deffect a s th erecommende dpropose drul ean dth epreambl econcurre d i nb y th eCommittee . 11 . Eac hpart y othe r

tha nEP Aagree s not

t o challeng eth erul ei ncourt t o th eextent

that th efinal rul ean dit s preambl ehav eth esam esubstanc ean deffect a s th erecommende dpropose drul e an dth epreambl econcurre di nb y th eCommittee . 12 . Any chang ei nth eapplicability o f th epropose drul ean dit s preambl eto petroleu moperation s shal l b econsidere da s no t havin g th esam esubstanc ean deffect a s th erecommende d propose drule . 13 . Eachpart y othe r

tha nEP Aagree s to provid eamemorandu mtha t it participate di nth e negotiation s an dtha t

i t concurre di nth erecommende dpropose drul ewhe nconsidere da s a whol ei f th erul ei s challenge di ncourt an dth epreambl ean drul ehav eth esam esubstanc e an deffec t withrespec t

t o equipmen t

leak s a s th erecommende dpropose drul ean dth e preambl econcurre di nb y th eCommittee .

Organizatio n Dat eP.3 8

Th eattache dmaterial s weresent t o th efollowing Comitte e Member s o n7/2/91 : Mis s Kathy Bailey CMA 230 1 M Stree t

N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 7 (202 ) 887-103 3 Mr . Philip J . Harte r CM A 250 1 M Stree t

N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 7 (202 ) 887-117 6

Mr . Robert

Hermanso n AMOC O Corporatio n- Mail Cod e 120 7 200 Eas t Randolp hDriv e Chicago , Illinoi s 6060 1 (312 ) 856-799 5 Ms . Kare nOlse n Texa s Air Contro l Board 1212 4 Park 3 5 Circl e Austin , Texa s 7875 3 (512 ) 908-1294

Mr . Nichola s Garci a Officeo f Managemen t

an dBudget NEO B Roo m301 9 72 5 17t hStree t N.W . Washington , D.C . 2050 3 (202 ) 395-3084 Ms . Elle nSiegler AmericanPetroleu mInstitut e 1220 LStree t

N.W . Washington , D.C . 20005 (202 ) 682-827 1

Larr y Goodhear t Chevro nCorporatio n 57 6 Standar dAve . Richmond , C A9480 2 (415 ) 620-444 5 Davi dW . Dun n Sterlin g Chemical Corp . 20 1 Ba y St . Texa s City , T X7759 2 (409 ) 942-3129

Davi dDoniger Natura l Resource s Defens eCounci l 135 0 New Yor

k Ave. , N W Suite300 Washington , DC . 2000 5 (202 ) 783-7800 RichardSigma n CM A 250 1 M . St. , N

W Washington , DC . 2003 7 (202 ) 887-117 6P.3 9

Jac k Kac e Dir. , Environmental Affairs Hoffman-LaRoche , Inc . 340 KingslandStree t Nutley , NJ0711 0 (201 ) 235-377 4 Thoma s Kittleman E.I . Dupon t

d eNemour s Engineerin g Dept . Louvier s Bldg . Neward , D E1971 4 (302 ) 366-471 8

Alle nHerskowitz Natura l Resource s Defens eCounci l 4 0 W . 20t hStree t Ne w York , NY1001 1 (212 ) 727-446 6 Chery l L . Sutterfiel d Pharmeutical Manufacturer s 110 0 Fifteent hSt. , N W Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) ,835-354 8

Harve l Roger s La w Environmental 941 0 Bunse nPKWY , Suite300 Louisville , K

Y40220 (502 ) 499-3040 Robert V . Majewsk

i NYSDE C 5 0 Wol f Roa d Albany , NY12233-325 5 (515 ) 457-768 8

Gustav eVo nBodunge n A r Qualit y Divisio n Dept . o f Env . Qualit

y 625 N . FourthSt . Bato nRouge , LA7080

4 Alfre dW . Bichum Manager , Valu eEnginee r Goodyear 114 4 E . Marke t

St . Akron , O H 4431 6 (504 ) 342-9047 (216 ) 796-153 4