p.1 

OAR Box 1168 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

128) ll-C-43 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

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

A- n-m 

• y°ST^c 

]3 fi^ 3o UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

f ^3 ^ S Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

\<_^j£> / Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1 

JUL | 1991 

Subject: Revised pages for 4/25/91 draft preamble and draft final 

agreement 

To: Reg Neg Committee 

Please find enclosed revised pages 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 32, 35, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 51, 59, 69, and 

89 to the. draft preamble. Replace the corresponding pages in the 

4/25/91 draft with these pages. These pages reflect the 

following corrections: 

1. The introductory text to section B on page 5 that was added 

in the 4/25/91 draft has been removed because it did not 

address the original concern of a Committee member and it 

created additional questions. Language has been added to 

page 6 that better represents the facts. 

2. We have revised the discussion on applicability and affected 

process units to clarify that the standard applies to units 

manufacturing the listed chemicals from other chemicals or 

mixtures of chemicals and to seven listed non-SOCMI 

categories. We have also added language to clarify that the 

standard does not apply to use of the listed chemicals as a 

solvent in a SOCMI process or to solvent reclamation 

operations. These changes are reflected on pages 6, 11, and 

12. 

3. We have clarified the language on page 46 regarding pilot 

plants and research facilities to refer to research 

facilities since that is the terminology used in the Act. 

The regulation of research facilities will be addressed in 

the overall HON, since the issue is broader than this rule. 

4. We have made minor editorial changes to the remaining pages 

to clarify the text or to respond to comments. 

All of these changes are attempts at better expressing our 

intent and do not change the substance of the preamble or the 

standard. If we do not hear from you by July 22, we will assume 

that you agree with the changes and that we are ready to send out 

the final preamble and agreement for signature. 

EPA PAM DOCKET. 

an 
P.3 

Also, please review the enclosed draft final agreement. If 

anyone has strong feelings about this draft, they should contact 

Phil so he can revise it as necessary. 

As always, feel free to contact me or Rick if you have any 

questions on the status of things, etc. 

Sincerely, 

Jan Meyer 
TABLE VII-1. LIST OF NEGOTIATORS, FACILITATOR AND OBSERVER 

P.4 

Negotiators Affiliations 

Robert L. Ajax 

Alfred Bickum 

Bruce Bowers 

Linda Curran 

David Doniger 

Allen Hershkowitz 

David Dunn 

Larry Goodheart 

Ellen Siegler 

Jack Kace 

Thomas Kittleman 

Robert Majewski 

Les Montgomery 

Harvel Rogers 

Gustave Von Bodungen 

Environmental Protection Agency 

International Institute _f_-? |ji§| 

Synthetic Rubber Producers 

Standard Chlorine 

Amoco Oil 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Sterling Chemicals, Incorporation 

American Petroleum Institute 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 

Association 

Chemical Manufacturers Association 

Northeast States for Coordinated 

Air Use Management 

Texas Air Control Board 

Jefferson County (Kentucky) Air 

Pollution Control District 

Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Facilitator Affiliation 

Phillip J. Harter Consultant to EPA 

Observer Affiliation 

Nicolas Garcia Office of Management and Budget 
P.5 

its preamble with the same substance and a-lffect as the 

regulation and preamble that are the subject of the final 

agreement. 

It is important to note that the parties to the 

negotiation concurred with the regulation when considered as 

a whole. Inevitably in any negotiation, this means that 

some parties may have made concessions in one area in 

exchange for concessions from other parties in other areas. 

B. Scope and Applicability 

The scope and applicability of the rule was 

substantially determined when EPA made the decision to 

pursue regulatory negotiation. These provisions,—therefore, 

were not negotiated. 

1. Source Categories 

The negotiators originally were to develop standards 

for equipment leaks for 13 source categories that would be 

affected by EPA's then expected hazardous organic national 

emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), or 

HON. These source categories included both synthetic 

organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) and nonSOCMI source categories, and the standards under development 

would only have applied to only 8 hazardous organic 
P.6 

chemicals. Over the course of the negotiations, and in 

anticipation of the CAAA of 1990, EPA saw the need to expand 

this scope to include not only the original HON source 

categories, but also all SOCMI processes that use as a 

reactant or produce one of the organic chemicals listed in 

the CAA list of 189 hazardous air pollutants. The EPA 

identified 453 such processes. The Committee agreed to 

expand the scope of the negotiations to the larger group of 

SOCHI processes and to retain the non-SOCMI categories. The 

EPA considers either of the following downstream uses as 

indicative of the production of a listed chemical aa a 

product5 (4r)—produced for sale as the listed chemical,—e_? 

(2) used in another process where the listed chemical is 

needed. £€-,—a listed chemical is only part of a mixed 

stream exiting a process and cannot be sold or used in 

another process as the listed chemical,—fehen that chemical 

is not considered to be produced as a product. 

In addition, EPA determined that petroleum refinery 

processes would not be covered by these standardsf 

regardless of whether the unit supplies feedstocks that 

include chemicals listed in section £X.X8~1, and that MACT 

standards for petroleum processes would be established in a 

separate rulemaking. These standards also would not be 

applicable to other petroleum-related facilities, including 

those engaged in petroleum exploration, production, 

marketing, or transportation. Refinery processes not 

•-- *.~.-~—9.—.—9mm—«m—^^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ffiYl ,- iiiiiiiiiiiiii„ 
P.7 

covered by this regulation include, but are not limited to, 

cracking, reforming, coking, and other processes that 

produce transportation fuels, heating oils, or lubricants. 

Table VII-2 presents a more 

6-a 
TABLE VII-2. (Continued) 

Catalytic Hydrorefining 

Residual desulfurizing 

Heavy gas-oil desulfurizing 

Cat-cracker and cycle-stock feed pretreatment 

Middle distillate 

Other 

Fractionation 

Pipe stills 

Light ends 

Gas recovery units 

On-Site Transfer and Blending Operations 

Of gasoline and other fuels 

on-site 

Lube Oil and Specialties Processes 

Catalytic Hydrotreating 

Pretreating cat-reformer feeds 

Naphtha desulfurizing 

Naphtha olefin or aromatics saturation 

Straight-run distillate 

Other distillate 

Lube-oil "polishing" 

Other 

Alkylation 

Sulfuric acid 

Hydrofluoric acid 

Refinery Polmerization Processes 

Crude Units (Atmospheric and Vacuum) 

Refinery Isomerization Process 
P.9 

The negotiated rule would apply to both existing and 

new process units. The negotiated rule categorizes the 

regulated processes into 5 groups and uses a staggered 

implementation scheme, requiring some process units to 

comply in 1/2 year, while others would comply as late as 

1 and 1/2 years after final promulgation of the rule. This 

staggered implementation was provided to alleviate the 

impact of applying the rules simultaneously to all sources. 

An affected "process unit" means equipment that uses a 

VHAP as a reactant or produces a VHAP or its derivatives as 

intermediate or final product(s), including all equipment 

associated with the unit process operation, storage and 

transfer of feed material to the unit process operation and 

final or intermediate product from the unit process 

operation and operations treating wastewater (e*g,, 

strippers, decanters) from the unit process operation. 

The proposed standards would apply to chemical 

manufacturing processes operated to produce one or more of 

the chemicals listed in section xx*X8-2„ Examples of SOCMI 

production processes that would be subject are a unit 

process operation that produces ethylbenzene from benzene, j 

unit that produces phenol and acetone from cumene, and a 

unit that produces methyl methacrylate SfltA by purification 

of an impure mixed feedstock received from another plant 

site* Examples of operations that would not be considered 

n 
P.10 

subject to this standard are waste solvent reclamation or a 

SOCMI process using of any of the chemicals listed in 

section xx«X8-i or XX.X8-2 as a solvent* 

The standard would also apply to equipment handling 

specific chemicals for the non-SOCMI source categories 

listed in Section XX*xo (c)• These source categories and 

chemicals are: styrene-butadiene rubber production 

(styrene, butadiene), polybutadiene production (butadili|§§ 

chlorine production (carbon tetrachloride), pesticide 

production (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, 

tetrachloroethylene, chloroformy and ethylene dichloril§§§§ 

chlorinated hydrocarbon use in SOCMI units (carbon 

tetrach lor ide, methylene chloride t tetrachloroethyieneffj 

chloroform, and ethylene dichloride) pharmaceutical 

production (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride)t and 

miscellaneous butadiene use (butadiene)* 

The lines within a unit process operation containing 

process fluids are considered to be part of the process unit 

and thus, subject to regulatory requirements, while lines 

and equipment not containing process fluids are not subject 

to these requirements. Utilities, and other nonprocess 

lines, such as heating and cooling systems, are not 

considered to be part of a process unit. For example, any 

direct heating and cooling systems, which generally service 

many processes at a plant and do not commingle combine their 

11-a 
P.11 

materials with those in the processes they service, are also 

not subject to these requirements. 

A plant site may consist of one or more process units. 

Process units covered by the negotiated rule are listed 

specifically in Section(s) XX.XO(b) and (c) of the 

negotiated rule. 

C. Background Information on Equipment Leaks 

This section presents an overview of findings from 

previous equipment leak studies and a summary of information 

that led to EPA's decision to develop a new regulatory 

approach for equipment leaks through negotiation. This 

synopsis is not intended to reflect the Committee 

discussions. Rather, it is intended to provide basic 

information for readers unfamiliar with the existing 

standards, the underlying studies, and recent trends. More 

detailed information on the basis for the existing 

requirements and underlying studies is available in the 

documents listed in section [to be filled in at a later 

date] of this notice-.- dockets and FEDERAL WS&I8TER notices 

1. Overview of Background Information 

• One of the first published studies of equipment leak 

emissions was conducted in the 1950's in several petroleum 

refineries in the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control 

District. The results of this study showed that a large 

12 
P.12 

quantity of hydrocarbons could be lost to the atmosphere 

from various sources such as valves, pump and compressor 

12-a 
P.13 

2. Recent Studies 

In the last 3 years, EPA has received information that 

shows significantly lower leak frequencies at 10,000 ppm for 

some chemical processes than was representative for the 

industry as a whole in the early 1980's. This information, 

not necessarily known by the industry in general, was one 

consideration in EPA's decision to develop a new regulatory 

approach for equipment leaks through the regulatory 

negotiation process. The information considered by EPA is 

briefly summarized in the paragraphs below. In addition, 

where sufficient information is available, these data are 

included in Table VII-3 which shows leak frequency at 

several leak definitions by component type. In general, 

these data were collected following the procedures specified 

in Reference Method 21, and the results represent a single 

monitoring survey conducted over a limited time period. 

Units subject to the Benzene Equipment Leak NESHAP. 

During EPA's reconsideration of the benzene equipment leak 

NESHAP (September 14, 1989, 54 FR 38044), EPA examined 

compliance reports from 1987 and 1988 for a randomly 

selected sample of 25 plants subject to the standard, which 

requires a 10,000 ppm leak detection and repair program. 

This review showed that many plUHl facilities had no valves 

or pumps exceeding 10,000 ppm and no plants facilities 

16 

mama 
P.14 

Table VII-3: Summary of Equipment Screening Data3 

Unit ID 

EO 1 

EO 2 

EO 3 

EO 4 

EO 5 

EO 6 

EO 7C 

EO 8 

EO 9 

BD 1 

BD 3C 

BD 4 

BD 5 

BD 6 

BD 7 

BD 8 

BD 10 

BD 11 

BD 12 

Acrolein 

Average 

SOCMI 

at 10,000 

< 

250 

0.6 

2.8 

1.4 

2 

0.4 

1.6 

1.2 

2.9 

5.3 

10.7 

5.6 

7.3 

11 

7.5 

2.2 

21.9 

25 

11.3 

5.9 

0.1 

ppm 

aLeak frequenc 

"o" IUVa Ives 

_ Leakers 

500 

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 

1000 

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 are not 

ill

 500 

0 

23 

36 

0 

-

0 

6 

25 

_ 

24 

50a 

33d 

-

58 

0 

Pumps 

% Leakers 

1000 

0 

18 

27 

0 

-

0 

0 

25 

_ 

21 

0 

-

50 

0 

16.7 16.7 

10 

4 

shown for 

10 

4 

2000 

0 

14 

9 

0 

-

0 

0 

25 

_ 

15 

0 

-

41.7 

0 

16.7 

10 

4 

phosgene uni 

5000 j|| 

0 

9 

9 

0 

-

0 

0 

25 

_ 

13 

0 

-

41.7 

0 

16.7 

10 

4 

9 

ts since 

Connectors'5 

% Leakers 

| 250 500 

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 

10 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 

1000 §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 

all observations are 

Data includes flanges, threaded fittings, unions, and any other pipe-to-pipe 

connections other than welds. The records are not sufficient to permit 

differentiating among types of connectors. 

cCertain ranges of the data for these facilities were discarded due to 

excessive rounding and truncation errors. 

dType of pump seal is unknown. 

17 

• 
P.15 

had more than 1.5 percent valves or more than 12.5 percent 

pumps exceeding 10,000 ppm. The average frequency of 

sources exceeding 10,000 ppm were 0.27 percent for valves 

and 2.3 percent for pumps. These frequencies,—in general, 

eHee was lower than the average frequencies of 3 to 5 percent 

for valves and approximately 10 percent for pumps exceeding 

10,000 ppm which had been expected after application of the 

standard. 

Acrolein process units. In 1989, EPA received 

screening data and process information on two acrolein 

process units. These data were collected voluntarily by the 

company to provide better emission estimates than could be 

obtained using the SOCMI average factors. The monitoring 

data represented eight types of eguipment (gas valves, light 

liquid valves, light liquid pumps, flanges and other 

connectors, pressure relief valves, sample points, openended lines and compressors). These monitoring data were 

collected following the procedures specified in "Protocols 

for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for 

Equipment Leaks of VOC and VHAP", (Protocols) EPA-450/3-88-

010. In general, particular care was taken in measurements 

of equipment with screening values of less than 200 ppm. In 

addition, one of the units had approximately 60 percent 

sealed bellows valves and the other unit had no sealed 

bellows valves. 

18 

ISH 
P.16 

The screening data indicated average leak frequencies 

of 0.26 to 0.09 percent for valves and of 0.13 to 0 percent 

for flanges and other connectors at leak definitions of 100, 

1,000, and 10,000 ppm. These data also demonstrated Thill 

data showed that both conventional and sealed bellow valve 

designs can achieve very good performance with few leaking 

valves. Pump leak frequencies were less than 4 percent at 

100,—1000,—and 10,000 ppm.—The observed leak frequencies of 

all components were substantially below the levels found by 

EPA in studies conducted in the early 1980's. and the vast 

majority of the data were at screening values less than 

100 ppm 

^tepffMLMA. , in 1987, EPA received monitoring data 

for two process units handling amines* These units were 

selected for testing because of the relatdvely'''Severe 

service conditions <i*e*, high temperature and high 

pressure) and high vapor pressures of the process materials, 

one unit (unit 1} was characterised as handling"relatively 

nontoxic and innocuous substances and the other unit 

(unit 2) was characterised as handling a more toxic 

compound, one vith a threshold limit value (TLV) of 10 ppm* 

which"'Waci'''Oapable'"'Oif'"Oauolng''''<xiiipttbl'io'''nuiS'ano<!.^ Uiese data 

were collected voluntarily by the company to calculate a 

unit specific emission estimate using J5PA*s leafc/no leak 

emission factors* 

19 
P.17 

Konitoring. data were provided for pumps, valves, and flanges 

and other connectors. 

The monitoring data for unit 1 showed 33 percent of the 

pumps, 16 percent of the light liquid valves, 27 percent of 

the gas valves, and 0*4 percent of the flanges and other 

connectors exceeding IO,DOQ ppm* unit 2 had 5*6 percent of 

the pumps, 0*8 percent of the light liguid valves, 1 percent 

of the gas valves, and <hi percent of the flanges and other 

connectors exceeding 10,000 ppm* The data for unit a 

indicate that technology is available to reduce leaks and 

suggest that health and safety considerations are important 

factors affecting use of better technologies and maintenance 

practices. 

Ethvlbenzene/Styrene (EB/S. Unit Tx. Limited 

information was received on screening values measured at 

this facility's ethylbenzene/styrene process unit, which is 

subject to the benzene equipment leak NESHAP. Screening 

data were provided for a total of approximately 2,500 valves 

and pumps. The data were provided as time aggregated 

summaries of screening valves for a one year period from 

1987 to 1988. These data indicated that 99 percent of the 

time the valves and 90 percent of the time the pumps had 

screening values less than 500 ppm. Information submitted 

for compliance with the benzene equipment leak NESHAP showed 

on an annual average basis 0.04 percent of the valves and 

3.6 percent of the pumps exceeded 10,000 ppm. No 

20 
from these visits was that the acute toxicity of phosgene 

and toluene diisocyanate, combined with other features of 

these units, has resulted in the routine use of a number of 

effective leak control practices in these process units. 

Measures taken to prevent and minimize leaks in phosgene and 

isocyanate units include design to minimize the number of 

components, stringent quality assurance/control programs, 

bench testing of eguipment for leaks, and careful management 

and extensive continuous monitoring of the unit to detect 

leaks and problems. In addition, phosgene and isocyanate 

units are shut down for immediate repair whenever any leak 

is detected. Immediate shutdown is possible because 

phosgene and isocyanate process units are small and are not 

operated as part of an integrated process. In units where 

less acutely toxic compounds are used or produced and |§§ 

facilities where operations are large scale and highly 

integrated, such measures were not observed and the units 

are not (and cannot be) immediately shut down for repair 

whenever a leak is detected. Rather, shutdown of facilities 

with large integrated processes can require several days to 

cease production, followed by aftse. up to several weeks to 

drain and decontaminate the process equipment fehafe-"requires 

prior to actually initiating repair* Tfehese units are 

typically operated for a fixed time period before they are 

shut down for maintenance and repair. Representative 

25 

UUIMIIIHM-
P.19 

operating times between scheduled shutdowns range from 

3 months to several years. 

The Committee also concluded that equipment design and 

an on-going quality control/assurance program has a 

significant role in achieving low leak frequencies. This 

25-a 
P.20 

framework and phasing and are not necessarily the levels 

that would have been chosen for a not-to-be-exceeded 

standard. In the case of the valve standard, the selection 

of the base performance levels was also influenced by the 

inclusion of provisions that provide an alternative to 

monthly monitoring. Referred to as the Quality Improvement 

Program (QIP), this program ensures that plants subject to 

thiss« QIP replace poorer provisions install low emission 

performing valves (during normal replacement) with superior 

performing technologies until less than 2 percent leaking 

valves is achieved replacement equipment—^during normal 

replacement) and implement a quality assurance/control 

program to ensure that all elements of MACT are utilized. 

Also, the QIP was included in the framework to allow those 

process units that do use all elements of MACT but do not 

achieve the specified numerical performance levels to remain 

on a quarterly monitoring schedule instead of increasing 

monitoring frequency. 

The basis for the selection of the base performance 

levels and other elements of MACT for valves, pumps, and 

connectors is discussed below. The basis for the other 

provisions of the valve, pump, and connector standards as 

well as the other specific requirements of the regulation is 

given in section F. 

Valves. For valves the Committee initially considered 

both equipment standards and LDAR programs and ultimately 

32 

TIHi 
P.21 

Committee members concerns regarding the practical ability 

to measure and repair smaller leaks. In contrast, other 

members of the Committee favored leak definitions lower than 

500 ppm. and could not aggee to leak definitions greater 

than 500 ppm. Ultimately, a leak definition of 500 ppm was 

net selected in light of data demonstrating the practicality 

and current implementation of a 500 ppm LDAR program. The 

Committee also agreed that units with less than 1 percent 

leaking valves could monitor the valves semiannually and 

those with less than 0.5 percent leaking valves could 

monitor annually. These performance levels were selected 

considering the Committee had previously agreed to exclude 

nonrepairable valves (up to a maximum of 1 percent of the 

total number of valves in VHAF Service peei) from the 

calculation of percent leaking valves (see section Ull: °f 

this notice for discussion of the basis for the 

nonrepairable provision). These performance levels have 

been demonstrated by the better performing EO process units, 

the EB/S unit, and by the plants subject to the Texas 

500 ppm regulation. The Committee considered these levels 

to represent the performance of MACT. 

Pumps. In deliberations on the standard, the Committee 

considered the data summarized in Table VII-3, additional 

analyses of the EO/BD data, and the comments of pump seal 

manufacturers. The EO/BD data Showed pump leak frequencies 

35 
For pumps handling polymerizing monomers, the Committee 

selected 5,000 ppm and 10 percent leak frequency for the 

performance level. As mechanical seals cannot be used on 

pumps in polymerizing monomer service, industry 

representatives generally held maintained that these pumps 

in this service could not achieve a 2,000 ppm leak 

performance level. The Committee ultimately agreed to the 

5,000 ppm leak definition based on expert judgement that 

5,000 ppm would reflect best performance and on the general 

lack of data for pumps in this service. This decision was 

based on the lack of data and uncertainties on the limits of 

performance of SMS or packed seals in this service. It was 

also agreed that facilities that exceed 10 percent leak 

frequency would not be subject to the mandatory replacement 

provision of the quality improvement program. 

Connectors. Provisions for a LDAR program for 

connectors were developed after the Committee generally 

agreed that connectors could be a significant source of 

emissions at a well-controlled plant and that emissions 

could be reduced. In the development of these provisions, 

the Committee considered the data summarized in Table VII-3 

and the contribution of connector emissions to total 

emissions for several EO/BD process units. These data 

showed a range of connector leak frequencies at different 

leak definitions (e.g., 3 percent at 10,000 ppm to less than 

2 percent at 250 ppm) 

40 
and showed that connectors could be a significant source of 

the total emissions. Some Committee members ^BlSiH 

considered that the relatively high leak rates observed at 

some process units was illfl a result of infrequent or no 

inspections and maintenance. The Committee illHliiiliii 

concluded that connector leaks erm §|||§lli be controlled, 

therefore, an A LDAR program was established to ensure that 

low leak frequencies are attained. 

In development of these provisions, the Committee 

agreed that LDAR can reduce connector leak frequencies and 

that assuring MACT performance requires less frequent 

monitoring than is necessary for pumps or valves. Less 

frequent monitoring is needed because connectors have no 

moving parts and once repaired they should remain leak free 

for extended periods. Information provided by industry 

members on the Committee indicated that a number of actions 

can be taken to reduce or eliminate leaks. In most cases, 

it was expected that tightening the flange bolts on flanged 

connectors would eliminate the leak. It was also expected 

that in other cases it may be necessary to replace the 

gasket or to correct faulty alignment of surfaces. These 

latter cases are expected to be relatively infrequent. The 

41 
P.24 

individual items of equipment in a typical process unit. 

Moreover, this procedure would not be useful for routine 

monitoring and identification of leaking equipment for 

repair. 

The proposed standards incorporate several formats: 

equipment, design, base performance levels, work practices, 

and operational practices. Different formats are required 

for different types of equipment because of the nature of 

the equipment, available control techniques, and 

applicability of the measurement method. In the next 

section, the rationale for selecting a particular format is 

explained for each type of equipment. For each source type, 

the feasibility of prescribing or enforcing an emission 

standard is discussed. 

F. Selection of Emission Limits and Work Practice 

Requirements 

1. Applicability 

The Committee considered and ultimately established 

several additional applicability criteria that further 

defined the scope of the negotiated standard. This section 

presents the Committee's consideration of minimum VHAP 

concentration, time in VHAP service, and pilot plants and 

research facilities. 

Stream VHAP concentration. The Committee discussed at 

some length what minimum concentration cutoff should be used 

for determining applicability of the negotiated standard for 

44 

B l 
P.25 

specific streams within an affected process. This |||||l||iii 

concentration cutoff was of particular concern to industry 

members of the Committee because there are trace quantities 

of VHAP in many process streams. The number of equipment 

components potentially subject to the standard and the 

associated costs increase substantially as the concentration 

is decreased; and the emission reduction becomes small. 

Other Committee members were concerned that emissions from 

equipment handling streams containing low VHAP 

concentrations (e.g., less than 10 percent) become 

relatively more increasingly significant as higher 

concentration streams are controlled. Based on these 

considerations, the Committee agreed the standard would 

apply to equipment containing or contacting process 

materials that are 5 percent VHAP or greater. In SOCMI 

processes, this concentration was viewed as being a point of 

relatively low emissions and diminishing returns. 

Time-in-VHAP service. In certain chemical plants, 

particularly batch processes which produce a number of 

different products, there is equipment that is used in VHAP 

service only occasionally. In such cases implementation of 

the standard could be difficult and would achieve very 

little emission reduction. Pumps and compressors used only 

during startup or shutdown of a process unit are one example 

of such equipment. Other examples include equipment used in 

45 

BTjjHB 
P.26 

batch pharmaceutical processes or batch steps in continuous 

processes. For these situations, the Committee concluded 

45-a 
P.27 

that equipment that is operated 300 hours per year, or less, 

in VHAP service should be exempt. 

IMlilllilll Pilot plants. Exemption of 

research facilities (including pilot plants) from the 

negotiated standard was discussed on several occasions by 

the Committee. Some members thought that frequent changes 

in operations at these facilities would make compliance with 

the standard difficult or would incur unnecessary costs. 

Other Committee members were of the opinion that the 

negotiated standard should apply equally well to pilot 

plants and research facilities as production units, and that 

chemical industry pilot plants can be quite large and have 

substantial emissions. An additional concern expressed by 

some members was that any exemption should be based on 

objective criteria, not the intended use of the material or 

the purpose of the facility. The Committee did not resolve 

this issue, and concluded that the final CAAA should dictate 

the disposition of research facilities, as several versions 

of the pending legislation provided for limited exemptions. 

The final amendments, however, are not definite on how 

to deal with research facilities and leave it to EPA's 

discretion to "... establish a separate category covering 

research or laboratory facilities, as necessary (emphasis 

46 
added), to assure the equitable treatment of such 

facilities." [Section 112(c)(7).] The issue of regulating 

research facilities extends beyond equipment leaks, because 

research facilities can also have other emission points such 

as process vents or storage tanks. The Committee concluded 

During preparation of this preamble, after enactment of the 

CAA amendments, a consensus of Committee members was reached 

that it was more appropriate to address research facilities 

in the overall HON and to deal with it outside the 

negotiation, since no consensus was reached during the 

negotiation and the issue is broader than the negotiated 

rule. Consequently, those portions of today's notice 

addressing the regulation of research facilities are not 

part of the negotiated agreement and may be commented on by 

the negotiators. 

2. Compliance Dates 

In developing the compliance schedule and framework of 

the standards, the Committee anticipated the CAAA 

requirement that compliance dates for each category apply as 

expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 3 years 

after the effective date of the standards. The Committee 

47 

im 
P.29 

unit and would allow 1.5 year duration before implementing 

Phase III. 

In Phase III for valves, the Committee added a base 

performance level to the work practice requirements of 

Phase II. The base performance level was used to determine 

the monitoring frequency or the applicability of the QIP. 

The base performance level was added to ensure a more 

certain emission performance than achieved through the work 

practice requirement alone and to create an economic 

incentive to improve performance. For Phase III of the pump 

standard, the Committee added a base performance level to 

the work practice requirements and reduced the concentration 

defined as a leak. The Committee established separate leak 

definitions for three types or categories of pumps to ensure 

that each category achieves MACT. 

For new process units, the Committee agreed that for 

both pumps and valves Phase II should be implemented at 

startup and Phase III should be implemented beginning 1 year 

after startup. It was expected that new units will be 

designed using better equipment design or practices and 

considering the requirements of the standard. The Committee 

provided a 1 year period in Phase II to allow time needed 

for adjustments to operations and to correct any problems 

encountered during startup of the process unit. 

51 

HOI 
The Committee considered credits for components removed 

ranging from full credit to one-half credit for each 

component removed. The full credit option was not selected 

because some Committee members thought that it could be used 

to achieve a good show a specific performance level without 

actually reducing the number of leaking valves. Based on a 

desire to provide credit for reducing the number of 

components, while at the same time ensuring that removal 

credits do not reduce the incentive for low-leak 

performance in the remaining components, the Committee 

selected a 67 percent credit for net reductions in the 

number of valves; i.e., 2 out of every 3 valves removed from 

a process unit may continue to be counted in the total 

number of valves when calculating leak frequency. 

Unsafe-to-monitor and difficult-to-monitor valves. The 

Committee agreed that the "unsafe-to-monitor" and the 

"difficult-to-monitor" provisions in the existing eguipment 

leak standards are appropriate and should be included in the 

negotiated standard. Valves that are "unsafe-to-monitor" 

are defined as valves that could expose personnel to 

imminent hazards from temperature, pressure, or explosive 

process conditions. Examples of such locations include 

valves at the top of or located nearby high pressure 

reactors. Valves that are unsafe-to-monitor cannot be 

eliminated from new or existing units. The rule, therefore, 

would exempt valves in unsafe locations from routine 

59 
P.31 

QIP may not be used in the future if the unit again exceeds 

twe 1 percent leaking valves. In such cases, the owner or 

operator must implement monthly monitoring until the unit 

has less than two percent leaking valves. 

The availability of this QI P was restricted due to 

concerns of some committee members that the QIP might be 

used to delay improving performance* These Committee 

members were concerned that unrestricted the QIP could 

provide for extended study and would never result In any 

improvements in performance. The committee also agreed to 

allow facilities to remain indefinitely in the QIP after 

achieving less than 2 percent leaking valves* This option 

was provided since it would assure continued good 

performance and was consistent with the objectives of thef 

QIP* 

a. Demonstration of Progress QIP. 

This alternative QIP would allow an owner or operator 

of a source to design and implement a site specific program 

to achieve steady progress in lowering the percent leaking 

valves. Any combination of measures such as increased 

maintenance frequency or replacement of components may be 

used, provided it achieves the required reductions in 

percent leaking valves. 

Under this QIP, the owner or operator would be required 

to continue quarterly monitoring and to demonstrate an 

average 10 percent reduction in the percent leaking valves 

69 
P.32 

each quarter, based on a rolling average of 2 quarters of 

monitoring data. If an owner or operator fails for 

2 consecutive averaging periods to demonstrate at least an 

overall average reduction of 10 percent per quarter, the 

owner or operator must either implement a technology review 

and improvement QIP or monthly monitoring. If this QIP is 

continued after a process unit has less than two-percent 

leaking valves, the owner or operator must continue 

quarterly monitoring, but does not have to continue to 

demonstrate the 10-percent reduction per quarter. 

69-a 

BB 
operator the option of exempting existing screwed connectors 

of 2 inches or smaller diameter from routine monitoring 

provided these connectors are monitored once after the 

standard takes effect and after the seal is broken or 

disturbed. Any leaking connectors shall be repaired. Some 

Committee members felt that it would be very costly to 

monitor large numbers of small connectors in some process 

units and the emission reduction achieved would be small* 

The Committee agreed to include this provision for 

several reasons. The general opinion of engineers on the 

Committee was that screwed connectors once properly threaded 

and leak tight should stay leak tight, since there are no 

moving parts and the seal does not rely on gaskets or other 

materials that can deteriorate. Thus, an initial check and 

one-time followup monitoring after opening the connector 

were judged to provide sufficient assurance that the 

connectors are leak tight. However, because the available 

data were insufficient to demonstrate this, new screwed 

connectors of any size and existing screwed connectors 

greater than 2 inches were not allowed this option and are 

treated the same as any other connector. The standard would 

also require that data on the leak frequency of screwed 

connectors be reported. The EPA intends to review this 

information and, based on the findings will consider whether 

to amend the standard to require routine monitoring for 

existing screwed connectors iii 2 inches, or smaller, 

89 

ilium 
P.34 

diameter or to apply the initial check and one-time followup to all connectors. 

8. Provisions for Other Equipment 

Compressors. As with other equipment, an emission 

standard was not developed for compressors because 

application of available measurement methods is not 

technically or economically feasible. The requirements in 

the existing standards were judged to be MACT and were used 

as the basis for the negotiated standard for compressors. 

The standard requires the use of mechanical seals equipped 

with a barrier fluid system and controlled degassing vents 

or enclosure of the compressor seal area and venting of 

emissions through a closed vent system to a control device. 

These systems can provide control efficiencies approaching 

100 percent. 

Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service. The 

negotiated standard, like the existing standards, is based 

on the use of rupture disk systems or control devices, which 

are considered to effectively eliminate emissions, when 

properly installed, maintained and operated. The existing 

eguipment leak standards establish a "no detectable emission 

limit" of 500 ppmv for control techniques that eliminate 

emissions. The Committee considered redefining the emission 

limit for pressure relief devices, but agreed that there 

were insufficient data to redefine the limit below 500 ppmv. 

The general opinion was that a 500 ppm standard would ensure 

90 

EB 
P.35 

LAW OFFICES 

PHILIP J. HARTER 

SUITE 40 4 

2301 M STREET. N. W. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037 

(202) 687-1033 

April 19, 1991 

MEMORANDU M 

To: The Fugitives 

Fr: Philip J. Harter 

Re: Draft Final Agreement 

I attach a revised draft of the final agreement that reflects a few comments that I received on 

the March 11 edition. Three changes have been made— 

• Paragraph 2 was streamlined to refer to the Federal Register as the source of the 

recommended proposed rule instead of referring to it by name and date. 

• Paragraph 12 was clarified. 

• Paragraph 13 was changed to delete the need for submitting a separate memorandum "if 

adverse comments are filed with the agency." Some pointed out that (a) adverse 

comments will inevitably be filed, but that (b) the agreements themselves will be filed in 

the docket and will serve the purpose of a memorandum in support. If, however, the 

fugitive portion of the rule is judicially challenged, a separate memorandum would serve 

the important purpose by calling the concurrence to the attention of the court. 

A couple of other comments were received, but I felt they modified the language agreed to 

in the Agreement in Principle, so they are not reflected here. If anyone has strong feelings about 

anything in this draft, please call me soon so I can revise (and perhaps negotiate out any 

disagreements) accordingly. 

Thanks for everyone's hardwork. We developed something to be proud of—both 

substantively and procedurally. 
P.36 

Draft 

April 19,1991 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING COMMITTEE 

CONCERNING 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

A G REEMEN T 

The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee considered the technical and policy issues involved 

in controlling fugitive emissions of hazardous air pollutants from equipment leaks and has reached 

a consensus on a recommended proposed rule to implement Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1990. 

, a party to the negotiations, agrees that: 

1. The person signing this agreement is authorized to commit the party to its terms. 

2. The party concurs in the recommended proposed rule and its preamble when considered as 

a whole. The recommended proposed rule was published at 56 Fed. Reg. 9318 (March 6, 

1991). The preamble is dated and is attached to this Agreement. 

3. The party agrees to the explanation of the "Relationship between this Regulation and Future 

Regulations for Refinery Equipment Leaks" that is dated August 23,1990 and is attached to 

this Agreement. The party also agrees that the August 23,1990, explanation shall be included 

in the preambles to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Final Rule. 

4. EPA will publish the recommended proposed rule as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. EPA 

agrees to draft a preamble to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning equipment leaks 

that has the same substance and effect as the preamble concurred in by the Committee and 

attached to this Agreement. EPA may modify the preamble concurred in by the Committee 

to clarify points raised and to incorporate the equipment leak standard into a broader 

proposed rule consistent with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

5. EPA will send the individuals on the Committee copies of those portions of the preamble and 

of the proposed rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that concern equipment leaks for 

their review and comment prior to the signature of the Administrator on the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

6. Each party other than EPA agrees not to file negative comments on the proposed rule or the 

preamble concerning equipment leaks to the extent the proposed rule and the preamble to the 

proposed rule have the same substance and effect as the recommended proposed rule and the 

preamble that are the subject of the final agreement. 

7. Each party other than EPA may comment on those portions of the preamble in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that explain EPA's position on issues that were not the subject of 
P.37 

negotiations or are not contained in the preamble to which the Committee concurred. Such 

issues include but are not limited to an analysis of the costs, the cost effectiveness, and other 

impacts of the proposed rule. 

8. EPA will consider all relevant comments submitted concerning the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and in response to such comments will make only such modifications in the proposed rule and the preamble as are necessary when issuing a final rule. 

9. EPA will provide copies of the final rule and its preamble to members of the Committee prior 

to their signature by the Administrator. 

10. Each party other than EPA agrees not to take any action to inhibit the adoption of the 

recommended proposed rule as a final rule to the extent the final rule and its preamble have 

the same substance and effect as the recommended proposed rule and the preamble concurred 

in by the Committee. 

11. Each party other than EPA agrees not to challenge the rule in court to the extent that the final 

rule and its preamble have the same substance and effect as the recommended proposed rule 

and the preamble concurred in by the Committee. 

12. Any change in the applicability of the proposed rule and its preamble to petroleum operations 

shall be considered as not having the same substance and effect as the recommended 

proposed rule. 

13. Each party other than EPA agrees to provide a memorandum that it participated in the 

negotiations and that it concurred in the recommended proposed rule when considered as a 

whole if the rule is challenged in court and the preamble and rule have the same substance 

and effect with respect to equipment leaks as the recommended proposed rule and the 

preamble concurred in by the Committee. 

Organization 

Date 
P.38 

The attached materials were sent to the following Comittee Members on 7/2/91: 

Miss Kathy Bailey 

CMA 

2301 M Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20037 

(202) 887-1033 

Mr. Philip J. Harter 

CMA 

2501 M Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20037 

(202) 887-1176 

Mr. Robert Hermanson 

AMOCO Corporation - Mail Code 1207 

200 East Randolph Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 856-7995 

Ms. Karen Olsen 

Texas Air Control Board 

12124 Park 35 Circle 

Austin, Texas 78753 

(512) 908-1294 

Mr. Nicholas Garcia 

Office of Management and Budget 

NEOB Room 3019 

725 17th Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20503 

(202) 395-3084 

Ms. Ellen Siegler 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 682-8271 

Larry Goodheart 

Chevron Corporation 

576 Standard Ave. 

Richmond, CA 94802 

(415) 620-4445 

David W. Dunn 

Sterling Chemical Corp. 

201 Bay St. 

Texas City, TX 77592 

(409) 942-3129 

David Doniger 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1350 New York Ave., NW 

Suite 300 

Washington, DC. 20005 

(202) 783-7800 

Richard Sigman 

CMA 

2501 M. St., NW 

Washington, DC. 20037 

(202) 887-1176 
P.39 

Jack Kace 

Dir., Environmental Affairs 

Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. 

340 Kingsland Street 

Nutley, NJ 07110 

(201) 235-3774 

Thomas Kittleman 

E.I. Dupont de Nemours 

Engineering Dept. 

Louviers Bldg. 

Neward, DE 19714 

(302) 366-4718 

Allen Herskowitz 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

40 W. 20th Street 

New York, NY 10011 

(212) 727-4466 

Cheryl L. Sutterfield 

Pharmeutical Manufacturers 

1100 Fifteenth St., NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) ,835-3548 

Harvel Rogers 

Law Environmental 

9410 Bunsen PKWY, Suite 300 

Louisville, KY 40220 

(502) 499-3040 

Robert V. Majewski 

NYSDEC 

50 Wolf Road 

Albany, NY 12233-3255 

(515) 457-7688 

Gustave Von Bodungen 

Ar Quality Division 

Dept. of Env. Quality 

625 N. Fourth St. 

Baton Rouge, LA 70804 

Alfred W. Bichum 

Manager, Value Engineer 

Goodyear 

1144 E. Market St. 

Akron, OH 44316 

(504) 342-9047 (216) 796-1534