p. 1



# OAR Box 1168 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 102 ) ll-C-3 1
Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 4/29/2008 11:23:20 AM Sheet 102 of 131P. 2



### ,r osr 

### '%

*" ( OR0*< t 

# A-89-1 0

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTEC T Offic e o f Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Sta r Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a __//"!

.

OC T 1 2 199 0 II-C-3 1

Dea r Re g Ne g Committee :

Enclose dfo r you r revie w an d commen t i s th e draf t preambl e sectio non th e us e o f th e dat a and th e outlin e fo r th e advanc e notic e o f propose d rulemakin g (ANPR) . Thi s sectio ni s bein g circulate dfo r earl y revie w t o ensur e i t reflect s th e Committee' s thinkin g an d becaus e o f interes t expresse dby
severa l members . In thi s draft , w e hav e focuse dprimaril y on th e principl e basi s fo r th e provision s an d hav e no t attempte dt o ensur e tha t al l number s ar e
correc t and consistent . Thes e detail s wil l b e addresse di n th e nex t week . A s note di

n th e Septembe r 2 7 mailout , w e ar e aimin g t o complet e th e entir e ANP Ri

n November . Consequently , w e woul dappreciat e receivin g you r comment s o

n thi s sectio no f th e ANP Rn o late r tha nOCTOBE R22 . I f yo u hav e any question s on th e draf t sectio no r o n progress , pleas e don' t hesitat e t o call .
Sincerely ,

Jan/Meye rP. 3

/0 li*-/9 o

Th e Dat a an

d Informatio nConsidere d Backgroun d an

d Summar yo f Informatio n

I n th e lat e 1970' s and earl y1980's , EP Aconducte d severa l studie s t o evaluat e an

d quantif yemission s fro mequipmen t leak s i n refiner yoperation s
and in chemica l plants
. I n thes e studies , EP Acollecte d dat a and evaluate d lea k frequency , mas s emissions , and method s and effectivenes s o f lea k prevention
. Thes e studie s showe d tha t equipmen t leak s wer e a significan t

sourc e o f emission s and tha t th e majorit yo f emission s wer e associate d wit h equipmen t leak s measure d a t concentration s greate r tha n 10,00 0 ppm . Thes e studie s als o demonstrate d tha t a progra mconsistin g o f inspectio n o f equipmen t

and maintenanc e o f th e leakin g equipmen t wa s an effectiv e mean s o f reducin g emissions
. Th e contro l measure s identifie d a t tha t tim e wer e estimate d t o achiev e overal l a 6 0 t o 7 0 percen t reductio n in emission s fro mequipmen t leaks
. Th e dat a and conclusion s fro mthes e studie s serve d a s a basi s fo r EPA' s equipmen t lea k regulation s and guideline s tha t wer e issue d in th e earl y 1980's
. Informatio n obtaine d in thes e studie s als o showe d tha t lea k frequencie s varie d widel yamon g proces s unit s and sourc e type s and tha t factor s tha t affec t lea k frequencie s wer e no t wel l understood
. Specifically , studie s suc h

a s EPA' s studyo f 2 4 chemica l proces s unit s (24-Uni t Study ) showe d tha t th e frequenc yo f leak s greate r tha n 10,00 0 pp mrange d fro m0 t o approximatel y3 0 percen t amon g 1 5 differen t chemica l processes . Simila r chemica l processe s als o showe d larg e difference s i n lea k frequencies ; fo r example , th e lea k frequencie s fo r ga s valve s varie d fro m0 t o 1 8 percen t fo r 3 ethylen eP. 4

dichlorid e units . Insubsequen t studies , EPA evaluate dlea k frequenc y a s a functio no f proces s parameter s andequipmen t desig nan didentifie dn o singl e facto r tha t determine dlea k frequency . Lea k frequencie s ar e believe dt o b e a functio no f componen t design , construction , material , an dage , componen t desig nspecifications , qualit y an dfrequenc y

o f maintenance , operatin g an d trainin g practice s use db y th e company , andmotivation , quality , an dothe r factors . Th e curren t EPA rule s andguideline s d o no t requir e source s t o achiev e particula r performanc e level s o r t o instal l ne w low emissio ndesig n equipment . A s such , th e residua l emission s wil l var y amon g proces s unit s and bes t controlle dunit s wil l emi t les s tha ntypicall y controlle dunits . Inth e las t thre e years , EP A ha s receive dinformatio ntha t show s significantl y

lowe r lea k frequencie s a t 10,00 0 pp m fo r some chemica l processe s tha nwa s representativ e fo r th e industr y a s a whol e i

nth e earl y

1980's . Thes e dat a ar e briefl y summarize di

nth e paragraph s below . Inaddition , wher e sufficien t informatio ni s available , thes e dat a ar e include di nTabl e 1 whic h compare s lea k frequenc y b y componen t typ e wit hth e previousl y calculate dSOCM I averag e lea k frequency . Unit s subjec t t o th e Benzen e Equipmen t Lea k NESHAP . Durin g EPA' s reconsideratio no f th e benzen e equipmen t lea k NESHA P (5 4 F R38044) , EP A examine dcomplianc e report s from 198 7 and198 8 fo r a randoml y selecte dsampl e
o f 2 5 facilitie s subjec t t o th e standard , whic hrequire s a 10,00 0 pp m lea k detectio nan

drepai r program . Thi s revie w showe dman y

facilitie s ha dn o leakin g valve s o r pump s an dn o facilitie s hadmor e tha n1. 5 percen t leakin g valve s o r mor e tha n12. 5 percen t leakin g pumps . Th e averag e lea k frequencie s
wer e 0.2 7 percen t fo r valve s and2. 3 percen t fo r pumps . Thes e lea kP. 5

frequencies , i

ngeneral , ar e lowe r tha nth e averag e frequencie s o f 3 t o 5 percen t fo r valve s an dapproximatel y

1 0 percen t fo r pump s expecte dunde r th e standard . Acrolei nproces s units . In198 9 EP A receive dscreenin g dat a an dproces s informatio nontwo acrolei nproces s units . Thes e dat a wer e collecte d voluntaril y

b y th e company

t o provid e bette r emissio nestimate s tha ncoul db e obtaine dusin g th e SOCM I averag e factors . Th e monitorin g dat a represente d eigh t type s o f equipmen t (ga s valves , ligh t liqui dvalves , ligh t liqui dpumps , flange s an

dothe r connectors , pressur e relie f valves , sampl e points , open ende dline s an

dcompressors) . Thes e monitorin g dat a wer e collecte dfollowin g th e procedure s specifie di n"Protocol s fo r Generatin g Unit-Specifi c Emissio n Estimate s fo r Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C an dVHAP" , (Protocols ) EPA-450/3-88-010 . Ingeneral , particula r car e wa s take ni nmeasurement s o f equipmen t wit hnea r
zer o o r les s tha n20 0 pp m emissions . Inaddition , on e o f th e unit s ha d approximatel y

6 0 percen t seale dbellow s valve s an dth e othe r uni t hadn o seale dbellow s valves . Th e screenin g dat a indicate daverag e lea k frequencie s o f 0.2 6 t o 0.0 9 percen t fo r valve s ando f 0.1 3 t o 0 percen t fo r flange s an dothe r connector s
a t lea k definition s o f 100 , 1,000 , an d10,00 0 ppm . Thes e dat a als o demonstrate dtha t bot hconventiona l an dseale dbello w

valv e design s achiev e
ver y goo dperformance . Pum plea k frequencie s wer e les s tha n4 percen t a t 100 , 1000 , an d10,00 0 ppm . O f al l th e component s screened , mor e tha n9 8 percen t ha d screenin g value s belo w 1 0 ppm . Thes e lea k frequencie s ar e substantiall y belo w th e level s foun db

y EPA i nstudie s conducte di nth e earl y

1980's . Amin e Uni t W.VA . I

n1987 , EPA

receive dmonitorin g dat a fo r two proces sP. 6

unit s handlin g amines . Thes e unit s wer e selecte dfo r testin g becaus e o f th e relativel y

sever e servic e condition s (i.e. , temperatur e andpressure ) andhig h vapo r pressure s o f th e proces s materials . On e uni t (uni t 1 ) wa s characterize d

a s handlin g relativel y nontoxi c an

dinnocuou s substance s an dth e othe r uni t (uni t 2 ) wa s characterize da s handlin g a.mor e toxi c compound , on e wit ha threshol dlimi t valu e (TLV ) o f 1 0 ppm , whic hwa s capabl e o f causin g a publi c nuisance . Thes e dat a wer e collecte dvoluntaril y by th e compan y

t o calculat e a uni t specifi c emissio nestimat e using EPA' s leak/n o lea k emissio nfactors . Monitorin g dat a wer e provide dfo r pumps , valves , andflange s andothe r connectors . Th e monitorin g dat a fo r uni t 1 showe daverag e lea k frequencie s o f 3 3 percen t fo r pumps , 1 6 percen t fo r ligh t liqui dvalves,.2 7 percen t fo r ga s valves , and0. 4 percen t fo r flange s an dothe r connectors . Th e dat a fo r uni t 2 showe dlea k frequencie s o f 5. 6 percen t fo r pumps , 0. 8 percen t fo r ligh t liqui d valves , 1 percen t fo r ga s valves , an d0. 1 percen t fo r flange s an dothe r connectors . Th e dat a fo r uni t 2 indicat e tha t technolog y i s availabl e t o reduc e leak s an

dsugges t tha t motivatio ni s a nimportan t facto r affectin g us e
o f bette r technologie s andmaintenanc e practices . Ethvlbenzene/Stvren e (EB/S ) Uni t Tx . Limite dinformatio nwa s receive d

o nscreenin g value s measure da t thi s facility' s proces s unit s subjec t t o th e benzen e equipmen t lea k NESHAP . Screenin g dat a wer e provide dfo r roughl y 250 0 components . Thes e dat a showe danaverag e percen t leakin g valves , percen t leakin g pump s an

dpercen t leakin g flange s a t a lea k definitio no f 10,00 0 ppm . Thi s facilit y

consist s o f anethylbenzene/styren e proces s unit , and i s approximatel y

year s old .P. 7

Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio nStudie s o f Butadien e (BD) . Ethylen e Oxid e (EO) . an

dPhosgen e Proces s Units . Inadditio nt o th e precedin g information , comprehensiv e screenin g dat a wer e als o provide dt o EPA on3 3 butadien e (BD) , ethylen e oxid e (EO) , an dphosgen e productio nproces s units , he monitorin g dat a represente deigh t type s o f equipmen t (ga s valves , ligh t liqui dvalves , ligh t liqui dpumps , flange s an dothe r connectors , pressur e relie f valves , sampl e points , open-ende d1ine s an dcompressors ) a t essentiall y al l BD , EO , an

dphosgen e producer s operatin g i nth e Unite dStates . Thes e dat a
wer e collecte dvoluntaril y b y th e CM A committee s t o provid e EPA wit hbette r industry-wid e estimate s o f emission s from equipmen t leak s a t thes e proces s unit s tha ncoul db e obtaine dusin g EPA averag e factor s fo r SOCMI . Thes e monitorin g dat a wer e collecte dfollowin g th e procedure s specifie di nth e Protocol . I

ngeneral , particula r car e wa s take ni nmeasurement s o f equipmen t wit hnea r zer o o r les s tha n20 0 pp m emissions . Thes e dat a ar e th e mos t comprehensiv e dat a availabl e tha t documen t th e ful l rang e o f lea k frequencie s fo r larg e number s o f proces s unit s use dfo r th e productio no f specifi c chemicals . Th e screenin g dat a indicate dtha t mos t proces s unit s a t thes e facilitie s
ar e characterize db

y equipmen t lea k frequencie s fa r belo w level s foun db

y EPA i nstudie s conducte di nth e 1970' s an

d1980's . Inaddition , th e dat a bas e indicate dmuc hlowe r lea k frequencie s a t th e phosgen e proces s unit s tha na t th e E O an

dB D units , an

dth e E O unit s i

ngenera l ha dlowe r lea k frequencie s tha nth e B D units . Tabl e 1 present s th e plant-specifi c lea k frequenc y dat a b y componen t type , a t lea k definition s o f 50 , 500 , 1000 , an d10,00 0 pp

m fo r th e thre e processes . Tabl e 1 doe s no t includ e dat a fo r E 0 an dB D proces s unit s

!_______
_P. 8

tha t wer e judge db

y th e Committe e t o b e inconsisten t wit hprope r calibratio n
an dus e o f th e tes t equipment . Th e dat a presente di nTabl e 1 represent s plant s i nvariou s stage s o f contro l an doperations . Some plant s operate dusin g forma l LDA Rprogram s an

dother s di dnot ; some unit s wer e screene djus t befor e a shutdow nfo r maintenanc e an

dother s wer e screene djus t afte r startu pfollowin g schedule dmaintenanc e shutdown . Texa s Ai r Contro l Boar dData . Additiona l dat a from 3 plant s wer e provide db

y th e Committe e membe r representin g th e Texa s Ai r Pollutio nContro l Board . Thes e plant s ar e subjec t t o a Texa s regulatio ntha t require s lea k detectio nan

drepai r (LDAR ) wit hdirecte dmaintenanc e a t a 50 0 ppm v lea k definition . Thes e plant s ha dpreviousl y bee nsubjec t t o a 10,00 0 pp m LDA R program . Th e dat a provide dwer e fo r cumene , phenol/acetone , an d butyraldehyde/butano l proces s unit s whic hha dbee noperatin g a 50 0 pp m LDA R progra m fo r on e t o si xquarters . Thes e unit s ha daverag e lea k frequencie s a t 50 0 pp m fo r valve s rangin g from 0 t o 3. 6 percent , fo r pump s o f 3.6 , 4 , an d5 percent , an

dfo r flange s o f 0 an d2 percent . Mor e particularly , thes e dat a demonstrate dtha t a 50 0 pp m LDA Rprogra m

i s effectiv e an

dwil l significantl y decreas e lea k frequenc y acros s a rang e o f chemicals . Th e abov e data , whe ncompare dwit hth e earlie r studie s an danalyse s show tha t th e performanc e o f availabl e technolog y i s bette r tha ntha t expecte dfro m
a 10,00 0 pp

m LDA Rprogram . However , lik e earlie r studies , thes e studie s d o no t identif y an y on e singl e facto r o r technolog y a s bein g responsibl e fo r th e bette r performance . Rather , th e recen t dat a confir m tha t effectiv e lea k contro l involve s a combinatio no f factors . Fo r example , statistica l analysi s
o f th e recen t E 0 an

dB D dat a faile dt o identif y specifi c proces s parameter s o rP. 9

equipmen t design s tha t alon e significantl y affecte dlea k frequencies . Inadditio nt o considerin g th e availabl e screenin g data , th e Committe e visite d3 integrate dchemica l plants ; 1 larg e integrate dchemica l plan t ha d2 0 operatin g unit s includin g a phosgen e unit , a toluen e diisocyanat e unit , an da hydroge nfluorid e unit . On e observatio nmad e from thes e visit s wa s tha t th e
muc hgreate r motivatio nt o contro l leak s i nphosgen e an

disocyanat e unit s ha s resulte di

nth e routin e us e o f a numbe r o f effectiv e lea k contro l practice s i n thes e units . Measure s take nt o preven t an dminimiz e leak s i

nphosgen e an

d isocyanat e unit s includ e desig nt o minimiz e th e numbe r o f components , stringen t qualit y

assurance/contro l programs , benc htestin g o f equipmen t fo r leaks , an

dcarefu l managemen t an dextensiv e continuou s monitorin g o f th e uni t t o detec t leak s an

dproblems . Inaddition , phosgen e an disocyanat e unit s ar e shutdow nfo r immediat e repai r wheneve r any lea k i s detected . I nunit s wher e les s acutel y

toxi c compound s ar e use do r produced , suc hmeasure s wer e no t observe dan

dth e unit s ar e no t immediatel y shutdownfo r repai r wheneve r a lea k i s detected . Rather , thes e unit s ar e typicall y operate dfo r a fixe dtim e perio dbefor e the y

ar e shutdow

nfo r maintenanc e an drepair . Representativ e operatin g time s betwee nschedule dshutdown s rang e from 6 month s t o severa l years , wit htypica l tim e betwee nturnaround s o f approximatel y 3 years . Th e Committe e als o conclude dtha t equipmen t desig nan da non-goin g qualit y control/assuranc e program ha s a significan t rol e i nachievin g low

lea k frequencies . Thi s conclusio nwa s supporte db y remark s mad e t o th e Committe e b y a chemica l industr y

representativ e wh o describe dhi s company' s recen t experienc e wit htwo ethylen e oxid e productio nunits . Following completio no f

a screenin g study , th e compan y undertoo k a progra m t o reduc e th e lea kP.1 0

frequenc y

an demission s from

th e units . Step s take nconsiste do f componen t inspection , replacemen t o f ove r 70 0 valve s an d200 0 gaskets , modificatio no f desig nt o reduc e leaks , an dregula r monitorin g an dinspectio nfo r leaks . Ther e wa s a

noveral l reductio no f abou t 8 0 percen t i nth e numbe r o f leakin g component s followin g completio no f thi s project . Committe e Analysi s an dConsideratio no f th e Dat a Th e Committe e considere dthe,dat a an dinformatio ndescribe di nth e precedin g sectio nandconclude dtha t th e E0 , BD , an dPhosgen e dat a shoul d

serv e a s th e principl e basi s fo r establishin g th e performanc e o f MAC T fo r SOCM I processes . Th e E0 , BD , an dPhosgen e data , however , wer e considere di n ligh t o f th e broade r data ; especially , th e Texa s 50 0 pp m LDA Rprogram

an dth e sit e visits . O

nthi s basis , th e Committe e agree dtha t phosgen e unit s ar e no t simila r i

ndesign , operation , an dmaintenanc e t o mos t SOCM I processes . Some o f th e maintenanc e an

doperatin g practice s fo r phosgen e unit s contro l program s
wen t beyon dmaximum

availabl e contro l technolog y (MACT ) fo r othe r SOCM I processes . Specifically , th e practic e o f immediat e shutdowni s economicall y
an dtechnicall y

infeasibl e fo r othe r processe s becaus e shutdowno f th e on e uni t woul drequir e shutdow no f al l th e integrate doperation s a t th e sit e an d it woul db e impractica l t o clea r larg e volume s o f chemical s i nshor t time frames . Therefore , whil e th e phosgen e unit s performanc e di dprovid e a n indicatio no f th e potentia l fo r lea k reduction , th e Committe e conclude dtha t th e E 0 an

dB D unit s ar e mor e representativ e o f th e rang e o f processe s i nSOCM I tha nar e phosgen e o r toluen e diisocyanat e units . Th e Committe e di drecognize , a s indicate db

y th e framewor k an

dth e performanc e levels , tha t ver y lo w lea k frequencie s ar e generall y achievabl e an

dtha t th e rul e shoul dencourag e



### 8P.1 1

attainin g lo

w emissions . Fro m th e dat a an

dobservations , th e Committe e als o conclude dtha t lo w emissio nperformanc e result s from combination s o f monitorin g (o r surveillance) , repai r o f leakin g equipment , us e o f qualit y assure dan

dqualit y controlle dequipmen t suitabl e fo r th e proces s operatin g conditions , an da qualit y controlle dmaintenanc e an drepai r program . Th e Committe e conclude d tha t suc hcombination s ar e MAC T fo r SOCM I processes . Th e informatio n availabl e di dno t identif y any singl e factor , suc ha s particula r equipmen t desig no r specifi c wor k practice s o r maintenanc e program s tha t b y itsel f woul d guarante e lo

w emissio nperformanc e i nal l cases . Furthermore , th e Committe e di dno t identif y

th e result s a t an

y on e specifi c proces s uni t o r performanc e leve l a s representin g MAC T performanc e becaus e ther e i s n o apparen t brea k poin t tha t represent s a limi t o f wha t i s achievabl e wit ha combinatio no f technologie s tha t ar e available . Thus , th e Committe e identifie dth e bes t performin g EO proces s units , th e EB/ S unit , th e Texa s 50 0 pp m units , an

dth e bes t performin g B D proces s unit s a s reflectin g th e performanc e o f MAC T fo r toxi c chemica l processes . Regulator y

Approac h Becaus e availabl e informatio nindicate dtha t bes t performanc e fo r equipmen t leak s coul dno t b e define do r reflecte di na singl e numerica l standard , typ e o f technology , o r grou po f wor k practices , th e Committe e focuse dondevelopin g a regulator y framewor k that , whe ncombine dwit h performanc e levels , woul dreflec t MACT . Ke y principle s tha t evolve dan dtha t le dt o th e regulator y framewor k are : (1 ) Motivatio ni s a majo r facto r determinin g performance .(2 ) Flexibilit y i nachievin g specifie dresult s i s important . Thi s i s
necessar y

t o allo w

consideratio no f proces s t o proces s variation s i noperatin g condition s an

dequipmen t specification s an dt o provid e incentive s fo r identifyin g th e mos t effectiv e combinatio no f equipmen t an dpractices . (3 ) Tim e ha s t o b e provide dfo r source s t o identify , implement , an d desig nsystem s t o mee t th e specifie dresults . Effectiv e contro l require s continual analysi s an dadjustmen t an

dma y involv e severa l technologie s whic h

canno t b e identifie do r applie da t on e tim e o r i non e step . (4 ) A prescribe dprogra m

shoul db e employed , a t a minimum , fo r thos e proces s unit s tha t d o no t achiev e th e specifie dresult s throug ha progra m o f thei r ow ndesig no r throug hquarterl y inspectio nan

dmaintenanc e alone . (5 ) Ther e i s insufficien t informatio navailabl e t o se t a not-to-be exceede dstandard . Th e existin g informatio ni s to o limite di nscop e t o predic t wha t leve l o f performanc e coul db e achieve db y processe s fo r whic hno dat a wer e available . Th e majorit y

o f th e Committe e deliberation s concerne ddevelopmen t o f a regulator y

framewor k an

dperformanc e level s tha t woul dincorporat e th e abov e ke y principles , whil e reflectin g th e performanc e o f MACT . Thes e deliberation s primaril y

focuse dondevelopin g provision s fo r valves , pumps , an dflange s becaus e thes e emissio nsource s offere dth e greates t potentia l fo r emissio n reductions . Th e Committe e use dth e existin g LDA Rprogra m

a s a startin g poin t fo r developmen t of.th e framewor k fo r thes e sources . Early-on , th e Committe e recognize dth e nee dfo r a phased-i napproac hfo r valve s an dpump s tha t woul d provid e time fo r plant s t o develo pan dimplemen t effectiv e program s an dt o focu s onlarge r emissio nsource s first . Th e agree dapproac hdefine s MAC T fo r



### 1 0P.1 3

valve s an

dpump s a s consistin g o f thre e phase s o f increasin g stringency . Th e phase-i napproac hi s necessar y becaus e effectiv e contro l require s continual analysi s an

dadjustmen t o f program s a s experienc e i s gained . Therefore , eac h phase , a s it occur s reflect s th e performanc e o f MAC T fo r unit s i ntha t phase . Th e Committe e als o deliberate donsevera l method s o f linkin g monitorin g frequenc y

wit hperformanc e an do f providin g incentive s t o us e lo w emissio n equipmen t o r t o reduc e th e amoun t o f equipmen t i nVHA P service . Th e fina l decisio nwa s t o link reduce dmonitorin g frequenc y wit hlowe r lea k frequencies , an dt o giv e credi t fo r remova l o f equipmen t o r us e o f lo w lea k desig n equipment . Thi s approac hi s consisten t wit hth e dat a whic hindicat e tha t ther e ar e combination s o f technology , maintenanc e practices , an dqualit y
assuranc e program s tha t canachiev e ver y low lea k frequencie s whil e usin g les s frequen t monitorin g intervals . Th e Committe e als o agree dt o retai nth e existin g equipmen t standard s fo r pressur e relie f devices , sampl e points , open-ende dlines , produc t accumulato r vessels , an

dcompressors . Th e existin g standard s fo r thes e item s o f equipmen t requir e installatio no f equipmen t o r contro l device s an dessentiall y

eliminat e emission s from

equipmen t leaks . Th e Committe e considere dthes e requirement s t o b e "stat e o f art " o r MACT . Fo r th e valve , pump , an dflang e standards , th e Committe e use dth e dat a from th e bette r performin g E O units , th e Texa s 50 0 pp m units , an

dth e EB/ S uni t t o establis hth e performanc e level s fo r th e monitorin g frequency . A majo r consideratio ni nth e selectio no f performanc e level s wa s th e understandin g tha t th e level s ar e interrelate dwit hth e framewor k an dphasin g
an dar e no t necessaril y th e level s tha t woul dhav e bee nchose nfo r a not-to 

### 1 1P. M

be-exceede dframework . I nth e cas e o f th e valv e standard , th e selectio no f th e performanc e level s wa s als o influence db y th e inclusio no f provision s tha t provid e analternativ e t o monthl y monitoring . Referre dt o a s th e Qualit y Improvemen t Program

(QIP) , thi s program ensure s tha t plant s subjec t t o thes e provision s instal l low emissio nperformin g replacemen t equipmen t (durin g
norma l replacement ) an dimplemen t a qualit y assurance/contro l program t o
ensur e tha t al l element s o f MAC T ar e utilized . Also , th e QI P wa s include di n th e framewor k t o protec t thos 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 dnumerica l performanc e level s require dt o remai nona quarterl y monitorin g schedule . Th e basi s fo r th e specifi c provision s an dperformanc e level s selecte d fo r eac htyp e o f equipmen t i s discusse dbelow . Valves . Fo r valve s th e Committe e initially considere dbot hequipmen t standard s an

dLDA Rprogram s an

dultimatel y

agree dupo na thre e phas e LDA R program . Initially , th e Committe e considere drequirin g th e us e o f equipmen t
suc ha s seale dbellow s valve s becaus e th e equipmen t i s ofte nbelieve dt o hav e
zer o emissions . Thi s optio nwa s no t selecte dfo r severa l reasons . First , thes e valve s ar e no t suitabl e fo r us e i nal l operatin g condition s an dservice s encountere di

nSOCM I processes . Specifically , thes e valve s ca nno t b e use di n corrosiv e streams , wit hgritt y materials , o r i

nextremel y

highpressur e o r temperatur e conditions . Second , seale dbellow s valve s ca nlea k internally , an dwil l eventuall y

fail . Whe nfailur e occurs , ther e i s potentia l fo r leaks . Du e t o thi s possiblit y fo r leaks , monitorin g o f thes e valve s i s necessary . Considerin g this , th e Committe e though t tha t th e lea k detection , repair , and performanc e standard s framewor k describe dabov e woul dbes t reflec t MACT . Thi s



### 1 2approac hallow s an dwoul dgiv e credi t fo r any lo w emissio nperformin g valv e regardles s o f it s design . Th e Committe e considere dsevera l LDA Rprogram s whic htie dmonitorin g frequenc y

t o th e performanc e leve l achieve dan dcreate da framewor k tha t consist s o f severa l combination s o f wor k practice s andperformanc e levels . In determinin g th e maximum monitorin g frequencie s fo r Phas e III , th e Committe e considere drequirin g weekl y monitorin g an

dmonthl y

monitoring . Th e weekl y monitorin g program

wa s rejecte da s bein g impractica l andunreasonable . Th e Committe e agree dtha t a monthl y program wa s th e maximum

frequenc y

tha t woul d b e generall y

feasible , an

dwoul dreduc e emissions , whil e bein g sufficientl y costl y t o motivat e source s t o identif y mor e cost-effectiv e approaches . Fo r plant s tha t d o no t achiev e th e performanc e leve l fo r quarterl y monitoring , th e standar drequire s monthl y monitorin g o r participatio ni nth e QI P program

fo r valves . I

naddition , th e Committe e als o decide dt o provid e incentive s fo r bette r performanc e tha nth e bas e limi t fo r quarterl y monitoring . Th e incentive s provide dar e annua l an dsemi-annua l monitorin g frequencies , fo r achievin g specifie dperformanc e levels . I nselectin g th e performanc e leve l an dlea k definition , th e Committe e considere dth e performanc e o f th e bette r performin g E O an dB D unit s an

dth e performanc e o f th e unit s subjec t t o th e Texa s 50 0 pp m standard . Usin g thi s data , th e Committe e considere dlea k definition s i nth e rang e o f 5 0 t o 100 0 pp m
an dperformanc e level s fro m 1 t o 5 percen t leakin g valves . Thes e dat a an dth e fac t that, i

npractice , lo

w lea k frequencie s wer e achieve db y a 50 0 pp

m LDA R program alon e supporte dth e practicalit y an dachievabilit y

o f a performanc e limi t fo r a quarterl y LDA Rprogram

o f 2 percen t leakin g valve s a t a 50 0 pp m



### 1 3

__L_M__ IP.1 6

lea k definition . Lea k definition s lowe r tha n50 0 pp m wer e no t selecte ddu e t o uncertaintie s abou t th e practica l abilit y t o measur e an

drepai r smalle r leaks . Concentration s greate r tha n50 0 pp m wer e no t selecte di nligh t o f th e demonstrate dpracticalit y o f a 50 0 pp

m LDA Rprogram . Th e Committe e als o agree d tha t unit s wit hles s tha n1 percen t leakin g valve s coul dmonito r th e valve s semiannuall y

an dthos e wit hles s tha n0. 5 percen t leakin g valve s coul dmonito r annually . Thes e performanc e level s hav e bee ndemonstrate dby th e bette r performin g E 0 proces s units , th e EB/ S unit , an db y th e plant s subjec t t o th e Texa s 50 0 pp

m regulation . Th e Committe e considere dthes e level s t o reflec t th e bes t performanc e o f 1 0 percen t o f th e unit s an dt o represen t th e performanc e
o f MACT . Pumps . I ndeliberation s onth e standard , th e Committe e considere dth e dat a summarize di

nTabl e T , additiona l analyse s o f th e EO/B D data , an dth e comment s o f pum

psea l manufacturers . Th e EO/B D dat a showe dpum plea k frequencie s an

doveral l performanc e t o b e highl y variabl e wit hlea k frequencie s rangin g from 0 t o 5 0 percen t a t a 100 0 pp m lea k definition . Additional analyse s wer e don e t o compar e th e performanc e o f dua l mechanica l

sea l (DMS ) an

dsingl e mechanical sea l (SMS ) pumps . Thes e comparison s showe d that , i ngeneral , DM S pump s screene da t 0 pp m an dtha t SM S pump s performanc e varie dwidel y

amon g th e proces s units . Insome cases , th e SM S pump s screene d

a t les s tha n10 0 pp

m an dcoul db e viewe da s havin g comparabl e performanc e t o tha t o f DM S pumps . Fo r th e majorit y o f SM S pump s screenin g a t les s tha n10,00 0 ppm , th e screenin g value s wer e fairl y uniforml y

distribute dfrom

10 0 t o 910 0 ppm . Thus , th e dat a di dno t provid e a clea r indicatio no f th e performanc e leve l tha t ca nb e achieve dby SM S withou t incurrin g highmaintenanc e costs .



### 1 4P.1 7

Fro m it s consideratio no f th e availabl e data , th e Committe e generall y conclude dthat , a s a group , pump s equippe dwit hDM S hav e lowe r lea k frequencie s tha nthos e equippe dwit hSMS . Consequently , th e Committe e deliberate da t grea t lengt honwhethe r MAC T i s reflecte db y a nequipmen t standar dfo r DM S onal l pump s o r b y a performanc e standard . Th e Committe e decide dno t t o establis ha nequipmen t standar dbecaus e DM S ar e no t suitabl e fo r us e i

nal l case s an

dbecaus e a DM S equipmen t standar dwoul db e ver y costl y
an dwoul dpreclud e effectiv e lowe r cos t options . Example s o f case s wher e DM S
ar e no t suitabl e fo r us e wit hmaterial s wher e leakag e o f th e barrie r flui d coul daffec t produc t purity , wit hpolymerizin g monomers , o r onreciprocatin g pumps . Incase s wher e DM S ca nb e used , th e cos t o f installatio no f th e dua l seal s an ddegassin g vent s i s estimate dt o b e $8,20 0 (1989 ) fo r a nexistin g pum pan d$7,60 0 (1989 ) fo r a new pump . Th e annualize d cos t i s estimate dt o b e $2,200/y r fo r a

nexistin g pum

pand$l,800/y r fo r a new pump . Thi s contro l woul dreduc e emission s b y approximatel y

0. 1 Mg/y r beyon dtha t achieve db y a 10,00 0 pp

m LDA Rprogra m

an dwoul dhav e anincrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f approximatel y

$14,50 0 t o $17,500/M g fo r ne w an dexistin g pump s (Note : Thes e number s ar e preliminar y an drepresen t th e incrementa l cos t from a 10,00 0 pp

m LDA Rprogra m

t o roughl y

a 50 0 pp

m program . W e ar e stil l considerin g how thi s incrementa l C/ E shoul db e calculated.) . Th e additiona l emissio nreductio n achievabl e throug hus e o f DM S pump s i s typicall y ver y smal l (e.g.les s tha n5 percent ) relativ e t o th e tota l emission s from th e proces s unit . T o establis ha performanc e standar dtha t woul dreflec t MAC T fo r pumps , th e Committe e considere dth e performanc e capabilitie s o f SM S (an dpacke d seals ) compare dt o th e performance , applicability , an dcos t o f DMS .



### 1 5P.1 8

Discussion s amon g th e Committe e members , chemica l industr y representatives , an dpum psea l manufacturer s lea dt o th e conclusio ntha t i t i s no t possibl e t o identif y precisel y

bes t performanc e level s achievabl e by SM S an dthat , althoug hadvance s i

ntechnolog y

coul dreasonabl y

b e expecte dove r th e nex t 5 years , th e limit s o nthes e advance s coul dno t b e established . Becaus e o f limitation s onth e applicabilit y o f DMS , th e Committe e agree dt o establis h separat e performanc e standard s fo r pump s i nfood/medica l servic e an dfo r pump s handlin g polymerizin g monomers . Fo r pump s i

ngenera l service , th e Committe e agree dtha t 100 0 pp m represente da performanc e targe t reflectin g MAC T andtha t repai r o f pump s wit h

a lea k rat e les s tha n200 0 pp m woul dresul t i

nsignifican t an

dcostl y maintenance , withou t an y attendan t emissio nreduction . Therefore , 200 0 pp m wa s establishe da s th e concentratio na t whic hrepai r i s required . Th e Committe e als o conclude dtha t a 1 0 percen t lea k frequenc y (o r 3 leakin g pumps ) i s th e appropriat e poin t t o impos e a qualit y improvemen t progra m tha t include s a mandator y

replacemen t provision . Onbalance , i t wa s believe d tha t thi s combinatio no f requirement s woul dprovid e th e tim e an dincentiv e neede dt o achiev e bes t performanc e fro m SMS , woul dallo w

us e o f SM S wher e the y ca nb e
use dwit hlow

emissions , an

dwoul dallo w

us e o f bot hSM S an

dDM S pump s a t thos e facilitie s wher e some processe s ar e incompatibl e wit hDM S pumps . Fo r pump s i

nfood/medica l service , th e Committe e selecte d200 0 pp m an d 1 0 percen t lea k frequenc y a s th e performanc e level . Th e lea k definitio nwa s
se t a t 200 0 pp

m t o accoun t fo r th e limite d applicabilit y o f DM S pump s an

d uncertaint y

tha t SM S seal s coul dachiev e lowe r performanc e level s withou t excessiv e replacement s i nthi s service . Th e Committe e als o agree dtha t



### 1 6P.1 9

processe s wit hpump s i nfood/medica l servic e tha t excee dth e 1 0 percen t leakin g pump s limitatio nwoul dno t b e subjec t t o th e mandator y replacemen t provision s i

nth e qualit y

improvemen t program . Fo r pump s handlin g polymerizin g monomers , th e Committe e selecte d 500 0 pp m an d1 0 percen t lea k frequenc y fo r th e performanc e level . Thi s decisio nwa s base donth e lac k o f dat a an duncertaintie s onth e limit s o f performanc e o f SM S o r packe dseal s i nthi s service . I t wa s als o agree dtha t facilitie s tha t
excee d1 0 percen t lea k frequenc y woul dno t b e subjec t t o th e mandator y replacemen t provisio no f th e qualit y improvemen t program . Flanges . Provision s fo r a LDA Rprogram

fo r flange s wer e develope dafte r th e Committe e conclude dtha t flange s coul db e a significan t sourc e o f emission s a t a well-controlle d plan t an demission s coul db e reduced . I nth e developmen t o f thes e provisions , th e Committe e considere dth e dat a summarize d i nTabl e 1 an

dth e contributio no f flang e emission s t o tota l emission s fo r
severa l EO/B D proces s units . Thes e dat a showe dflang e lea k frequencie s a s hig h

a s 3 percent , a t a lea k definitio no f 10,00 0 ppm , an du pt o - - percen t o f th e tota l uni t fro

m flang e emissions . Becaus e som e EO/B D unit s had0 percen t leakin g flange s a t 10 0 an da t 10,00 0 pp

m lea k definitions , th e Committe e conclude dtha t flang e leak s ca nb e controlle dt o low levels . Th e genera l vie w
wa s tha t th e relativel y hig hlea k rate s observe da t som e proces s unit s wa s a resul t o f infrequen t o r n o inspection s an dmaintenance . I ndevelopmen t o f thes e provisions , th e Committe e agree dtha t contro l

measure s ar e availabl e fo r flang e leak s an dtha t assurin g MAC T performanc e require s les s frequen t monitorin g tha ni s necessar y fo r pump s o r valves . Les s frequen t monitorin g i s neede dbecaus e flange s hav e n o movin g part s an donc e



### 1 7P.2 0

repaire dthe y

shoul dremai nlea k fre e fo r extende dperiods . Informatio n provide db

y industr y

member s onth e Committe e indicate dtha t a numbe r o f action s ca nb e take nt o reduc e o r eliminat e leaks . I nmos t cases , i t wa s expecte dtha t tightenin g th e flang e bolt s woul deliminat e th e leak . I t wa s als o expecte dtha t i

nothe r case s i t ma y

b e necessar y

t o replac e th e gaske t o r t o correc t fault y

alignmen t o f surfaces . Thes e latte r case s ar e expecte dt o b e relativel y

infrequent . Th e Committee , therefore , decide dtha t a nannua l bas e program wa s th e maximum

frequenc y

tha t wa s reasonable . Th e Committe e als o conclude dtha t les s frequen t monitorin g shoul db e allowe dfo r source s tha t demonstrat e sustaine dperformanc e a t th e leve l o f th e standard . Thi s concep t i s simila r t o th e skip-perio dprovision s fo r valve s i nth e existin g equipmen t lea k regulations . Thi s approac hi s consisten t wit hqualit y contro l principle s
andth e Coiranitte

e conclude dtha t thi s approac hwil l ensur e MAC T performance . Th e Committe e selecte dth e performanc e leve l an dlea k definitio n considerin g th e dat a from th e EO/B D units , th e Texa s 50 0 pp m LDA Runits , an

d th e genera l conclusion s draw nfro nth e Committee' s discussions . Thes e dat a
an dth e fac t that, i

npractice , lo

w lea k frequencie s wer e achievabl e persuade d th e Committe e t o defin e a lea k a s 50 0 pp m an dt o se t a performanc e limi t o f 0. 5 percen t leakin g flange s reflecte dMACT . Proces s unit s tha t hav e 0. 5 percent , o r greater , leakin g flange s shal l implemen t a nannua l LDA

Rprogra m fo r flanges . Proces s unit s tha t hav e les s tha n0. 5 percen t leakin g flange s shal l monito r al l flange s i na biennia l o r quadrennia l program .



### 1 8Uni t I D

E O 1 E O 2 E O 3 E O 4 E O 5 E O 6 E O 7 E O 8 E O 9
B D 1 B D 3 B D 4 B D 5 B D 6 B D 7 B D 8 B D 1 0 B D 1 1 B D 1 2 Valve s

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 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 % Leaker s 100 0 0. 3 1. 1 1. 1 0. 9 0. 2 1. 3 1. 2 1. 5 4 7. 5 4. 2 5. 4 5 3. 3 2. 2 15. 1 17. 1 8 3. 7 Tabl e 1

Pimp s % 50 0

0 2 3 3 6 0 0 6 2 5

2 4 2. 9 5 0 3 3 n/ a 5 8 0 16. 7 1 0 100 0

0 1 8 2 7 0 0 0 2 5

2 1 0

n/ a 5 0 0 16. 7 1 0 Sunmar y

o f Leaker s 200 0

0 1 4 9 0 0 0 2 5

1 5 0

n/ a 41. 7 0 16. 7 1 0 500 0

0 9 9 0 0 0 2 5

1 3 0

n/ a 41. 7 0 16. 7 1 0 Equipmen t S a

Connector s 25 0 0 0. 9 3. 2 2. 8 0 4. 1 0 2. 5 7. 6 0 0. 7 1 0 3. 4 n/ a 0 7. 4 5. 1 1. 4 0. 6 50 0 0 0. 9 3. 2 1. 5 0 4. 1 0 2. 5 5. 9 0 0. 7 8. 6 1. 5 n/ a 0 6. 7 2. 5 1. 4 0. 6 reenin

g D a % Leaker s 100 0 0 0. 9 3. 2 0. 7 0 4. 1 0 2. 5 . 4. 9 0 0. 7 7. 1 1. 1 n/ a 0 5. 9 1. 9 0. 7 0. 6 Acrolei n 0.1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 TRC B A B C 3. 6

0 0. 7 0 n/ a 2

Averag e SOCH I a t 10,00 0 pp

m 11. 5 2. 1

h oP.2 2



### •z^- R£

£MEf i m 

### ^ OUTLIN E 

### I . Summar y Brie f suRonar

yo f purpos e o f ANPR

. 

### II . Docke t III . Furthe r Informatio nContact s IV . Supplementar y

Informatio n A . Summar y

o f Standard s B . Backgroun d 1.Overvie w

o f equipmen t leak s significanc e an dhistor y

o f regulation s

2 . Lega l framewor k unde r Clea nAi r Ac t o f 199 0 3 . Brie f descriptio no f th e HO N Thi s wil l describ e th e overal l scop e o f th e HO N andexplai ntha t th e Negotiate drul e i s on e o f severa l fo r th e 5 emissio npoints .

4 . Histor y

o f th e Negotiatio nCoiranitte e 5 . Coiranitte

e member s
C . Scop e an

dApplicabilit y 1 . Chemical s an

dprocesse s 2 . Equipmen t Equipmen t covere dby

th e rul e Discussio no f body

flange s an

dwh y no t covered 3 . AP I limitation s languag e D . Dat a an dInformatio nConsidere din th e Developmen t o f th e Negotiate d Rul e E . Basi s fo r Negotiate dStandar d

1

. Applicablit y Tints i n us e 

### Percen t VHA P cutof f Pilo t Plant s
/ ;

_•___•_____ •• • p



### ^=$© w versu s existin g plant s 2 . Complianc e Date s (staggere dimplementation ) 3 . Valv e standar d Thi s wil l summariz e th e phase s o f th e standard , th e performanc e levels , et c tha t wer e explaine di n Sectio nD . I t wil l explai nth e basi s fo r th e othe r provision s i n th e valv e standard . 4 . Pum pstandar d Thi s wil l b e organize dsimilarl y t o th e discussio no f th e valv e standard .

i i 

### 5 . Quality

Improvemen t Program Valve s Pump s 6 . Flange s an

dothe r connector s 7 . Othe r equipmen t Compressor s OEL s PRV s Sampl e 1ine s Close dven t system s an

dcontro l device s Agitator s Instrumentatio nsystem s 8 . Alternativ e standard s Equivalenc y Batc hprocesse s Enclose devacuate dbuildin g 9 . Tes t Method s an

dProcedure s 10 . Dela y

o f repai r 11 . Recordkeepin g an

dReportin g

__________ •