P.1 

OAR Box 1338 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

9) ll-E-20 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:05 PM Sheet 9 of 105 
P.2 

•^, ("^ * A-89-10 

-. .'j.' 

To: 

Fr: 

^ ogcicit 

LAW omct* 

PHILIP J. HARTEK 

SUITB 404 

1301 M STREET, N.W. 

WASHINGTON. D.C 30097 

II-E-2 0 

(202) 687-I0t3 

rAXi iZOll ••7.1038 

April 4,1990 

MEMORANDUM 

EPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Fugitive Emissions from Equipment Leaks and Interested 

Parties 

Philip J. Hartcr 

Facilitator 

Re: Minutes of March 27-28 Meeting; Future Meeting; Batch Workgroup Meeting 

I enclose the minutes of the March 27-23 meeting that were prepared by Radian Corporation. As 

before, the materials that were distributed at the meeting arc attached. As of the moment, I would expect the 

agenda for the meeting would very much resemble the one distributed at the last meeting with a dear emphasis on the standard and the "ancillary" factors. Within that, we of course need to develop an approach for 

pumps, flanges, and other things that have not been discussed as much as valves. I hope to have a belter feel 

for specific items and hence a belter estimate of an actual agenda in a little while; if so, 1 will distribute a 

more detailed agenda before the meeting. 

The Batch Processing workgroup will meet at 1:30 on April 24 at the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 

Association, 1100 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC. As always, all Committee members and their 

designees arc welcome. 

The next meeting will be on April 25-26 at The Conservation Foundation, Suite 500,1250 24th Street 

NW, Washington, DC; the phone number at CF is 202*293-4800. Since we will not be meeting at a hotel, we 

have not booked any rooms for this meeting. To facilitate your finding CF and an appropriate hotel, I enclose 

a map indicating CFs location (it is two blocks due north of the Bristol Hotel where we met in February) and 

a list of hotels in tho area. Since that is "Earth Week", you may be well advised to make your reservation 

early. 

The meeting will begin at 10:00 on the first day and 9:00 on the second. They will run until about 5:00 

on the fust day and about 4:00 on the second. Recall that the Organizational Protocols provide that 'Unless 

extended by the Committee, the deadline for the negotiations is April 30, 1990." Thus, we need to try to 

reach a conceptual agreement at this meeting. Therefore, it is important that all committee members plan to 

stay for the whole time - things often get hairy at the end. 

We have scheduled a meeting for June 6-7. As we discussed at the meeting, it will be at the Compri 

Hotel, 4620 S. Miami Boulevard, Morrisvillc NC 27S60; 919-941-606*5. It is located just off exit 281 on 1-40 

which is ihe second exit from the airport on the way to Durham. A block of rooms has been reserved. When 

calling for reservations, please identify yourself as being with "EPA Fugitives". 
P.3 

LAW owfiett 

PHILIP J. BARTER 

•UITK 404 

3301 M tTfttCT. N.W. 

WA8HIN0T0N. D.C. 20037 

(202) «87at033 

FAXi U02) 887.103« 

April 11, 1990 

IMPORTAN T NOTICE!! 

The meeting scheduled for April 25 and 26 has been canceled. It has been rescheduled for May 10 and 

11. The meeting will be held at the Conservation Foundation; Suite 500; 1250 24th Street, N.W.; Washington, 

DC 20037; 202-2934800. 

Unfortunately, the Conservation Foundation will be holding a meeting b the conference room unlit 10:00 

on May 10. Our meeting will therefore start at 10:30. Because CF is a functioning organization and its meeting 

room will be occupied, please do not arrive there until just before 10:30. My office is one block away (at the 

corner of 23rd and M), and I would welcome anyone who wants a place to perch for awhile: come join mc 

for coffee and croissants before the meeting. I also have some spare rooms (ihey aren't large and they lack 

furniture since they were occupied by a firm that left) in case some groups would like to meet beforehand. 

In addition, because we will be a bit tardy in starting and will be meeting on Friday so that we will likely 

lose some people early, we should plan on going laic on Thursday, May 10 and starting early on May 11. 

The Batch Processing Workgroup will meet as originally scheduled at 1:30 on April 24 at the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 1100 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC. That will afford die Workgroup 

enough time to prepare materials for submittal to the full committee at the newly scheduled May meeting. 
P.4 

LAW OFFICES 

PHILIP J. HARTER 

SUITE 404 

2301 M STREET. N. W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 

(202) 887.1033 

FAX: (202) 887.1036 

April 4, 1990 

MEMORANDUM 

To: EPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Fugitive Emissions from Equipment Leaks 

and Interested Parties 

Fr: Philip J. Harter 

Facilitator e4 

Re: Minutes of March 27-28 Meeting; Future Meeting; Batch Workgroup Meeting 

I enclose the minutes of the March 27-28 meeting that were prepared by Radian Corporation. As 

before, the materials that were distributed at the meeting are attached. As of the moment, I would expect the 

agenda for the meeting would very much resemble the one distributed at the last meeting with a clear emphasis on the standard and the "ancillary" factors. Within that, we of course need to develop an approach for 

pumps, flanges, and other things that have not been discussed as much as valves. I hope to have a better feel 

for specific items and hence a better estimate of an actual agenda in a little while; if so, I will distribute a 

more detailed agenda before the meeting. 

The Batch Processing workgroup will meet at 1:30 on April 24 at the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 

Association, 1100 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC; the phone number at CF is 202-293-4800. As 

always, all Committee members and their designees are welcome. 

The next meeting will be on April 25-26 at The Conservation Foundation, Suite 500, 1250 24th Street 

NW, Washington, DC. Since we will not be meeting at a hotel, we have not booked any rooms for this 

meeting. To facilitate your finding CF and an appropriate hotel, I enclose a map indicating CFs location (it is 

two blocks due north of the Bristol Hotel where we met in February) and a list of hotels in the area. Since 

that is "Earth Week", you may be well advised to make your reservation early. 

The meeting will begin at 10:00 on the first day and 9:00 on the second. They will run until about 5:00 

on the first day and about 4:00 on the second. Recall that the Organizational Protocols provide that "Unless 

extended by the Committee, the deadline for the negotiations is April 30, 1990." Thus, we need^to try to 

reach a conceptual agreement at this meeting. Therefore, it is important that all committee members plan to 

stay for the whole time - things often get hairy at the end. 

We have scheduled a meeting for June 6-7. As we discussed at the meeting, it will be at the Compri 

Hotel, 4620 S. Miami Boulevard, Morrisville NC 27560; 919-941-6066. It is located just off exit 281 on 1-40 

which is the second exit from the airport on the way to Durham. A block of rooms has been reserved. When 

calling for reservations, please identify yourself as being with "EPA Fugitives". 
P.5 

i 

The Conservation Foundation 

The Conserv 

Foundation 

To Georgetov 

a> 

w 

CO 

£ 

CM 

, 

' ( 

ation 

" ^ 1 

i m 

24t

h Street V 

i 

23r

d Street 

/ashingt 

/ 

22n

d Street 

on Circ 

Foggy 

/ Me 

Bot 

tro 

torn 

P Street 

OSt reet 

/ / 

7 

• 

"^22 ^ 

21st Street 

**ve 

/M 

N Street 

M Street 

© 

CO 

5 

a 

L Street 

K Street 

1 Street 

"A Oupont Circle 

^K. 1 

Dupont Circle •***!?« 

Metro Iv^ ^ 

\ TS?4 I \ ^CjV 

\ 

Y 

19th Street 

18th Street 

17th Street 

1250 Twenty-fourth Street, NW Washington. DC 20037 USA 202/293-4800 Telex: 64505 PANDA 

Affiliated with Wbrld Wildlife Fund 
P.6 

•i. A 

The Conservation Foundation 

September 1989 

Hotels near The Conservation Foundation's Offices 

Carlyle Suites Hotel 

1731 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

202/234-3200 

(10-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $69 (mention CF or WWF when calling) 

Dupont Plaza Hotel 

1500 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

202/483-6000 

(7-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $125-$145 

Government Rate: $78-$98 

Embassy Square Suites (Quality Inn) 

2000 N Street, NW 

202/659-9000 

(4-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $110-125 - including continental breakfast 

Government Rate: $78 

(mention CF or WWF when calling) 

Embassy Suites 

1250 22nd Street, NW 

202/857-3388 

(1-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $164 including full-breakfast and "happy-hour" 

Government Rate: $87-$139 

Hampshire Hotel 

1310 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

202/296-7600 

(4-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $90 (mention CF's name when calling) 

Government Rate: $75 

One Washington Circle 

1 Washington Circle, NW 

202/872-1680 

(4-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $99-$150 

Government Rate: $78 

1250 Twenty-Rjurth Street NW Washington, DC 20037 USA 202/293-4800 Telex: 64505 PANDA 

Affiliated with World Wildlife Fund 
P.7 

* 

Ramada Renaissance . _ 

1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

202/775-0800 

(4-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $150-$155 

Government Rate: 

St. James Hotel 

950 24th Street, NW 

202/457-0500 

(3-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $115 including continental breakfast (two-night minimum 

stay) 

Government Rate: $77.25 ... 

Tabard Inn 

1739 N Street, NW 

202/785-1277 

(7-block walk to the office) 

Rates: $79-99 including breakfast 

Washington Marriott 

1221 Twenty-Second Street, NW 

202/872-1500 

(2-block walk to the office) 

Rate: $165 

Government Rate: $85 

Westin Hotel 

M and 24th Streets, NW 

202/429-2400 

(Next-door to the office) 

Rates: $165-195 

Government Rate: $110 
P.8 

it 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

! ^W* 7 3 0ff|ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

\<*\\(+j Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

"' DBQlt^ 

April 10, 1990 

Dear Reg Neg Committee Member: 

At the last Reg Neg meeting, it was requested that we provide a write-up 

describing the revisions that we have made to the database as presented by 

Robert Panel-Short. His presentation is Attachment 7 of the Meeting Minutes. 

This letter describes the two refinements we have made to the previous 

version (2/14/90) of the ethylene oxide (EO) and butadiene (BD) databases. 

First, we have identified several screening values that should have been 

marked as "pegged", but were not. We identified these by review of the raw 

data, and comparing them with the computerized databases. These corrections 

had 1ittle impact. 

The second and more significant change is related to the emission 

factors used with screening values greater than 10,000 ppm. In the original 

CMA reporting of the EO and BD data and in the 2/14/90 database, the SOCMI 

leak factors were used for all screening values greater than or equal to 

10,000 ppm. This was done because the data at a majority of the plants 

included values where the screening instrument was "pegged" at 10,000 ppm. 

Since the SOCMI leak factors were derived from plants with higher leak 

frequencies, this factor very likely overstates the emissions from components 

at the E0 and BD plants which, as a group, have much lower leak frequencies. 

Therefore, for the plants where screening values were equal to or greater than 

10,000 ppm and were not pegged, we recalculated emissions from the correlation 

curve. Also, we used these data to derive a new leak factor and applied it, 

instead of the SOCMI leak factor, to those components screened as being 

pegged. This results in leak factors that are lower for all components, 

except flanges. 

In addition, we considered how data would be generated at plants that 

will be subject to the standard in the future. It is reasonable to expect, at 

plants that are running LDAR programs, that the screening data collected in 

the LDAR programs will be used to estimate emissions. However, it appears 

that this approach, along with currently available emission factors, may 

overstate emissions. The reason is that screening values in LDAR programs are 

obtained before repairs are made. Since repairs are made immediately after 

the screening, the before-repair readings overstate average emissions for the 

period. For example, if readings and repairs are made at the end of the 

quarter, at day 90, the emission estimates will represent the emissions on day 

90. On day 91, emissions will be lower due to the repairs. Emissions will 
P.9 

increase over time until the next round of screenings and repairs, which would 

occur on day 180 in a quarterly program. Average emissions will depend on the 

progression of leaks during the quarter. However, it seems reasonable to 

assume that the emissions correspond approximately to the average of before 

and after-repair screening values. 

To examine the effect of this, we looked at the EO and BD data. Since 

we have no after-repair data, we had to estimate the effect of repair. 

Several options were possible. One is to assume repaired components have no 

detectable emissions. Another is to assume that components are repaired to 

just below the leak definition. A third, and the one we used, is to assume 

that the distribution of emission rates among repaired components mirrors the 

distribution among non-leaking components. Robert's last 2 overheads 

illustrated this result. This seems reasonable, given that repaired 

components would exhibit variation in their degree of repair depending on the 

component's physical condition. 

Based on our assumption that the repaired components emit at the same 

rate as the average non-leaking components, we can calculate an after-repair 

emission factor. We could then average the before-repair factors that were 

calculated directly from the EO and BD data, with the after-repair factors to 

determine an estimate of what average emissions over the quarter would be. We 

believe this is a reasonable approach for estimating the average emissions for 

a unit that is meeting a specified percent leak level. 

If you have any questions, or would like a copy of the updated database 

please call me at (919) 541-5262. 

Sincerely, 

Rick Colyer 

Standards Development Branch 

cc: Interested parties 
P.10 

REGULATORY NEGOTIATION MEETING ON FUGITIVE EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

MARCH 27-28, 1990 

PICKETT SUITES HOTEL 

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES 

These meeting notes summarize issues discussed and provide an informal 

record of administrative and logistical decisions made on schedules and action 

items. All presentation materials distributed during the two-day meeting are 

attached: 

Attachment 1 

Attachment 2 

Attachment 3 

Attachment 4 

Attachment 5 

Attachment 

Attachment 

Attachment 

Attachment 

Attachment 

Attachment 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Meeting Agenda 

Attendees March 27, 1990 

Copy of Agreement reached during Woodstoves Reg Neg 

Revisions to February 22-23 meeting notes 

De Minimis cutoff: Presentation by Larry Goodheart 

(API) 

Correlation of Emission Factors vs. % Leakers 

Revised Emission Factors 

CMA Conceptual Approach to the Standard for Valves 

Flanges: Presentation by Ron Berglund (Union Carbide) 

Dual Mechanical Seal Cost Information 

Response Factor Data 

Administrative Note 

Mr. Phil Harter told the Regulatory Negotiation Committee members 

that the written agreement drafted for the Woodstoves regulatory 

negotiation provides a good example of the format and text that 

may be used to draft the equipment leaks Reg Neg agreement. He 

urged committee members to familiarize themselves with the 

Woodstoves agreement. A copy of the agreement is contained in 

Attachment 3. 

Minutes of Previous Meeting 

The minutes of the previous full committee meeting (February 22-

23, 1990) were discussed. Changes in the minutes submitted by Ms. 

Karen Fidler of CMA and Ms. Ellen Siegler of API are contained in 

Attachment 4. 

Scope of the Standard 

Mr. Larry Goodheart, representing API, reported that API is 

awaiting data from several benzene/toluene/xylene (BTX) facilities 

that may impact the scope of the equipment leaks standard. He 

requested a delay in the discussion of the scope of the standard 

until API receives those data. 

cao.027a 
P.11 

Mr. Jack Kace of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association 

asked Mr. Bob Ajax of EPA whether end users of the chemicals 

expected to be listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in the 

proposed Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments will be subject to the 

standard. Mr. Ajax responded that the negotiated standard will 

apply to producers and intermediate users of HAPs. 

Mr. Goodheart initiated a discussion of a de minimis stream 

concentration cutoff below which equipment would be exempt from 

the negotiated standard. Using equipment and emissions 

information from a BTX plant (see Attachment 5), he reported that 

a majority of the BTX emissions would be captured by controlling 

equipment containing greater than 20 percent BTX in the line. In 

addition, he indicated that a significant number of equipment 

components at the BTX plant contain less than 10 percent BTX in 

the line. Mr. Goodheart presented cost projections that indicated 

prohibitive costs associated with controlling BTX emissions from 

equipment containing less than 20 percent BTX in the line. Based 

on these estimates, he suggested a de minimis stream concentration 

of 20 percent. Mr. Ajax questioned the cost information and 

offered to examine cost data in greater detail. He reiterated his 

concern from the February meeting that lower concentration streams 

dominate the equipment leak emissions inventory as tighter 

controls are placed on higher concentration streams. He stated 

that EPA will examine the de minimis cutoff issue in greater 

detail before the next meeting. 

Data/Emission Factors 

Mr. Ajax expressed EPA's interest in improved equipment leak 

emission factors and screening value/leak rate correlations. 

Revised emission estimation methodologies will be useful both for 

estimating environmental impacts under the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON) and for calculating residual risk several years after 

promulgation of the standard. He noted that no one on the 

committee has provided information on the programs that are 

underway to collect data and that efforts EPA is aware of to 

collect additional screening and bagging data have been slow and 

are expected to take longer than the negotiations. Therefore, he 

suggested that the revision of emission estimation methodologies 

should not be included as an activity in the negotiation. 

Mr. Tom Kittleman, representing CMA, agreed that time constraints 

prohibit revision of emission estimation methodologies as part of 

the Reg Neg. Some committee members asked about the methodology 

EPA expects to use in revising the emission estimation 

methodologies once new bagging data are available. Mr. Ajax said 

that EPA would work with industry to revise the EPA Protocol for 

Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates from Equipment Leaks 

of VOC and VHAP or publish a similar document. 

cao.027a 
—'•— O - h 3 

-•• - 3 O -J 

3 0 -i • 

-••Oft ) 

c f O < 7 * 

. Q ft) -•• 

TJC-T t 

T3 ft) < c f 

3 3 T ro —' 

-«; < c f CO (T> 

ro 3 

—< -1.-- . ft) 

j » ro —• 0 3 

C J . a> * < ro 

u ^ ro -o 

X —< - 1 

0 . ro 3> ro 

. 0 ro eu c-»- to 

C - h ?r c f ro 

ro -a- ft) 3 

co 3 a . 0 c-tc f -a- ro 3" ro 

- •• c-t- c f 3 Q . 

0 -•- ro ro 

3 0 0 3 0 

ro 3 c-t- c-t- 3 

O . -"• 3> 

ft) O CO -

3 - 3 3 — ' CO 

0 0 . 

« ft) 0 

0) 3 O 

3 O . - O 3 

3 > -t , 3 " O 

0 -•• - j a* ro 

—i < ro 0 -o 

ro - 0 ro cf 

- t , 0» C 

O - O -•• C*> ft) 

-s ro - j —• 

- j 0 

< 0 *-* -t , ft> 

R» ro r- - 0 

—' 3 O rf O 

< c-t- 3» 3 - 1 

ro 30 ro 0 

CO ft) «~- ft) 

—» o» 0 

O —'-O T3 3 -

O O 1 "O 

C -ft O - I cf 

—' ft) U3 O O 

Q. CT -$ ft) 

- ^ ft) O cf 

crr o 3 3 - 3 -

ro ro 

— ' £ — 

3 " ro —•• co 10 

-<• ft) c f c f 

I Q 7«r 3 " O" ft) 

3 * ro ft) 3 

ro -* &) co o . 

-1 co ro a> 

cx- s 

0 . 

O O ~I T J 

0 < ro -i 

3 ro 10 0 

Sltlr t 

-•• ro 0 ro 

c-t- 3 3 0 

c-t-"CJ Q- c f 

ro 3 - ro 

ro cu o . co 

co 0 

CO -•- c-t- C 

O IM 3 " -J 

ro w 0 

- h Q. c f ro 

a> -

-J c-t- 0 

co 3 - ft) 

Ct" C f T | 

3 " 3 " -•• 

ro ro 3 

-J ft) 

ro 0 —• 

cT&*< 

~i 

ro cu 

C ft) 

3 

-i CQ 

ro ro 

o> 3 

co ro 

0 -i 

3 -•• 

o> 0 

- 3 3 " CT 

ro ro 

tu 3 

a . ro 

= 3 X 

co ro XJ 

tu 3 - I 

-•1 c-t- ro 

3--a.r o C-t- ro CO CO 

a> 3 ro 

u n ni a 

ro 0 0 

0 - 3- 5 

ro rt- 0 -•• 

ro 3 - ro ro 

3 ro -1 co 

3 

3 3 " CO c f 

o o > 3 -

-5 -5 ft) ft) 

ro co 0 " c-t3 - 0 

- h ro tz 0 

-"> CO C f ft) 

ro c-t- 3 

JZ> 3" 3 

c - 0 o> 0 

ro ro - J c-t3 3 CO 

r f ft) 3 - 3 

—• ro 

3 c-f o ro 

0 << ro c-t3 3 

-•• Q . ft) c f 

C+ -"• —" 3 -

O co ri- ro 

-5 O -•• 

-<• c ro co 

3 co co c-tca co o> 

• ro 3 3 

C-l" CO 

<< 3 ro 

—' CO 

« < c f 

a> 

CO 3 

o . ro -j •—• -s 

-••-to ro vo ro 

o . - n 

(U -. . 

CO -f j O a—a -ft rt- - j 

0 ro 0 —• 

c 0 3 0 ro 

co c-t- 3 3 - 0 

co -«• ro ro c-t-

_.. < 3 3 _,. 

3 ro o . -<• 3 

(Q 3 ro r> (Q 

• ro CL ft> 

CO —a 3 

co c+ co cu 

—t 3 - X 

C-l- Q . 3 " Q . ft) —l-a . 

1 ft» 

- •• ~i 

-•• ro c-«- -•• 3 

- i c-t- co e 

3 o . o . ro n- c-t- 3 

ta 

ro -t, 

tu a . 3 0 

< «< cu 0 

—' - 1 0 

< ro 3 

ro co n 

3 c ro 

—• -5 

CO rt- 3 

3 -

O -•• c f 

C 3 3 " 

—' tu 

c f - 1 

CO 3 -

n- -•• 

» - J 3 - ro 

3 ro o . ft> 

3 - -•• • 0 

ro 3 0 -<• 3 -

tu 0 3 -•• 

c c+ 3 ro 

-s -«• 3 cf < 

tU ( Q l Q O -a- 3 - ft) 

3 3 - ro 3 rt- ro 0 -

0 . —' 

o» * < 

-i 

a. c f 

0 

- u x 

aarft o ->• 

o< 

c r - J ro 

ro co 3 

- J 0 

—* 0 

3 - -t, ro 3 -

c r 0 

C O 1 

-•• ro 0 

— • 3 0) 

c-t- o> 3 

—• ro 

- •• c-t- 3 

3 -"• c f 

c-»- ro 

O CO "O 

-I 

rt- -ft O 

3 " O < 

a . cu o . ro -1 ->• 

* < ft) 

• 0 - -* 

CO 

co co —•• 

«< crarf o 0 

ro • 

c-t3 -

ft) 3 3 

3 ro co 

a . 

ro 3 o) T S -E 

- j 

• 

-i —• ->• 

O . ft) c f 

3 3 " 

3 > c-t- c-l- ->• 

C J . 

ft) 

X 

O CO 3 

•» . 

co ro 

CO 3 

- J . 

c i- O 

O ft) 

X —' 

-a. CO 

r> 

3 

0 ft) 

3"< < 

ro 

3 -J 

-a. 0 ) 

O CO 

ft) c 

— J — J 

co c f 

. — J -

3 

ft) 

3 

Q . - rf —• 

ro - 0 ro 

c-t- co ro - J 

3 - ->• ^0 0 

ft) 3 CO - 0 0 

c-l- -a- 0 3 

ft) CO 

• 

co 3 

c f -J 

ft) • 

3 

r+Q. ^ 

-t> -

-s 

JU _.. 

-S r f 

O 3 " Q . c f 

3 ro 

tu ro 

X 

—'"O 

-•• ~i 

3 ro 

_•. 00 

Cf CO 

ro ro 

—J 

- h ro 

O 3 

-5 ft) 

3 

< ft) 3 " 

_ J ^ . 

< (Q 

ro 3 -

Q . Q . CO —' 

3 0 

c 0 

3 3 

0 - 0 

ro ro 

-j -s 

3 

0 

- h ft) 

—a. 

Cf I Q 

3 " 3 -

ft) c f 

c f ro 

C L 

c f 

3 " CO 

ro 0 

3 

0 - 0 ro 

n 0 

3 - c 

ro c f 

—' CL CO c-t- 3 

0 o» ro ro -5 

0 -1 -t> o . 0 

3 —i. —* 

3 c-t- 3 O 

_•. O -<• J > c-lc-t- c+ 5» ro 

c + Cf -"• O 

-a. Cf 

0 3 -

O) ro 

_ j -

o> 

T3 T3 

-s - 0 

ro 3 - 0 o» 3 - 0 -i 

ro ro 3 3 3 

ro 0 

3 0 0 3 —< 

ro 3 -t> 0 . 0 

3 ro 3< Q 

0 - 3 ro «< 

ro 0 3> 3 

-IOC ) cf-— . 

rt 0 

ro - a 

CO - j 

CO -a . 

ro o> 

CO c f 

ro 

c f 3 

CO 3 —|V I 2 0 ID 

( Q • 3> 

0 - - I -•• 0 

co 

co co 

ro ro 3 «/» —i ro 

co 0 ro —• 

ft) co —• 0 

c f O 

- t > 

s c 0 -t> cu 

ft) -•• Q . 3 0 

-5 co ro 0 . -s 

ro •* 

ft> cu 

c f 3 " —• 

3 - 0 ro —• 

tu 0 

Cf CO 

c f 

O 

3 O 

3 - h 

c f c f 

c f 3 " 

ro ro 

ro 

0 

3 - 0 

ft) 3 

CO 0 

ro 

c r -j 

ro s 

ro co 

3 

- f » 

Q- "5 

-a. O 

co 3 

0 

c 0 

co 3 

CO J > 

^. 3 ft) 

C I O U 

10 CO 

c f -•• 

ft) 3 

3 ( Q 

O . 

ft) 

• 0 

fZ 

rtrt3 -

ro 

quipment Le o< 

* r 

co 

0 0 

c f 

ft) 

3 

Q L 

ft) 

- J 

C L 

m - i a m c 

- 0 ro «i» . 0 co 

3>. o co c ro 

-fi - h 3 -•• ^ - 3> ft) ro - 0 -<• ->• 

a>ft>ft>SOc-t-33ft>3 3 

—• O --• O - c f Q . -"• 3"- 0 T 3 

• cro-a-Q-cfcf3ooe » ioroft» n 

ro 0.- 0 

co 3 0 

r f 0 ro -J 

ro 3 3 

Q . c f 3 

c f 0 

Ocf-soocrco—' o 0 

rt-IlfDOJC-i-i cf < 

3"C03 O 3 Cf O Ui (A -•• 

tu ft)-S"OroO)33- 3 

cfft)3ft)T33Q . OOt Q 

-ir><f3rf---fi-S-f , 

cu 3-—'Q.c-t-rororo < roft)c-i- <f 

_•. at -1. 3 " CO Oa 3 O c f 3 " 

s co o> -*, ro —'ft* co —» ro c f 0 3 - ro 

~i 7T ->• 

-a- 3 CO ro 

0 3 T J ro 0 -t> ro 

3-EO--i"Ocf^-.- 5 ro 

c-i-ro a. a> a> (Dft>-^oocomro 3 

c f c f CO cf -s -5 o . -% at 0 -c o -•-

ro3-cfo-3- ro->-o)a> —'C3>cc o 

3 0 ft> << 

a . 3 

OcfOOcfc f CO -<• CO 

o . =r ft) cf ro co - h -a--o - a -•• 

0) 0 o . m O CU _i . -1 . —a ft»3-*30 

x —• o> - 0 —'3-jo«<coou3roro3 

•OO-JJx O 3 O-a - CO S 

—'( Q Q . 

• 

3 

- I 

J> 

C-l. 

ft) 

X 

CO 

c f 

ft) 

c f 

ro 

a . 

c f 

3 -

a> 

c f 

m 

- 0 

(Qro O -tj C —'r + (D r + -ti > 

O)^ * rf»<X3ro-I-5-'-3- 3 tu 

3 O 

ft) ^-^ 

c f co : x ro 

-•• ro ro co 

0 ro c f 

3 T3 -<• 

3> -J 3 

0 cf ro o> 

-<• COOOcfrocf—< o 3 -

ocorocf3ro-" - rorocfft) 

c c+ 3 ->• co ro co Q. &> 0 

c f -..-•• 3 0 co o ^-- 1 

— ' 3 W ( I f+ t • -S ft) CO OO 

-••to co cf 3 - -•• ro 

Q . 

ro 

X 

3 -a-roroc f ro 3 co -f, cu 

romoco-js-—1 3 ro c f 0 

-+,cfC0cfQ--O 3 3 - -«• ft p 1 

ft> ro ro 

r f O 3 

3>C 0 -t,CO CO -<- 3 3- 3 

0 - • ooncocQoo.r o 

3-3-cfro^r o TC I Q . ft) CO 

ro 3 ro 3 

ro a . < 

3 3 -a. 

ro cf -1 -5 

c-t- ro 0 

3 - - J < 3 

0 *— -a- 3 

C L • co ro 

0 ro 3 

—• Q . r f 

O ft) 

(Q 3 ro —' 

«< -J 3 

T3 CO 3 

-s cn co - 0 

ro O -<- ft) 

CO 0 0 0 

ro o . 3 cf 

3 3 " CO 

<f ro -t, 

ro cu ft> 0 

Q . -J 0 -t . 

c f c f 

O" O c f 

* < "5 3 -

co ro 

3 -iro3o.o-ic f 

3_i . —jcf o ro ro ft> —iQ.-i -

-JC03"3-ro3cfcf O 3 

• droroco-j-3-ojiQcft ) 

-a- • 3 O * < 3 c f 

-rjo-5-» - ( Q a-l i Q--< -

ft>3ro3 0-$f,fD 3 

3- w o x - ' 0 0 -^ ta ro-t,eft)—• tu 0 3 1 

—• ft> —• 0 co —'oa c f ro 

1 nr*c*OC*<lt T T 3 

oocf-" - -r o cfroro < 

3-03 0 CO — . 3 " < -•• 

O -S IQ -D r f -••«< -•• OZ -i 

-JCO 3"= 3 —'COO O 

c f « ipnmt30(D-''Z 3 

3 0 ro —' 3 3 • 3 

0 ->-33<Qcro< a ro 

03co-oroiQO - 3 

e-*coorfrorooro3r f 

—• • -«-33-a.a.xx-sft ) 

o . 0 ro 0 = _•-_•. . —1 

J> 3 3 a . -•• Q. co 

crcj . cf 0 eu 3 ro c f zo 

ro cu —• c f -•• 0 

x 0 .—. 3 0 " 

<Q mif l ro 

• < 0 - j 

— • c f 

3 

3 

ro 

Q . 

co 

3 -

O 

- J 

c f 

1 

c f 

ro 

- 5 

3 

ft) 

—. c f 

ro 

- 5 

3 

tu 

c f 

—». 

< ro 

co 

- h 

O 

- J 

J D 

C 

• 

3 0 c f - I 3 

ro 3 - ro -v 

ft) l Q ft) < • 

3 

c f 

«a 

C f -aZ co 3> 

ro ro -•• —> 

r f ua x> 0 —< 

&> c f 

-^ 

< ro 

. 

c 3 ro 

CO -a- CO 3 

-•• < 

3 ft) « ZTZ 

0 —' 0 ro 

ro ro c -s 

3 —"CO 

ro 0 C L 3 -

. 0 ro ^~ 

C T3 0 

— Q . -$ S 

< _•. 0 -•• 

ft) CO 3 " c f 

— . O -"• N 

itct r 

3 CO ->• ft) 

O CO c f CO 

ro ->• *• 

0 ft* ro 

£ 3 I Q Q . 

- •• CO - I 

—J ro -•• 

—' co ro -ty 

3 " 3 

T3 O «!> T3 

- I C 3 O 

O —' r f CO 

O" Q . c f 

ft) O T 3 

O" CT 3 0 

—'«!> 3 

"< ro ro 

ft) . 0 3 

0-0- c ro 

ro —• -<• 3 

ro < c f 

3 ft> 

O c f —• 0 

- j 0 ro - n 

ro 3 

0 0 ro 

r> 0 ro 3 

0 3 • ->• 

3 C f CO 

0 -•• CO 

ro 3 3 -•• 

T3 c -1 0 

r f ro • 3 

c 

ft) e J> -t, 

—• 3 t->. «u 

Q . ft) 0 

cf ro x <f 

3 - - j 0 

ft) -fa " I 

3 c f ro 

3 - —• 

ro cf 

to 
CO 

o 

c 

CO 

CO 

ro 

Q . 

tu 

CO 

T S 

o 

CO 

CO 

C T 3 

ro 

CO 

o 

-i 

£ 

o 

- J 

ft) 

C X 

ro 

CO 

c f 

ft) 

3 

a . 

ft) 

-I 

O -

co 

—•< < CO 

ro ro o 

ft) B> -j 

* - -j ro 

co ro 

Q . 3 

ro 3 -)• 

f,-a - 3 

-•.( O < Q 

3 3 -

- • • c f - h 

c f O 

-.. c r —• 

o ro —• 

3 o 

CO tu £ 

s ro 

ft) Q . 

ft> 

O-TJ CT 

T3* < 

0» -J 

—a O CO 

—'TJ O 

O -I -I 

X -.-ro 

ft) A> ro 

C c f 3 

—<ro -•• 

ro 3 

CO CQ 

ft) 3 -

-t> ro 

r f 

ro 3 

-I ft) 

Q . 

3 3 

CO O 

c f c f 

ft) 

—" co 

—' ro 

o> ro 

c f 3 

O Q . 

3 ft) 

-t»C O 

— ' C 

tu ( Q 

3 < Q 

<Q ro 

ro co 

CO i f 

ro 

- i i Q L 

O 

— • ft) 

_ J 

O - I 

-t ro 

ro t o 

Q L C 

CT" ft) 

< < r f 

£ B» -> • 

ro ft) o 

0 ) 3 f i 

7 T Q . 

ro o> co 

-j -j o 

co a . 3 

• ro 

_a. o 

3 o o -i 

_ i . ( D 

c f < ft) 

co ro —• 

- * — • 

£ ft) 

ro —• - D 

- i — • 

ro o ft> 

o 3 

CT-3IQ 

-i cr ro 

- i . -a . CO 

(D 3 

-t>o» ro 

— I c f < 

«< -•• ro 

o - J 

3 «< 

CO 

c f 

O £ 

f i O 

c f 3 : 

Q . 

— I mU. 

ro o 

o> a> 

7*r c f 

cu ro 

< Q 

ro 3 -

• o 

£ 

ft) 

U3 -I 

ro 

o . o 

ro o 

3 

-ttiO 

ro 

_ I ( v 

-i - J 

at m 

" O CO 

_•. o 

1 3 

ro ro 

o . • 

3 " ft) 

ft) 3 

c f ta 

ro 

cu 

3 o 

o 

-•• c 

3 —i 

-•• o . 

c f 

_•. o 

ft) T 3 

—' ro 

tu 

—•3 

i o> ro 

1

 3 

( Q co 

ro o 

CO —a 

• at 

at 

-i 3 

( Q 

3 > O 

<-•• -f> 

o> 

X ft) 

co — 

ft) 

ro — 

—>• TO cn 

3 o ro 

C L 3 < 

at at 

-t> c u -s 

-•• ro ft) 

3 - j — • 

rf —in 

at tz o 

— • 3 3 

«< ca. 3 

mmi. 

£ O c f 

- > • -t i c f 

C f ro 

3 - c ro 

0 3 

c -.. 3 

c f o ro 

3 3 

—' cr 

at a at 

01 CU -i 

? r - j CO 

ft) o* 

t o -. . o 

at cx.o 

at 3 

-— 3 

co -i . ro 

ro 3 3 

ro o . c f 

_•. n> 

j » o Q . 

c f tu 

c f c f O 

o> ro 3 

O Q . 

3 " CO 

3 c f c f 

ro 3 - ft) 

3 ft) 3 

c f c f a . 

ft> 

V O -f l - j 

^ — • Q . 

• ft) CO 

3 

CQ -t > 

- H ro o 

3 - CO I 

ro 

- I 3 -f i 

ro a> —• 

f,< < ft) 

o 3 

TOI O 

ro - o ro 

- ro co 

- j • 

3 " ft) 

ro c f 

ro 3 

-$ 

-I 

T J ro 

ro T J 

3 tu 

a, _•. 

—' - J 

c f ft) 

_ i . C T 

ro —• 

co ro 

- f . < 

o o> 

- i —• 

< 

n ro 

3 - CO 

-s 

o -•• 

< o 

ft) — • 

— ' ft) 

< co 

ro co 

CO « < 

ft) 3 

—'C O 

tz--.cn 

3 3 c f 

- I T J ft) 

ro —' c+ 

T J ro ro 

o> 3 

—• ro -$ 

- i 3 ro 

ft) c f <a 

c r -•- c 

—i ro i o ft> 

o o 

c: a> 

3 

~S -f i 

ro A> 

•o o 

ft> -• • 

-i -•• 

ft) c f 

CT"*< 

r f ft» 

«< -^ 

O 

£ 

ft) 

CTro 

ro 

tu 

at 

-i 

CO 

o ft) 

£ 

ro < 

CL tu 

c f < 

o ro 

-i » » 

ro co 

3 

aa = 

-•• t= 

3 3 

£= ro 

3 X» 

-I ft) 

ro -•• 

T 3 -i 

ft! ft) 

_ . . C T 

- S — • 

ft) ro 

ex = 

ro 

t o 

-— rf 

3 " 

c f ro 

3 " 

ro ft> 

3 — o 

3 C 

O 3 

— • c f 

C 

CO O 

- • • - h 

O 

O 3 

- h ro 

< ft) o 

ft) 3 -5 —' *< 1

 < tz 

at 3 -i 

-i at 

T J ro T J 

O T J - I 

o tu at 

—• -.. co 

-5 ro 

-ft tu Zi 

O C T c f 

O — ' ft) 

c ro « f 

CO -a . 

ro < < 

o . &> ro 

— ' CO 

o < 

3 ro ft> 

3 

"CT Q . 

O 

a— O Z 

•*— —• TO 

• O 

c f O 

3 " 

15 O W 

- • • C 

O CO CQ 

-.ni n 

-••cr o 

c f i o CO 

ro co c f 

-s -•• ro 

_•. o o . 

tu 3 

ft) 

- t > o 

o 

- J 

c f ft) 

3 " 3 

ro 

-t> 

o 

-$ 

ro 

ft> 

< < 3 

ro 

- 5 

ro 

. o 

c 

-i 

ro 

3 

ro 

3 

O 

-J 

ft) 

3 

ft) 

O 

O 

ro 

- o 

c f 

ft> 

o -

ro 

x=t 

3> 

X D 

o 

3 3 -J cf ro 

O S » C O X I 

3 O — ' C 

c f — i Ot c f ->• 

CQ 0 ) -CT 

o -n n - i 3 

3 -i o I Q ro 

ro o c ro 3 

- I 3 —'c f c f 

* < CL. 

rf T J O 

CO 3 " CT- - J O 

c f ro ro o 3 

- 5 CT-TJ 

ro TJ Q. —' o 

m ro ro ro 3 

co 3 < 3 ro 

ro B> ro 3 

a. —• —' o cf 

c f o o co 

c f < < T J 3 

3 - ro T J >v 

ft) o o . O —• 

c f -I , 3 O 

c f ro 3 

c f 3 3 " 3 CQ 

3 " O ft) c f 

fl) - J r f £ 

ro o . -•• 

o T J ro c f 

O -f i -l CO 3 " 

3 - i o -«• 

3 ro c f co -•• 

-••J O ro 3 3 

c f c o CO - o 

c f ro c+ —• 

ro 3 co o ro 

ro c f -j 3 

ot ro 

£ 3 co 3 

o o -t> ro r f 

tz 3 ft) - 5 ft) 

— • -• • O < r f 

Q . c f -a . -a . -• • 

o —• o o 

3 - j -• • ro 3 

ro -•• c f co 

ro 3 *< • o 

O.V Q -»> 

CX CO "CT c f 

ro c -j ro 

3 t o o o 

o ( O 3 3 " 

3 ro ro 3 

co co o 

c f c f O —a 

—j ro o o 

ft) O . 3 CQ 

c f •O l< 

ro c f o 

Q . 3 " 3 - h 

ft) ro o 

CT" c f 3 - J 

* < c f 

- • • CO c f 

T 3 - 3 " 

ro - o ro 

- o — ' ft) CO 

—• ro 3 ro 

ft) 3 CL -

n ro 

ro 3 cf c+ 

3 c f o o 

ro o> 

3 c f ro ro 

c f -" • 3 - h 

o n -t, 

o 3 o ro 

-to tz n 

o -s c f 

ft) -t » ft) 

( Q . 

- i , co ro 3 -

-i« = ro 

ft> n o 

n 3 " 3 -s 

c f I Q ro 

_ i . ft> o "CT 

O -i . — ' 

3 T J 3 ft) 

-IlD O 

o o ro 

-h»Q 3 3 

-i o ro 

ft) ft) 3 3 

3 -• • c f 

Q . O 

ro o 

co 3 

- . . c r 

I Q -. . 

3 3 

ro ft) 

Q . c f 

_ i . o 

Q . -l » 

ro 

3 X 3 

c f c : 

_ • . ft, 

- h — • 

< < -a -

c f 

T J « < 

-I 

o rt 

cr o 

—' 3 

ro r f 

3 - I 

o 

o —• 

O N 

3 -O 

-CT C 

O ft) 

3 —• 

ro —• 

3 c f 

c f « < 

co 

tu 

ft> co 

3 co 

C L CZ 

-i 

CO ft) 

ro 3 

- j n 

< ro 

a) 

3 

C L 

—• o- co ro zc 

at at 3 - x ft> 

ft) 3 o ro - j 

X" ro c 3 c f 

ro f i —'T J ro 

-f -« • Q . c f - J 

co c f ro 

3 Q . CO 

—' o o o 

- > • - h r f f i 3 " 

3 - J ro 

- < • CO ft) O 3 

r f ro —) 3 ro 

• 3 - - co 

- • • O c f 

' £ =r- h 

i n o> ro o 

ro 3 3 - j 

3 o - J 

—<• tz s ro a . 

3 ft) I co ro 

o . —' O c o 

_ . . O — • -a -

O O 3 ft) Q . 

ft) - I T J C f -a . 

c f — ' -< • 3 

ro B» «< o I Q 

Q . 3 -• • 3 

3 3 - 3 " 

rtClf l O 

3 " ft) £ 

ft) —'T O 3 

c f - J - J " O 

I — O • - I 

moo . o 

TJ> C > a 

> ^ j n o . c 

c f ft) O 

cr c r x c f 

ro >< T J 

— ' - I -hT J 

- • - - j o ro -i 

ro ro o —• o 

< aitn n 

ro ro co ro 

CO -f > CO c f CO 

->• ro 3 - co 

c f 3 co ft) ro 

3 " -• • c f CO 

0 ) 3 c f 

c f « Q O c f £ 

3 " O 

3 cf 3" ro tz 

3 > 3 " 0 ) —a 

o ro < co o . 

—t a> n 

tu ZT rr 

—<• —• c f ro ro 

CO — • 3 " 3 

o ro ro 

o> £ 

o> 

cr 

ro 

c f 3 -• • ft) o — t 

o -j o . c r -t> 3 -

• ro —' ro 

•CT 3 ro tu 

-5 3> c f o 

O CJ . -<- c f = O 

cf ft) -fi O CO 3 

ro x »< cu o 

o -a- 3 f , ro 

, r f ro 3 ro ro T J 

3 I Q ro i f c f 

1

 cfT J cf« < C 

3 " 3 " < tu 

O tu ft) c f < — ' 

CO co — ' 3 " ft) 

ro -<• < ro —• m 

IM ro < T J 

T J ro co co ro "o 

-so . c f s -j 

O c f ft) O 

Q . m 3 " 3 -f i ft) 

C T J ft) o . o n 

O J > r f ft) - J 3 -

c + - - J 

co n o . -"T> 

T J ft) O . - J 

- j £ 3 0) ro ro 

O -< • 3 3 3 CO 

o —' o o . c f ro 

0 ) — ' C f -a- 3 

tO -a - ft) f , C f 

co 3 c r 3 << ro 

ro CQ ro ->• o . 

CO 3 c 3 

ro -5 3 »Q CT" 

c f co ro -s «< 

3 - co -a at -CT 

ft) w o i n 

c f c f —>• ft) o 3 

O - I -•• Q. J> 

3 ro - j tz 

at rt a. tu n zr 

<< o c r c f —-. 

3 -•• —• i o 

3 CO 3 ro TJ 3" 

o -•• - j —• 

c f Q. ft) < O -<• 

ro ft> o i n 

3 - j cf —• ro 3 -

ro -<• < co cf 

ro a> 3 ro co co 

c f ro ro 

3 —'T J CO c f 

c f CO < < O 3 " 

3 " ft) O c f ro 

ro - h - h —• 3 -

ro ft> tu o 

c f co -t o c f O 

v < 3 " O 3 

-•• - j &) r> 

< o -s ro 

B) 3 ro T J 

— ' • c f 

< 3 CO 

ro o 

co 3 ft) ft) c f 

ro ro —• -j zr 

< ro —< ro cu 

ro c-t- o 3 

- i -•• £ 3 

o) 3 cu ro tu 

—'< Q c r ro 

— ' c f —> 

•< cf ro -•• ro 

ro 3 - 3 o> 

cu _•. —<IQ ^~ 

~i co ro 

CO ft) c f Q L 

—' TT 3 " ro 

C f -a - <0 -" • -f | 

O 3 - J co -a . 

-••C O 3 

- • • C f —> -i. 

3 —'ro c f 

TJ 3 -a- ft) ->. 

-J O 3 7«r O 

O £ ->• 3 

< c f O . 

ro o> ro o 

3 £ f , f i 

C-t- Q . ft, _•• 

3 - co 3 cn 

ro -CT -*• o 

-•—'s-n o 

- J ft, _. . _j . 

3 ( Q O T J 

-CT c f 3 " 3 T J 

ro CO - 3 

- I ft) < 

- f l CO O —' -

o tz o -i 

- i c r 3 ro co 

3 <_>. co cu -•• 

ft> ro -•• o . 3 

3 n o.«< o 

o c f ro • ro 

ro -j 

C f -a - CO 

cr o 3 3 : ro 

ro (Q ro < 

- h 3 ro 

O J > c f ft) - 5 

- j o 3 - — • o> 

ro —I A) co —i 

cf o 

• n £ T J 

3 " -"•T J - h — ' 

ft) — • —• ro ft> 

CO — • ft) — ' 3 

ro 3 c f c f 

3 " c f CO 

CO ft) CO c f 

< zr ->. 

cr at o, ft> 3 

ro - j c f 

I Q ro —i 

_•• cf ro 

3 3 " X 

co ro o> 

co 
P.14 

Several committee members suggested standards for pumps. Some 

committee members suggested that dual mechanical seals be required 

on pumps. Several industry members expressed concern with this 

suggestion. Some felt that dual mechanical seals may not be 

easily retrofitted onto all pumps; others reported problems with 

dual mechanical seals in some applications. Dual mechanical seals 

may not be safe in some processes (e.g., pharmaceuticals and food 

additives) because of potential contamination of the process fluid 

and the barrier fluid system. Mr. Ajax challenged the committee 

to suggest alternatives that would result in effective pump 

emission control and to detail applications for which dual 

mechanical seals should not be used. He presented costs for dual 

mechanical seals (see Attachment 10). 

Ancillary Factors of the Standard 

Committee members discussed the inclusion of response factors 

correction into the conceptual approach to the standard. Mr. 

Kittleman stated that response factor corrections are costly and 

impractical for field use. Mr. Ajax suggested that a software 

package be developed that would simplify response factor 

correction in the field. He presented existing information about 

response factors for specific chemicals (see Attachment 11). Mr. 

Kittleman said that CMA is willing to accept a 500 ppmv leak 

definition without response factor correction. Mr. Ajax said that 

EPA would probably be willing to accept this although he felt 

better options were available. 

Mr. Jack Kace of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association 

reported on the progress of the Batch Processing Workgroup. The 

workgroup has been attempting to define batch processes. The 

definition may include percentage of time in service. 

Mr. Kace reported that Eli Lilly and Company has volunteered to 

conduct a pressure test to determine whether or not pressure tests 

could be used as an alternative leak testing methodology. 

The workgroup also plans to discuss a LDAR frequency for batch 

components based on time in use of the components. Future 

discussions include the possible inclusion of pilot plants into 

the standard, alternative test methods, and a de minimis time in 

use cutoff. 

Mr. David Dunn of Sterling Chemical Company expressed concern that 

small continuous chemical producers who cannot meet the standard 

would suffer economic hardships associated with more frequent 

monitoring. Mr. Ajax replied that mechanisms were possible (e.g., 

a percent price impact criterion). However, he questioned the 

cao.027a 
P.15 

need for this since the standard should add little to the cost at 

plants that are now operating at least minimal control programs. 

Mr. Ajax responded to industry members' earlier suggestions that 

EPA should pursue an awards program for exemplary performance 

similar to one that is in place in other EPA programs. He 

indicated that EPA would be willing to consider this. However, it 

was not clear how such a program might work. He asked the members 

to give further consideration to this and promised to push for it 

if a workable program appears possible. 

Mr. Ajax asked the meeting attendees to contact him if anyone 

would be interested in planning a conference to share thoughts and 

experience relative to equipment leaks emission estimation and 

regulation. 

Action Items 

At the next meeting of the full committee, standards for pumps and 

flanges will be examined in greater detail. Interested parties 

will submit to EPA thoughts about dual mechanical seal 

applicability. 

Several committee members will re-examine the following issues: 

cost data for controlling valves and pumps, de minimis 

concentration cutoffs, and "safety valve" schemes. 

Future Meetings 

The next meeting of the full Negotiating Committee is scheduled to 

be held in Washington, D. C. on May 10-11, 1990 at the 

Conservation Foundation, Suite 500, 1250 24th Street NW. 

The next meeting of the Batch Processes Workgroup is scheduled to 

be held in Washington, D. C. beginning at 1:30 p.m. on April 24, 

1990 at the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association headquarters, 

1100 15th Street, N.W. For information, contact Cheryl 

Sutterfield at (202)835-3552. 

June 6-7: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, at the Compri 

Hotel, Miami Blvd at Interstate 40. 

cao.027a 
P.16 

ATTACHMENT 1 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

AGENDA FOR MEETING OF MARCH 27-28 

Administrative 

• Introductions 

• Review of the Agenda: additions, subtractions, order 

• Minutes of February meeting: Any major heartburns 

Scope of the Standard: Any questions or comments? 

• Sources included in the negotiations 

• Sources excluded from this standard 

Data/Emission Factors 

• Any new data for the Committee's consideration 

• Discussion of data 

• Any additional data being developed or that is essential for the Committee's deliberations 

• Matrix approach 

• Correlation curves 

• Status of modelling approach 

Ancillary Factors of the Standard 

• Exemptions 

• Equivalent approaches 

• New versus existing plants 

• Phase-in 

• Tagging requirements 

• Reporting and recordkeeping 

• Response factors 

Standard 

• Need to consider separately standard for valves, flanges, pumps, compressors 

• Conceptual Approach 

— moving from one box to another 

— how arc components that are removed from service treated 

— how are components that cannot be repaired short of shutdown treated 

• Level 

— what is the threshold at each point in the approach 

— percent above the threshold 

Report of the Batch Processing Workshop 
P.17 

ATTACHMENT 2 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF VOCs FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

ATTENDEES LIST FOR MEETING OF MARCH 27', 1990 

NAME 

Ed Moretti 

Lee Waling 

Bill Grimley 

Joe Ryan 

Bruce Davis 

Jerry M. Schroy 

Richard G. Moench 

Karen Deluga 

Raymond A. Collins 

Leigh Marks 

Jan Meyer 

Walter Brenner 

Scott Throwe 

Bob Hinkson 

Don Piehn 

Bob Rowland 

Miriam Lev-On 

Ron Berglund 

David Markwordt 

Jack Farmer 

Glenn Rives 

Howard Ellis 

Kathy Kaufman 

Rick Colyer 

Robert Pahel-Short 

David Dunn 

Allen Herskowitz 

Robert Majewski 

Alfred W. Bickum 

Gus VonBodungen 

Bruce V. Bowers 

Bob Ajax 

Philip Harter 

Tom Kittleman 

Jack Kace 

Harvel Rogers 

Linda Curran 

LT Goodheart 

Ellen Siegler 

Deborah Dal ton 

Dwight Atkinson 

Bruce Grumstrup 

Karen Fidler 

Bob Latham 

Karin Ritter 

P. K. Lim 

Mary Ann Gorko 

AFFILIATION 

Radian Corporation 

Durametallic Corporation 

EPA 

EG & G Stalol 

Exxon Chemical Company 

Monsanto Company 

Eli Lilly & Company 

CPI Plants Inc. 

Eli Lilly & Company 

Eli Lilly & Company 

EPA 

SUN Company 

EPA 

Mobay Corporation 

John Crane, Inc. 

Pfizer Inc. 

ARCO 

Union Carbide 

EPA 

EPA 

Radian 

Enviroplan 

EPA 

EPA 

EPA 

Sterling Chemicals 

Nat. Resources Def. Council 

NESCAUM 

IISRP 

LA. DEQ-Air Quality 

Standard Chlorine 

U. S. EPA 

Facilitator 

Chem. Manuf. Assoc. 

Pharmaceutical Manuf. Assoc. 

Jefferson Company, APCD 

Amoco Oil Company 

API 

API 

EPA 

EPA (OPPE) 

Fisher Controls Company 

CMA 

Reflange 

API 

North Carolina State University 

DuPont 
TIATIONS WOOD STOVE AGREEMENT 207 

November 7, 1986 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE 

FOR 

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD HEATERS 

AGREEMEN T 

The Negotiating Committee considered the technical and policy issues involved in a new source performance standard for 

residential wood heaters and has reached a consensus on a recommended proposed rule. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

agrees that: 

t. party to the negotiations, 

1. The person signing this document is authorized to commit the 

organization to the terms of the agreement. 

2. It concurs in the recommended proposed rule entitled 'Recommended Proposed Rules ~ Residential Wood Heater NSPS" that 

is dated "10/24/86" and that is attached to this agreement 

when considered as a whole. 

3. a. EPA agrees to draft a preamble consistent with the recommended proposed rule and to publish that preamble and the 

recommended proposed rule as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a New Source Performance Standard for Residential Wood Heaters. 

b. If the proposed rule and its preamble are consistent with 

the recommended proposed rule, each other party agrees 

not to file negative comments in response to the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and to file a memorandum in the 

docket that it participated in the negotiations and that 

it concurred in the recommended proposed rule when considered as a whole. 

4. a. EPA will consider all relevant comments submitted in 

response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and will 

make such modifications in the proposal as are necessary 

when issuing a final rule. 

b. Each other party agrees not take any action to inhibit 

the adoption of the recommended proposed rule as a final 

rule. 

5. Each party other than EPA agrees not to challenge the final 

rule in court if the final rule and its preamble are consistent with the recommended proposed rule. 
208 CONCLUDIN

G THE NEGOTIATIONS 

6. If the final rule is challenged in court and if the preamble 

and final rule are consistent with the recommended proposed 

rule, then each party other than EPA agrees to file a memo-

randum informing the court that it participated in the nego-

tiations and that it concurred in the recommended proposed 

rule when considered as a whole. 

7. This agreement takes effect when all members of the Negoti-

ating Committee have signed it. 

Robert L. Ajax 

Individual Committee Member 

U.S. EPA 

Organization 

November 13, 1986 

Date 

$& 

T*?ftt 

ENVIRONMENTAL P 

AGENCY 40 CFR Par

t 60 

[AO-FRL-3iaa-7(b)| 

Standards ot Perfor 

Stationary Sources; 

Performance tor Ne 

Residential Wood H 

AGENCY: Environmer 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed ru 

public hearing. 

. SUMMARY: The propc 

would limit purliculo 

emissions from new 

heaters. The propose 

developed through t) 

regulatory negotiatic 

Section 111 of the Cl 

based upon the Adix 

determination that v> 

or contribute signific 

pollution which may 

anticipated to endar 

welfare. The propos 

require wood heater 

or after July 1,1988. 

reducing emissions i 

achievable by the b< 

system of conlinuou 

reduction, consideri 

quality health and e 

impacts, and energy 

If requested, a pul 

held to provide intei 

opportunity for oral 

data, views, or argu. 

the proposed stands 

DATES: Comments. ( 

received on or befor 

Public Hearing. If 

EPA requesting to S| 

hearing by March 11 

hearing will be held 

beginning at 10:00 a 

interested in attend 

should call Ms. Ann 

phone number listei 

Information Contac 

hearing will be held 
P.20 

ATTACHMENT 4 

REVISIONS TO FEBRUARY MINUTES 

First bullet under Scope of the Standard (page 1) 

Mr. Bob Ajax of EPA described the role that this regulatory 

negotiation will play in the Agncy's promulgation of a Hazardous 

Organic NESHAP (HON). Under the HON, the Agency intends to 

promulgate standards for controlling emissions of approximately 

191 hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act from 

equipment leaks, wastewater, process vent, storage, and transfer 

operations for as many as 150 source categories. The negotiating 

committee will develop the generic equipment leaks standard. The 

Agency will estimate environmental, cost, and economic impacts of 

the resulting combined generic standards and promulgate the 

standards under Title III of the expected Clear Air Act revisions. 

Second bullet under Data (page 2) 

The EPA corrected the usable data to adjust for the response 

factor of each monitoring instrument, and presented a revised 

analysis showing the percent leakers by component type for various 

leak definitions (See Attachment 6) . Some committee members 

expressed concern that response factor correction may be difficult 

to perform simultaneously with equipment screening, especially for 

mixed HAP streams. Mr. Ajax suggested that the highest response 

factor from all streams within a plant may be used as a default 

response factor. Several Committee members recommended that the 

Committee discuss further how response factors should be treated 

in the regulation. 

First bullet under Leak Definition and Allowable Leakers: MACT (page 3) 

The committee discussed several combinations of leak definition 

and allowable leak frequencies for use in Phase III of the 

standard. There was general agreement that the leak definition 

should be high enough to minimize the effects of operator and 

instrument variability while simultaneously providing an 

environmental benefit at a reasonable cost. Discussion focused on 

a leak definition ranging from 250 to 1,000 ppm and an allowable 

limit ranging from about one to three percent. 

Second bullet under Leak definition and allowable leakers: MACT (page 3) 

. Several committee members expressed concern that a leak definition 

below 1,000 ppmv was not appropriate for several reasons. First, 

screening data may be less reliable at lower screening values due 

to increased variability in concentration measurements. Data were 

presented on the tendency of components leaking at low 

concentrations to return to zero during subsequent screenings 
P.21 

without any repair attempts. Second, attempts to repair equipment 

that emits at very low concentrations may result in higher 

screening values than before. Finally, replacement of equipment 

to achieve low leak definitions could result in higher emissions 

associated with shutdown and equipment evacuation than from the 

leak itself. 

Fourth bullet under Leak definition and allowable leakers: MACT (page 4) 

A discussion arose as to which plants should constitute the basis 

for MACT. One suggestion was that the average EO industry 

performance reflects MACT, since the EO industry is a well 

controlled industry relative to the 191 CAA chemicals. Several 

committee members disagreed, saying that only the best-controlled 

plants should reflect MACT, and a few of the EO plants could not 

be considered best-controlled. 

Fourth bullet under Conceptual Approach to the Standard (page 5) 

DELETE THIS ENTIRE BULLET. 

Committee members agreed that the issue of random sampling should 

be abandoned for the purposes of this negotiated regulation. 

Sixth bullet under Conceptual Approach to the Standard (page 5) 

Committee members discussed provisions for demonstrating 

equivalent approaches to the proposed standard. Committee members 

will work toward defining specific equivalence criteria for the 

regulation. 

First bullet under Emission Factors (page 5) 

Mr. Robert Pahel-Short of EPA presented a series of figures 

illustrating the relationship between emission factors and leak 

frequency for various equipment types and leak definitions (See 

Attachment 12). The committee members generally felt that these 

types of figures will be useful for estimating emission factors. 

Second bullet under Action Items (page 6) 

Mr. Goodheart expressed concern with the manner of awarding credit 

for taking equipment out of service. They will address this issue 

at the next committee meeting. 

Third bullet under Action Items (page 6) 

CMA indicated they were interested in providing assistance to the 

Committee in evaluating the cost impacts of a standard. 
P.22 

ATTACHMENT 5 

KMMMMMW^WtMmBM^ 

EPA NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING FOR 1 

FUGITIVE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS 

LOW CONCENTRATION STREAM CUTOFF 

REFINERY EMISSIONS DISTRIBUTION 

EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION 

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

PROPOSAL 
P.23 
1 

H 

H H 1 

•^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^^•^^^ 

1 Costs to Achieve MACT 

1 Total Quality Control Program 

Basic - Quarterly l&M of a 2000 valve facility IVSS/year 

1. Inspection and Maintenance ~ •' 

Inspection = 2000*4* 2.75 $/valve 22 

Maintenance = 30% tighten + 30% repair I 

+• 40% replace 15 1 

Total l&M Costs 37 1 

2. Total Quality Control Program 1 

- One engineering analyst 100 1 

- Two techicians to implement 1 

the total quality program 150 1 

3. Valve testing facilities (annualized) 50 1 

4. Engineering study to meet MACT 20 1 

5. Increase in plant start up 250 1 

time to test valves for leakage 1 

Total cost of Total Quality Control 600 M$ 1 

Cost per valve 3Q0 I 

1 

^^^^—^^-^— 1 

• 

.^^^H i 

.^^^H 

.^^^H • 
1 1 

1 

1 H 1 1 

1 H H 1 1 i 

^i 

^""^^^"^^H 

Case II Replace 50% of Valves with Low Leak Technology i^^^ H 

1. Total Quality Control Program 600 M$ ^^^^^ H 

2. One time costs of replacing valves with ^^^^^ H 

bellows valves ^^^^^^ H 

- Capital costs valves 2400 ^^^^^ H 

- Valve ^^^^^^ 1 

- Piping modifications 125 ^^^^H | 

- Engineering design costs 37 ^^^^^ H 

- Incremental time required to replace valves 5 days ^^^^^^ | 

- Increased shutdown costs 2500 ^^^^^^ H 

Total capital 5700 M$ ^^^^^ H 

Annualized capital cost 1275 M$ ^^^^^ H 

Total cost ta comply with MACT 1900 M$ ^^^^^ | 

Cost per valve 950 lill^^f l 
CASE III INCREASED PLANT SHUTDOWNS 

Total Quality Control Programs 

Cost of Increased Plant Shutdowns 

Assume that plants have to increase the plant 

shutdown frequency to that of the EO plants. 

A pre-MACT shutdown frequency of three years will 

be substituted by a major planned shutdown every 

year and a six month short shutdown of one 

week to repair leaking valves 

Shutdown costs @ 500 MS per day 

3. Total costs to achieve MACT 

Costs per valve 

3800 
Valves Captured vs. % Total Benzene, Toluene, 

Xylene (BTX) Stream Composition 

Number of Valves Captured 

8000-1 

6000 

4000 

2000 

% Total BTX Stream Composition 
P.28 1 

^^fl ^^^B 

.^^^^| ^^^^^H 

- . ® 

09 -E 5r "3» 

^^^H H 1 

So. IBei Com 

s. % Tota 

^^1 H 

^^^^^M 

^^^H ^^^M .^H 

Dturec 

( Stream red 

E I y 

n

e (B 

nge

s Ca 

C B » « l* i 

O 5»»

 u

- ' ® 

> / 

t

-

- <=> a 0 

- 5* S5 1 i i" 

2

0 ; 

3T

X Strea

m i 

CO 

1 1 1 1 

v *• o o o o o CO^^° o o o o o 

09 

o 

1 Flan 

i- o 

» J S CM 

I Num 1 

OOO O 

^ co to ^-

—i h 0 

o ts 

CNJ 
P.29 

>^N^\'*K»«MK5i*»^^ 'WMWMUI 

EPA NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING FOR 

FUGITIVE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS 

>295 

150 J Cost Benefit Analysis 

125 

100 4 

75 J 

Cost 

M$/Ton BTX 

Removed 

50 

25 

Pure BTX 

T 

10 20 30 40 

% Total BTX Stream Composition 

50 
Correlation of Emission Factors vs %Leakers 

Single Seal Pumps in EO & BD Units 

10 20 30 40 

Percent Leakers at 2000 ppm 

50 

3 

o 

2 

m 

z H 
Correlation of Emission Factors vs %Leakers 

Single Seal Pumps in EO & BD Units 

0.035 

10 20 30 40 

Percent Leakers at 1000 ppm 

50 

CO 
Correlation of Emission Factors vs %Leakers 

Single Seal Pumps in EO & BD Units 

0.035 

10 20 30 40 

Percent Leakers at 500 ppm 

50 60 
Correlation of Emission Factors vs %Leakers 

Dual Seal Pumps in EO & BD Units 

0.012 

0) 

O 

3 

O 

(0 

0.008 -

O) 

o 

o 

CO 

Li. 

c 

o 

'co 

<n 

mamtm 

E 

LU 

0.006 -

0.004 -

0.002 -

10 15 20 

Percent Leakers at 500 ppm 

25 30 
MASS EMISSION FACTOR VS SCREENING VALUE 

Gas Valves 

a> 

u 

i_ 

3 

O 

tn 

O) 

CO 

c 

CA 

_jo 

E 

UJ 

CO 

(0 

(0 

0.048 

0.040 

0.032 -

0.024 -

0.016 -

0.008 -

0.0452 

0.0161 

-i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 

Screening Value (ppmv) for each valve 
Comparison of Correlations using 

Protocol Leak Factor vs Revised Leak Factor 

Gas Valves in EO & BD Units 

-ST

 0002 

o 

3 

O 

CO 

0.0015 

D) 

2 0.001 

o 

CO 

LL 

C 0.0005 

o 

"55 

co 

E 

ui 

Protocol 

Revised 

4 6 8 

Percent Leakers at 500 ppm 

10 12 
Effect of Repair on Screening Value Distribution 

U.D 

0.5 

> 

•*•* 

^^ 

S0.4 

CO 

n 

o CL 0.3 

<D 

> 

••• • 

T3 0.2 

tr 

0.1 

n 

\ \ 

\ \ 

\ \ 

\ \ \ > . s After repair 

v*v^ 

^^^ ^ 

I ^p :=

?

^*r^^_ J 

-^— Repair trigger 

Before repair 

1 t 

10 100 1,000 

Screening Value (ppm) 

10,000 
CD 

O 

0.003 

o 

(0 0.0025 

££, 0.002 

o 

o 

,2 0.0015 

c 

o 

• MB 

CO 0.00 1 

E 

UJ 

§> 0.0005 

CO 

c5 

> 

< o 

Effect of Repair at 500 ppm 

Gas Valves 

10 15 

Percent Leakers 

20 25 
P.38 

ATTACHMENT 7 

03/27/90 

EMISSIONS FOR EXAMPLE ALTERNATIVES 

COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS 

Number of Emissions (kg/hr) 

Component -

Equipment (SOCMI Avg Avg SOCMISterling 

Component Model Uncont (Monthly Benzene 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Plant B) SOCMI LDAR) Data 

Gas Valves 402 2.251 0.608 0.123 0.073 0.056 0.056 0.049 0.046 0.031 0.031 0.024 

Light Liquid 524 3.720 1.525 0.160 0.377 0.347 0.347 0.304 0.278 0,265 0.265 0.237 

Valves 

Pumps 29 1.433 0.562 0.025 0.100 0.081 0.065 0.050 0.050 0.016 0.013 0.010 

Flanges 2400 1.992 1.992 0.048 3.038 2.609 1.807 1.519 1.306 0.902 0.758 0.653 

Compressors 20.45 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Open-ended lines 226 0.384 000000000 0 

Pressure-relief 42 4.368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

dev ices 

Sampling 104 1.560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

connection sys. 

Total 16.164 4.687 0.356 3.589 3.093 2.276 1.923 1.680 1.214 1.067 0.924 

COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS (See footnote) 

==a ===3=========:=s==============ss========s===:====ss=======================s=sa===================s====a==ssB53aass3=osasaaa 

Emission Factor (kg/hr/source) 

Equipment Avg Avg SOCMISterling 

Component Uncont (Monthly Benzene 1234567 8 

SOCMI LDAR) Data 

Gas Valves 0.00560 0.00151 0.00031 0.000182 0.000140 0.000140 0.000121 0.000115 0.000076 0.000076 0.000060 

Light Liquid 0.00710 0.00291 0.00031 0.000720 0.000662 0.000662 0.000581 0.000530 0.00050S 0.000505 0.000452 

Valves 

Pumps 0.04940 0.01936 0.00086 0.003465 0.002779 0.002254 0.001733 0.001733 0.000556 0.000451 0.000347 

Flanges 0.00083 0.00083 0.00002 0.001266 0.001087 0.000753 0.000633 0.000544 0.000376 0.000316 0.000272 

Compressors 0.228 000000000 0 

Open-ended lines 0.0017 000000000 0 

Pressure-relief 0.104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

devices (gas) 

Sampling 0.015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

connection sys. 

pumps: 500 ppm, 10% 

gas valves:' 1000 ppm, 2X 

liquid valves: 1000 ppm, 2% 

flanges: 500 ppm, 2% 

pumps: 5000 ppm, 5% 

gas valves: 500 ppm, 2% 

liquid valves: 500 pom, 2% 

flanges: 250, 25. 

3 pumps: 1000 ppm, 5X 

OAS valves: 500 oam. 2X 

pumps: 500 ppm, 5% 

gas valves: 250 ppm 2X 

liquid valves: 250 ppm, 2% 

flanges: 500 ppm IX 

pumps: 500 ppm, 5% 

gas valves: 1000 ppm, IX 

liquid valves: 1000 ppm, IX 

flanges: 250 ppm, IX 

6 pumps: 5000 ppm, IX 

gaa valves: 500 ppm, IX 

liquid val.ves: 500 ppm, IX 

flanges: 1000 ppm, .5X 

pumps: 1000 ppm, IX 

gas valves: 500 ppm, IX 

1iquid valves: 500 ppm, IX 

flanges: 500, .5X 

pumps: 500 ppm, IX 

gas valves: 250 ppm, IX 

liquid valves: 250 ppm, IX 

flanges: 250 ppm, .5X 

gas valves: 500 ppm, 2X 

liquid valves: 500 ppm, 2X 

flanges: 1000 ppm, IX .. . 

Emission factors are 25X lower than calculated emission factors at stated leak definition and percent leakers 

;/<C 
P.39 

• 

* 1 

5000 ppm 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

5000 ppm 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

Assumes 29 

Calculated 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

250 ppm 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

250 ppm 

EMISSION FACTOR MATRICES 

SINGLE MECHANICAL SEAL PUMPS (KG/HR/SOURCE) 

15X 

0.008336 

0.006761 

0.005198 

10X 

0.005557 

0.004507 

0.003465 

5X 

0.002779 

0.002254 

0.001733 

PLANT EMISSIONS (KG/HR) 

0.241751 

0.196076 

0.150728 

0.161167 

0.130717 

0.100485 

pumps/plant 

emissions assume plan 

0.080584 

0.065359 

0.050243 

1% 

0.000556 

0.000451 

0.000347 

0.016117 

0.013072 

0.010049 

t's emissions are 25% 

GAS VALVES (KG/HR/SOURCE) 

4% 

0.000317 

0.000267 

0.000242 

3% 

0.000249 

0.000203 

0.000181 

2X 

0.000182 

0.00014 

0.000121 

PLANT EMISSIONS (KG/HR) 

0.127293 

0.107153 

0.097083 

0.100219 

0.081616 

0.072812 

Assumes 402 gas valves/plant 

Calculated 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

250 ppm 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

250 ppm 

emissions assume plan 

0.073144 

0.056079 

0.048542 

1% 

"0.000115 

7.6E-05 

6.04E-05 

0.046069 

0.030542 

0.024271 

t's emissions are 25X 

FLANGES (KG/HR/SOURCE) 

4X 

0.003012 

0.002532 

0.002175 

3X 

0.002259 

0.001899 

0.001631 

2X 

0.001506 

0.001266 

0.001087 

PLANT EMISSIONS (KG/HR) 

7.2288 

6.0768 

5.22 

5.4216 

4.5576 

3.915 

3.6144 

3.0384 

2.61 

IX 

0.000753 

0.000633 

0.000544 

1.8072 

1.5192 

1.305 

Assumes 2400 flanges/plant 

Calculated emissions assume plant's emissions are 25X 

500 ppm 

250' ppm 

100 ppm 

500 ppm 

250 ppm 

100 ppm 

03/27/90 

DUAL MECHANICAL SEAL PUMPS (KG/HR/SOURCE) 

4X 3X 2X IX 

0.001427 0.001092 0.000757 0.000421 

0.001427 0.001092 0.000757 0.000421 

0.00111 0.000832 0.000555 0.000277 

PLANT EMISSIONS (kg/hr) 

0.04139 0.031668 0.021946 0.012223 

0.04139 0.031668 0.021946 0.012223 

0.03219 0.024142 0.016095 0.008047 

ower than emissions at stated percentage and leak definition. 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

250 ppm 

1000 ppm 

500 ppm 

250 ppm 

LIQUID VALVES (KG/HR/SOURCE) 

4X 3X 2X IX 

0.001099 0.00091 0.00072 0.00053 

0.000976 0.000819 0.000662 0:000505 

0.000839 0.00071 0.000581 0.000452 

PLANT EMISSIONS (KG/HR) 

0.576138 0.476709 0.37728 0.277851 

0.511293 0.429156 0.347019 0.264882 

0.439767 0.372171 0.304575 0.236979 

Assumes 524 liquid valves/plant 

ower than emissions at stated percentage and leak definition. 

9 

ower than emissions at stated percentage and leak definition. 
Start - -

Year 2 - -

Phas e I LDAP 

0.000 PPM -—• \ i^ U 

Year 5 

Phas e II LDAR 

1000 PPM 

Phas e III 

(3% lor 2 Consec. 

Periods, Option lo 

Elecl Voluniary Exi 1 

1000 PPM 

<5% 

>5%" 

Monthl y 

All Components 

)3% 

Quarterly 

All Components 

I 

<3% 

Cannot Return to 

Phase I or II 

Demonstrate 

Reasonable Further 

Progress 

OR 

j 

i 

Semi-Annual 

All Componen 3 '<!% 

I 

<2% 

4 

1 

OPTION 

— >l% — 

>2% 

-List Unrepairable 

Component Pool 

-Submit Repair Plan 

For Pool 

-Cal a % Leakers 

(Excluding Pool) 

Seml-Annua l 

Of 25% Comp. 

Annual 

All Components 

3 

> 

o 

m 

03 

BASIS: 

I. 

2. Avi S

r ^ hCI ^ A pp,,e s To A P^cess Unit 

Soecm L ^Consecutiv e Monitoring Periods (At The 

Decrease) TE? U ^ Ar e Re < * ulre d To Change (Increase or 

1000 PPM m.l*i°2"OTlna Freauenc V '" Phase ill. WTM-5M&^%^^

 APP,led 
P.41 

ATTACHMENT 9 

FLANGES: PRESENTATION BY RON BERGLUND (UNION CARBIDE) 

This attachment was not available for distribution with the minutes. 

Mr. Berglund is revising his presentation slides. This attachment will be 

available to all Reg Neg attendees at the next Reg Neg meeting. 
P.42 

ATTACHMENT 10 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Bob Ajax, EPA/SDB 

FROM: Ed Moretti, Radian/RTP 

DATE: March 20, 1990 

SUBJECT: Costs of Single and Double Mechanical Seals for Pumps 

The installed cost to retrofit a single mechanical seal with a double 

mechanical seal is estimated to be $1,460, including installation costs of 

$440. The cost for a new double mechanical seal is estimated to be $830 

when installed instead of a new single mechanical seal. A credit of $560 

for a new single mechanical seal was subtracted from the double seal cost of 

$1,020 to yield a net double seal cost of $460. Labor to install the new 

double mechanical seal in a shop area was estimated as $370. Actual costs 

for double mechanical seals will vary greatly, depending on the pump shaft 

diameter, the material of construction of the seal, the pump operating 

pressure and temperature, and the physical and chemical properties of the 

material to be pumped. Auxiliary equipment, such as a cooler for control of 

the temperature of the liquid used to flush the seal may be required, at a 

cost of approximately $1,240; also, an individualized pressurized pot system 

may be required to maintain pressure on the liquid used to flush each double 

seal, at a cost of approximately $300, according to recent vendor 

information. Cost of a closed-vent system is estimated to be $5,190. 

See the enclosures for the sources of the above cost information. 

Additional cost information is expected from two other pump or seal vendors. 
TABLE. PUMP SEAL COSTS 

Item Cost (1st 

quarter 1990) 

Cost Basis 

TOT" Seal Cost based on telephone call 

to seal vendors. 

Single 

Mechanical Seal 

Double 

Mechanical 

Seal 

$1,460 (retrofitted) Seal Cost = $1,020. (Based on 

telephone call to seal vendors.) 

Field Installation - $440. 

(Updated from NSPS BID using BLS 

Producer Price Index.) 

$830 (new) 

Barrier Fluid 

System for Double 

Mechanical Seals 

$1,540 

Closed-Vent 

System for Double 

Mechanical Seals 

$5,190/pump 

Seal Cost = $1,020. (Based on 

telephone call to seal vendors.) 

Single Seal Credit = $560. 

Shop Installation = $370. (Updated 

from NSPS BID using BLS Producer 

Price Index.) 

Pressurized Reservoir System • 

$300. (Based on telephone call to 

vendors.) 

System Cooler = $1,240. (Updated 

from NSPS BID using CE Plant Cost 

Indices for Pipes, Valves, 

Fittings. 

Based on installation of a 

122 m length of 5.1 cm diam. 

schedule 40 carbon steel pipe 

at a cost of $8,040 (updated from 

NSPS BID using CE Plant Cost 

Indices for Pipes, Valves, 

Fittings), plus three 5.1 cm cast 

steel plug valves and one metal 

gauge flame arrestor at a cost of 

$2,330 (updated from NSPS BID using 

CE Plant Cost Indices for Pipes, 

Valves, Fittings). These costs 

include connection of the degassing 

reservoir to an existing enclosed 

combustion device or vapor recovery 

header. Therefore, cost of a 

control device added specifically 

to control the degassing vents is 

not included. Assumes that two 

pumps are connected to a single 

degassing vent. 

IS3S33 3 
P.44 

TABLE. EQUIPMENT COST FOR CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM A PUMP SEAL 

(1989-1990 Dollars) 

Retrofitted New 

Capital Costs 

Dual Seal 

Barrier f 

Vent System 5,190 5,190 

Dual Seal (Footnotes A,B) 1,460 830 

Barrier Fluid 1,540 1,540 

Total 8,190 7,560 

Annual Costs 

660 

250 

850 

160 

330 

330 

250 

850 

160 

300 

Dual Seal (Footnote C) 

Barrier Fluid (Footnote D) 

Vent System (Footnote D) 

Quarterly LDAR (Footnote E) 

Miscellaneous Charges (Footnote F) 

Total (Footnote G) 2,250 1,890 

A. Retrofitted seal costs: Seal cost = $1,020, Field installation cost -

$440. 

B. New seal costs: Seal cost = $1,020, Shop installation cost = $370, 

Single-seal credit * $560. 

C. Based on 2-year seal life and 10 percent interest (CRF - 0.58) for dual 

seal and 10-year amortization period and 10 percent interest (CRF -

0.163) for installation charges. 

D. Based on 10-year equipment life and 10 percent interest (CRF => 0.163). 

E. Based on information from a LDAR contractor. 

F. Based on 4 percent of total capitalists (see Page 8-10 of the BID). 

G. Costs do not include credits for recovered product. 
P.45 

TABLE. NET ANNUALIZED COST OF EQUIPMENT FOR CONTROL 

OF EMISSIONS FROM PUMP SEALS 

(1989-1990 Dollars) 

tassasssssss : 

Retrofitted New 

Gross Annualized Cost {$/yr) $2,250 $1,890 

Emission Reduction (Mg/yr) (Footnote A.) 0.41 0.41 

Product Recovery Credit ($/yr) (200) (200) 

(Footnote B.) 

Net Annualized Cost ($/yr) $2,050 $1,690 

A. Average Emission Factor for light liquid pumps = 0.0494 kg/hr/source. 

Assumes 8,760 hours operation per year. 

Assumes 95% reduction in pump seal emissions attributable to dual 

mechanical seal. 

B. Product valued at $480/Mg. Updated from NSPS AID using Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Producer Price Index. 
ATTACHMENT 11 

TABLE 1-A 

PORTABLE MONITOR RESPONSE FACTORS 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ALL COMPOUNDS WITH RESPONSE FACTORS 

COMPOUND 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine 

1,1-D ime thy1 hydraz ine 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

1,3-Butadiene 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

1,4-Dioxane 

1,4-Dioxane 

1,4-Dioxane 

2-Nitropropane 

2-Nitropropane 

Ace taldeh^ds 

Acetonitrile 

Acetonitrile 

Acetonitrile 

Acetophenone 

Acrolein 

Acrolein 

Acrylic Acid 

Acrylic Acid 

Acrylic Acid 

Acrylonitrile 

Acrylonitrile 

Acrylonitrile 

Acrylonitrile 

Acrylonitrile 

Aniline 

Benzene 

Benzene 

Benzene 

Benzene 

Benzene 

Benzene 

Benzyl chloride 

RF 

1.00 

1.00 

4.83 

7.89 

6.06 

0.85 

1.25 

5.00 

1.03 

1.00 

1.21 

3.13 

0.88 

3.33 

1.58 

1.48 

1.43 

1.05 

4.00 

1.43 

0.94 

0.95 

18.70 

0.2 

3.73 

9.09 

4.65 

4.59 

.1.04 

1.43 

2.00 

0.96 

0.97 

2.63 

1.40 

1.28 

1.27 

0.67 

0.21 

0.29 

15.30 

ppmv 

1000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

1000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

35.8 

1000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

31.7 

1000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

24.0 

26.4 

31.2 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

Control 

M 

M ' 

P 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M* 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M* 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M* 

M* 

M* 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Source 

Foxboro 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Foxboro 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

** - Xylene response factors are average of o,m and p isomers 

M - Based on methane 

M* - Response corrected to methane 

N/F - Not feasible to determine 
OQ 

i 

r-1 

w H J 

3 H 

CO 

o H 

CJ 

< ba NSE 

o 

cu CO 

w 

c4 

o H 

L

E MONI 

3 H 

Oi 

O 

Oa 

FACTORS ONSE 

cu 

CO 

w oi 

X WIT 

CO 

Q 

P O 

Oa 

as 

o 

o 

O

F ALL 

H 

CO 

M 

aJ 

3 CJ 

M 

H 

W 

pQ 

^J 33 

tu 

-* •4 

0) 

t> 

W 

3 

o ntro

l S 

o 

CJ 

> 

s 

a 

a 

•a 

cd 

a 

£3 

o Pa 

as 

o CJ 

lu lu 

c cfl 

•r-( 

T J 

a) 04 

tu 

O 

VJ 

O 

X> 

X 

O 

tu 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o t-4 

o 

w \ o 

z 

I-H 

J N 

c 0) 

X ! 

a •rH 

CQ 

Z 

a> 

T J 

• H 

<4H 

r-1 

3 

CO 

•rH 

T J 

c O 

X> 

VI 

Cd 

CJ 

z ide 

Vj 

o I-H 

X ! 

o «fl 

Vj 

U 

<U 

4J 

C 

O 

X) 

U 

id 

CJ 

o r H ide 

u 

o 

i-H 

rC 

o (fl 

)H 

u 

a) 

4-> 

C 

o 

x> VH 

cfl 

C J 

C 

<fl 

• H 

T J 

Cfl 

0 4 

S3 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

0 0 

CM 

r H 

CM ide 

VJ 

O 

r-H 

X\ 

o 

cd 

VJ 

4-> 

a> 

4-> 

e O 

J3 

M 

cd 

CJ 

O 

VJ 

O 

X) 

X 

O 

t u 

S 

o 

o 

o 

o 

r H 

o 

i n 

o 

a) C 

a) 

N 

C 

0) 

Xt 

O 

VJ 

O 

r-H 

XC J 

c 

cd 

• H 

TJ 

cd 

o4 

3S 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

v£> 

co 

o 

cu 

a 

cu 

N 

c 

a> J3 

O 

VJ 

O 

r-1 

r C 

CJ 

c 

cd 

T H 

TJ 

cd 

a: 

SS 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

0 0 

co 

o 

cu 

C 

0) 

N 

c 11) 

X I 

O 

VJ 

O 

i-H 

. C 

C J 

o 

VJ C 

o ca 

,n TH 

X T J 

o cd 

Cu 04 

as as 

o o 

o ' o 

o o 

o o r H O 

r H 

> * 0 0 

i n ^ 

r-4 < • 

c 

cd 

•rH 

TJ 

cd 

04 

ad 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

0 0 

CM 

o\ 

a a B E VJ 

O O 

<4H sn 

O O 

VJ VJ 

O O 

i-H i-H 

o <4H 

O 

VJ 

o 

r-1 

x: x: x: CJ u C J 

o 

VJ 

O 

Xt 

X 

o Ua 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o l"H 

o 

o 

r H 

CU 

e 0) 

s 3 CJ 

O 

VJ 

O 

• O 

X 

O 

tu 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

CO 

<t 

r-J 

d) 

e 0) 

B 

3 CJ 

C 

cd 

•rH 

TJ 

cd 

04 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

r-H 

O l 

CT> 

r-H 

CU 

e 

cu 

s 3 

CJ 

o 

C VJ 

cd o 

•rH X) 

TJ X 

cd o 

o4 t u 

ss as 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o O i-H 

r H 

r- <aOO Os 

r H CM 

CU 

T J 

•rH 

B 

O 

C C VJ 

cd cd o 

• H T J X> 

TJ TJ X 

cd cd o 

04 04 tu 

as as as 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o O O rH 

r H r H 

OS Os o 

oo I-H in 

n ^ N 

CU CU 

T J T J 

• rl .iH 

B B 

cfl cd cfl cu 

B 

O 

<4H 

r-H 

J^ 

0) JZ 

C 4J 

CU CU 

B S 

3 -rH 

u a 

H B *-> 

VJ VJ cd 

O O i-H 

c 

cd 

•rH 

TJ 

cd 

04 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r-H 

CM 

r-~. 

o 

CU 

u 

cd 

r H 

<*H taH >-, J>~, 

VJ" 

I - H r-H O 

^ ^ « 

x: x: 

•U 4J i-H 

<» <u >, 

sax : 

•rH T H U 

o o ui 

VJ 

O 

cd 

r-H 

r N 

x\ 4-1 

UJ 

c 

cd 

T H 

TJ 

cd 

o4 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r-H 

r~-

r~ 

o 

CU 

u 

cd 

i-H 

o 

VJ C C 

o cd cd 

X t i H -rH 

X TJ TJ 

o cd cd 

lu 0i Oi 

as as as 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

rH O O 

i-H i-H 

O co O 

O r~ r»» 

rH O O 

cn cu cu 

o o o 

I H VJ VJ 

o o o 

X) Xt Xt 

X X X 

o o o Cu t u tu 

as as 

o o 

o o 

o o 

o o i-H i-H 

O r» (u 

O 

VJ C C 

o cd cd 

, 0 . H T H 

X TJ TJ 

o cd cd 

U. o4 04 

as as as 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

r-H O O 

r H r-4 

CO CM VO 

0«\<tN< t 

• • z CM r-H 

CU 

0) T j 

TJ -rH 

•rH VJ 

B O r-H 

O i-H O 

JH X\ O 

C C C X> O S N 

( U CU CU 

r>S N N N 

VJ 

O 

cd 

i-H 

c c c 

cn cu cu X« X) X) 

r-H r-H r-H 

•rH .rH r-H 

T J T J 0 0 

cu cu cn 

c c c 

0) cu cu 

•-H i-H r H 

>i^>>>>>>^ ^ 

x\ 4-> 

UJ 

x: x; x: x! x\ x; 4J 4-> 4J 

(d U U 

U l l u 

u u u 

r H CM CM 

cu en <u 

TJ TJ Tj 

• I H •rH T H 

X X X 

O O O 

CU cu CU 

c c c 0) 01 cu 

r-H I-H r-H 

:*, ^ >. 

.c x x: 4-1 «-) 4-1 

UJ UJ U] 

O 

VJ 

O 

Xt 

X 

o 

u, 

Cu 

o 

u 

o 

X ) 

X 

o Ua 

(u 

o 

VJ 

O 

X> 

X 

O 

Lu 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

CO 

W c o 

z 

CU 

T J 

> N 

4 3 

CU 

T J 

i-H 

cd 

B 

o Ua 

Z 

CU 

T J 

•rH 

VJ 

TJ 

^ 

•g 

cd 

o 

• H 

0 0 

r H 

O 

c cfl 

c 

cd 

• H 

TJ 

cd 

04 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o i-H 

O i 

co 

- J 

r-H 

O 

C 

Cfl 

c 

cd 

i H 

T J 

cfl 

04 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

Os 

so 

m 

i-H 

o G cfl 

cu-x: x: x: 

r-H 

cfl 

as 

4J 

0) 

as 

4-> 

0) 

as 

4J 

<U 

as 

o 

VJ C C 

o cd cd 

XI T H T H 

X TJ TJ 

o cd cd 

Ua 04 04 

as as as 

O O O 

o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

rH O O 

r-H i-H 

oo >* m 

CM - * r^ 

r H r-H r H 

CU <U <U 

c 

cd 

•rH 

TJ 

cd 

04 

£ 

0 0 

O 

CM 

0 0 

CM 

CM 

o 

VJ 

O 

X> 

X 

o Cu 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

r H 

i n 

o« 

o 

c 

cd 

• H 

TJ 

cfl 

04 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

r H 

OS 

r-~ 

o 

c cfl 

i H 

T J 

cd 

04 

as 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o r H 

0 0 

• o 

BBB B 

o o O 

T J T J T J <4H <HH 4 H 

» 4 i H T l 

u u u 

o o o 

r-H i-H i-H 

x: xi xi 

o o o 

r H r-H i-H 

rN >> P-. 

x: x: x: 4J 4J 4J 

0)0)0 ) 

as as as 

o IH 

o i-H 

XS 

O 

r-H 

>s 

r C 

4J 

0) 

as 

o VJ 

O 

i-H 

x: 

o 

r-H 

5>s 

X ! 

4-) 

CU 

as 

O 

VJ 

o 

r-H 

X 

o 

i-H 

> S 

x\ 4-> 

CU 

as 

o <4H 

o VJ 

o 

r-H 

r C 

o 

r-H 

5^ 

x\ 

u 

cn 

as 

CD 

'-' cn 

s o to 

^H 

a 

T J 

c o,

m a 

« H 

o 

d) 

00 ave

r a 

CU 

t-1 

cfl 

CO 

VJ 

O 

4J ns

e fac 

* ane 

o x: 

a 4-> 

C4 

CU 

VJ 

CU 

c 0) 

•-H 

> S 

X 

1 

* * 

CU 

a 

c 

o 

T J 

CU 

CQ 

cd 

CQ 

1 

as 

0) 

c 

cd 

X 0) 

4-> C 

CaU - H 

s 

O 0) 

4-> 4-> rected 

e t

o de 

VJ I-H 

O X ) 

O "rH 

0) 

CU cd 

CO 0) 

C <«H 

o 

a « CO o 

CU z 

0 4 

1 

I 

ba 

* \ as z 
P.48 

TABLE 1-C 

PORTABLE MONITOR RESPONSE FACTORS 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ALL COMPOUNDS WITH RESPONSE FACTORS 

COMPOUND 

Methyl ethyl ketone 

Methyl ethyl ketone 

Methyl ethyl ketone 

Methyl isobutyl ketone 

Methyl isobutyl ketone 

Methyl methacrylate 

Methyl methacrylate 

Nitrobenzene 

Nitrobenzene 

Nitrobenzene 

o-Cresol 

o-Cresol 

o-Cresol 

Phenol 

Phenol 

Phenol 

Propionaldehyde 

Propionaldehyde 

Propylene oxide 

Propylene oxide 

Propylene oxide 

S tyrene 

Styrene 

Styrene 

Styrene 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Toluene 

Toluene 

Toluene 

Toluene 

Triethylamine 

Triethylamine 

Triethylamine 

Vinyl Acetate 

Vinyl Acetate 

Vinyl Acetate 

Vinyl Acetate 

RF 

1.25 

0.57 

0.64 

1.00 

0.56 

2.00 

0.99 

N/F 

1.02 

29.77 

0.98 

0.96 

0.95 

0.44 

1.85 

11.75 

1.14 

1.19 

0.74 

0.83 

0.80 

1.18 

1.25 

4.22 

4.16 

1.55 

1.80 

1.43 

3.16 

0.89 

0.91 

0.39 

0.33 

1.43 

0.46 

0.51 

2.00 

1.27 

0.39 

1.31 

ppmv 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

37.9 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

28.9 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

19.2 

21.4 

1000.0 

10000.0 

22.6 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

Control 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M* 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M* 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M* 

M* 

M 

M 

M* 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M • 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Source 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

** - Xylene response factors are average of o,m and p. isomers 

M - Based on methane 

M* - Response corrected to methane 

N/F - Not feasible to determine 

TABLE 1-D 
P.49 

TABLE 1-D 

PORTABLE MONITOR RESPONSE FACTORS 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ALL COMPOUNDS WITH RESPONSE FACTORS 

COMPOUND RF ppmv Control Source 

Vinyl Chloride 

Vinyl Chloride 

Vinyl Chloride 

Vinylidene chloride 

Vinylidene chloride 

Vinylidene chloride 

Xylenes 

Xylenes** 

Xylenes** 

2.86 

0.84 

0.65 

2.50 

1.12 

1.15 

0.87 

0.98 

0.98 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

1000.0 

10000.0 

10000.0 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Radian 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

Foxboro 

Radian 

Radian 

** - Xylene response factors are average of o,m and p isomers 

M - Based on methane 

M* - Response corrected to methane 

N/F - Not feasible to determine 
P.50 

t r 'v * 

r f 

Table 2 

Portable Monitor Response Factors 

Compounds on CAA Volatile List Untested with OVA 

COMPOUND RF ppmv Control 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 

2,4-Toluene diamine 

4,4-Methylenedianiline 

Acetamide 

Acrylamide 

Benzotrichloride 

Caprolactam 

Chloroacetic acid 

Chloroprene 

Dichloroethyl ether 

Diethyl sulfate 

Dimethyl sulfate 

Ethyl chloride 

Ethylidene dichloride 

Hexachloroethane 

Hydroquinone 

Isophorone 

Methyl bromide 

mixed Cresol 

m-Cresol 

N,N-Diethyl aniline 

o-Anisidine 

o-Toluidine 

Phosgene 

Phthalic anhydride 

Propylene dichloride 

p-Cresol 

p-Phenylenediamine 

Quinone