# Attachments:

Attachment 1:

Results of RBLC Database Queries

Attachment 2:

BACT Analysis for control of TD I emissions from slabstock foam production line at a facility in

Ft. Wayne, IN

Attachment 3:

Detailed RTO/RCO Cost Analyses

Attachment 4:

Memorandum regarding Equipment Leaks in the Chemical and Petroleum Industries

Attachment 5:

BAAQMD Equipment Leak Memo

# Attachment 1:

Results of RBLC Database Queries

# Attachment 1a. Summary of RBLC Query for NAICS 326150

RBLCID Corporate or

Company Name Last Updated Process Name

*IN-0127 Foamex Innovations,

Inc. 6/26/2012 Thermal Reticulation

Unit

MI-0313 Woodbridge

Corporation 11/18/2002 Mold Release

Application

NC-0071 Nomaco, Inc. 3/12/2004 Polyethylene Foam

Extrusion &

Converting Lines

NC-0109 Nomaco, Incorporated 1/11/2006 Extruders

NC-0110 Nomaco, Incorporat ed 1/11/2006 Extruders

OK-0108 Nomaco, Inc. 1/10/2005 Foam Extrusion (5)

OK-0108 Nomaco, Inc. 1/10/2005 Printing

OK-0108 Nomaco, Inc. 1/10/2005 Combustion Units

(Engine/Heaters)

OK-0122 Nomaco, Inc. 4/20/2009 Polyethylene Foam

Extrusion

# Attachment 1b. Summary of RBLC Query for SIC 3086

RBLCID Corporate or Company

Name Last Update Process Name Notes

AZ-0019 Western Insulfoam 12/18/2001 Foam Panel

Manufacturing

CA-0724 Pactuco 8/29/2006 Polystyrene

Extrusion

Process

CA-0742 Styrotek, Inc. 12/18/2001 Expandable

Polystyrene

Molding

Operation

CA-0785 Carpenter Co. 12/18/2001 Non-woven

Polyester Foam

Line

CA-0785 Carpenter Co. 12/18/2001 Adhesive

Application

Process

CA-0909 Dart Container Corporation

of California 10/11/2005 Polystyrene

Foam Extrusion

CA-0987 Pactuco 8/25/2003 Polystyrene

Extrusion

Process

CT-0105 Tuscarora Inc. 12/18/2001 Molding,

Expandable

Polystyrene

IL-0081 Owens Corning 9/17/2003 Polystyrene

Foam Board

Extrusion Lines

*IN-0127 Foamex Innovations Inc. 6/26/2012 Thermal

Reticulation Unit

KY-0080 Dart Container of KY 4/23/2004 Polystyrene

Container

Manufacturing

KY-0080 Dart Container of KY 4/23/2004 Foam Extrusion

Lines (18)

KY-0080 Dart Container of KY 4/23/2004 Printers, UV Ink

& amp; Off Line

KY-0080 Dart Container of KY 4/23/2004 Warehouse

Storage

KY-0080 Dart Container of KY 4/23/2004 Polystyrene

Extruders &

Thermoformers

MI-0196 Falcon Manufacturing of

Michigan, Inc. 10/9/2002 Expander Polystyrene

# Attachment 1b. Summary of RBLC Query for SIC 3086

RBLCID Corporate or Company

Name Last Update Process Name Notes

MI-0196 Falcon Manufacturing of

Michigan, Inc. 10/9/2002 Mold Polystyrene

MI-0207 Tuscarora Plastics, Inc. 10/9/2002 Storage, PreExpansion &

Pre-Puff,

Molding, Storage

MI-0210 Tuscarora Plastics, Inc. 10/9/2002 Storage, PreExpansion, &

Pre-Puff,

Molding

MI-0249 Tuscarora Inc. 1/3/2003 Manufacturing,

Expandable

Plastic Beads

MI-0273 Fagerdala – Paclite

Incorporated 12/28/2001 Expandable

Polystyrene

Molding

MI-0273 Fagerdala – Paclite

Incorporated 12/28/2001 Expandable

Polypropylene

Molding

MI-0278 Voltek Div of Sekisui

America Corp. 12/20/2001 Foam

Production,

Polyolefin,

Ovens, 11 Each

MI-0313 Woodbridge Corporation 11/18/2002 Mold Release

Application VOC

MI-0322 Fagerdala Pac-Lite

Incorporated 12/7/2004 Extrusion,

Polyethylene

MI-0322 Fagerdala Pac-Lite

Incorporated 12/7/2004 Extrusion,

Polypropylene

MI-0322 Fagerdala Pac-Lite

Incorporated 12/7/2004 Expandable

Polypropylene

Bead Production

MI-0384 Dart Container Corporation

of Michigan 8/21/2007 EUCUP:

Production of

Foam Containers

MS-0085 Dart Container Corporation

LLC 4/17/2007 Natural Gas

Fired Boiler

MS-0085 Dart Container Corporation

LLC 4/17/2007 Cup

Manufacturing

Process

# Attachment 1b. Summary of RBLC Query for SIC 3086

RBLCID Corporate or Company

Name Last Update Process Name Notes

NC-0071 Nomaco Inc. 3/12/2004 Polyethylene

Foam Extrusion

& Converting

Lines

NC-0109 Nomaco Incorporated 1/11/2006 Extruders

NC-0110 Nomaco Incorporated 1/11/2006 Extruders

NV-0027 Universal Urethane, Inc. 5/6/2005 MFG of

Polyurethane

Products

OH-0234 Knauf USA Polystyrene Inc. 10/9/2002 Polystyrene

Foam Production

Process

OK-0108 Nomaco Inc. 1/10/2005 Foam Extrusion

(5)

OK-0108 Nomaco Inc. 1/10/2005 Printing

OK-0108 Nomaco Inc. 1/10/2005 Combustion

Units

(Engine/Heaters)

OK-0122 Nomaco Inc. 4/20/2009 Polyethylene

Foam Extrusion

PA-0164 Dart Container Corporation 9/4/2003 Polystyrene

Extrusion

PA-0164 Dart Container Corpor ation 9/4/2003 Thermoforming,

Roll Storage

PA-0210 Dart Container Corp of PA 8/4/2008 Polystyrene

Extrusion

PA-0210 Dart Container Corp of PA 8/4/2008 Boiler, (2)

PA-0210 Dart Container Corp of PA 8/4/2008 EPS Container

Manufacturer

PA-0222 Dart Corp. of Amer ica 4/12/2005 Expandable Cup

Manufacturing

VA-0187 Amoco Foam Products

Company 5/23/2002 Expandable

Polystyrene

Products

Manufacturing

Plant

# Attachment 2:

BACT Analysis for control of TDI emissions

from slabstock foam production line

at a facility in Ft. Wayne, IN

# Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office of Air Quality

APPENDIX A

BACT ANALYSIS REPORT

Source Description and Location

Source Name: Foamex Innovations Operating

Company

Source Location: 3005 Commercial Road, Fort Wayne,

Indiana 46809

County: Allen

SIC Code: 3086

Operation Permit Renewal No.: T003

- 27321

- 00225

Operation Permit Renewal Issuance Date: July 23, 2009

PSD/ Significant Source Modification No.: 003

- 29260

- 00225

Significant Permit Modification No.: 003

- 29273

- 00225

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson

Background Information

The Office of Air Quality (OAQ) has performed a best available control technology (BACT) review

relating to the operation of a stationary flexible polyurethane foam production and processing

plant

, located at 3005 Commercial Road , in Fort Wayne , Indiana. This source is owned and

operated by Foamex Innovations Operating Company , and is referred to a s FXI in this document.

FXI submitted an application on May 13, 2010

, to construct and operate one (1) new

polyurethane foam production line, identified as PL

- 01c , and one (1) polyurethane foam coating

line, identified as CL

- 01. The modification has pote ntial VOC emissions greater than forty (40)

tons per year and is located at a major source for PSD. Therefore, the operation of the one (1)

new polyurethane foam production line and one (1) new polyurethane foam coating line is subject

to the requirements of 326 IAC 2

- 2

- 3 (PSD BACT) and 326 IAC 8

- 1

- 6 (VOC BACT).

IDEM, OAQ conducts BACT analyse s in accordance with the “Top

- Down” Best Available Control

Technology Guidance Document outlined in the 1990 draft U

. S

. EPA New Source Review

Workshop Manual , which outlines the steps for conducting a top

- down BACT analysis. Those

steps are listed below.

(a) Identify all potentially available control options;

(b) Eliminate technically infeasible control options;

(c) Rank remaining control techn ologies ;

(d) Evaluate the most effective controls and document the results; and

(e) Select BACT.

Also in accordance with the “Top

- Down” Best Available Control Technology Guidance Document

outlined in the 1990 draft U

. S

. EPA New Source Review Workshop Manual , BACT an alyses take

into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts on the source. Emission

reductions may be determined through the application of available control techniques, process

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 2 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025



# design, and/or operational limitations. Such reductions are nec essary to demonstrate that the

emissions remaining after application of BACT will not cause or contribute to air pollution thereby

protecting public health and the environment.

VOC BACT Analysis

Step One: Identify All Control Technologies

The following control technologies were evaluated in regards to controlling VOC emissions from

the polyurethane foam production and coating line s :

(a) Condensation System

Condensation systems use a refrigerant to cool the exhaust stream from a

process, causing a phase change from gas to liquid for the volatile constituents.

The liquid is collected, and the concentration of the volatile constituent that was

removed in the condensation step is reduced from the exhaust gas. This

technology is particularly applicable when concentration of VOCs in the gas

stream is greater than one percent (1%).

(b) Carbon Adsorption

In carbon adsorption systems, exhaust gases are passed through a bed of

activated carbon granules and the organic compounds are absorbed onto the

surface of the carbon granules. When the carbon is saturated, the captured

organics are desorbed, us ually usi ng steam. Carbon adsorption can consist of

two (2) beds used in tandem, to allow for one (1) bed to be working while the

second bed is being desorbed and prepared for the next cycle.

Carbon adsorption can typically achieve VOC control efficiencies of

app roximately 95% on a continuous basis.

(c) Polyad TM



# The Polyad System

TM 

# System is offered by a microwave technology vendor that

combines resin

- fluidized bed adsorption with microwave dynamic bed desorption

that claims VOC control primarily for stripping VOCs from soil vapor extraction

units, air stripping at remediation sites, and solvent recovery.

(d) Flares

Flares are a VOC

- combustion control process in which VOCs are piped to a

remote, usually elevated location, and burned in an open flame in the ope n air.

Flares use a specially designed burner tip, auxiliary fuel, and air to promote

mixing from proper VOC destruction. Completeness of combustion in a flare is

governed by flame temperature, residence time in the combustion zone, turbulent

mixing of t he gas stream components to complete the oxid at ion reaction, and

available oxygen for free radical formation. Combustion is complete if all VOC

emissions are converted to carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ) and water. Incomplete

combustion results in some of the VOCs being unaltered or converted to other

organic compounds such as aldehydes or acids.

(e) Biofiltration

In biofiltration, off

- gases containing biodegradable organic compounds are

vented, under controlled temperature and humidity, through a biologically act ive

material. The process uses a biofilm containing a population of microorganisms

immobilized on a porous substrate such as peat, soil, sand, wood, compost, or

numerous synthetic media. As an air stream passes through the biofilter , the

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 3 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025



# contaminants in the air stream partition from the gaseous phase to the liquid

phase of the biofilm. Once contaminants pass into the liquid phase, they become

bioavailable for the complex oxidative process by the microorganisms inhabiting

the biofilm.

The bioscrubber is an enhancement of the biofilter where a packed tower is

flooded with a liquid

- phase contaminant stream and the discharge effluent is

retained in a sump for added time to improve the contact time between the

contaminants and the microbes.

(f) Membrane Sepa ration Technologies

Membrane separation technology involves the preferential transport of organic

vapors through a non

- porous gas separation membrane via a diffusion process.

The feed stream is compressed to approximately 150 psig and sent to a

condenser where the liquid solvent is recovered. The condenser bleed is sent to

the membrane module where it is concentrated and returned to the compressor

for further recovery in the condenser.

(g) Ultraviolet (U V) Oxidation

Also called photolytic destruction, UV oxidation of vapor

- phase contaminants is

accomplished by passing the off

- gases in close proximity to a powerful UV light

source. The photo

- oxidation is usually supplemented with a gaseous chemical

oxidant, such as ozone, or a solid catalyst like titani um dioxide. This technology

has been proposed for off

- gas treatment from soil

- vapor extraction and other

groundwater remediation units by the U.S. Department of Energy.

(h) Non

- Thermal Plasma (NTP) Technology

NTP technology consists of an electrically n eutral form of gas containing

substantial con centrations of electrons, ion, and other highly reactive free

radicals with may be generated in the gas stream by application of electrical

energy. In theory, the sequential chemical reactions result in the des truction of

the air contaminants. The U.S. Navy sought to be one of the first to install and

use NTP technology for controlling pain t booth VOC emissions.

(i) Catalytic Incineration

In catalytic incineration, solvent

- laden air is preheated and the organ ic

constituents are ignited and combusted to create CO 2 

# and water. In the

presence of a catalyst, this reaction is able to take place at lower temperatures

than those required for thermal oxidation. Temperatures between 350 and 500

degrees Celsius (662

- 932° F) are common. Lower reaction temperatures

reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental fuel, and will also decrease the

formation of NO X 

# from the combustion process. The catalysts most often used

are metal oxides or precious metals that are suppor ted on ceramic or metallic

substrates.

Catalytic incinerators can typically achieve control efficiencies of approximately

95% on a continuous basis.

(j) Thermal Oxidation

In thermal oxidation, solvent

- laden air is preheated and the organic constituents

are ignited and combusted to create CO 2 

# and water. Dilute gas streams require

auxiliary fuel, generally natural gas, to sustain combustion. Various incinerator

designs are used, but must provide high turbulence to mix the fuel and solvent

la den air. The design must also provide enough residence time to ensure

essentially complete combustion of the off

- gases.

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 4 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025



# Control efficiencies of 95% are possible with thermal oxidation.

To be considered technica lly feasible, a control technology must either be successfully

demonstrated on a unit or, if not demonstrated, then be "available and applicable". A technology

is considered "available" if it can be obtained by the applicant through commercial channels. An

available technology is considered "applicable" if it can reasonably be installed and operated on

the unit in question. Step Two: Evaluate Technical Feasibility

The feasibility of each of the potentially applicable control options identified is reviewed below.

(a) Condensation System

Condensation is not considered a technically

- feasible control option to reduce the

VOC emissions from the polyurethane foam production line. The exhaust stream

from the polyurethane foam production and coating line s is very dilute, precluding

any effective applicability of the system. Also, various organic compounds may

be present in the exhaust stream that would affect the operational efficiency of a

condensation system.

(b) Carbon Adsorption

Carbon adsorption is considered a technically

- feasible option to control VOC

emissions from the polyurethane foam production and coating line s . However,

no existing applications currently exist within the foam production industry.

Carbon adsorption can typically achieve VOC control efficiencies of

approximately 95% on a continuous basis.

(c) Polyad TM



# The Polyad System

TM 

# System has several limitations. Among those are an impaired

efficiency due to a dilute inlet stream concentration; potential interference from

moisture a nd certain constituents in the exhaust stream; and re

- entrainment of

VOCs during microwave desorption. Therefore, the Polyad TM



# adsorption/microwave desorption technology is not considered technically

feasible to reduce VOC emissions from the polyurethane foam production and

coating line s

.

(d) Flares

Flares are not a technically

- feasible control options for VOC emissions from the

polyurethane foam production and coating line s . The large volume of air flow

and the small VOC loading in the exhaust stream e xclude the flare as an

appropriate control device. Additionally, flares are primarily safety devices that

deal with flows of short duration, such as an upset condition or accidental release

from a process, rather than a control device used to treat a cont inuous emissions

stream.

(e) Biofiltration

Biofiltration systems are typically used for odor control in clearly speciated air

streams. These control devices typically have large footprints and operate in

narrow bands of temperature and pressure requiring expensive gas conditioning.

The source does not have the space required to support a biofiltration system,

and the constituents of the exhaust from the polyurethane foam production and

coating line s may foul the system, requiring expensive replacement of the

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 5 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025



# microorganisms and/or the biofilm. Therefore, biofiltration is not considered a

technically

- feasible control option.

(f) Membrane Separation Technologies

Membrane separation technologies are n ot a technically

- feasible option. These

technologies for removal of VO Cs from a gas stream are in use for product

recovery, and also for certain environmental remediation applications. However,

membrane systems are sensitive to mixture concentrations and conditions, and

would not effectively accommodate fluctuations in VOC concentrations in the gas

stream, making them impractical for pollution control in many industrial

applications.

(g) Ultraviolet (UV) Oxidation

UV light frequency must be selected for maximum VOC removal based on inlet

stream constituents. The effectiveness of the control method is greatly

diminished for a matrix of volatile constituents with variable p hotolytic destruction

isotherms. Additionally, the interaction between chemical co nstituents

, preferential destruction, and potential fouling of the titanium dioxide catalyst from

inlet stream moisture limit the effectiveness of UV oxidation

. Therefore, this is

not considered a technically

- feasible control option for this operation.

( h) Non

- Thermal Plasma (NTP) Technology

NTP Technology is not available commercially and has not yet been proven as

effective. Therefore, based on availability, this is not a technically

- feasible

control option.

(i) Catalytic Incineration

Catalytic inci neration is a technically

- feasible option. The economic, energy, and

environmental impacts associated with this technology are further discussed in

this analysis.

(j) Thermal Oxidation

Thermal oxidation is considered a technically

- feasible control optio n for this

operation. The economic, energy, and environmental impacts associated with

this technology are further discussed in this analysis.

The following table summarizes other BACT determinations at similar sources or on similar

processes :

Company/

Location Year

Issued Process

Description BACT Emission

Limits/Requirements Reference

Nomaco, Inc./

Canadian

County, OK 2008 Polyurethane

foam extrusion No controls required; 0.7 lb VOC/lb

resin blowing agent limit and overall

limit of 1,621.8 tpy blowing agent

usage RBLC ID: OK

- 0122

DaimlerChrysler

Corporation/

Toledo, OH 2007 Injected foam

sound deadener No controls required; LAER

requirements: 6.80 lb VOC/hr; 8.30 tpy;

and 0.14 lb/gal of foam lb/gal of

unreacted foam. RBLC ID: OH

- 0309

Dart Container

Corp./ Ingham

County, MI 200 7 Expandable

polystyrene

process; pre

expansion

system Pentane emissions controlled by three

(3) steam boilers. Emission limits of

75.33 lb VOC/hr and 219.95 tpy. RBLC ID: MI

- 0384

Nomaco, Inc./

Oklahoma City,

OK 1999 Flash tub e dryer Emissions from dryer to be controlled

by RTO with 95% CE; 12.6 lb/hr and

55.2 tpy VOC limit

. RBLC ID: NC

- 0081

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 6 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025

Company/

Location Year

Issued Process

Description BACT Emission

Limits/Requirements Reference

Nomaco, Inc./

Wake Co., NC 2003 Polyethylene

foam extrusion

and converting

lines No controls required; blowing agent

usage limits of 0.6lb VOC/ft 3 

# RBLC ID:NC

- 0071

foam and

1,250 tpy.

General Motors,

Lansing Craft

Centre/

Lansing, MI 2002 Rigid foam

injection No controls required; VOC emissions

limited to 4.45 tons per twelve (12)

month average, and 57.4 lb/day RBLC ID: MI

- 0351

Owens Corning/

Winnebago

Co., IL 2001 Polystyrene

foam board

manufacturing No controls required; HCFC emissions

limited to 39.5 lb/hr in staging and

warehousing, and 187.2 lb/hr " other " RBLC ID: IL

- 0081

General Motors

Delta Township

Assembly/

Eaton Co., MI 2001 Structural foam

injection No controls required; VOC emissions

limited to 230 lb/day and 28.4 tpy. RBLC ID: MI

- 0326

Whirlpool Corp ./

Vanderburgh

Co,. IN 2001 Foam line Material substitution required as BACT,

with 2,948,400 lbs per twelve (12)

consecut ive month period usage of

new HCFC. RBLC ID: IN

- 0107

Voltek Division

of Sekisui

America Corp./

Branch Co., MI 2000 Polyolefin foam

production/

ovens Catalytic oxidizer on each oven

required with overall control efficiency

of 96%; VOC emissions limits of 0.12

lb/hr and 0.53 tpy RBLC ID: MI

- 0278

Carpenter Co./

Elkhart, IN 2009 Foam pouring

line No controls required; VOC emissions

limit of 38.6 tons per twelve (12)

consecutive month period; required

continued development of catalysts to

reduce emissions wh ere feasible; work

practice standards Indiana SPM039

-

17958

- 00086

Four (4) foam

turnstile

operations No controls required; Two (2) units

have HVLP use requirements and VOC

emissions limit of less than 65 tpy

Createc

Corporation/

Portland, IN 2009 Polystyrene

foam

m anufacturing No controls required; Total VOC usage

limit of less than 291.25 tpy; Pentane

may not exceed 7% content by weight Indiana Title V

Renewal T075

- 28002

-

00024

Cryovac Rigid

Packaging,

Sealed Air

Corporation/

Indianapolis, IN 1997 Polystyrene

extruded foam

manufacturing VOC emissions from the reclaim

extruders must be controlled by an

incinerator with minimum overall

destruction efficiency of 90%; Resin

usage limit of 28,546 tpy and blowing

agent usage limit of 1,316 tpy. Indiana T itle V

Construction Permit

097

- 5348

- 00093

Foamex

Innovations,

Inc./ Auburn, IN 2005 Flexible

polyurethane

foam VPF line VOC emissions controlled by a carbon

adsorber with minimum overall control

efficiency of 51%; VOC emissions from

carbon adsorber not to exceed 38.5

lb/hr; VPF line production limited to

less than 1.2 billion board feet per year Indiana SSM033

-

20970

- 00047

Genpak, LLC/

Scottsburg, IN 2007 Expandable

polystyrene

(EPS) food tray

production line VOC emissions controlled by either

boiler or RTO with minimum

destruction efficiency of 95%; capture

system for repelletizer to maintain

minimum capture efficiency of 85%;

blowing agent input limit of 906.66 tpy Indiana SSM143

-

25032

- 00016

2000 Expandable

polystyrene

(EPS) cup

production line VOC emissions controlled by boiler

with minimum destruction efficiency of

95%; capture system for Pre

Expansion Room to maintain minimum

capture efficiency of 9 5%; blowing

agent input limit of 182 tpy Indiana SSM143

-

1 1382

- 00016

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 7 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025

Company/

Location Year

Issued Process

Description BACT Emission

Limits/Requirements Reference

Johns Manville/

Bremen, IN 2001 R igid

polyisocyanurate

foam panel

manufacturing

process VOC emissions controlled by RTO with

an overall minimum control efficiency of

90%, except during November through

March of each year; Throughput shall

not e xceed 678,356,560 board feet per

year Indiana SPR099

-

14499

- 00042

Syndicate

Sales, Inc./

Kokomo, IN 2008 Foam

production,

forming and

packaging

operation VOC emissions controlled by RTO with

an overall minimum destruction

efficiency of 95%, except during

November through March of each year;

Total blowing agent VOC usage limited

to less than 149.21 tpy, equivalent to

96.90 tpy VOC emissions based on

59% uncontrolled emissions from

warehouse and 41% controlled

emissions through RTO Indiana FESOP

Renewal 067

- 26473

-

00053

Tegrant

Diversified

Brands, Inc./

Michigan City,

IN 1996 Expandable

polystyrene

molding process No controls required; Use of material

with lowest

- available pentane content

required plus ongoing research and

movement to materials with lower

pentane/VOC content Indiana VOC BACT in

CP091

- 4823

- 00079

1999 Pre

- expanders No controls required; Maximum

average VOC (pentane) content of

materials is 5.5%; Ongoing research

for lowest VOC

- containing materials

and alternates required Indiana VOC BACT i n

T091

- 7666

- 00079

2001 Four (4) molding

presses No controls required; VOC usage

limited to 155.22 tpy; Molding

compound shall not exceed 5.5% VOC

(pentane) content; Ongoing research

for lowest VOC

- containing materials

and alternates required Indiana VOC BACT in

SSM091

- 14438

-

00079



# A review of previous BACT determinations and requirements from the RBLC and other permits

issued to similar sources resulted in the following discussion :

( a ) Several sources in the table above manufacture types of foam that are vastly

different to that produced at the FXI facility that is the subject of this analysis

. These sources were used in compari son only for VOC limits ; the manufacturing

processes and resulting emissions stream is significantly different from that of

F XI

.

(1) The emissions stream from processes making polystyrene, polyolefin,

polyisocyanurate, and polyethylene foam have a different VOC

composition from the polyurethane process proposed at FXI

. Additionally, the VOC limits imposed upon the other units listed above

are significantly higher than those limits proposed as BACT by FXI

.

Therefore, the BACT requirements for those facilities, including those requiring

the use of add

- on controls, do not represent BACT for the FXI facility in Fort

Wayne, India na

.

(b) With the exception of the Foamex Innovations, Inc. facility in Auburn, Indiana, the

other sources manufacturing foams of polyurethane or similar compounds do not

have add

- on controls required. BACT was most often established as a VOC

emission limit in tons per year and/or VOC content and usage limitations.

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 8 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025



# (1) Based on information from the source, the only similarity between the

FXI Auburn facil ity and the FXI Fort Wayne facility is that they both

produce polyurethane foam. The FXI Auburn facility utilizes a Variable

Pressure Foaming machine that is an enclosed chamber with one (1)

emission point that is able to be pressurized. This process use s less air

flow and has very high capture efficiency due to its design.

The proposed foam pour line at the FXI Fort Wayne facility is an

atmosp heric pour line system. This system is not fully enclosed and

operates at atmospheric conditions, requiring much greater airflows than

the Auburn facility (approximately 63,000 acfm for FXI Fort Wayne

versus 2,000 acfm for FXI Auburn).

Additionally, the products manufactured at the FXI Auburn facility are of

one (1) type. The FXI Fort Wayne facility manufactures foam for a

variety of uses, and will, therefore, use more and different catalysts that

would potentially foul a similar control device to what is required for the

Auburn foam line.

The remaining technically feasible control option s for controlling VOC emissions from the

proposed polyurethane foam production and coating line s are ranked below by control eff iciency : Step Three: Rank Feasible Technologies

Control Technology Control Efficiency (%)

Regenerative Thermal Oxidation 95

Catalytic Incineration 95

Carbon Adsorption 95

Further evaluation including economic, energy and environmental impacts are required for

controlling VOC emissions from the proposed polyurethane foam production and coating lines

. Annualized costs were determined in accordance with the EPA guidance (EPA’s Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards Control Cost Manual) , with other relevant information provided by

the respective equipment vendors, inputs from plant personnel, and engineering judgment

. Step Four: Evaluate Top Control Alternatives

For all evaluations below, direct costs listed do not include any additional costs to increase the

flow rate to accommodate the exhaust flow rate from the proposed coating line or to install the

duct work from the coating line to the control device.

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 9 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025



# E conomic feasibility was evaluated as demonstrated below:

Economic Impact Analysis:

RTO

DIRECT COST (Pollution Control Equipment) Unit Cost TOTAL ($)

Direct Purchased Equipment

Equipment Total (A) A = $ 949,000

Instruments 0.01 A $ 95,000

Access Way Addition (Engineering Estimate) $25,000

Sales Taxes 0.07 A $ 7 3,000

Freight 0.05 A $ 52,000

Total Equipment Costs (B) B = $1, 194,000

Direct Installation Cost

Foundation and Support 0.08 B $ 96,000

Handling and Erection 0.14 B $1 67,000

Electrical 0.04 B $ 48,000

Piping 0.02 B $ 24,000

Insulation 0.02 B $ 24,000

Site Prep (Engineering Estimate) $ 30,000

Total Direct Installation Costs $3 90,000

TOTAL Direct Investment (TDI) =

(Total Equipment Cost + Total Direct Installation Cost) TDI = $1 ,583,000

Indirect Installation Costs

Engineering 0.10 B $ 119,000

Contractor Fees 0.10 B $119,000

Construction and Field Expenses 0.05 B $6 0,000

Start

- up & Performance 0.03 B $ 36,000

Contingencies 0.03 B $ 36,000

Total Indirect Installation Costs (TIC) TIC = $ 370,000

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) = (TDC +TIC) TCI = $ 1,953,000

ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Direct Operating Costs (DA)

Operating Labor + Supervisory Labor $8,000

Maintenance Labor + Materials $ 15,000

Natural Gas (5.00 $/ 1000 ft 3 

# ) $ 1,382,000

Electricity ($0.052 /kWh) $106,000

Total Direct Operating Costs (DA) DA = $ 1, 511,000

Indirect Operating Costs (IC)

Overhead $1 4,000

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 10 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025

Taxes, Insurance, Administrative Costs $ 78,000

C apital Recovery Factor (system)

(Assumes 7% interest over 1 0 years) $ 277,000

Total Indirect Operating Costs (IA) IA = $369,000

Total operating Costs (DA + IA) TOC = $1,880,000

Tons VOC Removed @ 95% = 93.1 tpy

Cost per Ton VOC Removed = $ 2 0,193

Catalytic Incineration System

DIRECT COST (Pollution Control Equipment) Unit Cost TOTAL ($)

Direct Purchased Equipment

Equipment Total (A) A = $ 1,231,200

Instruments 0.01 A $ 123,000

Access Way Addition (Engineering Estimate) $25,000

Sales Taxes 0.07 A $ 95,000

Freight 0.05 A $ 68,000

Total Equipment Costs (B) B = $ 1,542,000

Direct Installation Cost

Foundation and Support 0.08 B $ 123,000

Handling and Erection 0.14 B $ 216,000

Electrical 0.04 B $ 62,000

Piping 0.02 B $ 31,000

Insulation 0.02 B $ 31,000

Site Prep (Engineering Estimate) $30,000

Total Direct Installation Costs $ 493,000

TOTAL Direct Investment (TDI) =

(Total Equipment Cost + Total Direct Installation Cost) TDI = $ 2,035,000

Indirect Installation Costs

Engineering 0.10 B $ 154,000

Contractor Fees 0.10 B $154,000

Construction and Field Expenses 0.05 B $ 77,000

Start

- up & Performance Test 0.03 B $ 46,000

Contingencies 0.03 B $ 46,0 00

Total Indirect Installation Costs (TIC) TIC = $ 477,000

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) = (TDC +TIC) TCI = $ 2,512,000

ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Direct Operating Costs (DA)

Operating Labor & Supervisory Labor $8,000

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 11 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025

Maintenance Labor & Materials $15,000

Natural Gas ( 5.00 $/ 1000 ft 3 

# ) $ 331,000

Electricity ($0.052 /kWh) $ 126,000

Catalyst Replacement ( $650/ft 3 

# metal oxide)

- (0.001 ft 3 

# /acfm) $ 40,950

Total Direct Operating Costs (DA) DA = $5 21,000

Indirect Operating Costs (IC)

Overhead (60% of maintenance labor & materials) $14,000

Taxes, Insurance, Administrative Costs $100,000

Capital Recovery Factor (system)

(Assumes 7% interest over 1 0 years) $356,000

Total Indirect Operating Costs (IA) IA = $470000

Total operating Costs (DA + IA) TOC = $ 991,000

Tons VOC Removed @ 95% = 93.1 tpy

Cost per Ton VOC Removed = $ 1 0,644

Carbon Adsorption System

DIRECT COST (Pollution Control Equipment) Unit Cost TOTAL ($)

Direct Purchased Equipment

Equipment Total (A) A = $ 2,600,000

Instruments 0.01 A $ 260,000

Access Way Addition (Engineering Estimate) $25,000

Sales Taxes 0.07 A $ 182,000

Freight 0.05 A $ 130,000

Total Equipment Costs (B) B = $ 3,172,000

Direct Installation Cost

Foundation and Support 0.08 B $ 254,000

Handling and Erection 0.14 B $ 444,000

Electrical 0.04 B $ 127,000

Piping 0.02 B $ 63,000

Insulation 0.02 B $ 63,000

Site Prep (Engineering Estimate) $30,000

Total Direct Installation Costs $ 981,000

TOTAL Direct Investment (TDI) =

(Total Equipment Cost + Total Direct Installation Cost) TDI = $ 4,153,000

Indirect Installation Costs

Engineering 0.10 B $ 317,000

Contractor Fees 0.10 B $317,000

Construction and Field Expenses 0.05 B $ 159,000

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 12 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025

Start

- up & Performance Test 0.03 B $ 95,000

Contingencies 0.03 B $ 95,000

Total Indirect Installation Costs (TIC) TIC = $ 983,000

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) TCI = $5,136,000

ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Direct Operating Costs (DA)

Operating Labor & Supervisory Labor $5,000

Maintenance Labor & Materials $ 9,000

Replacement Parts, Carbon Replacement Labor, and Carbon

Cost (5

- year life) $35,900

Steam and Cooling Water $132,300

Distillation System $34,200

Electricity ($0.05 /kWh) $ 41,300

Total Direct Operating Costs (DA) DA = $ 257,700

Indirect Operating Costs (IC)

Overhead $8,000

Taxes, Insurance, Administrative Costs $205,000

Capital Recovery Factor (system)

(Assumes 7% compound interest rate and system useful life of

10 years) = 0.1424 $ 728,800

Total Indirect Operating Costs (IA) IA = $ 941,800

Total ope rating Costs (DA + IA ) TOC = $1, 199,500

Tons VOC Removed @ 95% = 93.1 tpy

Cost per Ton VOC Removed = $1 2,884



# ( a ) Based on the information presented above

, it would be economically infeasible to

control the emissions from the proposed polyurethane foam production and

coating lines with a therma l oxidizer at a cost of $ 20,193 per ton of VOC

removed.

(b ) Based on the information pr esented above

, it would be economically infeasible to

control the emissions from the proposed polyurethane foam production and

coating lines with a catalytic incineration system at a cost of $ 10,644 per ton of

VOC removed.

(c ) Based on the information pre sented above

, it would be economically infeasible to

control the emissions from the proposed polyurethane foam production and

coating lines with a carbon adsorption system at a cost of $ 12,884 per ton of

VOC removed.

The proposed BACT from FXI is to limit VOC emissions from the one (1) proposed

polyurethane foam production line to less than 80.8 tons per twelve (12) consecutive

month period; maintain the equipment in good working order; and to utilize best

management work practices to minimize VOC emission s.

# Foamex Innovations Operating Company Page 13 of 13

Fort Wayne, Indiana TSD Appendix A

Permit Reviewer: Stephanie Wilkerson BACT Analysis for PSD/SSM 003

- 29260

- 00025



# T he proposed BACT from FXI for the one (1) proposed polyurethane foam coating line is

to limit VOC emissions to less than 17.2 tons per twelve (12) consecutive month period

.

Pursuant to 326 IAC 2

- 2

- 3 (PSD BACT), and 326 IAC 8

- 1

- 6 (VOC BACT) , the Best Available

Control Technology (BACT) for the one (1) proposed polyurethane foam production line , identified

as PL

- 01c, and the one (1) proposed polyurethane foam coating line, identified as CL

- 01, for V O C

shall be as follows: Step Five: Select BACT

(a) The input of VOC to the one (1) polyurethane foam production line shall not exceed 80.8

tons per twelve (12) consecutive month period, with compliance determined at the end of

each month.

( b ) The Permittee shall utilize the following best management pract ices to minimize VOC

emissions from the one (1) polyurethane foam production line:

(1) Use of the lowest VOC

- content foam production materials where technically

feasible;

(2) Track the quantity of amine catalyst used on a monthly basis ;

(3) Store and ha ndle the amine catalyst to minimize fugitive losses; and

(4) Continue to explore options for the production of foam using non

- VOC content

materials.

(c ) The input of VOC to the one (1) polyurethane foam coating line shall not exceed 17.2

tons per twelve (12) consecutive month period, with compliance determined at the end of

each month.

# Attachment 3:

Detailed RTO/RCO Cost Analyses

# Attachment 3a. Storage Tank Emis sion and Control Cost Details

Control

Scenario HAP

Emissions

(Tons/yr) Capital

Control

Costs ($) Annual

Control

Cost

($/yr) HAP

Emission

Reduction

(Tons/yr) Cost

Effectiveness

($/Ton) Incremental

Cost

Effectiveness

($/Ton)

Uncontrolled 1,2 

# 0.0867 NA NA NA NA NA

Vapor

Balancing 1,2 

# 0.00434 $6,150 $1,133 0.0824 $13,759 NA

Regenerative

Thermal

Oxidation 3 

# 0.00173 $895,281 $325,603 0.084966 $3,832,154 $124,747,995

Recuperative

Thermal

Oxidation 3 

# 0.00173 $537,915 $702,280 0.084966 $8,265,426 $269,568,200

1 

# Uncontrolled and vapor balancing costs were obtained using the methodology from the 6/17/1996 memorandum:

"Estimated Regulatory Alternative Imp acts for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production", available as part of

“Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From The Production Of Flexible Polyurethane Foam: Supplementary

Information Document For Proposed Standards” Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, September 1996. The costs

and emissions are based on the Model Plant 3 cost estimate, which consists of 1 TDI storage tank at a Slabstock Foam

Production facility. Costs were escalated to 2010 dollars us ing the Chemical Engineering Magazine Plant Cost index,

http://www.che.com/pci/

.

2 

# Emissions estimated based on tank emissions data from Sl abstock Foam facilities reporting tanks emissions and sizes

in the 2011 survey of FPUF facilities pe rformed under Section 114 of the CAA.

3 

# Regenerative and recuperative thermal oxidizer costs based on 15,000 scfm flow rate from the storage tank.Attachment 3b. Vapor Balance Costs for Foam Storage VesselsCapital Cost for Vapor Balance1$6,150Number of MeCl2 Uncontrolled Tanks 0MeCl2 Emissions (Ton/yr) 0Number of TDI Uncontrolled Tanks 1TDI Emissions (Ton/yr) 0.087Capital Costs $6,150Annual O&M (3%) $184Capital Charges (14.24%) $876Taxes, Ins. (4%) $246Recovery Credit $173Total Annual Costs $1,133Emission Reduction 0.0824MeCl2 0.0000TDI 0.0824Cost Effectiveness ($/Ton HAP) $13,759Chemical Prices for Recovery CreditsMethylene Chloride 0.485 $/lb 970 $/Ton 2008value, still close to 0.4 $/lb pricelisted in 1996 NESHAP calcsTDI 1.05 $/lb 2100 $/Ton 2006 value,still close to 1 $/lb pricelisted in 1996 NESHAP calcsSource:http://www.icis.com/chemicals/channel-info-chemicals-a-z/1p. 7-28 of Gasoline Distribution Proposal BID (EPA-453/R-94-002a), Taking difference in cost of balancing incoming and outgoingloads ($31,208) and cost of balancing outgoing loads ($23,227) and dividing by two (since this cost is for a bulk plant with two storagetanks) and then adjusting using Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index from 1990 (357.6) to 2010 (550.8).

# Attachment 3c. Total Annual Cost Sprea dsheet Program Recuperative Thermal

Oxidizers (RCO)

Baton Rouge Ethylene Propylene Rubber Front End

Cost Base Date: CEPCI 1999 390.6

Cost Escalation: CEPCI 2010 550.8

Input Parameters

Gas Flowrate (scfm) 15,002

Reference Temperature ( o 

# F) 77

Inlet Gas Temperature ( o 

# F) 75

Inlet Gas Density (lb/scf) 0.073901176

Primary Heat Recovery (fraction) 0.7

Waste Gas Heat Content (BTU/scf) 0.313

Waste Gas Heat Content (BTU/lb) 4.24

Gas Heat Capacity (BTU/lb- o 

# F) 0.255

Combustion Temperature ( o 

# F) 2000

Heat Loss (fraction) 0.01

Exit Temperature ( o 

# F) 652.5

Fuel Heat of Combustion (BTU/lb) 21502

Fuel Density (lb/ft 3 

# ) 0.0408

Design Parameters

Auxiliary Fuel Requirement (lb/min) 7.681576526

(scfm) 188.2739345

Total Gas Flowrate (scfm) 15190.16447

Total Capital Investment ($)

(Cost Correlations Range: 500 to 50,000

scfm, 70% Heat Recovery)

Total Capital Investment – Base $381,462

Total Capital Investment – Escalated $537,915

Annual Cost Inputs

Operating Factor (hr/yr) 8760

Operating Labor Rate ($/hr) 23.38 2009 Technical labor rate

Maintenance Labor Rate ($/h r) 25.718 Operator labor rate*1.1

Operating Labor Factor (hr/sh) 0.5

Maintenance Labor Factor (hr/sh) 0.5

Electricity Price ($/kwh) 0.0685

Natural Gas Price ($/mscf) 5.23

Annual Interest Rate (fraction) 0.07

Control System Life (years) 15

Capital Recovery Factor 0.109794625

Taxes, Insurance, Admin. Factor 0.04

Pressure Drop (in. w.c.) 20

# Attachment 3c. Total Annual Cost Sprea dsheet Program Recuperative Thermal

Oxidizers (RCO)

Annual Costs

Item Cost ($/yr)

Operating Labor $12,800.55

Supervisory Labor $1,920.08

Maintenance Labor $14,080.61

Maintenance Materials $14,080.61

Natural Gas $517,543.96

Electricity $35,548.54

Overhead $25,729.11

Taxes, Insurance, Administrative $21,516.58

Capital Recovery $59,060.13

Total Annual Cost $702,280

# Attachment 3d. Total Annual Cost Spreadsheet Program Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers

(RTO)

TDI Storage Tank

Cost Base Date: CEPCI 1999 390.6

Cost Escalation: CEPCI 2010 550.8

Input Parameters

Gas Flowrate (scfm) 15,002

Reference Temperature ( o 

# F) 77

Inlet Gas Temperature ( o 

# F) 75

Inlet Gas Density (lb/scf) 0.073901176

Primary Heat Recovery (fraction) 0.7

Waste Gas Heat Content (BTU/scf) 0.313

Waste Gas Heat Content (BTU/lb) 4.24

Gas Heat Capacity (BTU/lb- o 

# F) 0.255

Combustion Temperature ( o 

# F) 2000

Heat Loss (fraction) 0.01

Exit Temperature ( o 

# F) 652.5

Fuel Heat of Combustion (BTU/lb) 21502

Fuel Density (lb/ft 3 

# ) 0.0408

Design Parameters

Auxiliary Fuel Requirement (lb/min) 1.301689294

(scfm) 31.90414935

Total Gas Flowrate (scfm) 15033.79468

Total Capital Investment ($)

(Cost correlations ra nge: 10,000 to 100,000 scfm)

Total Capital Investment – Base $634,889

Total Capital Investment – Escalated $895,281

Annual Cost Inputs

Operating Factor (hr/yr) 8760

Operating Labor Rate ($/hr) 23.38 2009 Technical labor rate

Maintenance Labor Rate ($/h r) 25.718 Operator labor rate*1.1

Operating Labor Factor (hr/sh) 0.5

Maintenance Labor Factor (hr/sh) 0.5

Electricity Price ($/kwh) 0.0685

Natural Gas Price ($/mscf) 5.23

Annual Interest Rate (fraction) 0.07

Control System Life (years) 15

Capital Recovery Factor 0.109794625

Taxes, Insurance, Admin. Factor 0.04

Pressure Drop (in. w.c.) 20

# Attachment 3d. Total Annual Cost Spreadsheet Program Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers

(RTO)

Annual Costs

Item Cost ($/yr)

Operating Labor $12,800.55

Supervisory Labor $1,920.08

Maintenance Labor $14,080.61

Maintenance Materials $14,080.61

Natural Gas $87,700.93

Electricity $35,182.60

Overhead $25,729.11

Taxes, Insurance, Administrative $35,811.25

Capital Recovery $98,297.07

Total Annual Cost $325,603

# Attachment 4:

Memorandum regarding Equipment Leaks in the

Chemical and Petroleum Industries

# FROM: Cindy Hancy, RTI International

TO: Jodi Howard, EPA/OAQPS

FOR: EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869

DATE: December 21, 2011

SUBJECT: Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

1. Purpose

This memorandum documents a general review a nd analysis of emissions reduction techniques

for equipment leaks. It reviews control alterna tives and estimates the costs and environmental

impacts for the alternatives identified.

2. Legislative Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review

promulgated standards periodically to ensure new source performance standards (NSPS) and

national emissions standards for hazardous ai r pollutants (NESHAP) reflect advances in

emissions reduction technology. Sp ecifically, Section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

states that “[t]he Administrato r shall review, and revise as necessary (taking into account

developments in practices, processes, and cont rol technologies), emissi on standards promulgated

under this section no less often than every 8 years.” Sim ilarly, Section 111 (b)(1)(B) requires

EPA to review NSPS for a given source category every 8 years, a nd, if appropriate, revise such

standards. To facilitate these required reviews, EPA is evaluating key em ission sources that exist

across several source categories to provide a cons istent framework for regulating emissions from

these sources. This memorandum provides informati on that may be considered in the course of

conducting a technology review for equipment leak emissions from a specific source category in

the future.

3. Introduction

Equipment leak standards are designed to redu ce or eliminate emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), volatile haza rdous air pollutants (VHAPs), and organic hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs) from piping and equipment f ound in various manufacturing processes. Many

federal regulations have been written to minimi ze air emissions from equipment leaks. Currently,

most equipment leaks are defined within regul ations primarily on the basis of a detection

instrument that reads the airborne concentration of volatile organic carbons at a potential leak

point on a parts per million (ppm) ba sis or on the basis of visual observation of certain types of

equipment. Generally, if the leak exceeds the th reshold, or leak definition, of the applicable

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

2 regulation, repair of the leaki ng equipment is required. This memorandum considers methods to

reduce emissions from equipment leaks and analy zes the impacts associat ed with these methods

(EPA, 1998).

4. Description of Emission Releases

Emissions from equipment leaks occur in the fo rm of gases or liquids that escape to the

atmosphere through many types of connection points ( e.g. , flanges, threaded fittings) or through

the moving parts of valves, pumps, compressors, pr essure relief devices, and certain types of

process equipment (EPA, 1998).

Pumps

Pumps are used extensively in chemical manufac turing facilities for moving fluids. The most

widely used pump is the centrifugal pump. Othe r types of pumps include positive-displacement,

reciprocating and rotary acti on, and special canned-motor and diaphragm pumps. Chemicals

transferred by pumps can leak at the point of contact between the moving shaft and stationary

casing. To isolate the pump’s interior from th e atmosphere, all pumps, except the sealless type

(canned-motor and diaphragm), require a seal at the point where the shaf t penetrates the housing.

The most commonly used seals in these pumps are packed and mechanical. However, no seal

system is perfect, and many pumps are equipped with a closed-vent system.

Compressors

Centrifugal, reciprocating, and ro tary compressors are used in ch emical manufacturing facilities.

The centrifugal compressor uses a rotating elemen t or series of elements containing curved

blades to increase the pressu re of a gas by centrifugal for ce. Reciprocating and rotary

compressors increase pressure by confining the gas in a cavity and progr essively decreasing the

volume of the cavity. Reciprocating compressors usually use a piston a nd cylinder arrangement,

while rotary compressors use rotating elements such as lobed impellers or sliding vanes.

As with pumps, seals are required to prevent le akage from compressors. Rotary shaft seals for

compressors may be labyrinth, rest rictive carbon rings, mechanical c ontact, or liquid film. All of

these seals are leak restriction devices, but none of them completely eliminate leakage. To

respond to leakage, many compressors are equipped with ports in the se al area that evacuate

collected gases to a control device.

Pressure Relief Devices

Engineering codes require the use of pressure-rel ieving devices or systems in applications where

the process pressure may exceed the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel. The

pressure relief valve is the most common type of pressure-relieving device used. Typically, relief

valves are spring-loaded and designed to open wh en the system pressure exceeds a set pressure,

allowing the release of vapors or liquids until the system pressu re is reduced to its normal

operating level. When the normal pressure is re-a ttained, the valve reseats and a seal is again

formed. The seal is a disc on a seat, and a leak through this seal is a potential source of fugitive

VOC and HAP emissions. The potential causes of leakage from relief valves are improper

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

3 reseating of the valve after a re lieving operation (which occurs when the system pressure comes

close to the set pressure of th e valve); and corrosion or degrad ation of the valve seat. Some

pressure relief devices can be vented to a closed vent system fo r emissions control.

Rupture discs also may be used to relieve pressu re in process units. Thes e discs are made of a

material that ruptures when a set pressure is exceeded, thus allowing the system to depressurize.

The advantage of a ruptured disc is that the disc seals tightly a nd does not allow any emissions to

escape from the system during normal operations. When the disc ruptures, however, the system

will depressurize until atmospheric conditions are obtained (and then remain open to the

atmosphere until the disk is replaced), unless the disc is used with a pressure relief valve.

Sampling Connections

Process unit operations are checked periodically by routine analys is of feedstocks and products.

To obtain representative samples for these analyses, sampling lines first must be purged. If the

flushed fluid is a liquid, it could be drained onto the ground or into a process drain where it

would evaporate and release emi ssions to the atmosphere. Gas streams could be purged directly

to the atmosphere. Closed-loop sampling systems c ontrol the purged process fluid by returning it

directly to the process line, co llecting and recycling the fluid, or transporting the fluid to a

control device.

Open-ended Lines

Some valves are installed in a system to functi on with downstream lines open to the atmosphere.

Open-ended lines, which are used mainly in intermittent service for sampling and venting,

include purge, drain, and sampling lines. Some open-ended lines are need ed to preserve product

purity. Normally, these are installed between multi -use product lines to prevent products from

collecting in cross-tie lines during valveseat leakag e. A faulty valve seat or incompletely closed

valve would result in leakage through the valv e, releasing emissions to the atmosphere. As

described in section 5, a cap, plug, blind flange, or secondary valv e is used at the end of the

open-ended line to prevent those emi ssions from reaching the atmosphere.

Process Valves

One of the most common types of equipment include d in an equipment leak detection and repair

program is the process valve. Commonly used ty pes are control, globe, gate, plug, ball, relief,

and check valves. All except the relief valve and check valve ar e activated through a valve stem,

which may have either a rota tional or linear motion, depending on the design. The valve stem

requires a seal to isolate the pr ocess fluid inside the valve from the atmosphere. The possibility

of a leak through this seal makes it a potential source of fugitive emissions. A check valve

typically is not a potential source of fugitive em issions because it has no stem or packing gland;

however, some check valves have a hinge that pe netrates the valve housi ng, which is a potential

source of fugitive emissions.

The stem can be sealed to prevent leakage by usi ng a packing gland or O-ring seals. Valves that

require the stem to move in and out with or without rotation must use a packing gland.

Conventional packing glands are suited for a wide variety of packing material. Packing materials

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

4 include graphite, graphite-impregnated fibers, and tetrafluorethylene polymer. The packing

material used depends on the valve applicati on and configuration. Thes e conventional packing

glands can be used over a range of operating te mperatures, but at high pressures, these glands

must be tight to obtain a good seal.

Elastomeric O-rings also are used for seali ng process valves. These O-rings provide good

sealing, but are not suitable if sliding motion occurs through th e packing gland. These seals are

used rarely in high pressure service, and opera ting temperatures are limited by the seal material.

Bellows seals are generally thought to be more effective for prev enting process fluid leaks than

the conventional packing gland or other gland-seal arrangement. This type of seal incorporates

formed metal bellows that makes a barrier be tween the disc and body bonne t joint. The bellows

are the weak point of th is type of system, and service life can be quite variable. Consequently,

this type of seal normally is backed up with a conventional packing gland and often is fitted with

a leak detector in case of failure.

A diaphragm may be used to isolate the working parts of the valve and the environment from the

process liquid. The diaphragm also may be used to control the flow of the process fluid. In this

design, a compressor pushes the diaphragm toward the valve bottom, throttling the flow. The

diaphragm and compressor are connected in a ma nner so that separating them is impossible

under normal working conditions. When the diaphrag m reaches the valve bottom, it seats firmly

against the bottom, forming a leak-proof seal. This configuration is recommended for fluids

containing solid particles and for medium-pressure service. Depending on the diaphragm

material, this type of valve can be used at te mperatures up to 205°C and in severe acid solutions.

If the seal fails, however, a valve using a di aphragm seal can become a source of leaks.

Flanges and Other Connectors

Flanges are bolted, gasket-sealed junctions us ed wherever pipes or other components or

equipment (such as vessels, pumps, valves, a nd heat exchangers) may require isolation or

removal. Connectors are all other nonwelded fittings that serve a similar purpose to flanges,

which also allow bends in pipes (elbows), joining two pi pes (couplings), or jo ining three or four

pipes (tees or crosses). Connectors typically are threaded.

Flanges may become fugitive emissions sources when leakage occurs because of improperly

chosen gaskets or poorly assembled flanges. Th e primary cause of flange leakage is thermal

stress, which causes deformation of the seal be tween the flange faces. Threaded connectors may

leak if the threads become damaged or corroded or if tightened without sufficient lubrication or

torque (EPA Office of Compliance Chemical, Commercial Services, and Municipal Division,

1998).

Agitators

Agitators are used to stir or blend chemicals. Like pumps and compressors, agitators may leak

organic chemicals at the point where the shaft penetrates the casing. C onsequently, seals are

required to minimize fugitive emissions. Four seal arrangements commonly are used with

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

5 agitators: compression pack ing (packed seal), mech anical seals, hydraulic seals, and lip seals.

Packed seals for agitators are very similar in de sign and application to packed seals for pumps.

Although mechanical seals are more co stly than the other three types of seals, they offer a greatly

reduced leakage rate to offset their higher co st. Furthermore, the maintenance frequency of

mechanical seals is one-half to one-fourth that of packed seals. At pr essures greater than 1,140

kPa (150 psig), the leakage rate and maintenance fr equency are so superior that the use of packed

seals on agitators is rare. As with packed seals, the mechanical seals for agitators are similar in

design and application to the mechanical seals for pumps.

Instrumentation Systems

Instrumentation systems consist of smaller pipes and tubing that carry samples of process fluids

to be analyzed to determine process operating conditions or to systems for measurement of

process operating conditions ( e.g. , composition, pressure, flow, etc. ). Valves and connectors are

the predominant type of equipment used in in strumentation systems; however, other types of

equipment may also be included in these systems. These components are ge nerally the source of

leaks from instrumentation systems as well as fl uid that is vented or discharged from the

analyzer or bypass lines.

Closed-Vent Systems

A closed-vent system can be used to collect and convey gaseous emissions from seal oil

degassing vents, pump and compressor seal leakag e, relief valve leakage, and relief valve

discharges because of over-pressure operation. A process or portion of a process also can be

enclosed, and the enclosure can be vented through a closed vent system. A closed-vent system

consists of piping; equipment su ch as connectors, open-ended lines , and valves; flame arrestors,

and, if necessary, flow-inducing devices. Closed-vent systems are designed and operated to

convey emissions to a control device. However, just like in process lines, equipment in a closed

vent system is a potential sour ce of emissions due to leaks.

5. Identification of Control Options for Equipment Leaks

There are two primary techniques for reducing equipment leak emissions: (1) modifying or

replacing existing equipment, and (2) implem enting a leak detection and repair (LDAR)

program. Modifying or replacing existing eq uipment is referred to as an “equipment

modification.” Controlling emissions by equipment modification is achieved by either installing

additional equipment that eliminates or reduces emissions, or replacing existing equipment with

sealless types. An LDAR program is a structured program to detect and repair equipment that is

identified as leaking (U.S. EPA Office of Air Quaility Planning and Standards, 1995).

Equipment Modification Control Alternatives

For each equipment type there are one or more e quipment modifications th at can be implemented

for emissions control. This sec tion reviews the modifi cation alternatives for different equipment

leak types.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

6 Pumps

Equipment modifications for pump s include routing leaking vapors through a closed -vent system

to control or replacing the existing pump with a new pump that is designed with dual mechanical

seals or is a sealless type.

A pump with dual mechanical seals contains two seals betw een which a barrier fluid is

circulated. Depending on the design of the dual mechanical seal s, the barrier fluid can be

maintained at a pressure that is higher than the pumped fluid or at a pressure that is lower than

the pumped fluid. If the barrier flui d is maintained at a higher pressure than the pumped fluid, the

pumped fluid will not leak to the atmosphere. Th e control efficiency of dual mechanical seals

with a barrier fluid at a highe r pressure than the pumped fl uid is essentially 100 percent,

assuming both the inner and out er seal do not fail simultaneous ly. If the barrier fluid is

maintained at a lower pressure than the pumped fl uid, a leak in the inner seal would result in the

pumped fluid entering the barrier fluid. To pr event emissions of the pumped fluid to the

atmosphere, a barrier fluid reservoir system shoul d be used. At the reservoir, the pumped fluid

can vaporize ( i.e. , de-gas) and then be collected by a closed-vent system.

The actual emissions reduction achievable through use of dual mechanical seals depends on the

frequency of seal failure. Failure of both the inner and outer seal s could result in relatively large

releases of the process fluid. Pressure monitori ng of the barrier fluid may be used to detect

failure of the seals, allowing fo r a quick response to a failure.

Sealless pumps, when operating properly, will no t leak because the process fluid cannot escape

to the atmosphere. Sealless pumps are used primarily in processes where the pumped fluid is

hazardous, highly toxic, or very expensive, and wh ere every effort must be made to prevent all

possible leakage of the fluid. Under proper operating conditions, the control efficiency of

sealless pumps is essentially 100 percent; however , if a catastrophic failure of a sealless pump

occurs, there is a potential fo r a large quantity of emissions.

Compressors

Emissions from compressors may be reduced by collecting and controlling the emissions from

the seal or by improving seal performance. Shaf t seals for compressors are of several different

types--all of which restrict but do not eliminat e leakage. In some cases, compressors can be

equipped with ports in the seal area to evacuat e collected gases using a closed-vent system.

Additionally, for some compressor seal types, em issions can be controlled by using a barrier

fluid in a similar manner as described for pumps.

Pressure Relief Valves

Equipment leaks from pressure relief valves (PRV s) occur as a result of improper reseating of

the valve after a release, or if the process is op erating too close to the set pressure of the PRV

and the PRV does not maintain its seal. Emissi ons occurring from PRVs as a result of an

overpressure discharge are not considered to be equipment leak emissions. There are two

primary alternatives for contro lling equipment leaks from pressu re relief devices: use of a

rupture disk (RD) in conjuncti on with the PRV, or use of a closed-vent system. The control

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

7 efficiency of the RD/PRV combination is assumed to be 100 percent when operated and

maintained properly.

A closed-vent system can be used to transport equipment leaks from a PRV to a control device.

However, the equipment leak control efficiency for a closed-vent system installed on a PRV may

not be as high as the control efficiency that ca n be achieved by installi ng a closed-vent system on

other equipment types. This is due to the difficu lty of designing an effi cient control device that

can handle both high and low flow emissions since emissions from pressure relief devices can be

either high during an overpressure incident or low when associated with equipment leaks.

Valves

Emissions from process valves can be eliminated if the valve stem can be isolated from the

process fluid. Two types of sealless valves are available: diaphragm valves and sealed bellows

valves. The control efficiency of both diaphrag m and sealed bellows va lves is virtually 100

percent. However, a failure of these types of valves has the potential to cause temporary

emissions much larger than thos e from other types of valves.

Connectors

In cases where connectors are not required for safety, maintenance, process modification, or

periodic equipment removal, emissions can be eliminated by welding the connectors together.

Open-Ended Lines

Emissions from open-ended lines can be contro lled by properly installing a cap, plug, or second

valve to the open end. If a second valve is insta lled, the upstream valve should always be closed

first after use of the valves to prevent the tra pping of fluids between the valves. Capping an

open-ended line has the potential to achieve nearly 100 percent control. However, monitoring

has shown that capped open-ended lines of ten leak due to improper installation.

Sampling Connections

Emissions from sampling connections occur as a result of purging the sampling line to obtain a

representative sample of the pr ocess fluid. Emissions from sampling connections can be reduced

by using a closed-loop sampling system or by collec ting the purged process fluid and transferring

it to a control device, back to the process, or for liquids, to a hazardous waste or other type of

treatment unit. The closed-loop sampling system is designed to return the purged fluid to the

process at a point of lower pres sure. A throttle valve or othe r device is used to induce the

pressure drop across the sample loop. The efficiency of a closed-loop system is assumed to be

100 percent. Alternatively, in some cases, sampling connections can be designed to collect

samples without purging the line. If such a samp ling connection is insta lled and no emissions to

the atmosphere occur when a sample is collected, then the control efficiency can be assumed to

be 100 percent (U.S. EPA Office of Air Quaility Planning and Standards, 1995).

Instrumentation Systems

Emissions from the connectors, valves, and othe r equipment in instrumentation systems can be

controlled using the same tech niques described above for such equipment in process lines.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

8 Emissions of material that is pu rged from the system can be cont rolled using the same types of

techniques as described a bove for sampling connections.

Agitators

Agitators are used to stir or blend chemicals. Like pumps and compressors, agitators may leak

organic chemicals at the point where the shaft penetrates the casing. C onsequently, seals are

required to minimize fugitive emissions. Four seal arrangements commonly are used with

agitators: compression pack ing (packed seal), mech anical seals, hydraulic seals, and lip seals.

Packed seals for agitators are very similar in de sign and application to packed seals for pumps.

Leak Detection and Repair Program

An LDAR program is designed to identify piece s of equipment that are emitting sufficient

amounts of material to warrant reduction of the emissions through repair. Leak detection

methods can include sensory inspections ( i.e. , indications of leaks based on sight, sound, or

smell) or monitoring with portable organic vapor analyzers in accordance with Method 21.

Typically, Method 21 has been used to monitor e quipment in gas/vapor service and equipment in

contact with relatively volatile liquids. Sensory inspections are generally used for equipment in

contact with less volatile liquids ( i.e. , “heavy” liquid service). Thes e programs are best applied to

equipment types that can be repaired on-line, resulting in immediate emissions reduction, and/or

to equipment types for which equipment modifica tions are not feasible. An LDAR program is

best suited to valves and pumps, and can also be implemented for agitators and connectors.

For other equipment types, an LDAR program is not as applicable. Compressors are repaired in a

manner similar to pumps; however, because compressors ordinarily do not have a spare for

bypass, a process unit shutdown may be required for repair. Compre ssors are typically controlled

by seal systems that include a barrier fluid sy stem. Historically, open-ended lines have been

controlled solely by equipment modifications (be cause the modification is expected to achieve

100 percent emissions reduction). Emissions from sampling connections can only be reduced by

changing the method of collecting the sample (sin ce, by definition, equipment leak emissions are

the material purged from the line), and cannot be reduced by an LDAR program. Safety

considerations may preclude th e use of an LDAR program on pressure relief valves.

Many studies have been performed to estimate the control effectiven ess of a given LDAR

program for light liquid pumps, gas valves, light liquid valves , and connectors. The control

effectiveness is based on the re lationship between the percentage of equipment pieces that are

leaking and the corresponding average leak emissi on rate for all of the equipment. The main

factors in determining the control effectiveness are: (1) how a “leak” is defined, (2) the leak

frequency before the LDAR program is implemen ted, and (3) the final leak frequency after the

LDAR program is implemented. The leak definition (or action level) for a piece of equipment is

the screening value at which a “leak” is indicated if the instrument reading is equal to or greater

than that value. The leak frequency is the fractio n of equipment with screen ing values equal to or

greater than the leak definition (EPA, 1995).

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

9 New Control Technologies

No entirely new developments in methods for co ntrolling equipment leak emissions were found.

However, variations and advancements in exis ting technologies and pr actices that are not

currently required in existing EPA rules have been identified and are listed as follows.

• Optical gas imaging – Optical gas imaging devi ces offer the ability to monitor equipment

from a distance and identify leaks (of a suffici ent mass) from equipment within the line

of sight of the optical imager (Envi ron International Corporation, 2003).

• “Low leak” packings – Packing combinations for valves and gaskets for flanges that

significantly reduce emissions are in place in some facilities, particularly refineries.

Facilities and packing manufacturers have crea ted emission testing protocols for packings

in order to study and test their effectivene ss. One of these studies, performed by two

packing manufacturers, revealed that “[s]ev eral aspects of valv e design; including

tolerances, surface finish, stem straightness and the overall alignment of the stem, stem

nut and stuffing box were found to be contribut ing factors to either the failure and/or

success of a particular stem packing to meet the emission requirements.” These studies

have lead to advancements such as pack ing consisting of braided carbon filament end

rings that encapsulate an Inc onel wire mesh with three molded flexible graphite center

rings (Cornelsen, 2006).

Some packing manufacturers have begun marke ting packings as “low-leak” packing and

providing performance guarantees. Companies have also develope d in-house testing

programs to ensure that packings are suitable fo r site-specific applications and to evaluate

the performance of different materials (Reeves, 2011).

• Monitoring of new equipment – Some local governments require monitoring on types

equipment that have not been monitored in th e past. In some cases, this is based on data

collected since LDAR programs where first designed and implemented. For example,

inspection agencies have conducted monitoring of open ended valves and lines (OELs) at

numerous facilities and found OELs that are leaking due to improper installation of the

plugs and other control equipment (W ilwerding 2007, Loukeris 2006). Monitoring on

atmospheric PRVs for releases and leaks is also required by some local governments

(Douglas, 2005).

The South Coast Air Management Quality District (SCAQMD) requires continuous

monitoring of a percentage of atmospheric PR Ds at refineries by installing a monitoring

device capable of recording the duration of each release and quantifying emissions.

Wireless technology allows continuous m onitoring of PRDs and makes it easy for

operators to identify releases and leaks. Th ere are several monitoring devices that can be

used, including acoustic sensors and pressure/di fferential pressure sensors. These sensor

units communicate with a base radio that in terfaces with the existing control system

(Ellis, 2007).

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

10 6. Summary of Control Options Analyzed

For the purposes of this memorandum, the baselin e control option is a combination of leak

detection and repair (LDAR) program elements , equipment design standards, and performance

standards which were based on a review of th e requirements and appl icability of existing

regulations, including federal, st ate, and local rules. The base line leak detection and repair

program is equivalent to the requirements in the National Emission Standards for Equipment

Leaks--Control Level 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpa rt TT) and Standards of Performance for

Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Compound Manufacturing Industry for

which Construction, Reconstruc tion, or Modification Commenced After January 5, 1981 but

Before November 7, 2006 (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) and represents the least stringent set of

requirements that apply to faciliti es that are currently subject to equipment leaks standards. Thus,

it is also considered to be the least stringent al ternative for a process unit or facility that is

currently not subject to standards. Table 1 summ arizes the requirements of the baseline for all

equipment.

Table 1. Baseline Requirements for all Equipment Types

Equipment Baseline Requirements

Pumps in light liquid service (Pumps LL) Monthly Method 21 monitoring

Leak definition of 10,000 ppm

Pumps in heavy liquid service (Pumps HL) Sensory Monitoring

Valves in gas and vapor service and Valves in light

liquid service (Valves G/LL) Monthly Method 21 monitoring (or less frequent

depending on leaks found)

Leak definition of 10,000 ppm

Valves in heavy liquid service (Pumps HL) Sensory Monitoring

Connectors in gas and vapor service and

Connectors in light liquid service (Connectors G/LL) Sensory Monitoring

Connectors in heavy liquid service (Connectors HL) Sensory Monitoring

Agitators in gas and vapor service and Agitators in

light liquid service (Agitators G/LL) Monthly Method 21 monitoring

Leak definition of 10,000 ppm

Agitators in heavy liquid service (Agitators HL) Sensory Monitoring

Compressors Barrier fluid options

Open Ended Lines Cap or comparable

Sampling Connection Systems (all types of service) All must be closed purge, closed loop, or have a

closed vent system (CVS)

Pressure relief devices in gas and vapor service

(PRV Gas) No detectable emissions (or rupture disk CVS/air

pollution control device (APCD))

Pressure relief devices in liquid service (PRV

Liquid) Sensory Monitoring

Instrumentation Systems For large valves: Comply with applicable

requirements above

For all other equipment: Sensory monitoring

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

11 In addition, this memorandum also analyzes seve ral alternative means of compliance. From the

baseline, independent alternatives for each comp onent type were developed and are summarized

in Table 2. This approach provides the abilit y to analyze the incremental costs and cost

effectiveness of each alternative individually, while still distributing cost s of certain activities

(such as the use of a monitoring instrument or a da tabase) that apply to, or can be used for, more

than one type of equipment. Furthermore, many of these alternatives match current regulatory

requirements for facilities subject to certain existi ng rules; these alternatives thus can also serve

as the baseline in analyses of nationwide impact s of regulatory alternatives for source-category

specific rules that referen ce the Uniform Standards.

Table 2. Summary of Equipment Leak Requirement Options

Alternative Options Additional Requirements

Valve Option 1 Lowers leak definition of Valves G/LL to 500 ppm

Valve Option 2 Lowers leak definition of Valves G/LL to 100 ppm

Pumps Option 1 Lowers leak definition of Pumps LL to 2,000 ppm 1



# Pumps Option 2 Lowers leak definition of Pumps LL to 500 ppm

Connectors Option 1 Adds instrument monitoring for Connectors G/LL at 500 ppm

1 

# Note that the regulatory leak definit ion for pumps is 2,000 ppm; however, data collected at a leak definition of 1,000

ppm were often used in this analysis to represent pumps with a leak definition of 2,000 ppm.



# Additional Requirements for Open Ende d Lines and Pressure Relief Devices

In addition to the requirements in Table 2, this memorandum also analyses the incremental cost

of conducting annual instrument monitoring to demonstrate that the open-ended valve or line

operates with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background ( i.e. , that the cap,

blind flange, plug, or second valve seals the ope n-ended valve or line at all times). It was

assumed that the annual monitoring would not pr ovide any additional emissions reductions since

the baseline requires OELs to be capped, but w ould result in additional monitoring and repair

costs. The costs of annual monitoring, includ ing repair of any leak s found, are included in

Section 8.

The impacts associated with wireless monitoring for PRDs were also analyzed in this

memorandum. It was assumed that no additional emissions reductions would occur from this

requirement, but it would result in additional capital costs. Wireless monitoring costs are

included in Section 8.

7. Impact Analysis

Model Facilities

To calculate cost estimates and emissions reduc tions for potential equipment leak requirements,

model plants were developed to represent equipm ent counts found at different types of chemical

and refining facilities. Six models were creat ed, three to represent chemical manufacturing

process units and three to re present petroleum refineries. These models allowed for the

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

12 consideration of the costs and emissions reducti on impacts for processes of various sizes in

multiple industries. The six mode ls are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Model Plants

Type of Equipment Number of Pieces of Equipment

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Simple

Chemical Medium

Chemical Complex

Chemical Topping

Refinery Small

Refinery Large

Refinery

Pump Seals

* Light-liquid service 15 40 56 8 69 176

* Heavy-liquid service 0 5 36 8 61 246

Valves

* Gas/vapor service 77 414 1,379 75 1,178 3,263

* Light-liquid service 380 1,179 1,980 251 2,428 5,857

* Heavy-liquid service 0 71 1,272 216 1,719 3,163

Connectors

* Flanges - gas/vapor 164 2,333 7,641

* Flanges - G/LL 731 2,662 7,410 555 4,644 13,379

* Flanges - HL 454 4,186 7,725

Agitators

* Light-liquid service 0 3 0 0 0 0

* Heavy-liquid service 0 3 0 0 0 0

Compressor Vent 0 2 8 2 19 31

Open-ended Valves 33 141 424 39 238 902

Sampling Connections 8 35 106 10 70 159

Pressure Relief Devices 2 45 76 9 79 119

Total Equipment Counts 1,246 4,600 12,747 1,791 17,024 42,661



# Models 1-3 represent a range of chemical ma nufacturing process units and are based on the

models used in the Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC

in the SOCMI (Parrish, 2007). These equipment counts en compassed a large ra nge of individual

process units at chemical manufacturing facilities . However, a facility with numerous process

units could have many times more pieces of equi pment than Model 3. Focus was placed on small

facilities since that size range is where the impact s are most likely to be more burdensome. When

impacts for Model 3 are reasonable, we can be certai n that they will also be reasonable for larger

facilities.

Models 4-6 represent different size refineries, from a simple topping refinery to a complex

refinery. The equipment counts presente d for small and large refineries in Locating and

Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Benzene (EPA, 1998) were used to estimate the

number of pieces of equipment in each type of refinery process un it. Model 4, the topping

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

13 refinery, was assumed to consist of one crude distillation unit. Except for PRV, the equipment

counts for that model are equal to the counts for a crude distillation unit at a small refinery in

Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Benzene (EPA, 1998). The PRV counts

were estimated based on a summary of data collected through EPA’s Petroleum Refinery

Information Collection Request (ICR) (EPA, 2011).

Models 5 and 6 were developed using info rmation from the U.S. Energy Information

Administration (EIA) on the number of refineries in the U.S., thei r capacities, and the types of

processes at each (U.S. DOE, 2011). The EIA report includes production capaci ty of facilities in

barrels per day (bbl/d) and the downstream charge capacity of each plant divided into process

type (vacuum distillation, dela yed coking, fluid coking, visbreaki ng, and other processes). Since

Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Benzene defines the “large model

refinery” as a refinery with a crude charge capacity greater than 50,000 barrels per stream day,

refineries were classified as “large” or “small” based on the capacity in the EIA report. The

number of each type of process at an average “small” refinery and an average “large” refinery

was estimated based on the data in the EIA re port. For example, the EIA report included 40

“small” refineries, 24 of which reported vacuum di stillation capacity. Ther efore, it was assumed

for purposes of developing a small refinery model that an average small refinery has 0.6 vacuum

distillation units. Finally, the number of each type of process was multiplied by the appropriate

equipment counts in Locating and Estimating Air Emissi ons from Sources of Benzene , and the

results were summed for each type of equi pment except for PRV. The PRV counts were

estimated based on a summary of data from the Petroleum Refinery ICR. References for model

facilities are included in attachment 1.

The goal was to develop models as representative of the potential affected sources as possible so

that the model plants can be used in the futu re to develop source cate gory-specific nationwide

impact estimates in an efficient manner. There are process units and facilities larger than the

largest model; however, these models are intende d to cover a range of sizes representing a

majority of the potential affect ed facilities. In addition, the opt ions considered for the Uniform

Standards that are affected by economies of scale will have a greater impact on smaller processes

than larger processes. These models can be ad justed as needed based on data for a specific

source category or industry to represent that source category or indus try more accurately.

Leak Frequencies

Leak frequency refers to the estimated percenta ge of equipment that will be found leaking at a

given leak definition. Leak frequencies were used to calculate both cost and emission estimates

and are included in Table 4 and 5. Leak freque ncies were estimated using several sources

including the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissi ons Estimates and industry data. Attachment 2

includes the basis for the leak frequencies in Ta bles 4 and 5. Detailed information on how leak

frequencies were used in cost and emission estim ates is included in the following sections.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

14 Table 4. Summary of Equipment Leak Frequency % for Model 1-3

Equipment Leak Frequencies % (Initial/Subsequent)

Pump Seals

LL Valves GV Valves LL Agitators

LL Connectors

G/V and LL OELs

Baseline 2.42 / 0.23 0.33 / 0.33 0.33 / 0.33 2.42 / 0.23 NA NA

Valves

Option 1 NA 7.24 / 0.51 4.84 / 0.51 NA NA NA

Valves

Option 2 NA 12.24 / 0.61 8.07 / 0.61 NA NA NA

Pumps

Option 1 13.48 / 0.26 NA NA NA NA NA

Pumps

Option 2 18.43 / 0.33 NA NA NA NA NA

Connectors

Option 1 NA NA NA NA 0.36 / 0.36 NA

OELs Annual

Monitoring NA NA NA NA NA 0.90 / 0.45



# Table 5. Summary of Equipment Leak Frequency % for Model 4-6 1



# Equipment Leak Frequencies % (Initial/Subsequent)

Pump

Seals LL Valves GV Valves LL Agitators

LL Connectors

G/V Connectors

LL OELs

Baseline 0.88 / 0.88 1.18 / 1.18 1.38 / 1.38 0.88 / 0.88 NA NA NA

Valves

Option 1 NA 5.95 / 1.91 6.30 / 1.97 NA NA NA NA

Valves

Option 2 NA 14.73 /

1.28 15.14 /

1.17 NA NA NA NA

Pumps

Option 1 3.31 / 0.98 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Pumps

Option 2 4.57 / 1.26 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Connectors

Option 1 NA NA NA NA 1.70 / 0.81 1.70 / 0.81 NA

OELs

Annual

Monitoring NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.30 /

1.15

1 

# U.S. EPA National Enforcement Inve stigations Center (NEIC) data on leak frequencies for valves at refineries

suggest the actual percentage leaking may be higher. In orde r to account for this, it was estimated that the actual

percentage leaking is 1.7 times higher than typically m easured leak frequencies. This factor represents the 10th

percentile of the data set ( i.e. , 90 percent of the NEIC leak frequencies were at least 1.7 times higher than the leak

frequencies reported by the refineries) and was used determining leak frequencies (Parrish et al. , 2007).

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

15 Emission Reductions

In order to calculate the emissi ons reductions that result from th e baseline requirements, we first

had to estimate uncontrolled em issions. Once the emissions reductions of the baseline were

found, the incremental emissions reductions of each control alternative we re also calculated. The

incremental emissions reductions of each option is incremental w ith respect to the previous

option for a given equipment type. For example, the emissions reduction for pumps Option 1 is

based on the additional emissions reductions of Option 1 with respect to the baseline pump

emissions; similarly, the emissions reduction of pumps Option 2 is based on the additional

emission reduction of Option 2 with respect to Option 1. The following sections describe how

these emissions were calculated.

The first step in calculating emissions was to es tablish emission factors for each equipment type.

Emission factors are the estimated leak rates of an equipment type at a given leak definition and

are normally given in kg/hr/piece of equipment. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the leak emission

factors used for Models 1-3 and 4-6, respectively. Attachment 3 includes detailed information on

the basis for these emission factors.Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques for Equipment LeaksDecember 21, 201116Table 6. Emission Factors for Chemical Manufacturing Plant ModelsEmission Factors for Chemical Manufacturing Plant Models 1-3 (kg/hr/piece of equipment)1UncontrolledBaselineValve Option1Valve Option2PumpsOption 1PumpsOption 2ConnectorsOption 1Pump SealsLL1.23E-02 2.51E-03 NA NA 6.95E-04 5.31E-04 NAValvesG/V5.22E-04 3.52E-04 2.03E-04 1.82E-04 NA NA NAValvesLL5.86E-04 3.90E-04 2.32E-04 2.05E-04 NA NA NAConnectors–Flanges G/V3.07E-043.07E-04NA NA NA NA NAConnectors–Flanges G/LL3.07E-04 3.07E-04NA NA NA NA 1.62E-04AgitatorsLL1.23E-02 2.51E-03 NA NA NA NA NACompressor Vent2.28E-01 2.28E-02 NA NA NA NA NAOpen-ended Valves1.70E-03 3.33E-05 NA NA NA NA NASamplingConnections1.50E-02 NA NA NA NA NA NAPRV– Disks1.04E-01 NA NA NA NA NA NA1Equipment in HL service was not included in this analysis because we are unable to quantify thereductions that are achieved using sensory monitoring.Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques for Equipment LeaksDecember 21, 201117Table 7. Emission Factors for Refinery ModelsEmission Factors for Refinery Plant Models 4-6 (kg/hr/piece of equipment)1UncontrolledBaselineValve Option1Valve Option2PumpsOption 1PumpsOption 2ConnectorsOption 1Pump SealsLL1.05E-03 7.11E-04 NA NA 3.26E-04 3.22E-04 NAValvesG/V3.71E-04 2.24E-04 8.85E-05 2.10E-05 NA NA NAValvesLL3.75E-04 2.23E-04 8.88E-05 2.02E-05 NA NA NAConnectors– Flanges G/V1.04E-04 1.04E-04 NA NA NA NA 3.95E-05Connectors– Flanges G/LL8.46E-05 8.46E-05 NA NA NA NA 2.77E-05AgitatorsLL1.05E-03 NA NA NA NA NA NACompressor Vent6.36E-01 3.18E-02 NA NA NA NA NAOpen-ended Valves2.30E-03 7.34E-05 NA NA NA NA NASampling Connections1.50E-02 NA NA NA NA NA NAPRV– Disks1.60E-01 NA NA NA NA NA NA1Equipment in HL service was not included in this analysis because we are unable to quantify thereductions that are achieved using sensory monitoring.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

18 Uncontrolled emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors in Tables 6 and 7,

the equipment counts of each model, and the ope rating hours (which were assumed to be 8,760

hours/yr). Uncontrolled emissions for each mode l are summarized in Table 8. Attachment 4

provides detailed calculations.

Table 8. Uncontrolled Emissions for Each Model

Model Total Uncontrolled

Emissions (lb/yr) Total Uncontrolled

Emissions (tpy)

Model 1 20,400 10.2

Model 2 157,000 78.7

Model 3 326,000 163

Model 4 61,000 30.4

Model 5 548,000 274

Model 6 941,000 471



# Once uncontrolled baseline emissions were estab lished, emission estimates were calculated for

the baseline. The leak definitions under the ba seline are 10,000 ppm for pumps LL, valves G/LL,

and agitators in G/LL. Therefore, the leak emission factors for the baseline (summarized in Table

6 and 7) for these equipment types are based on a leak definition of 10,000 ppm. These leak

emission factors were multiplied by the equipment counts for each model and 8,760 hours to get

annual emissions. As stated in Section 5, the efficiency of the control methodologies for

sampling connections and PRVs in gas service is expected to be 100 percent; therefore,

implementing the requirements of the baseline for these types of equipment results in essentially

zero emissions for those equipment types. Emi ssion reductions from sensory requirements were

assumed to be zero because we are unable to quantify emissions reductions associated with

sensory requirements. Baseline compressor vent emissions estimates are based on emission

factors used in the HON analysis (Whitt, 1991), assuming the seal system barrier fluid would be

routed to a reservoir where the fluid could degas and the vapors routed to a control device. For

OELs, we used the emissions factors documented in previous analyses (Parrish and Randall,

2007; Parrish et al. , 2007) at the leak frequencies descri bed earlier in this section. Table 9

summarizes baseline emissi ons for all model plants.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

19 Table 9. Baseline Emissions Summary

Option 1 Emissions (lb/yr)

Equipment Type Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Pump Seals

Light-liquid service 728 1,940 2,717 110 948 2,418

Valves

Gas/vapor service 523 2,814 9,374 324 5,092 14,106

Light-liquid service 2,863 8,884 14,920 1,082 10,471 25,259

Connectors

Flanges - gas/vapor 0 0 0 330 4,693 15,371

Flanges - G/LL 4,334 15,782 43,932 906 7,584 21,849

Agitators

Light-liquid service 0 146 0 -- -- --

Compressor Vent 0 881 3,523 1,228 11,669 19,038

Open-ended Valves 21 91 273 55 337 1,278

TOTAL (lb/yr) 8,470 31,538 74,737 4,036 40,795 99,319

TOTAL (tpy) 4.23 15.27 37.37 2.02 20.40 49.66



# The emission reductions for the baseline were calcu lated by subtracting tota l baseline emissions

from total uncontrolled emissions. The alterna tive options for each equipment type provide

additional reductions by increasing the baseline requirements of that equipment type. Table 10

summarizes emissions reductions of the baseline , as well as the additional reductions of each

subsequent option. Detailed calculati ons are included in Attachment 4.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

20 Table 10. Emissions Summary

Emissions Reductions Summary (tpy)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Uncontrolled Emissions 10.2 78.7 163 30.4 274 471

Baseline Emissions 4.23 15.3 37.4 2.02 20.4 49.7

Baseline Emissions

Reductions 5.96 63.5 126 28.4 254 421

Additional Incremental Reductions:

Valves Option 1 (wrt to

Baseline valve

emissions) 0.69 2.40 5.02 0.42 4.69 11.87

Valves Option 2 (wrt to

Valves Option 1) 0.12 0.43 0.92 0.24 2.55 6.65

Pumps Option 1 (wrt to

Baseline pump

emissions) 0.26 0.70 0.98 0.03 0.26 0.65

Pumps Option 2 (wrt to

Pumps Option 1) 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.0003 0.003 0.007

Connectors Option 1

(wrt to Baseline

connector emissions) 1.02 3.7 10.4 0.41 4.0 12.1



# 8. Control Costs

The cost analysis uses a methodology that was originally presented in Impacts from the Control

of VHAP Emissions from Equipment Leaks in Non-SOCMI Process Units for HON (Whitt,

1991). The methodology has been tailored specifically for this analysis. Seve ral constant values

used in this analysis were developed for previ ous analyses and are deta iled in this section.

Cost calculations can fall into three categories:

1. Monitoring and Equipment Costs

2. Leak Repair Costs

3. Planning and training Costs

The first step was to estimate the costs of implementing the baseline. Once this was completed,

the incremental cost of each alternative was ca lculated. This section will analyze each cost

estimates and summarize the costs for each option.

Labor Hour Rates

Wage rate estimates used to calculate costs we re based on data from the U.S. Department of

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for genera l manufacturing sectors (Sectors 31, 32, and 33)

(BLS, 2010). Overhead factors and fringe benefits were added to labor rates when necessary.

Table 11 summarizes the wage rates and overhead fact ors used to estimate costs for each option.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

21 Table 11. Summary of 2009 Hourly Labor Rates

Activity $/hr Basis for Estimate

General manufacturing -

Installation, maintenance, repair

occupations 22.08 Mean hourly wage for Installation, Maintenance, and Repair

Occupations

(Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code 49-0000)

(BLS, 2010)

Plant and system operators 22.72 Mean hourly wage for Plant and System Operators, All Other

(SOC Code: 51-8099) (BLS, 2010)

Environmental engineering 39.53 Mean hourly wage for Environmental Engineers

(SOC Code: 17-2081) (BLS, 2010)

General and operations

managers 57.80 Mean hourly wage for Engineering Managers

(SOC Code: 11-9041) (BLS, 2010)

General office and admin support 17.31 Mean hourly wage for Office and Administrative Support

Occupations

(SOC Code: 43-0000) (BLS, 2010)

Planning and training labor

charge 1 

# 92.72 Weighted average for technical (39.53), management (57.80),

and clerical labor (17.31). The weighted average assumes

5 hours of management time and 10 hours of clerical effort per

100 hours of technical labor. Includes overhead factor for

planning and training.

Leak Repair Labor Charge 2 

# 66.24 The general manufacturing sector - Installation, Maintenance,

and Repair Occupations labor rate with the overhead factor

applied was used for all repairs

1 

# A planning and training overhead factor of 2.1 was used based on Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems

(Coburn, 2011).

2 

# A maintenance and repair overhead factor of 3 was used bas ed on a 200 percent overhead factor (which -correlates

to a factor of 3) based on the overhead factor used for performance testing contractor s in the CEMS Cost Model

(EPA, 2002).



# Monitoring and Equipment Modification Costs

Initial monitoring costs are considered capital costs and are higher than annual monitoring costs

in order to account for implementation. They are incurred once at the st art of the program and

were calculated by multiplying the equipment count s in a given model by an estimated initial

monitoring fee. Table 12 summarizes the monitoring fees for each equipment type and the basis

for each.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

22 Table 12. Initial monitoring Fees

Monitoring Fee ($/

equipment piece) Basis

Pumps LL 23.80 Includes field identification of subject equipment; creating and

issuing drawings; creating data forms and tags; tagging of the

pumps and valves; and populating the software. The value also

assumes that contractors are performing this work. (Updated from

Eastman Chemical Co, 1999.) Valves G/LL

Agitators LL

OELs

Pumps HL 1.10 Based on an estimate of 3 minutes to monitor each piece of

equipment at a “general manufacturing sector - installation,

maintenance, and repair occupations” wage rate. (Update from

Eastman Chemical Co, 1999.) Valves HL

Agitators HL

Connectors



# Annual monitoring costs vary by the number of tim es the equipment type has to be monitored

per year. Table 13 summarizes the annual mon itoring fees by equipment type. The annual

monitoring costs are calculated by multiplying the equipment counts by the monitoring fee and

the monitoring frequency.

Table 13. Annual monitoring/maintenance Fees

Subsequent Monitoring

Fee ($/equipment piece) Basis

Pumps LL 1.50 Based on information provided by a monitoring and

repair contractor (Parrish, 2006) Valves G/LL

Agitators LL

OELs

Connectors GV/LL 2.50



# Equipment modification costs are considered to be capital costs and were calculated for the

baseline requirements to equip open-ended valves with caps or other comp arable seals, install

rupture discs on pressure relief devices in gas service, to equip compressor vents with a seal

system, and to retrofit sample connection system s to be closed purge, closed loop, or have a

closed vent system. Table 14 summarizes the initia l cost for these requirements and the basis for

each cost estimate.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

23 Table 14. Equipment Modification Costs for PRVs, OEVs, Sampling Connections, and

Compressor vents

Equipment/

Device Type Initial

Cost

($2010) Unit Basis Reference

Pressure Relief

Devices

* Disks 122.11 $/ equipment Cost of one rupture disk. Escalated vendor quote

(Hausle & Whitt, 1992)

* Disk holders,

valves, etc. 6,374.29 $/ equipment Equipment cost of 1 gate

valve, tee, elbow, rupture

disk holder, pressure

gauge, bleed valve, steel

body/trim and labor costs

(36 labor hours). Escalated labor and

equipment cost (Hausle &

Whitt, 1992)

Open-ended

Valves 140.92 $/ equipment Cost for one 2.5 cm gate

valve for open ended

lines and 1.4 labor hours Escalated from costs provided

in Hausle & Whitt, 1992

Sampling

Connections 687.86 $/ equipment Equipment cost for 6

meter pipe, 3 ball valves

and 2.4 labor hours. Escalated from costs provided

in Hausle & Whitt, 1992

Compressor

Vent Seal 10,526.21 $/ equipment Equipment cost of 122

meter pipe, 3 steel

valves, 1 flame arrestor,

and 78 labor hours. Escalated from costs provided

in Hausle & Whitt, 1992



# Monitoring instrumentation is also necessary for Method 21 monitoring, as well as a data

collection system to store mon itoring records. Instrumentation and data collection systems are

capital costs that were estimated at $10,800 a nd $14,500, respectively, per f acility. The estimated

instrumentation costs are roughly equal to the cost to purchase a st andard TVA1000B flame

ionization detector (FID)-only monitor with prob e from Thermo Fisher Scientific (2011). The

data collection system cost was based on Revised MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and

Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities (Shine et al.

, 2003).

Initial costs for PRD wireless monitoring device capable of identifying and recording the time

and duration of each pressure release and calculati ng the quantity of regulated material released

were also analyzed in addition to the baseline PRD requirements. There are several types of

wireless monitoring systems and costs vary de pending on the number of PRDs at a facility.

Based on cost studies from a SCAQMD staff repor t, the estimated cost of wireless monitoring

was assumed to be 7,500 dollars per PRD (the midpoint of the range provided by Ellis (2007),

which includes device parts, installation, maintenance, and da ta retrieval system. Annual

operating costs were not included in this analys is because they are assumed to be minimal.

Because the cost of electronic monitoring is not li near and facilities requ iring a large number of

monitors will benefit from economies of scale, the sixth-tenths rule was applied to calculate

initial costs which are provided below (Ellis, 2007).

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

24 Leak Frequency and Repair Costs

The control options summarized in Tables 1 a nd 2 require Method 21 mon itoring and repair of

leaks for certain equipment types. Repair costs are a function of the leak frequency of a given

equipment type. An initial leak frequency repres ents the equipment found to be leaking the first

time the monitoring is conducted usi ng a particular leak definition. Th e cost to repair these initial

leaks is considered as initial LDAR costs (along with initial monitoring fees). The subsequent

leak frequency represents the equipment found to be leaking after a few monitoring cycles have

been completed and the program reaches “steady st ate” the cost to repair subsequent leaks are

considered annual repair costs. Generally, the subsequent leak fr equency is estimated to be less

than the initial leak frequency, but in some cases they are assumed to be the same. For example,

the initial leak frequencies for the baseline are the estimated percen tages of uncontrolled

equipment leaking above the 10,000 ppm leak defin ition, and the subsequent leak frequencies are

the estimated percentage of “leakers” once the ini tial leaks are repaired and the requirements are

in place. If initial or subseque nt leak frequencies increase for a control alternative, the initial

LDAR costs or the annual repair costs can increas e because there are more leaks to repair; these

additional repair costs are considered increm ental costs for each alternative option. Leak

frequencies were estimated using several source s including the Protocol for Equipment Leak

Emissions Estimates and industry data. As previous ly stated, attachment 2 includes the basis for

the leak frequencies in Tables 4 and 5.

The cost to repair initial and subsequent leak s is also based on whether the repair can be

performed online and the number of hours required to repair the leak. The general manufacturing

sector - Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations labor rate with the overhead factor

applied ($66.24/hr) was used for all repairs. Tabl e 15 includes the assumptions used to estimate

the cost of repairing leaks and attachment 5 provides detailed cost calculations.

Table 15. Summary of Leak Repair Assumptions

Equipment Type Percent Repaired

Online Hours Required

to repair online

Leak Percent Repaired

Offline Hours Required

to repair Offline

Leak

Pumps LL 100% 16.00 0 NA

Agitators 100% 16.00 0 NA

Valves LL/G 75% 0.17 25% 4.00

Connectors 1 

# 75% 0.17 25% 2.00

OELs 2 

# 75% 0.17 25% 4.00

1 

# Not applicable to Option 1-3 since connectors are not re quired to perform Method 21 monitoring and leak repair.

2 

# Only applicable to annual monitoring requirement (not used in baseline calculations of OELs).



# As part of the initial (LDAR) repa ir cost for pumps we assumed th at the seals would need to be

replaced. The cost to purchas e replacement pump seals was estimated to be $282.71/leaking

pump (updated from Hausle, 1992); therefore, initia l LDAR cost for pumps also includes the cost

of replacement pumps seals multiplied by the number of initial leaks (in addition to the initial

monitoring and repair costs). The annual cost of pump replacements is included as an annual

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

25 maintenance cost. Leak repair costs also include additional monitoring of the repaired leaks in

order to verify the equipment was completely fi xed. These costs are considered annual costs and

were calculated using the subsequent monitoring fee for the equipment type and the subsequent

number of equipment leaking.

Baseline cost estimates for OELs only include the costs related to in stalling caps and annual

maintenance and do not include any OEL repair co sts. OEL repair costs were only used when

calculating incremental cost of annual monitoring on OELs (see Table 17).

Maintenance and Miscellaneous Costs

For pumps and agitators, annual maintenance co sts were included and are based on the annual

number of leaks multiplied by the updated co st of a replacement seal, $282.71 (Hausle, 1992).

Annual maintenance costs were also include d for PRVs, OELs, sampling connections, and

compressor vents as a percentage of initial monitoring fees. For PRV disk holders, OELs,

sampling connections, and compressor vents, annua l maintenance costs were based on 5 percent

of initial monitoring costs and 2 percent of initial monitoring costs for PRV disks.

Annual miscellaneous costs were also included in this analysis fo r pumps, PRDs, OELs,

sampling connections, and compressor vents. For pumps and agitators, th e miscellaneous costs

are based on 80 percent of the annual maintenance costs. For PRDs, OELs, sampling connections

and compressor vents, the annual miscellaneous charges are estimated using 4 percent of initial

monitoring costs (Hausle, 1992).

Administrative, Reporting, Planning, and Training Labor Costs

Planning and training costs are initial costs asso ciated with the implem entation of an LDAR

program. These costs include initial review of requirements and training of facility personnel.

We estimated initial planning and training costs based on an estimate of 320 labor hours and a

labor rate of $92.72/hr. The value of 320 hours per process unit is based on an estimate of initial

administration, planning, and training to implement a SOCMI-based LDAR program (Meardon,

1998). Planning and training costs we re included in baseline estimates, and it was assumed that

no additional planning and training costs would be incurred with any of the alternative options

for pumps and valves ( i.e. , incremental costs of planning and tr aining was assumed to be 0 for all

alternative options). For connectors, it was assumed that an additional 20 hours would be

required for activities such as adding connectors to the LDAR database for instrument

monitoring.

Annual reporting and administra tive costs were estimated usi ng 250 hours at a labor rate of

$92.72/hr to account for preparation of annual repor ts and recordkeeping. The 250 hour estimate

was based on the ratio of the amount of hours required for LDAR programs with and without

connectors which is estimated at 8 people at 32 hours each in Equipment Leak Analysis for

Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP (Meardon, 1998). Development of the labor rate is

discussed in Table 11. Annual repo rting costs were included in baseline estimates and it was

assumed that no additional annual reporting costs w ould be incurred with a ny of the alternative

options for pumps and valves ( i.e. , incremental costs of planning and training was assumed to be

$0 for all alternative options). For connectors, it was assumed that an additional 50 hours would

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

26 be required for preparation of annual reports and recordkeeping on ce the LDAR program

included instrument monitoring for connectors.

Annualized Initial Costs

Initial capital costs and labor expenditures were annualized using capital recovery factors. The

following equation was used to calculat e capital recovery factors (EPA, 2002):

CRF = [i * (1+i) n 

# )] / [(1+i) n 

# – 1],

Where, i is the interest rate and n is the life span in years.

For pump seals and rupture disks, the capital re covery factor is 0.244, as suming a life span of 5

years. For all other equipment types, the capital recovery factors is 0.142 based on a life span of

10 years. We also annualized initial repair la bor and planning and traini ng costs over 10 years.

For both factors, an interest ra te of 7 percent was used. The impacts analysis also includes a

recovery credit for the material that is not lost as emissions from equipment leaks. As in the

Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems (Coburn, 2011), these cred its are $500/ton VOC.

Incremental Costs

Once the total initial and annual costs for th e implementation of baseline requirements was

determined, the incremental annual cost of each alternative option was estimated. Similar to

incremental emissions reductions, incremental cost s are the additional costs of the option with

respect to the preceding option. The incremental co sts were based on the additional repair costs

(initial and subsequent) of the lower leak definition of a given alternative option and any

additional costs that are calcu lated as a function of leak s (maintenance costs, annual

miscellaneous charges, and monitoring costs to veri fy off line repairs). It was assumed that there

are no incremental costs associated with monito ring fees, administrative costs, and planning and

training (except as described for connectors) si nce these are constant and should not increase

with a lower leak frequency. Detailed incremental cost calculations are included in attachment 5.

Cost Summary

Cost estimates are summarized in Table 16 and Ta ble 17. Detailed cost calculations are included

in attachment 5

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

27 Table 16. Baseline Detail Cost Summary

Baseline

Model Capital Cost

($) Annualized Costs

Without Recovery

Credits ($/yr) VOC Recovery

Credit ($/yr) Total Annualized

Cost ($/yr)

Model 1 90,763 41,009 (2,980) 38,029

Model 2 455,982 129,599 (31,731) 97,867

Model 3 859,162 226,203 (62,822) 163,381

Model 4 156,783 57,067 (14,180) 42,887

Model 5 956,067 263,308 (126,809) 136,499

Model 6 1,658,781 461,483 (210,466) 251,017



# Table 17. Summary of Incremental Annualized Cost Estimates for all Control Alternatives

(Including Recovery Credits)

Baseline Valve

Option 1 Valve

Option 2 Pumps

Option 1 Pumps

Option 2 Connectors

Option 1

Model Total Cost ($/yr) Incremental Cost ($/yr)

Model 1 38,029 15 901 312 354 7,360

Model 2 97,867 97 3,223 831 944 13,861

Model 3 163,381 358 7,076 1,163 1,322 29,846

Model 4 42,887 268 2,815 189 437 7,714

Model 5 136,499 3,033 27,993 1,628 3,772 32,188

Model 6 251,017 7,725 79,562 4,152 9,622 87,089



# The cost for the additional requirements for PRDs and OELs are summarized in Table 18.

Incremental costs for each of these opti ons are with respect to the baseline.

Table 18. Additional Costs of Wireless Monitoring for PRDs and Annual OEL Monitoring

(Incremental to Baseline)

Type of

Facility Facility Initial Cost

PRD Wireless

Electronic

Monitoring ($) 1 

# Annualized

Incremental PRD

Wireless Electronic

Monitoring ($/yr) Capital Cost of

Annual OEL

Monitoring ($) Annualized

Incremental Cost

of Annual OEL

Monitoring ($/yr)

Model 1 11,368 1,619 808 176

Model 2 73,619 10,482 3,453 750

Model 3 100,821 14,355 10,383 2,256

Model 4 28,029 3,991 997 234

Model 5 103,190 14,692 6,082 1,429

Model 6 131,944 18,786 23,049 5,415

1 

# Costs calculated using six-tenths rule.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

28 9. Cost Effectiveness

The cost effectiveness of base line is calculated by dividing th e total annual costs (including

recovery credits) by the total emissions reduction of the baseline. Similarly, incremental cost

effectiveness was calculated by dividing the increm ental cost of each option (including recovery

credits) by the incremental emissions reductions. Tables 19-22 summarize the cost effectiveness

of each control alternative an alyzed in this memorandum.

Additional requirements for wireless monitoring for PRDs and annual monitoring of OELs were

not included in the cost effectiveness summary since no emissions reductions from these

activities is expected.

Table 19. Baseline Cost Effectiveness Summary

Model Emission

Reductions

(tpy) Total Annual

Cost ($/yr) Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton VOC)

Model 1 5.96 38,029 6,380

Model 2 63.46 97,867 1,542

Model 3 125.64 163,381 1,300

Model 4 28.36 42,887 1,512

Model 5 253.62 136,499 538

Model 6 420.93 251,017 596



# Table 20. Valve Options Cost Effectiveness Summary

Valves Option 1 Valves Option 2

Model Incremental

Annualized

Cost ($) Incremental

Emissions

Reduction

(tpy) Overall Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton) Incremental

Annualized

Cost ($) Incremental

Emissions

Reduction

(tpy) Overall Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton)

Model 1 15 0.69 22 901 0.12 7,323

Model 2 97 2.40 40 3,223 0.43 7,506

Model 3 358 5.02 71 7,076 0.92 7,701

Model 4 268 0.42 633 2,815 0.24 11,588

Model 5 3,033 4.69 646 27,993 2.55 10,994

Model 6 7,725 11.87 651 79,562 6.65 11,966

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

29 Table 21. Pump Options Cost Effectiveness Summary

Pumps Option 1 Pumps Option 2

Model Incremental

Annualized

Cost ($) Incremental

Emissions

Reduction

(tpy) Overall Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton) Incremental

Annualized

Cost ($) Incremental

Emissions

Reduction

(tpy) Overall Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton)

Model 1 312 0.26 1,184 354 0.024 14,977

Model 2 831 0.70 1,184 944 0.063 14,977

Model 3 1,163 0.98 1,184 1,322 0.088 14,977

Model 4 189 0.030 6,339 437 0.00031 1,429,098

Model 5 1,628 0.26 6,339 3,772 0.0026 1,429,098

Model 6 4,152 0.65 6,339 9,622 0.0067 1,429,098



# Table 22. Connector Option 1 Cost Effectiveness Summary (Incremental to Baseline)

Connectors Option 1 (Incremental to Baseline)

Model Incremental

Annualized

Cost ($) Incremental

Emissions

Reduction (tpy) Overall Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton)

Model 1 7,360 1.02 7,192

Model 2 13,861 3.73 3,719

Model 3 29,846 10.37 2,877

Model 4 7,714 0.41 18,957

Model 5 32,188 4.00 8,038

Model 6 87,089 12.11 7,191



# 9. References

Barnett, Keith. (2000). Memorandum: Final Analysis of Equipment Leak Program for PET

Facilities Subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP . Docket A-92-45,

Document No. IXc-B-1.

Coburn, Jeff. (2011). Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems . Memorandum to Brenda

Shine, EPA/OAQPS. July 12, 2011. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002-0008.

Cornelsen, Dave. (2006). The development of eff ective fugitive emissions control for valves.

Valve World , February 2006, pp 49-52.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

30 Douglas, Victor. (2005). BAAQMD Staff Report: Proposed Ame ndments to Regulation 8, Rule

28: Episodic Release from Pressure Relief D evices at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical

Plants

.

Eastman Chemical Co. (1999). Eastman Chemical Company Comments on U.S. EPA Proposed

Denial of Petition for Reconsideration - Gr oup IV Polymers and Resins Equipment Leak

Provisions. August 9, 1999. Docket No. A-92-45, Document No. VIIIc-D-6.

Ellis, Kennard. (2007). Final Staff Report for Propose Amended Rule 1173. South Coast Air

Quality Management District (SCAQMD). May 15, 2007.

Environ International Corporation. (2003, March). The Use of a Gas-imaging Device for

Detecting Fugitive Emissions in Ethylene Facilities . Retrieved September 2011, from

http://texasiof.ces.utexas.edu/texass howcase/pdfs/presenta tions/c2/msymlie.pdf

.

EPA Office of Compliance; Ch emical, Commercial Services , and Municipal Division. (1998,

December). Inspection Manual: Federal Equipment Le ak Regulations for the Chemical

Manufacturing Industry Vo lume I: Inspection Manual

Hausle, K., & Whitt, D. (1992). Memo: Final Cost Impacts Anal ysis for HON Equipment Leaks.

Radian Corporation. February 28, 1992. Docket A-90-20, Document No. II-B-6.

Loukeris, Constantinos. (2006). Cap/Plug Monitoring Data from U.S. EPA Region 5.

Transmitted via e-mail to Karen Rackley. N ovember 28, 2006. Docket Item No. EPA-HQOAR-2006-0699-0073.

Meardon, Kenneth R. (1998). Memorandum from K. Meardon, Pac ific Environmental Services

Inc. to J Schaefer. EPA/OGC. May, 1998. “Attach ment 7: Leak Detection and Repair Cost

Derivatives” In Equipment Leak Analysis for Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP . May

1998. Docket No. A-92-19, Document No. II-B-11.

Parrish, Kristin, David Randall, and Je ff Coburn, RTI International. (2007). Final Impacts

Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equi pment Leaks of VOC Petroleum Refineries

. Memorandum to Karen Rackley, EPA/SPPD. Oc tober 30, 2007. Docket Item No. EPA-HQOAR-2006-0699-0089.

Parrish, Kristin; Randa ll, David. (2007). Final Impacts Analysis fo r Regulatory Options for

Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI . Memorandum to Karen Rackley, EPA/SPPD.

October 30, 2007. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0090.

Parrish, Kristin. (2006). Me morandum to Docket File. Telephone Conference between Kristin

Parrish (RTI International) and Timothy Smith (TEAM Industrial Services, Inc.) regarding

procedure and cost of the dril l and tap method of valve repair . March 27, 2006. Docket Item

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0012.

Reeves, David. (2011). Designing for Leak Free Operation: The secret to reducing LDAR costs!

Presented at the ISA 11 th 

# LDAR Symposium, May 18-19, 2011, New Orleans, LA.

# Technical Memorandum – Analysis of Emissi ons Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks

December 21, 2011

31 Shine, Brenda, Melissa Icenhour, an d David Randall. (2003) Memorandum: Revised MACT

Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical

Manufacturing Facilities . May 5, 2003. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121-0004.

Thermo Fisher Scientific. (2011). Thermo Scientific TVA1000B Toxic Vapor Analyzer.

Retrieved December 2011 from

http://www.fishersci.com/ecomm/servlet/fsproductdetail_10652_6471343_29104_-1_0

.

U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). (2011). Refinery Capacity 2011 . Energy Information

Administration, June 24, 2011. Available at http ://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/

.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2010). May 2009 National

Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: Sectors 31, 32, and 33 -

Manufacturing . May 14, 2010. Available at http:/ /www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/naics2_31-

33.htm

.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1995). Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission

Estimates . Office of Air Quaility Planni ng and Standards. November 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1998). Locating and Estimating Air Emissions

from Sources of Benzene . Office of Air Quality Planni ng and Standards. EPA-454/R-98-011.

June 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002). EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual

Section 1 Chapter 2. Sixth Edition . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

EPA/452/B-02-001. January 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011). Petroleum Refinery Database, based on

Refinery Information Collection Request (ICR) for Calendar Year 2010. March 31, 2011.

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.

Whitt, Daryl J. (1991). Impacts From the Control of VHAP Em issions from Equipment Leaks in

non-SOCMI Process Units for the HON . Radian Corporation. Docket No. A-90-20,

Document No. II-B-7.

Wilwerding, Joseph. (2007). Refinery Plug Moni toring Data from the National Enforcement

Investigations Center. Transmitted via email to Karen Rackley. June 14, 2007. Docket Item

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0072.Attachment 1Based on data inRefinery Capacity 2010(U.S. DOE, 2011) and the analysis of amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG:Number of process units in average small refinery: Number of process units in average large refinery:0.9 Crude Distillation 1 Crude Distillation0.1 Alkylation (sulfuric acid) 0.4 Alkylation (sulfuric acid)0.1 Alkylation (HF) 0.4 Alkylation (HF)0.5 Catalytic Reforming 1.1 Catalytic Reforming0.1 Hydrocracking 0.5 Hydrocracking1.5 Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining 3.7 Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining0.3 Catalytic Cracking 0.9 Catalytic Cracking0.03 Thermal Cracking (visbreaking) 0.02 Thermal Cracking (visbreaking)0.1 Thermal Cracking (coking) 0.6 Thermal Cracking (coking)0.2 Hydrogen Plant 0.4 Hydrogen Plant0.7 Asphalt Plant 0.4 Asphalt Plant1 Product Blending 1 Product Blending0.7 Sulfur Plant 1.3 Sulfur Plant0.6 Vacuum Distillation 0.9 Vacuum Distillation2 Full-Range Distillation 3 Full-Range Distillation0.3 Isomerization 0.6 Isomerization0.2 Polymerization 0.2 Polymerization0.05 MEK Dewaxing 0.05 MEK Dewaxing0.2 Other Lube Oil Processes 0.1 Other Lube Oil Processes0.08 Aromatics 0.2 AromaticsChemicalManufacturingLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisPump Seals* Light-liquid service 2.42Calculated using table 1 of Revised MACT floor, RegulatoryAlternatives, and Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaksat Chemical Manufacturing Facilities MON Memorandum5/5/2003 and TABLE 5-4. EQUATIONS RELATINGAVERAGE LEAK RATE TO FRACTION LEAKING ATSOCMI UNITS of the Protocol for Equipment Leak EmissionEstimates. Calculation of this value shown in thisattachment.0.23Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment EValves* Gas/vapor service 0.33Set equal to the Subsequent Leak Frequency (Calculated aleak frequency of 0.22 using procedure similar to pumpsabove; however, this value was not used because it is lessthan the Subsequent Leak Frequency)0.33Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E* Light-liquid service 0.33Set equal to the Subsequent Leak Frequency (Calculated aleak frequency of 0.22 using procedure similar to pumpsabove; however, this value was not used because it is lessthan the Subsequent Leak Frequency)0.33Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment EConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor N/AN/A* Flanges - light liquid N/AN/AAgitators* Light-liquid service 2.42 Same as pump seals0.23 Same as pump sealsOELN/AN/ABaselineAttachment2‐Page1ChemicalManufacturingLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisValves* Gas/vapor service 7.24Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove) and Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm(Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E)0.51Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E* Light-liquid service 4.84Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove) and Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm(Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E)0.51Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment EType of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisPump Seals* Light-liquid service 13.48Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove) and Initial Leak Frequency at 1,000 ppm(Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E)0.26Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment EType of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0.36Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E0.36Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E* Flanges - light liquid 0.36Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment E0.36Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment EOption 1 for PumpsOption 1 for ConnectorsOption 1 for ValvesAttachment2‐Page2ChemicalManufacturingLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisValves* Gas/vapor service 12.24Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove), Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm (Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in the SOCMI, Attachment E), and Initial LeakFrequency at 100 ppm of 5.00% (Calculation of this valueshown in this attachment)0.61= Subsequent Leak Frequency for Average Refinery Valves,100 ppm (Semiannual monitoring) / Subsequent LeakFrequency for Average Refinery Valves, 500 ppm(Semiannual monitoring) x Subsequent Leak Frequency forChemical Manufacturing Valves, 500 ppm (Semiannualmonitoring)* Light-liquid service 8.07Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove), Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm (Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in the SOCMI, Attachment E), and Initial LeakFrequency at 100 ppm of 3.22% (Calculation of this valueshown in this attachment)0.61= Subsequent Leak Frequency for Average Refinery Valves,100 ppm (Semiannual monitoring) / Subsequent LeakFrequency for Average Refinery Valves, 500 ppm(Semiannual monitoring) x Subsequent Leak Frequency forChemical Manufacturing Valves, 500 ppm (Semiannualmonitoring)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisPump Seals* Light-liquid service 18.43Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove), Initial Leak Frequency at 1,000 ppm (Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in the SOCMI, Attachment E), and Initial LeakFrequency at 500 ppm of 4.95% (Calculation of this valueshown in this attachment)0.33= Subsequent Leak Frequency for Chemical ManufacturingPumps, 1,000 ppm (Monthly monitoring) x Subsequent LeakFrequency for Refinery Pumps, 500 ppm (Quarterlymonitoring) / Subsequent Leak Frequency for RefineryPumps, 1,000 ppm (Quarterly monitoring)Option 2 for PumpsOption 2 for ValvesAttachment2‐Page3ChemicalManufacturingLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisOEL0.90Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI,Attachment K0.45Assume that since an instrument reading of 500 ppm orgreater means that the OEL is out of compliance,owners/operators will be more diligent about ensuring thatcaps and plugs are replaced properly after being removed tocollect samples. This increased diligence is expected tolead to a reduction in leaks.OEL MonitoringAttachment2‐Page4RefineryLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisPump Seals* Light-liquid service 0.88Set equal to the Subsequent Leak Frequency0.88Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in PetroleumRefineries, Attachment DValves* Gas/vapor service 1.18Set equal to the Subsequent Leak Frequency1.18Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in PetroleumRefineries, Attachment D* Light-liquid service 1.38Set equal to the Subsequent Leak Frequency1.38Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in PetroleumRefineries, Attachment DConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor N/AN/A* Flanges - light liquid N/AN/AAgitators* Light-liquid service 0.88 Same as pump seals0.88 Same as pump sealsOELN/AN/AType of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisValves* Gas/vapor service 5.95Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (see above)and Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm (Memorandum: FinalImpacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment E)1.91Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in PetroleumRefineries, Attachment D* Light-liquid service 6.30Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (see above)and Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm (Memorandum: FinalImpacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment E)1.97Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in PetroleumRefineries, Attachment DBaselineOption 1 for ValvesAttachment2‐Page5RefineryLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisPump Seals* Light-liquid service 3.31Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (see above)and Initial Leak Frequency at 1,000 ppm (Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment E)0.98Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in PetroleumRefineries, Attachment DType of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 1.70Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, USEPA,November 1995 (EPA-453/R-95-017), Table G-20.81Average Percent Leaking G and LL Connectors, 500 ppm(API Data, Quarterly Monitoring (Memorandum: FinalImpacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment C)) x 4quarters/year x 0.9 (10% repeat leakers)* Flanges - light liquid 1.70Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, USEPA,November 1995 (EPA-453/R-95-017), Table G-20.81Average Percent Leaking G and LL Connectors, 500 ppm(API Data, Quarterly Monitoring (Memorandum: FinalImpacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment C)) x 4quarters/year x 0.9 (10% repeat leakers)Option 1 for PumpsOption 1 for ConnectorsAttachment2‐Page6RefineryLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisValves* Gas/vapor service 14.73Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove), Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm (Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment E), andInitial Leak Frequency at 100 ppm of 8.78% (Calculation ofthis value shown in this attachment)1.28Estimated subsequent leak frequency for refinery gas/vaporvalves at 500 ppm to be 2.45% based on curve defined byleak frequencies at other leak definitions (see Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment D).Since this value is greater than 2%, quarterly monitoringwould be required.Subsequent Leak Frequency, 100 ppm (QuarterlyMonitoring) = Subsequent Leak Frequency, 500 ppm(Quarterly Monitoring) / Subsequent Leak Frequency, 500ppm (Semiannual Monitoring) x Subsequent LeakFrequency, 100 ppm (Semiannual Monitoring)* Light-liquid service 15.14Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove), Initial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm (Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment E), andInitial Leak Frequency at 100 ppm of 8.83% (Calculation ofthis value shown in this attachment)1.17Estimated subsequent leak frequency for refinery light liquidvalves at 500 ppm to be 2.24% based on curve defined byleak frequencies at other leak definitions (see Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment D).Since this value is greater than 2%, quarterly monitoringwould be required.Subsequent Leak Frequency, 100 ppm (QuarterlyMonitoring) = Subsequent Leak Frequency, 500 ppm(Quarterly Monitoring) / Subsequent Leak Frequency, 500ppm (Semiannual Monitoring) x Subsequent LeakFrequency, 100 ppm (Semiannual Monitoring)Option 2 for ValvesAttachment2‐Page7RefineryLeakFrequencies(UsedtocalculateRepairCosts)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisPump Seals* Light-liquid service 4.57Sum of Initial Leak Frequency at 10,000 ppm (Baseline; seeabove), Initial Leak Frequency at 1,000 ppm (Memorandum:Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for EquipmentLeaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, Attachment E), andInitial Leak Frequency at 500 ppm of 1.26% (Calculation ofthis value shown in this attachment)1.26= Subsequent Leak Frequency, 1,000 ppm (MonthlyMonitoring) / Subsequent Leak Frequency, 1,000 ppm(Quarterly Monitoring) x Average Percent Leaking Pumps,500 ppm (API Data, Quarterly Monitoring)Type of EquipmentInitial LeakFrequency(%)BasisSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)BasisOEL2.30Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for RegulatoryOptions for Equipment Leaks of VOC in PetroleumRefineries, Attachment K1.15Assume that since an instrument reading of 500 ppm orgreater means that the OEL is out of compliance,owners/operators will be more diligent about ensuring thatcaps and plugs are replaced properly after being removed tocollect samples. This increased diligence is expected tolead to a reduction in leaks.OEL MonitoringOption 2 for PumpsAttachment2‐Page8Table 1: Resulting Emission Rates and Program Efficiencies for CMA data.ComponentLeakDefinition(ppmv)No.Monitored No.LeakingInitialLeakRate(%)Pumps500 121 001000 683 13 1.92000 82 00G Valves500 20766 104 0.5 0.505000 374 39 10.435000 161 00 0.0010000 662 13 1.9610000 7062 41 0.58 0.581Valves500 62299 312 0.5LL Valves500 41533 208 0.5 0.505000 483 005000 322 00 0.0010000 21185 123 0.5810000 14123 82 0.58 0.581Source: Memo: Revised MACT floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical ManufacturingFacilities MON. From Brenda Shine, Melissa Icenhour, and David Randall 5/5/2003InitialLeakFreq‐10,000ppmAttachment2‐Page9UncontrolledEmissions NEIC Factor1.71ALR @ 500ppm(kg/hr/source)Leakfraction @10,000 ppmLeakfraction @10,000 ppm(%)AverageUncontrolledLeak RateAverageUncontrolledEmissionFactor(kg/hr/source)GasValves0.000394 0.00339 0.339 0.501974818 5.22E-04Light Liquid Va0.000430 0.00292 0.292 0.467353214 5.86E-04Valves (usingL0.0004297642.92E-03 2.92E-010.46735321 0.000585944ALR @ 1,000ppm(kg/hr/source)Leakfraction @10,000 ppmLeakfraction @10,000 ppm(%)ALR @ 5,000ppmLeak fraction@ 10,000 ppmLeakfraction @10,000ppm (%)AverageUncontrolled LeakRateAverageUncontrolledEmission Factor(kg/hr/source)Pumps 0.0040420280.00892512 0.89251157 0.03715172 0.146882176 14.68822 4.3323540.012297649Rate for costsALR @ 500ppm(kg/hr/source)Leakfraction @10,000 ppmLeakfraction @10,000 ppm(%)AverageUncontrolledLeak RateValves0.0002621.03E-03 1.03E-010.22303044ALR @ 1,000ppm(kg/hr/source)Leakfraction @10,000 ppmLeakfraction @10,000 ppm(%)ALR @ 5,000ppm(kg/hr/source)Leak fraction@ 10,000 ppmLeakfraction @10,000ppmAverageUncontrolled LeakRatePumps0.002550.00266393 0.26639344 0.02226 0.084833333 8.483333 2.420517Based on 5-46 of Equipment Leaks Protocol Equations and Revised MACT Floor, reg alternative, and nationwide impacts for equipmentleaks... memo. May 5 2003InitialLeakFreq‐10,000ppmAttachment2‐Page10Chemical Manufacturing Models - Gas Valves - From 500 to 100EPA's SOCMI dataProtocol nocontrol %leakersaleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitoredassumed typicalscreening value in therange to the nextthresholda10 261039.7100 17.51001.05 Option232500 13.65000.87 Baseline6651000 12100013302000 10.5200029905000 8.75000665010000 7.5100002320050000 5.55000066500100000 4.5100000397000397001000000DistributionleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitored5000.7210000.6320000.5250000.45500000.331000000.27Leak Freq calcs100 500Baseline0.51Option 8, Initial5.0Option 8, Subsequent 0.61aFrom figure B-3-3 in the Protocol documentEmissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 11Chemical Manufacturing Models - Gas ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario1 - No control2 - Baseline before control 3 - Baseline controlledGV default zero 6.60E-07Average aboveInstantaneous500LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeaAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<1074.00.0000488484.9 0.00005604 85.3 0.0000562810 10 to 100 8.539.7 0.0003959.8 0.000454 9.8 0.000456100 100 to 500 3.9232 0.0008474.5 0.000972 4.5 0.000976500 500 to 1000 1.6665 0.0008720.10 0.000056 0.05 0.0000281000 1000 to 2000 1.5 1330 0.0014960.10 0.000095 0.05 0.0000482000 2000 to 5000 1.8 2990 0.0036420.11 0.000232 0.06 0.0001165000 5000 to 10000 1.2 6650 0.0048790.08 0.000311 0.04 0.00015510000 10000 to 50000 2.0 23200 0.024207 Pegged value 0.13 0.001543 0.06 0.00077150000 50000 to 100000 1.0 66500 0.0303500.11 0.06 0.001935 0.03 0.000967100000 >100000 4.5 310000 0.5236160.495 0.29 0.033375 0.14 0.016688Emission rateper valveEmission rateper valveEmission rateper valve0.00590 0.005620.000390.000203Emission rate estimated using (500 ppm)(10,000 ppm)(10,000 ppm)ALR equation 0.00600.000500.00032Leak Frequency CalculationsBaseline Option<1074.0<10 85.289.110 10 to 100 8.510 to 100 9.810.2100 100 to 500 3.90.61100 to 500 4.50.14500 500 to 1000 1.60.51500 to 1000 0.060.061000 1000 to 2000 1.51000 to 2000 0.060.052000 2000 to 5000 1.82000 to 5000 0.070.065000 5000 to 10000 1.25000 to 10000 0.040.0410000 10000 to 50000 2.010000 to 50000 0.070.0750000 50000 to 100000 1.050000 to 100000 0.040.03100000 >100000 4.5>100000 0.170.16Emissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 12Chemical Manufacturing Models - Gas ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)4 - Option 8 prior to control5 - Option 1 controlledGV default zero 6.60E-07Average above, assume half repairs are successful b/t 500 and1100LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate, kg/hr(per 100 valves) whenmonitoredEmissionrate afterrepair, kg/hrPercent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<10 88.80.0000586 0.000066 89.3 0.000058910 10 to 100 10.239.7 0.00047410.3 0.000477100 100 to 500 0.23232 0.0000510.16 0.000034500 500 to 1000 0.10665 0.0000520.05 0.0000261000 1000 to 2000 0.091330 0.0000900.04 0.0000452000 2000 to 5000 0.112990 0.0002180.05 0.0001095000 5000 to 10000 0.076650 0.0002920.04 0.00014610000 10000 to 50000 0.1223200 0.0014480.06 0.00072450000 50000 to 100000 0.0666500 0.0018160.03 0.000908100000 >100000 0.27310000 0.0313270.13 0.015663Emission rate pervalveEmission rateper valve0.000358 0.000000660.000182Average emission rateduring monitoring period 0.000179Emissions New Calcs Attachment2- Page 13Chemical Manufacturing Models - Light Liquid Valves - from 500 to 100EPA's SOCMI dataProtocol nocontrol %leakersaleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitoredassumed typicalscreening value in therange to the nextthresholda10 181039.7100 111001.05 Option232500 8.55000.87 Baseline66510007100013302000 5.8200029905000 5.15000665010000 4.5100002320050000 2.95000066500100000 2.2100000397000397001000000DistributionleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitored5000.8110000.6720000.5550000.49100000.43500000.281000000.21Leak Freq calcs500 10000Baseline0.27Option, Initial3.2Option, Subsequent 0.61aFrom figure B-3-4 in the Protocol documentEmissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 14Chemical Manufacturing Models - Light Liquid ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario1 - No control2 - Baseline before control 3 - Baseline controlledLLV default zero 4.90E-07Average aboveInstantaneous500LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeaAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<1082.00.000040288.8 0.0000435 89.2 0.000043710 10 to 100 7.039.7 0.0008447.6 0.000914 7.6 0.000918100 100 to 500 2.5232 0.0012312.7 0.001333 2.7 0.001339500 500 to 1000 1.5665 0.0017090.2 0.000174 0.1 0.0000871000 1000 to 2000 1.2 1330 0.0023750.1 0.000242 0.1 0.0001212000 2000 to 5000 0.7 2990 0.0026430.1 0.000270 0.0 0.0001355000 5000 to 10000 0.6 6650 0.0042830.1 0.000437 0.0 0.00021810000 10000 to 50000 1.6 23200 0.030922 Pegged value 0.2 0.003154 0.1 0.00157750000 50000 to 100000 0.7 66500 0.0313140.15 0.1 0.003194 0.0 0.001597100000 >100000 2.2 310000 0.3356570.33 0.2 0.034232 0.1 0.017116Emission rateper valveEmission rateper valveEmission rateper valveEmission rate per valve 0.00411 0.004050.000440.000232Emission rate estimated using (500 ppm)(10,000 ppm)(10,000 ppm)ALR equation 0.004020.000580.00037Leak Frequency CalculationsBaseline Option<1082.0<10 89.291.610 10 to 100 7.010 to 100 7.67.8100 100 to 500 2.50.61100 to 500 2.70.14500 500 to 1000 1.50.51500 to 1000 0.10.081000 1000 to 2000 1.21000 to 2000 0.10.072000 2000 to 5000 0.72000 to 5000 0.00.045000 5000 to 10000 0.65000 to 10000 0.00.0310000 10000 to 50000 1.610000 to 50000 0.10.0950000 50000 to 100000 0.750000 to 100000 0.00.04100000 >100000 2.2>100000 0.10.12Emissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 15Chemical Manufacturing Models - Light Liquid ValvesUse correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)4 - Option 1 prior to control5 - Option 1 controlledLLV default zero 4.90E-07Average above, assume half repairs are successful b/t 500 and1100LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate, kg/hr(per 100 valves) whenmonitoredEmissionrate afterrepair, kg/hrPercent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100valves)<10 91.20.0000447 0.000049 91.7 0.000044910 10 to 100 7.839.7 0.0009387.8 0.000943100 100 to 500 0.24232 0.0001170.16 0.000078500 500 to 1000 0.14665 0.0001630.07 0.0000811000 1000 to 2000 0.111330 0.0002260.06 0.0001132000 2000 to 5000 0.072990 0.0002520.03 0.0001265000 5000 to 10000 0.066650 0.0004080.03 0.00020410000 10000 to 50000 0.1523200 0.0029430.08 0.00147250000 50000 to 100000 0.0766500 0.0029810.03 0.001490100000 >100000 0.21310000 0.0319480.10 0.015974Emission rate pervalveEmission rateper valveEmission rate per valve 0.000400 0.000000490.0002050.066712Average emission rate0.533356during monitoring period 0.000200-0.86658 -0.86657656vs.Emissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 16Chemical Manufacturing Models - Pumps - from 1000 to 500EPA's SOCMI dataProtocol nocontrol %leakersaleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitoredassumed typicalscreening value in therange to the nextthresholda10 445000.56 Option665100 3010000.44 Baseline1330500 21200029901000 17.1500066502000 13.210000232005000 9.850000665001000071000003970003970050000 3.510000001000002DistributionleakconcentrationPercentleakers whenmonitored50099.59100099.70200099.79500099.861000099.9650000100.00100000100.05Leak Freq calcs500 1000Baseline0.26Option, Initial (NSPS) 4.9Option, Subsequent 0.33aFrom figure B-3-2 in the Protocol documentEmissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 17Chemical Manufacturing Models - PumpsUse correlation equation to estimate emissions for uncontrolled scenario1 - No control2 - Baseline before control 3 - Baseline controlledP default zero 7.50E-06Average aboveInstantaneous1000LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeaAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)Percent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)<1056.00.0004267.3 0.000504408 67.4 0.00050551910 10 to 100 14.0 39.7 0.00552416.8 0.006635 16.9 0.006649100 100 to 500 9.0232 0.01521110.8 0.018268 10.8 0.018308500 500 to 1000 3.9665 0.0156974.7 0.018852 4.7 0.0188931000 1000 to 2000 3.9 1330 0.0277890.1 0.000714 0.1 0.0003572000 2000 to 5000 3.4 2990 0.0472260.1 0.001214 0.0 0.0006075000 5000 to 10000 2.8 6650 0.0751480.1 0.001931 0.0 0.00096510000 10000 to 50000 3.5 23200 0.263017 Pegged value 0.1 0.006758 0.0 0.00337950000 50000 to 100000 1.5 66500 0.2684420.62 0.0 0.006898 0.0 0.003449100000 >100000 2.0 310000 1.272523 1.2400 0.1 0.032698 0.0 0.016349Emission rateper pumpEmission rateper pumpEmission rateper pumpEmission rate per valve 0.01991 0.019580.000940.00069Emission rate estimated using (1,000 ppm)(10,000 ppm)(10,000 ppm)ALR equation 0.00000.002330.00212Leak Frequency CalculationsBaseline Option<1056.0<10 67.470.710 10 to 100 14.010 to 100 16.817.7100 100 to 500 9.0100 to 500 10.811.4500 500 to 1000 3.90.33500 to 1000 4.70.061000 1000 to 2000 3.90.261000 to 2000 0.10.062000 2000 to 5000 3.42000 to 5000 0.10.055000 5000 to 10000 2.85000 to 10000 0.00.0410000 10000 to 50000 3.510000 to 50000 0.10.0550000 50000 to 100000 1.550000 to 100000 0.00.02100000 >100000 2.0>100000 0.00.03Emissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 18Chemical Manufacturing Models - PumpsUse correlation equation to estimate controlled emissions (for HON program)4 - Option 9 prior to control5 - Option 9 controlledP default zero 7.50E-06Average above, assume half repairs are successful b/t 1000 and500LeakDefinitionRange ofconcentrationsPercent ofvalues inrangeAveragescreening valuein rangeEmission rate, kg/hr(per 100 pumps) whenmonitoredEmissionrate afterrepair, kg/hrPercent ofvalues inrangeaEmission rate,kg/hr (per 100pumps)<10 70.50.000528656 0.00075 70.7 0.00053023910 10 to 100 17.639.7 0.00695417.7 0.006974100 100 to 500 11.3232 0.01914611.4 0.019204500 500 to 1000 0.10665 0.0004200.07 0.0002801000 1000 to 2000 0.101330 0.0007440.05 0.0003722000 2000 to 5000 0.092990 0.0012650.05 0.0006325000 5000 to 10000 0.076650 0.0020130.04 0.00100610000 10000 to 50000 0.0923200 0.0070440.05 0.00352250000 50000 to 100000 0.0466500 0.0071890.02 0.003595100000 >100000 0.05310000 0.0340800.03 0.017040Emission rate perpumpEmission rateper pumpEmission rate per valve 0.000794 0.00000750.00053Average emission rateduring monitoring period 0.000401vs.Emission rate estimated usingALR equation 0.0005771(HON avg leak rate, kg/hr)Emissions New CalcsAttachment2- Page 19Refinery Leak FrequenciesPUMPSNew = Monthly 500, baseline = Monthly 1,0001leak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 2.16 <-- (this value for monthly monitoring)percent in range 88.057 9.784 0.472 1.079 0.433 0.061 0.113 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 1.13E-03 2.65E-03 7.89E-03 2.31E-02 4.40E-02 1.31E-010.000505032Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequency, converted to monthly monitoringleak range 0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), % 2.16 <-- (this value for monthly monitoring)percent in range 88.958 9.884 0.315 0.540 0.217 0.030 0.057 100.000representative value default 165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump) 0.000024 1.13E-03 2.65E-03 7.89E-03 2.31E-02 4.40E-02 1.31E-010.000321953Then determine the percent leaking at other leak definitions by assuming the same distribution of leaking pumps as reported by API.leak range0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), %1.69 2.16 (at 1,000 ppm)percent in range88.057 9.784 0.472 1.079 0.433 0.061 0.113 100.000representative valuedefault165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump)0.000024 1.13E-03 2.65E-03 7.89E-03 2.31E-02 4.40E-02 1.31E-010.000505034Then determine the percent leaking at other leak definitions by assuming the same distribution of leaking pumps as reported by API.leak range0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), %1.69percent in range88.816 9.868 0.472 0.540 0.217 0.030 0.057 100.000representative valuedefault165 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000average for values above 1,000 zeroemissions (kg/hr/pump)0.000024 1.13E-03 2.65E-03 7.89E-03 2.31E-02 4.40E-02 1.31E-010.000325915Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range0 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (1,000 ppm), %0.98 1.26 (at 500 ppm)percent in range88.866 9.874 0.276 0.630 0.253 0.036 0.066Controlled, w/ leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak frac. (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not avg. over monitoring period) convert to monthly monitoringBaseline estimate - Apply industry-based baseline-to-controlled percent leakers ratio for valves to controlled leak frequency for pumps above 1,000 ppm (adjusted to monthly monitoring).Baseline estimate - Average above 1,000 ppmAttachment2- Page 20Refinery Leak FrequenciesGAS VALVESNew = Quarterly, 100, Baseline = Semiannual, 500 (VVa to Opt7)1Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range 0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), % 2.19percent in range 88.031 9.781 1.753 0.052 0.275 0.061 0.012 0.035 0.108representative value default 33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve) 0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000031202Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %2.19percent in range88.752 9.861 1.169 0.026 0.138 0.031 0.006 0.018 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve)0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000021033Baseline estimateleak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), %3.28 10.050 (at 100 ppm)percent in range87.049 2.902 6.770 0.391 2.072 0.460 0.089 0.266 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve)0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000159544Baseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), %3.28 10.050 (at 100 ppm)percent in range88.524 2.951 6.885 0.196 1.036 0.230 0.044 0.133 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve)0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000088415Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), %1.91 8.779 (at 100 ppm)percent in range88.278 2.943 6.866 0.228 1.209 0.269 0.052 0.155Attachment2- Page 21Refinery Leak FrequenciesLIGHT LIQUID VALVESNew = Quarterly, 100, Baseline = Semiannual, 500 (VVa to Opt7)1Controlled, with leak frequency as summarized in API report equal to leak fraction (i.e., estimate emission rate when monitored, not average over monitoring period)leak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %2.01percent in range88.192 9.799 1.599 0.070 0.226 0.074 0.010 0.031 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve)0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000029522Controlled estimate using average leak rate as one-half of reported leak frequencyleak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (100 ppm), %2.01percent in range88.856 9.873 1.066 0.035 0.113 0.037 0.005 0.016 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve)0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000020153Baseline estimateleak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), %3.38 3.376 (at 500 ppm)percent in range86.961 2.899 6.764 0.573 1.857 0.609 0.079 0.259 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve)0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000160244Baseline estimate - average above 10,000 ppmleak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), %3.38 3.376 (at 500 ppm)percent in range88.481 2.949 6.882 0.287 0.928 0.305 0.039 0.129 100.000representative valuedefault33 232 665 3,970 23,200 66,500 397,000zeroemissions (kg/hr/valve)0.0000078 3.11E-05 1.33E-04 2.92E-04 1.11E-03 4.14E-03 9.07E-03 3.44E-020.000088765Baseline and Initial Leak Freq. Calc.leak range0 100 500 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000leak frequency (500 ppm), %1.97 8.832 (at 100 ppm)percent in range88.227 2.941 6.862 0.334 1.083 0.355 0.046 0.151Attachment2- Page 22

# Attachment 3 - Emission Factors

SOCMI

Uncontrolled Emission Rates

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 1.23E-02

Valves G/V 5.22E-04

Valves LL 5.86E-04

Agitators LL 1.23E-02

Connectors – Flanges G/V 3.07E-04

Connectors – Flanges G/LL 3.07E-04

Compressor Vent 2.28E-01

Open-ended Valves 1.70E-03

Sampling Connections 1.50E-02

PRV – Disks 1.04E-01



# Baseline Emission Rates

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 2.51E-03

Valves G/V 3.52E-04

Valves LL 3.90E-04

Agitators LL 2.51E-03

Connectors – Flanges G/V 3.07E-04

Connectors – Flanges G/LL 3.07E-04

Compressor Vent 2.28E-02

Open-ended Valves 3.33E-05



# Valves Option 1

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Valves G/V 2.03E-04

Valves LL 2.32E-04



# V l O ti 2 Calculated using initial leak rates of pumps and valves from facility data used in calculating MACT floors for the MON

(Table A1) and the equations in Table 5-4 from the Protocol for Equipment Leak Estimates. See sample calculation for

Model 1 pumps in light liquid service.



# See Uncontrolled basis.

Based on Table 2-1 of Equipment Leaks Protocol. 10 percent of uncontrolled compressor seal value

Based on Memorandum: Analysis of Additional Data on Leaks from Open-Ended Lines



# Basis Based on EPA SOCMI data for Pumps at 10,000 ppm

Based on EPA SOCMI data for Gas Valves at 500 ppm

Based on EPA SOCMI data for LL Valves at 500 ppm Based on on SOCMI average emission factors in Table 2-1 of the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates Based on Equipment Leak Protocol Table 5-4 and MON leak rate data for connectors at 500 ppm. NEIC Factor applied.

((0.047*0.360*1.71/100)+1.7E-5)*Equipment Count*8760

Where 1.71 is the NEIC factor, 0.360 is the leak frequency of connectors at 500 ppm from MON data, and 0.047 and

1.7E-5 are Table 5-4 values. 

# Basis

Basis

Based on EPA SOCMI data for Pumps at 10,000 ppm

Based on EPA SOCMI data for Gas Valves at 10,000 ppm

Based on EPA SOCMI data for LL Valves at 10,000 ppm



# Attachment 3

‐ Page 1 V alves Option 2

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Valves G/V 1.82E-04

Valves LL 2.05E-04



# Pumps Option 1

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 6.95E-04



# Pumps Option 2

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 5.31E-04

Connectors Option 1



# (kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Connectors – Flanges G/LL 1.62E-04 Based on EPA SOCMI data for Connectors at 500 ppm 

# Basis

Based on EPA SOCMI data for Gas Valves at 100 ppm

Based on EPA SOCMI data for LL Valves at 100 ppm



# Basis

Based on EPA SOCMI data for Pumps at 500 ppm 

# Basis

Based on EPA SOCMI data for Pumps at 1,000 ppm



# Basis



# Attachment 3

‐ Page 1

# Refinery Models

Uncontrolled Emission Rates

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 

# 1.05E

‐ 03

Valves G/V 

# 3.71E

‐ 04

Valves LL 

# 3.75E

‐ 04

Agitators LL 

# 1.05E

‐ 03

Connectors – Flanges G/V 

# 1.04E

‐ 04

Connectors – Flanges G/LL 

# 8.46E

‐ 05

Compressor Vent 

# 6.36E

‐ 01

Open-ended Valves 

# 2.30E

‐ 03

Sampling Connections 

# 1.50E

‐ 02

PRV – Disks 

# 1.60E

‐ 01

Baseline Emission Rates

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 

# 7.11E

‐ 04

Valves G/V 

# 2.24E

‐ 04

Valves LL 

# 2.23E

‐ 04

Connectors – Flanges G/V 

# 1.04E

‐ 04

Connectors – Flanges G/LL 

# 8.46E

‐ 05

Compressor Vent 

# 3.18E

‐ 02

Open-ended Valves 

# 7.34E

‐ 05

Valves Option 1

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Valves G/V 8.85E-05

Valves LL 8.88E-05



# Valves Option 2

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Valves G/V 2.10E-05

Valves LL 2.02E-05



# Pumps Option 1

(k /h / i f Basis

Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries Basis

Based on on Refinery average emission factors in Table 2-2 of the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries

Based on on Refinery average emission factors in Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates

Memorandum: Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries

Basis

Based on on Refinery average emission factors in Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates

Basis

Based on on Refinery average emission factors in Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates



# Attachment 3

‐ Page 2 (kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 

# 3.26E

‐ 04

Pumps Option 2

(kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Pump Seals LL 

# 3.22E

‐ 04

Connectors Option 1



# (kg/hr/piece of

e q ui p ment )

Connectors – Flanges G/V 3.95E-05

Connectors – Flanges G/LL 2.77E-05 Basis Based on on Refinery average emission factors in Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates

Based on on Refinery average emission factors in Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates

Basis

Based on on Refinery average emission factors in Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates Basis



# Attachment 3

‐ Page 2

# Table A1. Resulting Emission Rates and Program Efficiencies for CMA Data



# Leak Definition

(ppmv) No. Monitored No. Leaking I n iti a l

Leak

Rate (%)

Pumps 500 121 0 0

1000 683 13 1.9

2000 82 0 0

5000 374 39 10.43

10000 662 13 1.96

Valves 500 62299 312 0.5

5000 483 0 0

10000 21185 123 0.58

Sample calculation for Model 1 pumps in light liquid service is as follows: Reference: Revised MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide Impacts for Equipment Leaks at Chemical Manufacturing Fa cilities

MON memorandum



# Step 1: Calculate the LKFRAC % @ 10,000 ppm using 1,000 leak definition

ALR @ 1,000 ppm (kg/hr/source) = Equation 1

(0.11 × LKFRAC @1,000 ppm) + 4.6E-04 Table 5-4 Equipment Leak Protocol

LKFRAC @ 1,000 ppm = Equation 2

(NEIC Factor x 1.9 % Initial Leak Rate of Pumps LL @ 1,000ppm)/100

Substitute the leak frequency back into Equation 1.

ALR @ 1,000 ppm (kg/hr/source) =

0.11 × (NEIC Factor x 1.9 % Initial Leak Rate of Pumps LL @ 1,000ppm)/100 × 4.6E-04

ALR @ 10,000 ppm (kg/hr/source) = Equation 3

(0.24 × LKFRAC @ 10,000 ppm) + 1.9E-03 Table 5-4 Equipment Leak Protocol

Rearrange Equation 3 and substitute ALR@ 10,000 ppm with ALR at 1,000 ppm

LKFRAC % @ 10,000 ppm =

[(ALR @ 1 000 ppm (kg/hr/source)

- 1 9E

- 03 )/0 24] × 100

Attachment 3

‐ Page 3 

# LKFRAC % @ 10,000 ppm =

[(ALR @ 1,000 ppm (kg/hr/source) - 1.9E-03)/0.24] × 100

Substitute Equation 3 into Equation 4

LKFRAC % @ 10,000 ppm = Equation 4

[(0.11 × (((NEIC Factor x 1.9 % Initial Leak Rate of Pumps LL @ 1,000ppm)/100 × 4.6E-04) - 1.9E-03)/0.24] × 100

Step 2: Calculate the LKFRAC % @ 10,000 ppm using 5,000 leak definition

Attachment 3

‐ Page 3Attachment 4UncontrolledType of EquipmentPump Sealskg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr* Light-liquid service 15 1,616 3,562 40 4,309 9,500 56 6,033 13,300 8 74 162 69 635 1,401 176 1,621 3,573* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 5 -- -- 36 -- -- 8 -- -- 61 -- -- 246 -- --Valves* Gas/vapor service 77 352 776 414 1,891 4,170 1,379 6,300 13,890 75 244 538 1,178 3,833 8,450 3,263 10,617 23,406* Light-liquid service 380 1,950 4,300 1,179 6,052 13,342 1,980 10,163 22,406 251 824 1,816 2,428 7,970 17,570 5,857 19,225 42,385* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 71 -- -- 1,272 -- -- 216 -- -- 1,719 -- -- 3,163 -- --Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 150 3302,333 2,129 4,693 7,641 6,972 15,371* Flanges - G/LL 731 1,966 4,334 2,662 7,159 15,782 7,410 19,927 43,932 555 411 906 4,644 3,440 7,584 13,379 9,911 21,849* Flanges - HL0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 04,186 0 7,725 0Agitators* Light-liquid service0 0 0 3 323 712 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 3 -- -- 0 -- --000000000Compressor Vent00023,995 8,806 8 15,978 35,226 2 11,143 24,565 19 105,856 233,372 31 172,712 380,765Open-ended Valves33 491 1,083 141 2,100 4,629 424 6,314 13,920 39 786 1,732 238 4,795 10,572 902 18,173 40,066Sampling Connections8 1,051 2,317 35 4,599 10,139 106 13,928 30,707 10 1,314 2,897 70 9,198 20,278 159 20,893 46,060Pressure Relief Devices* Disks2 1,822 4,017 45 40,997 90,382 76 69,239 152,646 9 12,614 27,810 79 110,726 244,110 119 166,790 367,710* Disk holders, valves,etc.2 -- -- 45 -- -- 76 -- -- 90 790 1190TOTAL (lb/yr)20,390157,464326,02760,758548,030941,185TOTAL (tpy)10.1949978.73175163.013330.37886274.0151470.5923CountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6Attachment 4 - Page 1BaselineType of EquipmentPump Sealskg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr* Light-liquid service 15 330 728 40 880 1,940 56 1,232 2,717 8 50 110 69 430 948 176 1,097 2,418* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 5 -- -- 36 -- -- 8 -- -- 61 -- -- 246 -- --Valves* Gas/vapor service 77 237 523 414 1,277 2,814 1,379 4,252 9,374 75 147 324 1,178 2,310 5,092 3,263 6,398 14,106* Light-liquid service 380 1,299 2,863 1,179 4,030 8,884 1,980 6,767 14,920 251 491 1,082 2,428 4,750 10,471 5,857 11,457 25,259* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 71 -- -- 1,272 -- -- 216 -- -- 1,719 -- -- 3,163 -- --Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 150 3302,333 2,129 4,693 7,641 6,972 15,371* Flanges - G/LL 731 1,966 4,334 2,662 7,159 15,782 7,410 19,927 43,932 555 411 906 4,644 3,440 7,584 13,379 9,911 21,849* Flanges - HL0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 04,186 0 7,725 0Agitators* Light-liquid service0 0 0 3 66 146 0 0 0 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --Compressor Vent0 0 0 2 399 881 81,598 3,523 2 557 1,228 19 5,293 11,669 31 8,636 19,038Open-ended Valves33 10 21 141 41 91 424 124 273 39 25 55 238 153 337 902 580 1,278Sampling Connections8 0 0 35 0 0 106 0 0 10 0 0 70 0 0 159 0 0Pressure Relief Devices* Disks 2 0 0 45 0 0 760 0 9 0 0 79 0 0 119 0 0* Disk holders, valves,etc. 2 -- -- 45 -- -- 76 -- -- 9 0 79 0 119 0TOTAL (lb/yr) 8,470 30,538 74,737 4,036 40,795 99,319TOTAL (tpy) 4.234773 15.26886 37.36873 2.018204 20.39728 49.65975TOTAL REDUCTION (lb/yr) 11,920 126,926 251,289 56,721 507,236 841,865TOTAL REDUCTION (tpy) 5.960215 63.46289 125.6445 28.36066 253.6178 420.9325CountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6Attachment 4 - Page 2Valves Option 1Type of Equipmentkg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yrValves* Gas/vapor service 77 136.67 301 414 734.83 1,620 1,379 2,447.67 5,396 75 58 128 1,178 913 2,013 3,263 2,529 5,576* Light-liquid service 380 770.69 1,699 1,179 2,391.17 5,272 1,980 4,015.70 8,853 251 195 431 2,428 1,889 4,165 5,857 4,558 10,048* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 71 -- -- 1,272 -- -- 216 -- -- 1,719 -- -- 3,163 -- --Other emissions (Opt 2) 2,306 5,083 8,545 18,839 22,881 50,444 1,193 2,630 11,445 25,231 27,195 59,955TOTAL (lb/yr) 7,083 25,731 64,693 3,188 31,409 75,579TOTAL (tpy) 3.541575 12.86557 32.34645 1.594243 15.70471 37.78925TOTAL REDUCTION (lb/yr) 1,386 4,807 10,045 848 9,385 23,741TOTAL REDUCTION (tpy) 0.6932 2.4033 5.0223 0.4240 4.6926 11.8705Pumps Option 1Type of EquipmentPump Sealskg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr* Light-liquid service 15 91.27 201 40 243.40 537 56 340.76 751 8 23 50 69 197 434 176 502 1,108* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 5 -- -- 36 -- -- 8 -- -- 61 -- -- 246 -- --Other emissions (Opt 2) 1,975 4,355 7,665 16,899 21,649 47,727 1,143 2,520 11,015 24,283 26,098 57,537Other emissions (Opt 3) 907 2,000 3,126 6,892 6,463 14,249 253 559 2,802 6,178 7,087 15,624TOTAL (lb/yr) 6,557 24,327 62,728 3,129 30,896 74,269TOTAL (tpy) 3.278368 12.16368 31.36381 1.564474 15.44796 37.13435TOTAL REDUCTION (lb/yr) 526 1,404 1,965 60 513 1,310TOTAL REDUCTION (tpy) 0.263207 0.701884 0.982638 0.029768 0.25675 0.654898Connectors Option 1Type of Equipmentkg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yrConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 164 56.8 125 2,333 808.1 1,782 7,641 2,646.7 5,835* Flanges - G/LL 731 1,037.3 2,287 2,662 3,777.6 8,328 7,410 10,515.4 23,182 555 135 297 4,644 1,128 2,487 13,379 3,249 7,164* Flanges - HL 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 454 -- -- 4,186 -- -- 7,725 -- --Other emissions (Opt 2) 10 21 507 1,117 1,721 3,795 582 1,284 5,446 12,006 9,215 20,317Other emissions (Opt 3, 4) 999 2,202 3,369 7,428 6,804 15,001 276 609 2,999 6,613 7,589 16,732TOTAL (lb/yr) 4,510 16,873 41,978 2,315 22,887 50,047TOTAL (tpy) 2.25489 8.436596 20.98901 1.157537 11.44337 25.02346TOTAL REDUCTION (lb/yr) 2,047 7,454 20,750 814 8,009 24,222TOTAL REDUCTION (tpy) 1.023479 3.727086 10.3748 0.406938 4.004589 12.11089CountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6CountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6CountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsCountEmissionsModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6Attachment 4 - Page 3Valves Option 2Type of Equipmentkg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yrValves* Gas/vapor service 77 122.61 270 414 659.22 1,453 1,379 2,195.81 4,841 75 13.81 30 1,178 216.98 478 3,263 601.01 1,325* Light-liquid service 380 682.76 1,505 1,179 2,118.35 4,670 1,980 3,557.53 7,843 251 44.31 98 2,428 428.63 945 5,857 1,033.98 2,280* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 71 -- -- 1,272 -- -- 216 -- -- 1,719 -- -- 3,163 -- --Other emissions (Opt 2) 0 0 465 1,026 1,598 3,523 557 1,228 5,293 11,669 8,636 19,038Other emissions (Opt 4, 5, 6) 1,129 2,488 4,021 8,865 10,856 23,934 214 473 2,133 4,702 6,399 14,106TOTAL (lb/yr) 4,264 16,014 40,140 1,829 17,794 36,749TOTAL (tpy) 2.131855 8.007205 20.07009 0.914589 8.897193 18.3746TOTAL REDUCTION (lb/yr) 246 859 1,838 486 5,092 13,298TOTAL REDUCTION (tpy) 0.123035 0.429391 0.918926 0.242948 2.546176 6.648868865.17Pumps Option 2Type of EquipmentPump Sealskg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr kg/yr lb/yr* Light-liquid service 15 69.82 154 40 186.20 410 56 260.67 575 8 22.56 50 69 194.60 429 176 496.37 1,094* Heavy-liquid service 0 -- -- 5 -- -- 36 -- -- 8 -- -- 61 -- -- 246 -- --Other emissions (Opt 2) 0 0 465 1,026 1,598 3,523 557 1,228 5,293 11,669 8,636 19,038Other emissions (Opt 5, 6) 1,037 2,287 3,778 8,328 10,515 23,182 192 422 1,936 4,268 5,896 12,999Other emissions (Opt 8) 805 1,776 2,778 6,123 5,753 12,684 58 128 646 1,423 1,635 3,605TOTAL (lb/yr) 4,216 15,888 39,964 1,829 17,789 36,736TOTAL (tpy) 2.108209 7.944149 19.98181 0.914283 8.894554 18.36787TOTAL REDUCTION (lb/yr) 47 126 177 0.61 5.28 13.47TOTAL REDUCTION (tpy) 0.023646 0.063056 0.088278 0.000306 0.002639 0.006733CountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6CountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionCountEmissions ReductionModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6Attachment 4 - Page 4Attachment 5: Cost Effectiveness and Cost CalculationsUncontrolledEmissions (tpy) Capital Costs ($)AnnualizedCosts WithoutRecoveryCredits ($/yr)VOC RecoveryCredit ($/yr)Total AnnualizedCost ($/yr)EmissionsReduction (tpy)Model 110.19 90,763 41,009(2,980) 38,0295.96Model 278.73 455,982 129,599 (31,731) 97,86763.46Model 3163.01 859,162 226,203 (62,822) 163,381125.64Model 430.38 156,783 57,067 (14,180) 42,88728.36Model 5274.02 956,067 263,308 (126,809) 136,499253.62Model 6470.59 1,658,781 461,483 (210,466) 251,017420.93VALVESCapital Costs($)AnnualizedCosts WithoutRecoveryCredits ($/yr)VOC RecoveryCredit ($/yr)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)IncrementalEmissionsReduction (tpy)Overall CostEffectiveness($/ton)IncrementalCapital Costs ($)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)VOC RecoveryCredit ($/yr)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)IncrementalEmissionsReduction (tpy)Overall CostEffectiveness($/ton)Model 11,707362(347)150.69223,768963(62)9010.127,323Model 26,2161,299(1,202)972.4040 13,7163,438(215)3,2230.437,506Model 314,0302,869(2,511)3585.0271 30,9447,536(459)7,0760.927,701Model 41,211480(212)2680.426335,2992,937(121)2,8150.24 11,588Model 513,3565,379(2,346)3,0334.69646 58,507 29,266(1,273) 27,9932.55 10,994Model 633,743 13,660(5,935)7,72511.87651 147,886 82,886(3,324) 79,5626.65 11,966PUMPSCapital Costs($)AnnualizedCosts WithoutRecoveryCredits ($/yr)VOC RecoveryCredit ($/yr)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)IncrementalEmissionsReduction (tpy)Overall CostEffectiveness($/ton)IncrementalCapital Costs ($)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)VOC RecoveryCredit ($/yr)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)IncrementalEmissionsReduction (tpy)Overall CostEffectiveness($/ton)Model 12,231443(132)3120.261,184998366(12)3540.02 14,977Model 25,9481,182(351)8310.701,1842,661976(32)9440.06 14,977Model 38,3281,654(491)1,1630.981,1843,7251,366(44)1,3220.09 14,977Model 4262204(15)1890.036,339135437(0)4370.00 1,429,098Model 52,2591,756(128)1,6280.266,3391,1683,773(1)3,7720.00 1,429,098Model 65,7634,479(327)4,1520.656,3392,9809,625(3)9,6220.01 1,429,098OEL Monitoring (Incremental to Baseline)CONNECTORSCapital Costs($)AnnualizedCosts WithoutRecoveryCredits ($/yr)VOC RecoveryCredit ($/yr)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)IncrementalEmissionsReduction (tpy)Overall CostEffectiveness($/ton)IncrementalCapital Cost ($)IncrementalAnnualized Cost($/yr)Model 119,3687,872(512)7,3601.027,192Model 1808176Model 265,633 15,725(1,864) 13,8613.733,719Model 23,453750Model 3179,391 35,034(5,187) 29,84610.372,877Model 310,3832,256Model 419,4947,918(203)7,7140.41 18,957Model 4997234Model 5173,029 34,190(2,002) 32,1884.008,038Model 56,0821,429Model 6517,562 93,145(6,055) 87,08912.117,191Model 623,0495,415BaselineValves Option 1 (Incremental to Baseline)Valves Option 2 (Incremental to Option 1)Pumps Option 1 (Incremental to Baseline)Pumps Option 2 (Incremental to Option 1)Connectors Option 1 (Incremental to Baseline)Attachment 5 - Page 1Baseline Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitialMonitoringFee or UnitCost ($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksPercentRepairedOnLineModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service15 23.80 742.42121.50 580.13 116.32 2.42 0.36 0.23 0.41 100* Heavy-liquid service01.10 0.00Valves* Gas/vapor service77 23.80 1852.5121.50 231.000.33 0.26 0.33 0.51 75* Light-liquid service380 23.80 9142.2521.50 1140.000.33 1.27 0.33 2.54 75* Heavy-liquid service01.10 0.00Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor01.10 0.00* Flanges - light liquid731 1.10 807.02* Flanges -heavy liquid01.10 0.00Agitators* Light-liquid service0 23.80 0.00121.50 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.23 0.00 100.00* Heavy-liquid service01.10 0.00Pressure Relief Devices* Disks2 122.11 244.2102.00 0.00 4.88* Disk holders, valves,etc.2 6,374.29 12748.585.00637.43OEL33 140.92 4650.435.00232.52Sampling Connections8 687.86 5502.865.00275.14Compressor Vent0 10526.21 0.005.000.00Replacement Pump Seals15 282.71 102.65Monitoring Instrument1 10,800 10,800Data Collection System1 14,500 14,500hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports250 92.72Planning and Training320 92.7229670.40TOTALS61092.92 29670.401951.13 1266.30Capital Costs ($) 90,763Annualized Capital ($/yr)12,924Annual Expenses ($/yr) 28,085Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 37,123 41,009Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 3,886BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 2Baseline Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAgitators* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid servicePressure Relief Devices* Disks* Disk holders, valves,etc.OELSampling ConnectionsCompressor VentReplacement Pump SealsMonitoring InstrumentData Collection SystemAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)16.00 66.24 436.08 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.6293.060.17 66.24 4.2725 4.00 66.24 34.08 0.770.17 66.24 21.06 25 4.00 66.24 168.17 3.8116.00 66.24 0.000 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.000.009.77509.94186.02220.110.0023180.00461.41202.25 5.20 23180.00 1018.90BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 3Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitialMonitoringFee or UnitCost ($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksPercentRepairedOnLineModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service40 23.80 1979.78121.50 1547.01 310.20 2.42 0.97 0.23 1.10 100* Heavy-liquid service51.10 5.52Valves* Gas/vapor service414 23.80 9960.2421.50 1242.000.33 1.38 0.33 2.77 75* Light-liquid service1,179 23.80 28365.0321.50 3537.000.33 3.94 0.33 7.88 75* Heavy-liquid service71 1.10 78.38Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor01.10 0.00* Flanges - light liquid2,662 1.10 2938.85* Flanges -heavy liquid01.10 0.00Agitators* Light-liquid service3 23.80 71.41121.50 140.11 0.00 2.42 0.07 0.23 0.08 100.00* Heavy-liquid service31.10 3.31Pressure Relief Devices* Disks45 122.11 5494.7802.00 0.00 109.90* Disk holders, valves,etc.45 6,374.29 286842.955.0014342.15OEL141 140.92 19870.035.00993.50Sampling Connections35 687.86 24075.015.001203.75Compressor Vent2 10526.21 21052.425.001052.62Replacement Pump Seals40 282.71 273.72Monitoring Instrument1 10,800 10,800Data Collection System1 14,500 14,500hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports250 92.72Planning and Training320 92.7229670.40TOTALS426311.44 29670.406466.12 18012.11Capital Costs ($) 455,982Annualized Capital ($/yr)65,338Annual Expenses ($/yr) 64,261Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 103,059 129,599Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 26,539BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 4Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAgitators* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid servicePressure Relief Devices* Disks* Disk holders, valves,etc.OELSampling ConnectionsCompressor VentReplacement Pump SealsMonitoring InstrumentData Collection SystemAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)16.00 66.24 1162.87 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 1.65248.160.17 66.24 22.95 25 4.00 66.24 183.22 4.150.17 66.24 65.35 25 4.00 66.24 521.78 11.8216.00 66.24 87.22 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.120.00219.7911473.72794.80963.00842.1023180.001338.39705.00 17.73 23180.00 14541.57BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 5Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitialMonitoringFee or UnitCost ($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksPercentRepairedOnLineModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service56 23.80 2771.69121.50 2165.81 434.27 2.42 1.36 0.23 1.54 100* Heavy-liquid service36 1.10 39.74Valves* Gas/vapor service1,379 23.80 33176.7421.50 4137.000.33 4.61 0.33 9.21 75* Light-liquid service1,980 23.80 47635.9221.50 5940.000.33 6.61 0.33 13.23 75* Heavy-liquid service1,272 1.10 1404.29Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor01.10 0.00* Flanges - light liquid7,410 1.10 8180.64* Flanges -heavy liquid01.10 0.00Agitators* Light-liquid service0 23.80 0.00121.50 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.23 0.00 100.00* Heavy-liquid service01.10 0.00Pressure Relief Devices* Disks76 122.11 9280.0702.00 0.00 185.60* Disk holders, valves,etc.76 6,374.29 484445.885.0024222.29OEL424 140.92 59751.025.002987.55Sampling Connections106 687.86 72912.885.003645.64Compressor Vent8 10526.21 84209.705.004210.48Replacement Pump Seals56 282.71 383.21Monitoring Instrument1 10,800 10,800Data Collection System1 14,500 14,500hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports250 92.72Planning and Training320 92.7229670.40TOTALS829491.78 29670.4012242.81 35685.85Capital Costs ($) 859,162Annualized Capital ($/yr)122,987Annual Expenses ($/yr) 103,217Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 174,938 226,203Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 51,265BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 6Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAgitators* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid servicePressure Relief Devices* Disks* Disk holders, valves,etc.OELSampling ConnectionsCompressor VentReplacement Pump SealsMonitoring InstrumentData Collection SystemAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)16.00 66.24 1628.02 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 2.30347.420.17 66.24 76.44 25 4.00 66.24 610.29 13.820.17 66.24 109.75 25 4.00 66.24 876.27 19.8416.00 66.24 0.000 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.000.00371.2019377.842390.042916.523368.3923180.001814.211486.57 35.97 23180.00 28771.40BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 7Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitialMonitoringFee or UnitCost ($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksPercentRepairedOnLineModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service8 23.80 264.94121.50 309.40 238.15 0.88 0.07 0.88 0.84 100* Heavy-liquid service81.10 8.83Valves* Gas/vapor service75 23.80 1852.8921.50 225.001.18 0.89 1.18 1.78 75* Light-liquid service251 23.80 6238.3621.50 753.001.38 3.46 1.38 6.93 75* Heavy-liquid service216 1.10 238.46Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor164 1.10 181.06* Flanges - light liquid555 1.10 612.72* Flanges -heavy liquid454 1.10 501.22Agitators* Light-liquid service0 23.80 0.00121.50 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.00 100.00* Heavy-liquid service01.10 0.00Pressure Relief Devices* Disks9 122.11 1098.9602.00 0.00 21.98* Disk holders, valves,etc.9 6,374.29 57368.595.002868.43OEL39 140.92 5495.975.00274.80Sampling Connections10 687.86 6878.575.00343.93Compressor Vent2 10526.21 21052.425.001052.62Replacement Pump Seals8 282.71 19.85Monitoring Instrument1 10,800 10,800Data Collection System1 14,500 14,500hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports250 92.720.00Planning and Training320 92.7229670.40TOTALS127112.84 29670.401287.40 4799.91Capital Costs ($) 156,783Annualized Capital ($/yr)22,377Annual Expenses ($/yr) 34,690Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 49,424 57,067Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 7,643BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 8Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAgitators* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid servicePressure Relief Devices* Disks* Disk holders, valves,etc.OELSampling ConnectionsCompressor VentReplacement Pump SealsMonitoring InstrumentData Collection SystemAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)16.00 66.24 892.78 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 1.26190.520.17 66.24 14.74 25 4.00 66.24 117.69 2.670.17 66.24 57.49 25 4.00 66.24 458.97 10.3916.00 66.24 0.000 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.000.0043.962294.74219.84275.14842.1023180.00965.01576.66 14.32 23180.00 3866.30BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 9Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitialMonitoringFee or UnitCost ($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksPercentRepairedOnLineModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service69 23.80 2285.11121.50 2668.59 2054.04 0.88 0.61 0.88 7.27 100* Heavy-liquid service61 1.10 67.34Valves* Gas/vapor service1,178 23.80 29102.6721.50 3534.001.18 13.95 1.18 27.91 75* Light-liquid service2,428 23.80 60345.6121.50 7284.001.38 33.51 1.38 67.03 75* Heavy-liquid service1,719 1.10 1897.78Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor2,333 1.10 2575.63* Flanges - light liquid4,644 1.10 5126.98* Flanges -heavy liquid4,186 1.10 4621.34Agitators* Light-liquid service0 23.80 0.00121.50 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.00 100.00* Heavy-liquid service01.10 0.00Pressure Relief Devices* Disks79 122.11 9646.3902.00 0.00 192.93* Disk holders, valves,etc.79 6,374.29 503568.745.0025178.44OEL238 140.92 33539.495.001676.97Sampling Connections70 687.86 48150.025.002407.50Compressor Vent19 10526.21 199998.035.009999.90Replacement Pump Seals69 282.71 171.17Monitoring Instrument1 10,800 10,800Data Collection System1 14,500 14,500hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports250 92.720.00Planning and Training320 92.7229670.40TOTALS926396.30 29670.4013486.59 41509.78Capital Costs ($) 956,067Annualized Capital ($/yr)136,763Annual Expenses ($/yr) 126,545Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 193,382 263,308Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 69,926BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 10Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAgitators* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid servicePressure Relief Devices* Disks* Disk holders, valves,etc.OELSampling ConnectionsCompressor VentReplacement Pump SealsMonitoring InstrumentData Collection SystemAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)16.00 66.24 7700.24 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 10.901643.230.17 66.24 231.52 25 4.00 66.24 1848.46 41.860.17 66.24 556.08 25 4.00 66.24 4439.77 100.5416.00 66.24 0.000 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.000.00385.8620142.751341.581926.007999.9223180.008487.846288.23 153.29 23180.00 33439.34BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 11Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitialMonitoringFee or UnitCost ($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksPercentRepairedOnLineModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service176 23.80 5828.68121.50 6806.84 5239.29 0.88 1.54 0.88 18.53 100* Heavy-liquid service246 1.10 271.58Valves* Gas/vapor service3,263 23.80 80612.9121.50 9789.001.18 38.65 1.18 77.30 75* Light-liquid service5,857 23.80 145570.1321.50 17571.001.38 80.84 1.38 161.68 75* Heavy-liquid service3,163 1.10 3491.95Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor7,641 1.10 8435.66* Flanges - light liquid13,379 1.10 14770.42* Flanges -heavy liquid7,725 1.10 8528.40Agitators* Light-liquid service0 23.80 0.00121.50 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.00 100.00* Heavy-liquid service01.10 0.00Pressure Relief Devices* Disks119 122.11 14530.6402.00 0.00 290.61* Disk holders, valves,etc. 119 6,374.29 758540.265.0037927.01OEL902 140.92 127111.845.006355.59Sampling Connections159 687.86 109369.325.005468.47Compressor Vent31 10526.21 326312.585.0016315.63Replacement Pump Seals176 282.71 436.61Monitoring Instrument1 10,800 10,800Data Collection System1 14,500 14,500hr/activity $/hrAdministrative and Reports250 92.720.00Planning and Training320 92.7229670.40TOTALS1629110.97 29670.4034166.84 71596.60Capital Costs ($) 1,658,781Annualized Capital ($/yr)237,074Annual Expenses ($/yr) 224,410Annual Fixed Costs ($/yr) 317,880 461,483Annual Variable Costs ($/yr) 143,604BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 12Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceValves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceConnectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAgitators* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid servicePressure Relief Devices* Disks* Disk holders, valves,etc.OELSampling ConnectionsCompressor VentReplacement Pump SealsMonitoring InstrumentData Collection SystemAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)16.00 66.24 19641.19 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 27.804191.430.17 66.24 641.30 25 4.00 66.24 5120.15 115.950.17 66.24 1341.42 25 4.00 66.24 10709.93 242.5316.00 66.24 0.000 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.000.00581.2330341.615084.474374.7713052.5023180.0021623.9115830.08 386.27 23180.00 57626.02BaselineAttachment 5 - Page 13Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service150.00 2146.74121.50 580.13 130.46 13.48 2.02 0.26 0.46* Heavy-liquid service00.000.00Replacement Pump Seals15282.71 571.84hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS2718.58 0.00580.13 130.46Capital Costs ($) 2,719Annualized Capital ($/yr)444Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,305Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service150.00385.35121.50 580.13 116.32 2.42 0.36 0.23 0.41* Heavy-liquid service00.000.00Replacement Pump Seals15282.71 102.65hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS488.00 0.00580.13 116.32Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 488488.00Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)8079.77Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,226580.75 552.40INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 2,230.58Annualized Capital ($/yr) 364.60Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 78.53Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 14Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 489.08 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.69104.370.00489.080.00 0.69 0.00 104.37PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 436.08 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.6293.060.00436.080.00 0.62 0.00 93.06Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 15Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service400.00 5724.65121.50 1547.01 347.90 13.48 5.39 0.26 1.23* Heavy-liquid service50.000.00Replacement Pump Seals40282.71 1524.89hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS7249.55 0.001547.01 347.90Capital Costs ($) 7,250Annualized Capital ($/yr)1,185Annual Expenses ($/yr) 3,479Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service400.00 1027.60121.50 1547.01 310.20 2.42 0.97 0.23 1.10* Heavy-liquid service50.000.00Replacement Pump Seals40282.71 273.72hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS1301.32 0.001547.01 310.20Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 1,3011,301.32Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)213212.71Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 3,2701,548.65 1,473.07INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 5,948.23Annualized Capital ($/yr) 972.27Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 209.41Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 16Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 1304.22 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 1.85278.320.001304.220.00 1.85 0.00 278.32PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 1162.87 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 1.65248.160.001162.870.00 1.65 0.00 248.16Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 17Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service560.00 8014.51121.50 2165.81 487.06 13.48 7.55 0.26 1.72* Heavy-liquid service360.000.00Replacement Pump Seals56282.71 2134.85hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS10149.37 0.002165.81 487.06Capital Costs ($) 10,149Annualized Capital ($/yr)1,659Annual Expenses ($/yr) 4,871Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service560.00 1438.64121.50 2165.81 434.27 2.42 1.36 0.23 1.54* Heavy-liquid service360.000.00Replacement Pump Seals56282.71 383.21hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS1821.85 0.002165.81 434.27Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 1,8221,821.85Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)298297.79Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 4,5782,168.12 2,062.30INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 8,327.52Annualized Capital ($/yr) 1,361.17Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 293.18Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 18Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 1825.91 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 2.58389.650.001825.910.00 2.58 0.00 389.65PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 1628.02 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 2.30347.420.001628.020.00 2.30 0.00 347.42Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 19Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service80.00281.35121.50 309.40 267.10 3.31 0.27 0.98 0.94* Heavy-liquid service80.000.00Replacement Pump Seals8282.71 74.94hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training0 92.72 0.00TOTALS356.29 0.00 309.40 267.10Capital Costs ($) 356Annualized Capital ($/yr)58Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,793Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service 8 0.00 74.50 12 1.50 309.40 238.15 0.88 0.07 0.88 0.84* Heavy-liquid service 8 0.00 0.00Replacement Pump Seals8282.71 19.85hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports0 92.72Planning and Training0 92.72 0.00TOTALS94.35 0.00309.40 238.15Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 9494.35Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)1515.42Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,632310.67 1,130.93INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 261.95Annualized Capital ($/yr) 42.82Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 160.77Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 20Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 1001.30 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 1.42213.680.001001.300.00 1.42 0.00 213.68PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 892.78 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 1.26190.520.00892.780.00 1.26 0.00 190.52Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 21Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service690.00 2426.65121.50 2668.59 2303.71 3.31 2.29 0.98 8.15* Heavy-liquid service610.000.00Replacement Pump Seals69282.71 646.39hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS3073.04 0.002668.59 2303.71Capital Costs ($) 3,073Annualized Capital ($/yr)502Annual Expenses ($/yr) 15,464Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service690.00642.59121.50 2668.59 2054.04 0.88 0.61 0.88 7.27* Heavy-liquid service610.000.00Replacement Pump Seals69282.71 171.17hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS813.76 0.002668.59 2054.04Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 814813.76Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)133133.01Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 14,0772,679.49 9,754.28INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 2,259.28Annualized Capital ($/yr) 369.29Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,386.68Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 22Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 8636.20 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 12.221842.970.008636.200.00 12.22 0.00 1842.97PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 7700.24 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 10.901643.230.007700.240.00 10.90 0.00 1643.23Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 23Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service1760.00 6189.71121.50 6806.84 5876.12 3.31 5.83 0.98 20.78* Heavy-liquid service2460.000.00Replacement Pump Seals176282.71 1648.77hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS7838.49 0.006806.84 5876.12Capital Costs ($) 7,838Annualized Capital ($/yr)1,281Annual Expenses ($/yr) 39,444Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service1760.00 1639.08121.50 6806.84 5239.29 0.88 1.54 0.88 18.53* Heavy-liquid service2460.000.00Replacement Pump Seals176282.71 436.61hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS2075.69 0.006806.84 5239.29Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 2,0762,075.69Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)339339.28Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 35,9076,834.63 24,880.48INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 5,762.80Annualized Capital ($/yr) 941.96Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 3,537.05Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 24Pump Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 22028.56 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 31.184700.900.0022028.560.00 31.18 0.00 4700.90PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 19641.19 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 27.804191.430.0019641.190.00 27.80 0.00 4191.43Pumps Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 25Pump Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service150.00 2934.59121.50 580.13 166.99 18.43 2.76 0.33 0.59* Heavy-liquid service00.000.00Replacement Pump Seals15282.71 781.70hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS3716.29 0.00580.13 166.99Capital Costs ($) 3,716Annualized Capital ($/yr)607Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,508INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 998Annualized Capital ($/yr) 163Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 203Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 26Pump Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 1Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 626.02 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 0.89133.590.00626.020.00 0.89 0.00 133.59Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 27Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service400.00 7825.59121.50 1547.01 445.31 18.43 7.37 0.33 1.58* Heavy-liquid service50.000.00Replacement Pump Seals40282.71 2084.53hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS9910.11 0.001547.01 445.31Capital Costs ($) 9,910Annualized Capital ($/yr)1,620Annual Expenses ($/yr) 4,020INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 2,661Annualized Capital ($/yr) 435Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 541Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 28Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 2Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 1669.38 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 2.36356.250.001669.380.00 2.36 0.00 356.25Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 29Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service560.00 10955.82121.50 2165.81 623.43 18.43 10.32 0.33 2.21* Heavy-liquid service360.000.00Replacement Pump Seals56282.71 2918.34hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS13874.16 0.002165.81 623.43Capital Costs ($) 13,874Annualized Capital ($/yr)2,268Annual Expenses ($/yr) 5,628INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 3,725Annualized Capital ($/yr) 609Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 757Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 30Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 3Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 2337.13 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 3.31498.740.002337.130.00 3.31 0.00 498.74Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 31Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service80.00388.31121.50 309.40 341.88 4.57 0.37 1.26 1.21* Heavy-liquid service80.000.00Replacement Pump Seals8282.71 103.43hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS491.74 0.00309.40 341.88Capital Costs ($) 492Annualized Capital ($/yr)80Annual Expenses ($/yr) 2,208INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 135Annualized Capital ($/yr) 22Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 415Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 32Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 4Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 1281.65 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 1.81273.500.001281.650.00 1.81 0.00 273.50Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 33Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service690.00 3349.14121.50 2668.59 2948.71 4.57 3.16 1.26 10.43* Heavy-liquid service610.000.00Replacement Pump Seals69282.71 892.12hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS4241.26 0.002668.59 2948.71Capital Costs ($) 4,241Annualized Capital ($/yr)693Annual Expenses ($/yr) 19,046INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 1,168Annualized Capital ($/yr) 191Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 3,582Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 34Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 5Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 11054.21 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 15.652358.970.0011054.210.00 15.65 0.00 2358.97Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 35Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service1760.00 8542.73121.50 6806.84 7521.35 4.57 8.05 1.26 26.60* Heavy-liquid service2460.000.00Replacement Pump Seals176282.71 2275.55hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS10818.28 0.00 6806.84 7521.35Capital Costs ($) 10,818Annualized Capital ($/yr)1,768Annual Expenses ($/yr) 48,581INCREMENTAL COSTS OF PUMP OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 2,980Annualized Capital ($/yr) 487Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 9,138Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 36Pumps Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 6Pump Seals* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceReplacement Pump SealsAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)100 16.00 66.24 28196.24 0 80.00 66.24 0.00 39.916017.080.0028196.240.00 39.91 0.00 6017.08Pumps Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 37Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1Valves* Gas/vapor service770.00423.9321.50 231.007.24 5.58 0.51 0.78* Light-liquid service3800.00 1399.2221.50 1140.004.84 18.40 0.51 3.84* Heavy-liquid service00.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS1823.15 0.001371.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 1,823.15Annualized Capital ($/yr)259Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,723Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1Valves* Gas/vapor service770.0019.5621.50 231.000.33 0.26 0.33 0.51* Light-liquid service3800.0096.5221.50 1140.000.33 1.27 0.33 2.54* Heavy-liquid service00.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS116.080.001371.00 0.00Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 116.08116.08Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)1616.48Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,6031,375.58 227.58INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 1,707.07Annualized Capital ($/yr) 242.40Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 119.35Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 38Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 6.4625 4.00 66.24 51.60 1.1775 0.17 66.24 31.89 25 4.00 66.24 254.63 5.770.0038.35306.22 6.93 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 4.2725 4.00 66.24 34.08 0.7775 0.17 66.24 21.06 25 4.00 66.24 168.17 3.810.0025.33202.25 4.58 0.00 0.00Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 39Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2Valves* Gas/vapor service4140.00 2279.3121.50 1242.007.24 29.98 0.51 4.19* Light-liquid service1,1790.00 4341.2621.50 3537.004.84 57.09 0.51 11.93* Heavy-liquid service710.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS6620.56 0.004779.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 6,620.56Annualized Capital ($/yr)940Annual Expenses ($/yr) 6,004Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2Valves* Gas/vapor service4140.00105.1621.50 1242.000.33 1.38 0.33 2.77* Light-liquid service1,1790.00299.4821.50 3537.000.33 3.94 0.33 7.88* Heavy-liquid service710.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS404.630.004779.00 0.00Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 404.63404.63Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)5757.46Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 5,5884,794.96 793.30INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 6,215.93Annualized Capital ($/yr) 882.66Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 416.02Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 40Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 2Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 2Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 34.75 25 4.00 66.24 277.41 6.2875 0.17 66.24 98.95 25 4.00 66.24 790.01 17.890.00133.69 1067.42 24.17 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 22.95 25 4.00 66.24 183.22 4.1575 0.17 66.24 65.35 25 4.00 66.24 521.78 11.820.0088.30705.00 15.96 0.00 0.00Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 41Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3Valves* Gas/vapor service1,3790.00 7592.1821.50 4137.007.24 99.85 0.51 13.95* Light-liquid service1,9800.00 7290.6621.50 5940.004.84 95.88 0.51 20.03* Heavy-liquid service1,2720.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS14882.84 0.0010077.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 14,882.84Annualized Capital ($/yr)2,113Annual Expenses ($/yr) 12,661Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3Valves* Gas/vapor service1,3790.00350.2821.50 4137.000.33 4.61 0.33 9.21* Light-liquid service1,9800.00502.9421.50 5940.000.33 6.61 0.33 13.23* Heavy-liquid service1,2720.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS853.210.0010077.00 0.00Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 853.21 853.21Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)121121.16Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 11,783 10,110.66 1,672.76INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 14,029.63Annualized Capital ($/yr) 1,992.21Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 877.22Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 42Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 3Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 3Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 115.73 25 4.00 66.24 924.03 20.9275 0.17 66.24 166.17 25 4.00 66.24 1326.74 30.040.00281.91 2250.77 50.97 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 76.44 25 4.00 66.24 610.29 13.8275 0.17 66.24 109.75 25 4.00 66.24 876.27 19.840.00186.191486.57 33.66 0.00 0.00Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 43Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4Valves* Gas/vapor service750.00339.0921.50 225.005.95 4.46 1.91 2.87* Light-liquid service2510.00 1203.1921.50 753.006.30 15.82 1.97 9.89* Heavy-liquid service2160.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS1542.28 0.00978.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 1,542.28Annualized Capital ($/yr)219Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,948Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4Valves* Gas/vapor service750.0067.5521.50 225.001.18 0.89 1.18 1.78* Light-liquid service2510.00263.4321.50 753.001.38 3.46 1.38 6.93* Heavy-liquid service2160.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS330.970.00978.00 0.00Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 330.97330.97Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)4747.00Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,640991.06 648.88INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 1,211.31Annualized Capital ($/yr) 172.01Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 308.19Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 44Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 4Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 4Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 23.81 25 4.00 66.24 190.10 4.3075 0.17 66.24 82.04 25 4.00 66.24 655.04 14.830.00105.85 845.14 19.14 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 14.74 25 4.00 66.24 117.69 2.6775 0.17 66.24 57.49 25 4.00 66.24 458.97 10.390.0072.23576.66 13.06 0.00 0.00Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 45Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service1,1780.00 5325.9921.50 3534.005.95 70.05 1.91 45.08* Light-liquid service2,4280.00 11638.8021.50 7284.006.30 153.07 1.97 95.66* Heavy-liquid service1,7190.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS16964.79 0.0010818.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 16,964.79Annualized Capital ($/yr)2,409Annual Expenses ($/yr) 21,519Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service1,1780.00 1060.9221.50 3534.001.18 13.95 1.18 27.91* Light-liquid service2,4280.00 2548.1921.50 7284.001.38 33.51 1.38 67.03* Heavy-liquid service1,7190.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS3609.110.0010818.00 0.00Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 3,609.113,609.11Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)512512.49Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 18,03610,960.40 7,075.83INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 13,355.68Annualized Capital ($/yr) 1,896.51Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 3,482.74Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 46Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 373.97 25 4.00 66.24 2985.82 67.6175 0.17 66.24 793.64 25 4.00 66.24 6336.44 143.490.001167.61 9322.26 211.10 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 231.52 25 4.00 66.24 1848.46 41.8675 0.17 66.24 556.08 25 4.00 66.24 4439.77 100.540.00787.606288.23 142.40 0.00 0.00Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 47Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 6Valves* Gas/vapor service3,2630.00 14752.7221.50 9789.005.95 194.02 1.91 124.86* Light-liquid service5,8570.00 28075.9821.50 17571.006.30 369.24 1.97 230.76* Heavy-liquid service3,1630.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS42828.70 0.0027360.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 42,828.70Annualized Capital ($/yr)6,082Annual Expenses ($/yr) 54,400Baseline MonitoringType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service3,2630.00 2938.6921.50 9789.001.18 38.65 1.18 77.30* Light-liquid service5,8570.00 6146.9421.50 17571.001.38 80.84 1.38 161.68* Heavy-liquid service3,1630.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS9085.630.0027360.00 0.00Monitoring RepairBaseline Capital Costs ($) 9,085.639,085.63Baseline Annualized Capital ($/yr)1,2901,290.16Baseline Annual Expenses ($/yr) 45,53127,718.47 17,812.79INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 33,743.07Annualized Capital ($/yr) 4,791.52Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 8,868.30Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 48Valve Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 6Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSBaseline MonitoringType of ComponentModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 1035.89 25 4.00 66.24 8270.57 187.2975 0.17 66.24 1914.47 25 4.00 66.24 15285.22 346.130.002950.36 23555.79 533.42 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 641.30 25 4.00 66.24 5120.15 115.9575 0.17 66.24 1341.42 25 4.00 66.24 10709.93 242.530.001982.7215830.08 358.47 0.00 0.00Valves Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 49Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsTotal'Frequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1Valves* Gas/vapor service770.001314.6021.50 231.00 0.00 12.24 9.42 0.61 0.94* Light-liquid service3800.004276.5621.50 1140.00 0.00 8.07 30.65 0.61 4.64* Heavy-liquid service00.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS5591.16 0.001371.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 5,591Annualized Capital ($/yr)794Annual Expenses ($/yr) 2,150INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 3,768Annualized Capital ($/yr)535Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 427Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 50Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 1Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)50 0.17 66.24 5.2050 4.00 66.24 124.63 1.4150 0.17 66.24 25.68 50 4.00 66.24 615.07 6.960.0030.88739.70 8.38 0.00 0.00Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 51Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsTotal'Frequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2Valves* Gas/vapor service4140.007068.1021.50 1242.00 0.00 12.24 50.66 0.61 5.06* Light-liquid service1,1790.00 13268.5921.50 3537.00 0.00 8.07 95.11 0.61 14.40* Heavy-liquid service710.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS20336.69 0.004779.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 20,337Annualized Capital ($/yr)2,888Annual Expenses ($/yr) 7,494INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 13,716Annualized Capital ($/yr) 1,948Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 1,490Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 52Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 2Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)50 0.17 66.24 27.98 50 4.00 66.24 670.10 7.5950 0.17 66.24 79.67 50 4.00 66.24 1908.33 21.610.00107.65 2578.43 29.19 0.00 0.00Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 53Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsTotal'Frequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3Valves* Gas/vapor service1,3790.00 23543.2721.50 4137.00 0.00 12.24 168.76 0.61 16.85* Light-liquid service1,9800.00 22283.1321.50 5940.00 0.00 8.07 159.72 0.61 24.19* Heavy-liquid service1,2720.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS45826.40 0.0010077.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 45,826Annualized Capital ($/yr)6,507Annual Expenses ($/yr) 15,802INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 30,944Annualized Capital ($/yr) 4,394Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 3,142Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 54Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 3Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)50 0.17 66.24 93.19 50 4.00 66.24 2232.05 25.2750 0.17 66.24 133.80 50 4.00 66.24 3204.83 36.290.00226.995436.89 61.56 0.00 0.00Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 55Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsTotal'Frequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4Valves* Gas/vapor service750.001540.7741.50 450.00 0.00 14.73 11.04 1.28 3.83* Light-liquid service2510.005300.3341.50 1506.00 0.00 15.14 37.99 1.17 11.77* Heavy-liquid service2160.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS6841.09 0.001956.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 6,841Annualized Capital ($/yr)971Annual Expenses ($/yr) 4,132INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 5,299Annualized Capital ($/yr) 752Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 2,184Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 56Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 4Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)50 0.17 66.24 21.18 50 4.00 66.24 507.42 5.7550 0.17 66.24 65.10 50 4.00 66.24 1559.35 17.660.0086.292066.77 23.40 0.00 0.00Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 57Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsTotal'Frequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service1,1780.00 24200.3341.50 7068.00 0.00 14.73 173.47 1.28 60.16* Light-liquid service2,4280.00 51271.6841.50 14568.00 0.00 15.14 367.51 1.17 113.86* Heavy-liquid service1,7190.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS75472.01 0.0021636.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 75,472Annualized Capital ($/yr)7,281Annual Expenses ($/yr) 45,913INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 58,507Annualized Capital ($/yr) 4,872Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 24,394Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 58Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 5Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)50 0.17 66.24 332.74 50 4.00 66.24 7969.83 90.2450 0.17 66.24 629.76 50 4.00 66.24 15084.11 170.790.00962.5023053.93 261.03 0.00 0.00Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 59Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsTotal'Frequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 6Valves* Gas/vapor service3,2630.00 67033.6941.50 19578.00 0.00 14.73 480.49 1.28 166.64* Light-liquid service5,8570.00 123681.3241.50 35142.00 0.00 15.14 886.53 1.17 274.66* Heavy-liquid service3,1630.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS190715.01 0.0054720.00 0.00Capital Costs ($) 190,715Annualized Capital ($/yr)27,082Annual Expenses ($/yr) 116,286INCREMENTAL COSTS OF VALVE OPTION 2Incremental Capital Costs ($) 147,886Annualized Capital ($/yr) 21,000Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 61,886Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 60Valve Option 2 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 6Valves* Gas/vapor service* Light-liquid service* Heavy-liquid serviceAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)50 0.17 66.24 921.67 50 4.00 66.24 22076.02 249.9550 0.17 66.24 1519.16 50 4.00 66.24 36386.99 411.990.002440.83 58463.01 661.95 0.00 0.00Valves Option 2Attachment 5 - Page 61Connectors Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor023.800.000.25 2.50 0.000.36 0.00 0.36 0.00* Flanges - light liquid73123.80 17514.060.25 2.50 456.880.36 2.63 0.36 0.66* Flanges -heavy liquid00.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports5092.72Planning and Training2092.721854.40TOTALS17514.06 1854.40456.88 0.00INCREMENTAL COSTS OF CONNECTORS OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 19,368Annualized Capital ($/yr)2,750Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 5,122Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor023.800.000.25 2.50 0.000.36 0.00 0.36 0.00* Flanges - light liquid2,66223.80 63778.960.25 2.50 1663.750.36 9.58 0.36 2.40* Flanges -heavy liquid00.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports5092.72Planning and Training2092.721854.40TOTALS63778.961854.401663.75 0.00INCREMENTAL COSTS OF CONNECTORS OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 65,633Annualized Capital ($/yr)9,320Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 6,405Connectors Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 62Connectors Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 1Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentModel 2Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 0.0025 2.00 66.24 0.00 0.0075 0.17 66.24 5.4625 2.00 66.24 21.79 1.644636.005.4621.79 1.64 4636.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 0.0025 2.00 66.24 0.00 0.0075 0.17 66.24 19.88 25 2.00 66.24 79.35 5.994636.0019.8879.35 5.99 4636.00 0.00Connectors Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 63Connectors Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor023.800.000.25 2.50 0.000.36 0.00 0.36 0.00* Flanges - light liquid7,41023.80 177536.480.25 2.50 4631.250.36 26.68 0.36 6.67* Flanges -heavy liquid00.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports5092.72Planning and Training2092.721854.40TOTALS177536.48 1854.404631.25 0.00INCREMENTAL COSTS OF CONNECTORS OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 179,391Annualized Capital ($/yr)25,474Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 9,560Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor16423.80 4023.600.25 2.50 102.501.70 2.79 0.81 0.33* Flanges - light liquid55523.80 13616.440.25 2.50 346.881.70 9.44 0.81 1.13* Flanges -heavy liquid4540.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports5092.72Planning and Training2092.721854.40TOTALS17640.031854.40449.38 0.00INCREMENTAL COSTS OF CONNECTORS OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 19,494Annualized Capital ($/yr)2,768Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 5,150Connectors Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 64Connectors Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 3Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentModel 4Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 0.0025 2.00 66.24 0.00 0.0075 0.17 66.24 55.33 25 2.00 66.24 220.88 16.674636.0055.33220.88 16.67 4636.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 2.7725 2.00 66.24 11.05 0.8375 0.17 66.24 9.3725 2.00 66.24 37.39 2.824636.0012.1348.44 3.66 4636.00 0.00Connectors Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 65Connectors Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor2,33323.80 57238.100.25 2.50 1458.131.70 39.66 0.81 4.75* Flanges - light liquid4,64423.80 113936.460.25 2.50 2902.501.70 78.95 0.81 9.45* Flanges -heavy liquid4,1860.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports5092.72Planning and Training2092.721854.40TOTALS171174.56 1854.404360.63 0.00INCREMENTAL COSTS OF CONNECTORS OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 173,029Annualized Capital ($/yr)24,570Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 9,620Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 6Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor7,64123.80 187465.220.25 2.50 4775.631.70 129.90 0.81 15.54* Flanges - light liquid13,37923.80 328242.000.25 2.50 8361.881.70 227.44 0.81 27.21* Flanges -heavy liquid7,7250.000.00hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports5092.72Planning and Training2092.721854.40TOTALS515707.221854.4013137.50 0.00INCREMENTAL COSTS OF CONNECTORS OPTION 1Incremental Capital Costs ($) 517,562Annualized Capital ($/yr)73,494Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 19,651Connectors Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 66Connectors Option 1 Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 5Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentModel 6Connectors* Flanges - gas/vapor* Flanges - light liquid* Flanges -heavy liquidAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 39.37 25 2.00 66.24 157.17 11.8675 0.17 66.24 78.37 25 2.00 66.24 312.85 23.614636.00117.74 470.01 35.48 4636.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)75 0.17 66.24 128.94 25 2.00 66.24 514.74 38.8575 0.17 66.24 225.77 25 2.00 66.24 901.29 68.034636.00354.72 1416.04 106.89 4636.00 0.00Connectors Option 1Attachment 5 - Page 67OEL Monitoring Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 1OEL140.92 0.005.000.00Annual monitoring3323.80 808.1311.50 49.500.90 0.30 0.45 0.15hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS808.13 0.0049.50 0.00Incremental Capital Costs ($) 808.13Annualized Capital ($/yr)114.75Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 60.79Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 2OEL140.92 0.005.000.00Annual monitoring14123.80 3452.9311.50 211.500.90 1.27 0.45 0.63hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS3452.93 0.00211.50 0.00Incremental Capital Costs ($) 3,453Annualized Capital ($/yr) 490Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 260OEL MonitoringAttachment 5 - Page 68OEL Monitoring Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 1OELAnnual monitoringAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentModel 2OELAnnual monitoringAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)0.0075 0.17 66.24 1.23 25 4.00 66.24 9.84 0.220.001.239.84 0.22 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)0.0075 0.17 66.24 5.26 25 4.00 66.24 42.03 0.950.005.2642.03 0.95 0.00 0.00OEL MonitoringAttachment 5 - Page 69OEL Monitoring Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 3OEL140.92 0.005.000.00Annual monitoring42423.80 10383.2811.50 636.000.90 3.82 0.45 1.91hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.72Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS10383.28 0.00636.00 0.00Incremental Capital Costs ($) 10,383Annualized Capital ($/yr) 1,474Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 781Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 4OEL140.92 0.005.000.00Annual monitoring3923.80 996.5811.50 58.502.30 0.90 1.15 0.45hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.720.00Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS996.58 0.0058.50 0.00Incremental Capital Costs ($) 997Annualized Capital ($/yr) 142Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 93OEL MonitoringAttachment 5 - Page 70OEL Monitoring Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 3OELAnnual monitoringAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentModel 4OELAnnual monitoringAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)0.0075 0.17 66.24 15.83 25 4.00 66.24 126.39 2.860.0015.83126.39 2.86 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)0.0075 0.17 66.24 3.72 25 4.00 66.24 29.71 0.670.003.7229.71 0.67 0.00 0.00OEL MonitoringAttachment 5 - Page 71OEL Monitoring Cost EstimatesType of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 5OEL140.92 0.005.000.0023823.80 6081.7011.50 357.002.30 5.47 1.15 2.74hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.720.00Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS6081.70 0.00357.00 0.00Incremental Capital Costs ($) 6,082Annualized Capital ($/yr) 864Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 565Type of ComponentNumber ofComponentsInitial MonitoringFee or Unit Cost($/comp)Initial LDARCosts ($)(Capital)InitialLDARAdmin.CostsFrequency ofMonitoring(times/yr)SubsequentMonitoringFee ($/comp)or Charge(%)AnnualMonitoringCosts ($/yr)AnnualMaintenanceCosts ($/yr)Initial LeakFrequency(%)InitialNumberof LeaksSubsequentLeakFrequency(%)AnnualNumberof LeaksModel 6OEL140.92 0.005.000.0090223.80 23049.1511.50 1353.002.30 20.75 1.15 10.37hr/activity$/hrAdministrative and Reports092.720.00Planning and Training092.720.00TOTALS23049.15 0.001353.00 0.00Incremental Capital Costs ($) 23,049Annualized Capital ($/yr) 3,273Incremental Annual Expenses ($/yr) 2,142OEL MonitoringAttachment 5 - Page 72OEL Monitoring Cost EstimatesType of ComponentModel 5OELAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSType of ComponentModel 6OELAdministrative and ReportsPlanning and TrainingTOTALSPercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)0.0075 0.17 66.24 22.71 25 4.00 66.24 181.30 4.110.0022.71181.30 4.11 0.00 0.00PercentRepairedOnLineRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOnLine LeakRepair Cost($/yr)PercentRequiringFurtherRepairRepairTime(hours)LaborCharge($/hr)AnnualOffline LeakRepair Cost($/yr)Monitoringto VerifyRepair ($)AnnualAdmin.Cost($/yr)AnnualMisc.Charges($/yr)0.0075 0.17 66.24 86.06 25 4.00 66.24 687.11 15.560.0086.06687.11 15.56 0.00 0.00OEL MonitoringAttachment 5 - Page 73

# Attachment 5:

BAAQMD Equipment Leak Memo

# Bay Area Air Quality Management District

939 Ellis Street

San Francisco, CA 94109



# Proposed Amendments

Regulation 8 Rule 18: Equipment Leaks

Control Measure SS-16

Draft Staff Report

December 2003

Prepared by:

Victor Douglas

Compliance and Enforcement Division

Air Quality Specialist II

Reviewed by:

Wayne Kino

Compliance and Enforcement Division

Supervising Air Quality Specialist

Jim Karas, P.E.

Compliance and Enforcement Division

Engineering Manager

Kelly Wee

Compliance and Enforcement Division

Director

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................1

BACKGR OUND ..................................................................................................................... ...2

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS........................................................................................7

EMISSION INVENTORY AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS..................................................9

OTHER AREAS FOR POTENTIAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS .........................................11

ECONOMIC IMPACTS...........................................................................................................13

OTHER IMPACTS.................................................................................................................. .16

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... ...18

# 1 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Regulation 8, Rule 18 requires refineries to develop and implement a Leak Detection and

Repair (LDAR) program to control fugitive emissions from valves, pumps, compressors,

pressure relief valves, flanges, connectors, piping, and other equipment components. The

rule, which includes the most stringent leak standards in California, also applies to

chemical plants, bulk plants and bulk terminals.

The proposed amendments to Regulation 8, Rule 8 ensure that best available control

technologies are used for valves. The proposed amendments would:

• Reduce the number of valves allowed on a non-repairable list;

• Limit the number of valves on the non-repairable list with leaks of 10,000 parts

per million (ppm) or more and ensure that emissions from each of these valves is

less than 15 pounds per day; and

• Allow connections to be placed on a non-repairable list at a ratio of one

connection per two valves.

The proposed amendments are intended to implement Control Measure SS-16 from the

Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. That measure called for amendments to

Regulation 8, Rule 18 that would require that replacement valves meet Best Available

Control Technology requirements or that they be ìleaklessî valves.

To implement the control measure, staff conducted numerous site visits to the Bay Area

refineries and reviewed specific valve technologies to determine short-term and longterm emission performance. Staff found th at no single valve type offered superior

performance for the wide range of valve sizes and operating conditions encountered in a

refinery, and that specifying valves for the many different situations encountered would

be a complex undertaking with no clear benefits beyond those that come from the current

rule.

Staff determined that the existing valve leak standard of 100 ppm provides the best

means to ensure that refineries use the best technology available for valve replacements.

The 100 ppm standard is the most stringent in California (the South Coast AQMD leak

standard for valves is 500 ppm) and is set at a level just above typical background

concentrations. The amendments therefore implement the control measure by limiting

the number of valves allowed on the non-repairable list, thereby ensuring the broadest

possible application of the 100 ppm standard.

During the rule development process for the amendments, refineries requested flexibility

for connections that are very difficult to repair. Currently, connections must be repaired

at any cost irrespective of emissions. To address this concern without increasing

emissions, the proposed amendments would allow connections leaking below 10,000

ppm to be placed on the non-repairable list at a ratio of one connection per two valves.

The total number of valves and connections allowed on the list would continue to be

determined strictly by the total number of valves in use at the refinery as documented

annually.

# 2 These amendments will reduce emissions of organic and other pollutants, including toxic

compounds. Staff has identified an emission reduction of 0.2 ton per day of precursor

organic compounds. The expected total cost for all five Bay Area refineries to implement

the proposed amendments is $23,500 to $118,000 per year. The cost effectiveness is

approximately $320 to $1600 per ton of precursor organic compound emissions reduced.

An analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of the proposal was prepared by Applied

Development Economics of Berkeley, California. The analysis concludes that the

economic and employment impacts to the Bay Area from the proposal would not be

significant.

A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for the proposed amendments

has been prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. of Placentia, California, concluding that

the proposed amendments would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts.

A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed amendments pursuant to

Public Resources Code ß 21080(c) and CEQA Guidelines 15070 et seq. and is being

circulated for public review.

The proposed amendments were developed through a workgroup that included District

and ARB staff and representatives from envi ronmental groups, the affected refineries,

and the Western States Petroleum Association. The workgroup met six times in various

locations. In addition, the proposal was discussed at a public workshop on October 28,

2003 in Crockett.



# BACKGROUND

There are five petroleum refineries within the jurisdiction of the District with

approximately 233,000 total valves. The population of connections is estimated to be

five times greater. The rule also applies to chemical plants, bulk plants and bulk

terminals that have more than 100 valves or more than 10 pumps and compressors. The

proposed amendments are not expected to significantly impact these smaller facilities.

Regulatory History

Rule 8-18 was first adopted in 1980 and was amended in 1992, with minor changes in

1998 and 2002. Rule amendments adopted in 1992 significantly lowered the allowable

leak concentration limits to the lowest in the country and required more effective

inspection and repair programs in order to reduce emissions and promote selfcompliance. The 1992 amendments have reduced emissions by an estimated 1.2 tons per

day.

Rule 8-18 was last amended in November 2002 to address minor deficiencies identified

by US EPA in their limited approval/disapproval of the rule. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (US EPA) fully approved the current rule in June 2003.

Rule Development Process

During the process to develop this proposed amendment to Rule 8-18, staff has worked

extensively with the affected industry, interested public, and other air pollution control

# 3 agencies, such as the California Air Res ources Board (CARB), US EPA and other air

pollution control districts.

Site Visits

Staff conducted numerous site visits to the Bay Area refineries to accompany both

facility and district inspectors during Rule 8- 18 inspections and learn how refinery staff

carry out their leak detection and repair programs. These tours and the time spent in

communication with both the inspectors and the representatives of the refineries were

invaluable to the development of a balanced understanding of operations and

technologies associated with the implementation of Rule 8-18.

Literature Review and Information Requests

Staff reviewed various sources of information regarding fugitive emissions, including

bellow sealed valves, hermetically-sealed valves, fugitive emission rules of other

California air districts, and reports provided by the refineries regarding their nonrepairable lists and leak detection and repair programs.

Workgroup Meetings

During this rule development process, six workgroup meetings were held in various

locations in the District. These workgroup m eetings provided a forum in which technical

and regulatory issues concerning this rule could be discussed in a effort to ensure that all

participants had ample opportunity to voice their concerns and present comments and

related information. In attendance at these meetings were industry representatives,

environmentalists, CARB staff me mbers, and district staff.

Workshops

Staff hosted one workshop on October 28, 2003 in Crockett, to discuss draft amendments

to the rule in a public forum. In attendance at the meeting were industry representatives,

members of the public, environmentalist, and CARB staff members.

Current Rule Requirements

Each of the five refineries within the Dist rict has a leak detection and repair (LDAR)

program. These programs function to ensure that all components are inspected regularly

and, if a leak is found, the equipment is repaired, replaced, or placed on a list to be

repaired. Under the current rule, there are four options under which a facility may

comply with the rule:

Option 1 – Leak Concentration Standard : This option allows the facility to

inspect affected equipment for leaks; 100 ppm for valves and connections, and

500 ppm for pumps, compressors and pressure relief devices. All equipment with

leaks discovered by the facility must be minimized within 24 hours and repaired

within seven days. All leaks discovered by the District must be repaired within

24 hours. All equipment not subject to an LDAR program discovered to be

leaking by District staff is a violation of this rule.

# 4A fraction of the equipment that cannot be repaired may be placed on a nonrepairable list for up to five years or the next scheduled turnaround for that plant,

whichever date comes first. The maximum fraction of components on the

facility-wide turnaround list cannot exceed 0.5 percent for valves and 1.0 percent

for pumps, compressors and pressure relief devices. Currently, connections are

not allowed to be placed on a turnaround list.

Option 2 – Mass Emissions Standard : This option allows the facility to use the

concentration standards as trigger levels and measure any non-repairable

component for mass emissions. Using the above Option 1 leak concentration

standards as trigger levels, any non-repairable component can be measured for

mass emissions. If the mass emission rate is greater than 15 pounds per day, the

component must be repaired. If the mass emission rate is less than 0.1 or 0.2

pounds per day, no further action is required. The number of components leaking

between 0.1 or 0.2 and 15 pounds per day cannot exceed a small percentage of the

total number of components at the facility.

Option 3 – Reduced Inspection Frequency : Using the above Option 1 leak

concentration standards as trigger levels, facilities can increase the interval

between inspections for components that do not leak. This option reduces the

cost of inspection and maintenance plans. The inspection frequency for

equipment, except pumps and compressors, may be changed from quarterly to

annually provided the equipment has been operated leak free for five consecutive

quarters and records are submitted and approved by the District. If a leak is

discovered, the frequency reverts back to quarterly inspections for that

component.

Option 4 – District Approved Inspection and Maintenance Plan : The final

option allows facilities to implement an alternate program to reduce emissions

from leaks. This option requires a written plan approved by the District and EPA.

To date, no Bay Area refinery has elected to use this option.

Other Air District Rules

Several other air pollution control districts in California have rules that address fugitive

emissions from refineries and chemical plan ts. These districts include the South Coast

Air Quality Management District (Rule 1173), the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (4451 & 4452), a nd Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District (Rule 74.7). In addition to these districtsí rules, the federal New Source

Performance Standards affect emissions from equipment leaks. The table in Appendix A

provides a simplified comparison of the major provisions of these rules with the

provisions of the Districtís current rule.

Overview of Current Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Programs

Each LDAR program functions to ensure that all components are:

• Identified;

# 5 • Labeled (except connections);

• Inventoried;

• Inspected for leaks; and

• If found leaking, tagged, repaired, replaced, or placed on a non-repairable list.

Identification: Each piece of equipment is uniquely identified in association with the

plant at which it is located, the type of equipment, and a unique identification number.

Labels: In addition, this identity is also placed on a label that is attached to each

component or group of components. Labels contain varying degrees of information, but

most will at least include the identification number.

Inventory: Each piece of equipment is inventoried in a database that contains

information on the equipment such as type, location, installation date, dates of inspection,

leak concentration, and repair history.

Inspections: Each refinery employs an inspection team that consists of either in-house

employees or contractors.1 The inspection team calibrates their VOC detector, which is

typically either a flame or photo ionization de tector, and proceeds with the inspection. A

member of the inspection team carries a monitoring device that reads and records

information from a barcode or identifier attached to the component being inspected. If a

leak is detected, a team member or another facility employee will attempt to minimize the

leak as required by the rule. If the leak cannot be minimized, a team member will

identify the component with a waterproof, indelible tag, upon which information

regarding the leak is recorded and the component is identified for repair or replacement.

Once the inspection is completed, the recorded information is uploaded into an LDAR

data base.

Technology Review

The District reviewed equipment that coul d represent Best Available Control Technology

for valves.

Bellows Seal Valves

Bellows seal valves normally operate in a leak free manner because the moving

components of the valve are hermetically sealed from the ambient air. Bellows seal

valves function by replacing the packing and sliding or rotating seals with bellows

(accordion-like tubing). This replacement eliminates the opportunity for emissions from

the sliding of rotating seals and packing. However, failure of the bellows can result in

significant emissions.

1 

# Three of the five Bay Area refineries employ independent contractors to conduct leak detection

and repair inspections, and the remaining refinerie s utilize in-house employees. All refineries

have a separate group dedicated to the task of leak detection and repair.

# 6 The bellows are sealed in two different ways. In one approach, the bellows are welded to

the valve stem at the top and the valve body at the bottom. The process fluid is contained

inside the bellows. In the approach, the bellows are welded to the valve stem at the

bottom and the body on the top. The process fluid is contained in the annular region

between the valve bonnet and bellows.

Bellows valves are available only in a relatively narrow size range and could be used as

replacements in only a small subset of all refinery applications.

Solenoid-Actuated Valves

Solenoid-actuated valves are a departure from the standard air- or motor-operated valve

design typically used for process fluid st orage and handling of hydrocarbons. These

valves are solenoid-actuated. They do not use stem, packing, or bellows. Further,

solenoid-actuated valves isolate all moving parts within the process pressure areas.

Because the actuator of these valves is completely sealed from the atmosphere and is

actuated via magnetism, the potential for emissions due to the failure of seals surrounding

dynamically moving parts is eliminated. However, failure of the isolation, such as a

crack in the valve body can result in significant emissions. And, as with bellows valves,

solenoid-activated valves could only be used in a limited range of refinery applications.

ìBACTî Standard of the Control Measure

After reviewing specific valve technologies to evaluate short-term and long-term

emission performance, staff concluded that th e petroleum refineries must use the best

technology available for replacements to consistently achieve the stringent emission

standards of the rule ñ the 100 ppm leak limit for valves and 0.5 percent of the total

number of valve allowed on a non-repairable list. Consequently, the strict emission

standard combined with the limit placed on the non-repairable list constitutes a ìbest

available control technologyî standard.

As long as the refineries consistently meet this standard, the regulation need not dictate

which technologies should be used. Rather, refineries should be allowed to use their

expertise to determine the technology best suited for the conditions of use that will ensure

compliance with the requirements of the rule. This approach will allow the introduction

of improved technology that may ìcross overî from other industrial application without

requiring an exhaustive review process to maintain a BACT list.

# 7 

# PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS

The proposed amendments:

• Reduce the number of valves that are allowed on the non-repairable list;

• Limit the number of valves leaking in excess of 10,000 ppm;

• Require mass emission rate determinations for valves leaking in excess of 10,000

ppm and control those with excess emissions; and

• Allow connections with leaks that do not exceed 10,000 ppm to be placed on the

non-repairable list at a ratio of one connection per two valves.

The amendments are made possible by improvements in the ability of the refineries to

locate and repair leaking components and improvements in valve technology, such as

hermetically sealed valves and advancements in valve stem packing materials. These

improvements, which are already being implemented in some areas, have led to emission

reductions that have not yet been credited to this rule. By implementing the

improvements across the board, additional emissions reductions will be achieved.

Finally, the amendments will ensure that the components that are believed to be

responsible for the greatest emissions are examined and if found to have excessive

emissions, controlled.

Reducing the Number of Components on the Non-Repairable List

The non-repairable list was established to provide a mechanism to address essential

components. Essential components are those pieces of equipment that cannot be repaired

or replaced unless the process unit is shutdown and the component is isolated. This

activity would likely create more emissions than the actual fugitive leaks. The rule

allows a certain percentage of each type of equipment to be placed on the list. Table 1

indicates the current allowable fractions of each component on the non-repairable list.

Table 1

Current Allowable Limits for Components Awaiting Repair or Replacement

Equipment Fraction of Non-repairable

Equipment Allowed Maximum Duration

Valves 0.5% 5 years or next turnaround

Pressure Relief Devices 1 % 5 years or next turnaround

Pumps/Compressors 1 % 5 years or next turnaround



# Data collected from the refineries indicate that the current LDAR programs implemented

at some refineries result in a much lower fraction of leaking equipment being placed on a

non-repairable list than the fraction allowable by Rule 8-18. This suggests that it is

possible to reduce the percentage of equipment allowed on the non-repairable list or

address non-repairable equipment in a different manner.

# 8 Staff proposes to modify the allowable fractions according to the table below.

Table 2

Proposed Revisions to the Allowable Limits for Components Awaiting Repair or

Replacement

Equipment Number of Non-repairable

Pieces of Equipment Allowed Maximum Duration

Valves (including valves with

major leaks) and connectors 0.3% of total number of valves 5 years or next turnaround

Valves with major leaks 0.025% of the total number of

valves 5 years or next turnaround

Pressure Relief Devices 1.0% total number of PRVs 5 years or next turnaround

Pumps/Compressors 1.0% total number of pumps and

compressors 5 years or next turnaround



# In this proposal, the fraction of valves (including valves with major leaks) allowed on the

non-repairable list would be reduced from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent.

Concentration Limit for Non-repairable Components

The proposal will also limit the number of valves leaking in excess of 10,000 ppm to

0.025 percent of the total number of valves in operation at the facility; these valves would

be included in the number that make up the 0.3 percent allowed for all valves. Before a

valve with a major leak (one that leaks in excess of 10,000 ppm) can be placed on the

non-repairable list, its mass emission rate must be determined and found to be below 15

pounds per day. In addition, the mass emission rate must be determined at least once per

year to ensure that the leak does not exceed the 15-pound limit. This provision is

intended to prevent a component from leaking an indefinite amount of mass emissions for

up to five years.

The amendments will require refineries to take action on valves that are found leaking in

excess of 10,000 ppm (50 to 100 times the allowable limits). If a component is found to

leak in excess of 10,000 ppm, the operator must do one of the following: (1) minimize

the leak below 10,000 ppm within 24 hours and repair the component within seven days,

or (2) measure the mass emission rate of the leak and place the component on the nonrepairable list only if the mass emission rate is less than 15 pounds per day. If the valve

leaks in excess of the allowable mass emission rate, then the operator must either repair

or replace that component or capture and vent those emissions to a control device.

Additionally, the refiner must notify the District of each mass emission rate

determination at least 96 hour prior to the determination. This will allow the District to

review the process of the emission rate determination and also allow concurrent testing of

the leaking component for methodology evaluation.

Connections on the Non-repairable List

The refineries have long asserted that regulatory flexibility is needed for connections that

pose difficulty in repair. To address this concern, staff proposes allowing connections

# 9 with leaks less than 10,000 ppm to be placed on the non-repairable list in a very limited

fashion that would not result in a relaxation of the rule. To ensure that any emissions

associated with a connection being placed on the non-repairable list are offset, the

amendments would require that each connection placed on the list counts as two pieces of

equipment. The number of components allowed on the list is strictly limited to the

number of valves located at the refinery multiplied by the allowed fraction. For example,

if a refinery has 50,000 valves and the fraction of valves allowed on the non-repairable

list is 0.3 percent, then the number of valves allowed on the list could not exceed 150.

Additionally, for each connection allowed on the list, two spaces of the 150 allotted for

valves would no longer be available.



# EMISSION INVENTORY AND EMISSION

REDUCTIONS

Emission Inventory

Emission inventory data collected over the past several years indicate that fugitive

emissions have been constantly decreasing. Table 3 details these emissions and

reductions. There was a significant emissi ons reduction between the 2001 inventory and

the current modified 2002 inventory. This emission reduction is due mostly to the

adoption of new correlations factors from the EPA that are published in the ARBís

"California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions of Fugitive

Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities.î However, notwithstanding the change in

correlation factors, there has been a general downward trend to fugitive emissions over

the last several years. This trend is largely due to improvement in the leak detection and

repair programs over time.

# 10 TABLE 3

Estimated Emissions Inventories for All Fugitives Components 1



# SIP

(Modified

1999

Inventory) 1 

# 2000

Inventory 2 

# 2001

Inventory 2 

# Current

(Modified

2002

Inventory) 2,3,4



# Refinery (organic emissions - pounds/day)

Chevron 7 ,821 7,821 7,773 2,294

Shell 352 352 351 381

ConocoPhillips 1,543 1,543 1,473 1,474

Valero Asphalt 35 35 35 22

Valero 1,969 530 257 332

Tesoro 1,690 1,690 1,688 128

Total (tons/day) 6.71 5.99 5.79 2.32

1. These are the estimated fugitive emissions from all component s affected by Rule 8-18, including

valves, pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, and connections.

2. The annual emission inventorie s are based on equipment counts pr ovided to the District by each

refinery.

3. The values in this column reflect the use of modified correlation fact ors for each component

category, as published in the ARBís "California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass

Emissions of Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities.î

4. These values are currently under review and ma y not reflect the final emission inventory for 2002.



# Emission Reductions

The emission reductions for the proposed amendments are presented in Table 4. These

emission reductions are based on the assumption that all leaking components other than

connections will be discovered at the five Bay Area refineries.

TABLE 4

Emission Reduction Estimates 1



# .

Rule 8-18 Emissions 2



# (lbs/day (TPD)) Amended Rule 8-18

Emissions 3



# (lbs/day (TPD)) Emission Reductions

(lbs/day (TPD))

Valves 706 (0.35) 303 (0.15) 403 (0.20)

1. Assumes a total of 233,000 valves at all five Bay Area refineries (see Table 5).

2. Assumes that the total number of valves leaking is 0.50 percent of all valves.

3. Assumes that the total number of valves leaking is 0.30 percent of all valves and that fraction

leaking above 10,000 ppm is 0.0025 percent.



# Staff estimates that there are approximately 233,000 total valves at the five Bay Area

refineries. Table 5 presents the inventory for valves, pump and compressors, pressure

relief devices, and connections.

# 11 TABLE 5

Estimated Inventories 1 

# of Various Components Subject to Rule 8-18

at the Bay Area Refineries

Components Refinery

Valves Pumps and

Compressors Connections



# Chevron 71,000 800 355,000

ConocoPhillips 27,000 250 134,000

Shell 52,000 360 217,000

Tesoro 33,000 1500 156,000

Valero 50,000 300 250,000

TOTALS 233,000 2110 1,112,000

1. These values are based on quarterly reports and direct quotes from industry representatives.



# OTHER AREAS FOR POTENTIAL

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

During this rule development process, staff examined other strategies that have some

potential for achieving emission reductions. These strategies are not included in this

rulemaking because they require further study. Each potential strategy examined by staff

is discussed briefly below.

Maximum Leak Limit for All Components

District staff examined whether a maximum leak standard should be established and

whether it would reduce emissions. The BAAQMD rule and many other air district

fugitive rules allows repair to be deferred for a small number of valves that exceed leak

limits. These allowances are intended to avoid the potentially significant emissions that

could come from shutting down a unit to make repairs. On the other hand, emissions

from components with significant leaks awaiting repair could be potentially significant.

There is limited data available to determine whether a focus on leaks with concentrations

over an established maximum is warranted. For individual components, the available

data suggests that the correlation between mass emissions and concentration is poor. It

may be more appropriate to focus on a mass emission approach. The proposed

amendments will require the facilities to measure mass emissions on leaking valves over

10,000 ppm leak concentrations. This data will help determine if a mass emission or a

maximum concentration is warranted. Additionally, an initial assessment of data

reported by the Bay Area refineries indicate that less than one in 5000 valves leak in

excess of 10,000 ppm, which is less than ten at any one refinery. Only a very small

fraction of these components are expected to have mass emissions rates in excess of the

preset limits. Emission reductions may therefore be quite limited and need further

examination.

# 12 Violations for Leaks Detected During District Inspections

The current rule allows refineries 24 hours to repair leaks found by District inspectors

and seven days to repair leaks discovered by refinery. An alternative would be to treat as

a violation the detection of leaks by District inspectors in a specified percentage of the

components inspected. The South Coast fugitives rule uses such an approach. This

might encourage more thorough inspections by refinery personnel. On the other hand,

refiners expressed concerns that even with good LDAR programs, it is possible to find

leaks, particularly if a District inspector chooses to inspect an area that is due for

inspection but has not yet inspected under the refinery LDAR program. Refiners felt that

this might be perceived as unfair and might not improve the refinery program.

Accelerated Replacement of Equipmen t with Frequent Leaks/Repairs

Some specific components appear to be more prone to leaks and to require more repair.

The rule could require a component to be replaced if the number of leaks within a

specified time period exceeds a threshold specified in the rule. The South Coast and

Ventura rules use this approach. On the other hand, it may be true that more frequent

repair is required for certain demanding types of service, and any replacement component

will have the same failure rate.

Replacement of Inaccessible Equipment with Superior Technologies

Replacement of inaccessible equipment with superior technologies could reduce the

potential for emissions. Regulation 8, rule 18 requires less frequent inspection for these

components. This reduced inspection frequency results in a longer average time period

before a leak is detected and repaired. It is unclear whether superior technologies can be

readily identified.

Control Emissions from Heat Exchangers

Heat exchangers are potential sources of VOC emissions through leakage of VOCs into

cooling liquid and subsequent emission at c ooling towers. A first step would be to

measure VOC emissions at cooling towers over an entire cycle to determine whether

emissions are significant. To determine if a leak exists in a heat exchanger, the VOC

concentrations of cooling water at the inlet and outlet to the heat exchanger could be

compared. A higher VOC concentration at the outlet would indicate a leak. This work

would have to be done to determine whether there is any potential for emission

reductions.

Quantification of Mass Emissions and Emission Caps

If mass emissions for leaking components can be reliably determined, a cap could be

placed on total emissions from equipment placed on the non-repairable equipment list.

Leaking equipment could be added to the list, but only if the total fugitive emission cap is

not exceeded. If adding a leaking component would cause the cap to be exceed,

emissions from equipment already on the non-repairable list would have to be reduced.

# 13 This approach would provide an incentive to replace high-emitting equipment on the list

as soon as possible and would provide a facility flexibility to make the most cost

effective choices that results in the least emission consequence. On the other hand, a

mass emission cap could be overly complex and difficult to administer.

Increase Inspection Frequencies

Increasing the frequency of inspections would reduce the time that a leaking component

goes undetected, and could decrease emissions. To implement increased inspection

frequencies, additional staffing would be re quired. Staff would have to further assess

potential emission reduction benefits from increased inspection frequencies.

Smart LDAR

The U.S. EPA and API have jointly worked on a project called ìSmart LDARî through

the U.S. EPAís Common Sense Initiative for the Petroleum Refining Sector. Research

indicates that a small subset of all leaking components is responsible for most of the

emissions. Rather than focus efforts on cont rolling minor leaks, the Smart LDAR project

is examining the use of remote sensing methods that would allow quick identification and

repair of leaks causing large emissions. It is unclear when those methods will become

available for routine use in refinery LDAR programs.



# ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Costs

The costs associated with the proposed amendment are primarily the costs of determining

the mass emission rates of valves leaking in excess of 10,000 ppm and the cost of

controlling component with emissions above the 15-pound limit. There are two methods

that were identified as reliable methods of determining mass emissions: high volume

collection system (HCVS) and the US EPA vacuum method. These methods are

described and compared in Appendix B.

Table 6 compares the cost of each of these methods. The cost values in Table 5 have

been inflated from 1995 values using infl ation factor of 1.2 obtained from the US

Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics (www.bls.gov).

TABLE 6

Cost Estimates for Mass Emission Rate Determinations

HCVS Vacuum Method

Total time required for ONE sample 1 

# 4 hours Two days

Labor Cost per sample ($450/day) $225 $900

Lab Cost per sample $0 $400

TOTAL COST per sample $225 $1300

1. This represents the time needed to sample one valve and not a population of valves. This value is

based on the assumption that valves leaking in access of 10,000 ppm would be found individually and,

therefore addressed individually. Further, it is exp ected to take at least a half day to prepare the

# 14 instrumentation (calibration and flow rate determin ation) for the high volume sampler and two days to

enclose the leaking component and prepare for samp ling (calibration and flow rate determination).



# Based on current inspection data, it was estimated that a total of 60 valves may need mass

measurements. Using the cost estimates from Table 6, the cost of sampling 60 valves

annually was estimated between $13,500 and $78,000. The cost to capture, vent and

control emissions from a valve with excess emissions can range from $5,000 to $20,0002

each depending on the valve size, location (accessible or inaccessible, proximity to a vent

for flare or fire box, spatial proximity to other components, etc.). It was estimated that

2.5 percent of valves leaking in excess of 10,000 ppm will have emissions of 15 pounds

per day or greater,3 or 2.5 percent. That is approximately two valves District-wide that

could potentially be required to be controlled. This would result in a potential cost of

$10,000 to $20,000 to reduce 5.5 tons of emissions or a cost effectiveness that range

between $1,800 and $3,600 per ton reduced. The annual costs associated with these

proposed amendments are presented in Table 7.

TABLE 7

Costs of the Proposal

Requirement Annual Costs

Mass Emission Rate Determinations $13,500 -$78,600

Control of Valves with Excessive Leaks $10,000 to $40,000

TOTAL COSTS $23,500 to $118,000



# The emission reduction that will result from this proposal is estimated to be

approximately 74 tons per year. This results in a potential cost effectiveness range of

$320 to $1,600 per ton of precursor organic compounds District-wide.

Incremental Costs

Under Heath and Safety Code section 40920.6, the District is required to perform an

incremental analysis when adopting a Best Available Retrofit Control Technology

(BARCT) rule or feasible measure required by the California Clean Air Act. To perform

this analysis, the District must (1) identify one or more control options achieving the

emission reduction objectives for the proposed rule, (2) determine the cost effectiveness

for each option, and (3) calculate the incremental cost effectiveness of each option. To

determine incremental costs, the District must ìcalculate the difference in dollar cost

divided by the difference in the emission reduction potentials between each progressively

2 

# This cost range is based on personal conversati ons between District staff and staff members of

the California Air Resources Board and refinery personnel.

3 

# Emissions estimates provided by WSPA.

# 15 more stringent potential control option as compared to the next less expensive control

option.î

This regulatory development process was initiated to examine the feasibility of drafting

amendments to Regulation 8, Rule 18 that would implement Control Measure SS-16

from the Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. To implement Control Measure SS-16,

staff evaluated requiring replacement valves that meet BACT requirements or that they

be ìleaklessî valves. Staff has concluded the performance standard in the current rule

combined with the limit placed on the non-repairable list constitutes the ìbest available

control technologyî and that no additional provisions are necessary or appropriate to

ensure that refineries meet that standard of the rule.

In addition, during this rule development process, staff examined various alternatives to

achieve the emissions reduction required under the 2001 Ozone plan. The first option

considered was to require all valves placed on the non-repair list to be repaired or

replaced with hermetically-sealed valves. This option would be extremely expensive.

Bellow seal valves cost approximately $12,000, which is about $7000 more than a typical

valve. Two tenths of a percent of the total number of valves (233,000), could be placed

on the non-repairable list for up to five years (46,600 valves). It is expected that about

half of these valves would need to be replaced with bellow seal valves or 23,300 valves.

Because the valves can remain on the list up to five year, 20 percent of the valves would

be cycled out each year (4660 valves). This type of an approach would result in an

annual cost of $32 million. The second option considered is outlined in this proposal. A

comparison of the alternative and this proposal is summarized in Table 8.

# 16 TABLE 8

Incremental Cost Analysis

Annual Emissions

Reductions Annual Costs Cost Effectiveness

Replace Valves with

Hermetically-Sealed

Valves Negligible 1 

# $32 million Indeterminate

The Proposal 74 tons $23,500 to $118,000 $320 to $1,600 per ton



# 1. Specific emission reductions cannot be credited to the replacement of valves

with bellow seal valves because all valves must meet the 100 ppm standard and

limits on the non-repairable list.

Socioeconomic Impacts

Section 40728.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires an air district to assess the

socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule if the rule is one

that ìwill significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations.î Applied Economic

Development of Berkeley, California, has pr epared the required cost analysis. (Appendix

D)



# OTHER IMPACTS

Environmental Impacts

The Districtís environmental consultant, Environmental Audit, Inc., prepared an initial

study for the proposed rule amendments to determine whether rule adoption would result

in any significant environmental impacts. In general, the initial study concludes that the

proposed amendments would result in environmental benefits by reducing the number

and magnitude of leaks for which repairs can be deferred under existing rule provisions.

The complete environmental document is attached as Appendix C. A Negative

Declaration for the proposed amendments has been prepared and is being circulated for

comment. The comment period is from December 22, 2003 to January 12, 2004.

Regulatory Impacts

California Health and Safety Code section 40727.2 requires the District to identify

existing federal air pollution control requirements for the equipment or source type

affected by the proposed rule or regulation. The District must then note any differences

between these existing requirements and the requirements imposed by the proposal.

Regulation 8, Rule 18: Equipment Leaks applies to fugitive emissions from valves,

pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, connection and any other component that

may have fugitive leaks. The proposal does not expand the applicability or the current

rule.

# 17 Numerous federal requirements apply to fugitive emissions at the facilities subject to

Regulation 8, Rule 18. New sources are subj ect to New Source Performance Standards

found in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VV (Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic

Organic Chemicals Industry) and Subpart GGG (Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum

Refineries). Other sources are subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAPS) found in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V (National Emission

Standards for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)), and to 40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart CC (National Emission Standards fo r Petroleum Refineries). A comparison

between BAAQMD and federal requirements follows:

BAAQMD Reg. 8, Rule 18 40 CFR60 VV, GGG, 40 CFR63 CC

Applicability

Components at petroleum refineries, chemical

plants, bulk plants and bulk terminals. Affected equipment in petroleum refineries,

synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing

facilities, onshore natural gas processing

plants.

Requirements

LDAR program for components in light

liquid/gas/vapor. Quarterly inspections.

Inaccessible components inspected annually. Pumps and valves inspected monthly. Valves

in light liquid/gas/vapor service inspected

monthly. After two monthly inspections

without leaks, they may be inspected quarterly

until a leak is detected.

Leak threshold at 100 ppm for valves,

connectors, 500 ppm for pumps, compressors

and PRDs in gas/vapor/light liquid service. Leak threshold at 10,000 ppm for pumps and

valves in heavy liquid service.

Leaks detected by operator minimized within

24 hours and repaired within 7 days.

A percent of non repairable components may

delay repair until unit turnaround. Leaks

detected by BAAQMD repaired within 24

hours. Pumps, valves, PRDs and connectors in light

liquid/ gas/vapor service leak threshold at

10,000 ppm. Compressors required to have a

seal system with barrier fluid. PRDs in

gas/vapor service leak threshold at 500 ppm.

Leaks > 10K ppm 15 days repair maximum,

first attempt at repair within 5 days.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Submit quarterly reports of non repairable

components and their leak rates. Submit semiannual reports containing the

number of components, by type, that were

re p aired and for which re p air was dela y ed,

# 18 BAAQMD Reg. 8, Rule 18 40 CFR60 VV, GGG, 40 CFR63 CC

and the reason for delay.

Test Methods

U.S. EPA Method 21 for leak screening,

ASTM Method D86 for VOC content of

liquids. U.S. EPA Method 21 for leak screening,

ASTM E-260, E-168, E-169 for the VOC

content, ASTM Method D-2879 for the vapor

pressure.

Exemptions

Components handling liquids with an initial

boiling point greater than 302 0 

# F. Components that present a safety hazard

Components operating under negative

pressure or enclosed systems and PRDs

vented to vapor recovery or disposal system. Components handling fluids with less than

10% by weight VOC.

Pressure vacuum valves on storage ta nks. Components operating under negative

pressure, pumps with a closed vent system,

PRDs vented to a control device.

PRDs installed for thermal protection of

liquid lines provided they are vented to a

drain or back in the line

Administrative requirements for equipment

handling organic liquids with an initial boiling

point greater than 302 0 

# F.



# District Staff Impacts

Implementation of the proposal will have a negligible impact on the resources of the

District. Staff will need to review reports regarding mass emission rate determinations

and, occasionally, conduct site visit to witness of those determinations.



# CONCLUSIONS

The proposed amendments to Regulation 8, Rule 18, Equipment Leaks will meet the

commitment made during the adoption of the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan for Control

Measure SS-16. The proposal is intended set stringent standard and performance

requirements that when implemented, will represent the best current industry practices

and abilities and allow the District to account for any associated emission reduction.

Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code section 40727, new regulations must meet

necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplicity and reference. The proposed

regulation is:

• Necessary to protect public health by reducing volatile organic compounds that

contribute to ozone formation and to carry out the commitment in control measure

# 19 SS-16 in the Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan; and to protect public health

by reducing exposures to toxic air contaminants.

• Authorized by California Health and Safety Code section 40702.

• Clear, in that the new regulation specifically delineates the affected industry,

compliance options and administrative requirements for industry subject to this

rule.

• Consistent with other District rules, and not in conflict with state or federal law.

• Non-duplicative of other statutes, rules or regulations.

• The proposed regulation properly references the applicable District rules and test

methods and does not reference other existing law.

The proposal has met all legal noticing requirements and has been discussed with all

interested parties. District staff r ecommends adoption of Regulation 8, Rule 18,

Equipment Leaks.

# Appendix A

Comparison of the Basic Provisions of the Fugitive

Emissions Rules of Four California Air Districts

# Comparison of the Basic Provisions of the Fugitive

Emissions Rules of Four California Air Districts

BAAQMD

Rule 8-18 South Coast

AQMD

Rule 1173 SJVUAPCD

Rules 4451 &

4452 Ventura Co.

APCD

Rule 74.7

Minimum Leak

Limits ßß8-18-211,

301 ! 305 ß1173 (d)(1) ß4451.3.9.1.1;

ß4451.3.9.2;

ß4452.3.6.1 ßß74-7

L.18 ! L.20,

L.22 & L.23,

Liquid 3 drops/min 3 drops/min 3 drops/min minor > 3

drops/min

major = stream

or mist

Valves 100 ppm HL > 500; LL >

50k/10k* 10,000 ppm

Connections 100 ppm HL > 500; LL >

50k/10k* 10,000 ppm

Pumps/ Compressors 500 ppm HL > 500/100*; LL >

50k/10k* 10,000 ppm minor > 1,000

1,000 > major >

10k

PRDs/PRVs 500 ppm LL > 50k/200* 10,000 ppm major > 200

ppm

L = leak (in ppm or

drops/min)

HL = heavy liquid

leak

LL = light

liquid/gas/vapor leak

*Limits for leaks

found above leak

thresholds (see

Turnaround Lists)



# INSPECTION

FREQUENCIES ßß8-18-

401.1 ! 401.3 ßß1173 (f)(1)(B) &

(C) ß4451.5.2 &

ß4452.5.1 ß74-7 D.1 &

D.2

Valves Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

! Quarterly

Connections Annually Quarterly Annually Monthly

! Annually

Pumps/ Compressors Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

! Quarterly

PRDs/PRVs Annually Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

( ≤ 110 days)

Inaccessibles Annually Annually Annual or

shutdowns



# NONREPAIRABLE

LIST ßß8-18-306.2 &

306.3 Leak Thresholds:

ß1173(d)(1)Table 1 ß4451.5.2 &

ß4452.5.1.4

Duration < 5 yrs. No time limit ( ∞ ) Next shutdown none

Valves 0.5% 1% 0.5% 2% none

Connections 0% 0% 0.5% 2% none

# BAAQMD

Rule 8-18 South Coast

AQMD

Rule 1173 SJVUAPCD

Rules 4451 &

4452 Ventura Co.

APCD

Rule 74.7

Pumps/ Compressors 1% 5% 1% 2%

Shutdown or one

year none

PRDs/PRVs 1% 5% 1% 2%



# REPAIR

SCHEDULES ßß8-18-

301 ! 305 ß1173 (g)(1) Table 2 ß4451.5.3.2 &

ß4452.5.1.4 ß74-7 E Table 1

Valves 24 hr (District)/

7 days

(operator) m: 1 yr

M: 15 days reduce

< 10 d/min / 10k

or vent to flare or

control or show

control is

infeasible m: 14 days, M:

5 days,

S: 1 days

Connections 24 hr (District)/

7 days

(operator) m: 1 yr

M: 15 days reduce

< 10 d/min / 10k

or vent to flare or

control or show

control is

infeasible m: 14 days, M:

5 days,

S: 1 days

Pumps/ Compressors 24 hr (District)/

7 days

(operator) 500 < LL < 10k: 7

days

100 < HL< 500: 7

days

3 drops/min & 100 <

HL < 500: 7 days

10k < L < 25k: 2

days/ext 3 days

L > 25k: 1 day

HL > 500: 1 day/ext 3

days

LL > 3 drops/min: I

day

15 day

> 15 day: replace,

vent to control or

repair at shutdown m: 14 days, M:

5 days,

S: 1 days

PRDs/PRVs 7 days

(District)/

17 days

(operator) 200 < L ≤ 25k: 2 days m: 1 yr

M: 15 days reduce

< 10 d/min / 10k

or vent to flare or

control or show

control is

infeasible m: 14 days, M:

5 days,

S: 1 days

L = leak (in ppm or

drops)

HL = heavy liquid

leak

LL = light

liquid/gas/vapor leak

ext = extended repair

period Leak: m< 10

drops/min or

10,000 ppm

M > 9 drops/min

or 10,000 ppm. Leaks: m ≤

10,000,

10,000 <M ≤

25,000

S >25,000

# Appendix B

Emissions Estimates

# EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR VALVES

Valves

200,000 valves at a Leak Rate 0.5 percent

Screening Value

(ppm) Numbers of

Valves Leak Rate

(lb/day)

0 198,575 82

0<S<100 425 1

100<S<10,000 850 16

>10,000 150 507

Total 606



# Valves

200,000 valves at a Leak Rate 0.3% with only 0.025% of the valves above the

10,000-ppm limit

Screening Value

(ppm) Numbers of

Valves Leak Rate

(lb/day)

0 199,145 82

0<S<100 255 0

100<S<10,000 550 10

>10,000 50 168

Total 260



# Emission Reduction:

Emission Reductions

@ 0.3 percent Leaking Emission Reductions

@ 0.2 percent Leaking

346 lbs/day 458 lbs/day

0.21 TPD 0.23 TPD

# Approach and Assumptions

Source of Emission Factors :

Emission estimates were calculated usi ng the ARBís "California Implementation

Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions of Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum

Facilities.î

Number of Values at Refineries :

The number of valves in currently in operation at all the five Bay Area refineries is

estimated to 200,000 and is based on WSPA Ev aluation of Regulation 8, Rules 8 and 25

conducted by Radian (December 1996), which estimated 180,000 valves.

Number of Value Leaking in Excess of 10,000 ppm :

Based on data collected during inspection audits of refinery fugitive components

(July 1999 BAAQMD Inspection Audit of Fug itive Components at Refineries and May

1997 BAAQMD Inspection Audit of Fugitive Com ponents at Refineries), staff estimated

that 15 percent of the leaking valves leak above 10,000.

Additional Assumptions for Emission Estimates :

For valves with leak concentrations between 0 and 100 ppm, the average leak

concentration is 30 ppm; and the percent of leaking valves between 0 and 100 ppm is 0.5

times the number of valves leaking below 10,000 ppm.

# Appendix C

CEQA Analysis

# Appendix D

Socioeconomic Analysis