P. 1



# OAR Box 1338 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 12 ) ll-E-2 3
Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 6/17/20081:48:06

PM Sheet 12 of 105P. 2 

# A-89-1 0

uwomc n II—E—2 3 PHILI PJ . HARTE R

SUIT ! 40 4 230 1 M STREET , N.W . WASHINGTON , D. C 2003 7 (202 ) 887.103 3 FAX : (202 ) 887.103 8 

# ff. v •Vflj f 

### 7. 

# w fl '

- -. • - . l 

# f- p 1
^ Jun e 28,199 0 

## MEMORANDU M A r 

### ? l 

### " /


### -

To : EP A Negotiate d Rulemakin g Committe e o n Fugitiv e Emission s fro m Equipmen tLeak s an d Intereste d Partie s Fr : Phili p J . Harte r Facilitato r 

# (0

Re : Revise d Outlin e of Agreemen t

Th e draf t"minutes " thatwer e distribute d acoupl e of week s ag o attempte d t o capture whatw e agree d t o durin g ou rmeetin g of Jun e 6 an d 7 . But , thing s go tabi thecti cthere , s o i twa s no talway s clea rwha twa s agree d t o an d eve n whe n som e though tthing s wer e clear , other s ha d equall y clea rvision s thatothe rthing s wer e decided . W e therefor e requeste d everyon e t o revie wth e outlin e carefull y an d t o sen d i n comment s s o w e coul d buil d acommo n understandin g o f wher e w e are . I enclos e arevise d outlin e t o reflectthos e com ments . EP A staff

, Radian , an d I reviewe d th e comments . In mos tinstance s everyon e agree d with th e com ments , an d th e change s wer e include d directl y i n th e revise d outline . In som e instances , ther e wa s disagree men tove rwha twa s decided , frequentl y ove rimportan tdetail s thatwer e no tth e subjec to f explici tdiscussion ; i n thes e cases , w e highlighte d th e difference s s o the y ca n b e take n u p a tth e nex tmeeting . And , i n severa l instances , ne wissue s wer e raise d thatw e nee d t o resolve , an d the y to o wer e noted . W e di d no trevis e th e flo w charts , sinc e the y follo w th e change s mad e i n th e tex t Th e minute s faile d t o not e th e discussio n th e committe e had overth e applicabilit y of th e proposal t o refineries . Althoug h i twa s no tdistribute d a tth e meeting , th e enclose d memorandu m wa s base d o n discus sion s a tth e meeting , an d henc e shoul d b e regarde d a s a n attachmen tt o th e minutes , a s i s ou rcustom . I als o enclos e apape rRo n Berglun d presente d las tmont h a tth e Annual Quality Congress . Sinc e h e mentione d i ta tou rmeeting , severa l peopl e hav e aske d fo rit , s o w e decide d t o sen d i tt o everyone . W e wil l b e preparin g alis ter f ope n issue s an d wil l attemp tt o massag e the m int o a n agend afo rth e July 17-1 8 meeting . Th e agend awil l b e distribute d t o th e committe e shortl y befor e th e meetin g itself . I wil l b e ou tof my offic e fo rmuc h of

thattime , s o i

f anyon e ha s a n issu e the y wan tt o plac e i n contention , pleas e sen d i tt o Ric kColye ra t919-541-5262 .P. 3



## IMPORTAN TNOTIC E Th e EP Arequest s comment s o n thes e minute s b yFriday , Jun e 22,1990

. Th e shor t turnaroun d tim e i s essentia l fo rmaintainin g th e progressiv e pac e o f th e las t meeting

. Comment s ma yb e transmitte d a s follows : FAX : (919)541-566 1 OVERNIGH TMAIL : Mr

. Rober t Ajax U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Nort h Carolin a Mutua l BIdg , R m 94 1 41 1 W

. Chape l Hil l Stree t Durham , N C 2770 1 (919)541-557 9P. 4

REGULATORY NEGOTIATIO NMEETIN

G O NFUGITIV

E EQUIPMEN

T LEAK S JUNE 6-7 , 199 0 COMPR I HOTE L RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK , NORT H CAROLIN A DRAF T MEETIN

G MINUTE S Revise d a s o f Jun e 29 , 199 0
Revision s t o th

e previou s editio

no f thes e meetin

g minute s ar

e indicate d b

y vertica l bar s inth e right-han

d colum no f eac

hpage . Thi s meetin g focuse d o n keyaspect s o f the standards
. Discussio n centere d primaril yaroun

d timing an

d implementatio n o f the qualit yimprovemen t (QI ) progra mfo r valves , the valv e nonrepairabl e pool , frequencyo f flang e monitoring , an

d basi c conceptua l approache s fo r pump s (i.e. , a n enforceabl e standar d wit h a leak definitio n o f 200 0 ppm , a leak definitio n o f 100 0 pp man d QI , an d dua l seal s fo r ne wpumps. ) I n lie u o f meetin g notes , a summar yo f the genera l agreement s reache d an d miscellaneou s ope n issue s relate d t o the negotiatio n ar e presented
. Th e following presentatio n material s ar e attached
. Attachmen t 1 Attachmen t 2 Attachmen t 3 Attachmen t 4 Attachmen t 5 Attachmen t 6 Attachmen t 7 Attachmen t 8 Attachmen t 9 Attachmen t 1 0 Attachmen t 1 1 Meeting Agend a

Attendee s Jun e 6 , 199 0 Conceptua l Approac h fo r Valve s Timelin e fo r Implementing Valve s Standar d Conceptua l Approac h fo r Pump s Timelin e fo r Implementing Pump s Standar d Conceptua l Approac h fo r Flange s Draf t Recordkeeping an d Reporting Requirement s Batc h Wor k Grou

p Meetin g Minute s EPASuggeste d Provision s fo r Batc h Processe s AP I Propose d Languag e fo r Determining the Potentia l Applicabilit yo f the Negotiate d Standar d t o Refinerie s Summaryo f PreliminaryAgreement s Valve s Attachmen t 3 present s the conceptua l approac h fo r valves
. Attachmen t 4 present s the timelin e fo r implementing the conceptua l approach
.

• Plant s wit h les s tha n 25 0 valve s wil l b e exemp t fro mthe monthl y monitoring an

d Q I provision s outline d i n the valv e standar d bu t wil l b e require d t o compl ywit h the leak detectio n an d repai r provisions
.

• "Small " businesses , whic h wil l b e exemp t fro mthe performanc e trial s outline d i n the Q I progra m(bu t wil l no t b e exemp t fro mthe Q I progra

mo r monthl ymonitoring provisions ) wil l b e define d a s corporation s havin g a specifie d maximu mnumbe r o f tota l employee s (fo r example , 100 ) an d a minimu

mnumbe r o f valve s (bu t mor e than 25 0 valves)
.P. 5

Preliminar

yagreemen t wa s reache d tha t the non-repairabl e valv e poo l coul d consis t o f u p t o 1 % o f the valv e population
. Th e non repairabl e poo l woul d exis t withi n an ymonitoring frequenc yan d ther e woul d b e n o "sunset " provisio n beyond whic h th e non repairabl e poo l i s eliminated
. Non-repairabl e valve s mus t b e considere d i n calculatio n o f lea k frequenc ythe firs t tim e the y ar e identifie d bu t no t a t subsequen t times
. Fo r determining sampling frequency , result s wil l b e calculate d a s a rolling averag e o f tw o consecutiv e monitoring period s fo r triggering o r exiting monthly , quarterl yo r semiannua l monitoring programs . Thi s calculatio n procedur e wil l als o b e use d fo r the Q I program . Arolling averag e o f an ythre e ou t o f fou r consecutiv e monitorin g interval s wil l b e use d t o qualif yfo r o r exi t the annua l monitoring program . Mr . Larr

yGoodhear t wil l b e refining the provision s fo r a Q I program . Th e progra mwil l provid e fo r dat a collection ; dat a analysis , an

d performanc e trial s a t larg e plants ; an d wil l requir e tha t al l component s tha t ar e replace d mus t b e replace d o r modifie d wit h "superior " equipment
. Also , i n eac h plant , an ygroup s o r type s o f significantl ypoore r performer s (SPP ) wil l b e identified , an d 25 % o f the SPP' s tha t ca n b e isolate d fo r replacemen t withou t a plan t shutdow

n mus t b e replace d eac h year . Requirement s fo r replacemen t o f component s tha t ca n b e replace d onl yduring a plan t shutdow n nee d t o b e discusse d a t the Jul ymeeting
. I f significan t difference s ar e no t foun d among type s o r group s o f valves , the n the 25 % replacemen t provisio n doe s no t apply
. Pump s Attachmen t 5 present s the conceptua l approac h fo r pumps . Attachmen t 6 present s the timelin e fo r implementing the conceptua l approach
.

• Th e allowabl e limi t wil l b e compute d a s a n averag e o f tw o consecutiv e monitorin g periods
.

• "Small " businesses , whic h wil l b e exemp t fro mthe performanc e trial s outline d i n the Q I program , wil l b e define d a s corporation s havin g a specifie d maximu mnumbe r o f tota l employee s (fo r example , 100 ) an d a minimu

mnumbe r o f pump s (fo r example , 10) .

• Exemption s fo r pump s tha t handl e monomer s o r food/medica l grad e products
. CM

Asuggeste d the following languag e pertaining t o pump s tHa t handl e monomer s o r food/medica l grad e product s an d pump s wit h dua l mechanica l seals : Facilitie s tha t enter th e Q I progra

m fo r pump s wil l b e allowe d t o trea t pump s tha t handl e monomer s or food/medica l grad e products , o r other product s fo r whichproduc t purity concern s preclud

e the us e o f doubl e mechanica l seals , a s a separat e category . Pump s i n thi s categor

y mus t b e screene

d monthl y

an d repaire

d i f a leak i n exces s o f 5,00 0 pp

m i s detected . I f al l pumps ar e replace d wit h doubl e mechanica l seal s or equivalent a s par t o f the Q I program , the y are exemp

t fro m future monitorin

g requirements .P. 6

Th e EPAbelieve s tha t the provision s o f a Q I progra mshoul d eliminat e the nee d t o trea t a s a separat e categorypump s i n specifi c processes , suc h a s thos e tha t canno t instal l dua l

, mechanica l seals
. I n addition , EP Abelieve s tha t pump s wit h dua l mechanica l seal s shoul d b e regulate d a t leas t t o the leve l o f th e existing SOCM I NSP S an d benzen e NESHAP standard s fo r pumps , sinc e theyca n fail , bu t monthl ymonitoring a s require d b yth e basi c provis i on s o f the pum p standar d woul d no t b e required
. Flange s Attachmen t 7 present s the conceptua l approac h fo r flanges
.

• Buried , insulated , an d inaccessibl e flange s wil l b e exempte d fro m the standar d monitoring program . CM Arequeste d tha t equipmen t bod yflange s b e adde d t o thi s list , bu t EP Astate d tha t equipmen t bod yflange s fal l outsid e the scop e o f thi s negotiate d standard , s o theynee d no t b e mentione d a t all
.

• Th e regulatio n wil l explicitl ystat e tha t i t i s no t necessaryt o physicall ytag flange s fo r the purpose s o f identification
. (Leakin g flange s wil l b e tagge d pe r the requirement s fo r identifying leaking component s i n the recordkeeping requirements)
. Flange s mayb e identifie d relativ e t o othe r components , suc h a s valves
.

• Th e percen t leaking flange s wil l b e compute d fo r eac h monitoring period ; rolling average s ar e no t permitted
.

• Anon-repairabl e flang e poo l o f u p t o 2 % o f a unit' s flang e populatio n wil l b e allowed
. Th e non-repairabl e flange s wil l no t b e include d i n the calculatio n o f the percen t leaking flanges
.

• Repaire d flange s mus t b e monitore d monthl yunti l a leak i s no t detecte d fo r tw

o consecutiv e months
. CM Aan d AP I wer e uncertai n whethe r thi s requiremen t wa s include d a s par t o f the agreement .

• Flange s tha t hav e bee n disturbe d fo r an yreaso n mus t b e monitore d withi n tw

o month s afte r startup .

• Plant s tha t monito r flange s ever y2 year s hav e the optio n o f monitorin g 50 % o f the tota l flang e populatio n on e yea r an d the othe r 50 % i n the secon d year . Similarly , plant s tha t monito r flange s ever

y4 year s hav e the optio n o f monitoring 25 % o f the tota l flang e populatio n eac h yea r unti l al l flange s hav e bee n monitored
.

• I n additio n t o the existing definition s o f difficult-to-monito r an d unsafe-to-monitor , a third definitio n o f unsafe-to-repai r wil l b e describe d i n the regulatio n fo r flanges
. Flange s tha t ar e unsaf e t o repai r mus t b e tagge d during the firs t monitorin g perio d o f the progra

ma s bein g unrepairabl e unti l a plan t shutdow n an d subsequen t monitorin g o f suc h flange s wil l no t b e require d unti l a repai r attemp t ha s bee n made
.P. 7

Al l flanges , including difficult-to-monitor , unsafe-to-monitor , an d unsafe-to-repai r flanges , mus t b e monitore d a t leas t onc e befor e a planne d plan t shutdown , eithe r a s par t o f a plant' s routin e monitoring schedul e (i.e. , annually , ever ytw o years , o r ever yfour years ) o r a s a separat e screening
. Th e regulatio n wil l no t requir e a separat e surveybefor e a plan t shutdown
. Agitato r Seal s

Bot h ne wan

d existing agitato r seal s mus t b e monitore d monthly
. Agitato r seal s tha t scree n a t 10,00 0 ppm v o r greate r wil l b e classifie d a s leakers
. Othe r Equipmen t

Genera l Al l othe r equipmen t currentl ycontrolle d i n the existing SOCM I

equipmen t leak s regulatio n (CF R 40 , Par t 60 , Subpar t W ) wil l be identicall ycontrolle d i n the negotiate d standard
.

Th e vapo r pressur e cutof f separating ligh t an d heav yliquid s wil l remai n unchange d fro mth e existing definitio n (i.e. , 0. 3 kP a - 0.04 4 psia)
. Th e d e minimi s concentratio n cutof f wil l b e 5 percen t HAP b y weight
. Pilo t plant s ar e currentl yexemp t fro mregulatio n i n the Hous e versio n o f the propose d Clea n Ai r Ac t amendment s unles s the yar e majo r facilitie s o n thei r own . Th e equipmen t leak rul e wil l no t exemp t pilo t plant s unles s the Clea n Ai r Ac t amendment s exemp t them
. Miscellaneou s Issue s

Ne wversu s Existing Plants
. Th e standar d wil l b e the same fo r ne wan d existing plant s excep t fo r phasin g o f the requirements
. AP I believe s thi s issu e need s furthe r discussio n a t the Jul ymeeting
. I f a n existing plan t doe s no t begi n it s Q I progra mfo r pump s o r valve s a t the en

d o f Yea r 3 , the n i t canno t op t fo r a Q I progra m a t a late r date
. Ne wplant s wil l hav e on e yea r t o decid e whethe r o r no t t o begi n a Q I program . CM Adoe s no t recal l a n agreemen t tha t the Q I progra

mmus t begi n b

ythe en

d o f Yea r 3 . Theyfee l thi s issu e need s furthe r discussion
. Proces s Uni t Shutdown s Propose d languag e require s that , i f possible , equipmen t shoul d b e isolate d fo r repair
. Otherwise , equipmen t repai r ca n b e delaye d unti l shutdown
. Th e EP Aagree d conceptuall yt o the languag e suggeste d b

yCM Abu t maymak e mino r modification s upo n furthe r review
.P. 8

Respons e Factor s Mr . Aja xcommente dtha t ther e need s t o b e a maximu m rang e o n allowabl e respons e factors . Ther e wa s n o discussio no nthi s commen t durin g the meeting . Mr . Aja xbelieve s ther e i s a nee d to discus s thi s issue ; otherwise , the effec t o f the standar dcoul d var y widely , andthe potentia l fo r gamin g woul dbe larg e (e.g. , b y selectin g a ninstrumen t wit ha favorabl e respons e factor) . On e approac hwoul dbe a one-time calculatio nfo r eac hplan t o f a n averag e respons e factor . I f the averag e respons e facto r lie s withi na nacceptabl e rang e (e.g. , 0. 5 t o 1.5) , the nther e woul db e n o nee dt o adjus t fo r respons e factor . Otherwise , a naverag e respons e facto r correctio nmus t be made . CM A believe s tha t furthe r di s cussio ni s neede do nthe respons e facto r issue . Equivalen t Approache s The languag e tha t currentl y appear s i nthe strawma nregulatio n wil l be use dt o describ e equivalen t approache s t o th e standard . Th e buildin g enclosur e approac hwil l be describe da s a nexampl e i n th e preamble . D e Minimi s Lin e Size s Th e committe e agree dt o conside r alternative s t o includin g equipmen t o f 3/8 " o r les s i nthe lea k detectio nandrepai r provisions . CM

A agree dt o review the issu e andma y offe r a n alternativ e proposal . Draftin g Sessio n

A draftin g sessio nwil l be hel dfo r intereste dpartie s befor e th e nex t committe e meeting . Th e purpos e o f the sessio nwil l b e t o begi ndraftin g the regulation , t o identif y unresolve dissues , an d t o discus s recordkeepin g andreportin g requirements . Unresolve d issue s wil l be discusse da t the nex t Regulator y Negotiatio n Committe e meeting . A draf t exampl e o f the recordkeepin g and reportin g requirement s i s include da s Attachmen t 8 . Batc hProcesse s

Th e result s o f the Batc hWor k Grou pmeetin g o nJun e 1 wer e no t presente ddu e t o lac k o f time . Th e Batc hWor k Grou pmeetin g minute s ar e provide da s Attachmen t 9 . Subsequen t t o the las t meeting , EPA staf f reviewe dthe Batc hWor k Group' s propose ddefinitio no f batc hprocesse s andalternativ e testin g provisions . Attachmen t 1 0 present s the staff' s suggeste d modification s t o the propose dprovisions . These provision s ar e suggeste drecognizin g the complexit y anddifficult y

o f demonstratin g equivalenc y andar e intende dt o provide a practica l program

tha t i s roughl y

comparabl e t o LDAR . I f anyon e feel s strongl y

abou t thes e provisions , they ar e encourage dt o prepar e an alternativ e se t o f provisions .P. 9

RefineryBT X Unit s

• AP I believe s tha t refiner yBTX unit s shoul d no t b e include d i n th e scop e o f the negotiate d rule
. EP Adisagrees
. Furthe r discussio n o n thi s issu e i s neede d during the Jul ymeeting
. Potentia l Applicabilit yo f Standar d t o Refinerie s

• Attachmen t 1 1 present s API' s propose d languag e fo r determining th e potentia l applicabilit yo f the negotiate d standar d t o petroleu m refineries
. Thi s languag e wa s briefl ydescribe d during th e meeting
. Following th e meetin g AP I develope d an d circulate d the propose d languag e i n Attachmen t 11 . Phas e i n Time s

• Thi s sectio n represent s EPA' s understandin g o f phase-i n time s agree d t o b

ythe Committe e members
. However , som e committe e member s ma

yfee l tha t furthe r discussion s o f thes e phase-i n time s ar e require d during the Jul ymeeting
.

• Th e provision s fo r al l equipmen t subjec t t o the negotiate d rul e (pumps , valves , flanges , compressors , agitato r seals , sampl e connectio n systems , open-ende d lines , an d pressur e relie f valves ) star t the secon

d quarte r afte r promulgation
. (Existing waive r . provision s i n the CA Afo r installing contro l device s stil l appl y t o th e negotiate d rule. ) AP I expresse d concer n wit h thi s phase

i n tim e an d believe s thi s issu e need s t o b e discusse d furthe r during the Jul ymeeting
. Valve s Phas e I , 10,00 0 pp mLDA R program , start s thre e month s afte r promulgatio n o f the negotiate d rule
. A s mentione d above , AP I feel s thi s issu e need s furthe r discussion
. Phas e II , 50 0 ppmLDA R progra

mstart s on e yea r afte r promulgatio n o f the negotiate d rule
. Phas e II I start s thre e year s afte r promulgatio n o f th e negotiate d rule
. A t thi s time , existing facilitie s mus t op t fo r on e o f thre e provisions : 1 ) the basi c monitoring schem e outline d i n Attachmen t 3 (i.e. , quarterly , semi-annual , o r annua l monitoring) , 2 ) monthl yLDAR , o r 3 ) a Q I program . CM Aan d AP I do no t agre e wit h EPA' s restrictio n tha t a plan t canno t op t fo r a Q I progra ma t a late r date
. Theyfee l thi s issu e need s furthe r discussion
. Valv e performanc e trial s fo r larg e plant s an d valv e dat a analysi s star t on e yea r afte r the star t o f Phas e III . Avalv e replacemen t progra mfo r larg e plant s start s tw o . year s afte r the star t o f Phas e III . Avalv e replacemen t progra mfo r smal l plant s start s thre e year s afte r the star t o f Phas e III .P.1 0

Pump s Phas e I , 10,00 0 pp mLDA R program , start s thre e month s afte r promulgatio n o f the negotiate d rule
. A s mentione d above , AP I feel s thi s issu e need s furthe r discussion
. Phas e II , 1,00 0 pp

mLDA R program , start s on e yea r afte r promulgatio n o f the negotiate d rule
. Phas e II I start s thre e year s afte r promulgatio n o f the negotiate d rule
. A t thi s time , existing facilitie s mus t op t fo r on e o f two provisions : 1 ) monthl yLDAR , o r 2 ) a Q I program . A s mentione d above , CM Aan d AP I disagre e wit h EPA' s restrictio n tha t a plan t canno t op t fo r a Q I progra ma t a late r date
. The yfee l thi s issu e need s furthe r discussion
. Dat a analysi s an

d pum p performanc e trial s fo r large r plant s star t on e yea r afte r the star t o f Phas e III . Apum p replacement/modificatio n progra mfo r larg e plant s start s tw

o year s afte r the star t o f Phas e III . Apum p replacement/modificatio n progra mfo r smal l plant s start s thre e year s afte r the star t o f Phas e III . Flange s Th e conceptua l approac h fo r flange s begin s thre e month s afte r promulgatio n o f th e negotiate d rule
. Th e firs t monitoring surveymus t b e complete d withi n 1 2 month s afte r promulgatio n o f the negotiate d rule
.P-1 1



# ATTACHMEN T1
ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOTIATE D RULEMAKIN G

CONCERNIN G CONTRO L O F FUGITIV E EMISSION S FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S 

## AGEND AFO R MEETING O F JUN E 6- 7

ADMINISTRATIV E

• Introduction s

• Revie w o

f th e Agenda : additions , subtractions , orde r

• Minute s o

f Marc hmeeting : Any major heartburn s

GENERA LPROVISION S O FTH ESTANDAR D

• Exemption s

- Vapo r pressure cutoff

s

- De minimis concentration s

- De minimis numbe r

o f component s (on e leve l for exemptio n fromstandard ; anothe r for different type s o f requirements )

- Equipmen t

tim e i nus e

- Diamete r

o f lin e

- Effect s o

f monomer s o npum

p performanc e

- Pilo t plant s

• Reasonabl e further

progres s

• Unrepairabl e component se t asid e

• Equivalen t

approache s

• Ne w versu s existing plant s

• Phase-i n

• Tagging requirement s

• Reportin g an drecordkeepin g

• Incentives/award sP.1 2



# ATTACHMEN T2

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NEGOTIATINGCOMMITTE E FOR CONTRO L O F FUGITIV E EMISSION S O F VOC s FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S ATTENDEE S LIS T FORMEETINGO F JUN E 6 , 199 0 NAME E dMorett i Bil l Grimle y Bruc e Davi s Jerr y M . Schro y LeighMark s Ja nMeye r Walte r Brenne r Do nPiehn Ro nBerglun d Davi dMarkword t Glen nRive s Ric kColye r Elle nSiegle r Bruc e Grumstru p Kari nRitte r Rober t Majewsk i Rober t Aja x Tom Kittlema n Harve l M Roger s Phili pHarte r Jac kKac e Al Bicku m Lind a Curra n L.T . Goodhear t Gu s VonBodunge n Fre dDimmic k Kath y Baile y Charle s Bennet t Davi dGustafso n JohnKitche n Chery l Sutterfiel d Dwigh t Atkinso n Mik e Pop e Bo bRowlan d Jame s Murphy Richar dSigma n Lyma nBusar d Kare nOlso n Alle nHershkowit z Davi dDonige r AFFILIATIO N Radia nCorporatio n EPA Exxo nChemica l Company Monsant o Company El i Lill y

& Company EPA SU N Company JohnCrane , Inc . Unio nCarbid e EPA Radia n EPA AP I Fishe r Control s Company AP I NESCAU M U.S . EPA CM A (DuPont ) Jefferso nCo . APC D(La w Env. ) Facilitato r PM A (Hoffman nL a Roche ) IISR P (Goodyear ) Amoc o Oi l Company API/Chevro n L A DEQ-Ai r Qualit y EPA/OAQPS/RT P CM A Ashlan dPetroleu

m Dow Chemica l DuPon t PM A EPA/OPP E DO W Pfize r Inc . W.R . Grac e CM A El i Lill y

an dCompany TAC B NRD C NRD CP.1 3



# ATTACHMEN T3

VALVE S

PtlalM l

PH.1MI I



### P h •Mil l

Monthl y

LDA R

Qualit y Improvemen t <2%, 50 0 ppm v

>2% , 50 0 ppm v

>1 % 50 0 p p

>0.5 1 50 0 p p m v

t m v 10,00 0 pp m LDAR

' 50 0 pp m LDAR

- •

Quarterl y LDA R

Semi-Annua l LDA R

i

Annua l LDAR 5 0

• < 1 % Dppm v

<0.5 % 50 0 ppm v 1P.1 4



# ATTACHMEN T4

VALVE S
PhaM l PhaMl l Pha» « II I

10,00 0 pp m
Quarterl y 50 0 pp m

Quarterl y Promulgatio n + 3 month s EOY- 1 EOY- 2 EOY- 3 EOY- 4 EQY- 5 EOY- 6

• Q.I

. Valv e • Q I Analyz e Replacemen t i <2% , o rDat a Progra m fo r > Monthl yLDAR , o r• Q I Larg e Plant s i Qualit yPerformanc e Improvemen t Trial s fo r -collectdat a Larg e Plant s • Q.I

. Valv e Replacemen t Progra m fo r Smal l Plant s

EOY= EndofYea rP.1 5



# ATTACHMENTS

PUMP S

PhBM l

PhaMl l

P h as * II I

Qualit y Improvemen t < 10% , 1,00 0 ppm v

>10% , 1,00 0 ppm v 10,00 0 pp m

1 1,00 0 pp m LDAf l

Monthl y LDA RP.1 6



# ATTACHMEN T6

PUMP S

PtMM l Phasal l Phase II I

10,000 pp m LDA R Monthl y 1,00

0 pp m
Monthl y Promulgatio n + 3 month s EOY- 1 EOY- 2

EO Y= EndofYea r EOY- 3 EOY-

4 EOY-

5 EOY-

6
i Q I Smal l plants Instal l superio requipmen t I n pump s (10% pe ryear

) i Q I Larg e plants Instal l superio requipmen t i n pump s (10% pe ryear

)

• Q I Analyze Data

- larg e plant s perfor m trial s o n 10 % (o r3 , whicheve r i s less) pump s

• <10%o r • Qualit y Improvement (QI ) • collec t dat aP.1 7



# ATTACHMEN T7

FLANGE S

Annua l

- >0.5 % - 50 0 ppm v <0.5% , 50 0 ppm v

Ever y 2 year s

<0.5% , 50 0 ppm v

Ever y 4 years >1 % 50 0 ppm v

- >0.5 % - 50 0 ppm vP.1 8



# ATTACHMEN T8

New provision s ar e show

ni n bol d itali c print
.

§ 6 . Recordkeepin g Requirement s (a ) An owne r o r operato r o f mor e tha n on e process unit subjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s subpar t ma ycompl ywit h th e recordkeepin g requirement s fo r thes e facilitie s in on e recordkeepin g syste mi f th e syste midentifie s eac h
recor db y process

unit and the program

being implemented

(e.g.. quarterly). (b ) Whe n eac h lea k i s detecte d a s specifie d i n , th e followin g requirement s apply : (1 ) Aweatherproo f and readil yvisibl e identification , marke dwith , th e equipmen t identificatio n number , shal l b e attache d t o th e leakin g equipment
. (2 ) Th e identificatio n o n a valv e or a flange ma yb e remove d afte r i t ha s bee n monitore d fo r 2 successiv e month s a s specifie d i n § and n o lea k ha s bee n detecte d durin g thos e 2 months
. (3 ) Th e identificatio n o n equipmen t excep t o n a valv e or a flange, ma y b e remove d afte r i t ha s bee n repaired
. (c ) Whe n eac h lea k i s detecte d a s specifie d in , th e followin g informatio n shal l b e recorde d i n a lo g and shal l b e kep t fo r 2 year s in a readil yaccessibl e location : (1 ) Th e instrumen t and operato r identificatio n number s and th e equipmen t identificatio n number
. (2 ) Th e dat e th e lea k wa s detecte d and th e date s o f eac h attemp t t o repai r th e leak
. (3 ) Repai r method s applie d in eac h attemp t t o repai r th e leak
. (4 ) Maximu minstrumen t readin g measure d b yth e metho d specifie d in § afte r eac h repai r attempt .P.1 9



### (5 ) "Repai r delayed " andth e reaso nfo r th e dela y i f a lea ki s no t repaire dwithi n1 5 calenda r day s afte r discover y o f th e leak . (6 ) Th e signatur e o f th e owne r o r operato r (o r designate ) whos e decisio ni t wa s tha t repai r coul dno t b e effecte dwithou t a proces s shutdown . (7 ) Th e expecte ddat e o f successfu l repai r o f th e lea ki f a lea ki s no t repaire dwithi n1 5 days . (8 ) Date s o f proces s uni t shutdow ntha t occu r whil e th e equipmen t i s unrepaired . (9 ) Th e dat e o f successfu l repai r o f th e leak . (d ) Th e followin g informatio npertainin g t o th e desig nrequirement s fo r closed-ven t system s an dcontro l device s describe di nshal l b e recorde dandkep t ina readil y accessibl e location : (1 ) Detaile dschematics , desig nspecifications , an dpipin g an

d instrumentatio ndiagrams . (2 ) Th e date s an

ddescriptio no f an

y change s inth e desig n specifications . (3 ) A descriptio no f th e paramete r o r parameter s monitored , a s require d i n, t o ensur e tha t contro l device s ar e operate dan d maintaine di

nconformanc e wit hthei r desig nan da nexplanatio no f why

tha t paramete r (o r parameters ) wa s selecte dfo r th e monitoring . (4 ) Period s whe nth e closed-ven t system s an dcontro l device s require d i nar e no t operate da s designed , includin g period s whe na flar e pilo t ligh t doe s no t hav e a flame . (5 ) Date s o f startup s an dshutdown s o f th e closed-ven t system s an d contro l device s require di n.P.2 0



### (e ) Th e followin g informatio n pertainin g t o al l equipmen t in each process unit subjec t t o th e requirement s in § t o § shal l b e recorde d i n a lo g tha t i s kep t in a readil yaccessibl e location : {l)(i) Alis t o f identificatio n number s fo r equipmen t (excep t welde d fittings ) subjec t t o th e requirement s o f thi s subpar t and the location of the equipment

in the process

unit. (ii) The list of equipment

identification

numbers

and locations

shall also include

the line size, pressure, and stream service for each item of equipment . (Hi) Physical

tagging

of the equipment

is not required. Equipment subject to the provisions

of this subpart

may be identified

on a plant site plan, in

log entries, or

by other appropriate

methods. (2)(i ) Alis t o f identificatio n number s fo r equipmen t tha t th e owne r o r operato r elect s t o designat e fo r n o detectabl e emissions , a s indicate d b yan instrumen t readin g o f les s tha n 2 5 pp mabov e background , unde r th e provision s
o f and
. (ii ) Th e designatio n o f thi s equipmen t a s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f § , § , o r § shal l b e signe d byth e owne r o r operator . (3 ) Alis t o f equipmen t identificatio n number s fo r pressur e relie f device s require d t o compl ywit h § . (4)(i ) Th e date s o f eac h complianc e tes t require d i n (ii ) Th e backgroun d leve l measure d durin g eac h complianc e tes t (iii ) Th e maximu m

instrumen t readin g measure d a t th e equipmen t durin g
eac h complianc e test .P.2 1



### (5 ) A lis t o f identificatio nnumber s fo r equipmen t i nvacuu m service . (6) Thm frequency

of monitoring

and provisions

of the standard

being implemented

for each process

unit subject

to the requirements

of the subpart. (f ) Th e followin g informatio npertainin g t o al l valve s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f an d shal l b e recorde di na lo g tha t i s kep t ina readil y accessibl e location :
NOTE* . Unsaf e t o monitor , etc. , provisions . 

### (1 ) A lis t o f identificatio nnumber s fo r valve s tha t ar e designate da s unsafe-to-monitor , anexplanatio nfo r eac hvalv e statin g why th e valv e i s unsafe-to-monitor , an d th e pla nfo r monitorin g eac hvalve . (2 ) A lis t o f identificatio nnumber s fo r valve s tha t ar e designate da s difficult-to-monitor , anexplanatio nfo r eac hvalv e statin g wh y th e valv e i s difficult-to-monitor , an d th e schedul e fo r monitorin g eac hvalve . (g ) Th e followin g informatio nshal l b e recorde dfo r valve s complyin g wit h.

• NOTE : Ski p perio d provisions
. 

### (1 ) A schedul e o f monitoring . (2 ) Th e percen t o f valve s foundleakin g durin g eac hmonitorin g period . (h) The following

information

pertaining

to all flanges

subject to

the requirements

of and

shall

be recorded

in a log that is kept in a readily accessible

location:
NOTE : Unsaf e t o monitor , etc. , provisions
. 

### (1) A list of identification

numbers

for flanges

that are designated

as unsafe-to-monitor, an explanation

for each flange stating why the flange is unsafe-to-monitor, and the plan for monitoring

each flange.P.2 2



### (2) A list of identification

numbers

for flanges

that are designated

as difficult-to-monitor, an explanation

for each flange stating why the flange is difficult-to-monitor, and the schedule

for monitoring

each flange. (i) The following

information

shall be recorded

for flange complying with

__ . NOTE : Ski pperio dprovisions . 

### (1) A schedule

of monitoring. (2) The percent of flanges

found leaking during each monitoring

period. (j ) Th e followin g informatio nshal l b e recorde di na lo g tha t i s kep t i na readil y

accessibl e location : , < :r 

### . (1 ) Desig ncriterio nrequire di nand - an d explanatio no f th e desig ncriterion ; an d (2 ) Any

change s t o thi s criterio nand th e reason s forth e changes . (k) Each owner or operator

of a process

unit subject

to the reasonable further progress

program

shall maintain

at the process

unit for a period of 2 years and make available

to the Administrator

upon request

the following records:
NOTE : I t i s assume dtha t ther e wil l b e a separat e sectio ni nth e regulatio ntha t wil l specif y th e specifi c criteri a o f a nacceptabl e RF P program . Th e recordkeepin g requirement s give nbelo w ar e preliminar y base dondiscussion s t o date . Thi s sectio ni s intende dt o implemen t th e RF P progra m an dno t t o specif y

it s features . 

### (1) A description

of the program

and a statement

of the performance goals. (2) Results

of bench scale and field evaluations

of low emission performance

technology

including

assessment

of applicability, maintenance needed to ensure low emission

performance, and

specifications

necessary

forP.2 3



### quality control

of purchased

equipment. These

records

will include

the following

information: (i) The instrument

and operator

identification

numbers

and the equipment

identification

number. (ii) Maximum

instrument

reading measured

by the method

specified

in
(Hi) If a leak is detected, the

repair methods

applied

in each attempt to repair the leak and the maximum

instrument

reading measured

after each repair attempt. (iv) If a leak is not repaired

within 15 calendar

days after discovery of the leak, the

reason for the delay and the expected

date of successful repair. (3) Evaluations

of operating

practices

and maintenance

programs

needed to achieve

low emission

performance. The

records shall include

the data used to assess the effect of operating

practices

and maintenance

on the emission performance

of equipment. (4) Schedule

and plan for installation

of low emission

potential equipment. (5) Documentation

of the reasons

use of low emission

performance equipment

is not technically

feasible. The

planned

operating

practices

and maintenance

of this equipment

shall also be specified. (6) Documentation

of equipment

specifications

for quality assurance

and control of equipment

purchases. (7) Documentation

of operating

practices, maintenance programs, and personnel

training that will be used to achieve

low emission

performance.P.2 4



### (1 ) Th e followin g informatio n shal l b e recorde d in a lo g tha t i s kep t i n a readil yaccessibl e locatio n fo r us e in determinin g exemption s a s provide d in . NOTE : Thi s lis t i s preliminar y an di s base do nth e discussion s i nth e Ma y

meeting . 

### (1 ) An analysi s demonstratin g th e desig n capacit yo f th e affecte d facility , (2 ) Astatemen t listin g th e fee d o r ra wmaterial s and product s fro mth e process unit and a n analysi s demonstratin g whethe r thes e chemical s ar e heavy liquids , and (3 ) An analysi s demonstratin g tha t equipmen t i s no t i n VHA P service , (m ) Informatio n and dat a use d t o demonstrat e tha t a piec e o f equipmen t i s no t i n VHA P servic e shal l b e recorde d in a lo g tha t i s kep t i n a readil y accessibl e location
. (n ) Th e provision s o f §61.14(f ) d o no t appl yt o process units subjec t t o thi s subpart
. § 7 . Reportin g Requirement s (a)(1 ) Eac h owne r o r operato r o f a proces s uni t subjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s subpar t shal l submi t a statemen t notifyin g th e Administrato r whic h o f th e requirement s wil l b e implemented
. (2 ) I n th e cas e o f an existin g process unit o r a ne wproces s uni t wit h
a startup dat e precedin g th e effectiv e date , th e statemen t shal l b e submitte d b yday s afte r th e effectiv e dat e and semiannuall ythereafter
. (3 ) I n th e cas e o f ne wprocess units whic h di d no t startup befor e th e effectiv e date , th e statemen t shal l b e submitte d wit h th e applicatio n fo r approva l o f construction , a s describe d in §61.07 .P.2 5



### (4 ) Th e statemen t shal l contai n th e followin g informatio n fo r eac h process unit: (i ) Proces s uni t identificatio n (ii ) Numbe r o f eac h equipment typ e (e.g. , valves , pumps ) excludin g equipment

designate d fo r n o detectabl e emission s servic e unde r th e provision s
o f an d thos e i n vacuu m service , (iii ) Metho d o f complianc e wit h th e standar d (fo r example , "monthl ylea k detectio n an d repair " o r "equippe d wit h dua l mechanica l seals")
. (iv ) Planne d schedul e fo r eac h phas e o f th e requirement s o f thi s subpart
. •••••'• ' (b ) Arepor t shal l b e submitte d t o th e Administrato r semiannuall y startin g 6 month s afte r th e initia l repor t require d i n paragrap h (a ) o f thi s section , tha t include s th e followin g information : (1 ) Proces s uni t identification , frequency of monitoring, and

specific provisions

of this subpart

being implemented. (2 ) Fo r eac h monitorin g perio d durin g th e semiannua l reportin g period , (i ) Numbe r o f valve s fo r whic h leak s wer e detected , the percent leakers , and th e tota l numbe r o f valve s teste d (ii ) Numbe r o f valve s fo r whic h leak s wer e no t repaire d a s require d in
(iii ) Numbe r o f pump s fo r whic h leak s wer e detecte d a s describe d in
(iv ) Numbe r o f pump s fo r whic h leak s wer e no t repaire d a s describe d i nP.2 6



### (v ) Numbe r o f compressor s fo r whic h leak s wer e detecte d a s describe d i n § • (vi ) Numbe r o f compressor s fo r whic h leak s wer e no t repaire d a s require d in § . (vii) Number

of flanges

for which leaks were detected, the

percent leakers, and

the total number

of flanges

tested. (viii) Number

of flanges

for which leaks were not repaired

as required in (ix) Number

of agitator

seals for which leaks were detected

as described in (xi ) Th e fact s tha t explai n anydela yo f repair s and , wher e appropriate , wh ya proces s uni t shutdow n wa s technicall yinfeasible
. (xii ) An exampl e forma t fo r reportin g thi s informatio n i s give n in Appendi x C . (3 ) Date s o f proces s uni t shutdown s whic h occurre d withi n th e semiannua l reportin g period
. (4 ) Revision s t o item s reporte d accordin g t o paragrap h (a ) i f change s hav e occurre d sinc e th e initia l repor t o r subsequen t revision s t o th e initia l report . NOTE : Complianc e wit hth e requirement s o f 561.10(c ) i s no t require dfo r revision s documente dunde r thi s paragraph . 

### (5 ) Th e result s o f al l performanc e test s t o determin e complianc e wit h conducte d withi n th e semiannua l reportin g period
. (c ) An applicatio n fo r approva l o f constructio n o r modification , §§61.05(a ) an

d 61.07 , wil l no t b e require d i f - -P.2 7



### (1 ) Th e ne wsourc e complie s wit h th e standard , §
_ (2 ) Th e new

sourc e i s no t par t o f th e constructio n o f a proces s unit ;
and (3 ) I n th e nex t semiannua l repor t require d byparagrap h (b ) o f thi s section , th e informatio n i n paragrap h (a)(4 ) o f thi s sectio n i s reported
. (d ) An owne r o r operato r o f a proces s uni t tha t fail s t o compl ywit h (phas e II I standar d fo r valves ) shal l notif yth e Administrato r withi n 3 0 day s
o f initiatin g th e monthl ymonitorin g progra munde r o r a reasonabl e furthe r progres s progra munde r ' (e) Each owner or operator

of a process

unit subject

to this subpart shall submit a written report each year to the Administrator

that includes

the following

information: (1) Analysis

of trends or associations

between

equipment

service, Une pressure, materials

of construction, line

size, and

other relevant

variables and leak frequency (2) Assessment

of performance

of low emission

potential

technology

and operating

practices (3) Annual

assessment

of emission

performance

of equipment

and conclusions

on possible

future improvements

in low emission

technology

and operating

practices. (f) If acceptable

to both the Administrator

and the owner or operator of the process

unit, the

reports may be submitted

on electronic

media.



## 1 0P.2 8



# ATTACHMEN T9

Batc hWorkgrou p Meetin g Minute s —

Jun e 1 , 199 0
Th e definitio n o f batc h proces s equipmen t wa s discussed
. Som e dedicate d batc h equipmen t ha s a relativel ylo wtime-in-us e (I.e. , 5 days/wee k production , 1 o r 2 shifts/day)
. Multipurpos e batc h equipmen t 1 s sometime s ru n 7 days/week , 3 shifts , fo r th e lengt h o f th e campaign
. I t 1 s the n shu t dow n an d reconfigure d t o mak e anothe r product
. Th e reacto r siz e o f batc h pharmaceutica l product s i s primaril y1,00 0 gallon s o r less
. Th e larges t reactor s ar e generall y5,00 0 gallons
. I t wa s decide d t o recommen d tha t th e propose d definitio n o f batc h proces s equipmen t no t b e change d fro m

tha t presente d wit h th e las t meetin g minutes
.
Th e alternat e o f pressur e testin g wa s discussed. E1 1 Lill yand Compan y prepare d a summar y(cop yattached ) o f th e variable s Impactin g o n th e equivalenc ydemonstration
. Thes e variable s includ e syste mtemperature , pressure , volume , liquid/vapo r ratio , an d solven t volatility
. Th e consensu s o f th e grou p wa s tha t a pressur e dro p o f 0. 3 psi/1,00 0 ft 3 

### /1 5 m1n . fo r ai r o r nitroge n represente d a mi d rang e valu e tha t 1 s nea r th e practica l analytica l limits
. Th e Pfize r Inc . representativ e i s investigatin g a pressur e tes t wit h water . Th e consultan t use d byPfize r i s recommendin g a constan t pressur e test . Th e pressur e i s maintaine d bypumpin g a metere d amoun t o f wate r Int o th e system . I t i s a syste mcurrentl yuse d b yundergroun d tan k tester s t o measur e th e tightnes s o f pipelines
. Thi s wil l b e Investigate d further
. Ther e 1 s likel ya nee d t o includ e a visibl e liqui d lea k requiremen t wit h th e pressur e tes t alternative
. Th e alternat e o f measurin g fugitiv e component s wit h a portabl e mete r wa s discussed
. Th e bookkee A 

### 1n g an d paperwor k associate d wit h thi s alternativ e wil l b e very

comple x fo r a multipurpos e plant
.P.2 9



## PRESSUR E TESTEQUIVALEN TSTUD Y
El i Lill ydi d severa l cas e studie s as requeste d b yth e PMAFugitiv e Emissio n Workgrou p t o determin e i f pressure testin g ca n b e equate d t o a lea k detectio n an d repai r(LDAR ) program . El i Lill ymodele d al l calculation s concernin g thi s stud yfo rth e equipmen t i n Proces s Z whic h i s describe d i n Appendi xA

. Th e compariso n o f a pressure tes t mode l an d a lea k

detectio n an d repai r(LDAR ) mode l i s extremel y complexbecaus e bot h test s depen d o n man yvariables

. LDA R LEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FROM EMISSIO N FACTOR S Th e volatil e hazardou s ai rpollutan t (VHAP ) leakrat e fo ra LDA R progra m i s calculate d fro m th e emissio n factors distribute d b y th e EP Ao n 3/27/9 0 durin g th e Fugitiv e Emissio n Negotiatin g Committe e (Appendi xB)

. Tabl e 1 compare s th e VHA P leakrate s fo r proces s Z whe n tw o differen t criteri a are use d t o determin e th e emissio n factor s (Appendi xB) :

Criteri a fo r emissio n factors Pumps : 15 % a

t 500 0 pp m Valves : 4 % at 100 0 pp m Flanges : 4 % a

t 100 0 pp m Pumps : 5 % at 500 0 pp m Valves : 3 % a

t 50 0 ppm Flanges : 2 % a

t 50 0 pp m TABL E 1 Instantaneou s Leakrate (lb/hr , 1.5 4

0.5 0 

## Th e calculate d LDA R leakrat e fo rVHA P als o depend s o n many variables : o n th e tota l numbe rof components , th e definitio n of a lea k fo reac h component , an d th e percentag e o f allowabl e leakers

.
PRESSUR E TES

TLEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FROM EVACUATIO N COMPUTE R MODE L Th e leakrat e fro m a pressure dro p i s calculate d b ya n evacuatio n mode l use d b yEl i Lill yClinto n Laboratorie s i n thei r198 9 SAR ATitl e II I calculation

. Grap h 1 compare s th e leakrat e fro m proces s Z fo ra pressure dro p o f 1 PSI G i n 1 5 minute s whe n th e volum e of th e syste m i s varied

. Grap h 2 compare s th e VHA P leakrat e whe n th e solven t an d startin g pressure i s varied

.\ - * 

# GRAP H 1 : PRESSUR E TES T FO REQUIVALENC

Y U/U C RAT

H va , SYSTE M VOLUM

B f t



## 4



# a

2

1

Q 

# y

y ^

• /



# - 

# y^

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 

## 0. 2 0. 6 1 1. 4 1. 8 Z.Z 2. 6 3 3. 4 3. 8 (Thoue.*ndfl ) SYOTB M VOLUM

B (CUBI C PBffT ) D METHANO

L

# GRAP H 2 : PRESSUR E TES TFO R EQUIVALENC

Y LBA KBATB vu STABTING PBBBSUB B

.9XABTXN

G PBBSSUB B ( 1 PSI G IBOP/1 5 .MIN ) D TOUJBN

B + METHANO

L
C OP.3 2



### Th e tabulate d result s fro m graph s 1 an d 2 alon g wit h th e detaile d calculation s fro m th e compute rmode l are describe d i n Appendi xC

. Man yothe rfactor s wil l effec t th e actua l leakrate s associate d wit h bot h pressur e testin g an d LDA R monitorin g program s bu t ar e no t reflecte d i n thes e models

. Fo rbatc h processes , a n averag e tim e i n servic e fo rth e componen t typ e wil l b e a n additiona l variable

. Fo rproces s Z , a lea k

i s determine d a s a pressur e dro p o f mor e tha n 0.0 3 PSIG /

1 5 min

. Adescriptio n of th e calculatio n i s i n Appendi xD

. Ther e are a larg e numbe ro f variable s associate d wit h pressur e testin g an d th e LDA R program . Therefore , El i Lill yfeel s 0.0 3 PSIG /

1 5 min

. shoul d no t b e use d a s a generi cstandar d fo ral l th e processe s whic h wil l b e encompasse d b ythi s regulation

. Furthe r stud yi s require d t o determin e generi cstandard s whic h coul d equat e pressur e testin g an d LDA R monitorin g program . Leig h Mark s RayCollin s Proces s Enginee r Clinto n Laborator y El i Lill yan d Compan y

0 G J

. M

. Colliga n Director , Chemica l Operation s M

. P

. Kinne y Manager , Chemica l Operation s R

. G

. Moenc h Tea m Leader , Environmenta l Tas k Forc eP.3 3



## APPENDI XA : PROCES S Z DESCRIPTIO N

SYSTEM : 4 PROCESS TANK S AN D ASSOCIATE D PIPING

.
Volum e - 122 9 c u ft Temperature 2 0 ° C Solven t = Methylen e Chlorid e (MeCl2 )
Descriptio n Singl e mechanica l sea l pump s Agitator s Ga s valve s Liqui d valve s Flange s # o f Compnent s 2 4 2 7 4 9 19 3 

## Tota l component s 27 5P.3 4



## APPENDI XB : VHA P LEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FRO M EPA EMISSIO

N FACTOR S

CAS S 1 ; Criteri a fo remissio n factor s Pump s an d agitators : 15 % a t 500 0 pp m Valves : 4 % a t 100 0 pp m Flanges : 4 % a t 100 0 pp m

COMMPONEN T SINGL E MECHANICA L SEA L PUMP S AGITATOR S GA S VALVE S LIQUI D VALVE S FLANGE S
TOTA L LEAKRAT E EMISSIO N FACTO R 0.00833 6 kg/h r 0.00833 6 kg/h r 0.00031 7 kg/h r 0.00109 9 kg/h r 0.00301 2 kg/h r
0.693 7 kg/h r 1.5 3 lb/h r QUANTITY 2 4 2 7 2 9 19 3P.3 5



### CAS E 2 : Criteri a fo remissio n factor s Pump s an d agitators : 5 % at 500 0 pp m Valves : 3 % a t 50 0 pp m Flanges : 2 % at 50 0 pp m

COMMPONEN T SINGL E MECHANICA L SEA L PUMP S AGITATOR S GA S VALVE S LIQUI D VALVE S FLANGE S
TOTA L LEAKRAT E EMISSIO N FACTO R C 0.00277 9 kg/h r 0.00277 9 kg/h r 0.00020 3 kg/h r 0.00081 9 kg/h r 0.00126 6 kg/h r
0.290 2 kg/h r 0.49 9 lb/h r 1UANTIT Y 2 4 2 7 2 9 19 3P.3 6

03/27/9 0 • EMISSION FACTORMATRICE S SINGL E MECHANICA L SEAL PUMP S (KG/HR/SOURCE ) DUA L MECHANICA L SEA L PUMP S (KG/HR/SOURCE ) 15 X 10 X 5 X I S 4 X 3 X 2%I X
500 0 pp m

0.00833 6 0.00555 7 0.00277 9 0.00055 6 100 0 pp m0.00676 1 0.00450 7 0.00225 4 0.00045 1 50 0 ppm0.00519 8 0.00346 5 0.00173 3 0.00034 7 50 0 ppm0.00142 7 0.00109 2 0.00075 7 0.00042 1 25 0 ppm0.00142 7 0.00109 2 0.00075 7 0.00042 1 LOO ppm 0.0011 1 0.00083 2 0.00055 5 0.00027 7

PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR )
500 0 ppm0.24175 1 0.16116 7 0.08058 4 0.01611 7 100 0 pp m

0.19607 6 0.13071 7 0.06535 9 0.01307 2 50 0 pp m0.15072 8 0.10048 5 0.05024 3 0.01004 9 PLAN T EMISSION S (kg/hr )
50 0 pp m. 0.0413 9 0.03166 8 0.02194 6 0.01222 3 25 0 ppm0.0413 9 0.03166 8 0.02194 6 0.01222 3 10 0 pp m0.0321 9 0.02414 2 0.01609 5 0.00804 7 Assume s 2 9 pumps/plan t Calculate d emission s assum e plant' s emission s ar e 25 X lowe r tha n emission s a t state d percentag e an d lea k definition
. sassaittMitsasBsaassssaitiiiaaiiraaiasaaiaasaaaassasssasssssssiainaaiBasillinatiniMiiiMlliiltiiiBiii i

GA S VALVE S (KG/HR/SOURCE ) 4 X 3 % 2 % I X
100 0 pp m0.00031 7 0.00024 9 0.00018 2 0.00011 5 50 0 pp m0.00026 7 0.00020 3 0.0001 4 7.6E-0 S 25 0 ppm 0.00024 2 0.00018 1 0.00012 1 6.04E-0 5 LIQUI D VALVES•<KG/HR/SOURCE ) 4 X 3 X 2 X I X
100 0 pp m

0.00109 9 0.0009 1 0.0007 2 0.0005 3 50 0 ppm0.00097 6 0.00081 9 0.00066 2 0.00050 5 25 0 pp m0.00083 9 0.0007 1 0.00058 1 0.00045 2

PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR )
100 0 pp m

0.12729 3 0.10021 9 0.07314 4 0.04606 9 50 0 pp m0.10715 3 0.08161 6 0.05607 9 0.03054 2 25 0 ppm 0.09708 3 0.07281 2 0.04854 2 0.02427 1 PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR )
100 0 pp m0.57613 8 0.47670 9 0.3772 8 0.27785 1 50 0 pp m0.51129 3 0.429156'oT347019^.26488 2 25 0 ppm0.43976 7 0.37217 1 0.30457 5 0.23697 9 Assume s 40 2 ga s valves/plan t Assume s 52 4 liqui d valves/plan t Calculate d emission s assum e plant' s emission s are ZSX lowe r tha n emission s a t state d percentag e and lea k definition
. !S833»lllllltlMiatfS333SB3S»as»ni83Baa8SB3S831ll»lllimaillllliaillatllllf t 3333388833838333333333 3

FLANGE S (KG/HR/SOURCE ) 4 X 3 X 2 X

PLAN T EMISSION S (KG/HR ) I X
100 0 pp m0.00301 2 0.00225 9 0.00150 6 0.00075 3 50 0 pp m0.00253 2 0.00189 9 0.00126 6 0.00063 3 25 0 pp m 0.00217 5 0.00163 1 0.00108 7 0.00054 4 ,y ? ? • 0 'J


# J/.2Z6

100 0 ppm 50 0 pp m 25 0 pp m 7.228 8

6.076 8 5.2 2 5.421 6

.4.557 6 3.91 5 3.614 4

3.038 4 2.6 1 1.807 2

1.519 2 1.30 5 Assume s 240 0 flanges/plan t Calculate d emission s assum e plant' s emission s ar e 25 X lowe r tha n emission s a t state d percentag e and lea k definition
.P.3 7



## APPENDI XC :
VHA P LEAKRATE S CALCULATE D FRO M EL I LILLY' S

EVACUATIO N COMPUTE R MODE L

# PRESTEST.XL 8 P.3 8



# A 1 psi g dro p < 2 /1 5 mi n < 3 4 30-2 9 5 20*1 9 6 10.0* 9 7 8 40*3 9 9 30-2 9 1 0 20-1 9 1 1 10.0* 9 1 2 5.04. 0 1 3 1 4 40*3 9 1 5 30*2 9 1 6 20*1 9 1 7 10.0* 9 1 8 5.04. 0 1 9 2 0 20-1 9 2 1 20*1 9 2 2 20-1 9 2 3 20-1 9 2 4 2 5 20-19.96 8 . 2 6 B

jrgani c ; amp . \ fneci2

nisot i

toluen e

i



# lirao h

Inted Z | 

# C

i-yste m \ /oi . cu.f L 1

1229 i 

# i

122 9

122 9 0 sakrat e 

# bst o

| 

# 1

2460

369 C 61 ! 391 12 2 1

• 

# i 9 13. 3

18. 2 29. 2 0.9 8 1.2 1 1.5 8 2.34 . 2.9 6 ^ 

# 0.6 1 0.7 5 0.9 8 1.42 1.76 3.1 7 4.7 6 0.7 9 0. 5 0. 5P.3 9



## ************************** * JOB NO.:938 1 *EL I LILL

YVEN T EMISSIONS * DATE : 4/19/9 0 ************************** * QY : KD D REV. l PROCES S OPERATION : EVACUATIO N w/ o CONDENSE

R(IDEA L MIXTURES ) STEP : EQUIVALENC YSYSTE M PRESSUR

E TES T ( 1 PSI GPRESSUR

E DRO P IN 1 5 MIN. ) VAPO RPRESSUR

E CHAR T (m nHg ) METHYLEN

E CHLORIDE I I Hi t t-+4HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH-4HHHHH-+++ l I . I I 4*++ + . I I I I ++-H-+++++++++++++++++++4- - 

## M.W . 84.93 3 ANTOIN E COEFF. : a b
c 16.302 9 2622.4 4 -41. 7



## PROCES S CALCULATION S 1 . DETERMINE LIQUID/VAPOR COMPOSITIO NI NTH E REACTOR WHIC H DETERMINE S TH E VAPO R COMPOSITIO NGOIN G T O ATMOSPHERE . METHYLENE CHLORID E INPU T TH E FOLLOWIN

G DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(*) : •POUND S PRESEN

T 1 0 RESIDUA L INVESSE L •TEMPERATURE(degC ) 2 0 •INITIA L SYSTE M 179 5 (2 0 PSIG ) PRESSUR E (mmHg) / •FINA L SYSTElfcgpr

w 174 3 (1 9 PSIG ) PRESSUR E (mmHg> +++ I IIIIIHUHIIIHH-lttl - HHH-H-H- I I I I I++++++ 4 HH I >++++++++++ < M M I +++++ • 

## TH E COMPUTE

RWIL L -CALCULAT

E THE FOLLOWING : #MOLE S 0.11773 9 TOTA L MOLE S 0.11773 9 LIQUI D 1 MOLE FRACTIO

N I H H M I I I I I I I I I I » I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I • • • • ••+ • H I I I I M M M I - f f+++++++++4 - 

## INITIA L CONDITIONS :P.4 0



### TEMPERATURE(de

g K ) 29 3 VAPO RPRESSUR E (mmHg ) IDEA L K VAPORMOLE FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTAL y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTAL Pvp^x i
FINA L CONDITIONS : IDEA L K VAPO RMOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTAL y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTAL Pvp*x i 353.330 7 0.19684 1 0.19684 1

0.19684 1 

## 1 1
353.330 7 353.330 7

0.20271 4 0.20271 4

0.20271 4 

## 1 1
353.330 7 353.330 7 H-+++ + ++++++++- H H-+ * 

### AT THI S POINT , TH E NITROGEN MOLES/HRSHOUL D B E CALCULATE D FORTH E SPECIFI C STE P AN D TH E TOTuA L MOLE S O F SOLVEN T CALCULATED . TH E TOTAL MOLE S O F SOLVEN T MULTIPLIE D B YY i WILL - GIV

E INDIVIDUAL MOLE S O F EAC H COMPONENT

## LISTS'8 1 DO A HH/ # S8Z.8Z9*V DO A # toNiMono j 3H

X 3XY*IOOTYO 

### TII M 

## Haxnawo o am , +4» 1 | | | I | I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I M I I I t M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

## aaiHoii o 3NCTAHX3H 

## "lassa A am , J O .m o axr a:>O A ZH X axYinzm o * c aaov/idsi a 8Z.9ZC9 Z SXH3N I HH/#



## aaovidsi a frCC8I3'0 SXH3N I d O SSIO N XTIYNI d 982A6Z.- 0 s^aeu x /L XTTYIXIN I 8SIC08- 0 sq-ieu j A



## annssan d iviiHY

d ois-si n NY3 H so n SCZ.9E0- 0 (5dd/Tdd)N l uXTIYNI d (&Hmm)j,HaN I d O 699'68C T 3HIlSS3H d TYIXHY d ATIYIXIN I (6Hmm) XH3N I d O 699'Ttfr T aailSSaH d TYTXHY d :DNIMOTIO d 3H

X aXVIIlDTY O TII M HaXfldHOD 3H X •4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4- 1 I I I I I I I I I M I I I 4 H 4 I I 4 ! 4-4 - M M 4 4-4-4-4H-+ 4 4 I I I I I 4- 4 I 4 , 1 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I



## 6ZZI d

O '3DYd S HOdYA

* (SNIW ) 9 i at-ni - NOi-LvnovAa- v 6 2 XH3N

I d O *M* H * : U ) N V HXI M aaXHY H YXY d ONIMOTIO

d 3Ha I -LQdN I •4-4-4-4H-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4H - 4 4 I f 4 ^ 44-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4»4-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-44-4- + + + 4-4-4 ^ M- 4 IHII H 

## aaiHoiHD awaiAHxaw -QSDYIdSi a 0NI3 H SXH3N I d O HH/ # 3HX aXVIIlOTY O 'Z 'anaivHadHaj . QN

V annssan d oidioaa s Y X Y Hmaercino aN I asvr anodV A anx N I

WdP.4 2 

# ©

************************** * JO B NO.:938 1

•EL I LILL Y VEN T EMISSION S • DATE : 5/15/9 0 ************************** * BY : KD D REV. l PROCES S OPERATION : EVACUATIONw/ o CONDENSE R (IDEA L STEP : EQUIVALENC Y SYSTE M PRESSUR E TES T ( 1 PSI G PRESSUR E DRO P I N1 5 MIN. )

VAPO R PRESSUR E CHAR T (m mHg ) METHYLEN E CHLORID E M.W . ANTOIN E COEFF. : a b
c 84.93 3

16.302 9 2622.4 4 -41. 7

PROCES S CALCULATION S 1 . DETERMIN E LIQUID/VAPO R COMPOSITIONI NTH E REACTO R WHIC H TH E VAPO R COMPOSITIO NGOING T O ATMOSPHERE .

METHYLEN E CHLORID E INPUT TH E FOLLOWING DATAMARKE D WIT H AN(•) : •POUND S PRESENT 1 0 RESIDUA L I NVESSE L •TEMPERATURE(degC ) 2 0 •INITIAL SYSTEM . 179 4 (2 0 PSIG ) PRESSUR E (mmHg ) * •FINAL SYSTEM ^ 1792. 6 (19.96 8 PSIG ) 

## PRESSUR E (niq p +4-4-4-4-4-+4-4-4-4-4-4-^4H-4-4-4-4-4-+4-4- ^ 

### TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : #MOLE S 0.11773 9 TOTA L MOLE S 0.11773 9 LIQUI D 1 MOL E FRACTIO N 4-++4-+4-4-4-4-4-+4H-4-4-4-4H-4-+4-+4-4-4-+ ^ 

### INITIAL CONDITIONS :P.4 3



### TEMPERATURE(de g K ) 29 3 VAPO R PRESSUR E (mmHg ) IDEAL K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTA L y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTA L Pvp^x i 353.330 7 0.19695 1 0.19695 1

0.19695 1 1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7

FINAL CONDITIONS : IDEAL K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTA L y i correcte d Pvp^x i (PPVOC ) TOTA L Pvp^x i 0.19710 5 0.19710 5

0.19710 5
1 1 353.330 7 353.330 7

4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4"4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-+ ^ 

### A T THI S POINT , TH E NITROGE N MOLES/HRSHOUL D B E CALCULATE D F SPECIFI C STE P AN

D TH E TOTA

L MOLE S O F SOLVENT CALCULATED . T H O F SOLVENT MULTIPLIE D B YY i WIL L GIV

E INDIVIDUA

L MOLE S O F EP.4 4



### I NTH E VAPO R PHAS E I NEQUILIBRIUM A T ASPECIFI C PRESSUR E A N 2 . CALCULAT E TH E #/H R O F INERT S BEING DISPLACED . METHYLEN E CHLORID E INPUT TH E FOLLOWING DATAMARKE D WIT H A N(•) :

• M.W . O F INER T 2 9 •EVACUATIONTIM E 1 5 (MINS ) •VAPO R SPACE , C F 122 9
TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : PARTIA L PRESSUR E 1440.66 9 O F INERT(mmHg ) INITIALL Y PARTIAL PRESSUR E 1439.26 9 O F INERT(mmHg ) FINALL Y LN(PPi/PPf ) 0.00097 2 LO G MEA N1439.96 9 PARTIAL PRESSUR E yinert s 0.80304 8 INITIALL Y yinert s 0.80289 4 FINALL Y MOLE S O F INERT S 0.00587 8 DISPLACE D #/H R INERT S 0.68187 5 DISPLACE D +4-++4-4H-4-4-4-+4-4-4HH-4-4-4H-4-4-4-4-+ ^ 

### 3 . CALCULAT E TH E VO C RAT E OU T O F TH E VESSEL . METHYLEN E CHLORID E TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : # VO C 0.12250 4 #/H RVO C 0.49001 7P.4 5



### APPENDI XD : EQUIVALENC YCOMPARISO N
Th e leakrat e fro m EP AEmissio n Factor s fo rProces s Z wa s determine d t o b e 0.5 0 lb/h r(fo rcalculatio n se e Appendi xB)

. Th e tota l pound s o f VHA P emissio n usin g a tim e i n servic e facto rfro m Batc h Proces s Z woul d be : 0. 5 (lb/hr ) x4. 5 (hr/lot ) x44 9 (lots/yr ) = 101 0 lbs / yr . Th e leakrat e fro m a 1 PSI G dro p i n 1 5 minute s fo rBatc h Proces s Z i s 18. 5 lb/h r(fo rcalculatio n se e Appendi xC)

. Th e tota l pound s o f VHA P usin g a tim e i n servic e facto rwoul d be : 18. 5 (lb/hr ) x4. 5 (hr/lot ) x44 9 (lots/yr ) = 37.37 9 lbs / yr . I f th e pressur e dro p ha d bee n 0.0 3 PSI G i n 1 5 minutes , th e los s woul d hav e corresponde d t o roughl y100 0 lbs/yea rcite d above

. Thus , a pressur e los s o f 0.0 3 PSIG/1 5 minute s i n thi s syste m demonstrate s equivalency

.P.4 6

************************** * 

### •EL I LILL Y VEN T EMISSION S • ************************** * 

### PROCES S OPERATION : STEP : JO B NO.:938 1 DATE : 6/4/9 0 BY : KD D REV. l EVACUATIONw/ o CONDENSE R (IDEA L MIXTURES ) EQUIVALENC Y SYSTE M PRESSUR E TES T

VAPO R PRESSUR E CHAR T (m mHg ) METHANO L M.W . ANTOIN E COEFF. : 

## a b 

## c 32.04 2

18.587 5 3626.5 5 -34.2 9

PROCES S CALCULATION S
1 . DETERMIN E LIQUID/VAPO R COMPOSITIONI NTH E REACTO R WHIC H DETERMINE S TH E VAPO R COMPOSITIONGOIN G T O ATMOSPHERE . METHANO L INPUT TH E FOLLOWING DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(•) : 1 0 RESIDUAL •POUND S PRESENT I NVESSE L •TEMPERATURE(degC ) •INITIAL SYSTE M PRESSUR E (mmHg ) 2 0 179 5 (2 0 PSIG )
177 9 (19.7 0 PSIG ) •FINAL SYSTE M PRESSUR E (mmHg ) +++4-4-4-4-4-4-4-+4-4-+4-4-4-+4-+++4-4-4-4-+4 ^ 

### TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : #MOLE S TOTA L MOLE S LIQUI D MOL E FRACTION 0.31209 0 0.31209 0 1

INITIAL CONDITIONS :P.4 7



### TEMFERATURE(de g K ) 29 3 VAPO R PRESSUR E (mmHg ) IDEAL K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (PPVOC ) TOTAL Pvp^x i
FINAL CONDITIONS : IDEAL K VAPO R MOL E FRACTION(yi ) calculate d TOTA L y i calculate d y i correcte d (w/ o INERTS ) TOTAL y i correcte d Pvp^x i (ppVOC ) TOTA L Pvp^x i 96.5132 9 0.05376 7 0.05376 7

0.05376 7I-I 

### 1
96.5132 9
96.5132 9

0.05425 1 0.05425 1

0.05425 1
1
1
96.5132 9
96.5132 9

A T THI S POINT , TH E NITROGE NMOLES/H R SHOUL D B E CALCULATE D FOR TH E SPECIFI C STE P AN D TH E TOTA L MOLE S O F SOLVENT CALCULATED . TH E TOTAL MOLE S O F SOLVENT MULTIPLIE D B Y Y i WIL L GIVE INDIVIDUAL MOLE S O F EAC H COMPONEN TP.4 8



### I NTH E VAPO R PHAS E I NEQUILIBRIU M A T ASPECIFI C PRESSUR E AND TEMPERATURE . 2 . CALCULAT E TH E #/H R O F INERT S BEIN

G DISPLACED . METHANO L INPUT TH E FOLLOWIN

G DAT AMARKE D WIT H A

N(•) :

• M.W . O F INER T 2 9 •EVACUATIONTIM E (MINS ) VAPO R SPACE , C F 1 5
122 9
TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : PARTIAL PRESSUR E 1698.48 6 O F INERT(mmHg ) INITIALL Y PARTIAL PRESSUR E 1682.48 6 O F INERT(mmHg ) FINALL Y LN(PPi/PPf ) LO G MEA N PARTIAL PRESSUR E yinert s INITIALL Y yinert s FINALL Y MOLE S O F INERT S DISPLACE D #/H R INERT S DISPLACE D 0.00946 4 1690.47 4
0.94623 2
0.94574 8
0.06717 9
7.79285 7

4H-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4H-4-4-4H-4-4-4HH-4-4-4-+ ^ 

### 3 . CALCULAT E TH E VO C RAT E OU T O F TH E VESSEL .

METHANO L TH E COMPUTE R WIL L CALCULAT E TH E FOLLOWING : # VO C 0.12289 5 #/H R VO C 0.49158 3P.4 9



# ATTACHMEN T1 0

[NOTE : Thi s i s a draf t outlin e i nregulator y language . Any

value s i nblank s ar e example s only , andd o no t represen t consensus. ] (a ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a batc hproces s ma y elec t t o us e the provision s o f thi s sectio no r LDA Rt o compl y

wit hthe requirement s o f thi s subpart . (b ) Batc hproces s andBatc hproduct-proces s wil l be define di nthe subpar t a s - - Batc hProces s mean s a proces s whic hi s intermitten t o r discontinuou s and the vas t majorit y o f individua l item s o f equipmen t i s infrequentl y i n VHA P service . Th e equipmen t i s fe dintermittentl y o r discontinuously . Processin g the noccur s i nthi s equipmen t afte r whic hthe equipmen t i s generall y

emptied . Onl y

batc hproces s equipmen t i nus e wit ha hazardou s ai r pollutan t les s tha n80 % o f the tota l availabl e tim e (8,76 0 hours/year ) i s eligibl e fo r treatmen t unde r Sectio no f thi s rule . Example s o f industrie s tha t us e batc hproces s includ e pharmaceutica l manufacturer s andpesticid e manufacturers . Batc hProduct-Proces s mean s the collectio no f equipmen t (e.g. , reactors , valves , pumps , etc. ) configure dt o produc e a specifi c produc t b y a batc h process . (c ) Eac howne r o r operato r electin g t o us e pressur e testin g shal l compl y wit hthe followin g requirements : 1 . Eac htim

e equipmen t i s reconfigure dfo r batc hproductio no f a produc t (i.e. , fo r eac hbatc hproduct-process ) andeac htim e a sea l i s disconnecte d("broken") , the batc hproduct-proces s equipmen t shal l be pressur e teste dbefore VHA P i s firs t fe d t o the equipment . A t a minimu m eac hbatc hproduc t proces s shal l b e pressure teste d[for example , 1 ] time s pe r year . 2 . The proces s equipmen t shal l be pressurize dusin g air , nitrogen , o r wate r t o the maximu m operatin g pressur e o f the equipmen t fo r the perio do f th e test . Th e tes t shal l be conducte dfo r minutes . 3 . A

lea k i s define d a s a pressur e dro po f mor e tha nTfor example . 0.0 3 psig/1 5 min i o r visible , audibl e o r olfactor y evidenc e o f flui dloss . [NOTE : I t woul dbe preferre di f the rul e specifie da generi c pressur e los s criterio nfo r al l batc hprocesse s o r a nequatio nt o calculat e the pressur e los s representin g a leak . T o requir e demonstratio no f equivalenc y fo r ever y

batc hproces s woul dresul t i na nunworkabl e provision. ] 4 . I f a lea k i s detected , the equipmen t shal l be repaire dand reteste dbefore startu po f the process . 5 . Any

system

tha t fail s the retes t mus t be repaire dwithi n3 0 day s unles s i t ca nbe documente dtha t the replacemen t par t i s unavailable . I nthe latte r case , the repai r mus t be made withi n 1 0 day s o f the deliver y dat e o f the replacemen t part .P.5 0

(d ) Eac h owne r o r operato r wh o elect s t o us e LDA R t o compl ywit h thi s subpar t shall : 1 . Scree n equipmen t whe n the equipmen t i s i n VHA P servic e o r i n us e wit h a n acceptabl e surrogat e volatil e organi c compound whic h i s no t identifie d a s a VHAP o r i n us e wit h an yothe r detectabl e gas/vapor , (e.g. , the equipmen t mayb e pressurize d wit h an y detectabl e ga s an

d LDA R performed)
. 2 . Monito r equipmen t a t the frequencycalculate d i n the equatio n belo wo r onc e pe r year , i f the calculate d frequenc yi s les s than 1 . f

—T x F b o p *•*

•• * continuou s Wher e f b- screening frequencyfo r batc h operation s

T o p - averag e tim

e equipmen t i s i n VHA P servic e i n the previou s year , expresse d a s percentag e o f 876 0 hour s
F contmuou s ~ monitoring frequencyspecifie d fo r equipmen t i n continuou s service , (e.g. , onc e pe r 9 0 days ; onc e pe r 3 0 days)
. RECORDKEEPIN

G REQUIREMENT S FOR BATC H PROCESSE S Additiona l Requirement s - Eac h owne r o r operato r wh o elect s t o us e the provision s fo r batc h processe s shal l maintai n record s demonstrating tha t equipmen t i s i n batc h product-processes
. Suc h record s migh t consis t o f documentatio n o f batc h product-processe s tha t hav e equipmen t i n >5 % VHA P servic e an d documentatio n tha t woul d showtha t a typica l batc h cycl e conform s t o the definitio n o f batch , specifie d i n § *. .P.5 1

a 

# ATTACHMEN T1 1

America n Petroleu m Institute 1220 L Street , Northwest Washington , D.C

. 2000 5 202-682-800 0

• $ 

### MEMORANDUM
DATE : Jun e 8 , 199 0 TO : HVO C FUGITIV E EMISSION S REGULATOR Y NEGOTIATIO NCOMMITTE E FROM : Larr yGoodheart^ , ^^r- ^*+

Lind a Curra n ^LtwJjc ^t-t-fct* ^ r ^ SUBJECT : Suggeste d Agreement/Preambl e Languag e
I n m ylette r date d Jun e 1 , 1990 , I sen t yo u draf t languag e fo r th e agreemen t an d preambl e tha t woul d explai n th e relationshi p betwee n th e regulatio n bein g negotiate d fo r SOCM I categorie s and th e expecte d subsequen t regulatio n o f fugitiv e emission s o f HAP s frompetroleu moperations
. I t i s ver y importan t t o AP I an d Amoc o tha t bot h th e preambl e and th e agreemen t contai n a shor t discussio n o f thi s issue
. Durin g th e Jun e 6- 7 negotiatin g session , th e suggeste d languag e underwen t severa l revisions
. Finally , EP Aan d AP I agree d (subjec t t o back-hom e approvals ) tha t th e languag e se t fort h belo wwoul d b e acceptable
. Pleas e cal l m e a t (414 ) 620-414 5 o r Elle n Siegle r a t (202 ) 682-827 1 i f yo u hav e an y comment s o n thi s language
. (I f yo u prefer , yo u ma yfax comment s t o m e a t (415 ) 620-532 0 o r Elle n a t (202 ) 682-8033 . Potentia l Applicabilit yo f Standar d t o Refiner yCategorie s Th e standard s incorporate d i n thi s Agreemen t wer e establishe d b yth e Negotiatin g Committe e base d primaril yo n dat a fromth e best-performin g ethylen e oxid e plant s and dat a fro ma fe wothe r SOCM I plants
. Th e Committe e di d no t revie wdat a frompetroleu m refinin g processe s becaus e the ywer e outsid e th e scop e o f th e negotiations , and th e Committe e doe s no t kno wwhethe r th e numeri c standard s incorporate d i n thi s agreemen t ar e achievabl e b y refiner yprocesses . I t i s agree d tha t th e regulator yframewor k o f th e negotiate d regulatio n shoul d b e use d whe n EP Adevelop s MAC T regulation s fo r thos e petroleu mprocesse s tha t ar e t o b e regulate d unde r Titl e II I o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . However , th e Committe e believe s tha t ther e ar e technica l difference s betwee n SOCM I categorie s an d petroleu

moperation s tha t ma yaffec t th e achievabilit yo f th e numerica l standard s (percen t leakers)
. Potentia l difference s includ e th e availabilit yan d effectivenes s o f emissio n contro l technologies , plan t shutdown practices , lin eP.5 2



### sizes , proces s temperature s an d pressures , and cost . I f an yregulator yauthorit yrepresentate d o n th e Committe e develop s regulations , applicabl e t o refineries , simila r t o thes e negotiate d b

yth e Committee , i t wil l conduc t a separat e rulemaking
. Th e achievabilit yo f th e standard s (includin g percen t leakers ) wil l b e on e o f th e element s considere d i n th e rulemaking
.P.5 3

1990—ASQ C QUALIT YCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O

FUGITIV E EMISSIONS : A N UNTAPPE DAPPLICATIO N FO RTQ C
R . L . Berglun dJ . L . Hanse n Unio nCarbid e Chemical s an dPlastic s Company

Inc . Sout hCharleston , W

V 2530 3

ABSTRAC T A t th e daw

no f th e qualit y

era , J . M . Jura ndevelope dth e concep t o f th e secon do r 'hidden ' plan t fro

m th e understandin g tha t a s a facilit y create s a product , th e secon do r hidde nplan t i s creatin g waste . Th e rea l significanc e o f thi s secondo r 'hidden ' plan t i s no w becomin g recognize d a s many companie s commi t t o anaggressiv e program t o minimiz e the impac t o f thei r operation s on employe e an

dcommunit y

healt handth e environment . Yet , whil e bot hth e 'hidden ' plan t concep t an d th e principle s o f Tota l Qualit y Contro l (TQC ) ar e wel l understoo di nthe manufacturin g andservic e areas , they

remai nvirtuall y

unrecognize dinth e are a o f environmenta l control . A nare a t o whic hth e TQ C principle s ca nb e directl y applie di s tha t associate dwit hfugitiv e emission s fro

m equipmen t leaks . Losse s o f organi c compound s throug hleak s fro m proces s equipmen t (valves , pumps , flanges ) I na typica l chemica l plan t hav e historicall y bee nestimate dt o b e i nth e rang e o f 50 0 t o 150 0 g/Mg ( g emissions/millio ng produc t made) . From a neconomi c standpoint , suc h losse s hav e represente da smal l fractio no f production , wer e generall y acceptable , an

dofte nwer e Ignored . From

a nenvironmenta l standpoint , suc hlosse s nee dt o b e reassessed , interm s o f the magnitud e o f thes e losses , andi nthe appropriat e tool s fo r Improvin g th e productio nsystem t o reduc e thes e losses . T o asses s th e situation , i n1988 , massiv e survey s o f equipmen t leak s I nth e acrolein , ethylen e oxide , butadien e an

dphosgen e productio nIndustrie s wer e undertaken . Nearl y 92,00 0 component s a t 3 0 differen t companie s wer e monitored . Th e screenin g result s wer e matche dwit ha detaile d industrywid e survey

o f th e design , monitorin g an dmaintenanc e practice s o f the plants . Base do n thes e studies , specifi c guideline s fo r determinin g fugitiv e emission s fro m facilitie s wer e outlined , an

dselecte dBenchmar koperation s i nvalv e andpum

pselection , maintenanc e an dInspectio n wer e determined . Usin g thes e insights , a long-term TQ C program

t o reduc e fugitiv e emission s fro m equipmen t leak s i s outlined , andadditiona l opportunitie s fo r qualit y improvemen t ar e documented . INTRODUCTIO N Wha t ar e fugitiv e emissions ? Fugitiv e emission s ar e low-leve l diffus e Volatil e Organi c Compoun d (VOC) emission s tha t occu r when proces s flui d (eithe r gaseou s o r liquid ) escape s fro m plan t equipmen t suc h a s valves , flanges , pumps , an d compressor s int o th e atmosphere . Bot h industria l an d regulator y group s ar e tryin g t o determin e source s o f Volatil e Organi c Compound s (VOCs) release s int o th e environment . A s a class , suc h compounds ar e believe d t o b e precursor s i n th e formatio n o f tropospheri c ozon e o r smo g i n urba n areas , whil e som e specifi c chemical s ar e o f a hig h leve l o f additiona l concer n becaus e o f thei r toxicity , exploslvity , o r flammabillty . Althoug h a typica l chemica l process uni t ma y contai n thousand s o f piece s o f equipment , eac h o f whic h ca n serv e as a potentia l fugitiv e emission s source , mos t fugitiv e emission s wil l b e contri bute d b

y onl y a smal l fractio n o f th e possibl e sources . Because ther e hav e bee n man

y question s ove r th e sources , causes , an d control s o f.fugitiv e emissions , program s t o stud y fugitiv e emission s wer e initiate d I n th e 1950' s i n th e Los Angele s area , whic h le d t o nationwid e studie s I n th e chemica l an d refinin g Industrie s i n th e 1970's . But , interes t wane d i n th e lat e 1970' s afte r th e U S Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y publishe d a serie s o f factor s fo r estimatin g fugitiv e emissions , an d Initiate d a specia l progra m o f Lea k Detectio n and : Repai r (LDAR) fo r controllin g fugitiv e emission s fro m regulate d sources . Thes e generi c factor s an d th e contro l progra m wer e focuse d o n what ca n bes t b

e terme d th e "Specia l Causes ' o ffugitiv e emissions . Thi s leakag e wa s cause d b

y uni t upsets , inadequat e maintenance , misdirecte d monitorin g an d inspection , inattention , lowe r qualit y design , an d unconcer n b y th e uni t management . The contro l strateg y wa s focuse d on regula r monitorin g fo r thes e 'special ' (bigger ) leak s an d subsequentl y repairin g them . Usin g th e generi c factors , i t woul d b e estimate d tha t fugitiv e emission s losse s fro m a typica l chemica l proces s Copyright0199 0 Unio n Carbid e Chemical s an d Plastic s Compan y Inc . Al l Right s Reserve dP.5 4

1990—ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS-SA N FRANCISC O facilit y woul dbe smal l relativ e t o th e overal l production , o f th e orde r o f 50 0 t o 150 0 g/Mg (gram s emissions/millio ngram s produc t made) . B y directin g the detectio nan drepai r program

t o thes e 'special ' leaks , emission s woul db e reduce db y abou t two-thirds . Ther e ar e question s ove r th e validit y o f applyin g a generi c fugitiv e emissio nfacto r an d contro l program

t o th e entir e chemica l proces s industry . Independen t o f an y regulator y

guidance , fo r safet y

o r economi c reasons , mos t proces s unit s handlin g chemical s whic har e toxic , explosive , o r otherwis e hazardous , already implemen t specia l guideline s fo r monitorin g an dinspectio no f operatin g equipmen t o r specificall y desig nequipmen t t o limi t organi c losses . Fe w unit s handlin g toxi c o r hazardou s chemical s wer e include di nthe dat a bas e use dt o generat e the commonl y use d emissio nfactors . Furthermore , th e earlie r program s wer e no t focuse denoug ht o allow th e 'common causes ' o f fugitiv e emission s t o be determine donc e th e 'specia l causes ' wer e removed , no r coul d they b e use dt o evaluat e th e method s appropriat e fo r mitigatio no f thes e causes . However , suc h method s ca nb e develope dfro m a neffectiv e Tota l Qualit y Contro l (TQC ) program , the organizatio no f whic hwoul dconsis t o f 1 ) settin g standards , 2 ) appraisin g conformance , 3 ) takin g correctiv e action , and4 ) plannin g fo r improvement .
SETTINGSTANDARD S A majo r activit y

whic hwil l be strongl y influencin g futur e operatin g program s withi nmuc ho f th e chemica l proces s Industr y i s th e 'Responsibl e Care ' program o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n(CMA) , throug hwhic h'Industry move s t o improv e managemen t o f chemicals. ' On e aspec t o f thi s program , designe dfo r loca l implementation , encourage s membe r companie s t o reduc e environmenta l release s fro m thei r facilitie s b y usin g the followin g process : 1 ) inventoryin g release s t o al l media , 2 ) evaluatin g releas e reductio nopportunitie s an destablishin g priorities , 3 ) formulatin g releas e reductio nplans , and4 ) periodicall y communicatin g progres s an dfutur e plan s t o employee s an dth e public . Th e CM A Responsibl e Car e program i s importan t t o th e chemica l Industry , ye t many chemica l companie s hav e develope dthei r ownprogram s t o eithe r implemen t o r supplemen t th e CM A activity . In lookin g t o th e future . Unio nCarbid e "ha s comnitte ditsel f t o getting exposur e level s o f potentiall y

harmfu l chemical s i nou r communitie s t o a t leas t 1,00 0 time s lowe r tha nworkplac e standard s se t b

y th e Occupationa l Safet y an dHealt hAdministration , o r ou r ow nstandards , whicheve r ar e tougher . Unio nCarbide' s goal , a s existin g technolog y an doperatin g practice s ar e upgraded , i s complet e eliminatio no f emission s o f know no r suspec t carcinogens. " Suc ha commitmen t require s tha t fugitiv e emissio nsource s b e foun dan dcorrected .
APPRAISIN GCONFORMANC E A typica l chemica l proces s uni t wil l contai nsomewher e inth e rang e o f 4,00 0 components , eac h o f whic hcoul dserv e a s a sourc e o f fugitiv e emission s leakage . Thes e component s Includ e flange s (60S) , valve s i nga s servic e (28S) , valve s i nliqui dservic e (9%) , pump s (0.5*) , safet y valve s (0.5%) , an

dopen-ende dline s (21) . Determinin g fugitiv e emissio nleakag e fro m thousand s o f component s ona uni t woul drequir e tha t eac hindividua l componen t be wrappe dandsampled , a costl y comple xlogisti c nightmare . T o hel psimplif y th e problem , th e EP A provide dindustry

wit ha numbe r o f les s rigorou s alternative s fo r estimatin g fugitiv e emissions . On e i s t o scree nth e componen t wit ha norgani c vapo r analyze r (OVA) , an destimat e emission s fro m a scatte r plo t lik e tha t i n Figur e 1 . Figur e 1 : EPA Scatte r Plot o l Lo g Lea k Rate vs . Lo g OV

A Readin g Valves-Liqui d Servic e

: •. fObaaavailt* * •. I c*a*a..a.ilo. a a •}ntiaia.i«.iaM* .

- 3 .. . ••« ••
•* ••*••••• ••• • •••••« ••••• ••

• • • • • • 9**" m • •••#•• ••• m «* t ••*• * •e,*$,*-al t M * •• •• ••
- . - - • ••••• •• ••• •••*» - •••• •at« * • • •*»• * *' •• ••« •••• •r* * 4'* « ••t • « ••• • *•*» ••••»•«••• « •• )•!• •a * •••* • •••••t • ••••*• ••
•••••••

i 1 r i 1 1 1 1 i 1 r — 0 0 0. 9 1 0 t. 3 7 0 7 3 J O 1 3 4 0 i% 3 0 Lo p M»o n OV A noadlii- gP.5 5

1990—ASQ C QUALIT YCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O
I n1988 , CMA , wit hsuppor t fro m th e EPA , initiate dindustrywid e fugitiv e emission s studie s t o bette r understan dexistin g level s o f fugitiv e emissions . Fou r chemica l productio nindustrie s wer e studied : acrolein , 1,3-butadiene , ethylen e oxide , an dphosgene , durin g whic hove r 92,00 0 com ponent s wer e screened . Th e participant s i nthes e studie s wer e locate di nnin e differen t states , but , two-third s o f th e units , an dal l the butadien e unit s wer e locate dinTexa s o r Louisiana . Include dinthi s effor t wer e al l valves , pumps , an dcompressors , safet y valve s an

da statistica l samplin g o f flanges , andothe r connectors . Becaus e o f th e exten t an dth e completenes s o f thes e studies , th e result s hav e provide dthe participant s wit hthe uniqu e opportunit y t o compar e the practice s an dprogram s i nplac e i nthes e industrie s a s the y affec t fugitiv e emissions . Th e OV A screenin g measurements , i nppm , obtaine dinthes e studie s ar e summarize dbelow , distributio no f 'Leakers ' fo r fou r critica l componen t type s i s show ni nFigur e 2 . Th e

Acrolei n (4573 ) Butadien e (43581 ) Ethylen e Oxid e (17563 ) Phosgen e (25743 ) 

### <J 0 454 1 3294 1 1525 8 2558 6 < TO

O 2 3 830 0 181 1 11 7 <M00 0

3 85 9 28 1 4 0 Leaker s

< 10,00 0 > 10,00 0 3 76 4 11 1 0 2

71 7 10 1 0

10. 0 -

EP A Stud y (2 4 Plants ) ~)utndiana-

- industr y 11 3 Plants ) Elhylan a Oiidt t Industr y (1 2 Plants ) AeroM n kadusv y ( 2 Plants ) Phoscan e inousar y (1 3 Plants )

Figur e 2 : A Compariso n o l Lea k Frequencie s lo r Critica l Component s I n Acrolein , Butadiene , Ethylen e Oxid e an d Phosgen e Industrie s

Relative t o th e Origina l EP A Studie s B y regulator y definition , a 'Leaker ' i s a componen t wit h a n OV A screenin g measuremen t abov e 10,00 0 ppm . Overall , abou t 0.04 1 ( 3 ou t o f 4536) , of th e components i n th e acrolei n unit , 0.6 % (10 2 ou t o f 17563 ) o f th e components screene d i n th e ethylen e oxid e unit s an d 1.65 X(71 7 ou t o f 43581 ) o f th e components screene d I n th e butadien e unit s woul d b e classifie d a s 'Leakers. ' Thi s 'leaking ' equipmen t accounte d fo r abou t 90 % o f th e tota l emission s measure d I n th e acrolei n industry , 70

% o f th e tota l emission s measure d i n th e ethylen e oxid e industry , an d 60 % o f th e tota l emission s measure d i n th e butadien e Industry . Ther e wer e n o 'Leakers ' i n th e phosgen e industry . Al l o fthes e 'leaking ' source s were promptl y repaired . Fro m previou s EP A studies . I t woul d hav e bee n expecte d tha t 6 % o f th e components woul d hav e bee n 'Leakers. ' O f al l th e components screened , 99.8 % of th e components i n th e phosgen e unit , 98.6 % o f thos e i n th e acrolei n units , 86 % o f thos e i n a n ethylen e oxid e unit , an d 75 % o f thos e i n a butadien e uni t had screenin g value s les s tha n 1 0 pp m (nea r lowe r leve l o f detectio n wit h backgroun d air , 0. 2 pp m fo r phosgene) . Fro m th e screenin g dat a obtaine d i n thes e studie s an d th e appropriat e correlatio n curve , a ne w se t o fIndustr y specifi c fugitiv e emission s factor s wer e develope d fo r th e components I n th e fou rP.5 6

1990—ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS—SA N FRANCISC O productio nindustries . Wit ha fe w exceptions , fo r mos t componen t types , al l the plant s i nth e butadien e industr y

wer e highe r tha nan y o f th e plant s i nthe ethylen e oxid e Industr y whic hI ntur n wer e al l highe r thanan y o f the plant s i nthe phosgen e industry . Th e tota l emission s fo r thes e industrie s (a s a percentag e o f the EPA estimates , an

da s a fractio no f th e overal l production , g/Mg ) ca nb e summarize da s follows :

Industr y EP A Av g Butadien e Ethylen e Oxid e Acrolei n Phosgen e Relativ e t o EP A Stud y 10 0 % 3 3 % 1 0 % 0.05 % 0.01 % Relativ e To Productio n 500-150 0 g/M g 45 0 g/M g 3 5 g/M g 0. 5 g/M g 0. 1 g/M g Thi s represent s a differenc e o f nearl y fou r order s o f magnitud e betwee nth e fou r Industries . Th e critica l questio ntha t continue s t o remai nafte r examinin g thes e trend s was :

"Wha t i s th e Differenc e tha t Make s th e Difference betwee nthes e industries . T o evaluat e th e differen t 'practices ' use db y th e fou r industrie s whic hmigh t explai nthes e trends , an

dt o determin e th e bes t 'Benchmark ' operation s fo r assurin g low fugitive emissions , a surve y wa s prepare dan

ddistribute dt o al l the participant s i nthes e studies . Thi s surve y focuse d onth e thre e fundamenta l aspect s o f fugitiv e emission s control : (1 ) program s fo r monitorin g fo r a leak , (2 ) practice s fo r maintainin g equipmen t o r repairin g th e leak , onc e i t i s detected , an d(3 ) procedure s fo r preventin g th e occurrenc e o f a lea kthroug hspecia l desig nstandards . Th e result s o f thi s indicat e tha t ther e ar e difference s betwee nthes e industrie s wit hrespec t t o -th e volatility , corrosivity , acut e toxicit y an dmolecula r propertie s o f the chemical s o f concer nand th e operatin g pressure , temperatures , an dcycle s o f th e differen t processes . Al l o f thes e ma y hav e som e impac t o

nthe ultimat e fugitiv e emission s level s achieved . I t appear s tha t thes e measure d level s wer e reache db y th e differen t industrie s a s a nindirec t consequenc e o f thei r existin g interna l an

dexterna l program s fo r safety , employe e health , exposure , an denvironmenta l control . Th e Benchmar kfacilities , th e producer s o f acrolein , phosgen e an dI nman y cases , ethylen e oxide , apparentl y

recognizin g th e potentia l acut e healt hhazard s o f thes e chemical s see m t o b e operatin g fro

m a strategi c pla nwhic hassure s tha t fugitiv e emission s fro m th e component s whic h handle dthes e chemical s ar e low . Thi s overridin g strategy i s simpl y

tha t equipmen t leak s ar e no t tolerated . Ove r a perio do f year s thes e industrie s hav e develope dspecia l tactic s Inth e area s o f maintenance , monitorin g an ddesig nnecessar y

t o achiev e th e desire dresults . Some o f thes e tactic s are : Monitoring : I nth e Benchmar kplants , th e uni t staf f i s traine dt o be

sensitiv e t o leaks , andth e operator s ar e constantl y lookin g fo r leaks . Maintenance : Leak s ar e promptl y repaired , shuttin g dow nth e uni t a s necessary . Design : Unit s ar e designe dt o minimiz e leakage , t o allow rapi dshutdow

n an dstartup , an

dt o minimiz e numbe r o f components . Vendor s ar e evaluate d andcompoent s ar e teste dbefor e anddurin g installation . A leakles s design , whe nused , i s focuse do ncritica l areas . Overall , severa l key point s ca nb e mad e wit hrespec t t o thes e Benchmar koperations . 1 ) Today' s performanc e inth e Benchmar kunit s didn' t jus t happe nover night , low

fugitiv e emissions 1 ar e th e cumulativ e result s o f year s o f recor dkeeping , analysis , an deffort . 2 ) Lo w fugitiv e emission s ar e achieve dprimaril y throug hth e us e o f conventiona l technology , no t necessaril y b y universa l applicatio no f new leakles s technology . 3 ) Ne w technolog y

i s selectivel y

use dwher e 1 t make s goo dengineerin g sense .P.5 7

1990—ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS-SA N FRANCISC O Th e mai ntheme tha t pervade s th e program s i nus e i nth e Benchmar kIndustrie s i s tha t whil e the y ma y us e advance dtechnology , th e achievemen t o f lo w level s o f fugitiv e emission s I s a resul t o f payin g attentio nt o th e detail s o f th e operation , an drespondin g ina nappropriat e manne r t o an y leakage . Th e conclusio ntha t ca nb e reache di s tha t a TQ C program t o assur e low

fugitiv e emission s mus t begi nan dendwit hth e operation s staf f I nth e proces s uni t wit hcontinuou s improvemen t bein g sough t an dmeasured . But , becaus e fugitiv e emission s fro m th e majorit y

o f th e chemica l industry

ar e no t ye t i na stat e o f statistica l control , th e result s fro

m th e Benchmar k industrie s canno t be directl y extende dto othe r chemica l units . Man y o f the operation s hav e no t considere dthe problem s associate dwit hfugitiv e emissions , s o no effor. t ha s bee nmad e t o differentiat e th e 'specia l causes ' fro m th e 'commo ncauses ' o f fugitiv e emissions . Onl y afte r th e specia l causes , sucha s inattentio nan dpoo r maintenance , ar e identifie dan dcorrecte dca nth e variou s industrie s determin e th e tota l effor t tha t wil l b e require dt o achiev e lo w fugitiv e emission s fo r thei r existin g se t o f proces s characteristic s (suc ha s pressure , temperature , size , origina l design , o r operatin g cycle) . Tota l Qualit y

Costs : Th e difference s betwee nth e fou r Industr y group s ca nb e furthe r explaine dfro

m anupdate dassessmen t o f th e Tota l Cost s o f Poo r Quality . Fro m a fugitiv e emission s perspective , th e Interna l an dExterna l Failur e Cost s woul db e th e cost s associate dwit hdefect s tha t resul t infugitiv e emission s releases . Thes e woul ddisappea r i f ther e ar e n o leaks . Thes e cost s include :

Regulator y

penaltie s OSHA violation s Communit y

odor s Employe e an

dcommunit y

healt h Explosion s Respirator y

protectio n Wast e materia l Coimiunlt y goodwil l Appraisa l Cost s woul db e th e cost s incurre dt o monito r th e operatio nfo r defect s an dfugitiv e emissions , whil e the ' Preventio nCost s woul db e th e cost s Incurre dt o preven t leak s fro m occurring . I

nth e Benchmar kindustrie s (phosgene , acrolein ) th e Cost s o f Poo r Qualit y ca nb e substantial , relativ e t o th e othe r industries . Hence , managemen t saw the nee dfo r appraisa l and preventio nprograms , and , afte r year s o f effort , the appraisa l an dpreventio ncost s I nthes e Industrie s ar e comparativel y lower . Fugitiv e Emission s andZer o Defects . Many unit s repor t tha t they hav e zer o leaks . From a regulator y

standpoint , thi s ca nmea nsimpl y tha t al l o f the screene dcomponent s woul dbe withi nth e acceptabl e limi t o f th e regulation , tha t n o componen t ha s a screenin g valu e abov e 10,00 0 pp m (Figur e 3) . Yet , suc ha brigh t lin e t o determin e whe na componen t shoul db e repaire ddoe s no t appea r t o assur e lo

w fugitiv e emissions . Bette r woul db e t o recogniz e th e 'los s function ' concep t a s i t applie s t o fugitiv e emissions . I nthi s case , whil e the leaker s woul db e repaired , a s require db

y regulation ; al l component s wit hscreenin g value s abov e som e acceptabl e optimu

m woul db e give nsom

e attention . Th e relativ e los s o r cos t t o societ y resultin g fro

m thei r continuin g leakag e woul db e compare dt o th e cost s associate dwit hthei r ultimat e repair . Whil e th e rat e o f increas e awa y fro m th e optimu

m ma y chang e wit hdifferen t chemical s an ddifferen t component s types , a contro l strategy fo r fugitiv e emission s woul dno t b e limite dt o th e 'leakers ' (screenin g value s abov e 10,00 0 ppm) , bu t woul dals o addres s othe r component s (Figur e 4) .

LOS S (N o Impact )

No t Detectiv e LEAKE B (Bi g Impact ) Detectiv e Emission s

0 10,00 0 pp m Screenin g Valu e Optimu m Repai r Zon e "Target " Figur e 3 : Fugitiv e Emission s Regulation s Usin g th e Zer o Oelect s Concept (Th e "Goa l Post " Approach ) Figur e 4 : Los s Functio n Approac h Fo r Assessin g Fugitive Emissio n Source Contributio nP.5 8

1990-ASQ C QUALIT

YCONGRES

S TRANSACTIONS-SA N FRANCISC O

TAKIN GCORRECTIV E ACTIO N Ther e ar e thre e commo ncause s o f fugitiv e emission s fro m equipment : 1 ) componen t defects , 2 ) installatio nerrors , an d3 ) wearout , somewha t followin g th e standar dlif e characteristi c ('Bathtub' ) curve . Inaddition , ther e ar e numerou s specia l causes , whic hma y be associate dwit h th e environment , o r th e process , an dma y includ e simpl e rando

m failures . Th e cause s o f fugitiv e emission s vary fo r th e differen t proces s units . I nsom e cases , leakag e fro m th e component s wa s no t detected , s o the y wer e simpl y

no t maintained . I

nothe r cases , hidde n o r laten t defect s inth e desig nma y b e suc htha t the componen t i s no t abl e t o achiev e th e desire d low lea klevels , o r th e grou po f component s may b e a t th e endo f it s lif e cycle . I nth e firs t case , simpl y

initiatin g the monitorin g an dmaintenanc e progra m woul dachiev e th e necessar y reductions . I

nbot ho f thes e latte r cases , significan t desig nan dreplacemen t change s woul db e warranted . I

nanothe r case , th e proces s operatio nma y hav e cause da highstres s o nth e component , anddesig nchange s i nth e proces s configuratio nitsel f ma y b e warranted . Th e appropriat e respons e ca nonl y be determine dfro

m a nanalysi s o f th

e historica l componen t leakag e data . Proces s Screening . Th e firs t ste pi ndeterminin g th e appropriat e correctiv e actio nI s t o scree nthe component s inth e proces s uni t fo r leakag e (using a nappropriat e analyzer) . Th e screenin g operatio nserve s thre e functions : 1 ) i t separate s the acceptabl e component s fro m th e questionabl e an

dunacceptabl e components , 2 ) i t focuse s attentio nonthe mos t sever e leakin g component s warrantin g immediat e attention , an dthos e component s warrantin g longe r rang e attention , andma y separat e th e 'special ' case s fro m the 'common ' leaks , and3 ) i t provide s the bes t mean s o f estimatin g fugitiv e emission s fo r th e unit . Recor dKeeping . Developin g a program o f continuou s improvemen t whic hfocuse s o nth e component s wit hseriou s leakag e (generall y wit hscreenin g value s abov e 10,00 0 ppm) , ye t als o assure s tha t th e majorit y o f th e acceptabl e component s i nth e uni t wil l no t b e adversel y affected , require s tha t al l activit y regardin g thes e component s b e wel1-documente d(screenin g measurements , maintenance , replacement) . Thi s documentatio nwoul db e useful : 1 ) fo r determinin g progres s In reducin g emissions , 2 ) fo r selectin g the bes t suppliers , 3 ) fo r preparin g anoptimu m installatio n andtestin g strategy , 4 ) fo r determinin g th e mos t critica l area s o f th e proces s tha t shoul dreceiv e futur e attentio ni nth e program , 5 ) fo r developin g indicator s whic hwoul dtel l whe na particula r componen t shoul db e replaced , o r repaired , 6 ) fo r determinin g I f leakage s ca nb e attribute dt o commo ncause s requirin g a grou presponse , o r specia l cause s requirin g individua l responses , and7 ) fo r developin g a Correctiv e Actio nGuidelin e (CAG ) fo r respondin g t o lea kindicators . I na numbe r o f case s th e appropriat e correctiv e respons e 1 s t o no t attemp t t o directl y fixth e leak , bu t t o continu e t o monito r th e leak, andpla nfo r futur e improvement . Th e latte r activit y represent s th e fourt hstag e o f th e fugitiv e emission s contro l program . PLANNINGFO RIMPROVEMEN T A long-term

program

shoul dconsis t o f tw o focuse dactivities : 1 ) th e monitorin g program , and subsequen t dat a analysis , whic hrepresen t th e bul ko f th e Diagnosti c portio no f th e program , and 2 ) th e Correctiv e Actio nGuideline s (CAGs ) whic hrepresen t the bul ko f th e Correctiv e o r Improvemen t portio no f th e contro l program . T o Improv e th e cost , performance , safety , andreliabilit y standard s fo r th e component s i nth e participatin g uni t suc htha t lo w fugitiv e emission s ar e achieved , require s a concerte dmulti disciplinar y

focus . Th e immediat e gain s inapplyin g a TQ C pla nt o fugitiv e emission s wil l b e achieve db

y th e rapi drepai r o f th e component s a t seriou s lea klevels , andreplacemen t o f thes e component s shoul dthe y pos e continue dproblems . Th e long-term gain s wil l be achieve db y th e continue dstud

y an dultimat e repai r andreplacemen t o f component s a t the lowe r leakag e levels . I n bot hcases , th e record s o f th e monitorin g results , an dth e repai r o r replacemen t result s shoul db e documented , an

danalyze dusin g Statistica l Proces s Contro l (SPC ) principles . Component s a t low lea klevel s whic hd o no t ye t warran t repai r shoul db e remonitoredt o assur e tha t th e magnitud e o f th e lea kdoe s no t increase . Similarly , component s whic har e repaire dshoul db e remonitore dt o assur e tha t th e repair s wer e effective . Dat a fro m component s o f bot hhig han dlo w leakag e shoul d b e studie dt o determin e i f th e leakag e i s attributabl e t o a specia l caus e (specifi c t o eac h component , likel y

warrantin g repai r o r replacemen t only ) o r t o some commo ncaus e (multipl e component s wit hsame problems , warrantin g a possibl e desig nchange) . Th e program ca nbe successfu l onl y I f adequat e historica l record s o f th e monitoring , repair , andreplacemen t activitie s ar e develope dan

dappropriatel y

analyzed .1990-ASQ C QUALITYCONGRES S TRANSACTIONS-SA N FRANCISC O

NE W APPLICATION S FO RTQ C I N A FUGITIV E EMISSION S PROGRA M Th e abov e analysi s provide s severa l ke y area s wher e th e TQ C concept s ca nb e Incorporate dina fugitiv e emission s strategy . T o b e effective , suc ha program should : 1 ) requir e rigorou s dat a collection , an dappropriat e SP C analysis , 2 ) promot e continuou s improvement , wit hinitia l activitie s maintaine dt o assur e lo

w level s o f fugitiv e emissions , whil e additiona l programs , base d upo nthe dat a analysis , ar e develope dt o reduc e emission s further , 3 ) be establishe dindividuall y fo r eac hparticipatin g unit , focuse donthe desire dfina l emissio nreductio ngoal , an d 4 ) dedicat e appropriat e resource s o nrecor dkeeping , monitoring , main tenanc e an

ddesig nchange s i nth e uni t t o ultimatel y assur e lo

w fugitiv e emissions . Controllin g fugitiv e emission s fro m equipmen t leak s i s bu t on e are a i nwhic hth e chemica l industr y ca nstriv e fo r Environmenta l Excellenc e thr uQuality . However , t o be successful , suc ha program requires : 1 ) leadershi pan

dcommitmen t throughou t th e corporation , 2 ) organizatio nt o provid e trainin g o f the operation s an dengineerin g staff , suc htha t the y ar e continuall y

sensitiv e t o environmenta l concern s an dknowledgeabl e i nth e us e o f qualit y measuremen t tool s ina n environmenta l contro l application , an d 3 ) recognitio no f Benchmar kunit s tha t hav e achieve denvironmenta l excellence . Ultimately , th e program wil l requir e Involvemen t b y al l aspect s o f th e operations , maintenance , purchasing , engineerin g an dresearc hfunctions , i f sustaine dcontinuou s Improvemen t i nth e operation s i s t o be achieve dsuc htha t th e environmenta l goal s ar e t o b e realized .

BIBLIOGRAPH Y 1 . Berglund , R . L. , J . A . Mullins , L . S . Parrett , R . R . Romano , an dJ . L . Randall , "Equipmen t Leaks : Result s o f Industry-wid e Studie s o f 1, 3 Butadiene , Ethylen e Oxide , andPhosgen e Productio nFacilities, " pape r #89-120.4 , proceeding s o f th e 82ndAnnua l Meetin g o f th e Ai r and Wast e Managemen t Association , Jun e 30 , 1989 . 2 . Berglund , R . L. , D . A . Wood , andT . J . Covin , "Fugitiv e Emission s fro m th e Acrolei nProductio n Industry, " pape r presente da t th e AWM A Intemationa l Specialt y Conference : SAR

A Titl e III , Sectio n313 , Industry Experienc e i nEstimatin g Chemica l Releases , Apri l 6 , 1989 . 3 . Byrne , D . an

dTaguchl , S . "Th e Taguch l Approac ht o Paramete r Design, " Qualit y Progress , December , 1987 , p20 . 4 . Feigenbaum , A . V. , Tota l Qualit y Control , Thir dEdition , McGraw-Hil l Boo kCompany , 1983 , Ne w York . 5 . Juran , J . M. t Qualit y Contro l Hanbook , McGraw-Hil l Boo kCompany , Thir dEdition , 1974 . • 6 . Unite dState s Environmenta l Protection,Agency , Protocol s fo r Generatin g Unit-Specifi c Emissio n Estimate s fo r Equipmen t Leak s o f VO C an dHAP , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , Publicatio nNo . EPA-450/3-88-010 , Octobe r 15)88 .