Equipment
Leak
Program
Overlaps
Introduction:

In
the
preamble
(
page
16173)
to
the
proposed
Miscellaneous
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
NESHAP,
EPA
requested
comment
where
different
standards
may
overlap
with
the
MON
and
difficulties
posed
by
such
overlapping
standards.
The
Agency
also
solicited
comment
on
ways
to
reduce
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
of
complying
with
the
requirements
of
the
MON
and
other
regulatory
subparts.
This
paper
describes
how
leak
detection
and
repair
(
LDAR)
requirements
in
the
MON
will
overlap
with
requirements
in
EPA's
New
Source
Performance
Standard,
Subpart
VV.
A
recommendation
to
consolidate
LDAR
programs
and
allow
the
facility
to
use
the
more
stringent
program
to
reduce
the
compliance
burden
is
also
included.

Issue:
Overlap
with
NSPS,
Subpart
VV,
Leak
Detection
and
Repair
Requirements
Paragraph
63.2535
in
Subpart
FFFF
covered
regulations
where
EPA
identified
specific
overlap
with
the
proposed
NESHAP.
EPA
addressed
overlap
with
equipment
leak
provisions
in
Subparts
I,
MMM
and
GGG
by
stating
that
after
the
compliance
date,
a
facility
could
elect
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
Subpart
FFFF.

Subpart
FFFF
applicability
is
based
on
manufacture
of
an
organic
chemical
listed
in
certain
SIC
or
NAICS
categories
and
whether
the
facility
"
processes,
uses
or
produces
HAP".
With
this
applicability,
most
polyethylene
manufacturing
processes
will
be
subject
to
the
MON.
Portions
of
the
equipment
in
the
unit
will
be
subject
to
equipment
leak
requirements
since
HAPs
are
commonly
employed
as
carrier
fluids
in
the
polymerization
section
of
the
plant.
Polyethylene
plants
constructed
after
September
1987
have
to
comply
with
NSPS
Subpart
DDD
which
cross
references
NSPS
Subpart
VV
for
equipment
leak
detection
and
repair
requirements.

Paragraph
63.2535
in
proposed
NESHAP
does
not
address
overlap
with
NSPS
Subpart
VV.
New
polyethylene
manufacturing
plants
that
are
subject
to
NSPS
equipment
leak
requirements
for
VOCs
will
also
have
a
large
number
of
the
same
components
subject
to
MON
LDAR
requirements.
The
following
example
illustrates
the
difficulties
posed
by
overlapping
LDAR
programs
in
the
two
standards.

Example:

An
Equistar
Chemicals,
LP
high
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
plant
has
four
individual
production
lines.
In
the
manufacture
of
high
density
polyethylene,
ethylene
is
polymerized
in
hexane
vapor
which
acts
both
as
a
carrier
solvent
and
a
heat
sink
for
the
exothermic
polymerization
reaction.
The
plant
is
subject
to
New
Source
Performance
Standard,
Subpart
DDD
which
cross
references
NSPS
Subpart
VV
for
LDAR
requirements.
The
facility
has
12,979
valves,
158
pump
seals,
3
compressor
seals
in
VOC
service
that
are
subject
to
NSPS
program
monitoring.
Components,
containing
10
wt%
VOC,
are
monitored
monthly
with
a
leak
being
an
instrument
reading
of
10,000
ppm.

Approximately
80%
of
the
components
also
contain
hexane
or
toluene
(
both
a
VOC
and
HAP).
These
components
and
approximately
20,000
connectors
will
also
be
subject
to
LDAR
requirements
in
Subpart
UU
of
the
Generic
MACT.
Subpart
UU
requires
monitoring
of
components,
containing
5
wt%
HAP,
quarterly
with
a
leak
being
an
instrument
reading
of
500
ppm.

The
proposed
MON
provided
no
overlap
exclusion
for
facilities
with
a
NSPS
Subpart
VV
LDAR
obligation.
Without
including
an
exclusion
in
the
MON
to
address
overlap
with
the
Subpart
VV,
the
facility
in
this
example
will
have
to
continue
to
monitor
on
a
monthly
basis
the
13,139
components
in
VOC
service
at
a
10,000
ppm
leak
definition.
Then
quarterly,
monitor
10,500
of
those
same
components
at
a
leak
definition
of
500
ppm
since
they
contain
>
5
wt%
HAP
to
comply
with
the
MON.
Duplicate
monitoring
of
a
valve
or
other
component
under
two
different
equipment
leak
regulatory
programs
increases
compliance
costs
with
little
reduction
in
fugitive
emissions.
The
facility
will
also
need
to
modify
their
recordkeeping
system
for
component
identification
to
ensure
that
the
valve
or
pump
is
monitored
by
the
appropriate
program.

Recommendation:

Add
a
Paragraph
in
63.2535
allowing
facilities
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
Subpart
FFFF
for
equipment
subject
to
both
Subpart
FFFF
and
NSPS
Subpart
VV.
Suggested
regulatory
language
is:

"
After
the
compliance
dates
specified
in
Paragraph
63.2445,
if
you
have
an
affected
source
with
equipment
subject
to
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
60,
you
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
Subpart
FFFF
for
all
such
equipment.
You
must
identify
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
required
by
Paragraph
63.2520
the
provisions
with
which
you
will
comply."

The
Agency
also
solicited
comment
on
ways
to
reduce
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
of
complying
with
the
requirements
of
the
MON
and
other
regulatory
subparts.
To
reduce
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
associated
with
multiple
equipment
leak
programs,
we
suggest
EPA
consider
allowing
owners
and
operators
the
option
of
consolidating
all
their
volatile
organic
compound
and
HAP
equipment
leak
programs
into
one
program
for
each
process
unit.
Using
the
above
example,
after
allowing
components
in
HAP
service
to
only
comply
with
Subpart
FFFF,
there
will
still
be
approximately
2,630
components,
or
20%
of
the
facility's
total
components
subject
to
NSPS
Subpart
VV
monitoring
requirements
since
they
contain
only
VOC
and
no
HAP.

EPA
addressed
this
issue
(
see
60
FR
18072,
April
10,
1995)
previously.
The
Agency's
rationale
for
allowing
consolidation
of
equipment
leak
programs
under
Part
63,
Subpart
H,
was
discussed
in
the
April
10
1995
preamble:
"
EPA
agrees
that
consolidation
of
programs
will
allow
for
more
efficient
management
of
programs,
reduce
cost
of
compliance,
and
improve
compliance.
As
EPA
believes
the
HON
contains
more
stringent
requirements
than
any
other
Federal
equipment
leak
regulations,
EPA
proposes
to
allow
override
of
those
requirements
with
the
provisions
of
Subpart
H.
It
is
proposed
to
add
a
new
paragraph
(
c)
to
63.160
to
allow
an
owner
or
operator
to
elect
to
comply
with
Subpart
H
for
all
VOC
containing
process
equipment
in
the
process
unit
in
lieu
of
compliance
with
40
CFR
part
60
subparts
VV,
GGG,
or
KKK
or
with
40
CFR
parts
61
subparts
F
or
J."

Consolidation
of
Federal
leak
equipment
leak
program
requirements
will
significantly
reduce
the
administrative
burden:
monitoring
costs
will
be
reduced
as
the
technician
will
not
have
to
"
hunt"
for
a
particular
component,
but
will
be
able
to
monitor
components
consecutively,
recordkeeping
will
be
reduced
as
duplicate
component
lists
will
not
be
required
for
each
equipment
leak
program,
and
reporting
can
be
consolidated
into
a
single
periodic
report
for
the
facility.

Recommendation:

We
suggest
EPA
consider
allowing
a
facility
that
is
subject
to
multiple
federal
equipment
leak
programs
to
elect
to
comply
with
the
most
stringent
program.
EPA
considers
that
Subpart
H
is
more
stringent
that
the
older
NSPS
equipment
leak
monitoring
programs.
The
stringency
of
the
equipment
leak
work
practice
requirements
in
Subpart
FFFF
which
cross
references
Subpart
UU
in
the
Generic
MACT
are
equivalent
to
Subpart
H
of
the
HON.
We
recommend
that
the
language
in
63.160(
c)
be
included
in
Subpart
FFFF,
paragraph
63.2535.
Specific
language
is:

"(
c)
If
a
process
unit
subject
to
the
provision
of
this
subpart
has
equipment
to
which
this
subpart
does
not
apply,
but
which
is
subject
to
a
standard
identified
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
or
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
may
elect
to
apply
this
subpart
to
all
such
equipment
in
the
process
unit.
If
the
owner
or
operator
elects
this
method
of
compliance,
all
VOC
in
such
equipment
shall
be
considered,
for
the
purposes
of
applicability
and
compliance
with
this
subpart,
as
if
it
were
in
organic
HAP.
Compliance
with
the
provisions
of
this
subpart,
in
the
manner
described
in
this
paragraph,
shall
be
deemed
to
constitute
compliance
with
the
standard
identified
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
or
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
c)(
1)
40
CFR
part
60
subpart
VV,
GGG,
or
KKK;
or
(
c)(
2)
40
CFR
part
61,
subpart
F
or
J."
(
reference:
60
FR
18,075,
April
10,
1995)

DRF;
8/
08/
2002
