United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement
and Compliance
Assurance (2201A)
EPA 300-N-99-014
C/EPA Enforcement Alert
Volume 2, Number 9
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
October 1999
Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing 'Fugitive
Emissions' Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs
The Clean Air Act requires
refineries to develop and imple-
ment a Leak Detection and Repair
(LDAR) program to control fugitive
emissions. Fugitive emissions occur
from valves, pumps, compressors,
pressure relief valves, flanges, con-
nectors and other piping components.
Comparison monitoring con-
About
Enforcement Alert
"Enforcement Alert" \
published periodically by the
Office of Regulatory
Enforcement to inform and
educate the public and regulated
community of important
environmental enforcement
issues, recent trends and
significant enforcement actions.
This information should helpthe
regulated community anticipate
and prevent violations of federal
environmental law that could
otherwise lead to enforcement
action. Reproduction and wide
dissemination of this newsletter
is encouraged.
See Page 4 for useful EPA
Websites and additional
resources.
Eric V. Schaeffer
Director, Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
Editor: Virginia Bueno
(202) 564-8684
bueno.virginia@epamail.epa.gov
(Please email all address and
name changes or subscription
requests for this newsletter.)
ducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National
Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) shows that the number of
leaking valves and components is up
to 10 times greater than had been re-
ported by certain re-
fineries (see Table, ^^^^^"
Page 2). EPA believes
this great disparity be-
tween what refineries
are reporting and what
EPA is finding may be
attributable to refiner-
ies not monitoring in
the manner prescribed
in 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A, Method
21.
Federal regulations
require refiners to rou-
tinely monitor for leaks
and to fix any equip-
ment found leaking.
Failure to identify
leaking equipment re-
sults in necessary repairs not being
made and continuing fugitive emis-
sions of volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs) and other hazardous chemi-
cals. EPA estimates that the failure
to identify and repair leaks at petro-
leum refineries could be resulting in
additional VOC emissions of 80 mil-
lion pounds annually. VOCs contrib-
ute to ground-level ozone, a principal
component of smog, which can cause
significant health and environmental
problems.
PA estimates
that leaks not
found and
repaired could be
resulting in additional
volatile organic
chemical emissions
of 80 million pounds
annually.
What the Law Requires
Specific requirements for refinery
fugitive emissions are identified in 40
CFR Part 60, New Source Perfor-
mance Standards (NSPS), and 40
CFR Parts 61 and 63,
National Emission
Standards for Hazard-
ous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). Many
State and local air
agencies incorporate
federal requirements
but some have estab-
lished more stringent
requirements as au-
thorized by law. The
various regulations re-
quire refineries to
implement an LDAR
program to reduce fu-
gitive emissions from
valves, pumps, com-
pressors, pressure re-
^^^^^^_ lief valves, flanges,
connectors, and other
piping components.
Valves are usually the single larg-
est source of fugitive emissions. Emis-
sions from any single piece of equip-
ment are usually small. Based on the
large number of equipment compo-
nents that can leak and are subject to
LDAR requirements, however, cumu-
lative emissions can be very large. To
obtain a proper reading of emissions
from leaking components the monitor-
ing equipment must be calibrated cor-
Continued on page 2
This publication is found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/enfalert
-------
Enforcement Alert
Continued from
page 1
rectly and held at the
component interface
where leakage could oc-
cur (e.g., at the seal be-
tween the valve stem
and housing) for a suffi-
cient length of time to
obtain a valid measure-
ment.
LDAR Prog rams
Should Consist of
Several
Processes
LDAR programs are
generally comprised of
four processes. Regula-
tions vary but usually
require refineries to:
• Identify compo-
nents to be included in
the program;
• Conduct routine
monitoring of identified
components;
• Repair any leak-
ing components; and
• Report monitor-
ing results.
Compliance issues associated with
each of these processes have resulted
in numerous enforcement actions by
EPA Regional offices, State agencies,
or local air boards, depending on the
specific regulations. Common viola-
tions include:
• Failure to identify process
units and components that must be
monitored;
• Failure to follow prescribed
monitoring procedures;
• Use of incorrect or expired
calibration gasses;
OCTOBER 1999
Comparative Monitoring Results
Refinery
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
Company
Monitoring:
Valves/Leaks
7,694/170
7,879/223
3,913/22
2,229/26
5,555/96
42,505/124
14,307/226
20,719/736
5,339/9
8,374/78
6,997/101
12,686/26
4,160/40
5,944/29
7,181/112
8,532/203
6,640/36
Total 170,717/2,266
NEIC
Monitoring:
Valves/Leaks
3,363/354
3,407/216
2,008/108
1,784/24
2,109/112
3,053/53
3,852/236
3,351/179
2,754/84
2,981/55
1,658/114
3,228/125
1,926/222
2,487/106
2,897/130
4,060/181
2,608/74
47,526/2,372
Leak Rate:
Company/
NEIC (%)
2.3/10.5
2.8/6.3
0.6/5.4
1.2/1.4
0.7/5.3
0.3/1.7
1.6/6.1
3.6/5.3
0.2/3.1
0.9/1.8
1.4/6.9
0.2/3.8
1.0/11.5
0.5/4.3
1.6/4.5
2.4/4.5
0.5/2.8
1. 3/5.0 (avg)
Emissions
Rate:
Company/
NEIC (Ib/hr)
38.8/106.6
44.0/73.5
18.3/90.1
15.5/17.1
50.7/125.8
154.7/382.3
122.2/369.7
332.2/469.7
16.9/76.6
50.8/78.5
56.1/201.2
34.9/84.0
25.7/192.2
26.1/112.3
60.8/140.9
98.8/167.5
30.5/87.5
1.177.0/
2,775.5
Potential
Emissions:
Undetected
Leaks (Ib/hr)
67.8
29.5
71.8
1.6
75.1
227.6
247.5
137.5
59.7
27.7
145.1
49.1
166.5
86.2
80.1
68.7
57.0
1,598.5
• Failure to repair components
within specified timeframes; and
• Failure to submit quarterly re-
ports and maintain appropriate cali-
bration and/or monitoring records.
Refinery Monitoring
Reports; What EPA is
Finding
During the past several years,
NEIC has monitored for leaking com-
ponents at refineries. For 17 facilities
investigated by NEIC, the average
leak rate reported by the facilities was
1.3 percent. The average leak rate de-
termined by NEIC and confirmed by
the facilities was 5.0 percent. One ex-
planation for this difference in leak
rates may be found in a report pub-
lished by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ("Rule Effec-
tiveness Study"). The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District deter-
mined that when valves were in-
spected at a distance of one centime-
ter (0.4 inches) from the component
instead of at the interface with the
component, as the regulations require,
Continued on page 3
-------
Enforcement Alert
Continued from page 2
57 percent of the leaking valves would
be missed when monitoring above the
500 ppm level.
Fugitive emissions account for 22
percent of all emissions from non-re-
fineries but account for more than 55
percent of all refinery emissions iden-
tified in the 1996 Toxic Release In-
ventory (TRI). Since TRI includes
only "reportable" hydrocarbons, total
fugitive emissions were significantly
larger than the 3 3 million pounds then
identified by reporting refineries.
The failure to identify leaks means
that they remain unrepaired and will
continue to release VOCs and hazard-
ous substances into the atmosphere.
Emission estimates using a 50/50 split
between components in gas/light liq-
uid service (see Table, Page 2) sug-
gest that these 17 refineries' annual
fugitive emissions could be more than
6,000 tons per year greater than pre-
viously believed. Extrapolating this dif-
ference to all refineries larger than the
smallest refinery investigated by NEIC
also suggests that there may be an
additional 80 million pounds of VOCs
EPA Policies for
Reducing, Eliminating
Penalties for
Self-Policing
EPA has adopted two policies
designed to encourage the regu-
lated community to comply with
environmental laws.
For more information, see
EPA's Audit Policy Website at:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/
auditpol.html, and the Small Busi-
ness Policy at: http://
www.epa.gov/oeca/smbusi.html.
being emitted each year because re-
finery leaks are not being identified
properly and repaired promptly, as re-
quired by LDAR programs. Signifi-
cantly and as recognized by industry,
fugitive emissions can be reduced by
up to 90 percent if leaks are detected
and repaired in a timely manner.
Regulatory Impacts of
Inadequate Fugitive
Monitoring
By not fully identifying all leaking
components, refineries are likely caus-
ing the unnecessary release of excess
hydrocarbons. The impacts of these
additional hydrocarbon releases may
result in:
• Additional VOC emissions
that could worsen local or
transboundry smog problems;
• Under reporting of fugitive
emissions on the annual Toxic Report-
ing Inventory;
• Under reporting of various
TRI chemicals on annual Form R sub-
missions; and
• Delayed or denied permits for
expansion.
Most LDAR regulations allow for
decreased monitoring frequency if cer-
tain performance standards are con-
sistently achieved. Monitoring fre-
quency is decreased from quarterly to
annual monitoring if less than two per-
cent of the valves within a process
unit are found leaking. Conversely, if
greater than two percent of the valves
are found to be leaking, monitoring
must be conducted quarterly. EPA
monitoring showing a greater than two
percent leak rate has resulted in re-
fineries reverting back to quarterly
monitoring.
OCTOBER 1999
Improving Leak Detection
Monitoring Reliability
Although not required under cur-
rent LDAR programs, several prac-
tices appear to improve the reliability
of monitoring data and LDAR com-
pliance:
• Energetic LDAR coordina-
tors (advocates) with the responsibil-
ity and authority to make things hap-
pen;
• Continuing education/re-
fresher programs for plant operators.
Plant operators can have a major im-
pact on LDAR compliance;
• Diligent and well-motivated
monitoring personnel;
• Use of a lower than required
leak definition. Several refineries use
a leak definition lower than the regu-
latory limit. For example, several re-
fineries use a500 ppm limit ratherthan
the regulatory limit of 10,000 ppm;
• More frequent monitoring
than required. Rather than monitor-
ing annually, some refineries monitor
quarterly. More frequent monitoring
also may permit lower emissions to
be reported on the annual Toxic Re-
porting Inventory and/or Form Rs; and
• Established Quality Assur-
ance/Quality Control procedures. Sev-
eral refineries have initiated a program
to check the monitoring results sub-
mitted by the monitoring team (in-
house or contractor).
EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance is encouraged
by efforts currently underway by the
National Advisory Committee on En-
vironmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT) petroluem refining
workgroup to find more cost-effec-
tive ways to identify significant leaks
Continued on page 4
__ 3
-------
c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
2248A
Washington, D.C. 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Continued from page 3
through new technology that allows
for quick identification of the most sig-
nificant losses. Meanwhile, however,
the regulated industry is expected to
comply fully with existing LDAR re-
quirements.
Contact Ken Goring, National
Enforcement Investigations Cen-
ter, (303)236-6658;Email:
garing.ken@epa.gov; Tom Ripp,
Office of Compliance, Manufac-
turing, Energy and Transportation
Division, (202564- 7003; Email:
ripp.tom@epamail.epa.gov; or Jim
Jackson, Office of Regulatory En-
forcement, Air Enforcement Divi-
sion, (202) 564-2002;Email:
jackson.james@epamail.epa.gov.
ERA'S Y2K Enforcement
Policy
EPA's "Y2K Enforcement Policy is
designed to encourage the expeditious
testing of computer associated hard-
ware and software that may be poten-
tially vulnerable to Y2K problems.
Under this policy, which was pub-
lished in the Federal Register on March
10, 1999, EPA intends to waive 100
percent of the civil penalties and rec-
ommend against criminal prosecution
for environmental violations resulting
from Y2K testing designed to identify
and eliminate Y2K-related malfunctions.
To receive the policy's benefits (e.g.,
waiver of penalties due to testing), regu-
lated entities must address specific cri-
teria and conditions identified in the
policy.
For more about the Y2K
Enforcement Policy, contact Gary
Jonesi, Office of Regulatory
Enforcement, (202) 564-4002 or E-
mail: jonesi.gary@jepa.gov.
Useful Websites
EPA's Technical Web site for
Information Transfer and Sharing
Related to Air Pollution Topics:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI):
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/
EPA Home Page:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome
National Enforcement Investigations
Center:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/oceft/neic/
index.html
EPCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346. For
callers in the DC area, please call
(703) 412-9810. Also, the TDD is (800)
553-7672.
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
http://www.EPA.gov/oeca/ore.html
EPA Compliance Assistance
Centers: http://www.epa.gov/
oeca/mfcac.html
Small Business Gateway:
http://www.epa/gov/smallbusiness
Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that contains at least 30% recycled fiber
------- |