LDAR Guide

Leak Detection and Repair
A Best Practices Guide
United States Environmental Protection Agency Ofce of Compliance Ofce of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (mail code) Washington, DC 20460
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed this document and approves it for publication. This document does not constitute rulemaking by the EPA and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right or benet enforceable at law or in equity, by any person. The EPA may take actions at variance with this document and its internal procedures.
Contents
1.0 2.0 3.0 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why Regulate Equipment Leaks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Sources, Causes And Control Of Equipment Leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 How are emissions from equipment leaks reduced? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 What regulations incorporate LDAR programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What Are the Benets of an LDAR Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 Reducing Product Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Increasing Safety for Facility Workers and Operators . . 4.3 Decreasing Exposure for the Surrounding Community . 4.4 Potentially Reducing Emission Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Avoiding Enforcement Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elements of an LDAR Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8
8
8
8
9
4.0
5.0 6.0 7.0
What Compliance Problems Have Been Found With Current LDAR

Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Model LDAR Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1 Written LDAR Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 LDAR Audits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Contractor Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Internal Leak Denition for Valves and Pumps . . 7.6 More Frequent Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Repairing Leaking Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Delay of Repair Compliance Assurance . . . . . . . 7.9 Electronic Monitoring and Storage of LDAR Data 7.10 QA/QC of LDAR Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.11 Calibration/Calibration Drift Assessment . . . . . . 7.12 Records Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources of Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
20
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
27
8.0
Tables
Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Sources of equipment leaks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Equipment component counts at a typical renery or chemical plant. . . . 5
Uncontrolled VOC emissions at a typical facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Control effectiveness for an LDAR program at a chemical process unit
and a renery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Leak Detection and Repair Compliance Assistance GuidanceA Best Practices Guide
Appendices
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Federal Regulations That Require a Formal LDAR Program With Method 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Federal Regulations That Require the Use of Method 21
But Do Not Require a Formal LDAR Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Method 21 General Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Method 21Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks . . . . . 32
Summary of NEIC Comparative Monitoring Results of
Leaking Valves at 17 Reneries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Enforcement Alert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide
1.0 Purpose
In general, EPA has found significant widespread noncompliance with Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) regulations and more specifically, noncom pliance with Method 21 requirements. In 1999, EPA estimated that, as a result of this noncompliance, an additional 40,000 tons of VOCs are emitted an nually from valves at petroleum refineries alone. This document is intended for use by regulated entities as well as compliance inspectors to identify some of the problems identified with LDAR pro grams focusing in on Method 21 requirements and describe the practices that can be used to increase the effectiveness of an LDAR program. Specifically, this document explains: e importance of regulating equipment Th leaks; e major elements of an LDAR program; Th Typical mistakes made when monitoring to detect leaks; Problems that occur from improper manage ment of an LDAR program; and A set of best practices that can be used to implement effective an LDAR program. Some of the elements of a model LDAR program, as described in Section 7.0, are required by current Federal regulations. Other model LDAR program elements help ensure continuous compliance al though they may not be mandated from a regulato ry standpoint. Furthermore, State or local require ments may be more stringent than some elements of the model LDAR program, such as with leak definitions. Prior to developing a written LDAR program plan, all applicable regulations should be reviewed to determine and ensure compliance with the most stringent requirements.
2.0 Why Regulate Equipment Leaks?
EPA has determined that leaking equipment, such as valves, pumps, and connectors, are the largest source of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and volatile hazardous air pollutants (VHAPs) from petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities. The Agency has estimated that approximately 70,367 tons per year of VOCs and 9,357 tons per year of HAPs have been emitted from equipment leaks. Emissions from equipment leaks exceed emissions from storage vessels, waste water, transfer operations, or process vents. VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone is a major component of smog, and causes or aggravates respiratory disease, particu larly in children, asthmatics, and healthy adults who participate in moderate exercise. Many areas of the United States, particularly those areas where refineries and chemical facilities are located, do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone can be trans ported in the atmosphere and contribute to nonat tainment in downwind areas. Some species of VOCs are also classified as VHAPs. Some known or suspected effects of exposure to VHAPs include cancer, reproductive effects, and birth defects. The highest concentrations of VHAPs tend to be closest to the emission source, where the highest public exposure levels are also often detected. Some common VHAPs emitted from re fineries and chemical plants include acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, naph thalene, toluene, and xylene.
According to EPAs 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database, 125,000 tons per year (tpy) of VOC are emitted from petroleum reneries. It is estimated that over 49,000 tpy of VOC from reneries are equipment leak emissions. Of the 165,000 tpy of VOC emissions from chemical manufacturing facilities, 21,000 tpy is attributable to equipment leaks.
3.0 Sources, Causes And Control Of Equipment Leaks
A typical refinery or chemical plant can emit 600 700 tons per year of VOCs from leaking equipment, such as valves, connectors, pumps, sampling con nections, compressors, pressure-relief devices, and open-ended lines. Table 3.1 shows the primary sources of emissions from components subject to equipment leak regu lations. In a typical facility, most of the emissions are from valves and connectors because these are the most prevalent components and can number in the thousands (Table 3.2). The major cause of emis sions from valves and connectors is seal or gasket failure due to normal wear or improper mainte nance. Previous EPA studies have estimated that valves and connectors account for more than 90% of emis sions from leaking equipment with valves being the most significant source (Table 3.3). Newer informa tion suggests that open-ended lines and sampling connections may account for as much as 5-10% of total VOC emissions from equipment leaks. 3.1 How are emissions from equipment leaks reduced? Facilities can control emissions from equipment leaks by implementing a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program or by modifying/replacing leak ing equipment with leakless components. Most equipment leak regulations allow a combination of both control methods. Leaks from open-ended lines, compressors, and sampling connections are usually fixed by modifying the equipment or component. Emissions from pumps and valves can also be reduced through the use of leakless valves and sealless pumps. Common leakless valves include bellows valves and diaphragm valves, and common sealless pumps are dia phragm pumps, canned motor pumps, and magnetic drive pumps. Leaks from pumps can also be reduced by using dual seals with or without barrier fluid. Leakless valves and sealless pumps are ef fective at minimizing or eliminating leaks, but their use may be limited by materials of construction considerations and process operating conditions. Installing leakless and sealless equipment components may be a wise choice for replacing individual, chronic leaking components.
LDAR is a work practice designed to identify leaking equipment so that emissions can be reduced through repairs. A com ponent that is subject to LDAR requirements must be monitored at specied, regular intervals to determine whether or not it is leaking. Any leaking component must then be repaired or replaced within a specied time frame.
Table 3.1 Sources of equipment leaks.
Pumps are used to move uids from one point to another. Two types of pumps extensively used in pe troleum reneries and chemical plants are centrifugal pumps and positive displacement, or reciprocating pumps. Valves are used to either restrict or allow the move ment of uids. Valves come in numerous varieties and with the exception of connectors, are the most com mon piece of process equipment in industry. Connectors are components such as anges and ttings used to join piping and process equipment together. Gaskets and blinds are usually installed between anges. Sampling connections are utilized to obtain samples from within a process. Leaks from pumps typically occur at the seal.
Leaks from valves usually occur at the stem or gland area of the valve body and are commonly caused by a failure of the valve packing or O-ring.
Leaks from connectors are commonly caused from gasket failure and improperly torqued bolts on anges.
Leaks from sampling connections usually occur at the outlet of the sampling valve when the sampling line is purged to obtain the sample. Leaks from compressors most often occur from the seals.
Compressors are designed to increase the pressure of a uid and provide motive force. They can have rotary or reciprocating designs. Pressure relief devices are safety devices designed to protect equipment from exceeding the maximum allowable working pressure. Pressure relief valves and rupture disks are examples of pressure relief devices.
Leaks from pressure relief valves can occur if the valve is not seated properly, operating too close to the set point, or if the seal is worn or damaged. Leaks from rupture disks can occur around the disk gasket if not properly installed. Leaks from open-ended lines occur at the point of the line open to the atmosphere and are usually con trolled by using caps, plugs, and anges. Leaks can also be caused by the incorrect implementation of the block and bleed procedure.
Open-ended lines are pipes or hoses open to the atmosphere or surrounding environment.
Table 3.2 Equipment component counts at a typical renery or chemical plant.
Component Pumps Valves Connectors Open-ended lines Sampling connections Pressure relief valves
Range 10 360 150 46,000 600 60,000 1 1,600 20 200 5 360
Average 100 7,400 12,000 560 80 90
Source: Cost and Emission Reductions for Meeting Percent Leaker Require ments for HON Sources. Memorandum to Hazardous Organic NESHAP Residual Risk and Review of Technology Standard Rulemaking docket. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0475-0105.
Table 3.3 Uncontrolled VOC emissions at a typical facility.
Component Pumps Valves Connectors Open-ended lines Sampling connections Pressure relief valves Total
Average Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (ton/yr) 19 408 201 9 11 5 653
Percent of Total Emissions 3 62 31 1 2 1
Source: Emission factors are from Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Esti mates, EPA-453/R-95-017, Nov 1995, and equipment counts in Table 3.2.
More recent data indicates that openended lines and sampling connections each account for ap proximately 5-10% of total VOC emissions.
3.2 What regulations incorporate LDAR programs? LDAR programs are required by many New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other state or local requirements. There are 25 federal standards that require facilities to implement LDAR programs. Appendix A shows the 25 federal standards that require the implementation of a for mal LDAR program using Method 21. Appendix B lists 28 other federal regulations that require some Method 21 monitoring, but do not require LDAR programs to be in place. NSPS (40 CFR Part 60) equipment leak standards are related to fugitive emissions of VOCs and apply to stationary sources that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after the date that an NSPS is proposed in the Federal Register. NESHAP (40 CFR Parts 61, 63, and 65) equip ment leak standards apply to both new and
existing stationary sources of fugitive VHAPs. RCRA (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265) equipment leak standards apply to hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Many state and local air agencies incorporate federal LDAR requirements by reference, but some have established more stringent LDAR requirements to meet local air quality needs. A facility may have equipment that is subject to multiple NSPS and NESHAP equipment leaks stan dards. For example, a number of manufacturing processes listed in the Hazardous Organic NES HAP (HON) equipment leak standard (40 CFR 63, Subpart H) may utilize equipment for which other NESHAP or NSPS equipment leak standards could apply (such as 40 CFR 60, Subpart VV). In addi tion, one process line may be subject to one rule and another process line subject to another rule. Facilities must ensure that they are complying with the proper equipment leak regulations if multiple regulations apply.
For a comprehensive discussion of equipment leak regulation applicability determinations, see Inspection Manual: Federal Equipment Leak Regulations for the Chemical Manufacturing Industry, Vol. 1: Inspection Manual, EPA/305/B98/011 (Dec 1998), Chapter 2.
4.0 What Are the Benets of an LDAR Program?
When the LDAR requirements were developed, EPA estimated that petroleum refineries could reduce emissions from equipment leaks by 63% by imple menting a facility LDAR program. Additionally, EPA estimated that chemical facilities could reduce VOC emissions by 56% by implementing such a program. Table 4.1 presents the control effectiveness of an LDAR program for different monitoring intervals and leak definitions at chemical process units and petroleum refineries. Emissions reductions from implementing an LDAR program potentially reduce product losses, increase safety for workers and operators, decrease exposure of the surrounding community, reduce emissions fees, and help facilities avoid enforcement actions.
Example Emissions reductions at a typical SOCMI facility.

Applying the equipment modications and LDAR requirements of the HON to the sources of uncontrolled emissions in the typical facility presented in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 would reduce the emissions per facility by approximately 582 tons per year of emissions, an 89% reduction.
Table 4.1 Control effectiveness for an LDAR program at a chemical process unit and a renery.
Control Effectiveness (% Reduction) Equipment Type and Service Monthly Monitoring 10,000 ppmv Leak Denition Quarterly Monitoring 10,000 ppmv Leak Denition 500 ppm Leak Denitiona
Chemical Process Unit Valves Gas Serviceb Valves Light Liquid Servicec 87 84 69 67 61 45 92 88 75 93
Pumps Light Liquid Servicec Connectors All Services Renery Valves Gas Serviceb Valves Light Liquid Servicec
88 76 68
70 61 45
96 95 88 81
Pumps Light Liquid Servicec Connectors All Services
Source: Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-017, Nov 1995.
a
b c
Control effectiveness attributable to the HON-negotiated equipment leak regulation (40 CFR 63, Subpart H) is estimated based on equipment-specic leak denitions and performance levels. However, pumps subject to the HON at existing process units have a 1,000 to 5,000 ppm leak denition, depending on the type of process. Gas (vapor) service means the material in contact with the equipment component is in a gaseous state at the process operating conditions. Light liquid service means the material in contact with the equipment component is in a liquid state in which the sum of the concentration of individual constitu ents with a vapor pressure above 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20C is greater than or equal to 20% by weight.
4.1 Reducing Product Losses In the petrochemical industry, saleable products are lost whenever emissions escape from process equipment. Lost product generally translates into lost revenue. 4.2 Increasing Safety for Facility Workers and Operators Many of the compounds emitted from refineries and chemical facilities may pose a hazard to ex posed workers and operators. Reducing emissions from leaking equipment has the direct benefit of reducing occupational exposure to hazardous com pounds. 4.3 Decreasing Exposure for the Surrounding Community In addition to workers and operators at a facil ity, the population of a surrounding community can be affected by severe, long-term exposure to toxic air pollutants as a result of leaking equip ment. Although most of the community exposure may be episodic, chronic health effects can result from long-term exposure to emissions from leaking equipment that is either not identified as leaking or not repaired. 4.4 Potentially Reducing Emission Fees To fund permitting programs, some states and local air pollution districts charge annual fees that are based on total facility emissions. A facility with an effective program for reducing leaking equipment can potentially decrease the amount of these an nual fees.
4.5 Avoiding Enforcement Actions In setting Compliance and Enforcement National Priorities for Air Toxics, EPA has identified LDAR programs as a national focus. Therefore, facilities can expect an increased number and frequency of compliance inspections and a closer review of com pliance reports submitted to permitting authorities in an effort by the Agency to assess LDAR programs and identify potential LDAR problems. A facil ity with an effective LDAR program decreases the chances of being targeted for enforcement actions and avoids the costs and penalties associated with rule violations.
Example Cost of product lost.

In previous rulemaking efforts, EPA has esti
mated that the average value of product lost
due to equipment leaks is $1,370 per ton.a
Applying this cost factor results in a potential
savings of $730,000 per year per facility.
Source: Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From

Process Units in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry-Background Information
for Proposed Standards, Vol. 1C-Model Emission
Sources. Emission Standards Division, US EPA,
Ofce of Air and Radiation, OAQPS, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Nov 1992.
5.0 Elements of an LDAR Program
The requirements among the regulations vary, but all LDAR programs consist of five basic elements, which are discussed in detail in Sections 5.1 through 5.5. For each element, this section outlines the typical LDAR program requirements, common compliance problems found through field inspections, and a set of best practices used by facilities with effective LDAR programs.
Identifying Components
Leak Denition
Monitoring Components
Repairing Components
Recordkeeping
Current Requirements
Assign a unique identication (ID) number to each regulated com ponent.
Record each regulated component and its unique ID number in a log. Physically locate each regulated component in the facility, verify its location on the piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) or pro cess ow diagrams, and update the log if necessary. Some states require a physical tag on each component subject to the LDAR requirements.
Leak Denition
Identify each regulated component on a site plot plan or on a con tinuously updated equipment log. Promptly note in the equipment log when new and replacement pieces of equipment are added and equipment is taken out of ser vice.
Common Problems
Not properly identifying all regulated equipment components. Not properly documenting exempt components (e.g., <300 hour exemption and <5 (or <10) weight % HAP).
Best Practices
Physically tag each regulated equipment component with a unique ID number. Write the component ID number on piping and instrumentation diagrams.
Recordkeeping
Institute an electronic data management system for LDAR data and records, possibly including the use of bar coding equipment. Periodically perform a eld audit to ensure lists and diagrams ac curately represent equipment installed in the plant.
10
Method 21 requires VOC emissions from regulated components to be measured in parts per million (ppm). A leak is detected when ever the measured concentration exceeds the threshold standard (i.e., leak denition) for the applicable regulation. Leak denitions vary by regulation, component type, service (e.g., light liquid, heavy liquid, gas/vapor), and monitoring interval. Most NSPS have a leak denition of 10,000 ppm. Many NESHAP use a 500-ppm or 1,000-ppm leak denition.
Leak Denition
Many equipment leak regulations also dene a leak based on visual inspections and observations (such as uids dripping, spraying, misting or clouding from or around components), sound (such as hissing), and smell. Note: The LDAR requirements specify weekly visual inspections of pumps, agitators, and compressors for indications of liquids leaking from the seals.
Common Problems
Using the wrong leak denition for a particular component due to confusion at facilities where multiple LDAR regulations apply.
Best Practices
Utilize a leak denition lower than what the regulation requires. Simplify the program by using the lowest leak denition when mul tiple leak denitions exist. Make the lowest leak denition conservative to provide a margin of safety when monitoring components. Keep the lowest leak denition consistent among all similar com ponent types. For example, all valves in a facility might have a leak denition of 500 ppm.
Recordkeeping
11
For many NSPS and NESHAP regulations with leak detection provisions, the primary method for monitoring to detect leaking components is EPA Reference Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A).
Method 21 is a procedure used to detect VOC leaks from process equip ment using a portable detecting instrument. Appendix C of this guide explains the general procedure and Appendix D presents the complete Method 21 requirements. Monitoring intervals vary according to the applicable regulation, but are typ ically weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly. For connectors, the monitoring interval can be every 2, 4, or 8 years. The monitoring interval depends on the component type and periodic leak rate for the component type.
Leak Denition
Common Problems
Not following Method 21 properly. Failing to monitor at the maximum leak location (once the highest read ing is obtained by placing the probe on and around the interface, hold the probe at that location approximately two times the response rate of the instrument). Not monitoring long enough to identify a leak. Holding the detection probe too far away from the component interface. The reading must be taken at the interface. Not monitoring all potential leak interfaces. Using an incorrect or an expired calibration gas. Not monitoring all regulated components. Not completing monitoring if the rst monitoring attempt is unsuccessful due to equipment being temporarily out of service.
Recordkeeping
Best Practices
Although not required by Method 21, use an automatic (electronic) data logger to save time, improve accuracy, and provide an audit record. The monitoring inter val is the frequency at which individual com ponent monitoring is conducted. For example, valves are generally required to be monitored once a month using a leak detection in strument, but the monitoring inter val may be extended (e.g. to once every quarter for each valve that has not leaked for two successive months for Part 60 Subpart VV, or on a process unit basis of once every quarter for process units that have less than a 2% leak rate for Part 63 Subpart H). Audit the LDAR program to help ensure that the correct equipment is being monitored, Method 21 procedures are being followed properly, and the required records are being kept. Monitor components more frequently than required by the regulations. Perform QA/QC of LDAR data to ensure accuracy, completeness, and to check for inconsistencies. Eliminate any obstructions (e.g., grease on the component interface) that would prevent monitoring at the interface. If a rule allows the use of alternatives to Method 21 monitoring, Method 21 should still be used periodically to check the results of the alternative monitoring method.
12
Repair leaking components as soon as practicable, but not later than a specied number of calendar days (usually 5 days for a rst attempt at repair and 15 days for nal attempt at repair) after the leak is detected.
First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the following practices where practicable and appropriate: Tightening bonnet bolts Replacing bonnet bolts Tightening packing gland nuts
Leak Denition
Injecting lubricant into lubricated packing If the repair of any component is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown, the component may be placed on the Delay of Repair list, the ID number is recorded, and an explanation of why the compo nent cannot be repaired immediately is provided. An estimated date for repairing the component must be included in the facility records. Note: The drill and tap method for repairing leaking valves is gener ally considered technically feasible without requiring a process unit shutdown and should be tried if the rst attempt at repair does not x the leaking valve. See section 6.7 for a discussion of drill and tap. The component is considered to be repaired only after it has been monitored and shown not to be leaking above the applicable leak deni tion.
Common Problems Recordkeeping

Not repairing leaking equipment within the required amount of time specied by the applicable regulation. Improperly placing components on the Delay of Repair list. Not having a justiable reason for why it is technically infeasible to repair the component without a process unit shutdown. Not exploring all available repair alternatives before exercising the Delay of Repair exemption (specically as it pertains to valves and drill and tap repairs).
Best Practices
Develop a plan and timetable for repairing components. Make a rst attempt at repair as soon as possible after a leak is detect ed. Monitor components daily and over several days to ensure a leak has been successfully repaired. Replace problem components with leakless or other technologies.
13
For each regulated process: Maintain a list of all ID numbers for all equipment subject to an equipment leak regulation. For valves designated as unsafe to monitor, maintain a list of ID numbers and an explanation/review of conditions for the designa tion. Maintain detailed schematics, equipment design specications (including dates and descriptions of any changes), and piping and instrumentation diagrams. Maintain the results of performance testing and leak detection monitoring, including leak monitoring results per the leak frequency, monitoring leakless equipment, and non-periodic event monitoring. For leaking equipment:
Leak Denit ion
Attach ID tags to the equipment. Maintain records of the equipment ID number, the instrument and operator ID numbers, and the date the leak was detected. Maintain a list of the dates of each repair attempt and an explanation of the attempted repair method.
Note the dates of successful repairs. Include the results of monitoring tests to determine if the repair was successful.
Common Problems Recordkeeping

Not keeping detailed and accurate records required by the appli cable regulation. Not updating records to designate new components that are subject to LDAR due to revised regulations or process modications. Best Practices Perform internal and third-party audits of LDAR records on a regular basis to ensure compliance. Electronically monitor and store LDAR data including regular QA/QC audits. Perform regular records maintenance. Continually search for and update regulatory requirements. Properly record and report rst attempts at repair. Keep the proper records for components on Delay of Repair lists.
14
6.0 What Compliance Problems Have Been Found With Current

LDAR Programs?
Many regulatory agencies determine the compli ance status of LDAR programs based on a review of submitted paperwork. Some conduct walk-through inspections to review LDAR records maintained on site and perform a visual check of monitoring practices. However, a records review will not show if monitoring procedures are being followed. Simi larly, the typical walkthrough inspection will not likely detect improper monitoring practices since operators will tend to ensure that they are following proper procedures when they are being watched. EPAs National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) conducted a number of sampling investiga tions of LDAR programs at 17 petroleum refineries. Appendix E summarizes the comparative monitor ing results, and Appendix F contains a copy of the 1999 Enforcement Alert that explains the monitor ing results. The investigations consisted of records review and comparative leak monitoring (compar ing the leak rate found by NEIC to the facilitys historic leak rate) at a subset of the facilitys total components. These investigations have shown a pattern of significantly higher equipment leak rates (5%) than what the refineries reported (1.3%). While there have been improvements since 1999, facility audits are still showing significantly elevat ed leak rates, especially in the chemical manufac turing industries. The discrepancy in leak rates indicates that moni toring staff may not be complying with Method 21 procedures. Failure to accurately detect leaks may be due to a lack of internal quality control oversight or management accountability for the LDAR pro grams regardless of whether the monitoring is done by contractors or in-house personnel. Each leak that is not detected and repaired is a lost opportunity to reduce emissions. In the October 1999 Enforcement Alert, EPA estimates that an ad ditional 40,000 tons of VOCs are emitted annually from petroleum refineries because leaking valves are not found and repaired. Several important factors contribute to failing to identify and repair leaking components: 1. Not identifying all regulated compo nents/units in inventory If a facility does not properly identify all of its regulated components, some leaks may go unidentified. Unidentified components may leak or have existing leaks that will worsen over time if the components are not properly identified, monitored and repaired. Facili ties can fail to identify regulated components when new processes are constructed, exist ing process are modified, or new or revised equipment leak regulations are published. 2. Not monitoring components In some cases, the number of components re ported to have been monitored may indicate problems with monitoring procedures. What facility inspectors have found: A data logger time stamp showed valves being monitored at the rate of one per second with two valves occasionally be
15
ing monitored within the same 1-second period. At one facility, a person reported monitor ing 8,000 components in one day (assum ing an 8-hour work day, that represents one component every 3.6 seconds). Records evaluations showed widely vary ing component monitoring counts, sug gesting equipment might not always be monitored when required. Equipment was marked temporarily out of service because the initial inspection attempt could not be performed. Howev er, the equipment was in service for most of the period, and no subsequent (or prior) inspection attempts were performed to meet the monitoring requirement. However, even when records show a realistic number of components are being monitored, if there are no oversight or accountability checks, then there is no guarantee that com ponents are actually being monitored.
3. Insufficient time to identify a leak In other cases, facilities are not following proper monitoring procedures, resulting in a lower number of leaking components being reported. If a worker moves the probe around the component interface so rapidly that the instrument does not have time to properly respond, then a component may never be identified as leaking. If a worker fails to find the maximum leak location for the component and then does not spend twice the response time at that location, then the monitoring instrument will not measure the correct concentra tion of hydrocarbons and the leak may go undetected. Optical leak imaging shows the importance of identify ing the maximum leak location, as hydrocarbons are quickly dispersed and diluted by air currents around the component. 4. Holding the probe away from the compo nent interface The probe must be placed at the proper interface of the component being analyzed. Placing the probe even 1 centimeter from the interface can result in a false reading, indicat ing that the component is not leaking, when in fact it is leaking. Eliminate any issues (e.g., grease on the component interface) that pre vent monitoring at the interface (e.g., remove excess grease from the component before monitoring or use a monitor that wont be impacted by the grease and is easy to clean.
A well-trained LDAR inspection team (two people) can monitor approximately 500-700 valves per day.
16
For equipment with rotating shafts (pumps

and compressors), Method 21 requires the
probe be placed within 1 centimeter of the
6. Improperly identifying components as unsafe or difficult to monitor Components that are identified as being unsafe to monitor or difficult to monitor must be identified as such because there is a safety concern or an accessibility issue that prevents the component from being success fully monitored. All unsafe or difficult-to-monitor compo nents must be included on a log with identi fication numbers and an explanation of why the component is unsafe to monitor or dif ficult to monitor. Monitoring can be deferred for all such components, but the facility must maintain a plan that explains the conditions under which the components become safe to monitor or no longer difficult to monitor.
Typical TVA (Toxic Vapor Analyzer) response times are around 2 4 seconds.
shaft-seal interface. Placing the probe at the surface of the rotating shaft is a safety hazard and should be avoided. 5. Failing to properly maintain monitoring instrument Factors that may prevent the instrument from identifying leaks are: Not using an instrument that meets the specifications required in Method 21, sec tion 6. Dirty instrument probes; Leakage from the instrument probes; Not zeroing instrument meter; Incorrect calibration gases used; and Not calibrating the detection instrument on a daily basis.
A California Bay Area Air Quality Management District rule effectiveness study showed that if an operator measured 1 centimeter (0.4 inches) from the component leak interface, the operator would nd only 79% of valves leaking between 100 ppm and 500 ppm and only 43% of the valves leaking above 500 ppm.
Source: Draft Staff Report, Regulation 8, Rule 18, Equipment Leaks, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Jul 1997.
17
7. Improperly placing components/units on the Delay of Repair list Generally, placing a leaking component on the Delay of Repair list is permissible only when the component is technically infeasible to repair without a process unit shutdown (e.g., for valves the owner/operator must demonstrate that the emissions from imme diate repair will be greater than waiting for unit shutdown). Repair methods may exist, such as drill and tap for valves, that allow leaks to be fixed while the component is still in service. Fail ing to consider such repair methods before exercising the Delay of Repair list may con stitute noncompliance with repair require ments (usually 15 days under federal LDAR standards). Components placed on the Delay of Repair list must be accompanied by their ID num bers and an explanation of why they have been placed on the list. These components cannot remain on the list indefinitely they must be repaired by the end of the next pro cess unit shutdown.
Drill and Tap is a repair method where a hole is drilled into the valve pack ing gland and tapped, so that a small valve and tting can be attached to the gland. A packing gun is connected to this tting and the small valve is opened allowing new packing material to be pumped into the packing gland. Many companies consider this a permanent repair technique, as newer, pumpable packing types are frequently superior to the older pack ing types they replace. Packing types can be changed and optimized for the specic applica tion over time.
18
7.0 Model LDAR Program

Experience has shown that facilities with an effec tive record of preventing leaks integrate an aware ness of the benefits of leak detection and repair into their operating and maintenance program. This section outlines some of the major elements of suc cessful LDAR programs. These program elements were developed from: Evaluation of best practices identified at facilities with successful LDAR programs, and Analysis of the root causes of noncompliance at facilities that were found to have recurring violations of LDAR regulatory requirements. LDAR programs that incorporate most or all of the elements described in the following sections have achieved more consistent results in their LDAR programs, leading to increased compliance and lower emissions.
Written LDAR Program

(Section 7.1)
First Attempt at Repair

(Section 7.7)
Training
(Section 7.2)
Delay of Repair Compli ance Assurance

(Section 7.8)
LDAR Audits
(Section 7.3)
Electronic Monitoring and Storage of Data Model LDAR Program

(Section 7.9)
Contractor Accountability
(Section 7.4)
QA/QC of LDAR Data

(Section 7.10)
Internal Leak Denitions

(Section 7.5)
Calibration/Calibration Drift Assessment

(Section 7.11)
More Frequent Monitoring

(Section 7.6)
Records Maintenance
(Section 7.12)
19
7.1
Written LDAR Program
A written LDAR program specifies the regulatory requirements and facility-specific procedures for re cordkeeping certifications, monitoring, and repairs. A written program also delineates the roles of each person on the LDAR team as well as documents all the required procedures to be completed and data to be gathered, thus establishing accountability. The plan should identify all process units subject to federal, state, and local LDAR regulations and be updated as necessary to ensure accuracy and continuing compliance.
Within thirty (30) days after developing the writ ten facility-wide LDAR program, submit a copy of the Program to EPA and to the appropriate state agency. 7.2 Training
A training program will provide LDAR personnel the technical understanding to make the written LDAR program work. It also will educate members of the LDAR team on their individual responsibili ties. These training programs can vary according to the level of involvement and degree of responsibility of LDAR personnel.
Elements:
Provide and require initial training and annual
LDAR refresher training for all facility employees
assigned LDAR compliance responsibilities, such
as monitoring technicians, database users, QA/QC
personnel, and the LDAR Coordinator;
For other operations and maintenance personnel
with responsibilities related to LDAR, provide and
require an initial training program that includes
instruction on aspects of LDAR that are relevant to
their duties (e.g., operators and mechanics per
forming valve packing and unit supervisors that
approve delay of repair work). Provide and require
refresher training in LDAR for these personnel at
least every three years.
Collect training information and records of contrac
tors, if used.
Elements:
An overall, facility-wide leak rate goal that will be a
target on a process-unit-by-process-unit basis;
A list of all equipment in light liquid and/or in gas/
vapor service that has the potential to leak VOCs
and VHAPs, within process units that are owned
and maintained by each facility;
Procedures for identifying leaking equipment
within process units;
Procedures for repairing and keeping track of leak
ing equipment;
A process for evaluating new and replacement
equipment to promote the consideration of install
ing equipment that will minimize leaks or eliminate
chronic leakers;
A list of LDAR Personnel and a description
of their roles and responsibilities, including the
person or position for each facility that has the
authority to implement improvements to the LDAR
program; and
Procedures (e.g., a Management of Change pro
gram) to ensure that components added to each
facility during maintenance and construction are
evaluated to determine if they are subject to LDAR
requirements, and that affected components are
integrated into the LDAR program.
20
7.3
LDAR Audits
Elements:
Review records on a regular cycle to ensure that all required LDAR-related records, logs, and databases are being maintained and are up to date. Ensure and document that the correct equipment is included in the LDAR program and that equipment identied as leaking is physically tagged with the equipment ID number. Observe the calibration and monitoring techniques used by LDAR technicians, in particular to ensure the entire interface is checked and the probe is held at the interface, not away from the interface. Retain a contractor to perform a third-party audit of the facility LDAR program at least once every four (4) years. Perform facility-led audits every four (4) years. Use personnel familiar with the LDAR program and its requirements from one or more of the companys other facilities or locations (if available). Perform the rst round of facility-led LDAR audits no later than two (2) years after completion of the third-party audits outlined above, and every four (4) years thereafter. This rotation ensures that the facility is being
audited once every two (2) years.
If areas of noncompliance are discovered, initiate a plan to resolve and document those issues. Implement, as soon as practicable, steps necessary to correct causes of noncompliance, and prevent, to the extent practicable, a recurrence of the cause of the noncompliance. Retain the audit reports and maintain a written record of the corrective actions taken in response to any deciencies identied.
Whether LDAR monitoring is done in house or contracted to third parties outside the company, the potential exists for LDAR staff not to adhere correctly to the LDAR program. Internal and third-party audits of a facility LDAR program are a critical component of effective LDAR programs. The audits check that the correct equipment is being monitored, Method 21 procedures are being followed, leaks are being fixed, and the required records are being kept. In short, the audits ensure that the LDAR program is being conducted cor rectly and problems are identified and corrected.
21
7.4
ontractor Accountability C
Contractors performing monitoring are frequently compensated for the number of components they monitor, which might provide an incentive to rush through monitoring procedures and not adhere to Method 21 requirements for response time, moni toring distance, etc. If this happens, some equip ment leaks may not be detected. To overcome this potential problem, facilities should have in place sufficient oversight procedures to increase the ac countability of contractors.
Elements:
Write contracts that emphasize the quality of
work instead of the quantity of work only.
Require contractors to submit documentation
that their LDAR personnel have been trained on
Method 21 and facility-specic LDAR proce
dures.
Ensure that the contractor has a procedure in
place to review and certify the monitoring data
before submitting the data to the facility.
Review daily results of contractor work to en
sure that a realistic number of components are
being monitored.
Perform spot audits in the eld to ensure that
Method 21 procedures are being followed.
This can include spot-checking monitored
components with another hydrocarbon analyzer
or following LDAR personnel as they perform
monitoring.
Have periodic reviews of contractor perfor
mance (e.g., quarterly or semi-annually) to
resolve issues and correct problems.
7.5 Internal Leak Denition for Valves and Pumps The varying leak definitions that can apply to different process units and components can be confusing and lead to errors in properly identifying leaks. To counter this potential problem, operate your LDAR program using an internal leak defini tion for valves and pumps in light liquid or gas vapor service. The internal leak definition would be equivalent to or lower than the applicable defini tions in your permit and the applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Monitoring against a uniform definition that is lower than the applicable regulatory definition will reduce errors and provide a margin of safety for identifying leaking compo nents. The internal leak definition would apply to valves and pumps (and possibly connectors) in light liquid or gas vapor service.
Elements:
Adopt a 500-ppm or lower internal leak denition for VOCs for all valves in light liquid and/or gas vapor service, excluding pressure relief devices. Adopt a 2,000-ppm or lower internal leak denition for pumps in light liquid and/or gas/vapor service. Record, track, repair, and monitor leaks in excess of the internal leak denition. Repair and monitor leaks that are greater than the internal leak deni tions but less than the applicable regulatory leak denitions within thirty (30) days of detection.
Consent Decrees between EPA and many chemical facilities subject to the HON require using a 250-ppm leak denition for valves and connectors and a 500 ppm leak denition for pumps. Note: If a state or local agency has lower leak deni tions, then the internal leak denition should be set to the lowest denition or even lower to include/allow for margin of error.
22
7.6
More Frequent Monitoring
7.7
Repairing Leaking Components
Many regulations allow for less frequent monitor ing (i.e. skip periods) when good performance (as defined in the applicable regulation) is demon strated. Skip period is an alternative work practice found in some equipment leak regulations and usually applies only to valves and connectors. After a specified number of leak detection periods (e.g., monthly) during which the percentage of leaking components is below a certain value (e.g., 2% for NSPS facilities), a facility can monitor less fre quently (e.g., quarterly) as long as the percentage of leaking components remains low. The facility must keep a record of the percentage of the compo nent type found leaking during each leak detection period. Experience has shown that poor monitoring rather than good performance has allowed facilities to take advantage of the less frequent monitoring provisions. To ensure that leaks are still being identified in a timely manner and that previously unidentified leaks are not worsening over time, implement a plan for more frequent monitoring for components that contribute most to equipment leak emissions.
Elements:
Monitor pumps in light liquid and/or gas vapor
service on a monthly basis.
Monitor valves in light liquid and/or gas vapor service other than difcult-to-monitor or unsafeto-monitor valves with no skip periods.
To stop detected leaks while they are still small, most rules require a first attempt at repair within 5 days of the leak detection and a final repair within 15 days. However, any component that cannot be repaired within those time frames must be placed on a Delay of Repair list to be repaired during the next shutdown cycle. First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the following best practices where practicable and appropriate: Tightening bonnet bolts; Replacing bonnet bolts; Tightening packing gland nuts; and Injecting lubricant into lubricated packing.
Elements:
Schedule the rst attempt at repair of those components that the monitoring personnel are not authorized to repair consistent with the existing regulatory requirements. Monitor the component for which a rst attempt at repair was performed no later than the next regular business day to ensure the leak has not worsened. If the rst attempt at repair has not succeeded then other methods, such as drill and tap should be employed where feasible. Drill and tap procedures are no longer considered extraordinary practices.
Consent Decrees between EPA and many chemi cal facilities subject to the HON require semiannual monitoring of connectors.
23
7.8 Delay of Repair Compliance Assurance Any component that cannot be repaired during the specified repair interval must be placed on a Delay of Repair list to be repaired during the next shut down cycle. Delay of repair compliance assurance procedures ensure that the appropriate equipment is justifiably on the Delay of Repair list and that facilities have a plan to fix these components.
7.9 Electronic Monitoring and Storage of LDAR Data Electronic monitoring and storage of LDAR data will help evaluate the performance of monitor ing personnel (via time/date stamps), improve accuracy, provide an effective means for QA/QC, and retrieve records in a timely manner for review purposes. Incorporate and maintain an electronic database for storing and reporting LDAR data. Use data loggers or other data collection devices during all LDAR monitoring.
Elements:
Have the unit supervisor approve in advance
and certify all components that are technically
infeasible to repair without a process unit shut
down.
Continue to monitor equipment that is placed on the Delay of Repair list in the facilitys regular LDAR monitoring. For leaks above the internal leak denition rate and below the regulatory rate, put the equipment on the Delay of Repair list within 30 days. Implement the following repair policies and
procedures within 15 days of implementing the
written LDAR program:
For valves, other than control valves or pres sure relief valves, that are leaking at a rate of 10,000 ppm or greater and cannot be feasibly repaired without a process unit shutdown, use drill and tap repair methods to x the leaking valve, unless you can determine and document that there is a safety, mechanical, or major environmental concern posed by repairing the leak in this manner. Perform up to two drill and tap repair at tempts to repair a leaking valve, if necessary, within 30 days of identifying the leak.
Elements:
Use best efforts to transfer, on a daily basis, elec tronic data from electronic data logging devices to the database. For all monitoring events in which an electronic data collection device is used, include a time and date stamp, operator identication, and instrument identication. Paper logs can be used where necessary or more feasible (e.g., small rounds, re-monitoring xed leaks, or when data loggers are not available or broken), and should record, at a minimum, the monitoring technician, date, and monitoring equipment used. Transfer any manually recorded monitoring data to the database within 7 days of monitoring. Review records to identify problem components for preventative maintenance (repair prior to an ticipated failure) or for replacement with leakless technology.
24
7.10 QA/QC of LDAR Data QA/QC audits ensure that Method 21 procedures are being followed and LDAR personnel are moni toring the correct components in the proper man ner. Develop and implement a procedure to ensure QA/QC review of all data generated by LDAR monitoring technicians on a daily basis or at the conclusion of each monitoring episode.
7.11 Calibration/Calibration Drift Assessment Always calibrate LDAR monitoring equipment us ing an appropriate calibration gas, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, EPA Reference Test Method 21.
Elements:
Some QA/QC procedures include: Daily review/sign-off by monitoring technicians
of the data they collected to ensure accuracy
and validity.
Periodic review of the daily monitoring reports
generated in conjunction with recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.
Quarterly QA/QC of the facilitys and contractors
monitoring data including:
Number of components monitored per tech nician; Time between monitoring events; and Abnormal data patterns.
Elements:
Conduct calibration drift assessments of LDAR monitoring equipment at the end of each moni toring shift, at a minimum. Conduct the calibration drift assessment using, at a minimum, approximately 500 ppm of calibra tion gas. If any calibration drift assessment after the initial calibration shows a negative drift of more than 10% from the previous calibration, re-monitor all valves that were monitored since the last cali bration with a reading of greater than 100 ppm. Re-monitor all pumps that were monitored since the last calibration with a reading of greater than 500 ppm.
25
7.12 Records Maintenance Organized and readily available records are one potential indication of an effective LDAR program. Well-kept records may also indicate that the LDAR program is integrated into the facilitys routine operation and management. The equipment leak regulations specify recordkeeping and reporting requirements; incorporating the elements below will help ensure your facility LDAR records are thorough and complete.
Elements:
Records to maintain: A certication that the facility implemented the rst attempt at repair program. A certication that the facility implemented QA/QC procedures for review of data generated by LDAR technicians. An identication of the person/position at each facility responsible for LDAR program perfor mance as dened in the written program. A certication that the facility developed and implemented a tracking program for new valves and pumps added during maintenance and construction dened in the written pro gram.
A certication that the facility properly com pleted calibration drift assessments. A certication that the facility implemented the delay of repair procedures. The following information on LDAR monitoring: (1) The number of valves and pumps present in each process unit during the quarter; (2) The number of valves and pumps monitored in each process unit; (3) An explanation for missed monitoring if the number of valves and pumps present exceeds the number of valves and pumps monitored during the quarter;
(4) The number of valves and pumps found leaking; (5) The number of difcult to monitor pieces of equipment monitored; (6) A list of all equipment currently on the Delay of Repair list and the date each component was placed on the list; (7) The number of repair attempts not com pleted promptly or completed within 5 days; (8) The number of repairs not completed within 30 days and the number of components not placed on the Delay of Repair list; and (9) The number of chronic leakers that do not get repaired.
Records of audits and corrective actions. Prior to the rst third-party audit at each facility, include in your records a copy of each audit report from audits conducted in the previous calendar year and a summary of the actions planned or taken to correct all deciencies identied in the audits. For the audits performed in prior years, iden tication of the auditors and documentation that a written plan exists identifying corrective action for any deciencies identied and that this plan is being implemented.
26
8.0 Sources of Additional Information

Inspection Manual: Federal Equipment Leak Regulations for the Chemical Manufacturing Industry, EPA/305/B-98/011, December 1998. http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/chemical/index.cfm Vol 1: Inspection Manual http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/insmanvol1.pdf Vol 2: Chemical Manufacturing Industry Regulations (3 parts on the Internet) http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/insmanvol2pt1.pdf http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/insmanvol2pt2.pdf http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/insmanvol2pt3.pdf Vol 3: Petroleum Refining Industry Regulations http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/insmanvol3.pdf 1995 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-017, Nov 1995.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efdocs/equiplks.pdf
Enforcement Alert, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
EPA 300-N-99-014, Oct 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/newsletters/civil/enfalert/emissions.pdf
National Petroleum Refinery Initiative, EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/refineryinitiative032106.pdf
Petroleum Refinery Initiative Fact Sheet, EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/petroleumrefinery-fcsht.html
Petroleum Refinery National Priority Case Results.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/oil/
Draft Staff Report, Regulation 8, Rule 18, Equipment Leaks, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
Jul 1997.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ruledev/8-18/1997/0818_sr_071097.pdf
Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manu
facturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries;
Proposed Rule, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699; FRL- ] RIN 2060-AN71.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fr_notices/equip_leak_prop103106.pdf
Industrial Organic Chemicals Compliance Incentive Program, EPA Compliance and Enforcement.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/ioccip.html
27
Leak Detection and Repair Program Developments.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/field/leak.html
Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results: Important Environmental Problems / National Priorities.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2006/sp-airtoxics-natl-priorities.html
Portable Instruments Users Manual For Monitoring VOC Sources, EPA-340/1-86-015.
Inspection Techniques For Fugitive VOC Emission Sources, EPA 340/1-90-026a,d,e,f (rev May 1993) Course #380.
Environmental compliance assistance resources can be found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/clearinghouse/
http://www.assistancecenters.net/
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/sectors/index.html
28
Appendix A Federal Regulations That Require a Formal LDAR Program With Method 21
40 CFR Part
60 60 60 60 61 61 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 65 264 265
Subpart
VV DDD GGG KKK J V H I J R CC DD SS TT UU YY GGG III MMM FFFF GGGGG HHHHH F BB BB
Regulation Title
SOCMI VOC Equipment Leaks NSPS Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry Petroleum Renery VOC Equipment Leaks NSPS Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plant VOC Equipment Leaks NSPS National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene Equipment Leaks NESHAP Organic HAP Equipment Leak NESHAP (HON) Organic HAP Equipment Leak NESHAP for Certain Processes Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production NESHAP Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations) Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Reneries Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process Equipment Leaks Control Level 1 Equipment Leaks Control Level 2 Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Pharmaceuticals Production Hazardous Air Pollutants from Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Consolidated Federal Air Rule Equipment Leaks Equipment Leaks for Hazardous Waste TSDFs Equipment Leaks for Interim Status Hazardous Waste TSDFs
Note: Many of these regulations have identical requirements, but some have different applicability and control requirements.
29
Appendix B Federal Regulations That Require the Use of Method 21 But Do Not Require a Formal LDAR Program
40 CFR Part
60 60 60 61 61 61 61 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 65 264 264 265 265 270 270
Subpart
XX QQQ WWW F L BB FF G M S Y EE GG HH OO PP QQ VV HHH JJJ VVV G AA CC AA CC B J Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Regulation Title
VOC Emissions from Petroleum Renery Wastewater Systems Municipal Solid Waste Landlls Vinyl Chloride Benzene from Coke By-Products Benzene Transfer Benzene Waste Operations Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from SOCMI for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater Perchloroethylene Standards for Dry Cleaning Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry Marine Unloading Operations Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities Hazardous Air Pollutants from Oil and Gas Production Facilities Tanks Level 1 Containers Surface Impoundments Oil/Water, Organic/Water Separators Hazardous Air Pollutants from Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works CFAR Closed Vent Systems Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities - Process Vents Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities - Tanks, Surface Impoundments, Containers Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Process Vents Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities - Tanks, Surface Impoundments, Containers Hazardous Waste Permit Program Permit Application Hazardous Waste Permit Program RCRA Standardized Permits for Storage Tanks and Treatment Units
30
Appendix C
Method 21 General Procedure
in VOC concentration at the input of the sampling system to the time at which 90% of the corresponding final value is reached as displayed on the instrument readout meter. 2. Calibrate Instrument Before each monitoring episode: Let the instrument warm up. Introduce the calibration gas into the instrument probe. Adjust the instrument meter read out to match the calibration gas con centration value. 3. Monitor Individual components When monitoring components: Place the probe at the surface of the component interface where leakage could occur. Move the probe along the interface periphery while observing the in strument readout. Locate the maximum reading by moving the probe around the inter face. Keep the probe at the location of the maximum reading for 2 times the response factor. If the concentration reading on the instrument readout is above the applicable leak definition, then the component is leaking and must be repaired.
31
Failure of facilities to follow Method 21 can lead to them not properly identifying and sub sequently repairing leaking components. It is critical for facilities to refer to the complete text of Method 21 (see Appendix D) for de tailed explanations of each general procedure found below and how to properly perform each step. 1. Evaluate Instrument Performance Performance criteria for the monitoring instrument: For each VOC measured, the re sponse factor should be <10 unless specified in the applicable regula tion. Response factor is the ratio of the known concentration of a VOC compound to the observed meter reading when measured using an instrument calibrated with the reference compound specified in the applicable regulation. e calibration precision should be Th <10 percent of the calibration gas value. Calibration precision is the degree of agreement between mea surements of the same known value, expressed as the relative percentage of the average difference between the meter readings and the known concentration to the known concen tration. e response time should be 30 Th seconds. Response time is the time interval from a step change
Appendix D Method 21Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks

1.0 Scope and Application 1.1 Analytes.
Analyte Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). CAS No. No CAS number assigned.
1.2 Scope. This method is applicable for the determination of VOC leaks from process equipment. These sources include, but are not limited to, valves, flanges and other connec tions, pumps and compressors, pressure relief devices, process drains, open-ended valves, pump and compressor seal system degas sing vents, accumulator vessel vents, agitator seals, and access door seals. 1.3 Data Quality Objectives. Adherence to the requirements of this method will enhance the quality of the data obtained from air pollutant sampling methods. 2.0 Summary of Method 2.1 A portable instrument is used to detect VOC leaks from individual sources. The instrument detector type is not specified, but it must meet the specifications and perfor mance criteria contained in Section 6.0. A leak definition concentration based on a reference compound is specified in each ap plicable regulation. This method is intended to locate and classify leaks only, and is not to be used as a direct measure of mass emission rate from individual sources.
3.0 Denitions 3.1 Calibration gas means the VOC com pound used to adjust the instrument meter reading to a known value. The calibration gas is usually the reference compound at a known concentration approximately equal to the leak definition concentration. 3.2 Calibration precision means the degree of agreement between measurements of the same known value, expressed as the relative percentage of the average difference between the meter readings and the known concentra tion to the known concentration. 3.3 Leak definition concentration means the local VOC concentration at the surface of a leak source that indicates that a VOC emis sion (leak) is present. The leak definition is an instrument meter reading based on a refer ence compound. 3.4 No detectable emission means a lo cal VOC concentration at the surface of a leak source, adjusted for local VOC ambient concentration, that is less than 2.5 % of the specified leak definition concentration. That indicates that a VOC emission (leak) is not present.
32
3.5 Reference compound means the VOC species selected as the instrument calibration basis for specification of the leak definition concentration. (For example, if a leak definition concentration is 10,000 ppm as methane, then any source emission that results in a local concentration that yields a meter reading of 10,000 on an instrument meter calibrated with methane would be classified as a leak. In this example, the leak definition concentra tion is 10,000 ppm and the reference compound is methane.) 3.6 Response factor means the ratio of the known concentration of a VOC compound to the observed meter reading when measured using an instrument calibrated with the reference compound specified in the applicable regulation. 3.7 Response time means the time interval from a step change in VOC concentration at the input of the sampling system to the time at which 90 per cent of the corresponding final value is reached as displayed on the instrument readout meter. 4.0 Interferences [Reserved] 5.0 Safety 5.1 Disclaimer. This method may involve hazard ous materials, operations, and equipment. This test method may not address all of the safety problems associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this test method to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the ap plicability of regulatory limitations prior to per forming this test method. 5.2 Hazardous Pollutants. Several of the com pounds, leaks of which may be determined by this
method, may be irritating or corrosive to tissues (e.g., heptane) or may be toxic (e.g., benzene, methyl alcohol). Nearly all are fire hazards. Compounds in emissions should be determined through familiar ity with the source. Appropriate precautions can be found in reference documents, such as reference No. 4 in Section 16.0. 6.0 Equipment and Supplies A VOC monitoring instrument meeting the follow ing specifications is required: 6.1 The VOC instrument detector shall respond to the compounds being processed. Detector types that may meet this requirement include, but are not limited to, catalytic oxidation, flame ionization, infrared absorption, and photoionization. 6.2 The instrument shall be capable of measuring the leak definition concentration specified in the regulation. 6.3 The scale of the instrument meter shall be readable to 2.5 % of the specified leak definition concentration. 6.4 The instrument shall be equipped with an electrically driven pump to ensure that a sample is provided to the detector at a constant flow rate. The nominal sample flow rate, as measured at the sample probe tip, shall be 0.10 to 3.0 l/min (0.004 to 0.1 ft 3 /min) when the probe is fitted with a glass wool plug or filter that may be used to prevent plugging of the instrument. 6.5 The instrument shall be equipped with a probe or probe extension or sampling not to exceed 6.4 mm ( 1/4 in) in outside diameter, with a single end opening for admission of sample.
33
6.6 The instrument shall be intrinsically safe for operation in explosive atmospheres as defined by the National Electrical Code by the National Fire Preven tion Association or other applicable regulatory code for operation in any explosive atmospheres that may be encountered in its use. The instrument shall, at a minimum, be intrinsically safe for Class 1, Division 1 conditions, and/or Class 2, Division 1 conditions, as appropriate, as defined by the example code. The instrument shall not be operated with any safety device, such as an exhaust flame arrestor, removed. 7.0 Reagents and Standards 7.1 Two gas mixtures are required for instrument calibration and performance evaluation: 7.1.1 Zero Gas. Air, less than 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv) VOC. 7.1.2 Calibration Gas. For each organic species that is to be measured during individual source surveys, obtain or prepare a known standard in air at a con centration approximately equal to the applicable leak definition specified in the regulation. 7.2 Cylinder Gases. If cylinder calibration gas mix tures are used, they must be analyzed and certified by the manufacturer to be within 2 % accuracy, and a shelf life must be specified. Cylinder standards must be either reanalyzed or replaced at the end of the specified shelf life. 7.3 Prepared Gases. Calibration gases may be prepared by the user according to any accepted gaseous preparation procedure that will yield a mixture accurate to within 2 percent. Prepared standards must be replaced each day of use unless it is demonstrated that degradation does not occur during storage.
7.4 Mixtures with non-Reference Compound Gases. Calibrations may be performed using a compound other than the reference compound. In this case, a conversion factor must be determined for the al ternative compound such that the resulting meter readings during source surveys can be converted to reference compound results. 8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport 8.1 Instrument Performance Evaluation. Assemble and start up the instrument according to the man ufacturers instructions for recommended warmup period and preliminary adjustments. 8.1.1 Response Factor. A response factor must be determined for each compound that is to be mea sured, either by testing or from reference sources. The response factor tests are required before plac ing the analyzer into service, but do not have to be repeated at subsequent intervals. 8.1.1.1 Calibrate the instrument with the reference compound as specified in the applicable regula tion. Introduce the calibration gas mixture to the analyzer and record the observed meter reading. In troduce zero gas until a stable reading is obtained. Make a total of three measurements by alternating between the calibration gas and zero gas. Calculate the response factor for each repetition and the aver age response factor. 8.1.1.2 The instrument response factors for each of the individual VOC to be measured shall be less than 10 unless otherwise specified in the applicable regulation. When no instrument is available that meets this specification when calibrated with the reference VOC specified in the applicable regula
34
tion, the available instrument may be calibrated with one of the VOC to be measured, or any other VOC, so long as the instrument then has a response factor of less than 10 for each of the individual VOC to be measured. 8.1.1.3 Alternatively, if response factors have been published for the compounds of interest for the instrument or detector type, the response factor determination is not required, and existing results may be referenced. Examples of published response factors for flame ionization and catalytic oxidation detectors are included in References 13 of Section 17.0. 8.1.2 Calibration Precision. The calibration preci sion test must be completed prior to placing the analyzer into service and at subsequent 3-month intervals or at the next use, whichever is later. 8.1.2.1 Make a total of three measurements by alternately using zero gas and the specified calibra tion gas. Record the meter readings. Calculate the average algebraic difference between the meter readings and the known value. Divide this aver age difference by the known calibration value and multiply by 100 to express the resulting calibration precision as a percentage. 8.1.2.2 The calibration precision shall be equal to or less than 10 % of the calibration gas value. 8.1.3 Response Time. The response time test is re quired before placing the instrument into service. If a modification to the sample pumping system or flow configuration is made that would change the response time, a new test is required before further use. 8.1.3.1 Introduce zero gas into the instrument sample probe. When the meter reading has sta
bilized, switch quickly to the specified calibration gas. After switching, measure the time required to attain 90 % of the final stable reading. Perform this test sequence three times and record the results. Calculate the average response time. 8.1.3.2 The instrument response time shall be equal to or less than 30 seconds. The instrument pump, dilution probe (if any), sample probe, and probe filter that will be used during testing shall all be in place during the response time determination. 8.2 Instrument Calibration. Calibrate the VOC monitoring instrument according to Section 10.0. 8.3 Individual Source Surveys. 8.3.1 Type ILeak Definition Based on Concen tration. Place the probe inlet at the surface of the component interface where leakage could occur. Move the probe along the interface periphery while observing the instrument readout. If an increased meter reading is observed, slowly sample the inter face where leakage is indicated until the maximum meter reading is obtained. Leave the probe inlet at this maximum reading location for approximately two times the instrument response time. If the maximum observed meter reading is greater than the leak definition in the applicable regulation, record and report the results as specified in the regulation reporting requirements. Examples of the application of this general technique to specific equipment types are: 8.3.1.1 Valves. The most common source of leaks from valves is the seal between the stem and hous ing. Place the probe at the interface where the stem exits the packing gland and sample the stem cir cumference. Also, place the probe at the interface of the packing gland take-up flange seat and sample
35
the periphery. In addition, survey valve housings of multipart assembly at the surface of all interfaces where a leak could occur. 8.3.1.2 Flanges and Other Connections. For welded flanges, place the probe at the outer edge of the flange-gasket interface and sample the circumfer ence of the flange. Sample other types of nonper manent joints (such as threaded connections) with a similar traverse. 8.3.1.3 Pumps and Compressors. Conduct a cir cumferential traverse at the outer surface of the pump or compressor shaft and seal interface. If the source is a rotating shaft, position the probe inlet within 1 cm of the shaft-seal interface for the survey. If the housing configuration prevents a complete traverse of the shaft periphery, sample all accessible portions. Sample all other joints on the pump or compressor housing where leakage could occur. 8.3.1.4 Pressure Relief Devices. The configuration of most pressure relief devices prevents sampling at the sealing seat interface. For those devices equipped with an enclosed extension, or horn, place the probe inlet at approximately the center of the exhaust area to the atmosphere. 8.3.1.5 Process Drains. For open drains, place the probe inlet at approxima tely the center of the area open to the atmosphere. For covered drains, place the probe at the surface of the cover interface and conduct a peripheral traverse. 8.3.1.6 Open-ended Lines or Valves. Place the probe inlet at approximately the center of the opening to the atmosphere.
8.3.1.7 Seal System Degassing Vents and Accumula tor Vents. Place the probe inlet at approximately the center of the opening to the atmosphere. 8.3.1.8 Access door seals. Place the probe inlet at the surface of the door seal interface and conduct a peripheral traverse. 8.3.2 Type IINo Detectable Emission. Deter mine the local ambient VOC concentration around the source by moving the probe randomly upwind and downwind at a distance of one to two meters from the source. If an interference exists with this determination due to a nearby emission or leak, the local ambient concentration may be determined at distances closer to the source, but in no case shall the distance be less than 25 centimeters. Then move the probe inlet to the surface of the source and determine the concentration as outlined in Section 8.3.1. The difference between these concen trations determines whether there are no detect able emissions. Record and report the results as specified by the regulation. For those cases where the regulation requires a specific device installa tion, or that specified vents be ducted or piped to a control device, the existence of these conditions shall be visually confirmed. When the regulation also requires that no detectable emissions exist, visual observations and sampling surveys are re quired. Examples of this technique are: 8.3.2.1 Pump or Compressor Seals. If applicable, de termine the type of shaft seal. Perform a survey of the local area ambient VOC concentration and de termine if detectable emissions exist as described in Section 8.3.2. 8.3.2.2 Seal System Degassing Vents, Accumulator Vessel Vents, Pressure Relief Devices. If applicable,
36
observe whether or not the applicable ducting or piping exists. Also, determine if any sources exist in the ducting or piping where emissions could occur upstream of the control device. If the required duct ing or piping exists and there are no sources where the emissions could be vented to the atmosphere upstream of the control device, then it is presumed that no detectable emissions are present. If there are sources in the ducting or piping where emis sions could be vented or sources where leaks could occur, the sampling surveys described in Section 8.3.2 shall be used to determine if detectable emis sions exist. 8.3.3 Alternative Screening Procedure. 8.3.3.1 A screening procedure based on the forma tion of bubbles in a soap solution that is sprayed on a potential leak source may be used for those sourc es that do not have continuously moving parts, that do not have surface temperatures greater than the boiling point or less than the freezing point of the soap solution, that do not have open areas to the atmosphere that the soap solution cannot bridge, or that do not exhibit evidence of liquid leakage. Sources that have these conditions present must be surveyed using the instrument technique of Section 8.3.1 or 8.3.2.
8.3.3.2 Spray a soap solution over all potential leak sources. The soap solution may be a commercially available leak detection solution or may be pre pared using concentrated detergent and water. A pressure sprayer or squeeze bottle may be used to dispense the solution. Observe the potential leak sites to determine if any bubbles are formed. If no bubbles are observed, the source is presumed to have no detectable emissions or leaks as appli cable. If any bubbles are observed, the instrument techniques of Section 8.3.1 or 8.3.2 shall be used to determine if a leak exists, or if the source has detectable emissions, as applicable.
37
9.0 Quality Control
Section 8.1.2
Quality control measure Instrument calibration precision check.
Effect
Ensure precision and accuracy, respectively, of instrument response to standard.
10.0.
Instrument calibration.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization 10.1 Calibrate the VOC monitoring instrument as follows. After the appropriate warmup period and zero internal calibration procedure, introduce the calibration gas into the instrument sample probe. Adjust the instrument meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas value. Note: If the meter readout cannot be adjusted to the proper value, a malfunction of the analyzer is indicated and corrective actions are necessary before use. 11.0 Analytical Procedures [Reserved] 12.0 Data Analyses and Calculations [Reserved] 13.0 Method Performance [Reserved] 14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 16.0 References 1. Dubose, D.A., and G.E. Harris. Response
Factors of VOC Analyzers at a Meter Read ing of 10,000 ppmv for Selected Organic Compounds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Publica tion No. EPA 600/281051. September 1981. 2. Brown, G.E., et al. Response Factors of VOC Analyzers Calibrated with Methane for Selected Organic Compounds. U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 600/281022. May 1981. 3. DuBose, D.A. et al. Response of Portable VOC Analyzers to Chemical Mixtures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 600/281110. September 1981. 4. Handbook of Hazardous Materials: Fire, Safety, Health. Alliance of American Insurers. Schaumberg, IL. 1983. 17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Valida tion Data [Reserved]
38
Appendix E Summary of NEIC Comparative Monitoring Re sults of Leaking Valves at 17 Reneries

Reneries Total Valves Monitored Number of Leaks Leak Rate (%) Emissions Rate (lb/hr) Potential Emissions from Undetected Leaks (lb/ hr)a 170,717 2,266 1.3 1,177.0 NEIC Total 47,526 2,372 5.0 (avg) 2,775.5
1,598.5
Source: Enforcement Alert Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing Fugitive Emissions Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs, EPA 300-N-99-014. US EPA Ofce of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Vol. 2, No. 9, Oct 1999.
a
Potential Emissions from Undetected Leaks (lb/hr) = NEIC Total Emissions Rate (lb/hr) Reneries Total Emissions Rate (lb/hr)
39
Appendix F
Enforcement Alert
40
41
42
43
United States Environmental Protection Agency Ofce of Compliance Ofce of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (mail code) EPA-305-D-07-001 October 2007 www.epa.gov/compliance

LDAR Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LDAR Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LDAR Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leak Detection and Repair

A Best Practices Guide

5.0 6.0 7.0

What Compliance Problems Have Been Found With Current LDAR

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

2.0 Why Regulate Equipment Leaks?

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

3.0 Sources, Causes And Control Of Equipment Leaks

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Table 3.1 Sources of equipment leaks.

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Table 3.2 Equipment component counts at a typical renery or chemical plant.

Range 10 360 150 46,000 600 60,000 1 1,600 20 200 5 360

Average 100 7,400 12,000 560 80 90

Table 3.3 Uncontrolled VOC emissions at a typical facility.

Average Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (ton/yr) 19 408 201 9 11 5 653

Percent of Total Emissions 3 62 31 1 2 1

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

4.0 What Are the Benets of an LDAR Program?

Example Emissions reductions at a typical SOCMI facility.

Pumps Light Liquid Servicec Connectors All Services

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Example Cost of product lost.

Source: Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

5.0 Elements of an LDAR Program

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Common Problems Recordkeeping

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Denit ion

Common Problems Recordkeeping

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

6.0 What Compliance Problems Have Been Found With Current

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

For equipment with rotating shafts (pumps

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

7.0 Model LDAR Program

Written LDAR Program

First Attempt at Repair

Delay of Repair Compli ance Assurance

Electronic Monitoring and Storage of Data Model LDAR Program

QA/QC of LDAR Data

Internal Leak Denitions

Calibration/Calibration Drift Assessment

More Frequent Monitoring

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Written LDAR Program

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide

More Frequent Monitoring

Repairing Leaking Components

Leak Detection and RepairA Best Practices Guide