Document 0qn0BV5Z7M43XvmrkV539NQkR

% Thursday September 21, 1989 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Rule u fio 0) o o o o CO 38938 Federal Register / VoL 54, No- 182 /, Thursday. September 21. 1969 / Proposed Rules R&S 000032 iNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION kGENCY 10 CFR Part 61 AD-FRL-3509-9] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to /inyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of /olatile Hazardous Air Pollutants agency; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). action; Proposed rule and public hearing: petition for reconsideration. summary: On November 26.1986, the Society of the Plastics Industry. Inc. (SPI) filed with EPA a petition for stay of enforcement and administrative reconsideration of seven provisions in the final rule revising the national emission standard for VC (September 30,1986. 51 FR 34904), The SPI and three manufacturers (Dow Chemical Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Vista Chemical Company) concurrently filed a petition for review of the revisions to the VC standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit The petitioners requested review of the definitions of "ethylene dichloride purification," "leak," "exhaust gas." "relief valve discharge," and "3-hour period;" the scope of the relief valve discharge provisions; and the leak detection and elimination provisions (area monitoring). The EPA has evaluated the petitions, and the Administrator proposes to grant the petitioners' request for clarification of certain of these provisions. Minor revisions are being proposed to correct ambiguities in several definitions and in the applicability of certain regulatory requirements in the VC standards. The proposed revisions would not increase the emissions (and the associated health risks) allowed by the standards as promulgated in September 1986. No changes, however, will be made with regard to area monitoring requirements or the relief valve discharge standard. This action provides EPA's responses to petitioners' requests, and the resulting minor proposed revisions to the standards are set forth in this notice. This action also serves as notice that the petitioners' request for stay of the 1986 revised provisions is being denied. In addition, this notice is not intended to address the recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court on the VC standards, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1148 (1987). Any response to that decision will be made in a future notice in the Federal Register. A public hearing will be held to- provide interested parties an opportunity for oral presentations of., data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed revisions. OATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 20, 1989. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts. EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by October 11,1989, a public hearing will be held on October 18.1989, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ann Eleanor at (919) 5415578 to verify that a hearing will be held: Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must contact EPA by October 11,1989. addresses: Comments. Comments should be submitted in duplicate (if possible) to: Central Docket Section (LE-131). Attention: Docket No, Ar-8121, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,, Washington. DC 20460. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting a public hearing, it will be held at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should notify Ms. Ann Eleanor. Standards Development Branch (MD-13), U-S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5578, Docket. A docket, number A-81-21. containing information considered by EPA in the development of the promulgated standards and the petition for stay and reconsideration, to which this notice is responding, is available for public inspection between 8:00 ajn. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section, South Conference Center, Room 4, 401M Street SW,, Washington. DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT? For further information and interpretations of applicability, compliance requirements, and reporting aspects of the revised standards, contact the appropriate Regional, State, or local office contact as listed in 40 CFR 00.4. For further information on the background for the proposed revised standards, contact Ms. Shirley Tabler, Standards Development Branch. Emission Standards Division (MD-13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. telephone (919) 541-525a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: L Background In December 1975, EPA designated VC as a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U-S.C. 7412) and promulgated final rules for VC on October 21,1976 (40 CFR 61.60-61.71). The standards limit emissions of VC from plants producing ethylene dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination. VC. and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other polymers containing VC. These plants are subject to a combination of emission limits, equipment, and work practice requirements at numerous points in the manufacturing processes. On September 30.1986 (51 FR 34904). EPA promulgated several administrative and clarifying revisions to the national emission standard for VC. Subsequently, on November 26.1986. SPI filed with EPA a petition for stay and administrative reconsideration of seven provisions in the final revisions to the VC standard. The SPI, Dow Chemical Company. Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Vista Chemical Company concurrently filed a petition for review of several provisions of the revised standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The SPI is a nonprofit corporation whose members include processors and manufacturers of plastics or plastic products, suppliers of raw materials, processors and converters of plastic resins, and manufacturers of accessory equipment for the plastics industry. The Vinyl institute, a division of SPI, represents the major domestic producers of VC and PVC. IL Summary of SPI's Petition for Stay/ Reconsideration and EPA's Response The SPI requested that EPA issue a stay of the 1986 revisions to the VC standard pending review of those revised provisions. Their request for a stay was based on the following factors: (1) Certain provisions of the 1985 proposal were changed without adequate notice or justification by EPA; (2) industry members represented by SPI would suffer irreparable harm if the effectiveness of the 1986 revisions are not stayed during the review period: and (3) a stay will cause no harm to other parties or the public interest. The EPA has considered the factors presented by SPI in support of their request for stay of the 1986 VC revisions pending EPA's review of the revisions. Having considered the likelihood of SPTs success on the merits of its petition for reconsideration, the likelihood that SPI would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, the prospect that others would be Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 38939 R&S 000033 harmed in the event of a stay, and the public interest, the Administrator has not stayed the 1988 revisions of the VC standard at issue here. This is consistent with long-standing EPA policy to continue to enforce an existing regulation until and unless a revision becomes formally effective. The EPA's policy has been consistently approved by the courts in the context of State Implementation Plans. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60,92 (1975) ("This litigation, however, is carried out on the polluter's time not the public's, for during [the pendency of a SIP revision] the original regulations remain in effect, and the polluter's failure to comply may subject him to a variety of enforcement procedures,") The rationale in Train applies with equal force to regulations promulgated under section 112. Therefore, EPA hereby denies SPI's request for a stay pending EPA's reconsideration of the VC standard. in the petition for review of the revised standard. SPI claimed that the !9G6 promulgated revisions differed significantly from the revisions that were proposed on January 9,1985 (50 FR 1182). The SPI asserted that without adequate notice, EPA's 1986 revisions changed key provisions of the VC standard in a manner that: (1) Violated case law: (2) imposed new penalties: (3) created multiple penalties for the same event: and (4) expanded the types of equipment subject to the standard. The following discussion summarizes their concerns and EPA's responses. Definition of "Exhaust Gas" The SPI requested a review of several definitions in the VC standard. According to SPI, the 1986 final definition of "exhaust gas," 40 CFR 61.61(x), deleted a key sentence from the proposed definition without adequate explanation. By omitting the sentence, "A leak * * * is not an exhaust gas," SPI was concerned that leak emissions could result in violations of the exhaust gas standard if more than 10 ppm of VC ere emitted. Reconsideration was requested because leaks from equipment in VC service would exceed the 10 ppm omission limitation for exhaust gases, thereby subjecting industries to a potential fine of $25,000 per day for each look. It was not EPA's intent to categorize every leak of greater than 10 ppm as an exhaust gas. The sentence was omitted in the final definition because some emissions which are required to be vented to a control device cannot be automatically categorized as either a leak or exhaust gas by a general definition. As stated in the promulgation BID for the revised standards (pp. 2-54 and 2-55), the facts of the situation resulting in these emissions needed to be considered when deciding which part of the VC standard applied. Upon reconsideration, EPA agrees with SPI's concern that the final definition of "exhaust gas" does not provide for exemption from the exhaust gas standard (10 ppm) when such an emission is judged to be a leak. Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify the definition by adding two sentences which clarify that a leak is not an exhaust gas, and that equipment containing exhaust gas must comply with 61.65(b)(8) requiring leak detection and prevention, whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume VC. This proposed addition . assures that leaks from exhaust gas streams are subject to the leak detection and elimination requirements, but that such leaks will not also be classified as "exhaust gas." Definition of "Relief Valve Discharge" The SPI objected to a sentence added to the 1986 final definition of "relief valve discharge." 40 CFR 61.61(y), which stated that a relief valve discharge would be exempt from regulation if vented to a control device, but only if the control device meets the 10 ppm emission limit The SPI pointed out that a double violation could occur (i.e.. of the relief valve discharge and exhaust gas standards) if a relief valve discharge is vented to a control device not meeting 10 ppm. If interpreted to impose double penalties, this provision, in SFI's view, would exceed EPA's statutory authority and unlawfully increase the maximum statutory penalty set by Congress for a single event that leads to a violation of a NESHAP. The SPI believes that owners/ operators of regulated facilities have sufficient economic incentive (preventing releases of their product) to ensure that pressure relief valves work as designed, regardless of the standard promulgated. Moreover, the final definition contradicts past regulatory interpretation that relief valve discharges ducted to fiares and other control devices are exempt from the exhaust gas standard. The EPA agrees that venting a relief valve discharge (RVD) to a combustion device achieves significant emission reduction benefits. These devices, when properly designed and operated, generally have efficiencies of 98 percent or greater. The use of combustion devices are not expected to increase the number of RVD's. Thus, because regulated facilities do have some economic incentive to ensure that RVD's are minimized, the net RVD emission reduction resulting from the use of combustion devices should approach 98 percent or more. Therefore, minor revisions to the definition of "relief valve discharge" and to the RVD provisions (5 61.65(a)) are being proposed to clarify that an RVD routed to a properly designed and operated control device would be exempted from the provisions of the RVD standard. This change would prevent misinterpretation of the regulatory requirements and imposition of a double penalty. In addition, new provisions ($ 61.65(d)) have been added for an RVD that is ducted to a control device that is continually operating while emissions from the release are present at the device. An RVD that is ducted to a control device, other than a flare, would be subject to the 10 ppm limit and the continuous emission monitoring system requirement contained in 61.68 and to the reporting requirements of 5 61,70. In the case of flares, emission monitoring is not possible. Therefore, for RVD's routed to a flare, the design requirements for flares (40 CFR 60.18) would apply. The EPA recognizes that measurement of relief valve discharge volumetric flow rates and gas stream composition is not possible using the methods set forth in $ 60.18 (f)(3) and (f)(4). Estimates of these parameters will, therefore, need to be based on empirical or other bases, subject to EPA approval. Flare operations would be monitored in accordance with the requirements of 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of 5 60.18(d), the volume and component concentration of each RVD would be estimated and calculations would be made to verify ongoing compliance with the design and operating requirements of 5 60.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more than one relief valve is discharged simultaneously to a single flare, these calculations would account for the cumulative effect on all such RVD's. If the results of the monitoring contained in 60.18(f)(2) or any other information show that the pilot flame is not present 100 percent of the time during which an RVD is routed to a flare, the RVD is subject to the provisions of 5 61.65(a), A report describing the flare design must be provided to the Administrator not later than 90 days after the adoption of this provision or within 30 days of the installation of a flare system for control of RVD's, whichever is later. Definition of a "Leak" The SPI objected to EPA'3 defining "indications of liquid dripping" as a "leak," 40 CFR 61.61(w). The SPI 38940 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21. 1989 / Proposed Rules requested that the phrase be deleted or 3-hour averages). The SPI objected that addition. 61.65(b)(6), Opening of revised to refer to VC since dripping a single. 1-hour 10 ppm exceedance equipment, has also been revised to liquids may not always contain VC. could result in three violations of the 10 clarify that the requirements in this In the VC standard, the portion of the ppm exhaust gas standard, under the section do not apply to crude, leak definition referring to "indications revised definition of "3-hour period." intermediate, or final EDC storage tanks. of liquid dripping" applies only to pumps This could lead to double or triple As stated in the BID response (pp. 2-43 in VC service. The EPA believes that penalties, "thereby exceeding the through 2--45), EPA evaluated the "indications of liquid dripping" are an maximum penalty permissible under the reasonableness of regulating EDC appropriate criterion for requiring repair Clean Air Act" storage tanks under the VC standard. actions on double mechanical seal Upon reconsideration, EPA proposes Based on emissions data submitted by pumps in VC service and. therefore, to further revise the definition of "3-hour the commentera, uncontrolled VC should be included in the definition of a period" to ensure that a single event of emissions from intermediate and final leak. As stated in the BID for the 1986 1-hour or less at 10 ppm or greater could EDC storage tanks at a typical EDC/VC promulgated revisions, visible leakage result in no more than a single violation plant were estimated to be 0.1 to 2 Mg/ from all types of pump seals, includihg of the exhaust gas standard. A phrase yr. An emission reduction as high as 14 double mechanical seals required by the has been added to the definition in Mg/yrfrom all plants would be VC standard, is generally indicative of 61.61(z) to accomplish this. The achieved based on venting existing EDC seal wear even if no VC is present in the EPA did not intend to penalize a plant storage tanks to an existing primary leaking fluid. To prevent further seal three times whenever a 10 ppm event control device (incinerators). Prior to the wear resulting in major seal failure allowing VC emissions into the atmosphere, the seals should be repaired soon after leakage is initially detected. After further consideration of SPI's concern, however. EPA agrees that some amount of barrier fluid leakage is normal. Therefore. EPA proposes to revise the standards for pumps ( 61.242-2(d)) to clarify the requirements for pump seal drips. Section 61242-2(d)(4) addresses drips from pump seals that contain VC, and 61_242-2(d)(6) addresses drips from pump seals that do not contain VC. The proposed revised provisions of 6l.242-2(d) are designed to accomplish two purposes. One is to ensure that VC leaks from pump seals are detected and eliminated. This is accomplished by paragraphs (d)(4) (i), (ii), and (iii). The other purpose is to identify and prevent pump seal failures by causing abnormal dripping (even when VC is not contained in the dripping liquid) to be occurs within 1 hour. Rather, EPA wanted to ensure that a combination of two or more 10 ppm events which would result In a 3-hour exceedance do not go unpenalized just because they occurred over two separate 3-hour "blocks." The proposed revised definition of "3-hour period" satisfies EPA's intent without unintentionally subjecting a plant owner/operator to multiple violations. Definition of "Ethylene Dichloride Purification" According to SPL the 1986 final revisions changed the definition of EDC purification. 40 CFR 61.61(o). The promulgated definition excluded product storage following the final VC finishing column, and thus exempted such storage from the exhaust gas standard. The SPI believes that EPA intended to exclude not only EDC final product storage but also intermediate product storage (before the final finishing column) based on EPA's response to comments September 1986 rule. EPA concluded that regulation of these tanks under the VC standard was not warranted. In response to SPI's petition for reconsideration. EPA has evaluated the data submitted by one SPI company (Docket Entry No. VI-B-4) for nine crude and intermediate EDC storage tanks before the final finishing column at one of its facilities. These tanks are currently uncontrolled. The data included tank sizes, design, emissions estimates, and costs. The company's estimates of the total uncontrolled emissions (0.002 to 0.323 Mg/yr VC) for the nine crude and intermediate tanks fall at the low end of the range of individual VC tank emission estimates made by EPA for EDC final product storage tanks. This information is consistent with EPA's position that the regulation of crude and intermediate storage tanks is unnecessary because emissions are extremely low. o o o o co detected and repairs to be made. This is accomplished by paragraphs (d)(6) (i). (ii), (iii). and (iv). These paragraphs require the facility owner/operator to establish criteria associated with normal contained in the BID (pp. 2-43 and 2-44) and in the BID summary of changes since proposal (pp. 1-2). Although it supports the exemption of final EDC product storage from the definition. SPI Leak Detection and Elimination Under the 1976 VC standard, 40 CFR 61.65(b)(8), companies installed area monitors and developed plant-specific operation. requested that EPA also exempt leak detection and elimination programs The intent of the proposed revised intermediate EDC product storage. In that included the routine use of portable provisions is identical to the existing addition, one SPI company, a major monitors. Subsequently. EPA developed provisions. The difference is that the producer of VC monomer and PVC a generic leak detection and elimination proposed 5 61.2422(d)(6)(i) allows an polymer, provided information on nine program (subpart V, 40 CFR 61240-- owner/operator to take into account the crude and intermediate storage tanks at 61247) based on equipment and data for small number of liquid drips that may one of its facilities. The information the organic chemical and petroleum occur when new seals are in place or included tank sizes, design, emissions industries. Tne 1988 revisions are otherwise associated with normal estimates, and costs. This company incorporated the subpart V provisions operation. requested EPA to exclude intermediate into the VC standard. The SPI opposes Definition of "3-hour Period" and crude, as well as final EDC storage tanks, from the definition. the addition of the subpart V provision# to the VC standard. The SPI argued that The SPI noted that in the September The EPA agrees that it intended to existing programs are effective without 1986 final rule, EPA added a definition exempt crude and intermediate storage the subpart V provisions and that EPA's of "3-hour period" 40 CFR 61-61(z), to tanks from-the exhaust gas standard. decision to retain area monitoring clarify that the emission limits in the The definition of "EDC purification" has requirements from the 1976 standard is exhaust gas standard (10 ppm) is a 3- been revised to clarify that emissions questionable since they have not been hour average. The definition creates from crude, intermediate, and final required for other industries subject to "rolling" averages (24 3-hour averages storag tanks following EDC formation subpart V. In addition, according to SPI. per day) rather than "block" averages (a are not subject to the standards. In no justification been given for R&S Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 38941 requiring retention of area monitors in addition to subpart V. Although a ^J>rrooggram under | 61.65(b)(8) onstrating less than 2 percent of ^Braallvves leaking is considered "effective.'' such a program is exempt only from certain parts of subpart V. For these reasons. SPI requests reinstatement of the leak detection and elimination requirements contained in the 1076 VC standard. Upon reconsideration. EPA proposes to make no changes in the application of subpart V to the VC standard and the requirements for fixed area monitoring (5 61.65(b)(8)(i)). The basis for adding subpart V to the VC standard was explained in detail in the preamble to the proposed revisions (50 FR1190-1192, January 9,1985), and the justification for those requirements has not changed since that time. The EPA believes that the area monitoring and subpart V approaches both have benefits and are not redundant. In particular, area monitors allow for quick detection of certain large VC leaks that might otherwise go undetected until the next routine portable monitoring screening, as well as detection of large leaks from equipment not affected by subpart V (e.g,, agitators). The area monitors have already been purchased by subject facilities and the additional cost of onitor operation is relatively small, herefore, a comparison to other' industries is not relevant Also, area monitoring is often used as part of a program to reduce leaks to below 2 percent, and therefore, as discussed below, an owner/operator does not have to conduct the leak detection and repair provisions of subpart V. Any plant with an effective existing program under 5 61.65(b)(a) for detecting and repairing leaks can control equipment leaks without complying with the subpart V provisions. Specifically, if an owner/operator can demonstrate that less than 2.0 percent of valves are leaking in any process unit, then that process unit is exempt from 55 61.2421(d) (marking), 61.242-7(a) (monitoring), 61.246 (recordkeeping), and 61.247 (reporting). To demonstrate that less than 2D percent of valves are leaking, the owner/operator must conduct a performance test initially, annually, and at any other times requested by the Administrator. If, during any performance test, the percentage of leaking valves exceeds 2.0 percent, then the owner/operator must comply with jubpart V within 90 days. This CeAxemption only applies to the standards 'or valves (5 61.242-7(a)(b)(c)) because e other standards in subpart V Tnterface with specific equipment requirements/performance measures in the VC standard (e.g., leaks from relief valves. 5 61.65(b)(4) and rotating pumps, 61.65(b)(3)(i)). However, this exemption includes all of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 5 5 61.248 and 61.247 because these requirements mainly affect valves. The exemption for marking, recordkeeping.- and reporting applies to the entire process unit. The exemptions (provided in the VC standard) to subpart V were designed, based on comments made during the public comment period, to avoid unnecessary changes to existing leak detection plans which are effective in detecting and repairing VC leaks. Scope of Relief Valve Discharge Provisions The SPI opposes EPA's withdrawal of the 1985 proposed numerical limits for relief valve discharges and has requested that EPA reconsider its decision to retain the emergency discharge Provision of the 1976 standard. 40 CFR 61.65(a). The SPI claimed that the 1976 standard "impermissibly delegates rulemaking authority to enforcement personnel and is unconstitutionally vague and that, as applied, the regulation is unfair, unlawful, arbitrary and capricious." The SPI prefers the proposed numerical limits because they would remedy these problems and reduce the administrative burden on EPA and industry. The SPI also believes that the proposed numerical limits are stricter than the 1976 emergency discharge provision because "each discharge causing an exceedance of any numerical limit * * * would be considered a violation without regard to whether any individual discharge was preventable," The EPA has reviewed the basis for the decision not to promulgate numerical limits for RVD's and has decided that the 1976 standard is still reasonable and appropriate. The 1976 standard permits only "emergency" RVD's. those that could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. A detailed discussion of the basis for not promulgating the numerical limits for RVD's is contained in the preamble for the promulgated amendments (51 FR 34905-34906, September 30.1986). and SPI has not provided any new information that would affect EPA's decision. In summary, the decision to retain the original 1976 RVD standard was made after considering the revisions in light of public comments on the numerical limits, and after review of the basis for the decision to reformat the standard. In particular, several public comments on the 1985 proposed amendments expressed concern that preventable RVD's would be allowed under the revised standard and that the performance allowed under the revised standard could be inconsistent with that allowed under the original standard. Other comments expressed concern that the revised standard included no mechanism for regulating very large RVD's. The basis for the statement that a large EPA resource commitment is required for enforcing the 1976 RVD standard was also questioned. The EPA's review revealed that the burden on its resources had diminished as experience with the implementation of the standard Increased and as the industry's understanding of the provisions of the existing standard became clearer. Thus, it was not necessary to revise the format of the RVD standard. Compared to the 1985 proposal, the existing standard also has the advantages of affecting all preventable RVD's and providing better regulation of large volume RVD's. Therefore, for the reasons stated, EPA's review of the record supports the existing standard. Based on the EPA's experience with administering the VC standard of 61.65(a), one major deficiency with the type of information submitted in many of the 10-day reports of RVD's has been recognized. This concerns that information required to be reported by the standard regarding, "the action that was taken to prevent the discharge." For purposes of clarification, this portion of the standard requires information on the action taken to prevent or address the cause leading up to the RVD release and not only the action taken after an event or cause occurs that results in an RVD release. Emission Monitoring Clarification In addition to the changes made in response to the petition for reconsideration, a minor clarification has been made in 5 61.6a, Emission monitoring. The existing regulation, 61.68(b), states that the VC monitoring system(s) that is used to meet the continuous monitoring requirements in paragraph (a) (of 5 61.68) for emissions from sources for which emission limits are prescribed is to be a device which obtains air samples on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes them. Since it is obvious that paragraph (a) of 61.68 calls for the monitoring of the emissions from prescribed sources for vinyl chloride and not ambient air sampling as required under 5 61.65(b)(8) for leak detection/elimination, 5 61.68(b) R&S 000035 38942 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules has been clarified to require that representative (not air) samples from one or more applicable emission points be obtained and analyzed. This revision more accurately reflects the original intent. III. Administrative Requirements A. Public Hearing A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the proposed rulemaking in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make oral presentations should contact EPA at the address given in the addresses section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement with EPA before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements should be addressed to the Central Docket Section address given in the addresses section of this preamble. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours at EPA's Central Docket Section in Washington. DC (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble). B. Docket The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or otherwise considered in the development of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties to identify readily and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review, except for interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)). C. Office ofManagement and Budget Reviews 1. Paperwork Reduction Act, There are no information collection requirements associated with this proposed rulemaking. 2. Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must judge whether a regulatory action is "major" and. therefore, subject to the requirement of a regulatory impact analysis. This proposed rulemaking is not major because it makes minor clarifying revisions to an existing regulation and, therefore, results in none of the significant adverse economic effects described in the Order. This rulemaking was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any written comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included in Docket No. A-81-21, The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section that is listed under the addresses section of this notice. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the identification of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those instances where small business impacts are possible. Because these proposed minor revisions impose no adverse economic impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 Air pollution control. Asbestos. Benzene, Beryllium. Hazardous materials. Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: September 12,1969. William ft Reilly, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed to amend 40 CFR part 61 as follows: PART 61--{AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority*. Sections 101,112.114.116,301. Clean Air Act as amended: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412. 7414. 7416, 7601. 2. Section 61.61 is amended by revising paragraphs (o), (w), (x), (y), and (z) to read as follows: 61.61 Definitions. ** *4 * (0) Ethylene dichloride purification includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride purification following ethylene dichloride formation, but excludes crude, intermediate, and final ethylene dichloride storage tanks. ***** (w) Leak means any of several events that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment Leaks include events regulated under subpart V of this part such as: (1) An instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater measured according to Method 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR part 60); (2) A sensor detection of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both; (3) Detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background for equipment designated for no detectable emissions measured according to Test Method 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR part 60): and (4) In the case of pump seals regulated under 61.242-2, indications of liquid dripping constituting a leak under 61.242-2, Leaks also include events regulated under 61.65(b)(0)(i] for detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentrations. A relief valve discharge is not a leak, (x) Exhaust gas means any offgas (the constituents of which may consist of any fluids, either as a liquid and/or gas) discharged directly or ultimately to the atmosphere that was initially contained in or was in direct contact with the equipment for which exhaust gas limits are prescribed in 5 61.62 (a) and (b); 61.63(a): 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c). and (d); 61.65 (b)(l)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii). (b)(7) and (b](9)(ii): and 61.65(d). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not an exhaust gas. Equipment which contains exhaust gas is subject to 5 61.65(b)(8). whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. (y) Relief Valve Discharge means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve. (z) 3-hour period means any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each commencing on the hour), provided that the number of 3-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm does not exceed the number of 1-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm. 3. Section 61.65 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(6) introductory text, and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. ***** (a) Relief valve discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge, and except as provided in 61.65(d), there is to be no discharge to the atmosphere from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride service. An emergency relief discharge means a discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any relief valve discharge, except for those subject to 61.65(d). the owner or operator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs shall submit to the Administrator a report in writing r &S 000036 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday. September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 38943 containing information on the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the discharge, the ^approximate total vinyl chloride loss 'during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss (the calculation of the vinyl chloride loss), the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future discharges. (b) (6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of equipment (excluding crude, intermediate, and final EDC storage tanks, but including prepolymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resins and loading or unloading lines that are not opened to the atmosphere after each loading or unloading operation) are to be minimized as follows: **** (d) A RVD that is ducted to a control device that is continually operating while emissions from the release are present at the device is subject to the following requirements: (1) A discharge from a control device other than a flare shall not exceed 10 ppm (average over a 3-hour period) as determined by the continuous emission monitor system required under 61.68. Such a discharge is subject to the requirements of 61.70. (2) For a discharge routed to a flare, the flare shall comply with the requirements of 60.18. (i) Flare operations shall be monitored in accordance with the requirements of 5 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purposes of 60.18(d), the volume and component concentration of each relief valve discharge shall be estimated and calculations shall be made to verify ongoing compliance with the design and operating requirements of 60.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more than one relief valve is discharged simultaneously to a single flare, these calculations shall account for the cumulative effect of all such relief valve discharges. These calculations shall be made and reported quarterly for all discharges within the quarter. Failure to comply with any of the requirements of this paragraph will be a violation of 61.65(d)(2). Monitoring for the presence of a flare pilot flame shall be conducted in accordance with 60.18(f)(2). If the results of this monitoring or any other information shows that the pilot flame is not present 100 percent of the time during which a relief valve discharge is routed to the flare, the relief valve discharge is subject to the provisions of 5 61.65(a). (ii) A report describing the flare design shall be provided to the Administrator not later than 90 days after the adoption of this provision or within 30 days of the installation of a flare system for control of relief valve discharge whichever is later. The flare design report shall include calculations based upon expected relief valve discharge component concentrations and net heating values (for PVC this calculation shall be based on values expected if a release occurred at the instant the polymerization starts): and estimated maximum exit velocities based upon the design throat capacity of the gas in the relief valve. 4. Section 61.68 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) to read as follows: 61.68 Emission monitoring. ***** (b) The vinyl chloride monitoring system(s) used to meet the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section is to be a device which obtains representative samples from one or more applicable emission points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromotography or. if the owner or operator assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an alternative method. * * * ***** 5. Section 61.242-2 of subpart V is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory text, (d)(5) and (d)(6) and by adding paragraphs (d)(4) (i), (ii) and (iii)to read as follows: 5 61.242-2 Standards: Pumps. ***** (d) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, provided the following requirements are met: (4) * * * (i) If there are indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal at the time of the weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified in 01.245 to determine the presence of VOC and VHAP in the barrier fluid. (ii) If the monitor reading (taking into account any background readings) indicates the presence of VHAP. a leak is detected. For the purpose of this paragraph, the monitor may be calibrated with VHAP, or may employ a gas chromatography column to limit the response of the monitor to VHAP. at the option of the owner or operator. (iii) If an instrument reading of 10.600 ppm or greater (total VOC) is measured, a leak is detected. (5) Each sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is checked daily or is equipped with an audible alarm. (6) (i) The owner or operator determines, based on design considerations and operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency of drips and to the sensor that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both. (ii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed the criteria established in paragraph (d)(6](i) of this section, or if, based on the criteria established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both, a leak is detected. (iii) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in 5 61.242- 10. (iv) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than five calendar days after each leak is detected. ***** [FR Doc. 89-22107 Filed 9 -20-89; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE SO-S0-M R&S 000037 -- c ' NO (?R f'X -.34904 --Federal Register / .Vol. 51."No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations m ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EPA in developing of the promulgated ririY.Ieak detection and repair plans for each AGENCY YYf\'' '. v. : c . revisions to the standard for VC, is -Y?5.-i~VCand PVC manufacturing facility and available for public inspection between to submit these plans to EPA for review. 40 CFR Part 61 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through _:PAn analysis of the plans submitted [AD-FRL-3044-5] Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section "^revealed that these plans varied widely 1 (LE-131), West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, _ _rom plant to plant. Further, some plans ' National Emission Standards for*. 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DCwere considered to be inadequate and Hazardous Air Pollutants: Vinyl '! 20460. A reasonable fee may.be charged JA ineffective approaches to the control of Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile 1 for copying. .^-^ijYYiJ ^yC leaks. , .. ,v, . Hazardous Air Pollutants JyZ&r ? - FOB FURTHER information CONTACT. '"SSKrThe incorporation of Subpart V by the " : For further information concerning the '5--*-: standard for VC emissions establishes .-^c t, bemg promulgated m - ^ v- supporting the promulgated revisions, Y~^detectillg and repairing VC leaks, the .. P-thf.u8h dus action and. to a ^contact Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel.:-.^a:8,andar|contain^ pro"ision3 whereby "V u m .uUbpa^.Y- f ^-CF\ .^Chemicals and P^oleumBrandv;^^-iny facility may demonstrate through VIA' gr^Part 61. Fmally. through this action the .=& Emission SUndards and Engineering.^- annual (or more frequent, if requested # Agency is denymg ^petition of the ^- Division (MD-13). U.S. Envuonmental^b Administrator) performance tests'*' ^^Natoxa Resources Defense Council :_V: Protection Agency. Research.Tnangle the percentage of ]eaking va|ve3 'iNR?Snmd tHJ ^"dronmental Defense Park, North Carolina 277li, telephoneYrZ^main3 at 2 percent asan aiteriia[ive''t(r Fund (EDF) which sought number (919) 541-5671. For other ^--^Tfonowinii the Subbart V orocedures An ? reconsideration of the EPA's withdrawal' information on the regulation of VC and Jr :*- of hejm.ndTM,!, to td VC dtod^tl. promulgated JU MStot^^^^f222LI?f2S5:j*- which EFFECTIVE i are no r necessarily - -. ... dn/y by filing haru"""R&meet the promulgated requirements. .'7:AIN of a petition Tor review in the United * r"v27711, telephone number (919J.541-5578. .* promulgated the current VC standard r/iL-.vstated that VC escaping from PVC resin "___ that has been stripped in the reactor is ' l^REgnot intended to be included as part of 7-'. the VC emissions measured under, the ttriz^Teactor opening loss requirements. For . - oration by reference of certain^^^Horinancerequipment and work PyC reactors whi?h are U3ed ,as . publications in these standards (s approved -g)brattice requirements at numerous' '~ii'8tnpPar3l' hwever. no method was - , byJ*? Director of the Office of the F^lJ.;^ Joints in jjJ. manufacturing processer^3Pfclfi,ed to determine what part of the ................ on its review of the technological , m tbe rvaPJ* sPace of factor had ,, ^ , --. ,, . . and administrative aspects of the -^"caPed aftar 1110 Upping was . . : . J'/it-n'.. Document The background information 7 originai standard, EPA proposed several >!nipleted; Consequently, a method was V ` document fBID) for the promulgated > ; - oHministrntivn nnd clarifvina r^visinbi'^zi.proposed for determining the reactor R&S 000038 .RjYA:- telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please revisions are discussed below.^Ssi; referJo "Vinyl Chloride Standard: ,r-`v ' 'considering the comments on this ^proposed revision, EPA decided to j;/ 7747 Responses to Comments on January 1985 Proposed Revisions," EPA-450/3-86-' _____ . ... , ____ _______ . . change in the 'RAv The BID contains: (1) A summary of ViY As proposed in January 1985,"VC ia jp^SSstandard affecting PVC reactors used J1 public comments on the proposed being added to the list of substances'^'-.-', ^strippers applied to the production of /'v1.previsions and the Administrator's . Y-y.-' covered by 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V.A^rSr.bulk PVC resins. Two separate vessel response to the comments, and (2) a rNVj;-.which contains regulations forleaks^S^^xarejused in bulk resin production, a j-^jsummary of the changes made to the ' .'V- .A from certain equipment in volatile _.J^g^^prepolymerization" vessel arid a "po />7rfevised standard since proposal, ' r hazardous air pollutant (VHAPJ aervic^Apo1yme'rizati0n" vessel. Under the : Dockets. A docket, number A-81-21, Previously, plant owners subject to the S*-.standard promulgated in 1976, both o) . containing information considered by VC standard were required to prepare r these vessels were subject to the reac R&S 000039 Federal Register / VoL 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, j.yoo / tvUlt33 - ' opening loss requirements. However, an only allowed When the combined stream have been considered carefully and, ! - analysis of the operation of r- r- c; .:'. is ducted to a" control device, 'i/'-w' .l; where determined to be appropriate by j prepolymerization vessels revealed that .The inprocess wastewater EPA, changes have been made to the rA these reactors are opened less \.'-r vh requirements for gasholder seals are proposed revisions to the standard. . . frequently than other types of reactors. also being revised to exclude the a/ ` ' and that the determination of gross V. : exposed water seal of gasholders. , Significant Comments Since Proposal :product (required for the calculation of Experience with the VC standard ( Most of the comment letters contained reactor opening loss) is impractical. In - - indicates that water contained in the multiple comments. In general, the .> January 1985, EPA proposed to apply the exposed water seal of a gasholdermay . :' comments supported the proposed .nr,'-: equipment opening loss requirements, !::v- exceed the 10 ppmv limit during normal ' administrative and clarifying revisions. rather than the reactor opening loss . operation and that compliance with the A detailed discussion of the comments /. requirements, to these PVC reactors. . -V, atmospheric exposure limit is not. . and responses can be found in the BID ' The equipment opening loss practicable for this source. The xgzz'i for the promulgated standard, which is , requirements are more appropriate for inprocess wastewater stripping I: referenced in the ADDRESSES section . the operating characteristics of the requirements, however, will cor\tihue to . . of this preamble. The comments and prepolymerization reactor vessels and kt apply to wastewater after removal from__ responses in the BID serve as the basis ' .do not change the overall VC emission .ir.v, the gasholder seal- b'- Vv:':'; for the changes that have been made to *'' ' control stringency applicable ^f^^r^-'OAerAihTdaistrativeRBVhions v-*e revised standard between proposal prepolymerization reactors. After ' considering the comments on this proposed revision, EPA decided to *.' / r'c .and promulgation. Other administrative revisions to the standard include: (1) The elimination of Almost all commenters addressed the laust gas." and Summary of Impacts to the Standard other proposed revi: valvi discharge" are being added j^Re^sio^o ^i^^'repre^t ^ " detail 111 BID for 1118 promulgated t of the j j^--j.'=5h -. standard and in summary in the next )?!; A section of this preamble. ..One commehter requested reconsideration of the withdrawal of the^ amendments to the VC standard which A 1 were proposed in 1977. This petition for ~ ;reconsideration was based on y'TifWTrSX- 'objections to the Agency's use of data '* .on costs and economic impacts in the y;..' decision'to withdraw the proposed ,.. ... .7.. . . A .amendments, and to the Agency's ........ '`Anotthheer'r revision being incorporated Prior to'proposal of revisions to the' "^.-'determination of the technological basis ' into thee' standard makes it clear that the ^/standard, interested parties were ' of the standard. The commenters stated in nnrmliktandkd is "a 3-hbubairerage advised by`pubfic notice in the Federal '*> that the EPA's actions in withdrawing emission limit,'^rath'e^th^'^ T^A'bv^Tr^^Register (49 FR 28807, june'29,`1984] of a"l*A the proposed amendments were A k^ ^instahtaheous limit The performance'kb" meeting of the'National Air Pollution ^inconsistent with the requirements of 'a' test provision in_ 61.67(g)(lJ has also^A 'Control Techniques Advisory' an 112 of the'Clean Air Act As y .been clarified to specify that test results "A; Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the discussed further in this preamble, the - `should reflect as close to a 3-hour revisions to the VC standard > Agency is denying the petition for k` ' average as practicable. Further, the 10 recommended for prdposal. This meeting reconsideration.--Ka ppmv standard regulation is being ' .rm--ev. uise_dJ tao 4sVnprwecTify, 4tKhm ra, 4t #a11ll exhMau as4t .gaaaas . ' '.'. streams are covered by this .was held on August 30,1984. The b} I .;'"ma. t_tee_e4n*t^id_ne_g__e_w*w. _a__as_so__g_p_i.e.v. nen4t_onan4nth"oe- "p_p"_p'_u"_o'b1rr--litiiucinnaji*..ii.tnm.mytd/it.noea.ch.. Proposed Revisions to Relief Valve DDiisscchh. aaarrrggee SSttaannddaarr.dd- A.-; : . . requirement, including control device isd . comment on the revised standard The EPA has decided not to 'r;rsv,^-'. V ;--- A'-;' bypass streams. In order to Implement*'W^ recommended for proposal. ''br. promulgate revisions to the relief valve v'.- this clarification^ provisions are also 'orjy.v.f The revised standard was proposed in' ''discharge standard proposed in the n : T ;. being incorporated into the standard for ;_-t the Federal Register on January 9,1985. ' - January 9,1985, Federal Register notice.' A '. . calculating the VC content'in bypassed ^; yThe public Comment period was from 'k -Tbs revisions would have established a ' r' A' . emissions. A final revision to the 10 A: January 9.1985 to March 25,1985. A sv''" ` different type of numerical limit for - '.''ppmv requirement is intended to 7.total of 16 comment letters were . relief valve discharges. The decision to : f !. prohibit plants ftdm diluting a VC received. Industry representatives .'vs-'-ii -retain the original relief valve discharge : v A j exhaust gas stream'with other exhaust "c^`submitted most of the comment letters, 'd " standard was made after considering ' <r. gases in order to meet the 10 ppmv limit. Also comme'nting' were representatives - > the revisions in light of public comments "iC' Under the revised standard,'combining ^^.'of the U.S. Congress,"a State Legislature, and other findings.-Although many ': r- -1 ' - ' an exhaust stream containing more than State air pollution agency and an' 'public comments favored the proposed " ' 10 ppmv VC with another ga3 stream is A.'-, environmental group. The comments 'revisions, others opposed the change. In ' V..-' 34906 1 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations R&S 000040 particular, several commenters w-"' minimizing the discharges. Because of . the part of industry should be clearer, ; expressed concern that preventable . these two developments, EPA concluded the necessity for revising the format of ; relief valve discharges would be -.; , r that the original findings of the review the relief valve discharge standard is no - allowed under the revised standard and . study are no longer valid and should not longer apparent. The existing standard . that the performance allowed under the be the basis of a revision to the format also has the advantages of penalizing all. revised standard could be inconsistent '' of the relief valve discharge standard. . preventable relief valve discharges, ' ' with that allowed under the original ; i The decision to retain the existing * providing better regulation of large XJ-c '. ip _' standard. Other comments expressed -v.v. relief valve discharge standard as a part volume relief valve discharges, and -Yr V - concern that the revised standard of the standard for VC emissions is' ' promoting continuity in the ongoing vr/f i included no mechanism for regulating Y;- further supported by two additional'7 enforcement of the standard. \ . 7`ri tj very large relief valve discharges..The . advantages that the existing standard h?.-. - In some instances, it may be possible basis for the statement that a large n be' has over the proposed revisions. First, for a plant operator to contain a relief :. 5. ;7,7" Agency resource commitment is the existing standard provides ,7fr.`;/r ;77 valve discharge and to vent it to a . ' */tii. - .yc: :.j required for enforcing the relief valve 7! X '. . that all preventable relief valve 11' control device. Where this can be done - discharge standard was also questioned. discharges are subject to enforcement 7" without exceeding the exhaust gas As a result of these comments, EPA !-*. . action. Under the proposed revisions, '/v- emission limit of 10 ppmv. EPA ;:r; reviewed the basis for the ' which would have allowed a small concluded that this approach should be -" 7- recommendations that led to the . number of discharges per year whether encouraged and. therefore, the discharge ;7 decision to propose to reformat the T-r-V preventable or not, it is possible that a should be exempt from the relief valve standard. First, as discussed in the plant could experience preventable ,,V_ discharge standard. Venting the :'- ' Federal Register notice proposing . discharges and still be in compliance r'~\ discharge through a control device can 7 revisions to the relief valve discharge ;ib ", with the standard. As pointed out in YYv result in a 99.9 percent reduction in the J>r. standard (50 FR1187), the review of the :t` . public comments,'it is theoretically '/ClYY, V.C content of the relief valve discharge standard conducted between 1980 and _ y /possible that discharges resulting from 'Y1 without interfering with the control of l tij 1982 found that the existing standard --Tc" . gross negligence could go iiripeiialized ,.*: VC emissions in exhaust gases which '' resulted in a significant commitment of 7. under the revisions to the'standard. The ; are also vented through the control . Agency resources to the review and EPA did not intend this effect in the' 7/77 device. Although compliance with the 10 'j7Y V; evaluation of discharges of VC from proposed revisions. The retention of the ' ppmv standard would exempt the : v Js^V; relief valves. Because the existing existing relief valve discharge standard ' discharge from the relief valve discharge yjSSstandard allows only `.`emergency" .iiiYY' allows EPA to continue the current standard, exceeding the 10 ppmv discharges of VC from relief valves (i.e), 7'['enforcement approach. standard would be considered both a 'rib -^{"if-jhe relief valve discharge could not be . :atl7> jSecond, the existing relief valve X - violation of the 10 ppmv standard and of 7j7S:;avoided by taking preventative discharge standard provides a better Yir) v the relief valve discharge standard. *:r*.rr: SScijr measures), every discharge must be ^mechanism for regulating large relief 7 Denial of Petition For Reconsideration Aty evaluated individually to determine '7} 7 whether the owner or operator of the ,' a ' '/ facility has implemented the measures 7 'valve discharges. The"proposed revision would have allowed a certain number of ; relief valve discharges per year,"Without ! .v '-.The NRDC and EDF petitioned EPA to reconsider the decision to withdraw the [ ' . j necessary to prevent that relief valve discharge., During the 4 to 5 years since the review study was conducted, the ^-77. enforcement of the relief valve discharge 'standard has been made more efficient ^ ; . regard to the size or duration of the Y'Y: discharge. Consequently, as long as the 7. number of releases were within the .,7*7 numerical limits of the proposed * V. W-r revisions to the standard, there were'no 7 1977 proposed revisions to the VC .'V vY standard. The criteria for granting such 1-J a petition are: (1) The petition must be 7 based on infonnation that was not and could not reasonably have been '. / ^iif-This is due in large part to experience s_x mechanisms in the standard to enforce -7 established in enforcing the standard. control of the amount of VC discharged YYTYAs a result, EPA enforcement personnel : to the atmosphere. Under the existing 7 consider implementation of this .'relief valve discharge standard,, presented during the original .'-YV. YY 7 , rulemaking; and (2) the petition must .. provide substantial support for the ' j argument that the challenged action ' standard to be much less resource labor intensive. .-sT-Afti-:irfr, and if hi- ~ however, the duration and size of the Yv 'discharge are factors in determining the should be changed. See Petition to Revise NSPS Denial of for Stationary " second conclusion from the 1980 toY ^771982 study was that industry did not Y v- have a clear understanding of what the v ^severity of a violation of the.standard. y.' As a result, a plant owner or operator Y. v : . has a greater incentive under the current Gas Turbines, 45 FR 81B53 [December 1, | 1980). As described below) this petition '*' fails to meet either criterion,'and it is *'' = / relief valve discharge standard required.:. standard for taking action to reduce the therefore, denied. 7;V'. I? ' ' - and what measures they needed to quantity of a discharge. ^ ^ ; Consideration of Petition ?-V i :.__ ', .v . if1'' ' implement in order to comply withthe'i ' In summary, EPA is not promulgating The NRDC/EDF petition for : . ; standard. During the 4 to 5 years since the revisions to the relief valve`T. vsi-^rV'r- reconsideration of the withdrawal was - . ` the review study, a number of. 7* discharge standard which were ; -r - based on four main premises. First , y enforcement actions have been taken-v;.i. proposed in the January 9.1985, Federal . NRDC/EDF objected to the EPA's . .,! Y against individual plants for violations 7 Register notice. This decision was -.Xf announcement of the withdrawal of the : of the standards. TTiose actions have r.-sf- reached after consideration of public ; proposed amendments as a final action, V- ; culminated in consent decrees which 7 V'1 comments received on the proposal, and without being preceded by a notice which ; '. incorporate requirements for remedial after a review of the basis for the proposed the withdrawal and allowed actions to prevent further relief valve -;7 decision to reformat the standard. Y.'-Y - for public comment on the action. . r ' ` discharges. The provisions of these 77-.-. Because this review revealed that the i Second, NRDC/EDF objected to the 1. Y ' consent decrees have not only reduced * burden on Agency resources has -jhi'.i:7 " influence of cost considerations in th? >77 .the number of relief valve discharges at ; . diminished as experience with the decision to withdraw the proposed . r.-.; - 'specific plants, but they have also ..t . implementation of the standard amendment, stating that the balancing .- served as guidelines in determining the increased, and that understanding of the. . : ` types of measures appropriate for u-.-,p.:rovisions of the existing standard on , of costs and benefits in the setting of the VC standard is contrary to the Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations'' 34907 R&S 000041 . . . requirements of Section 112 of the Clean . the lowest level of control which has" the Agency's decision to withdraw the ` -fe.. . Air Act. Third. NRDC/EDF took issue - - '! been consistently achieved" as ': Sl proposed 5 ppmv emission limit. with what it took to be the EPA's indicating that EPA was applying such L` The second decision addressed by the assumption that Section 112 of the Clean requirement in evaluating alternative' . petition for reconsideration as ' 1 ' : 1T-T,. Air Act establishes a requirement that a level of control must have been exhaust gas requirements. However, the ' conflicting with the considered evidence basis for EPA's selection of 10 ppmv as -is the withdrawal of the 5 ppmv ` ": : ' //consistently achieved" in the past in : V- .`the VC standard for exhaust gas - ; -: // emission limit for oxychlorination vents. order to form the basis of the standard. emissions is that this level of control is 1 ; The petition points to a statement in the .Finally, NRDC/EDF stated that the /4'1!;! the lowest'achievable emission limit 1977 proposal that this emission limit "... ..EPA's decisions on specific portions of .. *` attainable on a never*to-be-exceeded could be attained based on the use of the proposed amendments were in o/..., basis. AlthoQgh 5 ppmv may be' '///// ' oxygen'as a feed material rather than fT.-.j..^..conflict with the evidence on those achieved by some systems over a V. ' air, and maintains that no discussion or ft. - . issues. ; ^ \ ; limited time period, the existing data .evidence were presented which would-j /In.the.first objection. NRDC/EDF state ,. indicate the this level of control cannot justify withdrawal of this proposal, .-'jrji,,' - - .that the proposed amendments to the /jV t be'maintained over a long-term/sever- 1:*In the Federal Register (50 FR1185). ; .1977 VC standard should not be to-be-exceeded basis? as required by the ' evidence was presented by the Agency ~ ;withdrawn because no notice of such. : standards. In addition to being V- ` - : supporting the conclusion that more ; / -.withdrawal had been published and . .. achievable on a consistent, long-term stringent control of emissions from ; .there had been no opportunity for public - basis/the 10 ppniv standard was also re oxychlorination vents was unnecessary.'; . . ..comment on the withdrawal. During the - determined by EPA to provide the public ` First, no new technological controls ; 8 years which have elapsed since the ;~:~y .with the ample margin of safety required . have been developed which are - proposal of those amendments, there by"section 112.Therefore, EPA'beleiyes ' ;- applicable to these vents'. Second, the has been ample opportunity afforded for X-J.'that the standard satisfies the /__.?-- costs of incinerating oxychlorination /' 0/ :-7,; public comment and input on the "requirements of section 112. ./,/ ;, '.vent streams were reevaluated and -/-/uricr' ' amendments and their withdrawal. ^amendments, their protenfial The' ",-/.1 .".The final points raised by NRDC/EDF,:f*` ' determined, as before, to be unreasonable compared to,the small TV~*7-t -- "consequences; and Agency might take the decisions that the ' with regard to them "-i jn support of the petition for .'.-l *. .reconsideration addressed three specific reduction in .VC emissions. And finally, -'rwith the possible exception of one plant, ..'r; provisions of the proposed amendments :? no .new E1DC/VC.plants with /' which were withdrawn. The NRDC/EDF..5 oxychlorination reactors are expected to v-/ ; i relating to the rulemaking ^stated that the. withdrawal of these be constructed, and any that may be Sb-Si/distributed prior to the NAPCTAC^Ccinni provisions was in conflict with the itr^rnj-'`constructed will be adequately regulated ^`^z/meeting. Finally. NRDC did not give* any 3 ^evidence before _the Agency.,The first jink by the requirements of new source rfT/^.'supporting'rationale for believing that sirtq-. specific portjoaof the standard .,7;i7-v/?/-1~4 review regulations. No new information - further opportunity for comment would /.V-, addressed in the petition is the '.''',''/.'./.1/ was presented in the petition for Ji;yield any relevant new infomiatidn orJv~~ withdravyal of the proposed 5 ppmv. :fA- reconsideration relevant to the decision. aiguments/Therefore. H?A does" not .i?/.,/-. emission limit for exhaust gas emission to retain the existing oxychlorination believe thaf additional time orprovision^.'in favor of the existing 10 ppmv vent standard. c,";>vraii-ftrii for receiving further public comments^Y ^ emission limit. The NRDC/EDF stated - ... The third decision which was . //.-t/could have been either necessary or/yr' .that the"evidence in the record supports addressed in the petition for f ^L.-heIpful for the'resolution .of the issues/^; '^ a finding that the 5 ppmv limit is . //- reconsideration as conflicting with the Tjs,';" , involving theproposed amendments to'1/. achievable by new sources, and by ?,r' /" "considered evidence is the withdrawal' ip* p theVCstaridard.':^C'^^l;?"'a^v'/i existing sources within 3 years of .>, of the proposal to lower the residual VC '/ ;> r The second issue raised by NRDC/.,_,^V promulgation. The petition also pointed ' limit for new dispersion resins from -S'-/ i/V/v'- EDF involves the inclusion of cost to the more stringent emission limit not 2,000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and the limit > . `consideration in the EPA's rulemaking"' V: be foregone. for other new resins from 400 ppmv to - '*! - fZ-Xf.- " dJ.p15li1h__e___r_a_,t.in___n__s_ ; under Rentlnn'112 The' ./. The EPA decided to maintain the 10 * 100 ppmv. The petition states that .m!.'?!;,/ - ppmv emission limit for exhaust gas existing facilities are currently meeting. .. emission for three primary reasons.` //"/H/. the lower limits, and that both new and > . First/as stated above, the 10 ppmv existing facilities could be brought into ' ! -f.^'^-.-prbyides ah'`ample margin of safety" to" emission limit has been determined to ' compliance with the more stringent T .X'V'. the' public precludes consideration of the ' be consistently achievable by industry/' limits by using the equipment and -V' d/ A`,V- costs of control. In the EPA's judgment. ;; whereas the 5 ppmv emission limit J procedures currently used by the leading f', -'... the VC standard protects the public' v''' \ cannot be consistently achieved. facilities.'/'"-' '////T"--11'/" ' ' '.* /'/ health with an ample margin of safety '1 Second, even though the limit on . The EPA withdrew the proposed more .- I. within the meaning of Section 112.' and ='' maximum emissions of VC is set at 10 stringent stripping level requirements for -{ * EPA may consider cost and feasiblity in ppmv, the average and most short-term two main reasons. The first is that the * f/'// - . . setting the standard. The EPA views n emissions will be considerably lower 1/. nature of PVC production makes it " > ' ` `j-.;-1* were explained in the 1975-76 VC than this level. Third, lowering the difficult to distinguish "new" from "old" ' i : rulemaking. The NRDC/EDF provided ; emission limit on maximum emission ' - resins. Resin compositions are adjusted i `f:: ;-z i no hew information on this issue.- . rates to 5 ppmv would not significantly *. routinely, arid completely "new" resins 1 ` .... The NRDC/EDFs'third objection was `; reduce the average emissions, and _ are rarely, if ever. made. Second, EPA ` ' the EPA was incorrect in stating that a therefore, adopting the lower standard concluded that there is no improved / -/.level of control must be "consistently was determined by the Agency not to technology which would provide the 1 ; 1 T-: - achieved" in order to form the basis of '/ have a significant impact on emissions ' vl- .basis for more stringent stripping v: * - , . the standard. Specifically. NRDC/EDF of VC or, accordingly, on public health /' - requirements for all resins. The v-; : - -pointed to the language in the Federal - risks. The petition for reconsideration ' }' technologies which are effective for . ' . Register notice that "10 ppmv represents presented no new evidence relevant to - - specific resins may not be effective for^^ 34908 Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986. / Rules and Regulations other resins. The consequence of.. .. ,/ adverse economic effects set forth in product containing vinyl chloride or establishing a more stringent standard Section 1 of the Order as grounds for - - polyvinyl chloride but which has not would be that certain hard-to-strip finding a. regulation to be a "major rule." ,. been discharged to a wastewater ' resins could no longer be produced. In . the EPA's opinion, such a result would ' be an unwarranted economic impact The revised regulation is not major , because: (1] Nationwide annual . compliance costs, including capital . treatment process or discharged - untreated as wastewater. Gasholder seal water is not inprocess wastewater i which is unnecessary to provide an charges resulting from the standard total . until it is removed from the gasholder ample margin of safety for public health,less than $100 million: (2) the standard * * * "4" * T^v*r ^ Z 1 "- ,-j , No new relevant information was presented in the petition for 1'. ... reconsideration, r- ; T . Administrative --rT'.~; does not cause a major increase in-:';, prices or production costs: and [3] the . standards do not cause significant ' . radverse effects on domestic competition,, employment, investment, productivity,''.^ (1) "In vinyl chloride service" means *' that a piece of equipment either contains or contacts a liquid that is a least 10 ' percent vinyl chloride by weight or a gas The docket is complete file of an all organized and the information' ..f'y1' 1' A v,: innovation or competition in foreign ' markets. The EPA has submitted this 'y'', . that is at least 10 percent by volume 1 vinyl chloride as determined according ' i considered by EPA in the development' oif itnhis ruilemaxking. Tmhe adocxket is a ` rulemaking to OMB under Executive r)rrtor - %i-.' to the provisions of 61.67(h). The provisions of 5 61.67(h) also specify how [ dynamic fihle, since material is added . TheRegul^fle^ity/Kl^; to determine'that a piece of equipment is [5 tthhrroouugghhoouutt tthhee rruulleemmaakk.inngg ddeevveellooppmmeenntt.' - requires the identification of potentially ^ not in vinyl chloride service. For the " `' l; docke,'n8 13 'n,!ended ! Jy^adverse impacts of Federal regulations '/ `purposes of this subpart, this definition '. 'nemben. of the pubhcand upon small business entities. The Act miist be used in place of the definition of , ' "in VHAP service" in Subpart V of this ' 1 Ifh. effectively participate in the rulemaking^^ DaVt. smafitlSssIpaTs :- -s-j` process. Along with the statement of - - are possibIe. Because this* revised ^bas.s and purpose of the proposed and^ irnpo3es no adverse economic .i- r.H-t .Tv--, 'e---.-*; -; ~ (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" i.|.. " includes any part of the process of -V,-.-v`.r t . ethyiene.dichloride production which follows ethylene dichloride formation, excluding product storage following the .... .final finishing colonm. ^V'J{|Hnv,:c.Dvi?^ \-- "(p) ``Vinyl chloride purification" incudes any part of the process of vinyl ,S ; chloride production which follows vinyl T R&S 000042 . (v) "Relief valve", means each ` pressure relief device including pressure ' relief yalvesi nipture disks and other ` pressure relief systems used to protect ` process components from overpressure conditions. "Relief Valve" does not December 24.1975 (40 FR 59477); In -M v, 7PART 61--NATIONAL EMISSION in- include polymerization shortstop ' -l.'/..'.; S-:.??; accordance with section 117 of the Act, ail .STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR ,:r -. systems, referigerated water systems or publication of these promulgated yysA POLLUTANTS "iyOS':i'i*J-.V'-i:?t-. V: '.qp'j-U'fi'J . control control valves or other devices used to , flow* to an incinerator or other J. air pollution control device, [.'j'-i J y (w) "I^ak" means any of several . events that indicate interruption of i- 1 Information collection requirements wl associated with this revised regulation :..y> contunu^st^read asfollows:_f; ; confinement of vinyr chloride within process equipment Leaks include events (those included in 40 CFR Part 61, ; Authority; Secs. 101,112,114,116,301. ^ : regulated under Subpart V of this part . .. ; Subpart A and Subpart F) have been ; Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, - such as: (1) An instrument reading of ... ^ approved by the Office of Management _-j 7412, 7414. 7416, 7001). ,7. 10.000 ppm or greater measure according y .and Budget (OMB) under the provisions ; 2. Section 61.61 is amended by to Method 21 (see Appendix A of 40 CFR of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, ..' revising paragraphs (j), (1), (o) and (p) Part 60); (2) indications of liquid , .... 44 U.S.C. 3501 eiseq,, and have been .. ...a__n_d__by _a_d_d_i_ng pt_a_r_agraphs (v), (w), (x), > dripping; (3) a sensor detection of failure rv, assigned OMB control number 0186. The T (y), and (z) toreadas'follows: Wus.: -j ; ; of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid . revised standard is estimated to result j,n system, or both; and (4) detectable ....... in a paperwork burden of about 38 55 P?f,,nl0.!1*' ,;.; 'r emissions as indicated by an instrument . person-years which is roughly the same , reading of greater than 500 ppm above -,, as the original standard. < (j) "Inprocess wastewater" means any . background for equipment designated - yv t Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is water which, during manufacturing or for no detectable emissions measured required to judge whether a regulation is r processing, comes into direct contact ! according to Test Method 21 (see .a "major rule" and therefore subject to . . j. with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60). Leaks certain requirements of the Order.The ' or results from the production or use of also include events regulated under EPA has determined that the revised y/ -any raw material, intermediate product, ! $ 61.85(b)(8)(i) for detection of ambient regulation would result in none of the finished product, by-product, or waste concentrations in excess of background Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34909 concentration. A relief valve discharge from any equipment used in vinyl prevent the discharge, and measures & is not a leak. . - chloride formation and/or purification is adopted to prevent future discharges. (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hmir (b) Stripper. The concentration of (the constituents of which may consist period), except as provided in 61.65(a). . vinly chloride in each exhaust gas of any fluids, either as a liquid and/or ... This requirement does not preclude stream from each stripper is not to t. gas) discharged directly or ultimately to combining of exhaust gas streams ' r - exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour the atmosphere that was initially .. ,v/. provided the combined steam is ducted . period), except as provided in 5 61.65(a). '. contained in or was in direct contact .- through a control system from which the This requirement does not apply to with the equipment for which exhaust ; concentration of vinyl chloride in the. . J equipment that has been opened, is out ' W- " gas limits are prescribed in 5 61.62 (a) .. exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm, 1 of operation, and met the -. ' ' and (b): 61.63(a); 61.64 (a)(1), (a)(2), . or equivalent as provided in 61.66. requiremention 61.65(b)(6)(i) before .' `7 (b).'(c). and (d); 61.65(b) (l)(ii), (b)(2), : This requirement does not apply to, `, . being opened. - jb)(5). (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9)(ii). - . .-r- . equipment that has been opened, is out (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding *'" * (y) "Relief valve discharge", means of operation, and met the requirement in containers. The concentration of vinyl . ., " any nonleak discharge through a relief i. 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. ' chloride in each exhaust gas stream valve. "Relief valve discharge" does not . 5. Section 61.64 is amended by /_.. from each mixing, weighing, or holding . include discharges ducted to a control -.if' revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) - container in vinyl chloride service which ' j'.'* system from which the concentration of j" to read as follows; precedes the stripper (or the reactor if /.'` vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does 7,, ' '`?`-7'.,7 rj.-vi'TiT'a-vi the plant has no stripper) in the plant . . ' J-' ' not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour .' 5 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm /7 period), or equivalent as provided in c i f ` chloride plants. . (7--^,7y\.-77,ir7?~7-. (average for 3-hour period), except as , V j"V-,5 61.66. - frai/viv/ v i -v.'v`7177 (z) "3-hour period" means any three 7 V' (a) Reactor. The following provided in 5.61.65(a). This requirement -` does not apply to equipment that has a,v- y % r 'consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour Sp~ requirements apply to reactors: 7*7;-7.t rijl been opened, is out of operation, and commencing on the hour). .= -vs 7 (1) The concentration of vinyl chloride v met the requirement in 61.65(b)(6)(i) ... ' 3. Section 61.62 is amended by in each exhaust gas stream from each -rev before being opened, rL X-' .reactor.is not to exceed 10 ppm (average u"-.- (d) Monomer recovery system. The i-'-'-- ' for 3-hour period), except as provided in / concentration of vinyl chloride in each, ` paragraph (a)(2) of this section and S-SiTS. exhaust gas stream from each monomer / `5 61.65(a).^)g^f^^`^'^.Ui^.^^'7X->l't'recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppmy-. (2) The reactor opening loss from each \ (average for 3-hour period), except as `^.v. reactor'is hot to exceed 0.02 g vinyl *e- ofrt,provided in 5 61.65(a). This requirement chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) r'.does'not apply to'equipment that has' ~^Trr of polyvinyl Chloride product, except as <been opened. Is out of operation/arid I .(average for 3-hour period), except as ' "provided in 5 61.65(a). This requirement .7- requirement does not apply to 0, By revising paragraph (e) 0; Uyjryyi ^'-,..?; f:7.^does not preclude combining of exhaust /q "'ppnrepolymerization reactors in the bulk /^"introductory text, and adding iv.l-^'gas streams provided the combined licnH. prfiocess. This requirement does apply to . vWl6* 'ostfeooamm iisa ducted fthhpromutgohti aa rcnonnftfrrotll -;/j\ r postpolymerization reactors in the .'frr'.system f.r..o..m....w...h..i.c..h...t.he concentration of process, where the product means gross product of prepolymerization and . 61.64 Emission standard tor polyvinyl postpolymerization. op-^:? chloride plants.^~l . ;, (3) Manual vent valve discharge.-- ,.., i does not apply to equipment that has . . Except for an emergency manual vent ".-si (e) Sources following the stripperfsj. : 7 33 .. V- C;;' been opened, is but of operation, and : valve discharge, there is to be no .The following requirements apply to ' /i ; - /i:' inet the requirement in 5 6i.65(b)(6)(i) \::K- discharge to the atmosphere from any '-j; emissions of vinyl chloride to the (f) `.before being opened. Jb.f. manual vent valve an a polyvinyl atmosphere from the combination of all O (b) Oxychlorination reactor. Except as ~ chloride reactor in vinyl chloride '. sources following the stripperfs) [or the O -provided in 5 61.65(a), emissions of vinyl ., service. An emergency manual vent 'i/n.T reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)] , O O chloride to the atmosphere from each .;, '. oxychlorination reactor are not to . valve discharge means a discharge to . in the plant process flow including but -1' the atmosphere which could not have not limited to, centrifuges, W ; exceed 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 lb/lb) (average I been avoided by taking measures.to concentrators, blend tanks, filters, , /,.. for 3-hour period) of the 100 percent ... prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of , dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, ethylene dichloride product from the any discharge to the atmosphere from storage containers, and inprocess .. oxychlorination process. ... any manual vent valve, the owner or wastewater, except as provided in ' ' v' c 4. Section 61,63 is revised to read as operator of the source from which the paragraph (f) of this section: i:5.3*1 '** : follows: .1 i~\r v r -- *-+> ' discharge occurs shall submit to the Administrator a report in writing (i) * . (2) * * * *<** -i '` '` 561.63 Emission standard for vinyl containing information on the source, ; (3) The provisions of this paragraph - ' chloride plants. nature and cause of the discharge, the apply at all times including when off- j An owner or operator of a vinyl . . date and time of the discharge, the specification or other types of resins are chloride plant shall comply with the . 1 approximate total vinyl chloride loss made. 7 ; 7. requirements of this section and 61.65. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream < during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss (the calculation of the vinyl chloride loss), the action that was taken to : (f) Reactor used as stripper. When ^^-7 nonbulk resin reactor is used a3 a' stripper this paragraph may be applie^^^ in lieu of 5 61.64 (a)(2) and (e)(1): - ' /. 34910 Federal Register / Vol, 51, No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 1986. / Rules and Regulations (1) The weighted average emissions of period), or equivalent as provided in - maintaining the pressure between the vinyl chloride From reactor opening loss t 5 61.66. r - ; " two seals so that any leak that occurs is ' and all sources following the reactor'.); . * ^4^ ^ I * * *- . * - . , J t '--r f into the compressor by ducting any used as a stripper froni all grades of 8. By revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4). vinyl chloride.between the two seals polyvinyl chloride resin stripped in the (b)(5), (b)(6). (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9)(ii), and through a control system from which the reactor on each calendar day may not (c) to $ 61-65 as follows: .. 'concentration of vinyl chloride in the exceed:'//>, exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; (1) 2.02 g/fcg (0.00202 Ib/lbJ $ 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene or equivalent as provided in $61.66. polyvinyl chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding - . dlchloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. Compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates ' . ' latex.resins, with the product ( _ An owner or operator of an ethylene . compliance with the provisions of this determined on a dry solids basis. " tJ.V- 3 (ii) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 Ib/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product for all other' /. dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or. polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply . with the requirements of this section. paragraph.' _ ". ' (iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all : " ( polyvinyl chloride.resins, including latex 7 reciprocating compressors in vinyl 1" . resins, with the product determined on a ;i. chloride service are to be minimized by ' ' dry solids basis. installing double outboard seals, or ' 7. Section 61.65 is amended by .../i'/./iJ (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, equivalent as provided in S 61.66. If revising paragraphs (a),.(b)(l)(ii) and . and agitator seals: , . - / ..... double outboard seals are used, vinyl . (b)(2) to read as follows; (i) Rotatingpumps. Vinyl chloride ; / chloride emissions from the seals are to - $61-65 Emission standard for ethylene . dlchloride, vtnyt chloride, and pofyvtnyj ' '/. f emissions from pumps in vinyl seals on chloride all rotating service are "7 to be ' . ' . chloride plants. '? .minimized by installing sealless pumps, :(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for pumps with double mechanical seals or.'/ equivalent as provided in $ 61.66. If ul be minimized by maintaining the ;; pressure between the two seals so that ' any leak that occurs is into the ` compressor, by ducting any vinyl ~--y chloride between the two seals through ' ' ` an emergency relief discharge,"there fs`7r-f' double mechanical seals are used, vinyl a control system from which ' * to be no discharge to Uie atmosphere'^^- from any relief valve on any equipment".(,7- in vinyl chloride service."An emergency relief discharge means a discharge 'which could not have been avoided by/*! ' taking measures to prevent the ; discharge. Within 10 days of any relief /?' - valve discharge, the owner or operator1^ of the source from which the relief valve I discharge occurs shall submit to the" Administrator a report in writing" / '\"ui containing information on the source,';'/ nature and cause of the discharge; the date and time cri the discharge, the'TT1"/1- - approximate total vinyl chloride loss' during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss'Tj ^ .'(the calculation of the vinyl chloride ' loss), the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures''/(' adopted to prevent future dlscharges*/f-r - fh\ * * * 4 .1 1 ,'^cror;ibpi;v.ittzr."iaeiar:, chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the "jr.-i pressure between the two seals so that j any leak that occurs is into the pump; by- ducting any vinyl chloride between the , two seals through a control system from y which the concentration of vinyl y'.bp'. iac chloride in the exhaust gases does not ; t-- exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in $ 61.66. Compliance with the ' provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V .- - demonstrates compliance with the ' provisions of this paragraph. , (ii) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyr >- chloride emissions from seals on all c reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in $61.66. If double outboard ; seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions - from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the . fi concentration of vinyl chloride in the / exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; ' or equivalent as'provided in $ 61.66. Compliance with the provisions'of 40 ' 'v CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates' ,;1;- compliance'with the provisions of this V/. 7 paragraph* 7 (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions -' from seals on all agitators in vinyl :: ' - chloride service are to be minimized by "!'J; installing agitators with double ' l.-.V. ';". ' mechanical seals, or equivalent as ' provided in $ 61.66. If double ; mechanical seals are used, vinyl 7 chloride emissions from the seals are to ^ be minimized by maintaining the 'j; /' pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the agitated vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride 7 '"! ' between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does j A ; T;i two seals so that any leak that occurs is ~ 'not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as hz/rW/ s/i-:i ;i: r.`c I;/ vifiw. into the pump; by ducting any vinyl i : provided in $ 61.66. (ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from a .; chloride between the two seals through (4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl -''/n -loading or unloading line in accordance a control system from which the ..a&.r-.dk.; chloride emissions due to leaks from '0 ' with paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section is. concentration of vinyl chloride in the . ^ ' each relief valve on equipment in vinyl to be ducted through a control system . exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; chloride service shall comply with from which the concentration of vinyl. or equivalent as providedjn $61.66, $ 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part. - chloride in the exhaust gases doesriot Compliance with the provisions of 40 v'.- (5) Manual venting ofgases. Except as ` exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour *. CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates . " - provided in 61.64(a)(3); all gases which ` period), or equivalent as provided in compliance with the provisions of this = are manually vented from equipment in 61.66. . . :...... paragraph- i i;m6hn Vifiiin vinly chloride service are to be ducted (2) Slip gauges. During loading or r; t. (iii) Rotating compressor. Vinyl : through a control system from which the unloading operations, the vinyl chloride chloride emissions from seals on all -v concentration of vinyl chloride in the ' 7 emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl .cs' rotating compressors in vinyl chloride exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm ' chloride service are to be minimized by-qs service are to be minimized by installing - (average for 3-hour period); or ' ducting any vinyl chloride discharged compressors with double mechanical . equivalents provided in 61.86. - / ' - from the slip gauge through a control. - seals, or equivalent as provided in- ; j (6) Opening ofequipment. Vinyl ` : ' system from which the concentration of ->/ $61.66. If double mechanical seals are ' chloride emissions from opening of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does *3 used, vinyl chloride emissions from the equipment (including prepolymerization not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour ; / seals are to be minimized by ; . reactors used in the manufacture of bulk R&S 000044 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / .Rules and Regulations "34911 resins and loading or unloading lines Approval of a program will be granted and for establishment and verification of that are not opened to the atmosphere . . by the Administrator provided he finds: calibration standards are to be followed. after each loading or unloading nfi '- (A) The location and number of points (ii) For each process unit subject to operation) are to be minimized as :: to be monitored and the frequency of this subpart, a formal leak detection and follows: . ' : monitoring provided for in the program repair program shall be implemented . . . (i) Before opening any equipment for are acceptable when they are compared consistent with Subpart V of this part. . v any reason, the quantity of vinyl with the number of pieces of equipment , except as provided in paragraph - chloride which is contained therein is to in vinyi chloride service and size and . (b)(8)(iii) of this section. This program is be reduced to an amount which occupies physical layout of the plant , */ f sr`._ . to be implemented.within 90 days of the . a volume of no more than ZD percent of (B) It contains a definition of leak . 'jfl/ effective date of these regulations, the equipment's containment volume or which is acceptable when compared''/if unless a waiver of compliance is granted 0.0950 cubic meters (25 gallons), 'id: with the background concentrations of under 561.11. Except as provided in . . whichever is larger, at standard ' vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to ' .paragraph (b)(8)[ii](E) of this section, an temperature and pressure. - be monitored by the vinyl chloride - owner or operator shall be exempt from (ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from monitoring system. Measurements of- ' 5 61342-l(d). 5 61342-7 (a), (b). and (c), the equipment in accordance with background concentrations of vinyl ` 5 61.246, and 5 61.247 of Subpart V of paragraph (b)[6](i) of this section is to be chloride in the areas of the plant to be this part for any process unit in which ducted through a control system from monitored by the vinyl chloride ~ 1 ` the percentage of leaking valves is which the concentration of vinyl monitoring system are to be included . demonstrated to be less than 2.0 chloride in the exhaust gases does not ' with the description of the program. The percent, as determined in accordance exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour '-5>^v definition of leak for a given plant may - with the following: . *:v period): or equivalent as provided in1'. vary'among the different areas within (A) A performance test as specified in * 5 61.66. t- '.y the plant and is also to change over time' ' paragraph (b)(8)(ii](B) of this section -(7) Samples'. Unused portions of ,tS)" ` as background concentrations in the' im shall be conducted initially within 90 'j"samples containing at least 10 percent * plant are reduced. . days of the effective date of these v.f,.'. ' J__by weight vinyl chloride are to be '/ " (C) It contains an acceptable plan of ' , regulations, annually, and at time3 returned to the process or destroyed in a " action lo be taken when a leak is ' - requested by the Administrator, j. control device from which concentration detected. (BJ For each performance test a of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does . `..(D) It provides for an acceptable `-y . minimum of 200 or 90 percent, ,, f,` not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour ' calibration and maintenance schedule whichever Is less, of the total valves in t V period) or equivalent as provided in ` : for the vinyl chloride monitoring system VOC service (as defined in 5 60.481 of :l:i 5 61.66. Sampling techniques are to be jl and portable hydrocarbon detector. For Subpart VV of Part 60) within the ..... !V` "' .such that sample containers in vinyl . j; the vinyl chloride monitoring system,'a . process unit shall be randomly selected chloride service are purged into a closed daily span check is to be conducted with and monitored within 1 week by the process system. Compliance with the' a concentration of vinyl chloride equal methods specified in 5 61245(b) of this provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V_ to the concentration defined as a leak ,'f part If an instrument reading of 10,000 demonstrates compliance with the according to paragraph (b)(8J(i)(B) of f.f ppm or greater is measured, a leak is V -y. "provisions of this paragraph, vf-l''5 " " this section. The calibration is to be M,;' detected. The leak percentage shall be (8) Leak detection and elimination. done with either - ' determined by dividing the number of i y}'\ "Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks ' - (1) A calibration gas mixture prepared valves in VOC service for which leaks ` % .'. from equipment in vinyl chloride service from the gase3 specified in sections / "'./ are detected by the number of tested i V /are to be minimized as follows:ft 5-2.1. and 5-2.2. of Test Method 106 and ( . valves in VOC service. :/ (i) A reliable and accurate vinyl ' in accordance"with section 7.1 of Test (C) If a leak is detected. It shall be .: f-V' /chloride monitoring system shall be *" . Method 100, or 1' I1;ff'f',fr[f. f -. repaired in accordance with 5 61242-7 - /operated for detection of major leaks ' r [2) A calibration gas cylinder' (d) and (e) of Subpart V of this part r ': r and identification of the general area of . standard containing the appropriate V?.T 1 . (D)The results of the performance test the plant where a leak is located. A ', : . concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas shall be submitted in writing to the ` vinyl chloride monitoring system means . composition of the calibration gas Administrator in the first quarterly a device which obtains air samples from cylinder standard is to have been f/-:-, j report following the performance test as one or more points on a continuous' ' certified by the manufacturer. The part of the reporting requirements of . sequential basis and analyzes the manufacturer must have recommended a 01,70, i-: .: samples with gas chromatography or. if maximum shelf life for each cylinder so v; (E) Any process unit in Which the ; : the owner or operator assumes that all that the concentration does not change percentage of leaking valves is found to hydrocarbons measured are vinyl .... greater than 5 percent from the . , be greater than 2.0 percent according to chloride, with infrared .... ft"" ' T'l; certified value. The date of gas cylinder the performance test prescribed in spectrophotometry, flame Ion detection, preparation, certified vinyl chloride paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section or an equivalent or alternative method. concentration, and recommended -< must comply with all provisions of .. The vinyl chloride monitoring system ' maximum self life must have been Subpart V of this part within 90 days, , Bhall be operated according to a ^ . ,r- " affixed to the cylinder before shipment ' (fii) Open-ended valves or lines program developed by the plant owner from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a located on multiple service process lines or operator. The owner or operator shall . gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl - ` which operate in vinyl chloride service submit a description of the program to chloride monitoring system, these gas less than 10 percent of the time are the Administrator within 45 days of the mixtures may be directly used to ; ' 'exempt from the requirements of effective date of these regulations,' prepare a chromatograph calibration -. 5 61242-6 of Subpart V, provided the unless a waiver of compliance Is granted -curve as described in section 73 of Test open-ended valves or lines are 1 f under 61.11, or the program has been Method 106. The requirements in section addressed in the monitoring system approved and the Administrator does . 5.2.3.1. and 5-2.3.2. of Test Method 106 required by paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this O not request a review of the program. . for certification of cylinder standards . ' section. The Administrator may apply O o o R&S R&S 0 0 0 0 4 6 .'34912 -* Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 '/ Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations this'exemption to other existing open- downstream and one half diameter postpolymerization reactors in the .. " ended valves or lines that are 7'"-:--- upstream from any flow disturbance manufacture of bulk resins. demonstrated to require significant - such as a bend, expansion, contraction, (6] For a reactor that is used as a retrofit cost to comply with the or visible flame. For a rectangular cross stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloric requirements of S 61.242-^3 of Subpart V. section an equivalent diameter is to be from reactor opening loss and all i 1, * * *' ` * 7'1,-j" determined from the following equation: sources following the reactor used as i stripper for which an emission limit is prescribed in 5 61.64(f) are to be ; determined. The number of reactors for which the determination is to be made is to be specified by the Administrator for chloride in the exhaust gases does hot Pi exceed 10 ppm (average for Srhour"^"' ' ' ''iwr^i >. - sampling point. The v^kt . a-..'; sample is to contain . each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's ; -- operation. . (i] For each batch stripped in the * r< 'w vj* JIJ k: ,r. ,1 , ,. , r , practicable.' [c] The requirements in paragraphs yf* * / ;-*c?'V ' reactor, the following measurements are V ., /' " -- to be made: . f ; : '. ........ V**`"`* ->" (A) The concentration (ppm) of vinyl & y<- ffi oK f Meihod 601 ~ . chloride in resin after stripping, . measured according to paragraph (g)(3) incoiporated into a standard of this section; " L ; . .., . ^uest^r^^^U^n^^the3 ie^'^'i^i^J'0-ce--t^?^I? r^V^?y^.cHor*^^ ^ e?^\, : , _ (B) The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at ; . ; end of strip from plant instrument: and . Administrator. The standard dVeriting'^ inprocess wastewater stream for which v . (C) The reactor temperature (*C) at - . ^procedure is to include provisions Pr5^^:c end of strip from plant instrument. ' measuring the vinyl chloride in '. *-'- '7 (ii) For each batch stripped in the ; rX^fequipment 4.75 m (1.250 gal] m-volurhe^ffSf.11^ S*fS8v< l ^ reactor, the following information is to' . 7 for which an emission limit is prescribed , , fe&. 61.65(b)(6](i) afteropening the (e) . fmlssinns are'io he (0`em,3S,on3 are to be - "* " be determined: /t.-t'--. :v * ; (A) The vapor pressure (min Hg] of !- ' water in the reactor at end of strip from . ^ the following table: -'7.7^i- if%g3mKef aalsteurn^amtiveenmteitshtohd.mTeheet tmheethod of 1^3 5 PE7J `i1.-jL - i^Wrequiremehts !h"5 ei.67fR)f5]fnfArdrX^..a^_tbL,Wle3. aPd 5TMd" of rfsL,ni0 be - , R^*Cr vKtpOor ,-v;.\r VM4001 RcJor pr- t*mpr- pr** AT* urn turm - TO (Hm<mj) 79... (mm ` Ho) . C Qt ` 1~ KO su Ho) ;; -s.-.^^eqiUTOleii* faienns of reducing vinyl ';.&&& chloride emissions to the atmosphere to x'.i-l4' --c those prescribed for compliance with ai 7y*,7<. ^ rea,c,or opening loss for which specific paragraph of this aubpart.;^,*^ J<' MTM* [3 PJre13Ctibed ^ 10. By revising paragraphs (f). (g](l)(i). ...r ' 1 (g)(2). (g)(3) introductory text. (g)(3](i), ^ (g)(3)(iii). (g)(5) introductory text, and by .d . - ., . . ., (g)(5)(ii) adding paragraphs (g)(6) and (h) .. .fpectfied by the Administrator for each a --- ab.v . '"*--** . rf tvrt #4a M I n I A H A 4 41k. . aaf ih. ^ 40 ,7 41 :.*z *434 *ir ` 4* 7 7V`47 ,48 ` ' 49 - *" SO .- 51 : .J' r .53 ,.f S4 7-C-5S 7lT..07 5576 *, so 69 k.-;. 610 55J 6873 .61.5 64.6 '66J3 171.9 t' 75.6 r.79.6 * *) 63.7 66.0 / 92.5 . ,97.2 102.1 107^ 112-5 *;.116J3 .123.6 129.6 . 136.1 14Z6 ' 149.4 ^ 156.4 '' 62 * 63 64 66 - 66 ' ,7 :*.v 66 -r 69 '/^70 71 V " 72 - 73 . -74 'j;-.77e* 77 ..76 *- : 79 -7 (f to -;.k 5612 if v1, *7 J * i. , ' ' *r 163.6 64 415Q 171.4 65 433 6 179^ 66 450 9 187.5 67 468.7 196.1 * 66 , 487.1 205.0 ss - 506.1 214,2 223.7 .. S1o 525.6 546.0 `233.7. ; 92 567.0 243.9 93 588.6 `254.6 y, 94 610.9 265.7 95 -633-9 277.2 C' -*96 657.6 269.1 . ; * 97 662.1 301.4 Ji -- M ' 707.3 .314.1 . .r 99 -733.2 .327.3 `341.0 .:. r 1*00 760,0 '"7 . `355.1 ' 369.7 '; . . -L jr::j " $64,9 f'` 400.6 ' (B) The partial pressure (mm Hg) of' : . vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip 7 (f) The owner or operator shall retain ` 7 (ii) A calculation based on the number from the'following equation: -77`r Vj'fjv'/j^at the plant and make available, upon 7; of evacuations, the vacuum involved. ` PPVC= 760-RV-VPW 7;'q,_>;,:_/equest, for inspection by the :*V1 ;7;-", end the volume of gas in the reactor is .where: ; : :7 ' ^'^vV^ A'Jh--nhiistrator, fro--r a minimum of 3 years, ' Jhereby approved by the Administrator B777;i"recor^3 emission test results and ; ' jas an alternative method for : =- i. t. , ^ 7 ` - other data needed to determine '"7'' ^<determining reactor opening loss for 7 emissions. tt.. &.. poatpolymerization reactors in the PPVC=partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in :v-7mm Hg c-aT. : v-^ 70O~atmospheric pressure at 0 *C, in mm Hg RV~absolute value of reactor vacuum, in i 7.vsh^V-t (g) *...*i*. S~rn manufacture at bulk resins. Calculation mmHg ... .'.77:- :: vVfcr.^ t1) *.<*.>*;based on techniques other than VPW=vapor pressure of water, In mm Hg 7.-771 (0 For each riin, one sample Is to be ' vr repeated evacuation of the reactor may .` (C) The reactor vapor space volume . .7. collected. The sampling site is to be at ,'. 7' he approved by the Administrator for . (m5) at end of strip from the following . least two stack or duct diameters 1 ' ' determining reactor opening loss for equation: . ! '7- Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. .189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34913 PVCW RVSV=RC-WV-- 1,400 = typical density of polyvinyl chloride. (f) For each vinyl chloride emission to . in kg/m1 ..-1 . 7 . the atmosphere determined in /' 1.400 = where: .;'- r g! RVSV=reactor vapor apace volume, in m5 'RC=reactorcapacity,inmJ, tA WV=volume of water in reactor from redpe. (Hi) For each batch stripped in the . reactor, the combined reactor opening / loss and emissions from all sources . following the reactor used as a stripper is to be determined using the following equation:?;. 1" -l-:;,,;1 " accordance with paragraph (ej of this . section to be in excess of the applicable emission limits,.the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source(s), the date, time, and duration of the excess emission, the cause of the excess emission, and the approximate total L PVCW=dry weight of polyvinyl chloride In vinyl'chloride loss during the excess 1 reactor from recipe, in kg sA ' 0-:- ' - /' -J' . emission, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This. (PPVC)(RVSV)(1,002) v-j.-vr.'-^vzc s.,r',.^c=(PPMVC)[io->)+ - (PVCWK273+RT) information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the - _ : Administrator as required by 5 61.71(a). , t^/ny-.'ui-nn_u.` ^ ; '* - .. --1 V.';. ... .. . __ 12. In 61.70 by revising the section title from "Semiannual report" to " "Reporting", and by revising paragraphs where: ^......' chloride content clearly does not exceed (a) , (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, , C=g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride" _ 10 percent. When an owner or operator (c)(2){iii), (c)(2)(iv). (c)(2)(v), (c)(2)(vi) : product 1 "J-, - - ' and the Administrator do not agree on introductory text, and (e)(3) and also by PPMVC=concentration of vinyl chloride in - whether a piece of equipment is not in adding (c)(4) to read as follows: ' - re3`n a^ter s,nrPP*n8' in PPm .vinyl ch]oride service, however, the 10 J=converion factor for ppm . _ . _ __ i r,L- 61.70 Reporting. ; PPVC= partial pressure of vinyl chloride ft determined according to paragraph section shall be used to resolve the . {g)(6)(ii)(B) of this section, in mm Hg ^ . disagreement ^ ^..... /.. ,,.: ,, .v", (a)(1) The owneror operator of any , - ' source to which this subpart applies 1, RVSV = reactor vapor space volume t , ; . (ii] If an owner or operator determines shall submit to the Administrator on determined according to paragraph that a piece of equipment is in vinyl r . March 15. June 15. September 15, and . tg](6)ni](Q of this section, in m1 ...\ ,''\j \ chloride service, the determination can * . December 15 of each year a report in 1.002=ideal gas constant in g--'K/mm ' J 'c " be revised only after following the ; writing containing the information :\, f mJfor vinyl chloride *;"1 . PVCW = dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in . procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this " ` ' . reactor frrom recipe, imn kKgg 7tf'ZxSa&W*** : section, V^.-.. V.V J. -r , 273=conversion factor for "C to *K l3) Samples used in determining the required by this section. The first report is to be submitted following the first full 3-month reporting period after .the initial RT=reactor temperature, in 'C ?> V.' ^percent vinyl chloride content shall be "V . report is submitted. .> 7 /-'(hHl) Each piece of equipment within'/'' representative of the process fluid that " (2) In the case of an existing source, a process unit that can reasonably contain equipment in vinyl chloride service is presumed to be in vinyl chloride service unless an owner or ^ m" 1' *. ...^ is contamed in or contacts the - eclulPrlient- adding paragraphs {d}, (e) and P)t0. 5 61-68 as follows: .- , the approved reporting schedule shall bei . . used. In addition, quarterly reports shall be submitted exactly 3 months following the current reporting dates, :-';rX>':7 T-IV,::* ;'c*.7y. 'y ,: 'operator demonstrates that the piece of^8 "embsion monitoring. ; equipment is not in vinyl chloride ' V (c) at'.'w service. For a piece of equipment to be v"!- . r" ?i:'T"- '1' .;.j"(l) The owner or operator shall > considered not in vinyl chloride service, 7* When exhaust gas(es), having .include in the report a record.of the it must be determined that the percent ? " .era^sia limits that are subject to the_ vinyl chloride content of emissions for" .T v- vinyl chloride content can be reasonably requirement of paragraph (a} of this " each 3-hour period during which average expected not to exceed 10 percent by rv section, are emitted to the atmosphere emissions -are in excess of the emission V. " weight for liquid streams or contained > without passing through the control limits in 61.62 (a) or (b), 61.63(a), or , Jiquid volumes and 10 percent by ^ r-j. . .. rsystem and required vinyl chloride r- v. volume for gas streams or contained gas v monitoring system, the vinyl chloride r 61^4 (a)(1), (b), (c). or (d), or during . . ; which average emissions are in excess - V volumes, which also includes gas content of the emission shall be ^ _. ~ of the emission limits specified for any volumes above liquid streams or f * i C ?. . calculated {in units of each applicable ' control system to which reactor * " >.. contained liquid volumes. For purposes 7 emission limit) by best practical 7. of determining the percent vinyl chloride engineering judgment based on the content of the process fluid that is > 7'. "discharge duration and known VC .contained in or contacts equipment, < concentrations in the affected ri'-? procedures that conform to the methods equipment as determined in accordance described in ASTM Method D-2267 . -- with 5 61.67(h) or other acceptable (incorporated by reference as specified method. ",7 7; X ~ in 61.18) shall be used. . 7 . ;t ; - (e) For each 3-hour period, the vinyl ' (2)(i)'7kn owner or operator "may use ' chloride content of emissions subject to emissions are required to be ducted in ... . 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive - .i.,7 emissions are required to be ducted in 5 61.65(b)(i)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6)(H), or (b) (9)(ii). The number of 3-hour periods for which average emissions were . determined during the reporting period shall be reported. If emissions in excess" of the emission limits are not detected, . . ' engineering judgment rather than the ' - the requirements of paragraphs (a) and the report shall contain a statement that procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this (d) of this section shall be averaged no excess emissions have been detected. section to demonstrate that the percent (weighted according to the proportion of The emissions are to be determined in vinyl chloride content does not exceed time that emissions were continuously accordance with 61.68(e), , , j 10 percent by weight for liquid streams ' . monitored and that emissions bypassed . (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for and 10 percent by volume for gas l!*1: the continuous monitor) for purposes of which a stripping operation is used to streams, provided that the engineering ' reporting excess emissions under -.r; ' attain the emission level prescribed in judgment demonstrates that the vinyl 61.70(c)(1). :: 7 :-ri. 61.64(e), the owner or operator shall ^ 34914' Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations include in the report a record of the : vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. ; ' . b) * . :' ` (ii).. * fiii] The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test . . Method 107 as prescribed in . ., 5 61.67(g)(3). ur (iv) [Reserved] -.'Utcf* /.' y.'t,, (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-hour average resin 1 processed in each stripper batch is to be vinyl chloride concentration, as recorded and identified by resin type determined in this paragraph, in excess ; and grade and the date and time the of the limits prescribed in 61.64(e). The batch is completed. vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)[2)(ii) of this section shall be , averaged separately for each type of ^ resin, over each calendar day and V- weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the stripperfs) that calendar day, according to the following equation: -; - (ii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test . Method 107 as prescribed in _.... 5 61.67(g)(3). .T Xiii) The combined emissions from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper are to be determined for each batch :; stripped in a reactor according to the ' procedure prescribed in 5 61.67(g)(6). 1 I Pci MTM . , i=l j -. , At1 - Or Pgi Mgj+Pc* Mcj+ . . . Pc Mg* Qt (iv) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as where: . ,v / i .-'i .> '. A=24-hour average concentration of type T > v resin in ppm (dry weight basis) '. *: ,Q=Total production of type T resin over the . - 24-hour period, in kg. L.', T=Type of resin. -/T.-V I';;'' , M = Concentration of vinyl chloride in one / sample of grade Gi resin in ppm. ` --: / P=Production of grade Gi resin represented V". " by the sample, in kg. Gi=Grade of resin: e.g., Gl, G2, G3.r- *. n=Total number of grades of resin produced /J3-. during the 24-hour period, -/ 61.64(f), the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride emissions from reactor i opening loss andall sources following / the reactor used as a stripper. (i) One representative sample of r'ri ' polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken""1.' a stripper as determined in this , _ paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in 5 61.64(f). The combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper associated with each batch are to be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day from each batch of each grade of resin and weighted according to the quantity immediately following the completion of of each grade of resin stripped in ,. the stripping operation, and identified^ ' ' reactors that calendar day as follows: by resin type and grade and the date : For each type of resin (suspension, ' '--The' number of 24-hour average and time the batch is completed. The concentrations for each resin type ob'y corresponding quantity of material dispersion, latex, bulk, other), the ; ,T ' following calculation is to be perform-Ji determined during the reporting period . ` . shall be reported. If no 24-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentrations in excess of the limits prescribed in : . - .. 71 . n -..V/c;1.......... . 2 PcCa * r'* "-'' *-*'5"*' ' - tlfl* Is rf 1 ' i=l PciGcj +P(3Cc2-t- . . . 4-PcCq* -.1 61.64(e) are measured, the report shall state that no excess resin vinyl chloride ------ :; .QT . ..Qt ........ ' O concentrations were measured. ' - - , 33 <J) . o ~' (vi) The owner or operator shall retain where: /> ' ^- ;*;, ;'./ .* ; ; ; vv O \ 1 -r . sources following the reactor used a O at the source and make available for > A = 24-hour average combined reactor stripper in excess of the limits qj inspection by the Administrator for a /'opening loss and emissions from all prescribed in 61.64(f) are determir minimum of 3 years records of all data ' needed to furnish the information required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this ' section. The records are to contain the following information: (A) *- *- * ' sources following the reactor used as a - : stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product . . (dry weight basis). . t.. :i . Q=Total production of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the / 24-hour period, in kg. ` , / /'. T=Type of resin. '{ ;/ ' ' ! 1 the report shall state that no excess vinyl chloride emissions were determined. ' y.-, - -- -11. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text of 61.71 as follows: ' (B) * A.ii -v iT;'; 3i;;;; ;\ C=Average combined reactor opening loss 61.71 Recordkeeping. (3) The owner or operator shall is r-include in the report a record of any emissions from each reactor opening in excess of the emission limits prescribed in 161.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance with ; 5 61.67(g)(5), except that emissions for each reactor are to be determined. The number of reactor openings during the reporting period shall be reported. If emissions in excess of the emission ' ' limits are not detected, the report shall include a statement that excess ' emissions have not been detected. (4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper of all batches of grade G! resin for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight basis) (determined according to procedure prescribed in 5 61.07(g)(6)). P = Production of grade Gi resin in the batches for which C is determined, in kg. Gi = Grade of resin e.g., Gi, Gj, and Gj, . .. n=Total number of grades of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during f-. the 24-hour period. The number of 24-hour average - v , emissions determined during the reporting period shall be reported. If no (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall retain the following information at jhe source and make it available for , inspection to the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years: - 14. By revising paragraph (a)(4) and adding paragraph (b)(1) to 61.18 as follows: , 61.18 Incorporation by Reference. ** ** " (a) * * r':.:: which stripping in the reactor is used to 24-hour average combined reactor (4) ASTM D2267-68 (reapproved 1970) attain the emission level prescribed in opening loss and emissions from all . . Aromatics in Light Naphthas and v' - Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 34915 : Aviation Gasoline by Gas ... hazardous air pollutants" in 61.241 of 61.241 Definitions. & Chromatography, IBR approved June 6, Subpart V to read as follows: * .* * 1984, for 61.245(d)(1) and IBR approved 61.241 Definitions, f ' September 30.1986 for 61.67(h)(1). ' ! . -. . * : / -i t. ' j .. . r \ r,, . ,.^La.!lle hazard"s flr Pllutan` r . ' Connector means flanged, screwed, welded or other joined fittings used to connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and (b) The following material is available VHAP means a substance regulated from the U.S.EPA Environmental . under this part for which a standard for % Monitoring and Support Laboratory. equipment leaks of the substance has apiece of equipment. For the purpose of reporting and recordkeeping, connector mems fl d fittin ^ are not I. ^ th./. l pCrienvceinnntaloti.cOalhnioii 4o5l2i6h8e. Otlings- .' approved September 30,1986 for - ' ,j. 16. By revising the definition of , . ' ~ .* g?;.- 5 61.67(g)(2). - "connector" in 5 81.241 of Subpart V as ' (BR Poc- 86-22032 Filed 9-29-68; 8:45 am] ~ . 15. "By revising th' e definitioni "volatile '1 follows: : - ; `: ` : 'billing code ` .' ` been pro /.. ; ;y. y' V*.'' "?'r- : V . -:.V : ' ";riv >' . .; r 4,\ v ir.i. ,'. : w* i -