Document 4vQvo33kvdno3GzrDXmYVzox1

34904 Federal Register / Vol. 31, No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 61 [AD-FRL-3044-51 National Emission Standards tor Hazardous Air Pollutants: Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants AGENCV: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). action: Final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA proposed administrative and clarifying revisions to the national emission standard for vinyl chloride (VC) on January 9. 1985, (50 FR 1182). Certain revisions to the standard are being promulgated in Subpart F through this action and, to a minor extent, in Subpart V of 40 CFR Part 61. Finally, through this action the Agency is denying the petition of the Natural Resources Defense Council (N'RDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) which sought reconsideration of the EPA's withdrawal of the amendments to the VC standard which were proposed in 1977, effective DATE: September 30.1966. Under section 307(b)(!) of the Clean Air Act, judicial review of the actions taken by this notice is available only by filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the requirements that are the subject for today s notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Incorporation by Reference The incorporation by reference of certain publications in these standards is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of September 30.1986. addresses: Background Information Document. The background information document (BID) for the promulgated standards may be obtained from the U S. EPA Library (MD-33), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. telephone number (919) 541-2777, Please refer to "Vinyl Chloride Standard: Responses to Comments on January 1985 Proposed Revisions," EPA-450/3-86004. The BID contains: (1) A summary of all public comments on the proposed revisions and the Administrator's response to the comments, and (2] a summary of the changes made to the revised standard since proposal. Dockets. A docket, number A-81-21, containing information considered by EPA in developing of the promulgated revisions to the standard for VC. is available for public inspection between 8 00 a m. and 4.00 p.m,, Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section (LE-131). West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1, 401 M Street. SW.. Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning the enforcement aspects of the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. Richard Biondi, Compliance Monitoring Branch, Stationary Source Compliance Division. (EN-341), U S, Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington, DC 20469. telephone number (202) 3822826. For further information concerning the background technical information supporting the promulgated revisions, contact Mr, Robert E. Rosensteei, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13). U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone number (919) 541-5671. For other information on the regulation of VC and the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. Fred Dimmick. Standards Development Branch. Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Revisions to the Standard The VC standard was promulgated on October 21.1978 (41 FR 46560) and applies to plants producing ethylene dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination. plant producing VC, and plants producing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other polymers containing VC. These plants are subject to a combination of performance, equipment and work practice requirements at numerous points in the manufacturing processes. Based on its review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the original standard. EPA proposed several administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard on )anuury 9.1985 (50 FR 1182). The comments received and actions taken on these proposed revisions are discussed below. Requirements for Leak Detection and Repair Programs As proposed in January 1985. VC is being added to the list of substances covered by 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V, which contains regulations for leaks from certain equipment in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service. Previously, plant owners subject to the VC standard were required to prepare leak detection and repair plans for each VC and PVC manufacturing facility and to submit these plans to EPA for review An analysis of the plans submitted revealed that these plans varied widely from plant to plant. Further, some plans were considered to be inadequate and ineffective approaches to the control of VC leaks. The incorporation of Subpart V by the standard for VC emissions establishes standardized procedures for identifying leaks of VC and for taking steps to minimize emissions and repair leaks. Further, the incorporation of Subpart V will also accomplish a standardization of the definition of what constitutes a leak for routine leak detection. However, to avoid unnecessary changes to existing plans which are effective in detecting and repairtng VC leaks, the standard contains provisions whereby any facility may demonstrate through annual (or more frequent, if requested by the Administrator) performance tests that the percentage of leaking valves remains at 2 percent as an alternative to following the Subpart V procedures. An owner may continue to follow the existing leak detection and elimination program for that facility for the purpose of achieving the 2 percent performance limit. However, existing plans are no longer required, nor do they necessarily vet the promulgated requirements. Compliance Test Procedure and Specific Opening Loss Limit for PVC Reactors L'sed as Strippers The Federal Register notice that promulgated the current VC standard stated that VC escaping from PVC resin that has been stripped in the reactor is not intended to be included as part of the VC emissions measured under the reactor opening loss requirements. For nonbulk PVC reactors which are used as strippers, however, no method was specified to determine what part of the VC in the vapor space of the reactor had escaped after the stripping was completed. Consequently, a method was proposed for determining the reactor opening loss that accounts for stripping in the PVC reactor for use by all nonbulk resin producers. After considering the comments on this proposed revision. EPA decided to promulgate the revision. Another proposed change in the standard affecting PVC reactors used as strippers applied to the production of bulk PVC resins. Two separate vessels are used in bulk resin production, a "prepolymerization" vessel and a "postpolymerization" vessel. Under the standard promulgated in 1978, both of these vessels were subject to the reactor CMA 007347 Federal Register / V.)l. 51, No. 139 / Tuesday, September 3Q, 1986 / Rules ancj Resu'ations 34305 open;ag loss requirements. However. an analysis of the operation of prepclymenzatton vessels revealed that these reactors are opened less frequently than other types of reactors, and that the determination of gross product [required for the calculation of reactor opening loss) is impractical. Ln January 1985, EPA proposed to applv the equipment opening loss requiremen's. rather than the reactor ccenina loss requirements, to these PVC reactors, The equipment opening loss, requirements are more appropriate foe the operating characteristics of theprepolymerization reactor vessels and do not change the overall VC amission, control stringency applicable prepolymerization reactors. After considering the comments on this proposed revision, PA.decided to promulgate the revision. Clarification of Definitions and Standards Basedon the EPA's experience with administering the VC standard several provisions of the standard are being revised to reduce any ambiguity in their implementation-. For example, specific definitions of "leak.'1 "exhaust gas." and "relief valve discharge" are being idded to clarify the applicability of the provisions of the standard to each of these types of emissions. Similarly, to eliminate misunderstandings about the application of the standard to purification equipment following EDC and VC formation, the definitions of "EDC purification" and "VC purification ' are being revised to more dearly indicate which equipment is subject to the standard. Another revision being incorporated into the standard makes it clear that the 10 ppmv standard is a 3-hour average emission limit, rather than an instantaneous limit. The performance test provision in 61.67(g)(1) has also been clarified to specify that test results should reflect as close to a 3-hour average as practicable. Further, the 10 ppmv standard regulation is being revised to specify that ail exhaust gas streams are covered, by this requirement, including control device bypass streams. In order to implement this clarification, provisions are also being incorporated into the standard for calculating the VC content in bypassed emissions. A final revision to the 10 ppmv requirement is intended to prohibit plants from- diluting a VC exhaust gas stream with other exhaust gases in order to meet the 10 ppmv limit. Under the revised standard, combining an exhaust stream containing more than 10 ppmv VC with another gas stream is only allowed when the combined stream is ducted to a control device. The inprocess wastewater requirements for gasholder seals are also being revised to exclude the exposed water seal of gasholders. Experience with the VC standard indicates that water contained in the exposed water seal of a gasholder may exceed the 10 ppmv limit during normal operation and that compliance with the atmospheric exposure limit is not practicable for this source. The inprocess wastewater stripping requirements, however, will continue to apply to wastewater after removal from the gasholder seaL Other Administrative Revisions Other administrative revisions to the standard include: (1) The elimination of the 30-day limit for existing sources to submit requests foe the use of equivalent control measures: (2)'a change from semiannual to quarterly reporting of VC emissions from resin stripping, reactor openings, and exhaust gases; and f3J, allowance of reporting of periods of excess emissions instead of all emission measurements. Summary of Impact* to the Standard Revisions to the standard represent administrative and clarifying changes; no mator revisions were'proposed. Therefore, the environmental, energy and economic impacts of the original standard remain generally unchanged. A summary of the impacts of the original standard can be found in the preamble to the proposed standard revisions (50 FR 1182). Public Participation, Prior to proposal of revisions to the standard, interested perties were advised by public notice in the Federal Register (49 FR 26807, funs 29,1984) of a meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the revisions to-the VC standard recommended for proposal. This meeting was held on August 30,1984, The meeting was open to the public and each attendee was given an opportunity to comment on the revised standard recommended for proposal. The revised standard was proposed in the Federal Register on January 9.1989. The public comment period was from January 9.1985 to March 25,1986. A total of 18 comment letters were received. Industry representatives submitted most of the comment letters. Also commenting were representatives of the U.S. Congress, a State Legislature, a State air pollution agency and ais environmental group. The comments- have been considered carefully and. rn ^etenRJned to be appropriate by EPA, changes have been made to the proposed rev-aujnta the ^nd^d. Significant Comments Since Proposal Most of the comment letters cort-unad multiple comments. In general, the comments supported the proposed, administrative and clarifying revision* A detailed discussion of the comments and responses can be found in the 313 for the promulgated standard, which is referenced m the ADOBESSES- section of this preamble. The comments and responses in the BID serve as the basis for the changes that have been made <0 the revised standard between proposal and promulgation. Almost all commented addressed the proposed revisions to the relief valve discharge standard. AMmigd many of the cottmtanters agreed with the action to reformat the standard, several commentate objected to various aspects of the dischaige limits. Based on consideration, of these comment*. EPA decided ant to promulgate the proposed revision to the relief valve discharge standard-. The comments on this and other proposed revisions are addressed in detail in the. BID- Cor the promulgated standard and in summary in the next section of this preamble One commenipr requested* reconsideration of the withdrawal of the amendments to the VC standard which were proposed in 1OTT. This petition for reconsideration was based on objections to the Agency's us of data on costs and economic impwitoin the decision to withdraw the proposed amendments, and to the Agency's determination of the technological basis of the standard. The commetrters stated that the EPA's actions in withdrawing the proposed amendments were inconsistent with the requirements of section 112 of the Clean Air Act. As discussed further in this preamble, the Agency is denying the petition for reconsideration. Proposed Revisions to Relief Valve Discharge Standard. The EPA has decided not tm promulgate revisions to the relief valve discharge standard proposed la the January 9.1985. Federal Register notice. The revisions would have-established a different type of numerical limit for relief valve discharges. The decision to retain the original relief valve discharge standard was made after considering the revisions m light of pubfin comments and other finding* Although many public comments favored the proposed revisions, others opposed the change, (it CMA 007348 34906 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1988 / Rales and Regulations particular, several commenters expressed concern that preventable relief valve discharges 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 relief valve discharges. The basis for the statement that a large Agency resource commitment is required for enforcing the relief valve discharge standard was also questioned. As a result of these comments. EPA reviewed the basis for the recommendations that led to the decision to propose to reformat the standard. First, as discussed in the Federal Register notice proposing revisions to the relief valve discharge standard (50 FR1187), the review of the standard conducted between 1980 and 1982 found that the existing standard resulted in a significant commitment of Agency resources to the review and evaluation of discharges of VC from relief valves. Because the existing standard allows only "emergency" discharges of VC from relief valves (i.e.. the relief valve discharge could not be avoided by taking preventative measures), every discharge must be evaluated individually to determine whether the owner or operator of the facility has implemented the measures necessary to prevent that relief valve discharge. During the 4 to 5 years since the review study was conducted, the enforcement of the relief valve discharge standard has been made more efficient. This is due in large part to experience established in enforcing the standard. As a result. EPA enforcement personnel consider implementation of this standard to be much less resource and labor intensive. A second conclusion from the 1980 to 1982 study was that industry did not have a clear understanding of what the relief valve discharge standard required and what measures they needed to implement in order to comply with the standard. During the 4 to 3 years since the review study, a number of enforcement ections have been taken against individual plants for violations of the standards. Those actions have culminated in consent decrees which incorporate requirements for remedial actions to prevent further relief valve discharges. The provisions of these consent decrees have not only reduced the number of relief valve discharges at specific plants, but they have also served as guidelines in determining the types of measures appropriate for minimizing the discharges. Because of these two developments. EPA concluded that the original findings of the review study are no longer valid and should not be the basis of a revision to the format of the relief valve discharge standard. The decision to retain the existing relief valve discharge standard as a part of the standard for VC emissions is further supported by two additional advantages that the existing standard has over the proposed revisions. First, the existing standard provides that all preventable relief valve discharges are subject to enforcement action. Under the proposed revisions, which would have allowed a small number of discharges per year whether preventable or not. it is possible that a plant could experience preventable discharges and still be in compliance with the standard. As pointed out in public comments, it is theoretically possible that discharges resulting from gross negligence could go unpenalized under the revisions to the standard. The EPA did not intend this effect in the proposed revisions. The retention of the existing relief valve discharge standard allows EPA to continue the current enforcement approach. Second, the existing relief valve discharge standard provides a better mechanism for regulating large relief valve discharges. The proposed revision would have allowed a certain number of relief valve discharges per year, without regard to the size or duration of the discharge. Consequently, as long as the number of releases were within the numerical limits of the proposed revisions to the standard, there were no mechanisms in the standard to enforce control of the amount of VC discharged to the atmosphere. Under the existing relief valve discharge standard, however, the duration and size of the discharge are factors in determining the severity of a violation of the standard. As a result, a plant owner or operator haa a greater incentive under the current standard for taking action to reduce the quantity of a discharge. In summary. EPA is not promulgating the revisions to the relief valve discharge standard which were proposed in the January 9.1985. Federal Register notice. This decision was reached after consideration of public comments received on the proposal, and after a review of the basis for the decision to reformat the standard. Because this review revealed that the burden on Agency resources has diminished as experience with the implementation of the standard increased, and that understanding of the provisions of the existing standard on the part of industry should be clearer, the necessity for revising the format of the relief valve discharge standard is no longer apparent. The existing standard also has the advantages of penalizing all preventable relief valve discharges, providing better regulation of large volume relief valve discharges, and promoting continuity in the ongoing enforcement of the standard. In some instances, it may be possible for a plant operator to contain a relief valve discharge and to vent it to a control device. Where this can be done without exceeding the exhaust gas emission limit of 10 ppmv. EPA concluded that this approach should be encouraged and. therefore, the discharge should be exempt from the relief valve discharge standard. Venting the discharge through a control device can result in a 99.9 percent reduction in the VC content of the relief valve discharge without interfering with the control of VC emissions in exhaust gases which are also vented through the control device. Although compliance with the 10 ppmv standard would exempt the discharge from the relief valve discharge standard, exceeding the 10 ppmv standard would be considered both a violation of the 10 ppmv standard and of the relief valve discharge standard. Denial of Petition For Reconsideration The NRDC and EDF petitioned EPA to reconsider the decision to withdraw the 1977 proposed revisions to the VC standard. The criteria for granting such a petition are: (1) The petition must be based on information that was not and could not reasonably have been presented during the original rulemaking; and (2) the petition must provide substantial support for the argument that the challenged action should be changed. See Denial of Petition to Revise NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbines. 45 FR 81953 (December 1. 1980). As described below, this petition fails to meet either criterion, and it is therefore, denied. Consideration of Petition The NRDC/EDF petition for reconsideration of the withdrawal was based on four main premises. First NRDC/EDF objected to the EPA's announcement of the withdrawal of the proposed amendments as a Final action, without being preceded by a notice which proposed the withdrawal and allowed for public comment on the action. Second. NRDC/EDF objected to the influence of cost considerations in the decision to withdraw the proposed amendment, stating that the balancing of costs and benefits in the setting of the VC standard is contrary to the CMA 007349 1 Federal Register ' U'O F'IL'MIi lUIlIl.1.. J(hi'-h)ii / Raies and Regulations 34907 ; r, ..... . n'' II' Si'' '`1 i". 1 t2 A '>.< ( A r Ai t ihi'd. \KUC FLH1 t:vk i-.'.'.ic (hi iL,wst lev cl of control which has ; ern ((insistently achieved" as the Agency 5 derision tu withdraw Ihe proposed a ppmv emission limit n.tii ii'ml it look to lie the F.PA's indii alma that FPA was applying such I he second decision addressed bv .he iMLn't'iiiHi in.it Section t 12 of the Clr.in requirement in evaluating alternative petition for reconsideration as At Ai t esMohshrs a requirement (hat a t ih.mst g is requirements. I lovvever. the conflicting with the cnnside-ed ev idence !> 11 I uf control must h.ive boon 1m-.is for EPA's sole; con of 10 ppmv as is the withdrawal 0f the 5 Ppmv , ;'s:stn(it!\ .a tom ed ' tn the p,iM .n the VC s'andard for r \huusi gas emission limit for oxychlorinaiion vents. , .1-,i- to fi'rc' 'he b of the ,:,,nih,i d emissions is that this level uf control is The petition points to a statement m the 1-\RDC t UF staled 'ha1 the the 'owes! achievable emission limit 1977 proposal that this emission limit , ['!' \ s (tecs1,irs on ~pe. be port,u".`. : f ,it1.unable on a never-lo-be-exceeded could be attained based on the use of 'hi propound urvcdcie.'. A vve'e ,u basis Although 5 ppmv may be oxygen as a feed material rather than i i on tin t u iih 'he m idem e or; t'.u-e ach.t'v ed by some systems over a air, and maintains that no discussion or IS-llt'S lun tt d time period, the existing data evidence were presented which would - lrt the first objection, NKUC HUP stale indicate the this level of control cannot luslify withdrawal of this proposal. | that the proposed amendments lo the be maintained over a long-term, never- In the Federal Register (50 FR 1185). I ;u'7 \ C standard should not be lo-be-cxreeded basis, as required by the evidence was presented by the Agency ' withdrawn because no notiee of such standards. In addition to being supporting the conclusion that more I withdrawal had been published and ;u bievable on a consistent, long-term stringent control of emissions from ! there had been no opportunity, for piddle basis, the 10 ppmv standard was also oxychlorination vents was unnecessary. ' comment on the withdrawal. During the determined by EPA to provide the public First, no new technological controls it \Pars which have elapsed since the with the ample margin of safety required have been developed which are j proposal of those amendments, there by section 112. Therefore. EPA beleives applicable to these vents. Second, the has been ample opportunity alfonied fur that the standard satisfies the costs of incinerating oxychlorination i public comment and input on the requirements of section 112. vent streams were reevaluated and j | I ! ! amendments and their withdrawal. The amendments, their protential consequences, and the decisions that the Agency might take with regard to them were all before the public. Specifically. ,\RDC and EDF received draft documents relating to the rulemaking distributed prior to the NAPCTAC meeting. Finally, \RDC did not g.ve any supposing rationale fot believing that further opportumtv for comment would The final points raised by NRDC/EDF in support of the petition for reconsideration addressed three specific provisions of the proposed amendments which were withdrawn. The NRDC/EDF stated that the withdrawal of these provisions was in conflict with the evidence before the Agency. The first specific portion of the standard addressed in the petition is the determined, as before, to be unreasonable compared to the small reduction in VC emissions. And finally, with the possible exception of one plant, no new EDC/VC plants with oxychlorination reactors are expected to be constructed, and any that may be constructed will be adequately regulated by the requirements of new source review regulations. No new information was presented in the petition for yield anv reh-vunt new mformat'on or withdrawal of the proposed 5 ppmv reconsideration relevant to the decision arguments. Therefore. EPA does not emission limit for exhaust gas emission to retain the existing oxychlorination believe that additional time or provision in favor of the existing 10 ppmv vent standard. for recessing further public comments emission limit. The NRDC/EDF stated The third decision which was could have been either necessary or that the evidence in the record supports addressed in the petition for helpful for the resolution of the issues a finding that the 5 ppmv limit is reconsideration as conflicting with the involving the proposed amendments to achievable by new sources, and by considered evidence is the withdrawal the VC standard. existing sources within 3 years of of the proposal to lower the residual VC The second issue raised by NRDC/ EL)F involves the inclusion of cost promulgation. The petition also pointed to the more stringent emission limit not limit for new dispersion resins from 2.000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and the limit consideration in the EPA's rtilemaking be foregone. for other new resins from 400 ppmv to deliberations under Section 112. The The EPA decided to maintain the 10 100 ppmv. The petition states that NRQC.'EDF maintains that the language ppmv emission limit for exhaust gas existing facilities are currently meeting ul S' l t.on 112 which Tv ctores the emission for three primary reasons. the lower limits, and that both new and s! ,ml ;:d to be set at a level which First, as stated above, the 10 ppmv prov ides an ' ample margin of safety'1 to emission limit has been determined to existing facilities could be brought into compliance with the more stringent (he pubhc p-ecludes consideration of the be consistently achievable by industry, costs of control. In the EPA's judgment, whereas the 5 ppmv emission limit limits by using the equipment and procedures currently used by the leading the VC standard protects the public cannot be consistently achieved. facilities. health with an ample margin of safety Second, even though the limit on The EPA withdrew the proposed more w. hin the meaning of Section 112. and maximum emissions of VC is set at 10 stringent stripping level requirements for EPA may consider cost and fc-asiblit.v >('. ppmv, the average and most short-term two main reasons. The first is that the setting the standard. The EPA views emissions will be considerably lower nature of PVC production makes it were explained in the 1975-76 VC than this level. Third, lowering the difficult to distinguish "new" from "old" rulemaking. The NRDC/EDF provided emission limit on maximum emission resins. Resin compositions are adjusted no new information on this issue. r.,tcs to 5 ppmv would not significantly routinely, and completely "new" resins The N'RDC/EDF's third objection was the EPA was incorrect in stating that a level of control must be ''consistently achieved" in order to form the basis of the standard. Specifically. NRDC/F.UF pointed to the language in the Federal Register notice that "10 ppmv represents reduce the average emissions, and therefore, adopting the lower standard was determined by the Agency not to have a significant impact on emissions of VC or, accordingly, on public health risks. The petition for reconsideration presented no new evidence relevant to are rarely, if ever. made. Second, EPA concluded that there is no improved technology which would provide the basis for more stringent stripping requirements for all resins. The technologies which are effective for specific resins may not be effective for 007350 34908 Federal Register > V,;!, 51 \'o 109 / Tuesday Sepiemii'T 30. 1-Jb6 / (?,,>; jnd Req'jia;.ons other resins, The consequence of establishing a more stringent standard would be that certain hard-to-strip resins could no longer be produced. In the EPA's opinion, such a result would be in unwarranted economic impact which is unnecessary to provide an ample margin of safety for public health. No new relevant information was presented in the petition for reconsideration. Administrative The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and promulgated standards and EPA responses to significant comments, the contents of the docket, except for interagency review materials, will serve as the record in case of judicial review [section 307(d)(7)(A)). The effective date of these revisions is September 30. 1988. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act provides that national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants become effective upon promulgation and apply to all existing and new sources. As prescribed by section 112, promulgation of this standard was preceded by the Administrator s listing of VC under section 112 of the Act on December 24.1975 (40 FR 59477). In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of these promulgated revisions was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. Information collection requirements associated with this revised regulation (those included in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A and Subpart F) have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.. and have been assigned OMB control number 0188. The revised standard is estimated to result in a paperwork burden of about 36 person-years which is roughly the same as the original standard. Under Executive Order 12291. EPA is required to judge whether a regulation is a "major rule" and therefore subject to certain requirements of the Order. The EPA has determined that the revised regulation would result in none of the adverse economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order as grounds for finding a regulation to be a ' mator rule." The revised regulation is not maior because- (1) Nationwide annual compliance costs, including capital charges resulting from the standard total ess than $100 million; (2) the standard does not cause a maior increase in prices or production costs; and (3) the standards do not cause significant adverse effects on domestic competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or competition in foreign markets. The EPA has submitted this rulemaking to OMB under Executive Order 12291. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1900 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 this revised standard imposes no adverse economic impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the provisons 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 24.1988. Lee M. Thomas. .tilminmtnlor. PART 61--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS For the reasons set forth in the preamble. 40 CFR Part 61 is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 81 contunues to read as follows; Authority: Secs. 101. 112. 114. 119. 301. Clean Air Act as amended 14212 S C. 7401, 7412. 7414. 7419. 7901). 2. Section 61.61 is amended by revising paragraphs (j), (1). (o) and (p) and by adding paragraphs (v), (w), (x), (y). and (z) to read as follows: $ 161.0 Definition*. *** (l) "Inprocess wastewater" means any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste product containing vinvl chloride or polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to a wastewater treatment process or discharged untreated as wastewater Gasholder Si.oil water is not inprocess wastewater until it is removed from the gasholder (1) 'In vinyl chloride service 1 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 that is at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride as determined according to the provisions of 5 61.67(h). The provisions of 61.67(h) also specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service. For the purposes of this subpart, this definition must be used in place of the definition of "tn VHAP service" in Subpart V of this part. * * (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" includes any part of the process of ethylene dichlortde production which follows ethylene dichloride formation, excluding product storage following the final finishing column. (p) `"Vinyl chloride purification" incudes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation. <tfrt (v) "Relief valve" means each pressure relief device including pressure relief valves, rupture disks and other pressure relief systems used to protect process components from overpressure conditions. "Relief valve" does not include polymerization shortstop systems, refengerated water systems or control valves or other devices used to control flow to an incinerator or other air pollution control device. (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 measure according to Method 21 (see Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60): (2) indications of liquid dripping; (3) a sensor detection of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both; and (4) 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). Leaks also include events regulated under 181.65(b)(8)(i) for detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background CMA 007351 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulation* 34909 concentration. 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 ( 61.62 (a) and (b): 5 61 63(a): $ 61.64 (a)(1), (a)(2). (b). (c), and (d): 5 61.65(b) (l)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5). (b)(6)(H) and (b)(9)(ii), (v) "Relief valve discharge" means any nonieak discharge through a relief valve. "Relief valve discharge" does not include discharges ducted to a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), or equivalent as provided in i 61.66. (z) "3-hour period" means any three consecutive l-hour periods (each hour commencing on the hour). 3. Section 61.62 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: | S1.S2 Emission standard tor ethyleno dlehiortdo plant*. (a) Ethylene dichloride purification. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in { 81.65(a). This requirement does not preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined steam is ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as provided in $ 61.66. This requirement docs not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in } 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. (b) Oxychlonnation reactor. Except as provided in 5 61.65(a), emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmoephere from each oxychlorination reactor are not to exceed 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 lb/lb] (average for 3-hour period) of the 100 percent ethylene dichloride product from the oxychlorination procesa. 4. Section 61.63 is revised to read as follows: $ 61.63 Emission standard for vktyt chloride plant*. An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and { 61.65. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in { 81.65(a). This requirement does not preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined steam is ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as provided in { 61.66. This requirement does not apply to .equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in } 6l.&5(b)(6)(i) before being opened. 5. Section 61.64 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) to read as follows: 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. ***** (a) Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors: (1) The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each reactor Is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and $ 61.65(a). (2) The reactor opening loss from each reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product, except as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this lection, with the product determined on a dry solida basis. This requirement does not apply to prepolymerization reactors in the bulk process. This requirement does apply to postpolymerization reactors in the bulk procesa. where the product meane the gross product of prepolymerization and postpolymerization. (3) Manual vent valve discharge. Except for an emergency manual vent valve discherge. there is to be no discharge to the etmosphere from any manual vent valve on a polyvinyl chloride reactor in vinyl chloride service. An emergency manual vent valve discharge mean* a discharge to the atmosphere which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any discharge to the atmosphere from any manual vent valve, the owner or operator of the source from which the discharge occurs shall submit to the Administrator a report in writing containing information on the source, nature and cause of the diacharge, the date end time of the diacharge. 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 waa taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future discharges. (b) Stripper, The concentration of vinly chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each stripper it not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in { 61.65(a). This requiremetf does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requiremention ( 81.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened, (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding containers. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each mixing, weighing, or holding container in vinyl chloride service which precedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no stripper) in the plant process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in | 61.65(a). This requirement doe* not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in ( Bl.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. (d) Monomer recovery system. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each monomer recovery system it not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in 161.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that hat been opened is out of operation, and met the requirement in f 61.85(b](6)(i) before being opened. ** * 0. By revising paragraph (e) Introductory text and adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (f) to ( 61.64 to read at follows: (61.64 Emission standard tor polyvinyl CraOCMM pwnlBt ** (e) Sources following the stripperfs). The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripperfs) [or the reactors) if the plant has no stripperfs)] in the plant process flow including but not limited to. centrifuges, concentrators, blend tanks, Altera, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inprocest wastewater, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section: (1) * * (2) * * * (3) The provisions of this paragraph apply at all timet including when offspecification or other types of resins are made. (f) Reactor used as stripper. When a nonbulk resin reactor is used as a stripper this paragraph may be applied in lieu of 161.64 (a)(2) and (e)(1): CMA 007352 34910 Federal Register / Voi. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations (1) The weighted average emissions of vinyl chloride from reactor-opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stnpper from all grades of polyvinyl chloride resin stripped in the reactor on each calendar day may not 6XCB(1` (i) 2.02 g/kg (0.00202 lb/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding iatex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. (li) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 Ib/lb) of polyvinyl chlonde product for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. 7. Section 61.05 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(l)(ii) and (b)(2) to read as follows: S 61.65 Emission standard for etfiyfene dlehlortds, vinyl chlortd*, and potyvtnyl chloride plants. (a) Relief valve discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge, 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, the owner or operator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs shall submit to the Administrator a report in writing 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 dischargee. (b) * * * (l) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from a loading or unloading line in accordance with paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section ia' to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride In the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), or equivalent as provided in 61.66. (2) Slip gauges. During loading or unloading operations, the vinyl chloride emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by ducting any vinyl chloride discharged from the slip gauge through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gates does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), or equivalent as provided in { 61-66***** 8, By revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4). (b) (5). (b)(6), (b)(7). (b)(8), (bH9)(ii). and (c) to 61.65 as follows: } 61.65 Emission standard for athytsna dlehlortds, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of an ethyiens dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) * * * (b) * * * U) * * * (Z) * * * (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seals: (i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals or equivalent as provided in | 81.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chlonde in the exhaust gases does not 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. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all 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 two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump: by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two teals through a control aystem from which the 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 CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates compliance with the provision! of this paragraph. (iii) Rotating compressor. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating compressors in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing compressors with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs ts into the compressor; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as provided in 61.06. Compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this paragraph. (iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all reciprocating compressors 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 two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the compressor: by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as provided in 61.86. Compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this paragraph. (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all agitators in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing agitators with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the agitated vessel: by ducting any vinyl chlonde between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 61.66. (4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part. (5) Manual venting ofgases. Except as provided in 61.64(a)(3), all gases which are manually vented from equipment in vinly chloride service are to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period); or equivalent as provided hi 61.68. (6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of equipment (including prepolymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk CMA 007353 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No- 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34911 ' 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: (i) Before opening any equipment for any reason, the quantity of vinyl chloride which is contained therein is to be reduced to an amount which occupies a volume of no more than ZQ percent of the equipment's containment volume or 0.0950 cubic meters (25 gallons), whichever is larger, at standard temperature and pressure. (ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from the equipment in accordance with paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section is to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period): or equivalent as provided in S 61.66. (7) Samples. Unused portions of samples containing at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to be returned to the process or destroyed in a control device from which concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gat does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period) or equivalent as provided in { 61.66. Sampling techniques are to be such that sample containers in vinyl chloride service are purged into a closed process system. Compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this paragraph. (8) Leak detection and elimination. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized as follows: (i) A reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system shall be operated for detection of major leaks end identification of the general area of the plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system means a device which obtains air samples from one or more points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromatography or. if the owner or operator asaumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrand spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. The vinyl chloride monitoring system shall be operated according to a program developed by the plant owner or operator. The owner or operator shall submit a description of the program to the Administrator within 45 days of the effective date of these regulations, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under 161.11. or the program has been approved and the Administrator does not request a review of the program. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: (A) The location and number of points to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring provided for in the program are acceptable when they ere compared with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl chloride service and size and physical layout of the plant. (B) It contains a definition of leak which is acceptable when compared with the background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the aress of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system are to be included with the description of the program. The definition of leak for a given plant may vary among the different areas within the plant and is also to change over time as background concentrations in the plant are reduced. (C) It contains an acceptable plan of action to be taken when a leak ia detected. (DJ It provides for an acceptable calibration and maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon detector. For the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration defined as a leak according to paragraph (b)(6)(i)(B) of this section. The calibration is to be done with either (7) A calibration gat mixture prepared from the gases specified in section* 5.2.1. and 5.2.2. of Test Method 100 and in accordance with section 7.1 of Teat Method 108, or (3) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the appropriate concentration of vinyl chloride. Tbs gas composition of the calibration gaa cylinder standard ia to have been certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must have recommanded a maximum shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 5 percent from the certified value, llie date of gaa cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration, and recommended maximum self life must have been affixed to the cylinder before shipment from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl. chloride monitoring system, these gas mixture* may be directly used to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as described in section 73 ofTest Method 106. The requirements in section 5.23.1. and 5232. of Test Method 108 for certification of cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of calibration standards are to be followed. (ii) For each process unit subject to | this subpart, a formal leak detection and tepair program shall be implemented j consistent with Subpart V of this part, except as provided in paragraph (b)(8)(iii) of this section. This program is i to be implemented within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations, I unless a waiver of compliance is granted under {61.11. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(E) of this section, an owner or operator shall be exempt from | 61242-l(d), | 61242-7 (a), (b). and (c). I 61246, and I 61247 of Subpart V of this part for any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is demonstrated to be less than 20 1 percent aa determined in accordance I with the following: | (A) A performance test as specified in paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section shall be conducted initially within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations, annually, and at times requested by tha Administrator. (B) For each performance test a minimum of 200 or 90 percent whichever is less, of the total valves in VOC service (a* defined in | 60.481 of Subpart W of Part 80) within the process unit shall be randomly selected end monitored within 1 week by the methods specified in { 61.245(b) of this part If an instrument reeding of 10.000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is detected. The leak percentage shall be determined by dividing the number of valves in VOC service for which leaks are detected by the number of tested valves in VOC service. (C) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired in accordance with 161242-7 (d) and () of Subpart V of this part (0) The results of the performance test shall be submitted in writing to the Administrator in the first quarterly . I report following the performance test as part of tha reporting requirements of f 612a (E) Any process unit in which the I { percentage of tasking valves is found t j be greater than 2.0 percent according to the performance test prescribed in paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section must comply with all provisions of Subpart V of this part within 90 days. (iii) Open-ended valves or lines located on multiple service process lines which operate in vinyl chloride service i less than 10 percent of the time are ] exempt from the requirements of ] 161242-8 of Subpait V. provided the j open-ended valves or lines are j addressed in the monitoring system 1 required by paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this 1 section. The Administrator may apply CW* OO7354 34912 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1966 / Rules and Regulations this exemption to other existing openended valves or lines that are demonstrated to require significant retrofit cost to comply with the requirements of | 81.242-6 of Subpart V. * (9) * * * (ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from the inprocess wastewater in accordance with paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section is to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period); or equivalent as provided in S 61.68. t*t* (c) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5). (b)(6), (b)(7) and (b)(8) of this section are to be incorporated into a standard operating procedure, and made available upon request for inspection by the Administrator. The standard operating procedure is to include provisions for measuring the vinyl chloride in equipment 4.75 m* (1,250 gal) in volume for which an emission limit is prescribed in | 61.65(b)(6)(i] after opening the equipment and using Test Method 106, a portable hydrocarbon detector, or an alternative method. The method of measurement is to meet the requirements in t 61.67(g)(5)(i)(A) or (g)(5)(i)(B). 9. Section 61.66 is revised to read as follows: {61.68 Equivalent equipment sod procedures. Upon written application from an owner or operator, the Administrator may approve use of equipment or procedures which have been demonstrated to his satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl chloride emissions to the atmosphere to those prescribed for compliance with a specific paragraph of this subparL 10. By revising paragraphs (f), (g)(l)(i), (g)(2), (g)(3) introductory text (g)(3)(i). (g)(3)(iii), (g)(5) introductory text and by (g)(5)(ii) adding paragraphs (g)(6) and (h) in f 61.67 as follows; 161.67 Emission tecta. *t (f) The owner or operator shall retain at the plant and make available, upon request, for inspection by the Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, records of emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions.(i) (i) For each run, one sample is to be collected. The sampling site is to be at least two stack or duct diameters downstream and one half diameter upstream from any flow disturbance such as s bend, expansion, contraction, or visible flame. For a rectangular cross section irn equivalent diameter is to be determir ed from the following equation; equivalent diameter-2 (length) (width)/ length+width The sampling point in the duct is to be at the centroid of the cross section. The sample is to be extracted at a rate proportional to the gas velocity at the sampling point The sample is to contain a minimum volume of 50 liters corrected to standard conditions and is to be taken over a period aa close to 1 hour as p racticable*. * (2) Teat Method 107 or Method 601 (incorporated by reference as specified in 181.16) is to be used to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride in each inprocess wastewater stream for which an emission limit is prescribed in 181.6S(b)(9)(i). (3) When a stripping operation i used to attain the emisaion limits in 161.64 (e) and (f), emissiona are to be determined using Test Method 107 ae follow*: (i) The number of strippers (or reactors used as strippers) and samples and the types and grades of resin to be sampled are to be determined by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the test baaed on the plant's operation. (ii) * * * (iii) The corresponding quantity of material processed by each stripper (or reactor used as a stripper) it to be determined on a dry solids basis and by a method aubmitted to and approved by the Administrator. (iv) * * * (4) * * * (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emisaion limit ia prescribed in 161.64(e)(2) ia to be determined. The number of reactors for which the determination ia to be made is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. (i) * * * (ii) A calculation based on the number of evacuations, the vacuum involved, and the volume of get in the reactor ia hereby approved by the Administrator aa an alternative method for determining reactor opening loss for postpolymerization reactors in the manufacture of bulk resins. Calculation methods based on techniques other than repeated evacuation of the reactor may be approved by the Administrator for determining reactor opening loss for postpolymerization reactors in the manufacture of bulk resins. (6) For a reactor that is used as a stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used at a stripper for which an emission limit is prescribed in i 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 each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. (i) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the following measurements are to be made; (A) The concentration (ppm) of vinyl chloride in retin after stripping, measured according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section; (B) The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at end of strip from plant instrument; and (C) The reactor temperature (*C) at end of strip from plant instrument. (ii) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the following information is to be determined: (A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water in the reactor at end of strip from the following table: Mnw Wl ro HiO P <hm n.nia 4rMo HjO vapor P'4* im (mm 9> flfcior tampar* tufa PC) HjO pro* tur* (mm >* 40 ttJ 41 94.3 4* 41.4 43 44.4 44 64.3 46 714 4 76.4 47 74.4 44 43.7 44 66.0 SO 429 61 67.2 61 102.1 64 1072 64 112.9 64 114.0 84 1214 47 12M 94 134.1 64 1426 0 144.4 41 1924 42 143 9 43 171 4 44 1743 44 197 9 44 194.1 47 206 0 04 2142 44 223.7 70 233 7 71 2424 72 2646 73 266.7 74 277.2 *6 244.1 74 301 4 77 314.1 74 327.3 74 341.0 0 369.1 1 304.7 42 3449 43 400 9 04 N 6 47 04 04 40 91 92 43 44 49 44 97 44 44 100 4164 4336 490 9 444 7 4071 900 1 929 6 644 0 947 0 9446 0109 633.4 697 6 002 1 707 3 733 2 700 0 (B) The partial pressure (mm Hg) of vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip from the following equation: PPVC- 780-RV-WW where: PPVC*partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in maHg 780*atmoepheric preseure et 0 *C in mm Hg RV-absolute value of reactor vacuum, in maHg VPW-vepor pressure of water, In mm Hg (C) The reactor vapor space volume (mfl at end of strip from the following equation: 0073 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 1986 / Rule and Regulations 34913 FVCW rvsv-rc-wv--------- 1.400 where: RVSV ** reactor vapor apace volume, in m* RC = reactor capacity, in m1 WV volume of water m reactor from recipe, in m* PVCW = dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg 1.400a typical density of polyvinyl chloride, in kgjm` (iii) For each batch stripped tn 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: (PPVC)fRVSV)(1.002) C-(PPMVC)(10-') + (PVCW)(Z73-*-RT) where: Cg vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride product PPMVC*concentration of vinyl chloride In reein after stripping. in ppm io~*b conversion factor for ppm PPVC-partial pmaaure of vinyl chloride determined according to paragraph (g)(6)(>i)(B) of thia faction, in mm Hg RVSV -- reactor vapor apace volume determined according to paragraph (g)IB)(ii)(C) of thia faction, in m* 1.002-ideal gaaconatant in g-'K/mm Hg-m*for vinyl chloride PVCW-dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg 273converaion factor for 'C to `X RT-reactor temperature, in *C (h)(1) Each piece of equipment within a proceaa unit that can reasonably contain equipment in vinyl chloride service is presumed to be in vinyl chloride service unless an owner or operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service. For a piece of equipment to be considered not in vinyl chloride service, it must be determined that the percent vinyl chloride content can be reasonably expected not to exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams or contained liquid volumes and 10 percent by volume for gas streams or contained gaa volumes, which also includes gat volumes above liquid atreama or contained liquid volumes. For purposes of determining the percent vinyl chloride content of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment procedures that conform to the methods described in ASTM Method D-2267 (incorporated by reference aa specified in S 61.18) shall be used. (2)(i) An owner or operator may use engineering judgment rather than the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section to demonstrate that the percent vinyl chloride content does not exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams and 10 percent by volume for gaa streams, provided that the engineering judgment demonstrates that the vinyl chloride content clearly does not exceed 10 percent. When an owner or operator and the Adminietretor do not agree on whether a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service, however, the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall be used to resolve the disagreement (ii) If an owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment ia in vinyl chloride service, the determination can be revised only after following the procedures In paragraph (h)(1) of thia section. (3) Samples used in determining the percent vinyl chloride content shall be representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts the equipment 11. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f)to S 01.68 aa follows; {<1.88 Emission monitoring, **** (d) When exhaust gaa(ea), having emission limits that are subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of thia section, are emitted to the atmosphere without passing through the control system and required vinyl chloride monitoring system, the vinyl chloride content ofthe emission shall be calculated (in units of each applicable emission limit) by beat practical engineering judgment based on the discharge duration and known VC concentrations in the affected equipment aa determined in accordance with 181.07(h) or other acceptable method. (e) For each 3-hour period, the vinyl chloride content of emission* subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section shell be averaged (weighted according to the proportion of time that emissions were continuously monitored and that emissions bypassed the continuous monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under f 81.70(c)(1). (f) For each vinyl chloride emission to the atmosphere determined in accordance with paragraph (e) of thia 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 vinyl chloride loss during the excess emission, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the Administrator as required by { 01.71(a). 12. In { 61.70 by revising the section title from "Semiannual report" to "Reporting", and by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(iii). (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(v). (c)(2)(vi) introductory text and (e)(3) and also by adding (c)(4) to read aa follows; ) 81.70 Reporting. (a)(1) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall submit to the Administrator on March IS, June 15. September 15. and December IS of each year a report in writing containing the information required by this section. The first report is to be submitted fallowing the first full 3-month reporting period after the initial report la submitted. (2) In the case of an existing source, the approved reporting schedule shell be used, ia addition, quarterly reports shall be submitted exactly 3 months following the current reporting dates. (1) The owner or operator shell include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content of emissions for each 3-bour period during which average emissions are in excess of the emission limits in ! 61.82 (a) or (b). 181.83(a), or 181.64 (a)(1). (b), (c), or (d). or during which average emissions are in excess of the emission limits specified for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in 101.84(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted in I 61.65(b){i)(U}, (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii), or (b)(9)(ii). The number of 3-hour periods for which average emissions were determined during the reporting period shall be reported. If emission* in excess of the emission limits are not detected, the report shell contain a statement that no excess emissions have been detected. The emissions are to be determined in accordance with $ 61.88(e). (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to attain the emieatoa level prescribed in 161.64(e), the owner or operator shell CMA 007356 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. (i) * * * (h) ' * * (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 501.87(g)(3). (iv) [Reserved) (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a n I Pa Mg, i=l AT" ' Or Pci Mqi + Pa Mci + -- where: A-24-hour average concentration of type T resin in ppm (dry weight basis) Q- Total production of type T ream over the 24-hour period, in kg, T=Type of resin. M Concentration of vinyl chloride in one sample of grade Gi resin in ppm. P- Production of grade Gi resin represented by the sample, in kg. Gi-Grade of resin: e.g.. Gl. C2, G3. n-Total number of grades of resin produced during the 24-hour period. The number of 24-hour average concentrations for each resin type determined during the reporting period shall be reported. If no 24-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentrations in excess of the limits prescribed in 01.84(e) are measured, the report shall state that no excess resin vinyl chloride concentrations were measured. (vi) The owner or operator shall retain at the source and make available for inspection by the Administrator for a 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) * * * (B) * * * (3) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of any emissions from each reactor opening in excess of the emission limits prescribed in 161.84(a)(2). Emissions are to ba 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 which stripping in the reactor is used to attain the emission level prescribed in record of any 24-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentration, as determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in f 61.64(e). The 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 weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the stripperfs) that calendar day, according to the following equation: . Poa Mo* { 61.64(0. the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride emissions from reactor opening loss and all source* following the reactor used as a stripper. (i) One representative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken from each batch of each grade of resin immediately following the completion of the stripping operation, and identified by resin type and grade and the data and time the batch is completed. The corresponding quantity of material processed in each stripper batch is to be recorded and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. (ii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 161.07(g)(3). (hi) The combined emissions from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper are to be determined for each batch (tripped in a reactor according to the procedure prescribed in 5 61.67(g)(6). (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 a stripper as determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in | 61.64(f). The combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as e stripper associated with each batch are to be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin stripped in reactors that calendar day as follows: For each type of resin (suspension, dispersion, latex, bulk, other), the following calculation is to be performed: jcl PotCgl-fPvO^^ . . . At- -------- Or Qt where: A--24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight besia). Q-Totei production of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period, in kg. T-Type of resin. C-Average combined reactor opening loss end emissions from all source* following the reactor used a stripper of all batch** of grada G, resin for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight beaie) (determined according to procedure preeaibed in 181.67(g)(0)). P-Production of grade Gi resin in the batchea for which C is determined, in kg. G,-Crude of resin e.g^ Gi, G, end C*. n-Total number of grades of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period. The number of 24-hour average emissions determined during the reporting period shall be reported. If no 24-hour everage combined raector opening loss end emissions from ell sources following the reactor used a stripper in excess of the limits prescribed in 161.64(f) are determined, the report shall state that no excess vinyl chloride emissions were determined. 11. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text of 161.71 as follows: 161.71 Recordkeeping. (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall retain the following information at the source and make it available for inspection to the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years: 6I* 14. By reviling paragraph (a)(4) and adding paragraph (b)(1) to 161.18 aa follows: f 61.16 Incorporation by Reference. 6*66* ()*** (4) ASTM D2267-68 (reapproved 1978) Aromatics in Light Naphthas and CMA 007357 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34915 Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography. IBR approved June 8, 1984. for 81245(d)(1) and IBR approved September 30.1988 for 01.87(h)(1). ***** (b) The following material is available from the U S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati. Ohio 45268. (1) Method 601. Test Method for Purgeable Halocarbons, July 1982. IBR approved September 30.1986 for 5 61.07(g)(2). 15. By revising the definition "volatile hazardous air pollutants" in | 61.241 of Subpart V to read as follows: j 81.241 (Xfintttona. **i * "Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or "VHAP" mt ans a substance regulated under this pirt for which a standard for equipment leaks of the substance has been proposed and promulgated. Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. 16. By revising the definition of "connector" in | 81.241 of Subpart V as follows: S 61241 OeflnMon*. ***** "Connector" means flanged, screwed, welded, or other joined fittings used to connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece of equipment. For the purpose of reporting and recordkeeping, connector means flanged fittings that are not covered by insulation or other materials that prevent location of the fittings. **** [FR DOC. 86-22032 Filed 9-29-66: 6:45 am} mlunq cook IMMO-M CMA 007358