Document 6wEjmj8oE6vaZraoOJOvqbGEE

ABD00317983 Wednesday January 9, 1985 Part V Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Vinyl Chloride; Proposed Rule and Notice of Public Hearing ABD00317984 1182' Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40.CFR Part 61 [AD-FRL-2707-4] . National Emission Standards for Hazardous /Ur Pollutants; Vinyl Chloride agency: Envoronmental Protection Agency (EPA). action: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.* 2 summary: The current emission standard for vinyl chloride (VC) was promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in 1976. A review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the standard has been completed, and the conclusions of the review are presented in this notice The conclusions are the basis for this action which (1) proposes administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard and (2) announces decisions pertaining to other aspects of the current standard. This notice also withdraws proposed revisions to the current standard which were published in the.Federal Register on June 2.1977 (42 FR 28154). If requested, a public hearing will be held to provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments concerning : the proposed revisions to the current standard*.y Oates: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 25.1985; Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 301985. a public hearing will be held on February 28. ,, 1985 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ms. Shelby Joumigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will occur. ~ Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must contact EPA by January 30.1985. incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in these standards will be approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of the date of the final rule. addresses: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket Section (A130). Attention Docket Number A-81-21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street, S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460. Pvbiic Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 30.1985. the public hearing will be held at EPA Auditorium. comer of Highway 54 and Alexander limit for relief valve discharges. (2) Drive. Research Triangle Park. North - providing a compliance test procedure Carolina. Persons interested In attending and a specific emission limit for the hearing should call Ms. Shelby operators who perform stripping Joumigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that . operations in reactors, and (3) specifying a hearing will occur. Persons wishing to requirements for leak detection and present oral testimony should notify Ms. repair programs for certain equipment in Shelby joumigan. Standards VC service. Additional minor Development Branch (MD-13), U.S. administrative changes to the standard Enviromental Protection Agency. are being proposed and are explained Research Triangle Park. North Carolina later in this premable. 27711. telephone number (919) 541-5578. " Summary ofHealth. Environmental. Background information Document. Energy, and Economic Impacts. Since no The general findings of the review study are documented in "Vinyl Chloride--A Review of National Emission major revisions to the standard are being proposed, the impacts resulting from the current standard remain Standards". EPA-450/3-82-003 (NTIS- generally unchanged. In 1975. it was PB 84-114354). available from the estimated that emissions of VC from National Technical Information Service. plants producing ethylene dichloride 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield. (EDC), VC monomer and polyvinyl Virginia 22161. The major technical * chloride (PVC) would be reduced from analysis for the review study is * 96.000 Mg/yr to 4.910 Mg/yr under the contained in a separate document which current standard, representing an may be obtained from the U.S. EPA emission reduction of 91.000 Mg/yr of Library (MD-35). Research Triangle VC (or 95 percent of VC emissions). Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone ' number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to . Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and EDC are also reduced under "Vinyl Chloride: Relief Valve Discharge the standard. Standard." EPA-450/3-85-002. for the . .7 technical document 1 -, Docket. Docket No. A-81-21. containing supporting information used in developing the proposed standard, is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section. West Tower___ The estimated risks attributed to ' exposure to VC from EDC/VC and PVC plants in operation prior to the current standard were 5.5 cases per year for liver angiosarcoma and 11 cases.per year for all cancers. The risks attributed to exposure to VC from sources under the current standard have been estimated to be 0.28 cases per year for Lobby. Gallery 1. Waterside MalL 401M. liver angiosarcoma and 0.55 cases per Street SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460. A year for all cancers. reasonable fee may be charged for. *..___ In 1975. the estimated capital cost for copying; i. existing plants to meet the VC standard FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT! " * was $198 million, of which $15 million Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel or Mr. Leslie B. was for EDC and VC monomer plants Evans. (9191541-5671. concerning and $183 million was for PVC plants. technical aspects of the industry and The EPA estimated that the annualized control technologies, and Mr. Fred cost (including capital amortization, etc.) Dimmick or Mr. Glibert H. Wood. (919) to these plants to maintain the required 541-5578. concerning regulatory . v . .. emission levels would be $70 million per decisions. The address for these year. contacts is Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S. Background Environmental Protection Agency, The VC standard was proposed on Research Triangle Park. North Carolina December 24.1975 (40 Fr 59532), and 27711. promulgated on October 21.1976 (41 Fr SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Revisions to Current Standard 46559). It is applicable to plants producing EDC by the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene, plants producing VC by any Revisions. Several administrative process, and plants producting one or- changes are being proposed as a result more polymers containing any fraction of a review of the national emission of VC. These plants are subject to standard for VC. No major revisions are.' different requirements at numerous VC being proposed to the standard. As with emission points in the manufacturing the current standard for VC the - process. These requirements include revisions are being established under numerical emission limits, equipment Section 112 of the Clean Air Act The specifications, and work practices. - significant administrative revisions The standard was designed to include: (1) Reformatting the emission minimize the health risks associated ABD00317985 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1X83 with VC by requiring reasonable control measures. As stated in the preamble to the proposed standard (40 Fr 59532, December 24.1975). there is no-known threshold level of effects for VC Therefore, the only approach that would eliminate health risks associated with VC would ban its production and use.. This approach was not selected. Rather,an approach was selected to minimise the health risks associated with VC by use of reasonablexontrol measure. On November 19,1976, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ^ Circuit to review the standard. On March 24.1977, the EDF and the EPA moved to dismiss the proceedings on the . basis of a settlement agreement requiring the EPA to propose amendments which would require increased efficiency of existing control equipment, require more stringent ` ' '' control of new sources, and prohibit' ' increases in emissions within the ; vicinity of an existing source due to new construction. The preamble to the ' proposed amendments was to state that' the EPA's policy for regulating carcinogens under Section 112 of the - * Clean Air Act would include a general ~ goal of eliminating emissions of- ' - carcinogens and that the EPA wouldinitiate a review of the VC standard 3 years after the promulgation of the - amendments.'-'-'-' On June 2,1977, the amendments were1 proposed (42 FR 28154). Many comments7 pertaining to policy, technological feasibility, and procedural aspects of the proposed amendments were received. Review of these comments indicated ~ that additional technical data and cost information were required before the proposed amendments, or revisions of the proposed amendments, could be - promulgated.. '.V: Meanwhile, the EDF filed a petition with the EPA requesting the; establishment of a comprehensive' program for regulating airborne carcinogens under Section 112 of the - - Clean Air Act. The aspects of the EDF*s ' petition concerning the development of - standards under Section 112 were - - -- similar to those proposed in the.June 2,-: ' 1977. amendments to the VC standard. - Based on the similarity of the proposed amendments and the EDFs requested comprehensive program for regulating ' airborne carcinogens, the EPA believed that it should not take final action on the proposed VC amendments until after it . had acted on the EDFs petition. On October 10.1979 (44 FR 58642), the EPA proposed "Policy and Procedures for Identifying. Assessing, and Regulating Airborne Substances Posing Assessment Group reviewed new health a Risk of Cancer." This proposal studies that have become available - addressed several issues which were since the standard was promulgated central to the proposed VC -................. This review included a study of the amendments. It also articulated the estimated carcinogenic strength of VC EPA's conclusion that Section 112 does (the VC unit risk number) and focused not express an intent to eliminate totally on whether this number should be all risks front emissions of airborne changed to reflect new infonnaton. 1 carcinogens. The EPA's selection of the Since the current standard was ' level of control for a hazardous air promulgated new occupational studies pollutant emission standard would not have confirmed qualitatively .that liver be based on a policy that requires zero and brain cancer incidence are emissions of carcinogens. This policy is ' asociated with population exposure to consistent with the basis for other atmospheric VC However, none of recent actions under Section 112. For these new studies have sufficient example, standards for benzene from exposure information to warrant a coke ovens and leaks from equipment refinement of the quantitative cancer components in benzene service are not based on a zero emissions policy but ' ' rather on a reasonable level of control.* which considers emissions and health risk estimate. - Findings and Conclusions of the Review Study ....... risks. The EPA believes it is not appropriate to leave the proposed amendments to the VC standard in effect or to ~ promulgate amendments based on the proposed amendments. Therefore, the- June 2.1977, proposal is withdrawn. As described in the following section of this notice, the EPA began a review study to - obtain additional technical data and cost information and to determie whether other amendments to the ______ standard are needed. New amendments The findings and conclusions of the " VC review study are presented in the following subsections. The first - subsection discusses the need and basis for the current standard The second subsection addresses the level of control required by the current standard The third subsection identifies source 1 categories not covered by the current standard and evaluates the : appropriateness of regulating these sources; _--. .,-.v. developed as a result of the review . (l).Need and Basis for Current Standard study are proposed in this notice. ''The current VC standard wasl~ - Review of VC Standard; ' -r isv- established based on judgments'."^ '.. Eariy in 1980 the EPA began a review. ? concerning the costs and benefits of the r of the VC standard. The primary * ^ *"'5r standard to society. The standard is oot - purpose of the review was to investigate designed to eliminate VC exposure risk the adequacy and appropriateness of the" standard in light of policy decisions. . .- entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance between public health protection and - health studies, control technology; the cost of that protection. Data ' developments, and enforcement and (evaluated before the current standard compliance experience which have was established) strongly indicate that occurred since the standard was first . VC causes or contributes to the promulgated. The review consisted of a -development of angiosarcoma, other screening study of: (1) Existing and new cancers, and various noncarcinogenic control technologies, (2) sources not disorders in people with occupational - regulated by the standard, and (3)- enforcement and compliance experience since promulgation of the standard.' Information and data evaluated during .ihis,study were obtained through- literature searches, plant visits, and r/; ` interviews with industrial- ' representatives and EPA regional personnel involved in enforcement and surveillance of the VC-emitting industries. The information and data are presented in a document that may be obtained as described in the addresses section of-this preamble. Decisions '' - exposure and in animals with - experimental exposure to VC Although no dose-response data are available at the concentrations of VC found in the ambient air. the EPA concluded when ' the standard was established that any atmospheric concentration of VC poses some public heath risk. To eliminate the risk of VC exposure entirely, a complete prohibition of ail VC emissions would be necessary. This would require the closure of the entire industry and result in serious, adverse economic impacts. Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the based on this review are summarized in the next two sections of this preamble. As another aspect of the review of the VC standard the EPA's Carcinogen. time the current standard was - established that a complete prohibition of all VC emissions would not be desirable or necessary. The EPA ABD00317986 CB3 Federal Register / Voh. 50; No. ft / Wednesday,. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules concluded this in view of the Table T- Status of Current Emission tsv- at the timeofthe promulgation of the Ifr beneficial uses of VC products Ear which desirable- substitutes are not readily' els From-Sources Covered-sr the ViMYt ppmv limit. ChlorioeNESHAP . Comments received on- the proposed ; available:(2|thepotendatadverse health andfnvu-onxBental impacts ; associated with VC substitutes that " ~ have not been throughly studied: (3| the" CnilMfi ion Stamm _ 6wwii (mQ/yft 'UnensoM* |pro i87S GonMftaa* ' (ewram 1 ' Mtt 1977 amendments stated that in. order to meet a limit of5 ppmv. a control device :. would have to be capable of control, at. ar level even lower than 5 ppmv to offset " number ofemployees, particularly' In fabrication industries; who would become at least temporarily unemployed: and (41 the availability of.... . control technology that is capable of . .. ... ; substantially reducing emissions of VC. 1. ..into the atmosphere. ............ . Although all EDC. VC and PVC plants have now incorporated VC emission - controls, the maintenance of a Federal standard for VC is still considered ' necessary. The VC standard contains - " requirements for the proper operation . andmaintenance of control devices and .the proper implementation of work - T practices.These requirements reflect an appropriate balance between the need - to minimiTM health risks and the *' --' avoidance of unreasonabteeconomic and community unpacts winch-would ' result from standard'sdesigned to- " - reduce-risfcy to zero. Relative to : initial control costa the additional cost. of maintaining- and implementing the': Federal VC standard is smalL "* Nevertheless, if the Federal standard is discontinued, these small costs may be. sufficient to provide the industry with an economic-incentive for discontinuing the use ofproper control measures. Thus, the continued maintenance of Federal standards for the control ofVC ' - is necessary to ensure a continuation of the current level of coniroL . Additionally, the standard is important ;forthe'controlofVCemissionafrom. ... . Eamona ftcok^moaM-Siaooo nq/yr EDC/VC-taeM* emission fluctuations; Commenters also stated that a change from 10 to 5 ppmv centaL. Oxyasonn* ttonwrn Rkat -iSapmr ' . [ (Ug/kQ.EOC : product ;Won '* U4 . . m ,-- ! and- - - - . : . ouMmm - wniai 1 :ong--na i NS , b* ArottUi* 9Nns9* f ar+z SO 3a '- would result is little reduction m mass ' emissions ofVC FInaly. commenters ' questioned'theratfbnale of the "zero ' emission, goaf policy-' ` Because the proposed 5 ppmv emission limit was not based* on data. . from a control technology different from that analyzed for the current standard and because 10 ppmv represents the EmaaMna inn a norm 88.00Q mg/y WC faoNp -.. lowest level ofcontrol whickhas be'en_ i consistently achieved, the EPA ' .. . ^ Prtnwy -T t' comroL Ractor (L0Q2 lujyiOO- m. - 1 hg-PVC ; ! . ^' | oroduct'.' Combimd 400ppv . aourea* . auaoanaon' lZt.238. 0;? -withdraws the proposed 5 ppniv Omit i * r ''* and affirms the original10 ppmv limit. If such a technology had Seen, identified. It -* * .r could have been the basis of a. revised standard. However, during, the review - altar rosin Wcpr i- faganro_ ... WorthpraoM _______i.04a . -- - - ' ` WM 1. f.aqupmnc . rtamda- . - - .. ios * study no more advanced technology was identified, even though additional data, on inrineratoo-'carbon adsorbers, and : solvent absorption control systems on . nvavr .. ..` [Nonorwant* 1 ' 1 ' T3S ^ | tta- .Cl* (- rtKftarga . .0-,-L- r existing plants were obtained Although-. these data indicate that incinerators are capable oCretfuring. emissions below'lO .' Ouu on- Ow iroiaartna aeOmattB damcpadi from data suomcRM by industrial sourcaa prior to promunuonot tf* 1975 VC KanOVO. ` Roomanta ammatad aww (rent EOC/VC an PVC plants maaong cwrant starwart - * Data war* not codactao an ratat wrtn dlacftaraaa from. EOC/VC plants pnor to I973i ................ * eased on ttta EPA awimona aatVnataa tor a typed tuapanama pMnC. Emiaao* aaamana Me Owe Mac. and dMpanajn plana are not praanaa nara. .... ppmv.10 ppmv represents the lowest level of control which has been . consistently achieved. Based on this information, the EPA has concluded that there is no unproved or new control . technology that has been demonstrated to significantly and consistently reduce KfppmvStondarcf.Eaiisaian sources covered by this- standard include EDC purification, and VC monomer formation and purification equipment monomer recovery systems and other equipment emissions to a level below that required by the current, standard. Thereforew no further technological investigation of the 10 ppmv standard is planned. Oxychlorination Vent Standard--02 . g/kgEDC. the current oxychiarination - .plants built in the future. The. at PVC plants, and vents from fugitive. consequence of not maintaining a .-w,-..: . emission capture systems-The standard Federal standard would be to-increase is based primarily on the control of the carcinogenic risk, to large segments , . these emissions by incineration or other of the population. (Inrl9?ft when the primary control devices and specifies an standard was originally proposed. : - - emission limit of10 parts per million by approximately 4 million people lived ,. volume [ppmvj; of VC averaged aver a 3- within* 5-mile radius of EDC. VC and * hour period. The 10 ppmv standard PVC plants^1-Accordingly, the EPA has ~ ' applies to control device bypass concludedthat the maintenance of the - streams........... .........___ .. v. Federal standard for VC or reasonable One of the amendments proposed in vent standard of 0i2 g of VC per kg of EDC does not require an add-on control devices Instead, the limit can be achieved at most plants by controlling operating conditions and at the remaining plants through process. - -modifications; At the time the originalstandard was written, incineration of oxychiorination vent emission* was investigated. Because of expected high energy costs associated with * - revision of the standard, fe appropriate. 1977 would have required reduction of the emission limit from 10 to 5 ppmv. supplemental fuel requirements for combustion, incineration was - (2) Reviewof Technology-Based Level The goal of the proposed 5 ppmv limit .. determined not to be a reasonable . of Control- was to ensure thet the standard method of control for this, source.' '~'v- continued to approach a ''zero emission The amendments proposed in 1977 This subsection describes the status goal'1 by requiring owners and operators specified a level of 5 ppm for the of the technology-based level of control both to maximize the effectiveness of ; oxychlorination vent. The proposed for sources covered by the eunent . standard. The present status of * - existing control systems and to design improved new control systems at the requirement was based on installation of an. oxygen feed system with an - -- emissions from sources covered bythe time of construction. The 5 ppnxr limit incinerator or equipment control device. current VC standard is presented in was not based on data for control ; The use of oxygen feed in the EDC - - Table 1. technology different from that analyzed oxychlorinaton process decreases the ABD00317987 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules volume of inert substances in the vent include blend tanks, dryers, centrifuges, stream and. consequently, the cost for storage silos, bagging operations, and supplemental fuel required for any sources following the stripper. incineration. Comments received on this Control of these emissions is based on proposed amendment focused primarily either stripping the PVC resin to a on the high expense and large energy specified (based on resin type) residual requirements associated with the VC level (i.e_ 400 ppm for suspension, production of oxygen. bulk, solution, arid latex resins: and The review study identified no control 2.000 ppm for dispersion resins) or technology for oxychlorinadon vents at controlling the emissions from all EDC/VC plants that had not been sources following the stripper with a considered during the development of control device. The 1977 proposed the original standard. Additionally, the amendments would have required "new EPA reevaluated the cost of retrofit resins'* to be stripped to lower levels incinerator controls and reached the (Le.. 100 ppm for suspension, bulk, same conclusion drawn in the.......... solution, and latex resins: and 500 ppm development of the original standards for dispersion resins). When the As before, the high cost associated with amendments were proposed, the EPA incinerating oxychlorination vents at believed that some resins could meet the existing EDC/VC plants makes this level, proposed limits: whereas, for other of control unreasonable. Thus, the resins the manufacturer would have ' current standard of 02 g/kg EDC is been required to develop improved considered still to be the most stripping technology or not to produce reasonable level of control for existing the resin. oxychlorinadon vents. In addition, the Industry comments stated that most review study concluded that significant dispersion, copolymer, and bulk resins new construction or modification of would suffer degradation if more . EDC/VC plants is not expected. At this stringent emission limits were imposed. time, only one new EDC/VC facility is Additionally, the commenters noted the ' reportedly planned. (BF Goodrich has inherent difficulties in defining a "new. . plans to construct an EDC/VC Utility in resin." Information submitted by _ Convent Louisiana.] Oxychlorination commenters indicated that minor - vents at new EDC/VC plants will be adjustments to resin compositions are regulated by the proposed standards of made routinely, and completely new performance for air oxidation processes resins are rarely, if ever. made. As a . (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart 111) or by the result of these comments, the EPA BACT or LAER requirements of new concluded that it is impossible in many source review regulations applicable in - cases to distinguish between new and specific locations to a level comparable existing resins and still have any resins to that achievable through the use of - covered by the proposed amendments. incineration. Because the Further, the proposed amendments did- technologically achievable level of not address what levels of control could control is assured through the current be achieved by improved stripping requirements, the EPA concluded that technology. For these reasons, the EPA investigation of additional control (i.e., chose to evaluate whether higher levels incineration) was not required for - of control are achievable for all resins. - oxychlorination vents. or only for some special classes of Reactor Opening--0.02 g/kg PVC resins. Product The current VC standard The review study found that resin restricts emissions during _ . - stripping technology has improved since polymerization reactor openings. The .the current standard was promulgated, standard was based on reactor purging and that some processors can achieve and on a reduction in the frequency of lower resin residual VC levels than reactor openings. An increased level of those required in the original standard. control was not proposed in the 1977 In certain cases, some resins can meet amendments. (The level of control the more stringent levels specified in the provided by the current standard, previously proposed amendments. 0.02 g/kg of PVC productiTeduces VC However, other processors emissions to about 1.36 Mg per year for manufacturing resins of differing grades a model PVC plant.) During the review and characteristics can only marginally of the standard, no technology was comply .with the original standard. identified that would provide additional Because of the wide variation in resin VC reductions beyond the level of the grades and characteristics, it cannot be current standard. Therefore, the EPA is concluded that even though a particular not investigating further the control of resin made by one company can meet a reactor openings. particular level, any other resin or Combined Sources After Resin similar resins produced by another Stripping. The sources of VC emissions company could also meet that level. covered under the current standard Furthermore, in some cases these processors meeting the more stringent limits proposed previously are stripping these resins to this low level to offset emissions from those resins which are more difficult to strip. Without this ability to average the emissions and reductions among resins, these processors might not achieve the current standard. Exempting resin grades known to be difficult to strip is not . feasible because these resins cannot readily be defined. For the foregoing reasons, the EPA has concluded that there is no demonstrated level of control which could significantly and consistently reduce residual VC levels in resins to levels below that required by the current standard. Therefore, the EPA is not investigating further the control'of the combined sources after stripping. Equipment Leaks. Because little was known about leak detection and elimination programs for control of equipment leaks from components in VC service, specific requirements for these programs were not included in the current standard. Instead, each plant was required to institute and implement a formalized leak detection and elimination program incorporating both a fixed-point monitor and a portable monitor. Plant-specific programs wet subject to approval by the ' . ' Administrator. Consequently, due to. site-specific differences among plant afweli as variations m leax definitions^ and monitoring practices, differences control of equipment leaita amqSg plants have resulted. Since the stands waft ppnmnlflflttwt tha kpA~ nas oDtaine inorr inform^^^w^artaining to the, control of-aquipment leaks from components in VC serviced With the information obtained form the development of other standards, an effective leak detection and repair program based on use of a portable monitor can now be specified for equipment covered by this program. The specific leak detection and repair requirements are discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of this preamble. Relief Valve Discharge Standard. Sources of VC emissions covered by this standard include discharges from relief valves on pressure vessels, transfer lines, and other equipment in EDC/VC and PVC plants. The standard is based on emission control by a combination of equipment and process modifications, and operational procedures, found in plants during development of the standard. An exact combination of modifications and operational procedures was not specified. Instead, a performance standard (i.e., an emission ABD00317988 1186 Federal Register / Vol. SO. No. 0 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules standard) was established because it was believed that different combinations could be equally effective in controlling relief valve discharges. The current format of the standard prohibits all relief valve discharges except emergency discharges. Emergency discharges are described as those which could hot have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge (Le.. those that are "nonpreventable"). Since the standard was promulgated, all plants have experienced some releases. Many of these releases are considered preventable by the EPA. Based on visits to plants with good compliance histories, the EPA concluded that a level of performance reflecting compliance with the current format of the standard through the combined effects of . . equipment process modifications and operational procedures remains reasonable, during the review, no technological level of control was found that would provide for a more stringent' standard. Therefore, the standard is still considered to reflect the appropriate level of control for these sources. However, as discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the standard by setting limits for relief valve discharges in a different format Administrative Aspects of the Standard. Even though the EPA decided not to revise the level of control' associated with the current VC standard, the EPA identified revisions to several administrative aspects of the standard. These revisions as well as those identified above, are discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the preamble. (3) Review of Sources Sot Previously Covered This subsection discusses the status of VC sources not covered by the current standard that were identified in the review study. For these sources, the EPA assessed whether a Federal standard was warranted. The EPA's assessment of these sources was based primarily on a quantitative analysis of VC emissions from these sources combined with a qualitative analysis of risks associated with exposure to VC from these sources. The EPA considers these analyses to be adequate in place . of a thorough quantitative risk assessment for purposes of determining whether a Federal standard is warranted for these sources. Because these sources are already relatively well-controlled and the quantity of VC emission, and consequently, the risks associated with exposure to VC from these sources, are small in comparison to sources covered by the VC standard, unnecessary and that the current level the EPA concluded that none of the of control resulting from the EPA's additional sources identified in the standard and OSHA's standard is still review study warrant a Federal reasonable. standard. Landfills. Off-specification resins Miscellaneous Sources of VC containing VC has been taken to Emissions. Miscellaneous sources are landfills where the gaseous VC can be plants other than PVC and EPC/VC released. However, the current EPA plants that use VC as a raw material or standard intends that ail resins, produce VC as an intermediate or by* including off-specification resins, be product The EPA has identified four . stripped to reduce the VC emissions such plants, two of these plants produce from sources downstream from the 1.1.1-trichloroethane, one produces stripper.jn order to rhrify tfrnt itripping perchioroethylene and trichloroethylene requirements also apply to the off- - a and the fourth plant produces pesticides. spe-ift**atin" mi"? bffnre removal of j (An additional 1.1.1-trichloroethane unit landfills, these requirements are being f was constructed at a fourth location but "/restated to explicit? address offT > has reportedly never operated. There "Cgfiificati"" mi"f Tha EPA believes s' are no plans to operate in the furture.) that the level of control resulting from Review of VC emission sources at the the stripping requirements is reasonable: identified plants showed them to be well - thus. VC emission requirements for controlled. Emissions of VC from these * landfills are not being proposed today. plants are primarily from fugitive However, the EPA recognizes that VC sources and range from less than l.Mg/ may be emitted from hazardous waste yr to 14 Mg/yr per plant In general, the landfills and is evaluating and may VC NESHAP requirements for process regulate under the Resource vents and equipment in VC service are ' Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) being met at the miscellaneous sources volatile emissions (including VC) from due to company policy considerations ' landfills at hazardous waste disposal and State and local regulatory facilities. The EPA also recognizes that requirements. In addition, many of the - VC has been detected in municipal equipment components in VC service landfills. Therefore, in addition to would be covered by standards of ' assessing VC emissions from hazardous performance for new sources and waste disposal facilities, a (RCRA) standards for sources in nonattainment Subtitle D TASK FORCE has been areas. Based on the investigation of formed which will assess all these sources, the EPA concluded that environmental releases including air ' they are already relatively well* emissions from Subtitle O facilities (a controlled and do not contribute category which includes municipal significantly to VC exposure. For these landfills). reasons, additional requirements for miscellaneous sources of VC are not Administrative Revisions being proposed at this time. As discussed in the Findings and PVC Fabrication Plants. There are Conclusions of the Review Study section about 8.000 fabrication plants which of this preamble, the EPA identified take the resin produced by PVC plants several administrative revisions that are and fashion it into intermediate or final appropriate as a result of the review products. Emissions from these plants study. The rationale for the proposed are estimated to be about 0.0035 Mg/yr administrative revisions is presented in per plant. In comparison to VC thia section of the preamble. These production plants (which typically emit revisions include: (1) Reformatting the about 92 Mg/yr), PVC fabrication plants emission limit for relief valve are small emitters of VC. If standards discharges. (2) providing a compliance were developed for this category they test procedure and a specific emission would not result in reduced emissions limit for operators who strip in the because the best control for these plants reactors. (3) specifying requirements for is to reduce the VC levels in the resins leak detection and repair program for being processed by the fabricators. equipment components in VC service, Resin stripping beyond the level that and (4) miscellaneous revisions. process economics would dictate is already being done as a result of the Relief Valve Discharges EPA's current standard and OSHA's VC Background. The current format of the standard, based on the EPA's standard for relief valve discharges assessment of these sources, the EPA concluded that they do not contribute allows only `*emergency" discharges (i.e.. discharges that could not be significantly to VC exposure. Therefore, avoided by taking preventive measures). the EPA believes that the evaluation of The standard applies to all pressure controls for PVC fabrication plants is . relief devices on pressure vessels. A ? ABD00317989 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 0 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1187 transfer lines, and other equipment in of decreased discharges over the hardware and operational procedures EDC/VC and PVC plants.The control. compliance period. Following an initial implemented by each of the plants along techniques considered as the basis of drop in relief valve discharges after the with the attitudes adopted toward the standard involve a combination of standard went into effect' the frequency preventing relief valve discharges equipment modifications, process and quantity of relief valve discharges ' represent the types of control measures modifications, and operational > ' :. by EDC/VC plants have decreased ^ - that the standard intended. In particular, procedures. An exact combination of . slightly or remained relatively constant - the EPA concluded that the low modifications and operational General Basis forNumerical Limits. frequency of discharges by the visited procedures was not specified in the In selecting the proposed numerical plants was indicative of their degree of current standard; rather, a performance _ limits. EPA first evaluated in detail the effort to prevent relief valve discharges. standard (Le... an emission standard) : recent performance (1981 to 1983) of five Consistent with the goal of this was established because different PVC plants and one EDC/VC plant proposed revision, the EPA decided that combinations of the modifications and These plants were chosen based on- an alternative numerical emission limit procedures were expected to be equally discussions with EPA Regional Office ' ' based on performance resulting under effective in controlling relief valve - ~ personnel and industry and were the current standard could be revised in discharges. . ..'V ___ .... intended to represent plantsf with good ' a format that would be easier to . .. . Based on 6 years of enforcement and relief valve discharge records. In' ' understand by enforcement and industry compliance experience, the EPAhas :- = . general, the EPA's evaluation of these personnel. , w` ... concluded that the relief discharge plants indicates that each has adopted The EPA investigated two basic ways standard has resulted in: (1) Significant the combination of equipment of expressing relief valve discharge reductions in the frequency and quantity . operational procedures and attitude 1'' performance for PVC plants. One format of VC discharges from relief valves. (2) toward prevention of relief discharges is based on mass emissions, for ..... significant use of agency resources to v intended by the current standard, and example, the pounds of VC discharged evaluate individual discharges for _ that their resulting performance is \ per million pounds of PVC produced (lb preventability. and (3) uncertainty orv consistent with compliance with the' _ VC/MM lb PVC). Based on a review of the part of producers regarding whether current standard. The EPA's evaluation '' methods used by industry to determine they comply with the standard. found that a few discharges may .' the amount ofVC discharged from relief Additionally, the EPA learned some of :,; continue to occur from some plants that valves, the EPA-was unable to identify a - VC and PVC believe that this part of the comply with the standard.This ^ sufficiently accurate method for. _ current standard applies only to * - -- ... observation Is consistent with the \,`7. measuring discharge quantities from w. : discharges through safety relief valves -- expectation held by the EPA when the' V.: relief valves. At present producers are.) and that discharges through other " .... standard was written."Z. required only to estimate discharge ... pressure relief devices, such as rupture In order to revise the standard in ' quantities for reporting purposes. disks or manual or automatic vent terms of numerical limits representing Demonstration of compliance with a lb valves, are not covered. This T . compliance with the current format of VC/MM lb PVC limit would require . re - interpretation is not compatible with the - the standard, this evaluation separated producers to measure the amount of VC intent behind the current standard. To PVC and EDC/VC plants. For plants, discharged during an incident Because . provide more efficient enforcement by relief valve discharge performance data . a suitable measurement method was not decreasing the burden of individual . were further separated by source . identified, the EPA decided not to preventability assessments on the EPA. , (reactor vs. nonreactor) and by resin , ... redefine relief valve discharge . and to provide a better understanding to . type The EPA then-reviewed the ; performance by PVC plants In a lb VC/ j plant operators of the goal of the ' performance of 25 additional PVC plants MM lb PVC format - standard, the EPA is proposing to and 12 additional EDC/VC plants. The _ Another format is based on the * ' reformat the standard for relief valve EPA reviewed this large set of plants to : frequency (i.e., number per unit time) of . discharges and to define the emission ensure that the level of performance discharge from occurrences. No method points covered by this standard to demonstrated by the evaluated plants for measuring the amount of VC ' include appropriately all pressure relief could be achieved by all PVC and EDC/ discharged from relief valves is needed devices. As discussed more completely ' VC plants. . because only the occurrence of a release in the following sections, the EPA is The numerical limits presented in the is required for this format The proposing to change the format of the Findings section of this preamble are - occurrence of a discharge can be ' numerical limits in the standard to based on an evaluation of the number of determined by monitoring process reflect the number of discharges that discharges representing the parameters as well as inspecting relief occur from those plants complying with demonstrated performance level .. - valve performance reports. Thus, of the. the format of the current standard. associated with compliance with the . two basis ways of expressing relief The EPA found in the review study provisions of the existing standard. valve performance that were that efforts by all EDC/VC and PVC Format for Numerical Limits. The considered, the EPA selected a format producers to comply with the standard EPA visited the five PVC plants : - based on the frequency of discharges. are reflected in their prefarmance (in evaluated in detaiL As expected, the Based on this decision, the EPA then terms of size and frequency of EPA found differences in the considered how the format would be discharges) since the standard went into combinations of hardware and applied to PVC and EDC/VC plants. At effect. In general, a reduction in the operational procedures associated with PVC plants, the frequency of discharges - reported frequency and size of relief control of relief valve discharges of each from polymerization reactors and ; valve discharges by PVC producers has of the plants. Furthermore, no exact associated process equipment may be occurred since 1978. A further decrease relationship was found between the - related to the fact that a batch process is in relief valve discharges by the PVC effectiveness of specific hardware items used to produce most types ofPVC. For industry occurred between 1980 and and operational procedures and batch PVC production processes, the 1981. Performance by the EDC/VC prevention of discharges. In the EPA's opportunity for discharges is related to- _ industry exhibited a less marked trend judgment the various combinations of the number of times a new ABD00317990 1188__________Federal Register / Vol 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 } Proposed Rules polymerization batch is initiated. production of suspension and bulk period. Recent performance suggests Expressing relief valve discharge resins indicates that reactor discharge that preventable discharges have been performance for these plants with a frequency generally is either less than eliminated at this plant With the discharge-per-batch format accounts for 0.035 discharges/100 batches or is much exception of a potential emergency variations among plants in die number greater. (Recent reactor discharge . . discharge occurrence, future discharges of batches produced. The EPA selected frequencies for suspension resin plants at this plant are not anticipated. 100 polymerization batches as a convenient basis for expressing relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants with batch production processes in a discharge frequency format Further, the EPA noted that the ability - of batch PVC producers to limit the discharge frequency may be different for reactor and nonreactor discharges and . that reactor discharges may vary by resin.type at any plant Consequently, relief valve discharges by individual " PVC plants (except for continuous solution process plants) were classified according to type of discharge (i.eM .. reactor vs. nonreactor) and the reactor ' discharges were separated by resin type. Nonreactor discharge sources at ' PVC plants include blowdown tanks, : with poorer performance levels ranged between 0.059 and 0.101 discharges/100 batches.) Further examination of relief valve discharge performance by suspension resin producers indicates that only one plant experienced more than 4 discharges per year during the period from 1981 to 1983. Performance . by this plant also exceeded 0.035 -- discharges/100 batches. -- The reactor discharge frequency . associated with dispersion and latex production is typically zero. However, for a typical dispersion or latex resin process with a low,production rate (Le- number of polymerization batches per year), a single emergency reactor . discharge in a given year would be . . equivalent to a discharge frequencyof EDC/VC Discharges. During the review study, the EPA evaluated performance by one EDC/VC plant In detail This plant experienced about four discharges that could be considered emergencies. Recent (1981 to 1983) relief valve discharge performance data for other EDC/VC producers indicates an industry range of 0 to 7 discharges/yr. Information obtained from plants during the review indicated that where applicable, similar types of equipment process modifications and operational procedures used to control relief valve discharges from PVC plants also are ~ used at EDC/VC pants. The EPA "" examined discharges by the EDC/VC / producers who exceeded four transfer lines, and storage vessels. " Because usage of this equipment is alstf : about 0.035 discharges/100.batches. ..... Nonreactor Discharges. Nonreactor '.7 discharges in one or more years since ` 1981 and found that one or more of the related to some extent to the frequency " discharge frequencies by PVC plants .. discharges at each plant were * '/ of batch polymerization operations, the ` typically were either less than 0.025 ..;. preventable. Elimination of the relief valve discharge performance by discharges/100 batches or were much y preventable discharges would allow nonreactor sources in PVC plants with ' ^ greater. (Recent nonreactor discharge*"^ each of these plants to reduce their batch production processes was also ~'v: frequencies reflecting poorer examined on the basis of number of jj*' * performance than the 0.025 level ranged annual discharge frequency to four or fewer. ......................... * " discharges/100 batches. 1 -- Unlike the batch process used to '' produce other PVC resin types, the ' ~ between 0.046 and 0.225 discharges/100 batches.) Furthermore.'with the ' .' exception of two producers, no more Summary ofNumerical Limits. Based on the study of current relief valve discharge performance by PVC and solution PVC process is continuous. :- than three discharges per year were EDC/VC plants, the EPA is proposing Thus relief valve discharge performance reported from nonreactor sources in that the following numerical limits for for the solution PVC process cannot be PVC plants during the period from 1981 relief valve discharges be added to the expressed on a frequency per batch to 1983. standard. Each discharge causing an basis. Instead, the relief valve discharge ; Each of the five PVC plants that the exceedence of any numerical limit performance associated with the EPA evaluated in detail was among presented below wodd be considered a _ solution production process can only be - those achieving 0.035 discharges/100 violation without regard to whether any | expressed in terms of the total number batches or less in each of the reactor Individual discharge was preventable. of discharges (reactor and nonreactor) - discharge categories and 0.025 per year. . *. Similarly, the EDC/VC production discharges/100 batches or less in the nonreactor discharge category. The EPA Category NumancHOm* , process is not a batch process, but is ' examined individual discharge incidents continuous. Thus, relief valve discharge for the PVC producers whose recent " - performance by EDC/VC plants also ' performance has exceeded 0.035 " cannot be expressed on a frequency per discharges/100 batches in one or more batch basis. Moreover, the EPA was - of the reactor discharge categories or unable to detect a direct relationship who exceeded 0.025 discharges/100 between discharge frequency and VC batches and 3 discharges per year from ' production at EDC/VC plants. Thus, the - nonreactor sources. In every case, the (U Oiacnwgw from PVC pltma isuaoaraion. <**oarm lata*. butt procmii) (a) Rmoots: --MQtrwen twain proo* --diaoarann ruin prooua gnOuaing to** runt. ' --Curb ruin 0.035 - - dacnargaa/lCO batcftu. net arcaaoinq 4 diacftargaa/y*. 0.033 tfacftargaa/iOO bawvu. - a033 ' 'dscnargaiMOO - EPA decided to define releif valve discharge performance for EDC/VC ' EPA identified one or more discharges that were preventable. Elimination of batefua. (8) Nonraacar soureu -- 0.025 <fiacfwgaa/tOO batenaa. not wcaung 3 plants on the basis of a total number of annual discharges. Findings. PVC Reactor Discharges. . Suspension resins account for the highest percentage of total PVC these preventable discharges indicates that these producers should have achieved discharge frequencies comparable to the five PVC plants that the EPA evaluated in detail. (2) Otadtargu from PVC ptama (aomSon and omar oontnuoua procauaal. PI Otxftargaa from EDC/VC puma. tfuftargaa/yr. 1 dacnarga/yr. 4 dacfiargaa/yr. l production. The remaining PVC / Solution PVC Process. Discharge production is in the form of bulk, frequency from both reactor and Compliance Provisions. The EPA dispersion and solution resins. (A small . nonreactor sources by the single plant recognizes that all plants may amount of latex resin is produced by a producing PVC by the solution process experience an unavoidable relief valve process closely related to the dispersion was zero during the period 1981 to 1983. discharge incident at some time. process.) Examination of relief valve Previously, this plant experienced as Examination of relief valve discharge discharge performance associated with many as two discharges in a 12-month performance by PVC plants with low ABD00317991 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1169 discharge frequencies, indicated that "polymerization batch'* consists of each operating history, relief valve discharge plants with the lowest polymerization sequence of charging VC and other performance by certain plants is batch frequencies typically experience materials to the reactor, heating reactor, expected to be much better than the about one discharge in a 12-month - contents, polymerization of reactor respective limits. For exampievsome period. The EPA concluded that for most contents, and removal (Le- blowdown) new suspension resin PVC plants plants a 12-month reporting period - - of reactor contents. Any batch that is produce about 5,000 batches during a (rolling every 6-months) was both - aborted following charging of VC to the 12-month compliance period. One and suitable and appropriate for determining reactor is nonetheless counted as a two discharges at one of these plants compliance with the proposed numerical polymerization batch in assessing during a compliance period would result limits. For plants producing only a small compliance. For PVC plants producing amount of a particular resin (i.e,, low . : bulk ream, a single "polymerization in a discharge performance of 0.02 and 0.05 discharges per 100 batches, number of polymerization batches), an - batch" includes both prepolymerization respectively. The second discharge apparent violation of the standard may and postpolymerization reactor , during the compliance period would be result from a single discharge , operations. '-;/ " a violation of the proposed 0.035 occurrence during a 12-month. Discharge frequency can be recorded compliance period as described below. . in two ways. Discharge frequency can discharges per 100 batches limit despite the fact that the first discharge would .. For a PVG plant producing a single -- be recorded on the basis of discharge result in performance well below the resin type to meet die numerical limit for events (involving discharges from one or limit These types of plants were reactor discharges (i.e,, 0.035 - . . . more relief valves) or on individual considered in selecting the proposed discharges/100 batches), it must ' relief valve discharges. In most cases, limits and reporting procedures for relief experience and average of no more than, plants currently report discharges valve discharges. The result that plants one discharge per 2,858 polymerization - individually when they occur from relief ' of this type must perform well below the batches over the preceding 12-month . valves on separate equipment However, limits in the standard in order to be in period. An average reactor discharge .. . certain equipment such as . compliance is consistent with the frequency exceeding one discharge per . polymerization reactors that are proposed limits, which were selected to- 2,858 batches would be a violation of the equipped with multiple relief valves may represent an upper boundary on the standard. However, if the plant made experience discharges simultaneously number of allowable discharges less than 2.858 polymerization batches from more than one relief valve. Most ^ intended by the standard. The EPA .. over the 12-month compliance period, a . plants currently report such multiple .. ; expects that plants using the best single discharge occurrence would be an discharges from a single piece of technology and procedures should be - - apparent violation of.the standard (ie^~ equipment as a single discharge. Thus, r.i; able to perform better than the proposed the discharge frequency per 100 batches - the performance levels serving as the limits. ---- would exceed 0'035). Because - basis for the numerical limits represent - - Reporting Requirements. The current insufficient batches were made, the individual discharges and not multiple standard for relief valve discharges reported discharge frequency per 100 discharge events except when they requires producers to report discharges batches would not correctly reflect the occur from a single pieceof equipment within 10 days of the incident The EPA performance by that plant in comparison For determining compliance with the is proposing to eliminate the 10 day to other plants complying with the " numerical limits, discharge frequency is reporting requirements and to require standard. In rectifying the undue ' to be recorded.on the basis of individual reporting of all discharges on a quarterly . compliance burden posed on plants with discharges except when simultaneous basis. Although compliance is to be small numbers of batches by the - discharges occur from relief valves on determined on a semiannual basis, discharge/100 batch format and the * the same piece of equipment >; ~ - quarterly reporting of discharges Is ' selected 12-month compliance period, the EPA is proposing to add additional provisions affecting the number of batches used to calculate the discharge frequency. For PVC plants producing ~ A relief valve discharge in considered to be any venting through a pressure relief device to prevent or relieve an overpressure condition from equipment In VC service that results in emissions appropriate because*violations of the standard may occur well before the end of the 6-month period. Quarterly reporting notifies enforcement personnel of potential violations and violations less than 2.858 batches ofa particular of VC directly or indirectly to the that have already occurred prior to the resin, the minimum number of 2.858 atmosphere. In determining whether or - end of the compliance period so that batches will be used when'determining not a relief valve discharge results in corrective actions can take place sooner compliance with the numerical limits. PVC plants producing more than one resin type must demonstrate compliance separately for reactor discharges emissions to the atmosphere, the controlling factor is the ultimate disposition of the gases. Venting to a manifold or header system that following the end of the compliance period. Information to be included in the semiannual report for individual relief valve discharges is to be'reduced to occurring from different resin production processes.' Only the relief valve discharges and polymerization batches specific to each resin type are " considered for determining compliance. ultimately discharges to the atomsphere constitutes a relief valve discharge. If the manifold or header discharges gases through a control device meeting the 10 ppmv VC emission limit the venting include only the date, time, source, cause and estimated amount of each discharge occurrence. The semiannual report will also inlcude information on ' compliance status. However, for determining compliance does not constitute a relief valve In addition, plants will now be with the standard for nonreactor discharge. required to maintain relief valve discharges, the total number of For purposes of reporting compliance discharge records for 3 years, because of polymerization batches (regardless of resin type) are counted. : .To determine the number of polymerization batches produced for status with the limits, plants will be required to calculate their discharge per batch frequencies with sufficient precision to demonstrate that ' - the potentially significant increase in the time period between a discharge occurrence and reporting of the discharge. _ '. purposes of assessing compliance, the performance is either equal to, below of Effective Date ofRevision. The following guidelines apply. A in excess of the limits. Based on current standard as written will remain ABD00317992 JLAckA)'7 * * * 1190 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. S / Wednesday, January\9, 1985 / Proposed Rules in effect for relief valve discharges until calculation methods are then used to effectiveness ofleak detection and the proposed revisions are promulgated. establish the reactor opening loss. repair programs. Some plants The proposed administrative revisions Based on experience of the EPA implemented rigorous programs and do not change the standard's original Regional offices, a method for others implemented programs lacking -- _ . ~ .. - _ intent and are intended only to set limits to facilitate compliance and .. --------- -- enforcement efforts. Thus, the current standard will continue to be enforced until the revisions are promulgated. . Stripping-in-ReactorCompliance Test Procedure ' The test method for measuring reactor opening losses was developed for resin stripping operations that take place in ' vessels separate from the reactor. Some PVC plants, including all bulk resin . manufacturers, however, do not use separate strippers to remove residual VC from the resin produced. Instead, these plants strip VC from the product resin in the reactor (postpolymerization reactor in the case of bulk resin . producers). For plants with reactor resin stripping operations, the concentration of VC in the. reactor vapor space, as measured in accordance with the current standard, exceeds the O.G2g/kg of PVC requirement The high .......... concentrations result form VC monomer diffusing from the resin into the vapor :. space during the period following . completion of the stripping operation 7 (normally occurring under a vacuum that must be broken before the reactor can . . be emptied) and before the reactor is completely emptied of PVC resin. According to the Federal Register notice of promulgation of the current VC standard (40 FR 48563, October 21.1976), any VC escaping from the resin after it . has been stripped to acceptable levels is not intended to be cauntedas part of the reactor opening loss. However, the current standard did not include in the . measurement method an acceptable method for determining what part of the VC in the vapor space has escaped from "the resin after stripping is completed The current standard allows bulk resin producers to calculate reactor opening loss emissions from the postpolymerization reactor based on the number of reactor evacuations, the vacuum invloved and the volume of gas determining the reactor opening loss specific procedures or requirements. that accounts for stripping in the reactor Accordingly, the effectiveness of leak has been developed for use by all detection and elimination programs nonbulk resin producers with reactor varies among the plants. resin stripping operations and is included in the proposed revisions to the current VC standard. Limitations for w resin residual and reactor opening loss \j are added together to give a total Since the current standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained more information pertaining to the control of emission from equipment allowable VC content from these two leaks. Based on this information and the sources. The measured resin residual review of the leak detection and VC and "the calculated reactnr npeninq stimulation plans being implemented to Toaa would then hp addpri together, and ^control emissions of VC the EPA' averaged over a 24-hour period iecided to specify leak detection and , . according to resin type, if the 24^m?r repair requirements for certain average meets the . equipment components in VC service. Ttie plant would b^considered t,a ha in _ Although information obtained from Compliance with both the stripping an4- development of other standards tfie reactor opehing loss requirements. indicates that a routine leak detection Leak Detection and Repair I::*:* - and repair program with a portable .. . monitor can be an effective emission .. . Background. The current standard reduction technique without the * - " requires implementation of a formalized requirement of a fixed point monitoring * program for detection of leaks from system, the EPA concluded that fixed- equipment in VC service and ' " point monitoring systems already in elimination of these leaks. The place have uses that Justify their formalized program includes a multipoint VC detector and a portable retention in the current standard. In particular, fixed-point monitors allow' volatile organic compound (VOC)' analyzer. The fixed-point monitoring system continuously monitors VC concentrations in the work area around equipment in VC service and sounds an alarm when concentrations exceed a prescribed level The portable monitor is used independently to screen individual equipment components for leaks. Rather than specifying the number of points to be monitored, the sensitivities of the ' multipoint detector, the VC concentration that indicates a leak, and the actions to be taken to repair leaks, the current standard requires each plant owner or operator to prepare a program plan containing these specifications and to submit the plan to the EPA for . approval. Plant owners or operators are required to submit data on background concentrations of VC in different areas of the plant to use in determining the VC concentration that should be designated as indicating a leak. Plans, therefore, for quick detection of certain large VC ; leaks that might otherwise go undetected until the next routine portable monitor screening. The EPA recognizes that existing fixed-point monitoring plans will need to be :: reviewed in light of the leak detection and repair requirements being specified at this time'. The complexity of existing fixed-point monitoring plans, in terms of number and distribution of monitoring points, varies greatly among plants. Consequently, some plant owners or operators may want to alter the number of points that are monitored and the distribution of monitoring locations to better complement the specified portable monitoring requirements. Such changes to existing fixed-point monitoring plans will be allowed providing they do not alter the plant's ' ability to detect large VC leaks. The proposed revisions are primarily in the reactors. For nonbuik resin were tailored by each plant and intended to standardize control of VC - producers with reactor resin stripping operations, calculation of reactor opening loss emissions is more reviewed by the the EPA Regional Offices. _ r. The EPA found in the review study emissions from equipment leaks. In ' doing this, the EPA is concerned that existing effective plans not be complicated due to the presence of dial differences in leak detection and inappropriately changed. The proposed water vapor in the reactor vapor space. elimination programs exist among PVC revisions include provisions that allow Currently, waivers of testing for and EDC/VC production plants and plants with existing effective plans to producers with nonbuik resin stripping miscellaneous sources and that site- periodically demonstrate the operations in the reactor have been . specific differences include variations in effectiveness of their plans without granted on a case-by-case basis by the leak definitions and monitoring additional requirements. Accordingly. EPA Regions, typically with the practices. The definition and monitoring EPA ppqimaia ffynments from provision that residual VC samples are practices, along with repair practices, fodll*ry ppr-rsrntahvri oonrrming the-- anlayzed on each batch. A variety of . are primary influences On the control specific_effect3 of specifying leak . ABD00317993 -yy Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1191 detection and repair requirements on effective existing plans. Leak Detection and Repair Requirements. The EPA established leak detection and repair requirements (40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V) for certain equipment in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service on June 6, 1984. These requirements were established in conjunction with the final standard for benzene equipment leaks. The requirements of Subpart V generally apply to pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator vessels. These requirements reflect the level of control that the EPA considers reasonable for equipment covered by developing .standards for VHAP. The EPA is therefore proposing to add VC to the list of substances covered by Subpart V. Subpart V would substantively affect only valves and flanges in VC service within this industry. All other equipment in VC service are already required by the VC standard to comply with equipment and work practice standards consistent with those in Subpart V. For example, pump's and compressors 'meeting the dual mechanical seal requirements of the current VC standard will be in compliance with the Subpart V requirements. In addition, the sampling connection systems requirements of Subpart V are essentially the same as the current standard..The use of rupture discs for controlling leaks from pressure relief devices, as required by the VC standard, is consistent with the "no detectable emissions" requirement included in Subpart V. Requirements for controlling leaks from pressure relief devices are . described in more detail later in this section. Thus. Subpart V will affect primarily valves and flanges in VC service by requiring a specific monitoring schedule, leak definition and repair provisions. Compliance with the provisions of SubpartV will be used to determine compliance with the portable monitor leak detection and elimination requirements in the current VC standard (40 CFR 61.85(b)(8)(ii)), and therefore, Jhe current standard is being revised to reflect this change. However, process units within VC and PVC plants in which the percentage of leaking valves is equal to or less than 2.0 percent are considered by the EPA to be effectively controlling VC emissions from leaking valves. For these process units, the existing leak detection and elimination program will continue to be allowed while the percentage of leaking valves is ZO percent or less. Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is found to exceed ZJ3 percent will be required to comply with the provisions of Subpart V. The Subpart V requirements for valves are based on a leak detection and repair program that requires (1) monthly monitoring for valves in gas/ vapor and light liquid service. (2) an initial attempt at repairing these valves within S days after detection of a leak. (3) repair of leaking valves within 15 days after detection of the leak unless repair would require a process unit shutdown, and (4) repair of valves during the next process unit shutdown after repair is delayed until a process unit shutdown. Valves found not to leak for 2 successive months can be monitored quarterly until leaks are detected. Monitoring of equipment to detect leaks Is conducted in accordance with Method 21 and a leak is defined as a measured organic concentration equal to or greater than 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppvm).' For a complete description of the leak detection and repair requirements, see Subpart V (49 FR 23498. June 6.1984). In addition. Subpart V contains standards for other types of equipment (e.g,, flanges, and open ended valves or lines). Standards for flanges include monitoring with a portable instrument under prescribed procedures within 5 days of observing evidence of a potential leak by visual, audible or other means. Open-ended valves or lines are required to be capped, blinded or fitted with a second valve. These provisions are not expected to significantly affect producers with these types of equipment in VC service. The equipment and - procedures employed as normal practice by these producers or as a result of the current VC standard are expected generally to ensure compliance with Subpart V. Pressure ReliefDevices. The EPA proposed and promulgated the work practices, equipment, design and operational standards in the current standard before explicit legal authority existed in Section 112. These requirements are found in $ 61.65(b). In August of 1977, Congress amended Section 112 to allow the use of these requirements. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires that an emission standard (i.e., a performance standard) be established for control of a hazardous air pollutant unless, in the judgment of the EPA, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce such a standard. An emission standard allows for some flexibility in complying with the standard, since any control technique that achieves that standard may be applied. Section 112(e)(2) defines the following conditions under which it is not feadible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard: (1) If the pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant or (2) if the application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations. Section 112(e)(1) allows that if an emission standard is not feasible to prescribe or endorce, then the EPA may istead promulgate a design, equipment . work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof. The EPA has reviewed the design, equipment work practice and operational requirements contained in the current VC standard. The only sources covered by the current standard with one of the requirements for which a performance standard (Le.. an emission standard) is feasible are pressure relief devices. As discussed below, the EPA is setting a "no detectable emissions" limit for these sources. For the other sources, the EPA is reinstating those requirements as set forth in the current standard. The EPA selected the use of rupture disks as the basis for the current standard for pressure relief devices. When the integrity of ruptures disks is maintained, equipment leaks through the relief device are eliminated. Rupture disks normally maintain their integrity unless an overpressure occurs. After the. occurrence of an overpressure, replacement of the rupture disk once again eliminates equipment leaks of VC through the pressure relief device. For emission control techniques that eliminate equipment leaks, such as the use of rupture disks, a "no detectable emissions" limit is feasible. An instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume (pprnv) above a background concentration based on ' Reference Method 21 can be used to indicate whether equipment leaks have been eliminated: that is. that the equipment has "no detectable emissions." The "no detectable emission" limit would not apply to discharges through the pressure relief device during overpressure relief. (These releases are covered under 61.64(a) and 61.65(a).) The standard would specify, however, that the relief device be returned to a state of "no detectable emissions"" within 5 days after such a discharge. The standard would further require an annual test to verify the "no detectable *emissions" status of the pressi|g_rfiliaf , devices and a lest after each over > ABD00317994 -x 1192________ Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules pressure relief. This administrative the 3-hour averaging period is intended change implements the basis of this to clarify that the 10 ppmv standard standard consistent with the applies to VC emissions in all exhaust requirements of Section 112(e). gas streams covered by the 10 ppmv Miscellaneous Revisions : ;; ' requirements, including any control .. device bypass streams. Requirements Based on discussions with the EPA for calculating the VC content in regional personnel regarding their . . bypassed emissions for purposes of experience in administering the current reporting VC emissions in excess of the VC standard, the EPA is proposing 10 ppmv standard are being added to several additional administrative, the regulation. The EPA may use these revisions that would facilitate .. .. . calculations along with continuous compliance and enforcement efforts -. emission monitoring results as associated with the current standard."... indications of noncompliance if they These revisions represent minnr changes show clearly that emissions in excess of to the standard. A brief description of ..... the 10 ppmv requirements occurred. these administrative revisions and the basis for making them follows. Definition ofLeak, Exhaust Gas and Relief Valve Discharge. Functional . definitions of "leak", "exhaust gas** and . ``relief valve discharge" are being added to the standard to clarify the *- -applicability of the standard to each of these types of VC emissions. During ; f1 their review of enforcement and compliance experience since the ' c;v;' The second clarifying revision to the 10 ppmv standard involves the specification that the 10 ppmv ' requirements apply to each exhaust gas stream from the covered equipment The purpose of this revision is to clearly prohibit plants from using dilution with . other exhaust gas streams as a technique for meeting the 10 ppmv requirement This revision is not standard was promulgated the EPA . r l discovered several cases ofconfusion * ^ . over the intended meaning of "leak"*, .? L' "exhaust gas" and "relief valve r-~'; discharge.** These three distinct v - categories of VC emissions are being intended to prohibit the common practice of combining two or more exhaust gas streams in a common .- header leading to a control device. .'.^ According to the revised 10 ppmv . requirements, combining an exhaust gas stream containing more than 10 ppmv defined in the revised standard to provide compliance and industry ' personnel with a dear understanding of which part of the standard applies to any given discharge of VC emissions to VC with another exhaust gas stream 1 containing less than 10 ppmv VC is . . ... allowed only when the combined stream is ducted to the control device. theatomosphere. --V-'- : -- . -- Relief Valve Definition. The current Definition ofEDC and VC ~ ; standard for relief valve discharges was Purification. In the past, some plants intended to apply not only to safety have misinterprented which equipment : relief valves but to all types of pressure .. components are induded in EDC . purification and VC purification -- relief devices. A definition of "relief valve*is being proposed under the processes with the result that emissions "revised standard to clarify that the_ from certain equipment intended to be current relief valve discbar^p atandartL covered by the standard may not have - /also applied to rupture discs, manual .-f been controlled. The definitions of "EDC \ents and other pressure relief - purification''and "VC purification" are taat~ventin_tha atmqspherft, tn pcoteat being revised to clarify that all ^ prnrpa aqnipnpn* from unsafe 7T . purification equipment following EDC overpressure condition*. Th< definition and VC formation were subject to of relief valve in the proposed standard regulation under the current standard. - is not intended to include pressure 10 ppmv Standard. Two clarifying .. control valves used to control flow to. an revisions are being made to the 10 ppmv incinerator or other control device. . regulations to improve understanding of However, the current relief valve the applicability of this part of the -- discharge standard did cover emissions standard. First, although the test method from pressure control valves. Also not . for determining compliance with the 10 included in the definition of relief valve ppmv standard specifies that the are pressure control systems such as average results from three 1-jiour sampling runs be used, this 3-hour polymerization reaction shortstop systems or refrigerated water systems .. averaging period is QOt specified in the which act to reduce pressure by means 10 ppmv requirements. Specifying that other than venting. . ........ emissions may not exceed 10 ppmv over Reactor Opening Loss Requirements a 3-hour averaging period clarifies that for duik PVC Resin Producers. Bulk instantaneous compliance with the 10 PVC resin production differs from ppmv standard is not an intended production of other types of PVC resin requirement. Moreover, specification of in that the polymerization reaction is. carried out in two separate vessels. The reaction is initiated is the "prepolymerization" reactor and the reactor contents are then transferred to the "postpolymerization" reactor where the reaction ia completed. Stripping of residual VC in bulk resin is performed following the postpolymerization step in the reactor vessel. The -- postpolymerization reactor generally is opened after every batch and must comply with the reactor opening less limits specified in the standard. Because the prepolymerization reactor is opened less frequently and because determination of gross product (for reactor opening loss estimation) is difficult the EPA has allowed plants to meet the equipment opening rpqnirpmgntg far minimising Vf? emissions from polymerization reactor openings. The reactor opening loss. requirements are being revised at this ' ' time to specifically exclude .- prepolymerization reactors. Accordingly, VC emissions from all opening of prepolymerization reactors will be subject to the equipment opening requirements. This revision is intended to clarify and improve the consistency of the equirements of the revised . standard as they apply to bulk PVC ^ resin producers in light of actual industry practice. No reduction in VC .. emission control stringency will result - from the change in requirements for prepolymerizationreactors. Inprocess Wastewater Requirements for Gasholder Seals. Under the current standards, the VC content of inprocess wastewater must be reduced to less than 10 ppm exposure of the wastewater to the atmosphere. In the case of gasholder water seals, the VC content in the exposed water seal may exceed 10 " ppm during normal operation of the gasholder. Experience since the '. standard was promulgated indicates - that compliance with the atmospheric exposure limit is not practicable for this particular inprocess wastewater source. - Consequently, the definition of inprocess wastewater is being revised to exclude the exposed water seal of gasholders. The inprocess wastewater stripping requirements will continue to apply to wastewater after removal from the gasholder seal. . .... Elimination of30-Day Limit on - Equivalency Requests. The current standard specifies a 30-day.lirait for existing sources to submit requests for use of equivalent methods. Because such a limit poses a restriction on initiative - by industry to develop alternative, and potentially more effective, control measures, the 30-day limitation is being eliminated. ABD00317996 1194 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA must judge whether a regulation is "major" and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. This regulation is not major because: (1) The national annualized compliance costs, including capital charges resulting from the standards total less than S1Q0 million: (2) the standards do not cause a major 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. This regulation was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included in Docket Number A-81-21. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section. West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1. Waterside Mall. 401M Street SW,, Washington. D.C. 20480. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b). I hereby certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 9mall entities because no small entities are affected. List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 61 Air pollution control. Asbestos. Beryllium. Hazardous materials, Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: Dated December 31,1984. Alvin L. Aim, Acting Administrator. PART 61-tAMENDEDJ It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part 61 as follows: 1. The proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 61 proposed at 42 FR 28154, June 2, 1977 are withdrawn. 2. By revising the definitions in existing 5 01.81(f)* (!) (o) and (p) for "In process wastewater", "in vinyl chloride service", "ethylene dichloride purification" and "vinyl chloride purification" and by adding definitions for the terms "relief value", "leak", "exhaust gas", "relief valve discharge and "3-hour period" in new paragraphs (v), (w). (x), (y) and (z). 61.61 Definitions. (j) "Inprocess wasterwater" means anv water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact rinvl chloride or polyvinyl chloride or results from the production or use oT any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste 'fliX product containing vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to a wastewater treatment process or discharged untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder seal water is not inprocess wastewater until it is removed from the gasholder. t I (I) "In vinyl-chloride service" means that a piece of equipment either contains or contacts a liquid that is at 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 3 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. This definition must be used in place of the definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart V of this part * (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" Includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride production which follows ethylene dichloride formation. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" includes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation. * _ *^ (v) "Relief valve" means each pressure relief device including pressure relief valves, rupture disks., manual vents and other pressure relief systems used to protect process components from overpressure conditions. "Relief valve" does not include control valves used to control flow to an Incinerator or >ther 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 110,000 ppm or greater: (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) i detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background. Leaks also include events regulated under 5 61.65(b](8)(i] of detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentration. Emissions of vinyl chloride not regulated under 61.61 (a) and (b); 3 61.63(a): 3 61.64 (a), (b). (c). (d), (e) and (f); and 61.65 (a) and (b)(1). (b)(2). (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(0), (b)(7) and (b)(9) shall be considered a leak. A lief valve discharge is not a leak. (SO "Exhaust gas" means any offgas ^discharged directly or ultimately to the (tmosphere that was initially contained or was in direct contact with the lipment for which 10 ppm emissii & limits are prescribed in 61.62 (a) and (b) ; 01.83(a): 61.64 (a)(1), (a)(2). (b). (c) and (d): 5 61.65 (b)(l)(ii). (b)(2). (b)(5), (b)(6)(ii) and (b](9)(ii). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not an exhaust gas. (y) "Relief valve discharge" means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve. (z) "3-hour period" means any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour commencing on the hour). 3. By changing " all exhaust gases" to "each exhaust gas stream" and making other minor clarifying revisions in 61.62(a), $ 61.63(a), and 3 61.64 (a)(1). (b), (c) and (d) as follows: 3 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene dlcfttoride plants. (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 IQ ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 3 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 3 61.65(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 3 6l.65(b)(6](i) before being opened. * t 3 61.63 Emission standard for vinyl chlorlds plants. An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 3 81-85 (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-hcui period or as determined in accordance with 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 3 61.65(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 3 61.66. This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 3 61.65(b](8](i] before being opened. ) ABD00317997 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1195 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl. chloride plants. .... `An owner or operator, of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 01.65. (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 or as determined in accordance with 61.67(g)(1)). except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 61.85(a). ,**:*.'*:. r? (b) Stripper. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas ' stream from each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm (average fbr 3-hour ~ -:- period or as determined in accordance with 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 61.65(a). This requirement does 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. - V _ " (c) Mixing, weighing, andholding ' ;.7 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 7 process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 61.65(a). This requirement does not .apply to equipment that has been . opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 81.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. . - . (d) Monomer recovery system. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exahust gas stream from each monomer recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 61.07(g)(1)), except as provided in 61.65(a). This requirement does 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. J * * * _* -ft 4. By revising existing paragraphs 61.64(a)(2) and by removing (a)(3) as follows: - -- 6144 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 61.65. (a) Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors: (2) The reactor opening loss from each 7. By revising paragraph (a) to 61.65 reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl as follows: chloride/kg (0.00002 ib vinyl chloride/lb) of poly vinyl chloride product, except as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. This requirement does not apply to - prepolymerization reactors in the bulk process. This requirement does apply to postpolymerization reactors in the bulk process, where the product means the gross product of prepolymerization and postpolymerization. m9 * , ......... 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) Relief valve discharges. (1) Polyvinyl chloride plants (suspension, dispersion, latex and-bulk processes). (1) Reactor. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on 5. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text and adding paragraph (e)(3) to 61.64 as follows: . -- 61.64- Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. V ~~ (e) Sources following the stripperfsj. The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the -7 atmosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripper(s) [or the reactorfs) is the plant has no stripper(s)] in the plant process flow including but-.; not limited to. centrifuges, concentrators, blend tanks, filters. - dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inprocess wastewater, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section: - * * . # ... (3) The provisions of this paragraph apply at all times including when off- specification or other types of resins are made. ' ' . 6. By adding paragraph (f) to 61.64 as follows: polyvinyl chloride reactors in vinyl . chloride service is not to exceed die following limits except as provided in paragraph (a)(l)(iii) of this section. For all reactors producing suspension resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization .. - ? batches nor 4 discharges per year. For all reactors producing dispersion and .. latex resins within a PVC plant the - number of relief valve discharges is not. to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. For all reactors including prepolymerization and * postpolymerization reactors, producing bulk resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not. to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. . (ii) The number of discharges to the atmosphere front-relief valves on equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 0.025 discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 3 discharges per year except as provided in paragarph (a)(l)(iii) of this section. 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants *7 (iii) The limits specified in paragraphs (a)(l)(i) and (a)(l)(ii) of this section may be exceeded when only one relief valve (f) Reactor used as stripper. When a discharge to the atmosphere occurs . nonbulk resin reactor is used as a during the 12-month period preceding stripper this paragraph may be applied the close of the 6-month reporting in lieu of 61.64 (a)(2) and (e)(1): period. . (1) The weighted average emissions of vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper from all grades of . polyvinyl chloride resin stripped in the . reactor on each calendar day may not (2) Polyvinyl chloride plants (solution and other continuous PVC production processes). The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on all equipment in vinyl chloride service is . not to exceed 1 discharge per year. - exceed: (3) Ethylene dichloride and vinyl (i) 202 g/kg (0.00202 Ib/lb) of polyvinyl chloride plants. The number of chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl discharges to the atmosphere from relief chloride resins, excluding latex resins, valves on equipment in vinyl chloride with the product determined on a dry - service is not to exceed 4 discharges per solids basis. . year. .. - *-;:** (ii) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 tb/lb) of - (4) Each relief valve discharge that polyvinyl chloride product for all other contributes to a relief valve discharge * polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex frequency in excess of any limit resins, with the product determined on a prescribed in paragarphs (a)(1). (a)(2) dry solids basis. and (a)(3) of thijparagraph constitutes ABD00317998 1196_________ Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 0 / Wednesday. January 9, 1905 / Proposed Rules an individual violation of the respective . rotating compressors in vinyl chloride (hi) It provides for an acceptable Limit service are to be minimized by installing calibration and maintenance schedule (5) For every relief valve discharge to compressors with double mechanical for the vinyl chloride monitoring system the atmosphere, the owner or operator seals, or equivalent as provided in and portable hydrocarbon detector. For| shall record the identity of the source, 61.66. If double mechanical seals are the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a ^ the date and time of the discharge, the < used, vinyl chloride emissions from the daily span check is to be conducted with cause of the discharge, the approximate seals are to be minimized by ~a concentration of vinyl chloride^equal 9 total vinyl chloride loss during the maintaining the pressure between the to the concentration defined as a leak discharge, and the method used for two seals so that any leak that occurs is according to paragraph (b)(8)(vi) of this determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be submitted in writing to the Administrator as part of the reporting requirements of paragraph f 61.70. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the Administrator for a . minimum of 3 years. 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 01.60. (iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all 8. By revising paragraphs (b}(3], reciprocating compressors in vinyl (b)(8)(i), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(8)(iv) and u chloride service are to be minimized by (b)(0)(vi) to 91.05 as follows: installing double outboard 9eals. or 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchioride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl equivalent as provided in \ 61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl, chloride plants. ' ^chloride emissions.from the sealsaretp An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply , ^ fbe minimized by maintaining the ~ *. pressure between thtTtwo seals so that F any leak that occurs is intolhe^ ' with the requirements of this section, . i ^C'Offlpfessor by ducnny any vmyT (a)*** > chloride between the two seals through - (b) Fugitive emission sources a control system from which the : (!}*** .v concentration of vinyl chloride in the section. The calibration is to be done _ with either: - - . - . - (A] A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases specified in sections 5.2.1 and 5^2 of Test Method 106 and in accordance with section 7.1 of test Method 106. or (B) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the appropriate concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition of the calibration gas . cylinder standard is to have been . - certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must have recommended a maximum shelflife for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 5 percent from the - _ certified value. The date of gas cylinder ' 'preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration and recommended maximum shelf life must have been ' (2) * * * ' " exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; ' affixed to the cylinder before shipment (3) Leakage from pump, compressor. : or equivalent as provided in 61.T36 from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a and agitator seals: (i) Rotating pumps. (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on from seals on all agitators in vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride chloride service are to be minimized by mixtures may be directly used to service are to be minimized by installing installing agitators with double prepare a chromatograph calibration sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as curve as.described in section 7.3 of Test mechanical seals or equivalent as provided in 61.66. If double Method 106. The requirements in'section provided in 61.66. If double . . mechanical seals are used, vinyl - 5.2.3.1 and S.2.3.2 of Test Method 106 for mechanical seals are used, vinyl - chloride emissions from the 9eals are to certification of cylinder standards and chloride emissions from the seals are to- be minimized by maintaining the for establishment and verification of be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that calibration standards are to be followed pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the agitated (iv) The location and number of points \ any leak that occurs is into the pump; by vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride to be monitored and the frequency of / 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 61.66. 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 61.68. * * . monitoring provided for in the program v are acceptable when they are compared ( with the number of pieces of equipmetnt \ in vinyl chloride service and the size J and physical layout of the plant (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 seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases doe not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 61.66. (iii) Rotatingcompressor. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on ail (8) Leak detection and elimination. (i) It includes a reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system for detection of major leaks and 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 assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. ( * (vi) It Contains a dgfinjHnrt nf Ipalf rfUr whichlk accepiahia when <^pmpared with the Kaelfgmnud concentrations ^yjnyl rhlnnrip in th areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to b monitored by the vinyl chloride * monitoring system are to be included with the description of the program, 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. ABD00317999 -- -H \ Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1197 9. Byxevising paragraph (b)(4) to 8 61.65 as follows: - -.. ; determined in accordance with the following: ^ 8 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants * .'.* (b) Fugitive emission sources. " : . (4) Leaksfrom relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with 8 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of ' 8 61.65 as follows: 8 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchioride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. 1 (b) Fugitive emission sources, (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 the - concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does not exceed 10 ppm. i Sampling techniques are to be such that. sample containers in viny) ehlnririo an- - ' purged into a closed process system.^ - 11. By revising paragraphs (b)(8) " introductory text (b)(8)(ii). and (b)(8)(v) to 8 61.65 as follows: -? 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl c*hloride pl'ants, ` .^ (b) Fugitive emission sources. . 8 * * (ii) (A) A performance test as specified in paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(C) of this section shall be conducted initially within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations, annully and at times requested,by the Administrator. (B) For each performance test a minimum of 200 or 90 percent of the total valves in.VOC service (as defined in 8 60.481 of Subpart W of Part 60) within the process unit shall be randomly selected and monitored within 1 week by the methods specified in 8 01.245(d) of Subpart V of this part If an instrument reading 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 8 61.242-7 (d) and (e) of Subpart V of this part (D) The results of the performance test shall be submitted in writing to the . Administrator in the first semiannual report following the performance test as part of the reporting requirements of 5 61.70. , ^. . - (E) Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is found to be greater than 2.0 percent must comply with all provisions of Subpart V of this part within 90 days. ' (v) It contains a plan of action to be taken when a leak is detected consistent with Subpart V of this part 12. By revising 8 61.66 as follows: (8) Leak detection and elimination.' Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by instituting and Implementing s lead detection and repair program consistent with the " provisions of Subpart V of this part The program is to be implemented within 90 days of the effective date of these ' regulations, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under 8 61.11. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: (i) (ii) It includes a reliable and accurateportable hydrocarbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of Subpart V of this part An owner op operator is exempt from a m.Z4Z-i(d). 53 61.2~42^7Ta), (b) an3"[c), 8 61.246 and ' 8 61.247 of Subpart V of this part for any process unit in which the percentage oY leaking valves is demonstrated to_he eoual to or less than 2.0 oercgpt- a* 8 61.66 Equivalent equipment and 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 subpart 13. By revising paragraph (f) of 8 61.67 . as follows: 8 61.67 Emission tests. - (f) The owneror 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 needetjjo'determine--. /qqu3Sions.--------- 14. By revising paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text (g)(3](i). and (g)(3)(iii) of 61.67 as follows: 8 61.67 Emission tests, WV' (3) When a stripping operation is used to attain the emission limits in 5 61.64 (e) and (f), emissions are to be determined using Test Method 107 as follows: . (1) The number of strippers (or reactors using 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 based on the plant's operation. (ii)* * * (iii) The corresponding quantity of material processed by each stripper (or reactor used as a stripper) is to be determined on a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. 0 15. By revising paragraph (g)(5) introductory text and adding paragraph' (g)(6) to 8 61.67 as follows: -r *61.87 Emission tests. ' 6 . (g)* v.y (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emission limit is prescribed in _ 8 61.64(a)(2) is to be determined. The number of reactors for which the determination is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. (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 as a stripper for which an emission limit is prescribed in 8 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 resin after stripping, measured according to paragraph (g)(3) of thy , 3) The reactor vacuum (mm Hgjal \ ru id of strip from plant instrument: any TC) The reactor temperature (*C) at ' end of strip from plant instrument * *7 (Vi-K i ABD00318000 1198________Federal Register / VoL 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1905 / Proposed Rules (ii] For each batch stripped in the reactor, the following information is to be determined: _ . C(PPMVC](l(r *)+ . (A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water in the reactor at end of strip from the following table: where: Raacw vaoet tamoara> turn 1*0 *0 ' vapor pro* * tmm Mfl) RMCtOt MM tompor* wrci *0 woor on* kj-- <rrm Hg) Raactor moot tarns--* turn l"C) HA vaoor praocura (mm ' 40 554 61 41 ... 42 su 61.5 82 - 3 . 43 .64a 84 44 "68.3 ' S3 48 - 71.6 as 4i 75.6 67 47 78.0 68 48 63.7 60 40 85.0 70 90 82.5 71 91 97a 72 S3 102.1 1 . 107.2 r 74 ' 9* 1128 " 75 SS 1144 - -.7* 56 i23a . 77 97 i29a 78 . 58 136.1 ,'79 ' 58 142.6 00 149.4 SI 156.4 183a X7T.4 1793 1873 196.1 2054 2143 223.7 233.7 2434 2544 285.7 Z773 289.1 30C4 3U.1 3Z7J 341.0 . . aa - 83 * . 84 65 ' 86 87 - 68 . 90 - 91 - 92 93 - ' -.94 . -99 98 - V:' 97 - 98 99 " -'100 389.7 3844 400.8 4164 4334 450.9 468.7 487.1 908.1 9254 IMS 9874 $68.8 8104 6334 657.6 082.1 7074 7334 7804 C--g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride product . ... PPMVC--concentration of vinyl chloride in resin after stripping, in ppm 10"*--conversion factor for ppm PPVC--partial pressure of vinyl chloride determined according to paragraph " fe)(6)(ii)(B) of this section, in mm Hg RVSV--reactor vapor apace volume determined according to paragraph (gK6)(ii}(C) of this section, in m* 1.002--ideal gas constant in g--*K/mm Hg-- . ma for vinyl chloride - PVCW--dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg . '- . 273--conversion factor for *C to *K , RT--reactor temperature, in *C : 10. By adding paragraph (h) to 1 61.67 as follows: :_____ 9 9 9 ' .9 . 9 (h)(1) Each piece of equipment within - a process unit that can reasonably (B) The partial preasure'(nus Hg] of contain equipment in vinyl chloride vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip ; > service is presumed to be in vinyl from the following equation: ' ^ " chloride service unless an owner or ~ operator demonstrates that the piece of PPVA=760-RV-VPW ' equipment is not in vinyl chloride Where: . - service. For a piece of equipment to be considered not in vinyl chloride service, PPVC*3partial"pressure of vinyl chloride, in it must be determined that the percent xnmHg -- - - vinyl chloride content can be reasonably 780= atmospheric pressure at 0*C in mm Hg expected not to exceed 10 percent by RV--absolute value of reactor vacuum, in - weight for liquid streams and 10 percent mm Hg : -* by volume for gas streams. For purposes VPW --vapor pressure of water, in mm Hg -of determining the percent vinyl chloride [C] The reactor vapor space volume (m3) at end of strip from the following equation: content of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment, procedures that conform to the methods described in ASTM Method D-Z267 (incorporated by reference as specified rvsv-rc-wv- PVCW 833 in S 01.18) shall be used. (2X1) An owner or operator may use engineering judgment rather than the .ere: RVSV--feactor vapor space volume in m* actosaopaeity. in hv8----------WV--volume of water is reactor from recipej PVCW--dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg 833--typical density of polyvinyl chloride, in kg/m3 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 gas . 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 Administrator do not agree on whether a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service, however, the (iii) For each batch stripped in the . - procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 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: section shall be used to resolve the disagreement. . (ii) If an owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment is in vinyl chloride service, the determination can (PPVC)(RVSV)(1.002) (PVCW](273+RT) - * - be revised only after following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 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 - 17. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to $ 61.68 as follows: $61.68 Emission monitoring. . J. 9 9 9' 9 (d) When exhaust gas(es). having emission limits that are subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, are emitted to the atmosphere. around the control system and required vinyl chloride monitoring system, the vinyl chloride content of the emission shall be calculated (in units of each applicable emission IimitJ by best - practical engineering judgment based on the discharge duration and known VC concentrations in the affected equipment as determined in accordance with S 61.67(h) or other acceptable . method. - (e) For each 3-hour period, the vinyl chloride-content of emissions subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section shalVbe 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 5 61.70(c)(1). (t) For each vinyl chloride emission to the atmosphere determined inaccordance with paragraph (e) 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 emission, 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 91.71(a). ^ 18. By changing the title from "Semiannual report" to "Reporting" and by revising paragraph (a) of 5 61.70 as follows: ABD00318001 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1199 9 61.70 Reporting (a)(1) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies snail submit to the Administrator on September 15 and March 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraphs, (c). (d) and (e) of this section and on December 15 and June 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraph (e) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2). (2) In the case of an existing source that submits semiannual reports on an approved fixed schedule other than September 15 and March 15. the approved semiannual reporting schedule shall be used to report the information required in paragraphs (c). (d) and (e) of this section. In addition, the information required in paragraph (e) of this section . will be reported exactly 3 months ... - following the semiannual reporting . - dates. '* /. (3) The first report is to be submitted ; following the first full 3 month reporting' period after the initial report is submitted. ': - 19. By revising paragraph (c)(1) of 61.70 as follows: .. _ 61.70 Reporting. * "5' (C) ' " (1) The owner or operator 9hall include in the report a record of the ' vinyl chloride content of emissions for each 3-hour period during which average emissions are in excess of the emission limits in 61.02 (a) or (b). 61.63(a), or ' 61.64 (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 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted in. 61.65 (b)(i)(H). (b)(2). (b)(5), (b)(6)(ii), or (b)(9)(ii). If emissions in excess of the ' emission limits are not detected, the report shall contain a statement that no excess emissions have been detected. The emissions are to be determined in accordance with 61.66(e). 20. By revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text removing paragraphs (c](2)(iv). revising paragraph (c)(2)(iii) and revising (c)(2)(v) and (cj(2)(vi) introductory text to 61.70 as follows: 61.70 Reporting. w** (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to attain the emission level prescribed in 61.64(e). the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. W# . (i)#*# (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 61.07(g)(3). ' (iv) [Reserved] (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-hour average resin where: A * 24-hour average concentration of type. 7 resin in ppm (dry weight basis). Q=Total production of type Tt rosin over the 24-hour period, in kg. - * 7j=Type of resin: . .m where mis ; total number of resin types produced during the 24-hour period. Ms Concentration of vinyl chloride in one sample of grade G resin, in ppm. " Production of grade Ct resin represented by tife sample. In kg. Grade of resin: e.g,, C,, Cj, and Gj. n=Total number of grades of resin produced during the 24-hour period. If no 24-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentrations in excess of the limits prescribed in. 61.64(e) are r: 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) * * * . . (vB) * * 21. By revising paragraph (c)(3) of 61.70 as follows: 61.70 Reporting. (cj * * V- '; (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 61.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance with 61.67(g)(5), except that emissions for each reactor are to be determined. If emissions in excess of the emission limits are not detected, the report shall vinyl chloride concentration, as determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in 61.64(e). The vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section shalTbe 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 stripper(s) that calendar day. according to the following equation: include a statement that excess emissions have not been detected. .* # / 22. By adding paragraph (c)(4)' to 61.70 as follows: 61.70 Reporting ^ ' (tf*** : . (4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which stripping.in the reactor is used to ' attain the emission level prescribed in 61.64(f), the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride emissions from reactor opening loss and all sources 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 date' 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 61.67(g)(3). (iii) The combined emission 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 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 81.64(f). The combined reactor opening loss and emissions from ABD00318002 1200_________ Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 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 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: S Pf Cr A ' 1-1 1 61 .q Pp Cp . Pp Gp , . \6l 61 * h g2 + * : Cp. ?n % Where: , - A24-hour average combined reactor N opening lose and emissions from ail sources following the reactor used as s stripper. In g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight basis). Where Q**Total production of resin in batches for Ft=relief valve discharge frequency per 100 which stripping is completed during the polymerization batches from all reactors 24-hour period, in kg. producing resing type t C Average combined reactor opening loss N*= total number of relief valve discharges and emissions from all sources following - during the 12-mooth period preceding the the reactor used as a stripper of ail close of the 6-month reporting period ' batches of grade Gi resin for which from all reactors producing resin type t stripping is completed during the 24-hour Y=total number of polymerization batches of period in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry . resin type t during the 12-month period weight basis) (determined according to - preceding the close of the 6-month procedure prescribed in 8U7(g)(6)). . . reporting period divided by 100 ~ P-=Production of grade G| resin in the tresin type: dispersion (including latex) or - " batches for which C is determined, in kg. - bulk resin type v C,' . C,* Grade of resin; e.g^'Gw G*. and Gj. . n=Total number ofgrades of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period. `(2) For polyvinyl chloride plants " ` producing suspension resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinyl chloride reactors is to be 'If no 24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all determined in two ways using the following equations: / ' sources following the reactor used a ' stripper in excess of the limits prescribed in 61.64(f) are determined, the report shall state that no excess - N * w F. - and F . M Y vinyl chloride emissions were determined. ' . 23. By adding paragraphs (d). |e) and where (f) to 61.70 as follows: ....... F,,=>reilef valve discharge frequency per 100 61.70 Reporting. * (d) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of relief valve discharges as prescribed in 61.65(a)(4). and the owner or operator shall report exceedences of the relief valve discharge frequency limits prescribed in. 61.65(a) to be determined as follows: - (1) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing dispersion, latex or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinly chloride reactors is to be determined using the following equation.,Separate calculations are to be made for each resin type (t) as defined: polymerization batches from all reactors producing suspension resin Fj =relief valve discharge frequency per 12month period from all reactors producing suspension resin N=total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period from all reactors producing suspension resin Y total number of polymerization batches of suspension resin during the 12-month period preceding the dose of the 6-month reporting period divided by 100 (3) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing suspension, dispersion, latex or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from all other equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) is to be determined in two ways using the following equations: N F, - and F N Y' where F.--relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from all equipment (excluding reactors) Ft relief valve discharge frequency per 12month period from all equipment (excluding reactors] N* total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding (he close of the 6-month reporting period from all equipment (excluding reactors) Y total number of polymerization batches of all resin types combined divided by 100 (4) For polyvinyl chloride plants using the solution process or any other continuous production process, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all equipment types during the 12-month' period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period. ; (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinyl chloride plants, the relief valve - discharge frequency is the summation of each reUef valve discharge from an . equipment types during the 12-month period preceding the closeof the 6- - month reporting period. (6) A polymerization batch consists of each sequence of charging VC and other materials to the reactor, heating reactor contents, polymerization of reactor contents, and removal of reactor ' contents including any incomplete sequence that is aborted after charging VC.to the reactor. For bulk resin production plants, a single "polymerization batch" includes both prepolymerization and postpolymerization reactor operations. (e) The owner or operator shall. include in the report the number of relief valve discharges to the atmosphere during the 3-month period preceding the report from each of the following sources: suspension resin production reactors; dispersion and latex resin production reactors: bulk resin production reactors: all nonreactor equipment in PVC plants; all equipment used in solution process and other continuous process PVC plants: and all equipment in EDC/VC plants: any other source. (f) The owner or operator shall include in the report the number of reactor openings and the design capacity of the number of polymerization batches for each type of resin in each plant during the 6-month period preceding the report. The design capacity of the number of polymerization batches may be defined ABD00318003 Federal Register / Vo!. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules________ 1201 initially and remain unchanged unless . significant changes to the design capacity occur. 24. By revising' paragraph (a) introductory text of 61.71 as follows: 61.71 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 by the Administrator for a . minimum of 3 years: ' -* **** 25. By adding the words "vinyl chloride" to the definition of the term "volatile hazardous air pollutants" in 61.241 of Subpart V as follows: . 61.241 Definition*. **:***. "Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or "VHAP" means.a substance regulated under this part for which a standard for : equipment leaks of the substance has .... been proposed and promulgated. ' Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl chloride is a - VHAP. - - '*}' (Sec. 112 Clean Air Act of 1978) -- [FR Doc. 85-509 Filed 1-8-85: 8:45 am] StLLINO CODS ftMO-MMI