Document 7MZaY99Vpa97KmdKL7jjxq92o

34904 Federal Register / Vol, 51. Xu. 1B9 / Tuesday. September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations A ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part SI IAO-FRL-3044-S) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leeks of Volatlls Hazardous Air Pollutants aosncv; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). action: Final rule. summary: The EPA proposed administrative and clarifying revisions to the national emission standard for vinyl chloride (VC) on January 9.196S, (SO FR1182). Certain revisions to the standard are being promulgated in Subpart F through this action and. to a minor extent, in Subpart V of 40 CFR Part 61. Finally, through this action the Agency is denying the petition of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) which sought reconsideration of the EPA's withdrawal of the amendments to the VC standard which were proposed in 1977. EFF1CTTVC OATS: September 30.1988. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. judicial review of the actions taken by this notice is available only by filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act. the requirements that are the subject for today's notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Incorporation by Reference The incorporation by reference of certain publications in these standards is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of September 30. i960. ADOfttSMl: Background Information Document. The background information document (BID) for the promulgated standards may be obtained from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to "Vinyl Chloride Standard: Responses to Comments on January 1985 Proposed Revisions/* EPA-450/3-86004. The BID contains: (1) A summery of all public comments on the proposed revisions end the Administrator's response to the comments, and (2) e summary of the changes made to the revised standard since proposal. Dockets. A docket number A-81-21, containing information considered by F.PA in developing of the promulgated revisions to the standard for VC. is available for public inspection between 8.00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section (LE-131). West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1, 401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC 20480. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTM8R INFORMATION CONTACT? For further information concerning the enforcement aspects of the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. Richard Biondi. Compliance Monitoring Branch, Stationary Source Compliance Division, (EN-341), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 401M Street SW., Washington. DC 20489, telephone number (202) 3822826. For further information concerning the background technical information supporting the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. Robert E Rosensteel. Chemicals and Petroleum Branch. Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5671. For other information on the regulation of VC and the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. Fred Dimmick. Standards Development Branch. Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. telephone number (919) 541-5578. SUFFC8MHTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Revisions to the Standard The VC standard was promulgated on October 21.1978 (41 FR 48580) and applies to plants producing ethylene dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination, plant producing VC. and plants producing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other polymers containing VC. These plants are subject to a combination of performance, equipment and work practice requirements at numerous points in the manufacturing processes. Based on its review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the original standard, EPA proposed several administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard on January 9,1985 (50 FR 1182). The comments received end actions taken on these proposed revisions are discussed below. Requirements for Leak Detection and Repair Programs As proposed in January 1965. VC is being added to the list of substancae covered by 40 CFR Part 81 Subpart V. which contains regulations for leaks from certain equipment in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service. Previously, plant owners subject to the VC standard were required to prepare leak detection and repair plans for each VC and PVC manufacturing facility and to submit these plans to EPA for review. An analysis of the plans submitted revealed that these plans varied widely from plant to plant. Further, some plans were considered to be inadequate and ineffective approaches to the control of VC leaks. The incorporation of Subpart V by the standard for VC emissions establishes standardized procedures for identifying leaks of VC and for taking steps to minimize emissions and repair leaks. Further, the incorporation of Subpart V will also accomplish a standardization of the definition of whet constitutes a leak for routine leak detection. However, to avoid unnecessary changes to existing plans which are effective in detecting and repairing VC leaks, the standard contains provisions whereby any facility may demonstrate through annual (or more frequent, if requested by the Administrator) performance tests that the percentage of leaking valves remains at 2 percent as an alternative to following the Subpart V procedures. An owner may continue to follow the existing leak detection and elimination program for that facility for the purpose of achieving the 2 percent performance limit However, existing plans are no longer required, nor do they necessarily meet the promulgated requirements. Compiiance Test Procedure and Specific Opening Loss Limit for PVC Reactors Used as Strippers The Federal Register notice that promulgated the current VC standard stated that VC escaping from PVC resin that has been stripped in the reactor is not intended to be included as part of the VC emissions measured under the reactor opening loss requirements. For . nonbulk PVC reactors which are used as strippers, however, no method was specified to determine what part of the VC in the vapor space of the reactor had escaped after the stripping was completed. Consequently, a method was proposed for determining the reactor opening loss that accounts for stripping in the PVC reactor for use by all nonbulk resin producers. After considering the comments on this proposed revision. EPA decided to promulgate the revision. Another proposed change in the standard affecting PVC reactors used as strippers applied to the production of bulk PVC resins. Two separate vessels are used in bulk resin production, e "prepolymerization" vessel end e "postpolymerization" vessel. Under the standard promulgated in 1978. both of these vessel! were subject to the reactor VAB.0001172635 H mm ' Itffi? i riTt^tn i- Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 1906 / Rules and Regulations 34905 opening loss requirements. However, an analysis of the operation of prepolymerization vessels revealed that these reactors are opened less frequently than other types of reactors, and that the determination of grose product (required for the calculation of reactor opening lost) is impractical In January 1965. EPA proposed to apply the equipment opening lots requirements, rather then the reactor opening knee requirements, to these PVC reactors. The equipment opening lose requirements ere mare appropriate far the operating characteristics of the prepolymerisstian reader vanda and do not change the overall VC antiaaion control stringency applicable prepotymerizatinn reactors. After considering the comments on fait proposed revision, EPA decided to promulgate the revision. Clarification ofDefinitions and Standards Based on the EPA's experience with administering the VC standard, several provisions of the standard ere being revised to reduce any ambiguity in their implementation. For example, specific definitions of "leak." "exheust gas.** end "relief valve discharge** ere being added to clarify the applicability of the provisions of the standard to each of these types of emissions. Similarly, to eliminate misunderstandings about the application of the standard to ____ purification equipment following EDC end VC formation, the of "EDC purification** and *VC purification" are being fsvteed to mare dearly indicate which equipment Is subject to the standard. Another revision being incorporated into the **an*tj*ri it clem that the 10 ppmv standard is e 3-hour average emission limit rather than an instantaneous limit The performance teat provision in 16lJ6F(g)(l) has nine been clarified to specify dial tael results should reflect aa dose toe 9-hour average as practicable. Farther, the 10 ppmv standard regulation Is being revised to epedfy fast afl evheeet gas requirement ftedadhg central device bypass streams. In order to fmphmsnt tide darificeflen. provisions are alee being Incorporated brio the riseJuvd far emiestons. A fine) tsdil--tsfaW ppmv requirement is intended to prohibit plants from cfafliisFC exhaust gas stream wfA other gases in order to meet the 10 ppmv Bmft. Under the revised standard, combining 10 ppmv VC with another gas stream is only allowed when the combined stream is ducted to a control device. The inprocess wastewater requirements for gasholder seals are also being revised to exclude the exposed water seal of gasholders. Experience with the VC standard indicates that water contained in the exposed water seal of e gasholder may exceed the 10 ppmv limit daring normal operation end that compliance with the atmospheric exposure limit is not practicable for this source. The inprocess weeteamter stripping requirements, however, will continue to apply to mrlmrelar after mmanrel faem the gasholder seel Other Administrative /tensions Other administrative revisions to the standard include: (l) The eRminaiion of the 30-day limit lor sources to submit requests for the use of equivalent control measures; (2) e hag* from semiannual to quarterly reporting of VC emissions from resin stripping, reactor openings, and exhaust gases: and (3J allowance of reporting of periods of excess emissions instead of all emission measurements. Revisions to the standard represent administrative and clarifying changes: no major revisions wen propoestL Therefore, die environmental, energy and economic Impacts of dm original standard remain generally "y * A summary of die impacts of dm orfafaufl standard can be feeuid in dm | to the proposed standard revWons (3d FR1182). Wsr to propose) of revisions to ^be standard, interested parties advised by peblic notice in the F< Register {49 FR 26607. June 29. t9M) of e meeting offas National Air Reflation Control lwudquee ^Idtriso^y Committee fNAPCTAQ to disease the 1CVIBUIUV ID Of TV HIIHJlni recommended for proposes. Isli ntdfag was held on August JB, eetiag wee open to the puhftc attendee comment an the submitted most of (he con--ntteWere. Also commenting were representatives of the US. Congress, e SUM Leriefatnre. eState airpofletion agency nndtiri environmental mom fin eammnrifa *- have been considered carefully and. where determined to be appropriate by EPA. changes have been made to the proposed revisions to the standard. Significant Comments Since Proposal Most of the comment letters contained multiple comments. In general the comments supported the proposed administrative and clarifying revisions. A detailed discussion of the comamate end reapanage can be found in die BD referenced in dm for the changes that have proposed revirions to dm relief valve discharge standard. Although many of the coaunentere agreed with dm action to reformat the standard, several commentere objected to various aspects of dm discharge limits. Baaed on consideration of times comments, EPA decided not to pranotyste the prepoeed revision to the relief voire discharge standard. The conanmris ea dde and other proposed revisl-- am addressed in detail in dm BD far the jmwilgatwl standard end in sunnaip in fae next section of tide preamble. determination ef fas tschaolugiidl bests offa standard. The commentere stated that the EPA*s actions hi withdrawing the prepoeed amendments were inconsistent with the requirements of section 112 ef tim Clean Mr Act As discussed farther in tide preamble, tiw Agency is denying the petition far rDwMlQItTODHi January t. MB P The di r,l . VAB.0001172(te6 34906 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations * particular, several commenters expressed concern that preventable re. cf valve discharges would be a Hewed under the revised standard and that the performance allowed under the rex .sed standard could be inconsistent with that allowed under the original standard. Other comments expressed concern that the revised standard included no mechanism for regulating very large relief valve discharges. The basis for the statement that a large Agency resource commitment is required for enforcing die relief valve discharge standard wes also questioned. Aa a result of these comments. EPA reviewed the basis for the recommendations that led to the decision to propose to reformat the standard. First as discussed in the Federal Register notice proposing revisions to the relief valve discharge standard (50 FR1187). the review of the standard conducted between 1980 and 1982 found that the existing standard resulted in e significant commitment of Agency resources to the review and evaluation of discharges of VC from relief valves. Because the existing standard allows only "emergency" discharges of VC from relief valves (t.e., the relief valve discharge could not be avoided by taking preventative measures), every discharge must be evaluated individually to datarmina whether the owner or operator of the facility hea implemented the measures neceesary to prevent that relief valve discharge. Diving the 4 to 5 years does the review study wes conducted, the enforcement of the relief valve discharge standard has been made more efficient. This is due in large pert to experience established in enforcing the standard. Aa a result. EPA enforcement personnel consider implementation of this standard to be much leas resource and labor intensive. A second conclusion from the 1960 to 1982 study was that industry did not have e deer understanding of what the relief valve discharge standard required end whet meaamee they needed to Implement in order to comply with the standard. During die 4 to S years since the review study, e number of enforcement have been uImb against individuelpUnta for violations of the standards, Those actions have culminated hi consent decrees which incorporate requirements for remedial actions lo prevent farther relief valve discharges. The provisions of these consent decrees have net only reduced the camber of relief valve discharges at specific plants, but they have also served as guidelines in datarmintaw tha types of measures appropriate for minimizing the discharges. Because of these two developments. PA concluded that the original findings of the review study are no longer valid and should not be the basts of a revision to the format of the relief valve discharge standard. The decision to retain the existing relief valve discharge standard aa a part of the standard for VC emissions is further supported by two additional advantages that the existing standard has over the proposed revisions. First the existing standard provides the t all preventable relief valve discharges are subject to enforcement action. Under the proposed revisions, which would have allowed a small number of discharges per year whether preventable or not it is possible that e plant could experience preventable discharges and still be in compliance with the standard. As pointed out in public comments, it is theoretically possible that discharges resulting from gross negligence could go unpenalized under the revisions to the standard. The EPA did not intend this effect in the proposed revisions. The retention of the existing relief valve discharge standard allows EPA to continue the current enforcement approach. Second, the existing relief valve discharge standard provides e better mechanism for regulating large relief valve discharges. The proposed revision would have allowed a certain number of relief valve discharges per year, without regard to the size or duration of the discharge. Consequently, aa long ee the number of releases were within the numerical limits of the proposed revisions to the standard, there were no mechanisms in the standard to enforce control of the amount of VC discharged to the atmosphere. Under the existing relief valve discharge standard, however, the duration and size of the discharge are factors in determining the severity of a violation of the standard. As s result, a plant owner or operator has a greater incentive under the current standard for taking action to reduce the quantity of a discharge. In summery. EPA is not promulgating the revisions to the relief valve discharge standard which were proposed in the January 8,1988, Federal Register notice. This decision was reached after consideration of public comments received on the proposal, and after e review of the basis for the decision to reformat the standard. Because this review revealed that the burden on Agency resources has diminished as experience with the implementation of the standard tuoiind tod that of tha provisions of the existing standard-on the part of industry should be clearer, the necessity for revising the format of the relief valve discharge standard ia no longer apparent. The existing standard also has the advantages of penalizing all preventable relief valve discharges, providing better regulation of larga volume relief valve discharges, and promoting continuity in the ongoing enforcement of the standard. In soma instances, it may be possible for e plant opera tor to contain a relief valve discharge and to vent it to a control device. Where this can be done without exceeding the exhaust gas amission limit of 10 ppmv. EPA concluded that this approach should be encouraged end. therefore, the discharge should be exempt from the relief valve discharge standard. Venting the discharge through e control device can result in a 99.9 percent reduction in the VC content of the relief valve discharge without interfering with the control of VC emissions in exhaust gases which are also vented through the control device. Although compliance with the 10 ppmv standard would exempt the discharge from the relief valve discharge standard, exceeding the 10 ppmv standard would be considered both a violation of the 10 ppmv standard and of the relief valve discharge standard. yifgifii of Pttitfoa For RocotuidoratkM The NRDC and EDF petitioned EPA to reconsider the decision to withdraw the 1977 proposed revisions to the VC standard. The criteria for granth% each a petition are: (1) The petition must he based on information that was not and could not reasonably have bean presented during the original rulemaking and (2) the petition moot provide substantial support for the argument that the challenged action should be changed. See Denial of Petition to Revise NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbinas. 45 FR 81683 (December 1, 1980). Aa described below, this petition fails to meet either criterion, and it is therefore, denied. Consideration of Petition The NRDC/EDF petition reconsideration of the withdrawal was based on four main premia--|*hsl ,, NRDC/EDF objected to the BPA'a.-. ' announcement of the withdrawal qf the proposed amendments as a final action, without being preceded tnr a aotise which proposed the withdrawal end eOowed for public comment on the actiom. Second. NRDC/EDF objected to the influence of cost considerations in the decision to withdraw tha proposed amendment, stating that the of costa and benefits in the setting of tha VC standard ia contrary to the ^ .tr.,. VAI^OQOi172637 i fl'whf I-L -ff fJM frK-M-:ff| f T( .1*1 'ui'ii i 1 . ' I'll I' 111 vi i h i^u i iv;11 11! I_i %:u m Ftn: | nr+:,MdHl|1l!,l| +l!ll, |"W| li 1ilt sr \ s 11. j S* pvmhrr CIO. 11 T> n / Rules R emulations 3-1907 ;rrfins '! S'i;!:isn 1JJ of thi* Clr.in \ - \i l Third. \RL)C/FDK look issue v. - u ii.it 11 took to he the FPA's a- -.impiion th.it Section 112 of the Clean A r Act establishes a requirement that a love! of control must have been consistently achieved" in the past in order to form the basis of the standard. Finally. NRDC/EDF stated that the EPA's decisions on specific portions of the proposed amendments were in conflict with the evidence on those issues. In the first objection. NRDC/EDF state that the proposed amendments to the 1977 VC standard should not be withdrawn because no notice of such withdrawal had been published and there had been no opportunity for public comment on the withdrawal. During the 8 years which have elapsed since the proposal of those amendments, there has been ample opportunity afforded for public comment and input on the amendments and their withdrawal. The amendments, their protentiai consequences, and the decisions that the Agency might take with regard to them were all before the public. Specifically, NRDC and EDF received draft documents relating to the rulemaking distributed prior to the NAPCTAC meeting. Finally. NRDC did not give any supporting rationale for believing that further opportunity for comment would yield any relevant new information or arguments. Therefore. EPA does not believe that additional time-or provision for receiving further public comments could have been either necessary or helpful for the resolution of the issues involving the proposed amendments to the VC standard. The second issue raised by NRDC/ EDF involves the inclusion of cost consideration in the EPA's rulemaking deliberations under Section 112. The NRDC/EDF maintains that the language of Section 112 which requires the standard to be set at a level which provides an "ample margin of safety" to the public precludes consideration of the costs of control In the EPA's Judgment the VC standard protacts the public health with an ample margin of safety within the meaning of Section 112. and EPA may consider cost and feasiblity in setting the standard. The EPA views were explained in the 1975-78 VC rulemaking. The NRDC/EDF provided no new information on this issue. The NRDC/EDF's third objection was the EPA was incorrect In stating that a level of control must be "consistently achieved" in order to form the basia of the standard. Specifically. NRDC/EDF pointed to the language in the Federal Register notice that "10 ppmv represents the luwrsl level of control which has been cunsistrntlv achieved" .is indicating that EPA was applying such requirement in evaluating alternative exhaust gas requirements. However, the basis for EPA's selection of 10 ppmv as the VC standard for exhaust gas emissions is that this level of control is the lowest achievable emission limit attainable on a never*to-be-exceeded basis. Although 5 ppmv may be achieved by some systems over a limited time period, the existing data indicate the this level of control cannot be maintained over a long-term, neverto*be-exceeded basis, as required by the standards. In addition to being achievable on a consistent, long-term basis, the 10 ppmv standard was also determined by EPA to provide the public with the ample margin of safety required by section 112. Therefore. EPA beleives that the standard satisfies the requirements of section 112. The final points raised by NRDC/EDF in support of the petition for reconsideration addressed three specific provisions of the proposed amendments which were withdrawn. The NRDC/EDF stated that the withdrawal of these provisions was in conflict with the evidence before the Agency. The first specific portion of the standard addressed in the petition is the withdrawal of the proposed 5 ppmv emission limit for exhaust gas emission in favor of the existing 10 ppmv emission limit. The NRDC/EDF stated that the evidence in the record supports a finding that the 5 ppmv limit is achievable by new sources, and by existing sources within 3 years of promulgation. The petition also pointad to the more stringent emission limit not be foregone. The EPA decided to msintsin the 10 ppmv emission limit for exhaust gas emission for three primary reasons. First as statsd above, the 10 ppmv emission limit has been determined to be consistently achievable by industry, whereas the 5 ppmv emission limit cannot be consistently achieved. Second, even though the limit on maximum emissions of VC is set itl ppmv. ths average and most short-tsi emissions will be considerably louver than this level Third, lowering the emission limit on maximum emission rates to 5 ppmv would not significantly reduce the average emissions, and therefore, adopting the lower standard was datarminsd by the Agency not to have a significant impact on amissions of VC or, accordingly, on piublic health risks. The petition for reconsideration presented no new evidence relevant to the Anuriev s derision to withdraw the proposed 5 ppmv emission limit. The second decision addressed by the petition for reconsideration as conflicting with the considered evidence is the withdrawal of the 5 ppmv emission limit for oxychlorination vents. The petition points to a statement in the 1977 proposal that this emission limit could be attained based on the use of oxygen as a feed material rather than air. and maintains that no discussion or evidence were presented which would justify withdrawal of this proposal In tha Fadaral Rsglstar (30 FR1185). evidence was presented by dm Agency supporting the conclusion that more stringent control of emiseions from oxychlorination vents was unnecessary. First, no new technological controls have been developed which ere applicable to these vents. Second, the costs of incinerating oxychlorination vent streams were reevaluated and determined, as before, to be unreasonable compared to tha small reduction in VC emissions. And finally, with tha possible exception of one plant no new EDC/VC plants with oxychlorination reactors are expected to be constructed, and any that may be constructed will be adequately regulated by tha requirements of review regulations. No aew informsboa was presented hi tha petition far reconsideration relevant an dm decision to retain the existing OBychiofinatiau vent standard. >* The third decision which addressed in the petition far * reconsideration as confUettng widi dm considered evidence is tha withdrawal of the proposal to lower (briaMsal VC limit for new dispersion 2.000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and dab Untit for other new resins from 400 ppmv to 100 ppmv. The petition states that existing facilities are currently meeting the lower limits, and that both new and existing facilities could be brought into compliance with the more sfrmgent limits by using the equipment and procedures currently used by the leading facilities. ; The EPA withdrew the. r t-. stringent stripping larePiequfremantafor two main reasons. Urn first is thattim nature of PVC production makes it difficult' to distinguish "new* from "old" resins. Resin compositions ere adjusted routinely, and completely "new** resins re rarely, if ever. made. Second. EPA concluded that there la no improved technology which would provide the basia for more stringent stripping requirements for all resins. The technologies which are affective for specific resins may not be effective for VAB.0001172638 o'.h-.r resins. The consequence of establishing a more stringent standard wi -id be that certain hard-to-strip rc rts could no longer be produced. In the EPA's opinion, such a result would be an unwarranted economic impact wh:ch is unnecessary to provide an ample margin of safety for public health. No new relevant information was presented in the petition for reconsideration. AdWabtrstivi The docket is an organised and complete file of ell the information considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file, since materiel is added throughout the rulemaking development The docketing eyetem is intended to allow members of the public end industries involved to identify end locale documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the statement of basis and purpose of the proposed end promulgated standards and EPA responses to significant comments, the contents of the docket except for interagency review materials, will serve as the record in case of judicial review (section 307(d)(7)(AJl. The effective date of these reviefoeeie Septembers* IMS. Section 112 of the air MW tOUPOM* As prescribed by section 112. promulgation of tkis standard was preceded by the Administrator's listing of VC under section 112 of the Act on December 24.1975 (40 FR 69477). In accordance with section 117 of the Act publication of these promulgated revisions was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory committors, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. Information collection requirements associated with this revised regulation (those included in 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart A and Subpart F] have been approved by the Office of Management end Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 19m 44 LLSjC. 3801 efaeg^ end have been assigned OMB control number Oim,The revised standard is estimated to result In e paperwork burden of about 38 pecaco-years which is roughly the same ea the original standard. Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is required to judge whether a regulation is a "major nut'* and therefors subject te certain requirement* of the Order. The EPA haa determined that the revised regulation would raeult in none of the adverse economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order as grounds for finding a regulation to be a "major rule." The revised regulation is not major because: (1) Nationwide annual compliance costs, including capital charges resulting from the standard total less than S100 million: (2) the standard does 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 market*. The EPA hee submitted this rulemaking to OMB under Executive Order 12291. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1990 requires the identification of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of e Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those instances where small business impacts are possible. Because this revised standard imposes no adverse economic impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis haa not been conducted. Pursuant to the provisons of 5 U5.C 605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on e substantial number of smell entities. List of Subjects In 49 CFR Fart 81. Air pollution control Asbestos, Benzene. Beryllium. Hazardous materials. Mercury. Vinyl chloride. Dated: September 24, tM Administrator. PART 81--NATIONAL EMISSION STANOAROS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR Pert 61 is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 61 contunues to read as follows: Authority: Sees. 101.112.114.116.301. Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.SC 7401. 7412. 7414. 7416. 7601). 2. Section 61.01 is amended by revising paragraphs (jj, (1). (o) and (p) and by adding paragraphs (v), (w). (xj, : (y). and (s) In rand as follows: 116101 DtfMBona. 46 4 (j) ``fnpfansm writwihf means any watsr which, during manufacturing or procaasing. comes into direct contact . with vinylchloride or polyvinyl chloride or results from the production or use of any raw materiaL intermediate product finished product by-product or waste product containing vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to e wastewater treatment process or discharged untreated as wastewater. Casholder seal water is not inprocess wastewater until ills removed from (tie gasholder ae*# that s piece ofequipment either contains or contacts a liquid that is 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 f 01.87(h). The provisions of f 81.87(h) also specify how to determine that e piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride sendee. For the purposes of this subpart. tbit definition must be used in place of the definition of "in VHAP service" in Subpart V of this part. (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" includes any part of the process of ethylane dichloride production which follows ethylene dichloride formation, excluding product storage following the final finishing column. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" incudes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation. (v) "Relief valve" pressure relief device Including pressure relief valves, rupture disks and otjier pressure relief systems used to protact process components from overpressure systems, raferieeratad water evstenw nr. control valves or other devices used to (w) "Leak" means any of several events that Indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment Leaks Include events regulated under Subpart V of this part such as: (1) An instrument reading of 10.000 ppm or greatar measure according to Method 21 (set Appendix A of 40 CFR Pert 80): (2) indications <tf liquid dripping: (3) a sensor detection of faflura of a seal system failure of a barrier fluid system, or both; and (4) datactable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading ofgreater than 590 ppm above background for equipment designated for no detectable --measured according to Test Method 21 (see . . Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 80). Leaks also include events regulated under 161A5(b)(6)(i) for detection of ambient concentrations In excess of background VAB.0001172639 i!!"iT!rrnini:j'>"i'H!"!-- 'in--........ ..... rtrr"5 "irmirN-ii-i!iii^ttm[r; Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1980 lies me Re-vj.^tjcns c. iicentr;jtien. A relief valve discharge he constituents of which may consist ary fluids, either as a liquid and/or cis) discharged directly or ultimately to the atmosphere that was initially contained in or was in direct contact w ith the equipment for which exhaust gas limits are prescribed in f 81.02 (a) and (b); I 61.63(a): f 61.84 (a)(1). (a)(2). (b). (c). and (d); I 61.65(b) (1)(ii). (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii) and fb)(9)(ii). (y) `RaUff valve discharge" means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve. "Relief valve discharge" does not include discharges ducted to e control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. (c) "3-hour period** meant any three consecutive 1-hanr periods (each hour commeactng on the hear). 3. Section 61.62 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read ms follows: 161.62 emission standard for rtiytaa wPivonoi ptmUb (a) Ethylene dichloride purification. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in f 61.65(e). This requirement does not predude 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 doss not exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as provided in 161.06. This requirement does not apply to equipment that 1ms bean opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 161.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. (b) Oxychlorination reactor. Except as provided in i 61.65(a). emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from each oxychlorination reactor ere not to exceed 0.2 g/kg (60QQ2 Ib/lb) (average for 3-hour period) of the 100 percent ethylene dichloride product from the oxychlorination process. 4. Section 61.63 is revised to reed as follows: I6U6S far vtuyl An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shell comply with the requirements of this section end 161.66. (a) Vinyl chloride formation end purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust eas stream from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period), except as provided in $ 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 f 61.66. This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in S 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened 5. Section 61.64 is amended by revising paragraphs (s). (b). (c) end (d) to reed as follows: prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future discharges. [dUriipper. The concentration of vinly chloride in each exhausi gas stream from each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour jod),except as provtaedin 161.65(a). is requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requiremention | 0l.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding contain**, 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 161.64 emission standard for poiyvtnyt chloride plants. *es (a) Reactor. The following the plant hse no stripper) in the plant process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm 3-hour ___except as provided in f 61.65(8). This requirement does not apply to equipment the t has requirements apply to reactors: been opened is out of operation, and (1) The concentration of vinyl chloride mat the requirement in f 61.65(b)(6)(i) in each exhaust gas stream from each before being opened. reactor is not to exceed 10 com ItimMtei (d) liwmmwnscciwyejIriiW. The for 3-hour except as provided in concentration of vinyl chloride in each pari of this section and exhaust gas stream from each monomer f 61.65(a). recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm (2) The _____ except as reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl provided in 101.65(a). This requirement chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) doee not apply to equipment that has of polyvinyl chloride products bean opened, ia out of operation, and pF*r<d*d` p--jgw* wm of Uhe section, wimtftelirodi determined on e dry solids basis. This mot the requirement in f 6lj6S(bX6Ki) before being opened. 6 requirement doee not apply to prepolymerization reactors in the bulk process. This requirement does apply to postpolymerization reactors in the bulk process, whore the product meant the gross product of prepoiymerizadon end 6. By revising paragraphisJ introductory text and adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (f) to f 61.64 to read aa follows: |I1J4 CiMaaloit postpoiymevisetton. (3) Manuel vent valve discharge. Except for an emergency manual vent (e) Sourcee following tha etripperfij. valve discharge, there is to be no The following requirements apply to discharge to the atmosphere from any emissions of vinyl chloride to the manual vent valve on a polyvinyl atmosphere from the combination of all chloride reactor in vinyl chloride sourcee following the stripparfs) [or the service. An emergency manual vent - reactorfs) if the plant has no stripperfe)] valve discharge means a discharge to in the plant process flow but the atmosphere which could not have not limited to. centrifuges, been avoided by taking measures to concentrators, bland tanks, filters, prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, any discharge to the atmosphere from storage containers, and Inpiocaas any manual vent valve, the owner or wastawatar. except as provided in operator of the source from which the paragraph (f) of this discharge occurs shell submit to the Administrator a report in writing containing information on the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date end time of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loee during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride lose nonhulk resin reactor Is used aa a stripper this paragraph may he applied e action that wee taken to in Uen of f 51.64 (a)(2) and (e)flX ' VAB.0001172640 111M ' nr|rcrrp^ 34910 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 109 / Tuesday. September 30. 1906 / Rules and Regu.ations 4 (l) T** * weighted average emissions*# v I: r.!aside from WKtpr and sourc used a stri poJvv:ryl chi reactcr on eaci exceed (i) ZCZ g/kg (0.00202 Ib/tb) of polyviryl chloride product for dispersion polyviryl chloride resins, excluding latex resine, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. (ii) a42 g/kg (000042 ib/Ib) of polyvinyl chloride product for ell other polyvinyl chloride mine. Including Inet resine. with the product determined on e dry solids basis. 7. Section 61.85 is emended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(l)(ii) end (b)(2) to reed as follows: f o i*w wftBwon mii w ravypffM (a) Relief rahre ditcher]*. Except for an emergency relief discharge, there ie to be no discharge to the atmosphere from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride service. An emergency relief discharge means a discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any relief valve discharge, the owner or operator of the aosirce from which the relief valve discharge occurs shell submit to the Administrator a report in writing containing information on the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date end time of the discharge, the total vinyl chloride lose during the discharge, the method need for datansining the vinyl chloride loss thO of vinyl r1bwH^ the action that was taken to nt the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future dischargee. (b) * * * (11 * * * dT" (ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from e InaHino nr unloading lino in accordance with paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section ie to be dueled through e control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm equivalent as provided 614I& (2) Slip gauge*. During loading or unloading operations, this vinyl chloride emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl chloride service are to be minimiMd by ducting any vinyl chloride discharged from the ship gauge through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm hAi'j-jV or equivalent as provided in 61.60. 8. By revising paragraphs (b)(3). (b)(4), (b)(5). (b)(6). (b)(7). (b)(0). (b)(9)(n). and (c) to $ 61.65 as follows: $ 41.65 emission standard for etftytene dlchtortde, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride ptanta. An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) * * (b) (1) ** 00 (21* * * (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seals: (i) Rotating pump* Vinyl chloride emissions from eeala on all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service ere to be minimized by installing sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals or equivalent as provided in | 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump: by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through control system from which the concentrelion of vinyl chloride in the exhaust geese does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. provisions demmoonnesttrrmateses a dm proytmeee ~Tii) Reciprocating pumpaVinyi chloride emissions from sonis on all reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by imulljpg double outboard seals, or equivalent aa provided In 6146. If double outboard seals are need, 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; fay 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 6146. Compliance with the provisions of 40 tretee oil drills i QP'~iuiTi-----------1' r--r~ :' - rfc (iii) Rotating mapmsev Vinyl chloride emissions front stale on all rotating compressors in vinyl chloride service ere to bo eiinkriced by installing compressors with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to bo minimized by maintaining the pressure between t*e two seals so that anv leak that occurs is to 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 161.66. Compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 SubpartVdemonsIrates compliance with the provisions of this TTv) Reciprocating compmaon. Vinyl chloride emissions from seels on ell reciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride service ere to be minimised by instilling double outboard seels, or equivalent as provided in 6146. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seels are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the compressor by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 81.06. from seals on ail agitators in vinyl chloride service ere to be minimized by installing agitators with double mechanical eeala. or equivalent aa provided in 6144 If double * mechanical teals are used, vinyl chloride emiaaious from the eaale ere to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the agitated vessel: by ducting any vinyl *1"^ between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent provided in 61.66. ,, (j) leoha from g^ra/yigyi chloride emiesim dunta kakafccn 61.246-4 of ~~(5) MnnwnTventing qfgame. Except as provided In 61.64(e)(9), K gases which ere ruaiwietfy vented from equipment In vinly chloride service are to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of risyi chloride Inthe exhaust gates does not exceed 10 ppm q (I chloride emi equipment reactom u I* Vlnyf from opening ef VAB.0001172641 .ii1liilm|.:,illw||,::,,lk,: ' I : !' (.!!! i" i1 :iirM : .11 34912 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. Scplcmber 30, 1906 / Rules and R< u (1 a n s 1 h.s exemption to athsr existing open* downstream and one half diameter postpolymerization reactors in the ended valves or linos theism upstream from any flow disturbance manufacture of bulk resins. 'It demonstrated to require significant such as a bend, expansion, contraction, (6j Fora reactor that is used as a retrofit cost to comply will) the or visible flame. For a rectangular cross stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride requirements of f 61443-4 of Subpart V. section an equivalent diameter is to be from reactor opening loss and ail le 1 4 * * determined from the following equation: sources following the reactor used as a (9)* * * equivalent diameter*>2 (length] (width)/ stripper for which an emission Umit is (Li) Any vinyl chloride removed from length+width prescribed in f 61.64(0 era to be the inprocess wastewater in accordance with paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section is to be ducted through e control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not 10 ppmjaveraos for or equiva es provided in The sampling point in the duct is to be at the centroid of the cross section. The sample is to be extracted at s rate proportional to the gas velocity at the sampling potatJQhejMgipki ia la contain ft vohoM of SO 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 tha time of the determination baaed on tha plant's operation. (i) For each batch stripped in the taken reactor, tha following measurements are to be made: (c) (A) The concentration (ppm) of vinyl 0>K1), (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(6), (b)(7) end (bH6) of this section are to be inemporated into a standard operating procedure, end made available upon request for inspection by the Administrator. The standard operating procedure ia to include provisions for measuring the vinyl chloride in equipment 4.75 m* (1450 gal) In volume far which an emission limit is prescribed In f 61.65(bM6K0 equipment and using Test Method 106. e portable hydrocarbon detector, or an alternative method. The method of measurement is to meet the requirements In 161.67(g)(5)(i)(A) or (gXS)(i)(B). 61 Section 61.66 la revised to read at follows: Upon written application from an owner or operator, the Administrator may approve use of equipment or procedures which have bean demonstrated to his satiefactioa to be equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl chloride emissions to the atmosphere to thoaa prescribed for compliance with a specific paragraph of this subpart IQ. By revising paragraphs (f), (g)(lKQ* (g)(2). (d)(3) Introductory text (gK3)(<)> (gXSXiii). (gXS) introductory text and by (sXSXii) addins paragraphs (g)(6) and (h) in ft 6147 as follows: 16167 (f) Tha owner or operator shall retain at tha plant and make available, upon request, for Inspection by the AcfcnhristratorJjBLUinimnni of 6 records of emission toil other date needed to determine emissions. M* (!)* (i) For each ran. one sample is to be (2) Test Method 107 or Methnd (incorporated by i in f 61.189 ts to be used to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride in each inprocess wastewater stream for which an emission limit is prescribed in 61.65(b)(9)(i). (3) When* stripping operation is used to attain the emission limits in f 6144 (e) end (f), emissions an to bo determined using Test Method 107 as foliowe; (i) Tha number of ___ reactors samples ie types and grades of reein to be sampled era to be determined by tha Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the test based on tha plant's operation. (ii) (iii) The corresponding quantity of material processed by each snipper fan ` is to be basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. (to)* * (4) * * (5) Tha reactor opening lots for which tn emission Umit it prescribed ia 161.64(a)(2) is to be determined. Hie number of reactors for which the detarmlaation ie to be made is to be specified by tbs Administrator for each individual plant st the time of tha determination based on tha plant's (i)*** (ii) A calealatlon based on tha number of evacuations, the vacuum Involved, and the volume of gee to the reactor is hereby approved by the Administrator as tn alternative method for determining tractor opening loss foe poetpolymerisatioa reactors hi tha manufacture of bulk resins. Calculation methods based on techniques other than repeated evacuation of the reactor may chloride to resin altar stripping, measured according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section; (B) Tha reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at end of strip from plant instrument: end (C) The reactor temperature (*C) st end of strip from plant instrument (ii) For each batch stripped in tha reactor, the following information is to be determined: (A) Tha vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water in the reactor st end of strip from ths following tibia: 5F TcT 40 41 4ft 43 44 4ft 4ft 47 4ft 4ft *0 tl 53 S3 54 Sft Sft 57 so Sft o *0 ssr W (mm Hp SU m 0J ft* 14 04 044 m 004 Oft 714 *7 794 m 704 m Ml7 70 300 71 34 73 *74 73 143.1 74 1074 1134 7ft 1140 77 1334 7ft 13*4 7 1301 0 MOft *1 1404 *3 MM m mm C -1414 tin Vi 1*01 ffOft 3144 3807 3307 3434 844 3*07 3774 3*01 301.4 314.1 3374 3414 3*01 3*07 3*44 4004 rtT HsO Jm Hp 3ft ftft mV7 m m *1 3 ft *4 ft ftft *7 ft ft 100 4100 4300 4104 4007 4071 1001 530ft 5400 74 SB*.* 104 *334 57ft M31 707 3 7334 7300 ' (B) The partial pressure (mm Hg) of vinyl chloride to tractor stand ofstrip from the following equation: PPVC- 760-llV-VPW where: f- m- PFVCa partial pvsssars of vinyl chloride, in mm Hg TSOwenuespharic pteseure at 0 *C in mm Hg RVm absolute vetoes!reactor vseesm. in bus Hg VPWmvapor pressure of water. In mm Hg (Q Ths iraomr vapor mam voliuummei coUacted. Tha samplfot site ia to be at be approved fay tha Administrator for (m^ of rad ofatrip front tne following least two stack or duct diameters equation} VAB.0001172642 * f Register A 1906 / Rules and Regulations 34313 PVCW RVSV-RC-WV 1.400 VSV reactor vapor tpaee volume, in m* C -- reactor capacity, in m* VV voiuma of water in reactor is m* P\'CWd*j weight of polyvinylchloride in reactor from reape, in kg .400 typical density of polyvinyl chlcnd in kg/tn* (iii) For each batch stripped in the \ reactor, the combined reactor opening loss and emissions from ell sources following the reactor used as a stripper Is to be determined using the following equation: (PPVC)(RVsv}(i.oory c-fPFMVcxurvi- (PVCWM273+RT) Cg vtoyf chkride/kg pdyvfayt chloride product mcvc- of this wetaam to RVSV ^reactai vapor apnea vol dtlmiftiri to pit^npk (SKStfliXCl of ttia section, to 1.008kKaf gas coaaCant lag-- *K/mm - m tor vftiyl chfavfdh ^Sto'lC RTreactor temperature, to 'C (bRl) Bach pleas of loride content clearly doee not exceed percent When an owner or operator whether a pfeee ef prnrwtoses inpeeeyeph (hMl>ef this section shall be used to resolve the disagreement mu that o ptoca of equipment to in vinyl ehloridt service, the datoaminsttam t be revised only after following the procedures in paragraph (h)(l} of thia O) Sawpl-- im*<4 In 4>tonnfailw| percent vinyf chloride coolant shall be representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts the (0 Fore the at accoippvmft pa sectierr to be in excess of the a emission limits* the owner or shall record the Identity of the source(s), the date. time, end deration of the excess emission, the cause af the excess emission, and the approximate total vinyl chloride lore emission, and the method seed for This indm available for inspection by the Administrator as required 12. In 16UO by levtstag title from "SamiaauMOt iepert" tP (*K (cMlh (cX*J introductory toxt (cJUKiiiJ. (cRajCIv). (eX3NH (X*Xri) introductory toxt and (e)(3) and alee by addfcgg (cjff) In rand as Mhms: i atm (a)(1) The owner or operator of any source to which this sebpart applies shall submit to the Administrator on writing is to be submitted ft 3mon report (2} friths first full Oy IBCB^ pQTW^WpWm {VJk fWf (fy to | OlfiO as follows: fttoo a* expected net la weight for liquid streama or liquid volmm and Ml pascam bp streanm or contained volumes, which also includes gas volumes above liptf contaiaorf bqoid described la A8TM (incorporated by mference aa specified in I filOt) shell be used. (ZXKAa procedures In paragraph (bRl) of(Me vinyt chloride content does not exceed 10 percent by weight far liquid streams and 10 percent by volume for ges reqmrswsw er peregrepa (a) action, ear --fried la the afrnerphere without passing through the control system end required vtnyt chloride moniforihg system, the vinyl chloride content of the emission shall be limits in. 61.82 (a> as fbh I *tfl3(ah I 88.64 fb). (c). at (d| engin the VC with I OJTfll) er ethmr acceptabls method. liiWIHXllMIWW WMB*. farwUdk ^wlfriSSSnei pampaphe ^ (weighted according to ArptqpeSlm of Him time monitosad of |6U6(cftl). VAB.0001172S43 L| \ 34914 Federal Register / VoS. 51, No 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 4 include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. (i) * (i) * * * (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Teel Method 107 as prescribed in | eLOnUItt (iv) [Reserved) (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include e record of any 24-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentration, as determined in this paragraph, in excels of the limits prescribed in f 91.94(e). The vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c](2)(ii) of this section shall be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the stripper(s) that calendar day, according to the following equation: Ii-P1* Ma A* Or P01 Mqi +P Mgs+ * Pqm Mqb Of where: A m34-hour avenge concentration of type T reein hi ppm (dry weight besia) Q-Total production of typo T resin over the 24-hour period, in kg. T Type of resin. Concentration of vinyl chloride in one ample of grade Gi resin in ppm. P--Production of grade Gi reein represented by the sample, in kg. Gi*Grade of reein: 14, GI. G2, GS. Total nambar of grades of reein produced during the 2S-hour period. The number of H hoar fiiM--gSliniis hf uch ruta tjrp# determined during the shall be reported. If no rum vinyi cmmtoB of the 9144(e) am state that no exeats ooncmtmtfou (vi) The owner or operator shall retain at the source end make available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years records of oU data information required by paragraph (c)(2}(v) of this section. The records are to contain the b following information: (A) CB> * (3) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of any amiaafops from each reactor opening in exceee of the emieekm Halts prescribed in 19144(a)(2). ftnisekms am to be determined in accordance with 19147^(5), except that eaderiona far each reactor are to be determined. Tbs number of reactor openiqge during the reporting period shall ba reported. If emissions in excess of ths --lesion limits am not detected. 9s report shell include a statement diet txossa emissions have not bean detected. 19144(f), Dm owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride emiaaione from reader opening lots and ell sources foUawtag the reactor used as u stripper. (i) One representative sample of polyvinyl chloride reein is to be taken from each betch.of each grade of mein immediately following the completion of the stripping operation, end identified by resin type end grade end the date and time the batch is completed. The corresponding quantity of material ZPC. iI A* Or Or where: AM hoar everags combined rsecter opening leas end aaisekms from ell sources bOoviai the reactor used m tripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weightbasis). Q~Total preeuction of reein in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-bour period, in kg. T--Type of reein. CAverage combined reactor opening lone end emteelona from ail eourcee loUowing the reactor need ea e stripper of ell Un far which peridiJs g vtsyi chloride/kg product (dry weight basis) (lislsmrineil accordhs to praosdme snosribsd in 19147(1X9)). P Gi*Gredsaf Total #, Gi, Gw and Ge. processed in sueh strirr** K*tch if to be _ recorded aoAjdgBitfied^y resin type and grade sno tne date and umethe completed (ii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in I 81.97(g)(3). (iii) The combined emissions from reactor opening lose and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper am to be determined for each hatch stripped in e reactor according to the procedure preecribed in 18147(g)(9). (iv) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator ia to include e record of any 34-hour average combined reactor opening lose end emission! from ail sources following the reactor used as a stripper as determined in this paragraph, ia exceaa of the limits prescribed in f 0144(f). The combii reactor opening loss and emisaiona all sources following the reactor used a 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 perfonnec +P*Ca. thenlDort shill stale tnat no exceee 1 FT* F T1 i * *1 astona ware etermined. 11. By revising paragraph (e) Introductory text of 181.71 as follows: f 91.71 (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall retain the following information at the source end make it available for inspection to the Administrator for a 14. By revising paragraph (a)(4) end adding paragraph (b)(1) to 191.19 ea follows: iei.ie * * * W# (4) ASTM D2207-00 (raappeevod 1979) Aromatics in Light Naphthas and VAB.0001172644 A Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1966 / Rules and Regulations 34915 Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography. 1BR approved June 6. 1964. for 61.245(d)(1) and 1BR approved September 30,1986 for 61.67(h)(1). * (b) The following material is available from the U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati. Ohio 45268. (1) Method 601. Test Method for Purgeable Halocarbons. July 1982. IBR approved September 3a 1966 for 61.67(g)(2). 15. By revising the definition "volatile hazardous air pollutants" in $ 61.241 of Subpart V to read as follows: $ 61.241 Definitions. ** "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 loo VHAP. 16. By revising the definition of "connector** in f 61.241 of Subpart V as follows: 61.241 Definitions. e e e * "ConnectogMAMtt^flRMh welded,jggg|M^|BwnWttin||s usad to conn sqi#m pipe lines or a pip*fine and a piece of equipment. For the purpose of reporting and recordkeeping, connector means flanged fittinga that are not covered by insulation or other materials that prevent location of the fittings. a * [FR Doc 86-22032 Filed 9-29-86: 8:45 amj HUMS COOS WMMI VAB.0001172645