Document 82d0DGojw2Yg1B6QGe6pQdv5B

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION January 17, 1984 To: From: Re: Vinyl chloride Program Panel C. Stack NESHAP Federal Register Notice I enclose a recent Federal Register notice announcing EPA's conclusions following review of the current vinyl chloride emission standard. The announcement proposes administration changes and contains EPA's decisions regarding certain aspects of the standard. No major revisions are proposed. CMA 101760 Formerly Manufacturing Chemists Association--Serving the Chemical Industry Since 1872. 2501 M Street. NW Washington. DC 20037 Telephone 202/887-1100 Telex 89617 (CMA WSH) 1182 Federal Register / VoL 5ft No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1988 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40CFRPertS1 lAD-FRL-2707-4] . Nation*! Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Vinyl CMorttie _ AMNCVt Envoromnental Protection Agency (EPA). action: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing. CUMMAiiv: The current emission standard for vinyl chloride (VC) was promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in 1976. A review of die 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 (l) 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 ooncemiiqj the proposed revisions to the currant standard. OATim Comments. Comments must he received on or before March 25.1985. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January go 1985, a public hearing aril! he held an February 86, 1985 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Persona interested in attending the hearing should call Ms. Shelby Journigan 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 data of tbs Anal rule. AQowittai: 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, 401M Street S.W., Washington. D.C 2048a Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public . hearing by January 30,1986, the public hearing will be held at EPA`Auditorium, corner of Highway 54 and Alexander Vmii for relief valve discharges. (2) rive. Research Triangle Park, North providing a compliance test procedure Caralina. Persons interested in attending and a specific emission limit for the hearing should call Ms. Sheflry operators who perform stripping Journigan at (919) 541-5578 to vmify that iterations in reactors, and (3) specifying a hearing will occur. Persona wiriiing to requirements for leak detection and present oral testimony should notify Ms. repair programs for certain equipment in Shelby Journigan, Standards VC service. Additional minor Development Branch (MD-13), OA 1 administrative changes to the standard Enviromental Protection Agency, axe being proposed and are explained Research Triangle Park, North Carolina later to this preamble. 27711, telephone number (919) 54t-5579i Summary ofHealth, Environmental, Background Information Document frergy, and Economic Impacts. Since no The general findings of the review study major revisions to the standard are are documented in "Vinyl Chloride--A being proposed, the impacts resulting Review of National Emission bom the current standard remain Standards", EPA-45O/3-82-00S (NTIS- generally unchanged. In 1975, it was PB 84-114354), available from the aetiraatod that emissions of VC horn National Technical Information Service. plants producing ethylene dichloride 5285 Pori Royal Road. Springfield. (EDC). VC monomer and polyvinyl Virginia 22181. The major technical chloride (PVC) would be reduced horn analysis for the review study is 98.000 Mg/yr to 4,910 Mg/yr under the contained in a separate document which carrent standard, representing an may be obtained from the U.S.EPK 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 Emissions of volatile organic compounds number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to . (VOC) and EDC are also reduced under "Vinyl Chloride: Relief Valve Discharge the standard. Standard," EPA-450/3-85-002, for the technical document Docket Docket No. A-81-21, containing supporting information used in developing the proposed standard, la available for public inspection and copying botwemi 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday thresh Friday, at EPA's The estimated risks attributed to exposure to VC from EDC/VC and PVC plants in operation prior to the current etandard were 5.5 cases per year for fiver angiosarcoma and 11 cases per year for all cancers. The risks attributed to exposure to VC from sources under the current standard have been Central Docket Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1. Waterside Mafl, 481M Street. SW,, Washington. D.C. 20480. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying- estimated to be 0.28 cases per year for fiver angiosarcoma and 0.55 cases per year tor all cancers. In 1975, the estimated capital cost for existing plants to meet the VC standard FOB FUTM88 MFOMSATION CONTACT. was $198 million, of which $15 million Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel or Mr. Leslie B. was for EDC and VC monomer plants Evans, (919) SO.-5671, concerning end $183 million was for PVC plants. technical aapeote of the industry and The EPA estimated that the annualized control technologies, end Mr. Fred cost (including capital amortization, etc.) Dimmish or Hfc Gilbert H. Wood, (919) to these plants to maintain the required 541-5578, concerning regulatory amission levels would be $70 million per decisions. The address for these year. contacts is Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S. Background Environmental Protection Agracy, The VC standard was proposed on Research Triangle Park, North TjmMm December 24,1975 (40 Fr 59532), and 27711. promulgated on October 21,1976 (41 Fr aumiMNTAKY INTOIMIATIONI 4BH9hdt is applicable to plants Summary of Revisiooe to Cuntof Standard prahsdkig EDC by the reaction of ' exygea end hydrogen chloride with thyiene. plants producing VC by any Revisions. Several administratis* process, and plants producting one or changes are being proposed as inah more polymers containing any fraction of a review of the national emiraton of VG These plants are subject to standard for VG No major ntohni mm'-l -different requirements at numerous VC being proposed to the stendatoL As wtih mission points in the manufacturing the current standard for VG Era process. These requirements include revisions are being establishedamdra euraralcal emission limits, equipment Section 112 of the Clean Air AcL Tbs apecflbations. and work practices. significant administrative revMaaa . The etandard was designed to include: (1) Reformatting the sraiarirai-' rohranize the health risks associated CMA 101761 Federal Register / VoL SO, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 198S / Proposed Rales lias with VC by requiring reasonable control measure*. As stated in the preamble ta the proposed standard (40 Fr 59632, December Z4.187$), there is ao known - threshold level of effects Car 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 reeaonable control measure. On November 19,1976, the ` Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned the United State* Court of Appeal* 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 s 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 would initiate a review of the VC atandard 3 years after the promulgation of the amendmenta. On June 2.1977, the amendments were Regulating Airborne Substances Posing Risk of Cancer." This proposal addressed several issues which were central to the proposed VC amendments. It also articulated tha ERA'S conclusion that Section 112 does not express an intent to eliminate totally all risks from emissions of airborne carcinogens. Tim EPA's selection of the level of control for a hazardous air pollutant emission standard would not be based an a policy that requires zero .emission* of carcinogens. This policy is consistent with the basis for other recent actions under Section 112. For example, standards for benzene from coke ovens and leaks from equipment components in benzene service are not baaed on a zero emissions policy but rather on a reasonable level of control, which considers emissions and health risks. The EPA believes it is not appropriate to leave the proposed amendments to the VC standard in effect or to promulgateamendment* 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 determia whether other amendmenta to the standard are needed. New amendmenta developed es a result of the review. study are proposed in this notice. Review of VC Standard ' proposed [42 FR 28154). Many comments pertaining to policy, technological feasibility, and procedural aspects of the proposed amendments were received. Review of these comments indicated that additional technical data and coat information were required before the proposed amendments, or revision* of the proposed amendments, could be promulgated. Early in i960 the EPA began a review of the VC standard. The primary purpose of the review was to investigate the adequacy and appropriateness of the standard in light of policy decisions, health studies, control technology developments, and enforcement and compliance experience which have occurred since the standard wa* first promulgated. The review consisted of a Meanwhile, the EDF filed a petition screening study of: (1) Existing and new with the EPA requesting the control technologies. (2) sources not establishment of a comprehensive regulated by the standard, and (3) program for regulating airborne enforcement and compliance experience carcinogens under Section 112 of the since promulgation of the standard. Clean Air Act The aspects of tha EDFa Information and data evaluated during petition concerning the development of this study were obtained through standards under Section 112 wear.......... literature search**, plant visits, and similar to thoeepropoeed is thejba* 2, < interviews with industrial 1977, amendments to the VC atandard. - lepsaiautuUvas andEPA regional Based on tha similarity of thepropsisd personnel involved in enforcement and amendmenteend the EDTs requested ~ sumtllawro ofthe VC-emltttny compreheaaiee program forngidaHag - industries. The tofoamstton and data art airborne carcinogens, dm SPA behaved presented is a document thatmay be that it dmMnot taka final actteomiha obtarted-ae described in the AOOMa--9 proposed VC amendments until after it section of this preamble. Decisions had actadoa tha EDF** petithm., baaad oo this review are summarized in On October 10.1979 [44 FR 58642), tha. the next two sections of this preamble. EPA proposed "Policy and Prncadmee As another aspect of tbs review of the for Identifying Assessing, and. r- VC standard, tha BPA'sCarchugen Assessment Group reviewed new health studies that have become available since the standard was promulgated. This review included a study of the estimated carcinogenic strength of VC (the VC unit risk number) and focused on whether this number should ba changed to reflect new informston. Since the current standard was promulgated, new occupational studies have confirmed qualitatively that liver and brain cancer incidence are asociated with population exposure to atmospheric VC. However, none of these new studies have sufficient exposure information to warrant a refinement of the quantitative cancer risk setimata. Findings and Conclusion* of the Review Study The findings and conclusions of the VC review etudy 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 subjection identifies source categories not covered by the current standard and evaluates the appropriateness of regulating these sources. (1) Need and Basis for Current Standard The current VC standard was established based on judgments concerning the costs and benefits of the standard to society, The standard is not designed to eliminate VC exposure risk entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance between public health protection and the coat of that protection. Data (evaluated before the current standard was established) strongly indicate that VC causes or contributes to the development of angiosarcoma, other cancers, and various noncarcinogenic disorders m people with occupational exposure end in animals with experimental exposure to VC. Although no dose-response data are available at the concentrations of VC found in the ambient airrthe 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, s complete prohibition of alt VC emiasionsrwould be necessary. This wouldeequin the closure of the entire industry and result in serious, adverse economic impacts. Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the time the current standard was established that complete prohibition of all VC emissions would not be desirable or naoeaaary. The EPA \ CMA101762 ebnotaded this in stewefft) the beneficial uses of VCproducts tor whuh desirable wMhlnw not mdfly available; (2) Ifia ptfiMOal advene heal* and ^^roMrotelto Iropacts associated nflth DC ntojsUtutes that have net been ArtogMy stadia* (31) Ae nnmberef employes. particulariy to fabrication industries, who would become at least temporarily unemployed; mid (4) the availability of control technology that la capable of substantially reducing emissions ofVC into the atmosphere. Although all EDC, VC and PVC plants have now incorporated VC amiaaion controls, the maintenance of e Federal standard for VC is still considered necessary. The VC standard curtains requirements for the proper operation and maintenance of control devices and the proper implementation of work practices. These requirements reflect an appropriate balance between the need to Tnirriiarm health risks and the troidanoe of meaeenable economic and community impacts which would result bom standards designed to reduce risks to sere. Relative to the initial control costs, the additional cost of maintaining and implementing the Federal VC standard is small. Nevertheless, if the Federal standard ia discontinued, these small costs may be sufficient to provide the industry with ah economic incentive for discontinuing the ime of proper control measures. Thus, the continued maintenance of Federal standards for the control of VC is necessary to ansain a continuation of the current level ofcontrol. Additionally, the standard ia important for the control of VC amissions from plants built in the future. The Federal standard would be to tocaaaaa the carcinogenic risk to large angtoanto of the population. (InTflft whan the standard was originally proponed, approximately 4J mtiban people Head within a b-arite zadte ifBXL VC amd PVC plants.) Aoocrdinrfy. tha EPA has coadudad that the roteaftawanoe to-Ae Federal standard far VC or roasooaM* revision of the standard, is appropriate. (2)Review i/Titnfarfnjy fTnmrffsiuf of Control -- This suhsecfioe describes tha status ~f thr firhntilng) hsssd Inrnl nf isrotiid for sources covered by the canard standard. The present stains of emissions fromaomcaa covered by toe current VC standard ia ptaasatod to Table 1. CMkOMOCNESHAP M* 1Sw7SMvtcfMamSymt 'DM i EDC/VC otan* prior to lf?f *B*fld on w EM mm tor fl 20ppm* Standard Emission sources covered by fids standard tatouda TOC purification and VC monomer formation and purification equipment, monomer recovery systems and other equipment at PVCphisds. and vents from Active amiaaion capture systems. The standard is based primarily on flu control nf these emissions by indneretion or other primary control devices and sparifina an emission limit of IDparts permfiBonhy volume fppffiv) ofVC averagednvsr a 3hour period. Tha 10ppmv standard applies to control device"bypass streams. One of the ssHiiaiinatoijmspriaetl In . 1117T would hase ni|aiiwl isdarttmi af the matetoon halt from is tagppws. The goal oftho proponed SpprovlMt .. continued to approach a *haro emtataan fnal" by ifqairiiv oamam andopmstoo hnth la mitmIm ti atti pViiwis i i mt . existing control systems and to destp improved arw control aystemeat the was not I technology different bom that analysed at1 of(he 10 CommnadS 'leceirad on dm.proposed UOf amaudmaats stated flmtln order to matt a iteritnfSpparv.a control device wadW havrtohanapable of anrtrdl at a isdtl SmadlMaMbn'Sjtpmv to'oBhet HtotosIdnUartuSMiiii Comment** also Statedthat a dnnge froth to to 3 ppnrv wotodmatot taVtfle reduction in mass atoMonror VC finely. commenters questionedAcTsttonsle of the "zero etnlssioa goaf" policy. Because Ae proposed S ppmv emission Ihnlt was not bsssid on data from a Control technology different from thataaafyied Tor *e corrant standard and becstmeTDppmv represents the lowestleVd id control which has been consistently achieved. At EPA withdraws the proposed 6ppmv limit and afflnro the mtalnal-10 ppmv limit If such a technologyhad bean identified, it could harobeen the haaia of a revised standard. However, during the review toady > manadvanced technology was identified, even though additional data on Jnctoeraiots. carbon adsorb**, sad solvent absorption control system on existing plants were obtained. Although those date iwStmta ifad incinerators are . capable af radiating emissions below 10 ppmv, 10ppmv represents the lowest level at control which has been consistently achieved Based on this information, the EPA has conoluded that them is no tefmssd ernew control tenhnnlirg]' that has bean demonstrated to signJfiprody and csrutetently reduce amteetena to s level below that required by fimmnt standard. Therefore, no bather todmidapnel investigation of the 10ppmv etawdsid to planned. OmfcUanmcPiom Vaat Standard--02 g/% EDC. The current oxjrchiortnatioo vent standard toOlg of VC par hg of EDC does not require an add-on control device. Instead, Ihe Emit can be achieved at moat plants by aontroHing operatic conditions sad at the remaining pistes throngh process modifications. At the time the original standard wee written, incineration of ojwddorinatton vent amteaione was investigated. Beoauee ofexpected high specified a level to ppm farthe oxyohlminatina eenL The proposed requirement vrae based on istosUetion toan exygee toed system with an Inilnmntia in iipdieesm central device. The use ofaxygaafaedln IheBDC oxychlorinaton process decreases the -\Q-\763 CW\A frfcwl ***** I Vbi. 98, Wo. 8 / WWfteydaj, frnwry . lias voleme of inert whlww in the vent stream end. to--i|w%. fas coet far supplemental fuel raqufcod far incineration. Comments received on this proposed enisini--t fames il primarily on the high expense ad Ina orergy requirements moidhAvm the production of seysmi , The review tteretified no contra! technology for oxyukteriteatios vents el EDC/VC plants that had a* been considered during the development of the original standard. Additionally, the EPA reevaluated the cost of retrofit incinerator controls nnri risrhod the seme conclusion drawn in the development of the original standard. As before, the high cost associated with incinerating oxychlorieation vants at existing EDC/VC plant* makes tide level of control unreasonable. Thus, the currant standard of 02 g/kg EDC is considered still to be the moat reasonable level of control far oxychlorination vents. In addition, the review study concluded that si^uficant new construction or modification of EDC/VC plants is not expected At this time, only one new EDC/VC facility is reportedly planned (BF Goodrich has plans te construct an EDC/VC facility in Convent, Louisiana.) Oxychlorination vents at new EDC/VC plants will be regulated by the proposed standards of performance for air oxidation processes [40 CFR Part 60 Subpart LU) or by the BACT y LAER requirements of new source review regulations applicable in specific locations to s level comparable to that achievable through the use of incineration. Because the technologically achievable level of control is assured through the current requirements, the EPA concluded that investigation of additional control (i^. incineration) was not required for oxychlorination vents. Reactor Opening--0.02g/kg PVC Product The current VC standard restricts emissions during polymerization reactor opening*. The standard was based on reactor purging and on a reduction in the frequency of reactor openings. An increased level of control was not proposed in die 1977 amendments. (The level of control provided by the current standard. 0.02 g/kg of PVC product, reduces VC emissions to about 1.39 Mg per year for a model PVC plant.) During the review of the standard, no lei knidnu was identified that would provide additional VC reductions beyond the level of die current standard. Therefore, the ffA is not investigating further the control of reactor openings. Combined Source* AfterResm ' Stripping. The sources of VC amissions covered wider the current standard inchide Mend tarda. dryers, eentrtfs^s, processors liteetttfr the more stringent storage tfioe, hogging uperadona. and h omits proposedpreviously on stripping any somow hfawig the rtfaer. titose resins'tn this low favel to offset Control oPSieee mnisafons bauserfon either stripping the PVC resin to a specified (based eoreete type} retodnal VC Inal (i.*, SBtpptofar --pension, bulk, aafcrtien.eadietex --tear and emisstoes from those resins which are more dflflcutr to strip. Without this ability to average tee emissions and reduction* among resins, these . processor* might not achieve the current controlling thssntissieef from all source* Inlfawftm the shipper with s standard. .Exempting resin grades known tobe difficult to strip ia sot feasible because these resins cannot contest device. The 1977 proposed amendments meefct have reamed "new rastas" to he stripped to lower levels (La. 100 ppm far suspension, befit, sodntfcm. and latex leetes; and 800 ppm for dispersion restns). When the amendments were proposed, the MPA believed that soma reates could meet the proposed limits; wh rests* the i been reqtaud toe stripping tauteiulugj or paste poduee the resin. Industry --sites tested tfeet amst dispsrvkm. copoty--; rod talk mala* would suffer degradet-- M mare stringent emission limits were hnpMed. Additionally, dm commafa mind the inherent difficulties in deftelag a "new resin." tefoimatif suhatetted by commenfs indicated that minor adjustments to resin composition* are made routinely, and completely new rentis are rarely, if ever, mode As a result of those commotes, th* EPA concluded that it is hnpoetebte te away cases to distinguish between new end existing resins and still have any resaw covered by the proposed smentenenis. Further, theproposer! amendments did not address what level* of central could be achieved by iwpmvsd shipping technology. For these rasacos, theEPA chose to evaluate whether tagher tevels of control are achievable lor all resin*, or anly for soma speripl desses of resins. Ths review study found that resin stripping technology has improved since the current standard was and that soma processor* can achieve lower resin residual VC levtes than those required in the original standard. In certain cases, soma resins can mast the more stringent levels specified in the previously proposed amendments. However, other processor* manufacturing resins of differing grades and characteristics can only marginaBy comply with the original standard Because ofdis wide variation in resin grades and characteristics, it cannot b* concluded that, even though a particular reidBy be defined. Far the foregoing reasons, fbnJBPA ho concluded that there is no demonstrated level of control which could significantly and consistently reduce wMmi VC levels te resins io levels below that required by the currant standard. Therefore, the H*A is not tnvetelgating further the control of the combined sources after stripping. Equipment Leak*-Because little was known about leak detection and elhnin total propams for control of eqiipmant leaks from components te VC amvice, specific requirements far these programs were not ineluded te the current standard, instead, each plant was required to teetitule and implement a formalised leak detection and elimination program incorporating both a fixad-point monitor and a portable monitor. Pfant specific programs were subject to approval by the Admteiatratcr. Consequently, due to site-specific differences among plants, as well as variations in leak definitions ead mooiteeing practices, differences in control ef equipment leaks among the plants hove resulted. Since the standard wasprmnlgslinl the EPA has obtained math tefarnwtten pertaining to the control of equipment leaks from components te VC service. With the information obtained farm the development of other standards, an effective leak detection and repair program based on use of a portable moretor can now be specified for equipment covered by this program. The specific leek detection and repair requirements are discussed in the 1`liwfnlslialln Ksviteons section of this preamble. Relief Yafn Df*charge Standard. Sources ef VC emissions covered by this standard taehuu discharges from relief velvet on pressure vessels, transfer lines, mid 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 te resin made by one company can meet s plants during development of the particular level any other resin or similar resins produced by another standard. An exact combination of modifications and operational company could also mset fast level procedures wee not specified. Instead, s Furthermore, in some esses these performance stsnd&ra (i.e.. an emission CMA 101764 1186 Fodnrel JUgirtf / oL fiP. No. 8 / Wednesday. J; Jfrtgoeed Jhiles standard) waa aatahliahad because it to source* covend by tha VCfteadexd. was believed that different the EPA concluded that none uftha combinations could be'equally effective . additional sources identified in tha In controlling relief yalve discharges. review study warrant a Federal The current format of the standard standard. , v_ prohibits all relief valve discharges ,, except emergent^ discharges. Emergency discharges are described as those which ooald not have been avoided by taking measure* to prevent the discharge (i.e,, those that are "nonpreventable"). Since the standard waa promulgated, all plants have experienced acme releases. Many of these releases are considered preventable by the EPA. Bated 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 waa 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, aa discuaaad 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 currant VC standard, die 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. (31 Review ofSources Not Previously ` Covered Miscellaneous Sources ofVC Emissions. Miscellaneous sources are plants other than PVC and RPC/VC plants that use VC a a raw material or produce VC as an intermediate or by- - product. The EPA has identified tour such plants, two of these plsflte produce 1,1,1-trfchloroethaiM, one produce* perchloroethyiene end trichloroethylene end the fourth plant produces pesticides. (An additional 1,1,1-trichtamMthane unit was constructedat a fourth locution but has reportedly never operated. Thera an no plans to operate in the fortune.) Review of VC amission sources at the identified plants showed them to be well controlled. Emissions of VC from these plants an primarily from fugitive sources and range from lest than 1 Mg/ yr to 14 Mg/yr par plant in general, the VC NEBHAP requirements for process vents and equipment in VC sendee are being met at the miscellaneous sources due to company policy considerations end State and local regulatory requirements. In addition, many of the equipment components in VC service would be covsnd by etandarde of performance for new sources and standards for sources in nonattainment areas. Based on the investigation of these sources, the EPA concluded that they are already relatively wellcontrolled and do not contribute significantly to VC exposure. Far these reasons, additional requirements for miscellaneous sources of VC are not being proposed at this time. PVC Fabrication Plants. There are about 8,000 fabrication plants which take the resin produced by PVC {dents This subsection discusses the status and fashion it into intermediate or Anal of VC sources not covered by the products. Emissions from these plants current standard that were identified in are estimated to be about 0.0035 Mg/yr the review study. For these sources, the per plant In comparison to VC EP/i assessed whether a Federal production plants (which typically emit standard was warranted. The EPA's about 92 Mg/yr), PVC fabrication plants assessment of these sources was based are small emitters ofVC If standards primarily on a quantitative analyais of ware developed for this category they VC emissions from these sources would not result in reduced emissions combined with a qualitative analysis of because the best control for these plants risks associated with exposure to VC is to reduce the VC levels in the sesins from these sources. The EPA considers being processed by the fabricators. these analyses to he adequate in place Resin stripping beyond the level that of a thorough quantitative risk process economics would dictate is assessment for purpose* of determining already being done as a result Of tbs whether a Federal standard is EPA's currant standard end OSHA's VC warranted for these sources. Because standard, based on the EPA'e these sources are already relatively assessment of these source*, the EPA well-controlled and the quantity of VC concluded that they do not contribute emission, end consequently, the risks significantly to VC exposure. Therefore, associated with exposure to VC from the EPA believes that the evaluation of these source*, are small in comparison controls for PVC fabrication plants is i and that tha cmrent lave) os control resulting from the EPA's standard end OSHA's standard is still mntmaMa. LeodfiUs- Off-spedflcatioo twins VC has been taken to when the gaseous VC can be released. However, the current EPA standard fotanda that all ruins, hwfwUng off-specification resins, be stripped to reduce the VC emissions from sources downstream from the stripper. In order to clarify that stripping requirements also apply to the offspecification resins before removal of landfills, these requirements are being restated to exphdty address offspscification resins. The EPA believes that the level of control resulting from the stripping requirements is reasonable; thus, VC emission requirements for UnriRlk ne not being proposed today. However, the EPA recognizes that VC may be emitted from hazardous waste landfill* and is evaluating and may regulate ander the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) volatile emissions (including VC) from landfills at hazardous waste disposal facilities. The EPA also recognizes that VC has been-detected in municipal landfills. Therefore, in addition to assessing VC emissions from hazardous waste disposal facilities, a (RCRA] Subtitle D TASK FORCE has been formed which will assess all environmental releases including sir emissions from Subtitle D facilities (a category which includes municipal landfills). Administrative Revisions As discussed in the Findings and Condurinna of the Review Study section of this preamble, the EPA identified several administrative revisions that are appropriats u a result of tha review study. The rationale for the proposed administrative revisions is presented in this section of the preamble. These ravfatank indudr. (1) Reformatting the miseion limit for relief valve discharges, (2) providing a compliance test procedure and a specific emission limit foroperators who strip in the reactors, (3) specifying requirements for leek deMbtioo and repair program for equipment components in VC service, end (4) miscellaneous revisions. Relief Vain Discharges Background. The current format of the standard for relief valve discharges allows only ''emergency" discharges (Le- discharges that could not be avoided by taking preventive measures). The standard applies to all pressure relief devices on pressure vessels. CMA101765 / VoL 5* No. / |an--y fo ffififi ? fttyuood fries 1387 Transfer tires and etini squiiarent in EDC/VC and PVC plan*. Ha oontool technique cnneldnrert a* the bail of the standard iavalw e combination of equipment modifications,process modifications, and uprenliODal procedures. An exact combination of modifiestioaa and npnratlrenl procedures wo* netverified in the current standard; tether, a performance standard (i-e, an aniiaiinn standard) . was established because different combinations of the and procedures were expected to be equally effective in controlling relief valve discharges. Based on S yean of enforcement and compliance experience, the EPA has concluded that the relief discharge standard baa resulted in: (1) Si^dficent reductions in the frequency end quantity of VC discharges from relief valves, (2) significant use of agency resources to evaluate individual discharges for preventability, and (3) uncertainty on the part of producers regarding whether they comply with the standard. Additionally, the EPA leaned some of VC and PVC believe that this part af the current standard applies only to discharges through safety relief valves and that discharges through other pressure relief devices, such as rupture disks or manual or automatic vent valves, are not covered. This interpretation is not compatible with the intent behind the current standard. To provide more efficient enforcement by decreasing the burden of individual preventability assessments on the EPA, and to provide a better understanding to plant operators of the goal of the standard, the EPA ia proposing to reformat the standard for relief valve discharges and to define the emission points covered by this standard to include appropriately all pressure relief devices. As discussed amt completely in the following sections, the EPA is proposing to change the format ofthe numerical limits hi die standard to reflect the number of discharges that occur from those plants complying with the format of the current standard. The EPA found in the review study that efforts by all EDC/VC and PVC producers te comply with the standard are reflected in their prefixmance [in terms of size and frequency of discharges) since the standard went into effect In general, a reduction in the reported frequency and size of relief valve discharges by PVC producers has occurred since 1978; A further decrease . in relid valve discharges by dm PVC industry occurred between 1999 end 1981. Performance by foe EDC/VC industry exhibited e leas martad treed of derreeeed Jhuhsfg-- seer die comptireos parted. Nhedf m bdtfe) drop in retief reive djethergesafier the standard went Mo eflbeb foe frequency end quantity ef nUef valve efischarges by MDC/VCpireW bare decreased tligfady m reamhmd relatively constant OsswaffomarfarffrnmnetifLimit*, In selecting foe ^nopoeed numerical limits, EPA first urinated fn detail the recent performance fT991 to 1983] offive PVC pints *ndonH)C/VC plant These pimrta were chosen based cm discussions wttfrEPA Regional Office personnel and industry and were intended to represent plants with good relief valve discharge records. In general, the EPA's evaluation of these plants indicates thataach has adapted the combination of equipment, operational piuueduiea and attitude toward prevention of relief discharges intended by the cattent standard, and that their resulting performance is consistent with compliance with the current standard. The n*A's evaluation found that a few discharges may continue ta occur from same plants that comply with the standard. This observation la consistent with the expectation held by the EPA when the standard was written. In order to revise the standard in terms of numerical limits representing compliance with the current format of the standard, this evaluation repazsted PVC and EDC/VC plants. For plants, relief valve discharge performance data were further separated by source (reactor vs. nooreactor) and by main type The EPA than reviewed the performance of 35 additional PVC plants and 12 additional EDC/VC plants. The EPA reviewed this large set af plants to ensure that the level ij performance demonstrated by the evaluated pleat* could be achieved by aU PVC aud EDC/ VC plants. The numerical limits preseller! in the Findings section of this preamble ora based an an evaluation af the number of discharges representing the demonstrated performance level associated with tempianca with the provisions of foe existing stamriird. Format forNuxtmicai Limit*. The EPA vWtad the fine PVC ptatifo evaluated in detail. As expected, foe EPA found differences in the combinations efhardware and operational procedures associated with control of rebel vale* discharges of each of the plants. Fmtbermore. no exact relationship wvs frend between foe effectiveness of specific hardware items and operntioMt procedures rad preventions of discharges, b foe BPA't judgment, the vnrfone ceaabfoetteiii of hardwareend operational procedures tmplsruanWri by each of the plants along with tha attitudes adopted toward preventing refief reive discharges repwreiU the types of central measures that foe standard intended. In particular, foe EPA concluded that,the tow frequency af discharge* by foe visited plants wes tndicxtive of their degree of effort b prevent reftef reive discharges. Consistentwith foe goal of this proposed revision, foe EPA derided that an alternative numerical emission limit bared on performance resulting under foe currant standard could ba revised in a format that would be easier to understand by enforcement and industry personnel. The EPA investigated two basic ways of expressing relief valve discharge performance for PVC plants. One format ia based on maw amissions, for example, foe pounds of VC discharged per milliaa pounds af PVC produced (lb VC/MM lb PVC). Based on a review of methods used by industry to determine the amount of VC discharged from relief valves, the EPA waa aft*hi* to identify a sufficiently accurate method for measuring discharge quantities from relief valves. At present, producers are required only to estimate diechaige quantities for reporting purposes. Demonstration of mapliaaro with a lb VC/MM lb PVC limit would require produces* te measure the amount of VC discharged during an incident Because a suitable measurement method was not identified, foe EPA decided not to redefine relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants m a lb VC/ MM lb PVC format. Another foemat la breed cm foe frequency [la, number per vnit time) of discharge from occurrences. No method for measuring the amount of VC dischmged from rebnf reives is needed became only foe oconrence of a release is required for dtia format. The occmrenre of a discharge car be deteradnad by nxxntorisg process paramovers re w*U as inspecting relief valve performance reports. Thu*. of foe two bast* way* erf expressing relief valve performance that were considered foe EPA selected a format based on dm frequency ef dbcherges. Based on this decision, the EPA then considered hew foe format would be applied to PVC end EDC/VC plants. At PVC plants, foe frequency of discharges from polymerization reactor* and associated process equipment may be related to foe fact foot e batch process fs used to produce moot typer of PVC. For batch WC production processes, the opportunity for discharges is related to the Bomber of times e new CMA 101766 1188 rhnd Register / VoL so. So. 8 / Wadoeeday. January K Wm / Roles polymerization batch ia initiated. Expressing relief valve discharge performance for these plants with a discharge-per-batch format accounts for variations among plants in the number of batches prodimed. The EPA selected 100 polymerizetin batches as a convenient basisior 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 producer* 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 typnnf discharge (i.e^ reactor vs. nonreactor) and the reactor discharges were separated by resin type. Nonreactor discharge sources at PVC plants include blowdown tanks, transfer lines, and storage vessels. Because usage of this equipment is also related to some extent to trie frequency of batch polymerization operations, the relief valve discharge performance by nonreactor sources in PVC plants with batch production processes was also examined on the basis of number of dischaiges/100 batches. Unlike the batch process used to produce other PVC resin types, the solution PVC process is continuous. Thus relief valve discharge performance for the solution PVC-process cannot be expressed on a frequency per batch basis. Instead, the relfef valve discharge performance associated with the solution production process can only be expressed in terms of the total number of discharges (reactor and nonreactor) per year. Similarly, the HDC/VC production process is not a batch process, but ia continuous. Thus, relief valva discharge performance by EDC/VC plants also cannot be expressed on a frequency par batch basis. Moreover, tin EPA was unable to detect a direct relationship between discharge frequency and VC production at EDC/VC plants. Hum, the EPA decided to define releif valve discharge performance far EDC/VC plants on the basis of a total number of annual discharges. Finding*. PVC Reactor Discharges. Suspension resins account for the highest percentage of total PVC production. The remaining PVC production is in the form of bulk, dispersion and solution resins. (A small amount of latex resin is produced by e process closely related to the dispersion process.) Examination of relief valve discharge performance associated with production of suspension hulk . parted Parent performance suggests reains indioaies that raeotordischarge . that preeaatoMe discharges have been frequency generally is either leas than j rttmtoatod-atlhiaptaaL With the 0035 disrhargas/tfO betobroorJs modi ameptiaapf a potential emergency Solution PVC Process. Discharge frequency from both reactor and . Compliance Provisions. The EPA nonreactor sources by the stagbpiaat recognizes that all plant* may producing PVC by the solution process experience an unavoidable relief valve was zero daring the period 1M1 to IMS. discbaigeJnddeat at soma time. Previously, this plant experienced as Examination of relief valve discharge many as two discharges in a lfemcritb . > performance by PVC plants with low CMA 101767 1189 discharge frequencies indicated that plants with the lowest polymerization batch frequencies typically experience about one discharge in a 12-month period. The EPA coodhided that for most plants a 12-month npnrting period (rolling every 6-months) eras both suitable and appropriate for determining compliance with the proposed numerical limits. For plants producing only a small amount of a particular resin (L*, low number of polymerization batches), an apparent violation of the standard may result from a single discharge occurrence during a 12-month compliance period at described below. For a PVC plant producing a single resin type to meet the numerical limit for reactor discharges (i.e.. 0.035 discharges/100 batches), it must experience and average of no more than one discharge per 2.858 polymerization batches over the preceding 12-month period. An average reactor discharge frequency exceeding one discharge per 2,858 batches would be e violation of the standard. However, if the plant made less than 1858 polymerization batches over the 12-month compliance period, a single discharge occurrence would be an apparent violation of the standard (i.e., the discharge frequency per 100 batches would exceed 0.035). Because insufficient batches were made, the reported discharge frequency per 100 batches would not correctly reflect the performance by that plant in comparison to other plants complying with the standard. In rectifying the undue compliance burden posed on plants with small numbers of batches by the discharge/100 batch format and the 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 less than 2,858 batches of a particular resin, the minimum number of 2,858 batches will be used when determining compliance with the numerical limits. PVC plants producing more than one resin type must demonstrate compliance separately for reactor discharges occurring from different resin production processes. Only the relief valve discharges and polymerization batches specific to each resin type are considered for determining compliance. However, for determining compliance with the standard for nonreactor discharges, the total number of polymerization batches [regardless of resin type) are counted. To determine the number of polymerization batches produced for purposes of assessing compliance, the following guidelines apply. 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 (i.t*'blowdown) of reactor contents. Any batch that is aborted following charging of VC to the reactoris nonetheless counted aa a polymerization batch in assessing compliance. For PVC plants producing bulk resin, a single "polymerization batch" includesboth prepolymerization and poatpolymerization reactor operations. Discharge frequency can be recorded in two ways. Discharge frequency can be recorded on the basis of discharge events (involving discharges from one or more relief valves) or on individual relief valve discharges. In most cases, plants currently report discharges individually when they occur from relief valves on separata equipment However, certain equipment such as . polymerization reactors that are equipped with multiple relief valves may experience dischargee simultaneously from more than one relief valve. Most plants currently report such multiple discharges from e single piece of equipment as a single discharge. Thus, the performance levels serving as the basis for the numerical limits represent individual discharges and not multiple discharge events except when they occur from a single piece of equipment For determining compliance with the numerical limits, discharge frequency is to be recorded on the basis of individual discharges except when simultaneous discharges occur from relief valves on the same piece of equipment 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 of VC directly or indirectly to the atmosphere. In determining whether or not a relief valve discharge results in emissions to the atmosphere, the controlling factor is the ultimata disposition of the gases. Venting to a manifold or header system that ultimately discharges to the atmosphere 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 does not constitute a relief valve discharge. For purposes of reporting compliance status with the limits, plants will be required to calculate their discharge per batch frequencies with sufficient precision to demonstrata that performance is either equal to. below of in excess of the limits. Baaed on operating history, relief valve discharge performance by certain plants is expected to be much better then the respective limits. For example, some new suspension resin PVC plants produce about 5,000 batches during a 12-month compliance period. One and two discharges at one of these plants during a compliance period would result In* discharge performance of 042 and 046 dischargee per M0 batches, respectively. The seaond discharge during the compliance period would be a violation of the proposed 0.035 discharges par 100 batches limit despite the feet that the Bret discharge would result in performance well below the limit These types of plants were considered in selecting the proposed limits end reporting procedures for relief valve discharges. The result that plants of this type meat perform well below the limits in the standard in order to be in oompliancs is consistent with the proposed limits, which were selected to represent an upper boundary on the number of allowable discharges intended by the standard. The EPA expects that plants using the best technology and procedures should be able to perform better than the proposed limits. Reporting Requirements. The current standard for relief valve discharges requires producers to report discharges within 10 days of the incident The EPA is proposing to eliminate the 10 day reporting requirements and to require reporting of all discharges on e quarterly basis. Although compliance is to be determined on a semiannual basis, quarterly reporting of discharges is appropriate because violations of the standard may occur well before the end of the 8-month period. Quarterly reporting notifies enforcement personnel of potential violations and violations that have already occurred prior to the end of the compliance period so that corrective actions can taka place sooner 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 include only the date, time, source, cause and estimated amount of each discharge occurrence. The semiannual report will also inlcude information on compliance status. In addition, plants will now be required to maintain relief valve discharge records for 3 years, because of the potentially significant increase in the time period between a discharge occurrence and reporting of the discharge. Effective Date ofRevision. The current standard as written will remain CMA 101768 H 4M0 Jifawi fVmj.su Mfe* J i iDe&KtfarnlitfvaJviickqMjBij] fee proposed revisions apooaulatoad. The proposed ndatotafeefem swisions do not fntnnt and am ifrtanjjjii wily | awl llmili to facilitate compfiphoa and enforcement effbris.'jSiun fee- standard will oonfinae to be enforced untQ Ike reviaiona act ptaodgated. Snippiag-in-JloactarCemgifnmoe Teit Procedure current VC T*wifon1 1 hnttstinoa fnr The teat method lormeasuring reactor opening loaaea waa developed nr nain atrippiag operations that taka place in vessels separata from ths aeaclar. Same PVC plants, including all bulk ream manufacturers, howeven do not nee separate atrippers to remove --tAmi VO from the resin produced. iTMt--J, these plants atrip VC from die product reein in the reactor (poatpolymerirsties reactor in the case of bulk rosin producers). For plants with reactor main stripping operationa. the ceocentration ol VC in the reactor vapor space, aa measured in accordance with the current standard, exceeds the Mgg/kg of PVC requirement. The high concentrations result form VC manOmar diffusing from the resin into the vapor apace during the period following completion of the stripping operation (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 46S63. October . 197B). any VC escaping from the resin after it has bean stripped to uraytsKU levels is not intended to be counted as part of the reactor opening lose. However, the current standard did not indude in the measurement method an acceptable method for determining what part of the VC in the vapor space baa escaped from the resin after stripping le cnmplmd The current standard allows bulk resin producers to calculate reactor ' opening loss emissions from the postpolymerixation reactor baaed aa the number of reactor evacuations, the vacuum invloved end the neliene ofgas in the reactor*. Farowbulk raaia producers with reactormein stripping operationa. calculation of reactor opening loss emissions!! ann complicated due to the presence of water vapor in the roertor vapor apace. Currently, waivers of testing for producers with main atrippiag operations in the reactor have bean granted on a case-by-case basis fry fee EPA Regions, typically with the - provision that residual VC samples an anlayzed on each batch. Avariety are added tcgeflwr to rivea total . allowable VC content from (base two sources. Hie measured ratiomutual VC and the calculated reactor openiqg loss would then be added together. and averaged over aW-hour period ccorinngtoroatntype-lftheMfeour average meets the combined standard, the plant would be considered lobe in compliance with both toe Stripping fee reactor opening loss requirements. Leak Detection ao/fhproi Background. The cnmmt standard eqnfres implementation of a formalized program for detection ofleaksfrom equipment tn VC service and slIiiitaeTiim nTfliim leaks Tim . formalized program Includes a mtdtipeintVC detector and portable volatile organic ocenpoendfVOC) anafyror.The fewd point monitoring system continuously monitors VC conceutrations in the merit areawound equipment hi VC eervioe and sounds on alarm when oowoentiaHons exceed a proscribed level. The portable aonttor is aaad Independently to screen taferidusf' equipment components far teaks. Rather than specifying fee number of priMe to be monitored, fee sandBe Blue of fee meitipoint dtaecaor, dm VC concnottatimi tbntindiraaro a leak, and the actions to be taken to repair leaks. owner or operatoria pragma a ^agram plan coataintog tbero fsi His, nfenaii and to submit the plan to feeEPAfor approval. Host ownws sr Renton aw required to anhniit data on fradqpromri concentratione of VC intofferrot aroro of the plant to use in dstambdag fee VC concentration feat should be desiproM as indicating a leak. Mans, femuEroa, wero tattered hywach plrot and reviewed by tbs the EFA Regianai Officaa. Tha EPA found ia ttia review Study that differences to leak detection uad elimination programs exist amopgFVC and EDC/VC production plants and miscellaneous aoiroro and thatajto specific difimeucaa inolnda varitotonato leak dettotitonsand mouitaripg practice!. The definition aud monitoriag practices, aloag with repairpnotiaae. are primary tofluencet aciheooatoel - more tofttmatton pertalulug to fee curdisl dfsadtolunfrom equipment Irife. Broaden fids Information and the review of the leak detection and elimination jAans being implemented to cmfliul phdssions of VC. fee B>A decided fo specify leak detection and npali lequhaiueuts for certain equipment components In VC service. Although bffonnntion obtained from development of other standards indicates that a routine leak detection and repairprogram wife a portable monitor can be an effective emission reduction technique without the requirement of a fixed point monitoring system, fee EPA concluded -that fixedpoint monitoring systems already in place h^ve uses that justify their retention in the current standard. In particular, fixed-point monitors allow for quick detection of certain laqje VC leaks that alight otherwise go undetected until the next routine portable monitor The EPA recognizes that existing fixed-point monitoring plans will need to be reviewed in fight of the leak detection and repair requirements beiag specified at this tuna. The complexity iff existing fixed-point monitoring plana, to tame of number anddistribution at monitoring points, uarits greatly among plants. Consequently, seme plant owners or operators may want to alter the number or points font am monitored and the distribution ofmonitoring locations to better complement the specified portable mnaitaring requirements. Such **k Tf** *" ******Hg plsns will be allowed providing they de not after the plant's ability to detect large VC leaks. The proposed revisions an primarily intended toetondrodiae orotonl ad VC emiealaae fruro equipment toaka. to doing this, fee ERA is concerned that Inappropriately changed. The proposed revisions tonhsde provisions that aiknv plants wife existing effective plam to periodically deracni&ate fee effectiveness of their piaos wifeoto additional mqairementa. Acomdiagly, specific effetos of verifying leak CMA 101769 Federal Register / Vol 60. No. 6 / Wednesday. January ft MBS /ftopesed Rule* 1191 detection and repair requirements on effective existing plans. Leak Detection and Repair Requirements. The EPA established leak detection and repair requirements (SO . CFR Part SI Subpart V) tor certain equipment in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service on June 6, 1964. 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, pumps 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 Subpart V will be used to determine compliance with the portable monitor leak detection and elimination requirements in the currant VC standard (40 CFR 61.8S(b)(8Hil)). and therefore, the current standard IS being revised to reflect this change. However, process units within VC and WC plants in which the percentage of leaking valves is equal to or less than 26 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 20 percent or less. Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is found to exceed 20 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 pregram that requires (1) monthly monitoring for valves in gas/ vapor and light liquid service, (2) an initial attempt at repairing these valves within 5 days after detection ofa 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 23496. June 6,1964). 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 Unas 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 enaure compliance,with Subpart V. Pressure ReliefDevices. The EPA proposed and promulgated the work practices, equipment design and operational atandarda in the current standard before explicit legal authority existed in Section 112. These requirements are found in f 61.65(b). In August of 1977, Congress amended ' Section 112 to allow the use of these requirements. Section 112 of the Osan 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; (2) if the application ofmeasurement .methodology is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations. Section U2(eMl) allows that ifan 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 foe design, equipment work practice and operational requirements contained in foe current VC standard. The only sources covered by foe current standard with one of foe requirements for which a performance standard (l.e.. 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 foe other sources, foe EPA is reinstating those requirements as set forth in foe current standard. The EPA selected foe use of rupture disks as the basis for foe 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. Foremission control techniques that eliminate equipment leaks, such as the use of rupture disks, a "no detectable eknissians" limit is feasible. An instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume (pprov) above a background concentration based on Reference Method 21 can be used to indicate whether equipment leaks have been eliminated: that is. that foe equipment has "no detectable emissions." The "no detectable emission" limit would not apply to discharges through foe pressure relief device during overpresaure relief. (These releases are covered under || 61.64(a) and 61.65(a).) The standard would specify, however, that foe 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 foe pressure relief devices and a test after each over CMA 101770 /mak< / / press changes ttoetetoaf-tto* standard i requimmreto afflaqliaa 11g(t). Bmi on dtoms<iai with flu liTA regional jawand mgerdbig flair experience laadmimstoriaglheauaent VC standard. fheEBAia.paqpoaiog several addifkiaal administrative revisions But would lscflitato compliance uflenfonennt iBaiti associated with the current Hick revisions represent minor Anggof to the standard. A brief description el these administrative revisions and the basis far making them follows. DefMtiaa ofLeak. Exhaust Gas and Relief Vain Orstharge. Tta&ntkmai defmrtkms of-leak" ""exhaust ga*" and "reliefwaive discharge" ire being added to the standard to clarify the appHcabffity fttbs standard to each of these types of VC cmlssirms. Pnrtng thetoreview ofenforcement and oomgdiance experience since the ' standard wee promulgated. the BRA diecovered svverri cases dfconfusion over the intendedmeaning tff 1eA", "exhwst gas" end "ttorf valve discharge." These three distinct categories ofVC emieriews ere Wing defined to the iretoed stewdad to provide campttanue end indreay pereswael with n deer wstoretwidh^df utokto part ef the ataadaid applies to any gtvrn dlschrege of VC eratoetoM to the atomoupbere. Osfwftire ifCPC.anrf VC Purification, to the post, tone ptonts haver compraatos ere toriads itofflC purification red VC psmffcnttoa processes with toe result that amtostoas from retain equipment totonriad to he cowared fry the atmadasd map net haw been contreilatoltoe dtotasriotrewf "iSC porifioalioo" sad "VC pwritcatmn"ane being revised to dvi^r that ell purification ivjuigrere fnltowiqg DC and VC tonnatieo svanotototot to regulation snder tW ` ----ir1 10ppmvSLandard. Itoantoritytog revisions am toning made to Aw 10 ggmv regulations to improve understawhigof the applicability of thtopnstWthe .^.4.^1 n~t ft, |,M| n--ilniil for determining nontpltaaca with the 10 ppmv standard Jpecftmtoaltoe avenge result*fnaAmel-torer tiipito Ko averaging period to not gpedSod to the 10 ppmv nquiremimto. Specifying that emissions maynet srrenri 10 ppmv now a 3-hour mvecagtog period ebriciss tost instantaneous adflt the 10 ppmv standard is notan j-^tnisil requirement Moreover, gpsrtflmtinn nf apptoesto 8** requirement*, todudiag anywrehni devioehfpass for bypaapad reporting VC atoatomsto wares-ofths 10 ppavotindeed the itirsis slnng stoh eanflito mdictaionsaf nreeompiianc* tftoqy showetoafly toil enrisnirmetoaatceeeol the 10ppmir rnqriismeatsrsnTTTerl Itomemdto^^mtonletot K iliiirr riiimti igily to sum nshnnst use purpaat atilda emdstoa totoatoarip prohibit ptrels toaatoring tohdtoawdto otherwtbauat gasstreams as a tonhniipie dor meeting toe 10 gparv requirement Xhtoaevtoiaatoant intended 4e#vohiUt toanaaiman practice fcoatoming twa armont headertoadiqg to a aatori!detoca. Accordiug io the revised 10 ppmv iwjiiiwiMati, /--nmMnlqg Jn stream rentwining more Jhan lOppmv VC noth anofhar erdruatgas rtreem coalahuqg leesthan IDppmyVCis allosvadnnly lAen toe cmaMnml stream is ducted to the rnntnk device. staadesd SosceiiM atone dtochangeemM' irriaariedtospitoy ntoyidy tosafajy reUafvtones hat towfl tovae afgsamnm relief do rinss AdtontoanaThtatof revised standard to clarify that toe meat reliefvalve ritoritaige atoadaad abe^yiedtoeuptare riiern mwmiel that newt to ton almaapham togrstoaat process equipment from unsafe --~T*" ---- nf rnlief imtiie in flu nrifinmd stsmlsnl is not iidmflefl **wSnju conriol valvessued toaoiQsbl flow toan twnistaswlrtii fpf il^PdwiihJ jtoyfef. However, the cement relief value AimrKmrfm ataadaiddid cover ennssitms from pressure control va2vre.Jtiso.nat included to Are deSrdfioa cifrelief vtova are pressure conttol systemsaudraa . polymerisation reaeflna JttnMap . systems or refrigerated waternpsteais wMdh sdt toreducepressure fry msan* other than venting. JtnaDtarapiudng leas flopwinamaato far ButkJ'WCMmia Andneem. Balk PVC resinprerinettoa differs tore productionofather types ofFVCenein in residual Cto fra&s foUmistogdhi# ssg i Haw atofl* the sear hi oaesriH gnVifrtoiriMlfn ictorge the psqpnfcrearieattonmretor to opened Inis beigMnl|| id hwisun ilnliaaitoailna iifgp--s juntas flii i senctor ^eatogtonseatimaHnid to emissions tarngtoferentoaSeamnoier requtoenmato am tming sreined at tots ttoeetogpatofioalJjaMdude Anemdin^y; VC amissions toomall opening ofpreptflymerisation reartew will be stojsct totoe equipment opening -*T.|--"*"* -- '* j-*---J-J toctorifyand impsow ihewonsietonay of fheamilnwnentsrrfflte revised standard as Ihqr apply to talk PVC sash) pmdaaerein lightmfactoel induaiqrprnotioe. No redaction in VC emisslothcentmlatringanqy smll result fromtotchlHgetoregeirentontsiar prepolymeriiattanreatoora. forGmekMarSmoh. Under toeareal stendreds, toe VC aaatont efinpraoess statoewatormaat he reduced to lam than agpmmcpneumiof toe wmtonmtsr to theaWaqphert.Intoeonsenf gsshwltorsvetorannls. the VC sptoent to the mqppeed suriWseal may enuead 10 ppm riming eermri wpnrefienofsW standeid urnspwmulgufd indtoatoe that complirens euito toe atreeqpheric mvaeam limit tomet gmorionfaletor this particular inprocett wastewater nouros. Consequent^, toestoBtoikmaf tapmrres nssstewateris bring retoeed to exclude the aqpaeud watsraanlof gasholders. ]3w topraonss qwstowntw strigptog nqiBmiisats will nontinue to apply to^wretnutstor silwresnsrifnom |]j| EUmnmtime limit** Equivalency B pmlt rhe tnumai standard qpemfrma Jtodey limit dor xiadBi eeasom tomtomit requetoe tor ueaafnqmvaleat mathndi. liresnm snoh aflmttpaaesa seehtotlen rmisitiatiws byinihiwryre deswlap aleiiitotm.and aeaenma.lh Khdqy hmitsl^ to being CMA101771 Fmfood j Vol Iftlla. % dfoy; jam** * 1M6 f^pw^fcleg______ jC93 Other. laaddilieo to fa revision described abovw areview rf fa requirements cf fa wwini ituifaiJ w performed loiripntffojuys to mm recordkeeping shdraportliyburden on planta end to idanttr "V additional mcordkeepfaadjnflr reporting needs. Dm EPA WenTIfientwo arena where fa reporting burden an plants could be reduced. The crerent reporting requirements for residua] VC monomer specification* and reactor opening measurements require that results of all compliance tests be reported in semiannual imortt The ffA is proposing to afiow phmts to report oily test results that show exceedance* of exceedences occur, plsata wtl he required to indicat* that fact iu fa semiannual report This type of exception reporting is currently allowed for demonstration ofcompliance with fa 10 ppmv standard for praoaa* reals. The second ana is fa requirement to report relief valve discharges within 10 days of their occurrence. 13m EPA is proposing to allow plants l report relief valve discharge accatTeocas on quarterly basis rethar fan udlhin 10 days of their occurrence. Furtheanore. the reporting requirements for relief valve discharges have been ateassilhwri by dropping fa need to report actions taken and implemented preventive measures for each Information on fa date. time, source, cause and estimated amount of individual relief valve will be included with the semiannual reports along with information on compliance status. Additional semiannual repartiag requirements being added for PVC producers are the number of aeactor openings and fa design capacity number of polymerisation batches for each resin type. This requaeraaot will provide general information to facilitate review of industry-wide compliance statue during peat reporting periode. Specific recordkeeping--d reporting requirements are included aa port ef fa revisions to the leak detection rod repair requirement. The recordkeeping requirement! include preparation ofon initial kg to record siiiiipuiunl component Ideetificntlan, phyetcsl leak, and maintaining o record ef equipment leaks and sepatenetfa. Included in the reporting reqterereente are fa nembnrefaqutefaat leaks and the repair status adleaking components. Depending on fa particular leak detection and repair program in place, these requirements my represent an practfad The BPAcoodudrd fatfa iperifiprl ki gOCVKMJT, **NU appropriate. Monrevst, faJPA 1* proposing to extend fa cument HMtetit M Ikt mqimM' * rtfaSfAttfe section feqiflramehts praposadbf! is will estimatedto be a decreets in a paperwodchurdannffboutZIperaonyenre. It sborfd be noted fat eh Comprehensive Environmental Rsnpanse.ConpensatkKi.andllabdily Act (CBtOAISadloa lmflfl hazardous substances such is vinyl chloride are subject to reporting requirements under Section 103(a) of CERCLA. GBtCLA reqrfres fat persons in charge ofvessels or tscBfiies from Any offa public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30 fas oKur fa lujaiing. Written ahauM be addressed to the given in section ef fids preamble. A verbatimtransact of fa hearing and written statements will be available forpubSckispectian end copying during molted! working boars at the EPA's Central Docket Section in Washington. InBmnU b! ^mnim U.C. [see smaaiwi section of this immediately notify faMettonal Response Center fNRCjcf fa reheee. The tofl-fcee hS-hour teleptiuus number of the NRC is BOlMilMBM and in Washington, D.C. metropolitan ares It is (202) Ut-W7S. (See GERCLA Section m and m It 23662, May a, IMS.) Vteyi faartde was assigned a atatetory 1 pored reportable quantity uniterSection KB(1A) ePtti faulted by The docket is an organized and complete file of afl fa information submitted to or otherwise considered by fa EPA in the development of this proposodmdminking. The principal purposes offa docket are: (1J To allow interested parties to identify and locate documents so fat they can effectively for both duretic tonicity and participate in fa rulemaking process, and (2) teasrvt as fa mured in case of pending fa ontoomn offast reviews by the Office f Emargwxgr and fanedlal judicial review (except for interagency review materials [I 307fdH7(A)]). Response. Badetally pmfatted refuses mAfnanAjUMatnASMSM 301(1) and dgFRtoBU) are not aubfoct hflacafianaon* . Inaccordance with section 117 of the Act publication of this proposal was liabilities. However, retenses of or must be reported Regulatory flexibility Anklyais pracadad by consultation with appropriate advisory committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. The Admiaisfrstor will welcome comments tts Regulatory Ftextofay Ant of 1M0 requires fatndrene atfoctenffa Federal regulation* upon small busutessetbe ideatfad Acmndfato the iMiiantnidslinaa sf faflasall Business Administration fG8A), small husioeu fat ptodacm ar pm sisia VC ia soe that has fiOOampioyM*-or teas. Currently, nans of thaaxtetiqg producers arprecressts diet ere affected by Ilia standard am aofaatad to be email by thte definition. Since asae of the companies meets fa 8fiA r definitioa of small burin*et. no rMlguiatory flexibility aauijsis is required. Bvea if as analysis ware - required, fa proposed adsritoslrativn regulation, indudinghaalth. and economic and technological issues. . lb* information oattection tequirvmrets in this proposed rile have bean submitted for approval to fa Once of Management and Budget (GMB) under fa Paperwork Reduction Act of MOD. 44 U3.C. 3601 et teq. Comments on fare requirements should be submitted to the Office Of Informedrm and Regulatory Aflulre Of OMB, marked "Attention: Desk Officer forRPA". as wfa aa to fa H>A docket dbamfoad above. The final rule will respond ta any OMB or public ate an fa information reflection CMA101772 1194 Ragtotar / Vol. 10. No. 6 / Wednesday, Japnory 9. IMS / Proposed falea Under Executive Order 12291, the BPA product containing vinyl chloride or limito are prescribed to 16142 (a) and must judge whether a regulation to polyvinyl chloride but which has not lb* 16143(a); |6144 (a)(1). (a)(2), (b), "major" and therefore aubjact to the been discharged to a wastewater (c) and (d>| 61.66 (b)(1)(H). (b)(2), (b)(5). requirement of a ffegtdatqry Impact treatment process or discharged (bX6KH) and (b)(9Kii). A leek as defined Analysis. This regitogfea ia not major untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder In paragraph (w) of tUi section to not an because: (l) The natMul annualized seal water is not inprocess wastewater exhaust gat. compliance coats, inriidtof capital until it to removed from the gasholder. ty) "Reliatvslve discharge" means charges molting froMTh* standards total less than $100 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 (1) "In vinyl chloride service" means that a piece of equipment either contains or contacts a liquid thatto at teaat 10 percent vinyl chloride byweight or a gaa that to at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride as determined according to die provisions of 16147(h). The provisions of 161.67(b) also specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service. This any nonleu discharge through a relief valve. - (x)'"3-hour period" means any three consecutive Thmmit periods (each hour commencing on the hour). g. By changing " all exhaust gases" to "each exhaust gas stream" and making other minor clarifying revisions in 18142(a). 16143(a), and 16144 (a)(1). (b), (c) and (d) aa follows: review as required by Executive Order " definition must be used in place of die (6142 gwSaeton standard for ettryteoe 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. 30460. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 005(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because no small entities are affected definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart V of this part. (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: * The concentration of vinyl chloride in (a) "Ethylene dichloride purification" each exhaust gas stream from any includes any part of the process of equipment used in ethylene dichloride ethylene dichloride production which purification to not to exceed 10 ppm follows ethylene dichloride formation. (avenge far 3-hour period or as Si) "Vinyl chloride purification" determined in accordance with udes any part of the process of vinyl 16147(g)(1)), except as provided in chloride production which fallow* vinyl161.65(a). This requirement does not chloride formation. ***** preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided me combined steam is (v) "Relief valve" means each ducted through a control system from pressure relief device including pressure which tbe concentration of vinyl List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 relief valves, rupture disks, manual chloride In die exhaust gases does not Air pollution control. Asbestos, Beryllium. Hazardous materials. Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: Dated December 31.1064. Atvin L. Aim, vents and other pressure relief systems used to protect process components from overpressure conditions. "Relief valve" does net include control valves used to control flow to an incinerator or other air pollution control device. exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided m 181.86. This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, to out of operation, and met the requirement in 161AS(b)(6)(i) before being opened. Acting Administrator. (w) "Leak" meant any of several PART 61-(AMENDED] . vents that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within 161.63 Emission standard for vinyl 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 f 6l.6l(j), (1). (o) and (p) for In process wastewater", "in vinyl chloride service", "ethylene dichloride purification" and "vinyl cMoride purification" and by adding definitions for the terms "relief value", "leak", "exhaust gas", "relief valve discharge and "3-hour period" in new paragraphs M. (w). (x), (y) and fc). 16141 DefMUons. V * * . r-4* (j) "Inprocess wasterwater" means any water which, during manufacturing process equipment LeaksInclude events regulated under Subpart V of this part such as: (1) An instrument reading of . 10,000 ppm or greater; (2) indications of liquid dripping; (3) a sensor detection of failure of s seal system, failure of s barrier fluid system, or both; and (4) detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background. Leaks also include events regulated under 101.65(b)(8)(i) of detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentration. Emissions of vinyl chloride not regulated under 16141 (a) and (b); 161.63(a): 16144 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f): and 161.66 (a) and (b)(1). (b)(2). (b)(3). (bK4). (bKS].(bM6), (bM7) and (b)(9) shall be considered leak. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 161.65 (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: Tbe concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in vinyl chloride fatmatian and/or purification is not to exceed M ppm (average for 3-hour period ores determined in accordance with 16147(g)(1)), except aa provided in 16146(a).This requirement does not preclude combining of exheust gas streams provided the combined steam is ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride In the exhaust gates does not exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as provided in 4 6146. This requirement or processing, comes into direct contact (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas does not apply to equipment that has with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride discharged directly or ultimately to the bean opened, to out of operation, and or results from the production or use of atmosphere that was initially contained met the requirement in 16146(b)(6)(i) any raw material, intermediate product in or was in direct contact with the finished product by-product or waste equipment for which 10 ppm emission before being opened. *-.* * * CMA101773 *8144 An owner or opmater at a peiyvinyl chloride plant rinttamply with the requirements af foie eeefaen and | 8148. () Aeoctar. Tkm folfcwtag (1) The coooanMtten ef vtayt 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 f 147(g)(1)), accept ns provided in paragraph (aXZ) of fate section and 16145(a). ***** (b) Stripper. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream faces each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 181.07(g)(1)), except as provided in 181.69(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in f 81.8S(bM6)(i) before being opened. (c) M(xing, weighing, and holding containers. The concentration of vinyl chloride In each exhaust gas stream from each mixing, weighing, or holding container in vinyl chloride service which precedes foe stripper (or foe reactor if the plant has no stripper) in foe plant process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 181.67(g)(1)). except as provided in f 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in f 61.6S(bH6Ki) 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 161.67(g)(1)), except as provided in , 181.66(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in i 6l.65(bK6Xi) before being opened. * fa fa fa * 4. By revising exMiaf parapaphs 161.64(a)(2) and by (amoving (a)(3) as follows: f^t fot1Aft aEaninftoftoawlMH fAait^efanHd^a^antfsl staihr Mtimvtwavyt! p- io-no*v p a--ns. r An owner or operator ofa polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and f 61-65. (e) Reader. The following ., requirements apply to raactra fa fa fa fa * - m The reactor ^tefamand msdSm la aotteenoaed 64t| eteyt chlerida/kg(64a0Kfc vinyl<fateride/lb) of poly viayiabtaride ^sdnoCmmaptna Jfifa^meShfae gfBart* **** as follows: determined mi a far enlirls hmii Thte i(a)teffat86 prnrene Ibis ragetmamt hose apply to posfoslyraBrtrafaDn reaotcea in the bvlk groaa product ef prapotymeriateo and poatpuljnwiiiiatinn 6. By revising paragraph (e) introductory font and adding paragraph (e)(3) to f 6144 ns follows: (8144 Eaiiiaioiistandardlarpafoilnyt (e) Sources following the Stripperfe), The following requirements apply to emtssioas of vinyl chloride to foe atmosphere from foe combination ef all ourcee following foe strippetfs) (or foe reactors) is foe plant has no strippers)] in the plant proems flow ladndhig but not limited to, oantrifugea. concentrators, blend tanks, filters, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inprocess wastewater, except as provided in paragraph (1) of this section: fa fa fa fa (3) The provisions of foie parapaph apply at all times including when offspecification or other types of resins era made. & By adding paragraph () to 4 8144 as follows: |91#f CnNftvn WnOVv raf po^rrity) fa * fa fa (!) Reactor used as stripper. When a nonbulk resin reactor is used'ha a stripper this paragraph may be applied hi lieu of 181.84 (a)(2) end (e)(1): (1) The weighted average emisriens of vinyl chloride from reactor opening foes end all sources following foe reactor used as a stripper from A grades of paiyvioyl chloride rosin stripped te foe reactor an each calender day may not exceed: (1) 202 g/lcg (040302 Ib/lb) efpolyvinyl chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex metes, with the product datarminad an a foy solids basis. (ii) 042 g/kg (OJ00042 Ib/fo) ef polyvinyl chloride product for all ether polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product determinedone dry solids basis. . (a) Retiefvotvadischarges, (f) My sluyl chloride plants (suspension, dhperaioa. latex, and bulk processes). (1) Reactor. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on polyvinyl chloride reactors in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed foe following Uaitwexcept as provided in paragraph <a)(l)(Hi) of foie section. For all reactors producing suspension resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 0035 dischargee per 100 polymerization batches not 4 discharges per year. For all reactors producing dispersion and latex resins within a PVC plant the numbm 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 rosins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve disdiaiges is not to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. (ii) The number of discharges to foe atmosphere from relief valves on equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 0425 discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 3 discharges per year except as provided in paragarph (efllKlii) of this section. (iii) The limits specified in paragraphs (a)(l)(i) and (a)(lXii) of this section may be exceeded when only one relief valve discharge to foe atmosphere occurs during foe 12-month period preceding foe close of foe B-monfo reporting period. (2) Polyvinyl chloride plants (solution and other continuous PVC production processes). The number of discharges to file atmosphere from relief valves on all equipment In vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 1 discharge per year. (3) Sthyleas dichloride and vinyl chlorideplants. The number of dtechaigea te the atmosphere from relief valves an equipment in vinyl chloride service is net to exceed 4 discharges per year. (4) Bad) nritef valve discharge that contributes to a relief reive discharge frequency in excess ofany limit prescribed in paragraphs (aXl). tK2) and (aX3) at this paragraph constitutes CMA101774 tm an individual violation af tharaapactive limit (5) For avary relief vahm foscharge to the atmosphere, the briberOroperalo: ball record the Menffifaffoe source, the date and time of thp dtocharge, die cause of the iliarharpfftin aiqunirliiieiii total vinyl chloride loas during the discharge, and the method Med for determining the vinyl chloride loss. Thia information shall be submitted in writing to the Administrator as part of the reporting requirements of paragraph f 91.70. This information ahall be retained and made available for inspection by the Adminietrator for a minimum 0f 3 years. A By revising paragraphs (b)(3). (b)(8)(i). (b)(8)(iii). (b)(8)(iv) and (b)(8)(vi) to 181.6S as follows: (8148 Emissionstandardforethylene dtehtoride, vtoyt cMorMe and polyvinyl unumuv pwnii An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply jvith the requirements of this section. (a)* * * (b) Fugitive emission sources (1) * * * (2) * * * (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator aeals: (i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals or equivalent aa provided in f 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 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 61.68. (ii) Reciprocatingpumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from sails on all reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing double outboard aeals, or equivalent aa provided in 161.88. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to ha minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two aeals so that any leak that occurs it into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride tn the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as-provided in f 8146. (ill) Rotating compressor. Vinyl chloride emissions fromaaato oa all . rotatingcnanprenon'ln vhiyt ddttiMe ervin are to be tofcnfced by huddling oumpressors with doublsaseehanical seats, or equivalent as provided fa 18146. ifdouble merhaiiiosd seats are need, vinyl Aloride emtoakmr from the seals are to be minimiwid by -* maintaining the presaura between the two seats so that any teak that ooourt is into the compressor by dueling any vinyl chloride between Me two seals through > control system from which the concentration of vinylchloride in the exhaust gases does net sxossd 10 ppm or equivalent as provided in f 8146. (iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride amissions from seals on all reciprocating compressors tn vinyl chloride service ere to_be minimized by installing double ontboard seals, or equivalent as provided in 18148. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals sofoat any leak that occurs to into the compressor by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which foe concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent aa provided in 161.88 (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all agitators in vinyl _ chloride service are to be minimized by installing agitators with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in i 8148. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from foe seals are to be minimized by maintaining foe pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is intq foe agitated vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which foe concentration of vinyl chloride in foe exhaust gates does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent aa provided In f 61.88. (8) Look detection and elimination. (i) It includes a rslisbls and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system for detection of major leaks and identification of foo general area of the plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system means a , device which obtains sir samples from one or more points on a continuous - sequential basis and analyzes foe samples with gas chromatography or, if foe owner or operator assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl . chlorids. with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ton detection, or an equivalent or alternative method **** - . t>0 fttMsMeetbrn acceptable calibration and maintenance schedule for foe vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon detector. For tbs vtrqrt rhlmMs mocltoHpg system, a daily span chadc to to be conducted with a ccncentartienof vtnyi Aland* equal fr the eonopntintioa defined as a leak sncorrling toparagraph (b)(8)(vi) of this safrtien. Tha calibration to to be done wfosttep ..... (A) A edUbrntion gas mixture prepared from foe gases specified in section* 84.1 end 544 of Test Method 106 end in accordance with taction 7.1 of teat Method 108, or (B) A calibration gas cylinder standard nantabling foe appropriate concentration of vtnyi chloride. The gas composition of foe calibration gas cylinder standard to to have been certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must havs recommended e maximum shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 5 percent from foe certified value. TTie date of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration and recommended maximum shelf life must have been affixed to foe cylinder before shipment from foe manufacturer to foe buyer. If a gas chromatograph to used as the vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures foay be directly used to prepare s chromatograph calibration curve as described in section 74 of Test Method 108. Tha requirement* in section 844.1 end5444 of Teat Method 108 for certification of cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of calibration standards are to be followed. (iv) The location and number of points to be monitored and foe frequency of monitoring provided for in the program an acceptable when they an compared with foe number of piecea of equipment in vinyl chloride aervice and the size and physical layout of foe plant fo *% * * ft (vi) It contains a definition of leak which to acceptable when compared with the background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by foe vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in foe anas of foe plant to be monitored by foe vinyl chloride monitoring system an to be included with foe description of foe program. The definition of leek for a given plant may vary among tha different areas within the plantand to also to change over time aa background ounoentrations in the plant arajadacad. , CMA 101775 Federal Register / Vol, 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1197 9. By revising paragraph (b)(4) to S 61.65 as follows: {IAS Emission standard for ethylene dlchloride, vtnyt chloride and poiyvtnyl chloride plant* * a (b) Fugitive emission sources. * t (4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with I 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part. ** a * 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of { 61.65 as follows: 161.65 Emission standard tor ethylene dicMoride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. * a* (b) Fugitive emission sources. *4*44 (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. Sampling techniques are to be such that sample containers in vinyl chloride are purged into a closed process system. 11. By revising paragraphs (b)(8) introductory text (b)(8)(ii), and (b)(8)(v) to | 61.65 as follows: S 61.65 Emission standard tor ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. ** a * (b) Fugitive emission sources. aa * t * (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 a 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 161.11. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds; (i) * * * (ii) It includes a reliable end accurate portable hydrocarbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of Subpart V of this part An owner or operator is exempt from | 61.242-l(d}, t{ 61.242-7 (a), (b) and (c). 161.246 and i 61.247 of Subpart V of this part for any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is demonstrated to be equal to or less than 2.0 percent, as determined in accordance with the following: (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 S 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 181.245(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 161.242-7 (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 S 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. t**4I (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 S 81.66 as follows: { 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 161.67 as follows: 161.6? Emission tests. * t 6 4 (f) The owner or operator shall retain at the plant and make available, upon request for inspection by the Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, records of emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions. 14. By revising paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(i), and (g)(3)(iii) of S 61.67 as follows: 9 61.67 Emission tests. *4*** (8) * * * (3) When a stripping operation is used to attain the emission limits in { 61.64 (e) and (f). emissions are to be determined using Test Method 107 as follows: (i) 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. 4 4 4** 15. By revising paragraph (g)(5) introductory text and adding paragraph (g)(6) to { 61.67 as follows: $ 61.67 Emission tests. 444** (8) * * * (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emission limit is prescribed in 5 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. ***** (8) 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 S 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 this section; (B) The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at end of strip from plant instrument; and (C) The reactor temperature fC) at end of strip from plant instrument. CMA101776 1198 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wedwdey. Jenuwy ft. H88 / (ii) Far each batch (tripped in the reactor, the foilowing information it to be determined: (A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water in the reactordlaMef atrip Gram the following table: top* 2nT?S ao 'wmrmw- IS 40 56.3 41 90.9 42 14 43 44 44 943 4* 714 49 794 47 794 4i >3.7 40 9.0 SO I2i $1 974 so wet S3 1074 94 1125 56 1164 96 ias 57 1294 91 139,1 S9 942.9 90 149.4 . - HO ao mot Sum HS ws?c* {J* *1 1044 m 104 m 1714 4 1743 96 1974 m 1941 m 144 99 2144 99 223.7 70 2347 71 2434 72 294 9 79 MkJ 74 2774 79 293.1 n ftU 77 314.1 79 3274 79 341.0 n 339.1 3997 92 4U 99 4999 4 4199 99 4399 m 4904 47 499.7 m m.% m 9991 m BJ 91 M4 m 9974 n M99 m 9*99 9 9393 99 9674 9* 993.1 m 7974 m 7334 m 790.0 (B) The partial pressure (m Hg) of vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip from the following equation: PPVA-780-RV-VPW Where: PPVC--penial pressure of vinyl eWorld*. in mm Hg 780* atmospheric presents at SX. in mm Hg RV- absolute value of reactor vacuum, to mmHg VPW-vapor pressure ct water, to mm Hg (C) The reactor vapor space volume (m*) at end of strip from die following equation: fmev.nc-wv- pvcw where: RVSV- reactor vapor spaos veins. to m* RC-reactor capacity, to * WV-volums af mlebaMtotsi tedpe, to u* PVCW-diy vstoght afpelyvtoyl chloride to IMCtOf 833-typical density of polyvinyl rhtoriris. to kg/m* (hi) For each batch stripped io the . reactor, the combined reactor loss and emission! from all sourcas following the reactor wed as a stripper is to be determined using the following equation: ffFVCXRVSVHl.002) C-(Pfi<VC)(1<rn+ (PVaNKtoN-KT) where: .y C--| vinyl aUetode^hg yotov^l rhlmtde product IVMVC>concentraSoaafvfeqi chloride to reito after toilpptog. hrpptn 1Q~--coumiiiIi* lector for ppm nVCapntW pressuie ofvtoyl riJsetds determtomi srrmdtog to p--pnph ^MtghKB) this srattomtoM Ug be rwisedkOoly after following the procedures in paragraph (h)(l)of this suction. ' percent vtojd (Merida rawtootsban be rapieaeaWhraef the procsw field that to rontetoart toot centaoto the equipment determined aocotdiag to (g)(6)(ii)(CT ofthis aectiWk to m* lJUZw ideal gas constant to g--TC/mm Hg-- m* for vinyl ddoride PVCW-toy weight ef yotyriuyf iMwMeto reactor bom rodpe. to hg Z73--convert** toolortm X toK RTwtoactor totopanaww to X. 18. By adding paragraph (h) to | MJ7 ao follows: t*** (b)(1) Each piece of eqtdpmerit within a process unit that can raiseaaWy contain equipment to vtoyl chloride service ie presumed to be to vinyl chloride service miless an earner or operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment to not in vinyl chknris service. For a piece of equipment to be considered not in vinyl chloride service, it must be determined that toe percent vinyl chloride content cut be reeeanably expected not to exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams and 10 percent by volume far gas streams. For purposes of determining the percent vinyl chloride content of the process fluid that to contained in or contactsequipment, procedures that conform to the methods described to AS7M Method D-2287 (incorporated by reference as speUfletl in 10148) shell be uwd. ' 17. By adding paragraph* (dh () end (f) to 161-68 as follows: a 18148 Bfostom iMiritortog. 4*** (d) When exhaust gee(es), having emission limits that are subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, are emitted to the atmosphere around tori control system and required vinyl ddoride monitoring system, the vinyl chloride content of the emission hall he criculatsd (in units of such applicable ondmton limit) by best practical sngtoeartog judgment based on the dtochsme diaution and known VC concsntutiona to the affected equipment,as determined in accordance with 18147(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 shall be averaged (weighted according to the proportion of time that emissions were continuously monitored and that emissions bypassed the continnone monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under 16178(c)(1). (2X1) An owner or operator may use (f> Rir each vinyl ddoride emission to engineering judgramit rather than the the atmosphere determined in procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of toto sccaedaaoe with paragraph (e) of this section to demonstrate (hat the percent section to be to excaas of the applicable vinyl ddoride content does not exceed emission iiasits, the owner ar operator 10 percent by weight for liquid streams shell record toe identity of the *ource(s). and 10 percent by volume for gas the date, tone, and dmutton afthe streams, pros Med tost the eugluetiing judgment demonstrates that the viayi mission. the approximate total vinyl chloride content clearly does not evened chloride foes during the excess emission, 10 percent When an owner or operator and toe nsethed arad for determining the and the Administrator do net agree on vinyl chloride lees.This tofonnatton whether a piece of equipment to not to vinyl chloride service, however, the procedures to paragraph (b)(1) ef thfo section shall be used to reach* toe disagreement shell be retofoed end made available for inspection by Ae Administrator as required by f81.71(a). 14. By changing the title from OH If an owner or operator Betarndnes "Semiannual report" to "Reporting" and that a piece ef equipment to to vinyl by revising parapaph (a) of 18170 as chloride service, the determined*:: can . .follows: CMA 101777 5k VoL 80, No. 9 / Wdaaxloy, frpacy.t. 1985 /ftoyodad Rules________099 1.70 (a)(1) The owner or operator of any ource to which this snbpert applies shall submit to the Administrator on September 15 and Much 15 of each year a report in writing --``iiffn the information reqairetto paragraphs. (c). (d) and (e) of this saetinn and on December 15 end 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, die information required in paragraph (e) of this section will be reported exacUy 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. ****. ic)* * * (1) The owner or operator shall 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 limitB in 61.62 (a) or (b). 161.63(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)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6)(ii), or /0>)(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 J 61.66(e). 20. By revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, removing paragraphs (c)(2)(iv). revising paragraph (c)(2)(iil) and revising (c)(2Hv) and (c)(2)(vi) introductory text to 181.70 as follows: 61.70 Reporting. **6 (C) * * * (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 content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. 0)*** (U) * * * (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 161.67(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 yfoyl chloride concentration, as . determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in 6144(e). The vinyl chloride oootent found in each sample reqnited by paragraphs (cX2Mi) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section shall'be averaged separately for each type of reshvovseeach calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the stripperfs) that calendar day, according to die following equation: -------------------------------T-V--,-M- s--,-+------------T--P---,-.-*-* where:' ri*24-hour average concentration of type. 7i raein in ppm (dry weight basis). Q--Total production of type 7i rosin over the 24-hour period, in kg. 7i*Typeofroeia:/1.2. .. m where m is total number of rosin types produced during the 24-hour period. M=Concentration of vinyl chloride to one ample of grade G rosin, in ppm. Production of grade G rosin represented by the sample, in kg. C4a>Grade of rosin: eg., G,. C* and G>nm Total number of grade* of rosin produced during the 24-hour period. If no 24-hour average rosin vinyl chloride concentrations in excess of the limits prescribed in 16144(e) are measured, the report shall state that no excess resin vinyl chloride concentrations were measured. (vi) The owner or operator shall retain at the source and make available for inspection by the Administrator for a ~ minimum of 3 years records of all data needed to furnish the information required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section. The records era to contain the. following information: (A)* * * <B)* * * ' * 21. By revising paragraph (cX3) of 161.70 e> follows: 61.70 Reporting. (O* * * (3) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of any emissions from each reactor opening in excess of the emission limits prescribed in 161.64(e)(2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance with 6147(g)(5), except that emissions for each reactor an to be determined. If emissions in excess of the emission limits are not detected, the report shall include a statement that excess emissions have not been detected. *6666 22. By adding paragraph (c)(4) to 161.70 as follows: 61.76 Rspwltoe 6* (c) * * * (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 foe 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 tach grade of resin immediately following the completion of the stripping operstioa and identified by resin type and grade and the date end time the batch is completed. The corresponding quantity of material processed in each stripper batch is to be recorded and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. (ii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 161.67(g)(3). (Ul) The combined emission from reactor opening lose 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 6147(g)(6). (hr) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include e 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 16144(f)- The combined reactor opening loss and emissions from CA4A 101778 1200 Ragbter / Vol. 50. Wo. 6 / Wednesday, gummy . tfBg / ftopoted itules all sources following (be raactor used as a strippar associated with each batch are to b sveragadesparattiy for each type of resin, overaach salendar day and weighted seconding to the quantity of each grade of resin shipped in reactors that calendar day as follows: For each type of resin (suspension, dispersion, latex, bulk, other), the following caienhrtkm is In be peifoimed: n 11 *1 61 Pg Cg + PS Cg *1 61 g2 "2 * V b 6n Where: A--24-hour average combined reactor opening lot* and emiMiona from all ource* following the reactor need a* a stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight basis). Q--Total production of resin in batches for which stripping is completed daring die 24-how period, in kg. C--Average combined reactor opening lota and amissions from all sources following the reactor used a* a strippa- of all batches of grade G, resin for which stripping it completed daring the 24-how period in g vinyl ehloride/kg product (dry weight basis) (determined according to procedure prescribed in 16147(g)(6)). P--Production of grade G| ream in the batches for which C ts determined, in kg. G,-Grade of resin; eg, G,. Ca, and Gi. n--Totar number of grades of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period. If no 24-hour avmage combined reactor opening loss and amissions from all sources following the reactor used a stripper in excess of the limits prescribed in f 81.66(f) are determined, the report shall state that no excess vinyl chloride emissions were determined. 23. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) end (0 to | 61.70 ss follows: (61.70 WsporUng. t* (d) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of relief valve discharges as prescribed in 101.65(a)(4), and the owner or operator shall report exceedances of the relief valve discharge frequency limits prescribed in 10145(a) to be determined as follows: (l) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing dispersion, latex or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinty chloride reactors is to be determined using the following equation. Separate calculations are to be made for each resin type (t) as defined: N Where Ft--relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from ail rescues pmhicing rasing type t N=total nutahw of retisf vmhre discharges rheing the 12-month period peeoedtof tbe doss of the 6-month wpentog period bore all readers producing resin type t Y-tots) number of polymerization batches of resin type taiming the 12-mooth period preceding the close of the s-reonth reporting period divided by lflD t-resin type: dispersion (ladtudisg latex) ar bulk resin type (2) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing suspension resins, the relief valve discharge fraqnancy from polyvinyl chloride reactors is to be determined in two ways using the following equations: where F,,= relief valve discharge frequency per W0 polymerization batches from all reactors producing suspension resin F^-relief valvedischargs frequency par 1Zmonth period from all reactors producing suspension resin fi tntsl iwishif nf talisf valve litar kaigsi during the 12-month period psucadiag the cloee of the 6-month reporting period from all reactors produdng pen*fea resin Y-total number of polymerization batches of suspension resin during tha 12-month period preceding thu doee of the 6-month reporting period dividad by 100 (3) hr polyvinyl chloride plants produdng suspension, dtepmaton, latex, or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from ell other equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) it to be determined hi two ways owing the following equations: - F.aadP.-N Y where F--reltofyphe drichsiga frequency par W0 polyrharizatioa batches from all aqulpsmrit (excluding reactors) Pi--relief valve discharge frequency per 12manth period from ell equipment (excfumng reactors) N--total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the rieee of the e-menth reporting period bom ail equipment (excluding reactors) Y - totri usenber of potymarizatioa balchee of all resin typns combtned divided by 100 (6) 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 dose of the 6-month reporting period. (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinyl chloride plants, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all equipment types during die 12-month period preceding the close of the 8month 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 content*, and removal ef reactor contents including any incomplete sequence that ia aborted after charging VC to the reactor. For bulk resin production plants, a single "polymerization batch" include* both prepolymerization and postpciiymefizatinn reactor operations. - (e) The owner or operator shell include in the report the number of relief valve discharges to the atmosphere during the 3-month period preceding the report bom each of the following someet: intension reste production reactors: dispersion and htex resin production reactors; balk resin production reactors; all nonreactor equipment in WC plante; all equipment used in solution process and other continuous process PVC plants; and all equipment to EDC/VC plants; any other source; (f) The owner or operator shall include in the report the number of reactor openings end the design capacity of the number of polymerisation 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 CMA 101779 1 Fnderal Baiter / Vol SO, No. 8 / Wednesday, )anaary 9, 1965 / Prepowd Rules 1201 miimpf. l y m n> iiip w y ^ w p iw ifp p w p > initially and remain unchanged unless significant changes to the design capacity occur. 24. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text of 101.71 as follows; 101.71 WssBrdhsspmg. (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: f 61.241 DeflnMone. * *6 "Votatile 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. Benzen^ is a VHAP, Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. (Sec. 112 Clean Air Act of 1976) (FR Doc. 86-509 Filed 1-6-85:8:45 am] UJNtt QfflU INHNi .... .. ...... .. i u inww i-- j b t ( ` i CMA 101780