Document 85BrErDd3v0nV2j1D8r4Y4p1Z

A nEC EI V J LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckman APR U1 88 C *f LL.cn viCAOMC h mcckMah ChanleS M H((mH Wll'AM H ODOMCSANI, JR MALCOwM o m*caBT,,ob AVH( V BCAC* ftnncMCE o jOn(| MABTlN <* BEBCOV'C uonns cuoaco Y-AtOCB*CK A RROvORMT CaBOLC C HAM1S miCmaCU a mQBBOnE MANK rov CVtNB johh dubccn acre* i i u* ceux CHMTlHlA, UCAOMia 9hiBl*y 9 Rujimoto laanenCE a hainnin NAwNM A retch a sumac* c douoca*jabbctt HC'IA * WtiLAa MAAV MARTHA MCNAMARA uon* a. aieaAMDB* wclvim dboicn racoca>CK j da* jr MABCl E RRCtHfrtlN* IU|AN r CONTI 9USAN u atHCa ratbic* j uo" CHA40 TAuTTCRT QAWID M JITT MAuacca a o cONNiLb" MAaCN C IOCLRIR4* NINA H *IN*TCN -- MANN A SlCvCB**** MARY CMAMRCR1 ORAnOV** O rftANNt-IN AOONTt** Catherine h nOemeb** roiirt jtrra*T mu**** mCHARO A JATI'C* 7taliftO 1 STREET. N.W. 9C'CNT|nc STATE SUITE IOOO WVfIlWLLbIiAniMH L w McCLAINdcIRwrRq f "> OOOOCN WASHINGTON. D C 80030 vCHAMitS eatoca ---- i ii_wu.i </ BOBCAT A MATHEWS iso:) Bsa-seoo TELECOMMUNICATIONS CNCiNCCB APR 13 'S3 CNAAL.CS r TuBNCA Route-.--------- --April 7, 1988 tiAnS*SS* TCLCCOBICB ItOA) tl 7*|l ADNlTTCD IN RfNNSTUVANIA ONL.T ADMITTED in WIACINIA omit `admittio in Maryland only admitted IN COLORADO ONLY copy- cable aodacss mclman' Roy T. Gottesman, Ph.D. The Vinyl Institute Wayne Interchange Plaza II 155 Route 46 West Wayiie, New Jersey 07470 Fii3: Re: SPI v* EPA: 1986 Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standard Dear Roy: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Richard Roos- Collins of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), respond ing to our request for additional clarification of certain provisions in the vinyl chloride standard as a condition of our agreement to settle this case. EPA has agreed to the final two clarifications we sought. With the exception of some minor typographical errors, Exhibit A accurately reflects my discussions with Mr. RoosCollins. Upon approval by you and the Committee Chairmen, and final approval of the settlement by EPA's Office of General Counsel, we can proceed with the signing of the settlement agreement and finally resolve this matter. VEO 000102071 A Roy t. Gottesraan, Ph.D. April 7, 1988 Page 2 Keller and Heckman If you should have any questions about the revised draft, please give me a call. Cordially yours. Enclosures cc: Robert D. Luss, Esq. W. C. Holbrook Charles E. O'Connell Lewis R. Freeman, Jr. Robert W. Sherman Robert Brager bcc: William L. McClain Peter L. de la Cruz A A Division oi The Society of The Ptmstica Industry, Inc. Copy: November 17, 1987 TO: Vinyl Institute Legal Committee Vinyl Institute Health, Safety & Environment Cot HE: SPI v. EPA REVISED SETTLStOTF PROPOSAL Attached is the proposed draft settlement agreement with respect to SPI v. EPA. Please review the attached and provide Peter and/or me with your comments by December 8, 1987. Maybe we can wrap this up by the end of the year!!! Jlu^cut^ts Meredith N. Schecfc Assistant Director KfBJ 000102108 Wayne Interchange Plaza II 155 Route 46 West Wayne, NJ 07470 (201) 890-9299 sMjmi.SH C MSU-C* jottm a. ii niif iiiCiwgj r. HQHhMl HTIIILh IliWLIV >. X A MW. v*MT.aoiiti muouii a c CC ' A LAW OFFZCBS Keller and Heckman 11BO 17TM STRUT, N.W. SUIT* lOOO WASHINGTON, D C. COOGS .-iVEL Jt> - jOL*V\ W.PUCWMfWMktWCiC. m. DOMUMNLlfl (SOS) SSS-BOOO DEC 14 '87 o**w.f< t- Tyumen iOWTHII If* KNMVIMUIIA OML.T fMflllTrm m MAIWIAMB DMCY i ApMrnam ih couhmm okly December 8, 1987 c: VtLtf\ (202) 956-5641 JpJuJfc- Roy T. Gottesman, Ph.D. The Vinyl Institute 155 Route 46 West Wayne, New Jersey 07470 Re: SPI v. EPA Settlement Agreement Dear Roy: As follow-up to my letter of November 16, 1987, I have i more thoroughly reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement in our challenge to the 1986 amendments to the vinyl chloride standard. Based on this review and member comments, I rec ommend that we send the enclosed draft response to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting a few clarifica tions. The Vinyl Institute's comments on the earlier draft proposal were contained in my letter of July 17, 1987 to Richard Roos-Collins at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That letter contained three suggested points of clari fication. Two of those points dealing with reporting of relief valve discharges (Section 61.65(a)) and pump seal monitoring methods (Section 61.242-2(d)(4)(i)) have been adopted as suggested. Our third suggestion dealt with revisions to Section 61.242-2(d) (6), which also addresses leaks from pumps. In our earlier letter, we noted our uncertainty a# Jpa the scope and meaning of this section and suggested that i**i from pump seals be regulated exclusively under subsection the pro vision while subsection 6 should apply to sensor Add internal seal failures. While EPA modified subsections (i) and (ii). 000102103 A Roy T. Gotteaman, Ph.D. December 8, 1987 Page 2 Kei.ler and Heckman the Agency did not adopt the precise the language we offered. Nonetheless, the revised language presented by EPA here is an improvement over the prior language, although, as we discuss in our letter to Stephen L. Samuels, recognize that confusion could re or operators establish their own Whether we would obtain any signi pursuing this item further is, ho In the letter to Stephen Samuels, #e agreement with the proposal, but request clarification of three points, the first being that EPA acknowledge that cumulative cal culations under S 61.65(d)(ii)(a) regarding discharges to flares applies only to simultaneous discharges to a single flare. As for the second, we request that EPA confirm that liquid dripping from pump seals not be considered leaks until the required monitor detects vinyl chloride. Third, we request that EPA recognize that Section 61.242-2(d) (6) leaves open the possibility for conflicting standards for leaks from pump seal dripping. We trust the letter to Stephen Samuels accurately reflects The Vinyl Institute's views with regard to the settle ment proposal. I look forward to hearing from you and the others receiving a copy of this letter concerning the settle- I Cordially yours. Enclosure cc: Robert Brager Robert D. Luss, Esq. W. C. Holbrook Charles E. O'Connell Lewis R. Freeman, Jr. Robert W. Sherman Peter L. de la Cruz 000l02i0A A Division of The Society of The Plastics Industry, Inc. Copy: November 17, 1987 TO: Vinyl Institute Legal Committee Vinyl Institute Health, Safety & Environment Committee RE: SPI v. EPA REVISED SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL Attached is the proposed draft settlement agreement with respect to SPI v. EPA. Please review the attached and provide Peter and/or me with your comments by December 8, 1987- Maybe we can wrap this up by the end of the year!I! Meredith N. Scheck Assistant Director VEO 000102108 Wayne Interchange Plaza II 155 Route 46 Wbsf Wayne, NJ07470 (201) 890-9299 jomcww c. Kton JCMOHI H. MCefIMAM CHMHA* H, MCCHAM wfuuH m, wmmw, jm. MMJQQIM D. HMMTNUII KVNK V, VCACK M*tww. ineoviei JOHN *. tUMtco cowu t HtfiCfWOCMCKA.novoimv LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckman 11BO IT** STREET, N.W. SUITE lOOO WASHINGTON, D.C. 80080 (808) eoe-oooo "ceiireD 1 ? 1987 U>,IT'rrt8uAN lemmncfmrr Roy T. Gottesman, Ph.D. The Vinyl Institute 155 Route 46 West Wayne, New Jersey 07470 (202) 956-5641 Re: SPI v. EPA; 1986 Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standard Dear Roy: Late this afternoon I received a call from Steve Samuels at the Department of Justice indicating that a revised settlement proposal on our challenge to the Environmental Pro tection Agency's (EPA) 1986 Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standard was ready. Since I will be out of the office on travel Tuesday and Wednesday, I am forwarding the package so that we can all review it simultaneously. I would appreciate your distribution of the materials to the Legal Committee and the Health, Safety and Environment Committee. While the mater ial must obviously be distributed to Vinyl Institute members* please recall that no public release is authorised. I look forward to receiving everyone's comments and to resolving this matter. Cordially yours. Enclosures cc: Robert D. Luss, Esq. W. C. Holbrook Charles E. O'Connell Lewis R. Freeman, Jr. Robert W. Sherman Peter L. de la Cruz ,, VEV 000102109 F0 i put A Division of The Society of The Plastics Industry, Inc. Cop ... File: June 9, 1987 -Bey T. Qottseman Exacutfv* Director TO* VI Health, Safety & Environment Committee VI Legal Committee RE: SP1 v. EPAt 1986 Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standard Peter de la Cruz'a letter of June 8th and attachments thereto, received today, are self-explanatory. As we wish to conclude a settlement agreement as rapidly as possible, please advise Peter de la Cruz directly by phone no later than June 19th only if you have any comments or problems with the EPA proposed revisions. Unless Peter hears from you to the contrary by June 19th, he ' will proceed to finalize a settlement agreement. RTG/pmb cc* P. de la Cruz M. Scheck YEV 000102123 Wayne Interchange Plaza II 155 Route 46 West Wayne, NJ 07470 (201) 890-9299 A JOHFH L UU.KM JKMWI M. HECKMAN CMAftLED M. MEEHAN W1LUAM m. pon*he*ani. JR, malGOLm p. macamthur WAYNE V. BLACK MAirtiM w. DEReovtci JOHN D. CLDREO CANOt-E C. MMMW MICHAEL *. HORMONE hank fox even* JOHN O. MMCN stm lhl*cnuz CHMIETIME A MtA*HC* minlcy ft. rujiMOTo LAWRENCE N HALNMIN HALNM A IWNOHl LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckman Tcmwci b. jonU MANY MANYHA MOMAMANA JOHN ft. MCHANON* C. OWLAft JAftftETT MtllA A MIU-AN RVMKLL H. *[K JAM M. NMMETEO ILINC MMIk HELLEN MAN T. CONTI fMtlffttiAnNeiJi.j.bhuommo** 9. CHAIN TAl/TWT DAVID H, JCTT MAUNCCM A O'CONNELL** MUCH E. CDftLftCRO* NINA H, INNTEJN*** HUM 0. MOMDON*** I1BO ir" STREET, N,W. SUITE IOOO WASHINGTON, D.C. 0030 (BOB) OBO-OOOO RECEIVED ADMITTED IN NCMMDYLVANIA ONLY ADMITTED IN VIRGINIA ONLY "ADMITTED IN MAMYLAND ONLY JUN y WH/j DR. R. T. GOTTESMAN "* KtcKTmc NTArr Daniel ft. dialer t*o*i tDO>TD 02) 956-5641 June 8, 1987 Roy T. Gotteaman Executive Director The Vinyl Institute Wayne Interchanqe Plaza II 155 Route 46 West Wayne, New Jersey 07470 Re: SPI v. EPA; 1986 Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standard Dear Roy: I today received the enclosed materials from the Environmental Protection Aqency (EPA) in response to our May 5 meetinq and the revised settlement lanquaqe that we delivered to EPA and the Justice Department on May 6. Althouqh I have only had an opportunity to review the lanquaqe quickly, it appears to be both favorable and similar to what we anticipated. At this luncture, I recommend that the attached lanquaqe be circulated to the Institute members for their review and determination of acceptability. As with the earlier materials, while the settlement proposal can be discussed amonq vinyl Institute members, no public release is authorized. We VEV 000102124 Rov T. Gottesman June 8, 1987 Pag 2 Keller and Heckman look forward to receivinq everyone's comments on the proposed settlement language. Cordially vours Enclosures cc: (w/encl.) Robert D. Luss, Esq. W. C. Holbrook Charles E. O'Connell Lewis R. Freeman Peter L. de la Cruz vjeV OOOiO2125 CONFIDENTIAL: FOR USE ONLY IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN SOCIETY OF PLASTICS INDUSTRY V. EPA SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP (June 2, iy7) 1. Definition of an exhaust gas Add to the definition of "exhaust gas": A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not an exhaust gas. Equipment which contains exhaust gas is subject to Section 61.65(d) (8), whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. 2. Definition of Relief Valve Discharge Revise S 61.61(y) to read: (y) "Relief Valve Discharge" means any non-leak dis charge through a relief valve. Revise the first sentence of S 61.65(a) as follows; (a) Relief Valve Discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge and, except as provided in paragraph 61.65(d), there is to be no discharge to the atmosphere from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride service. Add a new paragraph 61.65(d) as follows: (d) A relief valve discharge that is ducted to a control device that is continually operating while emissions from the release are present at the device is subject to the following requirements: (i) A discharge from a control device other than a flare shall not exceed 10 ppm (average over a 3-hour period) as determined by the continuous emission monitor system required under $ 61.6b. Such a discharge is subject to the requirements of S 61.70. (ii) For a discharge routed to a flare, the flare shall comply with the requirements of $ 60.Id. ((a)) Flare operations shall be monitored in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purposes of paragraph 60.18(d), the volume and component concentration of each relief valve discharge shall be estimated and calculations shall be made to verity on-going compliance with the design and operating A gfcj 0 2- - requirements of paragraphs 60.18(c)(3) through (c)(6). If more than one relief valve is discharged to a single 'flare, these calculations shall account for the cumulative effect of all such relief valve discharges. These calculations shall be made and reported quarterly for all discharges within the quarter. Failure to comply with any of the requirements of this paragraph will be a violation of Si 61 .65(d) (ii). Monitoring for the presence of a flare pilot flame shall be conducted in accordance with paragraph 60.16(f)(2). If the results of this monitoring or any other information shows that the pilot flame is not present 100 percent of the time during which a relief valve discharge is routed to the flare, the relief valve discharge is subject to the provisions of S 61.65(a). ((b)) A report describing the flare design shall be provided to the Administrator not later than 90 days after the adoption of this provision or within 30 days of the installation of a flare system for control of relief valve discharges, whichever is later. The flare design report shall include calculations based upon expected relief valve,discharge component concentrations and net heating values (for PVC this calculation shall be vased on values expected if a release occurred at the instant the polymerization starts); and estimated maximum exit velocities based upon the design throat capacity of the gas in the relief valve. 3. Definition of EDC Purification Revise the definition of EDC Purification to read: "Ethylene dichloride purification" includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride purification following ethylene dichloride formation, but excludes intermediate and final ethylene dichloride storage tanks. 4. Definition of 3-Hour Period Revise the definition of 3-hour period to read: "3-hour period" means any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each commencing on the hour), provided that the number of 3-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm does not exceed the number of 1-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm. A 0E0 000102133 - 3- 5. Definition of a Leak Revise the definition of a leak to read as follows: "Leak" means any of several events that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment. Leaks include events regulated under Subpart V of this part such as: (1) An instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater measured according to Method 21 (see Appendix A of AO CFR Fart 60); (2) a sensor detection of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both, (3) detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background for equipment designated for no detectable emissions measured according to Test Method 21 (see Appendix A of 40 CFR Fart bO); and (4) In the case of pump seals regulated under Section 61.242-2, indications of liquid dripping. Leaks also include events regulated under $ bl.65(b)(d)(i) for detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentration. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. Revise Section 61.242-2(d) as follows: (d) Each pump...is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a), and (b) provided..." (1) LNo change] (2) lNo change] (3) LNo change] (4) (No change] (i) If there are indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal at the time of the weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored by the method specified in S 61.245(d) to determine the presence of VOC and VHAP in the barrier fluid. (ii) If the monitor reading (taking into account any background readings) indicates the presence of VHAP, a leak is detected. For the purpose of this paragraph, the monitor may be calibrated with VHAP, or may employ a gas chromotography column to limit the response of the monitor to VHAP, at the option of the owner/operator. 4 VEV 000102134 -4 (iii) If an instrument reading of 10,U00 ppm or greater (total VOC) is measured, a leak is detected. (5) Each sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is checked daily or is equipped with an audible alarm. (b)(i) The owner or operator determines, based on design considerations and operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency of drips and to the sensor that indicate failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both. (ii) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal, or the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both, based on the criteria determined in paragraph (b)(i), a leak is detected. (iii) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in S61.242-10. (iv) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after each leak is detected. 4 ^ 000102, 35