Document M4prE1goE6pZapn7M50BLy0Gz

LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckman .JOSEPH C, KtlLEB JEBOMC H, HECKMAN CHABlCS M. MEEHAN WILLIAM H BOMHtlANI, JN MALCOLM D MaGANTMUN KtKK V, BLACK MAirriH w. kacovici UQHN - ElDNCD CABOLE C- MANSIS MICHAEL F MQMONC JOHN B. OUBCC* FETCH L. lA CHUZ chmbtimk a. mcadmen ALKY * fiajimoto tAMCMk A HAtMlN EDWLBfi L- KQBWBK TENBCNCE D. JONII MABV MABTMA McMAMABA MAB* PDF CVCHB BALPH A. SIMMONS C. DOUGLAS JABBCTT NETB A. IUHU SHEILA A MILLAN RtllltLL M. POK <JAN M. WAMlTED ILCMt BIHOEL HCLLCR BUSAN T, CONTI BUSAN J. BLUM MAB* C, MAYES SANPBA J P. DENNIS BATIHCA J, NUBQ* E AQAH LtVENB S. CBAIO TAUTFEST DAVID H. JETT" *ADMITTED IN VIBQINIA ONLY --ADMITTED IN FENNBVLVANIA ONLY 1IBO 17T" STREET, N.W. SUITE lOOO WASHINGTON. D.C. 80090 (808) 066-6000 February 13, 1987 Roy T. Gottesman, Ph.D. The Vinyl Institute Wayne Interchange Plaza 155 Route 46 West Wayne, New Jersey 07470 II Re: EPA Settlement Discussions Dear Roy: Following our meeting on February 11, 1987, enclosed is a draft letter to EPA containing the Committee's work product. Although W.C. Holbrook had recommended forwarding the letter I was to draft without further review, Vista Chemical has .requested an opportunity to review the letter? I do not believe that the short delay that will require would significantly affect the settlement discussions. I would appreciate receiving any comments on the enclosed draft by Wednesday, February 18 so that I may make the necessary revisions and have it delivered to EPA promptly. Cordially yours, /3k Peter L. de la Cruz Enclosure cc: W.C. Holbrook / Joseph C. Ledvina v Robert D. Luss, Esq. Paul Bork, Esq. Robert R. Oubre Robert Brager, Esq. Charles E. O'Connell Lewis R. Freeman, Jr. (w/enc.) " " " " " " " 000102147 A February __, 1987 (202) 956-5641 Mr. Robert Ajax Chief/ Standards Development Branch Emission Standards and Engineering Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-13) Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711 Re: Vinyl Chloride Standard Dear Bob: We appreciate the Environmental Protection Agency's rt (EPA) willingness to dicuss five of the seven issues raised in the petition of the Society of the Plastics Industry. Inc (SPI) for a stay and reconsideration of the Agency's final rule amending the national emission standard for vinyl chloride. 51 Fed. Reg. 34.904 (Sept. 30, 1986). Suggested language on these five issues follows. We understand that EPA is unwilling to discuss the objections we raised to the relief valve discharge provision and leak detection and elimination provisions found in 40 C.F.R. 61.65(a) and (b)(8). Accordingly, we do not address those two points in this letter. YBJ 000102148 A Mr. Robert Ajax Page 2 Subsequent to our meeting, we received a memorandum dated February 4, 1987 by John B. Rasnic concerning implemen tation of the vinyl chloride standard. In keeping with our discussions, we will address issues raised by the February 4 memorandum in a separate letter. 1 During our January 26 discussion, Richard Roos-Collins and I agreed to meet and finalize language staying enforcement of the new provisions temporarily pending EPA reconsideration. This was particularly important for the new definition of ethylene dichloride (EDC) purification. The main issue with this provision is whether it requires certain controls on intermediate EDC storage facilities. After the meeting, Mr. Roos-Collins expressed hesitancy on behalf of the Agency to stay enforcement of the new definition until some additional consensus is reached within EPA. As the background information document stated, "The original VC standard did not clearly delineate which purifica tion process equipment were subject to regulation as EDC and VC purification equipment." BID at 2-43. Given EPA's acknowledge ment that the definition was subject to varying interpretations by Agency personnel and because we are currently in the proc ss ygy Q00102149 A Mr. Robert Ajax Page 3 of discussing this issue, it seems reasonable to temporarily stay enforcement of the new definition pending the outcome of these discussions. Such a stay would not require the Agency to express any opinion on the proper interpretation of the 1976 standard. Thus, staying the 1986 language would in no way compromise whatever position the Agency wishes to take on the 1976 language. In this regard, we do wish to inform you that Region IV personnel have been asking for process flow diagrams and other materials relevant to this issue. For some facilities, if intermediate storage controls are required, the capital costs are of sufficient magnitude that statements of contingent liability would need to be prepared for company auditors and perhaps to comply with Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements. In addition, managers supervising regulatory affairs are subject to internal company policies requiring prompt compliance with nvironmental and other laws. The absence of a written stay places these managers in individual jeopardy. Therefore, we are continuing to renew our request for the stay of this provision. VEV 000102150 Mr. Robert Ajax Page 4 A. Definition of "Ethylene Dichloride Purification;" 40 C.F.R. $ 61.61(o) Data we provided previously indicates that intermediat storage facilities are not a source of vinyl chloride emissions warranting regulatory attention. We recommend that the defini~ tion of EDC purification be revised as follows. 'Ethylene dichloride purification' includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride production which follows ethylene dichloride formation/ excluding intermediate and product storage following the final finishing column. [Underlining indicates addition and everetcike denotes deletion based on language appearing in the September 30, 1986 amendments.] B. Definition of "Leak;" 40 C.F.R. f 61.61w)(2) We recommend that the following modifications to subsection (w)(2), which describes one of the events regulated as a leak. yOJ 0001151 4 _. Robert Ajax Page 5 (2) In the case of pump seals regulated under 61.242-2, indications of liquid dripping other than the loss of seal fluid from double barrier seals. C. Definition of "Exhaust Gas;" 40 C.7.R. $ 61.61(x) Add the following language to the September 1986 definition of exhaust gas. A leak is not an exhaust gas. As used in this definition, the term leak means any unintended release of vinyl chloride that is detected^nd repaired promptly in accordance with the leak detection and elimination pro visions of section 61.65(b)(8) of this part. D. Definition of "Belief Valve Discharge;" 40 C.F.R. 61.61(y) Revise the definition of relief valve discharge as follows; 000l02i52 4 Mr. Robert Ajax Page 6 "Relief valve discharge' means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve directly to the atmosphere. 'Relief valve discharge' does not include discharges ultimately ducted to a control system* including a flare* but control system discharges are exhaust gases subject to the 10 ppm emission reguirements (average for 3hour period) from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases dees net cxeeed 10 ppm {average for 0-hour period} or equivalent as provided in 61.66. E. Definition of 3-Hour Period;" 40 C.F.R. f 61.61(c) Revise this definition as follows: '3-Hour period' means any three consequtive 1-hour periods (each hour commencing on the hour)* provided that: (1) the number of 3-hour periods which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm shall not xceed the numb r of 1-hour periods which UEv 00l02i53 A Mr. Robert Ajax Page 7 the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm, and (2) there shall be no more than eight 3~hour periods per day. We trust that this language is consistent with our prior discussions and will meet with your approval. We would be happy to discuss these suggestions in detail after you have had an opportunity to review them. We look forward to resolving these issues with you shortly. Sincerely, cc: Peter L. de la Cruz Richard Roos-Collins, Esquire Elliott J. Gilberg, Esquire Doreen Cantor, Esquire VEV 000102154