Document MMg1kKM9LzpNLG6v5Mdjj0a2j

ABD00315726 Wednesday January 9, 1985 Part V Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Vinyl Chloride; Proposed Rule and Notice of Public Hearing taiuuiJfl ABD00315727 t 1182 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY i 40.CFR Part 61 [AD-FRL-2707-4] * . National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Vinyl Chloride agency: Envoronmental Protection Agency (EPA). action: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing. summary: The current emission standard for vinyl chloride (VC) was promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in 1976. A review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the standard has been . completed, and the conclusions of the review are presented in this notice The conclusions are the basis for this action which (1) proposes administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard and (2) announces decisions pertaining to other aspects of the current standard. This notice also withdraws proposed' revisions to the current standard which were published in the.Federal Register on June 2.1977 (42 FR 28154). If requested, a public hearing will be held to provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments concerning : the proposed revisions to the current standard- dates: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 25,1985; Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 301985. a public hearing will be held on February 26. 1985 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ms. Shelby Joumigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will occur. ~ Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must contact EPA by January 30,1985. incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in these standards will be approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of the date of the final rule. addresses: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket Section (A130), Attention Docket Number A-81-21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 30.1985. the public hearing will be held at EPA Auditorium. comer of Highway 54 and Alexander limit for relief valve discharges. (2) Drive, Research Triangle Park. North - providing a compliance test procedure Carolina. Persons interested in attending and a specific emission limit for the hearing should call Ms. Shelby operators who perform stripping Joumigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that . operations in reactors, and (3) specifying a hearing will occur. Persons wishing to requirements for leak detection and present oral testimony should notify Ms. repair programs for certain equipment in Shelby Joumigan. Standards VC service. Additional minor Development Branch (MD-13), U.S. administrative changes to the standard Environmental Protection Agency. are being proposed and are explained Research Triangle Park. North Carolina later in this premable. 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578. * Summary ofHealth. Environmental. Background Information Document Energy, and Economic Impacts. Since no The general findings of the review study major revisions to the standard are are documented in "Vinyl Chloride--A being proposed, the impacts resulting Review of National Emission from the current standard remain Standards". EPA-450/3-82-003 (NTIS- generally unchanged. In 1975. i( was PB 84-114354), available from the estimated that emissions of VC from National Technical Information Service, plants producing ethylene dichloride 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield. - (EDC), VC monomer and polyvinyl Virginia Z2161. The major technical chloride (PVC) would be reduced from analysis for the review study is * 96.000 Mg/yr to 4.910 Mg/yr under the contained in a separate document which current standard, representing an may be obtained from the U.S. EPA emission reduction of 91.000 Mg/yr of Library (MD-35), Research Triangle. VC (or 95 percent of VC emissions). Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 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-150/3-85-002,' for the..' v The estimated risks attributed to technical document .... exposure to VC from EDC/VC and PVC Docket Docket No. A-81-21. plants in operation prior to the current containing supporting information used - standard were 5.5 cases per year for in developing the proposed standard, is liver angiosarcoma and 11 cases.per available for public inspection and year for all cancers. The risks attributed copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. to exposure to VC from sources under Monday through Friday, at EPA's the current standard have been Central Docket Section. West Tower___ estimated to be 0.28 cases per year for Lobby, Gallery 1. Waterside MalL 401M? liver angiosarcoma and 0.55 cases per Street SW~ Washington, D.C. 20460. A - ' year for all cancers. reasonable fee may be charged for- ___ In 1975. the estimated capital cost for ' copying: ; J existing plants to meet the VC standard FOR FVTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: - was $198 million, of which $15 million Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel or Mr. Leslie B. was for EDC and VC monomer plants Evans. (919) 541-5671, concerning and $183 million was for PVC plants. technical aspects of the industry and The EPA estimated that the annualized control technologies, and Mr. Fred cost (including capital amortization, etc.) Dimmick or Mr. Glibert H. Wood. (919) . to these plants to maintain the required 541-5578. concerning regulatory .. t ... emission levels would be $70 million per decisions. The address for these year. contacts is Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S. Background Environmental Protection Agency, The VC standard was proposed on Research Triangle Park, North Carolina December 24.1975 (40 Fr 59532), and 27711. promulgated on October 21.1976 (41 Fr SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 46559). It is applicable to plants Summary of Revisions to Current Standard producing EDC by the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene, plants producing VC by any Revisions. Several administrative process, and plants producting one or- changes are being proposed as a result more polymers containing any fraction of a review of the national emission of VC. These plants are subject to standard for VC. No major revisions are/ different requirements at numerous VC being proposed to the standard. As with emission points in the manufacturing the current standard for VC the - process. These requirements include revisions are being established under numerical emission limits, equipment Section 112 of the Clean Air Act The specifications, and work practices. - significant administrative revisions The standard was designed to include: (1) Reformatting the emission minimize the health risks associated ABD00315728 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules H83 with VC by requiring reasonable control Regulating Airborne Substances Posing Assessment Group reviewed new health measures. As stated in the preamble to - a Risk of Cancer." This proposal studies that have become available - the proposed standard (40 Fr 59532. addressed several issues which were since the standard was promulgated. December 24.1975), there is no-known central to the proposed VC -.................. This review included a study of the threshold level of effects for VC amendments. It also articulated the estimated carcinogenic strength of VC Therefore, the only approach that would EPA's conclusion that Section 112 does (the VC unit risk number) and focused eliminate health risks associated with not express an intent to eliminate totally on whether this number should be VC would ban its production and use.. all risks from emissions of airborne changed to reflect new informaton. This approach was not selected. Rather, 1 carcinogens. The EPA's selection of the Since the current standard was - an approach was selected to minimize level of control for a hazardous air promulgated, new occupational studies the health risks associated with VC by pollutant emission standard would not have confirmed qualitatively .that liver use of reasonablexontrol measure. On November 19.1976, the be based on a policy that requires zero and brain cancer incidence are emissions of carcinogens. This policy is * asociated with population exposure to Environmental Defense Fund (DF) petitioned the United States Court of .. Appeals for the District of Columbia . Circuit to review the standard. On March 24.1977, the EDF and the EPA moved to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of a settlement agreement requiring the EPA to propose amendments which would require increased efficiency of existing control equipment, require more stringent control of new sources, and prohibit .; increases in emissions within the / vicinity of an existing source due to new construction. The preamble to the ' proposed amendments was to state that" the EPA's policy for regulating carcinogens under Section 112 of the -";* Clean Air Act would include a general ~ goal of eliminating emissions of- ' - -~ carcinogens and that the EPA would - 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 promulgate amendments based on the proposed amendments. Therefore. the:. June 2.1977. proposal is withdrawn. As described in the following section of this notice, the EPA began a review study to obtain additional technical data and cost information and to determie whether other amendments to the ______ standard are needed. New amendments atmospheric VC. However, none of these new studies have sufficient exposure information to warrant a refinement of the quantitative cancer risk estimate. Findings and Conclusions of the Review Study The findings and conclusions of the ** VC review study are presented in the following subsections. The first subsection discusses the need and basis for the current standard. The second subsection addresses the level of control required by the current standard. The third subsection identifies source 1 categories not covered by the current standard and evaluates the - r appropriateness of regulating these sources; initiate a review of the VC standard 3 ; ' developed as a result of the review (l) Need and Basis for Current Standard years after the promulgation of the ;*: amendments.'--*- study are proposed in this notice. r ' `The current VC standard was.A r On June 2,1977. the amendments were* Review of VC Standard. or'-- established based on judgments'.^,'... 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 cost ' Early ini980 the EPA begana review/-? - concerning the costs and.benefits of the ; of the VC standard. The primary'*."'"'''*'*'? standard to society. The standard is not< purpose of the review was to investigate designed to eliminate VC exposure risk . the adequacy and appropriateness of the' standard in light of policy decisions,..-- . entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance between public health protection and- health studies, control technology' the cost of that protection. Data" information were required before the developments, and enforcement and proposed amendments, or revisions of .* compliance experience which have - - the proposed amendments, could be - promulgated.. .: occurred since the standard was first . promulgated. The review consisted of a Meanwhile, the EDF Gled a petition " screening study of: (1) Existing and new' (evaluated before the current standard was established) strongly indicate that VC causes or contributes to the ' development of angiosarcoma, other cancers, and various noncarcinogenic with the EPA requesting the: control technologies. (2) sources not disorders in people with occupational - establishment of a comprehensive' regulated by the standard, and (3) ... exposure and in animals with --- - program for regulating airborne enforcement and compliance experience experimental exposure to VC Although carcinogens under Section 112 of the - - since promulgation of the standard.* ; no dose-response data are available at - Clean Air Act The aspects of the EDF"s - Information and data evaluated during ';* the concentrations of VC found in the petition concerning the development of - jthis .study were obtained through - ambient air. the EPA concluded when ' standards under Section 112 were- - - literature searches, plant visits, and '*;' * the standard was established that any ' similar to those proposed in the June 2.-: :- interviews with industrial atmospheric concentration of VC poses 1977. amendments to the VC standard. -- representatives and EPA regional ' some public heath risk. To eliminate the Based on the similarity of the proposed personnel involved in enforcement and risk of VC exposure entirely, a complete amendments and the CDF's requested - surveillance of the VC-emjtting prohibition of all VC emissions would comprehensive program for regulating industries. The information and data are be necessary. This would require the airborne carcinogens, the EPA believed presented in a document that may be closure of the entire industry and result that it should not take final action on the obtained as described in the addresses in serious, adverse economic impacts. proposed VC amendments until after it : section of this preamble. Decisions Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the had acted on the EDFs petition. - - based on this review are summarized in - time the current standard was - On October 10.1979 (44 FR 58642). the the next two sections of this preamble. established that a complete prohibition EPA proposed "Policy and Procedures . A9 another aspect of the review of the of all VC emissions would not be for \Identifying. Assessing, and VC standard, the EPA's Carcinogen. desirable or necessary. The EPA ABD00315729 U84 Federal Register / Vot. 5ft. No. 5 / Wednesday,, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules concluded thi* in view- of flj the - Table- r. Status os Current Emission) tar at the time-ofthe promulgation ofthe 10" beneficial: usee of VC products for which- sus From Sources Covered- er the Vinyl ppmv limit desirable substitutes are not readilyr : Chlorjoe NESHAP . -------_ Comments received on- the proposed available; (21 the potential adverse health aRdpnnroaxxrenfal impacts ; associated with VC substitutes that ~ : have not been throughly studied; [3J the' EflMaon Met r Stanarod _ 6wn> (rrQ/yrt 'UaconeoAM*(pnxta tvs -CtntotM* - (current ' ' tows 1977amendments stated that in. order to meet a limit of5 ppmv. a control device:. would have to be capable of control at. a level even-lower than 5 ppmv to offset " number ofemployees, particularly In fabrication industries; who would Emaon Son.moaM.3ieooo mg/yr EDC/YC-tacM* emission fluctuations; Commenters also stated that a change from 10 to 5 ppmv become at leasttemporarily Pranwy ' tfrOprf-_; .. - '91* would result in little reduction in mass ~ unemployed.' and. (41 the availability of JV com. OaygHontifr * CU/k9,EDC . control technology that is capable of Ban were. : pntuct U4 ..... so emissions ofVG Finaly. commenters questioned therationale of the "zero substantially reducingemissions of VC.... -- - | ;vmm uwttr* ; T:"T STB . 1 : era- - k f * Into the atmosphere. .` .~L............... Although all EDC. VC and PVC plants . wm eanaeo 1 .-r-.--: AeWtiMt-- Nenoietwi Not i ` a* have now incorporated VC emission . ae emission.goaT" policy. ` " Because the proposed 5 ppmv emission limit was not based on data . from a control technology different from that analyzed for the current standard - controls, the maintenance of a Federal [ art*; and because 10 ppmv represents the standard far VC is still considered - necessary. The VC standard contains - requirements for the proper operation * " , and maintenance of control devices and Emnians fra* t moo* 69.000 m&V WC PrtW - -iitfy-.- 1 ' lit:-, as oontfoL RetcW .0003 kg/100- . lowest level ofcontrol which, has been ' consistently achieved, the EPA ' .7. - or -withdraws the proposed 5 ppmv Emit' 7 and affirm* the nngihflf tfl ppmv limit If .the properimplementationof work - *" practices. These requiremenla reflect an appropriate balance between the need to minimize health risks and the avoidance of unreasonsble'economic and community impacts whfefrwould ;/ result fronrstandardsdesigned to- " reduce-risks to zertx Relative to the^f*- ::: initial control costs the additional cost. of maintaining- and unpfementrng- the '1 r; Consined source* - eneritein , kg-PYC ; | produce . ;4Qs0uppmRnWoon. f : -........ - r . * *. r 8 . snapng- 1U.^. ... .m *\ ' M , .\...,.th<o 108 ^ -"J >* -*i` --.twpmene . earaerdv- Re#etMwe_| Noneroww* ff- dOKfl.w...g..i . H [!.., - ^`rp . tag i. ,. z> r**:: - such a technology had been, identified, it could have been the basis of a revised standard. However., during the review ' study no more advanced technology was identified, even though additional data. on incinerators.'carbon, adsorbers, and; . solvent absorption control systems on. -, existing plants were obtained. Although these data indicate that incinerators are capable otretfiidng.emiasionsbel.ow ia ' Federal VC standard is smalL " Nevertheless, if the Federal standard is J discontinued, these small costs may be. sufficient to provide the industry with an economic incentive for dfscontiznnng the ase ofproper control measures. - Thus, the continued maintenance of Federal standards for the control ofVC ' is necessary to-ensure a continuation of Oiwfoivw g wmcm warura iwmpniMam, dua suonvRM by industrial much prior to prommgnonot tfw (975 WC omara. florsart aanatad mnrnmam *oa* 6DC/VC m WC pNnt m--ung current sanggtt - * Osta aw* not cotaead on roiat wfcro OmeTmon front EDC/VCptantionorto 197% *6mm on tna EPA amaaona wamatn Nr a typical mphnm pane Emaaiorr -rvia* toe due. tatu. end daoaaon pana ok net pmanoo ... . .. KTppmvStandard Emission murces ; covered by this standard include EDC ppmv.. 10 ppmv represents the lowest - level of control which has-been . consistently achieved. Based on this information, the EPA has concluded that there is no unproved or new control. . technology that has been demonstrated to significantly and consistently reduce emissions to a level below that required by the current standard-Therefore, no further technological investigation of the the current level of control. purification, and VC monomer formation 10 ppmv standard is planned. Additionally, the standard is important and purification equipment; monomer Oxychlorination Vent Standard--0 ;for the'control ofVC emissions from. ... . recovery systems and other equipment g/kgEDC, The current oxychlormatioo - .plants buiItin.tbe.funire.The- at PVC plants, and vents from fugitive, vent standard offtZgofVG per kg of ----- consequence of not maintaining a emission capture systems-The standard EDC does not require an add-on control : Federal standard would be to-increase is based primarily on the control of device; Instead, the limit can be the carcinogenic risk to large segments , these emissions by incineration or other achieved at most plants by controlling: - of the population, fin 1975 when the - - primary control devices and specifies an operating conditions and at the standard was originally proposed; - - emission limit of10 parts per million by remaining plants through process.- v approximately 4A million people lived volume CppmvJ of VC averaged over a 3- modifications; At the time the original within-a-5-mile radius of EEC. VC and " hour period. The 10 ppmv standard standard was written, incineration of PVCplants-^Accordingfy.theEPAhas ' applies to control device bypass oxychlorination vent emissions was concluded that the maintenance of the ' streams.. ., . . . ...__... ..* investigated Because ofexpected high Federal standard for VC or reasonable One of the amendments proposed in energy costs associated) with - revision of the standard ie appropriate. 1977 would have required reduction of supplemental fuel requirements for the emission limit from 10 to 5 ppm*. combustion., incineration was - (2) Reviewof. Technology-Based Level The goal of the proposed 5 ppmv limit .. determinednot to be a reasonable of Control was to ensure that the standard method of control for this source. - . continued to approach a "zero emission The amendments proposed in 1977 This subsection describes the statue goali" by requiring owners and operators specified a level of 5 ppm for the of the technology-based level of control both to maximize the effectiveness of ; oxychidrinatiijB vent. The proposed- for sources covered by the current . existing control systems and to design requirement was based on installation - * standard. The present status of improved new control systems at the of an. oxygen feed system with an emissions from sources covered bythe time of construction. The 5 ppmv limit incinerator or equipment control device; current VC standard is presented in was not based on data for control : The use of oxygen feed in the EDC Table 1. technology different from that analyzed oxychlorinaton process decreases the ABD00315730 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1185 volume of inert substances in the vent include-blend tanks, dryers, centrifuges, processors meeting the more stringent stream and. consequently, the cost for storage silos, bagging operations, and limits proposed previously are stripping supplemental fuel required for any sources following the stripper. these resins to this low level to offset incineration. Comments received on this Control of these emissions is based on emissions from those resins which are proposed amendment focused primarily either stripping the PVC resin to a more difficult to strip. Without this on the high expense and large energy specified (based on resin type) residual ability to average the emissions and requirements associated with the VC level (i.e., 400 ppm for suspension, reductions among resins, these production of oxygen. bulk, solution, and latex resins: and processors might not achieve the current The review study identified no control 2.000 ppm for dispersion resins) or standard. Exempting resin grades technology for oxychiorination vents at controlling the emissions from all known to be difficult to strip is not . EDC/VC plants that had not been sources following the stripper with a feasible because these resins cannot considered during the development of control device. The 1977 proposed readily be defined. For the foregoing the original standard. Additionally, the amendments would have required "new reasons, the EPA has concluded that EPA reevaluated the cost of retrofit resins" to be stripped to lower levels there is no demonstrated level of control incinerator controls and reached the (Le- 100 ppm for suspension, bulk, which could significantly and same conclusion drawn in the solution, and latex resins: and 500 ppm consistently reduce residual VC levels development of the original standards for dispersion resins). When the in resins to levels below that required As before, the high cost associated with amendments were proposed, the EPA by the current standard. Therefore, the incinerating oxychiorination vents at believed that some resins could meet the EPA is not Investigating further the existing EDC/VC plants makes this level proposed limits: whereas, for other control'of the combined sources after of control unreasonable. Thus, the resins the manufacturer would have ` stripping. current standard of 02 g/kg EDC is been required to develop improved - Equipment Leaks. Because little was considered still to be the most reasonable level of control for existing oxychiorination vents. In addition, the review study concluded that significant . 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 to construct an EDC/VC facility in Convent. Louisiana.) Oxychiorination vents at new EDC/VC plants will be regulated by the proposed standards of performance for air oxidation processes (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart HI) or by the BACT or LAER requirements of new source review regulations applicable in specific locations to a 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.e* incineration) was not required for . oxychiorination vents. * Reactor Opening--0.02 g/kg PVC Product The current VC standard stripping technology or not to produce the resin. Industry comments stated that most dispersion, copolymer, and bulk resins - would suffer degradation if more . stringent emission limits were imposed ' Additionally, the commenters noted the inherent difficulties in defining a "new. _ resin." Information submitted by _ .. commenters indicated that minor - adjustments to resin compositions are made routinely, and completely new resins are rarely, if ever. made. As a . result of these comments, the EPA concluded that it is impossible in many cases to distinguish between new and existing resins and still have any resins covered by the proposed amendments. Further, the proposed amendments did-. not address what levels of control could be achieved by improved stripping technology. For these reasons, the EPA chose to evaluate whether higher levels of control are achievable for all resins. or only for some special classes of resins. The review study found that resin known about leak detection and .elimination programs for control of equipment leaks from components in VC service, specific requirements for these programs were not included in the current standard. Instead, each plant was required to institute and implement a formalized leak detection and elimination program incorporating both a fixed-point monitor and a portable monitor. Plant-specific programs were subject to approval by the Administrator. Consequently, due to site-specific differences among plants, as well as variations in leak definitions and monitoring practices, differences in control of equipment leaks among the plants have resulted. Since the standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained more information pertaining to the control of equipment leaks from components in VC service. With the information obtained form the development of other standards, an effective leak detection and repair program based on use of a portable restricts emissions during stripping technology has improved since monitor can now be specified for polymerization reactor openings. The .the current standard was promulgated, standard was based on reactor purging and that some processors can achieve equipment covered by this program. The specific leak detection and repair and on a reduction in the frequency of reactor openings. An increased level of lower resin residual VC levels than those required in the original standard. requirements are discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of this control was not proposed in the 1977 In certain cases, some resins can meet preamble. amendments. (The level of control the more stringent levels specified in the Relief Valve Discharge Standard. provided by the current standard. previously proposed amendments. Sources of VC emissions covered by this 0.02 g/kg of PVC productrreduces VC However, other processors standard include discharges from relief emissions to about 1.36 Mg per year for manufacturing resins of differing grades valves on pressure vessels, transfer a model PVC plant) During the review and characteristics can only marginally lines, and other equipment in EDC/VC of the standard, no technology was comply .with the original standard. and PVC plants. The standard is based identified that would provide additional Because of the wide variation in resin on emission control by a combination of VC reductions beyond the level of the grades and characteristics, it cannot be equipment and process modifications, current standard. Therefore, the EPA is concluded that even though a particular and operational procedures, found in not investigating further the control of resin made by one company can meet a plants during development of the reactor openings. Combined Sources After Resin particular level, any other resin or similar resins produced by another standard. An exact combination of modifications and operational Stripping. The sources of VC emissions company could also meet that level. procedures was not specified. Instead, a covered under the current standard Furthermore, in some cases these performance standard (i.e., an emission ABD00315731 1186 Federal Register / VoL SO. No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules standard) was established because it was believed that different combinations could be equally effective in controlling relief valve discharges. The current format of the standard prohibits all relief valve discharges except emergency discharges. Emergency discharges are described as those which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge (i.e~ those that are "nonpreventable"). Since the standard was promulgated, all plants have experienced some releases. Many of these releases are considered preventable by the EPA. Based on visits to plants with good compliance histories, the EPA concluded that a level of performance reflecting compliance with the current format of the standard through the combined effects of equipment process modifications and operational procedures remains reasonable, during the review, no technological level of control was found that would provide for a more stringent*' standard. Therefore, the standard is still considered to reflect the appropriate level of control for these sources. However, as discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the standard by setting limits for relief ^ valve discharges in a different format Administrative Aspects of the Standard. Even though the EPA decided not to revise the level of control' associated with the current VC standard, the EPA identified revisions to several administrative aspects of the standard. These revisions as well as those identified above, are discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the preamble. (3) Review ofSources Not Previously Covered This subsection discusses the status of VC sources not covered by the current standard that were identified in the review study. For these sources, the EPA assessed whether a Federal standard was warranted. The EPA's assessment of these sources was based primarily on a quantitative analysis of VC emissions from these sources combined with a qualitative analysis of risks associated with exposure to VC from these sources. The EPA considers these analyses to be adequate in place . of a thorough quantitative risk assessment for purposes of determining whether a Federal standard is warranted for these sources. Because these sources are already relatively well-controlled and the quantity of VC emission, and consequently, the risks associated with exposure to VC from these sources, are small in comparison to sources covered by the VC standard, unnecessary and that the current level the EPA concluded that none of the of control resulting from the EPA's additional sources identified in the standard and OSHA's standard is still review study warrant a Federal reasonable. standard. Landfills. Off-specification resins Miscellaneous Sources of VC containing VC has been taken to Emissions. Miscellaneous sources are landfills where the gaseous VC can be ( plants other than PVC and EDC/VC released. However, the current EPA plants that use VC as a raw material or standard intends that ail resins, produce VC as an intermediate or by including off-specification resins, be product The EPA has identified four stripped to reduce the VC emissions such plants, two of these plants produce from sources downstream from the 1.1.1-trichloroethane. one produces stripper. In order to clarify that stripping , >, perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene requirements also apply to the off- OfS- "> and the fourth plant produces pesticides. specification resins before removal of \jc (An additional '1.1.1-trichloroethane unit landfills, these requirements are being was constructed at a fourth location but "y restated to explidfy address off- has reportedly never operated. There specification resins. The EPA believes are no plans to operate in the furture.) that the level of control resulting from Review of VC emission sources at the the stripping requirements is reasonable: identified plants showed them to be well , thus. VC emission requirements for controlled. Emissions of VC from these ' ' landfills are not being proposed today. plants are primarily from fugitive However, the EPA recognizes that VC sources and range from less than 1-Mg/ may be emitted from hazardous waste yr to 14 Mg/yr per plant In general, the landfills and is evaluating and may VC NESHAP requirements for process regulate under the Resource vents and equipment in VC service are Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) being met at the miscellaneous sources volatile emissions (including VC) from due to company policy considerations ' landfills at hazardous waste disposal and State and local regulatory requirements. In addition, many of the facilities. The EPA also recognizes that VC has been detected in municipal '- equipment components in VC service landfills. Therefore, in addition to would be covered by standards of assessing VC emissions from hazardous performance for new sources and waste disposal facilities, a (RCRA) standards for. sources in nonattainment Subtitle D TASK FORCE has been areas. Based on the investigation of formed which will assess all these sources, the EPA concluded that environmental releases including air ' they are already relatively well- emissions from Subtitle O facilities (a controlled and do not contribute . category which includes municipal significantly to VC exposure. For these landfills). reasons, additional requirements for miscellaneous sources of VC are aot Administrative Revisions being proposed at this time. As discussed in the Findings and PVC Fabrication Plants. There are Conclusions of the Review Study section about 8,000 fabrication plants which of this preamble, the EPA identified take the resin produced by PVC plants several administrative revisions that are and fashion it into intermediate or final appropriate as a result of the review products. Emissions from these plants study. The rationale for the proposed are estimated to be about 0.0035 Mg/yr administrative revisions is presented in per plant In comparison to VC this section of the preamble. These production plants (which typically emit revisions include: (1) Reformatting the about 92 Mg/yr). PVC fabrication plants emission limit for relief valve are small emitters of VC. If standards discharges. (2) providing a compliance I were developed for this category they test procedure and a specific emission would not result in reduced emissions limit for operators who strip in the because the best control for these plants reactors. (3) specifying requirements for is to reduce the VC levels in the resins leak detection and repair program for being processed by the fabricators. equipment components in VC service, Resin stripping beyond the level that and (4) miscellaneous revisions. '- process economics would dictate is already being done as a result of the Relief Valve Discharges EPA's current standard and OSHA's VC Background. The current format of the standard, based on the EPA's standard for relief valve discharges assessment of these sources, the EPA concluded that they do not contribute allows only "emergency" discharges (i.e.. discharges that could not be significantly to VC exposure. Therefore, avoided by taking preventive measures). the EPA believes that the evaluation of The standard applies to all pressure controls for PVC fabrication plants is . relief devices on pressure vessels. ABD00315732 Federal Register / Voi. 50. No. 9 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules H87 transfer lines, and other equipment in of decreased discharges over the hardware and operational procedures EDC/VC and PVC plants.The control. compliance period. Following an initial implemented by each of the plants along techniques considered as the basis of drop in relief valve discharges after the with the attitudes adopted toward the standard involve a combination of standard went into effect' the frequency preventing relief valve discharges equipment modifications, process and quantity of relief valve discharges - represent the types of control measures modifications, and operational ' '. by EDC/VC plants have decreased * - that the standard intended. In particular, procedures. An exact combination of ; slightly or remained relatively constant the EPA concluded that the low modifications and operational General Basis forNumerical Limits. frequency of discharges by the visited procedures was not specified In the In selecting the proposed numerical current standard; rather, a performance _ limits. EPA first evaluated in detail the plants was indicative of their degree of effort to prevent relief valve discharges. standard [Le^an emission standard) - recent performance (1981 to 1983) of five Consistent with the goal of this was established because different PVC plants and one EDC/VC plant ' proposed revision, the EPA decided that combinations of the modifications and These plants were chosen based onprocedures were expected to be equally discussions with EPA Regional Office an alternative numerical emission limit based on performance resulting under effective in controlling relief valve - personnel and industry and were - the current standard could be revised in discharges. . ______ . intended to represent plants with good ' a format that would be easier to 7 . Based on 6 years of enforcement and . relief valve discharge records, in ' understand by enforcement and industry compliance experience, the CPA has : general the EPA's evaluation of these ~ personnel ~.7.!> .7 77. - concluded that the relief discharge : - plants indicates that each has adopted The EPA Investigated two basic ways standard has resulted in: (l) Significant the combination of equipment of expressing relief valve discharge reductions in the frequency and quantity . operational procedures and attitude *1' performance for PVC plants. One format of VC discharges from relief valves. (2) toward prevention of relief discharges ~y_ is based on mass emissions, for ..... significant use of agency resources to intended by the current standard, and 7 example, the pounds of VC discharged evaluate individual discharges for : r that their resulting performance is "7:7 ` per million pounds of PVC produced (lb preventability, and (3) uncertainty orv consistent with compliance with the 7 VC/MM lb PVC). Based on a review of the part of producers regarding whether current standard. The EPA's evaluation' ' methods used by industry to determine - they comply with the standard. -7 r found that a few discharges may .' the amount ofVC discharged from relief . Additionally, the CPA learned some of continue to occur from some plants that \ valves, the EPA-was unable to identify a VC and PVC believe that this part of the comply with the standard. This' sufficiently accurate method for.*-- current standard applies only to - observation Is consistent with the "7. 7 measuring discharge quantities from discharges through safety relief valves expectation held by the EPA when the'1.'.! relief valves. At present, producers are j and that discharges through other " standard was wTittenL",; >7:7 7 required only to estimate discharge , pressure relief devices, such as rupture In order to revise, the standard in '.7.'. quantities for reporting purposes. - disks or manual or automatic vent terms of numerical limits representing Demonstration of compliance with a lb valves, are not covered. This 7 . . compliance with the current format of VC/MM lb PVC limit would require . - - interpretation is not compatible with the the standard, this evaluation separated producers to measure the amount of VC intent behind the current standard. To PVC and EDC/VC plants. For plants, discharged during an incident Because provide more efficient enforcement by relief valve discharge performance data . a suitable measurement method was not decreasing the burden of individual . were further separated by source . identified, the EPA decided not to - - preventability assessments on the CPA. , (reactor vs. nonreactor) and by resin 7 redefine relief valve discharge . and to provide a better understanding to . type The EPA then- reviewed the ; performance by PVC plants in a lb VC/ . plant operators of the goal of the performance of 25 additional PVC plants MM lb PVC format standard, the EPA is proposing to and 12 additional EDC/VC plants. The - Another format is based on the reformat the standard for relief valve EPA reviewed this large set of plants to frequency (i.e., number per unit time) of - discharges and to define the emission ensure that the level of performance discharge from occurrences. No method points covered by this standard to demonstrated by the evaluated plants for measuring the amount of VC include appropriately all pressure relief could be achieved by all PVC and EDC/ discharged from relief valves is needed devices. As discussed more completely - VC plants. . because only the occurrence of a release in the following sections, the EPA is The numerical limits presented in the is required for this format The proposing to change the format of the Findings section of this preamble are occurrence of a discharge can be - numerical limits in the standard to based on an evaluation of the number of determined by monitoring process reflect the number of discharges that discharges representing the parameters as well as inspecting relief occur from those plants complying with demonstrated performance level - valve performance reports. Thus, of the the format of the current standard. associated with compliance with the . two basis ways of expressing relief The EPA found in the review study provisions of the existing standard. valve performance that were that efforts by all EDC/VC and PVC Format for Numerical Limits. "The - considered, the EPA selected a format producers to comply with the standard EPA visited the five PVC plants based on the frequency of discharges. are reflected in their preformance (in evaluated in detaiL As expected, the Based on this decision, the EPA then terms of size and frequency of EPA found differences in the considered how the format would be discharges) since the standard went into combinations of hardware and applied to PVC and EDC/VC plants. At effect In general, a reduction in the operational procedures associated with PVC plants, the frequency of discharges reported frequency and size of relief control of relief valve discharges of each from polymerization reactors and valve discharges by PVC producers has of the plants. Furthermore, no exact occurred since 1978. A further decrease relationship was found between the associated process equipment may be related to the fact that a batch process is in relief valve discharges by the PVC effectiveness of specific hardware items used to produce most types ofPVC For industry occurred between 1980 and and operational procedures and *" batch PVC production processes, the 1981. Performance by the EDC/VC prevention of discharges. In the EPA's opportunity for discharges is related ta _ industry exhibited a less marked trend judgment, the various combinations of the number of times a new ABD00315733 1188________ Federal Register / VoL 50, No, 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules polymerization batch is initiated production of suspension and bulk period. Recent performance suggests Expressing relief valve discharge resins indicates that reactor discharge that preventable discharges have been performance for these plants with a frequency generally is either less than eliminated at this plant With the discharge-per-batch format accounts for 0.035 discharges/100 batches or ia much exception of a potential emergency variations among plants in the number greater. (Recent reactor discharge . . discharge occurrence, future discharges of batches produced The EPA selected frequencies for suspension resin plants at this plant are not anticipated. 100 polymerization batches as a convenient basis for expressing relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants with batch production processes in a discharge frequency format Further, the EPA noted that the ability - of batch PVC producers to limit the discharge frequency may be different for reactor and nonreactor discharges and .. that reactor discharges may vary by resin-type at any plant Consequently, ' relief valve discharges by individual PVC plants (except for continuous - -. solution process plants) were classified according to type of discharge (i.e- .. reactor vs. nooreactor) 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" r related to some extent to the frequency " of batch polymerization operations, the 1 relief valve discharge performance by nonreactor sources in PVC plants with batch production processes was also examined on the basis of number of T';;' with poorer performance levels ranged between 0.059 and 0.101 discharges/100 batches.] Further examination of relief valve discharge performance by suspension resin producers indicates that only one plant experienced more than 4 discharges per year during the period from 1981 to 1983. Performance . by this plant also exceeded 0.035 discharges/10Qbatches. : - The reactor discharge frequency ' ., associated with dispersion and latex production is typically zero. However, for a typical dispersion or latex resin process with a low.production rate (Le,, number of polymerization batches per year), a single emergency reactor .. . discharge in a given year would be equivalent to a discharge frequency^ about 0.035 discharges/100 batches. 1.... Nonreactor Discharges. Nonreactor ' ~ discharge frequencies by PVC plants J.. . typically were either less than 0.025 . discharges/100 batches or were much ". greater. (Recent nonreactor discharge'"/^ frequencies reflecting poorer - ' performance than the 0.025 level ranged EDC/VC Discharges. During the review study, the EPA evaluated performance by one EDC/VC plant in detail This plant experienced about four discharges that could be considered emergencies. Recent (1981 to 1983) relief valve discharge performance data for other EDC/VC producers indicates an industry range of 0 to 7 discharges/yr. Information obtained from plants during the review indicated that where applicable, similar types of equipment process modifications and operational procedures used to control relief valve discharges from PVC plants also are ~ used at EDC/VC pants. The EPA ' examined discharges by the EDC/VC ; producers who exceeded four discharges in one or more years since 1981 and found that one or more of the discharges at each plant were > preventable. Elimination of the -' preventable discharges would allow ; each of these plants to reduce their : annual discharge frequency to four or - -- fewer. -~ discharges/100 batches. ' ` *" between 0.046 and 0.225 discharges/100 Summary ofNumerical Limits. Based Unlike the batch process used to ' -batches.) Furthermore.'with the ' ` ' on the study of current relief valve produce other PVC resin types, the - exception of two producers, no more discharge performance by PVC and solution PVC process is continuous. : than three discharges per year were EDC/VC plants, the EPA is proposing Thus relief valve discharge performance reported from nonreactor sources in that the following numerical limits for for the solution PVC process cannot be PVC plants during the period from 1981 relief valve discharges be added to the expressed on a frequency per batch ' to 1983. . standard. Each discharge causing an basis. Instead, the relief valve discharge Each of the five PVC plants that the exceedence of any numerical limit performance associated with the EPA evaluated in detail was among presented below wodd be considered a solution production process can only be those achieving 0.035 discharges/100 violation without regard to whether any expressed in terms of the total number batches or less in each of the reactor individual discharge was preventable. of discharges (reactor and nooreactor) discharge categories and 0.025 " - per year. . Similarly, the EDC/VC production discharges/100 batches or less in the nonreactor discharge category. The EPA Category Numerical Brm . process is not a batch process, but is ' continuous. Thus, relief valve discharge performance by EDC/VC plants also ' examined individual discharge incidents for the PVC producers whose recent performance has exceeded 0.035 ' (1) ObcnarQM from PVC plants (suspansfon. dinar* on. lam bulk pcocawt) (a) flaacurs cannot be expressed on a frequency per discharges/100 batches in one or more batch basis. Moreover, the EPA was - - of the reactor discharge categories or unable to detect a direct relationship who exceeded 0.025 discharges/100 between discharge frequency and VC batches and 3 discharges per year from ' production at EDC/VC plants. Thus, the . nonreactor sources. In every case, the EPA decided to define releif valve EPA identified one or more discharges discharge performance for EDC/VC ' . that were preventable. Elimination of --UMOsnsioft raain proo- 0.035 -- dbcnarget/lOO asa. betchee. not exeeeomg 4 tfscnargaa/y*. Piperrwo min proe- 0.035 dschargesnOO aa (Including lata* betcnes. IWRL " --biik raain 0A3S ' *<Sscbafgas/tQQ parmat- (8) Nonraactor aourcaa __ 0.025 - tfacftwgat/lOO batcnee. not mending 3 plants on the basis of a total number of annual discharges. Findings. PVC Reactor Discharges. . Suspension resins account for the highest percentage of total PVC these preventable discharges indicates that these producers should have achieved discharge frequencies comparable to the five PVC plants that the EPA evaluated in detail. (2) Discharges from PVC plants (sduoon and otnar eornnuous processes). (31 Otscftargee from EOC/VC piano. dnftargaa/yr. t discftarge/yr. 4 dteftarges/yr. production. The remaining PVC / Solution PVC Process. Discharge production is in the form of bulk, frequency from both reactor and Compliance Provisions. The EPA dispersion and solution resins. (A small . nonreactor sources by the single plant recognizes that all plants may amount of latex resin is produced by a producing PVC by the solution process experience an unavoidable relief valve process closely related to the dispersion was zero during the period 1981 to 1983. discharge incident at some time. process.) Examination of relief valve Previously, this plant experienced as Examination of relief valve discharge discharge performance associated with many as two discharges in a 12-month performance by PVC plants with low ABD00315734 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1169 discharge frequencies.indicated that "polymerization batch" consists of each operating history, relief valve discharge plants with the lowest polymerization sequence of charging VC and other performance by certain plants is batch frequencies typically experience - materials to the reactor, heating reactor, expected to be much better than the about one discharge in a 12-month - contents, polymerization of reactor respective limits. For example., some period. The CPA concluded that for most contents, and removal (i.e., blowdown) new suspension resin PVC plants plants a 12-month reporting period of reactor contents. Any batch that is produce about 5.000 batches during a (rolling every 6-months) was both - aborted following charging of VC to the 12-month compliance period. One and suitable and appropriate for determining reactor is nonetheless counted as a two discharges at one of these plants compliance with the proposed numerical polymerization batch in assessing limits. For plants producing only a small compliance. For PVC plants producing during a compliance period would result in a discharge performance of 0.02 and amount of a particular resin (Le., low . bulk resin, a single "polymerization 0.05 discharges per 100 batches, number of polymerization batches), an < batch" includes both prepolymerization respectively. The second discharge apparent violation of the standard may and postpolymerization reactor _ ~ during the compliance period would be result from a single discharge , operations* -- - a violation of the proposed 0.035 occurrence during a 12-month. - v,. Discharge frequency can be recorded compliance period as described below.. in two ways. Discharge frequency can discharges per 100 batches limit despite the fact that the first discharge would .. For a PVG plant producing a single -- be recorded on the basis of discharge . result in performance well below the resin type to meet die numerical limit for events (involving discharges from one or limit These types of plants were reactor discharges (i.e- 0.035 more relief valves) or on individual considered in selecting the proposed discharges/100 batches), it must ' relief valve discharges. In most cases, limits and reporting procedures for relief experience and average of no more than plants currently report discharges valve discharges. The result that plants one discharge per 2.858 polymerization . individually when they occur from relief - of this type must perform well below the batches over the preceding 12-month ... valves on separate equipment However, limits in the standard in order to be in period. An average reactor discharge .. . certain equipment such as . - compliance is consistent with the frequency exceeding one discharge per . polymerization reactors that are proposed limits, which were selected to- 2.858 batches would be a violation of the equipped with multiple relief valves may represent an upper boundary on the standard. However, if the plant made . ^. experience discharges simultaneously , number of allowable discharges less than 2.858 polymerization batches from more than one relief valve. Most ^ intended by the standard. The EPA ; over the 12-month compliance period, a plants currently report such multiple . -: expects that plants using the best ' single discharge occurrence would be an discharges from a single piece of technology and procedures should be . . apparent violation of.the standard (i.e.,` , equipment as a single discharge. Thus. - i; able to perform better than the proposed the discharge frequency per 100 batches the performance levels serving as the -"limits. : would exceed 0'035). Because basis far the numerical limits represent . - Reporting Requirements. The current insufficient batches were mede. the individual discharges and not multiple - standard for relief valve discharges reported discharge frequency per 100 discharge events except when they requires producers to report discharges batches would not correctly reflect the occur from a single piece of equipment within 10 days of the incident The EPA performance by that plant in comparison For determining compliance with the is proposing to eliminate the 10 day to other plants complying with the j ; numerical limits, discharge frequency is reporting requirements and to require standard. In rectifying the undue ''` to be recorded.on the basis of individual reporting of all discharges on a quarterly compliance burden posed on plants with discharges except when simultaneous basis. Although compliance is to be small numbers of batches by the ` discharges occur from relief valves on ' determined on a semiannual basis, discharge/100 batch format and the . ' the same piece of equipment i; ^ quarterly reporting of discharges is ' selected 12-month compliance period, the EPA is proposing to add additional ~ A relief valve discharge in considered appropriate because* violations of the to be any venting through a pressure standard may occur well before the end provisions affecting the number of batches used to calculate the discharge frequency. For PVC plants producing less than 2,858 batches ofa particular resin, the minimum number of 2.658 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 - of the 6-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 batches will be used when determining not a relief valve discharge results in corrective actions can take place sooner compliance with the numerical limits. PVC plants producing more than one resin type must demonstrate compliance separately for reactor discharges occurring from different resin production processes. Only the relief valve discharges and polymerization batches specific to each resin type are emissions to the atmosphere, the following the end of the compliance controlling factor is the ultimate > period-information to be includedjn'.the disposition of the gases. Venting to a ^ (^semiannual report.for individual relief manifold or header system that valve discharges is to be'reduced to ultimately discharges to the atomsphere . include only the date, time, source, constitutes a relief valve discharge. If cause and estimated amount of each the manifold or header discharges gases discharge occurrence. The semiannual through a control device meeting the 10 report will also inlcude information on considered for determining compliance. However, for determining compliance with the standard for nonreactor ppmv VC emission limit the venting does not constitute a relief valve discharge. compliance status. In addition, plants will now be required to maintain relief valve discharges, the total number of polymerization batches (regardless of resin type) are counted. ti- .To determine the number of polymerization batches produced for - For purposes of reporting compliance status with the limits, plants will be required to calculate their discharge per batch frequencies with sufficient precision to demonstrate that discharge records for 3 years, because of the potentially significant increase in the - time period between a discharge occurrence and reporting of the discharge. _ ". purposes of assessing compliance, the performance is either equal to. below of Effective Date ofRevision. The following guidelines apply. A in excess of the limits. Based on current standard as written will remain ABD00315735 1190________ Federal Register / Vol, 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules in effect for relief valve discharges until the proposed revisions are promulgated. The proposed administrative revisions do not change the standard's original intent and are intended only to set limits to facilitate compliance and _________-- enforcement efforts. Thus, the current standard will continue to be enforced until the revisions are promulgated. . Stripping-in-ReactorCompliance Test Procedure - The test method for measuring reactor opening losses was developed for resin stripping operations that take place in ~ vessels separate from the reactor. Some PVC plants, including all bulk resin . manufacturers, however, do not use separate strippers to remove residual VC from the resin produced. Instead, these plants strip VC from the product ' resin in the reactor (postpolymerization reactor in the case of bulk resin ... producers!. For plants with reactor resin stripping operations, the concentration ofVC in the reactor vapor space, as measured in accordance with the V current standard exceeds the O.Q2g/kg of PVC requirement The high , ^........ concentrations result form VC monomer diffusing from the resin into the vapor. .. space during the period following completion of the stripping operation . (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 46583. October 21.1976), any VC escaping from the resin after it has been stripped to acceptable levels is not intended to be countedas part of the reactor opening loss. However, the . current standard did not include in the . measurement method an acceptable method for- determining what part of the VC in the vapor space has escaped from "the resin after stripping is completed. The current standard allows bulk resin producers to calculate reactor opening loss emissions from the postpolymerization reactor based on the number of reactor evacuations, the vacuum invloved and die volume of gas in the reactors. For nonbulk resin producers with reactor resin stripping operations, calculation of reactor opening loss emissions is more complicated due to the presence of water vapor in the reactor vapor space. Currently, waivers of testing for producers with nonbulk resin stripping operations in the reactor have been granted on a case-by-case basis by the EPA Regions, typically with the provision that residual VC samples are anlayzed on each batch. A variety of - calculation methods are then used to effectiveness ofleak detection and establish the reactor opening loss. repair programs. Some plants Based on experience of the EPA implemented rigorous programs and Regional offices, a method for others implemented programs lacking determining the reactor opening loss specific procedures or requirements. that accounts for stripping in the reactor has been developed for use by all nonbulk resin producers with reactor ... resin stripping operations and is included in die proposed revisions to the current VC standard. Limitations for resin residual and reactor opening loss are added together to give a total allowable VC content from these two sources. The measured resin residual VC and the calculated reactor opening loss would then be added together, and averaged over a 24-hour period ' according to resin type. If the 24-hour average meets the combined standard, the plant would be considered to be in . compliance with both the stripping and Accordingly, the effectiveness of leak detection and elimination programs varies among the plants. Since the current standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained more information pertaining to the control of emission from equipment leaks. Based on this information and the review of the leak detection and elimination plans being implemented to control emissions of VC the EPA decided to specify leak detection and . repair requirements for certain , equipment components in VC service. Although information obtained from development of other standards the reactor opehing loss requirements. indicates that a routine leak detection Leak Detection and Repair > and repair program with a portable _ . ` monitor can be an effective emission ... Background. The current standard reduction technique without the . " -- ' requires implementation of a formalized requirement of a fixed point monitoring program for detection of leaks from system, the EPA concluded that fixed- .. equipment in VC service and - point monitoring systems already in elimination of these leaks. The ' place have uses that justify their formalized program includes a '-* retention in the current standard. In multipoint VC detector and a portable particular, fixed-point monitors allow' volatile organic compound (VOC) - - for quick detection of certain large VC analyzer. The fixed-point monitoring leaks that might otherwise go system continuously monitors VC undetected until the next routine concentrations in the work area around portable monitor screening. The EPA equipment in VC service and sounds an ' recognizes that existing fixed-point alarm when concentrations exceed a monitoring plans will need to be : ' prescribed level. The portable monitor is reviewed in light of the leak detection used independently to screen individual and repair requirements being specified equipment components for leaks. Rather than specifying the number of points to be monitored, the sensitivities of the multipoint detector, the VC concentration that indicates a leak, and the actions to be taken to repair leaks, the current standard requires each plant owner or operator to prepare a program plan containing these specifications and to submit the plan to the EPA for . approval. Plant owners or operators are required to submit data on background concentrations of VC in different areas of the plant to use in determining the VC concentration that should be designated at this time*. The complexity of existing fixed-point monitoring plans, in terms of number and distribution of monitoring points, varies greatly among plants. Consequently, some plant owners or operators may want to alter the number of points that are monitored and the distribution of monitoring locations to better complement the specified portable monitoring requirements. Such changes to existing fixed-point monitoring plans will be allowed providing they do not alter the plant's ability to detect large VC leaks. as indicating a leak. Plans, therefore, The proposed revisions are primarily were tailored by each plant and intended to standardize control of VC reviewed by the the EPA Regional - emissions from equipment leaks. In Offices. _ doing this, the EPA is concerned that - The EPA found in the review study existing effective plans not be that differences in leak detection and inappropriately changed. The proposed elimination programs exist among PVC revisions include provisions that allow and EDC/VC production plants and plants with existing effective plans to miscellaneous sources and that site- periodically demonstrate the specific differences include variations in effectiveness of their plans without leak definitions and monitoring additional requirements. Accordingly, practices. The definition and monitoring the EPA requests comments from , practices, along with repair practices, industry representatives concerning the are primary influences 6n the control specific effects of specifying leak ABDQ0315J36 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 0 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1191 ft detection and repair requirements on effective existing plans. Leak Detection and Repair Requirements. The EPA established leak detection and repair requirements (40 CFR Part 81 Subpart V) for certain equipment in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service on June 8. 1984. These requirements were established in conjunction with the final standard for benzene equipment leaks. The requirements of Subpart V generally apply to pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator vessels. These requirements reflect the level of control that the EPA considers reasonable for equipment covered by developing .standards for VHAP. The EPA is therefore proposing to add VC to the list of substances covered by Subpart V. Subpart V would substantively affect only valves and flanges in VC service within this industry. All other equipment in VC service are already required by the VC standard to comply with equipment and work practice standards consistent with those in Subpart V. For example, 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 current VC standard (40 CFR 61.65(b)(8)(ii)), and therefore, Jhe current standard is being revised to reflect this change. However, process units within VC and PVC plants in which the percentage of leaking valves is equal to or less than 2.0 percerft 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 2.0 percent or less. Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is found to exceed ZO percent will be required to comply with the provisions of Subpart V. The Subpart V requirements for valves are based on a leak detection and repair program that requires (1) monthly monitoring for valves in gas/ vapor and light liquid service. (2) an initial attempt at repairing these valves within 5 days after detection of a leak. (3) repair of leaking valves within 15 days after detection of the leak unless repair would require a process unit shutdown, and (4) repair of valves during the next process unit shutdown after repair is delayed until a process unit shutdown. Valves found not to leak for 2 successive months can be monitored quarterly until leaks axe detected. Monitoring of equipment to - detect leaks is conducted in accordance with Method 21 and a leak is defined as a measured organic concentration equal to or greater than 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppvm).' For a complete description of the leak detection and repair requirements, see Subpart V (49 FR 23498. June 6.1984). In addition. Subpart V contains standards for other types of equipment (e.g flanges, and open ended valves or lines). Standards for flanges include monitoring with a portable instrument under prescribed procedures within 5 days of observing evidence of a potential leak by visual, audible or other means. Open-ended valves or lines are required to be capped, blinded or fitted with a second valve. These provisions are not expected to significantly affect producers with these types of equipment in VC service. The equipment and procedures employed as normal practice hy these producers or as a result of the current VC standard are expected generally to ensure compliance with Subpart V. Pressure ReliefDevices. The EPA proposed and promulgated the work practices, equipment design and operational standards in the current standard before explicit legal authority existed in Section 112. These requirements are found in 81.65(b). In August of 1977. Congress amended Section 112 to allow the use of these requirements. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires that an emission standard (i.e., a performance standard) be established for control of a hazardous air pollutant unless, in the judgment of the EPA. it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce such a standard. An emission standard allows for some flexibility in complying with the standard, since any control technique that'achieves that standard may be applied. Section 112(e)(2) defines the following conditions under which it is not feadible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard: (1) If the pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant or (2) if the application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations. Section 112(e)(1) allows that if an emission standard is not feasible to prescribe or endorce. then the EPA may istead promulgate a design, equipment . work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof. The EPA has reviewed the design, equipment work practice and operational requirements contained in the current VC standard. The only sources covered by the current standard with one of the requirements for which a performance standard (i.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 the other sources, the EPA is reinstating those requirements as set forth in the current standard. The EPA selected the use of rupture disks as the basis for the current standard for pressure relief devices. When the integrity of ruptures disks is maintained, equipment leaks through the relief device are eliminated. Rupture disks normally maintain their integrity unless an overpressure occurs. After the. occurrence of an overpressure, replacement of the rupture disk once again eliminates equipment leaks of VC through the pressure relief device. For emission control techniques that eliminate equipment leaks, such as the use of rupture disks, a "no detectable emissions" limit is feasible. An instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv) above a background concentration based on Reference Method 21 can be used to indicate whether equipment leaks have been eliminated! that is. that the equipment has "no detectable emissions." The "no detectable emission" limit would not apply to discharges through the pressure relief device during overpressure relief. (These releases are covered under $ 81.64(a) and 61.65(a).) The standard would specify, however, that the relief device be returned to a state of "no detectable emissions"" within 5 days after such a discharge. The standard would further require an annual test to verify the "no detectable emissions" status of the pressure relief devices and a test after each over ABD00315737 1192 Federal Register / VoL 50. No, 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules pressure relief. This administrative change implements the basis of this - the 3-hour averaging period is intended to clarify that the 10 ppmv standard carried oat in two separate vessels. The reaction is initiated in the - standard consistent with the applies to VC emissions in all exhaust "prepolymerization" reactor and the requirements of Section 112(e). gas streams covered by the 10 ppmv reactor contents are then transferred to Miscellaneous Revisions '' ' :T requirements, including any control device bypass streams. Requirements the "postpolymerization" reactor where the reaction is completed. Stripping of Based on discussions with the EPA for calculating the VC content in residual VC in bulk resin is performed regional personnel regarding their . ! bypassed emissions for purposes of following the pdstpolymeri2ation step in experience in administering the current reporting VC emissions in excess of the the reactor vessel. The -- VC standard, the EPA is proposing 10 ppmv standard are being added to postpolymerization reactor generally ia several additional administrative the regulation. The EPA may use these opened after every batch and must - revisions that would facilitate . .. .. .. calculations along with continuous comply with die reactor opening less compliance and enforcement efforts .. emission monitoring results as limits specified in the standard. Because associated with the current standard. ... indications of ooncompliance if they - the prepolymerization reactor is opened These revisions represent minor changes show clearly that emissions in excess of less frequently and because to the standard. A brief description of the 10 ppmv requirements occurred. determination of gross product (for * - these administrative revisions and the basis foe making them follows. .. .. . Definition ofLeak. Exhaust Gas and Relief Valve Discharge. Functional ... definitions of "leak", "exhaust gas" and "relief valve discharge" are being added to the standard to darify the * - -applicability of the standard to each of these types of VC emissions. During f' ` their review of enforcement and compliance experience since the * standard was promulgated, the E>A . :r discovered several cases ofconfusion . over the intended meaning of 'leak", j Lf. "exhaust gas" and "relief valve ~ v-"' : discharge." These three distinct . categories of VC emissions are being defined in the revised standard to provide compliance and industry personnel with a clear understanding of which part of the standard applies to : . any given discharge of VC emissions to The second clarifying revision to the . 10 ppmv standard involves the specification that the 10 ppmv ~ ,, requirements apply to each exhaust gas stream from the covered equipment The purpose of this revision is to clearly prohibit plants from using dilution with . other exhaust gas streams as a technique for meeting the 10 ppmv - . requirement This revision is not intended to prohibit the common - - practice of combining two or more . exhaust gas streams in a common -'V _v' header leading to a control device. -' ^ - According to the revised 10 ppmv requirements, combining an exhaust gas stream containing more than 10 ppmv VC with another exhaust gas stream 1, containing less than 10 ppmv VC is . . allowed only when the combined stream is ducted to the control device. reactor opening loss estimation) is difficult the EPA has allowed plants to meet the equipment opening requirements for mininimng VC - r - emissions from polymerization reactor openings. The reactor opening loss requirements are being revised at this ' time to specifically exclude .- prepolymerization reactors. Accordingly, VC emissions from all opening of prepolymerization reactors will be subject to the equipment opening requirements. This revision is intended to darify and improve the consistency of the equirements of the revised . standard as they apply to bulk PVC resin producers in light of actual ... industry practice. No reduction in VC .. emission control stringency will result from the change in requirements for prepolymerization reactors. the atomosphere. -V.. - Relief Valve Definition. The current Inprocess WastewaterRequirements Definition ofEDC and VC " standard for relief valve discharges was for GasholderSeals. Under the current Purification. In the past some plants intended to apply not only to safety standards, the VC content of inprocess have misinterprented which equipment : relief valves but to all types of pressure wastewater must be reduced to less components are included in EDC . relief devices. A definition of "relief - than 10 ppm exposure of the wastewater purification and VC purification ' -- ' valve" is being proposed under the . - ; to the atmosphere. In the case of processes with the result that emissions revised standard to darify that the ' gasholder water seals, the VC content in from certain equipment intended to be - current relief valve discharge standard the exposed water seal may exceed 10 " covered by the standard may not have - also applied to rupture discs, manual. ppm during normal operation of the been controlled. The definitions of "EDC vents and other pressure relief devices . gasholder. Experience since the '. purification" and "VC purification" are that vent to the atmosphere to protect standard was promulgated indicates - being revised to clarify that all . -- process equipment from unsafe that compliance with the atmospheric purification equipment following EDC - overpressure conditions. The definition and VC formation were subject to of relief valve in the proposed standard exposure limit is not practicable for this particular inprocess wastewater source. - regulation under the current standard. - is not intended to indude pressure Consequently, the definition of 10 ppmv Standard. Two clarifying - control valves used to control flow to. an inprocess wastewater is being revised to revisions are being made to the 10 ppmv incinerator or other control device. . exdude the exposed water seal of regulations to improve understanding of However, the current relief valve gasholders. The inprocess wastewater the applicability of this part of the discharge standard did cover emissions stripping requirements will continue to standard. First although the test method from pressure control valves. Also not - apply to wastewater after removal from for determining compliance with the 10 included in the definition of relief valve the gasholder seaL . ...... ppmv standard specifies that the average results from three 1-Jjour are pressure control systems such as polymerization reaction shortstop Elimination of30-Day Limit on - Equivalency Requests. The current sampling runs be used, this 3-hour averaging period is not specified in the 10 ppmv requirements. Specifying that systems or refrigerated water systems .. standard specifies a 30>day.limit for which act to reduce pressure by means existing sources to submit requests for other than venting. .......... use of equivalent methods. Because such emissions may not exceed 10 ppmv over . Reactor Opening Loss Requirements a limit poses a restriction on initiative a 3-hour averaging period clarifies that for dulk PVC Resin Producers. Bulk - by industry to develop alternative, and instantaneous compliance with the 10 PVC resin production differs from potentially more effective, control - ppmv standard is not an intended - production of other types of PVC resin measures, the 30-day limitation is being requirement. Moreover, specification, of in that the polymerization reaction is* eliminated. ABD00315738 Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1193 Other. In addition to the revisions increase or decrease in the overall revisions do not increase the cost of described above, a review of the recordkeeping and reporting currently compliance with the standard. recordkeeping and reporting ... . requirements of the current standard practiced by individual plants. The EPA concluded that the current Public Hearing ... was performed to identify ways to ease recordkeeping requirements, as If requested, a public hearing will be recordkeeping and reporting burden on specified in 40 CFR 61.71. are still held to discuss the proposed revisions to plants and to identify any additional appropriate. However, the EPA is the VC standard in accordance with recordkeeping and/or reporting needs. proposing to extend the current sections 112(b)(1)(B) and 307(d)(5) of the The EPA identified two areas where the recordkeeping requirements for all Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make reporting burden on plants could be . reporting activities from 2 to 3 years. - oral presentations on the proposed reduced. The current reporting The net impact of the revised . . "revisions should contact the EPA at the requirements for residual VC monomer recordkeeping and reporting address given in the aooresses section specifications and reactor opening requirements proposed by the EPA is - . of this preamble. Oral presentations will measurements require that results of all estimated to be a decrease in a . be limited to 15 minutes each. Any compliance tests be reported in paperwork burden of about 2JS person* member of the public may file a written semiannual reports. The EPA Is , years. statement before, during, or within 30 proposing to allow plants to report only It should be noted that all days after the hearing. Written test results that show exceedences of Comprehensive Environmental statements should be addressed to the' the respective standards. If no -i Response, Compensation, and liability Central Docket Section address given in exceedences occur, plants will be - - Act (CERCLA) Section 101(14) ' the aooresses section of this preamble. required to indicate that fact in the semiannual report This type of ... exception reporting is currently allowed for demonstration of compliance with the 10 ppmv standard for process vents. The second area is the requirement to report reliefvalve discharges within 10 days of their occurrence. The EPA is ; hazardous substances such as vinyl chloride are subject to reporting requirements under Section 103(a) of CERCLA. CERCLA requires that persons in charge of vessels or facilities from which hazardous substances.have been released in quantities (RQs) immediately notify the National . -v . A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be available .for public inspection and copying during normal working hours atthe EPA's Central Docket Section in Washington. v '-D.C (see addresses section of this '* ..p. r.e..a..m.. b.l.e...)..'Vr'e*-'VrT.d':Vo; ^'rC'"i*" r proposing to allow plants to report relief Response Center (NRC) of the released.. Docket ---- valve discharge occurrences on a /.. The toll-free 24-hour telephone number quarterly basis rather than within io of the NRC is 800--424-8802 and in -- days of their occurrence. Furthermore.' Washington. D.C. metropolitan area it is the reporting requirements for relief valve discharges have been streamlined (202) 428-2875. (See CERCLA Section 103 and 48 FR 23552. May 25.1983.) ~ by dropping the need to report actioos taken and implemented preventive . measures for each discharge.'........ .. , Information on the date. time, source. cause and estimated amount of ...'. -- individual relief valve discharge will be included with the semiannual reports . along with information on compliance status. .. . .-..i.-.-. Additional semiannual reporting requirements being added for PVC producers are the number of reactor - openings and the design capacity Vinyl chloride was assigned a statutory l pound reportable quantity under Section 101(14) until adjusted by regulation, and is presently undergoing assessment for both chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Its RQ will be adjusted pending the outcome of these reviews by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Federally permitted releases under CERCLA (See CERCLA Section 101(1) and 48 FR 23552) are not subject to CERLA notification requirements or liabilities. However, releases of * hazardous substances that are not number of polymerization batches for subject to a permit or control regulation each resin type. This requirement will must be reported. provide general information to facilitate ,r-The docket is anorganized and ' complete file of all the information J." submitted to or otherwise considered, by the EPA in the development of. this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review materials [ 307(d)(7(A))). - Miscellaneous In accordance with section 117 of the Act. publication of this proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory committees. -- . independerifexperts. and Federal departments and agencies. The Administrator will welcome comments review of industry-wide compliance Regulatory Flexibility Analysis on all aspects of the proposed status during past reporting periods. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 regulation, including health, and Specific recordkeeping and reporting requires that adverse effects of ail ' economic and technological issues. requirements are included as part of the Federal regulations upon small The information collection revisions to the leak detection and ' businesses be identified. According to requirements in. this proposed rule have repair requirements. The recordkeeping the current guidelines of the Small - been submitted for approval to the requirements include preparation of an Business Administration (SBA). a small Office of Management and Budget initial log to record equipment =. business that produces or processes VC (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction component identification, physical is one that has 500 employees or less. Act of 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. tagging of equipment components which Currently, none of the existing Comments on these requirements should leak, and maintaining a record of producers or processors that are be submitted to the Office of equipment leaks and repair action. affected by the standard are estimated Information and Regulatory Affairs of Included in the reporting requirements to be small by this definition. Since none OMB. marked "Attention: Desk Officer are the number of equipment leaks and of the companies meets the SBA for EPA*', as well as to the EPA docket the repair status of leaking components. definition of small business, no described above. The final rule will Depending on the particular leak regulatory flexibility analysis is respond to any OMB or public detection and repair program in place, required. Even if an analysis were comments on the information collection these requirements may represent an - required, the proposed administrative requirements........ ABD00315739 1194_______ Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA must judge whether a regulation is "major" and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. This regulation is not major because: (1) The national annualized compliance costs, including capital charges resulting from the standards total less than S100 million: (2) the standards do not cause a major increase in prices or production costs: and (3) the standards do not cause significant adverse effects on domestic competition, employment investment productivity, innovation or competition in foreign markets. - This regulation was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included in Docket Number A-81-21. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section. West Tower - Lobby, Gallery 1. Waterside Mall. 401M Street. SW,, Washington, D.C. 2046a Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because no small entities are affected. - - List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 Air pollution control Asbestos, Beryllium. Hazardous materials, Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: Dated December 31.1984. Alvin L. Aim. . . ActingAdministrator. PART 61--[AMENDED] 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 61.61(1). (1). (o) and (p) for "In process wastewater", "in vinyl chloride service", "ethylene dichloride purification" and "vinyl chloride purification" and by adding definitions for the terms "relief value", "leak", "exhaust gas", "relief valve discharge and "3-hour period" in new paragraphs (v), (w), (x). (y) and (z). $ 61.61 Definitions. (j) "Inprocess wasterwater" means any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste * product containing vinyl chloride or -limits are prescribed in 3 61.62 (a) and polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to a wastewater (b): 5 61.63(a); 5 61.84 (a)(1), (a)(2), (b). (c) and (d); 3 91.65 (b)(l)(ii). (b)(2), (b)(5), treatment process or discharged (b](6)(ii) and (b)(9)(ii). A leak as defined untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder in paragraph (w) of this section is not an seal water is not inprocess wastewater exhaust gas. until it is removed from the gasholder. (y) "Relief valve discharge" means any nonieak discharge through a relief (1) "In vinyl chloride service" means valve. that a piece of equipment either contains (z) "3-hour period" means any three or contacts a liquid that is at least 10 consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour percent vinyl chloride by weight or a gas that is at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride as determined according to the provisions of 3 61.67(h). The provisions of 3 61.67(h) also specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service. This definition must be used in place of the definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart commencing on the hour). 3. By changing " all exhaust gases" to "each exhaust gas stream" and making other minor clarifying revisions in 61.62(a). 3 61.63(a). and 3 61.64 (a)(1). (b), (c) and (d) as follows: 3 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene dichiortdo plants. V of this part * (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride production which each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm follows ethylene dichloride formation. (average for 3-hour period or as (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" includes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation. - determined in accordance with 3 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 3 61.65(a). This requirement does not preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined steam is (v) "Relief valve" means each ducted through a control system from pressure relief device including pressure which the concentration of vinyl relief valves, rupture disks,, manual chloride in the exhaust gases does not vents and other pressure relief systems used to protect process components exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as provided in 3 61.66. This requirement from overpressure conditions. "Relief does not apply to equipment that has valve" does not include control valves been opened, is out of operation, and used to control flow to an incinerator or met the requirement in 61.65(b)(9)(i) other air pollution control device. ~ . (w) "Leak" means any of several events that indicate interruption of v before being opened, v . ^5 61.83 Emission standard for vinyl confinement of vinyl chloride within chloride plants. process equipment Leaks include events^ regulated under Subpart V of this part An owner or o, pe,,rator o, f a vinyl, such as: (1) An instrument reading of ^ chloride plant shall comply with die 10,000 ppm or greater: (2) indications of^ requirements of this section and 3 61.65 liquid dripping: (3) a sensor detection of\ (a) Vinyl chloride formation and failure of a seal system, failure of a purification: The concentration of vinyl barrier fluid system, or both: and (4) chloride in each exhaust gas stream detectable emissions as indicated by an from any equipment used in vinyl instrument reading of greater than chloride formation and/or purification is ppm above background. Leaks also i pnot to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hcui include events regulated under 8 61.65(b)(8)(i) of detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background ^ period or as determined in accordance with 3 61.67(g)(1)], except as provided in 3 61.65(a). This requirement does not concentration. Emissions of vinyl preclude combining of exhaust gas chloride not regulated under 3 61.61 (a) streams provided the combined steam is and (b); 3 61.63(a): 61.64 (a), (b). (c). ducted through a control system from (d), (e) and (f); and 3 61.65 (a) and (b)(1), which the concentration of vinyl (b)(2). (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5). (b)(0), (b)(7) chloride in the exhaust gases does not and (b)(9) shall be considered a leak. A exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as relief valve discharge is not a leak. provided in 3 61.66. This requirement (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas does not apply to equipment that has discharged directly or ultimately to the been opened, is out of operation, and atmosphere that was initially contained met the requirement in S 61.65(b)(6)(i) in or was in direct contact with the before being opened. equipment for which 10 ppm emission ABD00315740 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1195 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl. ctriorids plants. `An owner or operator.of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 9 61.65. (a) Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors: (1) The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 9 61.87(g)(1)). except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 9 61.65(a). -* r ;, . (b) Stripper. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas' stream from each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm (average fbr 3-hour ~:- period or as determined in accordance with 9 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in . 9 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 9 81.65(b](8}(i) before - - being opened. - - " : (c) Mixing, weighing, andholding containers. The concentration of vinyl - chloride in each exhaust gas stream . from each mfarfng. weighing, or holding ~ container in vinyl chloride service which precedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no stripper) in the plant V process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with V 9 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 9 61.65(a). This requirement does not .apply to equipment that has been - opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 9 61.85(b)(6)(i) before. being opened. - - - (d) Monomer recovery system. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exahust gas stream from each monomer recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 9 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 9 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been ' opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 9 61.65(b)(6](i) before being opened. ^ ^ ,, 4. By revising existing paragraphs 9 61.64(a)(2) and by removing (a)(3) as ' follows: -- 81.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. _ , An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 9 61.65. (a)Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors: '* (2) The reactor opening loss from each 7. By revising paragraph (a) to 61.65 reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl as follows: - chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) of poly vinyl chloride product except as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) , of this section, with the product 61.65 Emission standard for ethytens dlchloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants determined on a dry solids basis. This An owner or operator of an ethylene requirement does not apply to - dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or prepolymerization reactors in the bulk polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply process. This requirement does apply to with the requirements of this section. postpolymerization reactors in the bulk process, where the product means the gross product of prepolymerization and postpolymerization. * ,, .................... (a) Relief valve discharges. (1) Polyvinyl chloride plants (suspension, dispersion, latex and bulk processes). (1) Reactor. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on 5. By revising paragraph (e) polyvinyl chloride reactors in vinyl . introductory text and adding paragraph chloride service is not to exceed the (e)(3) to 9 81.64 as follows: following limits except as provided in 61.64- Emission standard for polyvinyl \ chloride plants. *. ........ paragraph (a)(l)(iii) of this section. For all reactors producing suspension resins within a PVC plant, the number of relief (e) Sources following the stripperfsj. The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripper(s) [or the reactor(s) is the plant has no stripper(s)] in the plant process flow including but- ; not limited to. centrifuges, : concentrators, blend tanks, filters. dryers,-conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inprocess wastewater, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section: * *.*..*....* valve discharges is not to exceed 0.035 : discharges per 100 polymerization ...? batches nor 4 discharges per year. For . all reactors producing dispersion and .. latex resins within a PVC plant, the number of relief valve discharges is not . to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. For all reactors including prepolymerization and - 'r. postpoiymerizatiqn reactors, producing bulk resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not . to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. . (ii) The number of discharges to the (3) The provisions of this paragraph apply at all times including when off- - atmosphere fram.reiief valves on equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride specification or other types of resins are reactors) n vinyl chloride service is not made. w - to exceed 0.025 discharges per 100 . 6. By adding paragraph (f) to 9 61.64 \ as follows: polymerization batches nor 3 discharges per year except as provided in paragarph (a)(l)(iii) of this section. 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants ** - * T (iii) The limits specified in paragraphs (a){l)(i) and (a)(l)(ii) of this section may be exceeded when only one relief valve (f) Reactor used as stripper. When a 'nonbulk resin reactor is used as a stripper this paragraph may be applied in lieu of 61.64 (a)(2) and (e)(1): discharge to the atmosphere occurs . during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period. (1) The weighted average emissions of vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper from all grades of . polyvinyl chloride resin stripped in the . reactor on each calendar day may not (2) Polyvinyl chloride plants (solution and other continuous PVC production processes). The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on all equipment in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 1 discharge per year. . exceed: ; - " (3) Ethylene dichloride and vinyl (i) 202 g/kg (0.00202 lb/lb] of polyvinyl chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on a dry ' solidsbasis. . chloride plants. The number of ----discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on equipment in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 4 discharges per year. . (ii) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 lb/lb) of ' (4) Each relief valve discharge that polyvinyl chloride product for all other contributes to a relief valve discharge polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex frequency in excess of any limit resins, with the product determined on a prescribed in paragarphs (a)(1). (a)(2) dry solids basis. and (a)(3) of this paragraph constitutes ABD00315741 1196________ Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules an individual violation of the respective limit (5) For every relief valve discharge to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source. ' the date and time of the discharge, the cause of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be submitted in writing to the Administrator as part of the reporting requirements of paragraph 3 01.70. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the Administrator for a .. minimum of 3 years. 8. By revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(8)(i). (b)(8)(iii), (b)(8)(iv) and , (b)(8)(vi) to 3 01.85 as follows: . . $61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchioride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply - with the requirements of this section. " (a) * * * ;.. . - (b) Fugitive emission sources '-v- (1) * .! - -r* (2) * * * - (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seals: (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 as provided in 61.00. 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 61.86. (ii) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride ~ service are to be minimized by Installing double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in 3 61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from, the seals are .to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 61.66. (iii) Rotatingcompressor. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating compressors in vinyl chloride (iii) It provides for an acceptable service are to be minimized by installing calibration and maintenance schedule compressors with double mechanical for the vinyl chloride monitoring system seals, or equivalent as provided in and portable hydrocarbon detector. For 3 61.66. If double mechanical seals are the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a used, vinyl chloride emissions from the daily span check is to be conducted with seals are to be minimized by a concentration of vinyl chloride equal maintaining the pressure between the to the concentration defined as a leak two seals so that any leak that occurs is according to paragraph (b)(8)(vi) of this into the compressor; by ducting any section. The calibration is to be done . vinyl chloride between the two seals with either . through a control system from which the (A) A calibration gas mixture concentration of vinyl chloride in the prepared from the gases specified in exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: - sections 5.2.1 and 5^2 of Test Method or equivalent as provided in 3 01.66. 106 and in accordance with section 7.1 (iv) Reciprocating,compressors. Vinyl of test Method 106. or chloride emissions from seals on all (B) A calibration gas cylinder reciprocating compressors in vinyl standard containing the appropriate chloride service are to be minimized by concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas . installing double outboard seals, or composition of the calibration gas . equivalent as provided in 3 61.66. If cylinder standard is to have been . double outboard seals are used, vinyl certified by the manufacturer. The chloride emissions from the seals are to manufacturer must have recommended a be minimized by maintaining the ~ - maximum shelf-life for each cylinder so pressure between the two seals so that . that the concentration does not change any leak that occurs is into the greater than 5 percent from the - compressor; by ducting any vinyl certified value. Hie date of gas cylinder - chloride between the two seals through - preparation, certified vinyl chloride - . a control system from which the : . . concentration and recommended - concentration of vinyl chloride in the maximum shelf life must have been - * exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: affixed to the cylinder before shipment or equivalent as provided in 3 61JB0 from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl from seals on all agitators in vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas chloride service are to be minimized by mixtures may be directly used to installing agitators with double prepare a chromatograph calibration mechanical seals, or equivalent as curve as.described in section 7.3 of Test provided in 3 61.66. If double Method 106. The requirements in'section mechanical seals are used, vinyl 5-2.3.1 and 5.Z3 of Test Method 106 for chloride emissions from the seals are to certification of cylinder standards and be minimized by maintaining the ' for establishment and verification of pressure between the two seals so that calibration standards are to be followed. any leak that occurs is into the agitated (iv) The location and number of points vessel: by ducting any vinyl chloride to be monitored and the frequency of between the two seals through a control monitoring provided for in the program system from which the concentration of are acceptable when they are compared vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does with the number of pieces of equipment not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as provided in 3 61.68. in vinyl chloride service and the size and physical layout of the plant - . f (8) Leak detection and elimination. (i) It includes a reliable ar.d accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system for detection of major leaks and identification of the general area of the plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system means a device which obtains air samples from one or more points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromatography or. if the owner or operator assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. *. ** (vi) It contains a definition of leak which is acceptable when compared with the background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system are to be included with the description of the program. The definition of leak for a given plant may vary among the different areas within the plant and is also to change over time as background concentrations in the plant are reduced. ABD00315742 Federal Register / Vol. SO. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1197 9. Byjevising paragraph (b)(4) to $ 61.65 as follows: - ~ - .. * determined in accordance with the following: _ $61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchioride, vinyl ehlorfde and polyvinyl chloride ptanta . * * (b) Fugitive emission sources. ~ ' *..# * - r'"- (4) Leaksfrom relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with $ 81.242--4 of Subpart V of this part ' * 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of ' $ 61.65 as follows: $ 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchioride, vinyt chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants, * - -j' *. - (b) Fugitive emission sources.'. *7~ (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 - $ 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 61.245(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. - (7) Samples. Unused portions of samples containing at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to be - (C) If a leak is detected, it shall be ' repaired in accordance with $ 81.242-7 (dj and (e) of Subpart V of this part returned to the process or destroyed in a (D) The results of the performance test control device from which the : : shall be submitted in writing to the . concentration of vinyl chloride in the Administrator in the first semiannual exhaust gas does not exceed 10 ppm. y - report following the performance test as Sampling techniques are to be such that - part of the reporting requirements of - sample containers in vinyl chloride are $6i.7a .. y . .. purged into a closed process system. (E) Any process unit in which the 11. By revising paragraphs (b)(8) introductory text (b)(8)(ii), and (b)(8)(v) to $ 61.65 as follows: ' 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene 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. -- # . dlchioride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. . (v) It contains a plan of action to be taken when a leak is detected consistent (b) Fugitive emission sources. . .. . _ * _* with Subpart V of this part 12. By revising $ 61.66 as follows: (8) Leak detection and elimination. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks $ 61.66 Equivalent equipment and procedures. 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 61.11. Approval of a program will be granted 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 by the Administrator provided he finds: ' 13. By revising paragraph (f) of $ 61.67 . (i) * * * as follows: (ii) It includes a reliable and accurate, portable hydrocarbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of $61.67 Emission testa. * Subpart V of this part An owner or (f) The owner or operator shall retain operator is exempt from $ 81.242-l(d). at the plant and make available, upon $$ 61.242-7 (a), (b) and (c). $ 61.246 and request for inspection by the $ 61.247 of Subpart V of this part for any Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, process unit in which the percentage of records of emission test results and leaking valves is demonstrated to be other data needed to' determine equal to or less than 2.0 percent, as emissions. 14. By revising paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text (g)(3)(i). and (g)(3)(iii) of $ 61.67 as follows: $61.67 Emission teats. (s)* * * (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. * *#** #'. - 15. By revising paragraph (g)(5) introductory text and adding paragraph (g)(6) to $ 61.67 as follows: _- $*61.67 Emission tests. (g)` ' ; '- - (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emission limit is prescribed in _ $ 61.64(a)(2) is to be determined. The number of reactors for which the determination is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. (6) For a reactor that is used as a stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper for which an emission limit is prescribed in $ 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 (*C) at end of strip from plant instrument ABD00315743 1198 Federal Register / VoL SO, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules (ii) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the following information is to be determined: ... . (A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water in the reactor at end of strip from the following table: HiO Rredor vacor tavmaooaorre. pfw sure ture<*C) (mm Hg) RMCtOS. vaoar tamoareUrefO wor pres sure (mm H Rrector MOOT tamoare. wa l*Q HA vacor pre*. ura (mm Hg) ' 40 SSJ 81 41 su ... 42 018 82 " 03 . 4a 044 - . 84 44 "88,3 "85 48 714 .. .. OB - 40 734 67 47 704 60 48 - *3.7 80 40 88.0 70 SO 024 - 71 SI 074 72 52 102.1 S3 107.2 74 U nasi "70 55 1184 " -'-78 SO 1234 . . 77 57 1234 70 ." se 138.1 ' so 00 148.4 81 158.4 . . 82 1834 ' 63 771.4 " . M 1794 as 1874 88 196.1 87 2054 as 2144 223.7 . 9*0 233.7 - 01 2434 - 02 2544 90 265.7 ; :** 2774 . .98 289.1 " 90 30t-4 - 97 314.1 - 90 3274 90 341.0 ' -100 355.1 380.7 3044 4004 4104 4334 450.0 468.7 407.1 906.1 329.8 540J) 967.0 5864 0104 0334 657.6 682.1 7074 7334 700.0 (B) The partial pressure (mm Hg) of vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip from the following equation: ^` PPVA-760--RV-VPW ' Where: _ PPVC=partial pressure ofvinyl chloride, in mm Hg - * --- 7B0atxnospheric pressure at 0*C in mm Hg RVsabsoiute value of reactor vacuum, tn - mm Hg : . - .. VPW=vapor pressure of water, in mm Hg (C) The reactor vapor space volume (m3) at end of strip from the following equation: . Rvsv-ac-wv- pvcw 833 where: RVSV=heactor vapor space volume, m m3 RC=>reactor capacity, in m* WV=volume of water in reactor from recipe. inm3 '. PVCW=dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg 833a typical density of polyvinyl chloride, in kg/ro* (iii) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper is to be determined using the following equation: (PPVC)(RVSV)(1.002) C{PPMVC)(10-,)+ (PVCWH273+RT) - * - where: C=g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride product ... PPMVC=concentration of vinyl chloride in resin after stripping. In ppm 10~*=converaion factor for ppm PFVC--partial pressure of vinyl chloride determined according to paragraph ~ (g)(0Kii)(B) of this section, in mm Hg . RVSVareactor vapor space volume determined according to paragraph (g)(0)(u](O of this section, in ra3 1.002=ideal gas constant in *K/mzn Hg-- . m3 for vinyl chloride - PVCW--dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg - '- . 273TMconversion factor for `C to *K RT=reactor temperature, in `C IS. By adding paragraph (h) to $ 61.67 as follows: ___ _ ' ** / ' (h)(1) Each piece of equipment within a process unit that can reasonably contain equipment in vinyl chloride service la presumed to be In vinyl chloride service unless an owner or ` operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment is not in vinyl diloride service. For a piece of equipment to be considered not in vinyl diloride service, it must be determined that the percent vinyl chloride content can be reasonably expected not to exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams and 10 percent by volume for gas streams. For purposes of determining the percent vinyl chloride content of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment, procedures that conform to the methods described in ASTM Method D-2287 (incorporated by reference as specified in 61.18) shall be used. > (2X1) An owner or operator may use engineering judgment rather than the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section to demonstrate that the percent vinyl chloride content does not exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams and 10 percent by volume for gas . streams, provided that the engineering judgment demonstrates that the vinyl chloride content clearly does not exceed 10 percent When an owner or operator and the Administrator do not agree on whether a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service, however, the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall be used to resolve the disagreement. . .. (ii) If an owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment is in vinyl chloride service, the determination can be revised only after following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section. (3) Samples used in determining the percent vinyl chloride content shall be representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts the . equipment. - 17. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to 9 61.68 as follows: 961.66 Emission monitoring. . * * #' * (d) When exhaust gas(es). having emission limits that are subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, are emitted to the atmosphere. around the control system and required vinyl chloride monitoring system, the ' vinyl chloride content of the emission shall be calculated (in units of each applicable emission limit) by best practical engineering judgment based on the discharge duration and known VC concentrations in the affected equipment as determined in accordance with 9 61.67(h) or other acceptable . method. ~ - - (e) For each 3-hour period, the vinyl chloride content of emissions subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section shall'be averaged (weighted according to the proportion of time that emissions were continuously monitored and that emissions bypassed the continuous monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under 9 61.70(c)(1). ' ; ' (f) For each vinyl chloride emission to . the atmosphere determined in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section to be in excess of the applicable emission limits, the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source(s). the date, time, and duration of the . excess emission, the cause of the ' emission, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the excess emission, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the Administrator as required by 9 61.71(a). ,, 18. By changing the title from . "Semiannual report" to "Reporting" and by revising paragraph (a) of 9 61.70 as follows: ABD00315744 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1199 61.70 Reporting. (a)(1) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall submit to the Administrator on September 15 and March 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraphs, (c). (d) and (e) of this section and on December 15 and June 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraph (e) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2). (2) In the case of an existing source that submits semiannual reports on an approved fixed schedule other than September 15 and March 15. the approved semiannual reporting schedule shall be used to report the information required in paragraphs (c). (d) and (e) of this section. In addition, the information required in paragraph (e) of this section . will be reported exactly 3 months . following the semiannual reporting JY dates, v *7 (3) The first report is to be submitted following the first full 3 month reporting ' period after the initial report is submitted. ' r-:'" 19. By revising paragraph (c)(1) of 81.70 as follows: .. . / ..... 61.70 Reporting. (c) . (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 limits in 61.62 (a) or (b). 61.63(a), or ' 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c), or (d), or during which average emissions are in excess of the emission limits specified for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted in. 81.65 (b)(i)(ii), (b)(2), (b)C5), (b)(B)(ii). or (b) (9](ii). If emissions in excess of the * emission limits are not detected, the report shall contain a statement that no excess emissions have been detected. The emissions are to be determined in accordance with 81.68(e). 20. By revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, removing paragraphs (c) (2)(iv), revising paragraph (c)(2)(iii) and revising (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi) introductory text to 61.70 as follows: 61.70 Reporting. (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 chloride content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. . (ii) * # (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 61.67(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 vinyl chloride concentration, as determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in 61.64(e). The vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (c](2)(i) and (c)(2)(H) of this section shall be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the stripper(s) that calendar day. according to the following equation: 22-lPaiMai p0tit0t+P0%M<h+...+P^ * "3^ " 3^ ; where: _ include a statement that excess ,4=24-hour average concentration of type. 7i resin in ppm (dry weight basis). Q=Totai production of type 7i resin over the 24-hour period, in kg. ,- * - - 7i=Type of resin: i=*l2. . .m where a is emissions have not been detected. . * . */ 22. By adding paragraph (c)(4)'to" 61.70 as follows: ' . . 7*. . total number of resin types produced ' ' during the 24-hour period. M=Concentration of vinyl chloride in one sample of grade G* resin, in ppm. 61.70 Reporting # _; * . (cr * - - .<*- Production of grade Gx resin represented (4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for by the sample, In kg. which stripping.in the reactor is used to Gt^Grade of resin: e.g^ G,. G* and G*. nsTotal number of grades of resin produced during the 24-hour period. ' attain the emission level prescribed in 61.64(f), the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the If no 24-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentrations in excess of the limits prescribed in. 61.64(e) are measured, the report shall state that no vinyl chloride emissions from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper. > (i) One representative sample of excess resin vinyl chloride _ polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken concentrations were measured. ~ (vi) The owner""ar operator shall retain at the source and make available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years records of all data needed to furnish the information required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section. The records are to contain the following information: (A) * * * (B) v * * ` from each.batch of each grade of resin immediately following the completion of the stripping operation, and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. The corresponding quantity of material _ processed in each stripper batch is to be recorded and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. (ii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 21. By revising paragraph (c)(3) of 81.67(g)(3). 61.70 as follows: (iii) The combined emission from 61.70 Reporting. (cr * \` reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper are to be determined for each batch ; stripped in a reactor according to the (3) The owner or operator shall * ' procedure prescribed in 61.67(g)(6). include in the report a record of any (iv) The report to the Administrator by emissions horn each reactor opening in the owner or operator is to include a excess of the emission limits prescribed record of any 24-hour average combined in 61.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be reactor opening loss and emissions from determined in accordance all sources following the reactor used as with 61.67(g)(5), except that emissions a stripper as determined in this for each reactor are to be determined. If paragraph, in excess of the limits emissions in excess of the emission prescribed in 61.64(f). The combined limits are not detected, the report shall reactor opening loss and emissions from ABD00315745 1200_________ Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 0 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules ail sources following the reactor used as a stripper associated with each batch are to be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin stripped in reactors that calendar day as follows: For each type of resin (suspension, dispersion; latex, bulk, other), the following calculation is to be performed: where N F --Y : a nd FiN n E .Pa C** Pf Cf. . Pa Cr , , Pa Ca. A fi Gi sf > , si Gi * g2 G2 + - * sQ gn rr--.. q Where: .* A--24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor-used as a N Fr-- "Y ' F,3>relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from all equipment (exduding reactors) Fi=relief valve discharge frequency per 12month period from ail equipment (exduding reactors) N total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the close of the Smooth reporting period - from all equipment (excluding reactors) Y=total number of polymerization batches of all resin types combined divided by 100 stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight basis). QaTotai production of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period, in kg. C Average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper of all : " batches of grade Q resin for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period In g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry . weight basis) (determined according to procedure prescribed in } 617(g}[&)). P= Production of grade G resin in the ` batches for which C is determined, in kg. Gi*Grade of resin; e-g^ GwC*. and Gj. . --vn=Total number of-jrades of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period. 'If no 24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all Where F,=relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from all reactors producing resing type t Nstotal number of relief valve dischargee - during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period from all reactors producing resin type t Y=* total number of polymerization batches of resin type t during the 12-month period - preceding the dose of the 6-month . reporting period divided by 100 t=resin type: dispersion (Including latex) or " bulk resin type `T'..'-- , '(2) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing suspension resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinyl chloride reactors is to be determined in two ways using the following equations: / (4) For polyvinyl chloride plants using the solution process or any other continuous production process, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all equipment types during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period. . (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinyl chloride plants, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all . equipment types during the 12-month period preceding the closeof the 6- month reporting period. (6) A polymerization batch consists of each sequence of charging VC and other materials to the reactor, heating reactor contents, polymerization of reactor contents, and removal of reactor ' sources following the reactor used a ' stripper in excess of the limits prescribed in $ 61.64(f) are determined, the report shall state that no excess vinyl chloride emissions were determined. ' . 23. By adding paragraphs (d). Je] and . (f) to | 61.70 as follows: . 61.70 Reporting. (d) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of relief valve discharges as prescribed in 61.65(a)(4). and the owner or operator shall report exceedences of the relief valve discharge frequency limits prescribed in. 3 61.65(a) to be determined as follows: (1) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing dispersion, latex or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinly chloride reactors is to be determined using the following equation.,Separate calculations are to be made for each resin type (t) as defined: contents including any incomplete sequence that is aborted after charging F,, - --; ana F* - H r VC to the reactor. For bulk resin production plants, a single "polymerization batch" includes both . prepolymerization and where F*relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from allreactors - producing suspension resin Fi =relief valve discharge frequency per 12month period from all reactors producing suspension resin N= total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the dose of the 6-month reporting period from all reactors producing suspension resin Y=total number of polymerization batches of suspension resin during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period divided by 100 (3) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing suspension, dispersion, latex, or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from all other equipment postpolymerization reactor operations. (e) The owner or operator shall include in the report the number of relief valve discharges to the atmosphere during the 3-month period preceding the report from each of the following sources: suspension resin production reactors: dispersion and latex resin production reactors: bulk resin production reactors; all nonreactor equipment in PVC plants: all equipment used in solution process and other continuous process PVC plants: and all equipment in EDC/VC plants: any other source. (f) The owner or operator shall include in the report the number of reactor openings and the design capacity of the number of polymerization batches for each type of resin in each plant during the 6-month (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) . period preceding the report. The design is to be determined in two ways using - capacity of the number of the following equations: polymerization batches may be defined ABD00315746 Federal Register / Vo!. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules initially and remain unchanged unless significant changes to the design , capacity occur. 24. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text of I 81.71 as follows: 9 81.71 Recordkeeping. (a) The owner or operator of any source, to which this subpart applies shall retain the following information at the source and make it available for . inspection by the Administrator for a . - . minimum of 3 years: - 25. By adding the words "vinyl j chloride" to the definition of the term "volatile hazardous air pollutants'* in 9 61.241 of Subpart V as follows: - .81.241 Definition*. "Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or "VHAP**meansa substance regulated under this part for which a standard for , equipment leaks of the substance has been proposed and promulgated. Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. . '' ' (Sec 112 Clean Air Act of 1978) ' ^ - (FR Doc 85-509 Filed 1-8-85: 8:45 am] enjjHo coot 1201 *