Document Qk16XV5jZEqJJxqnm2QMyGn25

f IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA CIRCUIT HO. 85-1150 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL* INC. Petitioner. v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY* et al.. Respondents. Petition for Review of an Action of the Environmental Protection Agency BRIEF FOR PETITIONER June 17* 1985 DAVID D. DONIGER Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Avenue* N.W. Suite 300 Washington* DC 20005 (202) 783-7800 Attorney for Petitioner CMA 015191 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL, Inc. Petitioner, v. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.85-1150 CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY RULE 8(c) OF THE GENERAL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT The undersigned, counsel of record for the Petitioner, certifies that the following organizations have an interest in the outcome of this case: Petitioner: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Respondent: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Lee M. Thomas, Administrator Intervenor: The Vinyl Institute, a division of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Petitioner -is relying on the intervenor to certify its members, affiliates, etc., to the Court itself. J CMA 015192 These representations are made in order that the judges of this Courtt inter alia# may evaluate possible disqualification of recusal. Respectfully submitted/ June 17, 1985 David D. Doniger \J Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Ave., N.W., Suit 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 783-7800 Attorney for Petitioner I CMA 015193 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................... iii QUESTION PRESENTED.............................................................................................. 1 BASIS FOR JURISDICTION..................................................................................... 1 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS................................................................................. 1 REFERENCES TO PARTIES AND RULINGS............................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................................. 3 A. Statutory provisions..................................................................... 3 B. Factual Background.......................................................................... 6 1. The 1976 Standards.............................................................. 7 2. The 1977 Proposed Amendments.......................................9 3. The 1985 Withdrawal of the Proposed Amendments.............................................................................. 11 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.................................................................................14 . ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................... 17 A. Section 112 Directs EPA to Consider No Factor Other Than protection of Public Health.........................18 B. The Legislative History Reinforces the Exclusive Focus of Section 112...................................................................20 C. The Case Law Confirms That Non-Health Factors May Not Be Considered Under Section 112...................... 24 D. By Limiting the Factors EPA May Consider,Congress Promotes Both Better Pollution Control and More Democratic Decisionmaking....................................................... 29 REQUEST FOR RELIEF.............................................................................................36 CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 38 CMA 015194 - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page APPENDIX A Clean Air Act 5112/ 42 U.S.C. 57412........................................ A-l National Emission Standards for Vinyl Chloride/ 40 C.F.R. Part 61/ Subpart F (1976)................................... A-3 Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standards, 42 Fed. Reg. 28154 (1977)..........A-15 Notice Withdrawing Amendments Proposed in 1977, 50 Fed. Reg. 1182 (1985)...........................................................A-21 CMA 015195 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES American Methyl Corp. v. BPA, 749 F.2d 826 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ................... ................................................................................... 28 American Petroleum Inst, v. Costle, 214 U.S. App. D.C. 358, 665 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert, denied 455 U.S. 1034 (1982)........................................................................... 4, 25 * American Textile Mfrs, Inst, v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981)77."7~.7'.T..................... .............................................. 14, 17 25 Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (1984)...................................................................... 15, 28 Environmental Defense Fund v. Train, No. 76-2045 (D.C. Cir., filed Nov. 19, 1976)............................................................. 9, 10 * Hercules, Inc, v. EPA, 194 U.S. App. D.C. 172, 398 F.2d 91 (D.C. clr\ 1978).............................................15, 25, 26 * Lead Industries Ass'n v. EPA, 208 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert, denied 449 U.S. 1042 (1980).........................................................4, 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)...................................................... 17 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, ____ U.S. App. D.C. , 655 F.2d 318 (1981), cert, denied 454 u.S. lTTT (1981)................................... 777777777777................ 28 Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Auchter, 226 U.S. App. D.C. 413, 702 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983)............ 37 Security Industry Ass*n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 104 S.Ct. 2979 (1984)........................29 * Sierra Club v. EPA, 231 U.S. App. D.C. 192, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert, denied 104 S.Ct. 3571 (1984).............................................777777777777............................. 37 Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 230 U.S. App. D.C. 179, 715 F.2d 653 (D.C. Cir. 1983)............................................................. 37 * Tennessee Valiev Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978)....................................................................................... 16, 25, 26, 30 CMA 015196 - iv - TABLE OP AUTHORITIES (Cont.) * Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976)...........................................................4, 14, 17, 26 27, 30, 31, 33, 34 Volkswagenwerk Aktlengesellschaft v. PMC, 390 U.S. 261 (1968)................................................................................................................... 29 FEDERAL STATUTES Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. $$7401-7642 1977).................. passim Section 109, 42 U.S.C. $7409...............................5, 15, 18, 23 26, 27 Section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410................................................. 5, 33 Section 111, 42 U.S.C. S7411........................................................ 26 Section 112, 42 U.S.C. $7412...............................................passim Section 302, 42 U.S.C. $7602..................... 4 Clean Water Act Section 307, 33 U.S.C. $1317........................................................ 25 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND NOTICES 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart F............................................ passim 40 Fed. Reg. 59532 (1975)....................................................6, 8, 12, 29 41 Fed. Reg. 46559 (1976)............................................................... 6, 7, 8 42 Fed. Reg. 28154 (1977)................................................. 7, 10, 11, 13 49 Fed. Reg. 46294 (1984).............................................................................. 7 50 Fed. Reg. 1182 (1985)........................................ '._____7, 11, 12, 13 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 Reprinted in Senate Comm, on Public Works A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments Of 1970 (1974)...........................................................5, 6, 20, 21, 22 23, 24, 27, 28, 34 * Cases principally relied upon are marked with an asterisk. CMA 015197 -V- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.) MISCELLANEOUS Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council on Proposed Amendments (Mar. 25, 1985)......................................................................... 11 EPA, Benzene Fugitive Emissions -- Background Information for Proposed Standards (E?A-450/3-80-032a, Nov. 1980)........................................................................................................32,33 EPA, Vinyl Chloride -- A Review of National Emission Standards (EPA-450/3-82-003. Feb. 1982)................................... 7. 32 Letter from Robert Rauch, EDF Staff Attorney, to Douglas Costle, EPA Administrator (Feb.3, 1978)............................................ 11 Letter from Robert Rauch, EDF Staff Attorney, to David Hawkins, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation (Aug. 15,1979)......................................................11 Letters from Larry Corcoran, EDF Staff Attorney, to Douglas Costle, EPA Administrator (Apr. 18, June 13, 1980)......................................................................................................11 Memorandum from R.E. McGaughy, EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group, to J. Padgett, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Jan. 5, 1984)...............................6 Memorandum from K.K. Fidler, Radian Corp., to file, "Survey of Control Technology Used on Oxychlorination Vents at EDC/VC Plants" (Aug. 31, 1984).......................................... 32 New York Times, March 29, 1985............................................................... 12 Statement of W.C. Holbrook, B.F. Goodrich Co., representing the Vinyl Institute, at the meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) on Aug. 30, 1984)...............................................................................................33 W. Rodgers, Environmental Law (West Pub. Co., 1984 Supplement)...................................... ...._...................................... 34, 35 Washington Post. June 8, 1985, p. D-l............................................... 31 CMA 015198 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Environmental Protection Agency, despite the exclusive mandate of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act to protect public health with an ample margin of safety, may impose costbenefit or technological feasibility tests on proposed standards for hazardous air pollutants. Similar issues are involved in two other proceedings pending before the Court regarding regulation of hazardous air pollutants: Natural Resources Defense Council v, Thomas, Nos. 84-1387 et al. (benzene), and Environmental Defense Fund v, Thomas, Nos. 84-1524 et al., Natural Resources Defense Council v. Thomas, Nos. 85-1123 et al., and American Mining Congress v. EPA, Nos. 85-1285 et al. (radionuclides). BASIS FOR JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction to review this action pursuant to Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 57607 (b)(1) (1982) . STATUTES AND REGULATIONS The relevant statutory and regulatory provisions are set forth in Appendix A. REFERENCES TO PARTIES AND RULINGS Petitioner seeks review of a final action of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency withdrawing proposed amendments to the national emission standards for the CMA 015199 2 hazardous air pollutant vinyl chloride. The proposed amendments which were withdrawn by this action were the product of a settlement agreement reached in Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, No. 76-2045 (D.C. Cir., filed Nov. 19, 1976, settled and dismissed June 24, 1977). This notice withdrawing the proposed amendments was published on January 9, 1985, at 50 Fed. Reg. 1182. The vinyl chloride standard, the proposed amendments thereto, and the notice of withdrawal of the proposed amendment, are reprinted in Appendix A. Intervenor Vinyl Institute is not identified in the caption. CMA 015200 -3- STATEMENT OF THE CASE In January 1985 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice withdrawing a set of amendments originally, proposed in 1977 to strengthen the national emission standards for the cancer-causing air pollutant vinyl chloride. In withdrawing the proposed amendments EPA violated the law by employing cost-benefit and technological feasibility tests that are prohibited by the Clean Air Act. Section 112(b)(1)(B) of the Act# 42 U.S.C. 57412(b)(1)(B) (1982)/ instructs EPA to establish standards for each hazardous air pollutant at the level that "provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health." This clear and exclusive mandate for protection of public health forbids EPA from importing cost-benefit or technological feasibility tests into standard-setting under Section 112. Because EPA violated the mandate of Section 112/ the withdrawal of the proposed amendments should be vacated and the proceeding remanded to the agency. A. Statutory Provisions Section 112/ enacted with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970/^/ provides for highly protective federal regulation of the most toxic air pollutants. The statute defines a "hazardous air pollutant" as any substance which in the judgment of the Administrator causes/ or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in U 84 Stat. 1676. CMA 015201 serious irreversible/ or incapacitating reversible/ illness. Section 112(a)(1)/ 42 U.S.C. S7412 (a) (1) .-2/ Substances capable of causing seriousr usually fatal diseases such as cancer obviously qualify as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA Administrator is directed to keep an up-to-date list of such pollutants. Section 112(b)(1)(A). Within 180 days of listing a hazardous air pollutant/ the Administrator must propose national emission standards for it*2/ Within a further 180 days, unless he finds that the substance "clearly is not" a hazardous pollutant, the Administrator must issue final standards. Section 112(b)(1)(B), 42 O.S.C. 57412(b) (1) (B) . The last sentence of Section 112(b)(1)(B) is the central statutory provision at issue in this case. It states: "The Administrator shall establish any such standard at the level which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to 2/ Except where otherwise indicated, citations henceforth are to the 1982 edition of the United States Code. 3/ An "emission standard" is defined in section 302(k) of the Act as "a requirement established by . . . the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis. . . 42 O.S.C. 7602 (k) . Section 112(e)(1) also allows EPA to set a "design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard" if it is "not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard." This infeasibility condition is specifically limited by Section 112(e)(2) to three narrow circumstances: (1) where the pollutant cannot be ducted through a centralized smokestack, control device, or other conveyance, (2) where use of such a centralized conveyance would conflict with other legal requirements, or (3) were measuring (as distinguished from controlling) emission rates, quantities, or concentrations is not technologically or economically practicable. 42 O.S.C. 57412(e)(1), (2). CMA 015202 5 protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutant." Like other sections of the Clean Air Act construed by this Court and the Supreme Court,/ this sentence speaks exclusively of protecting public health. It makes no other factor relevant to setting standards. It precludes the Administrator from grafting cost-benefit or technological feasibility tests onto standard setting under Section 112. This legislative choice was deliberate. Congress explicitly considered and accepted the possibility that in order to prot ct public health, some facilities emitting hazardous air pollutants might have to be closed. As stated in floor debate by Senator Muskie (the chief sponsor and floor manager of the bill, chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, and later chairman of the Senate conferees): "The committee was presented with strong evidence that any level of emissions of certain pollutants may produce adverse effects that cannot be tolerated. ".5/ And as stated in the summary of the final legislation presented by Muskie in post conference committee debate: y See Lead Industries Ass'n v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert, denied 449 U.S. 1042 (1980), and American Petroleum Inst. v. Costle; 665 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert, denied 455 D.S. 1034 (1982) (the "adequate margin of safety" requirement in Section 109(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 57409 (b)(1), precludes cost-benefit or technological feasibility tests in setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards). See also Onion Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (Section 110(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. S7410<a)(2), precludes such tests in reviewing State Implementation Plans). Cong. Rec. S16091 (daily ed.. Sept. 21, 1970), reprinted in 1 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 227 (Senate Comm, on Public Works, 1974) (hereinafter cited as "Leg. Hist."). CHA 015203 6 The standards must be set to provide an ample margin of safety to protect the public health. This could mean, effectively, that a plant would be required to close because of the absence of control techniques. It could include emission standards which allowed for no measurable emissions..^/ B. Factual Background Vin^l chloride, or "VC," is a gaseous synthetic chemical used to manufacture polyvinyl chloride plastics. In 1974, vinyl chloride was discovered to be a potent human carcinogen. When the 1976 standard was set, vinyl chloride was known to cause an otherwise extremely rare form of liver cancer. This cancer, known as angiosarcoma of the liver, is always fatal.-2/ The danger from vinyl chloride is now known to be even greater, as more recent studies have demonstrated that VC also causes brain cancer and may cause cancers of the lung and other organs as well. As stated by a senior scientist in EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group: "[W]e now know that vinyl chloride has the potential of causing cancer at more sites than we knew about in 1975, but a numerical estimate of the increased risk cannot be made. "./ Summary of the Provision of Conference Agreement on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, Exhibit 1 to Statement of Sen. Muskie, Cong. Bee. S20601 (daily ed., Dec. 18, 1970), 1 Leg. Hist. 133. y See 40 Fed. Reg. 59532-33; 41 Fed. Reg. 46560. & Memorandum from R.E. McGaughy, EPA Carcinogen Assessment Gro to J. Padgett, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality PI? ng and Standards (Jan. 5, 1984) at p. 1 (Record, B-27). CMA 015204 - 7- EPA has consistently recogniz d that no safe level of exposure to vinyl chloride can be identified. As stated in the January 1985 notice: "T]here is no known threshold level of effects for VC. ".2/ Vinyl chloride gas is manufactured from chemical raw materials at 17 plants (known as "EDC/VC plants") located in four states. It is transformed into polyvinyl chloride plastic resins at 39 plants (known as "PVC" plants") located in 18 states In 1975 EPA estimated that more than 4.6 million people lived within five miles of the then-operating plantsJti/ Since then, the number of facilities and the annual production capacity of VC and PVC, as well as the population in the urban and industrialized areas where these facilities are located, have continued to grow.^2/ 1. The 1976 Standards In 1975 EPA designated vinyl chloride a hazardous air pollutant.Al/ The agency proposed, and a year later promulgat d, standards covering VC releases from emission points in the EDC/VC 2/ 50 Fed. Reg. 1183 (1985) (col. 1) . See also. 42 Fed. Reg. 28154 (col. 2) (1977) (proposed amendments); 40 Fed. Reg. 5953233 (1976) (original proposal). See generally. 49 Fed. Reg. 46294 (1984) (carcinogen risk assessment guidelines). *^2/ EPA, Vinyl Chloride - A Review of National Emission Standards (EPA-450/3-82-003, Feb. 1982) at 2-9 through 2-11 (Record, A-25) . The term "EDC/VC plant" comes frojn the acronym for the principal raw material, ethylene dichloride. ii/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59533 (col. 1). i2/ EPA, Vinyl Chloride Review, supra note 8, at 2-11. -^2/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59532 (1975). CHrt 015205 8** - and PVC plantsThe standards, however, did not measure up to the statutory "ample margin of safety" test. Rather, they were developed with technological and economic factors explicitly in mind. As noted above, EFA recognizes that there is no known safe level of exposure to vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride, therefore, presented precisely the situation envisioned in the summary of the conference committee agreement, where compliance with the statutory "ample margin of safety" test required setting "emission standards which allowed for no measurable emissions." But EFA declined to do this. In lieu of the statutory criterion, EFA substituted a new test: that the standards should --/ Id. & 41 Fed. Reg. 46559 (1976), codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart F. The major requirements"of the standards set in 1976 were: *-- (1) A prohibition on all preventable discharges of vinyl chloride to the air from the pressure relief valves on the large, pressurized reaction vessels (called "reactors") used for transforming vinyl chloride gas into polyvinyl chloride plastic resins. 40 C.F.R. 561.65(a); (2) A limit of 10 parts per million (ppm) on the concentration of vinyl chloride allowed in emissions from vents on the reactors and other specified types of equipment. Id. 5561.62(a), 61.63(a), 61.64(a)(1) & (b)-(d), 61.65(b)(5) & (6); (3) Limits on the amount of vinyl chloride allowed to escape when reactors or other vessels are opened (e.g., in order to remove newly-made PVC) . Id. 5561.62(b), 61.64(a)(2), (e)(2). These limits are expresse`3-in terms of grams of VC permitted to escape per kilogram of product; (4) A program of inspecting and repairing leaks in the thousands of valves, pumps, compressors, and other equipment found in an EDC/VC or PVC plant. id.. 561.65 (b); and (5) Limits on the concentration of vinyl chloride allowed to remain in freshly manufactured pvc plastic resins. id.. 561.64(e) (requirements for "stripping" residual VC gas from the resins). CMA 015206 only require "emission reduction to the lowest level achievable by the use of the best available control technology." Before a control measure would be deemed "available," EPA imposed on itself the obligation of finding (1) that the control was already in use in the chemical industry and (2) that it would not impose costs the agency believed were "grossly disproportionate to the emission reduction achieved."-^/ The standards were limited to control measures that passed these "availability" and cost screens .!/ Even after compliance with the standards, millions of pounds of vinyl chloride gas still escape into the air from these facilities each year. The population surrounding the plants remains exposed to a cancer-causing air pollutant with no safe level. The public, still is not protected with an ample margin of safety. 2. The 1977 Proposed Amendments Upon the promulgation of the standards, the Environmental Defense Fund filed suit in this Court.12/ The case was not litigated, however, because the parties reached a settlement 15/ 40 Fed. Reg. at 59534. iS/ See, e.g., the notice of proposal's explanation of the basis for the 10 ppm limit on VC emissions from reactors and other equipment, 40 Fed. Reg. 59536 (col. 2) ("In EPA's judgment, an outlet concentration of 10 ppm represents the best available control technology for these sources . . ."). See also the explanation of the relaxed limit for the oxychlorination reactor, id. (col.3} (Cost of incinerating gas stream from these reactors "would be grossly disproportionate to the emission reduction achieved"). 12/ Environmental Defense Fund v. Train, No. 76-2045 (D.C. Cir., filed Nov. 19, 1976). CMA 015207 10 agreement under which EPA obligat d itself to propose regulatory amendments to strengthen the standards in specific ways .12/ The contemplated amendments were proposed on June 2, 1977 .12/ The notice of proposal restated the conclusion that vinyl chloride has no known threshold of effect and endangers public health at any level of exposure. Thus, it continued, in order to protect public health as intended by the Clean Air Act, EPA was establishing a "zero emissions goal. "12/ The Agency stated: In order to insure that the standard continues to approach the only level of emissions which is known to be absolutely protective of health, namely zero emissions, EPA is proposing amendments which require more efficient use of existing control technology at existing plants, and which encourage technology to reach this goal without banning vinyl chloride .1=/ The proposal included four major amendments to lower the missions allowed by the 1976 standards.12/ it also stated that 12/ .Id.. (settled and dismissed, June 24, 1977). 12/ 42 Fed. Reg. 28154 (1977). / 12/ Id. (col. 2). li/ Id. (col. 3). 12/ The following changes were proposed: (1) Lowering from 10 ppm to 5 ppm the limit on VC concentration in emissions from vents on reactors, etc. The proposed 5 ppm limit would take effect immediately for new sources and within three years for existing sources. Proposed 40 C.F.R. SS61.62(a), 61.63(a), 61.64 (a)-(d) , 61.65(c), 42 Fed. Reg. 28157-58; (2) For new oxychlorination reactors, eliminating the special 0.2 g/kg limit and requiring them to meet the 5 ppm limit. Proposed 40 C.F.R. 961.62(b), 42 Fed. Reg. 28157 (col. (footnote continued) CMA 015208 11 within three years of the promulgation of these amendments, EPA would begin a study to review information on control developments "to determine what further changes might then be appropriate to m ve toward the goal of zero vinyl chloride emissions."-2/ 3. The 1985 Withdrawal of the Proposed Amendments Despite repeated requests that EPA act ,14/ the amendments were never promulgated. More than seven years later, in the action here under review, EPA reneged on the substance of the s ttlement agreement and withdrew the proposal.11/ 2}. This could be accomplished, EPA found, by incinerating the exhaust, using oxygen, rather than air, as a feedstock. Id. at 28155 (cols. 1-2); (3) For new PVC resins -- resins not previously made at a facility -- cutting the vinyl chloride concentrations allowed to remain in freshly manufactured resins to one fourth the levels allowed by the 1976 standard. Proposed 40 C.F.R. 561.64(e), 42 Fed. Reg. 28158; and (4) Requiring new vinyl chloride emissions to be offset by emission reductions at an existing plant when a new VC source is built within 5 miles of an existing one. Proposed 40 C.F.R. 61.73, 42 Fed. Reg. 28159. 12/ 42 Fed. Reg. 28156 (col. 2). 14/ In the years following the proposal, the Environmental Defense Fund repeatedly urged EPA to promulgate the amendments. See, e.g., letters from Robert Rauch, EDF Staff Attorney, to Douglas Costie, EPA Administrator (Feb. 3, 1978) (Record, D-91); Rauch to David Hawkins, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation (Aug. 15, 1979) (Record, D-95); Larry Corcoran, EDF Staff Attorney, to Costle (Apr. 18, June 13, 1980) (Record, D-99, 100). 11/ 50 Fed. Reg. 1182 (Jan. 9, 1985). The January 1985 notice had two parts. First, it contained a final action withdrawing the 1977 proposal. The January notice also contained new proposals to change the 1976 standards; the effect of these changes is to weaken the 1976 standards' prohibition on preventable discharges from PVC reactors and other equipment, as well as their requirements for controlling leaks and for reporting of releases to EPA and the states. See Comments of Natural Resources Defens Council (Mar. 25, 1985). See also, (footnote continued) CMA 015209 12 The January 1985 notice first sets forth, in even starker terms than before, a strict cost-benefit test for standards under Section 112. The cost-benefit test is stated most explicitly in the notice's characterization of EPA's actions in 1976. It states: "The current [1976] VC standard was established based on judgments concerning the costs and benefits of the standard to society, f Not only does the January 1985 notice abandon the 1977 proposal, it even drops the minimum requirement for use of "best available control technology" articulated in the 1976 standard and states an even more demanding technological feasibility test. In 1976 EPA had stated that "best available control technology" would include measures in use elsewhere in the chemical industry, so long as they were "generally adaptable" to EDC/VC or PVC plants .12/ In 1977 EPA had gone a step further by proposing to require the industry to improve the performance of existing control devices to levels that could reasonably be expected given a firm regulatory requirement and appropriate "E.P.A. Proposes Allowing Emissions of Cancer-Causing Substance," New York Times, Mar. 29, 1985, p. ___ (An EPA official stated: "there will definitely be more vinyl chloride in the air and we will be able to take much fewer enforcement actions. . . . [T]h effect is a loosening of the regulations."). This case challenges the final action withdrawing the 1977 proposal. This case does not involve the EPF v. EPA settlement agreement, because the agreement was technically satisfied when the 1977 proposal was issued, even though EPA finally repudiated the substance of the agreement. This case also does not involve the new proposals, since no final action has yet been taken on them. !/ id., at 1183 (col. 3). 12/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59534 (cols. 2-3) (1975). CMA 015210 13 leadtime.-H/ In the withdrawal notice, however, EPA now asserts that before an emission limit may be established, the agency must show it has already been "consistently achieved" in the past at operating EDC/VC or PVC facilities^11/ The notice then concludes that the amendments proposed in 1977 do not pass these cost-benefit and technological feasibility tests ..12/ Because the amendments are no longer considered "appropriate," the notice continues, "the June 2, 1977, proposal is withdrawn.".11/ This petition for review followed. --/ 42 Fed. Re. 28154 (col. 3) (1977). Cf. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318 (1981), cert, denied 454 U.S. 1017 (1981) (technology-forcing standards"for diesel automobiles). -11/ 50 Fed. Reg. 1184 (col. 3). 3/ Id. at 1184-85 (dismissal of proposed reduction of the 10 ppm emission limit to 5 ppm, proposed 5 ppm emission limit for oxychlorination reactor, and proposed limits on content of residual vinyl chloride in PVC resins). Id. at 1183 (col. 2). CHA 015211 14 - SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The Supreme Court and this Court have ruled that an agency charged with setting standards to protect public health from dangerous pollutants cannot engage in cost-benefit analysis or take technological or economic considerations into account unless the statute expressly so provides. American Textile Mfrs. Ass'n v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981); Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Lead Industries Ass*n v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980)/ cert, denied 449 U.S. 1042 1980). Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and its legislative history demonstrate a specific and unqualified intention that the only factor which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may consider when setting standards for hazardous air pollutants is protection of public health. Section 112(b)(1)(B) states that these standards must be set at the level which "provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health." These words may not reasonably be read to make any factor other than health protection relevant to standard setting. They preclude EPA from compromising public health protection by employing cost-benefit and technological.feasibility tests in standard setting. The legislative history demonstrates unequivocally that Congress understood some pollutants may cause death or serious illness at any level of exposure. For such pollutants the legislative history shows Congress specifically intended EPA to set standards that will protect persons from illness, or death even if that requires prohibiting emissions. Congress explicitly mandated such standards even if they cause facilities to close. CMA 015212 15 Interpreting the contemporaneous and closely parallel "adequate margin of safety" test in Section 109 of the Act/ this Court has ruled that EPA may base standards on no factor other than protection of public health. Technological or economic feasibility may not be considered. Lead Industries Ass'n. supra. This Court reached the identical conclusion interpreting the "ample margin of safety" test as used in both Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. Hercules, Inc, v. EPA. 598 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1978). EPA is likely to argue that its contrary construction of Section 112 should be deferred to by this Court. But no deference is due if the statute and legislative history show that the intention of Congress is specific and clear. Chevron, P.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (1984). EPA asserts that Congress did not discuss how the Agency should regulate a pollutant which is hazardous to health at any level. This is flatly wrong. In this situation Congress specifically directed EPA to set standards which allow no measurable emissions. EPA reaches the opposite conclusion/ that it may employ cost-benefit and technological feasibility tests under Section 112/ only by disavowing the traditional tools of statutory construction and reasoning backwards from its view of appropriate public policy. In its view/ to preclude the agency from employing these tests would be unwise. Substituting its view of appropriate policy for that of Congress/ EPA has seen fit to employ these tests anyway. But under our system of gov rnment/ CMA 015213 16 only Congress can change the law. TVA v. Hill. 437 U.S. 153 (1978); Lead Industries Ass'n, supra. Because EFA has violated the mandate of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act to set standards for vinyl chloride that protect the public health with an ample margin of safety, the January 1985 withdrawal of the amendments to the standards proposed in 1977 must be vacated. In view of the hazard to public health, ! EPA's eight-year delay in taking action, and the 180-day statutory deadline for promulgating proposed standards, this Court should remand the proceedings to EPA with instructions to complete further rulemaking in accordance with law within 180 days of the issuance of the Court's mandate. CMA 015214 17 ARGUMENT The Supreme Court has held: "When Congress has intended that an agency engage in cost-benefit analysis, it has clearly indicated such intent on the face of the statute." American Textile Mfrs. Inst, v. Donovan. 452 U.S. 490, 510 (1981). Likewise, construing the Clean Air Act itself, the Supreme Court stated: "Where Congress intended the Administrator to be concerned about economic and technological infeasibility, it expressly so provided." Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 257 n.5 (1976). And as this Court stated when it ruled that the closely parallel "adequate margin of safety" requirement in Section 109 of the Clean Air Act precludes considerations of technological or economic feasibility: [W]hen Congress directs an agency to consider only certain factors in reaching an administrative decision, the agency is not free to trespass beyond the bounds of its statutory authority by taking other factors into account. ... A policy choice such as this is one which only Congress, not the courts and not the EPA, can make. Lead Industries Ass'n v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert, denied 449 U.S. 1042 (1980) J&2/ No provision for applying cost-benefit or technological feasibility tes~ts can be found on the face of Section 112 or in its legislative history. To the contrary, the statutory text and the legislative history affirmatively show that no factor other cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (A rule is "arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider. . . ."). CMA 015215 - 18 - than protection of public health is to affect the Administrator's decisionmaking when regulating hazardous air pollutants. A. Section 112 Directs EPA to Consider No Factor Other Than Protection of Public Health Section 112(b) (1) (B) directs EPA to set each hazardous air pollutant emission standard "at the level which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutant." The exclusive focus of these words on protection of health is clear on their face. There is no word or phrase in this sentence which can reasonably be read to authorize EPA to qualify public health protection by considering economic or technological factors. The "ample margin of safety" requirement is conteraporaneous with and closely parallel to the "adequate margin of safety" test in Section 109(b) (1) .12/ That provision requires EPA to set health-based "primary national ambient air quality standards" at - the level which is "requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety." After reviewing the "adequate margin of safety" requirement and its legislative history, this Court concluded: We are unable to discern here an congressional intent to require, or even permit, the Administrator to consider economic or technological factors in promulgating air quality standards. Lead Industries Ass'n. supra. 647 F.2d at 1150. If there is any difference between the "ample margin of safety" and "adequate 12/ 42 D.S.C. 57409(b)(1). CHrt 015216 - 19 margin of safety" tests, it is that an even greater concern for protection of public health is mandated by Section 112. The exclusive health focus intended for standards set under Section 112(b)(1)(B) is further emphasized by the remainder of Section 112. First, the term "hazardous air pollutant" itself is defined in words admitting of no other concern: A substance causing or contributing to air pollution "which may reasonably b anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness." Section 112(a)(1). Second, the statute provides only one basis on which EFA may decline to set national emission standards: If it determines that the pollutant, after all, "clearly is not a hazardous air pollutant." Section 112(b)(1)(B). That inquiry is obviously limited to the public health protection factors relevant under the definition of a hazardous air pollutant quoted above. Third, the statute specifically provides for limited consideration of economic and technological factors in the application of the standards to particular existing sources. Under Section 112(c)1)(A)(i), all new sources must comply with hazardous air pollutant standards from the moment they commence operating. Under Section 112(c)(1)(A)(ii), however, the Administrator may grant an existing source a waiver permitting up to two years of operation out of compliance with thi hazardous air pollutant standard if he finds that such period is necessary for the installation of controls and that steps will be taken during the period of the waiver to CMA 015217 20 assure that the health of persons will be protected from imminent endangerment. Since Congress has explicitly limited consideration of technological or economic factors to existing sources only, and has explicitly limited the period of such waivers to a maximum of two years, there is no room for contending that EPA may give broader consideration to these factors in standard-setting itself JS/ B. The Legislative History Reinforces the Exclusive Health Focus of Section 112 The legislative history shows a specific, unqualified congressional intent that when developing hazardous air pollutant standards EPA should consider only what is required to protect public health and no other factor. Section 112 originated in 1970 in Section 115 of the Senate bill.^/ Section 115(b) defined a hazardous air pollution agent in essentially identical terms as the final law - as a substance </ Additional evidence that technological and economic factors may not be considered under Section 112 is found in the extreme care with which the term "feasible," as found in the 1977 amendments authorizing design or work practice standards, is defined. Under Section 112(e)(1), such a standard is permitted nly if an emission standard (a standard directly limiting emission rates) is "not feasible." Under Section 112(e)(2), an emission standard is not feasible only (1) if it is technically impossible to convey the pollution through a centralized smokestack or vent, (2) if doing so would violate another law, or 43) if it is technologically or economically impracticable to measure (as opposed to control) the emissions in question. See i note 3, supra. The care Congress took to limit the relevant considerations in this use of the term "feasible" underscores the limitation on considering economic or technological feasibility of controls when setting standards under Section 112(b)(1)(B). S. 4358, $115, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) (as reported by the Senate Committee on Public Works), reprinted at 1 Leq. Hist. 565-69. -------- CMA 015218 21 - whose presence/ chronically or intermittently/ in trace concentrations in the ambient air/ either alone or in combination with other agents, will cause/ or contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible damage to health. The bill then required EPA^Ji/ to set standards protecting public h alth and considering no other factor. Under Section 115(a)(2)/ within 180 days of listing such a pollutant, EFA was required to publish "a proposed prohibition of emissions of each such agent or combination of agents from any stationary source" (emphasis added). Within six months thereafter EPA was required to promulgate the prohibition, unless he found either (a) that the pollutant in fact was "not hazardous to the health of persons," or (b) "that a departure from such prohibition . . .will not be hazardous to the health of persons" (i.e., that the pollutant had a threshold below which it could be safely breathed). If the Agency made either of these findings, it was required to set mission limits in lieu of the prohibition.-22/ The prohibition is/ The Senate and House bills, and the committee reports, actually referred to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who, until the creation of EPA by executive reorganization later in 1970, was responsible for implementing federal air pollution control laws. For convenience, we refer to EPA as the implementing agency in discussing these bills and repor ts. 22/ if EPA found, under subparagraph (A), that the pollutant was not hazardous, then Section 115(a)(3) directed the Agency to set standards under Section 114 or the bill, which provided for standards for "selected agents" causing other, less severe, health effects. These standards, applicable to both new and existing sources, also were required to protect public health, although their effective date could be postponed for up to two years after promulgation. See 1 Leg. Hist. 560-65. If EPA found, under subparagraph (b), that a departure from (footnote continued) CMA 015219 22 (or emission standards in the case these findings were made) became effective for both new and existing sources immediately on promulgation. Section 115(a)(6). Describing Section 115 the Senate Report stated that EPA "would be required to publish a proposed prohibition of emissions of such agents or combination of such agents from any stationary source." The Report continued that the Administrator would be required to promulgate such prohibition, unless he found on the basis of preponderance of the evidence that the air pollution agent was not, in fact, hazardous to the health of persons -- or that a greater than zero emission could be permitted without presenting a hazard to health."-sS/ Explaining these requirements to the full Senate, Senator Muskie, the Act's chief sponsor and floor manager, stated: "The committee was presented with strong evidence that any level of emissions of certain pollutants may produce adverse effects that cannot be tolerated. "-22/ It is hard to imagine a clearer intention that EPA consider health factors alone. The House bill provided for a prohibition on emissions of "extremely hazardous" air pollutants from new sources. For pollutants which substantially endanger public health, SPA was to set performance standards for new sources; in setting these a prohibition on emissions would not be hazardous, then it was required to set a standard limiting emissions to levels that were not hazardous. Section 115(a)(4). -^2/ S. Rep. No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 20 (1970), 1 Leg. Hist. 420 (hereinafter cited as "1970 Senate Report") (emphasis added). -22/ Cong. Rec. S16091 (daily ed. Sept. 21, 1970), 1 Leg, Hist. 227 CMA 015220 23 standards EPA was instructed to consider technological and economic factors. But Section 112(b)(1) of the bill stated: If such emissions are extremely hazardous to health# no new source of such emissions shall be constructed or operated, except where (and subject to such conditions as he deems necessary and appropriate) the [Administrator] makes a specific exemption with respect to such construction or operation.-2/ Bad it been enacted, of course, this language would have limited regulation of hazardous pollutants to new sources and would have allowed EPA to make specific exemptions from prohibitions, presumably on the basis of non-health considerations. But this bill was not enacted. The final legislation fashioned by the Conference Committee followed the Senate bill, explicitly rejecting the authority proposed in the House bill to make exceptions based on non-h alth factors.41/ The final legislation also followed the Senate bill ^2/ H.R. 17255, S5 (proposing new 5112(b)(1)), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) (as reported by the House Committee on Interstate and Poreign Commerce), 2 Leg. Hist. 921. It may be argued that by substituting the "ample margin of safety" test in place of the prohibition on emissions (barring findings that some emissions can be allowed without hazard), the final legislation somehow retreated from the exclusive public health focus of the Senate bill. Such an argument does not withstand analysis. As the Supreme Court has held, authority to consider cost-benefit or technological infeasibility arguments must be explicit on the face of the statute. American Textile Mfrs. Inst., supra; Onion Electric Co,, supra. And as shown above, on their face the words "ample margin of safety" cannot be read to admit of any concern other than protecting health. Moreover, the Conference Committee consciously chose to employ an anplified version of the "adequate margin of safety" test in Section 109 of the Act, which originated in the Senate bill and which was clearly intend d to preclude technological and conomic infeasibility arguments. See the legislative history of the "adequate margin of safety" test, traced in Lead Industries Ass*n, 647 F.2d at 1149-50 and quoted infra at 27-28. CMA 015221 24 - in applying these health protection requirements to existing sources as well as new ones, with only three, specifically limited modifications: (a) the allowance of a 90-day delay in the effective date of a hazardous air pollutant standard as it applies to existing source, (b) the provision for a two-year waiver of compliance for specific existing sources, and (c) the provision for presidentially-granted national security waivers. This legislative choice to exclude non-health factors from standard-setting was made most explicit by Senator Muskie, now the chairman of the Senate conferees, during Senate consideration of the final legislation. As he stated in the summary of the Conference Committee agreement presented to the Senate, the requirement to protect public health with an ample margin of safety "could mean, effectively, that a plant would be required to close because of the absence of control techniques. It could include emission standards which allowed for no measurable missions. "-3/ EPA may not void this legislative choice. C. The Case Law Confirms That Mon-Health Factors May Mot Be Considered, Dnder Section 112 As noted above, the Supreme Court has clearly held that authority for cost-benefit or technological feasibility tests ^2/ Section 112(c). See the Conference Report's description of the final legislation. B.R. Rep. Mo. 1783, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 56-57 (1970), 1 Leg. Hist. 196-97 (hereinafter cited as "1970 Conference Report"). ^2/ summary of the Provisions of Conference Agreement on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, supra n te 5. CMA 015222 25 must be explicit. American Textile Mfrs. Ass'n, supra: Union Electric Co., supra. Arguments for grafting such tests onto statutes which do not provide for them must be rejected. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill# 437 U.S. 153 (1978). This Court has thrice held that EPA has no authority to consider non-health factors under "margin of safety" tests. In Hercules, Inc, v. EPA, 598 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1978), the Court held that the "ample margin of safety" requirement in Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Actii/ (dealing with "toxic water pollutants") precludes consideration of feasibility factors. The opinion addresses Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in detail and concludes that it has the identical meaning. In Lead Industries Ass'n v. EPA. 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert, denied 449 U.S. 1042 (1980), this Court held that technological and economic factors may not be considered under the "adequate margin of safety" test of Section 109(b)(1). Accord, American Petroleum Inst, v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert, denied 455 U.S. 1034 (1982). Hercules and Lead Industries Ass*n are directly on point. In Hercules, the Court stated that Section 307(a) of the i Clean Water Act (like Section 112 of the Clean Air Act) lacks "any term commonly used to denote a feasibility consideration, e.g., feasibility, achievability, practicability, economic impact, or cost." 598 F.2d at 111. Refering to the Clean Air Act, the Court continued: M/ 33 U.S.C. $1317. CMA 015223 - 26 The legislative background explains why Congress focused on public and environmental protection rather than discharge control technology, in the setting of toxic standards. The regulatory scheme is similar to that of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, . . . which distinguish between pollutants subject to technology-based regulation under section 111, and hazardous substances, subject to health-based regulation under section 112. Recognizing that "certain pollutants" required special treatment because /of risk to health. Congress enacted section 112, dealing with hazardous pollutants, without provision for considerations of feasibility. 598 F.2d at 112. The Court then specifically cited the remarks of Senator Muskie quoted supra at 22 & 24^-^/ The Court continued: [T]he congressional selection of factors is a legislative determination that the need of the public and the environment for protection from toxic chemicals is more important than the problems of stringent regulation. Riis congressional determination is a rational responsse to the dangers presented by toxic substances. The meaning of the statute being clear, it is not this court's prerogative to impose considerations of feasibility. Id. (citing TVA v. Hill. 437 U.S. 153 (1978) and Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976)). Despite the fact that Hercules explicitly rejects the construction of Section 112 asserted by EPA in the vinyl chloride regulation, the Agency persists in following it. In Lead Industries Ass'n. this Court rejected claims that technological or economic feasibility could be considered under the "adequate margin of safety" test in Section 109. Citing the 1 Leg. Hist. 133. 227. 015224 27 rul from Union El ctric that authority to consider such factros must be explicit, the Court stated: "Section 109(b) speaks only of protecting public health .... Nothing in its language suggests that the Administrator is to consider economic or technological feasibility in setting ambient air quality standards." 647 F.2d at 1148-49. The Court then reviewed the legislative history buttressing that conclusion, noting especially the following passages from the 1970 Senate Report: The protection of public health -- as required by the national ambient air quality standards ... -- will require major action throughout the Nation. Many facilities will require major investments in new technology and new processes. Some facilities will need altered operating procedures . . . Some may be closed. In the Committee discussions, considerable concern was expressed regarding the use of the concept of technical feasibility as the basis of ambient air standards. The Committee determined that 1) the health of people is more important than the question of whether the early achievement of ambient air quality standards protective of health *is technically feasible; and, 2) the growth of pollution load in many areas, even with application of available technology, would still be deleterious to public health. The Report concluded: Therefore, the Committee determined that existing sources of pollution either should meet the standard of the law or be closed down, and in addition that new sources should be controlled to the maximum extent possible to prevent atmospheric emissions. 647 F.2d at 1149, quoting 1970 Senate Report at 2-3.45/ 45/ 1 L q. Hist. 402-03. CMA 015225 - 28 - The petitioners in that cas claim d that a requirement to consider economic and technological feasibility could be found in the Senate Report's statement that: "Margins of safety are essential to any health-related environmental standards if a reasonable degree of protection is to be provided against hazards which research has not yet identified.".42/ As quoted above, however, the Court could not discern "any congressional intent to require, or even permit, the Administrator to consider economic or technological factors in promulgating air quality standards." 647 F.2d at 1150. The Court added: [l]f there is a problem with the economic or technological feasibility of the lead standards, . . . [an affected party] must take its case to Congress, the only institution with the authority to remedy the problem. Id. (footnote omitted). EPA undoubtedly will argue that the Court should defer to its interpretation of Section 112. But no deference is due when, as here, the statutory terms and their legislative history show a clear congressional intent. "If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect." Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782, n.9 (1984). See American Methyl Corp. v. EPA, 749 F.2d 826, 833-34 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The threshold question whether congressional intention is clear is for the Court to decide; an agency cannot bootstrap its 42/ 1970 Senate Report at 10, 1 Leg. Hist. 410. CMA 015226 29 - way to deference by asking the Court to defer to its claim that the law is unclear. Deference does not even begin until the agency establishes the absence of congressional intent.^/ EPA's argument for the absence of intention rests on the assertion that "Congress never discussed the particular problem associated with apparent non-threshold pollutants" -- pollutants with no known safe levels of exposure.-12/ But this assertion is flatly wrong. The legislative history reviewed above shows that Congress clearly understood some pollutants are Intolerably hazardous at any level of exposure. In this situation. Congress determined protection of the public health with an ample margin of safety required standards permitting no measureable emissions, even if that meant pollution sources would close. See the statements of Senator Muskie, quoted at pages 22 and 24 supra. Neither statement drew the slightest qualification from any member. There is, therefore, absolutely no predicate for a deference claim. D. By Limiting the Pactors EPA May Consider, Congress Promotes Both Better Pollution Control and More Democratic Decisionmaking EPA's only remaining argument is that precluding administrative consideration of cost-benefit and technological feasibility factors is, in its view, not an appropriate public 44/ Cf. Security Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 104 S.Ct. 2979, 2983 (1984): "[D]eference is not to be a device that emasculates the significance of judicial review." See also Volkswaqenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, 390 D.S. 261, 272 (1968). 42/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59534 (col. 3) (1975) (original vinyl chloride proposal) . CMA 015227 30 policy. EPA speculates, without any attempt having been made, that the vinyl chloride industry could never meet a no measurabl emissions standard. Thus, EPA conjectures, enforcement of the law would cause the industry to close. Even though Congress contemplated just such a result when the public is exposed to a pollutant which is hazardous at any level of exposure, EPA overrides the law and substitutes a policy of cost-benefit analysis. Apart from the fundamental legal proposition that in our system of government only Congress has the authority to change the law, TVA v. Hill. 437 O.S. at 194-95; Lead Industries, 647 F.2d at 1150, there are three persuasive answers to EPA's policy argument. First, Congress does not share EPA's extraordinary technological pessimism. Unlike EPA, Congress knows better than to trust an industry's prediction of failure before an effort is ven made. Counting on American technical ingenuity to produce remarkable results if made to focus on pollution control by standards that truly protect health. Congress chose a "technology-forcing" policy. In Section 112, as in other key parts of the Clean Air Act, Congress set high targets, often in advance of current technological capabilities, precisely in order to force the development and implementation of improved controls and substitute processes and products. As the Supreme Court noted in Union Electric: [T]he 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act were a drastic remedy to what was perceived as a serious and otherwise uncheckable problem of air pollution. . . CMA 015228 31 - These requirements are of a "technologyforcing character" . . . and are expressly designed to forced regulated sources to develop pollution control devices that might at the time appear to be economically or technologically infeasible. 427 U.S. at 256-57. Where it has been implemented/ technology-forcing has paid off handsomely. Consider the case of automobile emission controls, in 1970 Congress set standards based on public health protection despite industry predictions that they could not be met. The standards were met. Consider another example, driven not by legislation but by tragedy. Just two weeks ago, DuPont announced a new process for the manufacture and use of methyl isocyanate ("MIC") -- the chemical which killed more than two thousand people in Bhopal, India, last December. MIC now can be continuously manufactured and converted into pesticides in a single closed system. There is no longer any need to make huge batches of the chemical at one plant, store them, and ship them to other plants for conversion to pesticides; there need never be more than two pounds of the substance present in the system. In a plant using this process, another Bhopal will be impossible.-/ EPA's assumption of failure cuts off the attempt to force technical innovation even before it starts. The vinyl chloride industry has never been placed in a situation where it must devote a real effort to eliminating emissions. EPA has not even Washington Post, June 8, 1985, p. D-l. (The company spokesman said: "With our new process . . . the product is manufactured in a continuous, 'close-coupled* system that produces MIC and consumes it immediately. There is n ver mor than two pounds of m thyl isocyanate present in th system.") CMA 015229 32 required the industry to mak full use of currently available controls. The Agency's own analyses contradict its official pessimism and show that vinyl chloride emissions from certain equipment already can be dramatically curbed^/ and that some emission points already can be made leak-freeEven the EPA's own background documents contradict the Agency's January 1985 withdrawal notice and show that the measures proposed in 1977 are feasible. For instance, the January notice rejects the proposed reduction in the vent emission limit from 10 ppm to 5 ppm, claiming the 5 ppm level has not been "consistently achieved." But according to EPA's principal background document: A series of incineration tests at one plant in Kentucky demonstrated VC levels consistently at 0.26 ppm or below, less than six percent of the proposed 5 ppm limit. EPA, Vinyl Chloride -- A Review of National Emission Standards, p. 4-8 (Record, A-25). A B.F. Goodrich solvent absorption system is reported to recover 99.99 percent of VC from exhaust vent streams. The Review states that the solvent is "proprietary, commercially available, inexpensive, and reported to be low in toxicity." Id. at 4-14 through 4-15. * Tenneco has developed a process of reacting VC with ozone in the presence of activated carbon which reduces VC to less than 1 ppm from streams containing between 10 and 10,000 ppm VC. Id. at 4-16 through 4-17. The January notice also dismisses the proposed requirement to incinerate exhaust from the oxychlorination vent at EDC/VC plants even though a memorandum from an EPA consultant reports that three oft the four plants already incinerate the exhaust. Memo from K.K. Fidler, Radian Corp., to file, "Survey of Control Technology Used on Oxychlorination Vents at EDC/VC Plants" (Aug. 31, 1984) (Record, B-51). 52/ An estimated 109 megagrams per year (120 tons) of vinyl chloride still leaks from the hundreds of valves and other /connections in the piping of a typical PVC plant. 50 Fed. Reg. ' 1184 (Table 1). Almost all emissions from valves could be eliminated, however, by using "sealed bellows" valves -- a commercially available design EPA has elsewhere concluded is essentially leak-free: "The main advantage of these valves is that they can be designed to withstand high temperatures and pressures so that leak-free service can be provided at operating temperatures b yond the limits of [conventionally-us d] diaphram (footnote continued) CMA 015230 33 - industry is more upbeat than EFA; as stated by the industry's representative during hearings before EPA's technical advisory committee: "Experience has shown that the industry has surpassed the expectation of the original standard in reducing vinyl chloride emissions.".3/ The second response to EPA's argument is that for a policy of technology-forcing to really work, the power to relax the health-based requirement or extend the time for achieving it must rest with Congress, not EPA. Congress recognized that to make industries take these high targets seriously and make maximum efforts to meet them, the targets could not be easily changed by EPA. Rather, the credibility and efficacy of this strategy requires the industries to understand that relaxing the requirements would be difficult because Congress must be convinced to change the law. The importance of this is recognized in the concluding comments of the Supreme Court in Onion Electric (specifically regarding the State Implementation Plan process, but equally applicable to Section 112): Allowing such claims [of economic and technological infeasibility] to be raised by appealing the Administrator's approval of an implementation plan . . . would frustrate congressional intent. It would permit a proposed plan to be struck down as infeasible before it is given a chance to work, even valves." See EPA, Benzene Fugitive Emissions -- Background Information for Proposed Standards, p. 4-19 (EPA-450/3-80-Q32a, Nov. 1980) (emphasis added). -5^/ statement of W.C. Holbrook, B.P. Goodrich Co., representing the vinyl Institute, at the meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) on Aug. 30, 1984. See NAPCTAC, Minutes of Meeting, August 29 and 30, 1984, at p. VTI-24 (O.S. EPA, Oct. 1, 1984) (Record, B-50). CMA 015231 34 - though Congress clearly contenplated that some plans would be ineasible when proposed. . . . Technology forcing is a concept somewhat new to our national experience and necessarily entails some risks. But Congress considered those risks in passing the 1970 Amendments and decided that the dangers posed by uncontrolled air pollution made them worth taking. 427 U.S. at 268-69., As the vinyl chloride rulemaking demonstrates, it is all too easy to persuade EPA not to stick to its guns. The technology-forcing strategy was short-circuited the moment EPA first allowed technological feasibility and cost- benefit tests into the picture in 1975. Yet Congress's door is open. Congress can adjust the law's requirements if, after the attenpt to comply, a compelling case is made. As Senator Huskie stated regarding the automobile industry: I think that we have an obligation to lay down the standards and requirements of this bill. I think that the industry has an obligation to try to meet them. If, in due course, it cannot, then it should come to Congress and share with Congress -- the representatives of the people -- the need to modify that policy.-=2/ As stated by a noted commentator, William Rodgers: [EPA's] tendency to resist enforcement of the law as written on grounds of social catastrophe is not unknown in environmental legal -circles. The position presupposes that a "better" policy choice or decision analysis requires a consideration of factors other than those specified legislatively. This may very well be true, but there is no reason why Congress cannot selectively allocate li/ Cong. Rec. S16093 (daily ed. Sept. 21, 1970), 1 Leo. Hist. 232. ---------------- CMA 015232 35 responsibilities or any "ideal" d cision, charging EPA with making a health-based judgment but reserving for another agency or itself choices of utilitarian override. It is important to keep in mind that a dynamic, as opposed to a static theory of legislation would view an EPA "final" order anticipating shutdown of a source under Section 112 as simply one stage of an ongoing process that gives different answers to different questions at different times27 The third response to EPA's argument follows from the second. If an industry has made the effort to eliminate its hazardous emissions, and if that effort does not succeed completely, the final decision what to do should rest with the people's elected representatives. Presented with an industry seeking relief from the requirements of Section 112, Congress can valuate, case-by-case, whether the industry tried in good faith and with sufficient effort to curb its emissions. Congress can determine, in a particular case, whether an industry should be closed in order to protect public health, or whether protection of public health should be delayed or compromised to keep the industry going. Placing this most sensitive determination in the hands of Congress, rather than EPA, promotes both greater protection of public health and greater political legitimacy for final decisions. Greater pollution control results because Congress will grant fewer exceptions from protection with an "ample margin of safety," and on stiffer terms, than will EPA. In particular instances. Congress will determine that public health concerns 22/ W. Rodgers, Environmental Law (West Pub. Co., 1984 Supplement) at 161 (footnote omitted). CMA 015233 36 take precedence ver an industry's claims, in other instances, Congress may decide the reverse. By contrast, under EPA's costbenefit and technological feasibility tests, industries' claims always take precedence over protection of public health. Greater political legitimacy results because the decisions are made by elected representatives, not by an agency bureaucracy. Both types of decisions -- to close an industry or to compromise public health protection -- are sensitive determinations with both pragmatic and moral consequences. It is precisely these decisions which in our system of government Congress best reserves, as it did in Section 112, to itself. REQUEST TOR RELIEF By employing cost-benefit and technological feasibility t sts which are proscribed by the specific mandate of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has violated law. The January 1985 withdrawal of the amendments proposed to the vinyl chloride standards in 1977 should be vacated, and the matter remanded to the Agency for further rulemaking proceedings in compliance with the law. Because of the continuing hazard to public health from vinyl chloride emissions, and because of EPA's extraordinary delay in taking action on the 1977 proposal, this Court should establish a specific deadline completion of the proceedings on remand. The 1977 proposal languished within EPA for nearly eight years despite the deadline in Section 112(b)(1)(B) of 180 days for moving from proposal to promulgation of a hazardous air pollutant CMA 015234 37 standard. Meanwhile, more than 4.6 million people living near vinyl chloride-emitting facilities have been exposed to a potent human carcinogen in violation of the law. in view of the health hazard, the statutory deadline, and the history of delay, petitioner submits that this Court should order EPA to complete the rulemaking on remand no later than 180 days after the issuance of the Court's mandate. In previous instances where EPA has coupled illegal action with long delay, this Court has issued judicial deadlines to govern action on remand. For example, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert, denied 104 S.Ct. 3571 (1984), this Court wrote: Congress thought EPA could solve all problems [to write tall stack regulations] in six months and the agency has had six years. We think it appropriate to direct EPA to promulgate new final regulations that remedy the defects this court has found within six months from the issuance of our mandate, the period originally specified by Congress. Id. at 469-7045/ 55/ See also. Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 715 F.2d 653^ 661 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (decision on strip mine regulation within 90 days); Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150,. 1158-59 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (proposal of OSHA standard required within 30 days; promulgation "expected" within one year). CMA 015235 38 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons/ the January 1985 withdrawal of the amendments to the vinyl chloride standards proposed in 1977 should be vacated/ and the proceeding should be remanded by EPA to complete rulemaking in accordance with the Clean Air Act within 180 days from the issuance of the Court's mandate. June 17/ 1985 uavio u* uuni^ei Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 300 Washington/ D.C. 20005 (202) 783-7800 CMA 015236 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 17th day of June 1985, I have served copies of the enclosed Brief for Petitioner by messenger to the respondents and counsel listed below. Mark P. Fitzsimmons, Esq. Environmental Defense Section Land and Natural Resources Division D.S. Department of Justice P.0. Box 23986 Washington, DC 20026-3986 Earl Salo, Esq. Office of General Counsel LE 132A (Air and Radiation) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Jerome A. Heckman, Esq. Peter L. de la Cruz, Esq. Keller & Heckman 1150 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Robert Brager, Esq. Gary Baise, Esq. Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 CMA 015237 APPENDIX A CMA 015238 APPENDIX A Clean Air Act S112, 42 U.S.C. 7412: National emission standards for hazardous air polio* (a) DeflnMom For purposes of this section-- (1) The term "hazardous sir pollutant" means in air pollutant to which no ambient air quality standard is applicable and which in the judgment of the Administrator causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortali* ty or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, ill* ness. (2) The term "new source" means a stationary source the construc tion or modification of which is commenced after the Administrator proposes regulations under this section establishing an emission stan dard which will be applicable to such source. (3) The terms "stationary source", "modification", "owner or opera tor** and "existing source" shall have the same meaning as such terms have under section 7411(a) of this title. (b) Uet of air poiutinta; smtesian sWnderde; pollution control tHMpni (1XA) The Administrator hH, within 90 days after December 31, 1970, pnhKnh (and from tima to time thereafter revise) a list which mrfudcs ccti hazardous air pollutant for which he rtcnri to establish an emission standard under this section. (B) Within 180 days after the inclusion of any air pollutant in inch list, the Administrator hn publish proposed regulations establishing emission standards for such pollutant together with a it*1*TM* of a public bearing with in thirty days. Not ***** then 180 days after such publication, the Adminis trator shall prescribe an --niTM*i standard for such pollutant, unless he finds, on the basis of information presented at such hearings, that such pol lutant dearly is not a air pollutant. The Administrator dull --ffctuh any such standard at the level which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air (O Any ***"" standard established pursuant to this section shall be come effective upon promulgation. (2) The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue information on pol lution control t--hwhpi-- for air pollutants subject to the provisions of this (e) Prohibited acta; exemption (1) After the effective date of any emission standard under this section-- (A) no person may construct any new source or modify any existing source which, in the Administrator's judgment, will emit an air pollu tant to which such standard applies unless the Administrator finds that such source if properly operated will not cause emissions in violation of such standard, and CMA 015239 A-2 (B) no air pollutant to which such standard applies may be -- from any stationary source in violation of such standard, except that in the case of an existing source-- CD such standard shall not apply until 90 days after its effective date, and (ID the Administrator may giant a waiver permitting such source a period of up to two years after the effective date of a standard to comply with the standard, if he finds that such period is necessary for the installation of controls and that steps will be taken during the period of the waiver to assure that the health of persons will be protected from imminent endangerment. (2) The President may exempt any stationary source from compliance with paragraph (l) for a period of not more than two years if he finds that the technology to implement such standards is not available and the opera tion of such source is required for reasons of national security. An exemp tion under this paragraph may be extended for one or more additional peri ods, each period not to exceed two years. The President shall make a report to Congress with respect to each exemption (or extension thereof) made under this paragraph. (1) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a procedure for implementing and enforcing emission standards for hazardous air pollu tants far stationary sources located in such State. If the Administrator finds the State procedure is adequate, he shall delegate to such State any authority he has under this chapter to implement and enforce such stan dards. (2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Administrator from en forcing any applicable emission standard under this section. WDmAoil aodaninL wotfc aittka. and ooMtftoMt ittndirti (1) For purposes of this section, if in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, he may instead promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, which in his judgment is adequate to protect the public health from such pollutant or pollutants with an ample margin of safety. In the evoit the Administrator promulgates a design or equipment standard under this sub section, he shall include as pan of such standard such requirements as will assure the proper operation and mamtenawee of any such element of design or equipment (2) For the purpose of this subsection, the phrase **001 feasible to pre scribe or enforce an emission standard" means any situation in which the Administrator determines that (A) a hazardous pollutant or pollutants can not be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to anit or capture such pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a con veyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State, or local law, or (B) the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations. (3) If after notice and opportunity for public hearing, any person estab lishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an alternative means of emission limitation will achieve a reduction in emissions of any air pollutant at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions of such air pollutant achieved under the requirements of paragraph (1), the Administrator shall permit the use of such alternative by the source for purposes of compliance with this section with respect to such CHA 015240 A-3 (4) Any standard promulgated under paragraph (1) shall be promulgated in terms of an emission, standard whenever it becomes feasible to promulgate and enforce such standard in such terms. (5) Any design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or any combination thereof described in this subsection shall be treated as an emriaiop standard for purposes of the provisions of this chapter (other than the provisions of this subsection). (July K 1953. e. 360, Title I, 112, added Dee. 31, 1970, PubX. 91-404, 4(a). S4 Stat. 16*5, and amoded Aug. 7, 1977, Pubi. 95-93, This l M 109(d)(2), 110 Utle IV, 401(c), 91 Stat 701, 703, 791; Nov. 9, 197*, Puh.L 95-623, 13(b), 92 Stat 3458.) National Emission Standards for Vinyl Chloride, 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart F &976): Subpart F--Notional Emission Standard tar Vinyl Chloride SooiCE 41 TR 46864. Oct 3t 1978, unlMS otherwise noted. 61A0 Applicability. (a) This subpart applies to plants which produce: (1) Ethylene bichloride by reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene, (2) Vinyl chloride by any -- and/or (3) One or more polymer* any traction of polymerized vinyl chlo ride. (b) This subpart does not apply to equipment uaed in research and devel opment it the reactor used to polymer- he the vinyl Chloride processed in the equipment baa a capacity of no more than 0.19 m* (80 gal). <e) Sections of this subpart other than f| 61.81: 61.64 (aXl). (b), <c>, and <dx 61.67; ei.68: 61.69; 61.70: and 61.71 do not apply to equipment uaed in re search and development If the reactor uaed to polymerise the vinyl chloride processed in the- equipment has a ca pacity of greater than 0.19 m* (60 gal) and no more than 4.07 m* (1100 gal). (41 PR 46864. Oct. 31. 1976. as imended at 43 PR 39006. June 7,1977) 161.41 Definitioes. Terms used in this subpart are de fined in the Act, in Subpart A of this part, or in this sectional follows (a) "Ethylene dichloride plant" In cludes any plant which produces eth ylene dichloride by reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene (b) "Vinyl chloride plant" includes any plant which produces vinyl chlo ride by any process. (c) "Polyvinyl chloride plant" in cludes any plant where vinyl chloride alow or in combination with other materials la polymerized. (d) "Slip gauge" means a gauge which has a probe that moves through the gas/liquid interlace in a storage or transfer vessel and Indicates the level of vinyl chloride in the vessel by the physical state of the material the gauge discharges. (e) "Type of resin" means the broad w--of resin referring to the basic manufacturing process far pro ducing that resin, including, but not to, the suspension, dispersion, latex, bulk, and solution processes. (f) "Grade of resin" means the sub division of resin classification which describes it as a unique resin. Le the most exact description of a resin with no further subdivision. (g) "Dispersion resin" means a resin manufactured in such a way as! to form fluid dispersions when dispersed in a plasticizer or plasticizer/diluent mixtures. (h) "latex resin" meins a resin which la produced by a polymerization process which initiates from free radi cal catalyst sites and is sold undried. (1) "Bulk resin" means a resin which is produced by a polymeriatton proc ess m which no water is used. CHA 015241 A-4 CJ) "Inprocam wastewater" means moved from polyvinyl chloride resin, any water which, during manufactur except bulk resin, in the slurry form ing or pmKMMmcomes into direct by the use of heat and/or vacuum. In contact with vinyl chloride or poly* the ease of bulk resin, stripper in vinyl chloride or results from the pro cludes any vessel which is used to duction or use of any raw material, in remove residual vinyl chloride from termediate product, finished product, polyvinyl chloride resin immediately by-product, or waste product contain following the polymerization step in ing vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to a wastewater treatment process or dis charged untreated as wastewater. (k) "Wastewater treatment process" includes any process which modifies characteristics such as BOD, COD, the plant process flow. (t) "Standard temperature" means a temperature of 20* C (80* P). (u) "Standard pressure" means a pressure of 760 mm of Hg (20.92 in. of Hg). TSS. and pH, usually for the purpose [41 FR 46504, OeL 31. 1076, ss amaodad at of meeting effluent guidelines and 43IR 39006. JUM 7.19177 standards; it does not include any process the purpoae of which is to 9 61.02 Emission standard for ethylene dl- remove vinyl chloride from water to chlocide plants. meet requirements of this subpart. (l) "In vinyl chloride service" means that a piece of equipment contains or contacts either a liquid that is at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride or a gas that is at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. Cm) "Standard operating procedure" means a formal written procedure offi cially adopted by the plant owner or operator and available an a routine basis to those persons responsible for carrying out the procedure. (n) "Run" means the net period of time during which an emission sample lacolleeted. (o) "Ethylene dichloride purifica tion" includes any part of the process (a) Ethylene dlchlorlde purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the at mosphere from any equipment used in ethylene dlchlorlde purification is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in 161.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 16l.65(bX6Xl) before being opened. (b) Oxyehlorlnatlon reactor Except as provided in 161.65(a), emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from each oxyehlorlnatlon reactor are not to exceed 0.2g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100 percent ethylene dlchlorlde prod of ethylene dichloride production uct from the oxyehlorlnatlon process. which follows ethylene dlchlorlde for mation and in which finished ethylene [42 PR 30006, June 7.1077] dlchlorlde is produced. 01.63 EmJaaton standard for vinyl eWo (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" in rld* pianta. cludes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation and in which finished vinyl chloride is produced. (q> "Reactor*' includes any vessel in which vinyl chloride Is partially or to An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo ride plant shall comply with the re quirements of this section and 161.65. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: The concentration of vinyl tally polymerized into polyvinyl chlo chloride In all exhaust gases dis ride. charged to the atmosphere from any (r) "Reactor opening loss" means equipment used in vinyl chloride for the emissions ctfvtnyl chloride occur mation and/or purification Is not to ring when a reactor is vented to the at- exceed 10 ppm. except as provided in moephere for any purpose other than 161.65(a). This requirement does not an emergency relief discharge as de apply to equipment that has been fined in f 61.65(a). opened, is out of operation, and met * (s) "Stripper" includes any vessel in the requlrment in 161.65(bX6)(i) which residual vinyl chloride is re before being opened. CMA 015242 A-5 161.64 Emission standard for poljrinyl ' chloride plants As owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 161.65. (a) Reactor, The following require* meats apply to reactors: Cl) The concentration of vinyl chlo ride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as pro vided In paragraph (a)(2) of this sec tion and { 61.65(a). (2) The reactor opening loss from each reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. This requirement applies to any vessel which is used as a reactor or as both a reactor and a stripper. In the bulk process, the prod uct means the gross product of prepo lymerization and postpolymerization. (3) vent valve discharge: Except for an emergency manual vent valve discharge, there is to be no dis charge to the atmosphere from any manual vent valve an a polyvinyl chlo ride reactor in vinyl chloride service. An emergency manual vent valve dis charge means a discharge to the at mosphere which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within X0 days of any discharge to the atmosphere from any manual vent valve, the owner or oper ator of the source from which the dis charge occurs shall submit to the Ad ministrator a report in writing con taining information on the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the dlacharge. the ap proximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss, the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future discharges. (b) Stripper. The concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases dis charged to the atmosphere from each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm. except as provided in 161.66(a). This requirement does not apply to equip ment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 161.65(bX6Xl) before being opened. (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding containers. The concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases dis charged to the atmosphere from each mixing, weighing, or holding container in vinyl chloride service which pre cedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no stripper) in the plant process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in i 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equip ment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 16l.85(b)(6Xl) before bring opened. (d) Monomer recovery system. The concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the at mosphere from each monomer recov ery system is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in 161.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equip ment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in i 61.65(bM6Xi) before being opened. (e) Sources following the stripperis). The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the at mosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripperis) [or the reaetoris) 12 the plant has no stripperis)] in the plant process flow including but not limited to, centri fuges, concentrators, blend tanks, fil ters, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inpro cess wastewater (1) In polyvinyl chloride plants using stripping technology to control vinyl chloride emissions, the weighted aver age residual vinyl chloride concentra tion in all grades of polyvinyl chloride resin processed through the stripping operation on each calendar day, meas ured immediately after the stripping operation is completed, may not exceed: (1) 2000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride dispersion resins, excluding latex resins: (11) 400 ppm tor all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, averaged separately for each type of resin; or (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants con trolling vinyl chloride emissions with technology other than stripping or in addition to stripping, emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere may not exceed: CMA 015243 A-6 (I) 3 g/kg (0.003 lb/lb) product from the strtpperts) Cor roctorts) If the plant haa no stripperts)) for dlaperslon polyvinyl chloride rains, excluding latex rains, with the product deter mined an a dry solids ******* (II) 0.4 g/kg (0.0004 lb/lb) product from the strippers [or reactorts) If the plant has no strtpper(a)l for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex rains, with the product deter mined on s dry solids basis. 161.66 Emission standard for ethylens diehiorids. vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of an ethylene dlchlorlde. vinyl chloride, and/or poly vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) Relief valve discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge, there is to be no discharge to the atmosphere from any relief valve on any equip ment in vinyl chloride service. An emergency relief discharge means a discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any relief valve discharge, the owner or op erator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs shall submit to the Administrator a report in writing containing information an the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride Iocs during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loos, the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future discharges. (b) Fugitive emission sources (1) Loading and unloading lines: vinyl chloride emissions from loading n*1 unloading lines in vinyl chloride serv ice which are opened to the atmos phere after each loading or operation are to be minimized as fol lows; (1) After each loading or operation and before opening a load ing or unloading line to the atmos phere, the quantity of vinyl chloride in all parts of each loading or unload ing line that are to be opened to the atmosphere is to be reduced so that the parts combined contain no greater than 0.0038 m*(0.13 ft*) of vinyl chlo ride, at standard temperature and pressure; and (U) Any vinyl chloride removed from a loading or unloading line in accord ance with paragraph (bXlXl) of this section is to be ducted through a con trol system from which the concentra tion of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases doa not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in 181.66. (3) Slip gauges. During loading or unloading operations, the vinyl chlo ride emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl chloride service are to be mini mized by ducting any vinyl chloride discharged from the slip gauge through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases doa not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in 161.66. (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seals: (i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals an all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by lnitJ'H"T sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in 161.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by main taining the prosure 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 gasa doa not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in < 61.66. (11) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl chlo ride emissions from seals on all recip rocating pumps in vinyl chloride serv ice are to be minimized by tT,*t,ii<r*y double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided In {61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by 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 gasa doa not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in (61.66. CMA 015244 A-7 (111) Rotating compressor. Vinyl chlo ride emissions from seals on all rotat ing compressors In vinyl chloride serv ice are to be minimized by installing compressors with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in 181.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by main taining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the compressor, by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as provided in (61.66. (iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride from seals an all reciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by tngtjtiung- double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in {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 com pressor by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a con trol system from which the concentra tion of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as provided in ( 61.66. (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all agitators in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing agitators with double me chanical seals, or equivalent as pro vided in 161.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak *.hmt occurs is into the agitated vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chlo ride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as pro vided in 161.66. (4) Leakage from relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leakage from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing a rupture disk between the equipment and the relief valve, by con necting the relief valve discharge to a process line or recovery system, or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. (5) Manual venting of gases. Except as provided in (61.64(a)(3), all gases which are manually vented from equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not - exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as pro vided in f 61.66. (6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of equipment (including loading or un loading lines that are not opened to the atmosphere after each loading or unloading operation) are to be mini mized as follows: (i) Before opening any equipment for any reason, the quantity of vinyl chloride is to be reduced so that the equipment contains no more than 2,0 percent by volume vinyl chloride or 0.0950 m* (35 gal) of vinyl chloride, whichever is larger, at standard tem perature and pressure; and (ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from the equipment in accordance with paragraph (b)(6Xl) of this section is to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as pro vided in f 61.66. (7) Samples. Unused portions of sam ples containing at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to be re turned to the process, and --mpny techniques are to be such that sample containers in vinyl chloride service are purged into a closed process system. (8) Leak detection and elimination. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from equipment in vinyl chloride serv ice are to be minimized by instituting and implementing a formal leak detec tion and elimination program. The owner or operator shall submit a de scription of the program to the Ad ministrator for approval. The program is to be submitted within 45 days of the effective date of these regulations, unless a waiver of compliance is grant ed under { 61.11. If a waiver of compli ance is granted, the program is to be submitted on a date scheduled by the Administrator. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: CMA 015245 A-8 (I) It Includes & reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system lor detection of major leaks and identifi cation of the general area of the plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chlo ride monitoring system means a device which obtains air samples from one or more points on a continuous sequen tial basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromatography or, if the owner or operator assumes that all hy drocarbons measured are vinyl chlo ride. with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. (II) It includes a reliable and accu rate portable hydrocarbon detector to be used routinely to find small leaks and to pinpoint the major Inks indi cated by the vinyl chloride monitoring system. A portable hydrocarbon detec tor means a device which measures hy drocarbons with a sensitivity of at least 10 ppm and is of such design and size that It can be used to measure emissions from localized points. (ill) It provides for an acceptable calibration and maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon de tector. Tor the vinyl chloride monitor ing system, a dally span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentra tion defined as a leak according to paragraph <bX8Xvl) of this section. The calibration is to be done with either (A) A calibration gas mixture pre pared from the gases specified in sec tions 3.2.1 and 522 of Test Method 106 and in accordance with section 7.1 of Test Method 106, or (B) A calibration gas cylinder stand ard the appropriate con centration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition of the calibration gas cyl inder standard is to have been certi fied by the manufacturer. The manu facturer must have recommended a maximum shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 8 percent from the certified value. The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration and recom mended wrinnwi shelf life must have been affixed to the cylinder before shipment from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may be di rectly used to prepare a chromato graph calibration curve as described in section 7.3 of Test Method 106. The re quirements in section 5.22.1 and 5222 of Test Method 106 for certifi cation of cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of cali bration standards are to be followed. (lv) The location and number of points to be monitored and the fre quency of monitoring provided for In the program are acceptable when they are compared with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl chloride service and the size and physical layout of the plant. (v) It contains an acceptable plan of action to be taken when a leak is de tected. (vl) 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 moni toring system are to be included with the description of the program. The definition of leak for a given plant may vary the different areas within the plant and is also to change over time as background concentre - tlons in the plant are reduced.. (9) Inprocesa wastewater. Vinyl chlo ride emissions to the atmosphere from inprocess wastewater are to be reduced as follows: (1) The concentration of vinyl chlo ride in each inprocess wastewater stream containing greater than 10 ppm vinyl chloride measured immedi ately as It leaves a piece of equipment and before being mixed with any other inprocess wastewater stream is to be reduced to no more than 10 ppm by weight before being mixed with any other inprocess wastewater stream which contains less than 10 ppm vinyl chloride: before being exposed to the atmosphere: before being discharged to a wastewater treatment process; or before being discharged untreated as a wastewater. This paragraph does apply to water which is used to dls- CMA 015244 A-9 place vinyl chloride from equipment before it is opened to the atmosphere in accordance with |61.64(aX2) or paragraph (bX6> of this section, but does not apply to water which is used to wash out equipment after the equipment has already been opened to the atmosphere in accordance with |61.64<aX2) or paragraph (bX6) of this section. (II) Any vinyl chloride re moved from the inprocess wastewater in accordance with paragraph (bX9XI) of this section is to be ducted through a control system from which the con centration of vinyl chloride in the ex haust gases does not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in 181-86. (c)The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2). (bX5), (bX8), (b)(7) and (bX8) of this section are to be incorpo rated into a standard operating proce dure, and made available upon request for inspection by the Administrator. The standard operating procedure is to include provisions for measuring the vinyl chloride in equipment 4.75 m1 (1*250 gal) in volume for which in emission limit Is prescribed In i 61.65(bX6Xl) prior to opening the equipment and using Test Method 106, a portable hydrocarbon detector, or an equivalent or alternative method. The method of measurement is to meet the requirements In f 61.67(gXSXlXA) or (gX5XiXB). Ml m 465*4. Oct. 21. 1978: 41 FR 53017, Dec. 3. 1976, as amended at 42 TO 29008, June 7,19771 161.88 Equivalent equipment and proce dure*. Upon written application from an owner or operator, the Administrator may approve use of equipment or pro cedures which have been demonstrat ed to his satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl chloride emlsrtnng to the atmosphere to those prescribed for compliance with a spe cific paragraph of this subpart. For an existing source, any request for using an equivalent-method as the initial measure of control is to be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days of the. effective date. For a new source, any request for using an equivalent method is to be submitted to the Ad ministrator with the application for approval of construction or modifica tion required by 161.07. 16147 Emission test*. (a) Unless a waiver of emission test ing is obtained under 161.13. the owner or operator of a source to which this subpart applies shall test emis sions from the source, ' (1) Within 90 days of the effective date in the case of an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding the effective date, or (2) Within 90 days of startup In the case of a new source. Initial startup of which occurs after the effective date. (b) The owner or operator shall pro vide the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of an emission test to afford the Administrator the opportu nity to have an observer present during the test. (e) Any emission test is to be con ducted while the equipment being tested is operating at the maximum production rate at which the equip ment will be operated and under other relevant conditions as may be specified by the Administrator based on repre sentative performance of the source. (d) [Reserved! (e> When at all poesible,-each sample is to be analyzed within 24 hours, but in no case in excess of 72 hours - of sample collection. Vinyl chloride ends-lions are to be determined within 30 days after the emission test. The owner or operator shall report the de terminations to the Administrator by a registered letter dispatched before the close of the next business day fol lowing the determination. (f) The owner or operator shall retain at the plant and make available, upon request, for Inspection by the Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years records of emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions. (g) Unless otherwise specified, the owner or operator shall use test Test Methods in Appendix B to this part for each test as required by para graphs (gXl). (gX2), (gX3), (gX4), and (g)(5) of this section, unless an equiva lent method or an alternative method has been approved by the Adminlstra- CMA 015247 A-10 tor. Zf the Administrator finds reason able grounds to dispute the results ob tained by an equivalent or alternative method, he may require the use of a reference method. Zf the results of the reference and equivalent or alterna tive methods do not agree, the results Obtained by the reference method pre vail, and the Administrator may notify the owner or operator that approval of the method previously considered to be equivalent or alternative is with drawn. (1) Test Method 106 is to be used to determine the vinyl chloride emissions from any source for which an emission limit is presolbed in ii 61.63(a) or (b) 161.63(a), or f f 61.64(aXl), (b). (c), or (d). or from any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in |'61.64(aX2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted is {61.88(bXl)(il), (bX2), (bX5). (bx&xil), or (bxoxii). (1) For each run, one sample is to be collected. The site is to be at least two stack or duct diameters downstream and one half diameter up stream from any flow disturbance such as a bend, expansion, contrac tion. or visible flame. Tor a rectangu lar creel section an equivalent diame ter is to be determined from the fol lowing equation: equivalent diameter*? (length) (width)/ lagth+wldtb -The sampling point in the duct is to be at the centroid of the crocs section. -The sample is to be extracted at a rate proportional to the gas velocity at the sampling point. The sample la to be taken over a of one hour, and is to contain a mmfrwmw volume at SO liters corrected to standard con ditions. (ill Each emission teat is to consist of three runs. Far the purpose of deter mining emissions, the average of re sults of an runs is to apply. The average Is to be computed an a time weighted basis (ill) For gas streams cnwt-aiwtwg more than 10 percent oxygen the concentra tion of vinyl chloride as determined by Test Method 106 is to be corrected to 10 percent oxygen (dry basis) for de termination of emissions by the following equation: a 10.9/30A-pereent O, where; C* MWMO-The concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases, correct- ed to lc-peroent oxygen. C#-Th* concentration of vinyl chloride ms measured by Teet Method 106. aOA-Pcrceot ox?sen in the air at mandard lOA-Pereent oxyien in the ambient air at standard conditions, minos the 10.0- pereent oxygen to which the correc tion is beinc made. Percent 0--Percent oxygen tat the ex- m u maftsimd br Reference Method 3 in Appendix A of Part SO of tbis (tv) For those emission sources where the emission limit is prescribed in terms of mass rather than concen tration, mass emissions in kg/100 kg product are to be determined by using the following equation: CW*tCU2J0) Q lm (1001/2 where; Gv-ks vinyl chloride/100 kg product C*-The concentration of vinyl as measured by Teet Method 106. 2.00-Denstty of vinyl chloride at one at mosphere and 30* C in kg/m*. Q-Volumecric flow rate t& mVbr as de termined by Reference Method 2 of Appendix A to Part 60 of this chapter. Hr**Canv<eraion factor for ppm. Z-Prodncdon rate (kg/hr). (2) Teat Method 107 is to be used to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride in each inprocaas wastewater stream for which an emission limit is prescribed in 161.6S(bX9Xl). (3) Where a stripping operation is. used to attain the emission limit in 161.64(e), emissions are to be deter mined using Test Method 107 as fol lows: (I) The number of strippers and sam ples 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) Each sample la to be taken imme diately following the stripping oper ation. (III) The corresponding quantity of material processed by each stripper is to be determined on a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and ap proved by the Administrator. CMA 015248 A-11 (lv) At the prior request of the Ad ministrator, the owner or operator shall provide duplicates of the samples rweHqunirned in paragraph (gX3Xl) of this (4) Where control technology other than or in addition to a stripping oper ation is used to attain the emission limit in 161.64(e), emissions are to be determined as follows: (I) Test Method 106 is to be used to determine atmospheric emissions from all of the process equipment simulta neously. The requirements of para graph (g)(1) of this section are to be met. (II) Test Method 1071s to be used to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride in each inprocess wastewater stream subject to the emission limit prescribed in 161.64(e). The mass of vinyl chloride in kg/100 kg product in each inproceas wastewater stream is to be determined by using the following equation: where: Cw-CCJtlo-r CiOOl/2 Ctr-k* vinyl chloride/100 kg product. G,-the concentration of vinyl chloride as measured by Taw Method 107. X--water how rate in 1/br, determined In accordance with a method which has been submitted to and approved by tbi AdmiiiiiLfitor lO-'-Conmaion factor lor ppm. Z-Production rate (kg/hr), determined in accordance with a method which has been aubmltted and approved by the Adniaiiaitor. (5) The reactor opening loo for which an emission limit is prescribed in f 61.64 (aX2) is 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. For a reactor that i also used as a stripper, the determination may be made immediately following the stripping operation. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (gXSXli) of this section, the reactor opening lorn is-to be determined using the following equation: C- W (2.60) (10*) (Cb)/7Z where: C-kg vinyl chloride emissions/kg product. W-Capacity of the reactor mm*. 2.80-Density of vinyl chloride at one at mosphere and 20* C in kc/m*. 10"*-Conversion factor for ppm. c;-ppm by volume vmyl chloride as de termined by Test Method 106 or a portable hydrocarbon detector which measures hydrocarbons with a sensi tivity of at leaat 10 ppm. y--Number of gtntm the reactor wea last opened to the aaaospber*. 2-Avemce kt of polyvinyl chloride pro duced per batch in the number of batches since the reector was lest opened to the stmoephere. (A) If Method 106 is used to deter mine the concentration of vinyl chlo ride (Cb), the sample is to be with drawn at a constant rate with a probe of sufficient length to reach the vessel bottom from the manhole. Samples are to be taken for 5 minutes within 6 inches of the vessel bottom, 6 minutes near the vessel center, and 5 minutes near the vessel top. CB) If a portable hydrocarbon detec tor is used to determine the concentra tion of vinyl chloride (Cb), a probe of sufficient length to reach the vessel bottom from the manhole is to be used to make the measurements. One mea surement will be made within 6 inches of the vessel bottom, one near the vessel center and one near the vessel top. Measurements are to be made at each location until the reading is sta bilised. All hydrocarbons measured are to be assumed to be vinyl chloride. (C) The production rate' of polyvinyl chloride (Z) Is to be determined by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. (11) A calculation baaed an the number of evacuations, the vacuum in volved, and the volume of gaa in -the reactor is hereby approved by the Ad ministrator as an alternative method for determining reactor opening loss for postpolymerization reactors in the manufacture of bulk resins. (Sec. 114, dean Air Act as amended (42 DAC. 7414)) 141 FR 46684, OcL 21. 1978. as ammded at 42 FR 29007, June 7. 1977: 43 FR 8800, Mar. 3,1978) 8 61.68 Emission monitoring. (a) A vinyl chloride monitoring system is to be used to monitor on a CMA 015249 A-12 continuous basis the emissions from the sources lor which emission limits are prescribed in {61.62(a) and (b), 161.63(a), and 161.64 (aXl). (b). (c). and (d). for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in |61.64(aX2) or to which fugitive emiaainns are required to be ducted in f 61.65 (bXlXll), and (bX2). (bX5), (bX6) (11). and (bX9XU>. (b) The vinyl chloride monitoring system(s) used to meet the require ment in paragraph (a) of this section is to be a device which obtains air sam- pels from one or more points on a con tinuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromotography or, if the owner or operator assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectro photometry, flame Ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. The vinyl chloride monitoring system used to meet the requirements in 161.6fi(bX8Xl) may be used to meet the requirements of this section. (c) A daily span check is to be con ducted for each vinyl chloride moni toring system used. For all of the emission sources listed in paragraph (a) of this section, except the one for which an limit is prescribed In i 61.62(b). the daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to 10 ppm. For the emission source for which an emis sion limit is prescribed in 161.62(b), the daily span check is to be conduct ed with a concentration of vinyl chlo ride which is determined to be equiva lent to the emission limit for that source based on the emission test re quired by 161.67. The calibration is to be done with either (1) A calibration gas mixture pre pared from the gases specified in sec tions 5.2.1 and 5^2 of Test Method 106 and in accordance with section 7.1 of Test Method 106, or (2) A calibration gas cylinder stand ard the appropriate con centration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition of the calibration gas cyl inder standard la to have been certi fied by the manufacturer. The manu facturer must have recommended a mtrtwiwi shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 5 percent from the certified value. The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration and recom mended maximum shelf life must have been affixed to the cylinder before shipment from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may be di rectly used to prepare a chromato graph calibration curve as described in section 7.3 of Test Method 106. The re quirements in sections 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method 106 for certifi cation of cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of cali bration standards are to be followed. (See. 114, Clem Air Aet as "--< <42 UAC. 7414)) [41 FR 46544. Oct. 21, 1976: 41 FR 33017. Dee. 3, 1976. as amended u 42 FR 29007. June 7.1977: 43 FR 5800, Mar. 3.1978) 9 (1.59 Initial report (a) An owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall submit a statement in writing no tifying the Administrator that the equipment and procedural specifica tions in (61.65 (bXl), (bX2), (bX3). (bX4). (bX5), <bX6). (bX7), and (bX8) are being implemented. (bXl) In the case of an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding the ef fective date, the statement is to be submitted within 90 days of the effec tive date, unless a waiver of compli ance is granted under S 61.11, along with the information required under 161.10. If a waiver of compliance is granted, the statement is to be submit ted on a date scheduled by the Admin istrator. (2) In the case of a new source which did not have an initial startup date preceding the effective date, the state ment is to be submitted within 90 days of the initial startup date. (c) The statement is to contain the following information: (1) A list of the equipment installed for compliance. (2) A description of the physical and functional characteristics of each piece of equipment. (3) A description of the methods which have been incorporated into the CMA 015250 A-13 standard operating procedures lor measuring or calculating the emissions for which emission limits are pre scribed in 161.65 (bXlXi) and (bX8Xi), (4) A statement that each piece of equipment is installed and that each piece of equipment and each proce dure is being used. (Sec. 114, Clean air act as amended (43 vac 7414)) C41 TO 46564. Oct. 21. 1976. as amended at 43 TO 8800, Mar. 3.19781 9 61.70 Semiannual report (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall submit to the Administrator an September 15 and March 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required by this section. The first semiannual report is to be submitted following the first full 6 month reporting period after the ini tial report is submitted. (bXl) In the ease of an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding the ef fective date, the first report is to be submitted within 180 days of the ef fective date, unless a waiver of compli ance is granted under I61.U. If a waiver of compliance is granted, the first report is to be submitted on a date scheduled by the Administrator. (2) In the esse of a new source which did not have an initial startup date preceding the effective date, the first report is to be submitted within ISO days of the initial startup date. (e) Unless otherwise specified, the owner or operator shall use the Test Methods in Appendix B to this part to conduct emission tests as required by paragraphs <cX2) and (cX3) of this section, unless an equivalent or an al ternative method has been approved by the Administrator. If the Adminis trator finds reasonable notmds to pute the results obtained by an equiva lent or alternative method, he may re quire the use of a reference method. If the results of the reference and equiv alent or alternative methods do not agree, the results obtained by the ref erence method prevail, and the Ad ministrator may notify the owner or operator that approval of the method previously considered to be equivalent or alternative is withdrawn. (1) The owner or operator shah in clude in the report a record of any which averaged over any hour period (commencing on the hour) are in of limits prescribed in if 61.62(a) or (b), > 61.63 (a), or i 61.84 (axi), <b), (c). or (d), or for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in 161.64(aX2) or to which fu gitive emissions are required to be ducted in {61.65 (bXlXil). (bX2), (bX5), (bX6XU>, or (bXBXli). The emis sions are to be measured in accordance with 161.68. (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to attain the ***--level prescribed in i 61.64(e). the owner or operator shah include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. Test Method 107 is to be used to determine vinyl chloride content as follows; (1) If batch stripping Is used, one representative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken from each hatch of each grade of resin immedi ately following the completion of the stripping operation, and identified by resin type end grade and the date and time the batch is completed. The cor responding quantity of material proc essed in each stripper batch is to be re corded and Identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. 01) If continuous stripping is used, one representative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken for each grade of resin processed or at intervals of 8 hours for each grade of resin which is being processed, whichever is more frequent The sample is to be taken as the resin flows out of the stripper and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the sample was taken. The corresponding quantity of material processed by eaeh stripper over the time period repre sented by the sample during the 8- hour period, is to be recorded and Identified by resin type and grade and the date and time it represents. (Ill) The quantity of material proc essed by the stripper is to be deter mined on a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. CMA 015251 A-14 (It) At the prior request of the Ad* misistntor, the owner or operator shall provide duplicates of the samples required In paragraphs (e)(2Xi) and (cX2Xii) of this section. (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include the vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (c)(2) (1) and (0(2X11) of this section, 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 strlpperfs) that calendar day, accord ing to the following equation: 22-1 Po, Mo, Pa M^ + Po)MoQ,-+ -f- Po, Mo, where: 4--34-hour average coneentzation of type. T< resin in ppm (dry weight basis). Q-Total production of type T < resin over the 24-hour period, in kg. 7)-Type of resin: iU2 .,. m where m is total number of resin types produced during the 24-hour period. AT--Concentration of vinyl chloride in one of grade Gi resin, in ppm. P-Production of grade Gi resin represent ed by the sample. In kg. O.-Orade of resin: eg- Oh G*. and Q* a--Total number of grades of resin pro duced durins the 24-hour period. (vi) The owner or operator shall retain at the source and make availa ble for inspection by the Administra tor for a minimum of 2 years records of all data needed to furnish the infor mation required by paragraph (cX2Xv> of this section: The records are to con tain the following information: (A) The vinyl chloride content found in all the samples required in para graphs (CX2X1) and (CX2X11) of this section, identified by the resin type and grade and the time and date of the sample, and (B) The corresponding quantity of polyvinyl chloride resin processed by the stripperts), identified by the resin type and grade and the time and date it represents. (3) The owner or operator shell in clude in the report a record of the emissions from each reactor opening for which an emission limit is pre scribed in f 6r.54(aX2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance with i 61.67(gX5), except that emissions for each reactor are to be determined. For a reactor that is also used as a strip per, the determination may be made immediately following the stripping operation. (Bee. 114. Clean Air Act u amended (42 UAC. 7414)) Ml PR 46544, Oct. 21. 1976: 41 PR 83018. Dee. 3. 1978, aa amended at 42 PR 39007, June 7.1977: 43 PR 6600. Mar. 3,1978] 61.71 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 Tw(ri(mnTw of two years; (1) A record of the leaks detected by the vinyl chloride monitoring system, as required by I 61.65(bX8). including the concentrations of vinyl chloride measured, analyzed, and recorded by the vinyl chloride detector, the loca tion of each measurement and the date and approximate time of each measurement. (2) A record of the, leaks detected during routine monitoring with the portable hydrocarbon detector and the action to repair the leaks, as re quired by 161.65(bX8}, including a brief statement explaining the loca tion cause of each leak detected with the portable hydrocarbon detec tor, the date and time of the leak, and any action t,lr*ri to eliminate that leak. (3) A record of measured In accordance with f 61.68. (4) A dally operating record for each polyvinyl chloride reactor, friMmBwy pressures and temperatures. (Sec. 114, dean Air Act m amended (42 UAC 7414)) [41 PR 46894. OeL 21. 1976. as amended at 42 PR 29007. June 7,1977; 43 PR 1800. Mar. 3.19781 CMA 015252 A-15 Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standards (.1977) : 2S154 ft POSED RULES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION additional actions. Thase Include a re be achievable only by banning vinyl ehto. AGENCY [4ocntPwtci] statement at XPA's policy for regulating ride amissions completely. That, tn ton eardnoceos under section 112 of the would require closing the entire Industry Clean Air Act: the proposal at amend As explained In the eailler rulemaking tt r**L w-i ments which would require Increased 1s not clear that Congress would have VINYL CHLORIDE Setincy of editing control equipment, intended this result, so instead DA re require more stringent control at new quired the lowest level achievable tatnc National Emission Standards tor Hazardous Air Pollutants soureaa and prohibit Increaam In amieskms within the eleauty of an nnr.g technological means. (See 40 FR 59534 and 41 PR 48582). AGENCY: Environmental Protection aouree due to new oanatruetton: and the In order to insure that the standard tmoattoo of a review of the vinyl chlo continues to approach the only level of ACTION: Proposed nils. ride standard three yean after the pro minicfis which Is known to be mulgation at the amendments. lately protective of health, namely aero SUMMARY: Tht proposed amendments are being made to the vinyl chloride standard which has promulgated Octo Zxio ExsstoK Goat. emissions. DA is proposing amendmentt which require more efficient use of exist The vinyl chloride standard has been ing control technology at existing plants ber 21. 1978, and would apply to new criticized for allegedly placing unwar and more effective controls at new and casting ethylene dlebiotide. vinyl ranted emphasis on technological rather plants, and which encourage technology chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants, the standard and the proposed ammid- ments Implement the Clean Air Act and are baaed an the Administrator's deter mination that vinyl chloride Is a hazard ous air pollutant. The Intended effect of the proposed amendments is to- require Improved effectiveness at consol tech- nolocr at plants, impose more stringent limits an new sources, and prohibit an Increase within the vicinity at an existing source due to the construction at a new source. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1.1977. than health considerations. Although DA disagrees with .this erttteWa. It seems appropriate to 'restate EPA'i ap proach to the regulation of carcinogens tn general and under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. and to explain bow the vinyl chloride standard and the pro posed amendments are consistent with this approach and with the protection of public health. On Mav 25. 1976. DA published in terim procedures and guidelines for health risk and economic impact --reelments at suspected carcinogens (41 m 21402), which define EPA'i approach to regulatory action tor suspect carcino to reach this goal without chloride. rmyl Mosx SnnrcxxT Sisjtoasbs roa Exrxmc Sooacss DA is proposing amendments which would require sources presently subject to a 10 ppm cousston limit to reduce emissions to 5 ppm within three years of promulgation of the amendments. The affected sources Include ethylene dichlorlde purification: vinyl chloride forma tion and purification: reactors, seippers: mixing, weighing, and holding contain ers: monomer recovery systems: and fugitive emissions which have been cap ADDRESSES: Comments should be sub gens. As Indicated m that publication, tured b$ accordance with the mitted (preferably tn ttrlpllcate) to the there are two steps Involved tn the dad- regulation- if the owner or operator of Iti&dirdi ft&d Division. Environmental sion-maktnc proem with regard to the a source believed that a control system Protaction regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al would not be capable of meeting the 5 Agency. Roeeareh Triangle Park. North Carolina, Attention: Mr. Don R. Good win. Ah public comments received may be inspected and copied at the Publle In formation Reference Unit CEPA Li brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street, SW,, Washington. D.C. though different DA statutory author ppm limit, he would be able to request ities impose different requirements. In that the Administrator approve an in general two decisions must be made with, terim emimlan limit for that source. regard to eaeh potential carcinogen. The Such requests would have to be made one first decision Is whether a particularsub year before tfae_compUanee date. Is re stance constitute* a cancer nsk. The questing an interim emission limit the second decision is what regulatory ac owner or operator would have to submit tion. If any. should be taken to reduce supportive data and meet with DA to that risk. rttiraaa his particular problems tn attain FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON m dectrttnr whether a cancer risk ing compliance. The meeting would be TACT: exists, DA will consider a substance a announced m the Fxpxxix, Rxmxtcx and Don R. Goodwin. Emission Standards and Engineering Division. Environ mental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Telephone No. 919-8SS-8146. ext. 271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: presumptive cancer risk when it' canes a statistically significant excess Incidence at benign or malignant tumors in hu man* or -- In the case of vinyl chloride. DA evaluated all available data and concluded that a cancer nsk exists. In deciding how and whether to any intemted party would be allowed to attend and submit written or oral corn- menu. If an interim emission were granted to the soufee, the required emis sion level wodujM specified tn a written notification fftes Da and In the Fro zen. Rxoxstxx. Each source granted an regulate. DA examined section 112 of interim emission limit would be reviewed On October 21.1978. ZPA promulgated standard fur vinyl chloride under the authority of section 112(bx<l) (B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (41 PR 48581). The standard applies to ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and poly vinyl chloride plants. On November 19. 1976. the Environ mental Defense Fund (ZDP> petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the Qean Air Act. Section 112 of the Act requires that emission standards be sat "at the level which In the judgment of tht Administrator provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollut ants." This requirement appears to as sume that each pollutant regulated wifi have a threshold level of effects below which no health effects will occur. As explained In the documentation for the current standard (40 PR 59532. Decem every three yean to determine whether emission* could be reduced to 5 ppm. or at least to a lower interim emission limit. In proposing the reduction from 10 to 5 ppm. it is not DA*s intent that a con trol system whleb has been instance to* I a* aa arplsaetary now, paregrapfe ibi of I fl-65 contain! nine fugitive ttamion regulaticus. Per wvena of aw, the fugitive wniwiran are required to be captured sac ductec to a control device meetaag is ppm. the standard. Mottoes to intervene were ber 24. 1975 ; 41 FR 48560. October 21. AaeeMttg to the proposed amendment*, the subsequently filed on behalf of the So 1976). It has not been possible to deter emaaians from this control dense would ciety of the Plastics industry, Inc- the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Compeny and Air Product* and Chemicals. Inc- and were granted by order of the Court cn January 18. 1977. On March 24. 1977, IDF and EPa moved to the mine if there Is a threshold level of effects for vinyl chloride and it Is not certain that such a threshold may be determined In the near future. In the abaesca of strong evidence to the con trary, then, the only level of vinyl chlo have to be reduced to S ppm la tbe esme wee say other aouree currently required to meet 10 ppm wuuid have to do. Bather than in corporating both tbe S and lo ppm limns ta each parsgrupb in isi.ssrb). aaparaw parmgrapa <c) eonwining tbwe emission limits a being added to | 61.65. All pmreerttnn In view of a settlement ride which would appear to be ahMtutely tbe other pomgrmpbs (bt are craw agreunant requiring DA to take certain protective of health Is sen. which may referenced la paragraph (o. PfDttAl HOISTn, VOL 42. NO. 1 TNUtSBAT, JUNt 2, 1*77 CMA 015253 PROPOSED ROLES suss gift the ppm tmimtoa Iknlt be re moved end replaced with toolbar note mfiibnt eoetrel tyrtem or that a second central system be added behind the Sot control system. Tbr pc^pooe of the pro* posed amendment b to force owners and operators to maximise the effeettvena* of exbtm* control systems. llou anmanrr Sumua ret Use cycling and oxygen feed mefltodolgy b -wf-iriMi feasible for new oxyuhtorma- ban metoR became It can be inaorporated at the tbne of construction. Since the use of w teffimaioo' would efimmate the supplemental fuel problem re ferred to above, tt b EPAi judgment that pew oxychlorination reactors should be controlled to the same extent that b proposed for othar tmbboa sources. The propceed amendment also includes rather than the equipment The same equipment can be ussd to process differ ent resin gradea Variations to the emis sions from the equipment are a function ef the resm being processed rather than the characteristics of the equipment. The eontroi technology which b ured for the equipment following the stripper is like wise more directly linked to tbe rsato than the equipment Stripping b used to control the due to the vinyl The proposed amendments would also a more stringent emission limit for new ehlondv in the rosin before the rosin b require mors stringent controls for sew polyvinyl chloride resins being processed processed to the equipment sources; La-, sources far which construe* m equipment tonowing the shipping Before the hazards of vinyl chloride tkm b commenced after the date of pro* petal of these amendments. Aeeordlnx operation- That Is. the amendment would apply to resins far whleh produc became known, stripping technology was employed by polyvinyl ehloride manu to I tun of the General Provisions, tion for the purpose of marketing was facturers to nuover raw materials for "commenced" means that an owner or commenced after the proposal of the economic purposes As a result of a operator has undertaken a continuous amendment The amendment would re standard promulgated by the Oeecoa- procram of construction or modification quire afi new roams except new disper tkmsl Safety and Health Administration or that an owner or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to under* take and complete, within a reasonable sion reams to be sbipped to 100 ppm and new dispersion robm to be smpped to 900 ppm. These Omits fur new products (39 PR 35490), some companies investi gated improvements to stripping meth odology for imbinn ecntrol purposes. ttme. a continuous procram of eenstrae* would be one-fourth of the Omits con > bon or modification. tained to the standard for wilting prod Optimum stripping eoislst* of a set of New sources of types which would be ucts. r-Mrtw--it with the current stand operating conditions which must be de subject to the 10 ppm emitsinn limit ard. the amendment would permit the veloped experimentally on an individual under the current standard would be required under the amendments to meet use of control devices rather than strip ping technology to meet the emission basis for tbe many rosins. In developing the current standard- EPA recognized ft 5 ppt& ij%ri limit it tbt tt(B ctf limit, la t*u ease equipment being used that stripping technology for dispersion startup. Withnew sources there would be to process all new nsms except new dis rosins had not bsen refined to the same no provision allowing requests lor EPA persion resins would haw to be con extenr as It had been tor other resins and approval of an Interim emission limit. trolled to 0.01 kg/kg product and the tnat there was more difficulty to strip Hew sources would be required to meet equipment used for new dispersion resins ping disperse reams than other resins. the more stringent emission limit at the would haw to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg Pbr this reason a lets stringent emission time of startup, because they have an produce ___ limit was established for dispersion res opportunity to <*--4gn their eouinment to A "new source** b defined in 40 CW ins. Dispersion resins art permitted a meet the 5 ppm emission limit at the time 1.82 as a etatlonaty source, the con HlyH-- WHtmnii limit Tmrt*. t>i* proposed construemm is commenced. Knitting struction ** modification of which b amendment for the same reason. sources, on the other hand, require Urns commenced after proposal of a standard. IPA believes that for some resins. to the effectiveness of their There was some question based an this mtpp.ni** have already developed strip* control systems. definition so to whether the amendment < ping technology which would meet the The proposed amendment would also to the stripping standard for new aourees proposed amendment. (2) For other require ethylene bichloride-vinyl eblor* should apply to saw polyvinyl chloride, resins, tbe proposed standard would re ide plants to control emissions from new redna or the bmaTletinn of new equip- quire additional Improvement m strip exyehlorination reactors to i ppm. This ant following the shipper. Xf the ap ping technology. IT stripping technology requirement b based on installation of plicability of the amendment for new has not bees developed to the extent a recycling and owsmi laed system with sourem were based on the tostsllataon of necessary to meet the proposed amend an tndncralor or equivalent control de new equipment following the stripper, tt ment for a particular mm. the manu-- vice. The current standard limits writs* would be difficult to determine what can* factnrer would have the option of de Ham from the axychlarmatlon reactor statute* anew source at an casting plant. veloping tbe technology or not producing to 0-2 i/kg (0.0002 lb/lb> of the 100 per This b based an the reasoning that tbe tbe resin. - cent ethylene diebloride produet from stripping standard requires that all The current stapSard. unlike the the oxychlartoatlcn reactor. This emis equipment following the stripper to tbe proposed amendment was not based on sion limit can be met by changing proc precam be eonffofied as s unit. The series tbe promise that anNowner or operator ess parameters, rather than installing a of equipment following tbe stripper in would have tbe option of not producing control device. During the development cludes pumps and conveying equipment a particular rosin. It b ERA'S judgment of the current standard EPA considered which might be expected to be replaced that the owner or operator making s new requiring existing sources to control --with en incinerator or equiva on a frequent and routine basis. Replac ing one of these pieces of equipment product has more freedom of choice **" tbe owner or operator already making a lent technology, but rejected this ap would m effect ranee tbe whole series of particular product In selecting those proach became a large quantity of fuel equipment following the stripper to have resins which are to be produced. EPA'* would be required to reduce- emissions from a relatively small sour. An edit ing oxychlortnaboD reactor typically has a large volume, low hydrocarbon effluent gas stream, and lam quantities of sup plemental fuels would be required for eoobustion of its emissions. to meet tbe standard for new sources. In other words. aO resins proceased m the salts of the equlpmeit would have to meet the lower standard eves though only a minor part of tbe equipment bad been replaced. DA1 decided that a more reasonable standards would be included in the variabb^1 under consideration when demons art betas made as to which resins are to be produced. The proposed amendment would apply to aw new sourca. whether it constituted replacement of an --source to an A new plant can reduce the volume of and direct approach was to make the existing plant, the expansion of an exist lb effluent gas stream end make It more proposed amendment apply to the pro ing plant or part of an entirely sew concentrated by recycling the gas stream duction of new polyvinyl chloride rectos. plant That ls.lf a new oxychlorination and using oxygen instead of air to feed This b based mi the reasotung that emis reactor or a new polyvinyl chloride re tote the process. (3, 4) the cmrent sions from tbe equipment fallowing the actor were Installed at an existing plant, standard was not based on ttab technol stripper are a function of tbe amount of tt would be subject to the emission limits ogy because it was not considered feasi vstyi chiorida left to the rmto after the for new sources. BUs means that as ble to retrofit exlstlng plano so that they stripping operation is completed; La. existing soureas are gradually replaced could use osygeu instead of air. The re the resin is the source of the emissions with new sources m an existing plant nonat notsm, vet as, no. im--tmwsoay, iuni i, %wrr CMA 015254 28154 PtOPOSID tUUS the mnS emission level from that had been attained by each e***TMg ethylene dlehloride-vtoyl chloride plant existing plant would be reduced. source. The allowable wntssion rate for and an cxlsttac average-sized polyvinyl Timsiox Orrsxr eeah eource would be based ec the maxi chloride plant, which eontain ether mum production rate at which that sources than the ones requirvd to meet Became the present vinyl chloride source would be operated to the future. a 5 ppm emission limit, it is estimated standard focuses on reducing *"iuwu Also. If the emissions from an existing this will have the effect of reducing total rather than attaining a particular am source were already below the wnlaslon emissions by less than one percent. Emis bient air quality concentration, there Is limit applicable to It. the proposed sions at existing plena would be further no provision for Hmittny the* slat of amendment would give the source credit reduced ss existing oxyehlortoatlon re plants or the clustering of plants to a for the difference between the emission actors are replaced with new cxychtori- geographical area. The doubling of the limit and the actual emission level. That nation reactors and as new polyvinyl dae of an existing plant or the construc is the beseltoe amission rate would be chloride rains ire produced to replace tion of a new plant betide an existing baeed on the standard rather than on an existing cnea plant would considerably increase the amiaaUm test. It is DA't judgment that Under the proposed amendment, emis ambient air concentration* at vinyl this Is a more equitable approach than sions from new plants would be consider chloride In the vicinity of tbs plantts) a source which has already ably lower than they would be under the even If the vinyl chloride standard was taken measures to reduce emissions below current standard. Por a typical new met. EPA determined at the time of the standard. Such a source would have average-sizsd ethylene dlehloride-vtoyl promulgation of the current standard lees room for further reducing emissions. chloride plant (318x10* kg/yr or 700 that the costs of prohibiting the produc The emission limits applicable to both xlO* Ib'yr produced), the hourly emis tion of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl the existing and new sources Involved sions would be 5.1 kg (11.5 lb> instead chloride were too high and the continued operation of existing plants should be to the offset azrangenoit would be con tained to the approval of new construc of 10J kg <23.1 lb'. Por a typical new averagefixed dispersion polyvinyl chlo allowed. SPA believes, however, .that the tion granted by the Administrator under ride plant (46x10* kg'yr or 100x10* standard should Include a mechanism foe prohibiting an increase In ambient concentrations of vinyl chloride due to new construction In areas where "***"t sources are already located. Accordingly, IPA is proposing an amendment which would prohibit an in crease m emissions within S kilometers <km) (approximately five miles) of an existing source due to the construction of a new mission source. This means that If a new eource were added to an misting plant, the mereaee ffl due to that new source would have to be offset by a reduction m emissions from other existing sources within that plant or at other plants within a km of the construction site of the new source. Simi larly, a new plant could not be con structed within I km -at an existing planttt) unless the emission increase . due to the new plant were offset by an --<-- reduction at the *** slant or plants. This provision may result hi 'few existing plants being expanded end few new plants being constructed in the 40 Cm 048. Ib/yr production), the emissions would - EPA believes that a policy of no net be about 0 kg/hr (30 Ibwi Instead of increase in wnlstlona due to new con 17.5 kg/hr (39 Ib/hr) and tor a typical struction is justified because of the haz new average-sired suspension polyvinyl ardous nature of vinyl chloride How chloride (86x10* kg/yr or 150x1O' Ib/yr ever, XPA recognises the potential diffi production) the emissions would be 13.5 culties to Implementing such a poller kg/hr) (30 2>/hr> instead of 16 kg/hr and interested persons are urged to sub (36 lb/hr). These emissions are calcu mit iww--m end factual information lated based on the emission factors pub relating to this pahey. lished to the documentation for the ex Rivirw or SxsimssB isting standard, jr Ambient sir concen trations are emccud to be reduced ZPA plans to undertake a full-scale proportionately. review of Subpen p at 40 cm Ban <1 The only negative environmental im beginning three yean from the promul pact would be an increase to hydrogen gation of any smendmeatt. Xn the study chloride emissions at ethylene dlchlo- EPA will review information concerning ride-vinyl chloride plants if Incineration technological advances to the control of were need to control emissions from new vtoyl chloride eimtsrtuie to determine oxyehlortoatlon reactors. However, due what further changes might then be ap - to the-eoTToeion problems which would propriate to move toward the goal of otherwise occur on plant property and aero vtoyl chloride --EPA vrfQ to the community, plants are expected also consider recent health data to de to use scrubbers to control the hydrogen termine whether the approach for regu chloride emissions. The propoeed amend lating vinyl chloride should be altered- ment Is not expected to have a elgnlfl- Zxvrzoincxwm Unset cant impact an energy consumption. v Vidalty of existing plant*. However, the proposed amendment does not predude this possibility. -- .. The proposed amendment, in contrast to the current standard, would encourage the development of new technology end Ecowomc Iwpsct The potential economic impacts of the proposed standard arf: y'" The offset provision would apply only to new construction which mult* in an Increase in production rate. Replacing or adding equipment such ss pumps, com pressors. agitators, sampling1 eomoment and unloading hoses Is s routine practice at existing plants. Additions of equip ment of this nature would, to and of it self. be expected to result in little. If any. haws in Is EPA's judg ment. a plant should not be required to prove this feet each time one of these pieces of equipment Is added. The addi tion of this type of equipment m con improvements in --~**">T|g technology and would have the following three positive environmental impacts: (1) further re duction of emissions at existing plants. <2> no increase to emissions within a km of an costing source, and (3> lower emissions from new sources than would be accomplished through the current standard regardless of the construction site. These environmental impact* would provide progress toward the ultimate goal of zero without vtoyl chloride, and in the process would provide additional protection of public <1> Costs for rasereg and develop ment of improved metfl^ology for oper ation of existing control technology ec mthaint iImt caUnsblte used to meet the 5 ppm <2> Costs for rtMareh and develop ment of Improved stripping techniques to meet the standard lor new polyvinyl chloride resins. (31 Cost of.research end development or Uceasto^br converting over to the oxygen syram lor a new oxychlormstion reactor. junction with major process equipment, health by further the health 4> Possibly increased transportation however. Is likely to result is both an m- risks to the people lfvtog to the vicinity costa of raw materials to the case that rrssit m as well ss sn in of existing plants and to any additional the offset policy results to the construc crease m production rate, and is there people who are exposed as a result of new tion of a new plant farther from an fore covered by the offset provision. construction. mating plant than It otherwise would H the offset prevision were adopted, Specifically, for tboac existing sources have been. the reduction to vBwsinn could be which are currently subject to a 10 ppm (5> Coets of building a new plant more achieved to the production rate of an emission limit emissions would be re than S km from an existing plant to the existing source or sources. The baseline duced by half Within three years after event that the offset requirement pre emlaslon rate would be determined baaed the promulgation date of these amend cluded the expension of as existing on the maximum production rate which ments. At both an existing average-sized plant. SCDMAI terntn*. VOL 41. NO. 1 TMueSOST. /UMi s. 1VT7 A-13 PROPOSED RULES 28157 . Delay to the production of * por* geulsr resin due to time spent develoo- laff stripping technology for toot mm. (7' Ho growth ta the production of a particular min due to toe inability to jtrip that resin to required levels. Tbe types of costs which have been gamed would be difficult to quantify. The posts would be expected to vary consider ably from one plant to another dependmp on the amount of research and de velopment than bad already been done, the extent to which technology could be transferred from other plants and proc esses. and the plans for new construction. One area In which coat estimates can be generated is the use of an oxygenrecycle oxychlorination process as op posed to sn air-based system. The pro posed amendment docs not require the use of the oxygen-recycle system, but many plants would be expected to em ploy this system to avoid the high coats of Incinerating tbe high volume gas stream from a typical air-baaed system. Ae primary cost of using the oxygen- (31 "Ooodrich heperta ImpTVtT* 1 in Solving Vttyl c&lortds Problem." dmeru esa Point end Cocrnte* Journal. Pol. M. Ho. 31. January 12.1974. p. 34- (3) XL w. wimer and *. X. Panther*. "*ygen Olvai low Com VCM." Hydrocarbon Proerwins. Karen 197S. pp. Sl-94. <S) Peter helcb. "Air or Oxygen Por VCM7." Hydrocarbon Propearing. March. 1979. pp. It Is proposed that Subpart P of 40 Cm Part CX be amended as follows: 1. In 81.08. paragraph <b> is rtvised to read as follows: { <>1.08 Approval by the Adminielrulor. ** (b> If the Administrator determines that s stationary source for which an application pursuant to i 61.07 was sub mitted will not, if properly operated, cause emissions in violation of tne standard or violation of f 61.73. he will approve the construction or modification of such source. 2. Section 61.62 is revised to read as (a> Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: Except as provided in f 61.65<a>. to concentration of vinyl chloride m all exhaust gases discharged to toe atmosphere from any equipment used tn vinyl chloride formation and or purification Is not to exceed the appro priate emission limit ss follows: (1) Each source, for which construc tion bad commenced on or before June 2, 1977, 10 ppm until (date tom years af ter promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three yean after promulgation of these amendments >. (2> Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. <b> The requirements of this section do not apply to equipment that has been opened. Is out of operation, and met the requirement in i 61.65(b) <6><1> before opened. 4. Section 61J4 Is amended by revis ing paragraphs (a>(l>, (b>. <e>, (d> and (*> and by adding pagagraph (t> at foltows: recycle system is the cost of the oxygen follows: f 61M Emission Mandat for polyvinyl itself. The cost of the oxygen for a par ticular plant would depend on whether the plant was located where User* Is a 61.62 Ewiwiwi Mandat'd for ethylene dlcMoride plant*. chloride plant*. An owner of operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the re considerable demand for both the oxygen and nitrogen products of air separation. According to one recent article. If it is An owner or operator of an ethylene dlcblerlde plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and I 61.66. quirements of this section and ! 61.65. (a) Reactor*. The following require ments apply to reactors: assumed that such a demand exists, the (a) Ethylene dichlorfdt purification: coat of the oxygen (314.34'ton) would Except as provided in f 61A5(a>, the (l) Except as provided in paragraph ia>(2> of thfc section and I 61.65(a), the be approximately equivalent to the cost concentration of vinyl chloride in all concentration of vinyl chloride In all ex of compressing sir for use m the air- exhaust gases discharged to the atmos based system. <1> Another report tn phere from any equipment used m which this assumption was not made and ethylene dichloride purification is not haust gases discharged to the assos- pbere from each reactor is not to exceed toe appropriate emission limit as fol the economics of tbe air end oxygen sys to exceed the appropriate emission limit lows: tems were being compered. It wee con cluded that overall production economics as follows: (1) Each source for which ceostrac ; m Each source for which construction bad commenced on or before June 2.1977 "favor the oxygen process even if vent tion had commenced an or before (date ' 10 ppm until (date three years after pro gas Incineration would not he required of proposal of these amendments), 10- mulgation of these amendments* and 5 for an air-based plant since the sum of ppm until (date three years after pro ppm after (date three years after pro all remaining advantagm offered by mulgation of these amendments) and mulgation of these amendments). ' oxygen-based plant operation more than outweighs tbe incremental cost for the 9 ppm after (date three years after tbe promulgation of these intendments). (ii) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June Z 1977. 5 oxygen feed." (2) Miscellaneous: The Administrator in vites comments on all aspects of tbe pro posed amendments. (Section 112 of t&e Clean Air Act, sac. 4(a) of rub. 1. 91-004. as Stet. ISM (43 ITAC. ISSTe?> and section S01<a) of the Clean aw Act. see. a or Pub. h. Ho. 90-1ss. as Stan 90s as aioanocq by mc. i IS) (c) (3) of Pub. !. si-sos. SS Star. IT13 (S3 tr.B.e. XMST tin)). Sea. HS7 and Bias *i*o eeooosod vndw tbe au thority of section 114 of the Clean Air Act. aa adoed by esc. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-904, Ss 8tat. ie7 and amendod by Pub. L. B9-319. me, S(a> (Si. aa atat. 3S9 (43 7AC. 19S7e-9>.> <3> Each source for which construc tPioPn^a commenced after June 2. 1977. 9 (b> Oxyehlonnation reactor: Except as provided m f 61.65(a). emissions of vinyl chloride to tbe atmosphere are not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as fallows; (1> Each source for which construc tion bad commenced on or before (date of proposal of theM amendments). 02 g/kg (0.0002 lb/lb of tbe 100 percent ethylene dicbloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. (2) Each source for which construc ppm. X R' * (b> Stripper: Except as provided to I 61.65<a>. the-concentration of vinyl chloride to all achanft gases discharged to tbe atmaephetfcfTom each stripper is not to exceed ttafappropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before June Z 1977 10 wm until (date three years after promulgation of these amend ments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after final promulgation of tome amendments). Hot*.--Tbe XavueamentaJ noteetton tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 9 (2lJ6ch source for which construction Afeney has determined that this document ppm. comssneed after June 2. 1977. 5 ppm. does hot contain a major proposal requiring (e> The requirements of this section (C) Mixing, weighting, and holding preparation of an Tmnomlc Impact Annlyii* under zaecutm Orders lid and 11949 and OMB Circular A-107. Dated : May 27.1977. do not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation and set the requirement In 191.65(b) (8) (1) before being opened. containers: Except as provided to I 61.- 65(a), toe concentration of vinyl chlo ride to all exhaust gases discharged to toe atmosphere from each v"*y("g weigh Doueua M. Coanx. Administrator.1 (1) Standard Support sad Savironmantal impact Statement: Imtaion standard for 3. Section 61.63 is revised to read as follows; (61.63 Eaiion standard tor vte*l cUotidr plant*. An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo ing, or holding container to vinyl chlo ride service which precedes toe stripper ior the reactor If the plant has no strip per to toe plant process flow is not to exceed tot appropriate emission limit as follows: Ttnpl CHlorult XPA-480 13-78-009. October. 1974. ride plant shall comply with tbe require ments of this section and 161.65. (1) Each source, for which construc tion bad commenced on or before (date MPMAl MStSTn, VOL S3. NO. 1Ss--THUaSDAY, JUNt 1, l *77 CMA 015256 A-19 2S1S8 n FOOD RULES of proposal of these uniniimtTiU'. 10 resin all of which had bem produced by od of measurement Is to meet the re- ppm until (dace three yean after pro the plant on or before June X. 1977: oulmente In I 61A7lg) (5) U' iA> or mulgation of these amendments) ml 5 (A) 2 g/kg <0.003 lb/lb) product from If' (5) (1) CB). ppm after (dote three jmn ofUr pro- the strippcrtsl ter reactor(s' if the 6. In I l-*7, paragraph (a> p revised mulgation of these amendments.1, plant has no strtppms) ] for dispersion to road as follows: (*> Each tourer for which construe* tion ccouBcnc*d after June 2. 1977, 9 polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on { 61.67 Enana* Wot*. ppm. 4 dry tftifrii biszs* (a' Unless a waiver of emission test <d; Monomer nearerr mum. Except (B< 0.4 g/kg <0.004 Ib/lb' product ing is obtained under f 61.13. the owner as provided la I 61.651 a', the concentre- from the stripperts) (or reactons) If or operator of a aouree to which this tion of vinyl chloride ta all exhaust film the plant has no stripperU)) for ah sutopart applies shall test missions discharged to the atmosphere from each other polyvinyl chloride retina, including from the source as follows: monomer recovery system is not to ex* latex retina, with the product deter (1) Bar an existing source or a new ceed the appropriate concentration as mined on a dry solids basis. ounce which has an Initial stance date follows: <h> For sources being used to process preceding October 21,1976 : (li Each source for which construc any grade of polyvinyl chloride retin not (1> Within 90 days following October tion had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments). 10 produced by the plant on or before June 2, 1977: 21. 1976. and (11) For those sources subject to ppm until (date three yean after pro (A) 0A f/kg (0.0005 lb/Ib) product II 61.62(a): 61.63(a); 61.64 (a)(1). (b), mulgation of these amendments and 5 from the stnpperts) (or reactor(s) If the (e). and <d>; and/or 61.65(b)(1). <b> ppm after (date three years after pro plant has no sttippens)) for dispersion (2), (b)(3). (b'(5). (b)(6>, and/or <b' mulgation of these amendments). polyvinyl chloride retina, excluding la (9), within 90 days following (date three (2; Each source lot which construc tex reams, with the product determined years after the promulgation date of tion commenced after June 2. 1977, 5 on a dry rii|<|ti basis: them ameadmmtt >. ppm. (8) <U g/kg. (0.0001 Ib/Tb) product (2) Bor a new source fcn,whieh initial e> Sources following the strtpper(s): from the strippers (or reactoris) If the startup occurs after October 21. 1976. The followInc requirements apply to plant has ao stripperts)) for ah other within 90 days of startup. * > emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmos polyvinyl chloride resins, including 96 9 phere from the combination of an sources following the strlsperu) tor the reactons) if the plant has no stripper] m the plant process flow Including, but not limited, to centrifuges, concentra latex resins, with the product deter- mined tin i dir butt. If) The requirements of paragraphs (b). (c), and <d) of this section do not apply to equipment that has been 7. Is f 61.65. pamgraph c< is revaec to read as fallows:1 | 61.68 Rohniss monitoring.. b t tors. blend Units. Alters, dryers, conveyor opened. Is out of operation, and met the (e) A dally span check Is to be con air discharges, baggers, storage con tainers: and Inproeom wastewater. requlremmt in 161A5<b'<6 (i before *i*(g opnied. ducted for each finyl chloride monitorInc system used. Bor all of tile sources (1) in polyvinyl ehlonde plants using 5. Section 61AS is as fohowz: listed ta paragraph in of this section, stripping technology to control vinyl chloride emissions: (1) for a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have been produced by the plant on or before June 2. 1977. . the weighted average residual vinyl chloride concentration-In all the grades processed through the stripping opera, lion on each calendar day. measured Im mediately after the stripping operation A. By replacing the phrase "10 ppm" with the pbraae the appropriate emis sion limit *p--m f 81.85(C) " in paragraphs (b)(1)(H). (b)(2), (b)(3) U>. (b)(3) 01). (b)(3) (Hi).-(b>(3)Or). cb>(3>(v>, (b)(5). (bXOOl). and (b> (9)01): B. By revising paragraph (c> and addbig paragraph (d> as set forth below. except lor the one for which an enimion Unit p proscribed ta I 61.82(b) U'. the dally span check P to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration emission limit appli cable to P.-Bor a source subject to the emission limit prescribSS ta f 61.62(b) (1), the daily spas cheek P u be con ducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride which P determined to be is completed, may not exceed the appro- { 61.65 f--<--=-- auadard far ethylene equivalent to the emission limit for that priau I" limit as follows: didtloride. vinyl chloride. sad poly- aouree based on the emtstion test re-s. (A) 2,000 ppm for polyvinyl dispersion resins, excluding latex resins: vtoyi ehlaridr pleat*. ` quired by I 61.67. The calibration P to be done with either; (B) 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, averaged Kpaiatcly lor each type of resin: to The *"*"*"" limit which Is not to be ooeeded Is as follows: <1) Each source, for which ccawuctioc had com menced on cr before June 2. 19n. 10 69 9 * 6. A new f 61.73 p adto read a* follows: (Uj Bar a grade or grades of polyvinyl ppm until (date three years after pro | 61.72 5w|M`) for taii-rim mioiM chloride resin which have not been pro mulgation of these amendments) and limit. duced by the plant on or before June 2. 1977. the weighted average residual vinyl chloride concentration m all the grades processed through the stripping operation on each calendar day. meas ured immediately after the stripping op eration is completed, may not exceed tbs appropriate emission limit as follows: (A> 500 ppm lor polyvinyl chloride 5 ppm after (date three yean after pro mulgation of these amendments). (2) Eaeh source lor which construc tion eaomBced after June 2. 1977. 5 ppm. (d< The requirements in paragraphs <b)(l. (b)(2). <b)'5.\ (b"`. <b'<7* and (b> (Si of this section are to be in corporated into a standard operating (a- If ta the opinion of the owner or operator of an existing aouree. that aouree will be unable to comply with the 5 ppm enimion limit ta If 6l.6<a' <1 >: 61.S3<a><l';, 61.64 <a*1 (i*. (c)tl', id'll': and or 61.65<c-'i' on or before (Ate three years after promnigstioflpK these amendments', the owner or operator of that source may re dispersion resins, excluding latex resms: procedure, and made available upon re quest that the Adminsirator approve an (B- 100 ppm lor aS other polyvinyl quest for inspection by the Administra Interim --(-- halt for that source chloride mm.*, including latex resins, tor. The standard operating procedure The request p to be ta writing and P to averaged separately far each type of Is to include provisions for measuring be submitted to the Administrator within resm: or the vinyl chloride in equipment 9*4.75 six months prior to (date two years after (2> In polyvinyl chloride plants eontrolling vinyl chloride emissions with m' (1250 gal' m volume lor which an emission limit Is prescribed in ? 61A5 promulgation of them amendments). The request P ta Include: technology other than stripping or In <b)<6><i) prior to opening the equip <1' The reasons the source p in addition to stripping: ment and using Test Method 106. a port capable of being ta compliance with the <1 Bor sources being used to process able hydrocarbon detector, or an equiv 5 ppm emission hmlt end data to support a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride alent or alternative methol. The meth those reasons, and Honu ueimt. v l ?. no. too--THuesoAt. jumi 2. 1*77 CMA 015257 A-20 >*0*0560 RULES (2> A suggested interim minion Unit Iatntdllfdllenscl rtihpatiot n of the methodology tat (b> Aar owner at operator of a source who has submitted to the Administrator o written request for an interim emis sion limit in Accordance with i 61.72(a), shall within 60 day* of the date of the written request meet with the Admin istrator "<tt the information con- tatnad m the request. The meeting Is to be open to Interested persons, who are to be allowed to submit oral or written testimony relevant to compliance of the source. (c) The Administrator will within 120 days of receipt of tbs written request required by paragraph (a) of this sec tion. notify the owner or operator m writing of approval or denial of approval at an interim emission limit. (d) If an interim emission limit Is ap proved the notification Is to include the level at the interim limit, which may be the level requeated or a more stringent one. ( ) A determination to deny approval of an Interim emission limit Is to sat forth the specific grounds on which such denial Is based. Cf)' Approval for any Interim Salt granted for any source under 161.72(0 shall expire three years from the date of issuance. The owner or op erator may request an extension of ap proval for an interim emission limit or a lower Interim --"(("" limit. The re quest is to be in writing, is to be sub mitted within she months prior to a year before the expiration date and Is to in clude the Information listed m ffl.72 (b>. (O, (d>. and () are to apply. A new f 61.73 la added to reed a* follows: | 61-73- 'Offset ef saiisshww fee te new Cf) The emission limits applicable to both thencwsoumeis) and the souree(s) at which emissions are being reduced to balance the increase in emissions due to the new construction are to be estab lished by the Administrator m the ap proval lor construction required by I 61.06. (mb. 113 sad 901(a) at the dean air Act. sec. 4(B) of Pub. L. Mo. si-404. S4 eut. 1M9: esc. 2 of Pub. L. Me. SO-ltt. 11 amt. 604 <42 TTA.C. IBttc-T. isrrg(a)). Im OUT ace 61.61 alee iMuad unoer see. 114 at the Cteaa Air Act. sec 4(a) at Pub. L. Mo. 91-604. a tat. 1067 (42 VAC, 1197*6).) IPX OUC.T7-166T2 filed 6-1-77:9:46 am) <a) No owner or operator Is to con struct a now source which alone or m corobmatlcn with other sources bemg constructed at the same time results m tn mows ted- production rate unless bo dcBUtttntiB to tht Adml&lftrmt0r*ft ml isfaction that such construction will not cause an increase m vinyl chloride emis sion] within 6 ion of any other source which is subject to this subpart. mn(bT))wSe-dhulcmtio--nhm.-l--pr.oductio.nnraft'tye--is offset m emissions, (O The baseline rate is to be determined based oo the level of emis sions allowable by the standard. (d) Reducing emissions fmm-an m- tertmemission limit to the standard for a source is not an acceptable means of achieving an offset. <> In the application for approval of construction required by 181.07. owners or operator* of sourca* subject to this subpart shall include, m addition to the information required by i 61.07, tbs fol lowing information: (1> The name, address, and locyMn of any plant subject to this subpart which is located within km of the propoaed location at the source to be con structed. ,nB6SAi accurst, vol i. no. lowmutssAr, junc 2, 1477 58X5R CMA 015258 A-21 Notice Withdrawing Amendments Proposed in 1977: 1182 Federal Register / -VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1988 / Proposed Rolw ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A08MCY . comer of Highway 54 and Alexander Drive. Research Triangle Park. North limit for relief valve discharges. (2) providing a compliance test procedure Carolina Persons interested in attending and a specific amisaion limit for 40 cm Part ai the hearing should call Ms. Shelby _ operators who perform stripping CAP m. 1787-41 Jountigan at (818) 541-5578 to verify that operations fa reactors, and (3) specifying a hearing will occur. Persons wishing to requirements far lank detection md present oral testimony should notify Ms. repair programs far certain equipment fa Shelby Jountigan. Standards VC service. Additional minor CMoride Development Branch (MD-13), IL& Envirumeotal Protection Agency, yhwiwut--Hi-- changes to the standerd /axe bains ptopoaad and are explained A--tcvi Envoronmehtal Protection Research Triangle Park, North Carolina later fa this preamble. Agency (EPA). 27711. telephone number (819) 50-5578. Summary ofHealth. Environmental action: Proposed rule and notice of BackgroundInformation Document. . Energy, andEconomic impacts. Since no public hearing. The general findings of the review study mafor revisions to the standard art summary: The csrrent amisaion standard lor eteyi chloride (VC) was ' promulgated under Section 122 of the Clean Air Act in 1876. A review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the standard has been completed, end the eonclnsioos of die review are presented in this notice The condnsions are the basis for this action which (1) proposes administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard and' (2) aimouneas decisions pertaining to other aspects of the current standard. TUa notice also withdraws proposed revisions to the ament standard which arete pnbliahed ta'the Federal Begiatar OO Inns 2.1877 (42 FR 28154). If requested a pnblic bearing will be held tb provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of . data. viswt, or arguments concerning the proposed revisions to the ament. * standard. ' peemCommentx Comments moat be received orror before March 23.1965. Public Hooting. If anyone contacts the ~~ EPA requesting tti spOak at a public hearing by Janaarr3019B& a pnblic bearing will be held anFebruary 26.. --ISBS-begbming at-ftOO ajn.Persons - Interested in attending the hearing should call Ms. Shelby' Joumigaa et (818) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will ere documented in "Vinyl Chloride A~ being propoeed. the impacts resulting Review of National Emission from the current standard remam Standards'*. EPAf450/3-82-008(NT1S- . generally unchanged. In 1975. It waa re 84-114354), available fronrtfae estimated that emissions of VC from National Technical Information Servica. plants producing ethylene dichloride 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield. (EDC), VC monomer and polyvinyl Virginia 22181. The major technical chloride (PVC) would be reduced from analysis far the review study is 96400 Mg/yr to 4410 Mg/yr under the contained in a separata document which current standard, representing an may be obtained from the U.& EPA emission reduction of 9L000 Mg/yr of Library (MD-35), Research Triangle VC (or 95 percent ofVC emissions). Park. North Caroltna g7ll. telephone . F--iwiiiM of volatile organic compounds number (819) 541-2777. Please refer to ' (VOC) and EDC are also reduced under "Vinyl Chloride: Relief Valve Discharge the standard. StandanL'vEPA-*30/3-a5-0Q2, far the Tha estimated risks attributed to technical - exposure to VC from EDC/VC end PVC . Docket Docket No. A-81-21, ' plants fa operation prior to the current Mittii4ii| ii|,|Mipihiyt<ifafiint|^ need., standard were 5J cases per ysar far fa developing the proponed-standard, is lhrer angiosarcoma and 11 eases per avitiabla far pnbtic inspection sod * year far all cancan. The risks attributed copying between 8ti ajn. end 4dp.nu to exposure to VC from sources under Monday through Friday, at EPA'si- .. . the caxnnt standard have been Central Docket Section, West Tower estimated to bo 028 cases per year far Lobby, Gallary 1. Waterride Mall. 401M Rvw angiosarcoma end 055 eases per Street SW- Washington. D.C. 20460. A year far ell cancers. nasonabia fas may be charged far fa 1975. the estimated capital cost for copying. plants to meet the VC standard non nnMmt umoamation contact: was 3198 "iniM of which 315 million Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel orMr. Leslie B. waa far EDC and VC monomer plants Evaru. (818) 541-5671. concerning and 3183 million wia for PVC plants. technical aspects of the industry and Tha EPA estimated that the-annualized control technologies, and Mr. Fred cost (Including capital amortization, etc.) Dimmick or Mr. Gilbert H. Wood, (919) to these plants to maintain tbs required 541-5578.concerning regulatory emission levels would be STD million pet dseteiook Tbs uUnn tot thin Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons contacts is Emission Standards and wishing to present oral testimony must Engineering Division (MD-13), VS contact EPA by January 30,4885. Environmental Protection Agency. Incorporation by Reference. The Research Triangle Park. North Carolina Incorporation by mferenca of certain 277H. publications in these standards will be approved by the Director of tho Federal aupnjMamam meomiATiorc Register as of the date of the final rule. Summary of Reviekma to Current AOOMnaa: Comments. Comments Standard year; The VC standard wee proposed on December 24,1975 (4DPr 58532). and promulgated an October 2L1978 (41 Fr - 48588). It is applicable to plants producing EDC by the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with . ethylene, plants producing VC by any should be submitted (in duplicate if Berieione. Several administrative process, and plants producting one or ' possible) to: Central Docket Section (A- changes art being proposed as a remit more polymers containing any fraction 130k Attention Docket Number A-61-21. of a review of the national emission of VC. These plants are subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 401M Street S.W. Washington. D.C. gpaqQ, standerd far VC No major revisions are different requirements et numerous VC bafag propoeed to the standard. As with emission points fa the manufacturing the current standerd far VC the process. These requirements include Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the revisions are being established under numerical emission limits, equipment EPA requesting to speak at a public Section 112 oftiie Clean Air Act The specifications, and work practices. hearing by January 30.1885, the public significant administrative rtvfafaof hearing will be held at EPA Auditorium. include: (1) Reformatting tha --t--t-- The standard was deeignad to mtofartze the health riaks associated CMA 015259 1283 with VC by requiring reasonable control Regulating Airborne Substances Posing Assessment Group reviewed new health measures. As ststsd in tbs preamble to tbs proposed standard (40 Fr S9S32. DsMmbsr 24.1975). than is no known threshold lsvsl of offsets for VC a Risk of Cancer." This proposal addressed several issues which ware central to the proposed VC amendments, it also articulated the studies that have become available since the standard was promulgated. This review included a study of 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 in intent to aiiminate totally on whether this number should be VC would ban its production and use. ' all risks from emissions of airborne This approach was not selected. Rather, carcinogens. The EPA's selection of for an approach was selected to level of control for a haxerdous air ghMjarf to vfUet MW htliatWMtnn. Since the currentstandard was promulgated, new occupational studies the health risks associated with VC by use of reasonable control measure On November 19,197ft. the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) 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 SPA moved to the proceedings on the besis of a settlement agreement requiring the EPA to propose amendments which would require inaeased efficiency of existing control equipment require more stringent control of new sources, and prohibit taaesaas in emissions within the vicinity of an existing source due to new construction. The preamble to the proposed amendments was to stare that foe EPA's policy for regulating earemogens under Section 112 ofthe Goan Air Act would inciade a general goal of eliminating emissions of - carcinogens and mat the EPA would initiate a review of the VC standard 3 pollutant caiesioa standard would not be baaed on a policy thatrequires xaro hareconfirmed qualitatively .that liver mi Kfto wrmw hwlijjy emissions of cardnogena;This policy is asoduted with population exposure to consistent with the basis for other ionospheric VC. However, none of recant actions under Section 122. For ' these new studies have sufficient example, standards for benzene, from exposure Information to warrant a coke ovens end leaks from equipment refinement of the quantitative cancer components in btnzana service an not risk,estimate. based an a zero emiaafoos policy but rather on a reasooahlelevsl of control, which considers emissions and health risks. The findings and conclusions of foe ThrEPA believes it is not appropriate to leave the proposed amendments to .the VC standard in effect or to VC review study an' presented in foe following subsections. The first subsection discusses the need and basis promulgate amendments baaed on the for the carat standard. The second proposed amendments. Therefore, the subsection addressee thrlevel of control June 2.1977. proposal is withdrawn. As required by foe current standard. The desaibed in the following'section of this third subsection identifies source notice, foe EPA began a review study to whftai ajifltiiiini technical data and ftTTt taAUmlt ' categoric* notcovered by the current -standard and evaluates tbe appropriateness ofregulating these . whetherother amendments tofoe . ... standard are needed. New amendmenre- developsdasa result affoereview i. -fi)_N--dandBasisfar QinvatStandard years attar thrpranmigatian of tba study are piupoaed in foienotice.- ,. - ^Thecnmnt VC-standard ws -OnJune 2,1977, the amendments were . ReviewofVCBteadani established basedon judgments - : -ptt*oeed (42 FR 28U4). Manycomments pertaining to policy. tedmoiogica) foasibfiity, ami procedural aspects of.the _ proposed amendments wen received. Review of these comments Indicated that additional technical date end cost. information ware required before the ` proposed amendments, at revisions of the proposed amendments, could be promulgated. Meanwhile, the EDF Sled a petition with the EPA requesting the . establishment of a comprehensive - programfoc regulating airborne carcinogens under Section 112 of the Early in 19g9foe EPA*began-a reviewof tire VC standard. This primary purpose of foe review was to investigate the adequacy and appropriateness of foe standard in light of policy decisions, health stadias, control technolosy developments, and enforcement and compliance experience which have occurred since the standard was first' promulgated. The review consisted of a -eoaceminglbecosts-and benefits of foe - standard to society.The standard is not designed taahminats VC expoeurv risk . entirely. Rather.- it strikes a balance between public health protection and tbe cost ofthat protection. Date (evaluated before the current standard was established) strongly indicate that VC causes os oontribotes-to the development of angiosarcoma, other matting study ot (1) Existing and sew caneetu. and various ncncarcinogenic control technologies. (2) retirees not- disorders in people-wlfo occupational regulated by the standard. andt3) exposure and taanfanais with enforcement end compliance-experience experimental mqrosuw to VC-Although fjnrm jmmmiljaflqfl offoe Standard* no dost raeponea.data are available at . Dean Air Act The aspects,of the EDF*s Information end data evaluated during the Concentration* of VC found in tbe petitkm conraming tbs development of' foia study ware obtained through ambient air. the EPA concluded when standards under Section 132 were literature Marches, plant vistte,.and foe-standard was established that any similar to tboee proposed to foe )une. 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 Baaed an the similarity of the proposed personnel involved in enforcement end risk of VC ixpoiura eutirely.s complete amendments and tha EDFs requested surveillance of foe VRemitting prohibition of afi VC emissions wodld comprehensive program for regulating industries. The information and data are be necessary. This would require die ' airborne carcinogens, the EPA believed presented is 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 tba anootssn in serious, adverse economic impacts. proposed VC amendments until after it. section of this preamble. Decisions . Furthaanore. the EPA concluded at tea bed acted on the EDFs petition. based.on this review ers summarized in time tbe current standard was On October M. 1979 (44 FR 59842), the the next two sections of this preamble. established fontu complete. prohibition EPA propoeed "Policy end Procedures As another aspect of foe review of the of all VC emteatom would not be for Identifying, Assessing, and- VC standard, the EPA's Carcinogen deafruble or necessary..ThaEPA y CMA 015260 A-23 my- Federal fagiator / Vol Sd No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9. 1968 / Proposed Rules concluded this isview ol(l) tbs bsncfictei mm ofVC products tor which risrirshla letwtltntsi in not readily available (2) the potential advene : health andenvironmental : aseodated with VC substitutes tbit . have not bean throughly toadied; (3) tht number of tonployeet. perticulariy in fabrication Industrie*. wbo would becomes!least temporarily ` ' mwmployed: and fljtee avafiabiBty of control technology that is capable of WtiiWiHy --jiiMimn of VC ^ Although ifl EDC VC end PVC pints wnilmk- Hm nuhtimiM irf PnWnl ' standard faeVClaatiUcomidersd- nacaasaij. lb* VC standard contains requirements for tba proper oparatioa ; aBdauioteeaaceef controldswicM.and tbsproper inminsiuatloo of work appropriate balance between tee need - - redact risks to am. Relative to tbs tettiaTcontrol oosts. tbs ediMonaiuost of mafaftslBiDf ladliaidnMalSogthi Fidml VC itndAfd bimaJL Nsvertedaai. if tbsMsnl stnMb `iBscootinuad. tbsss small costs-may b* , soffidenttp provtda tbs tedoitry with- ' Tins, tba ccnUnoad maintenance of /Federal-standards far tbs control ofVC li BiQmiiy |q i-niytfnniilflB ' tbe-current level-of control Additionally, thaetamiardIs important far theooutrolof VC anissionaten plants built in tbs tern. Tba t teams os liv> evw* V*m If SmwwWW* Mae QWni^* wSTSm WastwtPOWWW It wsew____ aswwace . we u tw w' -- ` S7V ' ew wl'1' w ammmv4 , at tewawssanuewvwcwv 1 t1 ms - 7 M 1,4 z V tSL taw '* " , u ,1 v JOppmvStandard. Emission sooeess eosaradbvthis standard btdodsEDC . pnrtflcatton and VC monomerionnallon and purification equipment monomer recovery systems and ofm ipiipMflt at PVC plants, and wonts from fitgRlvs amission capture systems. .Tbs standard is based primarily an tea control of i by induration oc other at tea tens of tee promulgation of tbs 10 ppniv iimiL Comments racstvad on tba proposed 1977 amendments stated teat in order to meat a limit of S ppmo. a control device would have to ba capable of control at level even lower Am 5 ppmv to offset amission fluctuations, rjnwiwitu also stated teat a change bom 10 to 5 ppmv would revolt is little reduction in mass --of VC. Finely, commentate questioned the radonaia of tea "xnro amisslBu goal" policy. Because tea proposed 5 ppmv --jTM limit eras not based on data from a control technology different from tent analysed for tbs current standard and **--"--10 ppmv rapeasants tea lowest lavaLof control which has bean consistently achieved, tbs EPA withdraws tee proposed 5 ppmv limit and affirms tbs original 10 ppmv limit. If such a technology had bean identified, it could bass bean tea basis of a revised standard However, during tea review study no moss advanced technology was identified even though additional data on iadnataton. caiboa adsorbers, and solvent absorption coottol systems on existing plants wasobtained-Although thaae date indicate tint indnatetora ate nspahie nf rednrinf amissions helrrrr 10 ppmv. 30 ppmv rspissentr tbs lowest level of ooctroi whichhas been consistently achieved Based on this -tetawmiat the EPA has concluded teat teets.is.no improved or new control --thathaa been demonstrated to significantly and cocsistirUty reduce atefadeus tea level below teat required by tbe current standard. Themfoca. no investigaboa of the 10 ppmv standard is planned Oxychionaatiom Vvtt Standard--<12 g/kg EDC. The current oxychlorination vent standard of 02 g of VCpar kg of EDC does not require in add-oo control device-Instead the limit canhe achieved at tnoet pients by controUing wttttn a 5-oil* arita of ESC VC ad PVCplant*! t inn imrfj. tbrBPAbas eosdtdsd tbattbateatetanancanfths Padstai standard far VCarwasonabla (2) ffevtewqfTbdhaafagy OauiLmt ofCmtni .for TaUsV bp tbs fmlffjip n4 ti) pi^t per skUbitt by voiame (ppatv) ofVC averaged oxer a 3hour period. Tba 10 ppmv standard applies to control device bypass One of the amendments proposed la 1977 wouldhave required redaction of the emission limit from 10 to 3 ppnrs. The goal of the proposed 8 ppmv limit wee toensure teat thaateadard continoed to approach a "are nteioa pel" hr rsqeirtni owneri sort nperetnri bote to teewffsetfannass of thneofcooetructiee. TimS ppmvfintU was not based oodate ter control technology different from that analysed remaining plants through process At tbe time tbs original standard ares written; indneretion of -- MWMM indeatipted Becuese of expected high determinedaotto be a reasonable metbodof oontrol tor tide source. Tbe snwndmints proposed in 1977 spadfied * level of 9 ppm for the oxyehlarinatioeyaat The proposed requirement was based on installation of an oxygen feed system with an indnsretor or equipment control device. Tbe use of oxygen teed in tbe EDC axychlorinaton process decreases the CMA 015261 /\ Federal Register / VoL 8ft No. 6 / Wednesday., Janaery ft 1888 / .Proposed Rulgs________ 1185 Volta* afinert substances in the vat tram and consequently, the coat for ^Oppiemental fad laqoirad far ^Biiiaratian. Comments received on this ~propoaed amandmant focused primarily on tba high expense and large-energy requirements associated with tha production of oxygen. Tha review study identified no control technology far oxydilorination vats at EDC/VC plants that had not baan considered during tha development of (ha original standard. Additionally, the EPA reevaluated tha coat of retrofit incinerator controls and reached tha ' same conclusion drawn in tha development of die original atandard As before, tha high coat associated with incinerating axyubiarination vat* at existing EDC/VC plants mekaa this level of control unreasonable. Thus, the current standard of 02 g/ltg EDO is considered still to-he the most reasonable level of control foredatingoxydilorination vats. In. addition, tha review study concluded that newctmetructinn or modification of EDC/VC plants- ia-not expected At this time, only ana new EDC/VCfadlity is reportedly planned (BF Goodrich has plana to construct an EDC/VC facility in Convent Louisiana.) Oxychlorinatian vents at new EDC/VC plants will be jaulatedby the proposed standards-of ^"uf-aKrmPinaeral ao SobpaztQIH).-mornboycthe" ; -BAG? or LAER requirements of new - aoura review regulations applicable in specific-locations toadavel comparable - to that mchiavable through tha use of indnaradan. Because the technologically achievable level of control is assured through the current requirements, tha EPA enndudad that investigation, of additional control (La. incineration) was not required for . oxychlorinatian vents. Reactor Opening 0 02g/kg PVC Product. The current VCstandard restricts amissions during polymerization reactor openings. Tha standard was baaed on reactor purging and on a reduction in tha fraqwacy of reactor opanings. An increased level of control was not proposed in tha 1977 amendments. (The level ofcontrol provided by the currentstandard 002 g/ltg of PVC product reduces VC amissions to about 138 Mg per year for a modal PVC plat) During the review of the standard ao technology was identified that would provide additional VC reductions beyond the level of tha current standard Therefore, the EPA is not investigating farther the control of reectara ^^tmbinedSoarcee AfterRuin tpping. The sources of VC emissions covered under die current standard Inrinrie bland tanks. dry*r*.eatrifugss, storage silos, baggingoperations, and ay soarcerfollowing the stripper. Control of there emissions is based a either stripping the PVC resin to a specified (based on resin type) residual - VC level (be. 400 ppm for suspension, bulk, solution, and latex resins? and 21X30 ppm fordisperaion resins) or processors meeting thrmore stringent limits proposed previously sra stripping there resins to this low level toefiset emissions from those resins wfaiehare more difficult to strip. Without this ability to average-the emissions ad reductions among resins, there precereort might not achieve the current ewwlwil Bwipriwg mfai |wAt controlling dreastissions from all aonrere fallowing the stilppm with a * knovnfto be difficult to strip is not fcdiii Iwmum rtmf Mtssnsnot control device. The 1977 propoesd amendments wuoldhaveroqnired "new. reetaf" tobe-stripped totower levels (La. 100 ppm forsuepension. bulk, solution, and latex resins: and 500 ppm for dispersion restne). When the amendments were proposed the EPA believed that same reeinscould meet the. proposed limitsrwherees. brother teeing the manufacturer would have reedffy be defined. For the foregoing IMSOOie-thtt Wo* QgocitldiltkAt there is no demonstrated,levelof control which piM significantly consistently reduce residual VClevels in-resins to-levels-below that required by the current.standard. Therefore, the EPAismot investigating further the oontrol of tbs oooddned-soeroes-eftet baa required to develop-improved stripping technology ornot to produce . the resin. luhutxy wiinMrt* thetmost dispeariair copolymer.ad bulk resins . wmlft ivffmw tf m-- stringent emismon limits were imposed. Additionally.' tbs-commutersnotedthe EquipmentLeekt Because)littlewa dmownebont leak detection and ' elimination-programs forcontrolof equipment leaks from oompenente in. VC programs werenot hmlndad in the current standard. Instead. ae^Lpient was required-tn institute and implemur Tam ^mnsmBnnn enmnirnen nr oommuxm iodkiMtbit gfaog. sdjustmentata resin eumpoaiifans. axe a faanaHrari-laek detection and a fixed*poiaiTOcnitar and a portable made roodneigtaadcmnpleteljri i rarely, its subject to epprqvalby the concluded that itis wmawy cases to distiageislr between new and as wtffas-ariatiocs in leak existing rerintad still hovesay resins covered by the proposed! amend!mulls Purthq tlir piupneed emendiuenie did . not addrere what Urvefe-ofeontroi could be achieved byimproved,stripping technology. Far threereasons, the EPA chore to evaluate whether higher levels of control are achievable for all resins, or only for some-special daarea of plants kero resulted: Sines the standard waspromulgated, the EPA basobtsinod moreInformation p--to-the control of equipment leaks from - components in VC'servioa. Wtthtbeinformstioo obtained form the development of other standerdsTa - ' leak detection and repair The review study fouadthat resin stripping technology has improved since the --B-jlnulmlp^ . b um of e portable- r new be specified fixequipment covered bythis program. The end that same processors cu achieve lower rsaia rasiduaLVClevels tha those,required in the original standard. In certain caaaa. soma-resins ran meet *-- mntm i 1--U. tw th Relief Valre Discharge Standard. previously proposndamenrimtnts. Sources oTVC entissfoos covered by this However, other processors mmhiWWiij wIm of tiwhM HwIiiHbjII'Iii|-- from teUef grsdas- valves a pressure vessels^transfer ud diaregtuisHes ean miy marginally lines, and' other equipmaf in EDC/VC - comply with tha ""g*--i end PVC plats. The standard la based Becaure ofthe wide variation inresin a emission control by*combinetion of grades and characteriitiia. it cannot be equipmentad fpft-- concluded that. evu e partinler end operationalprocedures, found in restit made by one company can meet a plats during development of tbs particular levL any other resinor standard. a * mwiMmHc . similar resins produced by another modifications end operational company could also meet that leveL Furthermore, in eoms cases these procadurea was not specified. Instead, a pffcWMIM f p - fWltMirtW 015262 1186 A-25. .) Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 6 / Wwhwday, Janory 9. 1985 / Proposed Ruled standard) was established because it to roureas covered by ths VC standard umacassary and that tha entrant level was believed that different the EPA condnded that none of tbs of control resulting from tbs EPA's oombinadona could ba equally effective ddittowl sources idendfiadfa ths standard and OSHA's standard is still ia controlling relief valve discharges. review study warrant a Fedaral reasonsbla. Ths omaut Format of the standard standard Landfill*. Off-specification resins prohibits all relief valve discharges Miscailanoous Sourest of YC containing VC has been taken to except mnenaacy discharges. fiamsiioiio Miscellaneous sourcas are lenrifllle where the gaseous VC on be Emergency discharges are described as those which cooid not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge (La* those that arr "ttoopwvaatabla'T. Since the standard plant* other than PVC and EDC/VC plants that nee VC.as a raw material nr produce VC a an intermediate or by- product The EPA has identified four such plants, two of thaw plants product released. However, the current EPA standard intends that all resins, including off-specUlation resins, be skipped to redna ths VC amissions from sources downstream from ths 'was promulgated, all plants have mw products experienced some releases. Many of parchinroetbyiana-and trichioroetbyisns ' these releases are considered and the fourth plant produces pestidds*. preventable by the EPA. Based on visits (An additional lu-tricbloroetheae unit to plants with good compliance waa constructed-at a fourth location but histories, the EPA concluded that a level has reportedly never bperatad Than of performance reflecting compliance art no plans to operate in tha fartme.) with the cuneat format of the standard Review of VC emission soorcas at tha throogb the combined effects of identified plants showed them to be well 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 stUl considered to reflect the appropriate level of coatroMbr these sources. controlled Emissions ofVC from these plants are primarily from fiigitivs sourcas and rangt from las than 1 Mg/ yr to 14 Mg/yr per plant la general tha VC NESHAP requirements for process vents and equipment in VC service art being met at the misalleneoa sources due to company policy considersdons - However; as discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the - preamble, the EPA is proposing to teviae tbs standard by setting limits for relief ' valve discharges in *different format " Admauatradr* Aspects oftho Standard. Even though.the EPA deddad end State mid local regulatory requirements. In addition, many of tha equipment components in VC swvia . would becowed brstandard* af performance farnew sources and - standards fur sources hinonsttiinmeat not to revise the level of control asaodated with the current YC standard,the EPAJdanttSad revisions to several administrative-aspects of the standard These revisions as wail as those identified* above.'are discussed in the AMbdstrattve Revisions section of the preamble. - areas. Based an the.farrestigatioii qf_ v these sources, the EPA eoadudedjbat they are already relatively walk controlled and do-aot contribute, . t - . significantly to VC exposure. For doe reasons, additional requirements far . miscellaneous sources ofVC are not being propoaad at this time. PVCFabrication Plana. There are- (SfRtrrnw ofSourest Not Pnriouaty abaot &000 fabrication plants which; Covered take tha resin produced by PVC plants stripper. In order to clarify that stripping requirements also apply to the offspecification resins before removal of lemtfnie. these requirements are being restated to explidty address offspsdflation resins. The EPA believes that tbs level of control resulting from tthbs.stVripTp*in*g;r*e*<q*u*ir--emqneln--ts Is reas(nornable; landfills an not being proposed today. However, the EPA recognizes that VC ' may be emitted from hazardous waste landfills and is evaluating and may regulate under the Rasoura Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) volatile emissions (including VC) from iwwrfniu at hazardous waste disposal bdlitiss..Tha EPA also recognizee (Sat VC has been detected in municipal i4Bii- Therefore, hi addition to aaaasehig VC amissions from hazardous waste disposal facilities, a (RQIA) Subtitle D-TASK FORCE has been fomedwhich will assess all environmental releases including air emissions from Subtitle D facilities (a category which fadndas municipal landfills). , As discussed in the Findings and Condaaicne of tbs Review Stady section of this preamble, the EPA identified several administrative revisions that are Ibis subsection discusses the status ynt |p>n intarmedista or appropriate as a result of ths review of VC sources not covered by tha products. Emissions from these plants study. The rationale far the proposed currant-standard that war* identified In art estimated tube about 00038 Mg/yr . administrative revisions is presented in the review study. Far these sources, the per plant In comparison to VC tide section of the preamble. Thae EPA seaweed whether a Federal production plants (which typically emit revisions include: (1> Reformatting die standard was warrantad Tha EPA's about 82 Mg/yr). PVC fabrication plants emission limit far relief valve isssanwnt of thase sourest was based > ue smell emitters of VC If standards discharges. (2) providing a compliance primarily on a quantitative analyeis of wan developed far thia category they test procedure and a specific < VC emissions from these sources would not insult In reduced limit far operators who strip in tha combined with e qualitative analysis of beaus# the bat control for these plants reactors. (3) spedfying requirements for risks associated with exposure to VC is to reduce tha VC lewis in tha resins leak detection and repair program far from these sources. The EPA considers being processed by tha fabriatora. equipment components fa VCaarvica. these analyses to be adequate in plea Resin stripping beyond the level that and (4) misalianeous revisions. of s thorough quantitative risk process economic* would dictate is assessment for purposes of determining already being dona as a result of tha Jtmlimf Valrw Di*ehargs , whether a Federal standard is EPA's currant standard and OSHA's VC Background. The currant format of the warrantad for thase sources. Beaus# standard, based an tbs EPA's standard far reliefvalve discharges these sources are already relatively assessment of these sources, the EPA . allows only "emergency" discharges wall-controlled and the quantity of VC concluded that they do not contribute (La- discharges that could not be .emission, and consequently, the risks significantly to VC exposure. Therefore, avoided by taking preventive measures). assodatad with exposure to VC from tha EPA believes that tha evaluation of The standard applies to all pressure these sources, are small in comparison controls far PVC fabriation plants is feliaf devicaa on pressure vessels. CMA 015263 /*\ A--26 Federal k-atftw / Vol 50, No.fi / Wednesday. January 9. 1965 / Proposed Rule* 1387 transfer lines. and. other equipment in the EDC/VC and. PVC pints. The control compliance parted. Following-an initial .tcdmiqticr considered** the basis of drop in relief solve-discharges after-foe standard involve a combination of standard went into-effect, the frequency ^equipment modifieslien*. process and quantity ofrelief seise discharges modification*. andaperational by EDC/VC plants have decreased procedures. Aajaa combination of . . slightly orremained relatively constant modifiesHoes and operational Genera/ BattofarNanmical limit. procedures was not spscifisd is tbs In selecting the proposed numerical currant standard rofoar. s performance Hunts. EPA first evaluated in detail the standard (la- an-emisaion standard) - recant performance (T981 to 1983} of five was established baesnas different PVC plants and one-EDC/VC plant MwWmttaM gf )|m Uld>. Hume plants were chosen based on procedures watt expected toba equally discussions with EPA Regional Office affective in oontroUingrelief valve personnel end industry and ware dischargee. intended to represent plaals*with good Based an 8-yean of enforcement and relief valve discharge records. In compliance experience, the EPA has . general the EPA'a evaluation of these concluded that the relief discharge plants indicates that each has adopted standard has resulted in: (1) Significant the combination of equipment reduetians in the frequency-and quantity operational procedures and'attitude of VC discharger from reliefvalves. (2) toward prevention of relief discharges significant usa of agency resources to intended by the currant standardised evaluete individual discharges for that their resulting performance is preventability. and (2) uncertainty on consistent with compliance with the the part of producers regarding whether current standard. Hie EPA>evaluation they comply with the standard. found theta few discharges may Additionally, the EPA learned some of continue to occur from soma plants diet VC end PVC believe that this part of the comply with the standard. This current standard applies only to ' observation is consistent with, the discharges through safety relief valves expectation held by the-EPA when the and that discharges through other standardwas written^ pressure relief devices, such as rupture ' la order toterrier-foe-standard in Asks or manual or automatic vent terms ^Bves. are not covered This - compliance with,the cumeatfoaatof vBPerpratalfoa isnot compatible with the the standard, thisevatuition separated intent bafamdtfae ament stauditd'To PVC and EDC/VC plant*. Perplants, provide more effioent enforcement by ilemtiq th l|p)ii b( |pjiirtiiiul1 relief valve discharge performance data ware farther separated by source preventabilityassessments on foe'EPA. [reactor ye. nonreactar^endby resin _ end to provide a better understanding to type The EPA than reviewed foe plant operators of the goal of the performance o2S additional PVC plants standard, the EPA is proposing to -- and 12 additfooei EDC/VCplasta. He reformat the standard for relief valve EPA reviewed this large set of plants to discharges and to define the emission points covered by this standard to ansurv that the-level of performance demonstrated by foe-evaluated plants include appropriately all pressure relief could be achieved by ail PVCand EDC/ devices. As discussed more completely VC plants. in the following sections.-ths EPA is. The numerical limits presented in foe proposing to change the format of the numerical limits hr the-standard to Ffodinfa-soctiQi* of tbie preamble arelan evahsetfoo of thenumber of reflect the number of diadurgee diet occur from those-plants complying wttfa the format of the entrant standard. aaeodatadwith compliance with foe The EPA found in the review study provirian* of th*existingstandard. .that efforts by all-EDC/VC and PVC - FormatforNmoarieolLintitt- The . producers to comply with the standard EPA vfritedths ftvePVC plants are reflected in their prefarmanca (in evaluated in detafi. As expected foe terms of size and frequency of EPA found differenesvin the discharges) since the standard want into combinations of hardware and effect. In general, a reduction in the operational procedures associated with reported frequency and-size of relief control of relief valve discharge* of each valve discharges by PVC producers has of foe plants. Furthermore, no exact occurred since 1978. A further decrease relationship was found between the in relief reive discharges by the PVC effectiveness of specific hardware items industry occurred between 1900-end and operational procedures and Performance by the EDC/VC prevention of discharge*. In foe EPA'v iSKatry exhibited less merited trend judgment the-various-combinations of hardware end operational procedure! implemented'by each of foe plants along with the attttudss adopted toward' preventingrelief valve discharges represent foe types of control measures that ths standard intended In particular, foe EPA concluded fopt tip low frequency of discharges by ths visited plants wss indicative of foafr degree of effort to prevent relief valve discharge*. Consistent with foe goal of this proposed revision, foe EPA decided that an alternative numerical endssiao.]imit based an performance resniting under - foe current standard'could be revisedin .a foxmat-foat wouldbe easier to umioretand by --t----e personnel Tha-ffiA investigated two basic ways at expressing reliefvalve discharge performance forPVC piants. One format iS "fl |[fa m--tmmirtm*. {jf example, the-pounds of VC discharged par miltiaa pounds of PVC produced (lb VC/MM lb PVC). Based on a review of methods used by industry ^determine foe amount nf VCdisehmged&omtaiiaf valves, foe EPAwe* unable, to identify a uf&oantiy accurate matbod for . quantitiae from relief vivea. At present, prnriuesri-are requiredonly to.estimatedischarge quantities for reporting. uwpnro . ' Demonstration of compliance wlfoa-B) - VC/MMIbPVCHmliynaidBequire produdfesto measure foremouurdfVC discharged h*TMTM a suitable maasunmaotmafoad was not identified the EPA decided sot to redeflnrrefiafvalve-discharge performance by PVC plantain a lb VC/ ' MMlbPVC-fonnat Another format is basedan foe - frequenqrrffm. numberpermit time) of discharge from occurrences. No method for measuring foe amount ofVC discharged from relief valves isneeded became esdy foa-occurrame-af s release is required for this format The occurrenceof a discharge-cembe determined bymonitoring-proem parameters as-weU aeinspectingrelief valve-perfocmance reports. Tima, of foe two basis,ways of expressing relief valve performance thatwere considered foe EPA selected* format based on foefrequency ofdischarge* Based on this dedstat foa-EPA then considered-how foe fatmet would be applied to'PVC'andEDC/VC plants. At PVC plants, foefrequency of discharges from polymerization reactors and aaeodatad process equipment may be related to foe fact that a batch process is used to produce most types ofPVC. For batch PVC prodnfoten processes, foe opportunity for discharges is related to thenumber of times a new CH6 015264 1188 A-Z/ % Federal Register / Vol sq No. 8 / Wedneadcy, January 9. 1988 / Proposed Rail polymerisation batch ia initiated. [VhilniAm Of SUSpSttSian bilfc Expreastag reliefvalve discharge resins indicates that raactor discharge perfaanancafar these plants with s freqnency generally la aitfaer leas than dtacharge-pefbatch format accotmts far OlOSS dfechargaa/100 batchas or is much variations emg plants in tfaa number pester. (Recant reactor discharge of batchas produced. The EPA selected frequencies for suspension resin plants 100 polymerization batches as a with poorer performance levels ranged convenient basis for expressing raiiaf between 0060 and 0101 dischargas/100 vahra discharge performance by PVC batches.) Further examination of relief plants with batch production pT'TTTtt in a discharge frequency tanat saralvpe--disijcMha--rge performancehxbMyiwt-- Farthar. tba EPA notad that tfaa ability rt# ouly experienced more of batch PVC prodncsrs to limit tba than 4 discharges p year during the discharge.frequency may ba different for period from 19a ta ISO. Performance reactor and noareactor discharges add by this plant also exceeded 0036 that raactor discharges may vary by diaduugss/100 batches. main typa at any plant. Consequently, Tba reactor discharge frequency raiiaf vahra discharges by individual essodatad with diipardon and latex PVC plants (axespt far continuous praduetiaon is typically sera However. ablation process pints) wars i nr'sattyyppiical disparetan or latex rssin according to typa ofdischarge (La. proceei with e lew production rate (La* raaeter vs. noarsactor) and tha raactor nmnbar of polymerization batchas par discharges wars separated by rasin _ year), a single emergency reactor type. Noarsactor discharge source* at discharge in given year would ba PVC plants include blowdown tanks, equivalent to a discharge frequency of transfer baas, and storage vassals. about 0038 dtacbargaa/100 batchas. Because usage of this equipment is also Nonreactor Discharges. Nonrsmctor related to some extant to the frequency discharge frequencies by PVC plants of batch polymerization operations, tfaa typically war* either lass than 0023 raiiaf valve discharge performance by discharges/lOO'batehes or were much i in PVC plants with greater. (Recantnonreactor discharge ' frequencies reflecting-poorer i the basis ofnumberof' flschaigtt/100 batches. tOOSB tad 0223 discharges/100 Cniika the batch procata need to batches.) Furthermore, with the produce ptbsr PVC testa types, the exception of two producers. nomore rotation PVC process is continuous. than three discharges-par year were Time raUaf vulva discharge pofannance reported,frcm noxiraacior sources ta for tha solution PVC process cannot be PVC plants during tfawpariod from 3081 cacDcmad od * ftnnacT mt batch to 1983. beata teamed the relief valve discharge Each of tfaa ffva PVC plants that tha performance essodatad with tha EPA evaluated ta detail was smong solution production process can ably be those achieving 0035 discharges/100 - expressed ta ww of the total batches or last ta each of tha reactor of discharges (reactor and nonreactor) discharge categories and 0023 paryoaz. diachargaa/100 batchas or last ta tha Statilariy, tfaa EDC/VC prodnctian noareactor discharge category. Ifas'EPA procaae la not a batch procaaa. hot is individual discharge taddanti continuous. Thus, relief valve discharge far tfaa PVC producers whose recant performance by H3C/VC plants also parionnanca has axcaadad 0033 cannot be expressed on a frequency par . dischargas/100 batches to one or mot* batch,basis- Moreover. the was . of tha reactordischarge categorise or nnahla to detset a direct relationship who exceeded 0023 diechargss/100 - between discharge frequency and VC batches and 3 discharges per year from production it EDC/VC plants. Thna. tbe . nonreector aotnsao ta every case, the EPA decided to-deftes retaif vahra CTA identified one or more discharges discharge pmfoamanca for ED&/VC that wart preventable. Elimination of plants on the basis of a total number of those preventable dischargas indicates fMl that theta producer* should have Finding!. PVC Baaetor Discharges.. Suspension resins account for the achieved diseharga frequencies cemparabla to tha five PVC plants that Ugliest percentage of total PVC tha EPA evaluated ta deteiL prodnctian. The remaining PVC Sotation PVC Procaaa. Discharge production lain tha form of balk, frequency from both reactor and dispersion and eolation resins. (A small nonreactor sourcas by tba tingle plant amount of latex resin is produced by a producing PVC by the solutfan process- process closely related to tfaa dispersion was zero daring tha period 1981 to 1983. process.) Examination of relief valw Previously, this plant experisnesd as discharge performance associated with many aa two discharges ta a 12-month period. Ractait performance soggasta that preventable dischargas have bean eliminated at this plant With tfaa exception of a potential emergency discharge occurrence, future dischargas at this plant are not anticipated. EDC/VC Discharges. During the review study, tfaa EPA evaluated parfmmance by one EDC/VCplant ta detail. This plant-axperfsnced about four discharges that could be considered stnefgsndes. Recant (1981 to 1993) relief vahra discharge parionnanca data far other EDC/VC producers indicates an indnstty rang* of 0 to t discharges/yr. Information obtained from plants daring the review indicated that where applicable, simitar types of equipment, process modifications sod operational procedural used to control relief velve , dischargee from PVC plants aleo ere used at EDC/VCpants. The EPA MwriMd dischargas by the EDC/VC producers who exceeded four dischargas ta ons or more years since 1981 and found that one or more of the dischargas at each plant ware preventable. eUmtafHan of tha preventable dischargas would allow each of those plants to reduce their mTtmui discharge frequency to four or fewpn _ . Summery ofNumerical Limits. Based oti the study of current relief valve discharge pariormence by PVC end EDC/VC plants. the-EPA is proposing that tbs fallowing numerical limits for raiiaf-vulvadischarges ba added to tha standard Each discharge causing sn exceedance of any numerical limit presented below would ba considered a -violation without regard to whether any individual discharge was preventable. Camplianc* Provisions^.The EPA raeognizarthat aHplanta may experience an unavoidable relief valve discharge incident at some time. Examination of relief valw discharge parionnanca by PVC plants with low CMA 015265 a-28 % Federal Hamster / VoL 50, No. a / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1189 dfaeharge freqandas indicated that "polymerization batch" consists of each operating history, relief vilse discharge plants with this 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 modi hotter than the about one discharge in a 12-month contents, polymerization of reactor respective Emits. For example, some period The EPA concluded that far suet contents, and removal (La. blowdown) . new suspension resin PVC plants plants 12-month reporting period of reactorcontacts. Any bstch that is' produce about 3,000 batches during a (rolling every 6-months) was both aborted fallowing charging ofVC to the 12-month compliance period. Qua and suitable and appropriate far determining reactor is nonetheless counted as a two discharges at ana of these plants compliance with the propoiad.auniaricai polymerization batch in assailing duringa wwpHne periodwouldrasult limits. Far plants produdng only a small compliance. For PVC plants producing fat a discharge performance of 0J2 and amount of a particular resin (La. low bulk main, a single "polymerization -006 discharges per 100 batches, numbarof polymerization batches), an batch" includes both pmpalymerfzatian respectively. Tbs second discharge apparent violation of the standard may anm4 pfrjfrpQfrjHis^ilsmrtitef during the compliance period would be result from a single discharge opentiana. a violation of the proposed 0JJ33 occurrence during a 12-month Discharge frequency can be recorded discharges per 100 batches Emit despite compliance period as described below. in two ways. Discharge frequency ean the fact that the first discharge would For a PVC plant prpdudng a single be recorded an the basis of discharge result in performance well below the resin type to meet the numerical limit far events (involving discharges from ana or Emit These types of plants were reactor discharges (U 0035 mom relief valves) or on individual considered in --**"**"g dm proposed dischargsa/100 batches), it mist mliaf valve discharges In most cases, Emits and reporting procedures far relief experience and average of no mom than plants currently report discharges valve discharges. The result that plants one discharge per 2J88 polymerization individually when they occur from relief of this typo must perform well below the batches over the preceding 12-month valves on separata equipment. However, Emits in tits standard in order to bo in period. An average reactor discharge certain equipment such as compliance Is consistent with tha frequency exceeding oca discharge per polymerization reactors that am proposed Emits, which warn selected to 2J58 batches would be a violation ofthe equipped,with multiple relief valves may represent an upper boundary on the standard. However, if the plant made experienca discharges simultaneously number of allowable discharges less than 2JS8 polymerization batches from mom than one relief valve. Most intended by tha standard. The EPA over the 12-month compliance period, a plants currently report such multiple expects that plants using the best single discharge ocmanaca would be an discharges from a single ptectof frfwiwlngy i4 wwiitiMi Aanld W . apparent violation ofthe standard (La, equipment as a-stogie discharge. Thus. able to perform better than tha proposed the discharge frequency per 100 batches the performance levels serving as tha HmUl would exceed 0033). Because besia far the numericallimitsrepresent JUportiag Bsgttiiwmmttx The currant i insufficient batches ware nude, the JuBvideal discharges and notmultiple standard farrelief valve discharges imported discharge frequency per 100' batches would not correctly reflect the discharge eyents.czsept'Wfaan they requires producers-to report discharges - occur from-a sing)# piece of equipment within 10 days of tho-faidrient. The EPA . - performance by that plant in comparison Far determining compliancs with the is proposing to eliminate the 10 day r--r to-othacplanta complying with the numerical limits,'discharge frequency is reporting requirements and to require standard, hrrectifying the undos to be mcorded an dm basis of individual reporting of ell discharges an a quarterly compUanct burden posed on plants with discharges accept when ahnultaneoas basis. Although compliance is to bt - - . small numbers ofbatches-by tha discharges occur fromxeUef velvet on detannfaed on a semiannual basis, - diacharga/100 batch format and tha the tr"t piece of equipment. quarterly reporting of discharges is selected 12-month compliance period, Amliefvmhre discharge in considered appropriate because violations of the the EPA is proposing to add additional provisions affecting tha number of to be any venting through a pressure relief device to prevent or relieve an standard may occur wall before the end of.the 6-month period. Quarterly - batches used to calculate the discharge overpressure condition from equipment reporting notifies enforcement patecnnal frequency. For PVC plants producing in VC service that results in amissions of potential violations and violations lass' than 238 batches of s particular of VC directly or indirectly to the that have already occurred prior to tha . resin, tbs minimum number of 25B atmosphere. In determining whether or and of the compliance period so that batches will be used when determining 1 not a relief valve discharge results in ccpsctive actions can take place sooner with the i--1 limits. emissions to tha atmosphere, the fallowing the "v* of the ""Irli--* PVC plants producing more than one controlling factor is the-ultimate period Information to bo inefadad in the main type must damonstmta compliance dispoaitian of the gases. Venting to e semiannual report far individual relief separately for reector discharges manifold or header system that valve dischargee is to bereduced to occurring from different ream production ulthnataly discharges to tha atoimsphare inrimU only the data, ****, processes Only tha relief valve eonsdtntas a relief velva discharge. If - causa and estimated amount of each -- discharges and polymerization batches thagases discharge occurrence. The semiannual 'spadfic to each main type am through s oontrol device meeting the 10 report will also inlcude information on * considered for determining compliance. ppmv VC smission limit die venting compliance status. However, far determining compliance does not constitute s relief valve In addition, plants will now be * with the standard for connector discharges, tha totalnumber of discharge, required to maintain relief valve - Far piilpinas nf raparHng ewmpHaww discharge records for 3 years, because of polymerization batches (regardless of . status with the Emits, plants will be the potentially significant inmesse in the resin type) am counted. required to calculate their discharge per time period between a discharge To determine tha number of batch frequencies with sufficient i snd reporting of the ^Bpoiymerizatian batches prodneed for precision to demonstrate that purposes of assetting compliance, the performance is either equal to, below of EfftctrrtDatacrfRrriMioa. The fallowing guidelines apply. A in excess of the Emits. Based an current standard as written willremain CMA 015266 A-29 3390 Federal Sister / VoL 50. Na 8 / Wednesday. January 9.1985 / Propo--d Ratos to tfiaut far laHafvalve discharges until calculation mathoda an tbaa used to the proposed revisions ir promulgated. establish tha reactor opening loss. affeetironass of kak detection and raptorprograms. Some plants Tbs propoeed admtoiatettve revisions Baaed rosxparianca of tha EPA implemented rigorous programs aad do not chugs the standard's-ociginto Regional offices, a-method far others implemented programs lacking intent and an intended only toaat limits determining tha nectar opening loss specific procedures or requirements. tO mi that accountsfor stripping in the reactor Accordingly, tba effectiveness of leak has bean davaiopad for use by all fad standard wiHoonttaoe to ba rofarcad nonbuDt resin producers with nsetor varies among,the plants. until tba revisioosaie promulgated. Strippu^-io-RoaetocCoatplkaeo Toot Prooodttro resin stripping opantions and la >***<*" nd wiriilW lathe enrrant VC standard. Limitations tor rasinresidual and nactor opening lost Sines too carrot standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained aura information pertaining to the control ofamission tem Rjuipmsnt Tha teatmethod for measuring raaetor . are added together to giro a total * openingioaaaa waa developed far nain allowable VC content from these two x stripping operations that taka piaea in . sources. Tba'maasund nsin residual vessels separata tea tha reactor. Soma VC and tha calculated reactor opuning PVC pt****- tTM n Suit nain lots would than ba added together, ana manafactmaa, however. do not naa averaged over a 24-hour period aapataa-mippaa to remove residual VC from the resin produced. Instead according torosin type. If the 24-hour avenge aaets the combined standard, these plants strip VC from tha product tba plant wquld ba considered to be fat resin in tha reactor (poatpolymarization nectar to. the case oftalk nain compliance with both tha stripping and tha reactor opening lose requiriunants. prodnesn). For plants with reactor nain . Look Dotoetioa aadBopair stripping operations, tha concentntton ofVC in tea reactor vapor space, as . maamnd to aeordanca with tha currant standard, exceeds the O02g/kg of PVC requtemanL-Tha high mnean(radons result tom VC monomer diffusing tem tha nain into tha vapor pact daring the period following q[ g^pp|o| flptffdflB (narSlDy --Iwj. nnAmm | wwiitw that nnat ba broken baton tha reactor on be.emptied) and baton the reactor is" aHnpletety emptied ofPVC rosin. Aceodtegto tesFedanl Register nods* irfjmmlgithw gf tJtS current VC Background. Tba uiuaut standard requires impiamantatian of a formaUsed program far detection of leaks tem sqtopmant in VC sarvies and . siiminatiunof these leaks. Tha . formalized program includes a multipoint VCdataetorand a portable volatile organic nompeunrf (VOQ analyses Tietesd-patet monitoring, system continuously monitors VC eoncantetiont tains work-ana around equipment to VC service and sounds an alarm whanconcrotetteus exceed a presoibed toroL Tba portable monitor is usad independently tosoeanindividual standard (40 FR 48883. October L 108). any VC neaping from tha ream after It has been stripped toacceptable levels is not intended to be conntad ss part of the reactor opening loan. However, tha equipment components tor leaks. Rather than specifying tha number of paints to be monitored, the seneitivitite of the multipoint detector, the VC concentretiaa thartodlcataa s leek, and entrant standarddki not Include in tha tbs sedans to be takas to repair leaks, measurement method an acceptable to* currant standard requires such plant method far determining what part of the owner or oparttnr^{OTpamt program VC in the vapor apses has escaped tem Hm nain *h-- is'completed. ^nhn^totpLn to the^EPAfar IftW. Based on information and the review of toe leak detection aad .HwrimHiw plans baing implemented to control --*-***"" of VC tin EPA Amr-iAmA to specify leak detection and repair requirements far certain equipment components to VC service. .Although information obtained from development of other standards todietoet that a routine leak detection and rupair program with a pertabia monitor on be an affective amission Adnetion technique without the requirement of a fixed point monitoring system, the. EPA concluded that fixedpoint monitoring systems steady in piaea ban uses that justify their retention in tba carrot standard. In particular, fixed-point monitors allow for quick detection of cartain large VC leaks that might otherwise go y*4-*--until the next routine portable monitor screening. Tba EPA - recognizes that existing fixed-point . monitoring plans will need to ba reviewed in.light of the leak detection and rvpair requirements baing specified at this time. Tim complexity of existing fixed-point monitoring plans, in terms f tad. distribution of monitoring points, varies pestly among plants. Consequently, some plant owners or. operators may want to altar toe number of points that an monitored and tba distribution ofmonitoring locations to better complement the specified Tba carrot standard allows bulk poetpolymarisadon mactothesad on tba approval Rant eumars or oparstors are required to. submit data on background coneantruttons af.VC to different anas of toe plant to use to determining tfaa/VC tint should ba portable monitoring requirements. Such changes to existing fixed-point monitoring plans will be allowed providing they do hot altar tba plant's ability to detect large VC leaks. vacuum Jcviovsd sad tha volume of gas as tadjetotag a leak. Plans, therefore, in tha reacton. For nonbulk main wart tailored by each plant and . Tha proposed revisions are primarily Intended to standardize control of VC prodaean withreactor nain stripping reviewed by the the EPA Regional anristoons tem equipment leaks. In operations. calculation of nsetor Offices. doing this, tha EPA is concaraed that opuning loss amissions is nun Tba EPA foundin the review study mdsting affective plans sot ba complicated dne to the presence of ' that differences inleak detection and inappropriately changed. Tba proposed wutar vapor in tha reactor vapor space. elimination programs exist among PVC revisions include provisions that allow Camgy, watvun of testing tor and EDC/VC production plaits and plants with axistteg tffeptivt plans to producats with nonbulk nsin stripping miscellaneous sources and that site- periodically demonstrate toe opantions in tha reactor have been specific differences f'nlvde variations to effectiveness of their plans without granted an a cite-by-case basis by tba 1!. ^SwtHnw mnA bbwHw4b| additional requirements. Accordingly, SPA Regions, typically with tha practices. The definition and monitoring , tha EPA requests comments from provision that residual VC samples ere practices, along with rvpair practices., industry representatives concerning the aniayzad oa eachbatch.-A variety of art primary tnfiasnrro on the control spedfic effects of specifying leak -1- CMA 015267 ' AT30 - ^ FedaralRagistar / VoL 80. No. 8 / Wednesday, January -fl, 1888 / Propose-- Rule* 1191 detection and repair requirements on 0percent or less. Any process unit to that achieves that standard may be " existing ptons. . LmtkDatactioaaodRaptor Raqaimaaata. Ths EPA establUhed leak detection and repair requirements (40 CFR Put 82 Subpart V) far attain equipment in volatile hazardous air which the percentage of leaking valves is bund to exceed 0 percent will be required to comply with the provisions of Subpart V. The Subpart V requirements for valves are baaed on a leak detection applied. Sectionll2(s)(2) defines the following eanditiaos under which it is not fradibie toprescribe or snforee sn ' standard: (1) If the pollutants cannot be esdtted'through a conveyance Aa*tgwd and constructed to emit or pollstant (VHAP) service on Inna A. and repair program thatrequires (1) 1264 Thaw w,piy|M|tq were monthly monitoring tor vulvas hi go/ established in conjunction with the final vapor and lightliquid aarvica. (2) an captnN the poflutanh cr (2) If the application of measurement mathodology is not prscttoahls due to stsndard-far benzene equipment-leaks. The requirements of-Subpart V generally apply to pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection initial attempt at repairing tfaeae valves within 5 days after detection of a leak, (3Jrepairof leaking vulvas within 13 days after detection ofthe leek unless technological or economic Undtations. Section 222(e)(1) allows that If an aatriaakm wtamAanf k itft toTffM* tO prescribe or endorce. then the EPA may systems. open<ended valves or lines, repair would require a process unit istead promulgate a design, equipment, valves, flanges and other connectors, ' shutdown, and (4).repair of valves work practice, or operational standard, and product accumulator vessels. Tliese during tfaa next process unit shutdown or combination thereof. requirements reflect the level of control' after repair is delayed until a procsss The EPA has reviewed the design, that the EPA considers reasonable for unit shutdown. Valves found not to leak equipment, work practice and . equipment covered by developing far2 successive months can be operational requirements containedIn standards far VHAP, The EPA la monitored quarterly until leaks are the current VC standard. The only therefore proposing to add VC to the list detected. Monitoring ofequipment to sources covered by the current standard of substances covered bySubpart V. detect leeka la conducted in accordance with one ofthe requirements for which a Subpart V would substantively affect with Method 21 and a leak is defined aa perfonnauea standsrd (La. an emission only velvet and flanges in VC service within this Industry. All other equipment in VC senrtoe are already required by the VC standard to comply with a measured organic concentration equal to or greater-then 10,000 parts par million by volume (ppeml For a complete description of theleak standard) is feasible are pisums relief devices. As discussed below, the EPA is setting a "no detectable emissions" Until for these sources. Far the other sources, equipment and work practice standards detection and repair requirements, see ' the EPA is reinstating those consistent with those in Subpart V. Far Subpart V (48 FR 23488, Tune A1894). requirementsas set forth to the current example, pumps and compressors to addition, Subpart V contains ranting the iftnl<iii seal stondardefbr ether types of equipment The EPA selected the use of rupture requirements hf the current VC standard (eg. Qangca.and open endedvetoes or disks as the besis for the ament Will be in compliance with the Subpart lines)..Standards toe flanges include standard forpressure relief devices. V requirements. In addition, the . sampling connection systems monitoring-withe partahirtnatnnaanl UIM--I rWIM" iff"""TM1 WifHm g Wbeo-the integrity of rupturesdisks is maintained, equipment lsaks through the requirements of Sobpart.V are' essentially the same as the current daye of-obeervtog evidence of a ' relief,device ere ettmtoatod. Rapture potential leak by visual- audible or other disks normally maintain their integrity standard. The use of rupture discs for controlling leaks from pressure relief devices, as required by the VC standard* is conaiatant with tfaa "so detectable means. Opm-oaded vulva or-finea ere required to be capped, bfinded ar fitted with a second valve. These provieiona are not expected to significantly aftoet unless.sn overpressure occurs. Afterthe occurring of en ovarpiaaeuri. replacement of the rupture diskdoes again eliminates equipment leaks of VC amissions* requirement todudad in - producers with these typg ofequipment through the psessuxe relief device. Subpart V. Requirements for controlling to VC service. Tbs'equipment end Par amMon control techniques that lsaks from pressure relief devices are procedures employed aa normal practice eHwrfMf qnljwMiit 1--Irm. neh as Urn dasoibed to more detail later in this by these producers or as aresuit-of the use ofrapture disks, a "no dataetabla - section. Thus, Subpart V will affect current VC standard ere expected- * . emissions'* tacit is feasible. An primarily valves and flanges to VC service by requiring a specific generally to ensure compliance with SobpartV. instrument reeding of less than 300 peris mint by volume (ppmv) above a monitoring schedule, leak definittonand Praaaan RaUafDariea*. The EPA repair piovisions. CompUsrta withth* provisions of indicate whether equipment leaks have Subpart V will be used to detemias operational standards In the current beg altodnated: that to, that the compliance with the portable monitor standard beforeexplicit legal authority equipment "nodetectabis I--k iWff.Hww ml riiwlMHim -- existed to Section 21& These requirements to the current VC standard requirements ars found to*! 8UJS(b). In Tbs "no dstectabls emission" Omit (40 CFR 81A5(b)(8)(li)). and therefore. * Avgust of 1977. Congress emended woold not apply to discharges through the currant standard is bring revised to Section 122 to allow the use of these * the pressurs reUef device during ' reflect this change. However, process requirements. Section 122ofths Clean imirpinmiini rnUsf mu-- islrssni sm units within VC and PVC plants in Air Act requires that an amiaainn covered under ii 81A4{*) and 61A5(a).) which the parentage of leaking valves standard (Le~ s performance standard) Tbs standard would specify, however, is equal to or less than 0 percent are ' be established far control of a that tha relief devia be Tetamsd to s considered by the EPA to bo effectively hazardous air poPatent unless, in tilt state of "no detectable emissions'* controlling VC emissions from leaking judgment of the EPA. it ia not feasible to within 5 days after such discharge, valve*. For these process units, the prescribe or enforce such a standard. An The standard would furtherrequire an _ existing leek detection and elimination emission standard allows far same - -annual tost to verify tha "no dataetabla program will continue to be allowed flexibility in complying with the amissions" status of the pressure relief while the percentage ofleaking valves is standard, sines any control technique devices and a test after each over CMA 015268 A-31 1338 Fadmal togfotm- / YL 50. No. 9 A Wertnairiiy. January & IMS / Proposad Rato standard consistent with the raqtdranMnts ofSection 112{a}. Mbtealkmonae Reritum Baaad an djaenssfaha with th*PA axpariaata in administering thecurrent VC standard the EPA is proporiag - revisions.that weald fadUtate complianceand eafarcameot effarts ' asaodatad.with tha currant standard y--fiaima Mjwmit rnirtnr to tha standard. Abrief description of thaa*adaiimatrativerovisiaaa anri > basia for makmg tham fallows. Definition ofLack. Exhaust Coe and Relief VehmDiodmgo. Functional dafloitieoa oflaak", `exhaust gas" aad "raliaf valve discharge* era befog addad to tha standard to clarify tha applicability oftha standard toaadi of these types ofVCemiaaianswDuring their iwisw ofaa&rcamaat and compliance experience since the standardwaa praandgsted. tha EPA discossied several cease of confaaion w tharintended mmringoPlaak*. anIUW |IV in>ifaK vBW , ' discharge." Thesethraedlattaet ' defined lathe twwwl itsmihiid to I with idearwtdarstanflag of whkh pact of tha staadmriappfinm ' any jteaa JacfawgatrfVC amiasionato Definition ofSDCmtdVC. ParifiSation. In tha pcat i tha 3-hour imaging period ia kneaded to clarifythat Ida10 ppmvstandard applies to VC Missions in silaxhanst gaa atraama eovacad by tfaa 10 ppav requirements, Including any control device bypaavstraams. Haqninmants farcikililifli tbt VC i reporting VC emissions fosxcees of tha 10 ppnnr rinadwd am bafog addad to tha raguleticm Tha EPA may uae-thase calculations:aitmg withomtdimous amission monitoring resultsas indications of anacampliaacs if they show daady that amissions foaxeets ofthe 10 ppmv raquiremams-oceanedr 10ppm*stanimrifam2>asthe straam from tha of ts dearly dftudon with other axhwtw mnatraamsaaa tadmiqae farmeating tha 30 ppmv laqnlmaant Thie ismirai Is is it tetanded topsnhsbitthaoosunaa Acsocdiag to tha tssisad 10 ppmv straamaantafoing moat than10 ppmv VC with aaatfaaroodiaaalgaa-atzaaia containing laaa than10 ppnnr VC ! allowadonly ufaa&thc.flOfflbfocd: is ducted ta tbecaoirol deuce. carried out latwo asperate vasssls Tha reactionIs fadttatad ia tha `prapolymartsatios" resetorand the reactorcontants are thaa transferred to * MIK^tT*"tyi"*",*Hn"'* r*actof where the reaction ia completed. Stripping of neidoat VC in bulk nda is performed fallowing tha poarpctywetiiitlon stap in tha reactorvanaaL The poatpotymarixatioa reactor generally is opened altarevery batch sad-must comply with thefaactnr opening lorn Barits epedfiedin tha standard. Bacansa foe prapolyaerizaifos reactor is opened laaa frequently, and because datermination of peas product (for reactor opening loss sahmation) ia dtfbdh the EPA has allowed plants ta raqnlramanta far ntmimrOng VC emissions from poiymarixadan reactor opening* The reactor opening loss raqomnsots are being reviaad at this Him tg specifically prepoiymeraadan reacron. Accordingly. VC amissions from all openingof prapnlymarizatioa reactors Will ba subject ta tha equipment opening nqubamantSkThia revision is intsndad to darify andimprove tba ccnsisteacy of the aQairamants of the rarisad standard as they-apply m balk PVC msia producers in.light of actual industry pnstica.Na redaction la VC amisaion captrol stringency will result from tha change-in re^drsmmti for ' prapolymariaatlon raacWra. fapreaam WoeteenterJfapuirmsaats. forGaiteJdeeSeal* Underfoa i Standards, the VCamtanlof tej^ alsoappliadmrupttetdisfia. manna! l`and"YCi trevised fotfarifelhatait' of relief valiefo tha proposed standard ia not intended4e iwinds pressure r tetheioppmv indnarmiar or i_____________ . ragniationa-to improve understanding ef However, the ana*relief valve tha applicability of thispartof tba discharge standarddid cow amiasiana mandat* Hat, aifawigh tha teat method from measure control valves. Also not for determining compliance with thalO ` Indndsdia tha definition ofrelief sahra ppmv standard specifies thatiha are prssausa awtrol systems saefa as evaragerasults from three 1-hour polymerisationxaactioa shortstop . sampling ions-be used, this 3-boor systems or rafrigeated water systems averaging pariodleaot apadfiad ia tha which act to radiice prasanra bymains 10 ppmv raquinmeat^-Specifyingthat other than-venting. amiaainni may, not axe--d 10 ppmv gear a 9-bour averagingperiod clarifies that foe Bulk PYCBeninPtedaeem Bulk. instantaneous oogplianca with ttfiilO PVC rasa ptadnedoe digats from ppmv standard is am as himnded production afwthar typo* of PVCsaafo requirement. Moreover. specification af in thattba-palymariaadon reaction ia thantymvpnwiTaoftfae' to thaacfaoaphar*Ja tbe-caso of gaahoUar wamr Mala, the VC coBtant-ia tba rapuaad waterseal may arraad 10 ppm daring aatmal operation of the gasholder Expertsnca ainca tba ataadard-dma pnrwnulgatad Inrilcatas that complianoa with thaatmoapbmic mtpoaura limit b oot practicabla far this particnlar inpreeasa waatawatm aomca. Conaaquandy. tha dafiattiao of fatprocem wastsnrateris betng revised to explode tba mpcaad water seal, of gaaholdars. Iba inprocass waatasvatar Krlppingjarpuramaoti will continue to -apply to waatawatmuftmramovai from tba gaaboldar seal Elimination ofBQ-DeyLimit om Bourralencr Boouettt The cnesent standard specif!as a.30-day limit far axiadag aomcaaea submit requests far a limit poses araatriedoo on initiative by industry to-develop alternative, and pnwitiiiiy n-- uttmi>*-- cantroi . the 30-dsy limitation is being CMA 0152d9 A-32 Federal JUgtotur / VoL 50. Na 8 / Wednesday. Jnmiary 9. 1966 / Proposed Rules 1193 Otter. Id addition to tte revisions .tmtorof tte raqulrawnts at mfTWl "H--< was performed to identify way* to i recordkeeping and reporting burden on plan and to identifyany additional Tte.EPA identified two anas where tte reporting bento on plana could be reduced. wintm> raqnlramit* tr vr. imSm-- specifications and reactoropening measurements require that results of aQ compliance taste be reported In eemiammal report* The SA la proposing to allow plants to report only test results that show exceedances of the reepoctive standards. Ifno exceedances occar. plants will be required toindicate that fact to tte semiannual report This typa of exception reporting is currently allowed for demaeatrattoof awipttew with tte 10 ppinr standard for process vents. The aacond area is tte requirement to report relief salve disetergns artthin 10 days of their occurrence. Tte EPA is proposing to allow plants to report rate? Tito discharge-occnnencaa on a quarterly basis rather than within 10 .the reporting requirements for relief reive discharges have been streamlined Pby dropping the need to report actions maamras for each discharge. hfailMtflMl flf| |^| tbMe'JOBVCta individual'relief valve discharge will be included with the sestiannual reports long with Infill imSan gg mipllMM Additional acsdasnual reporting requirements being added for PVC. producers are the muter of reactor opinings end tte dawgasapactiy number of polymerization batches far each resin type. Thlnsquuamanl will provide gaoenlInformation tn farilltaw review of industry-wide oompliapee era tociudad as part of tte to tte leak i' requirements indude preparation of an initial log to record equipment t rtHipwMwt MwlMUih^w pliyiw) US'md - --nil J equipment leaks and repair action, fnctariari in tte raportingraquirements ere tte number of equipment leaks end toe repair sums of leaking components. Upending on tte particular leak ^detection and repair program in place, -these requirements may represent an i to dm overall practiced by individual plants. Tte EPA concluded that tte can recordkeeping requirements, as specified in 40 CFR 8U1. are still appropriate However, tte EPA is proposing to extend:tte current , activities from 1 to a years, net impact oftte revised . . compliance with tte standard. If nquastodi e public tearing wfll be held to dlscusrthe proposed revisions to tte VC standard in-aocordanorwith aections mO>KlXB)nnd 307(d)(S) qf the Cton Air Acb Personwishing to make oral presentodens ontbeuiupused reeisiaos should aantoct the ERA at die i EPA is estimated to be a < paperwork burden of about 23 person* years. It should be noted that sE ChHMprahratee.'BMetMMHMw+.l Bw[miw| rjnp--hi^ TJihillty . ofthis praombls. Oral prsatatotiens will be limited to 15 mfontes each.-Any member of the public may file a written sutsment before, during, orwfthto 38 days after the bearing. Written statements steuid be addressed to the Ad (ORCLA) Section 3(0(14) hazardous sutetaness such as vinyl chlorids are subject to reporting requirements under Section 103(e) of QRCXA. CEROA requires that persona fat charge of sasasls or-facilities from theAOOXeesat section ofthis preamble. A verbatim tmnesipt of (he tearing and written statements-will be available for public Inspection and copying during normal working boo* at the EPA'a Central Docket Section to Washington. released in quastitiss-(RQe) TXC. (see aseunso section oftins immediately Botifyth* National Response Center (NRC) of the releeia - .--r-. The tofl*free 34-teurtelephone number of tte NRC is 800-125-5002 sad in Washington. D.C. metropolitan area it is (202) 425-2875. (SesQZRCLA Section 103 and 48 FR 2353XMxy 23,1083.) . - Tte docket is an < complete fils ofafl tfartofonaetiou submittad tp orotherwise considareAby ' tte EPA in the development of this Vinyl chlorids was assigned a statutory l pound ceportoble'qoanttty under Section 101(14) vntfladjusted by regulation, and is prsaantiy undergoing aaeeamont for both chronic toxicity and carctoognidfy.teRQwfiFb*ait)ustod. purposes of tte docket are: (1) To allow .tatorestod parties to identify sad locate documents so that they can effectively participate to-the rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record to eras of Judicial review (except for interagency theOfflce of flmargancyund Remedial review materials [1307(d)(7(A)D. Response Federally permitted releases under CTROA (See CERCLA Section iam)-xcd 48 PR 23882) ere not subject to CERLA notification requiraments or UabUitteekfewever. releases of **"--*"-- that are ttOt' subjed to a pendt ar central regulation toaccordance with section 117 of the Act publication'af tide proposal\ -preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory rawimittaes. independent experts, and Federal must! i afl-aepocto .oftte proposed Tte Regulatory RexJbility Act of 1980 ' reguUticnu tododinghealth, ai requires that advene effects of all Ite currant guidelines of tte SmeR. Buatoeea Administration (SBA). a small business that produces or processes VC is one that has 500 < Currently. none of the.existing affectad by the standard ere estimated to be small by tide definition. Stoes none of tte companies meets tte SBA definition of mnail business, no regulatory flexibility analysisis required. Even if an analysts ware required, tte proposed administrative requiraments to this proposed rata have teen submitted for approvalto tte Office oHdunegsmanf end Budget ' (OMB) under the Paperwork Reductioo Act of198a 44 UAC. 3501 ef--q. Comments on these requirements should be eafamijtodto the Office of Infnrmatioa'Snd Regulatory Affairs of OMB. marked"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA*. as-well as tolha HA docket described ebove.The final rule will to any OMB or public i on toe information collection CMA 015270 A-33 1194 Federal Register / VdL 50. Na 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1988 / Proposed Rules Under Executive Older 12281. theEPA product containing vinyl chloride or - limits are presoibed in 8 61A2 (a) and nut fudge whether a regulation Is polyvinyl chloride but which has not (bb 8 8L83(ab 8 6U4 (am (K3b (bb "major" and therefore subject to the .been discharged to a wastewater (c) and (db 8 6106 (b)(l)(il). (b)(2), (b)(5). requirement of a Regulatory Impact treatment process or discharged (b)(6)(H) and (b)(9}(iib A leak aa defined Analysis. This regulation is not major untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder in paragraph (w) of this section is not an because: (1) The national annualised eel water is not tonrocass wastewater exhaust gaa. onmpHanca coats, tnrinding capital until it iaremoved from the gasholder. (y) "Relief vabe discharge" mean* charges resulting from the standards ** any nonlaak discharge through a relief total leas than S100 million: (2) the (I) **!n vinylchloride service" means standards do not canae a major teosssa that a ptvn of squipmant eithar contains in prices or production costs; end (3) the crcontacts a liquid that last least 10 standards do not canae atg"--"* percent vinyl chloride by wright or a gas adverse effects an damesde competition, that is at least 10 percant by volume employment, investment productivity, vinyl chloride as determined according innovation orcompetition in foreign to the provisions of i 6107(hb Tie market*.* provisions of I 6107(b} also specify how This regulation was submitted to the . to dstannine that a piece of equipment is Office otManegement and Budget for not in vinyl chloride tervlcs. This review as roqinraU by Executive Order ifaiifrtH-- iww* {)e used in place of the 33291. Any comments from OMB to EPA * definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart end any EPA response to those oornmeme are included in Docket VoTtitispert Number A-61-21. Hie docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket'Section. West Tower lobby. Gallery 1. Waterside MaH. 401M Street SW, Washington. D.C. 20460. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 808(b). I hereby certify that this rule, If- pwmmlgated. will not have significant; eanwieuio faapac* ww - (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" includes any part of the process of ethylene dkhlorida prodnctionwhich fallows etfayieoe rtkhloride formation. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" htdodea ony part of the process of vinyl chloride production which foQbws vinyl iAIiwMa loBMtiflBe # y ffi* ^ number of small entities because no. smell entitlesere effected. : feJ^Rdiateahe'^mmns each valve. (zj "3-hour period" means any three wimmiih>. 1-hour periods (each hour onmmudng on the hour). 3. By *nngi"y " all exhaust gases" to "each exhaust gas stream" and making other mfarar clarifying revisions in 8 SL52(a). 8 6103(a), and { 6104 (a)(1), (bb (e) and (d) aa fallows: 86103 8e I for ediytene (a) Ethylene dichloridt purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used far ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (avenge for3-hourperiod or as determined in accordance with 8 6107(g)(1)). accept as provided in 8 610S(ab litis requirement doe* not WWlllllllll| irf p streams provided the combined steam is dueled thwmgh a control system from which the concentration of vinyl Lktaf Subjects in49 CFR PsriJl. ... AfrpoQutioncontrolAebestoa, -BeryUhnm Hazardous ` Mercury, Vtoyichlorida. AM*I.Ate. relief vaivee, rupture dfskt; manual yuntaend otherpressure relief systems used to proteto process components from,overpressure condtifonik "Relief vahre"doeenbt-indude oontml valves used to control flow to an incinerator or other airpollution control device. - chloride in thoochanst gases does not xeeed 10 ppm. orequivalantss , provided In 8 8108. This requirement * doessot apply to squipmant that has bees opened, is out of operation, and met thetequirement in-8 8L08(b](6)(l) before bring opened. (w) "LeakT-moane any ofseveral ' PANT 6>--[AMENDED] events that indicate intamptianof confinement of vtnyi chloride within, 86108 VriTeiVyi It is proposed. tnemend jO OR Pert ei ss follows: 1. The proposed changes to 40 CTR Psrt Ol proposed at 42 FR28154, form 2. 3977 ass'Withdrawn. 2. By Tevtsisg the dafinitianein existing * 6101(0. (Ibfa) end (p) for "to precise wastewater", "hrvinyl chloride service, "ethylene dichloride purification" and "vinyl chloride purification*and'by eAMug fir the terms "relief value", "lank", "exhaust gas*, "relief valve discharge and."arbour period** In new paragraphs M. (wj, (x). (y) end (*). inti process equipmant Leaks induda events regulated under Subpart V of this part such as: (1>As instrument reading of KL000 ppm or greeter, (2) indications of Uquid dilppiiqp (3)a sensor detection of failureof esael system, failure of a barrier Quid system, or both: and (4) detectable smiseinns aa indicated by an inatnuueut reading of greater than. 500 ppm above background. Leaks also include events regulated under 8 6108(b){8)(I) of detection of ambient concentrations' in excess of background concentration. Emissions of vinyl chloride not regulated under f MOl (a) end (bb 8 6k83(ab | 6104 (a), (b). (c). (db (a) and (f)rand 86105 (*) and (b)(1). An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 18105 (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: The-concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in vinyl chlmnrU (nrrmmHnn tnd/OT purification is sot to exceed 10 ppm (average far 3-hotu period ar as determined in accordance with 8 6107(g)(1)), except as provided in 8 6105(a).-This requirement:does not prechide *>mhtwfaw of exhaust gas streams provided toe combined steam is ducted through e control system from which the concentration of vinyl m n>K3). (b)(4). (b)(5), (b)(8). (b)(7) . chloride in the exhaust gases does not QJ any watar which, dsringaanuftetnring or processing, comes into direct contact and (b)(9) shall be considered a lank. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provtdedinf 6106. TSa requirement does not apply to equipment that has with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl ehlcride discharged directly or ultimately to the been opened, is out of operation, and or results from the production or use at atmosphere that was initially ermtstna.4 met the requirement in.16lOS(b)(6)(i} any raw material intermediate product in or was in direet contact with the finished product by-product-or waste equipment for which 10 ppm emission before bring opened. CMA 015271 A-34 Federal Register / Vol 80. No. > / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Propped Rnlaa 13SS An owner at opetatui of-s poiyvinyi chloride plant shell comply with the requirements ofthis section and { ** ** (a) JbaetorJBm following requirements apply to reactor* (1)The concentration of vinyi chloride in each exhaust gaa stream ra each reactor la not to axcaad 10 ppm (average for 3-hour.period or aa determined in accordanca with 18147(g)(1)). except aa provided inpaiegraph (a)(2) of this section and f 8145(a). (b) Stripper. Tha concantrmtion of . vinyl chloride in aach exhaust gaa strain: from aoch atrippar ia not to axoaad 10 ppm (avaraga for 3-borzr period or as datasdnad in accordance with | 8147(g)(1)). axoapt aa proridad In } 614S(a). Thia requirement doaa not apply to equipmsnt that has ban opened. ia ont of operation, and mat tha laquilouiaut in f,8148(b)(6)(I) befare baing opanad. (c) Mixing, weighing, andholding contain*TM. Tha concentration of vinyl chlorida in aach exhaust gaa atraam from aach mixing, vwighiwg, or holding container in vinyl chlorida aarvica which praoadae tha atrippar (or tha raactsr if tha plant haa no atrippar) in tha plant procaaa flow is net to exceedlo-ppm. (average for 3-hour period or aa datauidnad in accordance with 18147(g)(1)), except aa provided in 18148(a). This requirement doss not apply toequipment that has bean opened, is oat ofoperation, and mat the requirement in { ei45(b){8)(I) before (d) Monomerrecovery system. The concentration of vinyl chloride in aach exehust gaa stream from each monomer recovery ayitam is not to axcaad 10 ppm (svaragtjbr 3-hour period or as determinedJn accordance with 18147(g)(1)), except as proridad in 18145(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that baa bean opened, ia out of operation, and mat the requirement In 18146(bK8){i) before 4. By revising etosting paragraphs 18144(a)(2) and by removing (a)(3) as follows: 18144 tmlMlan standee tor potyrtwyt An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chlorida plant shell comply with the requirements of thia section and f 8145. (a) RoaBtar. The hallowing requirement! apply to reactors (2) The reactor opening loes ham each reactor ia not to axoaad 002 g vinyl ' cfalcride/hg (040002 Q> vinyl chloride/lb) of poly vinyi chlorida prodincL except aa provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f}(2} of thia taction, with the product - - _ determined an a dry solids basis. Thia requirement does not apply to prepolymarization reactors in the bulk process. This requirement doaaapply to postpolymariaMtiMi reactors in the bulk groat product of prepotyiuei listing aod 5.- By revising paragraph (e) introductory taxt and adding paragraph (e)(3) toj 8144 aa faflow* 18144 Ktesslan atandartfter pteystoyt (e) Satire** fallowing tb* stripp*r(*). The following-requirements apply to nf hiyi iiiilwM. ft atmosphere horn the combination of all sources following the strippeda) [or the reactor(a) is the plant hea no atripper(s)] in the pint proaeas flow fachiding bet not ttmitad to, entrifagea. paragraph (I) of thisaectinm (3) Tha previsionsofthis paragraph apply ala! timat far 6. By adding paragraph (f) to J osfauowK 18144 (I) Beoefar used as *tripp*r. Whan a nonbolk resin reactor ia used aa a stripper this paragraph may be applied in lien of S 8144 (a)(2) and (e)(1): (1) The weighted average emiaeiens of vinyi chloride from reach and ail townee fallowing tha i need ae a atrippar fan all pedes of poiyvinyi chloride resin stripped in the (I) 203 g/kg (040202 lb/lb) of polyvinyl dilaride product far dispersion polyvinyl chloride retina. **ghnthi| latex retina, with the product determined on a dry Hi) 042 g/kg (048042 lb/lb) of polyvinyl chlorida product for all other poiyvinyi chloride resins. Including latex retina, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. 7. By rovttbgpamgraph (a) tel 8148 aa follows: 18448 gmManamndaroteretiiytMW dtohtortda. vtoyt cMoriOs and poiyvinyi eMorida stents Aa owner or operator of anatbyisna dlchlorida. vinyi chlorida. and/or poiyvinyi chlorida plant shall comply with the requirements of this aactioik (a) R*li*freiv* diwdtarg**. (1) Poiyvinyi chloride plants (suspension. dispersion. latex, and bulk procems). (1) Rtaetor. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief vaives.on - polyvinyl reactors in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed the fallowing limits except as provided in parigroph (aXlXUD of *fa --ction- For aD roedtora producing luipectlon reaius within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges ia not to exceed 0435 discharge* per 100 polymerization batches nor 4 discharges per year. For all reactors producing dispersion and latax reams-within a PVC plant tha manbar of relief valve discharges ia not to axoaad 0435 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. For ell reactor* fadadiag prepolymarization and poetpolymerizatian reactors, producing balk resins within a PVC plant the mmibar of relief valve discharges is not ^ to axoaad 0035 dischajges par 100 (H) The nmnber of dlachatgeato the atmosphere-from reliefvalves an . equipment (excluding poiyvinyi chloride reactors} in vinyi chloride aarvica is not to exceed 0429 discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 3 discharge* per yttr axcept.aa providedin paragarph (a)(l)(iiI)of this section. (Ill) The limit, specified in paragraphs (a)(l)(!) and (aKIMifl of this aaction may be exoeedsd whan only ana relief.valve discharge to tha atmosphere occurs during the 12-month period preceding tha doaa of ft** iimhh| (2) Poiyvinyi chloride plants (solution n4 MiHmum PVC prodsdios' * thTattaoepbare from rallaf viriveson*il equipment in vinyl chloride aarvica is not to exceed 1 discharge per year. (3) thyi*n* dichlorid* and rinyi chiarid*plants. The number of ttisrhsigii to tha atmosphere fraa relief valves on equipment in vinyl chloride sarvioe is not to axcaad 4 discharges per year. v (4) Each relief vtlve discharge that contributes to a reliaf valve discharge frequency is excess of any limit preamibed is pangarpha (a)(1), (a)(2) and (aXS) of this paragraphconstitutes CMA 015272 / A-35 1186 Federal Roister / VoL SO, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1988 / Proposed Hales an individual violation of the raspectivv Bmit. (8) For tvvryreUafvalve discharge to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source, the date and time of the discharge. the eaoaa of the discharge. the approximate total vinyl chloride loss dazing the dbdiarga. and tha method need for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information be jq writing to the Administrator as partof the reporting requirements of paragrsph I eua This information shall be retained and made availabia.for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years. 8. By-revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(8)(i). (b)(8)(iii). (b)W(iv) and (bHOXvf) to | OUS asfollows: feUS- iiWmionsfanrtwdtorsthyWne vllyl OmIOT Vm pOfyVWlyl Anowner oroperator of an aihyiane dichlnririe. vinyl chlorida. and/or with the ramiiraiuanti of this section. (a) * * * (b) Fugitiv+mnisaion t (1]**V W** (3) Leakage from pomp, i and agitator stale (!) Rotatingpomp*. Vtayi --tMiaiw from --fa on all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service ere to-be minimized by installing sealless pomps, pomps with doable mechanical seals or equivalent is provided in | SLA If doable Hietheidcel seals an need, vinyl chloride emissions from the stela are to be minimised by mefatatwfafl dm pismire between the two seals eo diet any leak that occurs is into the pump: by ducting any vinyl chlorida battraan the two aaala through a control system from which tbs concentration of vtayi chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 18140. PflAsefrrocatfngjwarpa. Way! chlorida emissions from seals on ell reciprocating pomps in vinyl chlorida service am to be bytastalUag double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in f 8148. Ifdoable outboard seals are used, vtayi diloride from the seals are to be by maintaining the urassure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is tato the pump; by ducting say vinyl . chloride between the two --through a control system from which tbs concentration of vinyl chlaride in the exhanst gam does not exceed ID ppnc dr equivalent as provided in | ma (Hi) Rotating oomprmsor. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals an all 0 rotating compressors in vtayi diloride wdcb in v ot mmmnxro uj mmiirrn conipiesaara with double madmnical seels, or equivalent as provided in 18146. If doable mechanical seals am used, vtayi chloride emissions from the aaala an to be mtafanixsdby maintaining the pressure between the two aaala so that any leak that occurs la tato thecompressor: by any - Yinyi (1IIW Miiu QfiwVB D9 nfO I9U9 through a control systam from which tha concuintien of vtayi chloride in the axhaost gaaas doM not axeaed 10 ppns or equivalent as provided in f 8L66. (lv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride smiaaians from seals on all mdprocsttag compnaaorata vtayi chknlde tarries an to be adaimtaad by tastaQtag doable outboard aaala, or equivelantes provided in 16186. B double outboard seals art used, vtayi chloride emissions from tha aaala art to be minimized by maintaining ths pressure between tbs two seals so that any leak that ocean is tato tha compressor: by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two eeala through a control system from which tha concentration of vtayi chloride in the or equivalent as provided hr ( 8166 (v) Agitator. Vtayi chloride emissions from seals oq allagitatorain vinyl ... chloride service an to be minimised by instilling agitators wtth double mechanic^ seals; or equivalent as provided ta f SLM. If doable mechanical aaala era used, vinyl chloride emissions from tha seals an to )) b^uist^riQi tht praaaura between ths two seels so that any leak that ocean is tala the agitated vessel; by daettag any vtayi chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vtayi chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm or equivalent as - provided in 16188. (g) Look dotactioo andoliminathn. (1) It indudes a reliable and accurate vtayi chloride monitoring system foe detection ofmafor leeks and identification of the general ana of tha plant whan a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system means a device which obtains air samples from anear mare points on a continuous sequential basis and analysts tha samples with gas chromatography or. if ths asvnacnr operator assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vtayi chlorida. wtth infrared spectrophotometry, flame tan detection, or an equivalent or alternative method * \* * # (HI) It providesfor an acceptable criibrsttan --latnt--TM schedule for the vinyl monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon datactor. For the vinyl monitoring system, a daily-span check is.to be conducted with a....... .. v4tiyi chlorida equal to the concsntratlan '**"--* as a leak according to paragraph (b)(B)(vi) of this section. The calibration is to ba done with either: (A) A calibration gas mixture -prepared from the gaaas apedfled in factions 124 and &L2 ofTest Method 108 and in accordance with section 74 of test Method 108, or (B) A celihradon gae cylinder standard containing tha appropriate ooncantratlon of vtayi chloride. The gas gf tK# QtUbnttoo |M eyUndar standard is to have been certified by ths manufacturer. The manufacturer must have recommended a umiwiiw hlf Hf far miA cylinder so that the concentration dote not change greater than --3 percant from the certified value. The data of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride HWMitiHim and recommended M.imm Ufa must have been affixed to the cylinder before shipment from tha to tha bojirilf a garehramatognph is used as the vtayi chlorida monitoring system, these gas mixtures may ba directly used to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as desoibed in section 74-ofTest Mathod IDS. The requirements hr. section 1Z34 and &&&2 of Teat Method 108 for entffaarfaw of cylinder standards and for establishment and verifiesdon of calibration standards an to ba followed. (foTlha location and 1 of points to be monitored and ths frequency of monitoring provided far in the program ore acceptable whan they an compered with the number of pieces of equipment in vtayi chlorida aeraiet and ths sixa and physical layout of the plant (vi) It nmttatat a definition ofleak which is acceptable when compered with the background concentrations of vinyl is tbs areas of tha plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background concentrations of vtayi chloride in ths areas of the plant to be monitored by tfaa vtayfehioride monitoring systam ere to be included with die description of the program. Thm definition of leek for e givtaf plant may vary among the different anas within tha plant and la also to change over time as twiAgwim^ fa tha plant are reduced. CMA 015273 . 't \ * A-JO A1 Federal Register / Vol 50. No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules______ U97 ft, Byievisinfpamgnph (b)(4) lo . detanninad in accordance with the 14. Byrwtsing paragraphs (g)(3) follows following introductory text (g)(3)(l), and (g)(3)(Ui) vivin OTO-nO-v- m---I- -J p--ofywvyv (A) A performance test n specified in paragraph (b)(8)(if)(C) of this section shall be conducted initially within 90 of 18107 as follows: MtS7 (b) Fugittn mnuajoa sources. **** (4) Itakt from rmliafmin*.Vtayl chloride emissions due to Inks from neb relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with * I 012*2-4 of Subpart V of this pan t* 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of 18145 as follows: days of the afleettve date of these . regulations, annuDy and at times (g)*V* requested by the Administrator. (3) Whan a stripping oparatibo ia used (B) For each performance teat a toettainthe amtsstonltmtt in S8L84 ndnhnnm of 200 or 80 percent ofthe total' (e) and (f). emissions are to be eahas hr VOC service (as defined hi dstanmnad using TestMethod 107 aa 160481 of Sobpsrt W ofPart-80) artthin follows; - the process unit shall be randomly (!) The number of stilppaia (or selected and monitored within 1 weak reactors usingas strippers) and samples' by the methods specified in ! 6ft245(d) and the types-and grades of main to be' of Subpart V of this part If an sampled ere to be determined by the instrument tending of lftOOO ppm or Administrator for cad) individual plant MUS ImMon standard tar aOiyWiw greater is nwaenrad, a leakis detactad. atlha time of the tost baaed on the The leak percentage shall be determined plant's operation. # . (b) Fugitirw mnitMion sources. by dividing the umber of valves in VOC service for which kaksme detected by the number of tasted valves in VOC sarvfc*. W* (IB) The eoRhspondittg quantity of material processed by sash stripper (or reactor used as a stripper) la to be (7) Sample*. Unused portions of samples containing at least 30 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to be returned to the process or destroyed in a control device from which the concentration of vinyl chlaritu (n tbe exhaust gas does not exceed 10 ppm. Sampling techniques are to be such that aampla contaInara in vinyl art tQ ff a leak is'detected, it shall be repaired in accordance with | 8L242-7 (d) end (e) of Subpart Vof this part . (D) Tlia results of the parfonnanca test shell be submitted in writing to the Administrator in the first semiannual report fallowing the performance test as part of tbtreporting requirwnapti of jaua . determined on a dry solids basis and by e method submitted to and approved by theAdministrator. * ' * * . 15. By revising paragraph (g)(5) introductory texi and adding paragraph (g)(6) to S 6147 as follower |4147' irgedli1ntoar "HIL-BByy revising paragraphs (b)(8) introductory text (b)(8)(li). and (b)(8)(v) to f 8US8 as follows; |IUI (E) Any process unit to whiefa the ,1 percentage of leakingvalves is foundlo be greater than 2JD percent must compiy' with all provisions of Subpart V of-tmapart within 00 days. ( '(8) The reactor opening loss foe which an sndssieo limit is prescribed in 18154(a)(2) i to be determined, The number of reactors for which the (y)*fi contains a plan of:action to bo determination is to be specified by die token whan a leak ia detected consistent Administrator for tech individual plant (b) Fugitive emission sources. *tgg (8) Laoir detection andelimination. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from equipment in vinyl chloride service are to bo minimised by institufiiig with Subpart V of this part 12. By iavishitJ.8L88 aa fidlowa: Uponwritten application from an owner or operator, tbe Administrator at tbe time of the determination based on tbe pianfs operation. * s -(6) Far a reactor that is used as a stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride . from reactor opening lose and all sources following tha.raactor used as a repair program consistut with the ' proviriens of Subpart V of tUa part Tbt program is to be implemented within* days of the effective data of thaae regulations, unless a waiver of compliance i granted under 18U1 _ Approval of a program will be noted may approve aee of equipment or procedures whfoh/have been - demonstrated to hie satisfaction tobe equivalent in terms of radudng vinyl chloride emissions to tba-atmcaphsroto those pnsaibed for compUencs with e specific paragraph of this subpart. by tbe Administrator provided m finds: 13. By revising paragraph (Q of 16147 0( * * * as follows: (U) It lndudes a reliable and accurate portabls hydrocarbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of J6147 Bails lias Weta. * * , stripper for which-an amission limitJ* proscribed in S 8L84(f) ere to be determined. The nnmber of reactors for whichthe determination is to be made is to be by theAdminiatratorfor each individualplant afths time of the determination based on the pianfs operation. (I) For each batch stripped in dm nectar, the following measurements are fobs made ' (A) Thaconetatratioc (ppm)of vinyl Subpart V of this part An owner or operator is exempt from J 61442-l(d), Si 61442^ (a), (b) and (c). 161446 and ^^OU47 of Subpart V of tM part for any ^veees unit in which the percentage of ^Wdng valves is demonstrated to be equal to or less than 24 percent, as (f) The owner or operator shall retain at the plant and make available, upon request for inspection by the Administrator, fur a minimum of 3 years, records of emission test results and other date needed to determine chloride in resin after stripping, measured according to paragraph (g)(3) of dda section. (B) The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at end of strip from plant instrument and ' (C) The reactor temperature fQ t end of strip from plant instrument. CMA 015274 139ft A-37 Federal Register / VoL 56, No. & / Wednesday. January 6; 1985 / Proposed Rules pi) Poe each batch stripped in the rasctix; the fallowing:information is to (A)The vapor pressure (mm Hg)'of water in the reactor at end*ofstrip ftom. the following tabic pyVCXtVSVXlJKHl c~(m*vcKKr*)+ (PVCWM+KT) . HO ' HO HhOo C,gvtoyl driorirto/VgpniyvWyi chloride be revised only aftar following the procedures In paragraph (h)(1) of this wv'rp * 1 SMS MW 5P9 . WMVC--ooncwUnitoo of vinyl chloride in ntfutaeiMbpint tappm lirawoBB*sreiawactmforppa> sftet Ma) m 1 ft* m . tea* *wA :1 wma.s* 4ft. ft * nae nrj m f TtM m > wtr m 4T i tmeee m m mftr m MJ. <r 1 Sift mM. . M 80 a n MSS St at .Hwer rt A i. aIKte? M tore * roe M. mx re : met JS tie* a. me 1 setu 4t n tasLi re uu m tsar sm Mil as MU m wte mu mr was 4M110i u1 ' 4U11 tKS ' MAS ftg * Ml Kftfftt ari re6r4v NV was (B) The partial presence (mm Hgj of vinyl chloride iarnctorstand strip from the following equation _. PPVA-.7BO-RV-VPW (gMS)(il)(Bl ofthis rsrrlaa in unsHg ItVWewieanilM p (gJ[9KimQ ti this section- in. to* tfla-idoof gaacooswnt in p--*K/mm Hg-- m*ftrvteyf chteide WCWm&T weight afpufovluyi chloride tn~ reamer fiomraripn-ihkg att-ncaimricn.hBtnrfeeJ5gTt 11, By adding paragraph (h) to | 6147 as fellows. (h)(I? Eachpface ofequipment within a prncera unit that can teaaouably ehlw<i<| it the piece of Where irvvv^nnrpnMBf ofvnyrc&nnov v snHf riW-stw--ptsrtr pwssara sure, ten H| VPWweepoi niwai tiMa.tiael^ (Q Urn reactor vapor space volume (m*) at end of strip from dm following equation: vinyl chloride content- osbe reasonably ccpected not to exceed IPpercent by weigh!for liquid streams, mid ID percent . by volume for gas sesame. Far purposes ofdetermining the percent vinyl chloride ' contaatef the process fluid that is procedures that confarm to the methods described far AST\fMethod D-B67 (incorporated by reference es spadfied in S tW.iay shell hearad. WV-t .tom* PVCW--4y waives*polyvinyl chloride to 633-typieel density of polyvinyl chloride tehiim* (HQForeach batch stripped in tbs reactor, the combined reactoropening loss and emissions femmel) sourest -following ths reactor needles stripper la to be determined using the following' MXD An owner or operator may use engineering Judgment rather than the procedmas in paragraph (h)(1) ofthis section to demonstrate that the percent vinyl chloride contentdbas not exceed 10 percent byweight for liquid streams odl^Dtfcnfbyfoliixn farm strsam* provided that the engmaering judnmara denrastmtes the!the vtavl chloride content deariy does not aecaad 10 percent. When an owner or operator end the Administratordo not agree an whether a piece of equipment Is not to ring) chloride,service, howeuaa^ theprnneduni.far paragraph, (h)(1) of this section shall heneed to raeolv* the (U)IToftc .___________ that a piece of equipment is invinyt chloride service, the determination can (3) Semple*used is determining the percent vinyl chloride content shall be mpnaanfetiveofthe process fluid that is contafhad in or contacts the 17. By adding paragraph* (dV (#) end if) to 16148 aa follows fS-LM Ca 4 (d) Whan exhaust gas(ct); having emission limits thatare subject to the requirement of paragraph (e) of this section, are emitted to the atmosphere round ths control system snd required vieyf chloride monitoring'system, the vinyl chloride content of the emission shall becalculated (fa units1 ofeach applicable emission limit) by beet preeMeet ought--ring jnrfyn-- ha--ri on the dtkbargeduration and known VC concentrations jg theeffsetad julpmart m frith S 6147(h) or otheracceptable method. (e) For each 3-boor period, the vinyl chloride --ffiwiiwn to the raqulramanta ofparagraphs (a) and (d) of tide section shall be averaged (weighted according to the proportion of time theremieeione ware continuously monitorsd and that emissions bypassed ths continuous monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under leuntcJCi): (!) Foreach vtnyl chlorideemieeioa to ths atmosphere determined in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section to be fat exesse of the applicable emission1limit* theowner or operatar shaD record theidentity of the sourcefe), the data. time, and duration of the excessemission the cause of the mission, the approximate total vinyl chloride lose dating the excsss emission, and tha method urad far determining ths vinyl chloride lose. This information shall be retained and made available Tor inspection by the Administrator a*- requited by I tiUlfa). ^s By rfmi|hi| tbs tide front "Semiannual report" to "Reporting" and by revising paragraph (} of i 9170 me fallows; CMA 015275 /' * ' A-38 / ") > Federal Regfater / Vol 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January a. 1965 / Proposed Rules_________1198 Mm mpMini. (Kl) Dm owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall sobmit to ths Administrator an September 15 and March 15 of tach year a report in writing aaiffai<wy ths information required in paragraphs, (c). (d) and (a) of this section and on Dacambar 15rind-June 15 of each yaar a .report in writing containing die information required in paragraph (a) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2). (2) in tbs case of as axiating source that submits semiannual reports on an approvad-fixad schedule other than September 15 and March 15. the approved semiannual reporting schedule shall be used to report the informstfaa required in paragraphs (e). (d) and (e) of this section. In addition, the informatiaa required in paragraph (e) of this section will be reported exactly 3 mouths following the semiannual reporting dates. (3) The first report is to be submitted following the first full 3 month reporting period after the initial report is submitted. 19. By revising,paragraph (c)(1) of ISUO as fallows: fSITO Wiftsrtwg.. '(cr * * (1) The owner or operator shall include to the report a record ofthe vinyl chloride content of --*--far each 3-hour period during which average emissions are inexcessaf the andasiOD limits in 1-8142 (a) or (b). | 6143(a). or S 8144 (aXl). (b). (e). or (d), or during which average amiaaiana an in axcaaa of the limits spadfiad far any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be dnetad in 18144(a)(2) or to which fayttfra emissions are required to be ducted in I 8146 (bXO(U). (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(8)(ii). or (bX)(H). if amissions in excess of the emission limits art not detected, tbs report shall contain s statement that no axcaaa enriaatnus have bean detected, The tmlaafans are to bedetermined in - accordance with18148(a). 20. By revising paragraph (c)(2) ~ introductory text removing paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), revising paragraph (cX2)(Ui) and revisfag (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi) introductory taxt to { OJO as follows;. f SUO Wsportkig. w** (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to Iattain the emission level prescribed in 18144(e). the earner or operator shall indude fa the report record of the vinyl chloride cootent fa the polyvinyl chloride resin. .... P)* * * (if)***- Hii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed fa. S 8147(8X3). (hr) (Reserved] (v) Tbs report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to-fadude a record of any 24-hour average rasfa vinyl chloride concentration. as - datannfaad fa thie paragraph, fa excess of the limits prescribed fa 18144(e). The vfayl chloride content found fa each sampis requisad by paragraphs (c)(2)(l) and(c)(2Xli) of this sectfan shallTie averaged separately for each type of raefa, over aach calendar day and weighted according to tbs quantity of aach grade of resin processedby the gtripparfs) that calendar day. according to t1bs fallowing aquatics: ; , Fs,jf*+Jvir*+ -- r,m 9*i . " ntsn to ppm (rtiy weighl bastoj. Q-Totaj prodnctioB qf type Ti restn over tfaa 31 bowpwtodtolm. riTypsdfariKiL2.. -mwhewwJa . total aaabw ofrasto types prodasad MwCooceonattoB ofvfayi ehleride to < by.toe-eaaqils.tohg. CwwGiade of reatoi a. G CW aad G e-Tot>i< Ifno 24-houraveregt reefa vinyl ffhljwl*!* .nnf.Htr.tWi. fatotoSSS ofjbs. limits preesibedfa.1 B144(eTare tbs repertshall stats that no i resin vtnyi chloride (vi) The owner oroperator shall retain at the source and malt* available for inspection by the Administrator for e minimum of 3 years records of all date Beaded to ^ required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this sectfan. The reoords are to contain the following I'ltiwuHnw (A)--*. _ (BP-* . ' ' , 21. Byreeiefag paragraph (cXS) of |6L70asfaUoww I run Haporttoft. (Q* * (3) The owneror operator shall Include to the report a record of any emissions from each reactor opening fa r--f of the omission limits uraaoibad fa 16144(aK2). Emissions are to be determined fa accordance with{ 6147(g)(3), except that emissions for each reactor are fa be determined. If ju txcvfs of imiiiioD limits are not detactad..the report shall tadude a etatamant that axcaaa emieelone have not been detected. 22. By-adding paragraph (c)(4)to 18L70 as follows: |*UU Wsperttog - (e) * * * (4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for .which stripping fa the wager la need to attain the level prescribed fa 18144(0. the owner or operator shall include fa the report a record of the vtnyi chloride emisaiocs from roactcr opening loss and all sources following tfaa reaetdr used as a stripper. (I) Grift repifteantatlie sample of polyvfayi chloride raefa is fo be taken non eachbatch of aach grade of main immediately fallowing the of ths operation. and identified by resin type ad grade and the date and that the batch is completed. The corroapondfag quantity fa material processed fa each stripper batch is to be recorded and identified by toafa type aad made and tfaa date and time the batch is completed. (II) The Vfayi chloride ocutant fa each sample is to bodetermined by Test Method 107 as prescribed fa I-8147(g)(3). (HIT following tbs reactoroasd as a stripper ate to be deteonfaed foreach batch stripped to a reactor accordfag to tbs procedure prescribed fa | 8147(g)(e). (hr) The report to tba Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-bour average combined reactor opening lose and emissions from all sources following the reactor uesd as a stripper as determined to this paragraph, fa excess of the limits. prescribed fa 18t84(I). The combined reectoropenfag ionand emissions from CMA 015276 1200 1 A-39 . . 'J Fad--I Ragfetar / VoL 50. Ng 8 / Wednezday, Jaggery 9* 1988. / Ptoposad Raise all.scarce*foQawteg tha reactor taed as of tech grade of resin stripped in stripper taeodatad wifeeach batch reactors that calendar day as follow* wrt# baamngKi separately far each For each type of resin (suspension. typ* of rasht. ob each calendarday dispersion, latex balk, other), the and weighted according to the quantity ' fatfwwtwy t* tn he pTfnnwarfi H F# T F*-N Fwraitaf vahra disabuse-frequancy par 100 A - A' .- 4 - PglCsi * Pfi2 S * 4 PeA Ntotal ante oflettafveta dtadMigm A-2thowevameaambiMd react* opntac iM^Mtataan teta Q stripper, in t vinyl chtofida/kg pmdusi (dir totajht basis). QTatal pradnetton ofmain to batches far tframattsonnM fhllnarim tha imta usad as a stopper at 1L . betehae ofpads G testa tar which ptatod to 9 *tepi efctetata/kf ptodact (di7 ')(< fceuflgXS)). tattotbe Ifao 24-hoor avenge eombinedresetor ' opening lose and amisiians-from all . oareaafeBowtatg lha-raactor used pnsrUbadhr ( 0134(f) sre-determined, fba report shall state thatno exeat* vlnyi chloride i 21 Bp addinfpangraphs (dj, fa] and (tj to { 8170 aa follow* fU (d) Ibaeamae oropaatoa shall tnriuda in tha repot* *mewd ofrelief valve discharges aa praaoibadin I SL8S(a)(4)aDd thwnwnar ar epazatarthall repost axcaadancaa-of tba roUaf valve dtacharga fraqaaney Umtta prescribed mjgUg(*); to be-determined aafbOswm (1) Far potyatayt chloride plant* feeing, the relief valee discharge frequency from polyvinly chloride reactors i tbe deanninedaji*g the fo&owtagequettom Separate calculation* arr tbemadr (oraacb n*d> typ*(>aa-dafloefr II y Wham Ft^nitaf mtaa diaebaiya frequency par 100 itypaf r ofpotymartaadaB batahaa of reparttagperiod dbridadbjr 100 tBtaata type dtapamteOadadtof latex} or baikragtatyp* - . , pfFbrpolyvtriyfdZoridepfonta' prodndng aaapanaida Farina, tba saltaf iatoba faDntatapaqaattaato- *- w 9 a y F,trebelvalve dMschstfs froqam^par^^ Nto5!wri!aMdLlrivalve rtfrhiim Y-total aufaar of polymerization beeches of ~ sectarian raria during the ttrfnoodr pariod pmetiagthe daoa ofthafraenth tapotataf perioddMded bp 100 fS) Fbapolyvinyl chloride plant* ptpducte9acapan1i1.11> dliparaiaa, bin oc bulk rasins. the reliefvalvedischarge frequency from all other-equipment (axriadfagpolyvfeyf chloride reactor*)' It lobedatoimiiiadte two ways uring/ tba following equations; Tatotalamnberafpolyinmisattoe batches of n.iaaliiljiiaa nitaliinail dtaidadbp 100 (4] For polyvinyl cfrlorid* plants, using tba aolatlop.prBcaaa at asp other continnont production procass. tha relisf fchadtacharga fraqaaney la tba mimnationof aadiraliafvatac diaeharga from all aqoipmast types daring dia 12-month period preceding tha dose of tba Vnunth reporting period. (3) For ctbyiana dichlorida/vinyl , chloride plants, tbarelief valve diaeharga fraqaaney is the sommadon-of each relief valve discharge from ell equipment types daring the 12-roonth period preceding tbe doaa at tba mooth.reporting period (6) A polymerisation batch consists of each shqaasaof charging VC and other materials tothareactor, hasting reactor contants. polymerisation of reactor mutants, andremoval of raactor (Bindingany incomplete aaqaaaca that iaabortad aftercharging VC to tha reactor. Forbulk resin piwt. ashtgia. Mpolymarisadon batch" include* both piepulyuiarisadoa and poptpolymarieatlnn reactor operations. (a) TKe owner oroperator shall inclnda in the report tha number of relief valve diaeharga* to the atmoephem daring the fruoath period preceding the report from sack of tba following toctoaa; aaapanaion reaht production reactors; diapatsion and bitmi rasfrt productioc raaetom: bulk mtn production reactors: all nonreactor equipment in PVC plantK all equiproant used in solution, process and other contfaooua process PVC plantar and all equipment in EDCfVCplants; any other (I) Tha owner or opaiator shall indnde in tha report the number of reactor openings and tba design capacity of tha numberofr polymerization,batches for each type of resin in each plant daring tha ft-montb period preceding the report-Tbe design capacity ofthenumber of polymerization batches may be defined CMA 01S277 / VoL so. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 8, 1988 / Pwpoaao dnlaa tai%Hy fwj fwMtw wha-gul VldtSi ^f|WHWWH WMfHI-- X3 IDS OMffl 24. By rseitteg paragraph (a) introductory text of I 3L71 as follows t17l (a) Tba owmt or operator of any source to which this snbpart applies shall retain tbs following information et the source and make It available far .inspection by the Administrator for a. minimum of 3 years: 2S. By adding the words "vinyl chlorideMo the definition of the tens "volatile hazardous air pollutants" in ( 6L2tt of Subpart V as follows: IC1M1 OenNlos; ** * "Volatile hazardoos air pollutant" or "VHAF" means a substance regulated unifor this part for which a standard for equipnwnt leaks of.the ewhetanerhae been proposed and promulgated Benzene is a VHAF. Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. (Sac. n* Gaaa Air Act ef 1W3) [PR Dec M MSPnedl-S-MHaSami \ < \ 4 CMA 015278