Document Qm66Oq9Vdb5ZLrRGMKK83k54

/ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 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 NATURALRESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, Inc. Petitioner, v. U.S. Environmental Protection 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 Court, inter alia, may evaluate possible disqualification of recusal. Respectfully submitted. June 17, 1985 David D. Doniger Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 783-7800 Attorney for Petitioner 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 NoFactor Other Than Protection of Public Health...........................18 B. The Legislative History Reinforces theExclusive Focus of Section 112.........................................................................20 C. iThe 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 01519-4 - 11 - TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page APPENDIX A Clean Air Act 112/ 42 U.S.C. $7412............................................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-l5 Notice Withdrawing Amendments Proposed in 1977, 50 Fed. Reg. 1182 (1985).................................................................A-21 CMA 015195 - iii - TABLE OP AUTHORITIES Page CASES American Methyl Corp. v. EPA, 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).......................................... ....................................... ...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, 598 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1978)............................................ 15, 25, 26 * Lead Industries Ass'nv. 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. 10TT (1981)................................... ............................. ................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)................................................................................................................37 Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 230 U.S. App. D.C. 179, 715 F.2d 653 (D.C. Cir. 1983)...................................................................37 * Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978)................................................................................................16, 25, 26, 30 CMA 015196 - iv - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.) * Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976)................................................................4, 14, 17, 26 27, 30, 31, 33, 34 Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, 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......................................................s', 33 Section 111, 42 U.S.C. 7411................................................................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 Prooosed Standards (EPA-450/3-80-032a, Nov. 1980)...................................................................................................................32,33 EPA, Vinyl Chloride -- A Review of National Emission StandarHs (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 01519S 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. REFERENCSS 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 OP 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 1970ri/ 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 y 84 Stat. 1676. CMA 015201 4 serious irreversible/ or incapacitating reversible, illness. Section 112(a) (1) , 42 U.S.C. S7412 (a) (1) .U Substances capable of causing serious, 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 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 U.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. 2/ 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 U.S.C. 57602 (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 U.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 CourtfA/ 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 protect 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: 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. Costie, 665 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert, denied 455 U.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 Union 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). -5/ 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."). CMA 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 Vinyl 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.-!/ 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. "J/ -5/ Summary of the Provision of Conference Agreement on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, Exhibit 1 to Statement of Sen. Muskie, Cong. Rec. S20601 (daily ed., Dec. 18, 1970), 1 Leg. Hist. 133. 2J See 40 Fed. Reg. 59532-33; 41 Fed. Reg. 46560. -/ Memorandum from R.E. McGaughy, EPA Carcinogen Assessment Gro Plf to J. Padgett, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality ng and Standards (Jan. 5, 1984) at p. 1 (Record, B-27). CMA 015204 - 7- EPA has consistently recognized 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 .12/ In 1975 EPA estimated that more than 4.6 million people lived within five miles of the then-operating plants.12/ 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 .12/ 1. The 1976 Standards In 1975 EPA designated vinyl chloride a hazardous air pollutant.12/ The agency proposed, and a year later promulgated, standards covering VC releases from emission points in the EDC/VC 2/ 50 Fed. Beg. 1183 (1985) (col. 1). See also, 42 Fed. Beg. 28154 (col. 2) (1977) (proposed amendments); 40 Fed. Reg. 5953233 (1976) (original proposal). See generally, 49 Fed. Reg. 46294 (1984) (carcinogen risk assessment guidelines). 12/ 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 fro^n the acronym for the principal raw material, ethylene dichloride. li/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59533 (col. 1). 12/ EPA, Vinyl Chloride Review, supra note 8, at 2-11. 12/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59532 (1975). CtfA 015205 8 and PVC plants.-i4/ The 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, EPA 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 EPA declined to do this. In lieu of the statutory criterion, EPA substituted a new test: that the standards should 14/ 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. S61.65(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 expressedin 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 9 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 "availableEPA 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.-i^/ The case was not litigated, however, because the parties reached a settlement 40 Fed. Reg. at 59534. 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"). A2/ Environmental Defense Fund v. Train, No. 76-2045 (D.C. Cir., filed Nov. 19, 1976). CMA 015207 10 agreement under which EPA obligated itself to propose regulatory amendments to strengthen the standards in specific ways.--/ The contemplated amendments were proposed on June 2, 1977The 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."-^/ 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.-==/ The proposal included four major amendments to lower the emissions allowed by the 1976 standards.-^/ It also stated that _IcL (settled and dismissed, June 24, 1977). 42 Fed. Reg. 28154 (1977). / -2fi/ Id. (col. 2) . Id. (col. 3). 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. 5561.62(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. 561.62(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 move toward the goal of zero vinyl chloride emissions."25/ 3. The 1985 Withdrawal of the Proposed Amendments Despite repeated requests that EPA act^/ the amendments were never promulgated. More than seven years later, in the action here under review, EPA reneged on the substance of the settlement agreement and withdrew the proposal-25/ 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. 561.73, 42 Fed. Reg. 28159. -22/ 42 Fed. Reg. 28156 (col. 2). -24/ 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 Costle, 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). 15/ 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 Defense 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 roost 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."2/ 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 ^22/ 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 Yor k 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]he effect is a loosening of the regulations."). This case challenges the final action withdrawing the 1977 proposal. TSiis 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) . 22/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59534 (cols. 2-3) (1975). CMA 015210 13 leadtime.il/ 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,12/ The notice then concludes that the amendments proposed in 1977 do not pass these cost-benefit and technological feasibility tests. 30/ Because the amendments are no longer considered "appropriate," the notice continues, "the June 2, 1977, proposal is withdrawn. "11/ This petition for review followed. 22/ 42 Fed. Reg. 28154 (col. 3) (1977). Cf.. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318 (1981) , cert, denied 454 D.S. 1017 (1981) (technology-forcing standards'~for diese 1 automobiles) . 12/ 50 Fed. Reg. 1184 (col. 3). 30/ 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). 11/ Xd_. at 1183 (col. 2) . CMA 015211 14 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The Supreme Court and this Cpurt 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, U.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 governm nt. CMA 015213 16 only Congress can change the law. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978); Lead Industries Ass'n, supra. Because EPA 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)-12/ No provision for applying cost-benefit or technological feasibility tests 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 12/ 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 contemporaneous with and closely parallel to the "adequate margin of safety" test in Section 109(b) (1) .11/ 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 11/ 42 D.S.C. 57409(b)(1). CMA 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 be 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 EPA 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)l)(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 th4 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 .24/ 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.^5/ Section 115(b) defined a hazardous air pollution agent in essentially identical terms as the final law -- as a substance 24/ 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 only 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 J.3) if it is technologically or economically impracticable to measure (as opposed to control) the emissions in question. See note 3, supra. TSie 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). 22/ s. 4358, S115, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) (as reported by the Senate Committee on Public Works), reprinted at 1 Leg. 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^ii/ to set standards protecting public health and considering no other factor. Under Section 115(a)(2), within 180 days of listing such a pollutant, EPA 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 emission limits in lieu of the prohibit ion .^22/ The prohibition 36/ The Senate and Bouse 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 EPA as the implementing agency in discussing these bills and reports. to 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 _a 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. "2Jl/ 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, EPA 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). -22/ s. Rep. No. 1196, 9lst 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 Leq. 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.AQ/ Had 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-health factorsThe final legislation also followed the Senate bill ^5/ H.R. 17255, S5 (proposing new Sll2(b)(l)), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) (as reported by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign 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; Union 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 amplified version of the "adequate margin of safety" test in Section 109 of the Act, which originated in the Senate bill and which was clearly int nded to preclude technological and economic 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 emissions. .43/ EPA may not void this legislative choice. C. The Case Law Confirms That Won-Health Factors May Not Be Considered Under Section 112 As noted above, the Supreme Court has clearly held that authority for cost-benefit or technological feasibility tests 42/ Section 112(c). See the Conference Report's description of the final legislation. H.R. Rep. No. 1783, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 56-57 (1970), 1 Leg. Hist. 196-97 (hereinafter cited as "1970 Conference Report"). 42/ summary of the Provisions of Conference Agreement on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, supra note 5. 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 Acfci^/ (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 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; -li/ 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.^5/ 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. This 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 ii/ 1 Leg. Hist. 133, 227. CMA 015224 27 rule from Union Electric 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.-^/ !/ 1 Leg. Hist. 402-03. CMA 015225 28 The petitioners in that case claimed 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 hea1th-related environmental standards if a reasonable degree of protection is to be provided against hazards which research has not yet identified."AZ/ 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: [I]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 AZ/ 1970 Senate Report at 10, 1 Leg. Hist. 410. cm 015226 - 29 - way to deference by asking the Court to defer to its claim that the law is unclear. Defe rence does not even begin until the agency establishes the ab sence of congressional intent .-1^/ EPA's argument for t he 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.-11/ 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 standa rds 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, theref ore, absolutely no predicate for a deference claim. D. By Limiting the Factors EPA May Consider, Congress Promotes Both Be tter Pollution Control and More Democratic Decis Lonmakinq EPA's only remaining argument is that precluding administrative consideration of cost-benefit and technological feasibility factors is, ii its view, not an appropriate public .15/ Cf. Security Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 13 4 S.Ct. 2979, 2983 (1984): "[D]eference is not to be a device that emasculates the significance of judicial feview." See also Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC 390 D.S. 261, 272 (1968). -1^/ 40 Fed. Reg. 59534 (<(:ol. 3) (1975) (original vinyl chloride proposal) . CMA 015227 - 30 - policy. EPA speculates. without any attempt having been made. that the vinyl chloride ;.ndustry could never meet a no measurable emissions standard. ThuSi , EPA conjectures, enforcement of the law would cause the indu4try 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| U.S. at 194-95; Lead Industries, 647 F.2d at 1150, there are 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 even 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" polisy. In Section 112, as in other key parts of the Clean Air Ac t. Congress set high targets, often in advance of current techno logical 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 drast ic remedy to what was perceived as a s srious and otherwise uncheckable prob iem of air pollution. . CMA 015223 31 These requiremerts 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 D.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. Hie standards were met. Consider another example, driven not by legislation but bj 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. Th ere is no longer any need to make huge batches of the chemical a t 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 hks not even ^2/ 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 never more than two pounds of methyl isocyanate present in the system.") CHft 015229 32 required the industry to make 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-free.22/ Even 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 of! 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). ^2/ An estimated 109 megagrams per year (120 tons) of vinyl chloride still leaks from the hundreds of valves and other i connections in the piping of a typical FVC 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 beyond the limits of [conventionally-used] diaphram (footnote continued) CMA 015230 33 industry is more upbeat than EPA; 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."-51/ 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 Union 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-450/3-80-032a, Nov. 1980) (emphasis added). -55/ 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 (U.S. EPA, Oct. 1, 1984) (Record, B-50). CMA 015231 34 though Congress clearly contemplated that some plans would be infeasible 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 O.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 attempt to comply, a compelling case is made. As Senator Muskie 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 .-22/ 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 -51/ Cong. Rec. S16093 (daily ed. Sept. 21, 1970), 1 Leg. Hist. 232. CMA 015232 35 responsibilities for any "ideal" decision, 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 times ^2/ 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 evaluate, 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 con>romised 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 -55/ W. Rodgers, Environmental Law (West Pub. Co., 1984 Supplement) at 161 (footnote omitted). CMA 015233 36 take precedence over 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. BEQUEST FOR RELIEF By employing cost-benefit and technological feasibility tests 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 01523-4 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 469-70^/ 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 Por 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. uun iyet 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 Jane 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) D.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Jerome A. Beckman, Esq. Peter L. de la Cruz, Esq. Keller & Heckman 1150 17th Street, N.W., Suite Washington, DC 20036 1000 Robert Brager, Esq. Gary Baise, Esq. Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, DC 20036 N.W. CMA 015237 APPENDIX A Clean Air Act 112, 42 U.S.C. 7412: National emission standards for hazardous air polio* *iH (a) DaWnHknia For purposes of this section-- (1) The term "hazardous air pollutant" means an 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 whidt may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortali ty or an increase in serious irreversible, or reversible, ill- (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) Uat of haiardona afr poNutanta; smtastaw standards; pottuttott oofllfoi technipiM (1XA) The Administrator shall, within 90 days after December 31, 1970, publish (and shall from time to time thereafter revise) a list which includes each hazardous air pollutant for which he intends to establish an emission ftsndsxti under th** fraction, 03) Within 180 days after the inclusion of any air pollutant in such hit, the Administrator shall publish proposed regulations establishing emission standards for such pollutant together with a notice of a public hearing with in thirty days. Not later than 180 days after such publication, the Adminis trator hn prescribe an standard for such pollutant, unless he finds, on the basis of information presented at such hearings, that such pol lutant clearly is not a haha air pollutant. The Administrator shall --*Mih my such standard at the level which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutant. (O Any "--TM 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 twHmqtm* for air pollutants subject to the provisions of this section * (c) ProNbtted acts; exemptleu Cl) 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 nrii standard, CMA 015239 A-2 (B) no air pollutant to which such standard applies may be emitted from any stationary source in violation of such standard, except *hnt in the case of an existing source-- (D such standard shall not apply until 90 days after its effective date, and (11) the Administrator may grant 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 find* that TM-h 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 endangermenL (2) The President may exempt any stationary source from compliance with paragraph (1) 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 for 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. <) Design, equipment, wort precUoe, and operational slandetde (1) For purposes of this section, if m 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 promulgate a 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 event the Administrator promulgates a design or equipment standard under this sub section, he shall include as part of such standard such requirements as will assure the proper operation and maintenance of any such element of design or equipment. (2) For the purpose of this subsection, the phrase "not 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 emit or capture such pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use o 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 purpose: of compliance with this section with respect to such pollutant CMA 015240 A-3 (4) Any standard promulgated under paragraph (1) hall be promulgated in terms of an emission standard whenever it becomes feasible to promulgate and enforce such standard in neh terms. (5) Any design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or any combination thereof, described in this subsection shall be treated as emission standard for purposes of the provisions of this chapter (other thi the provisions of this subsection). (July 14, 1935. c. 360, Tide I, $ 112, as added Dec. 31, 1970, PubA 91-604, 5 4(a), 84 Star 1683, and amended Aug. 7, 1977, PubA 93-93, Tttk I, $$ 109(d)(2), 110. Title IV, 401(c), 91 StaL 701, 703, 791; Nov. 9, 1978, PubA 95-623, 13(b), 92 Star. 3438.) National Emission Standards for Vinyl Chloride, 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart F C1976) : Subpart F National Emission Standard far Vinyl Chloride florae*: 41 FR 44564, Oct. 21,1976, unleaa otherwise noted. 181-40 Applicability. (a) lids subpart applies to plants which produce: (1) Ethylene dichloride by reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene, (2) Vinyl chloride by any process, and/or (3) One or more polymers containing any fraction of polymerized vinyl chlo ride. (b) This subpart does not apply to equipment used in research and devel opment If the reactor used to polymer ise the vinyl chloride processed in the equipment baa a capacity of no more than 0.19 m* (SO gal). (e) Sections of this subpart other than if 61.81; 61.64 (aXl). (b), (e), and (dk 61.67; 61.68; 61.89; 61.70; and 61.71 do not apply to equipment used in re search and development if the reactor used to polymerise the vinyl chloride processed in the equipment baa a ca pacity of greater than 0.19 m* (SO gal) and no more than AJQn m1 (1100 gal). (41 FR 46564. Od. 21. 1978. as amended at 42 FR 29006, June 7.19773 9 <1.61 Definitions. Terms used in this subpart are de fined to the Act, in Subpart A of this part, or in this section as 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 (e) "Polyvinyl chloride plant" in cludes any plant where vinyl chloride alone or in combination with other materials is 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 indiestea 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 </n of resin referring to the basic manufacturing proceis lor pro ducing that resin, including, but not limited 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, he- the most exact description of a resin with no further subdivision. (g) "Dispersion resin" means a resin manufactured in such a way asl to form fluid dispersions when dispersed Jn | or plastidzer/cHluent mixtures. (h) "Latex resin" means a resin which is produced by a polymerization process which tram free radi cal catalyst sites and is sold undried. (1) "Bulk resin" means a resin which is produced by a polymerization proc ess in which no water U used. CMA 015241 A-4 (J) "Inprocesa wastewater'* means moved from polyvinyl chloride resin, any water which, during manufactur except bulk resin. In the slurry form ing or iTMTM1"!. conies Into direct by the use of heat and/or vacuum. In contact with vinyl chloride or poly the case 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, by-product, or waste product contain 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, polyvinyl chloride resin immediately following the polymerization step in the plant process flow. (t) "Standard temperature" means a temperature of 20* C (69* F). (u) "Standard pressure" means a pressure of 760 mm of Hg (29.92 in. of Hg). TSS, and pH. usually for the purpose [41 FR 46364. OeL 21, 1976. as amended at of meeting effluent guidelines and 42 FR 29006, Juna 7.19773 standards: It does not include any process the purpose of which is to 9 61.32 Emission standard for ethylene di remove vinyl chloride from water to chloride 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. (m) "Standard operating procedure" 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) "Hun" means the net period of time during which an sample Is collected. (o) "Ethylene dlehlorlde purifica tion" Includes any part of the process of ethylene dlehlorlde production (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the at mosphere from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in {61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in { 61.65<bX6Xl> before being opened. (b) Oxychlorination reactor Except as provided in { 61.65(a). emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from each oxychlorination reactor are not to exceed 0.2g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100 percent ethylene dlehlorlde prod uct from the oxychlorination process. which follows ethylene dlehlorlde for mation and in which finished ethylene (43 FR 29006. June 7.19773 dlehlorlde is produced. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" In cludes any part of the proees 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 tally polymerized into polyvinyl chlo ride. 961.63 Emiaaion standard for vinyl chlo ride plants. An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo ride plant shall comply with the re quirements of this section and $ 61.65. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: The concentration of vinyl chloride tn all exhaust gases dis charged to the atmosphere from any (r) "Reactor opening loss'* means equipment used in vinyl chloride for the rnnjarinra of vinyl chloride occur mation and/or purification Is not to ring when a reactor is vented to the at exceed 10 ppm, except as provided tn mosphere for any purpose other than {61.65(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 {61.85(bX6Xi) which residual vinyl chloride is re before being opened. CMA 015242 A-5 S (1.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl ' chloride plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and f 61.65. (a) Reactor. The following require ments apply to reactors (1) 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 ehlorlde/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) Manual 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 mawimi 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 io 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 discharge, 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 ***** stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in {61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equip ment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement In { 61.65(bX6Xl) before being opened. (C) Mixing, weighing, and holding containers. The concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases dis charged to th 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 { 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equip ment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in { 61.65(b)(6Xl) before being opened. (d) Monomer recovers/ 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 {61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equip ment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in { 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. (e) Sources following the stripperls). The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the at mosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripperls) [or the reaetorfs) if the plant has no stripperls)] in the plant process flow including but not limited to. centri fuges. concentrators, blend tantot, ni ters, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inpro cess wastewater (1) In polyvinyl chloride plants mring ' 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 for 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 shipping, emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere may not exceed: CMA 015243 A-6 (I) 2 g/kg (0.002 Ib/lb) product from the stripperts) Cor reactorts) if the plant baa no stripperts)] lor dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product deter mined on a dry solids basis; (II) 0.4 g/kg <0.0004 lb/lb) product from the strippers [or reactorts) if the plant has no stripperts)) lor all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product deter mined on a dry solids basis. 9 61.85 Emission standard for ethylene di chloride. vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, 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 tawny 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 wilting containing information on the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, the method used far determining the vinyl chloride loss, the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future (b) Fugitive emission sources--(1) Loading and unloading lines: Vinyl chloride emissions from loading and unifying lines in vinyl chloride serv ice which are opened to the atmos phere alter each or nwinmMwg operation are to be minimized as fol lows: (1) Alter each loading or unloading operation and before opening a load ing or unloading line to the atmos phere, the quantity of vinyl chloride In ail 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 (li) Any vinyl chloride removed from a loading or unloading line in accord ance with paragraph (bXlXi) of this section is to be ducted 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 i 61.66. (2) Sli-p 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 does not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in } 61.66. (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seals: (I) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by int-aiung sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. 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 pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in | 61.66. (II) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl chlo ride emissions from seals on all recip rocating pumps in vinyl chloride serv ice are to be minimized by double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in } 61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions fwim .h* 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 gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in I6L66. CMA 0152-4-4 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 or equivalent as provided in } 61.66. 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 emissions from seals on all reciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride service axe to be minimized by ingt-fliung double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in 161.66. 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 } 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the 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 $ 61.66. (51 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 is 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 m5 (25 gal) of vinyl chloride, whichever is larger, at standard tem perature and pressure; and (11) Any vinyl chloride removed from the equipment in accordance with paragraph (b)(8)(i) 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 i 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 sampling 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 f 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 a 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 leaks 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. (III) It provides for an acceptable calibration and maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon de tector. For 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 (bXSXvl) 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 9.2.1 and 5X2 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 marlninm shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 9 percent from the certified value. The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration nd recoin- 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 section 5.2J3.1 and 9.2J.2 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 among the different areas within the plant and Is also to change over time as background concentra-.. ttons In the plant are reduced.. (9) InpracesM 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 tnproceas 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 leas 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 015246 A-9 plgf vinyl chloride from equipment before it is opened to the atmosphere in accordance with {61.64(a)(2) 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 (b)(9Xi) of t.his 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 { 61.66. (c) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1). (b)(2), (b)(5). (b)(6), (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 m3 (1^50 gal) in volume for which an limit is prescribed in {61.65(bX6Xi) 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 i 61.67(gX5XlXA) or (g)(5XlXB). Ml PR 46544. Oct. 21. 1976; 41 PR 53017, Dec. 3, 1976, M amended at 42 PR 29006. June 7,19771 9 61.66 Equivalent equipment and proce- durta. 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 mieeinne to the atmosphere to those prescribed for compliance with a spe cific paragraph of this subpart. For an existing source, any request lor using in 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 modificati n required by $ 61.07. 9 61.67 Emission tests. (a) Unless a waiver of emission test ing is obtained under i 61.13. 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 <ri(ai 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. (c) 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 an repre sentative performance of the source. (d) CBeservedl (e) When at all possible.-each sample is to be analyzed within 24 hours, but in no case in excess of 72 hours-of sample collection. Vinyl chloride ends- sions 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 *ach test as required by para graphs (g)(1), (gX2). (gX3), (gX4), and (gX5) of this section, unless an equiva lent method or an alternative method has been approved by the Administra- CMA 0152-47 A--10 tor. If the Administrator finds reason able grounds to dispute the results ob tained by an equivalent or alternative method, he may require th use of a reference method. If 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. (I) Test Method 106 is to be used to determine the vinyl chloride emissions from any source for which an emission limit is prescribed in {{ 61.62(a) or (b) {61.83(a), or {{ 61.64(a)(1). (b). (c), or <d), or from any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in {'61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted is 1 61.85<bXl)(ii), (bX2), (bXS), (bX6Xii), or (bXSXii). (i) For each run. one sample is to be collected. The ampHng site is to be at least two slack or duct diameters downstream and one half diameter up stream from any flow disturbance such as a bend, expansion, contrac tion. or visible flame, For a rectangu lar cross section an equivalent diame ter is to be determined from the fol lowing equation: equivalent diameter-2 (length) (width)/ lengthswidth - The sampling point in the duet is to be - at the centroid of the cross section. -The sample is to be extracted at a rate proportional to the gas velocity at the sampling point. The sample is to be taken over a minimum. of one hour, and is to contain a minimum volume of 90 liters corrected to standard con ditions. (II) Bach emission test is to consist of three runs. For the purpose of deter mining emissions, the average of re sults of all runs is to apply. The aver age ia to be computed an a time weighted basis. (HI) Par gas streams more than 10 percent oxygen the concentra tion of vinyl chloride aa determined by Teat Method 106 is to be corrected to 10 percent oxygen (dry basis) for de termination of emissions by using the following equation: G <---m>-G 10A/20A-perceot O, where G i.. i !)--The concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gnei. correct- ed to lo-percent oxygen. G--The concentration of vinyl ehinrid* w measured by Test Method 106. 20J--Percent oxygen in the sir at VtA&dflffd 10.8-Percent oxygen in the air at standard conditions, minus the 10.0- percent oxygen to which the correc tion is being made. Percent O,-Percent oxygen In the ex haust gas as measured by Reference Method 3 in Appendix A of Part SO of tui* chapter. (iv) 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: Cu-tatzao) q in tiooi/z where: Gx-kg vinyl ehlorlde/100 kg product G--The concentration of vinyl chloride as measured by Test Method 106. 2.60--Density of vinyl chloride at one at mosphere and 20* C In kg/m*. Q--Volumetric flow rate in mVhr aa de termined by Reference Method 2 of Appendix A to Part SO of this chapter. 10~**-Conversion factor for ppm. Z-Production rate (kg/hri. (2) Test Method 107 is to be used, to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride in each inproceas wastewater stream for which an emission limit is prescribed in { 61.69(bX9Xl). (3) Where a stripping operation is. used to attain the emission limit in S 61.64(e), wnininiM are to be deter mined using Test Method 107 ss 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 teat based on the plant's operation. (II) Each sample is to be taken imme diately following the stripping oper ation. (ill) 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 Civ) At the prior request of the Ad ministrator. the owner or operator shall provide duplicates f the samples required in paragraph CgX3Xi) of this section al Where control technology other than or in addition to a stripping oper ation is used to attain the emission limit in } 61.64(e), emissions are to be determined as follows: CD Test Method 106 is to be used to determine atmospheric emissions from all of the process equipment simulta neously. The requirements of para graph CgXl) of this section are to be met. (11) Test Method 107 is to be used to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride in each inprocess wastewater stream subject to the emission limit prescribed in } 61.64(e). The mass of vinyl chloride in kg/100 kg product in each inprocess wastewater stream is to be determined by using the following equation: Cu-E&AIO-*] tiooi/z where: Cu--kg vinyl chloride/100 kg product C-ttae concentration of vinyl chloride as measured by Test Method 107. R-water flow rate in 1/hr. determined In accordance with a method which baa been submitted to sod approved by 10**-Conversion factor for ppm. Z-Productlon rate (kg/hr), determined in accordance with a method which bat been submitted and approved by the (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emission limit is prescribed in { 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 an the plant's operation. For a reactor that is used as a stripper, the determination may be made immediately following the stripping operation. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (gXSXil) of this section, the reactor opening loss is to be determined the following equation: C-W (2.80X10*) (CM/yz where: Cmkg vinyl chloride emissions/kg product. W-- Capacity of the reactor to a*. 2.50-Density of vtoyl chloride at one at mosphere snd 30* C to kg/m 10-4--Conversion factor for ppm. C.-ppm by volume vtoyl chloride as de termined by Test 105 or s portable hydrocarbon detector which measures hydrocarbon* with a sensi tivity of at least 10 ppm. y-Number of belches since the reactor was last opened to the atmosphere. Z--Average kg of polyvinyl chloride pro duced per hatch to the number of batches since the reactor was last opened to the atmosphere. (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 & 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, 5 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 bilized. AH 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 based on the number of evacuations, the vacuum in volved, and the volume of gas in-the reactor is hereby approved by the Ad ministrator as an alternative method for determining reactor opening lass lor poetpolymerlzatian reactors in the TMTiifj-ti!Tw nf hnlfc Twine. (Bee. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (43 UAC. 7414)) (41 m 46564, Oct. 21. 1576. as amended at 43 PR 39007, June 7.1977; 43 FR 8800. Mar. 3,19781 9 (1JI Emiaciofl monitoring. (a) A vinyl chloride monitoring system is to be used to monitor an a CMA 0152-49 A-12 continuous basis the emissions from the sources lor which emission limits are prescribed in 5 61.62(a) and (b), 5 61.63(a), and $61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c), and (d). and for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in 5 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted in $ 61.66 (bxixii), and (bX2), (bX5), (bX6) til), and (b)(9)(il). (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 61.65(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 5 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 $ 61.62(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 3 61.67. 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 is to have been certi fied by the manufacturer. The manu facturer must have recommended a maTimitm shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than m3 percent from the certified value. The date of gas cylinder preparati n. certified vinyl chlorid 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 S.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. (Sec. 114, Clean Air Act as amended (42 U-S.C. 7414)) (41 PR 46564, Oct. 21. 1976: 41 PR 53017, Dec. 3, 1975, as amended at 42 PR 29007, June 7.1977; 43 PR 8800, Mar. 3.1978] 9 61.69 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 5 61.83 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3). (bX4), (b)(5), (bX6), (bX7), and (b)(8) 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 5 61.11, along with the information required under 5 61.10. 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 for measuring or calculating the emissions for which emission limits are pre scribed In J 61.85 (bXlXi) and (bX6XI). (4) A statement that each piece of equipment is Installed and that each piece of equipment and each proce dure is being used. (See. 114. Clean Air Act aa amended (43 UA.C. 7414)) [41 PR 40564. Oct. 21. 1976. u amended at 43 PR 3800, Mar. 3.19731 9 61.70 Semiannual report. (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall submit to the Administrator on September 15 and March 15 of each year & 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. CbXl) 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 f 61.11. If a waiver of compliance is granted, the first report is to be submitted on a date scheduled by the Administrator. (21 In the ease of a new source which did not have an initial startup date preceding the effective date, the first report is to be submitted within 180 days of the initial startup date. (c) Unless otherwise specified, the owner or operator ahaii 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 grounds to dis 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 h*n in clude in the report a record of any emissions which averaged over any hour period (commencing on the hour) are in excess of the wniarinn limits prescribed in ff 61.62(a) or (b), 161.63 (a), or { 61.64 (aXl), (b), (e), or (d). or for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in | 61.64<a)<2) or to which fu gitive emissions are required to be ducted in 9 61.65 (bXlXli), (b)(2). (bX5), (bX6Xii), or (bXSXii). The emis sions are to be measured in accordance with 9 61.68. (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to attain the emission level prescribed in 9 61.64(e), the owner or operator 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 ehinrirf* content as follows (1) If batch stripping is used, one representative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken from batch of each grade of resin immedi ately following the completion of the stripping operation, and identified by resin type and 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. til) 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 each stripper over the time period repre sented by the sample during the 8hour period. Is to be recorded and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time It represents. till) 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 (iv) At the prior request of the Ad ministrator, the wrier or operator shall provid duplicates of the samples required in paragraphs (0(2X1) and (CX2X11) 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 (e)(2) (i) and (c)(2)(li) of this section, averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grad of resin processed by the strlpperts) that calendar day, accord ing to the following equation: ?"1Pa-'Wo' Pa, Mo, + Pe7Me,+ - +P17.M0. 47, where: .4--24-hour avenge concentration of type, 7i resin is ppm (dry weight basis). Q-Total production of type T, resin over the 24-hour period, in kg. Ti-Type of resin: 1-1.2 ... m where m is total number of resin types produced during the 24-hour period. if--Concentration of vinyl chloride in one sample of grade Gi resin, in ppm. P--Production of grade Gi resin represent ed by the sample. In kg. G,--Grade of resin: e.g.. Gh G* and G> n--Total number of grades of realn pro duced durhig the 24-hour period. (vl) The owner or operator shall retain at the source and make availa ble for inspection by the Administra tor for a rniriimntn ol 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 <cX2)(l) and <eX2Xll) 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 strtpperts), identified by the resin type and grade and the time and date It represents. (3) The owner or operator shall in clude in the report a record of the from each reactor opening for which an emission limit is pre scribed in S 51.$4(aX2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance with f 61.87(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. (See. 114. Clean Air Act u amended (42 TJA.C. 7414)) C41 FR 46844, Oct. 21. 1976; 41 PR S3018. Dec. 3, 1976, as amended at 42 FR 29007, June 7.1977: 43 FR 8600, Mar. 3.1978) 161.71 Recordkeeping. (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies hn.n retain the following information at the source and make it available for inspection by the Administrator for a Tnintmum of two years Cl) A record of the leaks detected by the vinyl chloride monitoring system, as required by J 61.65(b)(8). 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 durhig routine monitoring with the, portable hydrocarbon detector and the p4jrm tjim to repair the leaks, as re quired by j 61.65(bX8), including a brief statement explaining the loca tion aTM* cause of each leak detected with the portable hydrocarbon detec tor, the date and time of the leak, and any action to that leak. (3) A record of measured in accordance with 161.68. (4) A dally operating record for each polyvinyl chloride reactor, tnrinrf+wy pressures and temperatures. (Sac. 114. dean Air Act as amanrtari (42 DA.C. 7414)) (41 FR 46694, Oct. 21. 1976, as amended at 42 FR 29007. June 7,1977; 43 FR 8800, Mar. 2.1978) CMA 015252 A-15 Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Vinyl Chloride Standards (1977) : 2S154 PtOPOSED PULES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION additional actions. These Include a re be achievable only by banning vtnyl chu,. AGENCY [40CFR Part SI ] statement of SFA's policy for regulating ride emissions completely. That, ta tors, carcinogens under section 112 of the would require closing the enure Industry Clean Air Act; the proposal of amend- As explained In the eailler rulemaking ^ I'm, 73S-4] mens which would require increased lx not clear that Congress would haw "VINYL CHLORIDE efficiency of existing control equipment, Intended this result, so instead E?a rrequire more stringent control at new qulred the lowest level achievable uxtn* National Emission Standard* for Hazardoua sources. prohibit Increases in emis technological means. (See 40 PR 5953* Air Pollutant* sions within the vicinity of an existing and 41 PR 46562). AGENCY: Agency. Environmental Protection source due to new construction; and the jr.iti.anw of * review of the vinyl chlo In order to insure that the standard continues to approach the only level of ACTION; Piopusoil mis. ride standard three yean after the pro emissions which It known to be abso. mulgation of the amendments. lutely protective of health, namely sere SUMMARY; The proposed amendments are being made to the vinyl chloride standard 'which has promulgated Octo ber 21. 1976, and would apply to new and existing ethylene dlchlonde. vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants. The standard and the proposed amodments Implement the Clean Air Act and are based 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 of conPol tech nology at existing plana. Impose more stringent -wi-ion limits on new sources, and prohibit an cntsskm Increase within the vicinity of an existing source due to the construedon of a new source. Zr*o Ektsitok Gout The vinyl chloride standard has been criticized for allegedly placing unwar ranted emphasis an technological rather than health considerations. Although EPA disagrees with .this criticism. It seems appropriate to restate EPA'i ap proach to the regulation of carcinogens in general and under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. and to explain how 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. EPA published In terim procedural and guidelines for healrh nsfc and economic Impact assess ments of suspected carcinogen* (41 PR emissions. EPA Is proposing amendment* which require more efficient use of exist, ing control technology at existing plant* and more effective controls at new plants, and which encourage technology to reach this goal without harming vmyl chloride. Moxx fitanrcxKT Stake**33 rot Exuimc Sooacss EPA is propose amendments which would require soloes presently subject to a 10 ppm emissfen limit to reduce emissions to 5 ppm within three years of promulgation of the amendments. The affected sources Include ethylene dlchloride purification: vinyl chloride forma tion and purification; reactors, strippers; mixing, weighing, and holding contain DATES: Comments must be received on 21402). which define EPA's approach to ers; monomer recovery systems; and or before August 1,1977. regulatory action for suspect carcino fugitive emissions which have been cap ADDRESSES; Comments should be sub mitted (preferably m triplicate) to the wmwirm standards and Engineering Division, Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Part. North Carolina. Attention; Mr. Don R. Good win. AH public comments received may be inspected and copied at the Public In formation Reference Unit (EPA Li brary). Room 2922, 401 M Street. SW_ Washington. D.C. gens. As Indicated m that publication, there are two steps Involved In the deeltion-maktog process with regard to the regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al though different EPA statutory author ities Impose different requirement*,- in gencal two decisions must be made with, regard to each potential carcinogen. The first decision is whether a particular-substanee constitutes a cancer risk. The second decision Is what regulatory ac tion. If any. should be taken to reduce that risk. tured hi accordance with the e*i*v*T regulation.* If the owner or operator of a source believed that a contiol system would not be capable of meeting th 5 ppm limit, he would be able to request that the Administrator approve an in terim emission limit for that source. 8uch requests would have to be made one year before thc-compllance date. In re questing an Interim emhxlmi Hum. the owner or operator would have to submit supportive data and meet with E*A to bis particular problems in attain POR WMTtirB INFORMATION CON TACT; Don R. Goodwin. Emission Standards mjirj 1hnyiP4ii|-|T-[i-||f DiTl*iC&. S&VlTQQ* Protection Agency. Research Triangle Part. North Carolina 2771L Telephone No. 919-68S-S146. ext. 271. SUPPLEMENTARY INPORMATION; BAcanaouwa On October 21.1976. EPA promulgated a standard tor vinyl under the authority of section 112(b) (1) fB) of the In deciding whether a cancer risk exists, EPA will consider a substance a presumptive --* risk when it' causes a statistically significant excess Incidence of benign or malignant tumors In hu mans or in the case of vinyl chloride. n*A evaluated all available data and concluded that a cancer risk exists. In deciding how and whether to regulate, EPA examined section 112 of the Clean Air Act. section 112 of the Act requires that --ntrin standards be set "at the level which tn the judgment of the Administrator provides an ample ing compliance. The meeting would be announced in the Rkpcxal Rscaixs and any Interested party would be allowed to attend and submit written or oral cornmenu. If an Interim emission limit were granted to the sgafee. the required emis sion level wouid3e specified m a written notification ffifcn EPA and m the Eroxxii Rmuu. Each source granted an interim emission limit would be reviewed every three years to determine whether emissions could be reduced to 5 ppm. or at least to a lower interim emitston limit. In proposing the reduction from 10 to Clean Air Act, as amended (41 PR margin of aafety to protect the public 5 ppm. It Is not EPA's intent that a con 46561). The standard applies to ethyl health from such hazardous air pollut trol system which has been installed to ene (Uchlortde. vinyl chloride, and poly- ants." This requirement appears to as *_____ vmyl chloride plants. sume that each pollutant regulated will *tj an sspUp*torT not*, pongraeh i b < of On November 19. 1976. the Environ mental Defense Pund (EDF) petitioned the United 8tates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review have a threshold level of effects below which no health effect* will occur. As explained In the documentation for the current standard (40 PR 99532, Decem I SIAS ais* fugitive tmmioc res-u- -->-- Par several of Bww. the fugitive ssimsu or* required to be esptured sod dueled to a control dene* sooting 19 ppm. the standard. to Intervene were subsequently Sled on behalf of the So ciety of the Plasties Industry, Inc- the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Air Product* and Chemicals. Inc- and were granted bv order of the Court on January 18. 1977. On March 24. 1977, EDP and EPA moved to dismiss the prornrcltngn In view of a aettlenmt srrnimmf requiring EFA to take certain ber 24, 1975 ; 41 PR 46560. October 21. 1976), it not been possible to deter 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 absence of strong evidence to the con trary. then, the only level of vmyl chlo ride which would appear to be absolutely protective of health Is sen. which may In mllrn to tae proposed amendments, the from mi* control donee would boot to be reduced to i ppm m tbe ant war any otber source currently required to meet 10 ppm would have to do. Be.tier than In corporating both tbe t and 10 ro= emletioc limit* in eocb parogropb in fSi.SSrb). > asperate paragraph (c) i-nntel-tnr tbeae emission limits u betng added to 1 ei.fiS. AH tbe ocber paragraph* In (bl see crow referenced in paragraph (c). mttAL HOtsm. vot. 43. mo. 10^--tnumoay. jwmc 2. iwi CMA 015253 A-16 PtOPOSE IKJIE5 H53 meet the 19 ppm oniastaa hmit be re moved and repined with enotoer mar* efficient ew&rsl system or Sat a second control system be added behind the first control system. TSt porpom at the propceed amendment Is to force owners and operators to martinme toe effectrvenes* of ertsttng control systems Ueti Satufcorr Stunuaas roa Nr* Socacxa eyefing oxygen feed mettaalolgy S f^mfhlc for new mjcltlui(in* tow reactors because It can be Incorpo rated at the Stae at cuusm ucaon. Since the use of this technology would efimm- ate the supplemental fuel problem re ferred to above, it Is EPAX Judgment that sew oxychlorination reactors should be eontrolled to the ***"* extent that is prupcaed for other aalssloti aources. -- proposed amendment also Includes rather dan toe equipment. same equipment can be used to process differ ent resin grades. Tarnations in the emis sions from the equipment are a function of the resin being processed `rather than toe eharactertrtlo of the equipment. The control technology which is used for the equipment following the stopper Is like wise more directly linked to the resin toon the equipment. Stopping is used to control the emissions due to the vinyl The proposed amendments would also a more stringent emission tout for new chloride in the resin before the resin is I require more stringent controls for new sources: Lc_ sources for which construc tion is commenced after the date of pro* penal of these amendments. According to IS1JJ2 of the General Provisions. *cammcnef~ means m owner or operator bu undertaken a continuous program ot construetioa or modification or that as owner or operator has entered Into a contractual obligation to under take and complete, within a reasonable thne. a continuous program of construc potrnnyl chloride being processed to equipment following the stripping operation. That is. the amendment would apply to resins for which produc tion for the purpose of marketing was commenced after the proposal of the amendment. The amendmatt would re quire all new mains except new disper sion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and new dispersion reams to be stripped to 500 ppm. These Omits for new products would be one-fourth of the tout* con processed in the equipment. Before the ha-sards of vinyl chloride became known, stopping technology was employed by polyvinyl chloride manu facturers to recover raw materials foe economic purposes. As a result of a standard promulgated by toe Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration (39 TR 358901, mm companies investi gated Improvements In stopping meth odology for emissJoe control purposes. > ^ tion or modification. tained in the standard for existing prod Optimum stopping cactlstt of a set of New sources of types which would be ucts. Consistent with the current stand operating wn^itinry* which must be de subject to the 10 ppm emission limit ard, tha inwnitmuit would permit the veloped experimentally on an individual under the current standard would be use of control devices rather than ship basis for the many wains In developing required under the amendments to meet ping technology to meet the emission toe current standard. EPA recognized a 5 ppm wnipiBn limit at to* time of limit. In case equipment being used that stopping technology for dispersion startup. With.new sources there would be to process all new resins except new dis resins had not been refined to the same no provision aOowmg requests for SPA persion resins would have to be con extent as it had been for other resins and approval of an interim emission limit. trolled to 0.01 kg/kg product and the that there was more difficulty m strip New sources would be required to meet equipment used for new dispersion resins ping disperse resins than other warns. the more stringent emission limit at the would have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg Tot this reason a lets stringent emission time of startup, because the7 have an product. ___ limit was established for dispersion res opportunity to design their equipment to A "new source** is defined in 40 OB ins. Dispersion resins are permitted a meet the S ppm emission limit st the time <1.03 as a stationary source, the mb- higher gntarion limit under toe proposed construction is commenced. Existing strucoan or modhtasttan of which is amendment for toe same reason. sources, on the other hand, require time wwMimH after Twaomai at a standard. EPA believes that far some resins, to maximise the effectiveness of their There was some quacun based on this compitulw have already developed stop- control systems. rfgftmttnn as to whether the amendment:- ping technology which would meet the ^ The proposed amendment would also to the stripping scandard for new source proptoed amendment. (2) For other require ethylene dieblonde-vinyl chlor should apply to new polyvinyl chloride; w"i the proposed standard would re ide plants to control emissions from new rvjrna or the mstafiahan at new equip quire additional improvement m strip oxychlorinatlon reactors to 5 ppm. This ment following the stnpper. H the eo- ping technology. If stopping technology requirement is based on installation of pheabihty of the amendment for new has not been developed to the extent a recycling and oxygen feed system with source were based an toe mstallaQon of ' necessary to meet the proposed amend an tnrineratw or equivalent control de new equipment following the stnpper, it ment lor a particular resin, the manu vice. The current standard limits emis would be difficult to determine what con facturer would have the option of de sions from the oxycfalortnation reactor stitutes a sew source at an costing plant . veloping the technology or not producing to Off g/kg (0.0003 lb/lb) of the 100 per This is based aa the masoning that toe the resin* cent ethylene dichloride product from shipping standard require} that all The current WjJBxrd. unlike the - the oxychlortnatirm reactor. This emis equipment following toe tUipuer in the proposed amendmakt. was not based on sion limit can be met by rhanging proc pswee* be eontzoQed as a milt The series the premise that asNowner or operator ess parameters, rather than installing a of equipment foOawing toe stripper in would have the option of not producing control device. During the developmeat cludes pumps and conveying equipment a particular resin. It Is SPA'S Judgment of the cunnit standard EPA considered which might be expected to be replaced that the owner or operator making a new requiring existing sources to control on a frequent and routine bash. Replac product has more freedom of choice than eaUsions with an incinerator or equiva ing one of these pieces of equipment the owner or operator already making a lent technology, but rejected this ap would in effect cause the whole series of particular product in selecting those proach because a large quantity of fuel equipment following the stnpper to have resms which are to be produced! EP.V* would be required to reduce emissions to meet the standard for new sources, to standard, t would be included in the from a relatively small sourcS An ant other words, all reams processed in toe vartato^ under consideration when ing axyehtoittatmn reactor typically has senes of the equipment would have to decisions are being made as to which a large volume, low hydrocarbon effluent meet the lower standard eves though resins are to be produced. gas stream, and large quantities qf sup only a minor part at the equipment had The proposed amendment would apply plemental fuels would be required for been replaced. to any new source, whether it constituted l combustion of Its etnisstqna. SPA' decided that a more reasonable replacement of as existing source in an A sew plant can reduce the volume of and direct approach was to moke the dwigtiwp piaat, Qf CXUt- its effluent gas stream and make ft 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 resins. plant. That Is,. If a new oxychlorinatlon and using oxygen instead of air to feed This is based on toe reasoning toatemis- reactor or a new polyvinyl chloride re into the process. (3, 4) the current sioos from the equipment following toe actor were installed at an edstteg plant, standard was not based as thto technol stripper are a function of the amount of ft would be subject to the enisslon limits ogy because it was sot considered feasi mud chloride left in the main after the lor new source. `Ws means that as ble to retrofit existing plants so that they stopping operation is completed; te- existing sources are gradually replaced could use oxygen instead at air. The re- toe resin Is the source at toe emissions with new sources in an existing plant. IVDRAi tsomn, VOL S3, NO. 104--TMUSSSAY, AIM I, 1WT CMA 01525-4 A-17 2815$ J>IOPO$D KUUS the overall emiaslon level from that had baen attained hr each existing ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride plant eriztlfig plant would be reduced. smirea. The allowable rate for and an existing average-sized polyvinyl Zwmzoi Ome each source would be based on the mam- chloride plant, which contain other mum production rate at whicb that source* than the ones required to meet Reroute the present vinyl chloride source would be operated In the future. a 5 ppm emission limit, it Is estimated itaadard focuses on reducing emissions 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 emission emission* by less than one percent Emis bient air quality concentration, there Is limit applicable to it. the proposed sions at existing plants would be further no provision 1 r limiting the- size of amendment would give the source credit reduced as existing oxychlorination re plants or the clustering of plants m a for the difference between the emission actors are replaced with new oxychlcn. geographical area. The doubling of the limit and the actual emission level. That nation reactors and as new polyvinyl size of an existing plant or the construc is the baseline emission rate would be chloride resins are produced to replace tion of a new plant beside an existing based on the standard rather than on an existing one*. plant would considerably increase the emission test It Is EFA's Judgment thee Under the proposed amendment emis ambient air concentrations of vinyl this is a more equitable approach than sions from new plants would be consider chloride tn the vicinity of the plaal(s) penalizing 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. For a typical new met. EPA determined at the time of the standard. Such a source would have average-sized ethylene dlchloride-vinrl promulgation of the current standard less room for further reducing emissions. chloride plant (318x10* kg'yr or TOO that the costs of prohibiting the produc The emission limits applicable to both XlO* lb'yr produced*, the hourly emis tion of vinyl chloride and potmnyl the existing and new sources involved sions would be 5.1 kg (11.5 lb) instead chloride were too high and the continued in the offset arrangement would be con of 10J kg (23.1 lb*. For a typical new operation of TMtmg plants should be tained in the approval of new construc average-sized dispersion polyvinvl chlo allowed. EPA believes, however, .that the tion granted by the Administrator under ride plant (44x10* kg'yr or 100x10* standard should include a mechanism 40 cm ei-os. Jb/yr production). the emissions would for prohibiting an increase in ambient - EPA believes that a policy of no net be about 9 kg/hr (20 Ibriw* Instead of concentrations of vinyl chloride due to new construction m areas where existing sources are already located. Accordingly, EPA Is proposing an amendment which would prohibit an in crease in emissions within 8 kilometers (km) (approximately five miles) of an existing source due to the construction of a new mission source. This means that if a new source were added to an existing plant, the increase in emission* due to that new source would have to be offset by a reduction In miictiims from other existing sources within that plant or at other plants within S km of the construction site of the new source. Simi larly, a new plant could not be con structed within > km -of an existing plant**) unless the emission increase due to the new plant were offset by an emission reduction at the "i*ing plant or plants. This provision may result in 'few existing plants being extended end few new plants being constructed In the increase in gnlesions due to new con 17A kg/hr (39 Ib/hr) autf for a typical struction is Justified because of the haz new average-sized suspension polyvmyl ardous nature of vinyl chloride. How chloride (88x10* kg/yr or lSOxlff Ib/yr ever. EPA recognises the potential diffi production) the emissions would be 13.5 culties in implemeiting such a policy kg/hr) (30 Ib/hr) instead of 15 kg/hr and Interested persons are urged to sub (38 Ib/hr). These emissions are calcu mit wimm*n>i and factual Information lated based on the emission factors pub relating to this policy. lished ta the documentation for the ex Rxvtrw or Stand**b isting standard. Jf) Ambient air concen trations are esbected to be reduced EPA plans to undertake a full-scale proportionately. review of Subpart P of 40 CFR Part SI The only negative environmental Im beginning three yean from the promul pact would be an increase In hydrogen gation of any amendments, jn the study chloride emissions at ethylene dichloEPA will review information concerning ride-vinyl chloride plants If incineration technological advances in the control of were tsed to control emissions from new vinyl chloride rmtarioni to determine oxychlorination reactors. However, due what further changes might than be ap to -the*corrosion problems which would propriate to move toward the goal of otherwise occur on plant property and aero vinyl chloride emissions. EPA wfll . in 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 proposed amend lating vinyl chloride should be altered. ment h not expected to have a signifi Ewvsomawxsk Impact cant impact on energy consumption. ** vicinity of ebsttng plants. However, the proposed amendment does not preclude this possibility. -- .. The proposed amendment, in contrast to the current standard, would encourage the development of new technology and Economic Impact The potential economic Impacts of the proposed standard ar^: The offset provision would apply only to new construction which results in an increase in production rate. Replacing or adding equipment such as pumps, com pressors. agitators, sampling equipment and unloading hoses is a routine practice at existing plants. Additions of equip ment of this nature would, ta and of It self. be expected to result tn little. If any. Increase in emissions In EPA's Judg ment. a plant should not be required to prove this fact each time one of these pieces of equipment is sdded. The addi tion at this type of equipment in con improvements in extstag technology and would have the following three positive environmental impacts: (1) further re duction of emissions at existing plants. (2) no Increase tn emissions within a km of an existing source, and (3> lower emissions from new source* than would be accomplished through the current standard regardless of the construction site. These environmental impacts would provide progress toward the ultimate goal of zero without banning vinyl chloride, and tn the process would provide additional protection of public (11 Cask for rmeae^T and develop ment of Improved meti&dology for oper ation of existing control technology so that It can be uteri to meet the 5 ppm emission limit <2< Costs for research and develop ment of improved stripping techniques to meet the standard for new polyvinyl chloride resins. (3i Cost of.research and development as licenstajjhr converting over to the oxygen symKn for a new oxythlormatlon reactor. junction with major process equipment, health by further minimising the health <4> Possibly Increased transportation however, is likely to result in both sn in risks to the people living is the vicinity coat* of raw materials in the case that crease in emissions ss well ss an in of existing plants and to any additional the offset policy results in 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. existing plant than It otherwise would Xf the offset provision were adopted, Specifically, for those existing sources have been. the reduction in emissions could be which are currently subject to a 10 ppm (5) Costs of building a new plant more achieved In the production rate of an emission limit, emissions would be re than 8 km from an existing plant In the existing source or sources. The baseline duced by half within three years after event .that the offset requrnsnent pre emission rate would be determined based the prnmnigrtnn date of these amend cluded the expansion of an existing on the rrtarimtrm production rate which mentk. At both an existing average-sized plant. reostAi isoism. vol si. no. ioa--tmucsoay. iuni i. tan CMA 015255 A-13 PfeOPOSED WtES 28157 (g, Delay to th production ot a par abolae twin due to time scent develop ing stripping technology for that resin. f7' No growth tn the production of a particular resin due to the inability to jtrip thet resin to required levels. The types of costs which here been named would be difficult to quantify. The costs would be expected to vary considerably from one plant to another depend ing on the amount of research and de velopment than had already been done, the extent to which technology could be transferred from other plants and proc esses, and the plans for new construction. (31 -Goodrich Report* ImpreMr* Progreae la Sotting Vinyl Chloride Problem.- Amen* earn Pe*t and Cooirngt Journal, Vol. 60. WO. 31. January 12.1S78. p. 24. (3) E. W. Wlmer and H. X. Peethers "Osygeu Otrm Loo Con VCM." Hydrocarbon Proccrring. March 1973. pp. 31-34. 14) Peter Reich. "Air or Oxygen for VCM?." Hydrocarbon ProcMjtng. March. 1978. pp. 33-69 It Is proposed that Subparl 7 of 40 CPU Part 61 be amended as follows: 1. In } 61.06. paragraph <b> is revised to read as fallows: hi.06 Approval b* thr .idminelntor. ***** (a> Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: Except as provided in 161.65(a). the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formation and - or purification is not to exceed the appro priate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source, for which construc tion had commenced on or before June 2. 1977, 10 ppm until (date three years af ter promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date throe yean after promulgation of these amendments >. (2) wrh source far which construc tion commenced after June 2. 1977, 5 One area in which cost estimates can be generated is the use ot an oxygenrecycle oxychlorination process as op posed to an air-based system. The pro posed amendment does not recture the use of the oxygen-recycle system, but many plants would be expected to em ploy this system to avoid the high costs of incinerating the high volume gas stream from a typical air-based system. The primary cost of using the oxygen- recycle system Is the cost of the oxygen Itself. The cost of the oxygen for a par ticular plant would depend on whether the plant was located where there is a considerable demand for both the oxygen and nitrogen products of air separation. According to one recent article, if It is assumed that such a demand exists, the cost of the oxygen <*14.34 'ton) would be approximately equivalent to the cost ot compressing air lor use In the airbased system. U> Another report in <b> If the Administrator determines that a stationary source for which an application pursuant to f 61.07 was sub mitted will not. if properly operated, cause emissions in violation of the standard or violation of i 61.73. he will approve the construction or modification of such source. ***** 2. Section 61.62 is revised to read as follows: g 61.62 Emi**(nn Mandard for dhvlrnr diebioridr plant*. An owner or operator of an ethylene dlcbloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and ( 61.63. (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: Except as provided in I 61.86(a). the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gasas discharged to the atmos phere from any equipment used in 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 61.35(b) i6> <1' before H^vng opened. 4. Section 61.64 is amended by revis ing paragraphs (a)(1), <b>. <c>. (d) and <e> and by adding paograph (f.> as fol lows: %> | 61.64 Emission ttandaife for polyvinyl chloride plant*. An owner af operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the re quirements of this section and ! 61.65. <a> Reactor: The following require ments apply to reactors: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a > <2> of thJk section and f 61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all ex haust gases discharged to the atmos phere from each reactor is not to exceed which thia assumption was not made and ethylene dichloride purification is not the appropriate emission limit as fol tiie economics of the air and oxygen sys to exceed the appropriate emission limit lows: tems were being compared. It was con cluded that overall production economics . "favor -the -oxygen process even if vent gas incineration would not be required for an air-based plant since the sum of -all remaining advantages offered by oxygen-based plant operation more than outweighs the Incremental cost for the oxygen feed." (3) Miscellaneous: The Administrator in vites comments on all aspects of the pro posed. wniiiiii <Section 11* ot tt* Clean Air Act. see. 4/a) ot Pub. L. 91-004.14 Stat. IMS <43 OAC, 1437c7) and (action 301(a) of tbe Clean Air Act. Me. 3 of Pub- L. lto. SO-14*. 04 Stat. S04 ae auandad by a. <13X0 (3) ot Pub. X*. (1-404. 34 Stat. 1713 <43 PA-C- 1337 flat). *** 31.37 and 61.33 alao proposal under the au thority ot aeeuon 114 of the Clean Air Act. aa addad by sac. 4<a) ot Pub. I* 91-804. 34 Stat. 1637 and anwnrted by Pub. L. M-319. *ec. (a) (44. M stac 336 <43 TIA.C. 1667c--9).) More.--The Xnvtxuomntal Protection Agency baa determined that tale document as follows: (1) Each source lor which construc tion had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments). 10 ppm until (date three yean after pro mulgation of these amendments) and S ppm after (date three yean after the promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2. 1977. 6 ppm. (b) Oxychlorination reactor: Except as provided in f 61.85(a). etnissians of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere are not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows; (1) Each source for which construc tion bad commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments). 02 g/kg <0.0002 Ib/Tb of the 100 percent ethylene bichloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2. 1977, 5 ppm. (i> Each source lor which construction had commenced on or before June 2.1977 10 ppm until (date three yean after pro- of th-gr* amendments) 5 ppm after (date throe years after pro mulgation of these amendments), (ii) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June Z 1977. 5 ppm. K # * ' - <b) Stripper: Except as provided in I 61.65<a>. the; concentration of vinyl chloride in all fethawrfr gases discharged to the atmospherfcefom each stripper is not to exceed tim Appropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before June 2. 1977 10 ppm until (date throe years after promulgation of these amendmalts) and 5 ppm after (date throe yean after final promulgation of these amendments). '*>'jf-* source for which construction comnEoed after June 2, 1977. 5 ppm. doee not contain a malar piupoaal roqulnnc (e) The requirements of this section (O Mixing, weighting, and holding preparation at an Xoonomic Impact Analysis do not apply to equipment that has been containers: Except as provided in { 61.- under Executive Orders HCi and 116*9 and opened, is out of operation and met the 65(a). the concentration ot vinyl chlo OMB circular A-107. requirement in f 61.65(b) (6) U) before ride in all exhaust gases discharged to Doted : May 27.1977. being opened. the atmosphere from each TniTtny weigh Douuxas M. Coenx. Attminixtrator. toPtw (1) Standard Support and Xartrowmantal Impact Statement: XnUaton Standard for Vtnpl Chloride. XPA-430 13-73-00#, October. 3. Section 61.63 is revised to road as follows: {61.63 EnHwoo MMUnl for vinyl chloride plant*. An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo ride plant shall comply with the require ing. or holding container in vinyl chlo ride service which precedes the stripper <or the reactor If the plant has no strip per) m the plant process How is not to exceed the appropriate limit as follows: (1) Each source, for which construc 1173. ments of this section and I 61.65. tion had commenced on or before (date . mnu msktr, voc 43. no. 104--nnjesoAr, jwi 2. ivrr CMA 015256 r\~ J.J 2S1SS MOPOSH) RULES of proposal of these amendment*'. 10 min an of which hod been produced by od of measurement b to meet the re ppm until (date three years sf*-er pro the plant an or before June 2- 1977: quirement* tn i 61X7ig) (3) u> tA' or mulgation of these smeryimena) and 5 (A) 3 g/kg (4.003 tti/lb) product from (g) (3) (1) CB). Pub alter (date three years altar pro the stripped*) tor reactor(s' if the 6. In I 61.57. paragraph (a> b revised mulgation of these amendments.1. plant has no strippens) ] lor dispersion to read as follows: (*> Each source lor which construc tion commence alter June 2. 1977, 5 polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on S 61.67 Exiansa MMa. ppm. ft dry bftfttft (a> Unless a waiver of emission test (d> Monomer recovery extern. Except (B> 0.4 g'kg (0.004 lb,lb' product ing b obtained under i 61J3, the owner as provided In i 61.65 < a). the concentra from the stripperis) (or reactoris) 11 or operator of a source to which thb tion o1 vinyl chloride tn all exhaust gases the plant has no stripper (s) ) lor all subpart apphs shall test emissions discharged to the atmosphere from each other polyvinyl chloride mins, including frmn the source as follows: monomer recovery system Is not to ex latex mins, with the product deter (1) For an existing source or a new ceed the appropriate concentration as mined op a dry solids basis. source which hsb an initial startup date follows: (h> For sources being used.to process preceding October 21.1976: (1' Each source lor which construc any grade ot polyvinyl chloride min not (i> Within 90 days following October tion had commenced an or before (date produced by the plant on or before June 21. 1976. and ol proposal ol these amendments), 10 2, 1977: (il) For those sources subject to ppm until (date three yean alter pro (A) <L g/kg (0.0003 lb/lb) product 1161.62(a): 61.63(a); 81.64 (a)(1), (b>. mulgation ol these amendments) and S from the stiipperis) (or reactor(s) 11 the (c), and (d>; and/or 61.65(b)(1). <b> ppm alter (date three years alter pro plant has no stopper (s)) lor dispersion (2), (b)(3). (b>(3). (b)(6), and.or <b' mulgation ol these amendments). polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la (9), within 90 days following (date three (2) Each source lor which construc tex rosins, with the product determined years after the promulgation date of tion commenced alter June 2. 1977, 5 on a dry bests: these amendment*). ppm. (B) 0.1 g/kg. (0.0001 Jb/Tb> product (2) For a new source Icp^which initial (e> Sources following the stztpper(s): from the stoppers (or reactor:*> 11 the startup occurs after October 21. 1976. The lollowing requirements apply to plant has so stripperis)) lor all other within 90 days of startup. ' } emissions ol vinyl chloride to the atmos polyvinyl chloride resins, including * * e phere from the combination of all sources following the stripper(s> [or the reactor(S) 11 the plant has no skipper] resins, with the product deter mined on a dry solids basis. (1) The requirements ol paragraphs 7. In { 51.66. panegraph ic is revised to read a* fallows: ' in the plant process flow including, but (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not S 61.66 Fmimiinn monitoring. not limited to centrifuges, concentra *PP>T to that has been * e * tors. blend tanks. Alters, dryers, conveyor opened, is out of operation, and met the (o A d*Hr span check b to be con air discharges, baggers, storage con requirenumt in { 81A5(b) (6* (1> before ducted for each vinyl chloride monitor tainers. and inprocess wastewater. )(nf ing system used/For all ol the sources (1) In polyvinyl chloride plants using 3. Section 61A5 is amended as follows: listed in paragraph (a) ol thb section, stripping technology to control vinyl chloride missions: (1) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have been produced by the plant an ar before June 2, 1977, . the . weighted average . residual vinyl chloride concentration' In an the grades processed through the stripping opera* Hon on-each calendar day. measured im mediately alter the trapping operation A. By replacing the phrase **10 ppm" with the phrase "the appropriate emis sion limit in 161.63(c) " in (b)(1) (11). (b>(2>, (b)(3) (1), (b)(3) Ol). (b)(3) (HD.-(b)(3) Ur). (b)(3)(v). (b)(3), (b)(>(11). and (b> (9) (h): B. By revising paragraph (c> and add ing paragraph (d> as set forth below. except lor the one lor which an emission Emit b prescribed in f 61.C(t (1 >. the daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration ol vinyl chloride equal to the concentration emission limit appli cable to it.-For a source subject to the emission limit prescribed m f 61.62 (b' (1). the-dally span check b to be con ducted with-a concentration ol vinyl chloride which is determined to be is completed, may not exceed the appro { 61.AS FaiunT stsadanl for ethylene equivalent to the emission Until lor that priate emission limit as follows: didilondf. vinyl chloride, and poly- source based on the emission tert re*^ (A) 2.000 ppm lor polyvinyl chloride vinyl chloride plants, qtttred by f 61.67. The calibration to be dispersion resins, excluding latex resins: 4 ' done with either: (B> 400 ppm lor all other polyvinyl chloride rains, mcinriiny latex mins, averaged separately lor each &pe ol resin: tc) The *"***"" limit which Is not to be aseaeded is as follow*: (1) Each source, lorwhich construction had commsiced on or before June 2. I9n, 10 as t 9. A new I 61.72 k ajdl to read as follows: jf (li) For a grade or grades ol polyvinyl ppm until (date three years alter pro f 6],72 Bi I|UI >1 for fen-rim fmiwro chloride min which have not been pro mulgation of these amendments' and limit. duced by the plant on or before June 2. 3 ppm alter (date three years after pro <a` IT in the opinion of the owner or 1977. the weighted average mutual mulgation of these amendments). operator of an existing source, that vinyl chloride concentration in 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 ths appropriate emission limit as follows: (A1 300 ppm lor polyvinyl chloride dispersion resms excluding latex resins: (21 Fe* source lor which construc tion commenced alter June 2. 1977. 3 ppm. <d< The requirements in paragraphs ib'(l>. (b)(2). (b>>5.\ ib"-. ib'<7> and <b' <6> ol this section are to be in corporated into a standard operating procedure, and available upon re- source will be unable to comply with the 3 ppm emission limit in If 61.62`t) (1>: 61.6311111)*1.64 (*.'<l'(i>. * b 1 . (c)(l>, id'll': and or 61.65`c'(l) on or before jdhte three years after promnlgxuoflffe these amendments1. the owner or operator of that source may re quest that the Adminstrator approve ar. (B> 100 ppm for all other polyvinyl Qjjgjj tor inspection by the Administra Interim *"*""" limit far that source chloride resins, including latex resins, tor. The standard operating procedure The request b to be in writing and is to averaged separately lor each type ol b to include provisions lor measuring be submitted to the Administrator within mm: or (2 ' In polyvinyl chloride plants con trolling vinyl chloride with technology other than stripping or in addition to stripping: (i` For sources being used to process a grade or grades ol polyvinyl chloride the vinyl chloride In equipment a4.7S m' (1230 cal) m volume for which an emission limit b prescribed in { 61.65 <b)(6>n> prior to opening the equip ment and using Test Method 106. a port able hydrocarbon detector, or an equiv- alert or alternative methol. The meth six months prior to (date two years after pinmiiiymetnw of these amendments). The request b to include: (]) The reasons the source is in capable of hen-ie in compliance with the 3 ppm emtartm limit md data to support those reasons, and HOOSl U6IITU. VOL 43. MO. 104--TMUeSOAY. am* 2, 1 *77 CMA 015257 A--2 0 ttOPOSED RUlS (2' A suggested Interim emission limit and description of the methodology for attaining that limit. (hi Any owner or operator of a source who has submitted to the Administrator a written request for as intents emis sion limit in accordance with { 81.72(a). shall within 80 days of the date of the written request meet with the Admin istrator concerning the information con tained m the request. The meeting Is to be open to interested persons, who are to be allowed to submit oral or wTltter testimony relevant to compliance of the source. (c) The Administrator win within 120 days of receipt of the written request required by paragraph (a) of this sec tion. notify the owner or operator in writing of approval or denial of approval of an interim emission limit. (d) If an interim emission limit is ap proved the notification is to include the level of the interim emission limit, which may be the level requested or a more stringent one. (e> A determination to deny approval of an interim emission limit is to sat forth the specific grounds on which such denial Is based. (I)* Approval for any interim emivsirm Omit granted lor any source under I 81.72(c) shall expire three yearn 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 emission limit. The re quest is to be in writing, is to be sub mitted within six months prior to a year before the expiration date and is to in clude the information listed in 181.72 . (b>, (e), (d>, and (a) are to apply. ft. A new f 81.73 is added to read as foUowx: Cf) The Hafts applicable to both the new sourcets) and the source (a) at which omtasion* are being reduced to balance the increase In emissiont due to the new construction are to be estab lished by the Administrator in the ap proval lor construction required by { 61.08. (Saea. lie sad 301 (el of tha Claau Air Act. sc. 4(a) of rub. L. No. 91--004. M 1SS3: . 3 or rub. L. No. eo-iea. si aea<- 304 (43 TTA-C. lSSSe-7. lSS7g(s)>, So. SI-ST aad 01.SS slso ioniad undw ssc. 114 of tbv Class Air Act. ssc 4(a) of rub. I- No. 91-004. S4 Stab 1SS7 (43 C.AC. 1887c-*).> INK DOC.T7-IS673 FUod 8-l-TT:S:4S am I 9 61.73- Offset of imissiaws dsr to ae* (a) No owner or operator is to con struct a new source which alone or m combination with other sources being constructed at the same time results m an increased, production rate unless he demonstrates to the Administrator's sat isfaction that such construction will not cause an increase m vinyl chloride emis sions within 8 ion of any other source which Is subject to this subpart. (b) Reduction in production rate la an allowable mechanism for attaining an offset in <c) The baseline emission rate Is to be determined based on the leva! at emis sions allowable by the standard. <d> Reducing amissions from an in terim emission limit to the standard for a source is not an acceptable means of achieving an emission offset. <*> In the application tor approval of construction required by f 6LQ7, ownen or operators of sources subject to tins subpart shall include, in addition to the information required by i 61.07. the fol lowing information: (1) The name, address, and location of any plant subject to this subpart which is located within 8 km of the pro posed location of the source to be con structed. rmoAi tseirm. vou os. no. 100--tmuwoay. junc 3, lvrr S3SB CMA 015258 A-21 Notice Withdrawing Amendments Proposed in 1977: 1182 ______ Federal Register /-VoL SO. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Roles ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . earner of Highway 54 and Alexander . limit for relief valve- discharges. (2) Drive. Research Triangle Park. North providing a --test procedure rrrlir pwwn interested is attending and a specific emission limit for 40CFR Part SI the hearing should call Ms. Shelby _ operators who perform stripping tAO PRt aTgy-41 Journigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that operations in reactors, and (3) specifying a hearing will occur. Persons wishing to requirements for leak detection and wwonn cJiMpon sunoirai tot Hazardous Air Potfutants; Vinyl CNoride A08NCK Envoronmental Protection pi Meat oral testimony should notify Ms. Shelby Journigan. Standards Development Branch (MD-13), U.S. Baviromaatal Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina repair programs for certain equipment in VC service. Additional minor administrative changes to the standard . era being proposed and ere explained later in ibis premable. Agency (EPA). 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5573. Summary-ofHealth. Environmental. ACTiOie Proposed rule and nodes of Background Information Document . Energy, and Economic Impacts. Since no public hearing. The general findings of the review study major revisions to the standard are summary: The current emission - standard for vinyl chloride [VC] waa ' proamigatad under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in 1978. A review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the standard has been completed, and the conclusions of the review are presented in this nodes The conclusions are the basis for this action which (1} proposes administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard and' (2) announces decisions pertaining to other aspects of the current standard. This nodes also withdraws proposed revisions to the current standard which were published in'the Federal Register OO June 2.1977 (42 F& 28154). If requested, a public hearing will be held to provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of . dafa. viswa,.or arguments concerning the proposed revisions to the current. standard. " - oeerwmCamments: Comments must be - received orror before March 28.1985. __ Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the are documented in "Vinyl-Chloride--A ' being proposed, the impacts resulting Review of National Emission from the current standard remain Standards", EPA-450/3-82-003 (NTTS- - generally unchanged. In 1975, it waa ro 84-114354). available from' the estimated that emissions of VC from National Technical Information Service. plants producing ethylene dichioride 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield. (EDC), VC monomer and polyvinyl Virginia 22181. The major technical chloride (PVC) would be reduced from analysis for the review study is 98000 Mg/yr to 410 Mg/yr under the contained in a separate document which current standard, representing an may be obtained from the U.S. EPA wiissinn reduction of 912X30 Mg/yr of Library (MD-3S). Research Triangle VC (or 95 percent of VC amissions). Park. North Caroline 27711. telephone . Emissions of volatile organic compounds number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to (VOC) and EDC are also reduced under "Vinyl Chloride: Relief Valve Discharge the ttanderd. Standard."'EPA--450/3-35-002. foe the The estimated risks attributed to ttdmieal exposure to VC from EDC/VC and PVC . i>xdbftDock*tNouA-81-21e * plants in operation prior to the current vi-fitriHfl supporting-information used., standard were SJ cases per year for in developing the proposed-standard, is liver angiosarcoma and 11 cases per available for public inspection and - year for all cancers. Th risks attributed copying between ftOOann. and 4hX>pmi, to exposure to VC from sources under Monday through Friday; at EPA's: - . . the current standard have been Central Docket Section. West Tower estimated to b (128 cases per year for Lobby. Gallery 1. Waterside Mali 401M liver angiosarcoma and 855 cases per Street SW. Washington. D.C 2D480. A year far all cancan. reasonable fee may be charged for . in 1975. the estimated capital cost for copying. existing plents to meet the VC standard EPA requesting ttf speak at a public MR MTMn MMRMATION CONTACT: seas 8198 "tiiinw. of which 815 million hearing by January-391988. a public hearing will be held on February 20.- Mr. Robert E. Roaensteel or Mr. Leslie B. waa for EDC and VC monomer plants ' Evans. (919) 543-5671 concerning and 8183 million was for PVC plants. --1988-beginniag at-fcOO sjb.-Persons lotmtid ill atttndins H--Wna should cell Ms. Shelby Joumigsn at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will technical aspects of the Industry and control technologies, end Mr. Fred Dimmick or M& Gilbert H. Wood, (919) 541-557Vconcerning regulatory The EPA estimated that the annualized cost (including capital amortization, eta) to these plants to maintain the required amission levels would be $70 million par Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wrishhig to prs .nr wl tmmHmnrry amat contact S>A by January 30.1965. Incorporatian by Refmrvncm. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in these standards will be approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of the date of the finalrule. AOORttsaa. Comments. Comments decisions. The address for these contacts is Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2770. - auMUmaRraRY ineom--note Summary of Revisions to Currant Standard year. , Background The VC standard waa proposed on - December 24.1975 (40 Pr 59532) and promulgated on October 21.1978 (41 Fr - 46559). It is applicable to plants producing EDC by the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with . ethylene, plants producing VC by any should b# submitted (in duplicate if Revisions. Several administrative . process, and plants producting one or - possible) to: Central Docket Section (A- changes ere being proposed as a result , more polymers containing any fraction 130), Attention Docket Number A-81-2L of a review of the national emission of VC These plents are subject to ' "U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency, standard for VC. No major revisions are different requirements at numerous VC 401M Street SW, Washington. D.C. being proposed to the standard. As with emission points in the manufacturing 20480. the current standard for VC the - process. These requirements include Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the revisions are being established under EPA requesting to speak at a public Section 112 of the Clean Air Act Tbs numerical emission limits, equipment specifications, and work practices. hearing by January 30,1985, the public significant administrative revisions The standard wu designed to beering will be held at EPA Auditorium. include: (1) Reformatting the emission minimize the health risks associated CMA 01525? A-22 Fedaral Register / VoL 50, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1183 with VC by requiring reasonable control Regulating Airborne Substances Posing Assessment Croup reviewed new health -measures. As stated in the preamble to tbe proposed standard (40 Fr 56532. December 24.1973). there is no known threshold level of effects for VC Therefore, th only approach that would eliminate health risk* associated with VC would bu its nfj mi a Risk of Cancer." Ibis proposal addressed several isaues-wbich were central to the proposed VC amendments. It also articulated the EPA's conclusion that Section 112.does sot express an intent to eliminate totally all risks from emissions of airbom* studies that have become available since the standard was promulgated. This review included study of the estimated carcinogenic strength of VC (the-VC unit risk number] and focused. on whether this number should be changed to reflect new infonnaton. This approach wee not selected. Rather, carcinogens. The EPA's selection of the an approach was selected to level of control for s hazardous sir Sines tha current standard was promulgated, new occupational studies tbe health risks assodatsd with VC by pollutant emission standard would not have confirmed qualitatively that liver nsa of reasonsbit control measure. On November 18,1878, the____ be baaed on a policy thatrequires aero emissions of carcinogens!This policy Is and brain cancer incidence axe asedated with population axposurrto Environmental Defense Fund (EOF) petitioned the United States Court of consistent with the basis for other recent actions under Section 11Z For ' atmospheric VC However, none of these new studies have sufficient Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the standard. On March 24.1977. the EDF and the EPA moved to dismiss the proceedings on the example, standards far benzene hum coke ovens and leaks from equipment components in service are not based one zero emissions policy but - exposure information te warrant a refinement of tha quantitative cancer riak-eetimata. ' basis of s settlement agreement rather on a reasonable,level of control, Findings and Cooduaians of tbe Review requiring the EPA to propose which considers amissions and health Study .` amendments which would require inosased efficiency of existing control equipment, require more stringent control of new sources, and prohibit increases in emissions within the vicinity of an existing source due te new construction. The preamble to the proposed amendments was to state that the EPA's policy for regulating carcinogens under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act would farlad* a general goal of eliminating emissions of carcinogens and that the EPA would . risks. TheEPA believes it is not appropriate to leave the proposed amendments to tha VC standard in effect or to promulgate amendments based on the proposed amendments. Therefore, tbs -June Z1977, proposal ia withdraws. As dsacribad in tbe fallowing, section of this nodes, tha EPAbegan a review study to obtain additional technical data and cost information and to-detsnnie whetherother amendments-to-the . standard an needed New amendments . The findings and conclusions of tha VC review study anpresantad in th following subsections. Tbe first subsection discusses the need and basis for tha current standard. The second subsection addresses the-Level of control required by the current standard. The third subaaction identifies scores . categories not covered by the current -standard end evaluates the appropriateness ofregulating these , sources. initiate a review of the VC standard 3 developed*** result ofihajeview andBoth-far CurrentStandard years after ths'promnlgaticn of the arhandmania. study are proposed In thlamotics.* --dlbs-cuBunt VC standard was. ' OnJune 2.1977, the amendments were1 Reviewof VC Standard- y established basedon furigments- -propoeed (42 FR 28134). Many-comments pertaining to policy. tschnoiogical feasibility, and procedural aspects of the proposed amendments were received. Review ef these comments indicated that additional technical data anri cost . information ware required before tbe ' proposed amendments, or revisions of - Early fa 1989 tbe EPA*began * review of the VC standard. Tha primary purpoaa of tha review was to investigate the adequacy mid appropriateness of tha standard in light of policy decisions, health studies, control technology ' developments, and enforcement and compliance experience which have -cODcasuagrtfce. costa-end benefits .of the standard to sodaty. The standard is not designed to-sHminate VC-expoeure risk . entirely. Rather.- it etrikaa a balance between public health protection and tha cost ofthat protection. Data ' (evaluated before tha current standard waa established) strongly indicate that the proposed amendments, could be promulgated. Meanwhile, the H3F filed apatition occurred sine* the standard was first promulgated. The review consisted of a screening study o (1) Existing end new VC causes os contributas-fa tbe development of angiosarcoma, other . cancan, and various noncarciuoganic with tbe EPA requesting the , : establishment nt m. meipeheneJ-- . control .technologies. (2) sources not reguktad by tbs standard. and^3) . disorder* in peopls-with occupational exposure and faanimals with program** regulating airbomt snfarement and compfianoretperieocs experimental exposure to VCT-Although cardnogeaa under Saction 332-of the ' sfaca promulgation of tbaetandard. no dose response dsts are available at .. Clean Air Act The aapects.nf the EDFs Information and data evaluated during tbe Caceantration* of VC found in tha patttioo concaming the development of ' this study were obtained through ambient air, tha EPA ormdarted when standards under Section 122 ware literature searches, plant viatts..and th*standard was established that any similar to those prupoaadin the JunaZ, interviews with industrial atmospheric concentration of VC poses 1977, amendments to the VC standard. representative* end CTAregfanal soma public heath risk^To eliminate tha Based on the similarity of the proposed personnel involved in enforcement and risk of VC exposure entirely.-* complete amendments and ths EDF* rsquaatad surveillance of the VC-emittfag prohibition of all VC amissions wodld eomprahansive program for regulating industries. Tha information and data an be necessary. This would require the airborne carcinogens, the EPA believed presented in a document that may ha closurs of thesntire industry and result that it should not taka final action on the obtained as described in the AOOMtsan fa serious, adverse economic impacts. proposed VC amendments until after it. section of this preamble. Decisions . Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the had acted on the EDFs petition. baseddn fids review,sre summarized fa time tbe current standard was On October ia 1979 (44 FR 58642). the the next-two sections of this preamble. established that* completeprohibitioa EPA proposed "Policy end Procedure* As another aspect of tha review of the of all VC emissions would not bs for Identifying, Assessing, and. VC standard, tha EPA's Carcinogen dssirabls or uareesary-Hia SPA CMA 015260 A-23 H84______ Fodmal Register / VoL 50. No. 8 / Wedaeaday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed ftnlw amdoded this inview of fi) tha beneficial dm of VC product* far which desirable substitutes ere not readily available (2} the potential advene health antienvironmental iwpwii associated with VC substitutes that have not boas throughly studied (3) tha number uf employes* particularly in fabrication industries. who would became at laest temporarily ' unemployed and ffl-tfaa aveilablHty of control technology that is capable of substantially reducing amissions of VC into tba stmnapbata. Although all SX1 VC and PVC plants have nowIncorporated VCanriast-- .r cootroi* tha aaintanancs ofa Federal standard farVC is still considered necessary. Tha VC standard contains requirements far the proper operation andaaiatewancaof control devices .and tbs-proper anpieoientation of work practice*. These requiiemaotereflect in appropriate- baianoe batwoaa tha need to tmniaite* health risfcs aad the end community impacts -which would reeait from atendarda-daaigaedto - reduce risks to taro, Relative to tha Initial'control costa, tba addRtoriaTeoet at malnlliil>g ^tii^iliiin^iiyA Federal VC standard ia small. Never thslas* if the-Federal standardis 'distaiiHimiad. these small coatasiay be sufficientin provide tha indastry with. " njconmic the naanf proper control msasutes^ I lm| the awllpimi niiitWM nt . Federalstandards far tea control ofVC is MOMlIfy ttt the ament levelof control. Additionally, the-standard la important far thaoontrolof VC missions from plants buUt in the.fatera. The of the pMpnlaHaa (fa ITU fflitepaapiettvad PVC plants) Awcradfaj^y. tba-SPA has Federal standard far VC orseasonable (2) RenewofTwchaiWugy flasstf XevW of Cootroi of tbs tecbMlngy-fcaeed lsvaiof-central .fari t status *f ^ iby.the tuiieiil VCstandard is pnsentedln Table 1. . Taut, at Facts Souacie Cowan or Oajomoa NESUAP Lav- iPiameve 11 twvln Mmv =rr MWVBOCMV rnpni " esewme tu m --1 : -------------------- im it wet e-_ ^ a-__ sews w--r n'lpm me wew as 9t9 1.4 --_f. J ***"---------- . *" . ijwe . 27 a.i.ne,.___ 4^ - -- Vi'*. "K 20ppm*Standard. Emission souses* eovare&by-this standard fedude EDC . sadVC monomeriormation and parifleaHoc equipment monomer recovery systems end' other equipment at PVC plants, aad vents from fugitive emission captore system* Thaatandard ia basedprimarily on tea control of tfaflM-ffoiniQQS-by tnci&flfitifln ocLothflr. primary control devicaraadjpariflea an emissionlimit of 30 parte par mflfiou by volume {ppmv} of YC avenged oxur a 3hoor period. The Id ppnrv standard applies to control dories bypass Onwaf the memh--wta pmpwH In 1877 wonfathave required redoctina of tha emireinw limit from 10 to A ppszs. Tha goal of the proposed 5 ppmvlfanti wee towosnra that thaatandard gooT by requiring i both to aiarimiaa the-afflsetteanass of I MHJ || /itetetgu i at-tbe tooofooustructiaa. The-S ppmvSmit was not basad-oo data far control technology different from thatanalyzed at the dine of the promulgation of tha 10 ppmv limit. Comments received on the proposed 1977 amendments stated that in order to meet a limit of 5 ppmv. a control device would have to be cspabl of control at a level even lower than 5 ppmv to offset rtw-tiietlmie. Pnmmentell elan stated that a change bom 10 to 5 ppmv would reeult in little reduction in mess emissions of VC. Finely, commenten questioned the rationale of the "aero emission goeT policy. Because the proposed 5 ppmv emission limit was not baaed os data from a control technology different from that analyzed far the ament standard and because 10 ppmv reprasenta the lowest levelof control which has bean eonsiatantfy achieved, the EPA withdraws the proposed 5 ppmv limit and. affirms the original 10 ppmv limit. If such a technology had been identified, it could have been the basis of a revised standard. However, during the review study no mom advanced technology was identified, even though additional data on fadnenton. carbon adsorbers, aad solvent absorption control systems an existing plants were obtainedAlthough these data Indicate that indneretors are rspahla of rarfiring imiaeinni htilnir in ppmv. 10 ppmv represent! the lowest level of control which has been consistently achieved Baaed on this 'information, the EPA has condudad that thsroisjo improved or new control technology that has been demonstrated to vigwiflMitiy --4 aariasMos tee level below that required by the oerrent standard Therefore, no farther tecbnohigicai investigation of the 10 ppnrv standard is planned Oxjchiormattom Vmnt Standard--CL? g/kgDC. The canear axychloriaatiou vent standard of 02 g ot VC per kg ofEDC does not require an add-on control devic* Instead tha lfawt* curbs achieved at most plants by controlling operating conditions and at the . remaining plants through process modification* At the time the original standard was written; indentation of axyrhlnrinaHnn vent amissions was investigated Because of expected high tryenergy costs Mandated with faal ffipiiwmtti datatmined not to be a reasonable method of control far tide eouro* The amendments proposed in 1977 specified a level of 5 ppm far die oxychiorinetioavenL The proposed requirement was baaed on installation of an oxygen faed system with an incinerator or equipment controldevice. The used oxygen feed in the EDC oxychlorinaton process decroasM the CMA 015261 Federal Register / VoL 50, No. 5 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / .Proposed Rules UBS volume ofinert substances in the vent stream end, consequently, the cost for supplemental foal required far Incineration. Comments received an this proposed amendment focused primarily on the high expense end large-energy requirements associated with the production of oxygen. The review study identified no control technology for oxychlarinstian vents at EDC/VC plants that had not been considered during the development of (he original standard. Additionally, the EPA reevaluated the coat of retrofit - incinerator controls and reached the same conclusion drawn in the development of the original standard. As before, the high cast associated with incinerating axydiionnation vents at existing EDC/VC plants maxes this level Of control Thus, the current standard of 02 g/kg S)C is ' considered still to be the most reasonable level of control for existing oxychlocnation vents. In addition, the review study concluded that significant new. construction or modification of EDC/VC plants- is-not expected. At this time, only one new EDC/VC facility is repo^dly planned. (BF Goodrich has plana to construct an EDC/VC facility in Convent Louisians.) Oxychlorination vents at new EDC/VC plugs will be regulated by the proposed standards-of performance for-a-axidation prnrimui (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart mi or by the L BACT or LAER. requirements of new - source review regulations applicable In specific-locations toslevel comparable -to that achievable through the use of incineration. Because the technologically achievable-level of control is assured, through, the current requirements, the EPA concluded that investigation of additional control (Leu .incineration) was not required for oxychlorination venln Reactor Opening--0.02 g/kg PVC Product The currentVCstandard restricts emissions during polymerization reactor openings. 'Die standard was based on reactor purging and on a reduction in the frequency of reactor openings. An increased level of control wee not proposed in the 1377 amendments. (The level ofcontrol provided by the ament-standard. 002 g/ltg of PVC product reduces VC emiseiocis to about 138 Mg per year for a model PVC plant) During the review of tire standard, no technology was identified that would provide additional VC reduction beyond the level ofthe current standard. Therefor*, the SPA is not investigating further the control of reactor openings. Cambmed Samoa After Ream Stripping. The sources of VC emissions covered under the current standard Klemi sain, dryers centrifuges processors meeting the-more stringent storage silos, begging operations, and limits piupuasd previously are stripping any sources-following tin stripper. these, resins to this low level to offset Control of these emissions is based on emissions from those reams which .are either stripping the PVC resin to s more difficult to strip. Without this specified [based on resin type) residual - ability to averagrthe emissions and VC level (Ls, 400 ppm for suspension, reductions among resin*, thaaa bulk, solution, end latex resins; snd processors might not achieve the currant 2J300 ppm fordispersion resins) or controlling the-emissions from ell sources fallowing the-shipper with e control device. The 1977 proposed min knowifto be difficult to strip is not because ti--y tasbieesnnot readily be defined. Far the foregoing amendments would have-required "new- reasons., the EPAhas concludedthat resins" to-Wstripped to lower levels there is no demonstratedlevel of control (La, 100 ppm forauapenaien. bulk, which could significantly snd solution, and latex resins; snd 500 ppm consistently reduce residual VClevals far dispersion resine). When the in-mains to-levels below that required amendments were proposed, the EPA by the current,standard. Therafora, tha believed that some resins could meet the, EPA is-not investigating further the proposed limitarwhsrees far-other control of the combinedsourcesafier resins the manufacturer would have stripping. been required to develop-improved stripping technology ornot to produce . the resin. Industry coimnents sismd' that most diepetmoa, copolymer,, and bulk resins . would suffer degradation if more stringentemission limits were imposed. Additionally.' thecommentatenoted-the inherent difficulties in * "new Pm*m *** anfaml^j- Jjjf EquipmentLeake. Beceueedittiewaedenown about leak detection-and: ' aiimination-programs for-oootroiaf equipment leeks from components hr VC sarvics. specific,requireseats. forthese programs were-not inrinriad in the current standard. Instead, asdipiant was required-to matimte and hnplamanr e fonnalimdlaafc;detection and- mmrpmnimp* mdlcatacfctb>t Tffftlnr ta* t--nt wai^i m*m made routinely,andaxaptately new resins ere rarely, if.ever, medeiAra - result of thaae-cosaaeiUa, the -SA conrinded that itis ivyiMit^tiniuiiy cases to distingeislr between new and existing resusand still hovesayresins coveted by the psopnaedr amendments. Further the ptupoaari-emandnaante did . not address what leveieof control could be achieved by improvedstopping technology. For thesereasons, the EPA chose to evaluate whether higher levels of control are achievable for all resins, or only for same-special desses of a fixedpoinTmonitoc and a portable monitor. PUnl-apaciflc programs va object to appmncalby the- Administrate. CanMk|heatiy-t &e-t. aite-tpedficdigirancea- emong-pleats, ' as welFss variations to leak defiatitoas sadmaaiteaiug prscticea.- tfiSerencesin controCaf equipment leekatemmjgrih* plants betwresulted-Since the standard was-promulgated the EPA has obtained moreinformation pertsimngto-the- control of equipment leaks from components in VC servica. With. the. information obtained term the development of other standards* ' effective leak detection andrapsir Tie teiiaw study found.that resin stripping technology has Improved since the ament standard was promulgated. wij that wm* pcocMms cis ichiiit lower tesinreeiduelVClevels then those,requiredin tha original standard. In certain coiea.soma.reaine.ain meat the macs stringent levels-specified in the previously ptupoeedemeorimenis. However, other processors manufacturing resins ofdiSering grades. and mi wnty comply with the original standard. Because-ofthe wide variation- himain grades and characteristics, it rmtmM be concluded that.even though* particular resin made by one company can meet a particular level, any other resinor similar resins produced by another company could also meet that level Furthermore, in same cases these program based on use of s portable mfw^trw mb enuf-be qedfl--Hfif equlpmaiit covered bytfaisprogram. The specific leak dstsctimtantiTSpafr requiremeuts are dtscnssadlin-tbe AamBRlDlf JO0BOOI WCOflB OTXBH pnmhift Relief Vatra Dtocbarga Standard. Sources ofVC endseiooe covered by this standard tnrinrie discharges from relief vaives on pressure veaeela. transfer lines end other equipment toCTC/VC . end PVC plants The standard k. baseduo amission controlbyweambmetion of equipment-end prorate modifications end operationalprocedures foandJn plants during development of the standard. Art exer* wnwhimrim of, modifications and operational procedures was not specified. Instead, a performance standard (La. an etnieeion 015262 1188 A-25 Federal Register / Voi 50. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rnlea , standard) wa# established because it to sources covered by ths VC standard, unnecessary end that tha current level ' ti behaved that different tha EPA concluded that none of tha of control resulting from tha EPA's flnoibtoedona conid be equally effective additional sources Identified In tha standard and OSHA's standard is still in controlling relief valve discharge*. review study warrant a Federal reasonable. Th* cunant format of tba standard standard. Landfills. Ofi-#peci5cation resins prohibits all relief valve discharge* Miscellaneous Sources of VC containing VC has been taken to except emergency discharges. Emissions. Miscellaneous sources an where the gaseous-VC can be Emergency discharge* an described as thoM which could not have been plants other than PVC and EDC/VC plants that oat VC.as a taw material or released However, the current EPA standard intends that all resins, avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge (La. those that are"nonpnvsntable'T. Since the standard produce VC aa as intermediate or by product. Tba EPA has identified four such plants, two of these plants product fodnritog off-apedfieatton resins, be stripped to'redoes the VC from sources downstream from the was promulgated, all plants have cxpeilanced Wane release*. Many of these releases an considered preventable by the EPA. Based on visits to plants with good compliance histories, the EPA concluded that a level of perfosnence reflecting compliance with the cnaent format of the standard through the combined effects of equipment process modifications end operational procedure* remain* reasonable, during the review, no technological level of control was found that would provide for a more stringent standard. Therefore, the standard is still considered to reflect the appropriate level of controHar these sources. However, es discussed in the . Administiadve Revision* section of the preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the standard by setting limits for relief valve discharges in ediffenmt format. " Administrative Aspect ofthe Standard. Even though the EPA decided not to revise the level of control associated with the current VC standard.the EPAidaotifiad revisions to several administrative-aspects of the standard. .These revision* as well as .those identified1 abovs/are discussed in the AihuiniatnUive Revisions section of th* lU-trichlaroethans, one produces stripper. In order to clarify that stripping perchloroethyiensssd trichloroethylene requirements also apply to tha off- and tha fourth plant produces pesticides. specification resins before removal of (An additional lXl-trichloroethane unit landfills, these requirements are being was constructed at a fourth location but restated to explidty address off- has reportedly never operated. Then specification resins. The EPA believes an no plans to operate in the furture.) that the level of control resulting from Review of VC emission sources at the the stripping requirements is reasonable; identified plants showed them to be well thus. VC emission requirements for controlled. Emissions of VC from these landfills era not befog proposed today. plants an primarily from fugitive However, the EPA recognizes that VC - sources mid rang* from less than 1 Mg/ may be emitted from hazardous waste yr to 14 Mg/yr per plant In general, tha - landfills and: is evaluating and may VC NESHAP requirements for process, regulate under the Resource vents and equipment In VC service an Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) being met at the miscellaneous sources volatile, amissions (including VC) from due to company policy considersboas landfill* at hazardous waste disposal and State and local regulatory facilities.The EPA also recognize* (Sat requirement*, la addition, many of the VC has been detected in municipal equipment components in VC service . landfill*. Therefore, to addition to would be covered by-standards of assessing VC amissions from hazardous performancs for new sources and ; .waste disposal foriUtit*. a (RCRA) - ` standards for sources in nonattainusant Subtitle D-TASK FORCE has baas - areas. Based m the.investigation of. - formed, which will assess all these sources, tba EPA concluded.that environmental releases including air they an already relatively well- - emissions from Subtitle D facilities (a controlled end do-oot contribute, category which tndndes mnnidpal significantly to VC exposure. For these landfills). reasons, additional requirements for . miscellansous sources of VC are not . Administrative Revisions befog proposed at this time. Aj discussed' in the Findings and; (3fReview ofSoarcesSot Previously PVCFabrication Plants. Thera inaboat BJXX fabrication plants which Conclusions of tbs Review Study section of this preamble, tha EPA identified Covered taka tha resin produced by PVC plants several administrative revisions that are This subsection discusses the status and fashion it into intermediate or final appropriate as s result of the review of VC sources not covered by the protects. Emissions from these plants study. Th* rational* for the proposed eurrentstenderd that ware identified in an estimated to ba about CL0CQ5 Mg/yr . administrative revisions is presented in the review study. Far these sources, the. per plant In comparison to VC this section of the preamble. Th^e EPA sjsesssd whether e Federal production plant! (which typically emit revisions include: (1) Reformatting tha standard was warranted. The EPA's about 82 Mg/yr), PVC fabrication plants emission limit for relief valve assessment of these .sources was based > an small smittan of VC. If standards discharges, (2) providing s compliance primarily on a quantitativa analysis of wan dsvelopad for this category they test .procedure and a specific emission VC emissions from these sources would not result in reduced _ limit for operator* who strip in th* combinedwith a qualitative analysis of because the best control for these plants .reactors. (3) specifying requirements for risks associated with exposure to VC Is to reduce the VC levels in tha resin* leak detection and repair program for from these sources. Tba EPA considers befog processed by the fabricators. equipment components in VC-servic*. these analyses to be adequate in place Resin stripping beyond the level that end (4) miscellaneous revisions. of t thorough quantitative risk process economics would dietsts is assessment for purposes of determining already befog done os e result of the Relief Valve Discharges , whether e Federal standard is EPA's current standard and OSHA's VC Background. The current format of tha warranted for these sources. Btcause standard, based an the EPA's standard for relief valve discharge* these sonrcee ere already relatively assessment of these sources, the EPA . allows only "emergency" discharges well-controlled and the quantity of VC concluded that they do not contribute (La. discharges that could not be emission, end consequently, the risks significantly to VC exposure. Therefore; avoided by taking preventive measures). associated with exposure to VC from the EPA believes that the evaluation of The standard applies to all pressure these sources, are small to comparison controls for PVC fabrication plants is felief devices on pressure vessels. CMA 015263 Federal K-^atw / VoL 50. No. '5- / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules ns7 transfer lima. and other equipment in of decreased discharges over the EDG/VC and PVC plants. Th* eantrol compliance period Following-an initial techniques considered** the baaia of drop in relief valve-discharges affisr the the standard involve a combination of standard went intoeffect the frequency equipment modification* process end quantity of relief valve discharges modification* andaperxtional by EDC/VC pleats have decreased procedures. An,erect combination of - . slightly or remained relatively constant modification* and operational Genera/ Basis-forNamericalLimit*. procedure* wee not specified in the In selecting dm proposed numerical current standard rather, a performance limits. EPA first evaluated in detail the standard (L*_ *r*emis*ion standard) recent performance (1881 to 1S83) of fir* was established because different PVC plants and ane-EDC/VC plant combinations of the modifications and- Thes* plants were chosen,based on procedures teere expected to be equally discussions with S*A Regional Office - effective hi controlling relief valve personnel and Industry and'were discharge* intended to represent plsnts'wfth good Based an 6- years of enforcement and relief valve discharge records. la compliance experience, the EPA has general the EPA's evaluation of these concluded that the relief discharge plants indicates that each has adopted standard has resulted in: (1) Significant tha combination of equipment, reductions is the frequency-and quantity operational procedures and attitude of VC discharges from relief valves. (2) toward prevention of relief discharges significant use of agency resources to intended by the ament standard!, and evaluate individual discharges for that their resulting performance is prevsntability. and (3) uncertainty on consistent with compliance with tha the part of producers regarding whether current standard. Tha EPA's evaluation they comply with the standard. found thata few discharges may Additionally, the EPA learned some of continue to occur from soma plants that VC end PVC believe that this part of the comply with the stanriarri. This current standard applies only to ' obaervationia consistent with, the discharges through safety relief valves- expectation held, by the-EPA whan the and that discharges through other standard was writing pressure relief devices, such as rupture In order to revise-the-standard in disks or manual or automatic vent tMM ofmmnwfM> valve* am not covered. "Hus . compliance with-tha cun-antformat of 'interpretation is not compatible with tbs the standard, this evalusttoo separated iptest behind, the an rent standertL'To PVC and EDC/VC pfanf* Eonplant* provide mar"efScient enforcement by relief valve discharge perfwaiancedat* decreasing the.bnidan.ofindividnal' were further separated by source pnjvenlabfiftyassessments on tha'EPA. (reactor vs. nooresctor^and-by resin and to. provide a better understanding to type Tha EPA than tavtawod tha plant operators of the goal of the performance of.23 additional PVC plants ' standard, the EPA is proposing to - ami 12 additional EDC/VC-plant* Tha reformat tha standard for relief valve EPA reviewed this large set of plants to discharges end to define the emission ensure that the-level of performance ' points covered by this standard to demonstrated by theevalnatad plants include appropriately ell pressure relief could b# achieved by all PVC sad EDC/ devices. As discussed morrcompletely VC plants. in the following sections,-the EPA is. The numerical limits presented ht tha proposing to change-the format of tha nadfaga-secttonaf thispreembie axe- numerical limits in tha-standard to based an-an evaluation of the number of reflect the number of discharges that discharges rapisasiilingtha occur from those plants complyingwith demonstrated performance level - tha format of the current standard. associated with compliance with tha The EPA found in the review study provisions of the-existingstandard. .that efforts by aU-EDC/VC and PVC Format'forNmnsncolLimits The . producers to comply with the standard EPA visited the five PVC plants ere reflected in their piefacmanea (in evaluated indetait As expected, tha terms of size and frequency of EPA found differences in tha discharges) since the standard went into combinations of hardware and effect In general a reduction in the operational procedures associated with reported frequency andsize of relief control of relief valvedischarges of each valve discharges by PVC producers has of the plants. Furthermore, no exact occurred since 1978. A further decrease relationship was found between tha in relief valve discharges by the PVC effectiveness of specific hardware items industry occurred between 2960-and and operational procedures and 1981. Performance by the H3C/VC pre-vantion-of discharges. In the EPA's industry exhibited a less merited trend Judgment the various combinations of hardware and operational procedures implemented'by each of the plants along with tha attitudes adopted toward' preventing relief valve discharges represent the types of control measures that the standard intended. In particular the G'A concluded that the low frequency of discharges by the viaited plants was indicative of than degree of effort to prevent relief valve discharges. Consistent with the goal of this proposed revision, the EPA decided tha: an alternative suneticaiRwi* based on performance resulting under the current standard'could be. revisedin .a format that wouldtie easier to understand by enforcement and industry personnel. Tbs-EBA investigated two basic ways of expressingrelief,valve discharge performance for PVC.piant* One format la baaed prunes* emission* for example, the.pounds of VC discharged per million pounds of PVC produced (lb VC/MM lb PVC). Based on a review of methods used by industry todetennine the amountof VC.discharged from, relief valves, the EPA was unable to identify s sufficiently accurate method, for measuring discharge quantities from relief valves.At piaaenL prodasm are requiredonly toestimate discharge quantities for reportingpurpose* . - Demonstration of- compliance witirslb VC/MMIbPVClimityranldEaqmre producerstomeasure-tinrematmt afVC a suitabl* measurementmethod wasnot identified the EPA- decided net to. redefine tnHefvalve- discharge, performance by PVC plantain aid VC/ ' WMJti PVCfonmtti Another format is baaedon tha frequency-fi*. number per-unit time) of discharge from occurrences. No method for measuring the amount of VC discharged from relief valves toneeded berenee only the-occurrence-of a takes* is required far this format The occurrence-of*discharge-cetrtie datennined bymonitoring-procsss paramstots as-wefl arinspecting relief valve-performance report* Tha* of the two bests weys^ ofexpressingrelief valve performance that were considered, the EPA selected s format baaed on the frequency ofdiacharge* Based on this decision, theEPA then considered-how tha format would be applied tirpyc and EDC/VC plant* At PVC plant* the frequency of diacharge* from polymerization reactors and associated process equipment may be related to the fact thata batch process is used to produce most types ofPVC. For batch PVC production processes, the opportunity far discharges Is related to tha.numberof times e new CMA 015264 r > jtv" ^ / \ 1388________ Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9, 1983 / Proposed Rales polymerization batch is initiated. Expressing relief reive discharge performance for these plants with a discharge-par-batch format accounts for variations ""eg plants in the number of batches produced The EPA --ir+yd 100 polymerization batches as a convenient basis for sjtpisssing relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants with batch production processes in a discharge frequency format. Further, the EPA noted that the ability of batch PVC producers to iimit the discharge^frequency may be for reactor and nonruector discharges and that reactor discharges may vary by ream type at any plant. Consequently, relief valve discharges by individual PVC plants (except for continuous solution process plants) were classified according to type of discharge (La. nectar va. mmreactor) and the reactor discharges ware separated by resin _ type. Nonreactor discharge sources aP PVC plants include blowdown tanka, transfer lines, and storage vessels. . Because usage of this equipment is also related to some extent to the frequency of batch polymerization operadans, the relief valve discharge performance by nonresetor sources in PVC plants with batch production process-- was also- examined on the basis of mtmberof' discharges/100 batches. Unlike the batch process used to , prodneeptbsr PVC resin types, the solution PVC process is continuous. Thus relief vaive discharge performance for the sototion PVC process emmot be expressed an frequency per batch, basis. Instead, the relief vulva discharge performance associated with the solution production process can only be exprusaed to taima of tha total number of discharges (reactor and nonmactor) peryeaz. Similarly, tha EDC/VC production process is not a batch process, bet la continuous. Thus, relief vaive discharge performsacs by EDC/VC plants also cannot be expressed on a frequency per bstedbasis. Moreow, the EPA was unable to detect a direct relationship between discharge frequency and VC production at EDC/VC plants. Thus.,the . EPA detectedto-define ralatfvahre discharge performance far EDC/VC plants on tha basis of a total number of Finding*. PVC Reactor Discharges. Suspension rosins account far the highest percentage of total PVC production. The remaining PVC production is in tha form of bulk, dispersion end solution resins. (A small amount of latex min la produced by a process closely misted to tha dispersion process.) Examination of relief valve discharge performance associated with production of suspension end bulk meins todiestea that nectar discharge frequency generally is tether lsss thus (UBS dischsrges/lOO batches or is much greater. (Recent reactor discharge frequencies for suspension resin plants with poorer performance levels ranged between 0089 sad Old discharges/100 batches.) Further examination of relief valve discharge performance by suspension resin producers indicates that only ana plant experienced mom then 4 discharges per year during the period from 1981 to 1983. Performance by this plant also exceeded 0035 discharges/100 batches. The reactor discharge frequency associated with dispersion and latex production is typically zero. However, for a typical dispersion or latex resin process with a low production rate (La. number of polymerization batches per year), a single emergency reactor discharge in a given year would be equivalent to a discharge frequency of about 0035 diecharges/100 batches. Nonreactor Discharge*. Nonreactor discharge frequencies by PVC plants typically were either less than 0025 dischargea/ioo-batchas or were much greeter. (Recant nonruector discharge ' frequencies reflecting poorer 10046 end 0225 diachargea/lOO batches.) Furthermore, with the exception of two producers, no-more than three dischargeepar year were reportad.frcnraonreactor sources in PVC plants during thwperiodfrom 1981 101983. Each, of tha five PVC plants that tha EPA evaluated to detail was mrtrtg those achieving 0035 discharges/100 batches or leas hr each of the reactor discharge categories and 0022 discharges/ioo batchas ar less in the nonresetor discharge category. The'EPA iodtaditii diidui^i for the PVC producers whose recant Im BJLLlflill 0435 diacharges/100 batches in one or more of the reactordischarge categories or who sxcssdsd 0025 dlechargaa/100 batches and 3 discharges per year from EPA Identified ooa or more discharges that were preventsbis. EUntinetian of these preventable discharges indicates that thebe producers should have achieved discharge frequencies comparebis to the five PVC plants that tha EPA evaluated to detaiL Solution PVC Process. Discharge frequency from both nectar and nonresetor sources by the stogie plant producing PVC by the solution processwas zero during the period 1981 to 1983. Previously, this plant experienced as many as two discharge* te a 12-month period. Recant performance suggests that preventable discharges have bees eliminated at this plant With the exception of a potential emergency discharge occurrence, future discharges at this plant are not anticipated EDC/VC Discharges. During the* review study, the EPA evaluated performance by one EDC/VCplant to detaiL This plant-experienced about four discharges that could be considered emergencies. Recant (1981 to 1983) relief vaive discharge performance data for other EDC/VC producers indicates in industry range of 0 to 7 discherges/yr. Information obtained from plants during the review indicated that, where applicable, similar types of equipment, process modifications and operational procedures used to control relief vaive / discharges from PVC plants also are used at EDC/VC-pants. The EPA examined discharges by tha EDC/VC producers who exceeded four discharges to one armors years since 1981 and found that one or more of the discharges at each plant were preventable. niwtmHm of the preventable discharges would allow each of these plants to redoes their *"""! discharge frequency to four or. fewer. Summary ofNumerical limits. Based on the study of current relief valve discharge performance by PVC and EDC/VC plants, theEPA is proposing that the following numerical limits for reiiaf valvs discharges be added to the standard Each discharge causing an exceedence of any numerical limit presented below would be considered a -violation without regard to whether any individual discharge was preventable. Compliance1`rorisions^Ths EPA recognizes that ell plants may experience an unavoidable relief valve discharge incident at soma time. Examination of relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants with low CMA 01526 ^ JL?28 Fadotnl Rogtstnr /' VoL 50, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1289 dischargefrequandas indicated that plants with this lowest polymerization batch frequencies typically experience about one discharge in a 12-month 'period. The EPA coodudad that far most plants a 12-tnorrth reporting period (railing every 6-manths) was both suitable and appropriate far determining compliance with the propoeed immerical limits. For plants produdag only a email amount of a particular tedn (La, low number-a/polymerization batabes), an apparent violation of tha standard may result from a single diecbarge occurrence during a 12-month compliance period aa described below. Far a PVC plant pipdudng a single resin type to meet the limit far reactor discharges (La, 0038 discharges/100 batches), it must experience and average of no more than ana discharge per 2358 polymerisation batches over the preceding 12-month period. An average reactor discharge frequency exceeding one discharge per 2358 batches would be e violation of the standard. However, if the plant made lass than 2358 polymerization batches over the 12-month compliance period, a single discharge occurrence wonld be an apparent violation ofthe standard (Lathe discharge frequency per 100 batches would exceed CUBS). Because tnsu.fflriant batches were made, the i reported discharge frequency per 100 batches would not correctly reflect the performance by that plant in comparison tootherplants complying with tha etandaxd.torectifying tha undna compliance burden posed an plants with small numbers of baicha.by tha diacharga/100 batch format and tha selected 12-month mtpn, period, the EPA is proposing to add additional provisions affecting the number of batches need tocafauiata the discharge fimptancy. For PVC plants producing lass than 2358 batches of a particular resin, the minimum mm^Hyf ff 7.888 hetrhea vHtl ha n--A wkaw rU+m-mlrtlrtg ) mwipMmw with rtm miimiImI limit. PVC plants producing more than aea resin type must demonstrate compiUnos separately far reactor discharges uouuiing from different resin prodacdun processes. Only the relief valve discharges and polymerisation batchaa spedfic to aacfa resin type are considered far determining compliance. However, for determining compliance with the standard far nonreactor discharges, tha totalnumber of polymerisation batches (regardless at resin type) are counted. To determine the number of polymerization batches prodneed for purposes of assessing cqmpHsnca. the following guidelines apply. A "polymerization batch" consists of each sequence of charging VC end other materials to the reactor, besting reactor, contents, polymerization of reactor contents, and removal (ba,, blowdown) . of reactor-contents. Any batch that is aborted following charging of VC to tbs reactor is nonetheless counted as a polymerization batch in sieasstog compliance. For PVC plants producing balk resin, a single "polymerization batch" include* both prepolyniarizatioa and poatpotymarixation reactor operations. Discharge frequency can be recorded in two ways. Discharge frequency can be recorded an the basis of discharge -events (involving discharges from one or mors relief valves) or an individual raiiaf valve discharges. In most cases, plants currently report discharges individually whan they occur from relief valves an separate equipment However, certain equipment each as polymerization reactors that are equipped,with multiple relief valves may experianca discharges simultaneously from more than one relief valve. Most plants cunentiy report such multiple . discharges from a single piecsof equipment as asingle discharge. Thus. the performance levels serving as the bests far thenumericallimits represent indivldul discharges and not multiple discharge eyenta.CGCept.whan they occur fram e single piece of equipment Fop dotassiaiBg with tfa* numerical limits, discharge frequency is to be recorded,on the basts at individual discharges except when shmtitansous discharges occur fromreUef valves an the seme piece of equipment A relief vahre discharge in considered to be any venting through a pressure relief deviceto prevent or relieve an overpressure condition from equipment in VC service that results in emissions of VC directly or indirectiy to the atmosphere. In determining whether or not a relief valve discharge results in smiseiont to the atmosphere, the disposition of the gases. Venting to a manifold orheader system that ultimately discbarges to tha atbmaphere constitutes a relief valve discharge. If th* op diidiBcgM ggm through e control device meeting the 10 ppmv VCemiaaion limit the vesting dose not constitute a relief valve discharge. Far purposes of reporting compliance status with the limits, plants will ba required to calculate their discharge per batch frequencies with sofSdent precision to demonstrate that performance la either equal to. below of in excess of the limits. Baaed on operating history, relief velv* discharge performance by certain plants is expected to be much better than the respective limits. For example, some new suspension resin PVC plants produce about 5,000 batches during a 12-month compliance period. One and two discharges at one of these plants darings period,would result in a discharge performance af 032 end -035 discharges per 100 batches, respectively. The second discharge linking (ha wmiplIwM would be a violation of the proposed 0333 discharges per 100 batches limit despits the fact that the first discharge would result in performance well below the Unfit These types of plants were considered in selecting the proposed limits and reporting procedures far reliaf valve discharges, lire result that pleats of this type must perform well below the Unfits in the standard in order to ba in compliance is consistent with tha proposed Unfits, which were selected to represent an upper boundary an the niimhf nt .llnimH* intended by the standard. The EPA expects that plants using the best technology and procedural should be . able.to perform bettor than the proposed Unfits; Rspartins thquiiwoMBt*. The currant standard far reliaf vehre discharges require* producers-to report discharges - within 10 days of tht-inddanb Tha EPA I* punpnalng tr. sHmhiats the 10 day. reporting requirement* and to require reporting of aU dischargee an a quarterly basis Although compliance is to be qq | sm^UQQsl quarterly reporting of discharges is appropriate because violsfirms of tha standard may occur well before tha end of tha 8-mouth period. Quarterly reporting notifies enforcement personnel of potential violations and violations that havu already occurred prior to the . end of the compliance period so that mutctivu actiona can Jake place sooner following the and of the eompUarictperiod. Information to be tndnded in the sanfiannaal report for individual reUaf vulva discharges is to bereducad to tncbide only tha data. time, source, cense and estimated amount of each discharge occurrence. The semiannual " report will also tnlcude information on ' In addition, plants will now be ' requited to maintain relief valve discharge records far 3 year*, because of the potentially significant increase to the time period between e discharge octaiirawne-and reporting of the Effective Datm ofRerimioa. The current standard os written wffl.remain CMA 015266 f A-2 9 ^ 3390______ Fodstal Register / VoL 50. No. fl / Wednesday, January 9. 198S / Proposed Roles in effect for reiisf valve discharge* until calculation methods are then used to effectiveness of leak detection and the proposed revisions are pramnlgitsd. establish the reactor opening loss. repair pragmas. Some plants The proposed administrative revisions Based on-experience of tha EPA implemented rigorous programs and do not ghaoga the renAawi*.nrigml Regional offices, s method for others Implemented programs lacking intent and art intended oniy to set limits determining the reactor opening loss specific procedures or requirements. to facilitate compliance and enforcement efforts. Thus. the currant that accountsJar stripping in the reactor Accordingly, the effectiveness of leak has been developed for use by all iut elhmriertnn.programs standard will eonthm to ba anfbrcad and! tba revisionsare promulgated. Strippiaf-in-Aeoctoe Compliance Test Procedure The test method lor measuring reactor opening losses was developed for resin tripping operations that take place in vessels separata from the reactor. Some PVC plants, fnriudfaig ail balk resin mairnfactutars. however, do not use separate-strippers to remove residual VC from the resin produced. Instead, these plants strip VC from the product resin in the reactor (pastpolymerization. reactor in the esse oTbulk resin producers}. For plants with reactor resin stripping operation*, the concentration of VC in the reactor vapor specs, a* measured in accordance with the cogent standard, mtceada the aazg/kg of PVC requiremenUThe high . . concentrations result fora VC monomer difinsing from the resin into the vapor space during the pariodfoUowing wnjimf^ of tfa ft! ippiJby opilttlfill (normally ortmiringunder a vacuum that must be broken before the reactor can bt-tnptLsd} rod infon Am mdvii" completely emptied ofPVC resin. According to thaFederal Register notice af-promulgetion af the earzent VC standard (40 FR 48341 October ZL1S7S}, any VC escaping from the resin after U has been stripped to-acceptable levels la not intended to be awnted as part of the reactor opening lots.However, the cuEzrot itudirddid aot in tht rowtrotf a*tfaod aa tccvptabk method for determining whet part of tire VC fax the vapor space haa escaped from tba ream after atripplng iscompletsd. The caneot standard allows balk reato producers to calculate reactor nonbwDt main producers with reactor main stripping operations and is included in the purposed revisions to the ament VC standard. limitations for ztftai nddofli rod metor opening [mi am added together to givt e total ' allowable VC content from these twov sources. Tbs'measured resin residual VC and the calculated reactor opening loss would then be added together, and averaged over e 24-hour period according to resin type. If the 24-hour average meets tha combined standard, the plant would be considered to be fat compliance with both the stripping and the reactor opening loss requirements. Leak Detection andRepair Backgivund. The current standard requires implementation of a formalised program for detection of leaks from equipment in VC service and these i--w, 3he . fonuallred program includes multipoint VC detsetorand e portable volatile organic compound (VOC) anoiymm Tbs fixed-point monitoring, system contfamooeiy monitors VC concentrations fat the work-area around equipment In VC service and sounds an alarm wfaanconcentretinoa exceed a_ prescribed level. The portable, monitor is need independently to seven individual equipment components for leaks. Rather than specifying tha number of points to be monitored, tbs sessitivitise of tha multipoint detector, tba VC concentration thafindicatas a leak, and the actions to be taken to repair leaks, the current standard requires each plant owner or operator to prepare e program plan cootafatingtiwae specifications to submit the plan to tha EPA for approval. Plant owners or operator* am required to. submit data on background concentrations ofVC in different areas of the plantto use in determining the^fC ^nnrnnfMrtn| that |)| varies amongthe plants. Since the current standard was promulgated, tha EPA has obtained mote *"*" pertaining to the control ofemission from equipment leeks. Based on thij information end the review of the leek detection and - elimination plans being implemented to control emissions of VC. the EPA derided to sperify leak detection end repair requirements far certain equipment components fat VC service. Although iofwmadm obtained from development of other standards indicates that s routine leak detection and repair program with a portable monitor can be an effective emission reduction technique without the requirement of a fixed point monitoring system, the EPA concluded that fixed- point monitoring systems already in place have uses that justify their retention in the current standard. In * particular, fixed-point monitors allow for quick detection of certain large VC leaks that might otherwise go undetected until tha next routine portable monitor screening. The J^A ~ recognizes that existing fixed-point . monitoring plans will need to be reviewed in.light of tha leek detection and repair requirements being specified at this time. Tba complexity of existing fixed-point monitoring plans, in terms of number and distribution of monitoring points, varies greatly among plants. Consequently, tome plant owners or operators may want to alter the number of points that are monitored and the distribution of monitoring locations to Iww wwirlwwit rtw portable monitoring requirements. Such changes to existing fixed-point monitoring plans will be allowed providing they do not alter the plant's ability to detect large VC leaks. in tha reactors. Por nonhulk i prodeosr* withreactor resin stripping as -indicating s leak. Plans, therefore, wars tailored by each plant and reviewed by tbs tha EPA Regional . The proposed revisions are primarily Intended to standardize control of VC smjsajnna from equipment leaks. In operations, calculation of raactor opening loss emissions is mote . Offices. The EPA faonriJn tha review study doing this, tha EPA is concerned that existing effective plans not be complicated due to the presence of water vapor in tha reactor vapor space. that differences in leek detection and Htninetfnn programs exist among PVC inappropriately changed. Tha proposed revisions iadade provisions that allow Currency, waivers of testing for producers with nonholk resin stripping and EDC/VC production plants and miscellaneous sources and that site- plants with existing affective plans to periodically demonstrate die operations is the rsactor have been specific differences include variations in effectiveness of their plans without granted on a cese-by-caae basis by tba iir definitions and monitoring additional requirements. Accordingly, EPA Regions, typically with tha -practices. The dafinitirm cod monitoring tha ffA requests comments from provision that residual VC samples are practices, along with repair practices* industry representatives '"'"g tha aniayxed on eachbatch.-A variety of are primary influences on the control specific effects of specifying leek CMA 015267  A-30 > Federal Register / Vol 50, No. 8 / Wednesday, January .9, 1885 / Propo*-- Rules 1191 detection end repair requirements an effective existing plans. LaekJJatactioaaad Repair Requirement*. Hie EPA established leek detection end repeir requirement* (40 CFR Pert 81 Subpart V) far certain equipment in volatile hazardous air' pollutant (VHAP) aenrica an Jane 8. 1984. These requirements wert established in conjunction with the final standard-far benzene equipment-leaks. The requirement* of-Subpart V generally apply to pump*, compressor*, pressure relief device*, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, flanges sad other connectors, and productcramulator vessels. These requirement* reflect the level of control' that the EPA considers reasonable far equipment covered by developing standards far VHAP. The EPA is therefore proposing to add VC to the list of substances covered by Subpart V, Subpart V would substantively affect only velvet and flanges in VC service within this Industry. All other equipment in VC service are already required by the VC standard to comply with equipment and work practice standards contestant with those in Subpart V. For example, pumps and compressors tfac chitl wr***"^) fital requirements of the current VC standard Will be in compliance with the Subpart V requirements, in addition. the flirpling fTfflP--iyytoiiiM requirements of SabpartV are' essentially the seme aa the current standard. The use of rapture discs far controlling leaks from pressure relief devices, as required by the VC standard, la contestant with the "no detectable emissions'* requirement tednded fa Subpart V. Requirements far controlling leaks from pressure relief devices are described in more detail later in tide section. Thus. Sabpart V will affect primarily valves and flanges in VC servieaby requiring a specific monitoring schedule, leak dafinitfan aod repair provisions. Compliance withtha provisions of Sabpart V will be used to determine compliance with the portable monitoe hik dtUcthniod cUBitlos r*qtrirXMmts in the mront VC gtimird (40 CFR 8145(b)(8)fil)). and therefore, the current standard is being revised to reflect this change. However, process units within VC and PVC plants hi which die percentage of leaking vulvas is equal to or less then ZO percent an considered by the EPA to be effectively controlling VC emissions from leaking valves. For these process units, the existing leak detection andeliminatian program will continue to be allowed while the percentage of leaking valves is 24 percent or less. Any process unit in that achieves that standard may be which the percentage of leaking valve* applied. SactionT12(eJ(2) define* the is found to exceed 24 percent will be following conditioos under which it is required to comply with the provisions not feadible to-prescribe or enforce an ' of Sabpart V. emission standard: (1) If the pollutants The Subpart V requirements for . . cannot be. emitted-through e conveyance valve* an based an s leak detection ' designed and constructed to emit or and repair program thatrequires (1) capture the pollutant or (2) if the monthly monitoring far valves in gas/ . application of measurement vapor and light liquid service. (2) an initial attempt at repairing these valves methodology is not practicable due to | gf ocnA&ic UtitidBi within 5 days after detection of a leak, (3) repair of leaking valves within 13 days after detection qf-the leak unless Section 112(e)(1) allows that if an emission standard is not fsasihia to prescribe or emigres, than the EPA may repair would require a process unit istead promulgate design, equipment shutdown, and (4} repair of valves work practice, or operational standard, during the next process unit shutdown or combination thereof. after repair is delayed until a process The EPA has reviewed the design, unit shutdown. Valves found sot to leak equipment work practice end . far2 successive months can bo operational requirements contained-fa monitored quarterly until leaks ere the current VC standard The only detected. Monitoring of-equipment to * sources covered by the oaient standard detect leaks is conducted in accordance with one of the requirements for which a with Method 21 and a leak is defined as performance standard (Ls,, an emission a measured organic concentration equal standard) is feasible are pressure relief to or greater-then 10000 parts per devices. A* discussed below, the EPA is snUfan by volsme (ppvat}. For a setting a "no detectable emissions" ihnil complete description of this leak - far these sources. For the other sources, detection and repair requirements, see ' the EPA is reinstating those Subpert V (49 FR 23498, fane ,1984). -requirements asset forth in the current In addition. Sabpart V contains standard stendardsifar other types of equipment The EPA selected the use of rapture fcg* fianges^end open ended valves or disks as tha-basis far the current lines}.-Standards far flangeeinciuda standard far pressure relief devices. monitdringwtth.e porteblefBstruiuent When-tbe integrity of rapture* disks is under prescribed procedures within 5 . maintained equipment leaks through the days afobeerving evidence of a ' relief,device are efiminated Rupture potential leak by visual; andibi* or other disks normally maintain their integrity meant. Open^adad valves orfines are unless an metpressure occurs. Aftarthe required to be capped, btfaded or fitted occurrence of an overpressure, with a second vulva. These provisions replacement of the rapture disk dace are not expected to significantly affect ' again eliminates equipment loks of VC producers with thaswtypes of uqeipmaht through the pressure relief device. in VC service. The equipment arid For emission control techniques that procedures employed as normal practice eliminate equipment leaks, such as the by thesu producers or ss-riusult-af the use of rupture disks, a "no detectable * ament VC standard are expected " . entissions" limit is feasible. An -. generally to ensure compliance with instrument reading of law then 500 parte Sabpart V. per million by volume (ppmv) above a Pimsurw Jt*iafD*rio*t. The EPA background concentration based an proposed and.pronmlgmtad the work Reference Methods can be used to practicMvequipment design end indicate whether equipment leaks have operational standards in the current been eliminated: that is. that the hmfnrm eepltoH Uffl idwHty equipment has "no detectable existed in Section UX These - requirements are found in-J 6145(b). In Tint *so cBriMoa" August of 1977, Congress emended would not apply to discharges through Section 112 to allow the use of these tha pressure relief device during requirements. Section 112of the Clean overpteraure relief. (These releases are Air Act requires that an emission covered under II 8144(a) end 8145(a).} standard (La,, a performance standard] The standard would specify, however, be established far control of a that the relief devicebe returned to * hazardous air pollutant tiniest, in the state of "no detectable emission*'* judgment of the EPA. it is not feasible to within 5 days after such a discharge prescribe or enforce such a standard. An The standard would furtherrequire an _ emission standard allows far same test to verify tha "no detectable flexibility in complying with the ` amission*" status of the pressure relief standard, any wintwil rhniqn* devicas end a test after each over CMA 015268 A-31 1192 / VeL 50, No. 5 f Wednesday, Janoary 8, 1985 / Propaeed Rida* pctinfi idkL'Unt the 3-boor waging period ia hrtended carried out in Two separate vessels The change impiemnaterhe beat* of-tin* to darifjr that thelO ppmv standard reaction is initiated ia the atandard consistent with the applies to VC (missions in all-exhaust "prepolymerizadan" reactor and the reqianguBii of Section 1121e}- gas streams covered by the ID ppmv reactor contents are.-than transferred to MaceUaneoae Reriwar p--jTTv.wFwnts InriiirHng any control device bypasestnems. Requirements the "postpolymerdatinn" reactor where the reaction is completed Stripping of Baaed oadtecussioas noth thaEPA tegtooal personnel regarding their. experieoce in administering the tsuTent fat cslmlating the VC content in - bypeaeed smisainnsforparpoeesof reporting VC rtnitsions to excess of the residual VC ia balk resin is performed fallowing the puatpolyjaeriationstep-in the reactor vessel. Tbs VC standard, _ths B>A la.proponiag 10 ppmv standard ase being added to postpulymeriation reactor generally is revisions that would facilitate the regulation. Ihe EPA may use-these opened afterstray batch end-must comply with the-reactor opening loss compliance and enforcement efforts ' emisstaa monitaring resultsas Emits spetiflsdin the standard Because assoriatedwith the current standard. indications of noncempliance if they the prepolymerizadoa reactor is opened These revision* represent minor change* to the standard. A brief description of these adminiatratjrejCTiaioBe andihe. baaia for making them follows. Definition ofLeak, Exhaust Got and Relief Vahro Diechttrj*. PttwpWnnal definitions of TeakT, "exhaust gas" and "relief valve discharge** are being added to the standard to clarify the applicability ofthe standard toeacb of these types of VCamissianj.During their review of enforcement and wrnipHiww irp^<i>nrTitw standard was pronudgxted. the EPA discovered several cases of confusinn over therintaoded meaning oneaS**, IBIIW yP Jum HlHi YWI ,, *-. discharge." Thase threedistinct " categarterofVG ammsfaiw vs show deariy that emissions in excess ofthe 10 ppmv requiramants-occmredf- Theeecaad clarifying revision-to the spamficatfae that the18 pptav . requirements applyte each axhanat gaa stream tern the naeesed aqmpmaet The purposs at thaa rsiasinn-iite dearly prohibit plates feoMing dflntion wdh other exhaust gaa streams aa a tedmiqiM faraaetiog the 38 ppmv requirement 2his nvteien to not intended to gseinbit the common pracdcs of mialwnnig tamernote According to triersvised 10 ppmv. iijnii--at^ comhUag an exhaust gas stream mntahringmassdimilOppmv ' less frequently, end because determination of pass product (far reactor opening loss estimation] is difficult. the EPA has allowed plants to mastTfae equipment opening requirements far VC emissions from poiymarizatkm reactor openings. The reactor opening loss requirements are being revised at this time to specifically exclude prepoiymsrization reactors. Accordingly, VC emissions from all opening of pcspolymarizatioa reactors Will-be subject to tbs equipment opening requirements.This revision is intended. to cfartfy and-improve the consistency of the aquiraments of the revised standard as they apply to balk PVC resin producers iitllghlof actual- ptuv idecoHipSaeoa esd'fndnstry personnel with aclear undervUudteg of winch pert of this eteaderd eppfiea te eny given tfischaige-ofVC emmons-to VC wLth anathar-evhaeat gas-streets . containing fate than 10 ppmv \C is industry prartica. Ne rednctioH ia VC emission control stringency will result from the changeia requirements for prapulymarixstion resetora. Iupiuueee Wuitoomter Recpiuemests. DefmRroe afEDCand-W Panff&tiaB. In the peaCi forGaohoidorSeek. Under tha emrent tgndards.-the VC mutant of inproczsa uaitewsterTTiiiri be reduced to leas than ppm expoeweof the wastewater to the atmosphere In tha-casa of gaeriedder waterseals, the VC -mnteat m the exposed waterseal may exceed 10 _______ ________________ j.,_____ __ also applied to reptnee ril ra awnnel ppx&dnnag ovaosl opcaikui ol tis been controlled.HwdsStetan*rf"I!DC vtoftsaad nthw pressure reliefdovjces nw ifirit1rw"~iial "VC pmfficnfian** m that vast to the atmosphere to-prated being-revusd toclarify thatall' process.eqMlpmentfrom unsafe gnhoidrc, xpfitnct tinct tfar Itudmllkflf pywHHlgntii that compliance with the atmospheric axposMH Emit is-not practicable far this of relief veivwin the proposed standard . pertculax inprecesa wastewater aouree. is not intaadadloiadudaprasaure - Consequently, the definition of WppatrStomdaoL TVw fierilying revisions ere bsfagsieds totbsiappom regniadooe-to improve nadaratandingaf the applicability of ddspertof the standard Hratattbough the teat method cantrolsaivaansed to-condoi Eowto-an Howvyer. the excrete xeliaf vaive diacharge staodarddtd cover emissions from pressure control valve*. Also oat inpmeesa wastewater is being revised to * tbft upoiid witviul o yiihoidim Ibm 4optt>c-- wtitiwiiif nrippingjsrpiinmwiHarill coodnue to -apply to wastewater aftwremoval from for determining nomplianre with the.10 ppmv standard apedftos thatJhe avemgamaults from three l-hour sampling ranabauaad. this 3-how Waging pariodis-aot hi the 10 ppmv requirement*. Specifyingthat - indudadia the definition of relief valve are polymerisationrescrtoa shortstop systems or rvfrigarated water-systems which act to reduce pressure bymeans other than-venting, the gasholder aaaL cf3^0ojTUntit 09' Eqairaiencjr Requests The cuawnt standard spedfiea a-3S-day Emit far cdstfag soweasSe submit requests far use of eqcivalenf methods. Because tuxdi omissions may not aircasd 10 ppmv over- ReactorGpoaiosLomeJUtfnirammtt e limit poses ana friction on iuiSarive e 3-bow averaging period clarifies that for Bulk PVC Retin J'todacers. Bulk. by indnstry to-develop eltemattea. and instantaneous qanpliaaca with the 10 PVC resin praductiaa differs from potentially man effective, control ppmv standard is net an intended production ofother types el PVC resin measures, the 38-day limitehoa is being requirement. Moreover, spedficadoa ef in thatthe-petymeriiatiim reaction is CMA 015269 A-- J2 Federal Rognter / VoL SO, No. 8 / Wednesday, January fl. 1385 / Proposed Rale* 1133 Otter. In addition to the revisions dasoibed above, a review of the remrriVaapiwj mi MptwWwg requirements of tfas stuulerd was performed to identify ways'to ease recordkeeping end reporting harden on plants and to identify any additional recordkeeping and/or reporting needs. TheEPA identified two areea where the reporting burden on iwiM be redneed. The current reporting requiiements-for residual VC monomer specifications and reactor opening measurements require that results of all compliance testa be reported in semiannual reports. The PA Is proposing to allow plants to report only test results that show exceedences of the respective standards. Ifno exceedances occur, ptonts-wifi be required to indicate that fact in the semiannual report. This type of exception reporting it currently allowed for damoustratkarof compliance with the ID ppnv standard for process ventsThe second area is the requirement to report relief valve discharges within 10 days of their oasrrsoce. The EPA is proposing to allow plants to report relief seise discharge iwcun tuuaa an a quarterly basis rather than within 10 days of their occacrenca.Furthermore.. the reporting requirements for relief' valve discharges have baen streamlined by dropping the need to report actions takenarid implemented preventive measures for each discharge. ..Information on the data, thne. sotirce. cease and estimated amomn-af individual relief valve discharge will be included with th* semiannual reports along with information an TMwpii*w status. Additional semiannual reporting requirements being added for PVC. producers are the number of reactor openings end the daeign capacity number ef polymerization batches for each resin type. This requirement will provide generalInformsflop to facilitate review of industry-wide ootepliaace states daring past reportingperiods. Specific recordkeeping aad reporting requirements ere tociadad as pert ef the revisions to the leek detection etui repair requirements. The recordkeeping requirements tadade preparation of an initial log to record equipment cimijunuHt UtowHfljpeftnn phymil tagging of equipment components which leak, and maintaining a record of equipment leeks and repair action. Included in the reporling.iequnemsnts are the of egeipmui 1--> and the repair of leakingcomponent*. Depending on the particular leak detection and repair program in place, these requirements may represent an i or decrease in the overall revistons do not increase the cost of ' recordkeeping end reporting currently. compliance with tbs standard ' practiced by todhridani plants. The ETA concluded that the current Public Beating recordkeeping requirements, as If requested, public hearing will be spedfiad in 40 CTR 8L71, are still appropriate. However, the EPA is held to discuss-the proposed revisions to the VC standard in-aceordanorwtth proposing to extend.the current : fmwflteepfofl wylwimli far ail . reporting activities-farm 2 to 3 years. Thenet impact of tbs i sections H2(bKl}fB)and 307(d)(3) of the Clean Air Aefc Persons*wishing to make oral presentations on the proposed revisions should contact die EPA at tbs address given fat the aoowmtt section requirements proposed bythe EPA is of this preamble. Orel presentations will estimated to oe a decrease in.a' be limited to 13 minutes eeeh. Any paperwork burden of about 2A person* member of tbe public may file a written years. statement before, during, or within 38 It should be noted tfaet all ..days after the hearing. Written rnmprh*rnhM Vimimnmantnl statements should be eriiitwvsed to the Response.- Compensation, and liability - Central Docket Section address given in Act (CTtCLA) Section K&(14) the. noww section of this preamble, . hazardous substances inch as vinyl chloride are subject to reporting requirements under Section 103(a) of CERCLA. CERCXA requires that persons in charge of vessels ortedlittes from which hazardous substances have been released in quantifier(RQs) . immediately notify.the National A verbatim transeipt of the heating and written statements-will be available for public Inspection and copying daring normal working hours at the ETA'* Central Docket Section in Washington. - 1XC (see aaoncsaa section of tins preamble). ' Response Center (NRQ of the rvleeae. Docket The toO-free 24*bourtstephono number of the NRC is 800-424-8802 and in Washington. DJC. metropolitan area it is (202) 425-2873. (See CTROA Section 103aad48FR 23SSt:Mey23.19B3.) . Vinylrhlnrirls ires sssijpMii) s -.-I' statutory 1 potmd reportebk-qnantfty . under Sectint 101(14) sntil-udjusted by. regulation, and ie presently undergoing assessment for both chronic toxicity and careteogsnicity. to RQ wlfflteedjuatefi. pending the ouiiMme oit theee.ieviews by the'Office of Emergencyend Remedial - The docket is an organized sad . complete file ofell tfartofnrmstirm - submitted to or otherwise consideredby-' tbe EPA in the development of this |"r " 1 *TM*mmV*D -Tj-- principal purposes of the docket are; (2) To allow interested parties to identify sod locate documents so that they can effectively participate to-the rulemakingprocess, and (2) to serve as the reconi in case of - judicial review (except for interagency review materials (| 3C7(d)(7(A))}. Response. Federally permitted rale under CSttXA (See CERCLA'Section lAUD-end 48 FR 23582} are not subject to CERLA noHflrettoo requirements or liabilities However, releases of hazardous substances that are not- subject to a permit er control regulation must be reported Inaccotdanct with section 127 of the Act pobficatica ef this proposal was -preceded by cooseitotioa with appropriate advisory committees. , independent experts, and Federal departments andagenries^Tbe Fs|iilaliMj riailhfllfj Analysis ' Ths RsgelstoryFleviWHty Act of 1980 requires that adverse effects of all- Federal regulations span small bQVbBMtMS bi HftwL the uurent guidelines of the Smefl, Business Administration (SBA). a email tbit prodttcs& of pfocann VC is ana that has 300 smployess-or lass. Currently, none of the.existing prodima r prooeasora-that are affected by the standard are estimated to be small by tills definition. Since none of the companies meets the SBA definition of smell business, no regulatory flexibility analysisis required. Evan if an analysis were reauimd. the nmnnsarl ouafl-aapacts pftbe proposed regulation, todndteg health,end aconoTuir-sad technological Issues. requirements to this proposed rule have been submittad for approval to tbe Office of-htoaegsment end Budget ' (OMB) under the Paperwork Redaction Act of 1980.44 U.S.C. 3301 etsaq. Comments on these requirements should be submitted to the Office of Informationtend Regulatory Affair* ef OMB. merited'`Attention: Desk Officer for EPA". as.well as to-the ETA docket daacribed above.The final rale will [to any OMB or public i on tbeinfonnatioe collection CMA 015270 A-3 3 ") 1194 Federal Register / Vol 50. No. a / Wednesday, Jamtgry a, 1985 / Proposed Rules Under Executive Order 12231. thrEPA product containing vinyl chloride or - limits are prescribed in $ 8U2 (a) and must judge whither a regulation i* polyvinyl chloride but which has not (bh 181A3(a); }81A4 (a)(lL (a)(2L (bL "major" and therefor* subject to tha been discharged to a wastewater (c) and (dh } 6L88 (b)(l)(UL (b)(2). (b)(5) itquiismaat of a Regulatory Impact treatment process or discharged (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9J(ilL A leak as defined Analysis. This regulation is not major entreated aa wastewater. Gas-holder in paragraph (w) of this section is not an because: (1) The national ammalhad seal water is not inprocsss wastewater exhaust gas. compliance costa. capital until It laremoved from the gasholder. (y) "Relief valve discharge" means charges resulting from tha standards -total lass than einn mffliim? [2) tha *** * (I) "In vinyl chloride service" means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve. standards do sot cans# a major increase that a piece of equipment either contains (xj "3-hour period" means any three in prices or production costs; and (3] tha or contacts a liquid that is at least 10 consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour standard* do not causa significant percent vinyl chloride by weight or a gas AfllTlTTMHtHw^ tilf hW), sdvaiss effects on domestic competition, employment investment productivity,, innovation or- competition in foreign markets.' This regulation was submitted to the . Office ofManagement and Budget for review aa required by Executive Order that is at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride as determined according to the provisions of f 6L87(hL The provisions of I 61.67(h) also specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not hi vinyl chloride service. This rUfiritHnw must be used'in place of the 3. By changing " all exhaust gases" to "each exhaust gas stream" and making other minor clarifying revisions in 1 61.32(a). 5 61A3(a), and } 61.54 (a)(1), (bL (c) and (d) as follows; } 4US2 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA ' end any EPA response to those comments ere included in Docket Number A-81-21. -The docket is . available for public inspection at EPA'i Central Docket'Sattiian. West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1. Waterside Mail. 401M Street SW,, Washington. D.C. 2046a Pursuant to tha provisions of 3 U-S.C. 009(b). I hereby certify that this rule, ifpromulgated, will not have a significant; ' definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart V ofthis part #, + (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" Includes any part of tha process of etfayiana dichloride production which follows etfayiana dichloride formation. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification." indudes any part of tha process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl (a) Etfayiana dichloride purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average far 3-hourperiod or as determined in accordance with i 6UJ7(g)(l)L except as provided In i 6153(a), This requirement doee not preclude i-JimtrfTmig of exhaust gas economic Impact on e substantial , . -- *..*>* ^ number of small entities because nosmall entitiesare affected.. - - (v) "Raliavahre,*'mearjs each- - pressure raiiaf davica fndndfng piessms (List ef Subjects In 40 CEK PartAt. relief valves, rapture disks: manual, -- Air pollution ooctroL Asbestos, -Beryllium. Hazardous materials, V . -Mercury, Vhtyi.chlorida. vent*and other pressure reliefsystems used to protect process component* from,overpressure conditions. "Relief yajve" dosa notinclude control valves AhrisLAha. used to control flow ta-en fodneratoror cther.airpollution control device, streams provided tha combined steam is ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the-exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm, orequivalent as provided in | 61.86. This requirement doesnot apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the-rsqttirameai in- ] 6L35(b)(6)(i) before befog opened. Aetiag-Adniaittn^K. (w) "Leak-means any of.several - PART 91--{AMENDED] It la proposed, to-amend'40 CFR Part 81 as follows: 1. The proposed changes to 40 CFR Part'81 proposed at 42 FR.2SI54. June 2, 1877 arewithdrawn. L By revising the dMWtfaw foexisting 18L8XQL PL (o) and (p) for "In prunes wastewater?. "hrvinyl errics"', "etfayiana ditdilorida purification" and "vtoyt chloride purification"'andby fur the tanna "raiiaf vatae", "lask", "exhaust gas" "rallef valva discharge and.**3-hour period" in new paragraphs (L (wL (xL Jy) and (*L fCttl OeTWHowa. . . (QTnprocesa wastarwater^'means any water which, dliiniymaniifrhp>linj events that indJcats interruption of hmIIiiimI nf efwyl wttittH process sqdpmem. Leaks induda events regulated under Subpart V of this pert- such aa:(l}An instrument reeding of 10000 ppm or greater: (2) indications of liquid dripping (3)-a sensor detection of feilnreof a seal system, fsilnre of a barrier fhtid system, or bods end (4) detectable emissions as indicated by aa foatnmMBt reading of greater than 500 ppm above background Leaks also foduds events regulated under f 8LS8(b)(8)(I) of detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentration. Emissions of vinyl chloride not regulated under 1 etsi (a) and (bL 1atOfafe f 8L84 (aL (bL (cL (dL (e) and (f)rand f 8Lfa8 (tf) and (b)(lL (bM2L 03L (b)(4L (b)(5L (W(6L (b)(7) . and (b)(8) shall be considered a leak. A ralfef valve discharge is not a leak- I81A3 EaVeetoeatenrterdforvVryl wnov psiA An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and i 8155 (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: Tha-concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formafirm and/or purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-houi period or as determined in-accordance with I 8L87(g)(l)L except aa provided in } 8U89(ah-This requirementdoes not preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined steam is dnetad through a control system from which tha concentration of vinyl chloride in-the exhaust gases (foes not exceed 10 ppm. at equivalent as providedtaf 61-86. TEIs"requirement or processing, comes into, direct contact (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas does not apply to equipment that has with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride discharged directly or ultimately to the been opened, is out of operation, and at results from the production or use of atmosphere that was initially contained met the requirement in.} 6165{b)(0](I) any raw material, intermediate product in or wee in direct contact with the before befog opened. finished product by-product or waste equipment for which 10 ppm emission CMA 015271 A-34 Federal Raster / VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rule* 1395 tUI4 An owner or operator of-s polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with tha requirements of this --j<w nrl | si as (a) Reactor^te following requirements apply to raacton: (1) Tha concentration of vinyl chloride In each exhaust gas stream from aach reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hourperiod or as determined to aceordanca with | 6147lg)(l}). axcapt as presided to paragraph (a)(2) of this saetton and f 6145(a). (b) Stripper, The concentration of - vinyl chloride to each exhaust gas stream from each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as dataiminad to accordance with | 6147(g)(1)), axcapt as provided to $ 6145(a). Ibis requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened. is out of operation, and mat the requirement to i_6L45(b)(6)(I)'baton betog opened. (c) Mixing, weighing, andholding container*. The concentration of vinyl chloride to each exhaust gas stream from each weighing, or holding container to vfayi chloride service which precedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no stoppel) to the plant' procase flow is not to exceed10ppm. (average far 3-hour period or as dalai mined to accordance with' I 6147(g)(1)), except <s provided in 16148(a). lids requirement does not apply to equipment that has bean opened, is out of operation, and mat the requirement to f 6145fb)(6)(i) baton being opened. (d) Monomerncowsvj system. Tbe concentration of vinyl chloride to each exahuat gas stream toom each monomer recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm (average far 3-hoar period or as determinedin accordance with i 6147(g)(1)). except as provided to 16146(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement to 16145(b)(6XI) befan 4. By revising existing paragraphs . f 6144(a)(2) and by removing (a)(3) as fallows: JS144 KeUastow tlsniWiii ter potyrinyt An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall with the requirements of this section end $ 8145. (a) Reactor. The fallowing - requirements apply to reactors: (2) The reactor npenin^ loss from each reactor is not to exiuieil 062 g vtoyi chloridt/kg (000002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) of poly vtoyi chloride product except as provided to paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, with tbs product - - _ determined an t dry solid* basis. This 7. By rovistog.pangraph (a) to-1 6145 as fallows: y BwB* oiwmnnni iQf fwiyuny wwnBI* veiyi yWflQV ton) pXyrliyt CtSoride pMnts An owner or operator.of anethylene requirement does not apply to prepolymerization reactors to the bulk process. This requirement doas apply to dichloride, vtoyi chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. pm[polymerization reactors to tbe bulk procees, where the product means the gross product of prepoiymerixatton and postpoiymsrisatioB. 1 (a) Relief rahe discharges. (1) Polyvinyl chloride plants (snspenaidL dspersian, imi hulk processes). ' (1) Reactor. Tha number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves,on . 5.-By revising paragraph (e) introductory text end adding paragraph (e)(3) to4 6144 as fallows: polyvinyl chloride reactors in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed the fallowing limits except as provided to f 6144 ieUesion etsnrtsrtftor potysinyt paragraph {a)(l)(]ii} at this section. For all flaw pmriwrinfl wpainn T--i-- within a PVC plant the ""*>-- of relief (e) Sources following the stripperfs). The foUowinyraquiramants apply to emieeintie nf vrityl ghUririe tn riie atmosphere from the combination of all soureas fallowing the siripper(s) (or the 'ieaUui(s) is the plant has no stoppers)] to the pleat proeeae flow todndfag but not limited to, centrifuges. Klnnrj twttVtoj flltflfS, dryers, oueveyor air riiiriiarnsi baggers, storage containers, and iopvooaaa wastewatac. axcapt as provided hi. panpaph (f) of tUseactioK * * *. - (3) Tbs provisions of this paragraph apply at all ttraaa todndtog whenoff-' specification or other types of raefae are IMlU ... valve discharges isnot to exceed 0435 discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 4 discharges per year. For all reactors produdng dispersion and latex reatos-withto a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is .not to sxcssd 0435 dischargee per 100 polymerization batches. For ail reactors* 2 3 4 prspolymerization and postpolymerizatioo reactors, produdng bulk rectos within a PVC plant the * number of relief valve discharges is net to exceed 0435 disebarges-per 10Q polymemsdoc batches. ^ (B) Tbsnumber of dischargesto the atmosphere-front relief valves on . equipment (excltuDogpolyvinyl chloride reactors) in vtoyi chloride service is not to exceed 0425 discharges per 100 6. By adding paragraph (f) to f 6144 as fallows: polymerization batches nor 3 discharges per year cxeept.es provided to paragsrph (a)(l)(IiiTat this section. }f144 lieisstow stsndieU lor pdyvtoyt (ill) Tbe tonits specified to paragraphs (aKlK!) and (a)(l)(ii) of this section may be axcssdsd when only one relief.valve (f) Reactor need as stripper. When s nonbulk reeto nactor is used as a stripper this paragraph may be applied to lien of 16144 (a)(2) and (eXl> , discharge to the atmosphere occurs during toe 12-month period preceding the dote of tbe 6-month reporting pilML (1) The wsightad average amieafarie of vtoyi chloride finmreactor opening toes and all soureas fallowing the reactor used as a stripper from ail paries of putj vncyi GBunot-Mn Rnppva n um (2) Pdyvinyi chloride plants (solution isImumHbiih pvr. ftwinetiiiii jifocnMi]* Tbs nmftbsT'Of dischsx^n to * the anaospbara from relief valves an all. equipment in vtoyi chloride service is not to exceed 1 discharge per year. (3) Eihyiene dichloride and riityl (I) 202 g/kg (040202 Ib/Xb) of polyvinyl . chloride plants. The number of chloride product far dispersion polyvinyl lAliviii* nsfas, totsx nrins, with the product detenntoed on a dry mHri liMlt discharges to the atmosphere fromrelief - valves on equipment in vinyl-chloride service is not to exceed 4 discharges per year. \ (B) 042 g/kg (046042 Ib/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product far all other (4) Each relief-vSlve discharge that contribute* to a relief valve discharge polyvinyl chloride rastos, indsding latex frequency to mrcass of any limit rw,inM with theproduct UelemiriMd on s prescribed to pangarphs (e)(1). (a)(2) dry aelids basis. and (a)(3) oi this paragraph constitutes CMA 015272 1198 A-3 5 Federal Register/ VoL 50. No, 8 / Wednesday, January 3. 1385 / Proposed Hales an individual violation of the respoulse HiH (5] For every relief valve discharge to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall record the idsrtity of the scares, the date and time of the discharge, the cense at the discharge. tha approximate totelvinyi chlorida loss during the discharge, end the method used for detefmirriOf the vinyl ehlarirfe Inee. Thte in/iii shall he submitted in writing to the as past-of the reporting requirements of paragraph | OUT). This information be retained and made evailahie for inspectian by tha.Administrator toe a minimum of 3 yearn 8- By-revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(8)(i).(b)(8)(iil).(b)(a)(iv)and . (b)(8)(vf) to f BU5 asfollows: * (UK **--** 11 wiyrownov mq povyraiyv Anowner or operator at an cthyiene dichlonde, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shell comply with the I'eqniremnw of this section. (a) ' " (b) Fugitir*ttmittion souroar )"*. (2) * * * . (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seels (i) Rotatingpomp*. Vinyi ehlotide.amiiniooa from seals on all rotating pomps in vinyl chloride service ere tobe minimised by installing .sealless pomps, pomps with doable mechanical seals or equivalent as provided hi 18L88. If double meehanteal'seals ere nsed. vinyl chloride erntssirma from the seels are to be fiy TraTwtaflYtnfl tti ptessuie between the two seels to that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vtnyi chloride between the two sals through a control system from which the concentration of vtnyi chloride in the exhaust gases does not rvcssd 00 ppm; at equivalent as provided in f 6148. (ii) Reciprocatingpomps Vteyi chloride etwisaione from seels on all redprocating |TMps in vinyl ***^*<. MPflci nv to bi ***"^^^ Jjy instafilQg donhle outboard seals, or equivalent as provided tat 16UB.ITdouble outboard seals are need, vteyi chloride from the seals are ta bs miwtmiMrf by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leek that occurs is hito the pomp; by ducting any vtnyi . chloride between the two seels-through e control system from which-the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: dr equivalent as provided in {8108. (iii) Rotating compressor. VinyL ' chloride amissions from seals on all rotating compressors in vinyi chloride acrrica are to beminimixsd by testelliBg i .iHipp--MM with ^ntihle ww-imiiral seals, or aquivmlent as provided in { 8106. If doable mechanical seals sre used, vinyi chloride emissions from tha seals ars to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between tha two seals so that any leek that occurs is into tha comprassort by ducting any vinyi chloride between the two seals through e control system from which the concentration of vteyi chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as provided in { 81.86. (iv) Racipmcatiitg camprtsmon. Vinyl chloride emissions from seels on all reciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride sarvics are to be minimised by installing double outboard seals, or equivalent s* provided in { 8L86. If doable outboard seals are used, vinyl wriimi from the mil to be by materetotng the pressure between the two seels so that any leak that occurs is into the cumpresaon by ducting any vtnyi chloride between the two seals through a control system from which-the- nf virryi rhltrriAm foth* extant pm dfltfoot uooMd 10 or equivalent aa provided in { 81^8 (v) Agitator. Vtnyi chloride emissions from seals on afl. agitators in vinyi .. chloride service are to be minimised by installing agitators with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as. provided in { 6146. If double mechanical seels ere used, vinyl chloride --from the sealsare to pressure between the two seels so that any leak that occurs is into the agitated vassal: by ducting any vteyi chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration at vteyi in the exhaust gases does not excsed 10 ppm: or equivalent as - provided in { 6U6. (g) T-mtttr dmtnction and y/ftnhmtbm (I) It tedndes a reiteble and accurate vteyi chloride monitoring system foe detection ofmafor leeks end identification of the general area of the plant where a leak is located.'A vinyl chloride monitoring system e device which obtains sir samples from ooi>Qf man cm a Gootirnoiit qocstUi basil ^mlym tin with gee chromatography or. If the ownernr operator aaauma* that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. * i* * * * (Hi] It provide* far an acceptable calibration end maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon detector. For the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a daily-span is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyi chloride equal to the concentration as a leak according to paragraph (b)(8)(vi) of this section. The calibration is to be done with either. (A) A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases specified in sections 33.1 and LZ2 of-Test Method 106 and in accordance with section 7a of test Method 108, or (B) A calibration gae cylinder standard containing tha appropriate concentration of vinyl chlorida. The gas composition of the calibration gae cylinder standard is to have been certified by the manufacturer. Tha manufacturer mast have recommended a maximum shelf Ufa 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 vteyi chloride rrnwwntraHnn mrtA Mwirniwiiiw) ,wirimum fhalf must havo been affixed to tha cylinder before shipment frarn the twawntertiirnT ftn the boyUE.If a gas'chromatograph is nsed as the vteyi chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may b< directly used to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as dasoibed in section 70-of Test Method 108. The requirements bisection 3.2.3,1 and 50.33 of Test Method 108 for certification at cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of calibration standards are to be followed. flvXTbe location end number at points to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring provided for in the program are acceptable whan they are compared with the number of pieces of equipment to vteyi chloride service and the siza and physical layout of the plant (vf) Itwwt*1" a definition of leak which la acceptable when compared with the background concentrations of vteyi chloride in the areas at tha plant to be monitored by tha vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurement* of background concentrations of vteyi chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by tha vinyl chloride monitoring system are te be included with the description of the program. The definition of leak for a gtvarf plant may vary among tha different areas within the plant and is also to change vertime as background concentrations in the plant are reduced. CMA 015273 A~ JO 'i Federal Register / VoL 50, No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1197 8. Byravisinfparagraph (b)(4) to i 6125 aa follows: detennined in accordance with the following; 14. Byrevising paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text (g](3)(I].aad (gW3)fiH) I Stas 'bMwMM (A) A performance test as specified in of f 6127 as follows paragraph (b)(S)(li)(C) of this section shall ba conducted initially within 90 days of the effective date of these ' (b) /hgzbve emission regulations. enauDy end et times requested by the Administrator. U) * v* (3) When a stripping operatide is used (4) Laaka from taliaf vafraa^Vlayl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride tarries shall comply with 161242~t of Sobpart V of this part sts 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of $ 6UJ5 as follows: (B) For each performance teat a to mttain tbs emission limits in 18124 minhnum of 200 or SO percent ofthe total' (e) and (!). amissions are to be valves in VOC service (as defined in determined using Teet Method 187 is ! 004 of Sobpart W of Part 60) within fallows: ... . the process unit shall ba randomly selected and monitored within 1 week (1) Tbs number of atrippeis (or reactors usingas strippers) and samples' by the'methods specified in f 61245(d) of Subpart V of this part If an and.the types.and grades of reain to be' sampled are to be determined by the instrument reading of 10200 ppm or Administrator for each individual plant SSUS fewtoatow atawdwd for afoytane tfcMarWa^ WnytaMartds and potyvinyt (b) Fugjtrv* amission (7) Sampfo*. Unused portions of samples at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to ba returned to the process or destroyed hi a control device from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does not exceed 10 'ppm. - Sampling techniques are to ba such that sampl* wMiratw-- til vinyl chloride an greeter is measured, a leak.is detected. The leak percentage shall ba determined by dividing the number of valves in VOC service hr which leaka are detected by the number at tested valves in VOC service. (C) If a leak is detected, it shall ba repaired in accordance with } 61242-7 (d) and (e) of SubpertVuf this part . (D) The results of the performance lest shall be submitted in wilting to the Administrator in the first semiannual report following; the performance test as part of theroperting requirements of S eua . . ., etthe time of the test baaed on the plant's operator PIP ' * PH) The corresponding quantity of materiel processed by each stripper (or reactor used as a stripper) is to be determined on a dry solids basis end by a method submitted to end approved by the Administrator. " ' * f , 12. By revising paragraph (g)(5) introductory textand adding paragraph (g)(6) to i 8127 as follow*. f 6127' pvr^d into a dosed process system. (E) Any process unit hi which,the . H. By revising paragraphs (b)(8) brirndactory text (b)(8Kii), and (b)(a)(v) to | SUSS as follows: f sus - percentage of leakingvalves is foundto be grester than 20 percent must comply' with ell provisions at Sobpart V of thispart within 90 days. 1*3 * * * - (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emissinn limit is prescribed to f 8124(a)(2) is to ba determined: The number of reactors for which the (y)Tt contains s plan afaefion to ba determination is to be specified by the taken when a leak is detected consistent - Administrator far each individual plant (b) Fogitirv amiaaian with Subpart V of this part 12. By revisiugj 61.66 ee follows: at the time of the determinetins based on the plant's operation. to to to ^ ,, (8) Lack datactioa and a/iminatian, Vinyl chloride andsafonsdiia to from equipment in vinyl chloride sarvics mtm tn wilnlfiitnil Hy iwt impteoMitiDf ft iiftd itetftcttm sod repair program consistent with the ' provisions of Sobpart V of this pert. The program is to ha implamentedwithingO days of the effective data of these regulations, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under } ai-fi- Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided ha Wwrfw 0)* * * Hi) It includes a rellabla and accurate portable hydrocerbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of Sobpart V of this part An owner or operator is exempt from f 6l243-l(d), f i 61*242-7 (a), (b) and (c), 161246 and f 81247 of Sobpart V of this part for any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is demonstrated to ba equal to or lose than 22 percent, as frue ~(6) For a reactor that is used as a stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride Upon, written epplicetion from an from ratetor opening loss sad ill owner or operator. the Admhdatrutor sources frdlovringthe.raactor.used as e may nmm tit quip.-- , stripper for which-an emission limitis procedures whictohsve been, prescribed in { 6124(f) ere to be demonstrated to hie satisfaction to be determined. The number of reactors lor equieulant tat terms of reducing vinyl wfaichtha determination fas to ba made ia chloride missions to the stmoepheroto to be specified bytbeAdministrator-for those prescribed for compliance with s each individualplant efthe time of dm specific paragraph of this subpart- -determination baaed on the plant's 12. By revising paragraph (1) of 16127 as follow* operation. (1) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the following measurements ere f 8127 to be marie- - (A) The.concentratioa (ppm) of vinyl - (f)Tbe owner or operator shall retain at the plant and makt available, upon request for inspection by the Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, records of amission teat results and other data needed to detannine chloride in resin after stripping, measured according to paragraph (g)(3) of nctiOQ! (B) The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at end of strip from plant inafrumant: *ii' (Q The reactor temperature (*C) at and of atrip from plant instrument. CMA 01527-4 tmt A-3 7 Fadecsl Register / VoL sa No. ft / Wednesday. January a 1383 / Proposed Rules (ii) Foe seed batch stripped in the reader thefiiitwmy&tfittTMri^ is to bi (A)The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water is the reactor at endaf-strip (him. the following tabic (PPVqffVSVlfrOOg) c*-(PFMVO<nr>)+ (PVCWH273+RT) ' wbaie. : we cm W" H* : nc ' pe*w'fij . we wo liefCO M *# m ms 4t * M3 Oh , MU ' tfU 4 . *vt "t ; T?t.*4 41 04 t7U 44 m ' 71* 'at i m icr m i *** 47 7*1 m mr m Ml m mjL m I7j or atut m , 314S m. air n atr n MS n u t i iomr m tora u r E A J- K7 . mt n smi M m i wu st m* . . 7T 4t <7 tai m imr x m MU 71 ms 7r f avt^- m Mi - m t*4 e m SM or 4001 4It# as . OA 01 on wr ' 4007 t m tt.) e> to 1 OO0 - n MTM m . ato * Ml s* mo at wr Mil at 70t m ms 100 ' 7sa C"g viayichloridr/fcgpoiyvWrlchiorirfs product PPMVC--coocenaattaoof vinyl chloride to isstaahacsoSppm* hippo* nr*wccnvsuaii factor far ppm portal Brewer*-ofvinyl chloride . JtlUlllDwMCBldfiB ' [g)(e)(li)(B} of lhis*wttaa.ia mnsHf RVSVsaKar vepoe apeee voiama Aatmm llliiml ai-rmllng tn. (altfKilHQ af this rerrirm, in. >* UJQ1--ides! see, consent in t--*K/mm H*-- at*frr vOrji chloride PVCWWthy weight ofpafyvtoyi-chloride hr moosefrom ledportnhf gS-rtwreiihsi hrtnrfce`C*K RX--reostortmpeiBtnr*far*C lft. Bjr adding paragraph (h) to & 8U7 sa follows: 4- * flrjt*) Eachpiece ofequipment within a process mat thalcnr reasonably (B}The partial! prsance (mm tig} of contain equipment Iwviayf chloride vinyl chloride inreactor,atend of strip ., eeisiarfs peemmed te beiavfttyf from the following equation: - chloride is ixa anloaem owner or operatordemonstrates that the piece of PPVA-7W-RV-VPW Where ' serviceSdra ptece of emdpment to be ' sstvicc PPVC--jwrtaf preeewvo# vinytehteide hr - . tt must be determined that tbe percent ccHr nw- anenspftarU pteeewie (TC. torn Hg Wf-rhatorwbr ifrsn unr re..... ie vinyl chloride content cats be reasonably expected not to exceed 10-percent by weight, for liquid streams and 10 percent -l Vt'viaeipQrpnMM ofwtw, isms Hg by volume for gas streams- For purposes ofdetermining the percent vinyl chloride ' (Q The reactor vaporspace volume (ma) at end of strip from the following equation. - content of the process fitrid that s fnflf procedures that conform to the methods described hr ASIhfMethod D-Z28T (incorporated by referenda as spadfled in f 810*1-shall be need be revised only aftar following the procedures in paragraph (hKl) of this section. (3) Samples seed in determining the percent vinyl chloride content shall be representative ofthe process fluid that la contained in or contacts the equipment 17. By adding paragraph* (dj. (). and (f) to f ffU58 as fallows: fU* Iitiimfsamontortoq. ^ (d) When exhsaet gas(esh having emission limits that are subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of this lection, arc emitted to the atmosphere around th* control system and required vinyf chloride monitoring-system, the vinyl chloride content of the emission shall be calculated (In units ofeach applicable ehrisrien limitj by best prectfeaiawflln-- rfwgji.rynnl Iwtinn the discharge duration and known VC concentrations in theaffected equipment ea determined in accordance with i 8L87(h) or other acceptable method. (e) Foe each 3-hour period, the vinyl Chloride Miwtnm to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section shall be averaged (weighted according to the proportion, of thna that'emiaaianj were continuously monitored end that << bypassed the comfnnoua monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under { 8U0(eJClt (3XC An owner or operator max use engineering judgment rather then the procedures in paragraph (hKlJafthis CD Vbreaeh vinjt chlorideemission to the atmosphere determined in ecsordancs with paragraph (a) of this section to demonstrate that tha percent section, to be in. excess of the applicable * vinyl chfaride uurtsat does not exceed emisskxr limits, the owner or operator 10 percent by weight ibr liquidstreams shall record thwidmrity of the aourcefs). and lOpercent by vninmefiy gas the date, time, end duration of tha treama, provided* that the engineering excessamission. the cause of the Judgment damanetieiee that the vinyl emlseion. theapproximate total vinyf chloride content deariy does net eaamed chloride loss daring the excess amission, BBwtjpfcai density of polyvinyl chloride in-kifar* 10 parent When an owner or operator end th* method need far determining the and the Administratordo not agrso mr - vinyl chloride loss. This nrfarmeiian whether a piaca of equipment is not hi shall be retained and made available for (g% Foreach, bed* stripped, in the tesetor. tha combined reactoropaniag vtnyt chloride sendee,howewe*. the: procedure*to paragraph (h)Pl of this section shell bis osl to resolve the inspection by the Administrator *required by i 8L71(e). lose end emissions fmnaaII* source* disagreement. IB-By changing the ride from -following the r-esctor used sa* stripper (li) g~en owneroe operatordetannines "Semiammal report" to Tieparting'' end is to be determined using the following' that a piece of equipmentis in vinyl by revising paragraph (a) of i SL7Q ax equation: chloride service, the determination can follows: CMA 015275 {' * ' A-3 8 * /) / Federal Register / Voi 50. No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1199 Mtn vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl vinyl chloride concentration, as - t*Ml) The owner or operator of any ourca to width this subpart applies shall submit to the AdmJnislntor on September 15 and March 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraphs. (c). (d) and (e) of this section and on December 15 and June IS of aari. year a _ report in writing th. information required in patasranh (a) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2). chloride reain. ... BP * ' (H)--------ftii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Teat Method 107 is prescribed in. 18147(g)(3). (iv) [Reserved] (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is toindode a record of any 24-hour average rosin determined is this paragraph, is excess of the timits prescribed is {8144(e). The vinyl chloride contest found in each sample required by paragraphs (c)(2)(l) and (c)(2)(il) of this section shalTbe averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calender day end weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed, by the strippeifa) that calender day, according to the following equation (2) in tbs case of an existing source that submits semiannual reports on an approved.fixed schedule other than September 15 and March 15, the approved semiannual reporting schedule Ar<---------- ST"----------- :--------------- 5^------------------ shall be used to report the information required in paragraphs (c). (d) and (e) of this section, hi addition, the information required in paragraph (a) of tfaia section will be reported exactly 3 wnntK following the semiannual wqwting dates. (3) The first report is to be submitted following the first fall 3 month reporting period after the initial report is submitted. 19. By revising, paragraph (c)(1) of where: A<*24-iMtf average oanoenttettea of type, Ti resia ia ppn (dry weight basis). Q--Total production of tjrpa Tt mrin over the 24-boor period, fat kg. 7.--Type cireannj--LZ. . ,m whsiaorle . total mnabar of rosin types produced daring the 24-how period. M--CaacmUzmtiao ci vinyl chloride in are ample of grad* mate in ppn,' P~Prodoriton of grade Ci resin Tiprseeiiled include a statement that exeees emissions have not been detected. 22. By-adding paragraph (c)(4) to ) CL70 as follows; (atm Itep erring - (e) * * * (4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for { 6L70 as follows: by.tbe-aompla.hikg. -- .which stripping In the reagar Is used to f8U0 C*wCnde <ri rerin:. G* G* end G* s--Total somber of pedes of ream produced attain the --level prescribed in 18144(f), the owner or operator shall (c) * * (1) The owner or operator shall ' include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride TM"*vnt of smisaians for each 3-hour period which average emissions ere in wxcaeanf tha niMiiw limits in {6142 (a) or (b). f 8143(a). or 18144 (a)(1), (b). (c), or (d), or dining which average emissions are in wnMf of the emission limits specified for any control system to which reactor emissions ere required to be < fo 16144(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be < in daring the 24-hoar petted. If no 24-hour average reain vinyl chloride concentretiona in excess ofthe > limits pnacribedlM 8144(tTan measmed. the reportahall state that no excess reain vinyl chloride concantretione were measured. (vi) The owner oroperator shall retain at the source and make available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years records of all data qikImI to ftiBriflb'tho required by paragraph (c)(2Kv) of this section. The records arato contain the include ia the report a record of the vinyl chloride emissions from reactor opening loss and ell sources following the reactor used as e strtppm, (I) One representative sample of polyvinyl chloride mem ia fa be taken from each batch of each grade of resin ImoKjjttily following tfao of the stripping operation, and identified by reain type and grade and the date and tima the batch is completed. The corresponding quantity of material processed in each stripper batch is to be recorded end identified by resin type i 6148 (bl(i)Oi). (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii). or (hJMBO* If emissions in of the '.(A)*-*- . emission limits ere not detached, tbs report shell contain s statement that no CBJ* - * . . ` _ excess emissions hew been detected. end grade and the date and tima the batch is completed. (if) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to ba detnnimd by Test Method 107 as presmibed in The emissions are to be determined is accordance with {8148(a). XL By revising paragraph (c)(3) of ! 81^0 as follows; 14147(g)(3). (H] *n-- --*--i"" *-- 2a By revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text removing paragraphs {two Raporttog. reactor opsuhig loss and-all sources following the reactor used as a stripper. (c)(2)(iv), reviling paragraph (c)(2)(12i) ere to be determined foreach batch and revising (c)(2)(v) and tc)(2)(vf) (Q * * * stripped fat a reactor according to the introductory text to 18U0 as follow* (3) Hu owneror operator shall procedure presaibad inf 8147tg)(8). include in the report e recced of any (Iv) The report to the Administrator by | StTO Reporting. emissions from each reactor opening in the owner or operator is to include a (cj* * (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to cxceu of the emission limits prescribed . record of any 24-hour average combined in S 8144(e)(2). Emissions are to be reactor opening lose and emissions from determined in withj 8147(g)(5), except that emissions all sourest following the reactor used as a atHppar as itiWwitiiri t>iU attain the emission level prescribed in 18144(e). the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the for each reactor are to be determined. If emissions in excess of the hmIh limits an not detected,.the report shall paragraph, in excess of the limits. prescribed fat { 8144(f). The combined reactor opening loes-and emissions from CMA 015276 1200 tt-j? i Fadnl Rhgiatm / VoL 5a So 8 / Wednesday. January a 1985 / Proposed Ruin *& source* fnflu i fi n the reactor used as a dripper aeeacfitad with-each batch are-to bnavaregadsaparatafcy for each type of min. ever aeeh calendarday and weighted according to tha quantity of each grade of rerig stripped in reactor* that calendar day as follow*; For each typa of rtain (suspension, dtsperaton. latex, bulk, other), the following:calculation into be performed: n 1*1 5 V=L 5-- WWw A-3< how aruege enmbtned react* T"`"|l-------------f Tnl--kmi fima T1 muim following tha----- --i------ 1 --i ftiippw. in g vinyl chinrida/ltg product (dry weight basis). Q-Totui production of wain in batch-- far 7 Whan Ft--rehef retro discharge frequency par too polymwijatinn batch-- from ell raectcro C--Average onmbtpud reactor opening low aedawlseiima tow.ellioureefaflgwire the reactor used e snipper of alL . botthoa ofgrade G, resin far which stripping la completed during th*H hour period in f vtnyi chInride/kg product (dry weight basts) (dewubad according-ta ptooedanproecribedto fclto(gHe)). , PwProdacbaaai gads C.restate, the hatchesfoe which Cisde<anained.ia k* in betcbee- NapuliuntodwHet rohro dlacharya' dariayttollHB^hpaaiodpracadinglb* dooo of the Smooth reporting period tow- sfl rescues prodaong reein type f Ywtutrimrebarofpolymerization betchaa of ream typa t duris* the IZmouth period proeedhig.the dose of the Smooth teportihgpsriod dbridadby 100 t--read* type; diapaiainn Qurforiin* latex) or . bufltreaia typi -- gfFbr pcfyviuyFcfrfariideptontt predating auepenaidn reeina. the relief value dtoehnagnfraqaeacy front Ifao24-liou**vexag*combtoed.raactor opening loea end amission*from aO aourcaa fallowing the-reactor need * tripper hr eeraaa of the Ifanita prescribed hr J #L84(f)[ awdetennhwi tha report ahnll atata that so t determinedin two way* Being the followingequation*- (.nwXr.i .T 23. By adrifog.paregapha (dj, fa] and (IT to| BUD aa follow* . Sauo fd) Theownac oroperetta shall todnde to the report *aecard ofrelief valve dtocharggs ee pnecribedto f LM(eK4).aiid thaowner er operatorhall report exaaadaneaacf die relief valve discharge fraqam*y Untita pre milled to taLMfat to bo datwniiHod eefpBowee (1) Fur puf^iitayLchfedde plenta pTotiaeingtflapegahaL latex or bulb , resin* tiro relief vaivw dlecheige frequency frorepulyvihiy chloride reactor* to to bedetanninerijMieg the &>Howtog equation. Separata calculatiana ere to be ntede foreach reein type-(Vf ** dsfinedr r--refiefvutoedbeharga toqnanry pwlflO F* --rebel *ait* disebarps frequency per 12> fnootfrpwiod from all N- rspetdhg period:divided by lOU (3> Forpolyvinyl chlarid* plant* produdag aaepenenn rffaporahm, letex, oe balk reeina the- reliefveto* discharge frequency from ell other equipnient (exciudfagpeiyvihyf chloride reactor*) la to badMannmedtotwo way* using the following aquation* F. m --: ead P*--N T F,--relief vah* dischargefrequency par 100 pnlymeiliatlnr haniiaa frnm ifi equipment (exduding-reaetDrs)Fiwrehafvri*ediacharffrequeDcy porilaionih period from ail equipment w.rr--f Nwlotal number ofralfafvah* dischargee daria* the33-wanth period preceding tha dona of tbesmontoreportingperiod frowefl tqiiipuieuL (ntrhidbif raaetaral Y--tntal mmharnf poiynerisedon-bettbea of elllueto typee cowhined dtrided by 100 (4) For polyvinyl chloride plant* using the aolution. proesae or any other MiiUminM production proceee. tb relief vahrediechergB frequency ie the summetinnof eacfrieiiefvabte diadtetge from ell equipment type* during die 12-month period pretnding thadoee of the &month reporting -period. (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinyl . chloride plenta, the relief veive discharge frequency la the commadan of each relief veive discharge from all equipmwrt types during the IZ-manth period preceding the doe* ol the 8- moaxh. reporting period. (8) A polymarixedan batch consist* of each sequence of charging VC end other materials to thereactor, heating reactor contents, pelymarieatioa of reactor content*, end removal of reactor miu--u <wdriitiywy incomplete sequence the! is shotted aftercharging VC to the reactor. For bulk resin production, plants, a single, "polymertretjon batch** indade* both prepolymerizadaaand pogtpolymerixation reactor operations. () The owner or operator shall Include to the report the number of relief valve discharge* to theatmoephera- during the 34math period preceding the report from each of the following touttea, impeaaion resin production reactor*; dispersion and latex resin production reactor* bulk resin production reactors; all nonreactor equipment to PVCplants; el! equipment' need to solution process end other continuous proceee PVC plantar and ad equipment to EDC^VC plants; any other source. i (f) The owner or operator shell indade to the report the number of reactor openings end the design Capacity Of the nTMhenf -. polymerization, batches for each type I ream to each plant during the tononth period preceding the report.The design capacity ofthenumber of polymerization hatches may be defined CMA 015277 'i fadail Ragatar./ VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, january a 1985 / Propoaeo doles initially end remain m-hawpwi unless significant changes to the design capacity occur. 24. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text of { 81Jl as follow*: 1-71 HacwdhespInQ. (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 fora minimum of 3 yean: * * *TM7 a ZS. By adding the words "vinyl chloride" to the definition of the term "volatile hazardous air pollutants" In S 61^41 of Subpart V as follows: t*l241 Definitions. * '/ "Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or "VHAP" means a substance regulated under thia pert for which a standard for equipment leaks of.the subetancrhas been proposed and promulgated! Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyi chloride is a VHAP. (Sec. U2 Clean Air Act of 1878) [FR Doc^8S-80a Filed 1-WS MS am) ) 1201 . < : -i i CMA 01527e \