Document da9XJw4xdkEmo20L92B0jRD15

Thursday September 21, 1989 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 ^j National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Rule : AP00003566 V ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION- I --;. A^ubBcliewinfl willbeheli art information:.;< AQENQY ./****;6S8.- ,f fprmrida'lnliresk upartieM iackground^^O-i---- 4oemnirtii , opportunity for oral presented IV* .' ..data, views, orarguments concern the proposed revisions. -- yin Oeceiiiber,19^8,' EPA designatedVC. K a hazardous air pollutant under'; V,: VMMNH) V,.": DATCC Comments. Comments section 112 of the Clean Air.Act (42 US.C, 7412) and promulgated final rules . '' _ ' ' y :_ i National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air.Pollutants; Revisions to . Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants received on or V'L"----- "L--" -,*`~ 1B8B. . PubUcHearing. If anyo: EPA. requesting to speak at a pu hearing by October 11,1989. a j MVC oh Octoberfl, 1876 (40 CFRt Inlsfrdl^l). The standards limit . , rmliifliTru'nf VC from plants producing ' advene dichloride (EDO) via ," . ~brmrvchlorihation.VCL-andpolyvinyl . agenct: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ; , . ' ' '3 " action: Proposed rule and public . hearing; petition for reconslderatioh. hearing will be held on Qctob JWporide.(PVC) or other polymer* 4 ; beginning at 1030 ajn. Person ' obtaining VC. These plants are subject - interested in attending the heating. .. ja combination of emission limits,... - a__h_o_u_ld__c_a_ll_A__n_n_E__le_a__n_o_r_at __ quipment, and work practice 5578 to.verify that a haring^gU3^reqidrBmenls af numerous points in the-. summary: On Nove'mter 2& 1988, the `,\ wSt 30 1980 lB1 m 3490*V': - Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) filed with EPA a petition for stay .' SlnUrtEpjUy October ' of enforcement and administrative ~ - ..* ... 5T'' .3g -end clarifying revisions to the national' reconsideration of.seven provisions in- - ADDRESSES: Comments. Comamtii. &, .(emission standard forVC Subsequently, - the final rule revising thrnational . should be submitted in dupticafe^|3M:icai November 28,1988, SPI filed with - . emission standard for VC (September - possible) to: Central Docket$octinq ^jp^'S^EPA a petition for stay and . 30,1988,51FR 34904). The 8PI and three : (LE-131), Attention: Docket NoJA4tl^g^ndmlnlstratlve reconsideration,of seven '. manufacturers (DowChemical - - - 21, US. Environmental ProteeifinT Mp^Sovisions in'the final revisions to the ' ; ' ' Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation,; - Agency, 401M Street SW., __^VP standard.The SPI, Dow Chemical -- and Vista Chemical Company) ,, V- . DC20460.-v ^&s|||jp|||jCbmpany, Georgia Gulf Corporation,' ....- concurrently filed* petition for review' ________________________________ of therevisions to the VCstandard-with--EPA'fiihuasHiS'apublio hddriiifitwill the-U.S. Court of Appeals for the District- beheld at E^hOffic* of * several provisions of the revised .. of Columbia Circuit The petitioners. requested review of the definition* of1 "ethylene dlchloridepurification." "leak.'V'exhaust gas,"-"rellef valve discharge," and "3' scope of the relief ___ . provisions; and the leak da}acudn and in ______ v,._____ ._________ __ .60 propose iopt^te' AdMinlsWtiwXuditorium, Ri interested in attending the hearing or nonprofit corporation whose members v Include processors and manufacturer, of aotmhiiAnnEleanor, siJawreaJ^&tjcapr pastic products, suppliers of. BnvirooepmmetntfttanBlsmrEat,,novct>h^cf(faMlo*Dnn-_A1i<3g)e,T2iiiif^caSSs58*RO*ic_mri_a_ol_f _p. piafriot_tc_ioe__sn_si_os_ir_As_9a_t_n&_do( \d . ',, manufacturers of accessory equipment. lor the plasties industry. The Vinyl f`' ^ numberAgtt-ZlJg t'Gikatmituatjeo,radodmiveissitoicnporof dSuPcLe'rresporefsVeCntasn; d ha f pu no t< 0 *' wi tV. . CO 1 {' - Sy : Im t .: r Nl [ ;V:. 1 liti ;po } du the an . su ,,.jfe ' * pn ap pit n rec ret ,i . 1 re' . 19! rr ; W< >1J ad ch 1 ate < ca: cu ev* fol co: * - Pe request for dfflMtiMj ofcertain of J? .--= v WkSuinmery of SPTs Pett'tioi for Stay/ awi^riiTHpTlnWfmi^^r-3i-4orla#8Mreconsideration,t^h*WrJi^^*oonrideretionandEPA^sResponse applicabifity afiau^ih ^adatiwrUp3 JJRPonding, is >yk^^j*^:;^grha SPI-requested that EPA issue a- requirementein.the proposed retdsfens wouldnotIncrea'se 0 of the 1988 revisions to the VC. ihy^^gh.Tridgf^ ^shtondard pending review of those a.y!jfeietf: S^sSSfilShdotweov^^^wlNtoh' Streetreasonsawble- fWeeasmhainygbteonc,hDaCrgedJ&^S -P..r.i.s..e..d...p..r.o..v..i.s..ions. T"heir request for a stay was based on the following factors: ^t) Certain provisions of the 1985 rogosal were changed withouj . ; regard to area.moniloring requirements * r .C0PJr^nS`- ^ ; - . :.r "*' " e notice or.juatification by EPA;- or the reliefvalva discharge standard,. POR'KlftTHER information itry members represented by SPI This action provides EFA's response* to, -For further information and -. jS . would'inSer irreparable harm If th* petitioners' requests, and the requiting Interpretations of applicability Tectivenes, of the 1986 revisions are minor proposed revision* to the c_o_m_ rp_lia__n_c_e_r_e_qu__ir_e_m__e_n_ts_,_a__n_d__ _____ _ it stayed during the review period; and. standards an set forth in tills notice.- - aspects of the revised standBrda,~tsMitw*^(3) a stay will cause no harm to otiier- This action also serves as notice tiiat - the appropriate Regional. State,jdIpcitij|g>arties or tha public interest . j the petitioner*'request for Stay of the office contact as.lilted in 40 EPA ha* considered the factors " } 1938 revised provisions is being denied. ' For further Information oh theS. ' a 'jafesented by SPI in support of their In addition, this notice is not intended- background for the proposed teiiaed^ssrnbueal for stay of the 1988 VC revisions, to address the recent decision by the standards, contact Ms. Shirley Thblac^j^iimdlBsCTA'i review.of the revisions.' , D.C. Circuit Court on.the VC standards,' Standards DevelopmentBrancaA^r^^I&ldztgidonsidered the likelihood of- .NaturalResources Defeats Council Inc.. Emission Standards Division (Iffiff^^^Siwil^ess on the merits of its petition-^V. EPA, 824.F2d.1148 (1987). Any - r;;,.. US. Environmental Protection AgMcgSRivigiteuinsideration. the Ukellhood'that' - response to that decision, will be made-.-' Research Triangle Park. North Carolina1'. SFI would be irreparably harmed absent- in afuture notice in the Federal Register. ' 27711.' telephone (919) 541-5258.' .-. - ; a stay, the prospect that other* would be - de * Ac AP00003567 - Federal Register / Vol. $4, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21,'1989 / Proposed'Rides : 38939 harmed in the event ofisatay.and the ' BIO for the revised standard* (pp. Z-54 reduction resulting from the use of public interest, the Administrator hat and 2-65], the facts of the situation, combustion devices should approach 98 not stayed the I960 revisions of die VC resulting in these emissions needed to percent or more. Therefore, minor, etandard at issue here. This it consistent be considered when deciding which part'... revisions to the definition of "relief with long-standing EPA policy to of the VC standard applied. Upon' valve discharge" and to the RVD - ' continue to enforce an existing . . : reconsideration. EPA agreea with SPI's provisions'll 81.85(a)} are being" regulation until and unless a revision - concern that the final definition of ,, proposed to clarify that an RVD routed , becomes formally sffectiva.The EPA's "exhaust gas" does no) provide for to properly designed and operated policy has been consistently approved : exemption from the exhaust gee '' ' control device would be exempted from by the courts in the context of Biot* - standard (10 ppm] when such an the provision* of ih* RVD standard. Implementation Plans. See Train v. emission to Judged to be a leak.. '' ' '' This change would prevent NRDC, 421US. 80,92 (1975) ('This ^ * . t Therefore, EPA to proposing to modify * misinterpretation of the regulatory '' litigation, however. Is carriedout on the the definition by addihg two aentencei' requirements and Imposition of a double . . polluter's time not the publio's, for v : which clarify that a lew to not an . ' >' r. penalty. ' ' .' during [the pendency of a SIP revision] exhaust gas. arid that equipment In addition, new provisions '. die original regulations remain in effect,' containing exhaust gas must comply (( 61.65(d)] have been added for an RVD and tha polluter's failure to comply may. subject him to a variety of enforcement procedures.") The rationale in Train applies with.equal force to regulations with { 61.85(b)(8) requiring leak detection end prevention, whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume VC This proposed addition that is ducted to a control device that to continually operating while emissions from the release are present at tha device. An RVD that to ducted to a promulgated under section 112.' Therefore, EPA hereby denies SPI's request for a stay pending EPA's - reconsideration of the VC standard. Jn the petition for review of the ' revised standard, SPI claimed that the . 1986 promulgated revisions differed significantly bom the revisions that were proposed on January-9,1985 (50 FR. 1182). ...... The SPI asserted that without adequate notice. EPA'a 1986 revisions changed key provisions of the VC standard in a manner that: (1) Violated case law, (2) imposed new penalties; (3) created multiple penalties for the same ' event; and (4) expanded the'types of equipment subject to the standard. The following discussion summarizes their concerns and EPA's responses. Definition of "Exhaust Gas" . assures that leaks from exhaust gas streams are subject to the leak detection and elimination requirements, but that such leaks will not also be classified as "exhaust gas." .. ' Definition of "Relief Valve Discharge", The SPI objected to a sentence added to the 1986 final definition .of "relief' - . . valve discharge," 40 CFR 61,81[y), which stated that a relief valve discharge would be exempt from regulation If vented to a control device, but only if the.control, device meets the 10 ppm emission limit. The SPI pointed out that ' a double violation could occur (l.e,, of the relief valve discharge and exhaust' gas standards) if a relief valve diechsrge is vented to a control device not meeting ip ppm. If Interpreted to impose double penalties; this provision, in SPI's view, would exceed EPA's statutory authority' control device, other than a flare, would be subject to the 10 ppm limit and the continuous emission monitoring system requirement contained in | 81.63 and to tha reporting requirements of $ 81.70. In the case of flares, emission monitoring Is not possible. Therefore, for RVD's routed to a flare, the design requirements for flares (40 CFR 60.18) would apply. The EPA recognizes that measurement of relief valve discharge volumetric flow rates and gas stream composition is not posslbte using the method* set forth in 160.18 (f)(3) and (f)(4). Estimates of these parameters wilL therefore, need to be based on empirical or other bases, subject to EPA approval. Flare operations would be monitored in accordance with therequirements of 55 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of S 60.18(d), The SPI requested a review of several and unlawfully increase the maximum definitions in the VC standard. statutory penalty set by Congress for a the volume and component concentration of each RVD would ba According to SPI the 1986 final definition of "exhaust gai," 40 CFR' single "event that leads to a violation of a . NESHAP. The SPI believes that owners/ estimated and calculation* would be made to verify ongoing compliance with 61.ei(x], deleted a key sentence from the operators ofregulated facilities have the design and operating requirements proposed definition without adequate sufficient economic incentive of i 60.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more explanation. By omitting the sentence. (preventing releases of their product) to than one relief valve is discharged "A leak * * * is not an exhaust gas," SPI ensure diet pressure relief valves work simultaneously to a single flare, these was concerned that leak emissions ' as designed, regardless of the standard could result In violations of the exhaust ' promulgated. Moreover, the final gas standard if more than 10 ppm of VC definition contradicts past regulatory are emitted. Reconsideration was ' Interpretation that relief valve requested because leaks from equipment discharges ducted to Cares and other calculations would account for the - cumulative effect on all such RVD's. If the results of the monitoring contained in I 60.18(f)(2) or any other information show that the pilot Same is not present in VC service would exceed the 10 ppm control devices are exempt from the emission limitation for exhaust gases, exhaust gat standard. 100 percent of the time during which an RVD to routed to a flare, the RVD is thereby subjecting industries to a The EPA agreea that venting a relief subject to the provisions of 5 81.65(a). A potential fine of 525,000 per day for each valve discharge (RVD) to a combustion report describing the flare design must leak. device achieves significant emission be provided to the Administrator not It was not EPA's intent to categorize reduction benefits. These devices, when later than 90 days after the adoption of every leak of greater than 10 ppm as an properly designed and operated, this provision or within 30 days of the exhaust gas. Tha sentence wet omitted generally have efficiencies of98 percent installation of a flare system (or control in the final definition because some or greater. The use of combustion of RVD's, whichever is later. emissions which are required to be ' vented to a control device cannot be devices are not expected to increase the number of RVD'a. Hus. because ' Definition ofa ."Leak" . automatically categorized as either a- : regulated facilities do have some ' - ' ' The-SPI objected to EPA's defining leak or exhaust ges by a general : economic incentive to ensure that RVD'*' "indications of liquid dripping" as a definition. As stated u the promulgation are minimized, the net RVD emission "leak." 40 CFR 81.81(w). Tha SPI AP00003568 ,38940 Federal Register / Vol 54, No. 182 / Thnrsday,- September 21.1989 / Proposed Rulea ' requested that the phrase be deleted or revised to refer to VC since dripping ` liquids may not always contain VC. In the VC standard, the portion ofthe leak definition referring to "Indications of liquid dripping" applies only io pumps in VC sendee. The EPA believes that "indications ofliquid dripping" are an appropriate criterion lor requiring repair actions on double mechanical aeal pumps in VC service and. therefore, should be includedin tha definition of a leak. Aa stated In tha BID for the 1980 promulgated revisions, visible leakage . from ail types of pump teals, including double mechanical seals required by die VC standard. Is generally indicative of aeal wear even if noVC is present in the leaking fluid. To prevent further teal wear resulting in major seal failure allowing VC emissions into the atmosphere, the seals should be repaired soon after leakage is initially detected. After further consideration of SPI's concern,however, EPA agrees that some amount of barrier fluid leakage ie normal. Therefore, EPAproposes to revise the standards far pumps ({ 61J24Z--2(dJJ to clarify die requirements for pump seal drips. Section 61.242-2(d)(4) addresses drips from pump seals that contain VC. and $ ffL242-2(dK6} addresses drips from pump seals that do not contain VC. The proposed revised provisions of S 61.242~2(d) are designed to accomplish two purposes. One is to ensure that VC leaks from pump seals are detected and eliminated. This is accomplished by paragraphs (d)(4) (i). (ii), and (iii).The other purpose is to identify and prevent pump seal failures by causing abnormal dripping (even when VC is sot contained in the dripping liquid) to be detected and repairs to be made. This is accomplished by paragraphs (d)(0) (i). (ii). (iti), and (iv). These paragraphs require the facility owner/operator to establish criteria associated with normal operation. The intent ofthe proposed T*vised provisions ie identical to the existing provisions. The difference is that the proposed i 61.24&2(dJ(fl)(i) allows an owner/operator to taka into account the small number of liquid drips that may occur when new seals are in place ot are otherwise associated with normal operation. Definition of "3-hourPeriod" The SPI noted that, in the September 1986 final rule, EPA added a definition of "3-hour period" 40 CFR 61.61(2). to clarify that the emission limits in the exhaust gas standard (10 ppm) to a 3hour average. The definition creates "rolling" averages (24 3.hour averages per day) rather than "block" averages (8 3-hour averages). IheSPi objected that-' a single, l-hour 10 ppm exceedance could result In three violations of the io ppm exhaustgas standard, under the revised definition of "3-hour period." This could lead to double or triple penalties, "thereby exceeding the maximumpenally permissible under the Clean AirAct" Upon reconsideration. EPA proposes to further revise the definition of "3-hour period" to ensure ihata single event of 1-hour or leas at 10 ppm or greater could result in no mors than a single violation of the exhaust gas standard. A phrase has been added to the definition in 61.6l(z) to accomplish this. The EPA did notintend to penalize a plant three times whenever a 10 ppm event occurs within 1 hour. Rather, EPA wanted to ensure that a combination of two or more 10 ppm events which would result ina 3-hour exceedance do not go unpenalized just because they occurred over two separate 3-hour "blocks." The proposed revised definition of "3-hour period" satisfies EPA's intent without unintentionally subjecting plant owner/operator to multiple violations.- Definition of "Ethylene Diddoride. Purification" According to SPL the 1986 final - revisions changed the definitionofDC purification. 40 CFR *l.Blfo). The promulgated definition excluded product storage following the final VC finishing column, and thus exempted such storage from the exhaust gae standard. The SPI believes that EPA intended to exclude not only EDC final productstorage but also intermediate product storage (before the final finishing column) based on EPA's response to comments contained in the BID (pp. 2-43 and 2-44) and in the BID summary of changes since proposal (pp.1-2). Although it supports the exemption of final EDC product storage from the definition. SPI requested that EPA also exempt intermediate EDC product storage. In addition, one SPI company, a major producer of VC monomet and PVC polymer, provided Information on nine crude and intermediate storage tanks at one of its finalities. The information included tank sizes, design, emissions estimates, and costs. This company requested EPA to exclude Intermediate and crude, aa well as final EDC storage tanks, from tha definition. The EPA agrees that it intended to exempt erode end intermediate storage tanka from the exhaust gae standard. The definition of "EDC purification" has been revised to clarify that emissions from crude, intermediate, and final storage tanks followingEDC formation era not subject to ths standards. In addition. S 6165(b)(6), Opening of equipment, has also been revised to clarify that the requirements in this section do notapply to crude, intermediate, or final EDC storage tanks. At stated in the BID response (pp 2-43 through 2-45), EPA evaluated the reasonableness ofregulating EDC storage tanks under the VC standard: Based on emissions data submitted.by the commenten, uncontrolled VC emissions from intermediate and final EDC storage tanks at e typical EDC/VC plant wara estimated to be 0.1 Io 2 Mg/ yr. An emission reduction as high as 14 Mg/yrfrom all plant! would be achieved based on venting existing EDC storage tanks to an existing primary control device (incinerators). Prior to the September 1986 rale. EPA concluded that regulation of these tanks under the VC standard was not warranted. In response to SPTe petition for reconsideration, EPA has evaluated the data submitted by one SPI company (DocketEntry No. VMM) for nine crude arid intermediate EDC storage tanks before the final finishing column at one ofits facilities. These tanka ere cutrently uncontrolled. The data included tank sizes, design, amissions estimates, and costs. The company's estimates ofthe total uncontrolled emissions (0.002 to 0.323 Mg/yr VC) for the nine crude and intermediate tanks fall at the low end of the range of individual VC tank emission estimates made by EPA forEDC final product storage tanks. This information is consistent with EPA's position that the regulation of crude and intermediate storage tanks to unnecessary because emissions are extremely low. Leak Detection and Elimination Under the 1976 VC standard, 40 CFR 61.65(b)(8), companies installed area monitors and developed plant-specific . leak detection and summation programs that included tha routine use of portable monitors. Subsequently, EPA developed a generic leak detection and elimination program (subpart V. 40 CFR 61240-- 8L247) based on equipment and data for the organic chemical and petroleum industries.Tua 1986 revisions incorporated the subpart V provisions - into the VC standard The SPI opposes tiie addition of the subpart Vprovisions to the VC standard. The SPI argued that existing programs are effective without the aubpart V provisions and that EPA's decision to retain area monitoring requirements from the 1978 standard is questionable since they have not been required for other industries subject to subpart V. In addition, according to SPL no justification has been given for rc fit P: di Vi si Cl re th re St to 81 re (S su e> th J* th si) th* ap nc mi ce oti ro as eq (a. ah fat me Th inc me pre pe: be. haref i prt first eqi the an tha lea pre l(d 6U (re; tha the P at i Ad per lea! the sat xe for the lnU .. AP00003569 rederal Regtetor ( VoL 54, Nb> 182 f Thursday, September a, 1989 / Proposed Knlea 88841 requiringrataatiog ot are* monitors to addition to fubpsrt V. Although a program under ft 6T68tb)(f)i demonstrating luatfcaa 2percent of valvi* teaMag i* censktered "effective," such a program te exemptonly from certain parts of subpart V. For them reason*. SELrequeste reinstatement sf theteak detectics andeHnunaltos requirements contained to th*.190* VC standard. . wquftemenfsfretfarnMiieejnagsurw fir the VCstandard fry, kinks figg relief valves! f Sl.SSfbJf'SJ and rotatingpomps, S 61.65(b](3)(i)l. However, this exemption inciudat all of the recordkeeping andreporting requirements ofIf 61246 and! *1.247 because these requirements- mrinly affect reive*. The exemption fct marking! recordkeeping. endreportingapphee tothe entire process unit: The Uporecowidereboe. EM proposes exemptfcm (provided to the. VC to mak*n*changes hi theapptfcatteB of standard) to subpartFwere-tfiaignetl subpartV tn the VC standard cmhthe based onemumeute made duringthe requirement* far fixed areamonitoring. (i 61.85(b)(8)(t)). Thebasi*faradding aubpart V totbeVCatsadacdwae explained to detail tothepreamble to publioeemmenf period to erckl unnecessary charge* to extetfagbeh 'detection{mas wafeh a effective'to detecting and repairing VC leaks: the proposedree&iona (50 FR tt90-U93(. January 9i Mash and the justification fas those requirements haa not changed since that tit**-. TheEPA believes that the areamoniteriag sndoabpartV approaches,beflr ten benefits sad ar notredundant h particular: area monitors allowfor quick detection of certain targeVCleaks test ntfehl Otherwise gp undetecteduntil thenext' . routine portablemonitoring-tervania* as wdlaa detection of large teak*from equfpaeetrt not aSeated by aubpartV (eg, agitators.). The ares monitors have already beenpurchased by subject! facilities and th*additional cost of monitor operation te relatively traali Therefor* * comparison to other industries te act relevant. Also, area . maiutnrtog is often usad a* pestot program to reduce teaks- to below t . percent, and therefore, as discussed below,an owaei/operator does not hareto conduct,theleak detecSon. and repair provision* of subpart V. Any plant with an affective existing Scop* ofRelief Votes Discksuge Provision* The SPI oppose*EVA'S wftfi&iwaf of the 1985 proposed numerical limitstor relief value discharges and has requested that EPA reconsider its decision torelate the emergency discharge-ffrgvisfcn offie2076 standard, 40 CFR 6165f8j. TheSP! claimed that the ISPSstandard "impermissibly delegates rulemaking authority to enforcement personnel and is unconstitutionally vague and that, as applied, the-regetetioo to unfair, . unlawful arbitrary and eapricaour." The SPI prefers the proposed numerical limits because they wouldremedy these problems and reduce the etfarintetratTve burden eft EVA andindustry.TheSPI also believes tWt theproposed numerical limita are.stricter than tha 197Kemergency discharge provision because "each discharge cauaiug an exceedance of any numerical limit ' * * wotdabe considered a vfrfatio* without regard towhether any program under $ &ua(b)f0} for detecting individual dischargerwas preventable. and repairing teaks can control - The EPA has reviewed thabasis for equipment leakswithout complying with the decision not to promulgate the subpart V provisions: Specifically, if numerical limits for RVU's sndhas. an owner/operator can demonstrata derided that the OTSstandard ts tfiB thatteas thus US percent of valves are reasonable and approprints The 197B leakingto any process tmit thee that standard permits only "emergency'' process unit is exempt from ff 61.242- RVD*a those t&ar couldnothave been 1(d) (marking). 61.242-7(a] (monitoring), avoided bytahtogmeaaurea to prevent 6246 (recordkeeping)! and 6I-Z4F the discharge. (reporting).To dkmoneirete thattea* A detailed discussion of the baste for than 2&percent sfvalvesare leaking! neVpromafcgtfegtltoinmmricallMto for the owner/operates must conduct RVg*stocontained to the preamble for performance teettnitfaDy. erameSy, and at aaqr other thoesrequestedby As Administrator: If, daringany performance test. Iha percentage of leaking valves exceeds 2XTpercent, then the owner/operator mast comply with the promidjgetod amendments (SI PR 34905-34408: September30i IMS). and SPI baaflOtpeOTirfedany new information that would affect EPA'* deefafeo-hs summary, the rictfrfon to retain ft* original W76RVP standard mbpart V within OOdays. This wasmade after considering tft* exemption only applies to the standards revisions in tight of public comments os for valvesff .2l&-7(a)(b)fcBbecause the-numerical finfts: and afterreview of the otorn-standard*to subpmtV the barte forthe dserefentoteformat the interfacevritti specificequipment standard. In particular; sever*f public comments on the 1666proposed amendments expressedcuncern that prevantahla RVZTs wotdd be allowed under tile revised standard and that the performance allowed undor the revised tandard could be inconsistentwith that allowed under the original standard. Other comments expressed concern that toe revised standard included nomechanrismfarregulatingvsry targe RVQTr.Thabasixfioc teestatement that a largeEPA taeaacecommitment!* required,ft* eufacriag- th*. 1873 RVD itendatdwanelan gueattxrkL' The EVA'S, reviewrrveoM that theburden on it* resouseenhad dunfafshed as experience with the Implementation- of the standardtocreased and a* the industry's ander*t*n5ng ofthe pravfefonsof the existing standard became cteaser.ThuB, ftwasnot necessacy torevise flte format of th* RVDstandard Compared to the I960 proposal, the oxisSi^} standard mhet has the adveatage* efa&cttogall preventableRVIFs and providingbetter regulation ol large vehnneRVETs. Tnmfbre^fordiereasons stated EPA's review of toe record supports fie existing standard. Based on the EPA's experience with adminietering theVCstandard of S 61-65f>, one major deficiency with th* type efinformation submittedin many of the 10Ldayreports ofRVIFs has been recognfiwd. This cuncvuw that information required tobe reported by the standard regarding, "the action that wa*takes toprevent the discharge." For purpose* of clarification, thisportion of thestandard requiresinformation-on tit* action takes to prevent oraddress the causeleadingnp-to tfce-RVD1release and not only to* actios takes after as event or cause occurs that results in an KYDreiease. ' Emission MaekorhgClat^ieatioa In addition to the changes made in response to the petition, for reconsideration, a minorclarlBcatiOD hat bees made to |. 61.SS, Emission monitoring. The existing regulation, { 6lA8(bl states thatthe VCmonitoring ysfemfsj thatis usedto meet tile continuousmonltortogrequirements,in paragraph (aj (ot 161.681 toremissions from sources torwhich emission limits are prescribedinto be a device which obtain* airsamples on a continuous, sequentialbaste and analyzes-them. Since it fe obvious that paragraph (a{ ef 161.68 calte forthe monitoring orthe emissions thusprescribed sources tor vinyl chlorideandnot ambient ate sampRogce requiredunder $6L6S(h]SBI for leak detectfonAellrafiiatfbn, 161.68(6) r AP00003570 38842 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rule* ha* been clarified to require that representative (not air) samples from one or more applicable emission points be obtained and analyzed. This revision more accurately reflects the original intent JO, Administrative Requirements A, Public Hearing . A public hsaring will be held, if requested, to discuss the proposed. rulemaking in accordance with section 307(d)(8) of the Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make oral presentations . should contact EPA at the address given in the AOORESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations will bo limited to 15 minutee each. Any member of the public may file a written statement with EPA before, during, or within 30 days after die hearing. Written statementi should be addressed to the Central Docket Section address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be available for public inspection and copying during normal working hour* at EPA's Central Docket Section in Washington, DC (sea AOORESSES section of this preamble). B. Docket The docket is an organized and complete file ofall die information submitted to or otherwise considered in the development of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties to identify readily and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review, except for interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)). C Office ofManagement andBudget Reviews 1. Paperwork Reduction Act There are no information collection requirements associated with tills proposed rulemaking. 2. Under Executive Order 12291. EPA must judge whether a regulatory action is "major" and. therefore, subject to the requirement of a regulatory impact analysis. This proposed rulemaking Is not major because it makes minor clarifying revisions to an existing regulation and. therefore, results in none of the significant adverse economic effects described in the Order. This rulemaking was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any written comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included in Docket No. A-81-21. The docket to available forpublia inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section that is listed under the addresses section of . this notice. D. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct The'Regulatory Flexibility Act of I960 requires the Identification of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a InSUtnceswhen small business impacts are possible. Because these proposed minor revisions Impost no adverse economic impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed rule will not have t significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 40 GFR Part 61 Air pollution control, Asbestos, Benzene. Beryllium, Hazardous materials, Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: September 1Z1889. William IC. Reilly, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed to amend 40 CFR part 61 as follows:' PART 81--{AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 101,112, 111. 116,30L Clean Air Act as amended: 42 U.S.C 7401, 7412.7114,7416,7601. .2. Section 61.61 is amended by revising paragraphs (o), (w), (x). (y), and (z) to read as follows: {LSI Definitions. 6***6 (0) Ethylene dichloride purification includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride purification following ethylene dichloride formation, but excludes crude, intermediate, and final ethylene dichloride storage tanka. ** (w) Leak means any of several events that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment Leek* include events regulated under subpart V of this part such as: (1) An instrument reading of 10.000 ppm or greater measured according to Method 21 (sea appendix A of 40 CFR part 60); . (2) A sensor detection of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid' system, or both: (3) Petectable emissions es indicated by an instrument reading ofgreater than 500 ppm above background for equipment designated for no detectable emissions measured according to Test Method 21 (ste appendix A of40 CFR part 60): and (4) In the case ofpump seals regulated under f 61.242-2, indications of liquid dripping constituting a leak under I 6L242-2. Leaks also include events regulated under 161.66(b)(3)(f) for detection of' ambient concentrations in excess of background concentrations. A relief valve discharge ia not a leak. (x) Exhaust gas means any offgas (the constituents of which may consist of any fluids, either at a liquid and/or gas) discharged directly or ultimately to the atmosphere that was Initially contained in or was in direct contact with the equipment for which exhaust gas limits are prescribed in 5 61.62 (a) and (b): S 61.63(a); S 61.64 (a)(1). (b). (c). and (d); i 61.65 (b)(l)(ii). (b)(2), (b)(3). (b)(3). 0>)(8)(il). (b)(7) and (b)(9)(li); and 151.65(d). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not an exhaust gas. Equipment which contains exhaust gas is subject to i 6165(b)(8). whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. (y) Relief Valve Discharge means any nonleek discharge through a relief valve. (z) 3-hourperiod means any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each commencing on the hour), provided that the number of 3-bour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm does not exceed the number of 1-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm. 3. Section 6165 to amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(0) introductory text, and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: S 11.65 Emission standard for ethylene ctteMorida, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl ehlorMe plant*. *' (a) Reliefvalve discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge, and except as provided in f 61.65(d). there to to be no discharge to the atmosphere from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride service. An emergency relief discharge means a discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any relief valve discharge, except for those subject to 5 61.65(d), the owner or operator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs shall submit to the . Administrator a report in writing y :-.-a".:\Fedewl RegUtei/Vol. 54. 'No. -:18a / Thursday, September 21,1969' / Proposed Rules r 1 -38943 Jaontaining Information on the source, -'V" be a Violation of i ei.6S(d)(2}.~ - ~ . (d) Each pump equipped with a dual''1 nature and cause of the discharge, the^ft .^Monitoring for tha presence of a flats ; I. mechanical seal system that includes a date and time of the discharge, the pilot Aims shall be conducted in '' hairier fluid.system is exempt from'the ' Approximate total vinyl chiwide kit* v i.V' accordance with 160.18(f)(2). If the - - - - requirements ofparagraphs (a) and (b) - ^during the discharge,.the method usedA V^jesults of this monitoring or any other '. of this section. Jnoviaed foe following for determining the vinyl chloride loss'' 'information shows that die pilot flame is requirements ere meb . [the calculation of the vinyl chloride vnot present 100 percent of the time W) ` ' loss), ths.aetion that was taken to.;,Vr'"duriag which e reliefvalve discharge if (i) If there are indications of liquid 'prevent the discharge, and measures ^P^rauted to tile flare, the relief valve dripping from the pump seal at tha time of foe weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified in f 01.245 to' determinethepnsehceofVOCend- VHAP in the barrier fluid. . equipment (excluding crude,. ?:;>'i?Administrator not later than SO days ; (ii) If the monitor reading (taking into intermediate! and final E3X2 storege".vfsK<after the adoption of this provision or' tanks, but Including prepolymerization -4:-$.within 30 days of the installation of a . reactor* need in the manufacture of bulk^flare ayetarn for control of reliefvalve account any background readings) . indicates the presence of VHAP, a leak' is detected. For foe purpose of this resins and loading or unloading finds :.i;^d4chaise whichever is later. The flare that are not opened to the atmosphere 'jjv design report shall include 'calculations afteg each loading w ureoadihi V:.based .upoh'cixpected relief valve operation) ary to be minimized.as .^r i'distharge component concentrations'? paragraph, the monitor maybe': calibrated with VHAP. or may employ a gas chromatography column to limit foe response of the monitor to VHAP. at the follows: * .. r. ; . andnet beating values (forPVC this' ,. option ofthe owner oroperator. y;* V > .. calculation shall be based on values " . (til) If ah inatrument reading of 10,000: (d) A RVD that is ducted to a control ^.expected ifa release occurred at ihe . ppm or greater (total VOCJ is measured, device that is .continually operating . -. ^Tinstantthe polymerization starts): and,! while'emissions from the release are. 'estimated maximum'exit velocities . a leak is detected.. ' . (S) Each sensor as described in, present at the device is subject to the , based upbhthe design throat capicity of '' paragraph (d)(3) df this section is ; following requirements:. ; -.the gas infoerelief valve. ' !. checked daily or is equipped with an - (1) A discharge &om a control device';r"-#j'4. Section 61.88 is amended by , other than a flare shall hot exceed 10 '.'.'revising the first sentence in paragraph ppin (average over a 3-hour period) as /' ' (b) to read as follows: - determinedby the continuous emission .7. *> 'audible alarm., =; '. . (6)(i) The owner or operator determines, based on design considerations and operating - . 'mofotor system required under 161.88.r-;' * M finutsloo monitoring. experience, criteria applicable to the Such a discharge is subject to the j ' requlrementsof S 81.70. * r~ * .' (b)The vinyl chloride monitoring .. presence and frequency of drips end to ' foe sensor that indicates failure of the' -' (2) For a discharge routed to a flare, .system(s) used to meet the requirement , ' seal system, the barrier fluid system, or the flare shall comply with requirements of 160.16. '/.' .0) Flare operations shall the . Y>5^iWi"J'aTMSraPh (a) of this section is to be a rfASss'S^'idevieh which obtains representative ba monitored ysamples ftom one or more applicable. > a ^both. (ti) from .. . U indications of liquid* dripping foe pump seal exceed tha criteria , . . . , ` picvovtcsoSascnhouaiaaunpSacnrrmacllglceolgcvpvc6hocoruuelpoeu0aecuigrlo.snltoai1eadnhfisengnlr8titltassidiaig((odcofecrdcaoaooinenfrh)s)intre(msvf,scaa6cctqa|thrisop)nesh.rgu.lah6elvhhdewieIirar0aecsfag6ces.nielemle1utlmddlhchn8bdcbmiloease8(taeetrdrsclunh(welel)ihcmfmltem.b)tasuaiti(tetadhatr2hurlhoiaegdndavee)ltqteee.etnfasiohvo.uFstnteaoiefoi.nioolmreeSnnlTsedu6rovaedeshm0etmsuectcer.rhsahh1esreteesiid8glonarfpeleyiayenteaf(ols'tclnlsan.fa.ori)otedd(n'elea34fv-f.fdid/)ir.i:^r.q^j'.>>.'*'/ei5.u-;T.'.'thcsoanibxshn'nephyamryrejtdeiimlra)oinaeorrcoSnprtodindtoiwotlredcadeduoiwncneaslieacphtte,preiadtwhgobworlrobodpnnoiorbittyiyaanthanor0ahr'rt*stm1o.stegiee.svm-iipfagnsv2ex1eoesoeri4ftt*aslrra,mra2nlc(ayianopnd'-sh,era2tdwh'gu)eofrt(looshrceards5pemonfmoa()addsdasonrae)u.satl(tynut_ubo4giizod*enmgp)re_anr(auV(e*saidp)rdsoi'p)tt,hn*he(utVhf6yh(tel.ysed)i.lia)sZca)$.*dt-atnr.a1i.-no,i.7d.'ldiV.n->'lrvfi',X',;,'.?-;--.-..:":.-''`aen.mesfob1ad/oeesseoefr0/eet((cttottbe.Uaaridettv-sleoiribbaec.iooe))pqtltltnnhiiaAneWaea'ss,.,ldohhicrotrsihf,hhieeetilyrearehledddslesinxetfi"teiiatsn,'aecnanaae.rkbemtk1nppttlpaisthe6,sisaeatottfaaoercamo.droa.ndkraad.eenegpiel^infpteosrbiatetavadrnenasa.cdoeppidcctrtepivhhehratarctreiiededreeata((d'edpcdderlcce.st))aadtf'er,((nilicyf6i8udr.tIadas)en),is(ai(d.blriiiahu)3r)tilasf.eardoost8ye,elah.ffslUbryobitatbheusie4lf'tilmitss2i.t,-. ' quarterly for all discharges within foe V- - Suarter. Failure to Comply with any of:?.* *:* .;*?"*mle: Pumps.. jb requirements of this paragraph vrill f; \ y!s* [FR Doe. 80-22U7 Filed 8-20-8S;8.'45 am] J : A- .. *. M``v '.'y-;"-: -j 7-:'i'y.': V APO6OO3572