Document g2QnLZ6oLnKroDvrJO24dawGG

FROM:KELLER & HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1909 4:07PM #103 P.01 JOftt*** < KlLkf* JtWMl M. M|CMA* W'LUAM M, tftftftMClAMt. we MAkC*L ft WAYUtV ftLAftA tminei . maat* * Meeevici (Lftue CAftObft ft. HA*ft*ft MAftV MAfttHA MCUMAl* MlftHftftL r. HOM6NC HA** r* yf*y JOK# I. fttftMMftft yeN ft. ftwftftft* #*( W ftftUf GwSlftTlMEA, VftAftMft* tHrAi.|v ft. fujwoto LAWftCftftC * MAW#ftlM *AkH A. ftiMHftttft acts* a. ftgftftc* e. oovftut* v*aactt HOT AftMlVTCe 111 ft,ft. |itlkAA lLlAft Kll.vw I IAAUH lift**!A '* r*tftt**Y ftAV.UftMAftt' I ft|fW*V**M6 MAACtAA CftMAM tormcK j hu*d ft Alft VAUTfBiT HAll A |i|VtM MICHAEL * ftfMMfV ft psajikum aOONTt ftA?N('NC A- SOCMtA ftiftHAftft A- WAPPC* jttrmf* *!* KMlS Mil BftMft>VM fkUOT ftCUlOft fhaamon a ochmam ft^ftAM c. ran* MAC# l rrmorr CftWH c HUAE- LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckman 1160 IF" STREET, NW. SUITE lOOO WASHIMOTON. O.C. 80006 (806) 866*6600 September 25, 1989 CCftTiric wr ftANiti I. ftttfLCft. *" ft CMAftLIft ftftCfilft. A teftKAT A. tfAtMftftft. ft wOHM ft. HOftfttftMAft. Aw ft. HOLLY MOTH*A| YOLt* t/UftTI* ft, ftOttfLL' ft ft TIllCOMMWMlCATlOftft MAIN CHAAvftft 9, TVftMM tftLftCOftif CAftLX AQOACftft "IfLUA** WftfUM ftliUCl ftiAL ftUMftdl (202) 956-5747 VIA TELECOPY Ms. Meredith Scheck The Vinyl institute Wayne Interchange Plaza II 155 Route 46 West Wayne, NJ 07470 Re: EPA Proposed Rulemaking; Revisions to yinvl Chloride Standard Dear Meredith: Pursuant to Peter de la Crus's request, enclosed for distribution to the Health, Safety and Environment Committee and the Legal Committee is a copy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAP"); Revisions to Vinyl Chloride; and Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants. 54 Fed. Reg. 38938, September 21, 1989. The enclosed notice contains a detailed summary of EPA's review and responses to the issues presented in SPI's petition for reconsideration and stay of the revisions to th Vinyl Chloride Standard promulgated in September 1986. The Agency proposes to grant SPI's request for clarification of certain provisions in the final rule; however, the Agency is denying our request for a stay. The Agency has clarified th definition of "relief valve discharge" and has made a minor clarification in the emission monitoring provisions. The clarifications, however, do not increase the emissions allow d by the September 1986 standards nor do they change the specific area monitoring requirements or the relief valve discharge SL 089407 FROM:KELLER & HECKMAN TOtTHE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25, 1989 4:08PM 8103 P.02 Ms. Meredith Scheck September 25, 1989 Page 2 Keller and Heckman requirements. Moreover, the Agency specifically states that the proposed revisions are not intended to address the recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court on the vinyl Chloride Standards, Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc, v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (1987) . A public hearing on the proposed rulemaking is scheduled to be held on October 18, 1989. Participants must advise the Agency by October 11, 1989, if they intend to present oral testimony. The comment period for written submissions will expire on November 30, 1989. Peter is out of town on business until September 28, 1989. In the interim, if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cordially yours, Julie L. whited paralegal cc: W.C. Holbrook Larry Thomas Hugh Patrick Toner Robert D. Less, Esq. FROM: KELLER 8, HECKMAN TO'-THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1989 4:08PM 8103 P.03 Thursday September 21, 1989 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CPR Part 61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Rule SL 089408 FRDM': KELLER & HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 19S9 4:09PM ttl03 P.04 aasjfl rceerat kcgister / voi. oa. jvn. leij. / imireuny. ocpiviuoui 41, *303 / riu(,vtu m,,c> ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Prt1 [AD-FFIL-JSO*-*) National Emission Standsrds (or Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revision# to Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks o( Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants AOENCV: EnnronmenUl Protection Agency (EPAJ. action: Proposed rule end public hearing: petition for reconsiders lion. Summary: On November 26.1986, the Society of the Pleetlci Industry, Inc. (SPI) filed with EPA a petition for stay of enforcement and administrative reconsideration of seven provisions in the final rule revising the national emission standard for VC (September 30.1986, 51 FR 34904). The SPl end three manufacturers (Dow Chemical Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Vista Chemical Company) concurrently filed a petition for review of the revisions to the VC standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbte Circuit. The petitioners requested review ol the definition* of "ethylene dichloride purification." "leak," "exhaust gaa," "relief valve discharge," and "3-hou> period:" the scope of the relief valve discharge provisions; and ths leak detection and elimination provision* (arsa monitoring). The EPA has evaluated tha petition!, and the Administrator proposes to rant ths petitioners' request for clarification of certain of these provisions. Minor revisions are being proposed to correct ambiguities in set era! definitions end in the applicability of certain regulatory requirements in the VC standards, The proposed revisions would no! Increase the emfsiions (and the associated health risks) allowed by the standards at promulgated in September 1988. No change#, however. w(U be made with regard to area monitoring requirements or the relief valve discharge standard. This action provide* EPA's responses to petitioners' requests, and the resulting minor proposed revisions to the standards are set forth in this notice. This action also serves as notice that the petitioner*' request for stay of th# 1986 revised provisions is being denied- In addition, this notice is not Intended to address the recent decision by the D C. Circuit Court on the VC standards, Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. EPA. 824 F-Zd 1146 (1987). Any response lo that decision will be made in a future notice in the Federal Register. A public hearing will be held lo provide lntcreated parties an opportunity Tor oral presentations of data, viewg, or argument* concerning the proposed revisions. parts: Comments. Comments mutt be received on or before November 20. 1989. Public Hearing. If anyone contact! EPA requesting to apeak at a public haartng by October 11.1989, s public hearing will ba hald on October 18.1989. beginning at 11X00 a.m. Persona interested in attending the hearing should call Ann Eleanor at (919) 5415578 to verify that a hearing will be held. Bequest to Speak at Hearing. Person* wishing to present oral testimony must contact EPA by October ll, 1989. ADDRtsaca; Comments. Comment* should be submitted in duplicate (if possible) to: Central Docket Section (LE-131). Attention: Docket No. A-8121, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting a public hearing, it will be Hald at EPA'a Office of Administration Auditorium. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Parson* interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should notify M*. Ann Eleanor. Standards Development Branch (MD-13), UJ. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone (919) 541-5576. Docket. A docket number A-81-21. containing information considered by EPA in the development of the promulgated standards and the petition for stay and reconilderation, to which this notice ie responding, ii available for public inspection between 8.-00 un. and IdO p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Centre! Docket Section, South Conference Center, Room 4,401M Street SW., Washington, DC 20400. A reasonable fee maybe charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; For further information end Interpretations of applicability, compliance requirements, and reporting aspecti of the revised standards, contact the appropriate Regional. State, or local office contact as listed in 40 CFR 00.4. For further information on the background for the proposed revised standards, contact Ms, Shirley Teblor, Standards Development firsneh. Emission Standards Division (MD-131, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Perk, North Caroline 27711. telephone (919) 541-5250. SUPFLIMtNTARV INFORMATION: I. Background In December 1875. CPA designated VC s a hstardous air pollutant under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U SC. 7412) and promulgated final rules for VC on October 21,1976 [40 CFR 61.60-61.71). The standards limit emissions of VC from plants producing ethylene dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination. VC and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other polymers containing VC These plants are subject to a combination of amission limits, equipment, and work practice requirements at numerous points in the manufacturing processes. On September 30,1986 (51 FR 34904). EPA promulgated several administrative and clarifying revision! to the national emission standard for VC Subsequently, on November 26,1986. SPI filed with EPA e petition for stay and administrative reconsideration of savtn provisions In th* final revisions lo tha VC standard. The SPL Dow Chemical Company. Georgia Gulf Corporation, and vista Chemical Company concurrently filtd a petition for review of several provisions of tha revised tandard with th* U.S. Court of Appeal* for the D.C. Circuit. The SPI la* nonprofit corporation who** members include procasaott and manufacturer! of plaitic* or plaatie product*, supplier* of raw materials, processors and converters of pieetic resin*, and manufecturere of aoceeaory equipment for the plastic* industry. The Vinyl Institute, a division of SPI. rapreaents tha major domestic producers of VC and PVC H. Summary of SPri Petition for Stay/ Reconsideration and EPA'a Raaponaa Tha 8P1 requested that EPA Issue a stay of tha 1980 revision* to the VC standard pending review of thoee revised provisions. Their request for a stay was based on ths following factors: (1) Ctrtain provisions of th* 198$ proposal were changed without adequate notice or justification by EPA: (2) Industry members represented by SPI would suffer irreparable harm If the effectivcnea* of the 1986 revisions are not stayed during the review period: and (3) a stay will cause no barm lo other parties or the public interest Ths EPA he considered the factor* presented by SPI In support of their request for etny of th# 1986 VC revisions pending EPA't review of the revisionsHaving considered the likelihood of SPT* success on the merit* of lu petition for reconsideration, the likolihood that SPI would be Irreparably harmed absent t stay, the prospect that other* would he V> <' i ;? c / t >t f -4 t * c I arr ir. t: th tx It ev es in *.; ve eu1 lea daf SL 089409 FROM-: KELLER & HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25, 1989 4:10PM 8103 P.05 Federal Resistor / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursrf.iy, September 21. 1989 / Proposed Rule* 38939 turn,rd in the event of a stay, and the public interest, the Administrator has not stayed the 1980 revisions of the VC standard et issue here. This is consistent with longstanding f,l\\ policy to continue to enforce an existing regulation until snd unless a revision becomes formally effective. The KP.Vs policy has been consistently approved by the courts in the context of State Implementation Plan*. See Train v. S'fiDC. 421 U.s. 60,92 (1975) ("This litigation, however, is carried out on the polluter's time not the public's, for during (the pendency of a SIP revision] the original regulations remain in effect, end the polluter's failure to comply may subject him to a variety of enforcement procedures.") The ralionele in Train applies with equal force to regulations promulgated under section 112. Therefore. EPA hereby denies SPI'a request for stay pending EPA'i reconsideration of the VC standard. In the petition for review of the revised standard. 3PI claimed that the 1906 promulgated revisions differed significantly from the revision* that were proposed on January 9,1965 (SO FR 1182). The SPI asserted that without adequate notice. EPA'i 1686 revisions changed key provisions of the VC standard in a manner that; [l] Violated ease law; (2) Imposed new penalties: (3) crested 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'i responses. Definition of "Exhaust Cos" The SPI requested a review of several definitions in the VC standard. According 10 SPI, the 1988 final definition of "exhaust gas." 40 CFR 81.61IX). deleted a key sentence from the proposed definition without adequate explanation. By omitting the sentence, "A leak * * * is not an exhaust gas," SPI was concerned that leak emissions could result in violations of the exhaust gas standard if more than 10 ppm of VC are emitted. Reconsideration wee requested because leaks fiom equipment in VC service would exceed the 10 ppm em.uion limitation fur exhaust gases, thereby subjecting industries to e potential fine of SIS,OCO per day for each leak. It was not EPA's Intent to categorize every leak of greater than 10 ppm as an exhaust gas. The sentence was omitted in the final definition because some emissions which are required to be vented to a control device cannot be automotlcftlly categorized as either a loak or exhaust gts by a general definition. As stated in the promulgation BID for the revised standards (pp. J-W and :-55). the facts of the situation resulting in those emissions needed to be considered when deciding which part of the VC standard applied. Upon reconsideration, EPA agree* with SPI'a concern that tha final definition of "exhaust gai" doe* not provide for exemption from the exhaust g standard (10 ppm) whan auch an mltilon 1* judged to be * teak. Therefore, EPA l* proposing to modify the definition by adding two tentencea which clarify thatleak la not an exhaust gas. tod that equipment containing exhaust gai muit comply with 16165(b)(8) requiring leak detection end prevention, whether or not that equipment contain* 10 percent by volume VC. This proposed addition assures that leeks from exhaust gas streams are subject to the leak detection end elimination requirements, but that such leaks will not also be classified as "exhaust gas." Definition of "Relief Volvo Discharge" The SPI objected to a sentence added to the 1986 fine) definition at "relief valve discharge," 40 CFR BI.Blfy), which tteted that a relief valve ditchargt would be exempt from regulation if vented to a control device, but only If the control device meet* the 10 ppm emitalon limit. The SPI pointed out that e double violation could occur (i.e,, of the relief valve discharge end exhaust gas standards) if a relief valve discharge is vented to a control device not meeting 10 ppm. If interpreted to impose double penalties, this provision, In SPI'* view, would exceed EPA'i statutory authority and unlawfully increase the maximum statutory penalty set by Congress lor a single event that leads to a violation of * NESHAP. The SPI believes that owners/ operators of regulated facilities have sufficient economic incentive (preventing releases of (heir product) to ensure that preisur* relief velvet work as designed, regardless of the standard promulgated. Moreover, the final definition contradicts past regulatory Interpretation that relief valve discharges ducted to (lares and other control devices are exempt from the exhaustgas standard. The EPA agree* that venting relief valve discharge (RVD) to a combustion device achieves significant emission reduction benefits. These devices, whan propcily designed end operated, general!} have efficiencies of 98 percent cr greater. The use of combustion devices are not expected to Increase the number of RVD'i. Thus, because regulated facilities do have 10m* economic Incentive to ensure that RVD'i are minimized, the net RVD emission rrduciion rcsuliir.g from the use of combustion device* should approach 9a percent or mote. Therefore, minor revisions to the definition of "relief valve discharge" and to the RVD provisions ((61.85(a)) ere being proposed to clarify that an RVD muted to a properly designed and operated control device would be exempted from the provisions of the RVD ttanderd. This change would prevent misinterpretation of the regulatory requirements and imposition of a double penalty. In addition, new provisions (f 61.65(d)) have been added for an RVD that is ducted to a control device that t* continually optrating while emiisione from the release ere preeent at the device- An RVD that is ducted to a control device, other then a flare, would be subject to the 10 ppm limit end the continuous emission monitoring system requirement contained in 161.68 and to the reporting requirement* of 161.70. In the ease of flaree, emission monitoring Is not poeeible. Therefore, for RVD'i routed to t flan, the design requirements for flirts (80 CFR 80.18) would apply. The EPA reoogntiea that measurement of relief valve discharge volumetric flow rates and gee atreem composition is not poesibl* using the method! sot forth in 160.18 (f)(3) and (f)(4). Estimate! of thee* perimeter* will ihtrefor*. need te be based on empirical or other beeee. subject to EPA approval. Flare operation* would be monitored in accordance with the requirement* of f f 60.18(d] and 60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of f 60.18(d), the volume and component concentration of seen RVD would be estimated end calculation* would be made to verify ongoing compliance with the design end operating requirements of 160.18 (c)(J) through (e)(6). If more than one relief valve Ti discharged simultaneously to a single flare, these calculations would account for the cumulative effect on *11 such RVD'*. It the results of the monitoring contained in 160.18(f)(2) or any other information ahow that the pilot flame is not present 100 percent of the time during which an RVD Is routed to a flare, tha RVD is subject to the provisions of | 81.85(a). A report describing the flare design must be provided lo the Administrator not later than 90 day* after the adoption ef tbit provision or within 30 days of the installation of s flare system for control of RVD's, whichever i later. Definition ofa "Leak" The SPI objected lo EPA'i defining "Indications of liquid dripping" as e "loak." 40 CFR 8t.81(w). The BP! SL 089410 FROM:KELLER & HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1989 4:11PM 8103 p.gg 38940 federal Register / Vol. 54. No, 182 / Thursday. September 21. 1989 / Propoied Rules requested that the phrare bo deleted or revised 10 refer to VC since dripping liquids may not always contain VC. In the VC standard, the portion of the leak definition referring to "indication* of liquid dripping" applies only to pumps In VC service. The EPA believes that "indications of liquid dripping" are an appropriate criterion for requiring repair actions on double mechanical seat pump* In VC service and. therefore, should be included in the definition of a leak. As stated in the BID for the 1986 promulgated revisions, visible leakage from all types of pump seals, including double mechanical seals required by the VC standard. la generally indicative of seal wear even if no VC is present in the leaking fluid. To prevent further seal 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 is normal. Therefore. EPA proposes to revise the standards for pumps (161.242-2(d)) to clarify the requirements for pump seal drips. Section 61-24>(d)(4) addresses drips from pump seals that contain VC. and 1 61-242-2(d)(6) addresses drips from pump seals that do not contain VC. The proposed revised provisions of I 81.242-2(d} are designed to accomplish two purposes. One it to ensure that VC leaks from pump teals are detected and eliminated. This is accomplished by paragraphs (d)(4) (I), (ii), and (iii). The other purpose is tD identify and prevent pump seal failures by causing abnormal dripping [even whan VC is not contained in tha dripping liquid) to be detected and repairs to be made. This is accomplished by paragraphs (d)(0) (i), (ii). (iii), and (iv). These paragraphs require the-facility owner/uperetor to establish criteria associated with normal operation. The intent of the proposed revised provisions Is identical to the existing provisions. Tha difference is that the proposed 181.242.2(dH6)(i) allows an owner/operator to take into account the small number of liquid drips (hat may occur when new teals are in place or are otherwise associated with normal operation. Definition of "3-hoy.r Pc'hxi" The SPI noted lhaL in the September 1D8 final rule, EPA added a definition of ""-hour period" 40 CFF. Cl.Gljz), to clarify that the emission limils in the exhaust gas standard (1(1 ppm) it 1.1. hum average. The defir.iliuit creates "rolling" averages (34 3-hour uveroge* per d.;>) rather than "block" average* (8 3-hour averages). The SPI objected that addition. I 6l.B5(b)|D). Opening ol a single. 1-hour 10 ppm exceedance equipment, has also been revised to could result in three violations of the 10 clarify that the requirements in this ppm exhaust gst standard, under the section 00 not appi)' to crude, revised definition of "3*hour period." intermediate, or final EDC storage tanks. This could lead to double or triple As slated in tha BID response (pp. 2-43 penaltiea. "thereby exceeding the through 2-45). EPA evaluated the maximum penally permissible under the rcasonableneaa of regulating EDC Clean Air Act." storage tanks undtr the VC standard. Upon reconsideration. F.PA proposes Bated on emissions data submitted by to further revise the definition of "3-hour the commantera, uncontrolled VC period" to ensure that a single event of emissions from Intermediate and final l-hour or less at 10 ppm or greater could EDC storage tanks at a typical F.DC/VC mult in no more than a single violation plant ware esttmalsd to be 0.1 to 2 Mg/ of the exhaust gas standard. A phrase yr. An emission reduction as high at 14 has been added to the definition in ' Mg/yr from all plants would be 61.81(c) to accomplish this. The acnievod based on venting existing F.DC EPA did not intend to penalize a plant three times whenever a 10 ppm event storage tanka to an existing primary control device (Incinerators), Prior to the occurs within 1 hour. Rather. EPA wanted to ensure that a combination of two or more 10 ppm events which would result in t 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'i intent without unintentionally subjecting e plsnt owner/operstor to multiple violations. September 1988 rule. EPA concluded that regulation of these tanks under the VC standard was not warranted. In response to SPI's petition for reconsideration. EPA has evaluated the date submitted by one $Pi compsny (Docket Entry NO. VMM) for nine crude end intermediate EDC storage tanka before the final finishing column at one of ft* facilities. These tanka art Definition of "Ethylene Dichbride currently uncontrolled. The data Purification" included lank sizes, design, emission* According to SPI. the 1988 final revisions changed the definition of EDC purification. 40 CFR 61-J(o). The promulgated definition excluded product storage following the final VC finishing column, and thua exempted such storage from the exhaust ges standard. The SPI believes that EPA intended to exclude not only EDC final product storage but also intermediate product slorage (before the final finishing column) based on EPA'i response to comments estimates, and costs. The company's estimate* of the total uncontrolled emissions (0.002 to 0423 Mg/yr VC) for the nine crude and Intermedia!* tanks fall at the low end of the range of individual VC tank emission estimates mad* by EPA for EDC final product storage tanks. This Information ia consistent with EPA'i position that tha regulation of end* and Intermedia!* storage tanks is unnecessary because emissions ere extremely low. contained in the BID (pp. 2-43 and --44) and in the BID summary of change* since proposal (pp. 1-2). Although it l-cak Detection and Elimination Under the 1978 VC atanderd. 40 CKR supports the exemption of final EDC product storage from the definition. SPI requested that EPA also exempt Intermedia 1* EDC product storage. In addition, one SPI company, a major producer of VC monomer and PVC Cl,65(b)t'fl). companies installed area monitors and developed plant-specific leak detection and alimination program* that included the routine use of portable monitor*. Subsequently, EPA developed generic leak detection and elimination polymer, provided information on nine program (subpart V, 40 CFR 61-240-- crude and intermediate storage tanks at 61.247} based on equipment and data fo' one of its facilities. Tha information the organic chemical and petroleum included tank sizes, design, emissions Industries. Tn 1988 revisions estimates, and costs. This company incorporated the subpart V provisions requested EPA <0 exclude intermediate Into the VC standard. The SPI epp** end crude, as well n final EDC storage the addition of the subpart V provisions tanks, from the definition, to the VC standard. Th* SPI argued `h The EPA agrees that it intended to existing program* are effective witheu exempt crude and intermediate storage the subpart V provisions snd that W* tanks from `he exhaust gos standard. decision to retain area monitoring Thu definition el "EDC purification" hua requirement* from the 1976 stand?1m been revised to d^tiiy that emissions questionable since they heve not nee from crude, inirrmcd.atc. and final required for other industries ,, gpl florug tanks billowing EDC formation subpurt V. In addition, according w are not s-l)jt:U to the standards. In no justification ht* been given tor SL 089411 4 a FROM:KELLS? 8- HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SE 25. 1909 4:12PM 8103 P.07 Federal Rccislcr / Vol. 54. No. 182 / Thursday. Srpirmlier 21. ITOfl / Proposed Rule* 33941 K-qihng retention of area monitor* in add.tion to lukpart V. Although a pri-pr.mi under 1 61-85(h);8| demonstrating Ins than 2 percent of VdUos Ir.iLir.a it considered "effective." such a program is exempt only from cerium parts of subpart V. For these reasons, SPI requests reinstatement of the leak detection and elimination requirements contained in the 1978 VC standard. L'pon reconsideration, ERA proposes to make oo changes in the application of subpart V to the VC standard and the requirements for fixed area monitoring (16i.CJ(b)(8H:j|. The basis for adding subpart V to the VC standard was explained in detail in the preamble to the proposed revisions (50 FR1190-1192. January B. 1985). and the justification for thosr requirements hat not rhenged since that time. The EPA believee that the area monitoring and subpait V approaches both have benefits and are not redundant In particular, area monitors allow for quick detection of certain large VC leaks that fnight otherwise go undetected until the neat routine portable monitoring screening, as well at detection of large leaks front equipment not affected by aubpart V (-*. agitators). The area monitors bav* already been purchased by subject facilities and the additional cost of monitor operation Is relatively small. Therefore, a comparison to other' industries is not relevant. Also, area monitoring is often used as part of a program to reduce leeks to below 2 percent, and therefore, as discussed below, an owner/opera tor does not have to conduct the leek detection and repair provisions of subpart V. Any plant with an effective existing program under | 61.85(b)(9) for detecting end repairing leaks can control equipment leaks without complying with the subpart V provisions. Specifically, if an owner/operotor can demonstrate that less than 20 percent of valves are leaking in any process unit, then that process unit is exempt from f| 61442i(d) (marking], 61.242-7(a) (monitoring). 81448 (recordkeeping), and 81.247 (reporting). To demonstrate that less than 2.0 percent of valves ere leaking, the owner/operator must conduct a performance lest initially, annually, and st any other time* requested by the Administrator. If, during any performance test, the percentage of leaking valves exceed* 2.0 percent, then the owner/operator mu*t comply with aubpart V Within go days. Thi* exemption only applies to the standards for valve* (f ffl.242-7(a)(b)(c)) because the other standard* in subpart V Interface with specific equipment requircmenla/priforni.inrc measures in the VC standard (e.g.. leeks from relief valves. { 81.63(b)(4) snd rotating porrpj. 161.65(b)(3)(i)j. However, this exemption includes |U of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of I f 81 248 and 01-247 because these requirements mainly affect valves. The exemption for marking, recordkeeping, end reporting applies to the entire process unit. The exemptions (provided in the VC standard) to subpart V ware designed, based on comment* made during the public comment period, to avoid unnecessary changes to existing leak detection plans which are effective in dotacting and repairing VC leak*. Scope ofRelief Valve Discharge Provisions The fin opposes ETA'* withdrawal of the 19SS proposed numerical limits for relief valve discharges and has requested that EPA reconsider its decision to retain the emergency discharge Provision of the 1978 standard. 40 CFR 81.83(a). The SPI claimed that the 1878 etandard ''impermissibly delegates rulemaking authority to enforcement personnel and la unconstitutionally vague and that, as applied, the regulation it unfair, unlawful, arbitrary and capricious." Tbe 6PI prefers the propotod numerical limits because they would remedy that Kn* and reduca the administrative on EPA and Industry* The SPI also believes that the proposed numerical limits are stricter than the 1976 emergency discharge provision because "each discharge eaueing an exceedance of any numerical limit * * * would be considered a violation without regard to whether any individual discharge woe preventable." The EPA baa reviewed the baits for the deetelon not to promulgate numerical limits for RVD'* and has decided thet the 1976 standard is still reasonable and appropriate. The 1078 standard permits only "emergency" RVD*i, those that could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. A detailed discussion of the basis for not promulgating the numerical limit* for RVU'i is contained in the preamble for (he promulgated amendment* (SI FR 34905-34908, September 30.1968). end SPI he* not provided any new information that would affect EPA's decision. In summary, the decition to retain the original 1976 RVD etandard was made after considering the revisions in light of public comment* on the numerical limits, end after review of the basil for the decision to reformat the standard. In particular. several public co.-mt-ms on the 1985 proposed amendments expressed concern that prevcr.ubLRVD's would be etlowed under the revised standard end that the performance allowed under the revised standard could be inconsistent with thet allowed under the original ttande.-d. Other comments expressed concern that the revised standard included no mechanism for regulating very large RVD'e. The basis for tha statement that a forge EPA resource commitment la required for enforcing the 1878 RVD etandard wet else questioned. The EPA's review revealed thet the burden on its resources bed diminished as experience with the Implementation of the standard increased end a* the industry'* understanding of tha provisions of the existing standard became clearer. Thu*. M was not accessary to revise tha format of the RVD standard. Compared to foe 1988 proposal foe existing standard also has the advantages of affecting B prevenubWRVD'i and providing better regulation of forge volume RVD'e. Therefore, for the reasons stated. EPA's review of foe record supports foe existing standard. Based on the EPA's experience with edministering foe VC Stamford of ! 81.63(e). one major deficiency with the type of information submitted la miry of the lO-deyreport* of RVD's has been reoogntred. ilu* oooeems foot infomttkA required to be reported by the standard regardful, "the ection that was taken to prevent the discharge.' For purposes of ewiflettfon. Ait portion of the standard requires tnfannation on the action taken to prevent or address the eauaa leading up to foe RVD refoese and not only the ecnon taken after en event or cause occurs that results to an RVD release. Emission Monitoring Ciattfieotlon In addition to the changes made In response to the petition for reconsideration, a minor clarification hai been made in 191.68, Emission monitoring. The existing regulation. 18169(b), states that foe VC monitoring system(s) that ta need to meet the contlnuoua monitoring requirements In paragraph (a) (of ) 81.89) Tor emliaionf from souroee for which emission limits ere prescribed ts to be a device which obtains sir simples on a continuous sequential basis and analytes them. Sines it ts obvious that paragraph (e) of 161.68 calls for the monitoring of the miestous from prescribed sources for vinyl chloride and not ambient air sempUag as required under 181.83(b)(8) for leak deteetion/ellmlnetlon. 18188(b) SL 089412 FROM:KELLER 8. HECKMfiN TO:THE UINVL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1989 4:13PM #103 38942 - Federal Regular / Vol. 54. No. 182 / Thursday. September 21. 1989 / Proposed Kuias ________ hat Ween clsrifisd to requirs that representative (not air) tamplea from one or more applicable emission point* be obtained and analyzed. This revision more accurately reflects the original Intent. 111. Administrative Requirements A. Public Hearing A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the proposed rulemaking in accordance with section 307(d)(8) 01 the Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentations should contact EPA at the address given in the AOPMgtig section o( this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may (lie a written statement with EPA before, during, or within 30 deyt after the hearing. Written etaiemente ehould be addressed lo the Central Docket Section address given In the AOMtMts section of thia-prearable. A verbatim transcript of the hearing end written statements will be available for public Inspection and copying during normal working hours at EPA'i Central Docket Section In Washington. DC (see AODNitggg aection of this preamble). B. Docket Tie docket is an organised and complete file of all the information submitted to or otherwise considered in the development of this proposed rulemaking. Tha principal purpose# of the docket are: (l) To allow interested parties (o identify readily and locate document* ao that they can effectively participate In the rulemaking process: and (2) to serve a* the record in case of judicial review, except for Interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)). C. Office ofManagement and Budget Reviewt 1. Paperwork Reduction Act. There ere no information collection requirements associated with this proposed rulemaking. 2. Under Executive Order 12291. EPA mutt judge whether i 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 effeeu described in the Order. This rulemaking was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order Any written comments from OMB lo EPA and any EPA response to those comments arc included in Dockei No. A-flt-21. The docket 1* available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section that is listed under the adcmiiii section of this notice. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the identification of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulation* upon small businss* entities. The Act specifically requires tha completion of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those instincts where small business impact* are possible. Because those proposed minor revisions Impost no adverse economic Impact*, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has nol been conducted. Pursuent to the proviaion* of 8 U.S.C 608(b), I hereby certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic Impact on a substantial number of smell entitles. List of 8ub)ect> In 40 CFR Pari 01 Air pollution control, Asbestos, Benisns, Beryllium. Hazardous materials, Mercury. Vinyl chloride. Dated: September 12, i960. William K. Reilly. Administrator. For the reason* set forth in tha preamble, it is proposed to amend 40 CFR part 81 at follows: PART 11-fAMENDED] 1. Tha authority citation for part 01 continues to read as follow*! Authority: Section* t<n, tit 114. lie. 301, Clean Air Act as amended: 42 U S.C. 7401, 7412.7411.741B. 7801. 2. Section 61.61 ia amendod by revising paragraphs (0). (w). (x). (y), and (t) to read a* follows: 161.61 Definitions. t (0) Ethylene dichloride purification include* any pert of the process of etbylen* dlchlorid* purification following ethylene dichlorld* formation, but excludes crude, intermediate, and final ethylene dichlorld# storage tanks. tt i 4 I (w) Leak means any of severs) events that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment. Leaks 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 (sec appendix A of 40 CFR part CO): |2) A sensor detection of failure of s seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both: (3) Detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of grestsr than 800 ppm above background for equfpmeni designated for no detectable emissions measured according to Test Method 71 (see appendix A of 40 CFR pari 60): and (4) In the ease of pump seals regulated under 161.242-1 indications of liquid dripping constituting a leak under 161.242-2. Leaks alio include events regulated under 161.63(b)(6X<) for detection of ambient concentrations In sxcess of background concentrations. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. (x) Exhaust gas mean* any offgas (the constituents of which may consist of any fluid*, either aa 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 16142 (a) and (bk f 61.63(a): 161.64 (a)(1). (bl (el and (dk 161.68 (b)(1)(H), (b)(2). (b)(8). (b)(8). (b)(6Xli). (b)(4) and (b)()(ii): and ( 61.68(d). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of (his section is not an exhaust gas. Equipment which contsina exhaust gas is subject to 16148(b)(6). whether or not that tquipmtot contains 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. (y) Relief Vain Discharge mean* any nonlaak discharge through a relief valve. (s) 3`hourperiod mean* any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each commencing on Ihe hour), provided that the number of 3-hour periods during which the vlnyi chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm does not sxceed the number of l-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm. 8. Section 6148 is emended by revising paragraphs (a) end (b)(6) Introductory text, and adding paragraph (d) lo rcid aa follows (61.61 Emission standard tor ethylene dtohtoride. vinyl CMoride and pefinrinyl chloride pienta. p6 (a] Relief voire discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge, and except as providsd tn 161.68(d). there is to be no discharge to the atmosphere from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride service. An emergency relief discharge means discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures lo prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any relief valve discharge, except for those subject to | 0165(d). the owner or operator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs shall submit to the Ad.r.ir.istraloi a report in writing SL 089413 FROM--KELLER 8. HECKMAN i TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 2S. 1989- 4:14PM 8103 P.09 tltl **** f I i ^ V tIH c-ur:>.,i;n::ig informal ion on ihi* *nurri\ n.i'urs and o.iusc of the discharge. ifu> ri.itc jnd iirsiu of the discharge. the approximate total vinyl chloride loss ilur:::s l!< discharge, the method used for determining the vmyi chinruiu loss (the cjlailation of the vinyl chloride iiw). the action that was taken tv) prevent the. discharge. and measures edopvd to prevent future discharges. (b| (P) Opening of equipment. Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of equipment (excluding crude, intermediate, and final F.DC storage tanks, but including prepolymerization rcaciors used in the manufacture of bulk resins and loading or unloading lines that are nut opened to the atmosphere after each loading or unloading opcraiion) arc to be minimized at follows: * ** * (d) A KVII that Is ducted lo a control device that 18 continually operating while emissions from the release ara present at the device ia subjectto the following requirements: (l) A discharge from a control device other than a flare shall not exceed 10 ppm (average over a 3-hour period) as determined by the continuous emission monitor system required under i 6168, Such 1 discharge is subject to the requirement! of | 6170, (21 For a discharge routed to a flare, the flare shall comply with the requirements of f 60.18. (i) Flare operations shall be monitored in accordance with the requirements of 1160.18(d) and 6018(f)(2). For tha purposes of | 60.16(d). the volume and component concentration of each relief valve discharge shell be estimated and calculations shall be made to verify ongoing compliance with the design and operating requirements of f 160.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more than one relief valve is discharged simultaneously to a single flare, these calculations shall account for the cumulative effect of all such relief valve discharges. These calculations shall be made and reported quarterly for all discharges within the quarter. Failure to comply with tny of (he requirements of this paragraph will be a violation of i Cl .651*11(2). Monitoring for the piesencr of u flare pilvit flame shall bv: conducted ill accordance w ith | GO.161012). If the results of this monitoring or ary other information show* thin ihe pilot flume is not present 100 percent of the time during which a relief valve discharge is routed to the flare, the relief valve discharge is subject to the provisions of 161.65(a). (ii) A report describing the flare design shall be provided to the Administrator not later than 00 days after the idoption of this provision or within 30 days of the Installation of a flare system for control of relief valve discharge whichever it later. The flare design report shall include calculation! based upon expected relief valve discharge component concentrations and net heating values (for PVC this calculation shall be based on values expected if a release occurred at the inatant the polymerization starts); and estimated maximum exit velocities based upon the design throat capacity of the gas In the relief valve. 4. Section 61.68 Is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) to read a* follow*: t lt.88 emission monitoring. t (b) The vinyl chloride monitoring ayitem(a) used to meat the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section Is to be a device which obtelna representative aamplcs from one or more applicable emission points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromotography or. if the owner or operator assumos that all hydrocarbon! measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an alternative method. * * * t1 t t a 5. Section G1742-2 of subpsrt V la amended by revising paragraph (d) Introductory text, (d)(5) and (d)(6) and by adding paragraphs (d)(4) (i). (it) and (til) to read as follows: leust-t Standards: Pumps. * (d) F..ii'h pump equipped with s d.al mechanical sea! ayilcm that includes a barrier fluid ayalcm is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (hj of tbit section, provided the following requirements are met: (4) * ` ' (i) If there ure indications of liqu.J dripping from the pump seal at the time of the weakly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified in |61.243 to determine the presence of VOC and VHAF in the barrier fluid. (U) If the monitor reading (taking into account any background readings) indicate* the presence of VHAP. leak it detected. For the purpose of this paragraph, the monitor may b calibrated with VHAP. or may employ e gas chromatography column to limit the response of the monitor to VHAP. et (he option of the owner or operator. (lit) If an inatnuBMl reading of 10.000 ppm or greattr (total VOC) is measured, a leak ia datactad. (5) Each senior a* described in paragraph (dj(3) of this section is checked daily or is equippod with tn audible alarm. (6K0 The owner or operator determine!, based on design considerations and operating experience, criteria applicable to tha prasanea and frequency of drip* and to the senior that Indicate* failure of the seal system, tha bonier fluid system, or both. (ii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed the criteria established in paragraph (dj(6)(i) of this section, or if. based on tha criteria established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, the sensor indicates failure of tha raai system, the barrier fluid system, or both, a leak ia datactad. (fit) When a leak ia datactad, it shall bo repaired aa soon as practicable, but not later than is calendar days after it ia datectcd. except as provided in 161242- m (tv) A Artl attempt at repair ahall be made no later than five calender dsyj after each leak ia datactad. # (FR Doc. *9-2218? piled t-SMS *:45 am) atuaw coet iu ss-ts SL 089414