Document n9pEOjedYdmEg7kE7yDKvae7X

ABD00078656 * DRAFT February 25, 1985 Central Docket Section (A--130) Attn: Docket No. A-81-21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride Dear Sir: The Vinyl Institute, a Division of the Society of the Plastics Industry*-/ is pleased to submit comments on proposed */ SPI, the major national trade association of the plastics industry, is a Corporation organized under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New Xork. Its 1,600 member companies and individuals and 49 operating units include those who supply raw materials; process or manufacture plastics or plastics products; and engineer or construct molds or similar accessory equipment for the plastics industry. The majority of SPI members are the processors and converters of plastic resins into end products which represent 75% of the dollar volume sale of plastics in this country. Members of the Vinyl Institute include Air Products & Chemicals, The BFGoodrich Chemical Group, Borden Chemical, Certain-Teed, Dow Chemical U.S.A., Occidental Chemical, PPG Industries, Shell Chemical Co., Tenneco Polymers, and VISTA Chemical. Members of the Vinyl Institute account for approximately 75% of the domestic production of vinyl chloride and __ % of the domestic production of polyvinyl chloride. These comments were prepared by the Institute's Manufacturing Practices Committee. ABD00078657 A Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 2 revisions to the National Emission Standard for vinyl chloride, 40 C.F.R. 61.60 et seq., published at 50 Fed. Reg. 1,182 (Jan. 9, 1985). We agree that administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard are warranted. We support many of the proposals and believe that they are in agreement with the general findings of the Agency's review study conducted over the past few years in which we have participated. There are, unfortunately, several apparent printing errors in the Federal Register notice. More importantly, there are unclear and occasionally confusing statements as well. In these comments, we will present our best interpretation of what the Agency intended based on the preamble to the proposal, } earlier drafts, and discussions at the August 30, 1984 meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Com mittee (NAPTAC). It is time to resolve the uncertainties that have been a part of this standard for so long and that have drained unnecessarily both Agency and industry resources. Our mutual past experience with differing interpreta tions of the standard among various Agency offices, the States, and the regulated industry only reinforces the need for ABD00078658 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 3 complete agreement and clarity on the intent and meaning of the codified standard by everyone involved. Discussions in the preamble can provide background on the history of a rulemaking and an opportunity for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to express its interpretation of the data in the record. The preamble is not the standard, however, and when the lan guage of the standard conflicts, it will prevail subject to . interpretation by the courts. Accordingly, when the standard and preamble differ, we suggest new wording to bring the two into closer concordance. Often, the best solution is merely to repeat in the standard the clear language of the preamble. I. A. Withdrawing the 1977 Proposed Amendments* We support the Agency's proposal to withdraw the 1977 proposal to amend the vinyl chloride standard. 42 Fed. Reg. 28,154 (1977). Completely aside from the fact that a proposal pending for eight years loses its credibility, there was no need for the 1977 proposal in the first instance. The basic intent of the 1977 proposal was to further reduce emissions in an effort to eventually reach a zero discharge level. The cur rent notice points out that neither the standard nor the ABD00078659 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 4 statute contemplate zero discharges. Thus the 1977 proposal was based on an erroneous premise. Going beyond the question of whether amendments are needed, the threshold question is whether a standard is needed in the first instance. As restated in the preamble (50 Fed. Reg. 1,182), EPA has presumed that industrial emissions of vinyl chloride have been and would continue the cause of 11 to 20 deaths per year in the general population, depending on whether one accepts the 1975 estimate of Kusmack and MacGaughy, or the later numbers of Anderson in Risk Analysis 3 277 (1983). In fact, over the last decade none of these hundreds of pre dicted cases has developed among the five million persons who > have lived within five miles of the regulated facilities for up to 40 years. Therefore, the premise for the original standard was equally fallacious, and the Agency has made no effort to conform or rejustify that premise. Meanwhile, the standard is with us, and we approach this proposal as an opportunity to make the best of the situation as it exists. We agree with EPA's conclusion that there is no new technology to permit further tightening or extension of the ABD00078660 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 5 standard, even if it were justifiable. We have learned to live with the standard but only with a 10-15% reduction in produc tivity, a cash outlay to date of almost $900 million, and on going costs of over $50 million per year. EPA, The Cost of Clean Air and Water, Report to Contress 1984, Table A5.2.4 (May 1984) (EPA 230/05-84-008) These control efforts have been more effective than originallky predicted by the Agency. According to data presented in Vinyl Chloride - A Review of National Emission Standards, tables 4-3 and 4-4 (1982) (EPA 450/3-82003), actual emissions now are only a fraction of a percent of those projected for the pre-1976 unregulated industry. Lacking new technology, there can be no justification for seeking further reductions in the technical basis for the standard. * Thus, there are neither statutory, health, nor techno logical reasons to extend or tighten the standard. Under Executive Order 12291, 46 Fed. Reg. 13,193 (Feb. 19, 1981), as extended recently by Executive Order 12498, 50 Fed. Reg. 1,036 (Jan. 8, 1985), the Agency may not undertake a rulemaking which cannot be justified, and withdrawal of the 1977 proposals is proper. ABD00078661 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 6 B. Regulation o Additional Sources The decision not to extend the standard to additional sources is correct. The current standard has reduced emissions in both covered and many noncovered facilities by over 99%. Other Agency rules have been at least equally effective in reducing the remaining noncovered emissions as the Notice pro perly concluded. 50 Fed. Reg. 1,186. Experience in Florida and California demonstrates that emissions of vinyl chloride from landfills frequently is the result of bacterial degradation of chlorinated solvents, and not from the actual placement of vinyl chloride. Thus, regula tion of that industry would have no effct on that source. This work is summarized in a report entitled "An Investigation into the Source of Vinyl Chloride Detected at the Preston and Hialeah Water Treatment Plants," Department of Environmental Resources Management, Dade County, Florida, 1983. The preamble refers to the formation of a Task Force established under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 50 Fed. Reg. 1,186. The expressed purpose of the Task Force is to assess emissions of vinyl chloride from ABD00078662 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 7 hazardous waste disposal facilities, municipal landfills, and certain other air emissions sources. The Vinyl Institute stands ready to assist the Task Force and we request that we be kept informed of the Task Force's activities. C. Reproposal of Work Practices Provisions We agree that "EPA proposed and promulgated the work practices, equipment, design and operational standards in -the current standard before explicit legal authority existed in section 112" of the Clean Air Act. 50 Fed. Reg. 1,191. Indus try comments during the 1974-76 rulemaking noted repeatedly :hat the Agency had no authority under the Clean Air Act, as it then stood, to promulgate work practice rules. That position was supported by the Agency legal staff and the courts. See Memorandum from Walter C. Barber, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, "Reproposal and Promulgation of Asbestos and Vinyl Chloride Workplace Stan dards" (May 22, 1980); United States v. Ethyl Corporation, Civil Action No. 83-0120-3 (M.D. La. July 1, 1983), appeal pending, (No. 83-3537) (5th Cir.)? Adamo Wrecking Company v. United States, 334 U.S. 275 (1978). This general reproposal ABD00078663 ( (h Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 8 also presents the opportunity to correct several problems of interpretation which we discuss below. D. CERCLA References We are puzzled by the newly-inserted discussions on the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Lia bility Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. SS 9601-9757. 50 Fed. Reg. 1,.193. Industry has been informed by regional EPA authorities that reporting of releases under CERCLA is not required for vinyl chloride regulated under NESHAPS. That interpretation is reinforced by the proposed definition of leak under section 61.61(w), which would include all "emissions of vinyl chloride not covered by . . ." the current standard, except for relief valve discharges. Thus, we do not understand the preference to CERCLA reporting when that statute generally is not relavent to the covered facilities. Additional explanation by EPA is needed before we can make an informed comment. II. The remainder of our comments is organized according to the proposed rule. ABD00078664 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 9 Section 61.61{o) - Definition of EDC Purification The proposed definition of "ethylene dichloride purifi cation" is ambiguous and, since it marks a change from the existing definition, could be read to indicate that equipment other than that originally affected may now be subject to regu lation. The Vinyl Institute supplied EPA with data on October 30, 1984 showing that storage tanks present no significant source of vinyl chloride emissions and that the cost to control these emissions would be extravagant. A copy of our submission is attached. In the preamble, EPA states that the proposed revision was intended only for clarification. No discussion of any i additional equipment to be effected is presented. ,50 Fed. Reg. 1,192. Similarly, no mention was made of vinyl chloride monomer emissions from additional equipment or cost the to control these emissions. Id. EPA has not justified the inclusion of additional equip ment under the proposed definition and the Vinyl Institute believes that no further controls are necessary. The existing ABD00078665 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 10 definition of ethylene dichloride purification should remain unchanged. If EPA does adopt new language, the Agency must, due to the ambiguity in the proposal, clearly state which, if any, of the equipment specified in the Agency's July 20, 1984 draft rule is intended to become subject to this regulation. If additional equipment is specified, a thorough justification must then be presented. Lack of EPA justification can only demonstrate that the change in language is merely administra tive and not substantive. Section 61.61(v) - Definition of Relief Valve The proposed definition of "relief valve" >is still vague and does not adequately provide the "clarification" intended. 50 Fed. Reg. 1,1912. Apparently, EPA continues to be concerned that a "loophole" can be found which would allow a safety pressure-relieving device discharging to the atmosphere to fall outside the definition of relief valve. This concern ABD00078666 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 11 can be properly addressed without being ambiguous by use of the following language: "Relief valve" means each pressure relief device including pressure relief valves, rup ture discs, manual vent valves, and other pressure-relieving devices that vent directly to the atmosphere to protect process equipment from over-pressure conditions. Relief valve does not include control valves used to control flow to an incinerator or other air pollution control device. Also not included in the definition of relief valve are pressure control systems such as polymerization reaction short stop systems or refrigerated water systems used to reduce pressure by means other than venting to the atmosphere. Note that the current definition of relief valve in section 61.65(a) refers to discharges "to the atmosphere." Proposed section 61.65(a)(1)(iii) also refers to "relief valve discharge to the atmosphere." Thus, we believe that the defintion we have proposed is in keeping with EPA's intent. Section 61.61(w) - Definition of Leak The proposed definition of leak is confusing and mis leading. The preamble (50 Fed. Reg. 1,191) states very clearly that Subpart V defines a leak "as a measured organic concentra tion equal to or greater than 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppvm) . . ." as measured by Method 21. This definition is properly included in section 61.61(w) except for the failure ` ` ABD00078667 U Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 12 to refer to Method 21 as "an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater." However, Subsection 4 of the proposed definition also would define a leak as "detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above back ground." As worded in the proposal, this is not in keeping with Subpart V and conflicts with proposed subsection (1). Subsection (2) the definition refers to "indications" of leaks. The definition should clearly distinguish between an actual, visible leak of vinyl chloride and a mere indication. A leak should be deary demonstrated and not based upon any presumption. Indications of a leak should not fall within the definition of leak unless confirmed by an objective measure. i Subsection (3) would define a leak to include "a sensor detection of failure of a seal system." A seal system failure is not necessarily a leak of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere. Proposed section 61.65(b)(3) recognizes this in its discussion of seal leaks "into the pump" or "into the compressor." The wording of subsection (3) is too restrictive and requires modi fication. Subpart V does not define the term "leak" and any ABD00078668 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 13 reference to subpart V for definitional purposes leads only to an additional search for the meaning of that term in other regulations. A clear an unambiguous definition is absolutely essential to ascertain compliance. We recommend the following language. 'Leak* means any one of the events listed below that demonstrate escape of vinyl chloride from process equipment: (1) a reading of 10,000 ppm as measured by a portable instrument using '* Method 21; (2) an actual, visible escape of vinyl chloride? (3) an instrument reading of 500 ppm or more above background for relief valves and sealed pumps? or (4) a leak as defined in an approved Leak Detection and Eli mination Plan. Mere indications of a leak are not a leak unless confirmed by one of the above definitions. Emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere which are not regulated under 61.61(a) and (b); 61.63(a); 61.64(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)? and 61.65(a) and (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7) and (b)(9) shall be considered a leak. A - relief valve discharge is not a leak. Section 61.61(z) - Definition of "Three-Hour Period" The proposed definition of "three-hour period" for averaging emissions states that it is a rolling three-hour period beginning on the hour, that is, "any three consequtive one-hour periods (each hour commencing on the hour)." It is our understanding that EPA intends to have 24 three-hour ABD00078669 A Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 14 The Agency's proposal to clarify that the emission limits prescribed in sections 61.62(a), 61.63(a), 61.64(b), 61.64(c) and 61.64(d) are considered to be three-hour averages is consistent with the intent of the original regulation as discussed in the preamble. 50 Fed. Reg. 1,192. We support this proposal; however, it does not fully accomplish its intended purpose. By proposing a definition of three-hour period that rolls every hour, a single hourly average of greater than 10 ppm could result in 3 three-hour periods when the average emission also exceeds 10 ppm. This situation, in effect, negates the intended clarification that a one-hour period was not intended as a criteria for determining com pliance with the standard. To fully implement the intended clarification, we sug gest that statement be added to sections 61.62(a), 61.63(a), 61.64(b), 61.64(c) and 61.64(d) that "any emission in excess of 10 ppm for a one-hour period cannot cause more than one 3-hour period to be considered in excess of 10 ppm." In addition, several other sections of the regulation specifying a 10 ppm limit should be clarified by indicating ABD00078670 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 15 that a three-hour averaging period is intended. These are: S 61.65(b)(5), 61.65(b)(7), and 61.65(b)(9). The limit for oxychlorination vents specified in section 61.62(b) (0.2 g/kg) should also be expressed as a three-hour average. Section 61.64(e) A typographical error appears in this provision that can be corrected by replacing the word "is" with the word ."if" as indicated below. Sources following the stripper (s). The follow ing requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from the combination of all sources following this stripper(s) [or the reactor (s) i_f the plant has no stripper (s)] in the plant process flow. . . . Section 61.64(f)(1)(i) > A typographical error appears in this section. The reference to "202 g/kg" should be changed to "2.02 g/kg." Section 61.65(a)(1) - (iii) - Rounding Procedure The preamble to the proposed rules has a lengthy dis cussion of relief valve discharges and the rationale for the numerical limits. 50 Fed. Reg. 1,185-1,189. In this discus sion EPA notes that a PVC plant making fewer than 2,858 batches/12 month period and havir.c onlv one discharge could ha ABD00078671 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 16 in violation of the proposed standard, that is, the discharge frequency per 100 batches would exceed 0.035. The Agency pro posed to correct this inequity by permitting the plant to use 2,858 batches as the lowest number to determine compliance. We agree with this concept, but we fail to see why this same con cept cannot apply to a plant that makes fewer than 5,716 batches but more than 2,858 batches and has had two discharges, or the case where one plant has made fewer than 8,574 batches, but more than 5,716 batches and has had three discharges, and so on, up to the four-discharge maximum permitted. The EPA method for determining compliance does not con sider that business conditions alone determine how may batches > a plant makes, and, consequently, a plant should not be penalized because it has not precisely matched the number of batches it makes with the number of relief valve discharges it incurs, so that the number of permitted discharges is an exact integer. We recommend that the method for determining compliance with the relief valve discharge standard be modified to allow rounding off to the next highest integer for the number of per missible discharges if this calculated number of discharges is ABD00078672 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 17 precisely greater than 1.5, 2.5, or 3.5. Thus, a plant produc ing at least 4,311 batches and less than 5,717 batches would be allowed a maximum of 2 relief valve discharges. Similarly, a plant producing at least 7,169 batches and less than 8,575 batches would be allowed 3 relief valve discharges and finally a plant producing at least 10,026 batches and less than 11,433 batches would be allowed 4 relief valve discharges. This modification in no way compromises the basic intent of the proposed standard, and it permits the regulated commuity to meet a standard that is based on a real world situation. Moreover, data from a two-year period was used to develop the permissible yearly discharges. Plants can only be expected to meet this statistical annual average oyer a two year period. Thus, the rounding we suggest is further sup ported by the record. Section 61.65(a)(1)(i) - Reactor Relief Valve Discharges We recommend that the language describing discharges from reactor relief valves be modified as follows: "The number of discharges directly to the atmosphere from relief valves on polyvinyl chloride reactors . . . ." The inclusion of the word "directly" will indicate that discharges from relief valves ABD00078673 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 18 that are routed to control devices will not be considered dis charges because there is no offensive release of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere. This addition will clarify any confusion resulting from the the new definition of "relief valve" in section 61.61(v). In addition, it signifies the Agency's policy of encouraging the routing of discharges, when techno logically and economically feasible, to control devices. Section 61.65(a)(1)(iii) We believe that some typographical errors appear in this provision. The language should be amended to read: The limits specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a) (1) (ii) of this section are not exceeded when only one relief valve discharge to the atmosphere occurs during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period. We believe that this language correctly states the intention of the Agency relative to relief valve discharges. We note that the Agency has accepted our comments relating to this provision previously. Section 61.65(a)(3) - EDC/VCM Relief Valve Discharges Proposed Section 61.65(a)(3) limits the number of dis charges to the atmosphere from relief valves on equipment in vinyl chloride service to no more than four discharges per ABD00078674 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 19 year. This proposal places the same restrictions on all EDC/VCM plants without regard to the number of production units within such plants. Thus, it imposes different degrees of con trol stringency. A three-unit plant in which each unit pro duces, for example, 400 tons per day of VCM has more potential and opportunity for relief valve discharges than does a plant consisting of single unit producing 1,200 tons per day. The. number of relief valves in the three-unit plant is greater by a factor of approximately three as are the number of operating personnel. Although each task or hour of operation in a smaller unit generates a smaller amount of VCM, it exposes the unit to the same risk of relief valve discharge as applied to the larger unit. We consider this to be unfair and inequitable. The j rememdy is to apply the limit individually for each distinct production unit. Therefore, this provision should be amended to indicate the number of discharges to the atmosphere shall not exceed four discharges per year for each production unit. This revision would also correct inequities which will arise when an existing facility adds additional production units. The data on which the four discharge per year figure was developed are representative of existing facilities and not ABD00078675 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 20 expanded facilities which may be developed in the future. If the Agency does not accept our suggested change on the per missible number of discharges per unit, we recommend, in the alternative, that section 61.65(a)(3) be revised to allow for a compensating adjustment in the limit for expanded plants. The following language should be added: The number in excess of four of allowable dis charges at a plant which expands after the effective date of this regulation shall be increased in proportion to its larger capacity. Section 61.65(a)(4) - Discharge Events EPA should include additional language in section 61.65(a)(4) to assure that multiple relief valve discharges that occur because of one over pressure event be considered only one discharge. As stated in the preamble (5o';. Fed. Reg. 1,189), "for determining compliance with the numerical limits, discharge frequency is to be recorded on the basis of individual discharges except when simultaneous discharges occur from relief valves on the same piece of equipment." Typcially, PVC reactors are outfitted with several relief valves, each set to relieve at increasingly higher pres sures. This is considered good design practice because the ABD00078676 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 21 amount of a a release can be better minimized. If necessary, more than one of the relief valves could discharge, but not necessarily exactly at the same time since either relief valve could be said to relieve at different pressures. EPA appears to recognize this possibility in the pre amble language quoted above. However, the requirement that discharges be simultaneous should be eliminated. Rather, mul tiple releases that occur because of a single over pressure event should be considered one release. To do otherwise would place a well-run plant with a single over-pressure event result ing in multiple relief valve discharges in the same position as a less well-run plant that had the same number of relief valve > discharges from separate events. We do not believe that this is EPA's intention. Accordingly, we suggest that section 61.65(a)(4) be revised by adding the following sentence: "Multiple relief valve discharges from the same vessel or piece of equipment which occur because of a single over pressure event are considered to be one discharge." ABD00078677 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 22 ' A v Section 61.65(b)(3) - Seal Emissions This section addresses fugitive emissions from pumps, compressors and agitator seals. In proposing to add the require ments of Subpart V to the vinyl chloride standard, EPA indicated that the impact of this change would be primarily on valves and flanges since the Agency considers the requirements of the cur rent standard for pump, compressor and agitators seals to be. equivalent to those required by Subpart V. There are, however, certain seal monitoring requirements in Subpart V that are not contained in the vinyl chloride standard. As now proposed, this would require the industry to refit most, if not all, of its seal installations with these monitoring devices, a require ment that would impose signficant costs on the industry. Since i the proposed revisions require that the fixed point monitoring system for leak detection be retained, we agree with the Agency that an adequate leak warning system is in place to detect seal failures without the necessity of adding specific seal monitor ing systems. We therefore recommend that section 61.65(b)(3) be amended by adding the following sentence at the beginning of the subsection: "Compliance with this provision is considered equivalent to the requirements of 61.242-2 and 61.242-3 of this ABD00078678 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 23 Section 61.65(b)(8) - Leak Detection and Elimination The proposed leak detection and elimination provisions raises very serious issues. Although EPA characterizes these proposals as "administrative", the proposed leak detection and elimination provisions could impose new and costly substantive requirements. We suggest that these provisions be revised to more closely follow EPA's intent as explained in the preamble. For example, the Agency states "the proposed revisions include provisions that allow plants with existing effective plans to periodically demonstrate the effectiveness of their plans with out additional requirements." 50 Fed. Reg. 1,190 (emphasis added). From this general statement, EPA proceeds to make specific its intent not to impose additional requirements. For example, the preamble states: However, the process units within VC and PVC plants in which the percentage of leaking valves is equal to or less than 2.0% are con sidered by the EPA to be effectively con trolling VC emissions from leaking valves. For these process units, the existing leak detec tion and elimination program will continue to be allowed while the percentage of leaking valves is 2.0% or less. Id. at 1,191. In comparing the current leak detection and elimination provisions of the vinyl chloride standards with the more newly ABD00078679 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 24 enacted provisions of Subpart V of the NESHAPs regulations, EPA states: Subpart V would substantially affect only valves and flanges in VC service within the industry. All other equipment in VC service are already required by the VC standard to com ply with equipment and work practice standards consistent with those in Subpart V. Id. We agree with EPA that most of the provisions in section 61.65(b)(8) describe a productive and effective le'ak detection program. However, we do not find them implemented effectively in the proposed amendments. For example, neither of the alternatives open to the owner/operator nor the require ments imposed by the alternatives as described in the preamble are clear. As we have stated previously, clarity and lack of ambiguity are essential to effective implementation and con structive enforcement of this standard. We believe that these goals can be obtained by making the following modifications to the introductory section of section 61.65(b)(8) and to portions of subsection (ii) as follows: The owner or operator shall choose either to implement the leak detection program of Subpart V of this Part, or the program described below, and shall implement that choice within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations un less a waiver of compliance is granted under 61.11. Owners or operators of approved leak detection programs need not resubmit ABD00078680 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 25 such programs to the Administrator. Otherwise, the owner or operator shall submit to the Admi nistrator a leak detection plan within 90 days of the effective date of this regulation. Fail ure of the Administrator to disapprove the plan within 60 days shall be deemed an approval. Approval of the plan will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: (i) *** (ii) It includes a reliable and accurate por table hydrocarbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of Subpart V of this Part for measuring the leakage from valves in vinyl chloride service. (A) *** (B) In each performance test, a total of 200 valves, or 90% of the valves in the operating unit, whichever is less, shall be randomly selected and monitored .... (C) *** (D) *** (E) Any process unit in which .the percent age of leaking valves is found to be greater than 2.0 percent, and which cannot pass a retest within 30 days shall become subject to provisions of Subpart V relating to valves ( 61.242-7) of this Part within 90 days, and shall remain subject to that Subpart for one year before it may exercise the option of selecting the alternative provided in 61.65(b)(8). ABD00078681 > V Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 26 Section 61.67(g)(3)(iii) - Emission Testing Requirements The proposed changes to the emission testing require ments of section 61.67 include reactors used as strippers. We believe it was EPA's intent to require only that sources submit for the Administrator's approval calculation methods for reac tors used as strippers. However, a literal reading of section 61.67 (g) (3) (iii) could require resubmission for approval of existing calculation methods for other stripping operations. Therefore, we recommend that existing section 61.67(g)(3)(iii) be left unchanged, that the following language be added as new section 61.67 (g) (3) (iv): The corresponding quantity of material pro cessed by each reactor used as stripper is to be determined on a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Admi nistrator. Existing section 61.67 (g) (3) (iv) should be redesignated as sec tion 61.67 (g) (3) (v) . Secton 61.67(h)(1) This proposed section describes equipment within a pro cess unit that is considered to be "in vinyl chloride service.". We recommend that the first sentence in this section be amended to read as follows: ABD00078682 i Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 27 Each piece of equipment within a process unit that can reasonably be expected to contain vinyl chloride is presumed to be in vinyl chloride service unless an owner or operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service. The above language is identical to that which we proposed at the August 10, 1984 meeting of the National Air Pollution Con trol Techniques Advisory Committee. We believe that this language clarifies the intent of section 61.67(h)(1). Further, the Agency apparently accepted our comments and intended to incorporate this meaning. Section 61.70(d)(6) - Bulk Plants For bulk production plants, EPA proposes that a single polymerization batch includes "both prepolymerizatpn and post polymerization reactor operations." In actual practice, each prepolymerization or postpolymerization reaction vessel is used for its own separate polymerization; and, therefore, each has its own exclusive opportunities for relief valve discharges. EPA's proposal unfairly penalizes bulk production plants by effectively reducing by half the total number of polymeriza tion batches used to calculate the frequency of discharges as calculated under the formula contained in proposed section  ** * ABD00078683 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 28 61.70(d)(3). For example, rather than allowing one discharge for every 2,858 batches, as permitted for other processes hav ing the 0.35 discharges per 100 polymerization batches limit, the definitional provision of section 61.70(d)(6) reduces this to only one permissible discharge for every 5,716 batches. EPA provides no justification for this and we believe there is none. We strongly recommend that this section be changed to indicate that each prepolymerization batch and each postpolymerization batch are to be counted separately and individually in calculat ing the number of polymerization batches. III. The Vinyl Institute appreciates this opportunity to present its comments and looks forward to the promulgation of the revised proposal. We would be happy to provide additional information or support for the comments presented here and ABD00078684 Environmental Protection Agency February 25, 1985 Page 29 stand ready to assist the Agency in developing the best possible standard. Sincerely Enclosure cc: S. Wyatt R. Rosensteel L. Evans F. Dimmick G. Wood W.eT Holbrook, Chairman Manufacturing Practices Committee The Vinyl Institute