Document nX1wVxRdw2akKaVaVw430xXG

. PROM:KELLER g, HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 23. 1999 4:07PM S103 P.01 n, LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckman joeN i uk( gCA6t M. MICRMAM V1UAH . 00*0MtlAM', M* MALC0LM 0 N*AATMUR *WVMC V. 0lar VfAftCMCI O.MOnCI MARViM W CACOVia M0NN $ fLC CAAOkte.MA*A(f MANY MARTHA 6NAMARA MiCHACk r. MOAAOWC MAAft ** (V(W$ WJOOHMNM iI. AOlUCM0tACAA AftfA LMui CAUt A. ruuiMoretAlTtWC A. HKAAMCA VAWAfNCl A. MALAftiN AALAM A. 0IMM0MS ek. tocovhaalamj vicaa*actt t-HAA MILLAA HlCVUi | OAOXCH OCO*Af MiAKO FAttC***'! frAV.JA. maac e MAACUk A. CAM AAtAlCRl MUAP t CAAIO TAUYrtBT maAa A. MlCHACL A (MM(T 0 rRAMKUR R0OMf tAVM(A<MC A. AOSMRA wAiecMrAriAtvP |A. UKAlafrae<* R|^AkISTAM1M(K111*60m1TMM MAMMON C OCMMAN 0yBAN C. fOR* maAR l irjRorr 10AHM 6 MOUAI* 1160 IT" STREET. K.W. SUITE lOOO WASHISOTON. D.C. 80030 (SOB) 066-6600 September 25, 1989 MOT AONITTCt ' 0C- C'CMTirit %terr 5aNiIl i. OilvCA. CHAAWIf v. tftCOCA, 0 AOBtAT A. MATMCWR. 0 MMM A. M600RAMAA, A*. 0. HOLLY MUTMMC rL|* MUITIM0.AOWCLL.A- 0 T(lICOMMUM ICAt0ft U(UI CHAAvCJ r.TUAMRA T(LCX TRVCCOAiCA <tooi ttt-'or CA0LC AOOACOt "RffLMAM ttfUTMl 040CCT DIAL MUC" (202) 956-5747 VIA TELECOPY Me. Meredith Scheck The Vinyl Institute Wayne Interchange Plaza II 155 Route 46 West Wayne, NJ 07470 Re: EPA Proposed Rulemaking; Revisions to Vlnvl Chloride Standard Dear Meredith: Pursuant to Peter de la Cruz's request, enclosed for distribution to the Health, Safety and Environment Committ e 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 F d. 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 the 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 CTL020418 FROM:KELLER 8. HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE Ms. M r dith Scheck Sept mber 25, 1989 Page 2 SEP 25. 1989 4:08PM 3103 P.02 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 26, 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, idu LMJ Julie L. Whited Paralegal cc: W.C. Holbrook Larry Thomas Hugh Patrick Toner Robert D. Less, Esq. CTL020419 FROM'KELLER & HECKMAN TO1-THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1989 4:08PM 8103 P.03 Thursday September 21, 1989 i I Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Rule CTL020420 FROM:KELLER 8, HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 19B9 4:09PM ttl03 P.04 toactai KCgisier / voi. ;>. iso. / imu.-sum). jcpu-nitmi n, inoa / ni>)m>cu nmc____________ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CFR Part 61 IAD-FRL-J5W-9) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants AOENCY; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). action: Proposed rule and public hearing: petiti n for reconsideration. summary: On November 26.1986, the Society of the Plastics 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, I960, 51 FR 349(H). The SPI and three manufacturers (Dow Chemical Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Villa Chemical Company) concurrently filed a petition for review of the revisions to the VC standard with the U.S. Court of Appeal* for the District of Columble Circuit. The petitioners requested review of the definitions of "ethylene dichloride purification." "lteeak." "exhaust gas." "relief valve charge," and "3>hour period;" the pe of the relief valve discharge preov1 isions; and the leak detection and elimination previsions (area monitoring). The EPA has evaluated the petitions, and the Administrator proposes to grant the petitioners' request for clarification of certain of these provisions. Minor revisions are being proposed to correct ambiguities in several definitions and in the applicability of certain regulatory requirements In the VC atsndards. The proposed revisions would not increase the emissions [and the associated health risks) allowed by the standards at promulgated in September 1966. No changes, however, will be made with regard to area monitoring requirements or the relief valve discharge standard. This action provides EPA't 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 tha 1966 revised provisions Is being denied. In addition, this notice is not tntonded to address the recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court on the VC standards, Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. EPA, 624 F.Zd 1148 (198?). Any ^Mponse lo that decision will lie made future notice in the Federal Register. A public hearing will be held 10 provide interested parties an opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed revisions. dates: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 20. 1969. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by October ll, 1969. a public hearing will be held on October 15.1969, beginning at 10:00 a-m. Persons Interested in attending the hearing should call Ann Eleanor at (919) $415S76 to verify that a hearing will be held. Request lo Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must contact EPA by October 11.1989. addresses: Comments. Comments should be submitted in duplicate (if possible) to: Central Docket Section (LE-131). Attention: Docket No. A-81Zl, 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 hold at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina. Persons interested in attending (he hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should notify M*. Ann Eleanor. Standards Devsiopment Branch (MD-13), U.8. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone (919) $41-5578. Docket. A docket number A-61-21. containing information considered by EPA in the development of the promulgated standard* and the petition for stay and reconsideration, to which this notice is responding, is available for public Inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at PA's Centre! Docket Section, South Conference Center, Room 4.401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT! For further information and Interpretations of applicability, compliance requirements, and reporting aspect* of the revised standards, contact the appropriate Regional. Slate, or local office contact as listed in 40 CFR 60.4. For further information on the background for the proposed revised standards, contact Ms. Shirley Tsbicr, Standards Development Branch. Emission Standards Division (MD-13), ll.S. Environmental Ptoleclion Agency. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone (919) 541-5256. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background In December 1975. EPA designated VC as a hazardous sir pollutant under section 112 of ihe Clean Air Act (42 U.$C. 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 (F.DC) via oxychlorination. VC. and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other polymers containing VC. These plants are subject to a combination of emission 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 revisions to the national emission standard for VC. Subsequently, on November 26,1986. SPI filed with EPA a petition for stay and administrative reconsideration of seven provisions In the final revisions lo the VC standard. The SPI. Dow Chemical Company. Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Vista Chemical Company concurrently filed a petition for review of aeveral provisions of ihe revised standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The SPI is a nonprofit corporation whose members include processor* and manufacturers of plastic* or plastic products, suppliers of raw materials, processors and converter* of plastic resins, and manufacturers of accessory equipment for the plastics industry. The Vinyl Institute, s division of SPI. represents the major domestic producers of VC and PVC. n. Summary of SPI's Petition for Stay/ Reconsideration and EPA's Response Th* SPI requested that EPA issue a stay of the 1980 revisions to the VC standard pending review of those revised provisions. Their request for a slay was based on the following factors: (1) Certain provisions of the 1985 proposal were changed without adequate notice or |uatlfiction by EPA: (2) Industry members represented by SPI would suffer irreparable harm if the effectivcnoss of the 1966 revisions are not stayed during the review period: and (3) a slay will cause no harm to other parlies or the public interest. Tht EPA has considered the factor* presented by SPI in support of their request Tor stay of the 1986 VC revisions pending EPA's review of the revisions. Having considered the likelihood of SPI's success on the merits of its petition for reconsideration, the likelihood that SPI would be irreparably harmed obsen' a slay, the prospect that others would be V> > c / c f F < Vi c 8 aN ir. *: th C ev es in ve: V le* df CTL020421 FROM*KELLER & HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1939 4:10Pn 3133 P.e5 Federal Register / Vol. 54. N'o. 182 / Thursri.iv. September 21. 1889 / Proposed Rule* 38939 ha:n,i*d in the event of a tiny, and the BIO for the revised standards |pp. 2-54 public interest, the Administrator has nj 2-55). the facts of the situation not stayed the 1886 revisions of the VC resulting in these emissions needed to standard at issue hera. This is consistent be considered when deciding which purl with longstanding EPA policy to of the VC standard applied. Upon continue to enforce an existing reconsideration, EPA agree* with SPI's regulation until and unless a revision concern that tha final definition of becomes formally effective. The KP.Vs policy has been consistently approved by the courts in the context of State Implementation Plans. See Train v. S'RDC. 421 U.S. 60.82 (1875) ("This "exhaust gas" does not provide for exemption from the exhaust gas standard (10 ppm) when auch an emission Is judged to be a leak. Therefore, EPA la proposing to modify litigation, however, is carried out on (he the definition by adding two sentences polluter'* time not the public's, for which clarify that e leak is not an during (the pendency of a SIP revision] exhaust gas, and that aquipment the original regulations remain in effect, * containing exhaust gas must comply and the polluter's failure to comply may with 161.65(b)(6) requiring leek subject him to s variety of enforcement detection end prevention, whether or procedures.") The ralionele in Train not that equipment contains 10 percent applies with equal force to regulations by volume VC. This proposed addition promulgated under section 112. assures that leaks from exhaust gas Therefore. EPA hereby denies SPI's streams are subject to the leak detection request for a stay pending EPA'a and elimination requirements, but that reconsideration of the VC standard. In the petition for review of the such leaks will not also be classified as "exhaust gas." revised standard. SPI claimed that the 1886 promulgated revision* differed Definition of "Relief Valve Discharge " significantly from the revialoni that The SPI objected to a sentence added were proposed on January 9,1885 (50 FR to the 1980 final definition of "relief ne2j. valve discharge," 40 CFR 61.81 (y), which The SPI asserted that without lated that a relief valve discharge adequate notice. EPA's 1886 revisions would be exempt from regulation If changed key provisions of the VC vented to a control device, but only if standard in a manner that: (1) Violated the control device meets the 10 ppm case law; (2) imposed new penalties: (9) emission limit. The SPI pointed out that created multiple penalties for the same a double violation could occur (l.e.. of event: and (4) expanded the types of the relief valve discharge and exhaust equipment subject to the standard. The gas standards) if a relief valve discharge following discussion summarizes their is vented to a control device not meeting concerns and EPA's responses. 10 ppm. If interpreted to impose double Definition of "Exhoost Cos" The SPI requested a review of sc*, cral definitions :r. the VC standard. According to SPI. the 1888 final definition of "exhaust gas." 40 CFR 61.6)(x). 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 penalties, this provision, in SPI's view, would exceed EPA's statutory authority and unlawfully increase the maximum statutory penalty set by Congress for a single event that leads to a violation of a NESHAP. The SPI believes that owners/ operators of regulated facilities have sufficient economic incentive (preventing releases of ihelr product) to ensure that pressure relief valves work as designed, regardless of the standard promulgated. Moreover, the final gas stendard if more than 10 ppm of VC are emitted. Reconsideration was requested because leaks fiom equipment in VC service would exceed the 10 ppm emission limitation for exhaust gases, thereby subjecting industries to a potential fine of S25.0C0 per day for each leak. definition contradicts past regulatory interpretation that relief valve discharges ducted to flares ar.d other control devices arc exempt from tha exhaustens standard. The EPA agrees that venting a relief valve discharge (RVD) to a combustion device achieves significant emission It was not EPA's Intent to categorize reduction benefits. These devices, whan every* leak of greater than 10 ppm as an properly designed and operated, exhaust gas. The sentence was omitted general!} have efficiencies of 88 percent In the final definition becaute tome cr greater. The use of combustion emissions which are required to be devices are not expected to Increase the vented to a control device cannot be number of RVD's. Thus, because automatically categorized as either a leak or exhaust gas by a general definition. As staled in the promulgation regulated facilities do have some economic Incentive to ensure that RVD's are minimized, the not RVD emission reduction resulting from the use of combustion devices should approach 88 percent or moic. Therefore, minor revisions to the definition of "relief valve discharge" and to the RVD provisions ({61.65(a)) are being proposed to clarify that an RVD routed to a properly designed and operated control device would be exempted from the provision* of the RVD etandtrd. This change would prevent misinterpretation of tho regulatory requirements and Imposition of a doublo penalty. In addition, new provisions (J 61.65(d)) have been added for an RVD that is ducted to a control device that Is continually operating while emissions from the release are present at the device. An RVD that ie ducted to t control device, other than a flare, would be subject to the 10 ppm limit and the continuous emission monitoring system requirement contained In ( 61.68 and to the reporting requirement* of 161.70. In the case of flares, emission monitoring is not possible. Therefore, for RVD's routed to a flare, the design requirement* for flares (40 CFR 60.18) would apply. The EPA recognise* that measurement of relief valve discharge volumetric flow rates and gas stream composition it not possible using the method* set forth in | 60.18 (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 operation* would be monitored in accordance with the requirements of $ f 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of { 60.18(d), the volume end component concentration of each RVD would be estimated and calculations would be made to verify ongoing compliance with the design and operating requirements of { 60.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more than one relief valvo Is discharged simultaneously to a singlt flare, these calculations would account for tha cumulative effect on all euch RVD's. If the results of the monitoring contained in f 60.18(f)(2) or any other information show that the pilot flame la not present 100 percent of the time during which an RVD It routed to a flare, the RVD is subject to the provisions of i 61.65(a). A report describing the flare design must be provided lo the Administrator not later than 90 days after the adoption of this provision or within 30 days of the installation of a Clara system fer control of RVD's, whichever is later. Definition of 0 "Leak " The SPI obfneted to EPA'e defining "Indications of liquid dripping" at a "leak," 40 CFR 61.61(w). The SPI CTL020422 FROM: KELLER 8. HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1989 4:11PM 8103 P.06 ' 38940 federal Remitter / Vol. 54. No. 182 / Thursday. September 21. 1989 / Proposed Rules afe|tifsled that die phrase be deleted or 3-hour averages). The SPI objected that ^^iK'd to refer to VC since dripping a single, 1-hour 10 ppm exceedance ^Pjulds may not always contain VC. could result in three violations of the 10 In the VC standard, the portion of the ppm exheust gss standard, under the leak definition referring to "indications revised definition of "3-hour period." of liquid dripping" applies only to pumps This could lead to double or triple In VC service. The RPA believes that penalties, "thereby exceeding the "Indications of liquid dripping" are an maximum penally permissible under the ppropriata criterion for requiring repair Clean Air Act." actions on double mechanical seal Upon reconsideration. EPA proposes pumps in VC service and. therefore, to further revise the definition of "3-hour should be included in the definition of a period" to ensure that a single event of leak. As staled in the BID for the 1988 1-hour or less at 10 ppm or greater could promulgated revisions, visible leakage result in no more than a single violation from all types of pump seals. Including of the exhaust gas standard. A phrase double mechanical seals required by the has been added to the definition in VC standard, is generally indicative of 61.8i(x) to accomplish this. The seal wear even If no VC is present In the EPA did not intend to penalize e plant leaking fluid- To prevent further seal three times whenever a 10 ppm event wear resulting in major seal failure occurs within 1 hour. Rather, EPA allowing VC emissions into the wanted to ensure that a combination of atmosphere. the seals should be two or more 10 ppm events which would repaired soon after leakage ia initially result in a 3-hour exceedance do not go delected. After further consideration of unpenalized just because they occurred SPl'e concern, however, EPA agrees lhat over two separate 3-hour "blocks." The tome amount of barrier fluid leakage is proposed revised definition of "3-hour normal. Therefore. ERA proposes to period" satisfies EPA's intent without revise the standard* for pumps unintentionally subjecting a plant (I 1.242--2(d)) to clarify the owner/operator to multiple violations. requirements for pump teal drips. Section 61242-2(d)(4) addresses drips from pump seals that contain VC. and Definition of "Ethylene Dichloride Purification" i 01-242--2(d)(6) addresses drips from According to SPI. the 1986 final ^fetmp seals that do not contain VC. revisions changed the definition of EDC ^BThe proposed revised provisions of purification. 40 CFR 61.81(0). The ~T61.242-2(d] are designed to accomplish promulgated definition excluded product two purposes. One it to ensure that VC storage following the final VC finishing leaks from pump teals are detected and column, end thus exempted such storage eliminated. This it accomplished by from the exhaust get standard. The SPI paragraphs (d)(4) (i). (ii). and (iii). The believes that EPA intended to exclude other purpose is to identify and prevent not only EDC final product storage but pump teal failures by causing abnormal also intermediate product storage dripping (even when VC is not (before the final finishing column) based contained in the dripping liquid) to be on EPA's response to comments detected and repairs to be made. This is contained in the BID (pp. 2-43 and 2-44) accomplished by paragraphs (d)(0) (), and in the BID summary of changes (ii). (iii), and (iv). These paragraphs since proposal (pp. 1-2). Although it require the facility owner/upcralor to supports the exemption of final EDC establish criteria associated with normal product storage from the definition. SPI operation. requested that EPA also exempt The intent of the proposed revised intermedistt EDC product storage- In provisions is identical to the existing addition, one SPI company, a major provisions. The diffarenre is that the producer of VC monomer and PVC proposed i 8l242.2(dH6)(i) allows an polymer, provided information on nine owncr/operaior to lake into account the crude and intermediate storage tanks at small number of liquid drips that may one of its facilities. The information occur when new teals are in place or included tank sizes, design, emissions arc otherwise associated with normal estimates, and coats. This company operation. requested EPA to exclude intermediate Definition of "3-hoar Pc'unl" and crude, as well as final EDC storage tanks, from the definition. The SPJ noted thul in the September The EPA agrees that it intended to Mflii final rule, EPA edJed a definition exempt crude and intermediate storage of 'M-hour period" 40 CFP. f.l.Otf/.). to tanks from 'he exhaust gas standard. clarify that the emission limits in the The definition ol "EDC purification" has Jixh.iust gas standard (JO ppm) is a 3- been revised to clarify that emissions average. The definition crcaies from crude, intermediate, tnd final ^K'.ling" averages (24 3-hour averages sioniga tanks billowing KDC formation per d;y) rather than "block" average* (8 are nut subject to the standard*. In addition, i 81.65(b)(0). Opening of equipment, has also been revised to clarify that the requirements in this section do not apply to crude, intermediate, or final EDC storage leaks. As staled in the BID response (pp. 2-43 through 2-45). EPA evaluated the reasonableness of regulating EDC storage tanks under the VC' standard. Based on emissions data submitted by the eommenters, uncontrolled VC emissions from Intermediate and final EDC storage tanks at a typical F.DC/VC plant were estimated to be 0.1 to 2 Mg/ yr. An emission reduction as high as 14 Mg/yr from all plants would be achieved bated on venting existing EDC storage tanks to an existing primary control device (Incinerators). Prior to the September 1988 rule. EPA concluded that regulation of these tanks under the VC standard was not warranted. In response to SPi't petition for reconsideration. EPA has evaluated the data submitted by one SPI company (Docket Entry No. VMM) for nine crude and intermediate EDC storage tanks before the final finishing column at one of Its facilities. These tanks era currently uncontrolled. The data included lank sizes, design, emissions estimates, and costs. The company's estimates of the total uncontrolled emissions (0.002 to 0.323 Mg/yr VC) for the nine crude end intermediate tanks fall at the low end of the range of individual VC tank emission estimates made by EPA for EDC final product storage tanks. This Information is consistent with EPA's position that the regulation of crude end intermediate storage tanks is unnecessary because emissions are extremely low. l-cok Detection ond Elimination Under the 1976 VC standard. 40 CKR Ci.65(b)(8). companies installed area monitors end developed plant-specific leak dclcction and elimination programs that included the routine use of portable monitors. Subsequently, EPA developed a generic leak detection and elimination program (subpart V. 40 CFR 61.240-- 61.247] based on equipment and data for the organic chemical and petroleum industries. Tna 1986 revisions incorporated the aubpart V provisions into the VC standard. The SPI cppoe* the addition of the aubpart V provision* to the VC standard. The SPI argued *h* existing programs are effective withoj* the aubpart V provisions and that F- 6 derision to retain area monitoring requirements from the 19*6 t!an"?vl_ questionable since they have not required for other industries *u ,SPL subpnrl V. In addition, according * no justification has been given tor CTL020423 k '* FROM:KELLER & HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1909 4:12PM S103 P.0? Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 182 / Thursday. September 21. 1TO9 / Proposed Rules 33941 rcouiring retention of area monitors in requlttfr.enls/prrformnnrc measures In add.lion lo subpart V. Although a the VC standard (e.g.. leaks from relief program under E 6165|t>)i8| valves. 161.65(b)(4) snd rotating pumps, demonstrating less than 2 percent of f 61.85(b)(3)|i)|. However, this vibes Irukir.g is considered "effective." exemption includes all of the such a program is exempt only from recordkeeping and reporting certain parts of subpart V. For these requirements of I f 61.240 and 61.247 reasons. SP1 requests reinstatement of because these requirements mainly the leak detection and elimination affect valves. The exemption for requirements contained in the 1970 VC marking, recordkeeping, and reporting standard. applies lo the entire process unit. The Upon reconsideration. EPA proposes exemptions (provided in the VC to make no changes in the application of subparl V to the VC standard and the requirements for fixed area monitoring (I 6l.05(b)(8Ki)). The basis for adding subparl V to the VC standard was explained in detail In the preamble to standard) to subpari V were designed, bated on comments made during the public comment period, to avoid unnecessary change* to existing leak detection plane which are effective In detecting and repairing VC leaks. the proposed revisions (50 FR1190-1191 januury 9.1985). and the justification for those requirements hat not rhanged since that time. The EPA believe* that the area monitoring and icibpari V approaches both have benefits and are not rcdundanL In particular, area monitors allow for quick detection of certain large VC leaks that fnight otherwise go undetected until the next routine portable monitoring screening, as well as detection of large leaks from equipment not affected by subparl V (*> agitators). The area monitors have already been purchased by subjoct 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 a* pari of a program to reduce teaks to below 2 percent, and therefore, as discussed below, an owncr/operstor does not have to conduct the leak detection and repair provisions of subpart V, Any plant with an effective existing program under f 61.65(b)(8) for detecting and repairing teaks can control equipment leaks willtout complying with the subpart V provisions. Spacifically, if an owner/operator can demonstrate that less than 2.0 percent of valves are leaking in any process unit, then that process unit is exempt from f! 812421(d) (marking). 61.242--7(a) (monitoring). 61.346 (recordkeeping), and 61.247 (reporting). To demonstrata that less than 2.0 percent of valves are leaking, the owncr/operator must oonduct performance lest initially, annually, and at any other times requested by the Administrator. If, during any Scop* ofRelief Valve Discharge Provisions The SPf opposes EPA's withdrawal of the 1985 proposed numerical limits for relief valve discharges and has requested that EPA reconsider its decision to retain the emergency discharge Provision of the 1976 standard, 40 CFR 61.65(a). The SPI claimed that the 1976 standard "impermissibly delegates rulemaking authority to enforcement personnel and it unconstitutionally vague and that, as applied, the regulation is unfair, unlawful, arbitrary and capricious." The SPI prefers the propotod numerical limits because they would remedy that* roblamt and reduce the administrative urden on EPA and industry. The SPI also believee that the proposed numerical limits are stricter than the 1970 emergency discharge provision because "each discharge causing an exceedance of any numerical limit ' * * would be considered a violation without regard to whether any Individual discharge was preventable." The EPA has reviewed the basis for the decision not to promulgate numerical limits for RVD's and has decided that the 1976 standard Is still reosonable and approprials. The 1976 standard permits only "emergency" RVD's, those that could not have oeen avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. A detailed discussion of the basis for not promulgating the numerical limit* for RVD's Is contained in the preamble for the promulgated amendments (51 FR 34905-34906. September 30.1966). and SPI ha* not provided any new performance test, the percentage of information that would affect EPA's leaking vulvcs exceeds 2.0 percent, then decision. In summary, the decision to the owner/operator must comply with jubpart V within 90 days. This # retain the original 1976 RVD standard was made after considering the exemption only applies to the standards revisions In light of public comments on for valve* ({ 61.242-7(a)(b)(c)) because the numerical limits, snd after review of the other standards in subpart V Interface with specific equipment the basis for the derision to reformat the standard. In particular, several public comments un the 1985 proposed amendments expressed concern that preventable RVD's would be (flowed under the revised standard and that the performance allowed under the revised standard could b inconsistent with that allowed under the original standsrd. Other comments expressed concern that the revised standard included no mechanism for regulating very Urge RVD's. The basis for the statement that a Urge EPA resource commitment u required for enforcing the 1976 RVD standard was also questioned. The EPA's review revealed that the burden on Its resource* bad diminished ts experience with the implementation of the standard increased and as the industry's understanding of the provisions of the existing standard became clearer. Thus, It was not necessary to revise (he format of the RVD standard. Compared to the 1965 proposal, the existing standard also has the advenuge* of affecting all preventable RVD's end providing better regulation or Urge volume RVD's. Therefore, for the reasons stated, EPA's review of the record supports the existing standard. Based on the EPA's experience with administering the VC standard of | 61.65(a), one major deficiency with the type of information submitted in many of the ItHlsy report* of RVD's has been recognized This concerns that information required to be reported by the standard regarding, "die action that was taken to prevent the discharge." For purposes of clarification, this portion of the standard requires information an the action taken to prevent or address the cause leading up to tbs RVD release and not only the action taken after an event or cause occurs that results in an RVD release. Emission Monitoring Clarification In addition to the changes made in response to the petition for reconsideration, a minor clarification has been made in 161.68, Emission monitoring. The existing regulation. I 61.66(b), states that the VC monitoring system(s) that t* need to meet the continuous monitoring requirements in paragraph (a) (of | 61.88) lor emissions from sources for which emission limits are prescribed is to be a device which obtains air samples on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes them. Since it is obvious that paragraph (a) of 161.68 calls for the monitoring of the amissions from prescribed sources for vinyl chloride and not ambient air sampling as required under 1 61.65(b)(8) for leak deteetlon/ellmlnition.! 61.88(b) CTL020424 FROM:KELLER g, HECKMAN TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE SEP 25. 1989 4:13PM 103 P ' 38942 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 182 f Thursday, September 21. 1989 / Proposed Kuies hat been clarified lo require that i representative (not air) eamplee from one or more applicable emission points be obtained and analyzed. This revision tjeore accurately reflects the original plent. 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)(5) of the Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentations sh uld contact EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes etch. Any member of the public may file a written statement with EPA before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements 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 hours at EPA's Central Docket Section in Washington. DC (see addresses section of this preamble). B. Docket The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted t r otherwise considered in tnhe development of this proposed liemaking. The principal purposes of %,je docket ate: (1) To allow interested jarties 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 and Budget Reviewt 1. Paperwork Reduction Act There are no information collection requirements associated with this proposed rulemaking. 2. Under Executive Order 12281. EPA must judge whether a regulatory action is "ma)or" 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 advtrse economic effects described in the Order. This rulemaking was submilled to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12281. Any written comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response lo those comments arc included in Docket No. A-61-21. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section that it listed under the adorimee section of this notice. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires tne identification of potentially adverse impaclt of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act pacifically requires the completion of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those Instances where small business Impacts re possible. Because those proposed minor revisions impose no adverse economic impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 1 hereby certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects la 40 CFR Part 61 Air pollution control. Asbestos, Benzene. Beryllium. Hazardous materials. Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: September 12,1969. William K. Reilly. Administrator. For the reasons set forth In ihs preamble. it Is propoied to amend 40 CFR part 61 as follows: PART 61--(AMENDED) 1. The authority cltatton for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 101,112,114.116.301. Clean Air Act ae amended: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412.7414.7416, 7601. 2. Section 61.61 Is amendod by revising paragraph* (o). (w). (x). (y). and. (t) to read aa follows: f 61.61 Definition*. t (0) Ethylene dichloride purification includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride purification following ethylene dichlorid* formation, but excludos crude, intermediate, and final ethylene dichlorlde storage tanks. < I 6 I (w) Leak means any of several events that Indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment. Leaks Include events regulated under subpart V of this pari such ar. (1) An Instrumcnl reading of 10.000 ppm or greater measured according to Method 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR part GO); (2) A sensor dtrioclion of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both: (3) Detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background for equipment designated for no detectable emission* measured according to Test Method 21 (tee appendix A of 40 CFR part 60): end (4) In the case of pump seals regulated under 161.242-2, indications of liquid dripping constituting a leak under f 81.242-2. Leaks also include events regulated under | 61.65(b](8)(l) for detection of ambient concentrations In excess of background concentrations. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. (x) Exhaust gas means any offgas (the constituent! of which mey consist of any fluids, either as 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 161.82 (a) and (b): 181.63(a): 181.64 (a)(1). (b). (c). and (d): | 61.65 (b)(l)(ii). (b)(2). (b)(3). (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii).(b)f7) and (b)(9)(ii): and { 61.65(d). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not an exhaust gas. Equipment which contains exhaust gas is sub|ect to 161.65(b)(6), whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. (y) Relief Valve Discharge moans any nonleak 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 9-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm docs not exceed the number of l-nour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm. 3. Section 61.65 Is amended by revising paragraphs (s) and (b)(6) Introductory text, and adding paragraph (d) lo read as follows: 6 1.S5 Emission standard tor ethylene dlchlortde, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. 99 (o) Relief valve discharge. Except tor an emergency relief discharge, and except as provided in 161.05(d). there it lo be no discharge to the aimoaphero from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride service. An emergency relief discharge means s discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the dischurge. Within 10 days of any relief valve discharge, except for those sub|rrt to | PI.65(d). the owner or operator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs shall submit lo the Ad.v.ir.istrulut a report in writing CTL020425 FROMKELLER 8. HECKMAN > TO:THE UINYL INSTITUTE I *V SEP 25. 19B9 4:14PM 8103 P.09 ruMdirtinj! infurm.ilion on thi* uriurrr. n.i'ure nnd r.iu.io of the disch.irjn*. ifn* ri.:c jnd imu* of the discharge, tin* opp:o\im.ite total vinyl chlorijn Iovk dur:.':s the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl ehlnridv loss (the e jlculation of the vinyl chloride loss', the action that whs i.ikop to prriCRl the discharge. and mc.isurcs adop'i'd to prevent future disi:hn:m:s. (b| (f'J Opening of equipment. Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of equipment (excluding crude, intermediate, and final EDC storage tanks. but including prcpolymcrl2ation reactors used in the manufacture of bull resins and loading or unloading lines that are not opened to the atmosphere after each loading or unloading operation) arc to be minimized as follows: f * I (d) A KVU that Is dueled to a control device that is continually operating while emissions from the release are present at the device is subject to the following requirements: (1) A discharge from a control device other then a flare shall not exceed 10 ppm (average over a 3-hour period) as determined by the continuous emission monitor system required under | 61.68. Such a discharge is subject to the requirements of 161.70. (2) For s discharge routed to a flare, the flare shall comply with the requirements of { 60.18. (i) Flare operations shall be monitored in accordance with the requirements of I i 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For tha purposes of) 60.18(d). the volume and component concentration of each relief valve discharge shall be estimated and calculations shall be made to verify ongoing compliance with the design and operating requirements of ft 60.18 (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 uch relief valve discharges. These calculations shall be made and reported quarterly for all discharges within the quarter. Failure to comply with any of the requirements of this paragraph will be a viol ition of { C1.MMK2). Monitoring for the pios<*ni;e of a fl.ir.* pilot flame ahull bu conducted in accordance with 601610(2). If the results of this monitoring or ary other information shows that the pilot flj.T.e is not present 10O percent of the lime during which a relief valve discharge is routed to the flare, the relief valve discharge is subject to the provisions of | 61.65(a). (ii) A report describing the flare design shall ba provided to tha Administrator not later than 00 days after the adoption of this provision or within 30 days of the Installation of a flare system for control of relief valve discharge whichever Is later. The flare design report shall include calculations 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 Instant the polymerization starts): and estimated maximum exit velocities based upon tha design throat capacity of the gas in tha relief valve. 4. Section 61.68 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) to read as follows; ($1.41 Emlselonmonitoring. (b) The vinyl chloride monitoring tystem(s) used to meet the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section is to be a device which obtains 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 hvdrocarbons measured ere vinyl chloride, with Infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an alternative method. * * # 5. Section 01.242-2 of subpart V ia mended by revising paragraph (d) Introductory text, (d)(5) and (d)(6) and by adding paragraphs (d)(4) (I), (it) and (Ui) to read as follows: I #1442-2 Standards:Pumps. (ill R.irh pump equipped with a d..il mudiHniiMl seal system that incluif.-s a barrier fluid system is exempt from *.hc requirements of paragraphs (a) and (I.) of tin's section, prodded the following requirements arc met: (4) * * (i) If there tire indications of liqu. J dripping from the pump seal at the time of the weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified in 161.245 to determine the presence of VOC and VHAP in the barrier fluid. (ii) If the monitor reading (taking into account any background readings) indicates the presence of VHAP. a leak is detected. For the purpose of this paragraph, the monitor may be calibrated with VHAP, or may employ a gas chromatography column to limit the response of the monitor to VHAP, at the option of tha owner or operator. (lii) If an instrument reading of 10.000 ppm or greater (total VOC] Is measured, a leak is detected. (5) F-ach sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section ia checked daily or is equipped with an audible alarm. (6) (i) The owner or operator determines, based on oesign considerations and operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency of drips and to the senior that Indicates failure of the seal system, the banter fluid system, or both. (ii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump teal exceed the criteria established in paragraph (d)(B)(i) of this section, or if, based on the criteria established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, the sensor indicates failure of tho seal system, tha barrier fluid system, or both, a leak is delected. (lit) When a leak is delected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not liter than 15 calendar days after It is detected, except at provided in f 61242ID. (iv) A first attempt at repair shell be made no later than five calendar days after each leak is detected. It4 {Fit Doc. 46-22147 Piled 9-20-88; 8:4S m] aiLLMO coot wo eo n CTL020426