Document p6x0Z2MpnR5ONvRnQzre6m2D

TO: Distribution FROM: DATE: SUBJ: J. C. Ledvina October 9, 1989 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO VCM NESHAP You should have already received a copy of the proposed revision to the VCM NESHAP. The revisions are based on extensive negotiation and input from Vista and the Vinyl Institute. They fine tune the standard and give us a little better chance at compliance. I've enclosed a summary of the proposal that appeared in Environment Reporter. I urge you to read the full text. j. C. Ledvina dlj .400 cc: H. D. Garrison-Okc, R. A. Conrad-LCVCM, R. W. Seymour-Aber Distribution: D. R. Booth-LCVCM, J. Callen-Okc, F. Jeanson-Aber VAB.0001166503 .956 ENVIRONMENT REPOR be recognized by the Department of the Interior, have sub stantial governmental duties and powers, have authority to regulate the quality of reservation waters, and be able to administer the program, the proposal said. According to EPA, tribes and states are not precluded from adopting water quality standards that the agency may consid er too stringent and EPA does not have authority to disap prove standards for this reason. However, EPA clearly has authority to disapprove standards that it considers less strin gent than necessary to comply with the Water Act. the agency said. The proposed rule describes several dispute resolution techniques, including mediation and non-binding arbitration, that EPA may use to resolve state/tribal disputes. Comments on the proposed rule should be sent by Dec. 21 to David K. Sabock, Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585), Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 475-7315. Hearings on the proposal will be held Nov. 14 in Phoenix, Ariz.: Nov. 16 in Rapid City, S.D.; and Dec. 5 in Washington, D.C. Air Pollution TERMS IN VINYL CHLORIDE STANDARD PROPOSED FOR CLARIFICATION BY EPA Definitions of "leak detection" and other terms contained in 1986 administrative revisions to the Environmental Pro tection Agency's vinyl chloride standard would be clarified under a Sept. 21 proposal. The standards set limits on emissions from equipment leaks at plants that produce vinyl chloride, polyvinyl chlo ride, and ethvlene dichloride by oxvchlorination. EPA said (54 FR 38938). The proposal was made under the Clean Air Act and is published in the Full Text Section of this issue. No changes would be made to emission limits under the proposal. EPA seeks to clarify the definitions in response to a petition by the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc., Dow Chemical Co.. Georgia Gulf Corp., and Vista Chemical Co. In discussing leak detection, the agency said it was correct to include "indications of dripping" as a sign that double mechanical seal pumps would need repair. However, EPA said it agrees that some amount of barrier fluid leakage is normal, and therefore proposed to revise the provisions to clarify it, as it pertains to pump seals that contain vinyl chloride, and those that do not contain vinyl chloride. Other definitions proposed for clarification included those for exhaust gas, relief valve discharge, and three-hour averaging. The industry petition also requested a stay of enforcement while EPA considered the request, a request the agency proposed to deny, Shirley Tabler of the agency's standards development branch told BNA Sept. 21. Comments should be sent in duplicate by Nov. 20 to Docket No. A-81-21, Central Docket Section. EPA, 401 M St. S.W, Washington, D.C. 20460. For more information, contact Tabler, Standards Development Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), EPA, Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27711 at (919) 541-5256. To request a public hearing contact by Oct. 11 Ann Eleanor at the same North Carolina address, or call (919) 541-5578. Air Pollution PENNSYLVANIA'S AVERAGING RULES DEFICIENT; EPA IMPOSES CORRECTION SCHEDULE FOR BUBBLES The Environmental Protection Agency Sept. 21 said Penn sylvania's state implementation plan is deficient in its regu lation of emissions averaging, or bubbles, and banking of emissions control credits (54 PR 38901). The agency first notified the state in May 1988 that its SIP was deficient. The Sept. 21 notice reiterates that finding and imposes a correction schedule. EPA said. Pennsylvania's bubble and banking regulations are defi cient in its baseline standards, involvement of new sources, and opportunity for public notice and comment, EPA said. The agency also listed 52 counties that have deficient bubble and banking rules. The state's proposal was for a "generic" bubble that would not be tied to a specific pollutant. For more information, contact Cynthia H. Stahl, EPA Region III, Air Management Division, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107; telephone (215) 597-9337. Alaska EPA proposed to approve a revision to the Alaska SIP regulating fugitive emissions < 54 FR 37948). Comments should be sent by Oct. 16 to Laurie M. Krai, Air Programs Branch, EPA, 1200 Sixth Ave., AT-082, Seattle, Wash. 98101. Louisiana EPA Sept. 13 reopened the comment period for a proposal to approve a revision to the Louisiana SIP that would allow an alternate emission reduction plan, or bubble, at the Vistal Chemical Co., Westlake (54 FR 37815). Comments should be sent by Oct. 13 to Thomas H. Diggs, EPA Region VI, Air Programs Branch, Mail Code 6T-AN, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Maine EPA Sept. 11 proposed to approve a revision to the Maine SIP that would reduce volatile organic compound wmiMinmc by reducing the Reid vapor pressure of gasoline (54 FR 37479). Comments should by sent by Oct. 11 to Louis F. Gitto, Director. Air Management Division, Room 2311, JFK Feder al Building, Boston, Mass. 02203; and to the Maine Depart ment of Environmental Protection, Upham Building, 71 Hos pital St.. Augusta, Maine 04333. Ohio bept. 13 disapproved a revision to the Ohio SIP that would have extended the compliance date and relaxed ozone emissions limits at Navistar's surface coating lines (54 FR 37795). The rule will take effect Oct. 13. For more information, call Uylaine E. McMahan at (312) 886-6031. EPA Sept. 19 disapproved a revision to the Ohio SIP that would have redesignated Montgomery County from non attainment to attainment for total suspended particulates (54 FR 38518). The rule will take effect Oct. 19. For more information, call Maggie Greene at (312) 886-6088. Rhode Island EPA Sept. 19 approved a revision to the Rhode Island SIP allowing an emissions trade for sulfur dioxide emissions from the University of Rhode Island (54 FR 38517). 8-29-89 Copyrignt c 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, me.. Washington. D.C. 0013-92150 VAB.0001166504 ** '* K V4 ENVIflQfMENTAk PNOTECTIOH AGENCY . ^-1 40 CFR Part 91 [AO-FRL-3508-8) F National Emiaalon Standards for Hazardous Air Podutants; Ravlalona to Vinyl CMorids; Equipment Leake of Volatile Hazardous Air PoHutanta AOCMCv: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule and public hearing; petition 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, SI FR 34904). The SPI and three manufacturers (Dow Chemical Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Vista Chemical Company) concurrently filed a petition for review OTTnrrerwitmrnrine vl rosnoarcr wun the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The petitioners requested review of the definitions of "ethylene dichloride purification,'*' "leak," "exhaust gas," "relief valve discharge," and "3-hons period;" the. scope of the relief vahradibdhwgp . provisions; and the led: detection and eliminate* penetete-- foreri monitoring}: The KM. Imreveluated Ar proposes to grant the petitioners' request for clarification of certain of these provisions.lfl-- wiIsImm am in severer definitions and in the appUrebilipofcaeMa regufcfecy requirements te ten VC standards. The proposed revisions would not increase the emissions (and the associated health* risks) allowed by the standards as promulgated in September 1968. No changes, however, will be made with regard to area monitoring requirements or the relief valve dischargestandard. This action provides 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 petitioners* request for stay of the 1986 revised provisions is being denied. In addition, this notice Is not intended to address the recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court cm the VC standards. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v.EPA. 824 F.2d 1148(1987). Any . response-to that decision will be made in e future notice in the Federal Register. ymbite hearing will be held ter. * parties an. * opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or aiguments com the proposed revisions. dates: Comments. Comments received on or before November 1989. bm- Public Hearing. If anyone c EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by October 11,1969, a publte hearing will be held on October SR. beginning at 10:00 a.m. Person* interested in attending the hearing should call Ann Eleanor at (919| 9415978 to verify that a hearing wiibsMl Request to Speak at Hearing, wishing to present oral test! contact EPA by October U, ust addresses: Comments. Cbmxn should be submitted in. duplicate possible) to: Central Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No-A-te-- 21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street SW., Wateingtoa^ DC 20460. ** Public Hearing. If anyone contacts - EPA requesting a public hearing it will be kakt akEPA's Office of AdmtaUtretfen Auditorium, Reaeairefc-- - Triangle Park, North Carolina, ftraons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral testimoag should notify Mr AmEleanor, Standard* Development french (MD-13), (UL EnvironmentalPsotection Agenqr, Rsaaatdk Trfaqgfo Park, North Gnfoite 277T1. tefephone (919) 541-557R DackeL A.docket, number A-8K-21, containfaginformation considered faw EPAia the development of the promulgated standards and the petition forssteavyaandrieconsideration, to which thi* notice la responding, is avadablefor public inapectioo-between 8:00 are and 3c3D p.im, Monday through Friday, aft BPA's Central Dteket Section, Sooth Conference Center. Room 4.401M Street SW., Washington, DC reasonable fee may be charged copying. FOR FARTHER INFORMATION CO For further information and interpretations of applicability; compliance requirements, and aspects of the revised standards, the appropriate Regional State, office contact as listed in 40 CFG0R4 For further information on the background for the proposed standards, contact Ms. Shirley Standards Development Branchy Emission Standards Division ( U.S. Environmental Protection Research Triangle Park, North GhroUna 27711, telephone (919) 541-525&. aaFFUMBNTARV information: . L Background * In December 1975, EPA designated VC a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 UJ.C 7412) and promulgated final rules for VC on October 21,1976 (40 CFR 6100-61.71). The standards limit emfirefans of VC from plants producing ethylene dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination. VC, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other polymers containing VC. These plants are subject tea combination of emission limits, equipment and work practice requirements at numerous points in the murefocturing processes. On September 30.1988 (51 FR 34904), DA promulgated several administrative clarifying revisions to foe national ereission standard for VC. Subsequently, on November 28, I960, SPI filed with EPA a petition for stay and administrative reconsideration of seven previsions in foe final revisions to the VC standard. The SPI Dow Chemical jQlapany, Georgia Gulf Corporation,- d Vista Chemical Company concurrently filed a petition for review a|several provisions of foe revised dard with foe U.S. Court of Appeals he D.C. Circuit The SPI is e nonprofit corporation whose members include processors and manufacturers of plastics or plastic products, suppliers of rawmaterials, processors and converters of plastic resins, and manufacturers of accessory equipment for the plastics industry. The Vinyl Institute, a division of SPI represents the major domestic producers of VC and PTC EL Summary of SPI's Petition for Stay/ Reconsideration and EPA's Response The SPI requested that EPA issue a stay of foe 1986 revisions to the VC standard pending review of those revised provisions. Their request for a stay was based on foe following factors: (1) Certain provisions of the 1985 proposal were changed without adequate notice or justification by EPA: (2) inAmhy members represented by SPI would softer irreparable harm if the effectiveness of foe 1988 revisions are not stayed during foe review period: and (3) a stay will cause no harm to other parties or foe public interest The EPA has considered the factors presented by SPI in support of their request for stay of the 1988 VC revisions pendfog EPA's review of the revisions. Having considered the likelihood of SPFfcamcess on the merits of its petition Foe reconsideration, the likelihood that SPI would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, the prospect that others would be VAB.000116650 T Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 38939 harmed in the event of a stay, and the public interest, the Administrator has not stayed die 198ff revisions of the VC standard at issue her* This is consistent with long-standing EPA policy to continue to enforce an existing regulation until and unless a revision becomes formally effective. The EPA's policy has been consistently approved by the courts in the context of State Implementation Plans. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 80,02 (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, and the polluter's failure to comply may subject him to a variety of enforcement procedures.") The rationale in Train applies with equal force to regulations promulgated under section 112. Therefore. EPA hereby denies SPI's request for a stay pending EPA's reconsideration of the VC standard. In the petition for review of the revised standard, SPI claimed that the 1986 promulgated revisions differed significantly from the revisions that were proposed on January 9,1985 (50 FR 1182). The SPI asserted that without adequate notice, EPA's 1986 revisions changed key provisions of the VC standard in a manner that: (1) Violated case law; (2) imposed new penalties; (3) created multiple penalties for the same event; and (4) expanded the types of equipment subject to the standard. The following discussion summarizes their concerns and EPA's responses. Definition of "Exhaust Gas " The SPI requested a review of several definitions in the VC standard. According to SPI, the 1986 final definition of "exhaust gas," 40 CFR 61.61(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 gas standard if more than 10 ppm of VC are emitted. Reconsideration was requested because leeks from equipment in VC service would exceed the 10 ppm emission limitation for exhaust gases, thereby subjecting industries to a potential fine of $25,000 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 automatically categorized as either a leak or exhaust gas by a general definition. As stated in the promulgation BID for the revised standards (pp- 2-54 and 2-55), the facts of the situation resulting in these emissions needed to be considered when deciding which part of the VC standard applied. Upon reconsideration, EPA agrees with SPI's concern that the final definition of "exhaust gas" does not provide for exemption from the exhaust gas standard (10 ppm) when such an emission is judged to be a teak. Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify the definition by adding two sentences which clarify that a leak is not an exhaust gas, and that equipment containing exhaust gas must comply with 161.65(b)(8) requiring leak detection and prevention, whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume VC This proposed addition assures that leaks from exhaust gas streams are subject to the leak detection and elimination requirements, but that such leaks will not also be classified as "exhaust gas." Definition of "Relief Valve Discharge" The SPI objected to a sentence added to the 1986 final definition of "relief valve discharge," 40 CFR 61.61(y), which stated that a relief valve discharge would be exempt from regulation if vented to a control device, but only if the control device meets the 10 ppm emission limit The SPI pointed out that a double violation could occur (i.e., of the relief valve discharge and 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 SPTs 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 NESUAP. The SPI believes that owners/ operators of regulated facilities have sufficient economic incentive (preventing releases of their product) to ensure that pressure relief valves work as designed, regardless of the standard promulgated. Moreover, the final definition contradicts past regulatory interpretation that relief valve discharges ducted to Hares and other control devices are exempt from the exhaust gas standard. The EPA agrees that venting a relief valve discharge (RVD) to a combustion device achieves significant emission reduction benefits. These devices, when properly designed and operated, generally have efficiencies of 98 percent or greater. The use of combustion devices are not expected to increase the number of RVD's. Thus, because regulated facilities do have some economic incentive to ensure that RVD's are minimized, the net RVD emission reduction resulting from the use of combustion devices should approach 98 percent or more. Therefore, minor revisions to the definition of "relief valve discharge" and to the RVD provisions ( 81.65(a)) are being proposed to clarify that an RVD routed to a properly designed and operated control device would be exempted from the provisions of the RVD standard. This change would prevent misinterpretation of the regulatory requirements and imposition of a double penalty. In addition, new provisions (8 61.65(d)) have been added for an RVD thait is ducted to a control device that is continually operating while emissions from the release are present at the device. An RVD that is ducted to a control device, other than a flare, would be subject to the 10 ppm limit and the continuous.emission monitoring system requirement contained in 8 61.68 and to the reporting requirements of ' 8 61.70. In the case of flares, emission monitoring is not possible. Therefore, for RVD's routed to a flare, the design requirements for flares (40 CFR 60.18) would apply. The EPA recognizes that measurement of relief valve discharge volumetric flow rates and gas stream composition is not possible using the methods set forth in 8 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 operations would be monitored in accordance with the requirements of 8 8 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of 8 60.18(d), the volume and component concentration of each RVD would be estimated and calculations would be made to verify ongoing compliance with the design and operating requirements of 8 60.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more than one relief valve is discharged simultaneously to a single flare, these calculations would account for the cumulative effect on all such RVD's. If the results of the monitoring contained in 8 60.18(f)(2) or any other information show that the pilot flame is not present 100 percent of the time during which an RVD is routed to a flare, the RVD is subject to the provisions of 8 81.65(a). A report describing the flare design must be provided to the Administrator not later than 90 days after the adoption of this provision or within 30 days of the installation of a flare system for control of RVD's, whichever is later. Definition of a "Leak" The SPI objected to EPA's defining "indications of liquid dripping" as a "leak," 40 CFR 81.61(w). The SPI ( VAB.0001166506  * 34HMR - . Federal Brigistar / VoL Si No* 182- / Thursday* September 21 1989 / Proposed Rates requested that the phrase be deleted or revised to refer to VC sines dapping liquids may not always contain VC. In theVCatsndHHkthe portion of the leak dtefinltion referring tolndctfois of liquid dripping** applies oafy to pumps In.VC sendee. The BMtbefieve* that "indications of ITquIddripping? are an appropriate criterion far requiring repair action* on double mechanical seal pumps in VC service and therefore, should be inchided in the definition of a leak. As stated in the BID for the 1966 promulgated revisions; visible leakage from au types of pump seals, including double mechanical seels required by the standard, Is geonnen^r ftudRcetfve of seel wear even nr ireVC fs present In the leaking ffakt Tb prsennt farther seal wear rosultfogto meter see! feifare allowing VC amfestone fate theataeepbeve, the seels should be repaired soon afterIhslrugi Is Initially detected; After favtitercontidBratioii of SPTi comrema luma IRt agrees that some emoeatefbents*field leakage is notndlhwfcwfc HM preposes to revise tte stendosdhfin pomps~ ( 6l.2-atdH to clarify fee requirement* forpmnn seel fefpe. Sedien 6aJM3-2(d)H)adifrvses drips from pmop eeofa that eentefas VC. and 161 f ^l)p| eiimpoe dHge from pump aeete that deaetmwtste VC The pmpeeed sedsed pmdslane of 16i.MB4id|aw drefyrad to nocompBsb leakefaam pmqp sates ana detected end O-ti*lin-U HM*Mt*e wTemft_Ue _I Ml M- WMM-L -p_ sll*WnMKml nBJ-T paragraphs fdDH) (fy fife, sad (ifik The other purpose hi to Idtorafr mid pnm iti pump seel Irik--* ky i--retag wbnmnisl dripping (even whim VC la net contained to the dripping Squid) to be detected and repaimte he made.This is accomplished hp paragraph* (d)(6) (ii). (ill), and fa) These paragraphs require the facility owner/opentor to establish criteria associated with normal operation The intent of the proposed revised provisions is hhmHcel to the exhrtteg provisions The dtffamncs is that the proposed 16L2412(dMitt ownes/opemtoe to take toe the small anmbet ef liquid drige the* Mg occur when sere aral* are to ptae* or are olhatwise sssorisiad with gororei operation. Definition of "S-hotrrPeriod* TRsSPI noted that, in the September 1986 final rule. EPA added a definition of "3-hour period? 40 CFR 61j61(z), to clarify that the emission limits in the exhaust gas standard (16 ppm) is e 3hour average. The definition. creates . "rollmg'* averages (24 3-hour averages per day) ratherthan "block** averages (6 3-hour averages)* Tha SPi objected that a single. 1-hour IB ppm exceedance could result to three violations of the IB ppmfKlmut jiiihiniiiiri, iwdbvtlb^ revised dafiaittem of "3-hour period." This could lead to donble or triple penalties, "therehy toceeding the maximum penalty pamleaibto under toe Clean Air Act.'* Upon reconsideration. EPA proposes to farther revise the definition of "3-hour period" to ensure that a single event of 1-hour or less at 10 ppm or greater could result in no more than a single violation of the exhaust gaa standard. A phrase has been, added to the definition to 61.81(z) to accomplish this. The EPA did not intend to penalise a plant three timet whenever a 10 ppm event occurs within 1 hour. Rather, EPA wanted to ensure that a combination of . two or more 10 ppm events which would result in a 3-hour oxccadaaca da not ga unpenalized just because they occurred over two separate 3-hour "blocks" The proposed revised definition of "3-hour periocP satisfies ERA*# intent without unintentionally subjecting a plant owner/operator to multiple violations; Definition of "Etfrytene Dichloride Purification** According to SP1. tha 1986 final revisions changed the de(mitten of EDO purification. 40 CFR tt.61(0). Tha promulgated drfinttioa excluded product storage following tha final VC finishing column, and thus exempted such storagefrom Ihs exhaust gaa standard. Tha SW believes that EPA intended to exclude not only EDC final product storage but also intermediate product storage [before tha final finishing cohuna) based on EPA'a response to comments contained In ths BID (pp. 3-43 and 3-44) and in the BCD summary of changes , since proposal (pp. 1-2). Although it * supports the exemption of final EDC product storage from tha definition. SP1 requested that EPA also exempt intermediate EDC product storage. In addition, one SPK company, a major producer of VC monomer and PVC polymer, provided Information on nine crude and intermediate storage tanks at one of i)s fadlities. The information included tank sizes, design, emissions estimates, and costs. This company requested EPA to exclude intermediate and crude, as well as final EDC storage tanks, from tha definition. The EPA agrees that it intended to exempt crude and intermediate storage tanks from the exhaust gas standard. The definition of "EDC purification" has been revised to clarify that emissions from crude, intermediate, and final storage tanks following EDC formatiow are not subject to the standards, to addition. 18kJMfbR6)l Opening of clarify that the isgteimh in tills section do act apply to erode. intermediate; or final EDC storage tanks. As stated to tire BID response fpp. 2-43 through 2-45) EPA evetoated the reasonableness of regulating EDC stongo tanks under titer VC standard Based on emissions date submitted by the commenter*. uncontrolled VC emissions from totemodtote and torn! EDC storage tanks tel a typical EDC/VC plant were estimated to be til to 2 Mg/ yr. As earisafoa reduction as high as 14 Mh/yr from all phmte would bo achieved based on venting sadating EDC storage tanks to an existing primary control device (Incinerators); Prior to theSeptember 194g rate; EPA concluded that regulation id these tanks under to#p VC standard ww not warranted In response to SPTa petition for reconsideration, EPA baa evaluated the data submitted by one SPf company (Docket EotryNo. Vj-B-4) for nine crude and intermediate EDC storage tanka before (bo final finishing column at one of its faeflitfes. These tanks are currently uncontrolled. The data included tank sizes, design, emissions estimates, and costs. The company's estimates of tha total uncontrolled emissions (0.002 to QL323 Mg/yr VC) for the nine crude and intermediate tanka fall at the low eiuf of tire range of i n dividual VC tank emission estimates made by EPA for EDC final product storage tanks. This information fa consistent with EPA*s position that the regulation of crude and intermediate storage tanka is unnecessary because emissions are extremely low. Leak Detection and Elimination Under the 1976 VC standard, 40 CFR 61.63(b)(6), companies installed area monitors and developed plant-specific leak detection and elimination programs that included the routine use of portable monitors. Subsequently. EPA developed a generic leak detection end ehminatiaa program (subpart V, 40 CFR 61.240-- 61.247) based on equipment and date for the organic chemical and petroleum industries Tne 1966revision* incorporated the aubpart V provisions into the VC standard. The SJPi opposes the addition of the subpart V provision* to the VC standard. The SPI argued that existing programs are effective without the subpart V provision* and that EPA'e decisioo to retain are* monitoring requirements from the 1971 standard la questionable stone they have not bees required for other industries subject to subpart V. to addition, according to SRk no justification has boon given for Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed 38941 requiring retention of area monitors in addition to tubpart V. Although a program under f 81.65(b)(8) demonstrating less than 2 percent of valves leaking is considered "effective,'* such a program is exempt only from certain parts of subpart V. For these reasons, SPI requests reinstatement of the leak detection and elimination requirements contained in the 1978 VC standard. Upon reconsideration, EPA proposes to make no changes in the application of subpart V to the VC standard and the requirements for fixed area monitoring (S 61.65(b)(8)(i)). 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 at, 1985), and the justification for those requirements has not changed since that time; The EPA believes that the area monitoring and subpart V approaches both have benefits and are not redundant In particular, area monitors allow for quick detection of certain large VC leaks that might otherwise go undetected until the next routine portable monitoring screening, as well as detection of large leaks from equipment not affected by subpart V (e.g., agitators). The area monitors have 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 leaks to below 2 percent, and therefore, as discussed below, an owner/operator does not have to conduct the leak detection and repair provisions of subpart V. Any plant with an effective existing program under 81.85(b)(8) for detecting and repairing leaks can control equipment leaks without complying with the subpart V provisions. Specifically, 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 61.2421(d) (marking), 81.242-7(a} (monitoring), 61.246 (recordkeeping), and 61.247 (reporting). To demonstrate that less than ZO percent of valves are leaking, the owner/operator must conduct a performance test initially, annually, and at any other times requested by the Administrator. If, during any performance test, the percentage of leaking valves exceeds 2.0 percent then the owner/operator must comply with lubpart V within 90 days. This exemption only applies to the standards for valves (| 61-24i-7(a)(b)(c)) because the other standards in tubpart V interface with specific equipment requirements/performance measures in the VC standard (e.g., leaks from relief valves, f 61.65(b)(4) and rotating pumps, 161.65(b)(3)(f)). However, this exemption includes all of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of | f 61.246 and 61.247 because these requirements mainly affect valves. The exemption for marking, recordkeeping, and reporting applies to the entire process unit The exemptions (provided in the VC standard) to subpart V were designed, based on comments made during the public comment period, to avoid unnecessary changes to existing leak detection plans which are effective in detecting and repairing VC leaks. Scope ofRelief Valve Discharge Provision* The SPI 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). llte SPI claimed that the 1976 standard "impermissibly delegates rulemaking authority to enforcement personnel and is unconstitutionally vague and that, as applied, the regulation it unfair, unlawful, arbitrary and capricious." The SPI prefers the proposed numerical limits because they would remedy these problems and reduce the administrative burden on EPA and industry. The SPI also believes that tile proposed numerical limits are stricter than the 1976 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 reasonable and appropriate. The 1976 standard permits only "emergency" RVD's, those that could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. A detailed dismission of the basis for not promulgating the numerical limits for RVD's is contained in the preamble for the promulgated amendments (51 FR 34905-34906, September 30,1986), and SPI has not provided any new information that would affect EPA's decision. In summary, the decision to retain the original 1976 RVD standard was made after considering the revisions in light of public comments on the numerical limits, and after review of the basis for the decision to reformat the standard. In particular, several public comments on the 1985 proposed amendments expressed concern that preventable RVD's would be allowed under the revised standard and that the performance allowed under the revised standard could be inconsistent with that allowed under the original standard. Other comments expressed concern that the revised standard included no mechanism for regulating very large RVD's. The basis far the statement that a large EPA resource commitment is required for enforcing the 1976 RVD standard was also questioned. The EPA's review revealed that the burden on its resources had diminished as experience with the Implementation of foe standard increased and as the industry's understanding of foe provisions of the existing standard became clearer. Thus, it was not necessary to revise the format of foe RVD standard. Compared to foe 1985 proposal, the existing standard also has foe advantages of effecting all preventable RVD*s and providing better regulation of large volume RVD's. Therefore, for the reasons stated, EPA's review of the record supports foe existing standard. Based on the EPA's experience with administering foe VC standard of $ 61.65(8), one major deficiency with foe type of information submitted in many of foe 10-day reports of RVD*s has been recognized. This concerns that information required to be reported by the standard-regarding, "foe action that was taken to prevent the discharge." For purposes of clarification, this portion of foe standard requires information on foe action taken to prevent or address the cause leading up to the RVD release and not only foe action taken after an event or cause occurs that results in an RVD release. Emission Monitoring Clarification In addition to foe changes made in response to foe petition tor reconsideration, a minor clarification has been made in 61.68, Emission monitoring. The existing regulation, $ 61.68(b), states that the VC monitoring system(s) that is used to meet foe continuous monitoring requirements in paragraph (a) (of f 61.68) for 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 5 61.68 calls for foe monitoring of foe emissions from prescribed sources for vinyl chloride and not ambient air sampling as required under 5 61.65(b)(6) for leak detection/elimination, $ 61.68(b) VAB.0001166508 * 4-' Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1969 / Proposed Rules has bean clarified to require that representative (not air) samples from . one or more applicable emission points be obtained awl analysed This revision more accurately reflects dm original intent * UL AtfmilttrtnttV RM|UlfMMil A. Public Hearing A public hearing wifi be held, if requested, to discuss the proposed rulemaking in accordance with section 307(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make oral presentations should contact EPA at the address given in the ADonassat section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement with EPA before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements mould be addressed to the Central Docket Section address given in the AOMCsaag section of this preamble, A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be available fivpi^inqMetimio^ normal working hours at CPA's Central Docket Section In Washington, DC (see section of this preamble). A Docket The docket it an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or otherwise considered in the development of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket ares (1) To allow interested partita to identify readily and locate documents so theft they can effectively participate in be rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as the record in cate of judicial review, except for interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)), C. Office ofManagement and Budget Reviewe 1. Paperwork Reduction Act There are no information collection requirements associated with this proposed rulemaking. 2. Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must Judge whether e regulatory action le "major" and, therefore, subject to die requirement of a analysis. This proposed rulemaking it not major because it makes minor clarifying revisions to an existing regulation and. therefore, results in no of the significant adverse economic effects described in the Order. This rulemaking was submitted to tl Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as. required by Executive Order 12291. Any written comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included In Docket No. A-81-21. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA'e Central Docket Section that is listed under the ADOftlttct section of this noticeu D. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires me identification of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act specifically requires foe completion of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those Instances where smell business impacts are possible. Because these proposed minor revisions impose no adverse economic impacts, e Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 606(b), 1 hereby certify that foe proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 Air pollution control. Asbestos, Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous materials, Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: September 12,1968. WUBam K. Reilly, Administrator. For foe reasons set forth in foe preamble, it it proposed to amend 40 CFR part 61 as follows: PART 61--{AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 101.112,114, 116, 301, Clean Air Act ae amended: 42 UAC 7401, 7412.7414,7416,7001. 2. Section 61.81 is amended by revising paragraphs (o), (w), (x). (y), and (z) to read as follows: 8 6161 Definitions. * ft * * - (0) Ethylene dichloride purification includes any part of foe process of ethylene dichloride purification following ethylene dichloride formation, but excludes crude. Intermediate, and final ethylene dichloride storage tanks. ft ft* ft ft {wfLeak 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 part such as: (1) An instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater measured according to Method 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR part 60); (2) A sensor detection of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both; (3) Detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background for equipment designated for no detectable emissions measured according to Test Method 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR part 60k end (4) In foe case of pump seals regulated under f 61.242-2, indications of liquid dripping constituting a leak under 61.242-2. Leake also include events regulated under 161.65(b)(8)(i) for detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentrations. A relief valve discharge le not a teak. (x) Exhaust gas means any offgas (the constituents of which may consist of any fluids, either as a liquid and/or gas) discharged directly or ultimately to foe atmosphere that was initially contained in or wee in direct contact with foe equipment for which exhaust gas limits are prescribed in f 81.62 (a) and (bk 8 61.63(a); 6144 (a)(1). (b), (c). and (dk S 61.65 (b)(l)(tt), (b)(2). (b)(3). (b)(5). (b)(8)(U), (b)(7) and (b)(9)(ii): and 8 61.65(d). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not an exhaust gas. Equipment which contains exhaust gas is subject to 8 61.65(b)(8), whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. (y) Relief Valve Discharge means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve. (z) 3-hourperiod means any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each commencing on foe hour), provided that the number of 3-hour periods during which foe vinyl chloride concentration j exceeds 10 ppm does not exceed foe number of 1-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm. 3. Section 61.65 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(6) introductory text, and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 8 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride end polyvinyl chloride plants. ft ft ft ft * (a) Relief valve discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge, and except as provided In 8 61.65(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 a discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any relief valve discharge, except for those subject to 8 61.65(d), the owner or operator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs shall submit to the Administrator a report in writing Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 162 / Thursday, September 21, 1969 / Proposed Rules 38943 containing information on the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the discharge, die approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss (the calculation of the vinyl chloride loss), the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future discharges. (b) * * * (6) Opening ofequipment. Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of equipment (excluding crude, intermediate,* and final EDC storage tanks, but including prepolymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resins and loading or unloading lines that are not opened to the atmosphere after each loading or unloading operation) are to b minimized as follows:: (d) A RVD that is ducted 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 than 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 f 61.70. (2) For a discharge routed to a flare, the flare shall comply with the requirements of 180.18. (i) Flare operations shall be monitored in accordance with the requirements of 1160.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purposes of f 60.18(d), the volume and component concentration of each relief valve discharge shall be estimated and calculations shall be made td verify ongoing compliance with the design and operating requirements of 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 such 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 violation of f 61.65(d)(2). Monitoring for the presence of a flare pilot flame shall be conducted in accordance with 9 60.18(f)(2). If the results of this monitoring or any other information shows that the pilot flame i 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 ol 61.65(a). (ii) A report describing the flare desijpt shall be provided to the Administrator not later than 90 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 the design throat capacity < the gas in the relief valve. 4.Section 61.68 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) to read as follows: 9 61.68 Emission monitoring. **#** (b) The vinyl chloride monitoring system(s) used to meet the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section is to be a device which obtains representative samples 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 assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an alternative method. * * # **** 5. Section 61.242-2 of subpart V is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory text (d)(5) and (d)(6) and by adding paragraphs (d)(4) (i). (ii) and (iii) to read as follows: 9 61.242-2 Standards: Pumps, **** (d) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirementa of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, provided the following requirements are met: (4) * (i) If there are indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal at the time of tiie weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified in f 81.245 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 the owner or operator. (iii) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater (total VOC) is measured, a leak is detected. (5) Each sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is checked daily or is equipped with an audible alarm. (8)(i) The owner or operator determines, based on design considerations and operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency of drips and to the sensor that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both. (ii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed the criteria established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, or if, based on the criteria established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both, a leak is detected. (iii) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is .detected, except as provided in 9 61.242- 10 (iv) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than five calendar days a fter each leak is* dete*cted. [FR Doc. 80-22187 Filed 9-20-69; 8:45 am) swqjwa coos iwo-m<