Document ppNdN3v9r4wkLyVpBG2XGO4qj

1182 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / We&tejjbyi January 9. 1985 / Proposed*Rtiles .-- -- ' 11 'ST............. ..... ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI&N AGENCY 40 CFR Part 61 (A0-FRL-2707-41 National Emission Standards for Hazsrdous Air Pollutants; Vinyl Chloride comer pf Highway 54 and Alexander Drive, Research Triai$iark; hforth Carolina. Persons interested mattending ... the hearing should caU Ms. 'Shelby * , .joumigan at (919) 541-^|8 to verify foot a hearing will occur, P^reojlxs'wishing to present oral testinjb^-Bioujd notify Ms. , Shelby Joumigan, Standard*. , Enviromental Protection AgiftCT,' agency: Envoronmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing. summary: The current emission standard for vinyl chloride (VC) was promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in 1978. A review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the standard has been completed, and the conclusions of the review are presented in this notice The conclusions are the basis for this action which (1) proposes administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard and (2) announces decisions pertaining to other aspects of the current standard. This notice also withdraws proposed revisions to the current standard which were published in the Federal Register on June 2,1977 (42 FR 28154). If requested, a public hearing will be held to provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed revisions to the current standard. oath: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 25,1985. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 30 1989, a public hearing will be held on February 26, 1985 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ms. Shelby Joumigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will occur. Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must contact EPA by January 30.1985. Incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in these standards will be approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of the date of the final rule. addresses: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket Section (A130). Attention Docket Number A-81-21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street, S.W., Washington. D.C. 20480. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 30.1985, the public hearing will be held at EPA Auditorium. Research TrianglePark, Nortij Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578. background Inforn^otion Document The general findings of the review study are documented in "Vinyl Chloride--A Review of National EroitSi#& Standards", EPA-450/3-8^003 (NTISPB 84-114354), available frfjpjtba National Technical Information Service: 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The major technical analysis for the revi^Wjstudy i*. contained in a separata document which may be obtained m)0;the:U.4.;EPA Library (MD-35).IRese>Mch Tritogie Park, North Cartitina.2Z7.li, telephone number (919) 541-2?77ufilease refer to "Vinyl ChlorideiiRetiiefVBbte Discharge Standard," EPA^Sto/2*89^to2,rfiw>the technical document. ' Docket. Docket No. A-81.-21,. containing supporting information used in developing the proposed standard, is available for public inspection and - copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m-. Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20480. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. ................ . FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel or Mr. Leslie 8. Evans, (919) 541-5671, concerning technical aspects of the industry and control technologies, and Mr. Fred Dimmick or Mr. Gilbert H. Wood, (919) 541-5576. concerning regulatory decisions. The address for these contacts is Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ' Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Revisions to Current Standard Revisions. Several administrative changes are being proposed as a result of a review of the national emission standard for VC. No major revisions are being proposed to the standard. As with the current standard for VC the_ ' revisions are being established under-: Section 112 of the Clean Air Act The significant administrative revision*' include: (1) Reformatting the emiaeioa -1: limit for retief.valve discharges. (2) providing a compliance test procedure and a specific, emission limit for operator* who perform stripping , operations in reactors, and (3) specifying requirements for leak detection and repair programs for certain equipment in VC service. Additional minor administrative changes to (he standard are being proposed and are explained later in this preamble. Symmary ofHealth, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts. Sine* no major revisions to the standard are being proposed, the impacts resulting from the current standard remain generally unchanged. In 1975. it was estimated that emissions of VC from plfbts producing ethylene dichloride (EDCJ, VC monomer and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) would be reduced from 96.000 Mg/yr to 4,910 Mg/yi under the current standard, representing an emission reduction .of 91,000 Mg/yr of VC (or 95 percent of VG emissions). Emissions of volatile organic qompounds (VOC) and EDC are also reduced under the standard. The estimated risks attributed to exposure to VC from EDC/VC and PVC plants in operation prior to the current standard were 5,5 cases per year for liver angiosarcoma and 11 cases per year for all cancers. The risks attributed to exposure to VC from sources under the current standard have been estimated to be 0.2?l caaes per year for liver angiosarcoma Ajftd 0.55 cases per year for alfcancers. In 1975, the estimated cjapjtal cpst for existing plants to meet the VC standard waf$l98 million, of which $15 million was for EDC and VC monomer plants and S183m>|tion was foriPVG plants. The EPA estimated that the annualized cost (including capital amortization, etc.) to theae plants to maintain the required emission levels would be $70 million per year. Background The VC standard was proposed on December 24.1975 (40 Fr 59532), and promulgated on October 21.1976 (41 Fr 46559). It is applicable to plants producing EDC by foe reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene, plants producing VC by any process, and plants producting one or more polymer* containing any fraction of VC. These plants are subject to different requirements at numerous VC mission points in the manufacturing . process. These requirements include numerical emission limits, equipment specifications, and work practices. . The standard was designed to minimize the health risks associated CMA 015171 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 0 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules _______1183 with VC by requiring reasonable control measures. As stated in the preamble to the proposed standard (40 Fr 59532, December 24,1975), there is no known threshold level of effects for VC. Therefore, the only approach that would eliminate health risks associated with VC would ban its production and use. This approach was not selected. Rather, an approach was selected to minimize the health risks associated with VC by use of reasonable control measure. On November 19,1976, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the standard. On March 24.1977, the EDF and the EPA moved to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of a settlement agreement requiring the EPA to propose amendments which would require increased efficiency of existing control equipment, require more stringent control of new sources, and prohibit increases in emissions within the vicinity of an existing source due to new construction. The preamble to the proposed amendments was to state that the EPA's policy for regulating carcinogens under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act would include a general goal of eliminating emissions of carcinogens and that the EPA would initiate a review of the VC standard 3 years after the promulgation of the amendments. On June 2,1977, the amendments were proposed (42 FR 28154). Many comments pertaining to policy, technological feasibility, and procedural aspects of the proposed amendments were received. Review of these comments indicated that additional technical data and cost information were required before the proposed amendments, or revisions of the proposed amendments, could be promulgated. Meanwhile, the EDF filed a petition with the EPA requesting the establishment of a comprehensive program for regulating airborne carcinogens under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The aspects of the EDFs petition concerning the development of standards under Section 112 were similar to those proposed-in the June 2, 1977, amendments to the VC standard. Based on the similarity of the proposed amendments and the EDFs requested comprehensive program for regulating airborne carcinogens, the EPA believed that it should not take final action on the proposed VC amendments until after it had acted on the EDFs petition. On October 10.1979 (44 FR 56042), the EPA proposed "Policy and Procedures for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne Substances Posing Assessment Groyp reviewed new health a Risk of Cancer." This proposal studies that have become available addressed several issues which were since the standard was promulgated. central to the proposed VC This review included a study of the amendments. It also articulated the estimated carcinogenic strength of VC EPA's conclusion that Section 112 does (the VC unit risk number] and focused not express an intent to eliminate totally on whether this number should be all risks from emissions of airborne changed to reflect new informaton. carcinogens. The EPA's selection of the Since the current standard was level of control for a hazardous air promulgated, new occupational studies pollutant emission standard would not have confirmed qualitatively that liver be based on a policy that requires zero and brain cancer incidence are emissions of carcinogens. This policy is , asociated with population exposure to Consistent with the basis for other atmospheric VC. However, none of recent actions under Section 112. For these new studies have sufficient example, standards for benzene from exposure information to warrant a coke ovens and leaks from equipment refinement of the quantitative cancer components in benzene service are not based on a zero emissions policy but rather on a reasonable level of control, which considers emissions and health risk estimate. Findings and Conclusions of the Review : Study risks. The EPA believes it is not appropriate to leave the proposed amendments to the VC standard in effect or to . promulgate amendments based on the proposed amendments. Therefore, the June 2,1977, proposal is withdrawn. As described in the following section of this notice, the EPA began a review study to obtain additional technical data and cost information and to determie whether other amendments, to the standard are needed. New amendments developed as a result of the review The findings and conclusions of the VC review study are presented in the following subsections. The first subsection discusses the need and basis for the current standard. The second subsection addresses die level of control required by the current standard. The third subsection identifies source categories not covered by the current standard and evaluates die appropriateness of regulating these sources. (l)Need and Basis for Current Standard study are proposed in this notice. The current VC standard was Review of VC Standard established based on judgments Early in 1980 the EPA began a review of the VC standard. The primary purpose of the review was to investigate the adequacy and appropriateness of the standard in light of policy decisions,, health studies, control technology developments, and enforcement and compliance experience which have occurred since the standard was first promulgated. The review consisted of a screening study of: (1) Existing and new concerning the costs and benefits of the standard to society. The standard is not designed to eliminate VC exposure risk entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance between public health protection and the coat of that protection. Data (evaluated before the current standard was established) strongly indicate that VC causes or contributes to the development of angiosarcoma, other cancers, and various noncarcinogenic control technologies, (2) sources not disorders in people with occupational regulated by the standard, and (3) exposure and in animals with enforcement and compliance experience experimental exposure to VC Although since promulgation of the standard. no dose-response data are available at Information and data evaluated"during the concentrations of VC found in the this study were obtained through ambient air, the EPA concluded when literature searches, plant visits, and . the standard was established that any interviews with industrial ` atmospheric concentration of VC poses representatives and EPA regional some public heath risk. To eliminate the personnel involved in enforcement and risk of VC exposure entirely, a complete surveillance of the VC-emitting prohibition of all VC emissions would industries. The-information and data are be necessary. This would require the presented in a document that may be closure of the entire industry and result obtained as described in the AWKSMSS in serious, advene economic impacts. section of this preamble. Decisions Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the based on this review are summarized in time the current standard was the next two sections of thia preamble. established that a complete prohibition Aa another aspect of the review of the of all VC emissions would not be VC standard, the EPA's Carcinogen desirable or necessary. The EPA CMA 015172 1184 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. fi / Wednesday, January 8, 1985 / Proposed Rules concluded this in view ol (1) the beneficial uses of VC products for which desirable substitutes are not readily available; (2) the potential adverse health and environmental impacts associated with VC substitutes that have not been throughly studied; (3) the number of employees, particularly in fabrication industries, who would become at least temporarily unemployed; and (4) the availability of control technology that is capable of substantially reducing emissions of VC into the atmosphere. Although all EDC, VC and PVC plants have now incorporated VC emission controls, the maintenance of a Federal standard for VC is still considered necessary. The VC standard contains requirements for the proper operation and maintenance of control devices and the proper implementation of work practices. These requirements reflect an appropriate balance between the need to minimize health risks and the avoidance of unreasonable economic and community impacts which would result from standards designed to reduce risks to zero. Relative to the initial control costs, the additional cost of maintaining and implementing the Federal VC standard is small. Nevertheless, if the Federal standard is discontinued, these small costs may be sufficient to provide the industry with an economic incentive for discontinuing the nse of proper control measures. Thus, the continued maintenance of Federal standards for the control of VC is necessary to ensure a continuation of the current level of control. Additionally, the standard is important for the control of VC emissions from plants built in the future. The consequence of not maintaining a Federal standard would be to increase' the carcinogenic risk to large segments of the population. (In 1975 when the standard was originally proposed, approximately 4.6 million people lived within a 5-mile radius of EDC. VC and PVC plants.) Accordingly, the HA has concluded that the maintenance of the Federal standard for VC, or reasonable revision of the standard, is appropriate. (2) Review of Technology-Based Level of Control This subsection describes the status of the technology-hased level of control for sources covered by die current standard. The present status of emissions from sources covered by the currant VC standard is presented in Table 1. Tmle 1. Status of Current,Emission Lev els From Sources Covered ev the Vinyl Chlorioe NESHAP gnwton Min* Standard radaawna tne/y0 VRKWW--vIh.- i1 ColantedMwaiaid* (per to 1875 'gJJJJ SIMM from t mow 3l*M0 EDC/VC Neddy Prtmiry QuMtqL town*------- OxyoNorin* 02 EDC ROdUCt FWMff-------- WMttpracfeft mi quipm*ni 114 *r AalM vtfvt MoflpivMntfr bto Not AvhMM* sr 50 m 2.1 Ernmiw tern a mode M.OOO mg/p PVC NcMy PAnwy tOppHW------ - control nxrlof O.OQ2 kg/ioo kg pvc ComtmiM curt** product W0 ppm- tugpwtOfl 4. Htr rmm MfW Fuse**......... V8o* pracdsa and. ROmani Nndvda. Htta* ..... Noivwnl*- Ma ^ so# 0.T 313 14 090 1.040 100 13* 2.4 omy- Bum an M EPA immioin MW dmmdead Mm Ml* sutmtttsd by aowaa enter to promAsdtxsnol w 1075 VC Random. ` Rapraaama atamatad amaaNni atm EDG/VC.nd PVC pNnta moiling cwrant mandate ' Data wt not coNactad on ia>af mfea aacHamaa Mm EDC/VC plant! prior to 1B7S. `Baaad on Via EPA amaawna aapnataa lor a tyRcR 10ppmv Standard. Emission sources covered by fills standard include EDC purification and VC monomer formation and purification equipment, monomer recovery systems and other equipment at PVC plants, and vents from fugitive emission capture systems. The standard is based primarily on the control of these emissions by incineration or other primary control devices and specifies an emission limit of 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of VC averaged .over a 3hour period. The 10 ppmv standard applies to control device bypass streams. * One of the amendments proposed in 1977 would have required reduction of the emission limit from 10 to 5 ppmv. The goal of the proposed^ ppmv limit was to ensure that the standard continued to approach a.'`zero emission goal" by requiring owner* and operators both to maximize the effectiveness of existing control systems and 16 design improved new control systems at the time of construction. The 5 ppmv limit was not based on data for control technology different from that analyzed at tfye time ofthe promulgation of the 10 ppmv limit Comments received on the proposed 1977 amendments stated that in order to meet a limit of 5 ppmv. a control device would have to be capable of control at a level even lower than 5 ppmv to offset - emission fluctuations. Commenters also stated that a change from 10 to 5 ppmv would result in little redaction In mass emissions of VC Finely, commenters questioned the rationale of the "zero emission goal" policy. Because the proposed 5 ppmv emission limit was not based on data from a control technology different from that analyzed for the current standard and because 10 ppmv represents the lowest level of control which has been consistently achieved, the EPA withdraws the proposed 5 ppmv limit and affirms the original 10 ppmv limit. If such a technology had been identified, it could have been the basis of a revised standard. However, during the review studyno more advanced technology was identified, even though additional data on incinerators, carbon adsorbers, and solvent absorption control system# on existing plants were obtained. Although these data indicate that incinerators are capable of reducing emissions below 10 ppmv. 10 ppmv represents the lowest level of control which has been consistently achieved. Based on this Information, the EPA has concluded that there is no Improved or new control technology that has been demonstrated to significantly and consistently reduce emissions to a level below that required by the current standard. Therefore, no further technological investigation of the 10 ppmv standard is planned. Oxychlorination Vent Standard--<L2 g/kg EDC. The current oxychlorination vent standard of 0.2 g of VC per kg of EDC does not require an add-on control device. Instead, die limit can be achieved at moist plants by controlling operating conditions and at the remaining plants through process modifications. At the time the original standard was written, incineration of oxychlorination vent emissions was investigated. Because of expected high energy costs associated with supplemental-fuel requirements for combustipa incineration was determined not to be a reasonable method of control for this source. The amendments proposed in 1977 specified a level of $ ppm for the oxychlorination vent The proposed requirement was based on installation of an oxygen feed system with sn incinerator or equipment control device. The use of oxygen feed in the EDC oxychlorinaton process decreases the CMA 015173 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1185 volume of inert substances in the vent stream and, consequently, the cost for supplemental fuel required for incineration. Comments received on this proposed amendment focused primarily on the high expense and large energy requirements associated with the production of oxygen. The review study identified no control technology for oxychlorination vents at EDC/VC plants that had not been considered during the development of the original standard. Additionally, the EPA reevaluated the cost of retrofit incinerator controls and reached the same conclusion drawn in the development of the original standard. As before, the high cost associated with incinerating oxychlorination vents at existing EDC/VC plants makes this level of control unreasonable. Thus, the current standard of 0.2 g/kg EDC is considered still to be the most reasonable level of control for existing oxychlorination vents. In addition, the review study concluded that significant new construction or modification of EDC/VC plants is not expected. At this time, only one new EDC/VC facility is reportedly planned. (BF Goodrich has plans to construct an EDC/VC facility in Convent, Louisiana.) Oxychlorination vents at new EDC/VC plants will be regulated by the proposed standards of performance for air oxidation processes (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart III) or by the BACT or LAER requirements of new source review regulations applicable in specific locations to a level comparable to that achievable through the use of incineration. Because the technologically achievable level of control is assured through the current requirements, the EPA concluded that investigation of additional control (i.e., incineration) was not required for oxychlorination vents. Reactor Opening--0.02 g/kg PVC Product The current VC standard restricts emissions during polymerization reactor openings. The standard was based on reactor purging and on a reduction in the frequency of reactor openings. An increased level of control was not proposed in the 1977 amendments. (The level of control provided by the current standard, 0.02 g/kg of PVC product, reduces VC emissions to about 1.36 Mg per year for a model PVC plant.) During the review of the standaid, no technology was identified that would provide additional VC reductions beyond the level of the current standard. Therefore, the EPA Is not investigating further the control df reactor openings. Combined Sources After Resin Stripping. The sources of VC emissions covered under the current standard include blend tanks, dryers, centrifuges, storage silos, bagging operations, and any sources following the stripper. Control of these emissions is based on either stripping the PVC resin to a specified (based on resin type) residual VC level (i.e., 400 ppm for suspension, bulk, solution, and latex resins; and 2,000 ppm for dispersion resins) or controlling the emissions from all sources following the stripper with a control device. The 1977 proposed amendments would have required "new resins" to be stripped to lower levels (i.e., 100 ppm for suspension, bulk, solution, and latex resins; and 500 ppm for dispersion resins). When the amendments were proposed, the EPA believed that some resins could meet the proposed limits; whereas, for other resinB the manufacturer would have been required to develop improved stripping technology or not to produce the resin. Industry comments stated that most dispersion, copolymer, and bulk resins would suffer degradation if more stringent emission limits were imposed. Additionally, the commenters noted the inherent difficulties in defining a "new resin." Information submitted by commenters indicated that minor adjustments to resin compositions are made routinely, and completely new ' resins are rarely, if ever, made. As a result of these comments, the EPA ' concluded that it is impossible in many cases to distinguish between new and existing resins and still have any resins covered by the proposed amendments. Further, the proposed amendments did not address what levels of control could be achieved by unproved stripping technology. For these reasons, the EPA chose to evaluate whether higher levels of control are achievable for all resins, or only for some special classes of resins. The review study found that resin ' stripping technology has improved since the currant standard was promulgated, and that some processors can achieve lower resin residual VC levels than those required in the original standard. In certain cases, some resins can meet the more stringent levels specified in the previously proposed amendments. However, other processors manufacturing resins of differing grades and characteristics can only marginally comply with the original standard. . Because of the wide variation in resin grades and characteristics, it cannot be concluded that, even though a particular resin made by one company can meet a particular level, any other resin or similar resins produced by another company could also meet that level. Furthermore, in some cases these processors meeting the more stringent limits proposed previously are stripping these resins to this low level to offset emissions from those resins which are more difficult to strip. Without this ability to average the emissions and reductions among resins, these processors might not achieve the current standard. Exempting resin grades known to be difficult to strip is not feasible because these resins cannot readily be defined. For the foregoing reasons, the EPA has concluded that there is no demonstrated level of control which could significantly and consistently reduce residual VC levels in resins to levels below that required by the current standard. Therefore, the EPA is not investigating further the control of the combined sources after stripping. Equipment Leaks. Because little was known about leak detection and elimination programs for control of equipment'leaks from components in VC service, specific requirements for these programs were not included in the current standard. Instead, each plant was required to institute and implement a formalized leak detection and elimination program incorporating both a fixed-point monitor and a portable monitor. Plant-specific programs were subject toapproval by the Administrator. Consequently, due to site-specific differences among plants, as well as variations in leak definitions and monitoring practices, differences in control of equipment leaks among the plants have resulted. Since the standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained more information pertaining to the control of equipment leaks from components in VC service. With the information obtained form the development of other standards, an effective leak detection and repair program based on use of a portable monitor can now be specified for equipment covered by this program. The specificJeak detection and repair requirements are discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of this preamble. Relief Valve Discharge Standard. Sources of VC emissions covered by this standard include discharges from relief valves on pressure vessels, transfer lines, and other equipment in EDC/VC and PVC plants. The standard is based on emission control by a combination of equipment and process modifications, and operational procedures, found in plants during development of the standard. An exact combination of modifications and operational procedures was not specified. Instead, a performance standard [i.e., an emission CMA 015174 1186 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules standard) was established because it was believed that different combinations could be equally effective in controlling relief valve discharges. The current format of the standard prohibits all relief valve discharges except emergency discharges. Emergency discharges are described as those which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge (i.e., those that are "nonpreventable"). Since the standard was promulgated, all plants have experienced some releases. Many of these releases are considered preventable by the EPA. Based on visits to plants with good compliance histories, the EPA concluded that a level of performance reflecting compliance with the current format of the standard through the combined effects of equipment, process modifications and operational procedures remains reasonable, during the review, no technological level of control was found that would provide for a more stringent standard. Therefore, the standard is still considered to reflect the appropriate level of control for these sources. However, as discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the standard by setting limits for relief valve discharges in a different format. Administrative Aspects of the Standard. Even though the EPA decided not to revise the level of control associated with the current VC standard, the EPA identified revisions to several administrative aspects of the standard. These revisions as well as those identified above, are discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the preamble. (3) Review of Sources Not Previously Covered This subsection discusses the status of VC sources not covered by the current standard that were identified in the review study. For these sources, the EPA assessed whether a Federal standard was warranted. The EPA's . assessment of these sources was based primarily on a quantitative analysis of VC emissions froril these sources combined with a qualitative analysis of risks associated with exposure to VC from these sources. The EPA considers these analyses to be adequate in place of a thorough quantitative risk assessment for purposes of determining whether a Federal standard is warranted for these sources. Because these sources are already relatively well-controlled and the quantity of VC emission, and consequently, the risks associated with exposure to VC from these sources, are small in comparison to sources covered by the VC standard, the EPA concluded that none of the additional sources identified in the review study warrant a Federal standard. Miscellaneous Sources of VC Emissions, Miscellaneous sources are plants other than PVC and EDC/VC plants that use VC as a raw material or produce VC as an intermediate or by product. The EPA has identified four such plants, two of these plants produce 1,1,1-trifchloroethane, one produces perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene and the fourth plant produces pesticides. (An additional 1,1,1-trichloroethane unit was constructed at a fourth location but has reportedly never operated. There are no plans to operate in the furture.) Review of VC emission sources at the identified plants showed them to be well controlled. Emissions of VC from these plants are primarily from fugitive sources and range from less than 1 Mg/ yr to 14 Mg/yr per plant. In general, the VC NESHAP requirements for process vents and equipment in VC service are being met at the miscellaneous sources due to company policy considerations and State and local regulatory requirements. In addition, many of the equipment components in.VC service would be covered by standards of performance for new sources and standards for sources In nonattainment areas. Based on the investigation of these sources, the EPA concluded that they are already relatively wellcontrolled and do not contribute significantly to VC exposure. For these reasons, additional requirements for miscellaneous sources of VC are not being proposed at this time. PVC Fabrication Plants. There are about 8,000 fabrication plants which take the resin produced by PVC plants and fashion it into intermediate or final products. Emissions from these plants are estimated to be about 0.0035 Mg/yr per plant. In comparison to VC production plants (which typically emit about 92 Mg/yr), frifC fabrication plants are small emitters of VC. If standards were developed for this category they would not result in reduced emissions because the best control for these plants is to reduce the VC levels in the resins being processed by the fabricators. Resin stripping beyond the level that process economics would dictate is already being done as a result of the EPA's current standard and OSHA's VC standard, based on the EPA's assessment of these sources, the EPA concluded that they do not contribute significantly to VC exposure. Therefore, the EPA believes that the evaluation of controls for PVC fabrication plants is unnecessary and that the current level of control resulting from the EPA's standard and OSHA's standard is still reasonable. Landfills. Off-specification resins containing VC has been taken to landfills where the gaseous VC can be released. However, the current EPA standard intends that all resins, including off-specification rosins, be stripped to reduce the VC emissions from sources downstream from the stripper. In order to clarify that stripping requirements also apply to the offspecification rosins before removal of landfills, these requirements are being restated to explicity address offspecification resins. The EPA believes that the level of control resulting from the stripping requirements is reasonable; thus, VC emission requirements for landfills are not being proposed today. However, the EPA recognizes that VC may be emitted from hazardous waste landfills and is evaluating and may regulate under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) volatile emissions (including VC) from landfills at hazardous waste disposal .facilities. The EPA also recognizes that VC has been detected in municipal landfills. Therefore, in addition to assessing VC emissions from hazardous waste disposal facilities, a (RCRA) Subtitle D TASK FORCE has been formed which will assess all environmental releases including air emissions from Subtitle D facilities (a category which includes municipal landfills). Administrative Revisions As discussed in the Findings and Conclusions of the Review Study section of this preamble, the EPA identified several administrative revisions that an appropriate as a result of the review study. The rationale for the proposed administrative revisions is presented in this section of the preamble. These revisions include: (1) Reformatting the emission limit for relief valve discharges. (2) providing a compliance test procedure and a specific emission limit for operators who strip in the reactors, (3) specifying requirements for leak detection and repair program for equipment components in VC service. * and (4) miscellaneous revisions. Relief Valve Discharges Background. The current format of th* standard for relief valve discharges t allots only "emergency" discharges i (i.e., discharges that could not be 1 avoided by taking preventive measures! The standard applies to all pressure J relief devices on pressure vessels, . CMA 015175 Federal Register / Vol, 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1187 transfer lines, and other equipment in EDC/VC and PVC plants. The control techniques considered as the basis of the standard involve a combination of equipment modifications, process modifications, and operational procedures. An exact combination of modifications and operational procedures was not specified in the current standard; rather, a performance standard (i.e,, an emission standard) was established because different combinations of the modifications and procedures were expected to be equally effective in controlling relief valve discharges. Based on 0 years of enforcement and compliance experience, the EPA has concluded that the relief discharge standard has resulted in: (1) Significant reductions in the frequency and quantity of VC discharges from relief valves, (2) significant use of agency resources to evaluate individual discharges for preventability, and (3) uncertainty on the part of producers regarding whether they comply with the standard. Additionally, the EPA learned some of VC and PVC believe that this part of the current standard applies only to discharges through safety relief valves and that discharges through other pressure relief devices, such as rupture disks or manual or automatic vent valveB, are not covered. This interpretation is not compatible with the intent behind the current standard. To provide more efficient enforcement by decreasing the burden of individual preventability assessments on the EPA. and to provide a better understanding to plant operators of the goal of the standard, the EPA is proposing to reformat the standard for relief valve discharges and to define the emission points covered by this standard to include appropriately all pressure relief devices. As discussed more completely in the following sections, the EPA is proposing to change the format of the numerical limits in the standard to reflect the number of discharges that occur from those plants complying with the format of the current standard. The EPA found in the review study that efforts by all EDC/VC and PVC producers to comply with the standard are reflected in their preformance (in terms of size and frequency of discharges) since the standard went into effect. In general, a reduction in the reported frequency and size of relief valve discharges by PVC producers has occurred since 1978. A further decrease in relief valve discharges by the PVC industry occurred between 1980 and 1981. Performance by the EDC/VC industry exhibited a less marked trend of decreased discharges over the compliance period. Following an initial drop in relief valve discharges after the standard went into effect, the frequency and quantity of relief valve discharges by EDC/VC plants have decreased slightly or remained relatively constant. General Basis for Numerical Limits. In selecting the proposed numerical limits. EPA first evaluated in detail the recent performance (1981 to 1983) of five PVC plants and one EDC/VC plant. These plants wqre chosen based on discussions with EPA Regional Office personnel and industry and were intended to represent plants with good relief valve discharge records. In general, the EPA's evaluation of these plants indicates that each has adopted the combination of equipment, operational procedures and attitude toward prevention of relief discharges intended by the current standard, and that their resulting performance is consistent with compliance with the current standard. The EPA's evaluation found that a few discharges may continue to occur from some plants that comply with the-standard. This observation is consistent with the expectation held by the EPA when the standard was written. In order to revise the standard irt. terms of numerical limits representing compliance with the current format of the standard, this evaluation separated PVC and EDC/VC plants. For plants, relief valve discharge performance data were further separated by source (reactor vs. nonreactor) and by resin type Hie EPA then reviewed the performance of 25 additional PVC plantsand 12 additional EDC/VC plants. The EPA reviewed this large set of plants to ensure that the level of performance demonstrated by the evaluated plants could be achieved by all PVC and EDC/ VC plants. The numerical limits presented in the Findings section of this preamble are based on an evaluation of the number of discharges representing the demonstrated performance level associated with compliance with the provisions of the existing standard. Format for Numerical Limits. The EPA visited the five PVC plants evaluated in detail. As expected, the EPA found differences in the combinations of hardware and' operational procedures associated with control of relief valve discharges of each of the plants. Furthermore, no exact relationship was found between the effectiveness of specific hardware items and operational procedures and prevention of discharges. In the EPA's judgment, the various combinations of hardware and operational procedures implemented by each of the plants along with the attitudes adopted toward preventing relief valve discharges represent the types of control measures that the standard intended. In particular, the EPA concluded that the low frequency of discharges by the visited plants was indicative of their degree of effort to prevent relief valve discharges. Consistent with the goal of this proposed revision, the EPA decided that an alternative numerical emission limit based on performance resulting under the current standard could be revised in a format that would be easier to understand by enforcement and industry personnel. The EPA investigated two basic ways of expressing relief valve discharge performance for PVC plants. One format is based on mass emissions, for example, the pounds of VC discharged per million pounds of PVC produced (lb VC/MM lb PVC). Based on a review of methods used by industry to determine the amount of VC discharged from relief valves, the EPA was unable to identify a sufficiently accurate method for measuring discharge quantities from relief valves. At present, producers are required only to estimate discharge quantities for reporting purposes. Demonstration of compliance with a lb VC/MM lb PVC limit would require producers to measure the amount of VC discharged during an incident. Because a suitable measurement method was not identified, the EPA decided not to redefine relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants in a lb VC/ MM lb PVC format. Another format is based on the frequency (i.e., number per unit time) of discharge from occurrences. No method for measuring the amount of VC discharged from relief valves is needed because only the occurrence of a release is required for this format. The occurrence of a discharge can be determined by monitoring process parameters as well as inspecting relief valve performance reports. Thus, of the two basis ways of expressing relief valve performance that were considered, the EPA selected a format based on the frequency of discharges. Based on this decision, the EPA then considered how the format would be applied to PVC and EDC/VC plants. At PVC plants, the frequency of discharges from polymerization reactors and associated process equipment may be related to the fact that a batch process is used to produce most types of PVC. For batch PVC production processes, the opportunity for discharges is related to the number of times a new CMA 015176 1188 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules polymerization batch is Initiated. Expressing relief valve discharge performance for these plants with a discharge-per-batch format accounts for variations among plants in the number of batches produced. The EPA selected 100 polymerization batches as a convenient basis for expressing relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants with batch production processes in a discharge frequency format. Further, the EPA noted that the ability of batch PVC producers to limit the discharge frequency may be different for reactor and nonreactor discharges and that reactor discharges may vary by resin type at any plant. Consequently, relief valve discharges by individual PVC plants (except for continuous solution process plants) were classified according to type of discharge (i.e,, reactor vs. nonreactor) and the reactor discharges were separated by resin type. Nonreactor discharge sources at PVC plants include blowdown tanks, transfer lines, and storage vessels. Because usage of this equipment is also related to some extent to the frequency of batch polymerization operations, the relief valve discharge performance by nonreactor sources in PVC plants with batch production processes was also examined on the basis of number of discharges/100 batches. Unlike the batch process used to produce other PVC resin types, the solution PVC process is continuous. Thus relief valve discharge performance for the solution PVC process cannot be expressed on a frequency per batch basis. Instead, the relief valve discharge performance associated with the ' solution production process can only be expressed in terms of the total number of discharges (reactor and nonreactor) per year. Similarly, the EDG/VC production process is not a batch process, but is continuous. Thus, relief valve discharge performance by EDC/VC plants also cannot be expressed on a frequency per batch basis. Moreover, the EPA was unable to detect a direct relationship between discharge frequency and VG production at EDC/VC plants. Thus, the EPA decided to define releif valve discharge performance for EDC/VC plants on the basis of a total number of annual discharges. Findings. PVC Reactor Discharges. Suspension resins account for the highest percentage of total PVC production. The remaining PVC production is in the form of bulk, dispersion and solution resins. (A small amount of latex resin is produced by a process closely related to the dispersion process.) Examination of relief valve discharge performance associated with production of suspension and bulk resins indicates that reactor discharge frequency generally is either less than 0.035 discharges/100 batches or is much greater. (Recent reactor discharge frequencies for suspension resin plants with poorer performance levels ranged between 0.059 and 0.101 discharges/100 batches.) Further examination of relief valve discharge performance by suspension resin producers indicates that only one,plant experienced more than 4 discharges per year during the period from 1981 to 1983. Performance by this plant also exceeded 0.035 discharges/100 batches. The reactor discharge frequency associated with dispersion and latex production is typically zero. However, for a typical dispersion or latex resin process with a low production rate (l.e,, number of polymerization batches per year), a single emergency reactor discharge in a given year would be equivalent to a discharge frequency of about 0.035 discharges/100 batches. Nonreactor Discharges. Nonreactor discharge frequencies by PVC plants typically were either less than 0.025 discharges/100 batches or were much' greater. (Recent nonreactor discharge frequencies reflecting poorer : performance than the 0.025 level ranged between 0.048 and 0.225 discharges/100 batches.) Furthermore, withthe* exception of two producers, no more than three discharges per year were reported from nonreactor sources in PVC plants during the period from 1981 to 1983. Each of the five PVC plants that the EPA evaluated in detail was among those achieving 0.035 diecharges/100 batches or less in each of the reactor discharge categories and 0.025 discharges/100 batches or less in the nonreactor discharge category. The EPA examined individual discharge incidents for the PVC producers whose recent performance has exceeded 0.035 discharges/100 batches in one or more of the reactor discharge categories or Who exceeded 0.025 discharges/100 batches and 3 discharges per year from nonreactor sources. In every case, the EPA identified one or more discharges that were preventable. Elimination of these preventable discharges indicates that these producers should have achieved discharge frequencies comparable to the five PVC plants that the EPA evaluated in detail Solution PVC Process. Discharge frequency from both reactor and nonreactor sources by the single plant producing PVC by the solution process was zero during the period 1981 to 1983. Previously, this plant experienced as many as two discharges in a 12-month period. Recent performance suggests that preventable discharges have been eliminated at this plant. With the exception of a potential emergency discharge occurrence, future discharges at this plant are not anticipated. EDC/VC Discharges. During the review study, the EPA evaluated performance by one EDC/VC plant in detail. This plant experienced about four discharges that could be considered emergencies. Recent (1981 to 1983) relief valve discharge performance data for other EDC/VC producers indicates an industry range of 0 to 7 discharges/yr. Information obtained from plants during the review indicated that, where applicable, similar types of equipment, process modifications and operational procedures used to control relief valve discharges from PVC plants also are used at EDC/VC pants. The EPA examined discharges by the EDC/VC producers who exceeded four discharges in one or more years since 1981 and found that one or more of the discharges at each plant were preventable. Elimination of the preventable discharges would allow each 'of these plants to reduce their . annual discharge frequency to four or fewer. Summary ofNumerical Limits. Based on the study of current relief valve discharge performance by PVC and EDC/VC plants, the EPA is proposing that the following numerical limits for relief valve discharges be added to the standard. Each discharge causing an exoeedence of any numerical limit presented below would be considered s violation without regard to whether any individual discharge was preventable. CMwy NuntriMM* (i) Omiwsm Sent rvc ptoHi d^pgr- eon. aw bm iiiulwii) MRosctotc MW--Ian i**P poo- oats mmpeWis* M. bttchM, not lints* * dtochtrgat/*. ^ Htanln npn poo- 0.03$ mo (Mutng Ipn mW. --SPk nop pooooo ---- o.oss ettnppo/as (8) Nonssctor touott----- spp/* bttchtt. no* dKftarga*/*' * (2) Dttcnsrgot trom SVC i ptoMet/rtpMnto (solution tnd cow oonllnuout oraoottoM- * (3) DPOlgn hem EDC/VC 4 PtcMrSM/p- pun* j -- mpliance Provisions. The EPA prizes that all plants may rience an unavoidable reliefTM** large incident at some time, rination of relief valve discMJP rmance by PVC plants with km CHA 015177 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1189 discharge frequencies indicated that "polymerization batch" consists of each operating history, relief valve discharge plants with the lowest polymerization sequence of charging VC and other performance by certain plants is batch frequencies typically experience materials to the reactor, heating reactor, expected to be much better than the about one discharge in a 12-month contents, polymerization of reactor respective limits. For example, some period. The EPA concluded that for most contents, and removal (i.e., blowdown) new suspension resin PVC plants plants a 12-month reporting period of reactor contents. Any batch that is produce about 5,000 batches during a (rolling every 6-months) was both aborted following charging of VC to the 12-month compliance period. One and suitable and appropriate for determining reactor is nonetheless counted as a two discharges at one of these plants compliance with the proposed numerical polymerization batch in assessing during a compliance period would result limits. For plants producing only a small compliance. For PVC plants producing in a discharge performance of 0.02 and amount of a particular resin (i.e., low bulk resin, a single "polymerization 0.05 discharges per 100 batches, number of polymerization batches), an batch" includes both prepolymerization respectively. The second discharge apparent violation of the standard may and postpolymerization reactor during the compliance period would be result from a single discharge operations. a violation of the proposed 0.035 occurrence during a 12-month Discharge frequency can be recorded discharges per 100 batches limit despite compliance period as described below. in two ways. Discharge frequency can the fact that the first discharge would For a PVC plant producing a single be recorded on the basis of discharge result in performance well below the resin type to meet the numerical limit for events (involving discharges from one or limit. These types of plants were reactor discharges (i.e., 0.035 discharges/100 batches), it must more relief valves) or on individual relief valve discharges. In most cases, considered in selecting the proposed limits and reporting procedures for relief experience and average of no more than plants currently report discharges valve discharges. 'Hie result that plants one discharge per 2,858 polymerization individually when they occur from relief of this type must perform well below the batches over the preceding 12-month valves on separate equipment However, limits in the standard in order to be in period. An average reactor discharge certain equipment such as compliance is consistent with the frequency exceeding one discharge per polymerization reactors that are proposed limits, which were selected to 2,858 batches would be a violation of the equipped with multiple relief valves may represent an upper boundary on the standard. However, if the plant made experience discharges simultaneously number of allowable discharges less than 2,858 polymerization batches from more than one relief valve. Most intended by the standard. The EPA over the 12-month compliance period, a plants currently report such multiple expects that plants using the' best single discharge occurrence would be an discharges fronts single piece of technology and procedures should be apparent violation of the standard (i.e., equipment as a single discharge. Thus, able to perform better than the proposed the discharge frequency per 100 batches the performance levels serving as the limits. - would exceed 0.035), Because basis for the numerical limits represent Reporting Requirements. The current insufficient batches were made, the individual discharges and not multiple standard for relief valve discharges reported discharge frequency per 100 discharge events except when they requires producers to report discharges batches would not correctly reflect the occur from a single piece of equipment within 10 days of the incident The EPA performance by that plant in comparison For determining compliance with, thp is proposing to eliminate the 10 day to other plants complying with the numerical limits, discharge frequency is reporting requirements and to require standard. In rectifying the undue to be recorded on the basis of individual reporting of all discharges on a quarterly compliance burden posed on plants with discharges except when simultaneous basis. Although compliance is to be small numbers of batches by the discharges occur from relief valves on determined on a semiannual basis, discharge/100 batch format and the the same piece of equipment quarterly reporting of discharges is selected 12-month compliance period, A relief valve discharge in considered appropriate because violations of the the EPA is proposing to add additional to be any venting through a pressure standard may occur well before the end provisions affecting the number of relief device to prevent or relieve an of the 8-month period. Quarterly batches used to calculate the discharge overpressure condition from equipment reporting notifies enforcement personnel frequency. For PVC plants producing in VC service that results in emissions of potential violations and violations less than 2,858 batches of a particular of VC directly or indirectly to the that have already occurred prior to the resin, the minimum number of 2,858 atmosphere. In determining whether or end of the compliance period so that batches will be used when determining - not a relief valve discharge results in - corrective actions can take place sooner compliance with the numerical limits. emissions to the atmosphere, the following the end of the compliance PVC plants producing more than one controlling factor is the ultimate period. Information to be included in the resin type must demonstrate compliance disposition of the gases. Venting to a semiannual report for individual relief separately for reactor discharges manifold or header system that ' - ' valve discharges is to be reduced to occurring from different resin production ultimately discharges to the atomsphere include only the date, time, source, processes. Only the relief valve constitutes a relief valve discharge. If cause and estimated amount of each dischargea and polymerization batches the manifold or header discharges gases discharge occurrence. The semiannual specific to each resin type are through a control device meeting the 10 report will also inlcude information on considered for determining compliance. ppmv VC emission limit, the venting compliance status. ` However, for determining compliance does not constitute a relief valve In addition, plants will now be with the standard for nonreactor discharge. required to maintain relief valve discharges, the total number of For purposes of reporting compliance discharge records for 3 years, because of polymerization batches (regardless of status with the limits, plants will be the potentially significant increase in the resin type) are counted. required to calculate their discharge per time period between a discharge To determine the number of batch frequencies with sufficient occurrence and reporting of the polymerization batches produced for precision to demonstrate that discharge. purposes of assessing compliance, the performance is either equal to, below of Effective Date ofRevision. The following guidelines apply. A in excess of the limits. Based on current standard as written will remain CMA 015173 1190 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules in effect for relief valve discharges until the proposed revisions are promulgated. The proposed administrative revisions do not change the standard's original intent and are intended only to set limits to facilitate compliance and enforcement efforts. Thus, the current standard will continue to be enforced until the revisions are promulgated. Stripping-in-Reactor Compliance Test Procedure The test method for measuring reactor opening losses was developed for resin stripping operations that take place in vessels separate from the reactor. Some PVC plants, including all bulk resin manufacturers, however, do not use separate strippers to remove residual VC from the resin produced. Instead, these plants strip VC from the product resin in the reactor (postpolymerization reactor in the case of bulk resin producers]. For plants witl) reactor resin stripping operations, the concentration of VC in the reactor vapor space, as measured in accordance with the current standard, exceeds the 0J)2g/kg of PVC requirement. The high concentrations result form VC monomer diffusing from the resin into the vapor space during the period following completion of the stripping operation (normally occurring under a vacuum that must be broken before the reactor can be emptied] and before the reactor is completely emptied of PVC resin. According to the Federal Register notice of promulgation of the current VC standard (40 FR 48563, October 21.1978], any VC escaping from the resin after it has been stripped to acceptable levels is not intended to be counted as part of the reactor opening loss. However, the current standard did not include in the measurement method an acceptable method for determining what part of the VC in the vapor space has escaped fromthe resin after stripping is completed. The current standard allows bulk resin producers to calculate reactor opening loss emissions from the postpolymerization reactor based on the number of reactor evacuations, the vacuum invloved and the volume of gas in the reactors. For nonbulk resin producers with reactor resin stripping operations, calculation of reactor opening loss emissions is more complicated due to the presence of water vapor in the reactor vapor space. Currently, waivers of testing for producers with nonbulk resin stripping operations in the reactor have been granted on a case-by-case basis by the EPA Regions, typically with the provision that residual VC samples are anlayzed on each batch. A variety of calculation methods are then used to establish the reactor opening loss. Based on experience of the EPA Regional offices, a method for determining the reactor opening loss that accounts for stripping in the reactor has been developed for use by all nonbulk resin producers with reactor resin stripping operations and is included in the proposed revisions to the current VC standard. Limitations for resin residual and reactor opening loss are added together to give a total allowable VC content from these two sources. The measured resin residual VC and the calculated reactor opening loss would then be added together, and averaged over a 24-hour period according to resin type. If the 24-hour average meets the combined standard, the plant Would be considered to be in compliance with both the stripping and the reactor opening loss requirements. Leak Detection and Repair Background. The current standard requires implementation of a formalized program for detection of leaks from .equipment in VC service and elimination of these leaks. The formalized program includes a multipoint VC detector and a portable volatile organic compound (VOC) ' analyzer. The fixed-point monitoring system continuously monitors-VC . , concentrations in the work area-around equipment in VC service and sounds an alarm when concentrations exceed a prescribed leveL The portable monitor is used independently to screen individual equipment components for leaks. Rather than specifying the number of points to' be monitored, the sensitivities of the multipoint detector, the VC concentration that indicates a leak, and the actions to be taken to repair leaks,* the current standard requires each plant owner or operator to prepare a program plan containing these specifications and to submit the plan-to the EPA for approval. Plant owners or operators are required to submit data on background concentrations of VC in different areas of the plant to use in determining the VC concentration that should be designated as indicating a leak. Plans, therefore, were tailored by each plant and reviewed by the the EPA Regional Offices. The EPA found in the review study that differences in leak detection and elimination programs exist among PVC and EDC/VC production plants and miscellaneous sources and that sits? specific differences include variations in leak definitions and monitoring practices. The definition and monitoring practices, along With repair practices, are primary influences on the control effectiveness of leak detection and repair programs. Some plants implemented rigorous programs and others implemented programs lacking specific procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the effectiveness of leak detection and elimination programs varies among the plants. Since the current standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained more information pertaining to the control of emission from equipment leaks. Based on this information and the review of the leak detection and elimination plans being implemented to control emissions of VC. the EPA decided to specify leak detection and repair requirements for certain equipment components in VC service. Although information obtained from development of other standards indicates that a routine leak detection and repair program with a portable monitor can be an effective emission reduction technique without the requirement or a fixed pbint monitoring system, the EPA concluded that Fixedpoint monitoring systems already in place hove uses that justify"their retention in the current standard. In particular, fixed-point monitors allow for quick detection of certain large VC leaks that might otherwise go undetected until the next routine ' portable monitor screening. The EPA recognizes that existing fixed-point monitoring plans will need to be reviewed in light of the leak detection and repair requirements being specified at this time. The complexity of existing fixed-point monitoring plans, in terms of number and distribution of monitoring points, varies greatly among plants. Consequently, some plant owners or operators may want to alter the number ' of points that are monitored and the distribution of monitoring locations to better complement the specified portable monitoring requirements. Suck. changes to existing fixed-point monitoring plans will be allowed providing they do not alter the plant's ability to detect large VC leaks. The proposed revisions are primarily intended to standardize control of VC emissions from equipment leaks. In doing this, the EPA is concerned that existing effective plans not be A inappropriately changed. The proposM revisions include provisions that alts* plants with existing effective plans ta periodically demonstrate the effectiveness of their plans without^ additional requirements. According^ the EPA requests comments friw* industry representatives concerning specific effects of specifying leak CMA 015179 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1191 detection and repair requirements on effective existing plans. Leak Detection and Repair Requirements, The EPA established leak detection and repair requirements (40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V] for certain equipment in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service on June 6, 1984. These requirements were established in conjunction with the final standard for benzene equipment leaks. The requirements of Subpart V generally apply to pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator vessels. These requirements reflect the level of control that the EPA considers reasonable for equipment covered by developing standards for VHAP. The EPA is therefore proposing to add VC to the list of substances covered by Subpart V. Subpart V would substantively affect only valves and flanges in VC service within this industry. All other equipment in VC service are already required by the VC standard to comply with equipment and work practice standards consistent with those in Subpart V. For example, pumps and compressors meeting the dual mechanical seal requirements of the current VC standard will be in compliance with the Subpart V requirements. In addition, the sampling connection systems requirements of Subpart V are essentially the same as the current standard. The use of rupture discs for controlling leaks from pressure relief devices, as required by the VC standard, is consistent with the "no detectable emissions" requirement included in Subpart V. Requirements for controlling leaks from pressure relief devices are described in more detail later in this section. Thus. Subpart V will affect primarily valves and flanges in VC service by requiring a specific monitoring schedule, leak definition and repair provisions. Compliance with the provisions of Subpart V will be used to determine compliance with the portable monitor leak detection and elimination requirements in the current VC standard (40 CFR 61.65(b)(8)(ii)), and therefore, the current standard is being revised to reflect this change. However, process units within VC and PVC plants in which the percentage of leaking valves is equal to or less than 2.0 percent are considered by the EPA to be effectively controlling VC emissions from leaking valves. For these process units, the existing teak detection and elimination program will continue to be allowed while the percentage of leaking valves is 2.0percent or less. Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is found to exceed 2.0 percent will be required to comply with the provisions of Subpart V. The Subpart V requirements for valves are based on a leak detection and repair program that requires (1) monthly monitoring for valves in gas/ vapor and light liquid service. (2) an initial attempt at repairing these valves within 5 days after detection of a leak, (3) repair of leaking valves within 15 days after detection of the leak unless repair would require a process unit shutdown, and (4) repair of valves during the next process unit shutdown after repair is delayed until a process unit shutdown. Valves found not to leak for 2 successive months can be monitored quarterly until leaks are detected. Monitoring of equipment to detect leaks is conducted in accordance with Method 21 and a leak is defined as a measured organic concentration equal to or greater than 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppvm). For a complete description of the leak detection and repair requirements, see Subpart V (49 FR 23498, June 6,1984). In addition. Subpart V contains standards for other types of equipment (e.g., flanges, and open ended valves'or lines). Standards for flanges include monitoring with a portable instrument under prescribed procedures within'5 days of observing evidence of a potential leak by visual, audible or other means. Open-ended valves or lines are required to be capped, blinded or fitted with a second valve. These provisions are not expected to significantly affect producers with these types of equipment in VC service. The equipment and procedures employed as normal practice by these producers or as a result of the current VC standard are expected generally to ensure compliance with Subpart V. Pressure ReliefDevices. The EPA proposed and promulgated the work practices, equipment design and, operational standards in the current standard before explicit legal authority existed in Section 1)2. These requirements are found in S 61.85(b). In August of 1977, Congress amended Section 112 to allow the use of these requirements. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires that an emission standard (i.e., a performance standard) be established for control of a hazardous air pollutant unless, in the judgment of the EPA, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce such a standard. An emission standard allows for some flexibility in complying with the standard, since any control technique that achieves that standard may be applied. Section 112(e)(2) defines the following conditions under which it is not feadible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard: (1) If the pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant; or (2) if the application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations. Section 112(e)(1) allows that if an emission standard is not feasible to prescribe or endorce, then the EPA may istead promulgate a design, equipment work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof. The EPA has reviewed the design, equipment, work practice and operational requirements contained in the current VC standard. The only sources covered by the current standard with one of the requirements for which a performance standard (i.e., an emission standard) is feasible are pressure relief devices. As discussed below, the EPA is setting e "no detectable etniSsions" limit for these sources. For the other sources, the EPA is reinstating those requirements as set forth in the current standard. The EPA selected the use of rupture disks as the basis for the current standard for pressure relief devices. When the integrity of ruptures disks is maintained, equipment leaks through the relief device are eliminated. Rupture disks normally maintain their integrity unless an overpressure occurs. After the occurrence of an overpressure, replacement of the rupture disk once again eliminates equipment leaks of VC through the pressure relief device. For emission control techniques that eliminate equipment leaks, such as the use of rupture disks, a "no detectable emissions" limit is feasible. An instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv) above a background concentration based on Reference Method 21 can be used to indicate whether equipment leaks have been eliminated; that is, that the equipment has "no detectable emissions." The "no detectable emission" limit would not apply to discharges through the pressure relief device during overpressure relief. (These releases are covered under IS 81.84(a) and 61.65(a).) The standard would specify, however, that the relief device be returned to a state of "no detectable emissions" within S days after such a discharge. The standard would further require an annual test to verify the "no detectable emissions" status of the pressure relief ' devices and a test after each oyer CMA 015180 1192 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1965 / Proposed Rules pressure relief. This administrative change implements the basis of this standard consistent with the requirements of Section 112(e). Miscellaneous Revisions Based on discussions with the EPA regional personnel regarding their experience in administering the current VC standard, the EPA is proposing several additional administrative revisions that would facilitate compliance and enforcement efforts associated with the current standard These revisions represent minor changes to the standard. A brief description of these administrative revisions and the basis for making them follows. Definition of Leak, Exhaust Gas and Relief Valve Discharge. Functional definitions of "leak", "exhaust gas" and "relief valve discharge" are being added to the standard to clarify the applicability of the standard to each of these types of VC emissions. During their review of enforcement and compliance experience since the standard was promulgated, the EPA discovered several cases of confusion over the intended meaning of "leak", "exhaust gas" and "relief valve discharge." These three distinct categories of VC emissions are being defined in the revised standard to provide compliance and industry personnel with a clear understanding of which part of the standard applies to any given discharge of VC emissions to the atomosphere. Definition ofEDC and VC Purification. In the past some plants have misinterprented which equipment components are included in EDC purification and VC purification processes with the result that emissions from certain equipment intended to be covered by the standard may not have been controlled. The definitions of "EDC purification" and "VC purification" are being revised to clarify that all purification equipment followingEDC and VC formation were subject to regulation under the current standard. 10ppmv Standard. Two clarifying revisions are being madd'to the 10 ppmv regulations to improve understanding of the applicability of this part of the standard. First, although the test method for determining compliance with the 10 ppmv standard specifies that the average results from three 1-hour sampling runs be used, this 3-hour averaging period is not specified in the 10 ppmv requirements. Specifying that emissions may not exceed 10 ppmv over a 3-hour averaging period clarifies that instantaneous-compliance with the iti ppmv standard is not an intended requirement. Moreover, specification of the 3-hour averaging period is intended to clarify that the 10 ppmv standard applies to VC emissions in all exhaust gas streams covered by the 10 ppmv requirements, including any control device bypass streams. Requirements for calculating the VC content in bypassed emissions for purposes of reporting VC emissions in excess of the 10 ppmv standard are being added to the regulation. The EPA may use these calculations along with continuous emission monitoring results as indications of noncompliance if they show clearly that emissions in excess of the 10 ppmv requirements occurred. The second clarifying revision to the 10 ppmv standard involves the specification that the 10 ppmv requirements apply to each exhaust gas stream from the covered equipment The purpose of this revision is to dearly prohibit plants from using dilution with other exhaust gas streams as a technique for meeting the 10 ppmv requirement This revision ia not intended to prohibit the common practice of combining two or more exhaust gas streams in a common header leading to a control device. According to the revised 10 ppmv requirements, combining an exhhust gas stream containing more than 10 ppmv VC with another exhaust gas stream containing less than 10 ppmv VC is allowed only when the combined stream is ducted to the control device. Relief Valve Definition. The current standard for relief valve discharges was intended to apply not only to safety relief valve but to all types of pressure relief devices. A definition of "relief valve" is being proposed under the revised standard to clarify that' the current relief valve discharge standard also applied to rupture discs, manual vents and other pressure relief devices that vent to the atmosphere to protect process equipment from unsafe overpressure conditions-The definition of relief valve in the proposed standard. is, not intended to inrnude pressure control valves used to control flow to an incinerator or other control device. However, the current relief valve discharge standard did cover emissions from pressure control valves. Also not included in the definition of relief valve are pressure control systems such as polymerization reaction shortstop systems or refrigerated water systems which act to redude pressure by means other than venting. Reactor Opening Lam Requirements for Bulk PVC Resin Producers. Bulk . PVC resin production differs from production of other types of PVC resin in that the polymerization reaction ia carried out in two separate vessels. The reaction irinitiated in the "prepolymerization" reactor and the reactor contents are then transferred to the "postpolymerization" reactor where the reaction ia completed. Stripping of residual VC in bulk resin is performed following the postpolymerization step in the reactor vessel. The postpolymerization reactor generally ia opened after every batch and must comply with the reactor opening loss limits specified in the standard. Because the prepolymerization reactor is opened less frequently and because determination of gross product [for reactor opening loss estimation) is difficult, the EPA has allowed plants to meet the equipment opening requirements for minimizing VC emissions from polymerization reactor openings. The reactor opening loss requirements are being revised at this time to'specifically exclude prepolymerization reactors. Accordingly, VC qpiissjoqs from all opening of prepolymerization reactors will be subject (o the equipment ppening requirements. This revision is intended to clarify and improve the consistency of the equirements of the revised standard as they apply to bulk PVC resin producers in light of actual industry practice. No reduction in VC emission control stringency will result from the change in requirements for prepolymerization reactors. Inprocess Wastewater Requirements for Gasholder Seals. Under the current standards, the VC content of inproceas wastewater must be reduced to leu than 10 ppm exposure of the wastewater to the atmosphere. In the case of gasholder water seals, the VC content in the exposed water seal may exceed 10 ppm during normal operation of the gasholder. Experience since the standard was promulgated indicates that compliance with the atmospheric exposure limit is not practicable for this particular inprocess wastewater source. Consequently, the definition of inprocess wastewater is being revised to exclude the exposed water real of gasholders. The inprocess wastewater stripping requirements will continue to apply to wastewater after removal from the gasholder seal. Elimination of30-Day Limit an Equivalency Requests. The currrot standard specifies a 30-day limit for existing sources to submit request* for use of equivalent methods. Because earn a limit poses a restriction on foitisova by industry to develop alternatire. ann potentially more effective. c*troi__ measures, the 30-day limitation * eliminated. CMA 015181 ! 1 **' F-- - $ I Federal Register / Vol, 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1193 Other. In addition to the revisions described above, a review of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the current standard was performed to identify ways to ease recordkeeping and reporting burden on plants and to identify any additional recordkeeping and/or reporting needs. The EPA identified two areas where the reporting burden on plants could be reduced. The current reporting requirements for residual VC monomer specifications and reactor opening measurements require that results of all compliance tests be reported in semiannual reports. The EPA is proposing to allow plants to report only test results that show exceedences of the respective standards. If no exceedences occur, plants will be required to indicate that fact in the semiannual report This type of exception reporting is currently allowed for demonstration of compliance with the ID ppmv standard for process vents. The second area is the requirement to report relief valve discharges within 10 days of their occurrence. The EPA is proposing to allow plants to report relief valve discharge occurrences on a quarterly basis rather than within 10 days of their occurrence. Furthermore, the reporting requirements for relief valve discharges have been streamlined by dropping the need to report actions taken and implemented preventive measures far each discharge. Information on the date, time, source, cause and estimated amount of individual relief valve discharge will be included with the semiannual reports along with information on compliance status. Additional semiannual reporting requirements being added for PVC producers are the number of reactor openings and the. design capacity . number of polymerization batches for each resin type. This requirement will provide general information to facilitate review of industry-wide compliance, status during past reporting periods. - Specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements are included as part of the revisions to the leak detection and repair requirements. The recordkeeping requirements include preparation of an initial log to record equipment component identification, physical tagging of equipment components which leak, and maintaining a record of equipment leaks and repair action. Included in the reporting requirements are the number of equipment leaks and the repair status of leaking components. Depending on the particular leak detection and repair program in place, these requirements may represent an increase or decrease in the overall revisions do not increase the cost of recordkeeping and reporting currently compliance with the standard. practiced by individual plants. The EPA concluded that the current Public Hearing recordkeeping requirements, as If requested, a public hearing will be specified in 40 CFR 61.71, are still held to discuss the proposed revisions to appropriate. However, the EPA is the VC standard in accordance with proposing to extend the current sections 112(b)(1)(B) and 307(d)(5) of the recordkeeping requirements for all Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make reporting activities from 2 to 3 years. oral presentations on the proposed The net impact of the revised 'revisions should contact the EPA at the recordkeeping and reporting requirements proposed by the EPA is estimated to be a decrease in a address given in the addresses section of this preamble. Oral presentations will ba limited to 15 minutes each. Any paperwork burden of about 2.8 person- member of the public may file a written years. ` statement before, during, or within 30 It should be noted that all days after the hearing. Written Comprehensive Environmental statements should be addressed to the Response, Compensation, and Liability Central Docket Section address given in Act (CERCLA) Section 101(14] -the AOOMSSCS section of this preamble hazardous substances such as vinyl chloride ere subject to reporting requirements under Section 103(a) of CERCLA. CERCLA requires that persons in charge of vessels or facilities from which hazardous substances have been released in quantities (RQs) immediately notify the National A verbatim tianscript of the hearing and written statements will be available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours at the EPA's Central Docket Section in-Washington. D C. (see ADOflESSES section of this preamble). ` * * Response Center (NRC) of the release. Docket The toll-free 24-hour telephone number of the NRC is 800-424-8802 and in Washington, D.C. metropolitan area it is (202) 428-2675. (See CERCLA Section 103 and 48 FR 23852, May 25,1983.) Vinyl chloride was assigned a statutory 1 pound reportable quantify under Section 101(14) until adjusted by regulation, and is presently undergoing assessment tor both chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Its RQ will be adjusted pending the outcome of these reviews by the Office of Emergency and Remedial - Tire dpeket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties to identify 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 [J 307(d)(7(A)}). Response. Federally permitted releases under CERCLA (See CERCLA Section 101(1) and 48 FR 23552) are not subject to CERLA notification requirements or liabilities. However, releases of ' hazardous substances that are not subject to a permit or control regulation must be reported. . Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . Miscellaneous In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 -regulation, including health, and requires that adverse afreets of ah economic and technological issues. Federal regulation* upon small , The information collection businesses be identified. According to requirements in this proposed rule have the current guidelines of the Small been submitted for approval to the Business Administration (SBA), a small Office of Management and Budget business that produces or processes VC (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction is one that has 500 employees or less. Act of 1980,44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Currently, none of the existing Comments on these requirements should producers or processors that are be submitted to the Office of affected by the standard are estimated Information and Regulatory Affairs of to be small by this definition. Since none OMB, marked "Attention: Desk Officer of the companies meets the SBA for EPA". as well as to the EPA docket definition of small business, no described above. The final rule will regulatory flexibility analysis is respond to any OMB or public required. Even if an analysis were comment* on the information collection required, the proposed administrative requirements. CMA 015182 1194 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA product containing vinyl chloride or must judge whether a regulation is polyvinyl chloride but which has not. "major" and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact been discharged to a wastewater treatment process or discharged Analysis. This regulation is not major untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder because: (1] The national annualized seal water is not inprocess wastewater compliance costs, including capital charges resulting from the standards until it is removed from the gasholder. ***** total less than $100 million; (2] the standards do not cause a major increase in prices or production costs; and (3) the standards do not cause significant adverse effects on domestic competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or competition in foreign markets. This regulation was submitted to the. Office of Management and Budget for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included in Docket (I) "In vinyl chloride service" means that a piece of equipment either contains or codtacts a liquid that is at least 10 percent vinyl chloride by weight or a gas that is at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride as determined according to die provisions of $ 61.87(h). The provisions of { 81.67(h) also specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service. This definition must be used in place qf the definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart V of this part. ***** Number A-81-21. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because no small entities are affected. (o) "Ethylene dichioride purification" includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride production which follows ethylene dichioride formation. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" includes any part qf the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl' chloride formation. ; ***,*' (v) "Relief valve" means each pressure relief devibe including pressure list of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 relief valves, rapture disks, manual Air pollution control, Asbestos. Beryllium, Hazardous materials, Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: Dated December 31.1984. Atvin L. Aim, Acting Administrator. , vents and other pressure relief systems used to protect process components from overpressure conditions. "Relief valve" does not include control valves used to control flow to an incinerator or other air pollution control device. (w) "Leak" means any of several PART 61-fAMENDED] events that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part process equipment Leaks include events 61 as follows; regulated under Subpart V of this part 1. The proposed changes to4fl CFR such as: (1) An instrument reading of Part 61 proposed at 42 FR 28154, June Z, 10,000 ppm or greater (2) indications of 1977 are withdrawn. . liquid dripping; (3) a sensor detection of 2. By revising the definitions hi failure of a seal system, failure of a existing $ 61.6l(j], (1), (o) and (p) for "in barrier fluid system, or both; and (4) process wastewater", "in vinyl chloride detectable emissions as indicated by fen service", "ethylene dichloride instrument reading of greater than 500 purification'' and "vinyl chloride / ppm above background. Leaks also purification" and by adding definitions *7 include events regulated under for the terms "relief value", "leak", \ - 161.65(b)(8)(i) of detection of ambient "exhaust gas" "relief valve discharge " concentrations in excess of background and "3-hour period" in new paragraphs concentration. Emissions of vinyl (v). (w), (x), (y) and (z). chloride not regulated under $ 61.61 (a) and (b); 161.83(a); 161.64 (a), (b), (c), $81.61 Definitions. *#** (d), (e) and (f): and $ 61.65 fa) and (b)(1), (b)(2). (b)(3). (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8). (b)(7) (j) "Inprocess wasterwater" means and (b)(9) shall be considered a leak. A any water which, during manufacturing relief valve discharge is not a leak. or processing, comes into direct contact (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride discharged directly or ultimately to the or results from the production or use of atmosphere that was initially contained any raw material, intermediate product in or was in direct contact with the finished product by-product or waste equipment for which 10 ppm emission limits are prescribed in $ 61.62 (a) and (b) ; $ 61.63(a); $ 61.64 (a)(1). (a)(2), (b). (c) and (d); $ 61.65 (b)(l)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9)(ii). A leak as defined in paragraph (wj of this section is not an exhaust gaB. (y) "Relief valve discharge" means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve. (z) "3-hour period" means any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour commencing on the hour). 3. By changing " all exhaust gases" to "each exhaust gas stream" and making other minor clarifying revisions in 61.62(a), $ 61.63(a), and { 61.64 (a)(1). (b), (c) and (d) as follows: $ 61.62 Emtselon standard for atfiyfane dichioride plants. (a) Ethylene dichioride purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in ethylene dichioride purificatipn is poj to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-h'our period or as determined in accordance with $ 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in $ 61.65(a). This requirement does not preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined steam ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does no* exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in $ 61.66. This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in $ 6l.65(b)(6](f before being opened. ***** 161.63 Emission standard for vinyl cnvonov puuuv* An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and $ 61 (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: The concentration of vi* chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purificati not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3 period or as determined in accordar with 1.61.67(g)(1)), except as provid 161.65(a). ibis requirement does nr 'preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined ste. ducted through a control system frc which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as provided in $ 61.66. This requireme does not apply to equipment that h been opened, is out of operation, a met the requirement in $ 61.65(b)( before being opened. ***** CMA 015183 Federal Register / Vol. 50. -No. 6 / Wednesday. January 8, 1985 / Proposed Rules_________ 1195 $1.64 Emission standard tar polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 181.65. (a) Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors: (1) The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with $ 01.67(g)(1)), except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and $ 61.65(a). ***** (b) Stripper The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with $ 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in S 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in $ 61,85fb)(6)(i) before being opened. (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding containers. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each mixing, weighing, or holding container in vinyl chloride service which precedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no stripper) in the plant process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with $ 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in $ 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in $ 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. (d) Monomer recovery system. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exahust gas stream from each monomer recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with fi 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in { 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in $ 61-86{b)(6)(i) before being opened. ~ ***** 4. By revising existing paragraphs { 61.64(a)(2) and by removing (a)(3) as follows: $61.64 Emission standard lor polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and i 61.66. (a) Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors: ***** (2) The reactor opening loss from each 7. By revising paragraph (a) to { 61.65 reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl as follows: chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) of poly vinyl chloride product except as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. This requirement does not apply to prepolymerization reactors in the bulk process. This requirement does apply to postpolymerization reactors in the bulk process, where the product means the gross product of prepolymerization and $61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dteNoride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) Relief valve discharges. (1) Polyvinyl chloride plants (suspension, dispersion, latex, and bulk processes). postpolymerization. ****.# (1) Reactor. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on 5. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text and adding paragraph (e)(3) to 161.64 as follows: $61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. ' (e) Sources following the stripperfe). The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripperfa) [or the reactors) is the plant has no stripper(s)] in the plant process flow including but not limited to, centrifuges, . . concentrators, blend tanks, filters, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inprocess wastewater, except aa provided iq paragraph (f) of this section: ***** ` polyvinyl chloride reactors in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed the following limits except as provided in paragraph (a)(l)(iii) of this section. For ail reactors producing suspension resins within a PVC plants the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 0.035 ' discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 4 discharges per year. For all reactors producing dispersion and latex resins within a PVC plant, the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. For all reactors including prepolymerization and postpolymerization reactors, producing bulk resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 0,035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. (ii) The number of discharges to the (3) The provisions of this paragraph apply at all times including when offspecification or other types of resins are atmosphere from relief velves on equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) in vinyl chloride service is not made. 6, By adding paragraph (f) to 161.64 aa follows: to exceed 0.025 discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 3 discharges per year except as provided in paragarph (a)(l)(iii) of this section. $1.64 Emission standard Inr polyvinyl - (lii) The limits specified in paragraphs UNNVU9 (MraV ***** (a)(l)(i) and (a)(l)(ii) of this section may be exceeded when only one relief valve ff) Reactor used as stripper. When a nonbulk resin reactor is used as a stripper this paragraph may be applied in lieu of $ 61.64 (a)(2) and .(e)(1): (1) The weighted average emissions of vidyl chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the-reactor used as a stripper from all grades of polyvinyl chloride resin stripped in the reactor on each calendar day may not exceed: (i) 202 g/kg (0.00202 lb/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. discharge to the atmosphere occurs during die 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-moitth reporting period. (2) Polyvinyl ehloride plants (solution and other continuous PVC production processes). The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on all equipment in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 1 discharge per year. (3) Ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride plants. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on equipment in vinyl chloride service ii not to exceed 4 discharges per year. (ii) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 Ib/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. (4) Each relief valve discharge that contributes to relief valve discharge frequency in excess of any limit prescribed in paragarphs (a)(1). (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this paragraph constitutes 1196 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules an individual violation of the respective limit. (5) For every relief valve discharge to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source, the date and time of the discharge, the cause of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be submitted in writing to the Administrator as part of the reporting requirements of paragraph $ 61.70. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the'Administrator for a minimum of 3 years. 8. By revising paragraphs (b}(3), (b)(8)(i), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(8)(iv) and (bj(8](vi) to $ 61.65 as follows: $ 61.65 Emission standard for ethylano dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) * * * fb) Fugitive emission sources (1) * * * (2) * * * (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seals: (i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing sealless pumps, pumps with double 1 mechanical seals or equivalent as provided in g 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in { 61.66. [ii] Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all reciprocating pumps ivinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in g 61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. (iiij Rotating compressor\ Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating compressors in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing compressors with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in g 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs Is into the compressor, by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a cdhtrol system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in g 61.66. (iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all reciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in 61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the compressor, by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which .the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 61.66 (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all agitators'in;vinyl' chloride service are to be minimized by installing agitators with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to .be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the agitated vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 181.68. ** (* 4 ,' (8) Leak detection and elimination. (i] It includes a reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system for detection of major leaks and identification of the general area of the . plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system means a device which obtains air samples from one or more points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromatography or, if the owner or operator assumes that ail hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. (iii) It provides for an acceptable calibration and maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon detector. For the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration defined as a leak according to paragraph (b)(8)(vi) of this section. The calibration is to be done with either (A) A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases specified in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Test Method 106 and in accordance with section 7.1 of test Method 106, or (B) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the appropriate concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas _ composition of the calibration gas cylinder standard is to have been certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must have recommended a maximum shelf life fos each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 5 percent"from the certified value. Itie date of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration and recommended maximum shelf life must have been affixed to the cylinder before shipment from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may be directly used to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as described in section 7.3 of Test Method 106. The requirements in section 5X3.1 and 5X3.2 of Test Method 106 for certification of cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of calibration standards are .to be followed. (iv) The location and number of points to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring provided for in the program are acceptable when they are compared with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl chloride service and the size and physical layout of the plant * * f` * * - (vi) It contains a definition of leak which is acceptable when compared with the background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system are to be included^ with the description of the program, i** definition of leak for a given plant may vary among tire different areas within the plant and is also to change over ome as background concentrations in the plant are reduced. * * * j i j CMA 015185 Federal Register / Vol, 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January's, 1985 / Proposed Rules_________1197 9. By revising paragraph (b)(4) to S 61.65 as follows: S 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dtchiorlds, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants ***** (b) Fugitive emission sources. ***** (4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with $ 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part. * 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of S 61.65 as follows: { 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. *6666 (b) Fugitive emission sources. ***** (7) Samples. Unused portions of samples containing at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to be returned to the process or destroyed in a control device from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does not exceed 10 ppm. Sampling techniques are to be such that sample containers in vinyl chloride are purged into a closed process system. 11. By revising paragraphs (b)(8) introductory text, (b)(8)(ii), and (b)(8)(v) to $ 61.65 as follows: S 61.65 Emission standard for athyleno dlchloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. *4* (b) Fugitive emission sources. ***** (8) Leak detection and elimination. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by instituting and Implementing a lead detection and repair program consistent with the provisions of Subpart V of this part. The program is to be implemented within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under 101.11. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: U) * * * (ii) It includes a reliable and accurate portable hydrocarbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of Subpart V of this part An owner or operator is exempt from i 61.242-l(d), $$ 61.242-7 (a), (b) and (c), | 81.246 and 81.247 of Subpart V of ttys part for any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is demonstrated to be equal to or less than 2.0 percent as determined in accordance with the following: (A) A performance test as specified in paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(C) of this section shall be conducted initially within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations, annuity and at times requested by the Administrator. (B) For each performance test a minimum of 200 or 90 percent of the total valves in VOC service (as defined in fi 60.481 of Subpart W of Part 80} within the process unit shall be randomly selected and monitored within 1 week by the methods specified in $ 61.245(d) of Subpart V of this part If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is detected. The leak percentage shall be determined by dividing the number of valves in VOC service for which leaks are detected by the number of tested valves in VOC service. (C) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired in accordance with S 81.242-7 (d) and (e) of Subpart V of this part (D) The results of the performance test shall be submitted in writing to the Administrator in the first semiannual report following the performance test as part of the reporting requirements of S 61.70. >. (E) Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is found to be greater than 2.0 percent muty cotyply with all provisions of Subpart V of this part within 90 days. ***** (v) It contains a plan of action to be taken when a leak is detected consistent with Subpart V of this part 12. By revising { 61.66 as follows: 861Jf Equfvatont qufpmtnt mn4 pfOOOdUTM* Upon written application from an owner or operator, the Administrator may approve use of equipment or procedures which have been, demonstrated to his satisfaction 1o be eqtyvalent in terms of reducingvinyl chloride emissions to the atmosphere to those prescribed for compliance with a specific paragraph of this subpart 13. By revising paragraph (f) of f 61.67 as follows: $ 61.67 Emission teals. *** (f) The owner or operator shall retain, at the plant and make available, upon request for inspection by the Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, records of emission test results and other data heeded to determine emissions. 14. By revising paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(i), and (g)(3)(iii) of i 61.87 as follows: $61.67 Emission tests. (8) * * * (3) When a stripping operation is used to attain the emission limits in $ 61.64 (e) and (f), emissions are to be determined using Test Method 107 as follows: (i) The number of strippers (or reactors using as strippers) and samples and the types and grades of resin to be sampled are to be determined by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the test based on the plant's operation. (ii) * * * (iii) The corresponding quantity of material processed by each stripper (or reactor used as a stripper) is to be determined on a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. 15. By revising paragraph (g)(5) . introductory text and adding paragraph (g)(6) tirf 61.87 as follows: $61.67 Emission tests. ***** (8) * * * (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emission limit is prescribed in $ 61.64(a)(2) is to be determined. The number of reactors for which the determination is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. ***** (6) For a reactor that is used as a stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper for which an emission limit is prescribed in $ 61.64(f) are to be determined. The/number of reactors for which the determination is to be made is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. (i) For each btftch stripped in the reactor, the following measurements are to be made: (A) The concentration (ppm) of vinyl chloride in resin after stripping, measured according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section: (B) The reactor.vacuum (mm Hg) at end of strip from plant instrument; and (C) The reactor temperature (*C) at end of strip from plant instrument CMA 015186 1198 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules (ii) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the following information is to be determined: (A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water in the reactor at end of strip from the following table; ? ! ! RMCtf* vapor ttnporfr lure CQ HrO VOpor (***fc*a (mm *Q> Raoctor vapor tamper*, tura <`q H*0 vapor proaaura (mm Reactor vapor tamper* tur* CC) 40 55 3 41 50.3 42 61.5 43 04.8 44 68.3 4$ 71 0 40 75.0 47 . 40 3.7 49 08.0 50 02.5 51 07.2 SO 102.1 $3 107.2 54 1125 55 118.0 50 123.0 57 129.0 50 130.1 50 00 149.4 <1 150.4 02 163.0 03 171.4 04 179.3 65 197 5 60 196.1 67 206.0 60 214.2 60 223.7 70 233.7 71 243.0 72 2540 73 206.7 74 2772 75 280.1 70 301.4 77 314.4 70 3272 79 341.0 350.1 01 380.7 02 304.0 03 400.0 a* 410.0 05 433.0 86 460.0 87 408.7 88 487.1 88 506.1 90 525.9 01 5400 02 507 0 03 5060 04 610.0 06 0330 06 067.0 97 082.1 8 707 3 00 7302 100 760.0 [B] The partial pressure (mm Hg) of vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip from the following equation: PPVA = 780--RV--VPW Where: PPVC=partial pressure of vinyl chloride, tn mm Hg 780=atmospheric pressure at 0*C in mm Hg RV=absolute value of reactor vacuum, in mm Hg VPW--vapor pressure of water, in mm Hg (C) The reactor vapor space volume (m3J at end of strip from the following . equation: nvsv-nc-wv- PVCW where: - RVSV--reactor vapor space volume, tat m* RC--reactor capacity, in tn* WV--volume et water in feeder tram recipe, in m* PVCW --dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg 833 -typical density of polyvinyl chloride, in kgM* (iii) Foreach batch stripped in the reactor, the combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper is to be determined using the following equation: (PPVC)(RVSV)(1.002) C=(PPMVC)(ltr*)+ (PVCWMZ73+RT) where: be revised only after following the C-g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride product PPMVC--concentration of vinyl chloride in resin after stripping, in ppm 10"*=conversion factor for ppm PPVC=partial pressure of vinyl chloride determined according to paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(B) of this section, in mm Hg RVSV--reactor vapor space volume determined according to paragraph . (8)(61()IC) f this section, in m* 1,002-ideal gas constant in g--`K/mm Hg-- m* for vinyl chloride PVCW--dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe. In kg 273--conversion factor for *C to *K RT=reactor temperature, in *C procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section. (3) Samples used in determining the percent vinyl chloride content shall be representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts the equipment. 17. By adding paragraphs (d). (e) and (f) to S 61.86 as follows: S 61.88 Emission monitoring. * ' * * (d) When exhaust gas(es), having 16. By adding paragraph (h) to $ 61.67 as follows: **.* * r emission limits that art subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, are emitted to the atmosphere around die control system and required (h)(1) Each piece of equipment within a process unit that can reasonably contain equipment in vinyl chloride service is presumed to be in vinyl chloride service unless an owner or ' operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment is not hi vinyl chloride service. For e piece of equipment to be considered not in vinyl chloride service, it must be determined that the percent vinyl chloride content can ba reasonably expected not to exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams and 10 percent by volume for gas streams. For purposes of determining the percent vinyl chloride content of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment, procedures that conform to the methods described in ASTM Method D-2287 (incorporated by reference as specified in 161.16) shall be used.* * vinyl chloride monitoring system, the vinyl chloride content of the emission shall be calculated (in units of each applicable emission limit) by best practical engineering judgment based on the discharge duration and known VC concentrations in the affected equipment as determined in accordance with 101.67(h) or other acceptable method. (e) For each 3>hour period, the vinyl chloride content of emissions subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section shall ba averaged (weighted according to the proportion ef time that emissions were continuously monitored and that emissions bypassed the continuous monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under 161.70(c)(1). *-*2X1) An owner or operator may use engineering judgment rather than the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section to demonstrate that the percent vinyl chloride content does not exceed 10 percent by weight fpr liquid streams and 10 percent by Volume for gas streams, provided that the engineering judgment demonstrates that the vinyl chloride content clearly does not exceed 10 percent. When an owner or operator and the Administrator do not agree on whether a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service, however, the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall ba iisad to raaolve the disagreement (ii) If an owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment is in vinyl chloride service, the determination can .- (() Pot each vinyl chloride emisrioote the atmosphere determined in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section to be in excess of the applicable emission limits, the owner or operator shall record the Identity of the souwe(sl the date, time, and duration of the excess emission, the cause of the emission, the approximate total vtnyi chloride loss during the excess emission and the method used for determining * vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be retained and made available iw inspection by the Administrator as required by 161.71(a). 18, By changing the title from _ _A "Semiannual report" to "Reporting by revising paragraph (a) of 161^ m follows: CMA 015187 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1199 $61.70 Reporting (a)(1) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall submit to the Administrator on September 15 and March 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraphs, (c). (d) and (e) of this section and on December 15 and June 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraph (e) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2). (2) In the case of an existing source that submits semiannual reports on an approved fixed schedule other than September 15 and March 15, the approved semiannual reporting schedule shall be used to report the information required in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section. In addition, the information required in paragraph (e) of this section will be reported exactly 3 months following the semiannual reporting dates. (3) The first report is to be submitted following the first full 3 month reporting period after the initial report is submitted. 19. By revising paragraph (c)(1) of $ 61.70 as follows: $ 61.70 Reporting. **** * (c)* * * (1) The owner ot operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content of emissions for each 3-hour period during which average emissions are in excess of the emission limits in $ 61.62 (a) or (b), { 61.63(a), or $ 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c), or (d), or during which average emissions are in excess of the emission hmits specified for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in $ 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted in . $ 61.65 (b)(i)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6)(ii). or (b) (9)(ii). If emissions in excess of the emission limits are not detected, the report shall contain a statement that no excess emissions have been detected. The emissions are to be determined in accordance with $ 61.68(e). 20. By revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, removing paragraphs (c] (2](iv), revising paragraph (c)(2](iii) and revising (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi) introductory text to $ 61.70 as follows: $ 61.70 Reporting. **** * (c) * * * (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is need to attain the emission level pirescribed in $ 61.64(e). the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. (0 * * * (ii) * * * (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in S 61.67(g)(3). (iv) [Reserved] (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any ^4-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentration, as determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in $ 61.64(e). The vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c](2)(ii) of this section shall be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the stripper(s) that calendar day, according to the following equation: .w 2p-Iiy Ve4 . . +P'.io. Ar<---------------------------- -------------------- where: A = 24-hour average concentration of type, Ti resin in ppm (dry weight basis]. Q=Total production of type 71 rosin over the 24-hour period, in kg. 71=Type of resin: i=\2. . . m where m is total number of resin types produced during the 24-hour period. M= Concentration of vinyl chloride in one sample of grade.Gi resin, in ppm. P= Production of grade Gt resin represented by the sample, in kg. C4* Grade of resin; e.g.. G,, G* and Oj,, n=Total number of grades of resin produced during the 24-hour period. u If no 24-hour average resin vinyl . chloride concentrations in excess of the limits prescribed in $ 61.64(e) are measured, the report shall state that no excess resin vinyl chloride - concentrations were measured. (vi) The owner or operator shall retain at the source and make available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years records of all data needed to furnish the information required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section. The records are to contain the following information: (A) * ... (B)* - * * * f*` ' * * * #" ti. By revising paragraph (c)(3) of $ 61.70 as follows: ` $ 61.70 Reporting ***** (C)* * * (3) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of any emissions from each reactor opening in excess df the emission limits prescribed in $ 61.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance with} 61.67(g)(5), except that emissions for each reactor are to be determined. If emissions in excess of the emission limits are not detected, the report shall include a statement that excess emissions have not been detected. ***** 22. By adding paragraph (c)(4) to { 61.70 as follows: . $61.70 Reporting ' 1 ***** (c) * * * (4) la polyvinyl chloride plants for which stripping in the reactor is used to attain the emission level prescribed in $ 61.64(f), the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride emissions from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper. . (i) One representative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken from each batch of each grade of resin immediately following the completion of the stripping operation, and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. The corresponding quantity of material processed in each stripper batch is to be recorded and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. (ii) .The vinyl chloride content in each. sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 161.67(g)(3). ___ (iii) The combined emission from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper are to be determined for each batch stripped in* a reactor according to the procedure prescribed in $ 61.67(g)(6). (iv) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper as determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in $ 61.64(f). The combined reactor opening loss and emissions from CMA 015188 1200 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules all sources following the reactor used as a stripper associated with each batch are to be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin stripped in reactors that calendar day as follows: For each type of resin (suspension, dispersion, latex, bulk, other), the , following calculation is to be performed: C P Cp . Pp Cp , . Pp Cp A 1-1 G1 G1 - G1 G1 + G2 G2 + . . . + Gn Gn --U----------- ----------------------- iTT--:---------------------'-- Where: A--24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight basis). Q--Total production of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the ' 24-hour period, in kg. C--Average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor uaed as a stripper of all batches of grade G, resin for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour. period in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry .weight basis) (determined according to procedure prescribed in f 61.67(g)(8)). reproduction of grade Gi resin in the batches for which C is determined, in kg, Gi=Grade of resin; e,g,, Gi, Gi, and Gi. n=Total number of grades of resin in batches for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period. If no 24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used a stripper in excess of the limits prescribed in { 61.64(f) are determined, the report shall state that no excess vinyl chloride emissions were determined. 23. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to $ 61.70 as follows: {>1.70 Reporting. **** (d) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of relief valve discharges as prescribed in { 61.65(a)(4), and the owner or operator shall report exceedences of the relief valve discharge frequency limits prescribed in { 61.65(a) to be determined as follows: (1) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing dispersion, latex or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinly chloride reactors is to be determined using the following equation. Separate calculations are to be made for each resin type (t) as defined: N Where Fi relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from all reactors producing resing type t N--total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period from all reactors producing resin type t Y=total number of polymerization batches of resin type t during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period divided by 100 t=resin type: dispersion (including latex) or bulk resin type (2) For polyvinyl chloride plants. producing suspension resins, th'e relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinyl chloride reactors is to be determined in two ways using the following equations: v" where relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batchai from all reactors producing suspension rejin Fat=relief velve discharge frequency per 12: V month period from all reacfore producing suspension resin . . N=total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period from all reactors producing suspension resin ' Y=total number of polymerization batches of suspension resin during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period divided by 100 (3) For polyvinyl chloride plantar producing suspension, dispersion, latex, or bulk resins, the relief velve discharge frequency from all other equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) is to be determined in two ways using the following equations: N F, : and F,-N Y where F,=relief valve diecharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from all equipment (excluding reactors) Fi = relief valve discharge frequency per 12- month period from all equipment (excluding reactors) N=total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period from all equipment (excluding reactors) Y=total number of polymerization batches of all resin types combined divided by 100 (4) For polyvinyl chloride plants using the solution process or any other continuous production process, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all equipment types during the 12-month period preceding the close of the ft-month reporting period. (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinyl chloride plants, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all equipment types during the 12-month period preceding the dose of the 6- month reporting period. (6) A polymerization batch consists of each sequence of charging VC and other materials to the reactor, heating reactor contents, polymerization of reactor contents, and removal of reactor contents including any incomplete sequence that is aborted after charging VC to the reactor. For bulk resin production plants, a single "polymerization batch" includes both prepolymerization and postpolymerization reactor operations. (e) The owner or operator shall include in the report the number of relief va{ve discharges to the atmosphere during the 3-month period preceding the ; report from each of the following sources: suspension resin production reactors; dispersion and latex resin production reactors: bulk resin production reactors: all nonreactor equipment iit PVC plants; all equipment used in aolution process and other continuous process FVC plants: and D equipment in EDC/VC plants: sny other source. (f) The owner or operator shall include in the report the number of reactor openings and the design capacity of the number of polymerization batches for each type of resin in each plant during the 8-montn period preceding the report. The design capacity of the number of . polymerization batches may be defineo CMA 015189 Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules initially and remain unchanged unless significant changes to the design capacity occur. 24. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text of $ 81.71 as follows $ 61.71 Recordkeeping. (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall retain the following information at the source and make it available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years: * IT * * 25. By adding the words "vinyl chloride" to the definition of the term "volatile hazardous air pollutants" in $ 81.241 of Subpart V as follows: $61,241 Definition*. ***** "Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or "VHAP" means a substance regulated under this part for which a standard for equipment leaks of the substance hasbeen proposed and promulgated. Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. (Sec. 112 Ciean Air Act of 1978J [FR Doc. 85-509 Filed 1-8-85; 6:45 am) 1 1201 CMA 015190