Document xzGwLop4n9prRYBOXB3d5ZaRb

?VbiiV^f.-Ws -,e'.dVn'jJes''-d'-ajry' >rtJanuary^ 9, .1985 b US-;t'S.^) " J ; .- '' - ' ii: . rV^w "<- .;-i : ^,fe\aS^3^'w'^,iBa^r-V ^toK^VsJ^a.. . ,',,/;v tVnW TWTfWtojesfcH.. -' ' . ;.. .-.'-'yy? y.*-^-**hofctS'` IVW&H.x, tyAk1f rfi ,;i> <* v ^ flijO *'t-` sVjv'-'S M >;;' '*SrK ri>fcp;V -.isica-j LJVf'J-j i::-jj:y; f.i>^>t3vs---- L^5M8S5a5i(t^jMK^->i -'' -r v 1 '. ? ----i.;*; ssafoy-if^ ;- > - ' j /' 'J / ,,<. .">.'A'j!- 4?/,i^ .;' ,,.,,:V ,':V.';^ v '' -c ,; .-.n /, ii'.'Sf i :i''Vti/'.'n/v,f3 , :. , . ': i>r"` . .. -.--'f-'Ss'iO'S, ',: ->.-.! :t'< 'n^^wnoo^^rf*t.'sr-vn*v/rh)l .'. ..-OTrtjr; v ` ,y ' v: t ,* * ' n. .., ;.- :. t. ' : sl-a'aiiica i'i .`IT ' - y,`1/;r.? .' =>t{; ' .'< -' / r<*i * iirttibc^Part^V yk hi ! *.-*,, i* \i - Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 National Emission Standards for ^Hazardous Air Poliutants; Vinyl Chlorld ; Proposed Rule and Notice of Public:^ . Hearing " `` '-'; '-!y j`'tA3mr''QZS\ '!' ~ . .. ... . ^ : - t-.s- . y* '-.`>1 I`-': '`{t'-.1"'..:....- j'< - "yi-tfrft'rr ?..`:r-i t-?;>--- 'ova^vt^.a : .-, ` ;.. ' rJ--n^--^,. -. . '. '')' * .r 's ^ 'i r , > ` J ' ,,'t ;bzzx?nc&\ bENU U1434b 1182 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9/1985 /- Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 (AD-FRL-2707-41 .. <-7.405, corner.of Highway 54 and Alexander''; for reliefvalve discharges, [2]it/'' Drive? ResearchTriangle Park, Northsg^npfpviding a compliance test procedure Carolina?Pet3di& Interested the hearing shotild'call MsfShejP r Jounilgan at (9l9F541r5578j& /V - a-heari^ vd^pl^pere^ i'Especlffc emission limit rfo"~r'-:`,, ,.: tora/yvlio'perfor^S1"ftripph^rift^ brSd8MmMahdT3p-^f ^femffilfoflleaiCdefdcdonlahc National Emissnion Ssotannodaarrads* fror -- Hazardous Air PoNutmts; Vinyl CModda agency: Envoronmental Protectlonr''7''"'" Agency [EPA). . Wr-s--e-m---c-e-yfAfddiiUPpnaliOininoiSTftM f Daec^hhdjirntexpls Thbldi action: Proposed rale and notice of public hearing. ;v d"_ ;// |/The genalTln"dfiga?bfe^^^ ---------------- ------------------- ;--;--."nredocifflinfeClh^^I^rc summary: The current emission ,\.,, Review of NatioriaLEniissfd/* standard for vinyl chlorida (VC) was ;i. stafrdards'VEPA^SO/^S-. promulgated under Section 112. of the^A;PB 8^114354)/avatfable frm# Clean Air Act in 1978. A review of theoft Natfonal Technlcfd liifonnWc technological basis and administrative -.^ 5285 Port Royal'RoaftW*"*'' aspects of the standard has been'.: / ,? ,' Virginia 22161: The mafo| completed, and the amduslpna of WlyslsfortfiereW8w s^M review are presented In this nodce The A; contaihed in a separete 'dSaim linondmef and polyvinyl ^VCJ-w'ould.bareduded^rdm /- conclusions are the basis for this action ; ,may be obtained-from thd,Si1 dssion reduction of 91,000 Mg/yr of ' which (1) proposes admlnlstraUve and Library (MD-35), ReseardF**5 C (of.'95 percent of VC emissions). * clarifying revisions to the standard and -Park- , N--orth- C- arolina 27711, tele{lifdhe' nissions ,of volatile organic compounds (2) announces decision^pertaining to number (919) 541-2777.- Please reler tr' |OC) and EDC are also, reduced under other aspects of the current standard "Vinyl .Chloride: Relief.Valve. ^ptandard.'?.' .;- ; 'v;v~ This notice also withdraws proposed Standard," EPA-4507.3:^5r/)02:| TKeiestiinated risks attributed to ''.'7' 1 ` revisions to the current standard which technical documehC7-!K:!'?{^j|& msur4dq VC from EDC/VC and PVC - were published in the Federal Register, - - Docket. Docket No, A"8lf?ia operation prior to the current . on June 2.1977 {42 FR 28154). .. If requested a public hearing will be held to provide interested persons an containing supporting ihformatfon/usei Inffdaftfwere 5,5 cases per year lor -' in deveiopingfhe proposed stan^ar __iv_e_r_a__n_g_io_s_a__rc_o_m__a__a_n_d__1_1__c_a_s_e_s per available for public inspection../(year for all cancers. The risks attributed opportunity for oral presentations of .. data, views, or arguments concerning ; , copying between 8:00 a.m, and 4:00 p,ni.;'_V to exposure to VC from sources under Monday through Friday, at EPA's the current standard have been the proposed revisions to the current standard. Central Docket Section, West Tower........ estimated to be 0.28 cases per year for , : Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside MaU,;40T.Mf:?;l{yer bngiosarcoma and 0.55 cases per dates: Comments. Comments must be Street, SW,, Washington, D.C. 2Q480.'A~'-'-"-'~yearfor all cancers. received on or before March 25.1985. reasonable fee may be charged for^^^,". In 1975, the estimated capital cost for " Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the copying. existing plants to meet the VC standard EPA requesting to speak at a public for FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: "yjias $198 million, of which $15 million hearing by January 301985, a public Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel of MriiLesliaB. was for EDC and VC monomer plants hearing will be held on February 28,,, Evans, [919).541-5G71, concemingf^f^^^'ahd $183 million was for PVC plants. 1985 beginning at 9:00 a.m, Persons technical aspects of the industry-tufa1'". $i>tThe EPA estimated that the annualized interested in attending the hearing l) "control technologies, and Mr. Fred' -.-^Icost (including capital amortization, etc should call Ms. Shelby Joumigan at (919) Dimmic'k or Mr; Gilbert H. Wood*,..-(-9--1-9- ),^7*9 these plants .to---m--a--in--t-a--i-n---th--e---r-e--q--u'i-re-Jd 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will 541-5578, concerning regulatory^/^Srin'^S'emission levels would be $70 million per occur. decisions. The address for these' '"I1" '/r/^\`?'ypar. Bequest to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must contacts is Emission Standards,and Kri-rf. 1 j_ j Engineering Division (MD-13),tf.S.' -^Bf^ground contact EPA by January 30,1985. Incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in thc_-j standards will be approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of the date of the final rule. Environmental Protection Agency, .1 . - JllThe VC standard was proposed on Research Triangle Park, North'CaroldnaSSSDecember 24,1975 (40 Fr 59532), and 27711. .7promu1gated on October 21,1976 (41 Fr SUPPLEMENTARY informATIONri:>SJ5jfd$5^48559)>It is applicable to plants ^fcop^iffi^^ptadiicing EDC by the reaction of Summary of Revisions to CurrenC /H^t^xygeS'-and hydrogen chloride with - addresses: Comments. Comments Standard . A^,;^Wr7^^^lhylerie,-plants producing VC by any should be submitted (in duplicate if Revisions. Several administratiye^S^^process, and plants producting one or . possible) to: Central Docket Section (A- changes are being proposed as a resuf^^fhore polymers containing any fraction 130), Attention Docket Number A-81-21, of a review of the national emission ^jSSSs-of VC. These plants are subject to LF.S. Environmental Protection Agency, standard for VC. No major revisions areu!-(different requirements at numerous VC 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. being proposed to the standard. As with "etnission points in "the manufactur:ng the current standard for VC, the1? .'A .i,~-''-process. These requirements include Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the revisions are being established under f numerical emission limits, equipment EPA requesting to speak at a public Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The - ' /specifications, and work practices, hearing by January 30. 1985, the public significant administrative revisions ' -b.The 'standard was designed to hearing w:ll be held at EPA Auditorium, include: (1) Reformatting the emission - -7 minimize the health risks associated 6 EMC OI4344 i Federal Register /- Vol. 50, No, 0 / Wednesday;; Ianuatyr.9, 1985 / .Proposed Rules 1183 with VC by requiring reasonable control measures. As stated In the preamble to the proposed standard (40 Fr 50532, ,,-, Regulating Airborne Substance^ Posing-T Assessment Group reviewed hew health a Risk of Cancer." TUs'proposaPf^p^ , .studies that have become availableVsufy-t addressed several tosufes\1whlfcH'wehi??,4::;u,since:tliB standard was promulgated!.1-!.^: December. 24.1975}jthere is [wp^t r central to the proposedVP^'1''fri^:`^'f''',;-:'1in'l",H,`''lr'''1''"'^ ; threshold, level o'! fleets foi Thereforeitheb; eliminate heaitHf VC wobli This^a' an appp the hem nseofrt On'Ni Environmental Deft petitionedlHoUnltr . Appeals fdr'th'e'DisWcl Cirmiit to review ttib^sr1 March moved I basis of'd settler ,' based oriffzeraemisrionrpolU^uKctf^^ rathw'd^reasMeW vb+u wwjritiSMajs inereasedjjfffc1encjP6[ exfijt equipmerit'^uira-morSatrCSga^ r.appropri^^^.VCrevlew^smSyare pre8^h't^3'SGhrlhlj4'ti:\ _ trt Iadua tie a nennASArl ci rnnnJmnnt a In . e_tt'' ' .i i* . * ' .V ' * '''.`.mi r*/'t i. -- the EPA 8 policy for regulalujg, nuuge, uioBm uegmi a review muuj carcinogens under Sectfon?112,(i|jihef1J*jJ . dbtain additional te'chmc^aa&aiTd Clean Air Act would included enepil`' .^cost information and to determie goal of eliminating emissions whether other amendments'to.tbeJ .. approj; sources. carcinogens and that the EPA-^Ould,"'| standard are needed. New amendments mess.of regulating these;r y/' / initiate na review nof the VVCC! asteannVdianrdri *3V' * dje'.v.e,,lio--p--e-d1 4s ,a .re...s.u\llt, ,,ocf .th1.eV. r..e...v.'ie,'..w'7/'y V--f'-,s*f!1-, (1} Ne'edandBasis for Current Standard years after the promulgation of the ^ study are proposed in this notice.';1;'''.4' amendments. -; '-`e.1.; The current Vc! standard was On June 2,1977, the amendments were' Review of VC Standard ' established based on judgments proposed (42 FR 28154). Many comments Early in 1980 the EPA began a review concerning the. costs and benefits of the. pertaining to policy, technological feasibility, and procedural aspects of the proposed amendments were received. of the VC standard. The primary purpose of the review was to investigate the adequacy and appropriateness of the standard to society. The standard is not designed to eliminate VC exposure risk entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance Review of these comments indicated standard in light of policy decisions,. between public health protection and that additional technical data and cost health studies, control technology . the cost of that protection. Data information were required before the developments, and enforcement arid. j , ' (evaluated before the current standard ' proposed amendments, or revisions of '. compliance experience which have; '/ ,' was established) strongly indicate that; the proposed amendments, could be- it.r,1/ occurred since the standard was.first , VC causes or contributes to the promulgated. "O'1 promulgated. The review consisted of a development-of angiosarcoma, other Meanwhile, the EDF filed a petition screening study of: (1) Existing and new-,' , cancers, and various noncarcinogenic J; with the EPA requesting the control technologies, (2) sources not disorders in people with occupational establishment of n comprehensive - regulated by the standard, and (3) exposure and in-animals with program for regulating airborne' '' enforcement and compliance experience experimental exposure to VC. Although carcinogens under Section 112 of the - since promulgation of the standard. no dose-response data are available at Clean Air Act. The aspects of the EDFs : Information and data evaluated during ' the concentrations of-VC found in the petition concerning the development of this study were obtained through' ; ambient air, the EPA concluded when standards under Section 112 were:1'' > literature searches, plant visits, and " the.standard was established that any- similar to those proposed in theJune:2,"1-1 interviews with industrial atmospheric concentration of VC poses, 1977, amendments to the .VC standard;!^-- ( representatives and EPA regional f 7^\, some, publip heath.xiski .To eliminate the Based on the similarity of theprcrjio'Sed'ru / personnel involved in enforcement'arid'4* risk of VC exposure entirely, a complete' amendments and the EDFs requfeste'd'V'b -surveillance of the VC-emitting t: `'` 7' prohibition ofall VC emissions would ' ' comprehensive program for regulating airborne carcinogens, the EPA' believed 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 that it should not take final action on the obtained as described in the addresses. in serious, adverse economic impacts. proposed VC amendments until after it section of this preamble. Decisions Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the - had acted on the EDF's petition. based on this review are summarized in time the current standard was , On October 10, 1979 (44 FR 58842), the the next two sections of this preamble. established that a complete prohibition EPA proposed "Policy and Procedures As another aspect of the review of the of all VC emissions would not be for Identifying, Assessing, and VC standard, the EPA's Carcinogen desirable or necessary. The EPA SENC 014345 1184 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1885 / Proposed Rules concluded thi* in view of (1) the beneficial usea of VC products for which desirable substitutes are not readily available; (2) the potential adverse health fend environmental Impacts asAxd&ted Witl VC substitutes that have notbemtflhroughly*studied; (3) the'' number oTtnipldj eett^particularly in' : tries.'Who vfduld : ; become arlesst'temporarily l \1 f un'emploVedrand (4} the availability of ' thatj[# capable, ofi.,,, auoat^tfm^redodng emissions of VC,. into the'atmdsphpre. Although all EDC, VC and PVC plants have now incorporated VC emission controls, the maintenance of a Federal standard far 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 dvoidance of unreasonable economic and community Impacts which would result from standards designed to redtfce risks t 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 use 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 4.8 million people lived within a 5-mile radius of EDC, VC and PVC plants.) Accordingly, the EPA has h 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-based level of control for sources covered by the current standard. The present status of emissions from sources covered by the current VC standard is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Status of Current EMtsatow Lev at the time of the proofulgation'bfthe^O* ` els From Sources Covered by the Vinyl pprav limit.'*;t " ] \' <"<'s.ms.K3.-i. CHLOmoe NESHAP to1: CommehtsrbceiVed otfthe^fbpds^d ^ ^ ' l97T'amldnfeiilif*tafed`ihatdn?bnJ^'tg:' EniMlOa'.' 'C-FnitTa- Wirt.,2LS ".meet a Itattfof Obirestf^ Kt' ( .S&gjjM JO owwoH'Sc* vrbwpnct norstme mtttrifi A . .11. 1. - V -- --- -- 8SP* -- " m *?S^qubBoBI ^H^***)smfialr* ,-t* adldTitth} sir !MT, -* r- s t-'vy.r ' emiggji lAWiiN1) -";z* fromTft; ;r, 12,^ '* rt tsc( r,i f.*- "-.nrsos and ***** Mnsrjjfehi twvwyvTb oontol '7 nj-STEtaaS`t. .3 L-.rild. * Coo^xnad KUXM attar raafan : productb 5/sC*T'V ' ' 40ppA-,-L - i vfi60 auapanaton 4. * ;-*T;',rCr.ju FwgWv*________ WotipracSca "rtd* ** ** ; < ... * r , ptanbarda^^. vafza__ Nofipfaw^a^ tap-ArOLI.rf ., ^ 'i 1'040 136 " <fradton>< 1 .* 22 11 ,r 1>0' 8-.Jt 1A < . O'*-,-; -T. Y* J * ~ ' * Qcaad on tha A. anjaaiore eiflrmf-- da^atopad bora data atfKrtttad by MuaM aourcas prior to promutgafroftfli the 1875 VC*t**J*ri.` ' * R*pre*ara mhMtod emiaaton* from EDC/VC and PVC plants roaming currant standard Eoc Dc/avtac wdoinret*nportiocrotboo1c8te7d5sOft. raM vafva rfradwges from * Baied on tft# EPA amtoatona estimalea for a typical Lrpenatoft plant Emhatari aatmmtoa tor btA, telex, end daporaion plant* ere not preaenled here. 10ppmv Standard. Emission sources covered by this 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 3* hour 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 5 ppmv limit was to ensure that the standard continued to approach a "zero emission goal" by requiring owners and operators both to maximtzethe effectiveness of existing control systems and to 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 ppmv, 10 ppmvrepresefltf^ the lowest .-r- ; level of control yvhichjip^qeept consistentlyachfeved.^agedon, this-.information, the EPA has concluded that there is nqhnprovedprnew control technology that haa been demonstrated to significantly and consistently reduce emissions to a level, below, that required by the current standard. Therefore, no further technologicaUnvestigation of the 10 ppmv standard is planned.. , Oxychlorination Vent Stanc/ard-- g/kg DC. The current oxychlorination vent standard of ft2#ofiye per kgro^ EDC does not require an addkm control device. Instead, the Umitcan,bd-/ ;..r' achieved at most plants,by controlling operating conditions andat thepd.V J remaining plants through process,-,- - modifications. At tha time.the.original standard, waa written, incineration of oxychlorination Vent emissions was investigated. Because>of expected-high l energy costs associated ..ith:rii to supplementfll fdeliequirementa fom .'"v combustion, inciner&tfo'hcWai}i rin b-w.>. determined not fofjffirea8onable;f..r'* method of controtfor (his source.-1.7 The amendments proposed in'1977 specified a level of 5 ppnr for the * ` / oxychlbrination'vent'The proposed requirement wasbased on installation of an oxygen feed system with an incinerator or equipment control device. The use of oxygen feed in the EDC oxychlorinaton process decreases the bEt lb U 1 4 idii ^deraRe^ste^7^VoI^5b^N^6i/^Weffiie9dayAtoygr^9^-198Wj^QP08e^Ru]e8^^^JllB5 volume of inert substances in'the vents")1*',. include blen9 fanfe'/diyers^centrifug&s,J; m en<4 rtrttiikjuvii/KSttii' ^ 4 U 1 -- f~*Jl1 d>J ^^supplem ^^rtnctnera processors meeting the'more stringent ' 1 i amitI a4i tvV A<uf etvtAnln n on the high expense-jmdJarge/'epi reqnfremehts'assocdaltedfvvitijihe - produntfaibrbl^cygene.:^^^'^'1 _ ,,r,TlrareyJ^jah^ tecbii^gkjprj rcansla*'e-'r''&"dSiJVWJ upset , ,. jSfd&iP* ability to aVera'ie^oje: ^fesfd?^,* reductions amdn'g^' known to t)e aim feasible tieqa'u^e.tliqw 'tarn; Mi##, ind^^toj^n6pf^d^Jibeache( ^ deiraopmj^^^thfiipi^gii^stnnBaid^.^, which cquid^aimificany consistently reducejresfjjnsl ivs(i`, CbY , A* ^l^pr^ti^bigh^osfeflModatetiSrtthj ijamend gbeliqvw wwjmJt^T^1. EPAJs. notinyesW, "t^ngE^ly^planfalin'afces `HaJeveiij:,,propff , control of tbeiomb `-of ' ---------1 "*--J--^f^ilR/kg.EJPC i4)BiSaj;;beenj " strippm^.^gfp^......... -' c' EquipmentL^axs^Be^A^Bi '<#J m4 eafissjRKa?#9r^A^^' '^nown abou^leajt^t&^^L^^paHB^i rea*o^bl0^Ifiyelpf;Controiforexistmge'L>~_th6iesin elimination prbgram^ft^.^lirai^ofe'tSif'j: oxjrtilbrin^tioiyfentslln addition^the hpf ''- 'InduattjS WSJS^r?TM"st'.^: equipment leaks, froin compnnenta in VC; review study concluded that,significant^' dispersidmerr '.........w...o..u..l.d..s..umlfme^^gradanomifmore.n.L, *,m . ms were notinclud^dtiljKtifel^uT ---------------------?j55SM8^SifegS"f^;,; current standar4..instea^^stafi^f; ifGfacility.is^-f' egmibqttj^<ntdted:the iwiioans rreanqiuuipreodn.tino {inrtaslitKitiipAf/OpT^HraI iimnlomonil^ a formalized lea^.detedtilTOffl^, , - Conyeh^fioiwMfjrnaj ,QxychlqnnafiqE^;'Fr;j;!" ^'i i- P'' . ventaat'newVEDC/VC'jplantswiLl be.adjustniejt^rt^ssp.:pdrpp9Bitions'are;'..-r regulatedliy the proposed standards of,-n, made roptlnelyi'^ticoroplc^ly new s- performance foe air oxidation processes ;J aa'oW,i,7.r;r:n,,.im.TMD* a,, (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart 111) or by the BACT or LAER requirements of new , conduded,.thai;iys,impo88ible.in many source review regulations applicable in cases to distinguish'between new and specific locations to a level comparable existing resins and,stifihaye any resins to that achievable through the use of covered by the propased amendments. incineration. Because the Further,; the proposed,amendments did technologically achievable level of not address what levels of control could control is assured through the current be achieved by^impipyed stripping. \ requirements,,the EPA concluded that technology.Tqrthese jeqsqns.the EPA investigaHonofadditibnalcontrol (i,e., - chose to eyaiuatuwhether higher levels incineration) was not required for oxychlorinationvents. _ of control aresachigyahle_far.aU resins,; Realtor Opening---0-02 g/kg PVC Product The current VC standard ` restricts emissions during stripping teSmgioOTKa&imprbVed since 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 - '. the cure9^t,stkndafIwas promulgated, and thatsome.processors .can achieve lower rcsm rgsidualVC level's than those required in'the original standard. In certain;c'asesi sbihe, resina can meet amendments. (The level of control ' , the more sfringentTeivels specified in the provided bVtheJcurrent; standard,, ...amendments.!,, . 0.02 g/kgbfPyC pfqdndt,'reduces yCi ^ `, elimination program in^o^rafi^Sottfpi a fixed-point monitor; and n j^irtdbltfi &d; i monitor. Plant.specific;progranf8.weref../ subject to approval by theT'iqTi&eV'^'v" Administrator. Consequently/diie to site-specific differences ambng'plants, i; . as well as variations in leakidefinitions - and monitoring practices,'"differences in control of equipment leaks among the " plants have resulted. Since thestandard was promulgated, the EPA has'obtained more information pertaining-to'the " * - control of equipment leaks fTOni"''^1''1! 'r-: components in VC service.With. the v;-v . information obtained form the development of other standards^ an effective leak detectioii and`i^ia3^ a.y ) program based on use of a portable *- ` -* monitor can now be specified for^J*' ' ; equipment covered by tin's program The , specific leak detection and repaid*"'"' requirements are discussed in the'.'*1"1 Administrative Revisions section of this preamble. ; `""F Relief Valve Discharge Stendafd.. .'^ , Sources of VC emissions coyerea by this^ standard include.discharges from relief').:. emissions id about'!.36Mg per yearfor:;J a model PVC plant.) During the review of the standard, 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 of reactor openings. Combined Sources After Resin Stripping, The sources of VC emissions 1 covered under the current standard . r. < and - compiy,wifh[the prigmal.standard. .. . Because1 dfthe;wideyVnatloh in resiri grades ancf chdta'qterfstmi'it carmot be concluded that^eyeH tbougfi 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, iri some cases these valves on pressure vessels, lines, and other equipment and PVC plants. The standardTsybasecf,')' on emission control by apembiridtion 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 11S6 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6./.Wednesday,\January.,9, 1985 / Proposed Rules,; standard) was established because It to sources (X)vgred!byLthes.yCli8tandard,f;j :,unnecessary,;and_thaLt}i.%qurrenl;level'.o." was believed that different the EPA concluded thatnonejof the^-j/j " of control resulting fromrth^EPA^ma.)t`. combinations could be equally effective .. addUitioaal.siijixce^,eq^j^ip,thj^ standard anH;QS^'j^t{ajD^ti in controlling relief valve discharges,. revievfstudy, The current format of the standard ",J,' atandaHCjii ^I^dfUlklO&ipedRChtiuaieains^^A prohibits all relief valve discharges',. ;.' ," - - MtfgZ/j except emergency discharges,% Emissions,, ^ Emergency discharges ere described plahfsothfflftthajj thoae which could not have been; ILV.Vrj a plants thatj^" -JVontai^^Vpthaa!be'ei|f~ c^~v- w ` dandfillscvtheffe'thffilaseo l^eVsed?Hpweve^firr 'standai*r^(en^{tha^ ' avoided by lairing measure* to.prevehr'y produce^C the discharge (La, those that arij producfcpbf "nonprevimtable"). Since the standard, ' such plan! ` was pronmlg*t*A all plants hayp i.i,w; experienced somereleases.'Many otf_Ct3 perchlorqqi _ these release* are consldered f'.'jW- and the fpuifljjp] preventable by the EPA. Based on visits" ' (Afl a^dJtipijta^lKl [requfrfmL,..., ^pecifitfifioftresllfetbef lar^filllTfliesS.'fd^i^ffieS^reib'Sliigl^ to plant* 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 procedure* remains reasonable.'during the review, no r "' technological level of control was found was constri)cj;a|bi has report areno plahsTctoj^griri Review, o&VCtemasipi identified plantaysKi" controlled^^S^a plants tfreprimarfij ,, sources and range fro3ttess| wJqthat theMeVel'brcnntrc^'^'^^^^^l- 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 ofSources Not Previously Covered performance fo'r`heW.B(Mc'e`^&ndP',htth),'nf:. waste disposal facilities,' d (RCRA): . standards for souriretf^nbn&tfaj^enf^';;.; Subtitle'D TASK FORCE Has beeh.:v* areas. Based oh theinVesfighffdh formed which will assess'allJ' these sou,rc^eoso,:: tht,eQEPPDAh;^idvh,fc.tl.ui^doevdt tKhatn1' o environmental releases includijig air ` ' they are already relativeli^well-l1.^ yf-f ' emissions from Subtitle D facilities (a"' controlled and do hot'contribute'- jpnA'- category which includes municipal significantly to VC exposuih^For these;; ' landfills). : .- . reasons, additional requirements1 for !-' v;' miscellaneous sources of VG'are'not Administrative Revisions , r, being proposed at this-tiiriei^'^'-v As discussed in the Findings and' PVCFabrication P/onfs.Tlierelare, Conclusions of the Review. Study section, about 8,000 fabricafion plahtS'yvhich'11'';" of this preamble, the EPA identified, " take the resin'produced by'EVG plants; several administrative revisions .that are This subsection discusses the status of VC sources not covered by the and fashion it into' intehhech'atVor final appropriate as a result of thereview.^' products. Emissions from,these plants^.'": study. The rationale for,the proposed current standard that were identified in ore estimated tobe about Sobp5flvfg^jfr,, administrative revisions is presented in the review study. For these sources, the per plant. In eomparisonjiojy'Cy this section of the preamble. These -',..;,', ,, EPA assessed whether a Federal production plants (wldc^^lcafiy'enuV,"!' revisions include: (1) Reformatting the'.' jf- standard was warranted. The EPA's about 92 Mg/yr). PVCfaSrication plants'1, . ecmuuiskshiuoun limit for relief .valve"; " ...... assessment of these sources was based are small emitters of Vcilf-'stariclar'dF^|5', discharges, (2) providing a compliance primarily on a quantitative analysis of were developed For'tfirtSIhgoriirtS^jS?1.;, test procedure and a specific emission r' VC emissions from *>ese sources would not result in reduMd^e^s^iohs?.',. limit for.operators who strip'in'tHe.j,'1',-"..'' combined with a qualitative analysis of because the best contrel'fSlffieip^planS 1 reactors,' (3) specifying reqpiremeh.'ts`For1,', risks associated with exposure to VC is to reduce thh.V(?|fcre|o[fe;re^|S|C' leak-detecfionandj;e'pair progrproforV,).-, from these sources. The EPA considers being processetf^tfl^^fflfimdf|^S^V ?'equipmehi components.iri yc^servic;e,;;r,,^ these analyses to be adequate in place Resin stripping DeyoS^^^m|Pma'^^J and'[4) miscellanequs revisions. of a thorough quantitative risk assessment for purposes of determining process Relief Valve Discharges already being done aa.a resoft, qf the;,,-,.,.^ whether a Federal standard is EPA's current 'stahdar^.audTPjSliA'a^yc ,, . Background. The current format of the warranted for these sources. Because ' standard, based ourthe.EPA'.Sir'j.'T",';.^ standard for relief valve discharges...... these sources are already relatively - assessment of these soqrces,Jthe EPA 1 ., allows only "emergency" discharges - well-controlled and the quantity of VC concluded that they do not contribute (i.e,, discharges that could not be emission, and consequently, the risks significantly to VC exposure. Therefore, ' avoided by taking preventive measures). associated with exposure to VC from the EPA believes that the evaluation of ., The standard applies to all pressure these sources, are small in comparison controls for PVC fabrication plants isk',, relief devices on pressure vessels,' GEMC 01434'ct Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules___ T1B7 transfer lines, and other equipment in of decreased discharges over the EDC/VC and PVC plants. The control compliance period. Following an initial techniques considered as,the basis of - drop in relief valve discharges efter the the standard.inyolveia combination of., standard went Into effect, the frequency equipmentnjodyicatlons,-process{H.;;o , and quantity of relief valve discharges modificatipns^andppew.Uonalcrjq.^1 by EDC/VC plants have decreased procedufes^Anjrxact combination of;;; slightly or remained relatively constant modificaticM^^pradoj^jVyf tin: General Bash fotNwmrhal limits. In selecting the proposed numerical ' current stimdaxd^tathen^pgry)nuance. , limits, EPA first evaluated In detail the stahd^'it^sm e^i^opaSnd^dJ^V?-A recent performance {1961'to 1983) of five was,estaf^h^becuiW'd^8r^^g^.,'T.; PVC plants and bneEDC/VC plent'a ;; procedures.were-expected tobereguauyu: i These plants were'droeen'based on,' \ dischssionifvdth EPA Regional Office ' effective in.'cQntrolling^reiret.valYq. * ^ t, r personnel and industry and were ' ` discharges.,,;, ' ; Intended to represent plants with good Based on.Byearapij^fqreeunentand; relief valve discharge records. In ' compliance exgenanQp.;lheIEPA, has,;; qr : general, the EPA's evahiatlon of these condudeiddhai^ therefiedischarger- , plants indicates thai each has adopted standard has/esultedlqiy ()J$gnifIcant,,. the combination of equipment,,' reductions! imtWfreqgqncy,and:quantity . operational procedures and attitude of VC discbajgefjtrgjpj^ljpf^te^ (?) mu toward prevention of relief discharges significant use,of ageacy:resources tp.r; : intended by, the current standard,' and evaluate individualcii&qhargesforu^ that their resulting performance Is pre ventabifity,-and. [3^uncertainty on ; consistent with compliance with the the part of producers regarding whether current standard. The EPA's evaluation they comply with the stemdard. found that a few discharges may Additionallypthq EPA,Jearned soiiie of, , continue to occur from some plants that VC and P.VG believe^ihaithis part,of the . comply with the standard. This current standard app)ie8pnljt;to:i; c observation is consistent with the discharges through, safjgty,rejjef vajves expectation held by the EPA when the and that discharges through other . - , ; standard was written. pressure relief devices, such as rupture In order to revise the standard in disks or'manual or automatic; vent, terms of numerical limits representing valves, are not covered.,This.,!., compliance with the current format of interpretation is not, qcmipatible with the the standard, this evaluation separated intent behind the current standard. To PVC and EDC/VC plants. For plants, provide more efficient'enforcement by relief valve discharge performance data decreasing the burden of individual were further separated by source preventability assessments on the EPA, (reactor vs. nonreactor) and by resin and to provide a better understanding to type The EPA then reviewed the plant operators of the goal of the performance of 25 additional PVC plants standard, the EPA is proposing to and 12 additional EDC/VC plants. The reformat the standard for relief valve EPA reviewed this large set of plants to discharges and to define the emission ensure that the level of performance points covered by this standard to . demonstrated by the evaluated plants include appropriately all pressure relief could be achieved by all PVC and EDC/ devices. As discussed more completely VC plants. in the following sections,'the EPA is The numerical limits presented in the proposing to change the format of the numerical limits in the standard to Findings section of this preamble are based on an evaluation of the number of reflect the number,of discharges that discharges representing the occur from those plants complying with the format of the current standard. demonstrated performance level associated with compliance with the The EPA found in the review study provisions of the existing standard. that efforts by all EDC/VC and PVG Format for Numerical Limits. The producers to comply with the standard EPA visited the five PVC plants are reflected in their preformunce [in , evaluated in detail. As expected, the terms of size and frequency -of. , ... 1 EPA found differences in the discharges) since thb standard went into combinations of hardware'and effect. In general, a reduction in the operational procedures associated with reported frequency and size of relief control of relief valve discharges of each valve discharges by PVC producers has of the plants. Furthermore, no exact occurred since 1978..A further decrease relationship was found between the in relief valve discharges by the PVC effectiveness of specific hardware items industry occurred between 1980 and and operational procedures and 1981. Performance by the EDC/VC prevention of discharges. In the EPA's industry exhibited a less marked trend judgment, the various combinations of hardware and operational procedures ,r\1 implemented by each of theplants along, with the attitudes adopted toward'1*^' ~ preventing relief valve discharges^Dj - represent the types of control meaitire*^ : that the standard Intende'A'Inmartl/nilaKVk the EPA concluded that the lowTM frequency of dlichargei' 'JrtiltedP? ^ ' plants was indlcatfveqf th^ effort to prevent relief valvi Consistent wltl^tJhiegoal?'* proposed reylslqp^th^p' an alternative runpqrict bared onperfoimancdmll the current standard jwlsea} a format that wdtdd be understand by eidorceme^l,and.mauafayn P6"00"1: -q . V5T'"1,' rtpdlqtWS ' The EPA Investigated two baijfirjwayj^ : of expressing relief varyd,diachaige^n*.fJ' performance for PVC plantatOnflfapnajpis based on rnasa' emls^o^fqr,^^,%f example, the pounds obVC dlscbargedqv)' per million pounds of PVCproducedLfjbTq VC/MM lb PVC). Based.on a revlew of ,;,j methods used by industry to, determine,,. the amount of VC discharged from relief valves, the EPA was unable,to,Identify,^, sufficiently accurate method for,or>-f measuring discharge quantities ftontevjsi'f relief valves. At present, producers ajreiri.i required only to estimate discharge',u quantities for reporting purposes.,j,.yi> Demonstration of compliance with.a lb/ VC/MM lb PVC limit would require '(-.u- q 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 ' fpr 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 v two basis ways of expressing relief valve performance that were considered, the EPA selected a format' - v-:' based on the frequency of discharges'. ^ 4 Based on this decision, the EPA then'^a considered how the format would be ' 1 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 s related to the number of times a new 1188 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules polymerization batch is initiated.,, production of suspension and.bulk . ,, , period. Recent performance suggests Expressing*relief valvedischarge resins,indicates that reactor discharge that preventable discharges have been performance for these plants,with a, frequency generally is either less than eliminated at this plant. With the dischar^ejper-batch,fbrma_t.acjmimta.for,T 0.035 discharges/100 batches or is much .. exception of a potential emergency .lymaMiiaAtiKonjM<ia^ranmmonnnng p^tsnT'a i i ia 1ijmith^numferrj^,^* J greater^pcenUeflctor discharge..l,- q. discharge occurrence, future discharges . of batches,producem'Th^^A sejertedi^i ` frequentigs fpjfesuspepsion.resin plants y.- at this plant are not anticipated- J .100polymerizationbatcheii'as.a'.?---1- -- - ' EDC/VC Discharges. During the review study, the EPA evaluated ; performance by one EDC/VC plant in detail.' Thja plant experienced about four discharges'thatcould be considered - emergencies. Recent(1981 to 1983) relief valve1 discharge.performance data for ' . reacJoV.a..n.d..nonreac,for'diisscclhMge^and^;f, ^by misplanraIso:exceede,d0.0351n'r,;.^',r: thatrreeaaccttor ddiisscchh'aaigigeesr'sm^amy"a*y^'yf^,'ny^^'^ - discharges/lMbati&e^ resin tjrpe'St`any,plant.' Cpnsequei$yjj^" - ^hreactoEjhsqJfarge frequenbyj/j:n relief valve'discharges by mdivltfutd^.^.. associated'v^tli^dispersmn^aitd'latex.^,,^ ",r'~* *" ' 1 r..... production iA't^lcal]y"zefo^oWever''^l; Ja^sified; for a'trofcalimspersi'oh.pr.Iatex fesih^ other EDC/VC producers indicates ah 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 acconJingtotypeof i reactor'vsPh'onrea ctor) 'ahd'fiii processywith,a;low,produchon rate(i.c,,,,, procedures used to control relief valve discharges from PVC plants also are discharges .were scparufedhy^i.yt,u.ou'K-t;xuin. .l^>i ; - ... used at EDC/VC pants. The EPA typh^Nbnreacfor;'disch%^S*8purcSi;af discharge in (a gtiTeiryeai;.would bV.j*",. -* examined discharges by the EDC/VC PVC plants include biowdowh tanksi^T'i - equivalent to.a'discparge frequency of producers who exceeded four transfer lines.-and s'torage'ves'shls^.'y,^j about 0.035 tfisfcharges/100 batches.. discharges in one or more years since . Because usage' of this equipment'isnlsq "b NOnreactor; Discharges. Nohreactor'/, 1901 and found that one or more of the related to some extent totiur frequency^ discharge frequencies byJPVC plants'V` "L discharges at each plant were of batch polymerization'bp'er'ations;'thei:S^ typically'wefe'eith'er less tban 0.025~ preventable. Elimination of the relief valve discharge performance by,<;^l!' discharges/100 batches' or were.much' ' preventable discharges would allow nonreaetbr sources in PVC plants'iyith'';-7: r greater. (Recehtnonreactor discharge-'^,\ each of these plants to reduce their batch production processes was alSo1IjS *i) frt-eoq,,ui;eanIicV-itei.si'TMreftleigc*tiivn;ga ipnonomrerr.;'; annual discharge frequency to four or examined on the basis of number of%-up-.w performance than the 0.025 level ringed'- fewer. discharges/100 batches.'> : '*' '*. -between O.O40 and 0.225 discharges/l00! Summary ofNumerical Limits. Based Unlike the batch process used tb' ~'- batches.) Furthermore, with the on the study of current relief valve produce other PVC resin types, the1- - exception of two producers, no more1- discharge performance by PVC and solution PVC process is continuous. ' 1 than three discharges per year were !' EDC/VC plants, the EPA is proposing Thus relief valve discharge performance reported from nonreactor sources in that the following numerical limits for for the solution PVC process cannot be PVC plants during the period from 1901 relief valve discharges be added to the expressed on a frequency per batch to 1983. `; basis. Instead, the relief valve discharge Each of the five PVC plants that the standard. Each discharge causing an exceedence of any numerical limit performance associated with the 1 EPA evaluated in detail was among presented below would be considered a solution production process can only be those achieving 0.035 discharges/100 , violation without regard to whether any expressed in terms of the total number - batches or less in each of the reactor individual discharge was preventable. of discharges (reactor and nonreactor) discharge categories and 0.025 ' per year. discharges/,100 batches or less in the Similarly, the EDC/VC production-'.; ; ) nonreactor discharge category. The EPAJ '' Category Numerical knit process is not a batch process, but is-.'.- , examined individual discharge incidents (1) Discharges from PVC continuous. Thus, relief valve discharge; .. ! for the PVC producers whose recent ` i -'' plants (suspension, diaper- s>on, latex, bulk processes) performance by EDC/VC plants also - .. performance has exceeded 0.035 (a) Reactors cannot be expressed on a frequency per -j discharges/100 batches in one or more - batch basis. Moreover, the EPA.was of the reactor discharge categories or unable to detect a direct relationship who exceeded 0.025 discharges/100 ` ' between discharge frequency and VC~ batches and 3 discharges per year from production at EDC/VC plants. Thus, the nonreactor sources. In every case, the --suspension roan proc- 0.035 discharges/100 ess. batches, not exceeding 4 discharges/yr --dispersion re$*n proc- 0 035 discharges/100 ess (including latex batches. resin). "bulk resm process.......... 0.035 discharges/100 EPA decided to define reieif valve- discharge performance for EDC/VCi . EPA identified one or more discharges that were preventable. Elimination of (B) Nonreactor sources batches. 0.025 tSscharget/100 batches, not exceeding 3 plants on the basis of a totalmumber'of. these preventable discharges indicates;'- <. dtscharges/yr. annual discharges., f'.i? Misd that these producers should have . Findings. PVC Reactor Discharges.,^., achieved discharge frequencies ; (2) Discharges from PVC plants (solution and other continuous processes). dtscharge/yr. Suspension resins account for,the highest percentage of total PVC ; ; . comparable.to the five PVC plants thatthe EPA evaluated in detail. (3) Discharges from EDC/VC 4 discharges/yr. plants. production. The remaining PVC .: . Solution PVC Process. Discharge production is in the form of bulk, ' . frequency from both reactor and Compliance Provisions. The EPA dispersion and solution, resins, [A small nonreactor sources by the single plant , recognizes that all plants may amount of latex resin is produced by a producing PVC by the solution process experience an unavoidable relief valve process closely related to the dispersion was zero during the period 1981 to 1903. discharge incident at some time. process.) Examination of relief Valve Previously, this plant experienced as. Examination of relief valve discharge discharge performance associated with many as two discharges in a 12-month performance by PVC plants with low Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 0 / 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'w'-1. batch frequencies typically experience ' materials to the reactor, heating reactor, expected to be much better^thajftheJ';^ about one, discharge in a 12-month.. contents, polymerization of reactor respective limits. For exampje^ome it;'; period.-The EPA concluded that for most contents. and removal (I.e., blowdown) ^ new suspension resin FVCpIapfsfy^rJ^.' plants a-12-month reporting period , of reactor'contents. Any batch that is''.'1", produce about 5j 000 batches ourfig a*: (rolling eyery,6-months) was both , aborted following charging'of VCJothe^ 12-n .......... suitable and appropriate for.determining. , reactor isnonethelesscoimted asr twd'i compliance with the proposed numerical, polymerization batch In assessing^:;'' duriiqfl_____------------------- ----------- - , lunitm,1;pr,plants producing only a small- , -Si o-w" t ' in adl8chargeperfQnnaiic^^^^^^^.` amoufrt.of apartlcular.resin (l.e,,',lowV;-:-/ number.of jjolymerization batches), air-A- batch"includes both prepolymerizatfon;` respectively;,The 8ecphd'dlscharoe?slM'^;-'v apparentN/iolatldn'of the standard may.-' and postpblymeHzaHoif reactorv-S? . result from'a'sirigle'dtscharge ; - operations: ; occurrence 'during a 12-month.!, Discharge frequency can be recorded - compliance period as described below.. , in two. ways. Discharge frequency;can For.a PVC plant producing a single resin type tomeet the numerical limit for reactor discharges (I.e., 0.035,;. discharges/100 batches), it must ` experience and average of no mbre than be recorded on the basis of discharge . j events (involving discharges fromUhe or* more relief valves) or on individual _. . lcimoitn. Tsheysee'tyrpeesd'-io^fpelabntt#i^^i^bf|;^^ : relief valve discharges. In most cases, , limits andreporhhgprocedufea'forrelief . plants currently report discharges . valve discharges.'The result tha't'plafrts" one discharge per 2,858 polymerization individually when they occur from relief, batches over the'preceding 12-month -' period. An average reactor discharge valves bn separate equipment. However, certain equipment such as compliance is corislstenf with the* frequency exceeding one discharge per polymerization reactors that are . proposed limitsy wliich'were selected to 2,858 batches would be a violation of the equipped with multiple relief valves may represent an tipper boundary on the 1 standard. However, if the plant made less than 2,858 polymerization batches over the 12-month compliance period, a single discharge occurrence would be an apparent violation of the standard (i.e., the discharge frequency per 100 batches experience discharges simultaneously from more than one relief valve. Most plants currently report such multiple discharges from a single piece of- equipment as a single discharge. Thus, the performance levels serving as the , numberoTallowable'discharges.' T ' intended fry the stap'dard.The EPA; expects thatjjlants.using the best,- `. technblogytarid.pfpcedmesshbuld be:;.;. able tb perform hettef than .the proposed limits.;^ * would exceed 0.035). Because basis for the numerical limits represent ReportingRequirements. 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 td .report discharges batches would not correctly reflect the occur from a single piece of equipment. performance by that plant in comparison For determining compliance with the within 10 days df the inc.dent. The EPA 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, the EPA is proposing to add additional provisions affecting the number of batches used to calculate the discharge frequency. For PVC plants producing less than 2,858 batches of a particular resin, the minimum number of 2,858 batches will be used when determining compliance with the numerical limits. PVC plants producing more than one resin type must demonstrate compliance separately for reactor discharges occurring from different resin production processes. Only the relief valve discharges and polymerization batches specific to each resin type are considered for determining compliance. A relief valve discharge in considered to be any venting through a pressure relief device to prevent or relieve an overpressure condition from equipment in VC service that results in emissions of VC directly or indirectly to the atmosphere. In determining whether or not a relief valve discharge results in emissions to the atmosphere, the controlling factor is the ultimate disposition of the gases. Venting to a manifold or header system that ultimately discharges to the atomsphere constitutes a relief valve discharge. If the manifold or header discharges gases through a control device meeting the 10 ppmv VC emission limit, the venting appropriate because violations of the standard may occur well before the end of the 6-month period! Q rarterly reporting notifies enforcement personnel of potential violations and violations that have already occurred prior to the end of the compliance pe riod so that corrective actions can take place sooner following the end. of the compliance period. Information to be included in the ' semiannual report for individual relief valve discharges is to be reduced to include only the date, time, source, cause and estimated amount of each discharge occurrence. The semiannual _ report will also'inlcude information on : compliance status. V, ',' V- However, for determining compliance ' with the standard for nonreactor does not constitute a relief valve discharge. In addition,' plants will now be required to maintain relief valve discharges, the total number of polymerization batches (regardless of resin type) are counted. To determine the number of polymerization batches produced for For purposes of reporting compliance Status with the limits, plants will he required to calculate their discharge per batch frequencies with sufficient precision to demonstrate that discharge records for 3 years, because of the potentially significant increase in the time period between a discharge occurrence and reporting of the discharge. purposes of assessing compliance, the following guidelines apply. A performance is either equal to, below of Effective Date of Revision. The in excess of the limits. Based on current standard as written will remain 6EIJC 014351 1190 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No-8 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules in effect for relief.valve discharges until calculation methods are then used to * the proposed revisions are promulgated. establish the reactor opening loss. The proposed administrative revisions Based on experience of the EPA, do not^changa the standard's original . Regional officeSr,a method for,,- - intent and are lptehded'only to set limits determlning th^ reactor Opening loss.., _,. to fadUlate'compllahce and ,, that accounts_fo\stripping in'the reactor enforcement efforts. Thus, the current; has beegdeyeloped foj^psftby all,;,-:^ standarc^ill continue to be enforced ,, t noiibulk resinjproclucertvwith reactor , {- nntfl^di^jeyiilons are. promulgated,,,;. ` resin smpp^^e^dtms^dis-^-j,r StrippGfglaJlBactoT Compliance Test ' procedwnfpterfK'l&tt ` j i "- A od-i .'/H'' Uz w.rh ethodlo^measurlng, reactor, ^Wa^deyeloped for-resin v v^^^epara^fromthe reactor. Some indudeUimthn^pps^'reYislona to die for\y\.; res^residu^n^t^ctO^openingloss a aalrleo'awdadbeleitydCgeoinetrertndtgfriyoem.atlhtoetsaektw-hov. s . ' sources. Jht^easured resin residual.';1 VC'andth^cal|mla(led, rpactor'operring PVC plan^hncluding all bulk resin ^ L.,, ' lossjyoulil tjjlSffbe'pdd^d together,"and rnanidacturo^hwever, do not use.: ' : averajg^(|'o^^ia;^4'h6ui'period., ',,;. separatastdppcrs-to, remove residual _.. VGfipn^theresin, produced. Instead, V thes^'plants'stripyCfrom theproduct resnain^the reactor (postpolymerizaUon,; reac^^lhncase;of,bulk resini- ;t accordiii^'ia^esin'type. If thpZP-hour, average'mhefs'thecombinedsiandard, the plant1would ^considered to be in compliance,wl'thvbotli, the stripping and the reach)?5Ser3ng los ^requirements. producers}."For plants\vith reactor. Tesin, Leak Detection andRepair ' stripping operations, the concentration of VC in the reactor vapor space, as measured in accordance with the current standard, exceeds the 0.02g/kg ' of PVC'reqiiiremenL 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.brbken 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 46563, October 21,1976), 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 from the resin after stripping is completed. Background, .The current standard requires Implemeritationof a formalized program for `defection ofleaks from equipment1 E^VG'stfrvice'ahd' elimiriationof these leaks. The formalized program Includes a multipointVC detector and a portable volatile organic compound (VOC) analyzer. The fixed-point monitoring system continuously monitors VC concenfrationsin the work area around equipment in VC service and sounds on 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 The'current standard allows bulk approval. Plant owners or operators are resin producers to calculate reactor required to submit data on background opening loss emissions from the concentrations of VC in different areas postpolymerization reactor based on the of the plant to use in determining the VC number of reactor evacuations, the concentration that should be designated vacuum invloved and the volume of gas as indicating a leak. Plans, therefore, in the reactors For nonbulk resin were tailored by each plant and producers with reactor resin stripping reviewed by, the .the EPA Regional operations,.calculation of reactor Offices-,- , opening loss emissions is more The EPA found in the review study complicated .due to the presence of that differences in leak detection and water vapor in the reactor vapor space. elimination programs exist among PVC Currently, waivers of testing for and EDC/VC production plants and producers with nonbulk resin stripping miscellaneous sources and that site- operations in the reactor have been specific differences include variations in granted oh a case-by-case basis by the leak definitions and monitoring EPA Regions, typically with the practices. The definition and monitoring provision that residual VC samples are practices, along with repair practices, aniayzed on each batch. A variety of are primary influences on the control effectiveness of leak detection and -: repair programs. Some plants implemented rigorous programs and--' others implemented programlacldng;bu specific procedures or requlremenfsb1?s/i; Accordingly, the effectivendSs'dfldak' -T detection and eliminationprdgrglh#P'Cj 1 varies among the plant9Cr25t; !fc,4^yifff''f'Jr,i 1 Since the currentstandard promulgated, the EPA haa^ more Information pertaining ' coritrolof emission leaks; Based on this'CiformatmnSfmPtlie;' review of the leak'detection1and^^ll,'"J i elimination'plans being'feplemented.to. control emissions`of yC^eA-^^' ` derided to specify leak deteetjon and. * repair requirementsforVeH^^--;^-,-. equipment components InVCTseryfce. Although information gbtamed development of other* standards^^',;', ,., indicates that a roiitfno lpak^^ecypn ,f % and repair program with'a'pbrfablQ monitor can be an effective emission . reduction technique without'thaV": , requirement of a fixed point,rhomtoring , system, the F.PA concludpd.'that fixed-.k point monitoring systems, already in. ," place have uses that justify thelrp' ,,,'' . ` retention in the current standard. In particular, fixed-point monitors allow !i. for quick detection of certatrilarge 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 plar.s, 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 areTnonitored and the distribution of monitoring locations to better complement the specified portable monitoring requirements. Such 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 revirions 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 inappropriately changed. The proposed revisions include provisions that allow plants with existing effective plans to . periodically demonstrate the effectiveness of their plans without additional requirements. Accordingly, the EPA requests comments from industry representatives concerning the specific effects of specifying leak l genc M352 ! Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1191 detection and repair requirements on 2.0 percent or less. Any process unit in effective existing plans. which the percentage of leaking valves * Leak Detection and Repair is found to exceed 2.0 percent will be Requirementsi'Th.e EPA established leak required to comply with the provisions ' detection and repair requirements (40 of Subpart V. - -'*y CFR Part 61 Subpart V) for certain The Subpart V requirements for eqrapment'in-'volatile hazardous air valves are based on a leak detection p^utanr(VHAP) service on June 0, and repair program that requires (1) ' 1984- These'requirements were monthly monitoring for valves In gas/ establishedrin conjunction with the final vapor and light liquid sendee, (2J an standard^ forbenzene1 equipment leaks.' initial attempt at repairing these valves The requireiriehts7of Subpart V generally within 5 days after detection of a leak, apply" to pumps7 compressors, pressure (3) repair of leaking'valves within 15 relieFde'VicesV sampling connection days after detectlonof the leak unless systems, open-ended valves or lines, repair would require a process unit valves, flanges "andother connectors, shutdown, and (4) repair of valves and product accumulator vessels. These" - during the next process unit shutdown requirehients'reflect the level of control after repair, is delayed until a process that the EPA considers reasonable for ' unit shutdqwn.>Valves found not to leak equipment covered by developing for 2 successive months can be ' standards for VHAP. The EPA is monitored quarterly until leaks are therefore proposing to add VC to the list detected. Monitoring of equipment to of snbstahces c'overed by Subpart V. detect leaks is conducted in accordance Subpart V would substantively affect with Method 21 and a leak is defined ns only valves and flanges in VC service within this industry. All other equipment in VCfseryice are already required by a measured organic concentration equal to or greater than 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppvm). For a the VCsJandard tocomply with complete description of the leak equipment and work practice standards detection and repair requirements, see consistent with'those in Subpart V. For Subpart V (49 FR 23498, June 6,1904). example; pumps and compressors In addition, Subpart V contains meeting the'dual mechanical seal standards for other types of equipment requirements of thecurrent VC standard (e.g., flanges, and open ended valves or will be in compliance with the Subpart lines). Standards for flanges include V requirements. In addition, the monitoring with a portable instrument sampling connection systems under prescribed procedures within 5 requirements of Subpart V arc days of observing evidence of a essentially the same as the current potential leak by visual, audible or other standard. The use of rupture discs for means. Open-ended valves or lines are controlling leaks from pressure relief required to be capped, blinded or fitted devices, as required by the VC standard, with a second valve. These provisions is consistent with the "no detectable are not expected to significantly affect emissions" requirement included in producers with these types of equipment Subpart V. Requirements for controlling in VC service. The equipment and leaks from pressure relief devices are procedures employed as normal practice described in more detail later in this by these'producers or as a result of the section. Thus, Subpart V will affect current VC standard are expected primarily valves and flanges in VC generally to ensure compliance with service by requiring a specific Subpart V. monitoring schedule, leak definition and Pressure ReliefDevices. The F.PA repair provisions. proposed and promulgated the work Compliance with the provisions of practices, equipment, design and Subpart V will be used to determine operational standards in the current compliance with the portable monitor standard before explicit legal authority leak detection and elimination existed in Section 112. These requirements in the current VC standard requirements are found in 5 01.65(b). In (40 CFK 6T.G5(b)(8)(ii)), and therefore, August of 1977, Congress amended the current standard is being revised to Section 112 to allow the use of these reflect this change. However, process requirements. Section 112 of the Clean units within VC and PVC plants in Air Act requires that an emission which the percentage of leaking valves standard (i.e., a performance standard) is equal to or less than 2,0 percent are be established for control of a considered by the EPA to be effectively hazardous air pollutant unless, in the controlling VC emissions from leaking judgment of the EPA, it is not feasible to valves. For these process units, the prescribe or enforce such a standard. An existing leak detection and elimination emission standard allows for some program will continue to be allowed flexibility in complying with the while the percentage of leaking valves is standard, since any control technique that achieves that standard may be - ' applied; Section 112(e)(2) defines the - following conditions uftderjwhichit'isr'' ' not feadibla to prescribe*at tmfbrfcfah'hi; . emission standard: (1) I^thej^Jutanta.VJ;1 cannot be emitted througfi (ttX^eyaHce' -< designed and cohstnicfed'tfireBB^d^^V';,:-, capture the 7. application ofmeasurymer "" methodology'lajnbtjiiftai technological oreCoa!5TM Section ll2(e)(l}<allt*' emission standard prescribe orendqri , istead promulgate*^Tde^l^ work practice, of operafio' or combination thereo'fif^ The EPA has reyiewe^). equipment, workpraciictfi operational requirement^! the current VC standard " sources covered by('the I&v: 0$::- with one of the require^ performance standardpIe^S KESr'*' Issfon'r* standard) is feasible' areipresff. devices. As discussed beioyy)r| setting a "no detectable^ for these sources. Ff/r th3 the EPA is reinsfating: tfijjgi requirements as set (o'' standord. - The EPA selected thq disks as the basis for.the.C^<i`ilt^.j^|;i ; standard for pressure reliet^m^ei^ttT;;^ ` When the integrity of rup.tdfesrlglskajs, f maintained, equipment leaklft^rough the relief device are eliminatediRupturefV- ` disks normally maintain the$Sintegrity unless an overpressure occursJ'Affer the occurrence of an overpressure, A''`r'.Y replacement of the rupture disk once 1 again eliminates equipment leaks of,VC through the pressure relief device-fit; For emission control tecKqiques'that' : eliminate equipment leaks; such*as'the use of rupture disks, a "no'dbtectable- . emissions" limit is feasibleiitArlf-tcSJ'r, instrument reading ofless' than 500 parts - per million by volume (ppmv)tabove S' '! V background concentration.baS'edon}-* ', Reference Method 21 can be'USe'd to indicate whether equipmerit'leakSbave' been eliminated; that is, thafIhe'fVY u1 equipment has "no detectabIeiv^fxS:i - ' emissions " <. The "no detectable millssion'^llmit ' would not apply to disch'a/^s'tHrdlfbh11^ the pressure relief devfdS overpressure relief; (These/fele2sesjare covered under 55 G1.64(a):anim;65(aj.)- The standard would speclfy/fidWever,'-' that the relief device be returned to a ' ' ` state of "no detectable emissions"''''' within 5 days after such a discharge; The standard would further require an annual test to verify the "nodetectable emissions" status of the pressure relief devices and a test after each over 1192 ' - Federal-Register1/ Vol, 5Qr Nq. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules pressure relieE-Jhiata^nunJstraUvev; change implement8 tha]jalg;rjjty&;< standard couB&teiiV;' requirement i_i Base Y jegiona ^experfeuc vc:.si^ , sevq ..compM- assoqi Ttigse^ tolh^st^. ' these adm basisXpr n. Defjrutio. . ReliefYali r^saiid fe--: definifltSJi. -"relief, \tbWa eW'ndded' . appjicabilil^ SWrachof'-' these typeatrf J$A'; their reviev^ofenfdri 1. \-J' compliance ^cpeTienSrafrfce;.tuhiei;." ': standard w|T^nJmh@fe^tRe EPA ' ", discoveredyaerverat casesefhonhisioii f over the iutend3tfi^fSimf'of`.'ltak'',i.''!' "exhansfgi&^SiS dischaige^Tliese/tffr^tistrnct^1 ' ` \' catcgone^iyijp^f&E^^l^irig''1 defined in'tKfe^^tKTSS'dfiftf'id'';. .provide cbinp^ffir^@(Jnydiistry'. " persoimeVwilfiS^lear^tinderstahding of which pArt'ofthe StaridarSEapplies to' any given discharge'oHVG'emissions to the atomospherePtsfrmst ;HL.i Definition ofEDGnnchVO -Hj...... Purification.' in.th& past, some plants have misinterprented;which equipment components are included iri:EDC pLeificationand VCpurification' processes withthe'resnibthat emissions from certain eqoipnienfcintended to be covered by thestandardinaynothave been controfied-rThedqfmitiOns of "EDC purification" and-"VC purification" are - being revised to^clarifythatall'; ' u.r purification equipment-following EDC and VC formatipn.we.resubject to regulation under-the current Standard.' 10 ppmirStandard.fwo clarifying revisions are. being made Ip; the 10 ppmv regulations to improve understanding of the applicability, of this-part of the , : standards Eirsllaidipughifie test method for deterqUmgg^j^^i^pf^ith the;1Q - ppmv standerd^pecifie*thatihe,,, ,.f,, . average resujta.-from ^rep l^iqun , .; , , sampling runs,betpsedJfiiiflt3;houri,,. , averaging peHqd is.np}. specified in the 10 ppmv requirements.iSpecifying that emissions may nof exceed.10 ppmv over a 3-hour averaging period clarifies that instantaneous compliance, with, the 10 ppmv standard is not an intended requirement. Moreover, specification of t)fae33--hour averaging period is intended ' carried out in two separate vessels.-The to clarify that the 10 ppmv standard . ' - reaction is initiated in the , applies to VC emissions in all exhaust ; ``prepolymerization" reactor and the " gasatieams.covered.by,the'10ppmvi <>. r., reactor contents are then transferred to requlrementSfjncIuding any.contrqUuE-i : the .`,postpolymerizaUon"reactor .whereo; , device bypasa.atrerfmo-Reqmjjementsy the reaction is completed. Stripping ptH:> for caJculatingithgiYC^^^i^^.j^v residual VC In bulk resin la performedtt bypassed.en&sijoa^foEpuippseaqfj;'',^ following the postpolymerization.step.inq reporting.V (missions:Ji^ftaasAf the;n the reactor vessel; The --- . 10 ppmv; stodard augjbein^^deq to>-v/ postpolymerization reactor generallyfig?. opened afterevery batch and must.-ftp'd*' . comply with die reactor, opening- loss dtfr limits specifiedin the standard. Because^ : the prepolymerization reactor is openedr showclearly;jthat_emissio^in;excess.lj^. less frequently and because - .'/k the 10 ppmvreqimeiq^nts^c^^e'd.Tj:p.' determination of gross product (for - ; The second clarifying njyfsioifctD;the -jL reactor opening loss estimation] is 10 ppmvstandardinyqlireKlfi^iiqhi'if:':' difficult, the EPA has allowed piante to1".' Spetfficatioiii'^'atlhe^Q^p^dliJuJJa fim; meet the equipment opening ' .-i* requirements for minimizing VC ::'rq-dui emissions from polymerization reactor," ^ purpose .qf,tl^<reyfeidn.^t4%fflytfei sb . openings. The reactor opening lossif^ndt prohibit plantSjfi^.nsfpadiJpEQOtyvithbl 'requirements are being revised'at thia-flo ' other exhaust gas streama`s^a|^ijtr ft,,. timeto specifically exclude technique for nieeting the.lfippniv..; . ,. , prepolymerization reactors. f: requirementiThis revision is not - Accordingly, VC emissions from all -,-T . intended toprohlibitthecommdpj*;`';. , opening of prepolymerization reactors- practice of combimiig'teido^^jp,?i,,,-; , : will be subject to the equipment opening? exhaust gassheams in^co^tuin'ijn^^Vj, requirements. This revision is intended headerieadhigW;a;cqnOTflIp|uc^iq(jt,:j to clarify and improve the consistency- ,j According fa the*revis'edfM ppmv^. f,'; " of the equirements of the revised requhementsj CQmbfnmg'mi'lxh^ust'gas., Standard as they apply to bulk FVC stream containing more thaiijlQ'ppmvl .; resin producers in light of actual ', VC with another exhkus't gas stream' 1. .V; industry practice. No reduction in VC ,,v containing less than 10 ppmv VC is,. emission control stringency will result - v allowed only when the comhinedstream from the change in requirements for is ducted to the control device^''' ,'. prepolymerization reactors. Relief Valve Definition. The current standard for relief valvejdischarges was intended to apply not only to safety., relief valves but to all types of pressure relief devices. A definition of "relief ; valve" is being proposed under the revised standard to clarify thptthe. j : current relief valve discharge standard. - also applied'to rupture discsnmanual,: . 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 include pressure control valves used to pontrbl.fldw to an incinerator or other control device- - , However the current relief valve: ,. discharge standard did covej,emissions,, from pressure controlyalves(*Al3Q-pof,, j? induded in the definitionpf^ejiefjValve.p are pressure control sysieai's^ui^ polymerization reaction shortsipp/. '' ^. ,- systems or refrigerated water systems', . which act to reduce pressure.by means,, other than venting. . ... Reactor Opening Loss Requirements for Bulk PVC Rosin Producers. Bulk PVC resin production differs from production of other types of PVC resin in that the polymerization reaction is Inprocess Wastewater Requirements for Gasholder Seals, Under the current Standards, the VC content of inprocess wastewater must be reduced to less than 10 ppm exposure of the wastewater to tlie 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 thisparticular inprocess wastewater source. Consequently, the definition of inprocess wastewater is being revised to exclude the exposed water seal of ' , gasholders. The inprocess wastewater. ; sTipping requirements will continue to, apply to.wastewater after removal from, -.j the gasholder seal. . . C ', Elimination of 30-Day Limit on . Equivalency Requests. The current standard specifics a 30-day limit for existing sources to submit requests for ; use of equivalent methods. Because such a limit poses a restriction on iniLativc by industry to develop alternative, and potentially more effective, control measures, the 30-day limitation i3 being eliminated. 6EMC Old354 Federal Register / Vol 50, No. a / Wednesday, January 9> 1985 / Proposed Rales ' 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 10 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 for 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 ^facilitate review of industry-wide compliance, -. status during past reporting periods,.-.- Specific recordkeepingand 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 recordkeeping and reporting currently practiced by individual plants. The EPA concluded that the current recordkeeping requirements, as specified in 40 CFR 61.71, are still . appropriate. However, the EPA is proposing to extend the current recordkeeping requirements for all reporting activities from 2 to 3 years. The net impact of the revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements proposed by the EPA is estimated to be a decrease in a paperwork burden of about 2.8 person- years. It should be noted that all Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 101(14) hazardous substances such as vinyl chloride are 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 Response Center (NRC) of the release. The toll-free 24-hour telephone dumber of the NRC is 800-424-8802 and in Washington, D.C. metropolitan area it is (202) 428-2875. (See CERCLA Section 103 and 48 FR 23552, May 25,1983.) Vinyl chloride was assigned a statutory ! pound reportable quantity, under Section 101(14) until adjusted by regulation, and is presently undergoing assessment for both chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Its RQ will be adjusted pending the outcome of these reviews by the Office of Emergency and Remedial 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 The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires that adverse effects of all Federal regulations upon small businesses be identified. According to the current guidelines of the Small Business Administration (SBA), a small business that produces or processes VC is one that has 500 employees or less. Currently, none of the existingproducer* or processors that are affected by the standard are estimated to be small by this definition. Since none of the companies meets the SBA definition of small business,-no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Evan if an analysis were required, the proposed administrative revisions do not increase the cost of compliance with the standard. Public Hearing If requested, a public hearing will be held to discuss the proposed revisions to the VC standard in accordance with sections 112(b)(1)(B) and 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make oral presentations on the proposed" revisions should contact the EPA at the address given in the ADDftCMM section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30 days after the' hearing. Written statements should be addressed to the Central Docket Section address given in the ADMESSES section of this preamble. A verbatim transcriptof the hearing and written statements will be available for public inspection and copying during normal working hoursat the EPA's Central Docket Section in Washington. D.C. (see addresses section of this' preamble). ' Docket % -fc The docket is ah organized and complete file of all the information submitted to dr 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, qnd (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review materials (5 307{d)(7(A)J). 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 andagencies: The Administrator wifi- welcome comments ' on all aspects of the proposed regulation, including health, and economic and technological issues: The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Comments on these requirements should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affair* of OMB. marked "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA'*,' as well es to the EPA docket described above. The final rule wifi respond to any OMB or puhllc comments on the information collection requirements. GENC 01^355 1194_______ Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules Under Executive Order 12291. the EPA must judge whether a regulation is "major" and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. This regulation Is not major because: (1) The national annualized compliance costs, including capital charges resulting from the standards 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 Number A-81-21. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street. SW,, Washington. D.C. 20460. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 1 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. List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 61 Air pollution control, Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous materials. Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: Dated December 31,1964. Alvin L. Aim, Acting Administrator. PART 61--[AMENDED] It fs proposed to amend 40 CFR Part 61 as follows: 1, The proposed < iges to 40 CFR Part 61 proposed a: FR 28154, June 2, 1977 are withdrawn. 2. By revising the definitions in existing $ 61.61(j). (1). (o) and (p) for "in process wastewater", "in vinyl chloride service", "ethylene dlchloride purification" and "vinyl chloride purification" and by adding definitions for the terms "relief value", "leak", "exhaust gas", "relief valve discharge and "3-hour period" in nevv oaragraphs (v). (w). (x), (y) and (z). {61.61 Definitions. ***** (j) "Inprocess wasterwater" means any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste product containing vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to a wastewater treatment process or discharged untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder seal water is not inprocess wastewater until it Is removed from the gasholder. * * (1) "In vinyl chloride service" means that a piece of equipment either contains or contacts 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 the provisions of { 61.67(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 of the definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart V of this part. ***** (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" Includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride production which follows ethylene dichloride formation. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" includes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation. ***** (v) "Relief valve" means each pressure relief device including pressure relief valves, rupture disks, manual 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 events that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment Leaks include events regulated under Subpart V of this part such as: (1) An instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater; (2) indications of liquid dripping; (3) a sensor detection of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both; and (4) detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background. Leaks also include events regulated under { 61.65(b](8)(i) of detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentration. Emissions of vinyl chloride not regulated under $ 61.81 (a) and (b); $ 01.B3(aJ; { 61.64 (a), (b). (c), (d), (e) and (f); and } 61.65 (a) and (b)(1), (b)(2). (b)(3). (b)(4), (b)(5). (b)(6), (b)(7) and (b)(9) shall be considered a leak. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas discharged directly or ultimately to the atmosphere that was initially contained in or was in direct contact with the equipment for which 10 ppm emission limits are prescribed in } 61.82 (a) and (b) ; { 81.63(a): S 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 gas. (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 S 61.62(a), { 61.63(a). and { 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c) and (d) as follows: { 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene dlchloride plants. (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride In each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 5 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 is ducted 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. This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in { 61.85(b)(6)(i) before being opened. ***** { 61.63 Emission standard for vinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and { 61.65 (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-houi 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 is ducted 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. This requirement ' does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in j 61.65(b](6](i] before being opened. * *. * * * GENC 0143S6 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9. 1965 / Proposed RuleslltS 5 61.84 Emission standard tor polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and $ 61.65. (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 } 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and S 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 9 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 5 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 5 Bl.B5(b)(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 f 61.65(a). Ibis requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 5 61.05(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'Tor 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 5 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in 9 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 9 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. ***** 4. By revising existing paragraphs 9 61.64(a)(2) and by removing (a)(3) as , follows: 9 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chkxldt plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 9 61.65. (a) Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors; ***** (2) The reactor opening loss from each reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl 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 postpolymerization. * 5. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text and adding paragraph (e)(3) to 9 61-64 as follows; $61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. ***** (e) Sources following the stripperfs). The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripperfs) (or the reactorfs) is the plant has no stripperfs)] 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 as provided in paragraph (f) of this section; ***** (3) The provisions of this paragraph apply at all times including when offspecification or other types of resins are made. 6. By adding paragraph (f) to 9 61.64 as follows; 961.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl eWorld* plants ***** (f) 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 vinyl 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. (ii) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 lb/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product for aH other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. 7. By revising paragraph (a) to 1 61.86 as follows: 961.65 Emission standard for ethyfeo* dteWodds, vfciyl cNorfctt and polyvinyl eWorld* 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). (1) Reactor. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on 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 all reactors producing suspension resins within a PVC plant, 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 tesins-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 atmosphere from relief valves on equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) in vinyl chloride service is not * 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. (iii) The limits specified in paragraphs (a)(l)(i) and (a)(1)(H) of this section may be exceeded when only one relief valve discharge to the atmosphere occurs during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period. (2) Polyvinyl chloride 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 dichlrvide and vinyl chloride plants. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on equipment in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 4 discharges per year. (4) Each relief valve discharge that contributes to a relief valve diacharge frequency in excess of any limit prescribed in paragarphs (a)(1). (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this paragraph constitutes 6ENC 014357 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 I 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 (b)(8)(vi) to 8 61.65 as follows: 5 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dlchlorlde, 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) * * * (b) Fugitive emission sources (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 5 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 5 61.66. (ii) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in 5 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 8 61.66. (iii) 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 8 61.68. 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 control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 8 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 8 81.66. 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 8 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 8 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 8 61.66. ***** (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 pwner or operator assumes that all 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 fry the manufacturer. The manufacturer must have recommended a maximum shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 5 percent from the certified value. The 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 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 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 lo 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. ***** (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. The definition of leak for a given plant may vary among the different areas within the plant and is also to change over time as background concentrations in the plant are reduced. ***** GENC 014358 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1197 9. By revising paragraph (b)(4) to $ 61.05 as follows: 91.55 Emission standard tor ethylene dlctitortde, vtnyt eWorld* and polyvinyl chloride pianta e* (b) Fugitive emission sources. 4 * (4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with 9 61.242--4 of Subpart V of this part ***** 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of 9 61.65 as follows: 9 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dtehkxtde, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plant*. ***** (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 hem which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does not exceed 10 ppm. Sampling techniques are to he 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 9 61.65 as follows: 9 61.65 Emission standard tor ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride and potyvinyi chlorida plants. ***** (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 theprovisions 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 9 61.11. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: (i) * * (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 $ 81.242-l(d), 9 S 61.242-7 (a), (b) and (c), $ 61.246 and I 61.247 of Subpart V of this 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 S 60.481 of Subpart W of Part 60) within the process unit shall be randomly selected and monitored within 1 week by the methods specified in 9 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 9 61.242-7 (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 9 61.70. (E) Any process unit in which the percentage of leakingvalves is found to be greater than 2.0 percent must comply 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 9 01-00 as follows: 14. By revising paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(i), and (g)(3)(iii) of 9 61.67 as follows: f 61.67 Emission tests. ***** (8) * * * (3) When a stripping operation is used to attain the emission limits in 9 61.64 (e) and (f), emissions are to be determined using Test Method 167 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. ***** s 15. By revising paragraph (g)(5) introductory text and adding paragraph (g)(6) to 9 61.67 as follows: 9 61.67 Emission tests. ***** (8) * * * (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emission limit is prescribed in 9 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. ***** 9 61.66 Equivalent equipment and procedure*. Upon written application from an owner or operator, the Administrator may approve use of equipment or procedures which have been demonstrated to his satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl chloride emissions to the atmosphere to those prescribed for compliance with a specific paragraph of this subpart. 13. By revising paragraph (f) of 9 61.67 as follows: 9 61.67 Emission teats. ***** (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 needed to determine. emissions. (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 9 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 batch 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. GENC 014359 1198 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / 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: Raactqr vapor tamperatu* ro HiO vapor ftX* (mm Hg) Reaetor vapor temper*- kn ro HrO vapor prat- (mm Hq) Radnor vapor tampara- ro HiO vapor praa- U*f# (mm Hfl) 40 55-3 41 584 42 614 43 644 44 68.3 45 71.9 46 75.6 47 79.6 46 637 49 660 50 92.5 51 97.2 52 102.1 53 107 2 54 H25 55 116.0 56 1234 57 1290 56 136.1 59 142 0 60 149.4 6i 156.4 62 163.8 63 171 4 r64 179j 65 1675 66 196 1 67 206.0 66 2144 09 223.7 70 2337 71 243.9 72 254.0 73 266 7 74 277.2 75 2691 76 301.4 77 314.1 78 327.3 79 3J1 0 80 356.1 81 369 7 82 3649 83 4006 64 4164 85 433 6 66 450 9 67 466.7 68 467.1 69 506.1 90 525 6 91 5464 92 567.0 93 586.6 64 6109 96 6339 96 657 0 97 062.1 96 707 3 99 733 2 too 700.0 (B) The partial pressure (mm Hg) of vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip from the following equation: PPVA=760 - RV - VPW Where: PPVC=partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in mm Hg 760=atmospheric pressure at O'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 (m3) at end of strip from the following equation: 833 where: RVSV=reactor vapor space volume, in m* RC=reactor capacity, in m* WV = volume of water in reactor from recipe, in m3 PVCW=dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg 833 = typical density of polyvinyl chloride, in kg/m3 (iii) For each 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)(10-J) + (PVCWK273-t-RT) where: 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)(il)(B) of this section, in mm Hg RVSV**reactor vapor space volume determined according to paragraph (8)()(uHC] of this section, in m3 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 18. By adding paragraph (h) to $ 61.67 as follows: ***** (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 in vinyl chloride service. For a piece of equipment to be considered not in vinyl chloride service, it must be determined that the percent vinyl chloride content can be 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-2267 (incorporated by reference as specified in $ 61.18) shall be used. (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 for 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 be used to resolve the disagreement. (ii) If an. owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment is in vinyl chloride service, the determination can be revised only after following the 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 If) to i 61.68 as follows: S 61.68 Emission monitoring. i**** (d) When exhaust gas(es). having emission limits that are subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, are emitted to the atmosphere around the control system and required 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 3 61.67(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 be averaged (weighted according to the proportion of time that emissions were continuously monitored and that emissions bypassed the continuous monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under 3 61.70(c)(1). (f) For each vinyl ehlorlde emission to the atmosphere determined in accordance with paragraph (e) of thia section to be in excess of the applicable emission limits, the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source(s). the date, time, and duration of the excess emission, the cause of the emission, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the excess emission, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the Administrator ss required by 3 61.71(a). 18. By changing the title from "Semiannual report" to "Reporting" and by revising paragraph (a) of 3 61.70 as follows: GENC 014360 Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1199 5 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. (1) The owner or 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 limits 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)(8)(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 used to attain the emission level prescribed 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. (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in 81.67(g)(3). (iv) [Reserved] (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-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: % , T`~ QV, P,,tMoi+Pc,Me,+ Or, ~ where: A=Z4-hour average concentration of type, T, resin in ppm (dry weight basis). Q=Total production of type 7i resin over the 24-hour period, in kg. Ti =Type of resin: /--1.2. . , 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 & resin, in ppm. Production of grade Gt resin represented by the sample, in kg. Ci ^ Grade of resin: e.g., G,, G,, and Gs. n=Total number of grades of resin produced during the 24-hour period. 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) * * * ***** 21. 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 of the emission limits prescribed in $ 61.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance withj 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 **** (c) * * * (4) In 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 61.67(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 end 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 GENC 014361 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: n A Pr C1-1 G1 G1 PG1CG1 + PG2 CGz + 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 used 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 61.67(g)(6)). P=Production of grade G, resin in the batches for which C is determined, in kg. Gi=Grade of resin: eg., Gi, G*. and G>. 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 9 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: 9 61.70 Reporting. 4* (d) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of relief valve discharges as prescribed in 9 61.65(a)(4), and the owner or operator shall report exceedences of the relief valve discharge frequency limits prescribed in 9 6135(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 Ft=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 B-month reporting period divided by 100 t=resin type: dispersion (including latex) or bulk resin type (2) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing suspension resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinyl chloride reactors is to be determined in two ways using the following equations: N F,, - - ; Aixl F,, - N Y where F,,=relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from all reactors producing suspension resin F,i = relief valve discharge frequency per 12month period from all reactors 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 plants producing suspension, dispersion, latex, or bulk resins, the relief valve 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 discharge frequency per too polymerization batches from all equipment (excluding reactors) F, = 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 6-month reporting period. (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinylf 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 close of the 6month 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 valve 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 in PVC plants; all equipment used in solution process and other continuous process PVC plants; and all equipment in EDC/VC plants; any 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 6-month period preceding the report. The design capacity of the number of polymerization batches may be defined GENC 0M362 Federal Register / 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 61.71 as follows- 61.71 Recordkeeping. In) 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: 25. By adding the words "vinyl chloride" to the definition of the term "volatile hazardous air pollutants" in 61.241 of Subpart V as follows- 61.241 Definitions. "Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or "VHAP" means a substance regulated under this part for which a standard for equipment leaks of the substance has been proposed and promulgated. Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. (Sec. 112 Clean Air Act of 197G) [FR Doc. 85-509 Filed l-B-85: 8:45 am| OIUJNQ CODE S5S0-5O-U .1201 GENC 014343