OAR Box 1107 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

18) V-A-1 

Docket Number: 

A-81-21 

Printed 4/14/2008 7:12:27AM Sheet 18 of 90 

P.1 
•

 <A'.^ssssr-

^^.''-'X-A' 

/?'#'# SC'AT 

P.2 

Tuesday 

September 30, 1986 

Part IX 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 61 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Vinyl Chloride; 

Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous 

Air PoUutants; Final Rule 

• - • " v ,-• . 
'ii&iiouaw»mwm-VBx!Z: saias: r:rm<v&.rtfm& 

34904 Federal Register/ Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY-. • •._ ••; -.'•/-'•" ,' 

40 CFF8 Part SH •.,-. 

[AD-FRl-3044-5] , ''";'. " : 

National Emission Standards tor----, v 

Hazardous Air.Pollutants: Vinyl'.".'''' : 

Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). '•;. •;.'•-..-

 : ' 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMBflARV: The EPA proposed " • 

administrative and clarifying revisions 

to the national emission standard for 

vinyl chloride (VC) on January 9,1985, 

(50 FR 1182). Certain revisions to the 

standard are being promulgated in 

"Subpart F through this action and, to a 

minor extent, in Subpart V of 40 CFR 

Part 61. Finally, through this action the 

Agency is denying the petition of the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) and the Environmental Defense. 

Fund (EDF) which sought 

reconsideration of the EPA's withdrawal 

... of the.amendments to the VC standard 

which were proposed, in 1977. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30,1986. • 

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air 

Act, judicial review of the actions taken " 

by this notice is available only by filing 

of a petition for review in the United ^ ''';'„ 

States Court of Appeals for the^District 

of Columbia circuit within 60 days of 

today's publication of this rule. Under': -"•.-

section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Acti ',' 

.. the requirements that^are the subject for . 

today's notice may not be challenged . 

later in civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these .: -

requirements. ' - . ;.._ ,,. 

Incorporation by Reference 

The incorporation by reference of certain 

publications'in these standards is approved ; ' 

by the Director of the Office of the Federal 

Register as of September 30,1986. 

ADDRESSES: Background Information 

Document. The background information 

document (BID) for the promulgated 

standards may be obtained from the 

U.S. EPA Library (MD-35). Research + 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please 

refer, to "Vinyl Chloride Standard: 

Responses to Comments on January 1985 

Proposed Revisions," EPA-450/3-86^ 

004. The BID contains:, (i) A summary of 

all public comments on the proposed 

revisions and the Administrator's 

response to the comments, arid (2) a 

summary of the changes made to the 

revised standard since proposal. 

Dockets. A docket, number A-81-21, 

containing information considered by 

EPA in developing of the promulgated':;,• .' 

revisions, to the standard for VC.Ms^•;A%yA. 

available for'publicinspection^between', . 

8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday1 through .;, 

Friday, at EPA's Central DockfttSectiori' : 

(LE-131), West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1,'• 

.' 401' M Street,. S W.v Washington/DC

 :j$B£i 

20460. A reasonable fee may bsi thaigeS'l* 

•' for copying.'. '_••••'.;.-,. - AAlAfAA 

. FOR FyRTHEK OMF©Rldafl¥0@KI seKnri'eTs'.'{ 'A 

For further information concerning the

 l'-" 

enforcement aspects ofthe promulgated'; 

revisions, contact Mr. Richard Biondi,

 ;

. 

Compliance Monitoring Branch, ' ',-•" 

Stationary Source Compliance Division, '• 

(EN-341), U.S. Environmental Protection i 

Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington!-' 

DC.20469, telephone number (202) -382-Ay 

2826. For further information concerning 

the background technical information.-\ 

supporting the promulgated revisions,-" 

contact Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel,; 

Chemicals ahd Petroleum Branch,: - ' ' ~. 

Emission Standards and Engineering-V". ' 

Division (MD^-13), U.S. Environmental ;:, 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle,; ' 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541-5671. For other ;"% '•«';' 

information on the regulation of VC and 

the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. ".-

: Fred Dimmick, Standards Development -.-

Branch, Emission Standards and • A..-.-. ;•' 

Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.V ' ; 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578. 

•'';swwj£Ba&m&mr BMFORMATOOM:;-./vf•••

 :A. ).r 

Summary of Revisions'to the Standard ""•'-' 

. The VC standard was promulgated ony. 

October 21,1976 (41 FR 46560) and'vz,A'^ 

applies to plants producing ethylene',-*-I 

dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination,-- _-. 

plant producing VC, and plants -''"{"' 

producing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or : 

other polymers containing VC. These 

plants are subject to a combination of '•; 

performance, equipment and work -:. 

practice requirements at numerous 

points in the manufacturing processes.'" ';, • 

Based on its review of the technological 

basis and administrative aspects of the 

" original standard, EPA proposed several 

• administrative and clarifying revisions "• 

to the standard on January 9,1985 (50 FR,. 

1182). The comments received arid ~"," 

actions taken on these proposed -

revisions are discussed below, i -. fcy • VRequirements for Leak Detection and v 

Repair Programs ~. U T . " 

" ':- . • ' ' • ' r. .£. yr . .I-L ->.-

As proposed in January 1985rVC is/r.-*'? 

being added to the list of substances -. 

covered by 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart Vy - \ 

which contains regulations for leaks .; 

from certain equipment in volatile"." 

hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service. 

Previously, plant owners subject to the 

VC standard were required to prepare 

.leak detection and repair plans for each 

VC and PVC manufacturing facility anH 

;

ta submit these plans to EPA for review. 

'."An.analysis of the plans submitted 

^revealed that these plans varied widely 

*frpm plant to plant. Further, some plans 

?;were considered to be inadequate and 

(ineffective approaches to the control of 

"VCleaks..' Ay •.-'-•• '\-'A 

j ;The incorporation of Subpart V by-fhe 

standard for VC emissions establishes j] 

standardized procedures for identifying, 

leaks of VC and for taking steps.to 

minimize emissions and repair leaks.. v 

Further, the incorporation of Subpart V 

will also accomplish a standardization |i 

of the definition of what constitutes a A.;.':, 

leak for routine leak detection. '.,'' yv ' 

However, to avoid unnecessary changes 

to existing plans which are effective in: 

detecting and repairing VC leaks, the. .-;> 

standard contains provisions whereby 

any facility may demonstrate through .'" 

annual (or more frequent, if requested " 

by the Administrator) performance tests.-

•that the percentage of leaking valves. • '\.'. 

'remains at 2 percent as an alternative to' 

* following the Subpart V procedures. An 

owner may continue to follow the .•'•'.'. 

existing leak detection and elimination', 

program for that facility for the purpose./' 

of achieving the 2 percent performance 

limit. However, existing plans are no • 

longer required, nor do they necessarily 

riieet the promulgated requirements. A'•. 

•.Compliance Test Procedure and Specific •'-• 

Opening Loss Limit for PVC Reactors 

• Used as Strippers •-;."•• ^ •. 

;

 The Federal Register notice that 

promulgated the current VC standard '•."'[ 

stated that VC escaping from PVC resin . 

that has been stripped in the reactor is . 

not intended to be included as part of 

the VC emissions measured under the

 : 

reactor opening loss requirements. For 

nonbulk PVC reactors which are used as 

strippers, however, no method was 

.specified to determine what part of the • 

VC in the vapor space of the reactor had 

-escaped after the stripping was .' 

completed. Consequently, a method was 

proposed for determining the reactor 

opening loss that accounts for stripping .:,. 

inthe PVC reactor for use by all 

nonbiilk resin producers. After ' 

considering the comments on this •; •'' 

^proposed revision, EPA decided to 

promulgate the revision.. .--. •:_ ', 

r Another proposed change in the ,;\; 

standard affecting PVC reactors used as,';. 

strippers applied to the production of " 

• bulk PVC resins. Two separate vessels ... 

\ are used in bulk resin production, a 

.' "prepolymerization" vessel and a "post- A 

polymerization" vessel. Under the 

standard promulgated in 1976, both of 

these vessels were subject to the reactor 

1 

yK? 

M 

MS 

*>V.'i 

• • 3 

UtM^i.4 alasiljluai 
P.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34905 

opening loss requirements. However, an 

analysis of the operation of " ^:-:, 

prepolymerization vessels revealed that, i 

these reactors are opened less' ... •;•;• -:l 

frequently than other types of reactors,:' ; 

and that the determination of gross / .-' •-<: 

product {required for the calculation of v . 

reactor opening loss) is impracticaL In

 ;; -

January 1985, EPA proposed to apply the , 

equipment opening loss requirements, l/i 

rather than the reactor opening loss ; \ 

requirements, to these PVC reactors. - ••••• 

The equipment opening loss •-,?. w^-o.Arz' 

requirements'are: more appropriate for .. , 

the operating characteristics of the; -:.•;. 

prepolymerization reactor vessels and '..••'• • 

do not change the overall VC emission .-. 

. control stringency applicable, j .. ;• *• 

prepolymerization reactors. After • 

considering the comments on this 

proposed'revision. EPA decided to . ., '•. 

promulgatetherevision."•'.... ',;'•; -.--

Clarification ofDefinitions and' r'"_ 'A. y 

Standardsy.yv ';;'".'''.: '-yy ; y.A'yr..y. 

".' Based bri the EPA's experience with -

admmistering the VC standard,'several . • 

provisions of the standard are being '~ ..-. 

revised to.reduce any ambiguity in their- „ 

implementation. For example, specific.;).,: • 

definitions of "leak," "exhaust gas." and : 

"relief valve discharge" are being added -

tb clarify the applicability of the " '•:. 

provisions, of the standard to each of ,„' 

. these types of emissions. Similarly, to . 

eliminate misunderstandings about the 

. application of the standard to );•*•' "j , '"•'; 

purification eq'uipnient'following EDC ''"' 

arid VC formation, the definitions of " 

"EDCpuriricarion,'.and''VC;-i ; \ ; ; > 

purification" are being revised to more '_; 

clearly indicate which equipment is.' ' 

subject to the standard. ... " ,",* _' " '. 

. Another revision being incorporated .".. 

into the standard makes it clear that the 

10 ppmv standard is a 3-hour average . 

emission limit, rather than ari.'._, . . : 

instantaneous limit.The'performance 

test provision in.§ 61.67(g)(1) has'also":'.'. 

been clarified to specify, that test "results ' 

should reflect as close fo.,a 3-hqur . ,j -.'* .-

average as practicable! Further, 'the 10 ...' 

ppmv standard regulation is being , * "J 

revised to specify that all exhaust gas «•.'".-.' 

streams are covered by this;_••-..'. *>•'.>'••:; yy ' 

requirement,; including contrqidevicei;!5'-

bypass streain8,Iri order to implement'"'"-

this clarification, provisions are also W!a 

being incorporated into the.standard for ' 

, calculating the VCcontent in byjJassed'vi 

emissions. A final1 revisidnllo the lO'^". j ; 

ppriiy requfrement IS: intended; tty^/y^z'AV 

prohibit plants from dihiting'a iVyS^'f-ll •

: 

exhaust gas stream? with bthefe'idianst-';': 

gases in order tb meet the 10 ppmy limit. 

Under the revised standard, combining >.s-

an exhaust stream containing more than_ 

10 ppmv VC with another gas stream is •" 

only allowed when the combined stream 

is ducted to a control device. 

The inprocess wastewater.

 r-•'.'• '•..-->• 

requirements for gasholder seals are ,</ .. 

also being revised to exclude the'•'•;\'-~y•:'.)-(, 

exposed water seal of gasholders. ' .-•.' v.. 

Experience with the VC standard , .t: ;-

indicates that water contained in they\}yx 

exposed water seal ofa gasholder may * . 

exceed the 10 ppniv limit during normal >< 

operation and that compliance with the 

• atmospheric exposure limit is not .. 

. practicable for this source. The .-'..•-. 

inprocess wastewater stripping '..-..-.» 

- requirements, however, will continue to .. 

. apply to wastewater after removal from 

the gasholder seal. ..: '..'-..'•, 

'* Other Administrative Revisions > ': 

Other administrative revisions to the V 

standard include: (1) The elimination of 

the 30-day limit for existing sources to.'." 

- submit requests for the use of equivalent.:. 

\ control measures; (2) a change from , 

y semiannual to quarterly reporting of VC.; ' 

emissioris from resin stripping, reactor ;'.y 

openings, and exhaust gases; and (3J ' .'• 

.." allowance of reporting of periods bf ''"-. 

excess emissions'instead of all emission ' 

measurements. .. •" " , .' ',..; 

Summary bf Impacts to the Standard 

Revisions to the standard represent -

administrative and clarifying changes; -' 

no major revisions were proposed.: • 

Therefore, the environmental,1 energy

 : 

and economic impacts of the original 

standard remairi generally unchanged. A"' 

summary of the impacts bf the original •' -.'• 

standard can be found in the preamble -• ' 

to the proposed standard revisions (50 -• 

FR1182). ;' . -

:

-y " ~"-\""''-':v 

Public Participation . 

Prior to proposal of revisions to the 

standard, interested parties were 

advised by public notice in the Federal 

Register (49 FR 26807, June 29,1984) of a 

.meeting of the National Air Pollution 

Control Techniques AdvisoryComriiittee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the ' 

revisions to the VC standard "-.-.-

recommended for proposal. This meeting' 

was held on August 30,1984. The . 

meeting was open to the public and each 

attendee was given an opportunity to,

 u;

 • 

comment on the revised standard ••:.•!.. 

recommended for proposal.: f 't. -'^rAzz- ,y 

'-• The revised standard was proposed in' 

the Federal Register bri January 9,1985. )-

"ITte pubfeconrnientperiod wa s from •} '}'•'» 

January 9,1985^toMarch 25,1985. A '' ,'5 

tptal of .16 coriimenf letters Were! '* A • '- -; 

;

 received; Industry^representatives '- ;--*;• 

submitted most of the comment letters. -' 

Also commenting were representatives 

of the U.S. Congress, a State Legislature, 

a State air pollution agency and an 

-environmental group. The comments 

have been considered carefully and. 

where determined to be appropriate by 

EPA, changes have been made to the P 

proposed revisions to the standard. %! 

Significant Comments Since Proposal r ./ 

; Most of the comment letters contained 

multiple comments, tn gerieral;.thisi'%i,">': 

comments supported the proposed ':-;-.-:•' 

administrative arid darifying re visions.- , . 

A detailed discussion of the comments 

and responses can be found in the BID 

for the promulgated standard, which is 

referenced in the'ADDRESSES section • 

of this preamble. The comments and •'..'. 

responses in the BID serve as the basis, 

for the changes that have been made to, 7 

the revised standard between proposal; •.' 

and promulgation. .- • .• ,• ..-.v.;- -'*'/..:-. 

'. Almost all commenters addressed the -

proposed revisions to the relief valve •..:• 

discharge standard. Although many of ' ' 

the commenters agreed with.the actions -

tri reformat thestandard, several i-••::.<• 

commenters objected to various aspects ;' 

ofthe discharge limits. Based on ••'•.,:.-.•'•'-AT-. 

consideration of these comments, EPA ' 

decided not to promulgate the proposed -. 

revision to the relief valve discharge • - U •. 

standard. The comments on this and > .' •• 

other proposed revisions are'addressed

 : 

in detail in the BID for the promulgated: -. 

standard and in summary in the next ,;•;..-

section of this preamble.

 :: ;..-

One commenter requested' . 

reconsideration of the withdrawal of the * 

amendments to the VC standard which' 

were proposed in 1977. This petition for- -

reconsideration was based on -"•: • ;tfobjections tb the Agency's use of data -y -

on costs and economic impacts in the '-

decision to withdraw the proposed .-.:-• 

amendments, and to. the Agency's 

determination of the technological basis 

of the standard. The commenters stated 

that the EPA's actions in withdrawing 

the proposed amendments were ' 

inconsistent with the requirements bf. 

section 112 of the Clean Air Ac t As 'A 

discussed further in this preamble, the -: 

Agency is denying the petition for- - Al • 

reconsideration." , . .'"""'- •'::'.-.' 

Proposed Revisions to Relief Valve , ^ •*, • 

Discharge Standard .

 : '^:.•<' :>;;.':-.;-.' 

The EPA has decided not tqi - yyyzpromulgate revisions to the relief valve J 

discharge standard proposed hi the'••'-.AAy' 

January 9,1985, Federal Register notice. -

. The revisions Would have established a : . 

different t^eb f numerical limit far, --' ' -

relief valve discharges. -The decision to 

-' retain theoriginal relief valve discharge^ 

standard was made after considering .'. 

the revisions in light of public comments 

and other findings. Although many 

public comments favored the proposed ' 

revisions, others opposed the charige. In 
P.5 

34906 Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

particular, several commenters . '•'*•*•- -.' 

expressed concern that preveritable - -•-...'•-

relief valve discharges would be •••A\ • -'.,. 

allowed under the revised standard arid 7; 

that'the pbrformanceallowed under^the;-r, 

revised standard could be inconsistent•'• •"' *• • 

with that allowed under.the original:':-iB ,; 

standard^Other comments expressed-JH-A-

. concern'that the.revised standard *: - c.", 

included no mechanism for regulating -^ *, 

very large relief valve discharges. The; -A 

basisVfor the statement that a large . '>';•'? 

Agency resource commitment is ?:.- •<•:.'. :•'' 

required for enforcing the relief valve.- c 

discharge standard was also questioned. ; 

,-, As a result of these comments, EPA ••• -••'-

reviewed-the basis for the u' •'•'yz • -

r

.'. •-:•-• 

recommendations that led to the * v'"."•"'•»' 

decision to propose to reformat the .'•'•;

 ,r:

 --. 

'standard. First, as discussed in the. . '•''." 

Federal Register notice proposing ..',:: 

revisions to the relief valve discharge.;::. 

standard (50 FR 1187), the review of the ;' = 

standard conducted between 1980 and •-

1982 found that the existing standard ; 

resulted in a significant commitment bf :-

Agency resources to the review and' :r-> • 

evaluation of discharges of VC from Az.A 

relief valves. Because the existing .; ry 

standard allows onlyr"emergency";;-:-yeA 

discharges of VC from relief valves (i.e.,!;.; 

the relief valve discharge could not be... 

avoided.by taking preventative ....-.: z.:y 

measures), every discharge must be :.-\k--

..evaluated,individually.to determine. -'Oy 

;• whether the owner" or operator of tiiey ^ r 

1 facility has implemented the measures,.. . 

- necessary to prevent that relief valve tl'*.-

discharge. During the .4 to 5 years since ;• ;-

the review study was conducted, the . 

enforcement of the relief valve discharge. 

.standard has-been made more efficient.. 

This is due in large part to experience / , -. 

established in enforcing.the standard.'.-r 

As a result, EPA enforcement personnel 

consider implementation of this v. 

standard to be much less resource and '.-

. labor iriterisive; ••.-.•--..- .- ,-..- -.A'..'. 

.A second conclusion fromthe.1980 to 

1982 study was that industry did not '.; : 

have a clear understanding of what the..', 

relief valve discharge standard required ...' 

and what measures they needed to 

implement in order to comply ,with;the . 

standard. During the 4to 5 years since'AA . 

• the review, study, a .number of 'M/t\' •';.. 

enforcement actions havei been taken£?<-

against mdiyidual, plant's for viplatioris^fi 

of-.tiie staAdardK'^qse:aVti.6nshaye.-C;:-;'; > 

culminated in consentdecreesi.which sfV 

: incorporate requiferiients tor reinedial0i 

[• actibns.to(prevent further."relief \ahreyA 

'discharges.-"Hie pr^^^ 

" cbrisertt decrees have not only reduced;;'|> 

the number of relief valve discharges at ; 

specific plants, but they have also ; •„ y--.,-

served as guidelines in determining the • •• 

types of measures appropriate for : 

minimizing the discharges. Because of 

these two developments,; EPA concluded -

that the original findings of the review 

study are no longer valid and should not >' 

be the basis of a revision to the.format .- > 

of.the relief valve discharge:standard. v'-i[ 

r The decision to retain'the existing •-i

 !i.-) 

relief Valve discharge standard as'a part ';•; 

ofthe standard forVC emissions is::•";'£? 

further"supportedby;twoadditional '• • --

advantage s that the existing standard; <>! 

h a s over the proposed revisions. First, • ; 

the existing standard provides ~- •'- ->'-!V -

 :; 

that all preventable relief valve y':-~ - -'; •-' 

discharges are subject to'enforcement,-''

 L ' 

action; Under the proposed revisions, V : 

which would have allowed a small ^ ' 

number of discharges pe r yea r whethe r 

preventable or not, it is possible that a 

plant could experience preventable '' 

discharges and still be in compliance;...""'y 

with the standard. As pointed out in ; 

public comments,' it is theoretically • 

possible that discharges resulting from '.: 

gross negligence could go unpenalized :

:

' " 

under tne revisions to the standard.. The 

EPA did not intend this effect in the?. ' ,. 

proposed revisions. The. retention of the ' 

existing relief valve discharge standard 

allows EPA to continue the current 

enforcement approach. -.?: ',A •-.--.." 

Second, the existing relief valve , '/'. 

discharge standard provides a better.,-.., 

mechanism for regulating large relief -

valve discharges. The proposed revision , 

would have allowed a certain number of: 

relief valve discharges per year, without , 

regard to the size or duration ofthe- ., .7 

discharge. Consequently, as long as the [ 

number bf releases were within the .; .. 

numerical limits of the proposed 

revisions to the standard, tiiere were no • 

mechanisriis in the standard to enforce 

control of the amount of VC discharged 

to the atmosphere. Under the existing » 

relief valve discharge standard, • . 

however, the duration and size of the ; 

discharge are factors, in determining the 

severity of a violation of the standard. 

As a result, a plant owner or operator, 

has a greater incentive under the current •; 

standard for faking action to. reduce the/,-

quantity of a discharge. '!'._• . -;•'•:• '"-r ; 

:

 In summary,;EPA is not promulgating ..." 

the revisions.to the relief valve, y '•,'. ry i 

dischargeIstandard which wer e . - - " •; 

proposed in the January 9,1985, Federal ; 

Register notice. This jdecision was- -, -

reachedrafter consideration of public^ ^ 

comments received on the proposal, and:' 

after a reviewt)f the basis for the J:>:\ -,. . t 

decision to reformat the standard.*;' yyl 

Because this review revealed that tiie £r 

burden on Agency resources has.. -y'•••'••'.?.'.•• 

diminished as experience with, the ' 

implemeritatiori of the standard 

increased, and that understanding of the, 

provisions of the existing standard on. < 

the part of industry should be clearer, .. 

the netessity for revising the format of ;'' 

the relief valve discharge standard is no,.'*;'•' 

: longer apparent The existing standard '-"* 1; 

also has the advantages bf penalizing all:! 

preventable relief valve discharges,'.;

 ryV, 

providing better regulation of^^ large i ft ;:rq 

volume*.relief|valve discharges", arid .";, ' !v;. 

promoting continuity in the ongoing zzvyJ, 

enforcement bf the standard. ,'V y-i-AX" 

'-• In some instances,' it may be possible ' 

for a plant operator to contain a relief >; \'-

valve discharge and to vent it toa ;.- •; v -

control device. Where-.this can be done Y 

without exceeding the exhaust gas '-.; - ,-''i 

emission limit of 10ppmv, EPA- ;:-

concluded that this approach should be ' 

^ encouraged and, therefore, the discharge , 

should be exempt from the relief valve. . 

discharge standard. Venting the ' 

discharge through a control device can .'.';-' 

result in a 99.9 percent reduction in the *" 

VC content of the relief valve discharge j 

without interfering with the control of'.',".•'.' 

VC emissions in exhaust gases which.''..'" 

are also vented through;the contrpl.'••A-'f\. 

device.'Although compliance with the 10^ 

ppmv staridard would exempt the .... 

discharge from the relief valve discharge,; 

standard, exceeding the 10 ppmv.'•:"::'* • - - '.-

standard would be considered both a -.'.-", 

violation of the 10 ppmv staridard and of" 

the relief valve discharge standard. 

Denial of Petition For Reconsideration 

The NRDC arid EDF petitioned EPA to ';. 

reconsider the decision to withdraw the.-.'',; • 

1977 proposed rieyisioris to,,the VQ • > ' 

standard. The criteria for granting such • •'' 

a petition are: (1) The petition must be 

based on information that was not and .' 

could not reasonably have been :' ' . 

presented during-the original -'. '^ '-'Ay 

rulemaking; and (2) the petition must 'AA 

" provide substantial support for the " '. V -

argiiment that the challenged action'• ••• 

should-be changed. See Denial of -i" ••••;'• !-

Petition to Revise NSPS for Stationary " J: 

Ga s Turbines. 45 FR 81653 (December 1; *. 

1980). As described below, this petition"'-.'-.? 

fails to'meet either criterion, and it js •'- '.'-fi 

therefore,.denied1-"*•; ' •'"'. "^ '-'' 

Consideration of Petition r. y ..'; '.,', .' '" 

;

' .The NRDC/EpF petition for . ^ .•.--.:• 

• reconsideration of .the withdrawa l wa s v. 

based on four.mairi premises. First '•^ii--, 

... NRDC/EDF. objected tb..the EPA'SiV ;,^>! 

• arinbuncement ofth e withdrawal, of. the^ . 

proposed amendments a s a final;action, -

: without being preceded by a notice which;. 

> proposed the .withdrawal an d aUpwettiV;;' 

for public comment on the action. ,y AA^. 

' Second.;1^^C7EDJP objected to the ; ^;^. : 

influence of cost doirisiderations iri the;",:, 

decision to withdraw the proposed" . •'.-'_,- -

amendment, stating that the balancing , 

- of costs and benefits iri the setting of the 

VC standard is contrary to the ., ;'.' 
P.6 

Federal iRegister /j Vol. .-51.-No. ,189 /'Tuesday , September 30, 1986 /Rule s and Regulations • 34907 

, .. requirements of.Section 112-of;the Clean'} 

Air Act-Third, NRDC/EDF took issue;,t.; 

. with what it took to.be;the EPA's.'£>?;} '•••.{ 

assumptiQn?;thatfS.eCtionill2 ofthe Clean J 

Air Act estab.lishes.'a.cequirement; thata-j 

:'• -i level bl control must shave; been,':' f&vA*, J, 

:.; ::"coris,isterttly;achipye4"iin%e.fp!ast:;iri2;o:£ 

order to forriv.the basis Qfsthe standard. .••, «?• 

. : ' Finally,. NRDC/EDF.statedJhafthe^.;!,.--'!.-. 

. EPA's decislqnsWspecifiapprtiohs of? -;i 

-• •! the proposed ahiendmeqts'wef^ J' 

;. • conflict with .the evidence.qn?thbse,?^ -y .•_yy 

,,,.•• • ^SS\i^y.y^yvyyVyyy,. ,*,f.-v ViV£.&'H''J 

, i ; r In the first objection; NRDC^EqFstafe: 

. - that, the proposed^arnendmerits toJhe~V- ? 

-.' 1977.VC.standard should ndt.,be^>kAy \ 

withdrawn because no notice of such V". . 

withdrawal had been published,and." •'.v'?.. 

there had been noopporturiity.for public j 

comment on the withdrawal. During the;"; 

.8 years which have'.elapsed since.the•'.,'' ; 

. - proposal of those amendments, there?••yy 

• has been ample opportunity afforded for

 ; 

public comment and input on the -. '••' •-' ;. '-

. . amendments and theiriwithdrawal.'The -

amendments,:their protehtial A-i :•••-.• • •'•••< •'. 

', consequences. ;aricf the decisioris that;the : 

. Agency might take with regard to them ...-l 

were all before the public. Specifically,':; -; 

. NRDC and EDF received.draft1'{•'f.-fi-'V'V'i 

documents relating to the .rulemaking .-.'=• 

f. distributed prior-to the NAPCTAC-,-J '' 

y > meeting. Finally^ NRDC did not give any; • 

.

 ;

.' supporting rationale for believing that: - . 

• .further opportunity for comment-would .-., 

.yield.any relevant.rie'w^nfcirriiationor .:-

• arguments. Therefore, EPA does not ''• ' 

believe that additional time or-prbvision > 

for receiving further public corhriierits.: v : 

couid'have been either necessary?br'•- •-f 

- helpful for the resolution of ihe issues <•.- •-

involving the proposed ariiendments to?" -

the VC standard.'

 : '-.'.":

 - " •: 

The second issue raised by NRDC/ -' 

: EDF involves the inclusion of cost 

- consideration in the EPA's rulemaking*:'- -

deliberations under Section 112.The •'- '-

NRDC/EDF maintains that the language . 

of Section 112 which requires the •-•'•. '-•' ? 

' . standard to be set at a.level which; ''••'. •••'.» 

provides an "ample margin of safety" to -

' the public precludes consideration of the? 

costs'of control..in the EPA.'s'judgment,~:> 

. : the VC standard protects the public.>'•-*<;-C-

:• "• • health with fan ample.margin?ofsafe,ty>-;,tf 

.-., .: within the'rii^aningvof Section WzfiaAditfl 

EPA riiay consider cost and feasiblityin V 

setting the standard. The EPA views rr, i i 

. . were explained in the\1975x76 VG VKfr-i^Vi 

rulemaking.'The.NRDG/EDF provided ;x: 

; rib new.inform'atiori qn.thisiiss.ue.^?*';^;/.' 

:

 TheNRpC/EDFsJthirdibjecticfl-wa 

.- the EPAVasdnaJfrectariS't.atirig.that ar . 

• level of control.mustJbe.'cQrisistently .-0 

achieved" in order to form the basis ofi; .'• 

the standard. Specifically* NRDC/EDF-

. pointed to the language iri theFederaL •; 

. Register notice that'MO ppmv represents 

the lowest level of control which has. :• -

:

 beenconsistently achieved" as '•;-.'..'•• .';.':",. 

indicating that EPA was applying such . i 

.requirernerrt in evaluatirigalternalive l.\-\ 

exhaust gas requirements.! However, >the- * 

;

 basis? fbriEPA'siselection bf 10 pprnvas-O-; 

'.'• the VC-standard. for exhaust gas *'& •'•/* > 

'emissiohsris that this" letfel of-control is V::I 

"the low'estachievable emission limit-^;•-*'. * 

• attaina.bleson'a n'everrttHbe-exceeded *• -• ?.-

"'•basis.'Although 5 pj)iriv may be ';• •; ; "•-':-

'-achieved by sdme-'systems<jver-a'"""v -".«*«V;* 

• limMed'time pe'riod,-the existirig-data' >.':?'? 

. indicate ihe' this level of cbhtrbl-carinot >;» 

f be maintained over a' long-term,'never- • l 

•

:

 to-be-ie'xceeded basis; asreqiiired by the'; 

standards. In addition to being '•'•••• •• • •'•* 

achievable On a consisterit,lorig-term -

basis; the 10 ppmv standard was also ' 

deterrnined by EPAto provide the public'' 

with' the ample margin of safety required ' 

• by section 112. Therefore,'EPA beleive's '"" 

• that'the standard satisfies the ' " \" ; 

'requirements of section 112." ' '.'.-.'".' 

; T^Ona l PO-n's raised by NRDC/EDF?'! 

. in support of the petition for;.'" ,. _.L:.r. '. j 

reconsideration addressed three specific V 

provisions of the proposed ariiendments 

; which were withdrawn. The NRDC/EDF.-. 

stated that the withdrawal pf these '; V " 

provisions was in conflict with the , ,..* 

'. evidehce before the'Agency. The first ;„."., 

..specific portion ofthe standard ? 

.addressed .in the petition is.the? ?.-''? --'.*-'- •-

. withdrawal of the proposed 5 ppnjy v'r.L -. 

' emission limit for exhaust gas emission \_ 

in favor of the existing 10 ppfnv >• 

.emission limit. The NRDC/EDF stated '. ' 

•that the evidence in the record supports" , 

a finding that the 5 ppmy limit is " '• 

achievable by new sources, and by 

existing sources within 3 years of ; -., 

' proriiulgatidn. The petition also pointed 

to the more stringent emission limit riot \ ] 

be foregone. 

. The EPA decided to maintain the 10 , 

ppmv emission limit for exhaust gas :' 

emission for three primary reasons. 

. First, -as stated above, the 10 ppmv '- -'-"• 

emission limit has been determined to; 

. be consistently achievable by industry,, 

.? whereas?the 5 ppmv emission limit • - >•-.;; 

' canndt.be consistently:achieyed. -.. .;•:-? 

Second, even4though theJimit on \ ;_ -'.-? .:•. 

• 'maxirrium'emissions of VC is set at J.0 •.-, 

'. ppmv', the average and most short-teriri ^, 

^eiriissiorfs'.will be considerably lower..r rh: 

.. than this level. Third, lowering the ' A'Ay 

viemission limit on maximum emission ; t e 

frates to 5 ppmv would not, significantly ..: 

'?reduce-the.average:ejnissipns,-and,.? z H,y 

• therefore, adopting the "lower, standard <•> 

', was deterriiined by the Agency not.to 1 ? t 

have a significant impact on emissions ,-

bf.VC or* accordingly, on public health -:, 

risks. The petition for reconsideration 

.. presented no new-evidence.relevant to 

the Agency's decision to withdraw the > 

proposed 5 ppmv emission limit. . i.;. 

.The second decision addressed by the ' 

petition for reconsideration as v\ x :•'•; ' -; 

\ conflicting with the considered evidence ^ 

is the;witHdrawal?of Ihe 5 ppmv.-' ; z. •.[.. i 

;

 emissiortlirijit for oxychlorinatiqn.vetits. •*. 

Theipetitibn points to a statemenfin theV'. 

1977 proposal that this eriiissibn'limif;-. ?*./ • 

could.be attained based on the use of! '• t 

oxygen as a feed materialrather thari-.' :•': • 

air, and maintains that no discussion or 

- evidence were presented which would.- ?•-. 

Justify .withdrawal of this proposal:? J':;•'• 

. In the Federal Register (50 FR 1185),-

evidence was preSented'by the Agdncy '. y,\ 

supporting the conclusion that more ' 

stringent control of emissions-from: '• K. 

oxychlorination vents was unnecessary^ : 

First, no.new'technological controls • . 

:have been developed which are? , : yy 

applicable to these vents. Second, the. V ••/ 

costs of incinerating oxychlorination ;'. . ' 

-vent streatris were reevaluated and 4.' ? 

determined,' as before, to be,>. ',-. :\ .-

• unreasonable compared to the small .?,. 

reduction in VC emissions. And finally,.- ,! 

with the possible exception of one plant, ? 

no new EDC/VC plants with- ; .? ?• 

oxychlorination reactors are expected to 

be constructed, and any that ma'y;be, : 

constructed will be adequately regulated•' 

by the'requirements of new source"? ; •'•• .. 

review regulations. No new information -

was presented in the petition for. ; *; ..'•-.,. 

.reconsideration relevant to the decision ' 

- to retain the! existing oxychlorination? 

vent standard. • .. . "... '. *• .-. 

- The third decision which was 

addressed in the petition for . • ' -. 

recorisideration as conflicting with the. • 

considered evidence is the withdrawal •' 

of the proposal to lower the residual VC .* • 

limit for-new dispersion resins from . 

2,000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and the limit . 

for-other new,resins from 400 ppmv-.to; -,; 

100 ppmv. The petition states that - ^ 

existing (facilities are currently meeting .-; 

the lower limits, and that.both new and • • 

- existing facilities could be brought into 

compliance with.the more stringent. • > ; 

.limits by,using the equipment and-;: 

procedures currently used.by the leading-; 

-facilities.-; -y(: \ " : '•••?.'• -J '•• .v.,' •'> 

,- The EPA withdrew the proposed more : 

stringent; stripping level requirements for 

two main reasons. The-first is.that the • .. 

nature ,of.PVC production makes it... •:'.-.. * ; 

y: difficultjto.distinguish ''new'ifrorii^ald>. • 

resiris. Resin compositions areadjustedu? 

routinely, arid completely "new" Resins,; ;. 

"are rarely,-:if ever.rnade.-Second,rEPA ?\v 

concluded that there is rid imprdved •, . 

technology which would provide the,?,, *, 

basis/or more stringent stripping .,; •.; 

requirements for all resins. The, ;.*.--.-: 

technologies which are effective for ; , 

specific resins may not be effective for.-. 

a^^ai IAiaU,iil.alas 
P.7 

34908 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No, 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

other resins.The consequence of .:• ••-. -

establishing a more stringent standard ,-••; 

would.be that certain hard-tOTStrip •:.• 

resins could.no longer, be produced. In ,r; 

the, EPA *8-opinion, *uch;a result would.©? 

- ;be.an-unwarranted .economic impact^fei'i,, 

,whjchlisunnecessary.to provide an .-^A; 

amplernargipjof/safety for public health,! 

.: JNo new.releyant.infonnation was .-,•••, 'AA* 

•\ C.'presented in-thepetitiqn.tfqr.f A •:•>,A, yy^AA 

: reconsideration.;[,-•,-, :•'.•'}-,.*,•••-: •~y '-, •,.:•-• •-••••'iAdministrative '•'*<•••'*• y:" " • •--: ,••' : -

r

--

'•'• ,The docket is an organized and .?...: . 

;- complete file of all the information •". ,V ; 

, considered by EPA in the development;'. 

of this rulemaking."The docket, is. a. !.'.,,...'.. 

dynamic.file, since material is.added ';?"??,'? 

..throughout the rulemaking development.':. 

The docketing system is intended to.'v'..,.'-' 

allow members, of the public and,.'.' .... 

industries involved tb identify and.'.' A _'['..'. 

" locate db'cumerits?sq that they ;can';'' ;.?-..r' 

effectively participate in the ru'lernakirig?.' . 

\ process? Along with the stateriient of ?",'V • 

'[basis and purpose of the?p"rpposed arid '"'y" 

-".promulgated standards and EPA'J. 'A'Ay;': 

responses' to significant comments; the '; 

contents'of the docket.'exce'pt for '?-".,'?-.

 :

. 

iriteragericy'review materials; will serve." 

' as' the record iri case of judicial review'' 

[section 307(d)(7)(A)]. "'.'" . ?' .' 

The effective date of these revisionsis , 

A 'September 30i 1986. Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act provides that national 

emission standards for hazardous air ' " 

pollutarits'become effective upon ? :' . ;. ' 

. promulgation and a'pply to all existing ''• 

-'and new sources:;-/ .-.--,.

 :-Ay'<--y yrv 

A}'As prescribed by section 112,-/•-'- -

;

 "-?* 

promulgation bf.this standard was'-' '' •"' 

preceded by the Administrator's lis tirig 

of VC under section 112 of the Act on , -'.'"' 

December'24,1975 (40 FR 59477). In ' '•'-. 

accordance with section 117 of Ihe Act," 

• publication of these proriiiilgated • ' '•-?-

revisions''was preceded by consultation 

with appropriate advisory committees,"

 ! 

• independent experts, and Federal •'.-•• 

departments and agencies/ r-.-r •'• 

Information collection requirements '' 

!

 associated with this revised regulation

 ,r 

- (those included in 40 CFR Part 61,-'.;-' 

Subpart'Aand Subpart F) have been ' " 

•approved by the Office of Management-'/ 

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, , 

. 44 U.S.C; 3501 etseq,, and have -beenv/^-i,-

..-• .assigned OMBxontrol number 0186.-The "; 

••> revised staridard is estimated toTesulti!" 

'•"-.* - .in a- paperwork -burden of about 36,v?-'?;.:•'' 

vpersbriiyearswhichis; roughly tthe same y . 

:: ;'•'-. as the original standard. * SM a ••& ,~4f$>i'\% six. 

•'• - :, .Under>Executiye Order i2291.£PAis. r-r 

required tb judge whether a regulation is >' 

a "major,nile".and4herefore subject to?;.'. 

•certain-requirements of ;the Order.-Thec-.s?-. 

EPA has determined that the revised ' .* 

• regulation would result in none ofthe 

adverse economic effects set forth in • : 

Section 1 of the Order as.grounds for 

finding a regulation to be a "major rule." • 

The revised regulation isnotmajon; 

because: (1) Nationwide annual -^ :,' '•; 

compliance costs,-including capital: r, ; 

charges resulting from the standard total. 

less than $100 million; (2) the standard 

does not cause-a major increase in... ; y 

prices or production costs; and (3) the?

 :

 . 

standards do not <;ause significant :" 

adverse effects on domestic competition, 

employment, investment, productivity,, -

innovation or competition in foreign . : 

markets. The EPA has submitted this 

rulemaking to OMB under Executive '.. 

Order 12291.r^-'.'•"-, ;.'.'-, / ..:,; :-/.-^." 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires the identification of potentially 

adverse impacts of Federal regulations 

upon small business entities. The Act 

specifically requires the completion of a , 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those •', 

instances where small business impacts •'"* 

are.possible..Because this revised .. 

standard imposes no adverse economic 

impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis has not been conducted. 

Pursuant to the provisons of 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). I hereby certify that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a.substantial number of small 

entities. ''_'•' : /: 'yy:.'". 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61. • 

. Air pollution control, Asbestos, „ 

Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous. 

materials, Mercury, Vinyl chloride. • 

Dated: September 24,19861;. -' A Ay '•' 

Lee M. Thomas, J '--,,;": -

Administrator, r-.y ?!'...-. , ?'.; 

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION | 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS; 

For the.reasons, set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR Part 61 is amended as 

follows:- -, '"• •'• 

1. The authority citation for Part 61 

coritunues to read as follows:.. ';.... • ;.-

.-'.'.Authority: Sees. 101,112,114.116.301, 

Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 

74li 7414, 7.416, 7601K..'r,.-:-.• .•.-..•-..--'. 

;

 2. Section 61i61 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (j), (l),'(o) arid (p) ' 

arid by adding paragraphs fv),' (w), (x), .A 

(y), arid '(z) to read as' follows: '•,", 'yA y 

, -••- :.:\>ro r •• :'-T->-~--i t'V}.'i-j ..S''i'.'i K A rf>..-.i 

§§6i:6i;.!DeflniHpris^it/,',[•nv-AivJv- •••Ayy 

^'vv*:^yytM^r^vyrAry; 'i.w -

y- (j) "Inprocess wastewater" means any 

water which,.during manufacturing or"- v 

processing, ;comes into direct contact y-yyy 

with vinyl, chloride or -polyvinyl chloride, 

•or results frorii 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;nbt j • >-'-

been discharged to a wastewater.--':'^ '-'A 

treatment processor discharged;1?^ -'y ;•• 

untreated as^astewateri'Gashblder' ,vp*» 

sealwateHs -not inprqciSsswas tevWit'er y.x 

"until it isrembyed from thegashblder;,.V!'' 

..,• 'r.^v;^-^h:ij?.''«'i:;|!y 'Kifef^''•''':-*' 

•

 :,ui.,'^:

^ui'y^- AyyA?£y<,yytt>z>r! 

. (I) 'In .vinyl chlqnde service means >vtn 

that a piece of equipment either,contains* 

or contacts a liquid that is a least.lO'-t^a,-

percent vinyl chloride by weight of a'gas . 

that is at least 10 percent by.volume', {,' 

vinyl chloride as determined according.j., 

to the provisions of § 61.67(h). The,'

 :.A.J 

provisions of § 61.67(h) aiso specify now,', 

to determine that'a piece bf equipment is. 

not in vinyl chloride service. For.the -'.I'J.M. 

purposes bf this subpart, this definition ,i. 

must be used in.placq of the definitibn.of ^ 

"in VHAP service" in Subpart V of this. :•'? 

part.*:^,.;.,^,:^ ; ^:;,;,::.••^yj xv ; } 

- - .;•:• • ;.--,!.-••••'•.•.•.-..n-'.i;wi-;«--..* ,'-.M-': ' 

(o) "Ethylene'dichloride purification"^, 

includes any part of the process of- '-•';'•$& •'-

ethylenedichlbride production which'?!?'

!

' 

follows ethylene dichloride formation,';''J' 

excluding product storage following the j: 

final finishing column." • 'y :A}-]'

:

''.l A'L 

(p) "Vinyl chloride purification'.'. .'• *'•''•" ' 

incudes any part of the process of vinyl;; 

.chloride production which follows' vinyl; '• 

chloride formation. •' '- '. ••:'!"',''" 

* . - * "". - * • * - * - •' • • - • .-.- " : ' - •"-"" • 

- (v) "Relief valve'.' means eachn?,->..,,,•,:,) 

pressure relief.device including pressure,; 

relief valves, rupture disks and other:,-.: y. 

pressure relief systems used to protect;,,-

process components frorii overpressure,;^:' 

conditions./'Relief valve" does not •;.,*-«-!-.,•'.. 

include polymerization shortstop :.,.!' 

systems, referigerated water systems.or :3 

control valves.or other devices used.to v; 

control flow to an incinerator or other, '., 

air pollution control device., :.-.-;.;f.,•;,-: -P 

(w) "Leak'-' means any of several •:- •: >•;•'• 

events that indicate interruption of -'.; ->- J 

confinement of vinyl chloride within n ; , 

process equipment. Leaks include, events'-

regulated .under Subpart V of this part si':.' 

such as: (1) An instrument reading of •''•>.j", 

10,000 ppm or greater measure according; 

to Method 21 (see.Appendix A of,40 CFR , 

Part 60); {2) indications of liquid.?'* u.Arvr 

:

 drippirig; (3) a sensor detection.offailure'S 

of a seal system, -failure of a barrier-fluid 

systemi oribothf and :(4) detectable r ryi^z 

emissions'as indicated :by an instrument * 

, reading of greater ;thari 500 ppm above ja? 

r background for equipment-designated!^ 

for ho detectable emissions measured *e% 

. according to Test Method 21 (see • .'• •••£)'•%& 

Appendix A bf 40 CFR Part ,60). Leaks li j •'.: 

also include events regulated under '' v * 

§ 61i65(b)(8)(i) for detection of ambient • 

concentrations in excess of background ' 
P.8 

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986/ Rules and Regulations 34909 

concentration. A relief valve discharge . 

is not.aleak.;,-. ;'.',••>'•,..* . z,C, •:?•- -. -. 

(x) ."Exhaust gas" means ariy offgas ., 

(the constituents of which may.corisist ,. 

of any fluids.reither as a liquid and/or, 

-gas) discharged-directly br.ultimately'toJ. 

the atmosphere jthat was initially • ;' .: .: 

.'contained in d.rwta's iri "direct, contact.~,.. 

with the equipmVnt/or which exhaust. ;V. 

gas limits "are prescribed in | 61:62 (a) -.y 

•and (b);'§ 6l.63(a);_§.6l64(a)(1), (a)(2)',' , 

(b)'.-'(c). arid (d); § 61.65(b)*(l)(ii)„(b)(2),.,,.. 

; (b)(5). (h)(6)(iU.and (bj(9)(ii).:;,y;A.:v •:•; 

.(y) ''Relief valve discharge"..means. ...' 

..any nonleak discharge.through a relief'. 

. valve, "Relief valve discharge" does not . 

include discharges ducted to. a coritrol ?.' 

system from which the concentration of. . 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does ,-

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hoiir 

period), or equivalent as provjded in,'.. 

§61.66. •'•"•[[. ~'-: Ayv_ y-'yf-. A Y. „'..... 

(z) "3-hour period!' means ariy.three 

consecutive 1-hour periods'feach hour..f 

commencing on the hour): Ayy...y.vA-i.y. 

3. Sectiori 61.62 is amended by-".;'." ' 

revisingp'aragraphs (a) and (b) to read . 

as follows': 1'".-..*.„?". -.:'..., ;,... ,' ./• t%.'..'-. ; 

§ 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene . , 

dichloride planted ^ \ ;_?'.. . .'.AA 

-.'• [a)Ethylene.dichloride purification. 

The 'concentrationofvinyl chloride, in 

each! exhaust gas stream from ...any..-..•..-, • 

equipment used in ethylene, dichloride. ... ,\. 

.purification is not, to. exceed 10 ppm?-ri;:, -

: (average for 3-hbur period), except as .'. 

provided iri § 6li65(aJ. This requirement 

does not preclude combining of exhaust . 

gas streams provided the cornbined 1 

steam is ducted through a coritrol ' ,. . 

system frorh which the concentration bf .. 

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 requireiherit in § 61.65(b)(6)(i). 

: before being opened., ,, . 

y -(b) Oxychlorinatioriyeactbr. Except?as 

provided in.§ 61.65(a), emissions.of vinyl 

chloride,to the, atmosphere. from each. v . 

oxychioririation reactor.are not to .','-, 

exceed 6,2 g/kg (0.0002. lb/lb) (average ; -

for.3-hqur,period) of the ,100. percent ;, v . 

.ethylene, dichloride .product from the.'.-. .-•-, '<" 

-oxychlorinationprocess^ .--,-;"",,•• •<• ..-A:.. 

.4. Section 61.63 is revised to read as.'.-, 

.follows:,*?;, ry A AA.Ay..y,~j••.,"•"''•'•'•.;.. -.v 

. § 6.1.63 Emission standard torylnyr. :;?y 

,chloride plants. '•; .; A't^yA l'y, ••;'...\.-.'v -"'".-'•'. 

rAri'oyvmef or operator of.a vinyl, ",.. 

chloride plant shalLcbmply with the .,. ., 

requirements bf 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 js, 

not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), except as provided in § 61.65(a). 

This requirement does not preclude.-:. .•••;. 

combining of exhaust gas streams . ; 'A 

provided the combined steam is ducted 

through a control system from which the ' 

concentratiori of vinyl chloride in the. •"•-; '-\ 

exhaust gases does not exceed .10 ppm,. 

pr equivalent as provided in § 61:66. S", 

This requirement does not apply to • •' 

equipment that has been opened, is out : 

of operation,;and met the requirement in • 

§ 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened.

 ; 

5. Section 61.64 is amended by..;. ••-.;: 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) 

to read as follows: ' 

§ 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl 

chloride plants. _•' „ t ?, "• 

* . * - * . • -. * ' a '.'.-.''• -

(a) Reactor. The following -. : ' 

requirements apply to reactors:-

•: (1) The.concentration bf vinyl chloride 

in each exhaust gas stream from each 

reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm (average 

. for 3-hbur period), except as provided in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 

§ 61.65(a). , . ?•-•.." 

. (2) The.reactor opening loss from each 

reactor is not to exceed O.02 g vinyl... • . 

chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) 

of polyvinyl chloride product, except as • 

provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2),, .-

of this section, with the product - - r.-i-- ., 

determined on a dry solids basis/This 

requirement does not apply to 

prepolymerization reactors in the. bulk . 

process. This requirement does apply to 

postpolyriierization reactors in the bulk . 

process, where the product means the 

gross product of prepolyriierizaUon and •. 

postpolymerization. 

(3) Manual vent valve discharge. 

Except for an emergency manual vent 

valve discharge, there is to be no 

discharge to the atmosphere from any • 

manual vent valve on a polyvinyl >• 

chloride reactor in vinyl chloride 

service. An emergency manual vent • , 

valve discharge means a discharge to 

the atmosphere which could not have' • — 

been avoided by taking measures to • .. 

prevent the discharge. Within 10 days ofany discharge to the atmosphere from . • 

any manual vent valve, the owner or,, j-••-

operator of the source from which the , -

discharge occurs shall submit to theAdministrator a report in writing. -• ., y 

containing information on the source, • ' 

nature and cause ofthe discharge, the ; 

date and time of the discharge, the '.:%. 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss -, ? 

during the discharge, the method used • • 

for determining the vinyl chloride loss -

(the calculation of the vinyl chloride .. 

loss), the action that was taken to 

; prevent the discharge, and measures.'.'.-: 

, adopted to prevent future discharges. •; 

. ,(b) Stripper. The concentration of 

vinly chloride in each exhaust gas -.•••-'"-

:

 stream from,each stripper is not to'/ -

• exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour " 

- period), except as provided in § 61.65(a). 

,;: ;This requireriient does not apply to ' \ '. 

'.equipment that has been opened, is out * 

', of operation, and met the- .-'•••''- -

?. requiremention § 61.65(b)(6)(i) before".1" 

being opened.A .' v rA\•••:':. 

, -(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), except as '. 

provided in § 61.65(a). This requirement , 

does not apply to equipment that has.. , 

. been opened, is out of operation; and. 

. met the requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) . 

before being opened. 

.. ' . (d) Monomer recovery system.^The '• 

- concentration of vinyl chloride in each " 

, exhaust gas stream from each monomer 

. recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm 

,- (average for 3-hour period), except as 

provided in § 6i.65(a). This requirement. 

-• does not apply to equipment that has 

. been opened, is out of operation, and ' -

-• met the requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) 

, before being opened. ? - -..,.';• • •• 

*.-.*.-' * * a ' .?.. . ' , , . 

6. By revising paragraph (e) .-•-.- A"' 

'. introductory text, and adding "'•••"-. 

paragraphs (e)(3) and (f) to § 61.64 to? 

read as follows: ' '• 

. § 61.64. Emission standard for polyvinyl . 

chloride plants. 

*.- * -* -*-*.-- -

• (e) Sources following the stripper(s). 

The following requirements apply to 

, emissions of vinyl chloride to the • 

atmosphere from the combination of all 

; sources following the stripper(s) [or the. 

reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)] 

in the plant process flow including but 

,. not limited to, centrifuges, -,-•• •..'..•_:.. 

. - concentrators, blend tanks,-filters, •--..-. -

r

 dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, 

i storage containers, and inprocess ; >. 

,- wastewater, except as provided in -, . 

•y- paragraph (f) of.this section: .: ••••..-. 

- . . (I)*** ' - . --'< \ ••-••-

^,'(2)VV . , .,,•' ,-.;- ,:-;.:„-• ;-,•••. 

,:. (3) The provisions of this paragraph 

.; apply at all times including whenoff-.'.' 

:<- specification or other types of resins are ' 

;< made.-r-;;. - •-•' -v. - •.'.-•'< • •'• 

• .. (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): 
P.9 

34910 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

(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) 2.02 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 all other 

polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex 

resins, with the product determined on a 

dry solids basis. 

7. Section 61.65 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(l)(ii) and 

(b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene 

dichloride, vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl 

chloride plants. 

(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for 

an emergency relief discharge, there is 

to be no discharge to the atmosphere 

from arty relief valve on any equipment 

in vinyl chloride service. An emergency 

relief discharge means a discharge 

which could not have been avoided by 

taking measures to prevent the 

discharge. Within 10 days of any relief 

valve discharge, the owner or operator 

of the source from which the relief valve 

discharge occurs shall submit to the 

Administrator a report in writing 

containing information on the source, 

nature and cause of the discharge, the 

date and time of the discharge, the 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss 

during the discharge, the method used 

for determining the vinyl chloride loss 

(the calculation of the vinyl chloride 

loss), the action that was taken to 

prevent the discharge, and measures 

adopted to prevent future discharges. 

(b) * * * 

(H * * * 

(i) 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from a 

loading or unloading line in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section is 

to be ducted through a control system 

from which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. 

. (2) Slip gauges. During loading or 

unloading operations, the vinyl chloride 

emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl 

chloride service are to be minimized by 

ducting any vinyl chloride discharged 

from the slip gauge through a control 

system from which the concentration of 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does 

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. 

. * * * * 

8. By revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), 

(b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9)(ii), and 

(c) to § 61.65 as follows: 

§61.65 Emission standard for ethylene 

dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl. 

chloride plants. 

An owner or operator of an ethylene 

dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or 

polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply 

with the requirements of this section. 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1)

 w * 

(2) * * * 

(3) Leakage from pump, compressor, 

and agitator seals: 

(i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride 

emissions from seals on all rotating 

pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be 

minimized by installing sealless pumps, 

pumps with double mechanical seals or 

equivalent as provided in § 61.66. If 

double niechanical seals are used, vinyl 

chloride emissions from the seals are to 

be minimized by maintaining the 

pressure between the two seals so that 

any leak that occurs is into the pump; by 

ducting any vinyl chloride between the 

two seals through a control system from 

which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as 

provided in § 61.66. Compliance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V 

demonstrates compliance with the 

provisions of this paragraph. 

(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 §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 §61.66. 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(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 

§61.66. If double mechanical seals are 

used, vinyl chloride emissions from the 

seals are to be minimized by 

maintaining the pressure between the 

two seals so that any leak that occurs is 

into the compressor; by ducting any 

vinyl chloride between the two seals 

through a 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. 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from seals on all 

reciprocating compressors in vinyl 

chloride service are to be minimized by 

installing double outboard seals, or 

equivalent as provided in § 61.66. If 

double outboard seals are used, vinyl 

chloride emissions from the seals are to 

be minimized by maintaining the 

pressure between the two seals so that 

any leak that occurs is into the 

compressor; by ducting any vinyl 

chloride between the two seals through 

a control system from which 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; 

or equivalent as provided in § 61.66. 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(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 § 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 § 61.66. 

(4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl 

chloride emissions due to leaks from 

each relief valve on equipment in vinyl 

chloride service shall comply with 

§ 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part. 

(5) Manual venting of gases. Except as 

provided in § 61.64(a)(3), all gases which 

are manually vented from equipment in 

vinly chloride service are to be ducted 

through a control system from which the 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm 

(average for 3-hour period); or 

equivalent as provided in § 61.66. 

(6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from opening of 

equipment (including prepolymerization 

reactors used in the manufacture of bulk 
P.10 

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34911 

resins and loading or unloading lines 

that are not opened to the atmosphere 

after each loading or unloading 

operation) are to be minimized as 

follows: 

(i) Before opening any equipment for 

any reason, the quantity of vinyl 

chloride which is contained therein is to 

be reduced to an amount which occupies 

a volume of no more than 2.0 percent of 

the equipment's containment volume or 

0.0950 cubic meters (25 gallons), 

whichever is larger, at standard 

temperature and pressure. 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from 

the equipment in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section is to be 

ducted through a control system from . 

which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period); or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. 

(7) Samples. Unused portions of 

samples containing at least 10 percent 

by weight vinyl chloride are to be 

returned to the process or destroyed in a 

control device from which concentration 

of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does 

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period) or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. Sampling techniques are to be 

such that sample containers in vinyl 

chloride service are purged into a closed 

process system. Compliance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V 

demonstrates compliance with the 

provisions, of this paragraph. 

(8) Leak detection and elimination. 

Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks 

from equipment in vinyl chloride service 

are to be minimized as follows: 

(i) A reliable and accurate vinyl 

chloride monitoring system shall be 

operated for detection of major leaks 

and identification of the general area of 

the plant where a leak is located. A 

vinyl chloride monitoring system means 

a device which obtains air samples from 

one or more points on a continuous 

sequential basis and analyzes the 

samples with gas chromatography or, if 

the owner or operator assumes that all 

hydrocarbons measured are vinyl 

chloride, with infrared 

spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, 

or an equivalent or alternative method. 

The vinyl chloride monitoring system 

shall be operated according to a 

program developed by the plant owner 

or operator. The owner or operator shall 

submit a description of the program to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the 

effective date of these regulations, 

unless a waiver of compliance is granted 

under § 61.11, or the program has been 

approved and the Administrator does 

not request a review of the program. 

Approval of a program will be granted 

by the Administrator provided he finds: 

(A) The location and number of points 

to be monitored and the frequency of 

monitoring provided for in the program 

are acceptable when they are compared 

with the number of pieces of equipment 

in vinyl chloride service and size and 

physical layout of the plant. 

(B) 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 ofthe 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. 

(C) It contains an acceptable plan of 

action to be taken when a leak is 

detected. 

(D) 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)(i)(B) of 

this section. The calibration is to be 

done with either: 

[1] 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 

(2) A calibration gas cylinder 

standard containing the appropriate 

concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas 

composition of the calibration gas 

cylinder, standard is to have been 

certified by the manufacturer. The 

manufacturer must have recommended a 

maximum shelf life for each cylinder so 

that the concentration does not change 

greater than ± 5 percent from the 

certified value. "Hie date of gas cylinder 

preparation, certified vinyl chloride 

concentration, and recommended 

maximum self 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. 

(ii) For each process unit subject to 

this subpart, a formal leak detection and 

repair program shall be implemented 

consistent with Subpart V of this part, 

except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(8)(iii) of this section. This program is 

to be implemented within 90 days of the 

effective date of these regulations, 

unless a waiver of compliance is granted 

under §61.11. Except as provided in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(E) of this section, an 

owner or operator shall be exempt from 

§ 61.242-l(d). § 61.242-7 (a), (b), and (c), 

§ 61.246, and § 61.247 of Subpart V of 

this part for any process unit in which 

the percentage of leaking valves is 

demonstrated to be less than 2.0' 

percent, as determine'd in accordance 

with the following: 

(A) A performance test as specified in ! 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section 

shall be conducted initially within 90 

days of the effective date of these 

regulations, annually, and at times -

requested by the Administrator. 

(B) For each performance test, a 

minimum of 200 or 90 percent, 

whichever is less, of the total valves in 

VOC service (as defined in § 60.481 of 

Subpart VV of Part 60) within the 

process unit shall be randomly selected 

and monitored within 1 week by the 

methods specified in § 61.245(b) 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 § 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 quarterly 

report following the performance test as 

part of the reporting requirements of 

§ 61.70. 

(E) Any process unit in which the 

percentage of leaking valves is found to 

be greater than 2.0 percent according to 

the performance test prescribed in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section 

must comply with all provisions of 

Subpart V of this part within 90 days. 

(iii) Open-ended valves or lines 

located on multiple service process lines 

which operate in vinyl chloride service 

less than 10 percent of the time are 

exempt from the requirements of 

§ 61.242-6 of Subpart V, provided the ' 

open-ended valves or lines are 

addressed in the monitoring system 

required by paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this 

section. The Administrator may apply 
P.11 

34912 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

this exemption to other existing openended valves or lines that are 

demonstrated to require significant 

retrofit cost to comply with the 

requirements of § 61.242-6 of Subpart V. 

* * a . * * 

(9) * * * 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from 

the inprocess wastewater in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section is 

to be ducted through a control system 

from which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period); or equivalent as provided in 

§61.66. 

**** * 

(c) The requirements in paragraphs 

(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7) and 

(b)(8) of this section are to be 

incorporated into a standard operating 

procedure, and made available upon 

request for inspection by the 

Administrator. The standard operating 

procedure is to include provisions for 

measuring the vinyl chloride in 

equipment 4.75 m3 (1,250 gal) in volume 

for which an emission limit is prescribed 

in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) after opening the 

equipment and using Test Method 106, a 

portable hydrocarbon detector, or an 

alternative method. The method of 

measurement is to meet the 

requirements in § 61.67(g)(5)(i)(A) or 

(8)(5)(0(B). 

9. Section 61.66 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.66 Equivalent equipment and 

procedures. 

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. 

10. By revising paragraphs (f), (g)(l)(i), 

(g)(2), (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(i), 

(g)(3)(iii), (g)(5) introductory text, and by 

(g)(5)(ii) adding paragraphs (g)(6) and (h) 

in § 61.67 as follows: 

§61.67 Emission tests. 

**** * 

(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. 

(g) * * * 

( 1 ) a . . 

(i) For each run, one sample is to be 

collected. The sampling site is to be at 

least two stack or duct diameters 

downstream and one half diameter 

upstream from any flow disturbance 

such as a bend, expansion, contraction, 

or visible flame. Fora rectangular cross 

section an equivalent diameter is to be 

determined from the following equation: 

equivalent diameter=2 (length) (width)/ 

length+width 

The sampling point in the duct is to be at 

the centroid of the cross section. The 

sample is to be extracted at a rate 

proportional to the gas velocity at the 

sampling point. The sample is to contain 

a minimum volume of 50 liters corrected 

to standard conditions and is to be 

taken over a period as close to 1 hour as 

practicable. 

**** * 

(2) Test Method 107 or Method 601 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 61.18) is to be used to determine the 

concentration of vinyl chloride in each 

inprocess wastewater stream for which 

an emission limit is prescribed in 

§ 61.65(b)(9)(i). 

(3) When a stripping operation is used 

to attain the emission limits in § 61.64 

(e) and (f), emissions are to be 

determined using Test Method 107 as 

follows: 

(i) The number of strippers (or 

reactors used as strippers) and samples 

arid 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 correspondirig 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. 

(iv) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(5) The reactor opening loss for which 

an emission limit is prescribed in 

§ 61.64(a)(2) is to be determined. The 

number of reactors for which the 

determination is to be made is to be 

specified by the Administrator for each 

individual plant at the time of the 

determination based on the plant's 

operation. 

(.)*•**"'' ' 

(ii) A calculation based on the number 

of evacuations, the vacuum involved, 

and the volume of gas in the reactor is 

hereby approved by the Administrator 

as an alternative method for 

determining reactor opening loss for 

postpolymerization reactors in the 

manufacture of bulk resins. Calculation 

methods based on techniques other than 

repeated evacuation of the reactor may 

be approved by the Adriiinistrator for 

determining reactor opening loss for 

postpolymerization reactors in the 

manufacture of bulk resins. 

(6) For a reactor that is used as a 

stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride 

from reactor opening loss and all 

sources following the reactor used as a 

stripper for which an emission limit is 

prescribed in § 61.64(f) are to be 

determined. The number of reactors for 

which the determination is to be made is 

to be specified by the Administrator for 

each individual plant at the time of the 

determination based on the plant's 

operation. 

(i) For each 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. 

(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: 

Reactor 

vapor 

temperature 

CC) 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

SO 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

H.0 

vapor 

pressure 

(mm 

Hg) 

55.3 

58.3 

61.5 

64.8 

68.3 

71.9 

75.6 

79.6 

83.7 

88.0 

92.5 

97.2 

102.1 

107.2 

112.5 

118.0 

123.8 

129.8 

136.1 

142.6 

149.4 

156.4 

Reactor 

temperature 

CO 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

••5 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

H,0 

vapor 

pressure 

(mm 

Hg) 

163.8 

171.4 

179.3 

187.5 

196.1 

205.0 

214.2 

223.7 

233.7 

243.9 

254.6 

265.7 

277.2 

289.1 

301.4 

314.1 

327.3 

341.0 

355.1 

369.7 

384.9 

400.6 

Reactor 

temperature 

CO 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

H.O 

pressure 

(mm 

Hg) 

416.8 

433.6 

450.9 

468.7 

487.1 

506.1 

525.8 

5460 

567.0 

588.6 

610.9 

633.9 

657.6 

682.1 

707.3 

733.2 

760.0 

(B) The partial pressure (mm Hg) of 

vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip 

from the following equation: 

PPVC= 760-RV-VPW 

where: 

PPVC=partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in 

mm Hg 

760=atmospheric pressure at 0 "C, in mm Hg 

RV=absolute value of reactor vacuum, in 

mm Hg 

VPW=vapor pressure of water, in mm Hg 

(C) The reactor vapor space volume 

(m3) at end of strip from the following 

equation: 
P.12 

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

•ManH>B*>aK>MNaani.-iK>iB«nM*jMHBMV^ 

34913 

RVSV=RC-WV -

PVCVV 

1,400 

where: 

RVSV=reactor vapor space volume, in m' 

RC=reactor capacity, in m' 

WV=volume of water in reactor from recipe, 

in m' 

PVCW=dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in 

reactor from recipe, in kg 

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)(6j(ii](B) of this section, in mm Hg 

RVSV = reactor vapor space volume 

determined according to paragraph 

(g)(6)(ii)(C) of this section, in ms 

l,002 = ideal gas constant in g— 'K/mm 

Hg—m3 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 

. (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 or contained 

liquid volumes and 10 percent by 

volume for gas streams or contained gas 

volumes, which also includes gas 

volumes above liquid streams or 

contained liquid volumes. 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. 

(2){i) 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 

1,400 = typical density of polyvinyl chloride, 

in kg/mJ 

(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: 

C=(PPMVC)(io-;3)+ 

(PPVC)(RVSV)(1.002) 

(PVCW)(273 + RT) 

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. 

11. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and 

(f) to § 61.68 as follows: 

§ 61.68 Emission monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(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 

without passing through the control 

system and required vinyl chloride 

monitoring system, the vinyl chloride 

content of the emission shall be 

calculated (iri 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 § 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 

§ 61.70(c)(1). 

(f) For each vinyl chloride emission to 

the atmosphere determined in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section to be in excess of the applicable 

emission limits, the owner or operator 

shall record the identity of the source(s), 

the date, time, and duration ofthe 

excess ernission, the cause of the excess 

emission, and 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 as required by § 61.71(a). 

12. In § 61.70 by revising the section 

title from "Semiannual report" to 

"Reporting", and by revising paragraphs 

(a), (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text! 

(c)(2)(iii), (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(v), (c)(2)(vi) 

introductory text, and (e)(3) and also by 

adding (c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 61.70 Reporting. 

(a)(1) The owner or operator of any 

source to which this subpart applies 

shall submit to the Administrator on 

March 15, June 15, September 15, and 

December 15 of each year a report in 

writing containing the information 

required by this section. The first report 

is to be submitted following the first full 

3-month reporting period after the initial 

report is submitted. 

(2) In the case of an existing source, 

the approved reporting schedule shall be 

used. In addition, quarterly reports shall 

be submitted exactly 3 months following 

the current reporting dates. 

**** * 

(c) * * * 

(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)(6)(h). or 

(b)(9)(ii). The number of 3-hour periods 

for which average emissions were 

determined during the reporting period 

shall be reported. 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). 

(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. \ 
P.13 

34914 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

include in the report a record of the 

vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl 

chloride resin. , 

(.)•'•• ' 

(ii)' 

(iii) The vinyl chloride content in each 

sample is to be determined by Test 

Method 107 as prescribed in 

§ 61.67(g)(3). 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) The report to the Administrator by 

the owner or operator is to include a 

AT= 

n 

2 PCi M a 

i = l 

where: 

A = 24-hour average concentration of type T 

resin in ppm (dry weight basis) 

Q=Total production of type T resin over the 

24:hour period, in kg. 

T=Type of resin. 

M=Concentration of vinyl chloride in one 

sample of grade Gi resin in ppm. 

P=Production of grade Gi resin represented 

by the sample, in kg. 

Gi = Grade of resin: e.g., Gl, G2, G3. 

n=Total number of grades of resin produced 

during the 24-hour period. . 

The number of 24-hour average 

concentrations for each resin type 

determined during the reporting period 

shall be reported. 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) * * * 

(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 with 

§ 61.67(g)(5). except that emissions for 

each reactor are to be determined. The 

number of reactor openings during the 

reporting period shall be reported. If 

emissions in excess of the emission 

limits are not detected, the report shall 

include a statement that excess 

emissions have not been detected. 

(4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for 

which stripping in the reactor is used to 

attain the emission level prescribed in 

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) bf 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: 

PCi Mci+P c M02+ . . . PG„ M0„ 

§ 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 

AT= 

n 

2 PciCci 

i = l Pel Co< + P<3 Cc2 + 

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. 

T=Type of resin. 

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 d resin in the 

batches for which C is determined, in kg. 

G, = Grade of resin e.g., Gi, Ga, and Gs. 

n=Total number of grades of resin in batches 

for which stripping is completed during 

the 24-hour period. 

The number of 24-hour average 

emissions determined during the 

reporting period shall be reported. If no 

24-hour average combined reactor 

opening loss and emissions from all 

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 emissions from 

reactor opening loss and all sources 

following the reactor used as a stripper 

are to be determined for each batch 

stripped in a reactor according to the 

procedure prescribed in § 61.67(g)(6). 

(iv) The report to the Administrator by 

the owner or operator is to include a 

record of any 24-hour average combined 

reactor opening loss and emissions from 

all sources following the reactor used as 

a stripper as determined in this 

paragraph, in excess of the limits 

prescribed in § 61.64(f). The combined 

reactor opening loss and emissions from 

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: 

-i-PcnCcn 

sources following the reactor used a 

stripper in excess of the limits 

prescribed in § 61.64(f) are determined, 

the report shall state that no excess 

vinyl chloride emissions were 

determined. 

11. By revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text of § 61.71 as follows: 

§ 61.71 Recordkeeping. 

(a) The owner or operator of any , 

source to which this subpart applies 

shall retain the following information at 

the source and make it available for 

inspection to the Administrator for a 

minimum of 3 years: 

* • ' * 4 - * * 

14. By revising paragraph (a)(4) and 

adding paragraph (b)(1) to § 61.18 as 

follows: 

§ 61.18 Incorporation by Reference. 

**** * 

(a) * * * 

(4) ASTM D2267-68 (reapproved 1978) 

Aromatics in Light Naphthas and 
P.14 

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34915 

Aviation Gasoline by Gas 

Chromatography, IBR approved June 6, 

1984, for § 61.245(d)(1) and IBR approved 

September 30,1986 for § 61.67(h)(1). 

* * *. * *. 

(b) The following material is available 

from the U.S. EPA Environmental • 

Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. 

(1) Method 601, Test Method for 

Purgeable Halocarbons, July 1982, IBR 

approved September 30,1986 for 

§ 61.67(g)(2). 

15. By revising the definition "volatile 

hazardous air pollutants" in § 61.241 of 

Subpart V to read as follows: .' 

§61.241 Definitions. 

a * * * * 

"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. 

16. By revising the definition of 

"connector" in § 61.241 of Subpart V as 

follows: -

§61.241 Definitions. 

* * * * * * • 

"Connector" means flanged, screwed, 

welded, or other joined fittings used to 

connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and 

a piece of equipment. For the purpose of 

reporting and recordkeeping, connector 

means flanged fittings that are not 

covered by insulation or other materials 

that prevent location of the fittings. 

* *.*.- * * 

(KR Doc. 86-22032 Filed 9-29-86; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 
P.15 

Ar-8 I - 2 

Tuesday 

September 30, 1986 

V-A-l 

Part IX 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 61 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: VInyi ChJor.de; 

Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous 

Air Pollutants; Final Rule 
34904 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1966 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 61 

[AD~FRL-3044-5J 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Vinyl _. 

Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection . 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposed 

administrative and clarifying revisiona 

to the national emission standard for 

vinyl chloride (VC) on January 9,1985, 

(50 FR 1182). Certain revisions to the 

standard are being promulgated in 

Subpart F through this action and to a 

minor extent, in Subpart V of 40 CFR 

Part 81. Finally, through this action the 

Agency is denying the petition of the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) and the Environmental Defense 

Fund (EDF) which sought 

reconsideration of the EPA's withdrawal 

of the amendments to the VC standard 

which were proposed in 1977. 

epracnvt DATE September 3& 1988. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air 

Act, judicial review of the actions taken 

by this notice is available only by filing 

of a petition for review in the United 

States Court of Appeals for tiie District 

of Columbia circuit within 60 days of 

today's publication of this rale. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

the requirements that are the subject for 

today's notice may not be challenged 

later in civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

Incorpontioo by Reference 

The incorporation by reference of certain 

publications in these standards is approved 

by the Director of the Office of the Federal 

Register as of September 3a 1988. 

AOORSSSCS: Background Information 

Document The background-information 

document (BID) for the promulgated 

standards may be obtained from the 

U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research 

Triangle Paric North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please 

refer to "Vinyl Chloride Standard* 

Responses to Comments on January 1985 

Proposed Revisions," EPA-450/3-86-

004. The BID. contains: (1) A summary of 

all public comments on the proposed 

revisions and the Administrator's 

response to the comments, and (2) a 

summary of the changes made to the 

revised standard since proposal. 

Dockets. A docket number A-81-21, 

containing information considered by 

EPA in developing pf the promulgated 

revisions to the standard for VC. is 

available for public inspection between 

8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section 

(LE-131), West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1. 

401M Street SW.. Washington. DC 

20460. A reasonable fee may be charged, 

for copying. 

ran FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For further information concerning the 

enforcement aspects of the promulgated 

revisions, contact Mr. Richard Biondi. 

Compliance Monitoring Branch. 

Stationary Source Compliance Division, 

(EN-341), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington. 

DC 20469, telephone number (202) 382-

2828. For further information concerning 

the background technical information 

supporting the promulgated revisions, 

contact Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel. 

Chemicals and Petroleum Branch. 

Emission Standards and Engineering 

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541-5671. For other 

information on the regulation of VC and 

the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. 

Fred Dimmick, Standards Development 

Branch. Emission Standards and 

Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578. 

SUmjMHNTARY MTORMATKM: 

Summary of Revisions to the Standard 

The VC standard was promulgated on 

October 21.1976 (41 FR 46560) and 

applies to plants producing ethylene . 

dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination. 

plant producing VC and plants 

producing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or 

other polymers containing VC. These 

plants are subject to a combination of 

performance, equipment ahd work . 

practice requirements at numerous 

points in the manufacturing processes. 

Based on its review of the technological 

basis and administrative aspects of the 

original standard EPA proposed several 

administrative and clarifying revisions 

to the standard on January 9,1985 (50 FR 

1182). The comments received and 

actions taken on these proposed 

revisions are discussed below. 

Requirements for Leak Detection and 

Repair Programs 

As proposed in January 1985. VC is 

being added to the list of substances 

covered by 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V, 

which contains regulations for leaks 

from certain equipment in volatile 

hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service. 

Previously, plant owners subject to the 

VC standard were required to prepare 

leak detection and repair plans for each 

VC and PVC manufacturing facility and 

to submit these plans to EPA for review. 

An analysis of the plans submitted 

revealed that these plans varied widely 

from plant to plant Further, some plans 

were considered to be inadequate and 

ineffective approaches to the control of 

VC leaks. 

The incorporation of Subpart V by the 

standard for VC emissions establishes 

standardized procedures for identifying 

leaks of VC and for taking steps to 

minimize emissions.and repair leaks. 

Further, the incorporation of Subpart V 

will also accomplish a standardization 

of the definition of what constitutes a 

leak for routine leak detection. 

However, to avoid unnecessary changes 

to existing plans which are effective in 

detecting and repairing VC leaks, the 

standard contains provisions whereby 

any facility may demonstrate through 

annual (or more frequent if requested 

by the Administrator) performance tests 

that the percentage of leaking valves 

remains at 2 percent as an alternative to 

following the Subpart V procedures. An 

owner may continue to follow the 

existing leak detection and elimination 

program for tin t facility for the purpose 

of achieving the 2 percent performance 

limit However, existing plans are no 

longer required nor do they necessarily 

meet the promulgated requirements. 

Compliance Test Procedure and Specific 

Opening Loss Umit for PVC Reactors 

Used as Strippers 

The Federal Register notice that 

promulgated the. current VC standard 

stated that VC escaping from PVC resin 

that has been stripped in the reactor is 

not intended to be included as part of 

the VC emissions measured under the 

reactor opening loss requirements. For 

nonbulk PVC reactors which are used as 

strippers, however, no method was 

specified to determine what part of the 

VC in the vapor space of the reactor had 

escaped after the stripping was 

completed. Consequently, a method was 

proposed for determining the reactor 

opening loss that accounts for stripping 

in the PVC reactor for use by all 

nonbolk resin producers. After 

considering the comments on this 

proposed revision, EPA decided to 

promulgate the revision. 

Another proposed change in the 

standard affecting PVC reactors used as 

Strippers applied to the production of 

bulk PVC resins. Two separate vessels 

are used in bulk resin production, a 

"prepolymerization" vessel and a "postpolymerization" vessel. Under the 

standard promulgated in 1976. both of 

these vessels were subject to the reactor 
P.17 

Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 3a 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34905 

opening loss requirements. However, an 

analysis of the operation of 

prepolymerization vessels revealed that 

these reactors are opened less 

frequently than other types of reactors, 

and that the determination of gross 

product (required for the calculation of 

reactor opening loss jls impractical In 

January 1985, EPA proposed to apply the 

equipment opening loss requirements, 

rather than the reactor opening loss 

requirements, to these PVC reactors. 

The equipment opening loss 

requirements are more appropriate for 

the operating characteristics of the 

prepolymerization reactor veaaels and 

do not change the overall VC emission 

control stringency applicable 

prepolymerization reactors. After 

considering the comments on this 

proposed revision, EPA decided to 

promulgate ue revision. 

Clarification of Definitions and 

Standards ..-•-• ' 

Based on the EPA's experience with 

administering the VC standard several 

provisions of the standard are being 

revised to reduce any ambigmry in their 

implementation. For example, specific 

definitions of "leak." "exhaust gas," and 

"relief valve discharge" are being added 

to clarify the applicability of the 

provisions of die standard to each of 

these types of emissions. Similarly, to 

eliminate mlmmAemitanMnfl* about the 

application of the standard to 

purification equipment fbDowiag£DC 

and VC formation, the definitions of 

"EDC purification" and "VC 

purification" are being revised to mora 

clearly indicate which equipment k 

subject to the standard 

Another revision being incorporated ' 

into the standard makes it clear that the 

10 ppmv standard is a Srhouravemg-s 

emission limit rather than aa 

instantaneous limit Ihe performaoee . 

test provision in § 6167(gj(l) has also -

been clarified to specify that test results 

should reflect as close to a 3-bour . 

average as practicable. Further, the 10 

ppmv standard regulation is being 

revised to specify that ailexhaest gas . 

streams are covered by n 

requirement intawfifig control device • 

bypass streams. In order to impientent -

this -ctanficaoon, piuvisiuus are also 

being incorporated mto the standard ^or 

calculating the VC content as bypassed ? 

emissions. A final revision to the iv 

ppmv req^Dsrement is tntesQeo to 

prohibit plants burn diluting a VC 

exhaust gas stream with other exhaoat 

gases'in order te meet the 10 ppmv Hunt 

Under the revised standard combining 

as exhaust.slieain containing mora than 

10 ppmv VC with another gas stream is 

only allowed when the combined stream 

is ducted to a control device. 

The inprocess wastewater 

requirements for gasholder seals are 

also being revised to exclude the 

exposed water seal of gasholders. 

. Experience with the VC standard -

~tin1lfe>t69lhartMar0Tr**t*aiifti-+irrita 

exposed water seal of a gasholder may 

exceed the 10 ppmv limit during normal 

operation and mat rompliance with the 

atmospheric exposure limit is not 

practicable for this source. The 

inprocess wastewater stripping 

requirements, however, will'continue to 

apply to wastewater after removal irom 

the gasholder seal 

Other Administrative Revision* 

Other administrative revisions to the 

standard include: (1) Tha elimination of 

the 30-day limit for existing sources to 

submit requests for the use of equivalent 

control measures: {2) a change Irom 

semiannual to quarterly reporting of VC 

emissions from resin stripping, reactor 

openings, and exhaust gases: and (3) 

allowance of reporting of periods of 

excess emissions instead of all emission 

measurements. 

Summary of Impacts to the *3t—risrd 

Revisions to the standard represent 

administrative and clarifying changes; 

no major revisions were proposed 

Therefore, the environmental energy. 

and economic impacts of the original 

standard remain generally unchanged A 

summary of the impacts ofthe original 

standard can be found in the preamble 

to the proposed standard revisions (50 

FR1182); 

Piihuc Pai tli JpalfcMi 

Prior to-proposal of' revisions to die 

standard interested partes were -

advised bypnbUc nonce fit the Federal 

Register (49 FR 26807. Jtme 29,19»*i of a 

meeting of the National Ah Pollution 

Control Techniques Advisory 

Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the 

revisions to the VC standard 

. recommended for piupusaL Trri* meeting 

was held on August 30.1964. The 

meeting was open to the public and each 

attendee was *gtven an opportunity -to 

comment on the revised standard 

recommended tor proposal. .. . 

. The revised standard was proposed hi 

the Federal Register on JanoeryB, 1965. 

ine yauucxuBaneai period was from 

January 9,1985 to March 25,1985. A 

totai of 16 comment letters were 

received industry representatives 

submitted most of the comment letters. 

Also commenting were representatives 

of the U.S. Congress, a State Legislature, 

a State air pollution agency and an 

environmental group. The comments 

have been considered carefully and 

where determined to be appropriate by 

EPA, changes have been made to the 

proposed revisions to the standard 

Significant Comments Since Proposal 

Most of the comment letters contained 

" ffiullipfe comments. In general; the 

comments supported the proposed 

administrative and clarifying revisions, 

A detailed discussion of the comments 

and responses can be found in the BID 

for the promulgated standard, which is 

referenced in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble. The comments and 

responses in the BID serve as the basis 

for the changes that have been made to 

the revised .standard between proposal 

and promulgation. 

Almost all commenters addressed the 

proposed revisions to the relief valve 

discharge standard Although many of 

the ooramenters agreed with the action 

to reformat the standard several 

commenters objected to various aspects 

of the discharge limits. Based on 

consideration of these comments. EPA 

decided not to promulgate the proposed 

revision to the relief valve discharge 

standard The comments on this and 

other proposed revisions are addressed 

in detail in the BID for the promulgated 

standard and in summary in the next 

section of this preamble. 

One commenter requested 

reconsideration of the withdrawal of the 

amendments to the VC standard which 

were proposed in 1977. This petition for 

reconsideration was based on 

objections to die Agency's use of data 

on.-costs and economic impacts in the 

decision to withdraw the proposed 

amendments, and to the Agency's 

determination of the technological basis 

of the standard The commenters stated 

that the EPA's actions in withdrawing 

the proposed amendments were 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act As 

discussed farther in this preamble, the 

Agency is denying the petition for 

reconsideration. 

Proposad Revisions to Relief Valve 

Discharge Standard 

The EPA has decided not to 

proaalgate wrnhms to the relief valve 

discharge standard proposed in the 

January 9.1965. Federal Register nonce. 

The reyiaHms weald have established a 

different tvpe of nesaei ical limit for 

relief "valve discharges. The decision to 

retain the original relief valve discharge 

standard was made alter considuiiug 

the revisions in-fight of public comments 

and other findings. Although many 

pubUc comments favored the proposed 

revisions, others opposed the change. In 
P.18 

34906 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

particular, several commenters 

expressed concern that preventable 

relief valve discharges would be 

allowed under the revised standard and 

that the performance allowed under the 

revised standard could be inconsistent 

with-that allowed under the original 

-standard Other-comments ex; 

concern that the revised standard 

included no mechanism for regulating 

very large relief valve discharges. The 

basis for the statement that a large 

Agency resource commitment is 

required for enforcing the relief valve 

discharge standard was also questioned 

As a result of these comments, EPA 

reviewed the basis for the 

recommendations that led to the 

decision to propose to reformat the 

standard. First as discussed in the 

Federal Register notice proposing 

revisions to the relief valve discharge 

standard (50 FR 1187). the review ofthe 

standard conducted between 1980 and 

1982 found that the existing standard 

resulted in a significant commitment of. 

Agency resources to the review and 

evaluation of discharges of VC from 

relief valves. Because the existing 

standard allows only "emergency" 

discharges of VC from relief valves (Le., 

the relief valve discharge could not be 

avoided by taking preventative 

measures), every discharge must be 

evaluated individually to determine 

whether the owner or operator of the 

facility has implemented, the measures 

necessary to prevent that relief valve 

discharge. During the 4 to 5 years since 

the review study was conducted the 

enforcement of the relief valve discharge 

standard has been made more efficient 

This is due in large part to experience 

established in enforcing the standard 

As a result, EPA enforcement personnel 

consider implementation of this 

standard to be much less resource and 

labor intensive. 

A second conclusion from the 1980 to 

1982 study was that industry did not 

have a clear understanding of what the 

relief valve discharge standard required 

and what measures they needed to 

implement in order to comply with the 

standard During the 4 to 5 years since 

the review study, a number of 

enforcement actions have been taken 

against individual plants for violations 

of the standards. Those actions have 

culminated in consent decrees which 

incorporate requirements for remedial 

actions to prevent further relief valve 

discharges. The provisions of these 

consent decrees have not only reduced 

the number of relief valve discharges at 

specific plants, but they have also 

served as guidelines in determining the 

types of measures appropriate for 

minimizing the discharges. Because of 

these two developments, EPA concluded 

that the original findings of the review 

study are no longer valid and should not 

be the basis of a revision to the format 

of the relief valve discharge standard 

The decision to retain-the existing 

relietWalve discharge standardas a part 

of the standard for VC emissions is 

further supported by two additional 

advantages that the existing standard 

has over the proposed revisions. First 

the existing standard provides 

that all preventable relief valve 

discharges are subject to enforcement 

action. Under the proposed revisions, 

which would have allowed a small 

number of discharges per year whether 

preventable or not it is possible that a 

plant could experience preventable 

discharges and soil be in compliance 

with the standard As pointed out in 

public comments, it is theoretically 

possible that discharges resulting from 

gross negligence could go unpenalized 

under the revisions to the standard The 

EPA did not intend this effect in the 

proposed revisions. The retention of the 

existing relief valve discharge standard 

allows EPA to continue the current 

enforcement approach. 

Second the existing relief valve 

discharge standard provides a better 

mechanism for regulating large relief 

valve discharges. The proposed revision 

would have allowed a certain number of 

relief valve discharges per year, without 

regard to the size or duration of the 

discharge. Consequentiy, as long as the 

number of releases-were within the 

numerical limits of'the proposed 

revisions to the standard there were no 

mechanisms in the standard to enforce 

control of the amount of VC discharged 

to the atmosphere. Under the existing 

relief valve discharge standard 

however, the duration and size of the 

discharge are factors in determining the 

severity of a violation of the standard 

As a result a plant owner or operator 

has a greater incentive under the current 

standard for taking'action to reduce the 

quantity of a discharge. 

In summary, EPA is not promulgating 

the revisions to the relief valve 

discharge standard which were 

proposed in the January 9,1965. Federal 

Register notice. This decision was 

reached after consideration of public 

comments received; on the proposal, and 

after a review of the basis for the 

decision to reformat the standard 

Because this review revealed that the 

burden on Agency resources has 

diminished as experience with the 

implementation of the standard 

increased and that undentanding of the 

provisions of the existing standard on 

the part of industry should be clearer, 

the necessity for revising the format of 

the relief valve discharge standard is no 

longer apparent The existing standard 

also has the advantages of penalizing all 

preventable relief valve discharges, 

providing better regulation of large 

..volume reUef valve discharges,, and 

promoting continuity in the ongoing 

enforcement of the standard. 

In some instances, it may be possible 

for a plant operator to contain a relief 

valve discharge and to vent it to a 

control device. Where this can be done 

without exceeding the exhaust gas 

emission limit of 10 ppmv, EPA 

concluded that this approach should be 

encouraged and therefore, the discharge 

should be exempt from the relief valve 

discharge standard. Venting the 

discharge through a control device can 

result in a 99.9 percent reduction in the 

VC content of the relief valve discharge 

without interfering with the control of 

VC emissions in exhaust gases which 

are also vented through the control 

device. Although compliance with the 10 

ppmv standard would exempt the 

discharge from the relief valve discharge 

standard exceeding the 10 ppmv 

standard would be considered both a 

violation of the 10 ppmv standard and of 

the relief valve discharge standard. 

Denial of Petition For Reconsideration 

The NRDC and EDF petitioned EPA to 

reconsider the decision to withdraw the 

1977 proposed revisions to die VC 

standard The criteria for granting such 

a petition are: (1) The petition must be 

based on information that was not and 

could not reasonably have been 

presented during the original 

rulemaking; and (2) the petition must 

provide substantial support for the 

argument that the challenged action 

should be changed See Denial of 

Petition to Revise NSPS for Stationary 

Gas Turbines. 45 FR 81653 (December 1, 

1980). As described below, this petition 

fails to meet either criterion, and it is 

therefore, denied 

Consideration of Petition 

The NRDC/EDF petition for 

reconsideration of the withdrawal was 

based on four main premises. First 

NRDC/EDF objected to the EPA's 

announcement of the withdrawal of the 

proposed amendments as a final action, 

without being preceded by a notice which 

proposed the withdrawal and allowed 

for public comment on the. action. 

Second NRDC/EDF objected to the 

influence of cost considerations in the 

decision to withdraw the proposed 

amendment stating that the balancing 

of costs and benefits in the setting of the 

VC standard is contrary to the 
P.19 

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34907 

requirements of Section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act. Third. NRDC/EDF took issue 

with what it took to be the EPA's 

assumption that Section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act establishes a requirement that a 

level of control must have been 

"consistently achieved" in the past in 

-order ta form the basis-of-ihe standard — 

Finally. NRDC/EDF stated that the 

EPA's decisions on specific portions of 

the proposed amendments were in . 

conflict with the evidence on those 

issues. 

In the first objection. NRDC/EDF state 

that the proposed amendments to the 

1977 VC standard should not be 

withdrawn because no notice of such 

withdrawal had been published and 

there had been no opportunity for public 

comment on the withdrawal. During the 

8 years which have elapsed since the 

proposal of those amendments, there 

has been ample opportunity afforded for 

public comment and input on the 

amendments and their withdrawal. The 

amendments, their protential 

consequences, and the decisions that the 

Agency might take with regard to them 

were all before the public. Specifically, 

NRDC and EDF received draft 

documents relating to the rulemaking ' 

distributed prior to the NAPCTAC 

meeting. Finally, NRDC did not give any 

supporting rationale for believing that 

further opportunity for comment would 

yield any relevant new information or 

arguments. Therefore, EPA does not 

believe that additional time or provision 

for receiving further public comments 

could have been either necessary or 

helpful for the resolution of the issues 

involving the proposed amendments to 

the VC standard 

The second issue raised by NRDC/ 

EDF involves the-inclusion of cost 

consideration in the EPA's rulemaking 

deliberations under Section 112. The 

NRDC/EDF maintains that the language 

of Section 112 which requires the 

standard to be set at a level which 

provides an "ample margin of safety" to 

the public precludes consideration of the 

costs of control. In the EPA's judgment 

the VC standard protects the public 

health with an ample margin of safety 

within the meaning of Section 112. and 

EPA may consider cost and feasiblity in 

setting the standard. The EPA views 

were explained in the 1975-76 VC 

rulemaking. The NRDC/EDF provided 

no hew information on this issue. 

The NRDC/EDFs third objection was 

the EPA was incorrect in stating that a 

level of control must be "consistently 

achieved" in order to form the basis of 

the standard. Specifically. NRDC/EDF 

pointed to the language in the FederalRegister notice that "10 ppmv represents 

the lowest level of control which has 

been consistently achieved" as 

indicating that EPA was applying such 

requirement in evaluating alternative 

exhaust gas requirements. However, the 

basis for EPA's selection of 10 ppmv as 

:

 the VCstandard for exhaust, gas 

- emissions is-that this- level-of controls— 

the lowest achievable emission limit 

attainable on a never-to-be-exceeded 

basis. Although 5 ppmv may be 

achieved by some systems over a 

limited time period; the existing data 

indicate the this level of control cannot 

be maintained over a long-term, neverto-be-exceeded basis, as required by the 

standards. In addition to being 

achievable on a consistent, long-term 

basis, the 10 ppmv standard was also 

determined by EPA to provide the public 

with the ample margin of safety required 

by section 112. Therefore. EPA beleives 

that the standard satisfies the 

requirements of section 112. 

The final points raised by NRDC/EDF 

in support ofthe petition for 

reconsideration addressed three specific 

provisions of the proposed amendments 

which were withdrawn. The NRDC/EDF 

stated that the withdrawal of these 

provisions was in conflict with the 

evidence before the Agency. The first 

specific portion of the standard 

addressed in the petition is the. 

withdrawal of the proposed 5 ppmv 

emission limit for exhaust gas emission 

in favor of the existing 10 ppmv 

emission limit. The NRDC/EDF stated 

that the evidence in the record supports 

a finding tiiat the 5 ppmv limit is 

achievable by new sources, and by •-' 

existing sources within 3 years of 

promulgation. The petition also pointed 

to the more stringent emission, limit not. 

be foregone. 

. The EPA decided to maintain the 10 

ppmv emission limit for exhaust gas 

emission for three primary reasons. 

First as stated above, the 10 ppmv 

emission limit has been determined to 

be consistently achievable by industry, 

whereas the 5 ppmv emission limit 

cannot be consistently achieved. 

Second, even though the limit on 

maximum emissions of VC is set at 10 

ppmv, the average and most short-term 

emissions will be considerably, lower 

than this level. Third lowering the 

emission limit on maximum emission 

rates to 5 ppmv would not significantly 

reduce the average emissions, and 

therefore, adopting the lower standard 

was determined by the Agency not to 

have a significant impact on emissions 

of VC or, accordingly, on public health 

risks. The petition for reconsideration 

presented no new evidence relevant to 

the Agency's decision to withdraw the 

proposed 5 ppmv emission limit. 

The second decision addressed by the 

petition for reconsideration as 

conflicting with the considered evidence 

is the withdrawal of the 5 ppmv 

.. emission limit for oxychlorination vents, 

Tha patUion-points-to-a-statement in the. -

1977 proposal that this emission limit 

could be attained based on the use of 

oxygen as a feed material rather than 

air; and maintains that no discussion or 

evidence were presented which would 

justify withdrawal of this proposal. 

In the Federal Register (50 FR 1185), 

evidence was presented by the Agency 

supporting the conclusion that more 

stringent control of emissions from 

oxychlorination vents was unnecessary. 

First, no new technological controls 

have been developed which are 

applicable to these vents. Second, the 

costs of incinerating oxychlorination 

vent streams were reevaluated and 

determined as before, to be 

unreasonable compared to the small 

reduction in VC emissions. And finally, 

with the possible exception of one plant, 

no new EDC/VC plants with 

oxychlorination reactors are expected to 

be constructed and any that may be 

constructed will be adequately regulated 

by the requirements of new source 

review regulations. No new information 

was presented in the petition for 

reconsideration relevant to the decision 

to retain the existing oxychlorination 

vent standard. 

The third decision which was 

addressed in the petition for 

reconsideration as conflicting with the 

considered evidence is the withdrawal 

of the proposal to lower die residual VC 

limit for new dispersion resins from 

2.000 ppmv to 500 ppmvt and the limit 

for other new resins from 400 ppmv to 

100 ppmv. The petition states that 

existing facilities are currently meeting 

the lower limits, and that both new and 

existing facilities could be brought into 

compliance with the more stringent 

limits by using the equipment and 

procedures currently used by the leading 

facilities. 

The EPA withdrew the proposed more 

' stringent stripping level requirements for 

two main reasons. The first is that the 

nature of PVC production makes it 

difficult to distinguish "new" from "old" 

resins. Resin compositions are adjusted 

routinely, and completely "new" resins 

are rarely, if ever, made. Second. EPA 

concluded that there is no improved 

technology which would provide the 

basis for more stringent stripping 

requirements for all resins. The 

technologies which are effective for 

specific resins may not be effective for 
P.20 

34908 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

other resins. The consequence of 

establishing a more stringent standard 

would be that certain hard-to-strip 

resins could no longer be produced. In . 

the EPA's opinion, such a result would 

be an unwarranted economic impact 

which is unnecessary to provide an , 

ampIe~margirTof saferyforpubtic health. 

No new relevant information was 

presented in the petition for 

reconsideration. 

Administrative 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

considered by EPA in the development 

of this rulemaking. The docket is a 

dynamic file, since material is added 

throughout the rulemaking development 

The docketing system is intended to 

allow members of the public and 

industries involved to identify and 

locate documents so that they can 

effectively participate in the rulemaking 

process. Along with the statement of 

basis and purpose of the proposed and 

promulgated standards and EPA 

responses to significant comments, the 

contents of the docket except for 

interagency review materials, will serve 

as the record in case of judicial review 

[section 307(d)(7)(A)|. 

The effective date of these revisions is 

September 3a 1686. Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act provides that national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants become effective upon 

promulgation and apply to all existing 

and new sources. 

As prescribed by section 112. . 

promulgation of this standard was 

preceded by the Administrator's listing 

of VC under section 112 of the Act on 

December 24.1975 (40 FR 59477). In 

accordance with section 117 of the Act 

publication of these promulgated 

revisions was preceded by consultation 

with appropriate advisory committees, 

independent experts, and Federal 

departments and agencies. 

. Information collection requirements. 

associated with this revised regulation 

(those included in 40 CFR Part 61, 

Subpart A and Subpart F) have been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of I960, 

44 U.S.C 3501 et seq* ahd have been 

assigned OMB control number 0186. The 

revised standard is estimated to result 

in a paperwork burden of about 36 

person-years which is roughly the same 

as the original standard 

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is 

required to judge whether a regulation is 

a "major rule" and therefore subject to 

certain requirements of the Order. The . 

EPA has determined that the revised 

regulation would result in none of the 

adverse economic effects set forth in 

Section 1 of the Order as grounds for 

finding a regulation to be a "major rule." 

The revised regulation:is not major 

because: (1) Nationwide annual 

compliance costs- including capital 

charges resulting from the standard total 

less than $100 million: (2fthe^standard -

does 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. The EPA has submitted this 

rulemaking to OMB under Executive 

Order 12291. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires the identification of potentially 

adverse impacts of Federal regulations 

upon small business entities. The Act 

specifically requires the completion of a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those 

instances, where small business impacts 

are possible. Because this revised 

standard imposes no adverse economic 

impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis has not been conducted. 

Pursuant to the provisons of 5 U.S.C 

605(b). I hereby certify that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant economic 

impacfon a substantial number of small 

entities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61. 

Air pollution control Asbestos, 

Benzene. Beryllium. Hazardous 

materials. Mercury, VinyL chloride. 

Dated* September 24.1988. 

LM I* Thomas. 

Administrator. 

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR Part 61 is amended as 

follows: 

1. The authority citation for Part 81 

contunues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sees. 101.112.114. lie, 301. 

Clean Air Act aa amended (42 U.S.C 7401, 

7412.7414; 7418.7601). 

2. Section 61.61 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (j). 0). (o) and (p) ' 

and by adding paragraphs (vj. (w), (x). 

(y), and (z) to read as follows: 

996141 DefirtWona. 

• • * « ' * . • 

(JI "Inprocess wastewater" 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. Gasholder 

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 a 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 9 61.87(h) also specify how 

to determine that a piece of equipment is 

not in vinyl chloride service. For the 

purposes of this subpart, this definition 

must be used in place of the definition of 

"in 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, 

excluding product storage following the 

final finishing column. 

(p) "Vinyl chloride purification" 

incudes any part of the process of vinyl 

chloride production which follows vinyl 

chloride formation. 

* 4 • • • 

(v) "Relief valve" means each 

pressure relief device including pressure 

relief valves, rupture disks and other 

pressure relief systems used to protect 

process components from overpressure 

conditions. "Relief valve" does not 

include polymerization shortstop 

systems, referigerated water systems or 

control valves or other devices used to 

control How 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 measure according 

to Method 21 (see Appendix A of 40 CFR 

Part 60): (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 for equipment designated 

for no detectable emissions measured 

according to Test Method 21 (see 

Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60). Leaks 

also include events regulated under 

9 61.65(b)(8)(i) for detection of ambient 

concentrations in excess of background 
P.21 

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34909 

concentration. A relief valve discharge 

is not a leak. 

(x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas 

(the constituents of which may consist 

of any fluids, either as a liquid and/or 

gas) discharged directly or ultimately to 

the atmosphere that was initially 

contained in or was in direct contact 

with the equipment for which exhaust 

gas limits are prescribed in 9 81.62 (a) 

and (b): 9 61.63(a): 9 61.84 (a)(1), (a)(2), 

(b). (c). and (d): 9 81.85(b) (l)(ii), (b)(2), 

(b)(5). (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9)(ii). 

(y) "Relief valve discharge" means 

any nonleak discharge through a relief 

valve. "Relief valve discharge" does not 

include discharges ducted to a control 

system from which the concentration of 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does 

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), or equivalent as provided in 

9 81.66. 

(z) "3-hour period" means any three 

consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour 

commencing on the hour). 

3. Section 61.62 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

961.62 Enriaston standard for ethytene 

dtehlortde plants. 

(a) Ethylene dichloride purification. 

The concentration of vinyl chloride ineach exhaust gas stream from any 

equipment used in ethylene dichloride 

purification is not to exceed 10 ppm 

(average for 3-hour period), except as 

provided in 9 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 9 81.66. This requirement 

does not apply to equipment that has 

been opened is out of operation, and 

met the requirement in 5 61.65(b)(6)(i) 

before being opened. 

(b) Oxychlorination reactor. Except as 

provided in 9 61.85(a), emissions of vinyl 

chloride to the atmosphere from each 

oxychlorination reactor are not to 

exceed 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 lb/lb) (average 

for 3-hour period) of the 100 percent 

ethylene dichloride product from the 

oxychlorination process. . 

4. Section 61.83 is revised to read as 

follows: 

9 6146 ' Emission standard for vtoyi -

cruonos plains*. 

An owner or operator of a vinyl 

chloride plant shall comply with the 

requirements of this section and 9 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-hour 

period), except as provided in 9 61.85(a). 

This requirement does not preclude 

combining of exhaust gas streams 

provided the combined steam is ducted 

through a control system from whichjhe_ 

concentration ofvinyl chloride ih the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm. 

or equivalent as provided in 9 61.86. 

This requirement does not apply to 

equipment that has been opened is out 

of operation, and met the requirement in 

9 61.65(b)(8)(i) before being opened. 

5. Section 81.64 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) 

to read as follows: 

9 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl 

cMorMe plants. 

(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), except as provided in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 

9 61.85(a). 

(2) The reactor opening loss from each 

reactor is not to exceed 002 g vinyl 

chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) 

of polyvinyl 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 ue product means die 

gross product of prepolymerization and 

postpolymerization. 

(3) Manual vent valve discharge. 

Except for an emergency manual vent 

valve discharge, there is to be no 

discharge to the atmosphere from any 

manual vent valve on a polyvinyl 

chloride reactor in vinyl chloride 

service. An emergency manual vent 

valve discharge means a discharge to 

the atmosphere which could not have 

been avoided by taking measures to 

prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of 

any discharge to the atmosphere from 

any manual vent valve, the owner or 

operator, of tbe source from which the 

discharge occurs shall submit to the 

Administrator a report in writing 

containing lnformation.on the source, 

nature and cause of the discharge, the 

date and time of the discharge, the . 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss 

during the discharge, the method used 

for determining the vinyl chloride loss 

(the calculation of the vinyl chloride 

loss), the action that was taken to 

prevent the discharge, and measures 

adopted to prevent future discharges. 

(b) Stripper. The concentration of 

vinly chloride in each exhaust gas 

stream from each stripper is not to 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), except as provided in 9 81.65(a). 

JThw requiremenJLdoexnoA_appJy to. 

equipment that has been opened, is out 

of operation, and met the 

requiremention 9 61.65(b)(8)(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), 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 § 61.65(b)(6)(i) 

before being opened 

(d) Monomer recovery system. The 

concentration of vinyl chloride in each 

exhaust gas stream from each monomer 

recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm 

(average for 3-hour period), except as 

provided in 9 61.85(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 

a" * • a- # 

6. By revising paragraph (e) 

introductory text and adding 

paragraphs (e)(3) and (f) to 9 61.64 to 

read as follows: 

961.84 Emission standard for polyvinyl 

(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) if 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: 

(1)" * 

(2)** * 

(3) The provisions of this paragraph 

apply at all times including when offspecification or other types of resins are 

made. 

(f) Reactor used as stripper. When a 

nonbulk resin reactor is used as a 

stripper this paragraph may be applied 

in lieu of 9 61.64 (a)(2) and (e)(1): 
P.22 

34910 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 

(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: - . 

4i)2Uj2g/lr^(O00202lb/lb)ofpolyvinyl 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 all other 

polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex 

resins, with the product determined on a 

dry solids basis. 

7. Section 61.65 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(l)(ii) and 

(b)(2) to read as follows: 

961.65 Emission standard for ethylene 

cmocKie puma. 

(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for 

an emergency relief discharge, there is 

to be ho discharge to the atmosphere 

from any relief valve on any equipment 

in vinyl chloride service. An emergency 

relief discharge means a discharge 

which could not have been avoided by 

taking measures to prevent the 

discharge. Within 10 days of any relief 

valve discharge, the owner or operator 

of the source from which the relief valve 

discharge occurs shall submit to the 

Administrator a report in writing 

containing information on the source, 

nature and cause of the discharge, the 

date and time of the discharge, ths 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss 

during the discharge, the method used 

for determining the vinyl chloride loss 

(the calculation of the vinyl chloride 

loss), the action that was taken to 

prevent the discharge, and measures 

adopted to prevent future discharges. 

(b)' •"• 

(l)' " 

OJ * * • 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from a 

loading or unloading line in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section is 

to be ducted through a control system 

from which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), or equivalent as provided in 

9 61.66. 

(2) Slip gauges. During loading or 

unloading operations, the vinyl chloride 

emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl 

chloride service are to be minimized by 

ducting any vinyl chloride discharged 

from the slip gauge through a control 

system from which the concentration of 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does 

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), or equivalent as provided in 

9 81.66. 

8. By revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), 

(b)(5). (b)(6). (b)(7). (b)(8), (b)(9)(ii). and 

(c) to 9 61.65 as follows: 

9 61.65 JEtatealon standard for ethylene.1... 

"dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl 

cMortde 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]"* . 

(1)* " 

(2) * • * 

(3) Leakage from pump, compressor, 

and agitator seals: 

(i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride 

emissions from seals on all rotating 

pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be 

minimized by installing sealless pumps, 

pumps with double mechanical seals or 

equivalent as provided in 9 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 9 61.86. Compliance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V 

demonstrates compliance with the 

provisions of this paragraph. 

[a] Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from seals on all -

reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride 

service are to be minimized by inatalHng 

double outboard seals, or equivalent as 

provided in 961.6a If double outboard 

seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions 

from the seals are to be minimized by 

maintaining die pressure between the 

two seals so that any leak that occurs is 

into die 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 961.66. 

' Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(iii) Rotating compressor. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from seals on all 

rotating compressors ih vinyl chloride 

service are to be minimized by installing 

compressors with double mechanical 

seals, or equivalent as provided in 

961.66. 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 tiie 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 eqttWateiir as-provided in-f61-.86: 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(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 9 61.86. If 

double outboard seals are used, vinyl 

chloride emissions from die 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 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: 

or equivalent as provided in 9 81.66. 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 81 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(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 9 61.66. If double 

mechanical seals are used, vinyl 

chloride emissions from the seals are to 

be minimized by maintaining die 

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 9 81.88. 

(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. 

(5) Manual venting af gases. Except as 

provided in 9 61.64(a)(3), all gases which 

are manually vented from equipment in 

vinly chloride service are to be ducted 

through a control system from which the 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm 

' (average for 3-hour period); or 

equivalent as provided in 9 61.86. 

(6) Opening of equipment Vinyl 

chloride emissions from opening of 

equipment (including prepolymerization 

reactors used in the manufacture of bulk 
Federal Register / Vo l 51, No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34911 

resins and loading or unloading lines 

that are not opened to the atmosphere 

after each loading or unloading 

operation) are to be minimized as 

follows: 

(i) Before opening any equipment for 

any reason, the quantity of vinyl .. 

chloride which is contained therein is to 

be reduced to an amount which occupies 

a volume of no more than 2D percent of 

the equipment's containment votame or 

0.0950 cubic meters (25 gallons). 

whichever is larger, at standard 

temperature and pressure. 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from 

die equipment in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this section is to be 

ducted through a control system from 

which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hoor 

period); or equivalent as provided in 

9 61.66. 

(7) Samples. Unused portions of 

samples containing at least 10 percent 

by weight vinyl chloride are te be 

returned to the process or destroyed in a 

control device from which concentration 

of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does 

not- exceed 10 ppm (avenge for 3-hoor 

period) or equivalent as provided in 

9 61.86. Sampling techniques are to be 

such that sample containers in vinyl 

chloride service are purged into a closed 

process system. Compliance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V 

demonstrates compliance with the 

provisions of this paragraph. 

- (8) Leak detection and elimination. 

Vinyl chloride emissions doe to leaks 

from equipment in vinyl chloride service 

are to be minimized as follows 

(i) A reliable and accurate vinyl 

chloride monitoring svstem shall be 

operated for detection of major leaks 

and identification of the general 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 gaa chromatography or, if 

the owner or operator assumes that aU 

hydrocarbons measured ara vinyl 

rhinHdn, with infrared 

spectrophotometry, flame ton detection, 

or an equivalent or alternative method 

The vinyl chloride rmmrtoring system 

shall be operated according to a 

program developedby the piss* owner 

or operator. The owner or operator shall 

submit a description ofthe program to 

the AHmtnialmlur wKMii 48 days 01 the 

effective date of these regulations, 

unless a waiver of compliance Is granted 

under 9 61.11, or the program has been 

approved and the Administrator does 

not request a review of the program. 

Approval of a program will be granted 

by the Administrator provided he finds: 

(A) The location and number of points 

to be monitored and the frequency of 

monitoring provided for ia the program 

are acceptable when they are compared 

.with thenumber of pieces of equipment 

in vinyl chloride service and size and 

physical layout of the plant 

(R) ft /-nntnln« a HofinlHnm nf lunlr 

which is acceptable when compared 

with the background concentrations of 

vinyl chloride In tha areas of tbe plant to 

be monitored by the vinyl chloride 

monitoring system. Measurements of 

background «*TM*"«»»»'>TW«HIIM 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 

tha plant and Is also to change over time 

as background concentrations in the 

plant are reduced 

(C) It <-nm>Min« an acceptable plaa o l 

action to be taken when a leak is 

detected 

(D) It provides for aa 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](i]P3) of 

this section. The calibration is to be 

done with either: 

(J) A calibration gaa mixture prepared 

from the gaaes specified in sections 

5.2.L and &£2. of Test Method 106 aad 

a accordance with sactioaTJ of Test 

Method 108, or 

[2] A calibration gas cylinder 

standard containing the appropriate 

coacentratioB of vinyi chtoride. The gas 

composition of the calibration gas 

cylinder standard is to have been 

certified by the maaatJactnret. The 

mamdactorer most have recofltmended a 

maxhnam shelf fife far each cylinder ao 

that the concentration does oot change 

greater tbaa ±5 percent frost the. 

certified value. The date of gas cylinder 

preparation, certified vinyl chloride 

4jOBcaaBatioa, aadreooaBBsaaded 

ma triianm aetf Ms must have beea 

affixed ts the craader before shipment 

from the manefactarer to tba bayee. If« 

gas chromatograph is assa a s the vjayi 

chlceido nssauoB&s sssasat these ass 

mixtures assy be daracdy seed to 

prepare a ^^»*'^'**^*^*"**flf^>pTM Gaa&saaoa 

carve ss described ia sectioa 7 J al Test 

Method 106. The requirements fat section 

5A3.1. and 3JZX2. of Test Method 106 

for certification of cylinder standards 

and for establishment and verification of 

calibration standards are to be followed 

(ii) For each process unit subject to 

this subpart, a formal leak detection and 

repair program shall be implemented 

consistent with Subpart V of this part 

except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(8)(iii] oi this section. This program Is 

to be implemented within 90 days of the 

effective date of these regulations, 

unless a waiver of compliance is granted 

under 961.11. Except as provided in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(E) of this section, an 

owner or operator shall be exempt from 

9 81.242-l(d). 9 61.242-7 (a), (b). and (c). 

9 61.246, and 9 61-247 of Subpart V of 

this part for any process unit in which 

the percentage of leaking valves is 

demonstrated to be less than 2.0 

percent as determined in accordance 

with the following: 

(A) A performance test as specified in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section 

shall be conducted initially within 90 

days of the effective date of these • 

regulations, annually, and at times j 

requested by the Administrator. ! 

(B) For each performance test a i 

minimum of 200 or 90 percent i 

whichever is less, of the total valves in 

VOC service (as defined in 9 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(b) of this 

part If aa instrument reading of 10400 

ppm or greater is measured a leak is 

detected The leak percentage shall be j 

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 

(Dl The results of the performance test 

shall be submitted in writing to the 

Adrntrri'stratuT in the first quarterly 

report following the performance test as 

part of the reporting requirements of 

961.70. 

(EJ Any process unit ia which the 

percentage of leaking valves .is found to 

be greater than 2 0 percent according to 

the performance test prescribed in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section 

mast comply with all provisions of 

Subpart V of this part lwithte 90 days. 

(iii) Open-ended valves or lines 

located on multiple service process lines 

which operate la vinyl rMnwiA* service 

less than 10 percent ol the time are 

exempt from the requirements of 

i 61.242-8 of Subpart V, provided the 

open-ended valves or lines are 

addressed ia ths monitoring system 

required by paragraph (b)(8Xi) of this 

section. The Administrator may apply 
P.24 

34912 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

this exemption to other existing openended valves or lines that are 

demonstrated to require significant 

retrofit cost to comply with the 

requirements of 9 81.242-8 of Subpart V. 

—or~~ -~ — 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from 

the inprocess wastewater in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section is 

to be ducted through a control system 

from which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period); or equivalent as provided in 

9 61.86. 

(c) The requirements ih paragraphs 

(b)(1). (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(8), (b)(7) and 

(b)(8) of this section are to be 

incorporated into a standard operating 

procedure, and made available upon 

request for inspection by the 

Administrator. The standard operating 

procedure is to include provisions for 

measuring the vinyl chloride in 

equipment 4.75 m* (1,250 gal) in volume 

for which an emission limit is prescribed 

in 9 61.85(b)(6)(i) after opening the 

equipment and using Test Method 106, a 

portable hydrocarbon detector, or an 

alternative method The method of 

measurement is to meet the 

requirements in 9 61.87(g)(5)(i)(A) or 

(g)(5)(i)(B). 

9. Section 61.66 is revised to read as 

follows: 

9 6140 Eowvslsnt sravlpnMnt and 

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 

10. By revising paragraphs (C (g)(l)(i). 

(g)(2). (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(f). 

(g)(3)(iii). (g)(5) introductory text and by 

(g)(5)(ii) adding paragraphs (g)(6) and (h) 

in 9 61.87 as follows: 

9 61.67 Emission tests. 

» • » - - • •• • •» ? ' 

(f) The owner or operator shall retain 

at the plant and make available, upon 

request lor inspection by the 

Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, 

records of emission test results and 

other data needed to determine 

ptnl««<nnf 

tar* * 

(I)** * 

(i) For each run, one sample is to be 

collected The sampling site is to be at 

least two stack or duct diameters 

downstream and one half diameter 

upstream from any flow disturbance 

such as a bend expansion, contraction, 

or visible flame. For a rectangular cross 

section an equivalent diameteris to be 

determined from the following equation: 

equivalent diameter-2 (leTigth) (wiffthXT 

length+width 

The sampling point in the duct is to be at 

the centroid of the cross section. The 

sample is to be extracted at a rate 

proportional to the gas velocity at the 

sampling point The sample is to contain 

a minimum volume of 50 liters corrected 

to standard conditions and is to be 

taken over a period as close to 1 hour as 

practicable. 

• * * • • 

(2) Test Method 107 or Method 601 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in 9 61.18) is to be used to determine the 

concentration of vinyl-chloride in each 

inprocess wastewater stream for which 

an emission limit is prescribed In 

9 81.65(b)(9)(i). 

(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 107 as 

follows: 

(1) The number of strippers (or 

reactors used 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. - ' 

(«)•• • 

(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.. 

(lv j . . ... 

(4) * • • 

(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 made is to be 

specified by the Administrator for each 

individual plant at the time of the 

determination based on tiie plant's 

operation. 

(.)•-•• 

(ii) A calculation based on the number 

of evacuations, the vacuum involved 

and ths volume of gas in the reactor is 

hereby approved by the Administrator 

as an alternative method for 

determining reactor opening loss for 

postpolymerization reactors in the 

manufacture of bulk resins. Calculation 

methods based on techniques other than 

repeated evacuation bf the reactor may 

be approved by the Administrator for 

determining reactor opening loss for 

postpolymerization reactors in the 

manufacture of bulk resins. 

(8) 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 whidrairemission 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 die 

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. 

(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: ill 

ro 

40 

41 

41 

43 

44 

48 

«e 47 

48 

4* 

SO. 

SI 

68 

S3 

S4 

SS 

88 

ST 

SS 

99 

ao 

st 

HiO 

va-cor 

P"-»»-

Dura 

MS 

su 

584 

61.8 

644 

6*4 

71.9 

784 

76.6 

83.7 

86.0 

au 

87.2 

101.1 

107.2 

112.5 

1164 

1234 

1284 

138.1 

1424 

14*4 

188.4 

H-MCtOT 

l""a"fl*"a"a*"-

atura 

PQ 

62 

63 

64 

66 

68 

67 

88 

80 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

•* 

76 

77 

78 

78 

60 

61 

82 

S3 

H-0 

vraooe 

prntura 

(mn 

Hg) 

163.8 

171.4 

1784 

187.9 

1881 

208.0 

2144 

223.7 

233.7 

243.8 

254.6 

288.7 

2774 

289.1 

M l .4 

314.1 

327.3 

341.0 

358.1 

389.7 

384.9 

400.6 

Reactor 

t-wnprvItura 

CO 

64 

88 

68 

87 

88 

69 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

96 

98 

97 

96 

99 

100 

*o 

sura 

(mm 

Hg) 

418.8 

433.8 

450.8 

488.7 

487.1 

508.1 

525.8 

548.0 

587.0 

588.6 

810.9 

633.9 

657.8 

682.1 

707.3 

7334 

780.0 

. (B) Ihe partial pressure (mm Hg) of 

vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip 

front the following equation: 

PPVC- 760-RV-VPW 

where: 

PPVC-partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in 

mm Hg760•>atmospheric pressure at 0 'C in mm Hg 

RVaiabaoluta value of reactor vacuum, in 

mmHg 

VPW—vapor pressure of water, in mm Hg 

(C) The reactor vapor space volume 

(m-1) at end of strip from the following 

equation: 
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34913 

RVSV-RC-WVPVCW 

woo 

RVSV—reactor vapor space volume, in nr* 

RC— reactor capacity, in .m* . 

~WVSvoIume of watertn reactor tram rectper 

mm* PVCW—dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in 

reactor from recipe, in kg 

CWWMVCH1D_,)+ 

where: 

C—g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride 

product 

PPMVC •« concentration of-vinyl chloride In 

resin after stripping, in ppm 

10r **-—eu-aver siou factor for ppai 

PPVC—partial ore-Mare of vinjrl chloride 

detanuiaed according lo para-graph 

(gXeHfiKB) of this seetioa in -BB Hg 

RVSV—reactor vapor apace volume 

determined acnording to paragraph 

(g)(8PHC) of Ihl* section, in m* 

1,002 - ideal gas constant la g-'XJmm 

Hg—m* for vinyl chloride 

PVCW—dry warigfat at paly-drayi ehlotide in 

reactor from recipe, in kg -

273—conreniaR factor for *C to 'K 

RT—reactor temperature, in *C 

(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 eqorpment 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 or contained 

liquid volumes and 10 percent by 

volume for gas streams at contained gas 

volumes, which also includes gas 

volumes above liquid streams or 

contained liquid volumes. For par-poses 

of detenmhing the percent vinyl chloride 

content of die process fluid that is 

coatamedhtorconiscB. equipment, 

procedures that coasera. to the methods 

described in ASTM Method D-2287 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in S 61.16) shall be used. 

fZJfl) Aa owner or operator may use 

engineering judgment rather than dm 

procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 

seetioa to demonstrate that the percent 

vinyl chloride content does aot exceed 

10 percent by weight for liquid streams 

and .10 percent by volume for gas 

streams, provided that the engineering 

judgment demonstrates that the vmyi 

1,400—typical density of polyvinyl chloride, 

in kg/m* 

(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 

Jg^J»fj^tB^n«d using the following 

equation:' "~ • 

(PPVCKRVSV1(l,002) 

(PVCW)(273+RT) 

chloride content clearly does not exceed 

10 percent When an owner or operator 

and the Aadmmistrator 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 

[il] If aa 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 

seetioa. . 

(3) Samples used ia delerinining the 

percent vinyl chloride content shall be 

representative of the process fluid that 

is contained in or contacts the 

equipment 

11. By adding paragraphs (d),' (e) and 

(fJ to 5 61.68 as follows: 

961.6S Emission monitoring. 

* * * ' . * . • 

(d) When exhaust gaafes), having 

emission bants that ant subject ta the 

requirement of* paragraph (a) of this . 

section, ara emitted to the atmosphere 

without passing through the control 

system and required vinyl chloride 

monitoring system, the vinyl chloride 

content of the emission shall be 

.eatenlated (ia units of each applicable 

emission nmrt) by best practical 

engineering -judgment based oa the 

discharge duration and known VC 

cuuceimauuus in me errecrea 

equipment as detennined ia accordance 

. with 9 6L67(h) or other acceptable 

method. T ''. - - •-.*,.. '':' [..-A.. - '. 

(a) For each 3-hoor period, the vfatyl 

chloride ooateatafa-aaisakwissBb-JBCt to 

the reoainatsBts of paragraphs (a) aad. 

. (d| ot this seetioa saali tM-everagea 

(weighted according to the proportion of 

time that eadssJoas ware oontiaooasly 

monitored and that sanss-mas bypassed -

•is -niailimious monitor) for psrpeses of 

reporting< 

S 6170(c)(1). 

(f) For each vinyl chloride emission to 

the atmosphere determined in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section to be in excess of the applicable 

emission limits, the owner or operator 

shall record the identity of the source(s), 

the date, time, and duration of the 

• excess emission, the canae^oLthe.excess. _ 

emission, and 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 as required by § 61.71(a). 

12. In S 61.70 by revising the section 

tide from "Semiannual report" to 

"Reporting", and by revising paragraphs 

(a), (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text 

(c)(2)(iii). (c)(2)(iv). (c)(2)(v), (c)(2)(vi) 

introductory text and (e)(3) and also by 

adding (c)(4) to read as follows: 

981.70 Reporting. 

(a)(1) The owner or operator of any 

source to which this subpart applies 

shaU submit to the Administrator on 

March 15, June 15. September 15, and 

December 15 of each year a report in 

writing containing the information 

required by this section. The first report 

is to be submitted following the first full 

3-month reporting period after the initial 

report is submitted 

(2) hi the case of an existing source, 

the approved reporting schedule shall be 

used. In addition, quarterly reports shall 

be submitted exactly 3 months following 

the cunent reporting dates. 

-. --.. - •- . . 

. («•)••• • ' 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

include hi 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 S 61.82 (a) or (b). 8 61.63(a). or 

S 81.84 (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 a n required to be ducted in 

S.61.64(a){2) or to which fugitive 

emissions are required to be ducted in 

I «L66(bKiKiiIv M2). (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii). or 

(b)(9)(H). The number of 3-hour periods 

for which average emissions were 

determined daring the reporting period 

shaU be reported. If eatissions in excess 

of the entiesion limits are aot detected, 

the report shall contain a statement that 

no excess earisaions have been detected. 

The enassioos ara to be determined ia 

accordance with J 6148(e). 

(2) la polyvinyl chloride plants for 

which s stripping operation is used to 

attaia the -eoiissioa level prescribed ia 

S 6L64(e). the owner or operator shall 
34914 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

include in the report a record of the 

vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl 

chloride resin. 

(!)••• ' 

(Bl* * ' 

(iii) The vinyLchloride content in each 

-sample-is tone determined by Test — 

Method 107 as prescribed in 

581.67(g)(3). 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v)The report to the Administrator by 

the owner or operator is to include a 

AtXP«Mo i-1 

QT Or 

where: 

A—24-hour average concentration of type T 

resin in ppm (dry weight basis) 

Q—Total production of type T resin over the ' 

24-hour period, in kg. 

T—Type of resin. . 

M—Concentration of vinyl chloride in one 

' sample of grade Ci resin in ppm. 

P—Production of grade Gi resin represented 

by the sample, in kg. 

Gi-Grade of resin: e.g., Gl, G2. G3. 

n—Total number of grades of resin produced 

during the 24-hour period. 

The number of 24-hour average 

concentrations for each resin type 

determined during the reporting period 

shall be reported. If no 24-hour average 

resin vinyl chloride concoitrations in 

excess of the limits prescribed in 

§ 8144(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) • * • 

(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 prescribedin S 61.84(a)(2). Emissions ara to be 

determined ia accordance with 

S 61.67(g)(5). except that emissions for 

each reactor are to be determined. The 

number of reactor openings daring the 

reporting period shall be reported. If 

emissions in excess of the emission 

limits ara not detected, the report shall 

include a statement that excess 

emissions have not been detected. 

(4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for 

which stripping in the reactor is used to 

attain the emission level prescribed in 

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-sectioashall 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 

8tripper(8)-that calendar day, according 

to the following.equation: 

Pot Ha+Poj Ma»+ . . . PQ. MQ. 

9 61.84(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 completipn 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 

-rffr67(|)(3)7 

(iii) The combined emissions 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 5 81.87(g)(8). 

(iv) The report to the Administrator by 

the owner or operator is to include a 

record of any 24-hour average combined 

reactor opening loss and emissions from 

all sources following the reactor used as 

a stripper as determined in this 

paragraph, in excess of die limits 

prescribed in 181.64(f). The combined 

reactor opening loss and emissions from 

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 

-jf 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 

XPo-C 

i -t 

Pa»Coi+P«C»+ . . . -t-PteCo. 

Or Q» 

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 ths 

24-hour period, in kg* 

T-Type of resin. 

G—Average combined reactor opening loss 

and emissions from ail sources following 

tiw-reactor used as a stripper of all 

batches of grade G, resin for which 

stripping is completed during the 24-hour 

period, in gvteyt chloride/kg product 

(dry weight basis) (detenniiied accoramg 

to procedure prescribed in 161.87(g)(6)).. 

P-Production of grade Q resin in the 

batches for which C is determined, in kg. 

d-Grade of resin e.g, G...G*. and G». 

n—Total number of grades of resin in batches 

for which stripping is completed during -

the 24-hour period. 

The number of 24-hour average •'. 

emissions determined during the 

reporting period shall be reported 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 S 61.64(f) are determined, 

the report shall state that no excess 

vinyl chloride emissions were 

determined. 

11. By revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text of 9 61.71 as follows: 

|61.71 Recordkeeping. 

(a) The owner or operator of any 

source to which this subpart applies 

shall retain the following information at 

the source ahd make it available for 

inspection to the Administrator for a 

minimum of 3 years: 

• ''. •'.•. . ..' i 

; 14. By revising paragraph (a)(4) and 

adding paragraph (b)(1) to S 81.18 as 

follows: 

161.18 Incorporation by Reference. -

» • \ . * _ . • . 

(a) * * * 

(4) ASTM D2287-68 (reapproved 1978) 

Aromatics in Light Naphthas and 
P.27 

• .»•••, *n>*^'--yt'ift, 

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34915 

Aviation Gasoline by Gas 

Chromatography, IBR approved June 8, 

1984, for § 61.245(d)(1) and IBR approved 

September 30,1986 for § 61.87(h)(1). 

(b) The following material is available 

from the U.S. EPA Environmental 

- Monitoring- and Support Laboratory,- —--

Cincinnati. Ohio 45288. 

(1) Method 601. Test Method for 

Purgeable Halocarbons, July 1982. IBR 

approved September 30,1986 for 

9 81.87(g)(2). 

15. By revising the definition "volatile 

hazardous air pollutants" in 9 61.241 of 

Subpart V to read as follows: 

961.241 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. 

16. By revising the definition of 

"connector" in 9 61.241 of Subpart V as 

follows: 

9 81.241 Definitions. 

"Connector" means flanged, screwed, 

welded, or other joined fittings used to 

connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and 

a piece of equipment For the purpose of 

reporting and recordkeeping, connector 

means flanged fittings that are not 

covered by insulation or other materials 

that prevent location of the fittings. 

[FR Doc. 88-22032 Filed &-2&-8S; 8:45 am]