P.1 0

I —ui« , • 

# u3r%\

Thursda y Septembe r 21 , 198 9

(«•- ) (WM. ) A»Q» )



# Par

t I H 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agency
4 0 CF R Par t 6 1 Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants ; Revision s t o Viny l Chloride ; Equipmen t Leaks o f Volatil e Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants ; Propose d Rul e

•= ? es

BP. 9

Federal

. Register,/

. Vol

. 54 , No

. 18 2 / Thursday , Septembe r 21 * 198 9 /

Propose dRule s
ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y • 4 0 CF R Par t 8 1 [AD-FRL-350S-8 ] Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Al e Pollutants ; Revision s t o Viny l Chloride ; Equipmen t Leak s ol Volatil e Hazardou s Ai rPollutant s
AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA)

. ACTION : Propose drul e an dpubli c hearing ; petitio n fo

r reconsideration

. SUMMARY

: O n Novembe r

26,1986 , th e Societ y o f th e Plastic s Industry , Inc

. (SPI ) filedwith EP

A apetitio n fo

r sta y o f enforcemen t

an dadministrativ e reconsideratio n o

f seve n provision s in th e final ' rul e revisin g th e nationa l emissio n standar dfo

r V C (Septembe r 30,1986 , 5 1 F

R34904)

. Th e SP

I an dthre e manufacturer s (Dow Chemical Company , Georgi aGul

f Corporation , an dVist aChemical Company ) concurrentl y file dapetitio n fo r revie w o f th e revisions t o th e VC standard " with th e U.S

. Cour

t o f Appeal s fo

r th e Distric t o f Columbi aCircuit

. Th e petitioner s requeste drevie w o

f th e definition s o

f "ethylen e dichlorid e purification, " "leak, " "exhaus t

gas, " "relie f

valv e discharge, " an d"3-hon

r period; " th e scop e o f th e relie f valv e discharg e provisions ; an dth e leak

detectio n an d eliminatio n provision s (are a monitoring)

. Th e EP

A ha s evaluate dth e petitions , an dth e Administrato r propose s to gran t

th e petitioners ' reques t fo r clarificatio n o

f certai n of thes e provisions

. Mino r

revision s ar e bein g propose dt o correc t ambiguitie s in severa l definition s an di n th e applicabilit y o f

certai n regulatory requirement s i n th e V C standards

. Th e propose drevisions'woul dno t increas e th e emission s (an dth e associate dhealth risks ) allowe db y th e standard s a s promulgate din Septembe r 1986

. No changes , however , wil l b e mad e wit h regar dt o are amonitorin g requirement s o r th e relie f valv e discharg e standard

. Thi s actio n provide s EPA' s response s t o petitioners ' requests , an dth e resultin g mino r propose drevision s t o th e standard s ar e se t

fort h i n thi s notice

. Thi s actio n als o serve s a s notic e tha t th e petitioners ' reques t

fo r sta y o f th e 198 6 revise dprovision s i s bein g denied

. I n addition , thi s notic e i s no t intende d t o addres s th e recen t

decisio n b y th e D.C

. Circui t

Cour t o n th e VC standards

. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 82

4 F.2d114 8 (1987)

. An y respons e t o tha t

decisio n will b e mad e
. i n afutur e notic e in th e Federa l Register

. A publi c hearin g wil l b e hel dt o •. provid e intereste dpartie s a n opportunity fo

r ora l presentation s o f data , views , o r

argument s concernin g th e propose drevisions

. DATES : Comments. Comment s mus t b e receive do n o r

before Novembe r

20 , 1989

. Public Hearing. I

f anyon e contact s EP A requestin g t o speak

a t apubli c hearin g b y Octobe r

11,1989 , apubli c hearin g wil l b e hel do n October : 18,1889

. beginnin g a t

10:0 0 a.m
. Person s intereste di n attendin g th e hearin g shoul dcal l An n Eleano r

a t (919) 541

- 557 8 to verif

y tha t ahearin g wi n b e held

. Request to Speak at Hearing. Person s wishin g t o presen t

ora l testimon y must : contac t EP A b y Octobe r

11,1989

. ADDRESSES : Comments. Comment s shoul db e submitte di n duplicat e (if possible ) to : Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131) , Attention : Docke t No

. A-81

- 21 , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 401 M Stree t

SW. , Washington.

. D C 20460

. Public Hearing. I

f anyon e contact s EP A requestin g apubli c hearing , i t wil l b e hel da t EPA' s Office o

f Administratio n Auditorium , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort

h Carolina

. Person s intereste di n attendin g th e hearin g o r wishin g t o presen t

ora l testimon y shoul d notif y Ms

. An n Eleanor , Standard s Developmen t

Branc h (MD-13) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27711 , telephon e (919) 541-5578

. Docket A

. docket , numbe r

A-81-21 , containin g informatio n considere db y EP A ir e th e developmen t

o f th e promulgate dstandard s an dth e petitio n fo r sta y en dreconsideration, t o whic h thi s notic e i s responding , i s availabl e fo e publi c inspectio n betwee n 8:0 0 ajn

. an d 3:3 0 p.m. , Monday throug h Friday , a l EPA' s Centra l Docke t

Section , Saat h Conferenc e Center , Room4,401 M Stree t SW. , Washington , DC 204S & A reasonabl e fee may b e charge dfor copying

. FO R FURTHE R INFORMATIO N e©NT£.STS Fo r further informatio n an d interpretation s o

f applicability , complianc e requirements , an dreportin g aspect s o f th e revise dstandards , contac t th e appropriat e Regional , State , o r loca l office contac t

a s liste di n 40 CF

R60.4

. For further informatio n o n th e backgroun dfo

r th e propose drevise d standards , contac t

Ms

. Shirle y Table? , Standard s Developmen t

Branch

. Emissio n Standard s Divisio n (MH-I31

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27711 , telephon e (919) 541-5256

. SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION:

. • I

. Backgroun d I n Decembe r

1975 , EP A designate dV

C a s ahazardou s ai r

pollutan t unde r sectio n 11 2 o

f th e Clean Air

Ac t (4 2 U.S.C

. 7412

) an dpromulgate dfina

l rule s fo r V C o n Octobe r

21,197 6 (4

0 CF R 61.60-61.71)

. Th e standard s limi t emission s o

f V C fro mplant s producin g ethylen e dichlorid e (EDC

) vi a oxychlorination , VC , an dpolyviny l chlorid e (PVC) o r

othe r polymer s containin g VC

. Thes e plant s ar e subjec t t o acombinatio n o

f emissio n limits , equipment , an dwor

k practic e requirement s a t

numerou s point s in th e manufacturin g processes
. O n Septembe r

30,198 6 (5 1 F

R34904) , EP A promulgate dsevera l administrativ e an dclarifyin g revision s t o th e nationa l emissio n standar dfo

r VC

. Subsequently , o n Novembe r

26,1986 , SP

I filedwit h EP A apetitio n fo

r sta y an d administrativ e reconsideratio n o f seve n provision s i n th e fina

l revision s to th e V C standard

. Th e SPI , Do w Chemical Company , Georgi aGul

f Corporation , an dVist aChemical Compan y concurrentl y file dapetitio n fo r revie w of severa l provision s o

f th e revise d standar dwit

h th e U.S

. Cour

t o f Appeal s fo r th e D.C

. Circuit

. Th e SP

I i s a nonprofi t corporatio n whos e member s includ e processor s an dmanufacturer s of

. plastic s o r

plasti c products , supplier s o f ra w materials , processor s an d converter s o

f plasti c resins , an d manufacturer s o

f accessor y equipmen t fo r th e plastic s industry

. Th e Viny l Institute , adivisio n o

f SPI , represent s th e major domesti c producer s o

f V C an d PVC

. H

. Summar

y o f SPI' s Petitio n fo

r Stay / Reconsideratio n an dEPA' s Respons e Th e SP I requeste dtha t

EP A issu e a sta y o f th e 198 6 revision s to th e V C standar dpendin g revie w o f thos e revisedprovisions

. Thei r

reques t fo r a sta y wa s base do n th e followin g factors : (1 ) Certai n provision s o

f th e 198 5 proposa l wer e change dwithou t adequat e notic e o r

justificatio n b y EPA ; (2 ) industry member s represente db y SP I woul dsuffe

r irreparabl e harmi

f th e effectivenes s o

f th e 198 6 revision s ar e no t staye ddurin g th e revie w period ; an d (3 ) asta y wil l caus e n o harmto othe r partie s o r th e publi c interest

. Th e EP A ha s considere dth e factor s presente db y SP

I i n support

o f thei r request fo r sta y o f th e 198 6 V

C revision s pendin g EPA' s revie w o

f th e revisions

. Havin g considere dth e likelihoo do f SPI' D succes s o n th e merit s o f it s petitio n fo ? reconsideration, th e likelihoo dtha t SP I woul db e irreparabl y harme dabsen t astay , th e prospec t

tha t other s woul dbe

-P.1 1



### Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 54 , No

. 18 2 /

Thursday , Septembe r

21 , 198 9 /

Prbpose dftules
ME*«^— : i *—. rs —I I II I I I ••

•I •mill ) • ! I I 'III I 'II I I " •u . —: ! r. -T— « 1 « , harme din th e even t

o f astay , an dth e publi c interest , th e Administrato r ha s no t staye dth e 198 6 revision s o f th e V C standar da t

issu e here

. Thi s i s consisten t with long-standin g EP

A polic y t o continu e t o enforc e an existin g regulatio n unti l an dunles s arevisio n become s formally effective

. Th e EPA' s polic y ha s bee n consistentl y approve d b y th e court s i n th e contex t o f Stat e Implementatio n Plans

. Se e Train v . NRDC, 42 1 U.S

. 60 , 9 2 (1975 ) ("Thi s litigation , however , i s carrie dout o n th e polluter' s tim e no t

th e public's , fo

r durin g [th e pendenc y o

f aSI P revision ] th e original regulation s remai n in effect , an dth e polluter' s failure t o compl y may subjec t him.t o avariety o

f enforcemen t procedures." ) Th e rational e i n Train applie s wit

h equa l forc e to regulation s promulgate dunde r

sectio n 112

. Therefore , EP

A hereb y denies SPI' s

, reques t fo r asta y pendin g EPA' s reconsideratio n o

f th e VC standard

. I n th e petitio n fo

r revie w o f th e revise dstandard , SP

I claime dtha t

th e 198 6 promulgate drevision s differe d significantl y fro

mth e revision s tha t wer e propose do n January 9,198 5 (5 0 F R 1182)

. Th e SP I asserte dtha t

withou t adequat e notice , EPA' s 198 6 revision s change dke y provision s o f th e V C standar din amanne r

that : (1 ) Violate d cas e law ; (2

) impose dne w penalties ; (3 ) create dmultipl e penaltie s fo r th e sam e event ; an d(4

) expande dth e type s o

f equipmen t

subjec t t o th e standard

. Th e followin g discussio n summarize s thei r concern s an dEPA' s responses
. Definition of

"Exhaust Gas" Th e SP I requeste darevie w o

f severa l definition s ir

i th e V C standard

. Accordin g t o SPI , th e 198 6 fina l definitio n o

f "exhaus t gas, " 40 CF

R 61.61(x) , delete dake y sentenc e fro mth e propose ddefinitio n withou t adequat e explanation

. B y omittin g th e sentence , " A leak * * * i s no t

a n exhaus t

gas, " SP I wa s concerne dtha t

lea k emission s coul dresul t

i n violation s o

f th e exhaus t ga s standar di

f more tha n 1 0 pp mo

f V C ar e emitted

. Reconsideratio n wa s requeste dbecaus e leak s fro mequipmen t i n V C servic e woul dexcee dth e 1 0 ppm emissio n limitatio n fo

r exhaus t gases , thereb y subjectin g industrie s t o a potentia l fine o

f $25,00 0 pe r da y fo r eac h leak

. It wa s no t EPA' s inten t

to categoriz e every leak

o f greate r tha n 1 0 pp ma s a n exhaus t gas
. Th e sentenc e wa s omitte d i n th e fina l definitio n becaus e som e emission s whic h ar e require dto b e vente dt o acontro l devic e canno t b e automaticall y categorize da s eithe r a leak o r exhaus t ga s b y agenera l definition

. A s state di n th e promulgatio n BI D fo r th e revise dstandard s (pp

. 2-5 4 an d2-55) , th e fact s o

f th e situatio n resultin g i n thes e emission s neede dto b e considere dwhe n decidin g whic h par t o f th e VC standar dapplied

. Upo n reconsideration, EP

A agree s with SPI' s concern tha t

th e final definitio n of

. "exhaus t gas " doe s no t

provid e fo

r exemptio n fro

mth e exhaus t

ga s standar d(1 0 ppm) whe n suc h a n emissio n i s judge dt o b e aleak

. Therefore , EP

A i s proposin g t o modif

y th e definitio n b y addin g tw o sentence s whic h clarif

y tha t alea k i s no t a n exhaus t gas , an dtha t

equipmen t containin g exhaus t

ga s mus t compl y wit h § 61.65(b)(8 ) requirin g leak detectio n an dprevention , whethe r o r no t tha t equipmen t

contain s 1 0 percen t b y volum e VC

. Thi s propose dadditio n assure s tha t

leak s fro mexhaus t

ga s stream s ar e subjec t

to th e leak

detectio n an deliminatio n requirements , bu t tha t suc h leak s wil l no t

als o b e classifie da s "exhaus t gas. " Definition of

'Relief Valve Discharge" Th e SP I objecte dto asentenc e adde d t o th e 198 6 fina

l definitio n o

f "relie f valv e discharge," 40 CF

R61.61(y) , whic h state dtha t

arelie f valv e discharg e woul db e exemp t

fro mregulatio n i

f vente dt o acontro l device , bu t onl y i f th e contro l devic e meet s th e 1 0 pp m emissio n limit

. Th e SP

I pointe dou t

tha t adoubl e violatio n coul doccu r (i.e. , o f th e relie f valv e discharg e an dexhaus t ga s standards ) i

f arelie f valv e discharg e i s vente dt o acontro l devic e no t meetin g 1 0 ppm
. I f interprete dt o impos e doubl e penalties , thi s provision , i n SPI' s view , woul dexcee dEPA' s statutor y authorit y an dunlawfull y increas e th e maximu m statutor y penalt y se t

b y Congres s fo

r a singl e even t

tha t lead s t o aviolatio n of

a NESHAP

. Th e SP

I believe s tha t

owners / operator s o

f regulate dfacilitie s hav e sufficien t economi c incentiv e (preventin g release s o

f thei r product ) t o ensur e tha t

pressur e relie f

valve s wor

k a s designed , regardles s o

f th e standar d promulgated

. Moreover , th e final definitio n contradict s pas t regulatory . interpretatio n tha t

relie f valv e discharge s ducte dt o flare s an dothe r contro l device s ar e exemp t fro mth e exhaus t ga s standard

. Th e EP A agree s tha t

ventin g arelie f valv e discharg e (RVD

) t o acombustio n devic e achieves significant emissio n reductio n benefits

. Thes e devices , whe n properl y designe dan doperated , generall y hav e efficiencie s o f 9 8 percen t o r greater

. Th e us e o

f combustio n device s ar e no t

expecte dt o increas e th e numbe r o f RVD's

. Thus , becaus e regulate dfacilitie s d o hav e som e economi c incentiv e t o ensur e tha t RVD' s ar e minimized , th e net

RV D emissio n reductio n resultin g fro mth e us e o

f combustio n device s shoul dapproac h 9 8 percen t o r more
. Therefore , mino r revision s t o th e definitio n o f "relie f valv e discharge " an dt o th e RV D provision s ( § 61.65(a) ) ar e bein g propose dt o clarif

y tha t a n RV D route d to aproperl y designe dan doperate d contro l devic e woul db e exempte dfro m th e provision s o

f th e RV D standard

. Thi s chang e woul dpreven t misinterpretatio n o l th e regulatory requirement s an dimpositio n o f adoubl e penalty

. In addition , ne w provision s { § 61.65(d) ) hav e bee n adde dfo r a n RV D tha t i s ducte dt o acontro l devic e tha t i s continuall y operatin g whil e emission s fro mth e releas e ar e presen t a t th e device

. A n RV

D tha t i s ducte dt o a contro l device , othe r

tha n aflare , woul d b e subjec t to th e 1 0 pp mlimi t

an dth e continuou s emissio n monitorin g syste m requiremen t

containe di n § 61.6 8 an dt o th e reportin g requirement s o f § 61.70

. I n th e cas e o

f flares , emissio n monitorin g i s no t

possible

. Therefore , fo

r RVD' s route dt o aflare , th e desig n requirement s fo

r flare s (4 0 CF R60.18 ) woul dapply

. Th e EP

A recognize s tha t measuremen t

o f relie f valv e discharg e volumetri c flow rate s an dga s strea m compositio n i s no t

possibl e usin g th e method s se t

fort h in § 60.1 8 (f)(3 ) an d (f)(4)

. Estimate s o

f thes e parameter s will , therefore , nee dt o b e base do n empirica l o r

othe r bases , subjec t

t o EP A approval

. Flar e operation s woul db e monitore di n accordanc e wit h th e requirement s o

f § § 60.18(d

) an d 60.18(f)(2)

. For

th e purpos e o

f § 60.18(d) , th e volum e an dcomponen t concentratio n o

f eac h RV D woul db e estimate dan dcalculation s woul db e mad e t o verif

y ongoin g complianc e with th e desig n an doperatin g requirement s o f § 60.1 8 (c)(3 ) throug h (c)(6)

. I f more tha n on e relie f

valv e i s discharge d simultaneousl y t o asingl e flare , thes e calculation s woul daccoun t fo r th e cumulativ e effec t

o n al l suc h RVD's

. I

f th e result s o

f th e monitorin g containe d i n § 60.18(f)(2

) o r an y othe r informatio n sho w tha t th e pilo t flame i s no t

presen t 10 0 percen t o f th e time durin g whic h a n RV D i s route dt o aflare , th e RV D i s subjec t t o th e provision s o

f § 61.65(a)

. A repor t describin g th e flare desig n mus t b e provide dto th e Administrato r no t late r tha n 90 day s after

th e adoptio n o

f thi s provisio n o r

withi n 3 0 day s o

f th e installatio n o

f aflare syste mfo

r contro l o f RVD's , whicheve r

i s later

. Definition of

a "Leak" Th e SP I objecte dt o EPA' s definin g "indication s o

f liqui ddripping " a s a "leak, " 40 CF

R61.61(w) , Th e SP

IP.1 2



### 38M E Federa l Registe r / 1 w [.-./ • 

### NL. :Q? , /

Thirnday

. September21 , 198 9 / Proposed Rule s

. '^^*ffl»

- .*y *

psnair

. maxi o

'•=-; ' requeste dtha t

th e phras e b e delete dc r revisedt o refer

t o V C sinc e dripp'n g liquid s may no t

alway s contai n V C In th e VC standard , th e portio n o f li s ~pr

r aa' a leak definitio n referrin g t o "indicaabro arevise o a o f liqui ddripping 1 * applie s onl y t c y:m.c~ Th b ova"

. i n V C service

. Th e EP

A believe s tiie ? "indication s ofliqui ddripping " ar e e.r > appropriat e criterio n fo

r requirin g repai r action s o n doubl e mechanica l sea l pump s i n V C servic e and , therefore , shoul db e include di n th e definitio n c : a
. leak

. A s state di n th e BI

D fo r th e l& f 3 promulgate drevisions , visibl e Isabel s fro mal l type s o

f pum p seals , includin g doubl e mechanica l seal s require dby lb s V C standard , i s generall y indicative

- oi ' sea l wea r eve n if n o V C i s presen t

i.> Gi s leakin g fluid

. T o preven t

forthe ? set'

. wea r resultin g i n major

sea l failure

allowin g V

C emission s int o th e atmosphere , th e seal s shoul db e repaire dsoo n afte r

leakag e i s initiall y detected

. Afte

r further conside r

tio n o i SPI' s concern
. however , EF A eg.v:co iba i som e amoun t

o f barrie r Sui dIe?.bugo b

* normal

. Thsrefcro , EP

A propose s t o revis e th e standard s fc ? pomp s ( § 61.2€2-2(d} ) t c derif

y th e requirement s fo

r pum p ees l drips

. Sectio n Cl£lZ-Z[d)(.S> eddrosoo o d-i^ o frompam p ses k tha t contai n VC , oo d § 61.242-Z(d}[3 ) eddrossre s daip o b:eo ; pum p csa k tha i d c co t

certai n bb l Th e propose drevisedpnrrhb::: ? o i § 61.242-2(d ] co s dssigno dto or.aor;;:'.: b tw o puzpasss
. Qo e i at o enror s bba i \.7 J leak s frompum

p ceooi ar o dataoia dor b eliminated

. This : i

o eooaaapibb.- db r paragraph s [d)'4

> (ij

. (!:}

. ao d'y.]. To

othe r purpos e i e t c identif

y ao dproa : :"

. pum p see l faihrao s b y ra-:oair.~ obao a: b drippin g (eve n rrhe s V C i s or. i containe di n th e daippba

^ liqo-- ; t o b a detects dao daepaia

o t o b o roads, T

i i o : accomplishe db y psaaapiipho [yy ' : b (ii) , {iii}

. ar- d(iv}

. Thoa

o pEno/ia'-a " " requir e th e fearbiiy ormaa/cparaia ? i ; establis h criteri aassociate doat h n o " operaticn

. Th e inten t

o f th e propose drr i provision s io identica l t ath o exiai'~ ; provisions

. Th e differea.ee i aiho i ' b a propoae d§ StL242,2{d)[e)( v cbao at a owner/operato r

to talc s int o oaoaaa i tb o smal l numbe r

cf liqui ddr'p s tbo' : roa a occu r whe n nev aseal s ar e r

n p b r o o r ar c otherwis e Easociate divit b noa n a " operation

. Definition of

"i-hsur Period1 Th e SPrnote dthat , i n tb e S—'o-O'bo ' 198 6 final rule

. EP

A adde de definitio n o f "3-hour period " 4 0 CF

RSl.ni>*

. i a clarif y tha t th e emissio n limtt s i n th a exhaus t ga s standar d(1 0 ppoi * i c o 3

- hou r average
. Th e definitio n create s "rolling " average s £2

4 3-hoia r averar-^ o pe r day ) rathe r

tha n "block " everar;a c b ' a-ho r sra-r;-?? : Th o SP

I objecte dtha t o sing]a

. t-hoo " I

C po mexceedanc e aco' b : , y?A" >

. i r

ihro s violation s o

f th e 1 0 .'.s i na s standard , unde r

th e "b.itia o or " "3-hour period. b

. ia~ dt adr~h' e o r

tripl e "t " ara'a y exceedin g th e : : aali; / parraissibl e unde r

th e Upo n ^aacaaidera'bon , EP A propose s io furiba ? ravb; e tb o definitio n o f "3-hou r pena;" " i aeaair e tha t

asingl e even t

o f i-ba?' * ~ r ".an e aibo 1

~ a mo r greate r coul d aasrl i i : r ay.o^s iban asingl e violatio n oi ' th e srd

. aus t

2 = astandard

. A phras e ha s bar o addrr i t o tb adefinitio n in

. 31.31[;b to a-r.or.piia athis

. Th e ibF A r'ir r a ? inten dt apenaliz e aplan t tha? " ,:r aar
. o/hanava. ' a1 0 pp meven t oca-"

- u'bbia

. 2 haar

. Rather , EP A wante dt c sn.sv.r

atha t acombinatio n o

f iivr. c- ;

_n .o? o " 0 paT

. ovent s whic h woul d aesa b b

. aS-baoae^ooedanc e dono t g o ona s • ' ioa d'as t

bsrr.us e the y occurre d ove r tw o separat e 3-hou

r "blocks. " Th e propone drevise ddefinitio n o f "3-hour perio dcot'ofie s Z?A' s inten t withou t orb-ia r iiaoab;

- robjootin g aplan t owne ; ''aparoio r

tr

. za.oltipl e violations

- :: o''Eiy 1 me Dichloride

. OTT ' o'.in; ' t o by: , tb e 198 6 fina l revisi'-o aabaaoo dt!r

adefinitio n o

f EDC puaifar'aor. : bTCFT.CI.8IC0}.The pre - ' Ipaia ' dafb'i'anexcludedproduc t ntoraf v :';';'i c a.'ia.r ba afira l V C finisliing orbt—~

. t a dtbo ao:;3mpt3 dsuc h storag e :>?. r t" ! a' c% Eo^

t p•; £standard

. Th e SP

I oe :: a
. a ' thro E9fi ioienda dt o exclude

oo t ?-[-; bib T feci ^rodoc t storag e bu t al? a'-'—"^.abi.at " p'odoc t storag e • ''csf" r ? tb o i'aa. I tia'ahin g cahimn ) base d on bi ? V a-a'-^aa. : at ; cemmants

. ao r 'a^^. b i r th aEb b £? • 2.-43 and2-^44 ) ao.b i r ' 'b aFb'J sa.o: : ary o f change s abaca—oa"-.-. " bra

. ;.-Zj

. Although.i t a!iopa:: atb a00: r-"ba n o

f final. ED C pra:b-. * aia ' -.p

a'00: atb. 3 dsfinition

. SP

I :.'eq-;"-'a : t'-a t

T~A als o exemp t into 'a

- :rba': aEU

T produc t storage

. In-

. ~zy r \. E-b

i a " aipony , amajo r

- - 0 " V C - a-omo r

an dPV C pc'i o •.:-:_• , prrridad ; :icrmatio n o n nin e oaud " : r.r
. r'-'ar'o.ab ' it s storag e tankaa t on e o.'• ' •".: ; b aibi : -a
. Th e informatio n i.ncioda dtank siaas , dssign , emission s astir a':a aro draata

. Thi s compan y .?3q v ar.ta dET A A o ooalod e intermediat e an da- -.d aa av< ol: s o final ED C storage ' io-b ; .-'.-

- tbad-'-btion

. T.c abT A apo^ atba t

i t intende dt o •d aan di v'emsdiat astorag e th ? c "Vvo t

ga s standard-

. or
. c t b D C purification " ha s rdt o a'a.r ; ? r

tha i emission s acic o o~c t

axar " • too.s t ; Pea * ire : sto: ; are a •
. o-.odo

. bat

e : diats

. an dfinal

. a/ing EDC formatio n :'ao' ; t o t'-. astandards ; li t addition , § 61.65(b)(6) , Openin g o f equipment , ha s als o bee n revise df o clarif y tha t th e requirements i n thi o sectio n d o no t

appl y t o crude , intermediate , o r

fina l EDC storag e tanks

. A s state din th e BI

D respons e (pp

. 2-4 3 throug h 2-45) , EPA evaluate dth e reasonablenes s o f

regulating EDC storage-tank s unde r

the

- V C standard

. Base do n emission s dat asubmitte db y th e commenters , uncontrolle dVC emission s fro

mintermediat e an dfinal EDC storag e tank s a t

atypica l EDC/V C plan t wer e estimate dt o b e 0. 1 to 2 Mg/ yr
. A n emissio n reductio n a s high a s 1 4 Mg/y r fro mal l plant s woul db e achieve dbase do n ventin g existin g ED C storag e tank s t o a n existin g primary contro l devic e (incinerators}

. Prior to th e Septembe r

198 6 rule , EP

A conclude d tha t regulatio n o

f thes e tank s unde r

th e V C standar dwa s no t

warranted

. In respons e t o SPI' s petitio n fo r reconsideration , EP

A ha s evaluate dth e dat asubmitte db y on e SP I compan y (Docket Entry No

. VI-B-4 ) fo

r nin e crud e an dintermediat e EDC storag e tank s before th e fina

l finishin g colum

n aton e o f it s facilities

. Thes e tank s ar e currentl y uncontrolled

. Th e dat a include dtan k

sizes , design , emission s estimates , an dcosts

. Th e company's estimate s o f

th e tota l uncontrolle d emission s (0.00

2 t o 0.32 3 Mg/y r

VC ) fo r th e nin e crud e an dintermediat e tank s fal l a t th e lo w en do

f th e rang e o

f individua l VC tank

emissio n estimate s mad e b y EP

A fo r ED C final produc t storag e tanks

. Thi s informatio n i s consisten t with EPA' s positio n tha t

th e regulatio n o

f crud e an dintermediat e storag e tank s i s unnecessar y becaus e emission s ar e extremel y low

. Leak Detection and

Elimination Unde r th e 197 6 V

C standard

. 40 CF

R 61.65(b)(8)

. companie s installe dare a monitor s an ddevelope dplant-specifi c lea k detectio n an deliminatio n program s tha t include dth e routin e us e o f portcbl a monitors

. Subsequently , EP A develope d ageneri c lea k

detectio n en deliminatio n program(subpart

. V , 40 CF R61.240 — 61.247 ) base do n equipmen t an ddat afo

r th e orgam c chemica l an dpetroleu m industries

. Tn e 198 6 revision s incorporate dth e subpar t

V provision s int o th e V C standard

. Th e SP

I oppose s th e additio n o

f th e subpar t

V provision s to th e V C standard

. Th e SP I argue dtha t existin g program s ar e effectiv e withou t th e subpar t

V provision s an dtha t

EPA' s decisio n t o retai n are amonitorin g requirement s fromth e 197 6 standar di s questionabl e sinc e the y hav e no t bee n require dfo

r othe r industrie s subjec t

to subpar t V

. In addition , accordin g t o SPI

. n o justificatio n ha s bee n give n fo rP.1 3

Federa l Kegiste r

/ Vol

. 54 , No

. 18 2 /

Thursday , Septembe r 21 , 198 9 /

Propose dRule s requirin g retentio n o

f are amonitor s i n additio n t o subpar t

V

. Althoug h a programunde r

§ 61.65(b)(8 ) demonstratin g les s tha n 2 percen t of valve s leakin g i s considere d"effective, " suc h aprogrami s exemp t onl y fro m certai n part s o

f subpar t V

. For thes e reasons , SP

I request s reinstatemen t

o f th e lea k detectio n an deliminatio n requirement s containe di n th e 197 6 VC standard

. Upo n reconsideration , EP A propose s t o mak e n o change s i n th e applicatio n of subpar t V t o th e VC standar dan dth e requirement s fo

r fixe dare amonitorin g ( § 61.65(b)(8j(i))

. Th e basi s fo r addin g subpar t V t o th e VC standar dwa s explaine di n detai l i n th e preambl e t o th e propose drevisions (5 0 F R1190-1192 , Januar y 9,1985) , an dth e justificatio n fo r thos e requirement s ha s no t change d sinc e tha t time

. Th e EP

A believe s tha t th e are amonitorin g an dsubpar t V approache s both hav e benefit s an dar e no t redundant

. In particular , are a monitor s allo w fo

r quic k detectio n of certai n larg e V

C leak s tha t

might otherwis e g o undetecte dunti l th e nex t routin e portabl e monitorin g screening , a s wel l a s detectio n o

f larg e leak s fro

m equipmen t

no t affecte db y subpar t

V (e.g. , agitators)

. Th e are amonitor s hav e alread y bee n purchase db y subjec t facilitie s an dth e additiona l cos t of monito r operatio n i s relativel y small

. Therefore , acompariso n t o other ' industrie s i s no t

relevant

. Also , are a monitorin g i s ofte n use da s par t o f a programt o reduce leak s t o belo w 2 percent , an dtherefore , a s discusse d below , a n owner/operato r doe s no t hav e t o conduc t

th e leak detectio n an d repai r provision s o

f subpar t V

. Any plan t wit h a n effectiv e existin g programunde r

§ 61.65(b)(8 ) for

detectin g an drepairin g leak s ca n contro l equipmen t

leak s withou t

complyin g with th e subpar t

V provisions

. Specifically , i f an owner/operato r

ca n demonstrat e tha t les s tha n 2. 0 percen t

o f valve s ar e leakin g i n an y proces s unit , the n tha t proces s uni t

i s exemp t

fro m§ § 61.242

- 1(d ) (marking) , 61.242-7(a

) (monitoring) , 61.24 6 (recordkeeping) , an d61.24 7 (reporting)

. T o demonstrat e tha t les s tha n 2. 0 percen t

o f valve s ar e leaking , th e owner/operato r

mus t conduc t a performanc e tes t

initially , annually , an d a t an y othe r

time s requeste db y th e Administrator

. If

, durin g an y performanc e test , th e percentag e o f leakin g valves exceed s 2. 0 percent , the n th e owner/operato r

mus t compl y with .subpar t V withi n 9 0 days

. Thi s exemptio n onl y applie s t o th e standard s fo r valve s ( § 61.242-7{a)(b)(c) ) becaus e th e othe r standard s i n subpar t

V

. interfac e with specifi c equipmen t requirements/performanc e measure s i n th e V C standar d(e.g. , leak s fromrelief valves , § 61.65(b)(4 ) an drotatin g pumps , § 61.65(b)(3)(i))

. However , thi s exemptio n include s al l of

th e recordkeepin g an dreportin g requirement s o

f § § 61.24 6 an d61.24

7 becaus e thes e requirement s mainl y affec t valves

. Th e exemptio n fo r marking , recordkeeping , an dreportin g applie s t o th e entir e proces s unit

. Th e exemption s (provide di n th e V C standard ) t o subpar t

V wer e designed , base do n comment s mad e durin g th e publi c comment

period , t o avoi d unnecessar y change s t o existin g leak detectio n plan s whic h ar e effectiv e i n detectin g an drepairin g V C leaks

. Scope of Relief Valve Discharge Provisions Th e SP I oppose s EPA' s withdrawa l o f th e 198 5 propose dnumerica l limit s fo r relie f valv e discharge s an dha s requeste dtha t

EP A reconside r

it s decisio n t o retai n th e emergenc y discharg e Provisio n o

f th e 197 6 standard , 4 0 CF

R61.65(a)

. Th e SP

I claime dtha t

th e 197 6 standar d "impermissibl y delegate s rulemakin g authorit y t o enforcemen t

personne l an d i s unconstitutionall y vagu e an dthat , a s applied , th e regulatio n i s unfair , unlawful , arbitrar y an dcapricious. " Th e SP I prefer s th e propose dnumerica l limit s becaus e the y woul dremed y thes e problem s an dreduc e th e administrativ e burde n o n EP

A an dindustry

. Th e SP

I als o believe s tha t

th e propose d numerica l limit s ar e stricte r tha n th e 197 6 emergenc y discharg e provisio n becaus e "eac h discharg e causin g a n exceedanc e o

f an y numerica l limi t * * * woul db e considere da violatio n withou t

regardt o whethe r

an y individua l discharg e wa s preventable. " Th e EP A ha s reviewe dth e basi s for th e decisio n no t

t o promulgat e numerica l limit s fo

r RVD' s an dha s decide dtha t

th e 197 6 standar di s stil l reasonabl e an dappropriate

. Th e 197 6 standar dpermit s onl y "emergency " RVD's , thos e tha t

coul dno t hav e bee n avoide db y takin g measure s t o preven t th e discharge

. A detaile ddiscussio n o

f th e basi s fo

r no t promulgatin g th e numerica l limit s fo r RVD' s i s containe di n th e preambl e for th e promulgate damendment s (5 1 F R 34905-34808 , Septembe r

30,1986) , an d SP I ha s no t provide dan y ne w informatio n tha t

woul daffec t

EPA' s decision

. I

n summary , th e decisio n t o retai n th e original 197 8 RV D standar d wa s mad e after

considerin g th e revision s i n light

o f publi c comment s o n th e numerica l limits , an dafter revie w o f th e basi s fo

r th e decisio n t o reforma

t th e standard

. I n particular , severa l publi c comment s o n th e 198 5 propose damendment s expresse dconcern tha t

preventabl e RVD' s woul db e allowe dunde r th e revise dstandar dan dtha t th e performanc e allowe dunde r th e revise d standar dcoul db e inconsisten t wit h tha t allowe dunde r

th e original standard

. Othe r comment s expresse dconcern tha t th e revise dstandar dinclude dn o mechanis mfor

regulatin g very larg e RVD's

. Th e basi s fo

r th e statemen t

tha t alarg e EP A resourc e commitmen t

i s require dfo

r enforcin g th e 197 6 RV

D standar dwa s als o questioned

. Th e EPA' s review reveale dtha t th e burde n o n it s resources ha ddiminishe d a s experienc e wit h th e implementatio n o f th e standar dincrease dan da s th e industry' s understandin g o f th e provision s o

f th e existin g standar d becam e clearer

. Thus , i t

wa s no t necessar y t o revis e th e forma t o f th e RV D standard

. Compare dt o th e 188 5 proposal , th e existin g standar dals o ha s th e advantage s of

affectin g al l preventabl e RVD' s an dprovidin g bette r regulatio n o

f larg e volum e RVD's

. Therefore , fo

r th e reason s stated , EPA' s revie w o f th e recor dsupport s th e existin g standard

. Base do n th e EPA' s experienc e wit h administerin g th e V C standar do f § 61.65(a) , on e majo r

deficienc y with th e typ e o f informatio n submitte di n man y o f th e 10-da y report s o

f RVD' s ha s bee n recognized

. Thi s concern s tha t informatio n require dt o b e reporte db y th e standar dregarding, "th e actio n tha t wa s take n t o preven t

th e discharge. " Fo r purpose s o

f clarification , thi s portio n o f th e standar drequires informatio n o n th e actio n take n t o preven t

o r addres s th e caus e leadin g u p t o th e RV D releas e an d no t onl y th e actio n take n afte r a n even t o r caus e occur s tha t

result s i n a n RV

D release

. Emission Monitoring Clarification I n additio n t o th e change s mad e i n respons e t o th e petitio n fo r reconsideration , amino r

clarificatio n ha s bee n mad e i n § 61.68 , Emissio n monitoring

. Th e existin g regulation , § 61.68(b) , state s tha t

th e V C monitorin g system(s ) tha t

i s use dt o mee t

th e continuou s monitorin g requirement s i n paragrap h (a) (o

f § 61.68 ) fo

r emission s fro msource s fo

r whic h emissio n limit s ar e prescribe di s t o b e adevic e whic h obtain s ai r

sample s o n acontinuou s sequentia l basi s an danalyze s them

. Sinc e i t i s obviou s tha t

paragrap h (a) o

f § 61.6 8 call s fo

r th e monitorin g o

f th e emission s fromprescribe dsource s fo r viny l chlorid e an dno t

ambien t ai r samplin g a s require dunde r § 81.65(b)(8 ) fo r leak detection/elimination , § 61.68(b )P.1 4

ha s bee n clarifie dt o require tha t representative {no

t air ) sample s fro

m on e o r more applicabl e emissio n point s b e obtaine dan danalyzed

. Thi s revisio n mor e accuratel y reflect s th e original intent

. nx.'Administrativ e Ketjuireinorat s A. Public Hearing A publi c hearin g wil l b e held , i f requested, t o discus s th e propose d rulemakin g i n accordanc e with sectio n 307(d)(5 ) o

f th e Clean Ai r

Act

. Person s wishin g t o mak e ora l presentation s shoul dcontac t

EP A a t th e addres s give s i n th e ABSRSSSE

S sectio n of

thi s preamble

. Ora l presentation s wil l b e limite dt o 1 5 minute s each

. An y membe r o f th e publi c ma y file awritte n statemen t with EP A before , during , O

P withi n 3 0 day s after

th e hearing

. Writte n statement s shoul db e addresse dt o th e Centra l Docke t

Sectio n addres s give n to th e 0©s>R28S2

S sectio n o

f thi s preamble

. A verbati mtranscrip t

o f th e hearin g An dwritte n statement s wil l b e availabl e for publi c inspectio n an dcopyin g durin g norma l workin g hour s a t

EPA' s Centra l Docke t Sectio n i n Washington , D C (se e &E»KE§gE§ sectio n o

f thi s preamble}

. 3. Docket Th e docke t

i s a n organize dan d complet e file o

f al l th e informatio n submitte dt o o r

otherwis e considere dfc th e developmen t

o f thi s propose d rulemaking

. Th e principa l purpose s o f th e docke t

are : (1 ) T o allo w intereste d partie s t o identif

y readily en dlocat e document s s o tha t

the y ca n effectivel y participat e i n th e rulemakin g process ; an d(2 ) t o serv e a s th e recor di n cas e o £ judicia l review , excep t

fo r interagenc y review material s (sectio n 307(d)(7)(A))

. C

. Office of

Management

and Budget Reviews 1

. Paperwork

Reduction Act. Ther e ar e n o informatio n collectio n requirement s associate dwith thi s propose drulemaking

. 2

. Unde r Executiv e Orde r

12291 , EP

A mus t judg e whethe r

aregulatory actio n i s "major " and , therefore , subjec t t o th e requirement

o f aregulatory impac t analysis

. Thi s propose drulemakin g i s no t majo r becaus e i t

makes mino r clarifyin g revision s t o a n existin g regulatio n and , therefore , results i n non © of th e significan t

advers e economi c effect s describe di n th e Order

. Thi s rulemakin g wa s submitte dt o th e Offic e o f Managemen t

an dBudget (OMB ) fo r revie w a s require db y Executiv e Orde r

12291

. An y writte n comment s fro

mOM B t o EP A an dan y EP A respons e t o thos e comment s er e include din Docke t

No

. A-81-21

. Th e docks ! i s availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n E t EiPA' s Centre ! Docke t

Sectio n tha t

i s Liste dunde r th e A3>3GE§s:i § sectio n o f • thi s notice. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Th e Regulator

y Flexibility Ac t

o f 1980 requires th e identificatio n o f potentially advers e impact s cf

Federa l regulation s upo n emai l busines s entities

. Th e Ac t specificall y require s th e completio n o f a Regoktoa y flexibilit y Analysi s i n thos e instance s wher e smal l busines s impact s er s possible

. Becaus e thes e propose d mine ? revision s impos e EO advers e economi c impacts , aRegulatory Flexibility Analysi s ha s no t bee n conducted

. Pursuan t t e th e provision s o

f 5 U.S.C

. (235Cb) , I hereb y certif

y tha t th e propose d rul e wil l ne t

hav e asignifican t

economi c impac t o n e substantia l numbe r

o f smal l entities

. UBI ©f f §xb"33? Q mm C M Part

8 1 Ms pollutio n control , Asbestos , Benzene , Beryllium , Hazardou s materials , Mercury , Viny l chloride

. Deled : Septembe

r 12, T.889

. WEias aK

. Is'Zy, Administrator. l?c ? th e reason s se t

fort h i n th e preamble , i t

i o propose dt o amen d4 0 CF Rpar t sr
. a s "fellows : PAbibTe-C-bAbSMPgiQ) ] 1. Th e authorit y citatio n fo r par t 6 1 continue s t o rea da s follows : Auticrby : Section s IC-, "2,114,116,301 , Clea n Ai r Ac t c aemended ; 0

2 U.S.C

. 7401 , nc?„ 7<S1« , VQL% 780a

. 2

. Sectio n Sii.K

i i s amende db y revisin g paragraph s [c], [w), (x) , (y) , an d [zl t o ree da s follows : g@i:.3 ? SoC.'r.it's^o

. <i O O <t o [s]Ethylene dichloride purification include s an y par t

c f th e proces s o

f ethylen e dichlorid e purificatio n followin g ethylen e dichlorid e formation , bu t exclude s crude , intermediate , an d fine ! ethylen e dichlorid e storag e tanks

.
<: <i ii a <t "yu]Leak mean s an y cf

severa l event s tha t indicat e interruptio n o

f confinemen t o f viny l cblori.d

e withi n proces s equipment , beak s includ e event s regulate dunde r

subpar t V o f thi s par t suc h as : [ll A n instrumen t

readin g o

f 10,00 0 pp mc r greate r measure daccordin g t o Metho d2,1 'se e appendi x A o f 4 0 CF R per t 60) ; [2) A sensc r

detectio n o

f failure o f a sea l system , failure o

f s barrie r flui d system , o r

both ; (3 ) Detectable emission s a s indicate d b y a n instrumen t

readin g o

f greate r tha n 50 0 pp mabov e backgroun dfo r equipmen t

designate dfo

r n o detectabl e emission s measure daccordin g t o Tes t Metho d2 1 (se e appendi x A o f 4 0 CF R par t 60) ; an d (4) In th e cas e o

f pum p seal s regulate d unde r § 61.242-2 , indication s o

f liqui d drippin g constitutin g aleak unde r § 61.242-2

. Leak s als o includ e event s regulate d unde r § 61.65(b)(8)(i ) for

detectio n o

f ambien t concentration s i n exces s o f backgroun dconcentrations

. A relie f valv e discharg e i s no t

aleak

. (x ) Exhaust

gas mean s an y offgas (th e constituent s o

f whic h ma

y consis t o f an y fluids , eithe r

a s aliqui dand/o r

gas ) discharge ddirectl y o r

ultimatel y t o th e atmospher e tha t

wa s initiall y containe d i n o r wa s i n direc t

contac t wit h th e equipmen t

fo r whic h exhaus t

ga s limit s ar e prescribe di n § 61.62 (a) an d(b) ; § 61.63(a) ; § 61.6

4 (a)(1) , (b) , (c) , an d(d) ; § 61.65 (b)(1)(h) , (b)(2) , (b)(3) , (b)(5) , (b)(6)(h)

. (b)(7 ) an d(b)(9)(h) ; an d § 61.65(d)

. A lea

k a s define di n paragrap h (w ) o

f thi s sectio n i s no t

a n exhaus t gas
. Equipmen t

whic h contain s exhaus t ga s i s subjec t

t o § 61.65(b)(8) , whethe r o r no t tha t equipmen t

contain s 1 0 percen t b y volum e viny l chloride

. (y ) Relief Valve Discharge means an y nonleak discharg e throug h arelie f valve

. (z ) 3-hour.period

means an y thre e consecutiv e 1-hou

r period s (eac h commencin g o n th e hour) , provide dtha t th e numbe r

o f 3-hou r period s durin g whic h th e viny l chlorid e concentratio n exceed s 1 0 pp mdoe s no t

excee dth e numbe r o f 1-hou r period s durin g whic h th e viny l chlorid e concentratio n exceed s 1 0 ppm
. 3

. Sectio n 61.6 5 i s amende db y revisin g paragraph s (a) an d(b)(6 ) introductory text , an daddin g paragrap h (d) t o rea da s follows : § 81.8 5 Emissio n standar d do rethylen e dichloride , viny l chlorid e an d polyviny l chlorid e plants

. **** * (a ) Relief valye discharge. Excep t

fo r a n emergenc y relie f

discharge , an d excep t a s provide din § 61.65(d) , ther e i s t o b e n o discharg e t o th e atmospher e fro man y relie f

valv e o n an y equipmen t i n viny l chlorid e service

. A n emergenc y relie f discharg e mean s adischarg e whic h coul dno t

hav e bee n avoide db y takin g measure s to preven t th e discharge

. Withi n 1 0 day s o f an y relie f valv e discharge , excep t

fo r thos e subjec t t o § 61.65(d) , th e owne r

o r operato r o f th e sourc e fro

mwhic h th e relie f

valv e discharg e occur s shal l submi t to th e Administrato r

areport i n writin gP.1 5

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 54 , No

. 18 2 /

Thursday , Septembe r 21 , 198 9 /

Propose dRule s
containin g informatio n o n th e source , natur e an dcaus e o

f th e discharge , th e
. dat e an dtim e o

f th e discharge , th e approximat e tota l viny l chlorid e los s durin g th e discharge , th e metho duse d fo r determinin g th e viny l chlorid e los s (th e calculatio n o

f th e viny l chlorid e loss) , th e actio n tha t

wa s take n t o preven t th e discharge , an dmeasure s adopte dto preven t

futur e discharges

. (b ) * * * (6 ) Opening of

equipment. Viny l chlorid e emission s fro

mopenin g o

f equipmen t

(excludin g crude , intermediate , an dfina

l EDC storag e tanks , bu t includin g prepolymerizatio n reactor s use di n th e manufactur e o f bul k resin s an dloadin g o r

unloadin g line s tha t ar e no t opene dt o th e atmospher e afte r eac h loadin g o r

unloadin g operation ) ar e t o b e minimize da s follows : **** * (d ) A RV D tha t i s ducte dto acontro l devic e tha t

i s continuall y operatin g whil e emission s fro

mth e releas e are
. presen t a t th e devic e i s subjec t

t o th e followin g requirements : (1 ) A discharg e fro

macontro l devic e othe r tha n aflare shal l no t

excee d1 0 ppm(averag e ove r

a3-hou r period ) a s determine db y th e continuou s emissio n monito r syste mrequire dunde r

§ 61.68

. Suc h adischarg e i s subjec t t o th e requirement s o

f § 61.70

. (2 ) For adischarg e route dto aflare , th e flare shal l compl y with th e requirement s o

f § 60.18

. (i ) Flar e operation s shal l b e monitore d in accordanc e with th e requirement s o f § § 60.18(d

) an d60.18(f)(2)

. Fo r

th e ' purpose s o

f § 60.18(d) , th e volume an d componen t

concentratio n o

f eac h relie f valv e discharg e shal l b e estimate dan d calculation s shal l b e mad e t dverif y ongoin g complianc e with th e desig n an d operatin g requirement s o

f § § 60.1 8 (c)(3 ) throug h (c)(6)

. I

f mor e ma n on e relie f valv e i s discharge dsimultaneousl y t o a singl e flare , thes e calculation s shal l accoun t fo r th e cumulativ e effect

o f al l suc h relie f valv e discharges

. Thes e calculation s shal l b e mad e an dreporte d quarterl y fo

r al l discharge s withi n th e quarter

. Failur e t o compl y wit h an y o f th e requirement s o

f thi s paragrap h wil l b e aviolatio n of § 61.65(d)(2)

. Monitorin g fo

r th e presenc e o

f aflare pilo t flam e shal l b e conducte di n accordanc e wit

h § 60.18(f)(2)

. I

f th e result s o f thi s monitorin g o r

an y othe r informatio n show s tha t

th e pilo t flame i s no t presen t 10 0 percen t o f th e tim e durin g whic h arelie f

valv e discharg e i s route dt o th e flare , th e relie f valv e discharg e i s subjec t

to th e provision s o

f § 61.65(a)

. (ii ) A report

describin g th e flare desig n shal l b e provide dt o th e Administrato r

no t late r tha n 9 0 day s afte r th e adoptio n o

f thi s provisio n o r withi n 3 0 day s o

f th e installatio n o

f a flare syste mfo

r contro l o f relie f valv e discharg e whicheve r

i s later

. Th e flare desig n report

shal l includ e calculation s base dupo n expecte drelie f valv e discharg e componen t

concentration s an dne t heatin g value s (fo

r PVC thi s calculatio n shal l b e base do n value s expecte di

f areleas e occurre da t

th e instan t th e polymerizatio n starts) ; an d estimate dmaximu mexi t

velocitie s base dupo n th e desig n throa t capacit y o

f th e ga s i n th e relie f

valve

. 4

. Sectio n 61.6 8 i s amende db y revisin g th e first

sentenc e i n paragrap h (b ) t o rea da s follows : § 61.6 8 Emissio n monitoring

.
* ft ft ft * (b ) Th e viny l chlorid e monitorin g system(s ) use dt o mee t

th e requiremen t i n paragrap h (a) o

f thi s sectio n i s t o b e a devic e whic h obtain s representativ e sample s fro

mon e o r more applicabl e emissio n point s o n acontinuou s sequentia l basi s an danalyze s th e sample s with ga s chromotograph y or , if th e owne r o r operato r assume s tha t

al l hydrocarbon s measure dar e viny l chloride , with infrare d spectrophotometry , flame io n detection , o r a n alternativ e method

. * * * * * * * * 5

. Sectio n 61.242- 2 o

f subpar t V i s amende db y revisin g paragrap h (d) introductory text , (d)(5 ) an d(d)(6 ) an d b y addin g paragraph s (d)(4 ) (i) , (ii ) an d (iii ) t o rea da s follows : § 31.242- 2 Standards : Pumps

. (d) Eac h pum p equippe dwith adual mechanica l sea l syste mtha t include s a barrie r fluidsyste mi s exemp t

fro mth e requirement s o

f paragraph s (a) an d(b ) o f thi s section , provide dth e followin g requirement s ar e met : (4 ) * * * (i ) I f ther e ar e indication s o

f liqui d drippin g fro

mth e pum

p sea l a t th e time o f th e weekl y inspection , th e pum p shal l b e monitore da s specifie di n § 61.245 t o determin e th e presenc e o

f VO C an d VHA P i n th e barrie r

fluid

. (ii ) I f th e monito r

readin g (takin g int o accoun t an y backgroun dreadings ) indicate s th e presenc e o

f VHAP , alea

k i s detected

. For

th e purpos e o

f thi s paragraph , th e monito r

ma y b e calibrate dwith VHAP , o r ma y emplo y a ga s chromatograph y colum n t o limi t th e respons e o

f th e monito r

t o VHAP , a t

th e optio n o f th e owne r

o r operator

. (iii ) I f a n instrumen t

readin g o f 10,00 0 pp mo r greate r (tota l VOC ) i s measured , alea k i s detected

. (5 ) Eac h senso r

a s describe di n paragrap h (d)(3 ) o

f thi s sectio n i s checke ddail y o r

i s equippe dwit

h a n audibl e alarm

. (6)(i) Th e owne r

o r operato r determines , base do n desig n consideration s an doperatin g experience , criteri aapplicabl e t o th e presenc e an dfrequenc y o f drip s an dt o th e senso r

tha t indicate s failure o

f th e sea l system , th e barrie r

flui dsystem , o r both

. (ii ) I f indication s o

f liquid s drippin g fro mth e pum

p sea l excee dth e criteri a establishe di n paragrap h (d)(6)(i ) o f thi s section , o r

if , base do n th e criteri a establishe di n paragrap h (d)(6)(i ) o f thi s section , th e senso r

indicate s failure o

f th e sea l system , th e barrie r flui dsystem , o r both , aleak

i s detected

. (iii ) Whe n aleak

i s detected , i t

shal l b e repaire da s soo n a s practicable , bu t no t late r tha n 1 5 calenda r

day s after

i t i s detected , excep t

a s provide di n § 61.242

- 10

. • (iv ) A firs t

attemp t a t repai r shal l b e mad e n o late r

tha n five calenda r

day s after eac h leak

i s detected

. * * * * * [F RDoc . 89-2218 7 File d 9 -20-89 ; 8:45 am ) BILUN G COD E 6530-5<K. l