P.10 

I —ui« , • 

u3r%\ 

Thursday 

September 21, 1989 

(«•-) (WM.) A»Q») 

Part IH 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 61 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to 

Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of 

Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants; 

Proposed Rule 

•=? es 

B 
P.9 

Federal. Register,/. Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21* 1989 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY • 

40 CFR Part 81 

[AD-FRL-350S-8] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Ale Pollutants; Revisions to 

Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks ol 

Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and public 

hearing; petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: On November 26,1986, the 

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. 

(SPI) filed with EPA a petition for stay 

of enforcement and administrative 

reconsideration of seven provisions in 

the final' rule revising the national 

emission standard for VC (September 

30,1986, 51 FR 34904). The SPI and three 

manufacturers (Dow Chemical 

Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, 

and Vista Chemical Company) 

concurrently filed a petition for review 

of the revisions to the VC standard" with 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. The petitioners 

requested review of the definitions of 

"ethylene dichloride purification," 

"leak," "exhaust gas," "relief valve 

discharge," and "3-honr period;" the 

scope of the relief valve discharge 

provisions; and the leak detection and 

elimination provisions (area 

monitoring). The EPA has evaluated the 

petitions, and the Administrator 

proposes to grant the petitioners' 

request for clarification of certain of 

these provisions. Minor revisions are 

being proposed to correct ambiguities in 

several definitions and in the 

applicability of certain regulatory 

requirements in the VC standards. The 

proposed revisions'would not increase 

the emissions (and the associated health 

risks) allowed by the standards as 

promulgated in September 1986. No 

changes, however, will be made with 

regard to area monitoring requirements 

or the relief valve discharge standard. 

This action provides EPA's responses to 

petitioners' requests, and the resulting 

minor proposed revisions to the 

standards are set forth in this notice. 

This action also serves as notice that 

the petitioners' request for stay of the 

1986 revised provisions is being denied. 

In addition, this notice is not intended 

to address the recent decision by the 

D.C. Circuit Court on the VC standards. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1148 (1987). Any 

response to that decision will be made . 

in a future notice in the Federal Register. 

A public hearing will be held to •. 

provide interested parties an 

opportunity for oral presentations of 

data, views, or arguments concerning 

the proposed revisions. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before November 20, 

1989. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by October 11,1989, a public 

hearing will be held on October: 18,1889. 

beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons 

interested in attending the hearing 

should call Ann Eleanor at (919) 541-

5578 to verify that a hearing win be held. 

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons 

wishing to present oral testimony must: 

contact EPA by October 11,1989. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments 

should be submitted in duplicate (if 

possible) to: Central Docket Section 

(LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-81-

21, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington.. 

DC 20460. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting a public hearing, it will 

be held at EPA's Office of 

Administration Auditorium, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons 

interested in attending the hearing or 

wishing to present oral testimony should 

notify Ms. Ann Eleanor, Standards 

Development Branch (MD-13), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone (919) 541-5578. 

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

containing information considered by 

EPA ire the development of the 

promulgated standards and the petition 

for stay end reconsideration, to which 

this notice is responding, is available foe 

public inspection between 8:00 ajn. and 

3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, al 

EPA's Central Docket Section, Saath 

Conference Center, Room 4,401M 

Street SW., Washington, DC 204S& A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION e©NT£.STS 

For further information and 

interpretations of applicability, 

compliance requirements, and reporting 

aspects of the revised standards, contact 

the appropriate Regional, State, or local 

office contact as listed in 40 CFR 60.4. 

For further information on the 

background for the proposed revised 

standards, contact Ms. Shirley Table?, 

Standards Development Branch. 

Emission Standards Division (MH-I31. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone (919) 541-5256. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:. • 

I. Background 

In December 1975, EPA designated VC 

as a hazardous air pollutant under 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7412) and promulgated final rules 

for VC on October 21,1976 (40 CFR 

61.60-61.71). The standards limit 

emissions of VC from plants producing 

ethylene dichloride (EDC) via 

oxychlorination, VC, and polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) or other polymers 

containing VC. These plants are subject 

to a combination of emission limits, 

equipment, and work practice 

requirements at numerous points in the 

manufacturing processes. 

On September 30,1986 (51 FR 34904), 

EPA promulgated several administrative 

and clarifying revisions to the national 

emission standard for VC. Subsequently, 

on November 26,1986, SPI filed with 

EPA a petition for stay and 

administrative reconsideration of seven 

provisions in the final revisions to the 

VC standard. The SPI, Dow Chemical 

Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, 

and Vista Chemical Company 

concurrently filed a petition for review 

of several provisions of the revised 

standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit. The SPI is a 

nonprofit corporation whose members 

include processors and manufacturers of. 

plastics or plastic products, suppliers of 

raw materials, processors and 

converters of plastic resins, and 

manufacturers of accessory equipment 

for the plastics industry. The Vinyl 

Institute, a division of SPI, represents 

the major domestic producers of VC and 

PVC. 

H. Summary of SPI's Petition for Stay/ 

Reconsideration and EPA's Response 

The SPI requested that EPA issue a 

stay of the 1986 revisions to the VC 

standard pending review of those 

revised provisions. Their request for a 

stay was based on the following factors: 

(1) Certain provisions of the 1985 

proposal were changed without 

adequate notice or justification by EPA; 

(2) industry members represented by SPI 

would suffer irreparable harm if the 

effectiveness of the 1986 revisions are 

not stayed during the review period; and 

(3) a stay will cause no harm to other 

parties or the public interest. 

The EPA has considered the factors 

presented by SPI in support of their 

request for stay of the 1986 VC revisions 

pending EPA's review of the revisions. 

Having considered the likelihood of 

SPI'D success on the merits of its petition 

fo? reconsideration, the likelihood that 

SPI would be irreparably harmed absent 

a stay, the prospect that others would be-
P.11 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Prbposed ftules 

ME*«^— : i *—. rs— II III I I ••• I •mill) •! II 'IIII 'III I " • u .—: ! r. -T— « 1 «, 

harmed in the event of a stay, and the 

public interest, the Administrator has 

not stayed the 1986 revisions of the VC 

standard at issue here. This is consistent 

with long-standing EPA policy to 

continue to enforce an existing 

regulation until and unless a revision 

becomes formally effective. The EPA's 

policy has been consistently approved 

by the courts in the context of State 

Implementation Plans. See Train v. 

NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 92 (1975) ("This 

litigation, however, is carried out on the 

polluter's time not the public's, for 

during [the pendency of a SIP revision] 

the original regulations remain in effect, 

and the polluter's failure to comply may 

subject him.to a variety of enforcement 

procedures.") The rationale in Train 

applies with equal force to regulations 

promulgated under section 112. 

Therefore, EPA hereby denies SPI's 

, request for a stay pending EPA's 

reconsideration of the VC standard. 

In the petition for review of the 

revised standard, SPI claimed that the 

1986 promulgated revisions differed 

significantly from the revisions that 

were proposed on January 9,1985 (50 FR 

1182). 

The SPI asserted that without 

adequate notice, EPA's 1986 revisions 

changed key provisions of the VC 

standard in a manner that: (1) Violated 

case law; (2) imposed new penalties; (3) 

created multiple penalties for the same 

event; and (4) expanded the types of 

equipment subject to the standard. The 

following discussion summarizes their 

concerns and EPA's responses. 

Definition of "Exhaust Gas" 

The SPI requested a review of several 

definitions iri the VC standard. 

According to SPI, the 1986 final 

definition of "exhaust gas," 40 CFR 

61.61(x), deleted a key sentence from the 

proposed definition without adequate 

explanation. By omitting the sentence, 

"A leak * * * is not an exhaust gas," SPI 

was concerned that leak emissions 

could result in violations of the exhaust 

gas standard if more than 10 ppm of VC 

are emitted. Reconsideration was 

requested because leaks from equipment 

in VC service would exceed the 10 ppm 

emission limitation for exhaust gases, 

thereby subjecting industries to a 

potential fine of $25,000 per day for each 

leak. 

It was not EPA's intent to categorize 

every leak of greater than 10 ppm as an 

exhaust gas. The sentence was omitted 

in the final definition because some 

emissions which are required to be 

vented to a control device cannot be 

automatically categorized as either a 

leak or exhaust gas by a general 

definition. As stated in the promulgation 

BID for the revised standards (pp. 2-54 

and 2-55), the facts of the situation 

resulting in these emissions needed to 

be considered when deciding which part 

of the VC standard applied. Upon 

reconsideration, EPA agrees with SPI's 

concern that the final definition of . 

"exhaust gas" does not provide for 

exemption from the exhaust gas 

standard (10 ppm) when such an 

emission is judged to be a leak. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify 

the definition by adding two sentences 

which clarify that a leak is not an 

exhaust gas, and that equipment 

containing exhaust gas must comply 

with § 61.65(b)(8) requiring leak 

detection and prevention, whether or 

not that equipment contains 10 percent 

by volume VC. This proposed addition 

assures that leaks from exhaust gas 

streams are subject to the leak detection 

and elimination requirements, but that 

such leaks will not also be classified as 

"exhaust gas." 

Definition of 'Relief Valve Discharge" 

The SPI objected to a sentence added 

to the 1986 final definition of "relief 

valve discharge," 40 CFR 61.61(y), which 

stated that a relief valve discharge 

would be exempt from regulation if 

vented to a control device, but only if 

the control device meets the 10 ppm 

emission limit. The SPI pointed out that 

a double violation could occur (i.e., of 

the relief valve discharge and exhaust 

gas standards) if a relief valve discharge 

is vented to a control device not meeting 

10 ppm. If interpreted to impose double 

penalties, this provision, in SPI's view, 

would exceed EPA's statutory authority 

and unlawfully increase the maximum 

statutory penalty set by Congress for a 

single event that leads to a violation of a 

NESHAP. The SPI believes that owners/ 

operators of regulated facilities have 

sufficient economic incentive 

(preventing releases of their product) to 

ensure that pressure relief valves work 

as designed, regardless of the standard 

promulgated. Moreover, the final 

definition contradicts past regulatory . 

interpretation that relief valve 

discharges ducted to flares and other 

control devices are exempt from the 

exhaust gas standard. 

The EPA agrees that venting a relief 

valve discharge (RVD) to a combustion 

device achieves significant emission 

reduction benefits. These devices, when 

properly designed and operated, 

generally have efficiencies of 98 percent 

or greater. The use of combustion 

devices are not expected to increase the 

number of RVD's. Thus, because 

regulated facilities do have some 

economic incentive to ensure that RVD's 

are minimized, the net RVD emission 

reduction resulting from the use of 

combustion devices should approach 98 

percent or more. Therefore, minor 

revisions to the definition of "relief 

valve discharge" and to the RVD 

provisions (§ 61.65(a)) are being 

proposed to clarify that an RVD routed 

to a properly designed and operated 

control device would be exempted from 

the provisions of the RVD standard. 

This change would prevent 

misinterpretation ol the regulatory 

requirements and imposition of a double 

penalty. 

In addition, new provisions 

{§ 61.65(d)) have been added for an RVD 

that is ducted to a control device that is 

continually operating while emissions 

from the release are present at the 

device. An RVD that is ducted to a 

control device, other than a flare, would 

be subject to the 10 ppm limit and the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

requirement contained in § 61.68 

and to the reporting requirements of 

§ 61.70. In the case of flares, emission 

monitoring is not possible. Therefore, for 

RVD's routed to a flare, the design 

requirements for flares (40 CFR 60.18) 

would apply. The EPA recognizes that 

measurement of relief valve discharge 

volumetric flow rates and gas stream 

composition is not possible using the 

methods set forth in § 60.18 (f)(3) and 

(f)(4). Estimates of these parameters 

will, therefore, need to be based on 

empirical or other bases, subject to EPA 

approval. Flare operations would be 

monitored in accordance with the 

requirements of § § 60.18(d) and 

60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of § 60.18(d), 

the volume and component 

concentration of each RVD would be 

estimated and calculations would be 

made to verify ongoing compliance with 

the design and operating requirements 

of § 60.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more 

than one relief valve is discharged 

simultaneously to a single flare, these 

calculations would account for the 

cumulative effect on all such RVD's. If 

the results of the monitoring contained 

in § 60.18(f)(2) or any other information 

show that the pilot flame is not present 

100 percent of the time during which an 

RVD is routed to a flare, the RVD is 

subject to the provisions of § 61.65(a). A 

report describing the flare design must 

be provided to the Administrator not 

later than 90 days after the adoption of 

this provision or within 30 days of the 

installation of a flare system for control 

of RVD's, whichever is later. 

Definition of a "Leak" 

The SPI objected to EPA's defining 

"indications of liquid dripping" as a 

"leak," 40 CFR 61.61(w), The SPI 
P.12 

38ME Federal Register / 1 w [.-./• NL. :Q?, / Thirnday. September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

. '^^*ffl»- .*y * 

psnair. 

maxio 

'•=-;' 

requested that the phrase be deleted cr 

revised to refer to VC since dripp'ng 

liquids may not always contain VC 

In the VC standard, the portion of lis ~prr aa'a 

leak definition referring to "indicaabroa reviseo a 

of liquid dripping1* applies only tc y:m.c~ Thb ova". 

in VC service. The EPA believes tiie? 

"indications ofliquid dripping" are e.r> 

appropriate criterion for requiring repair 

actions on double mechanical seal 

pumps in VC service and, therefore, 

should be included in the definition c: a. 

leak. As stated in the BID for the l&f 3 

promulgated revisions, visible Isabels 

from all types of pump seals, including 

double mechanical seals required by lbs 

VC standard, is generally indicative- oi' 

seal wear even if no VC is present i.> Gis 

leaking fluid. To prevent forthe? set'. 

wear resulting in major seal failureallowing VC emissions into the 

atmosphere, the seals should be 

repaired soon after leakage is initially 

detected. After further consider tion oi 

SPI's concern. however, EFA eg.v:co ibai 

some amount of barrier Suid Ie?.bugo b* 

normal. Thsrefcro, EPA proposes to 

revise the standards fc? pomps 

(§ 61.2€2-2(d}) tc derify the 

requirements for pump eesl drips. 

Section Cl£lZ-Z[d)(.S> eddrosooo d-i^o 

from pamp sesk that contain VC, ood 

§ 61.242-Z(d}[3) eddrossres daipo b:eo; 

pump csak thai dc cot certain bbl 

The proposed revised pnrrhb:::? oi 

§ 61.242-2(d] cos dssignod to or.aor;;:'.:b 

two puzpasss. Qoe ia to enrors bbai \.7J 

leaks from pump ceooi aro dataoiad orb 

eliminated. This: io eooaaapibb.-d br 

paragraphs [d)'4> (ij. (!:}. aod 'y.]. Toother purpose ie tc identify aod proa: :". 

pump seel faihraos by ra-:oair.~ obaoa : b 

dripping (even rrhes VC is or.i 

contained in the daippba^ liqo--; to ba 

detectsd aod aepaiao to bo roads, Ti io : 

accomplished by psaaapiipho [yy ':b 

(ii), {iii}. ar-d (iv}. Thoao pEno/ia'-a" " 

require the fearbiiy ormaa/cparaia? i; 

establish criteria associated oath n o " 

operaticn. 

The intent of the proposed rri 

provisions io identical ta tho exiai'~; 

provisions. The differea.ee ia ihoi 'b a 

propoaed § StL242,2{d)[e)(v cbaoa ta 

owner/operator to talcs into oaoaaai tbo 

small number cf liquid dr'ps tbo': roaa 

occur when neva seals are rn pb ro or 

arc otherwise Easociated ivitb noan a" 

operation. 

Definition of "i-hsur Period1 

The SPrnoted that, in tbe S—'o-O'bo' 

1986 final rule. EPA added e definition 

of "3-hour period" 40 CFR Sl.ni>*. ia 

clarify that the emission limtts in tha 

exhaust gas standard (10 ppoi* ic o 3-

hour average. The definition creates 

"rolling" averages £24 3-hoiar averar-^o 

per day) rather than "block" everar;ac b' 

a-hor sra-r;-??: Tho SPI objected that 

o sing]a. t-hoo" IC pom exceedance 

aco'b :

,

y?A">. ir ihros violations of the 10 

.'.si nas standard, under the 

"b.itiao or" "3-hour period.b 

. ia~d ta dr~h'e or triple 

"t" ara'ay exceeding the 

:: aali;/ parraissible under the 

Upon ^aacaaidera'bon, EPA proposes 

io furiba? ravb;e tbo definition of "3-hour 

pena;"" ia eaaire that a single event of 

i-ba?'* ~r ".ane aibo1~ am or greater could 

aasrli i: ra y.o^s iban a single violation 

oi' the srd. aust 2= a standard. A phrase 

has baro addrri to tba definition in. 

31.31[;b to a-r.or.piiaa this. The 

ibFA r'ir r a? intend ta penalize a plant 

tha?"

 ,:raar. o/hanava.' a 10 ppm event 

oca-"- u'bbia. 2 haar. Rather, EPA 

wanted tc sn.sv.ra that a combination of 

iivr. c- ;_n.o?o "0 paT. ovents which would 

aesab b. a S-baoa e^ooedance donot go 

onas •' ioad 'ast bsrr.use they occurred 

over two separate 3-hour "blocks." The 

proponed revised definition of "3-hour 

period cot'ofies Z?A's intent without 

orb-iar iiaoab;- robjooting a plant 

owne; ''aparoior tr. za.oltiple violations-

:: o''Eiy 1 me Dichloride 

. OTT' o'.in;' to by:, tbe 1986 final 

revisi'-oa abaaood t!ra definition of EDC 

puaifar'aor.: bTCFT.CI.8IC0}.The 

pre-' Ipaia' dafb'i'anexcludedproduct 

ntoraf v :';';'ic a.'ia.r baa firal VC finisliing 

orbt—~. t ad tboa o:;3mpt3d such storage 

:>?.r t"! a'c%Eo^t p•;£ standard. The SPI 

oe::a. a' thro E9fi ioiendad to excludeoot ?-[-; bibT feci ^rodoct storage but 

al?a '-'—"^.abi.at" p'odoct storage • 

''csf"r? tbo i'aa.I tia'ahing cahimn) based 

on bi? Va -a'-^aa.: a t; cemmants. 

aor 'a^^.b ir tha Ebb £?• 2.-43 and2-^44) 

ao.b ir' 'ba Fb'J sa.o:: ary of changes 

abaca — oa"-.-." bra. ;.-Zj. Although.it 

a!iopa::a tba 00: r-"ban of final. EDC 

pra:b-.* aia' -.pa '00:a tb.3 dsfinition. SPI 

:.'eq-;"-'a: t'-at T~A also exempt 

into 'a- :rba':a EUT product storage. In-. 

~zy

r

\. E-bi a" aipony, a major 

- - 0" VC - a -omor and PVC 

pc'io •.:-:_•, prrridad; :icrmation on nine 

oaud" : r.r. r'-'ar'o.ab' its storage tankaat 

one o.'•' •".:; b aibi:-a. The information 

i.nciodad tank siaas, dssign, emissions 

astira ':aa rod raata. This company 

.?3qvar.tad ETA

 Ao ooalode intermediate 

and a - -.da aa v<ol: so final EDC storage' 

io-b; .-'.-- tbad-'-btion. 

T.ca bTA apo^a tbat it intended to 

•da and i v'emsdiata storage 

th? c "Vvot gas standard-. 

or. ct b DC purification" has 

rd to a'a.r;?r thai emissions 

acico 

o~ct 

axar" • 

too.st

; 

Pea* 

ire: 

sto:; 

area 

•. o-.odo. bate : diats. and final. 

a/ing EDC formation 

:'ao'; to t'-.a standards; lit 

addition, § 61.65(b)(6), Opening of 

equipment, has also been revised fo 

clarify that the requirements in thio 

section do not apply to crude, 

intermediate, or final EDC storage tanks. 

As stated in the BID response (pp. 2-43 

through 2-45), EPA evaluated the 

reasonableness of regulating EDC 

storage-tanks under the- VC standard. 

Based on emissions data submitted by 

the commenters, uncontrolled VC 

emissions from intermediate and final 

EDC storage tanks at a typical EDC/VC 

plant were estimated to be 0.1 to 2 Mg/ 

yr. An emission reduction as high as 14 

Mg/yr from all plants would be 

achieved based on venting existing EDC 

storage tanks to an existing primary 

control device (incinerators}. Prior to the 

September 1986 rule, EPA concluded 

that regulation of these tanks under the 

VC standard was not warranted. 

In response to SPI's petition for 

reconsideration, EPA has evaluated the 

data submitted by one SPI company 

(Docket Entry No. VI-B-4) for nine 

crude and intermediate EDC storage 

tanks before the final finishing column 

atone of its facilities. These tanks are 

currently uncontrolled. The data 

included tank sizes, design, emissions 

estimates, and costs. The company's 

estimates of the total uncontrolled 

emissions (0.002 to 0.323 Mg/yr VC) for 

the nine crude and intermediate tanks 

fall at the low end of the range of 

individual VC tank emission estimates 

made by EPA for EDC final product 

storage tanks. This information is 

consistent with EPA's position that the 

regulation of crude and intermediate 

storage tanks is unnecessary because 

emissions are extremely low. 

Leak Detection and Elimination 

Under the 1976 VC standard. 40 CFR 

61.65(b)(8). companies installed area 

monitors and developed plant-specific 

leak detection and elimination programs 

that included the routine use of portcbla 

monitors. Subsequently, EPA developed 

a generic leak detection end elimination 

program (subpart. V, 40 CFR 61.240— 

61.247) based on equipment and data for 

the orgamc chemical and petroleum 

industries. Tne 1986 revisions 

incorporated the subpart V provisions 

into the VC standard. The SPI opposes 

the addition of the subpart V provisions 

to the VC standard. The SPI argued that 

existing programs are effective without 

the subpart V provisions and that EPA's 

decision to retain area monitoring 

requirements from the 1976 standard is 

questionable since they have not been 

required for other industries subject to 

subpart V. In addition, according to SPI. 

no justification has been given for 
P.13 

Federal Kegister / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

requiring retention of area monitors in 

addition to subpart V. Although a 

program under § 61.65(b)(8) 

demonstrating less than 2 percent of 

valves leaking is considered "effective," 

such a program is exempt only from 

certain parts of subpart V. For these 

reasons, SPI requests reinstatement of 

the leak detection and elimination 

requirements contained in the 1976 VC 

standard. 

Upon reconsideration, EPA proposes 

to make no changes in the application of 

subpart V to the VC standard and the 

requirements for fixed area monitoring 

(§ 61.65(b)(8j(i)). The basis for adding 

subpart V to the VC standard was 

explained in detail in the preamble to 

the proposed revisions (50 FR 1190-1192, 

January 9,1985), and the justification for 

those requirements has not changed 

since that time. The EPA believes that 

the area monitoring and subpart V 

approaches both have benefits and are 

not redundant. In particular, area 

monitors allow for quick detection of 

certain large VC leaks that might 

otherwise go undetected until the next 

routine portable monitoring screening, 

as well as detection of large leaks from 

equipment not affected by subpart V 

(e.g., agitators). The area monitors have 

already been purchased by subject 

facilities and the additional cost of 

monitor operation is relatively small. 

Therefore, a comparison to other' 

industries is not relevant. Also, area 

monitoring is often used as part of a 

program to reduce leaks to below 2 

percent, and therefore, as discussed 

below, an owner/operator does not 

have to conduct the leak detection and 

repair provisions of subpart V. 

Any plant with an effective existing 

program under § 61.65(b)(8) for detecting 

and repairing leaks can control 

equipment leaks without complying with 

the subpart V provisions. Specifically, if 

an owner/operator can demonstrate 

that less than 2.0 percent of valves are 

leaking in any process unit, then that 

process unit is exempt from § § 61.242-

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

61.246 (recordkeeping), and 61.247 

(reporting). To demonstrate that less 

than 2.0 percent of valves are leaking, 

the owner/operator must conduct a 

performance test initially, annually, and 

at any other times requested by the 

Administrator. If, during any 

performance test, the percentage of 

leaking valves exceeds 2.0 percent, then 

the owner/operator must comply with 

.subpart V within 90 days. This 

exemption only applies to the standards 

for valves (§ 61.242-7{a)(b)(c)) because 

the other standards in subpart V . 

interface with specific equipment 

requirements/performance measures in 

the VC standard (e.g., leaks from relief 

valves, § 61.65(b)(4) and rotating pumps, 

§ 61.65(b)(3)(i)). However, this 

exemption includes all of the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of §§ 61.246 and 61.247 

because these requirements mainly 

affect valves. The exemption for 

marking, recordkeeping, and reporting 

applies to the entire process unit. The 

exemptions (provided in the VC 

standard) to subpart V were designed, 

based on comments made during the 

public comment period, to avoid 

unnecessary changes to existing leak 

detection plans which are effective in 

detecting and repairing VC leaks. 

Scope of Relief Valve Discharge 

Provisions 

The SPI opposes EPA's withdrawal of 

the 1985 proposed numerical limits for 

relief valve discharges and has 

requested that EPA reconsider its 

decision to retain the emergency 

discharge Provision of the 1976 

standard, 40 CFR 61.65(a). The SPI 

claimed that the 1976 standard 

"impermissibly delegates rulemaking 

authority to enforcement personnel and 

is unconstitutionally vague and that, as 

applied, the regulation is unfair, 

unlawful, arbitrary and capricious." The 

SPI prefers the proposed numerical 

limits because they would remedy these 

problems and reduce the administrative 

burden on EPA and industry. The SPI 

also believes that the proposed 

numerical limits are stricter than the 

1976 emergency discharge provision 

because "each discharge causing an 

exceedance of any numerical 

limit * * * would be considered a 

violation without regard to whether any 

individual discharge was preventable." 

The EPA has reviewed the basis for 

the decision not to promulgate 

numerical limits for RVD's and has 

decided that the 1976 standard is still 

reasonable and appropriate. The 1976 

standard permits only "emergency" 

RVD's, those that could not have been 

avoided by taking measures to prevent 

the discharge. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

not promulgating the numerical limits for 

RVD's is contained in the preamble for 

the promulgated amendments (51 FR 

34905-34808, September 30,1986), and 

SPI has not provided any new 

information that would affect EPA's 

decision. In summary, the decision to 

retain the original 1978 RVD standard 

was made after considering the 

revisions in light of public comments on 

the numerical limits, and after review of 

the basis for the decision to reformat the 

standard. 

In particular, several public comments 

on the 1985 proposed amendments 

expressed concern that preventable 

RVD's would be allowed under the 

revised standard and that the 

performance allowed under the revised 

standard could be inconsistent with that 

allowed under the original standard. 

Other comments expressed concern that 

the revised standard included no 

mechanism for regulating very large 

RVD's. The basis for the statement that 

a large EPA resource commitment is 

required for enforcing the 1976 RVD 

standard was also questioned. 

The EPA's review revealed that the 

burden on its resources had diminished 

as experience with the implementation 

of the standard increased and as the 

industry's understanding of the 

provisions of the existing standard 

became clearer. Thus, it was not 

necessary to revise the format of the 

RVD standard. Compared to the 1885 

proposal, the existing standard also has 

the advantages of affecting all 

preventable RVD's and providing better 

regulation of large volume RVD's. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated, EPA's 

review of the record supports the 

existing standard. 

Based on the EPA's experience with 

administering the VC standard of 

§ 61.65(a), one major deficiency with the 

type of information submitted in many 

of the 10-day reports of RVD's has been 

recognized. This concerns that 

information required to be reported by 

the standard regarding, "the action that 

was taken to prevent the discharge." For 

purposes of clarification, this portion of 

the standard requires information on the 

action taken to prevent or address the 

cause leading up to the RVD release and 

not only the action taken after an event 

or cause occurs that results in an RVD 

release. 

Emission Monitoring Clarification 

In addition to the changes made in 

response to the petition for 

reconsideration, a minor clarification 

has been made in § 61.68, Emission 

monitoring. The existing regulation, 

§ 61.68(b), states that the VC monitoring 

system(s) that is used to meet the 

continuous monitoring requirements in 

paragraph (a) (of § 61.68) for emissions 

from sources for which emission limits 

are prescribed is to be a device which 

obtains air samples on a continuous 

sequential basis and analyzes them. 

Since it is obvious that paragraph (a) of 

§ 61.68 calls for the monitoring of the 

emissions from prescribed sources for 

vinyl chloride and not ambient air 

sampling as required under § 81.65(b)(8) 

for leak detection/elimination, § 61.68(b) 
P.14 

has been clarified to require that 

representative {not air) samples from 

one or more applicable emission points 

be obtained and analyzed. This revision 

more accurately reflects the original 

intent. 

nx.'Administrative Ketjuireinorats 

A. Public Hearing 

A public hearing will be held, if 

requested, to discuss the proposed 

rulemaking in accordance with section 

307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act. Persons 

wishing to make oral presentations 

should contact EPA at the address gives 

in the ABSRSSSES section of this 

preamble. Oral presentations will be 

limited to 15 minutes each. Any member 

of the public may file a written 

statement with EPA before, during, OP 

within 30 days after the hearing. Written 

statements should be addressed to the 

Central Docket Section address given to 

the 0©s>R28S2S section of this preamble. 

A verbatim transcript of the hearing 

And written statements will be available 

for public inspection and copying during 

normal working hours at EPA's Central 

Docket Section in Washington, DC (see 

&E»KE§gE§ section of this preamble}. 

3. Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

submitted to or otherwise considered fc 

the development of this proposed 

rulemaking. The principal purposes of 

the docket are: (1) To allow interested 

parties to identify readily end locate 

documents so that they can effectively 

participate in the rulemaking process; 

and (2) to serve as the record in case o£ 

judicial review, except for interagency 

review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)). 

C. Office of Management and Budget 

Reviews 

1. Paperwork Reduction Act. There 

are no information collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rulemaking. 

2. Under Executive Order 12291, EPA 

must judge whether a regulatory action 

is "major" and, therefore, subject to the 

requirement of a regulatory impact 

analysis. This proposed rulemaking is 

not major because it makes minor 

clarifying revisions to an existing 

regulation and, therefore, results in non© 

of the significant adverse economic 

effects described in the Order. 

This rulemaking was submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review as required by 

Executive Order 12291. Any written 

comments from OMB to EPA and any 

EPA response to those comments ere 

included in Docket No. A-81-21. The 

docks! is available for public inspection 

Et EiPA's Centre! Docket Section that is 

Listed under the A3>3GE§s:i§ section of • 

this notice. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires the identification of potentially 

adverse impacts cf Federal regulations 

upon email business entities. The Act 

specifically requires the completion of a 

Regoktoay flexibility Analysis in those 

instances where small business impacts 

ers possible. Because these proposed 

mine? revisions impose EO adverse 

economic impacts, a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis has not been 

conducted. 

Pursuant te the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

(235Cb), I hereby certify that the proposed 

rule will net have a significant economic 

impact on e substantial number of small 

entities. 

UBI ©ff §xb"33?Q m m CM Part 81 

Ms pollution control, Asbestos, 

Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous 

materials, Mercury, Vinyl chloride. 

Deled: September 12, T.889. 

WEiasa K. Is'Zy, 

Administrator. 

l?c? the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, it io proposed to amend 40 

CFR part sr. as "fellows: 

PAbibTe-C-bAbSMPgiQ)] 

1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Auticrby: Sections IC-, "2,114,116,301, 

Clean Air Act ca emended; 02 U.S.C. 7401, 

nc?„ 7<S1«, VQL% 780a. 

2. Section Sii.Ki is amended by 

revising paragraphs [c], [w), (x), (y), and 

[zl to reed as follows: 

g@i:.3? SoC.'r.it's^o. 

<i O O <t o 

[s] Ethylene dichloride purification 

includes any part cf the process of 

ethylene dichloride purification 

following ethylene dichloride formation, 

but excludes crude, intermediate, and 

fine! ethylene dichloride storage tanks. 

<: <i ii a <t 

"yu] Leak means any cf several events 

that indicate interruption of confinement 

of vinyl cblori.de within process 

equipment, beaks include events 

regulated under subpart V of this part 

such as: 

[ll An instrument reading of 10,000 

ppm cr greater measured according to 

Method 2,1 'see appendix A of 40 CFR 

pert 60); 

[2) A senscr detection of failure of a 

seal system, failure of s barrier fluid 

system, or both; 

(3) Detectable emissions as indicated 

by an instrument reading of greater than 

500 ppm above background for 

equipment designated for no detectable 

emissions measured according to Test 

Method 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60); and 

(4) In the case of pump seals regulated 

under § 61.242-2, indications of liquid 

dripping constituting a leak under 

§ 61.242-2. 

Leaks also include events regulated 

under § 61.65(b)(8)(i) for detection of 

ambient concentrations in excess of 

background concentrations. 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 § 61.62 (a) and (b); 

§ 61.63(a); § 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c), and (d); 

§ 61.65 (b)(1)(h), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5), 

(b)(6)(h). (b)(7) and (b)(9)(h); and 

§ 61.65(d). A leak as defined in 

paragraph (w) of this section is not an 

exhaust gas. Equipment which contains 

exhaust gas is subject to § 61.65(b)(8), 

whether or not that equipment contains 

10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. 

(y) Relief Valve Discharge means any 

nonleak discharge through a relief valve. 

(z) 3-hour.period means any three 

consecutive 1-hour periods (each 

commencing on the hour), provided that 

the number of 3-hour periods during 

which the vinyl chloride concentration 

exceeds 10 ppm does not exceed the 

number of 1-hour periods during which 

the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 

10 ppm. 

3. Section 61.65 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(6) 

introductory text, and adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 81.85 Emission standard dor ethylene 

dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl 

chloride plants. 

**** * 

(a) Relief valye discharge. Except for 

an emergency relief discharge, and 

except as provided in § 61.65(d), there is 

to be no discharge to the atmosphere 

from any relief valve on any equipment 

in vinyl chloride service. An emergency 

relief discharge means a discharge 

which could not have been avoided by 

taking measures to prevent the 

discharge. Within 10 days of any relief 

valve discharge, except for those subject 

to § 61.65(d), the owner or operator of 

the source from which the relief valve 

discharge occurs shall submit to the 

Administrator a report in writing 
P.15 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

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) * * * 

(6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from opening of 

equipment (excluding crude, 

intermediate, and final EDC storage 

tanks, but including prepolymerization 

reactors used in the manufacture of bulk 

resins and loading or unloading lines 

that are not opened to the atmosphere 

after each loading or unloading 

operation) are to be minimized as 

follows: 

**** * 

(d) A RVD that is ducted to a control 

device that is continually operating 

while emissions from the release are. 

present at the device is subject to the 

following requirements: 

(1) A discharge from a control device 

other than a flare shall not exceed 10 

ppm (average over a 3-hour period) as 

determined by the continuous emission 

monitor system required under § 61.68. 

Such a discharge is subject to the 

requirements of § 61.70. 

(2) For a discharge routed to a flare, 

the flare shall comply with the 

requirements of § 60.18. 

(i) Flare operations shall be monitored 

in accordance with the requirements of 

§ § 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the ' 

purposes of § 60.18(d), the volume and 

component concentration of each relief 

valve discharge shall be estimated and 

calculations shall be made td verify 

ongoing compliance with the design and 

operating requirements of §§ 60.18 (c)(3) 

through (c)(6). If more man one relief 

valve is discharged simultaneously to a 

single flare, these calculations shall 

account for the cumulative effect of all 

such relief valve discharges. These 

calculations shall be made and reported 

quarterly for all discharges within the 

quarter. Failure to comply with any of 

the requirements of this paragraph will 

be a violation of § 61.65(d)(2). 

Monitoring for the presence of a flare 

pilot flame shall be conducted in 

accordance with § 60.18(f)(2). If the 

results of this monitoring or any other 

information shows that the pilot flame is 

not present 100 percent of the time 

during which a relief valve discharge is 

routed to the flare, the relief valve 

discharge is subject to the provisions of 

§ 61.65(a). 

(ii) A report describing the flare 

design shall be provided to the 

Administrator not later than 90 days 

after the adoption of this provision or 

within 30 days of the installation of a 

flare system for control of relief valve 

discharge whichever is later. The flare 

design report shall include calculations 

based upon expected relief valve 

discharge component concentrations 

and net heating values (for PVC this 

calculation shall be based on values 

expected if a release occurred at the 

instant the polymerization starts); and 

estimated maximum exit velocities 

based upon the design throat capacity of 

the gas in the relief valve. 

4. Section 61.68 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 61.68 Emission monitoring. 

* ft ft ft * 

(b) The vinyl chloride monitoring 

system(s) used to meet the requirement 

in paragraph (a) of this section is to be a 

device which obtains representative 

samples from one or more applicable 

emission points on a continuous 

sequential basis and analyzes the 

samples with gas chromotography or, if 

the owner or operator assumes that all 

hydrocarbons measured are vinyl 

chloride, with infrared 

spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, 

or an alternative method. * * * 

* * * * * 

5. Section 61.242-2 of subpart V is 

amended by revising paragraph (d) 

introductory text, (d)(5) and (d)(6) and 

by adding paragraphs (d)(4) (i), (ii) and 

(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 31.242-2 Standards: Pumps. 

(d) Each pump equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system that includes a 

barrier fluid system is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section, provided the following 

requirements are met: 

(4) * * * 

(i) If there are indications of liquid 

dripping from the pump seal at the time 

of the weekly inspection, the pump shall 

be monitored as specified in § 61.245 to 

determine the presence of VOC and 

VHAP in the barrier fluid. 

(ii) If the monitor reading (taking into 

account any background readings) 

indicates the presence of VHAP, a leak 

is detected. For the purpose of this 

paragraph, the monitor may be 

calibrated with VHAP, or may employ a 

gas chromatography column to limit the 

response of the monitor to VHAP, at the 

option of the owner or operator. 

(iii) If an instrument reading of 10,000 

ppm or greater (total VOC) is measured, 

a leak is detected. 

(5) Each sensor as described in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section is 

checked daily or is equipped with an 

audible alarm. 

(6)(i) The owner or operator 

determines, based on design 

considerations and operating 

experience, criteria applicable to the 

presence and frequency of drips and to 

the sensor that indicates failure of the 

seal system, the barrier fluid system, or 

both. 

(ii) If indications of liquids dripping 

from the pump seal exceed the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this 

section, or if, based on the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this 

section, the sensor indicates failure of 

the seal system, the barrier fluid system, 

or both, a leak is detected. 

(iii) When a leak is detected, it shall 

be repaired as soon as practicable, but 

not later than 15 calendar days after it is 

detected, except as provided in § 61.242-

10. 

• (iv) A first attempt at repair shall be 

made no later than five calendar days 

after each leak is detected. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 89-22187 Filed 9 -20-89; 8:45 am) 

BILUNG CODE 6530-5<K.l