OAR Box 1107 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

27) VII-A-1 

Docket Number: 

A-81-21 

Printed 4/11/2008 3:03:46 PM Sheet 27 of 90 

P.1 
P.2 

/?-*/-£/ 

jnz-4-/ 

Thursday 

September 21, 1989 

Part III 

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 
38038 Federal Register /VoL -54. No. 1B2. 7 Thursday, September 21. 1989 / Proposed Rules 

P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 61 

[AD-FRL-350S-9] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to 

Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of 

Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants 

AGENCY: Environmental-Erotection 

Agency (EPA). ' / •T~"": , 

ACTION: Proposed rule and public if r -

hearing; petition .for reconsideration* f," 

SUMMARY: On November 28,1988, 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 

30,1988,51 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 ie visions 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-heur period;" the 

scope of the relief vafemdwdMSj-p 

provisions; and the leak detection and 

elimination pvatriakns (esn 

monitoring]'. TheEftMas evaluated the 

petitions, and the Administrator 

proposes to grant the petitioners' 

request for clarification of certain of 

these provision. Minor revasmas an 

being proposed te conect ambiguities in 

several definitions and in the 

applicability of certain iegulator-r 

requirements in the VC standards. Tha 

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 

1988 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 nearing will be held-te 

provide mtecestad 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 2ft 

1989. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by October 11,1989, a puttie 

hearing will be held on October 16, MBft 

beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons 

interested in attending the heating 

should call Ann Eleanor at (918) 543-

5578 to verify that a hearing wiHoebeUL 

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons 

wishing to present oral testimSay: must /, 

contact EPA by October tl, 196$ -

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments 

should be submitted in dnplicategf •• 

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 heid 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. AnnHeanor, Standards 

Development Branch (MD-13), US. 

EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 

27711, telephone (919) 541-5578, 

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

containing information considered by 

EPA ia the development of the 

promulgated standards and the petition 

for stay aad reconsideration, to which 

this notice is responding, is available for 

public inspection between 8:00 ajn. and 

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

EPA's Central Docket Section, South 

Conference Center, Room 4,401M 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20400. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTMCR 

For further information and 

interpretations of applicability, 

compliance requirements, and reporfiag 

aspects of the revised standards, contact 

the appropriate Regional, State, or local 

office contact as listed in 40 CFK 60.4. 

For further information on the 

background for the proposed revised 

standards, contact Ms. Shirley Ifebtefc 

Standards Development Branch* 

Emission Standards Division (MD-33), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 

27711. telephone (919) 541-5256. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: . 

L Background 

In December 1975, EPA designated VC 

as a hazardous air pollutant under 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 

liS.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 

ie a combination of emission limits, 

equipment, and work practice 

requirements at numerous points in the 

manafacturing processes. 

On September 30,1986 (51 FR 34904), 

SPA promulgated several administrative 

end clarifying revisions to the national 

emission standard for VC. Subsequently, 

en November 26,1988, SPI filed with 

EPA a petition for stay and 

administrative reconsideration of seven 

previsions in the final revisions to the 

*WC standard. The SPI, Dow Chemical 

Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, 

and Vista Chemical Company 

concurrently filed a petition for review 

ef 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 

plagtirji or plastic products, suppliers of 

ww 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. 

D. 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 1988 VC revisions 

pending EPA's review of the revisions. 

Having considered the likelihood of 

SPFsaaccess on the merits of its petition 

far-reconsideration, the likelihood that 

SPI would be irreparably harmed absent 

a stay, the prospect that others would be 
P.4 

Federal Register /Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Roles 38939 

harmed in the event of a stay, and the 

public interest, the Admimstrator 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 die context of State 

Implementation Plans. See Tram v. 

NRDC. 421 U.S. 60,92 (1973) ("This 

litigation; however, is carried out on the 

polluter's time not the public's, for 

during [die 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 die petition for review of the 

revised standard, SPI claimed diat the 

1986 promulgated revisions differed 

significantly from the revisions that 

were proposed on January 9,1985 (50 FR 

1182). H y •"•• :\ 

The SPI asserted tiiat without 

adequate notice, EPA's 1988 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 in the VC standard. 

According to SPI, die 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 diat 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 die 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 eidier 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 Uie VC standard applied. Upon 

reconsideration, EPA agrees with SPI's 

concern diat 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 

die definition by adding two sentences 

which clarify that a leak is not an 

exhaust gas, and diat equipment 

containing exhaust gas must comply 

with 5 61.65(b)(8) requiring leak 

detection and prevention, whether or 

not that equipment contains 10 percent 

by volume VC. This proposed addition 

assures diat 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 die 1986 final definition of "relief 

valve discharge," 40 CFR 81.61(y), which 

stated Uiat a relief valve discharge 

would be exempt from regulation if 

vented to a control device, but only if 

the control device meets die 10 ppm 

emission limit. The SPI pointed out diat 

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 diat pressure relief valves work 

as designed, regardless of die standard 

promulgated. Moreover, die final 

definition contradicts past regulatory 

interpretation diat relief valve 

discharges ducted to flares and odier 

control devices are exempt from die 

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 diat RVD's 

are minimized, die net RVD emission 

reduction resulting from die use of 

combustion devices should approach 98 

percent or more. Therefore, minor 

revisions to the definition of "relief 

valve discharge" and to die RVD 

provisions (9 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 of die 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 diat is 

continually operating while emissions 

from the release are present at the 

device. An RVD that is ducted to a 

control device, odier than a flare, would 

be subject to die 10 ppm limit and die 

continuous emission monitoring system 

requirement contained in $ 61.68 

and to die reporting requirements of 

S 61.70. In the case of flares, emission 

monitoring is not possible. Therefore, for 

RVD's routed to a flare, die design 

requirements for flares (40 CFR 60.181 

would apply. The EPA recognizes that 

measurement of relief valve discharge 

volumetric flow rates and gas stream 

composition is not possible using die 

mediods set forth in § 60.18 (fR3) and 

(f)(4). Estimates of diese 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 S3 60.18(d) and 

60.18(f)(2). For die purpose of 5 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)(8). If more 

than one relief valve is discharged 

simultaneously to a single flare, these 

calculations would account for die 

cumulative effect on all such RVD's. If 

the results of the monitoring contained 

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

show diat the pilot flame is not present 

100 percent of the time during which an 

RVD is routed to a flare, die RVD is 

subject to the provisions of § 81.65(a). A 

report describing die flare design must 

be provided to die Administrator not 

later dian 90 days after die adoption of 

this provision or within 30 days of die 

installation of a flare system for control 

of RVD's, whichever is later. 

Definition of a "Leak" 

Hie SPI objected to EPA's defining 

"indications of liquid dripping" as a 

"leak," 40 CFR 81.61(w). The SPI 
P.5 

3.8940 Federal Hegjater / Vol 54, No, 162 I Thursday, September a . iStd / ftnpaaed Roles 

requested diat the phrase be deleted ar 

revised to refer to VC since dripping 

liquids may not always contain VC 

In the VC standard, the portion of the 

leak defliiitkmrefemng to "Indications 

of liquid dripping" applies only to pumps 

in VC sendee. The EPA believes that 

"indications of liquid dripping*' are an 

appropriate criterion for requiring repair 

actions an doable mechanical seal 

pumps in VC service and, therefore, 

should be included in the definition of a 

leak. As stated in the BID for the 1986 

pronndgated revisions, visible leakage 

from all types of pump seals, including 

double mechanical seals required by the 

VC standard, is generally indicative of 

seal wear even yfrio VC is present tn the 

leaking fluid. To prevent farther seel 

wear reealSng In major seel failure 

allowing VC emissions into the 

atmosphere, die seals should be 

repaired seen after leakage i» rarSaBy 

detected. After farther consideration of 

SPI's concern, however, EPA that 

some amount of barrier fluid leakage is 

normal. Tberesora, EPA 

cense the standards for 

(|61.2e-2(d))t8ctarir>rtie 

requBesaeata for pump seal drips. 

Section 6L2«S-2fd)(4} addresses dripe 

from pump seals that contam VC, and 

S 6-LatM*<*M«) addresses drips from 

pump-seals that de not contain VC 

The proposed revised provisions of 

§ 61.ai8-2(d) ate designed toacconpfish 

two purposes. One is to ensure thai VC 

leaks from pomp seals are detected a~ad 

eliminated. This is aooonpiished by 

paragraphs [dm (Q. m. •«* mi The 

other purpose is to identify aad present 

pump seal failures by causing abnonnal 

dripping (even ween VC is not 

contained in the dripping hqoid) to be 

detected and repairs to be made. This is 

aecnatplisbcd by paragraphs (dM«i (*). 

(ii). (iii). aad (iv). These paragraphs 

require the facility owner/operator to 

establish criteria aasociated widi normat 

operation. 

The intent of the proposed revised 

provisions is identical to the existing 

provisions. The difference is that the 

proposed S 61.24£2(dM6)ti) afiows aa 

owner/operator to take mtoacoouat tha 

small number of liquid drip* that nay 

occur when new seals areia place or 

an otherwise assodated wtib normal 

operation. 

Definition ojf "3-hour Period" 

The SPI noted diat, in the September 

1986 final title. EPA added a definition 

of "3-hour period" 40 CFR 61.61 (4. to 

clarify that the emission limits in the 

exhaust gas standard (tO ppnr) 1* a Shour average. The definition creates 

^'rolling** averages (24 3-hew averages . 

per day} rather than "block" avaiages (6-

3-heur average*}. The SPI objected that 

a single, 1-hour 10 ppm exceedance 

could result ia three violations of the W 

ppm exhaust gas standard, under the 

revised deEnttka of "3-hour period." 

This could iead to denhie or triple 

penalties, "thereby exceeding the 

maximun penalty permissible under the 

Clean Air AcL" 

Upon reconsideration, EPA proposes 

to further revise the definition of "3-hour 

period" to ensure that a single event of 

1-hour or less at 10 ppm or greater could, 

result in no more than a single violation 

of the exhaust gas standard. A phrase 

has been added to the definition ia 

61.61(z) to accomplish diis. The 

EPA did not intend to penalize a plant 

three times whenever a 10 ppm event 

occurs within 1 hone Rather, EPA 

wanted to ensure that a combination of 

two or more 10 ppm events which would 

result in a 3-hour exceedance do not go 

unpenalized j.ust because they occuned 

over two separate 3-hour "blocks." The 

proposed revised definition of "3-hour 

period" satisfies EPA's intent without 

unintentionally subjecting a plant 

owner/operator to multiple viola-tuna. 

Definition of "Ethylene Dichloride 

Purification" 

According to SPI the 1S86 final 

revisions changed the definition of EDC 

purification. 40 CFR 61_61|o). The 

promulgated definition exchided product 

storage following the final VC finishing 

column, and tiuis exempted such storage 

from the exhaust gas standard. The SPI 

believes that EPA intended to exclude 

not only EDC final product storage but 

also intermediate product storage 

(before the final finishing cohann) based 

on EPA's response to comments 

contained in the BEO (pp. 2-43 and 2-44) 

and in the BID summary of changes 

since proposal (pp. 1-2). Although it 

supports the exemption of final EDC 

product stnsage from the definition, SPI 

requested that EPA also exempt 

intermediate EDC product storage. In 

addition, one SPI company, a major 

producer of VC monomer and PVC 

polymer, provided information on nine 

crude and intermediate storage tanks at 

one of Ms facilities. The information 

included tank sizes, design, emissions 

estimates, and casta. This company 

requested EPA to exclude intermediate 

and crude, as well as final EDC storage 

tanks, from the definition. 

The EPA agrees that it intended to 

exempt crude and intermediate storage 

tanks from the exhaust gas standard. 

Tha definition of "EDC purification" has . 

been revised to clarify that enrisaiona 

from crude, intermediate, and final 

slesage tanks following EDC formatkM: 

are not subject to the standard*, in 

addition. I &LB5{bffl, Opening of 

equipment; has also been revised to 

clarify that the requirements in this 

section do not apply to erode, 

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 die 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 redaction as high as 14 

Mg/yr from all plants would he 

achieved based on venting existing EDC 

storage tanks to an existing pi ninny 

control device (incinerators). Prior to the 

September 1986 rule, EPA coneroded 

that regulation of these tenks wider the 

VC standard was not warranted 

In response to SPTs petition for 

reconsideration, EPA has evaluated the 

data submitted by one SPI company 

(Docket Entry Na Vl-B-4) for nine 

crude and intermediate EDC storage 

tanks before the final finishing column 

at one of its facilities. These tanks are 

currently uncontrolled. The dataL 

included tank sizes, design, emissions 

estimates, and costs. The company's 

estimates of the total uncontrolled 

emissions [0.002 to 0.323 Mg/yr VQ 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 ESmination 

Under the 1876 VC standard. 40 CFR 

61.65(b)(6), companies installed area 

monitors and developed plant-specific 

leak detection and elimination programs 

that included die routine use of portable 

. monitors. Subsequently, EPA developed 

a generic leak detection and elimination 

program (subpart V, 40 CFR 61.240— 

61.247) based on equipment and data for 

the organic chemical and petrohnun 

industries. Tne 1966 revisions 

. incorporated the subpart V provisions 

into die VC standard, li e SH opposes 

the addition of die subpart V provisions 

to the VC standard. The SPI argued diat 

existing programs are effective without 

tiie subpart V provisions and diat EPA's 

decision to retain area monitoring 

requirements bom the 1878 standard is 

questionable since they have not been 

required far other indashies subject te 

subpart V. Ja addition, aconrdinyto SPI 

n» justification has been given for 
P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 38941 

requiring retention of area monitors in 

addition to subpart V. Although a 

program under 161.65(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 

(S 61.65(b)(8)(i)). The basis far adding 

subpart V to the VC standard waa 

explained in detail in the preamble to 

die 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 die 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 § 81.65(b)(6) 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 dian 2.0 percent of valves are 

leaking in any process unit, then that 

process unit is exempt from 99 61.242-

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

81.248 (recordkeeping), and 61.247 

(reporting). To demonstrate that less 

than 2J0 percent of valves are leaking, 

the owner/operator must conduct a 

performance test initially, annually, and 

at any other times requested by die 

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 96 days. This 

exemption only applies to the standards 

for valves (8 81.242-7{a)(b){c)) because 

the other standards in subpart V 

interface with specific equipment 

requirements/performance measures in 

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

valves, § 81.85(b)(4) and rotating pumps, 

§ 81.65(b)(3)(i)). However, this 

exemption includes all of the 

recordkeeping and reporting, 

requirements of 99 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 witftdrawal 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 Uie 1976 

standard, 40 CFR 61.65(a). The SPI 

claimed that die 1976 standard 

"impermissibly delegates rulemaking 

authority to enforcement personnel and 

is unconstitutionally vague and diat, as 

applied, die regulation is unfair, 

unlawful, arbitrary and capricious." The 

SPI prefers the proposed numerical 

limits because they would remedy these 

problems and reduce die administrative 

burden on EPA and industry. The SPI 

also believes that-ihe 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 die basis for 

the decision not to promulgate 

numerical limits for RVD's and has 

decided diat 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 die preamble for 

the promulgated amendments (51 FR 

34905-34906, September 30,1986), and 

SPI has not provided any new 

information Uiat would affect EPA's 

decision. In summary, die decision to 

retain the original 1976 RVD standard 

was made after considering die 

revisions in light of public comments on 

die 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 die 

revised standard and that the 

performance allowed under die revised 

standard could be inconsistent widi that 

allowed under die original standard. 

Odier comments expressed concern Uiat 

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 die 

burden on its resources had diminished 

as experience with die implementation 

of the standard increased and as the 

industry's understanding of die 

provisions of the existing standard 

became clearer. Thus, it was not 

necessary to revise die format of the 

RVD standard. Compared to die 1985 

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 die 

existing standard. 

Based on die EPA's experience with 

administering die VC standard of 

9 61.65(a), one major deficiency with the 

type of information submitted in many 

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

recognized, This concerns that 

information required to be reported by 

die standard regarding, "die action that 

was taken to prevent the discharge." For 

purposes of clarification, diis portion of 

the standard requires information on the 

action taken to prevent or address die 

cause leading up to die RVD release and 

not only die action taken after an event 

or cause occurs that results in an RVD 

release. 

Emission Monitoring Clarification 

In addition to die changes made in 

response to the petition for 

reconsideration, a minor clarification 

has been made in 9 61.68, Emission 

monitoring. The existing regulation, 

9 61.68(b), states that die VC monitoring 

system(s) diat is used to meet the 

continuous monitoring requirements In 

paragraph (a) (of 9 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 

9 61.68 calls for the monitoring of the 

emissions from prescribed sources for 

vinyl chloride and not ambient air 

sampHng as required under 9.61.85(b)(8) 

for leak detection/elimination, 9 61.68(b) 
38942 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

P.7 

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 

UL Administrative Requirements 

A. Public Hearing 

A public hearing will be held, if 

requested, to discuss die proposed 

rulemaking in accordance widi section 

307(d)(5) of die Clean Air Act Persons 

wishing to make oral presentations 

should contact EPA at the address given 

in die ADDRESSES section of diis 

preamble. Oral presentations will be 

limited to 15 minutes each. Any member 

of the public may file a written 

statement with EPA before, during, or 

within 30 days after the hearing. Written 

statements should be addressed to die 

Central Docket Section address given in 

the ADDRESSES 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 

ADDRESSES section of diis preamble). 

B. Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

submitted to or otherwise considered in 

the development of this proposed 

rulemaking. The principal purposes of 

the docket are: (1) To allow interested 

parties to identify readily and locate 

documents so diat they can effectively 

participate in the rulemaking process; 

and (2) to serve as the record in case of 

judicial review, except for interagency 

review materials (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 whetiier a regulatory action 

is "major" and. dierefore, subject to die 

requirement of a regulatory impact 

analysis. This proposed rulemaking is 

not major because it makes minor 

clarifying revisions to an existing 

regulation and, dierefore, results in none 

of the significant adverse economic 

effects described in die Order. 

This rulemaking was submitted to die 

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 diose comments are 

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

docket is available for public inspection 

at EPA's Central Docket Section Uiat is 

listed under die ADDRESSES section of 

diis notice. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires the identification of potentially 

adverse impacts of Federal regulations 

upon small business entities. The Act 

specifically requires the completion of a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those, 

instances where small business impacts 

are possible. Because these proposed 

minor revisions impose no adverse 

economic impacts, a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis'has not been 

conducted. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C 

605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 

Air pollution control, Asbestos, 

Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous 

materials. Mercury, Vinyl chloride. 

Dated: September 12,1989. 

William K. Reilly, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, it is proposed to amend 40 

CFR part 61 as follows: 

PART 61-{ AMENDED] 

1. The audiority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections fti. 112,114, lie, 301, 

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

7412,7414.741S, 7601. 

2. Section 61.61 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (o), (w), (x), (y), and 

(z) to read as follows: 

961.61 Oeflnltiona, 

(0) Ethylene dichloride purification 

includes any part of die process of 

ethylene dichloride purification 

following ethylene dichloride formation, 

but excludes crude, intermediate, and 

final ethylene dichloride storage tanks. 

(w) Leak means any of several events 

that indicate interruption of confinement 

of vinyl chloride within process 

equipment Leaks include events 

regulated under subpart V of diis part 

such as: 

(1) An instrument reading of 10,000 

ppm or greater measured according to 

Mediod 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60); 

(2) A sensor detection of failure of a 

seal system, failure of a barrier fluid 

system, or both: 

(3) Detectable emissions as indicated 

by an instrument reading of greater dian 

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 die case of pump seals regulated 

under 9 61.242-2. indications of liquid 

dripping constituting aleak under 

9 61.242-2. 

Leaks also include events regulated 

under 9 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 (die 

constituents of which may consist of any 

fluids, eidier as a liquid and/or gas) 

discharged directiy or ultimately to the 

atmosphere that was initially contained 

in or was in direct contact with the 

equipment for which exhaust gas limits 

are prescribed in 9 61.62 (a) and (b); 

9 61.63(a): 9 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c), and (d): 

9 61.65 (b)(l)(iij, (b)(2). (b)(3). (b)(5>. 

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

9 61.65(d). A leak as defined in 

paragraph (w) of diis section is not an . 

exhaust gas. Equipment which contains 

exhaust gas is subject to 9 61.65(b)(8). . 

whether or not that equipment contains 

10 percent hy volume vinyl chloride. 

(yj 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 die hour), provided diat 

the number of 3-hour periods during 

which die vinyl chloride concentration 

exceeds 10 ppm does not exceed die 

number of 1-hour periods during which 

the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 

10 ppm. 

3. Section 61.65 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) arid (b)(8) 

introductory text, and adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

9 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene 

dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl 

chloride plants. 

(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for 

an emergency relief discharge, and 

except as provided in 9 61.65(d), diere ir 

to be no discharge to die 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 die 

discharge. Within 10 days of any relief 

valve discharge, except for those subject 

to 9 61.85(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.8 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 182 / Thursday. September 21. 1989 / Proposed Rules 38943 

containing information on the source, 

nature and cause of the discharge, the 

date and time of die discharge, die 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss 

during die discharge, die mediod used 

for determining die vinyl chloride loss 

(die calculation of the vinyl chloride 

loss), die action diat was taken to 

prevent die 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 die atmosphere 

after each loading or unloading 

operation) are to be minimized as 

follows: 

(d) A RVD that is ducted to a control 

device diat is continually operating 

while emissions from the release are 

present at die device is subject to die 

following requirements: 

(1) A discharge from a control device 

odier tiian a flare shall not exceed 10 

ppm (average over a 3-hour period] as 

determined by die continuous emission 

monitor system required under 9 61.68. 

Such a discharge is subject to die 

requirements of 9 61.70. 

(2) For a discharge routed to a flare, 

the flare shall comply with die 

requirements of 9 60.18. 

(i) Flare operations shall be monitored 

in accordance with die requirements of 

99 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the 

purposes of 9 60.18(d), die volume and 

component concentration of each relief 

valve discharge shall be estimated and 

calculations shall be made to verify 

ongoing compliance with die design and 

operating requirements of 99 60.18 (c)(3) 

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

valve is discharged simultaneously to a 

single flare, diese calculations shall 

account for die 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 

die requirements of diis paragraph will 

be a violation of 9 61.85(d)(2). 

Monitoring for die presence of a flare 

pilot flame shall be conducted in 

accordance with 9 60.18(f)(2). If the 

results of this monitoring or any other 

information shows diat the pilot flame is 

not present 100 percent of the time 

during which a relief valve discharge is 

routed to die flare, the relief valve 

discharge is subject to die provisions of 

9 81.65(a). 

(ii) A report describing the flare 

design shall be provided to die 

Administrator not later dian 90 days 

after the adoption of this provision or 

within 30 days of die 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 ff a release occurred at die 

instant the polymerization starts): and 

estimated maximum exit velocities 

based upon die 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: 

9 61.68 Emission monttoring. 

(b) The vinyl chloride monitoring 

sy8tem(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 widi 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 mediod. * * * 

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: 

$61,242-2 Standards: Pumps. 

(d) Each pump equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system diat includes a 

barrier fluid system is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of diis section, provided die following 

requirements are met: 

M * * V . 

(1) If there are indications of liquid 

dripping from die pump seal at the time 

of die weekly inspection, die pump shall 

be monitored as specified in § 61.245 to 

determine die presence of VOC and 

VHAP in the barrier fluid. 

(ii) If die monitor reading (taking into 

account any background readings) 

indicates die presence of VHAP, a leak 

is detected. For die purpose of this 

paragraph, the momtor 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 die 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 diis 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 

die sensor that indicates failure of die 

seal system, the barrier fluid system, or 

both. 

(ii) If indications of liquids dripping 

from die pump seal exceed die criteria 

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

section, or. if, based on die criteria 

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

section; die sensor indicates failure of 

the seal system, die barrier fluid system, 

or bodi, a leak is detected. 

(iii) When a leak is detected, it shall 

be repaired as soon as practicable, but 

not later dian 15 calendar days after it is 

detected, except as provided in 9 61.242-

10. 

(iv) A first attempt at repair shall be 

made no later dian five calendar days 

after each leak is detected 

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

smiae coos nm so u