# OAR Box 1107
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 27 ) VII-A- 1

Docket Number: 

# A-81-2 1

Printed 4/11/20083:03:46

PM Sheet 27 of 90 P. 1P. 2 

# /?-*/-£ / 

# jnz-4-/

Thursda y Septembe r 21 , 1989



# Par t II I 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y
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 Leak s of Volatil e Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants ; Propose d Rul e

### 3803 8 Federa l Registe r /Vo L -54
. No . 1B2
. 7 Thursday , Septembe r 21
. 198 9 / Propose d Rule s P. 3

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y
4 0 CF R Par t 6 1 [AD-FRL-350S-9 ]
Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants ; Revision s t o Viny l Chloride ; Equipmen t Leak s o f Volatil e Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s AGENCY : Environmental-Erotectio n Agenc y (EPA)
. ' /

•T~"" : , ACTION : Propose d rul e an d publi c if r- hearing ; petitio n .fo

r reconsideration*

f," SUMMARY

: O n Novembe r 28,1988 , th e Society of th e Plastic s Industry , Inc . (SPI ) filed with EP

A a petitio n for sta y of enforcementand administrativ e reconsideration of

seven provision s i n th e fina l rul e revisin g th e nationa l emissio n standard fo

r V C (Septembe r 30,1988,5 1 F

R34904)
. Th e SP

I an d three manufacturer

s (Do w Chemica

l Company , Georgi a Gul

f Corporation , an d Vista Chemica

l Company) concurrently filed a petitio n fo r revie w o f th e i e vision s t o th e V C standar d with th e U.S
. Cour

tof Appeal s for th e District of Columbia Circui tTh e petitioner s requested revie w of

th e definition s of "ethylen e dichlorid e purification, " "leak, " "exhaus tgas, " "relie f valv e discharge, " an d "3-heu

r period; " th e scop e of th e relie f vafemdwdMSj-p provisions ; an d th e lea k detectio n an d eliminatio n pvatriakn s (es n monitoring]'
. TheEftMa s evaluate d th e petitions , an d th e Administrato r propose s t

o gran tth e petitioners ' requestfor clarificatio n of certai n o f thes e provision
. Mino r revasmas a n bein g propose d t e conec tambiguitie s i n severa l definition s an d i n th e applicabilit

y o f certai n iegulator- r requirements i n th e V C standards . Th a propose d revisions woul d no tincreas e th e emission s (an d th e associate d health risks) allowe d b y th e standard s a s promulgated i n Septembe r 1986
. N o changes , however , wil l b e mad e with regar d t o are a monitoring requirement s or th e relie f

valv e discharg e standard . Thi s actio n provide s EPA' s responses t o petitioners ' requests , an d th e resultin g mino r propose d revision s t o th e standard s ar

e se tfort h i n thi s notice
. Thi s actio n als o serve s a s notic e that th e petitioners ' reques tfo r sta y o f th e 1988 revise d provision s i s bein g denied
. I n addition , thi s notic e i s no tintende d t o addres s th e recen tdecisio n b y th e D. C Circui

tCour to n th e V C standards . Natural Resources Defense'Council, Inc. v . EPA. 82

4 F.2 d 1148 (1987)
. An y response t

o tha tdecisio n wil l b e mad e i n a futur e notic e i n th e Federa

l Register
. A publi c nearin g wil l b e held-t e

provid e mtecesta d partie s a n opportunit

y fo r ora l presentation s of data , views , or argument s concernin g th e propose d revisions. DATES: Comments. Comment s mus tb e received o n o

r before Novembe r 2f

t 1989
. Public Hearing. I

f anyon e contact s EP A requestin g t

o spea k ata publi c hearin g b y Octobe r 11,1989 , a putti e hearin g wil l b e hel d o n Octobe r 16 , MBf t beginnin g a

t10:0 0 a.m. Person s intereste d i n attendin g th e heatin g shoul d cal l An n Eleano r at(918) 543
- 5578 t o verif y tha ta hearin g wiHoebeU L Request to Speak at

Hearing. Person s wishin g t o presen tora

l testimSay : mus t/ , contac tEP

A b y Octobe r tl , 196 $ - ADDRESSES : Comments. Comments shoul d b e submitte d i n dnplicateg f • • possible ) to : Centra

l Docke tSectio n (LE-131) , Attention : Docke tNo . A-81
- 21 , U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , 401 M Stree tSW. , Washington , D C 20460
. Public Hearing. I

f anyon e contact s EP A requesting a publi c hearing , i twil l b e hei d a tEPA' s Office o f Administratio n Auditorium , Research Triangl e Park

, Nort h Carolina
. Person s intereste d i n attendin g th e hearin g or wishin g t o presen tora

l testimon y shoul d notif y Ms . AnnHeanor , Standard s Developmen tBranc

h (MD-13) , US. EnvironmentalProtectio n Agency , Research Triangl e Park

. Nort h Carolina 27711 , telephon e (919) 541-5578 , Docket A docket , number A-81-21,
. containin g informatio n considere d b y EP A i a th e developmen to

f th e promulgate d standard s an d th e petitio n fo r sta y aa d reconsideration , t o whic h thi s notic e i s responding , i s availabl e for publi c inspectio n betwee n 8:0 0 ajn
. an d 3:3 0 p.m. , Monda

y throug h Friday , a t EPA' s Centra

l Docke tSection , Sout

h Conferenc e Center, Roo

m 4,401 M Stree tSW. , Washington , D C 20400
. A reasonabl e fe e ma

y b e charge d for copying
. FO R FURTHE R INFORMATIO N CONTMC R Fo r furthe r informatio n an d interpretation s of

applicability , complianc e requirements , an d reporfiag aspect s of

th e revise d standards , contac t th e appropriat

e Regional , State , o r loca l offic e contac ta s liste d i n 4 0 CF K 60.4
. Fo r furthe r information o n th e background fo r th e propose d revise d standards , contac tMs . Shirley Ifebtef c Standard s Developmen tBranch * Emissio n Standard s Divisio n (MD-33) , U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Research Triangl e Park. Nort h Carolin a 27711
. telephon e (919

) 541-5256
. SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION : . L Backgroun d I n Decembe r 1975 , EP

A designate d V

C a s a hazardou s ai r pollutantunder sectio n 11 2 o

f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t(4

2 liS.C
. 7412

) an d promulgated fina

l rule s for V C o n Octobe r 21.197 6 (40 CF R 61.60-61.71)
. The standard s limit emission s o

f V C fro m plants producing ethylen e dichlorid e (EDC ) vi a oxychlorination , VC , an d polyviny l chlorid e (PVC

) or othe r polymer s containin g VC
. Thes e plants are subjec t i e a combinatio n o

f emissio n limits , equipment, an d wor

k practic e requirement

s atnumerous points in th e manafacturin g processes . On Septembe r 30,198 6 (5 1 F R34904) , SP A promulgated severa l administrativ e en d clarifyin g revision s t o the national emissio n standard fo

r VC
. Subsequently , e n Novembe r 26,1988 , SP I filed wit h EP A a petitio n fo

r sta y and administrativ e reconsideratio n o f seve n prevision s i n th e final revision s t o th e *W C standard . Th e SPI

, Do w Chemica

l Company , Georgia Gul

f Corporation , an d Vista Chemical Compan y concurrentl y filed a petitio n fo r revie w e f severa l provision s of

th e revise d standar d with th e U.S
. Cour tof Appeal s for th e D.C
. Circuit
. Th e SP I i s a nonprofitcorporatio n whos e member s includ e processor s an d manufacturer s o f plagtirj i or plasti c products , supplier s o f w w materials , processor s an d converter s of

plasti c resins , an d manufacturers o

f accessor y equipment for th e plastic s industry
. Th e Vinyl Institute , a divisio n o

f SPI
. represents 'th e major domesti c producers of V C and PVC
. D . Summar

y of SPI' s Petitio n fo

r Stay / Reconsideratio n an d EPA' s Respons e Th e SP I requested tha

tEP A issu e a sta y of th e 1986 revision s t

o th e V C standard pendin g revie w o f thos e revise d provisions
. Thei r requestfo r a sta y wa s base d o n th e followin g factors : (1 ) Certain provision s o

f th e 198 5 proposal wer e change d withou t adequate notic e or justificatio n by EPA ; (2 ) industr

y members represented b y SP I woul d suffer irreparabl e har m i f th e effectivenes s of

th e 1986 revision s are no tstaye d durin

g th e revie w period : and (3) a sta y wil l caus e n o har m t o othe r partie s or th e publi c interest
. Th e EP A ha s considere d th e factor s presente d b y SP

I i n suppor

to f thei r reques tfo

r sta y o f th e 1988 V C revision s pendin g EPA' s revie w o

f th e revisions
. Havin g considere d th e likelihoo d o f SPFsaacces s o n th e merit s of it s petitio n far-reconsideration , th e likelihoo d tha t SP I woul d b e irreparably harme d absen t a stay , th e prospecttha

tother s woul d b eP. 4

Federa l Registe r /Vol

. 54 , No

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

Propose dRole s 3893 9

harme di n th e even t

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

issu e here

. Thi s i s consisten t wit h long-standin g EP

A polic y t o continu e t o enforc e a n existin g regulation unti l an dunles s arevisio n become s formall y effective

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

. Se e Tram v
. NRDC. 42 1 U.S

. 60,9 2 (1973 ) ("Thi s litigation ; however , i s carrie dou t o n th e polluter' s tim e no t

th e public's , fo r durin g [di e pendenc y o f

aSIP revision ] th e origina l regulations remain i n effec t an dth e polluter' s failur e t o compl y ma y subjec t hi mt o avariet y of

enforcemen t procedures." ) Th e rational e i n Train applie s wit h equa l forc e t o regulations promulgate dunde r

sectio n 112

. Therefore

. EP

A hereb y denie s SPI' s reques t fo r asta y pendin g EPA' s reconsideratio n o

f th e V C standard

. In di e petitio n for

revie w o f th e revise dstandard , SP

I claime ddia t

th e 198 6 promulgate drevisions differe d significantl y fromth e revision s tha t wer e propose do n Januar y 9,198 5 (5 0 F R 1182)

. H

y •"•• :\ Th e SP I asserte dtiiat

withou t adequat e notice , EPA' s 198 8 revisions change dke y provision s o f th e V C standar di n amanne r

that : (1 ) Violate d cas e law ; (2) , impose dne w penalties ; (3 ) create dmultipl e penaltie s for th e sam e event ; an d(4 ) expande dth e type s of equipment

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 requested areview of

severa l definition s i n th e V C standard

. Accordin g t o SPI , di e 198 6 final definitio n o

f "exhaus t gas, " 4 0 CF

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

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

a n exhaus t

gas, " SP I wa s concerne ddia t

lea k emission s coul dresul t

i n violation s o

f th e exhaus t ga s standar dif

mor e tha n 1 0 pp mof

V C ar e emitted

. Reconsideratio n wa s requeste dbecaus e leak s fromequipmen t i n V C servic e woul dexcee ddi e 1 0 pp m emissio n limitatio n fo

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

$25,000 pe r

da y for eac h leak

. I t wa s no t EPA' s inten t

t o categoriz e ever y lea k

of 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 final definitio n becaus e som e emission s whic h ar e requiredt o b e vente dt o acontro l devic e canno t b e automaticall y categorize da s eidie r a lea k o r exhaus t ga s b y agenera l definition

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

. 2-5 4 an d2-55) , th e facts of

th e situatio n resultin g i n thes e emission s neede dt o b e considere dwhe n decidin g whic h par t of Ui e V C standar dapplied

. Upo n reconsideration, EP

A agree s with SPI' s concer n dia t

th e final definitio n of "exhaus t gas " doe s no t

provid e for exemptio n fromth 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 di 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 ddia t

equipment containin g exhaus t

ga s mus t compl y wit h 5 61.65(b)(8 ) requirin g lea k detectio n an dprevention , whethe r o r no t tha t equipment

contain s 1 0 percen t b y volum e VC

. Thi s propose dadditio n assure s dia t

leak s fromexhaus t

ga s stream s ar e subjec t

t o th e lea k

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

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

"Relief Valve Discharge" Th e SP I objecte dt o asentenc e adde d t o di e 198 6 final definitio n of "relie f valv e discharge, " 4 0 CF

R81.61(y) , whic h state dUia

t arelie f valv e discharg e woul db e exemp t

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

. Th e SP

I pointe dou t

dia t adoubl e violatio n coul doccu r (i.e. , of th e relief valv e discharg e an dexhaus t ga s standards ) if

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 o f

a NESHAP

. Th e SP

I believe s tha t

owners / operator s of

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

thei r product ) t o ensur e dia t

pressur e relie f

valve s work a s designed , regardless o f di e standar d promulgated

. Moreover , di e final definitio n contradict s pas t regulator y interpretatio n dia t

relie f valv e discharge s ducte dt o flares an dodie r contro l device s ar e exemp t fromdi 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 achieve s significan t emissio n reductio n benefits

. Thes e devices , whe n properl y designe dan doperated , generall y hav e efficiencie s of 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 of RVD's

. Thus , becaus e regulatedfacilitie s d o hav e som e economi c incentiv e t o ensur e dia t RVD' s ar e minimized , di e ne t

RV D emissio n reductio n resultin g fromdi e us e of

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 of "relie f valv e discharge " an dt o di e RV D provision s ( 9 61.65(a) ) ar e bein g propose dt o clarif

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

f th e RV D standard

. Thi s chang e woul dpreven t misinterpretatio n o

f di e regulator y requirement s an dimpositio n o f adoubl e penalty

. I n 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 dia t i s continuall y operatin g whil e emission s fromth 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 , odie r

tha n aflare , woul d b e subjec t

t o di e 1 0 pp mlimi t

an ddi e continuou s emissio n monitorin g syste m requirement

containe di n $ 61.6 8 an dt o di e reporting requirement s of S 61.70

. I n th e cas e of

flares, emissio n monitorin g i s no t

possible

. Therefore , fo r RVD' s route dt o aflare, di e desig n requirement s for

flares (4 0 CF

R60.18 1 woul dapply

. Th e EP

A recognize s tha t measuremen t

of relie f valv e discharg e volumetri c flo w rate s an dga s strea m compositio n i s no t

possibl e usin g di e mediod s se t

forth i n § 60.1 8 (fR3 ) an d (f)(4)

. Estimate s o

f dies 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 S 3 60.18(d) an d 60.18(f)(2)

. Fo r

di e purpos e o

f 5 60.18(d) , th e volum e an dcomponen t concentratio n of

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

y ongoin g complianc e wit h th e desig n an doperatin g requirement s of § 60.1 8 (c)(3 ) throug h (c)(8)

. I f mor e tha n on e relief

valv e i s discharge d simultaneousl y t o asingl e flare , thes e calculation s woul daccoun t for di e cumulativ e effec t

o n al l suc h RVD's

. I

f th e results of

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

an y othe r

infonnatio n sho w dia t th e pilo t flame i s no t

presen t 100 percen t

o f th e tim e durin g whic h a n RV D i s route dt o aflare, di e RV D i s subjec t t o th e provision s o

f § 81.65(a)

. A repor t describin g di e flare desig n mus t b e provide dt o di e Administrato r no t late r dia n 9 0 day s afte r

di e adoptio n of thi s provisio n o r

withi n 3 0 day s of

di e installatio n of

aflare syste mfo

r contro l of RVD's , whicheve r

i s later

. Definition of

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

liqui ddripping " a s a "leak, " 4 0 CF

R81.61(w)

. Th e SP

IP. 5



### 3.894 0 Federal Hegjate

r / Vo l 54 , No , 16

2 I Thursday , Septembe

r a
. iStd / ftnpaaed Role

s
requeste d dia tth e phras e b e delete d a r revise d t o refe r t

o V C sinc e dripping liquid s ma

y no talway s contai n V C I n th e V C standard , th e portio n o f th e lea k defliiitkmrefemn g to "Indication s of liqui d dripping " applie s onl y t o pump s i n V C sendee . Th e EP

A believe s tha t "indication s o f

liqui d dripping* ' are a n appropriat

e criterio n for requirin g repai r action s a n doabl e mechanical sea l pump s i n V C servic e and , therefore , shoul d b e include d i n th e definitio n o f a leak . A s state d i n th e BI

D fo r th e 198 6 pronndgate d revisions , visibl e leakag e fro m al l type s of

pum p seals , includin g doubl e mechanical seal s require d b y th e V C standard , i s generall y indicativ e o f sea l wea r eve n yfrio V C i s presen tt n th e leakin g fluid. T o preven tfarthe r see l wea r reealSn g I n majo r see l failur e allowin g V C emission s int o th e atmosphere , di e seal s shoul d b e repaired see n afte r leakag e i » rarSaBy detected . Afte r farther consideratio n o f SPI' s concern , however , EP A tha t
som e amounto f

barrier flui d leakag e i s normal . Tberesora , EP

A cens e th e standard s for (|61.2e-2(d))t8ctarir>rti e requBesaeat

a fo r pum p sea l drips
. Sectio n 6L2«S-2fd)(4 } addresse s drip e from pum

p seal s thatconta m VC , an d S 6-LatM*<*M«

) addresse s drip s from pump-seal s tha

td e no tcontai n V C Th e propose d revise d provision s o f § 61.ai8-2(d ) at e designe d toacconpfish tw o purposes . On e i s to ensur e tha i V C leak s fro m pom p seal s ar e detecte d a~a d eliminated
. Thi s i s aooonpiishe d b y paragraph s [dm (Q
. m. •« * mi Th e othe r purpos e i s to identif y aa d presen t pum p sea l failure s b y causin g abnonna l dripping (eve n wee n V C i s no t containe d i n th e dripping hqoid ) to b e detecte d an d repairs t o b e made . Thi s i s aecnatplisbc d b y paragraph s (dM« i (*)
. (ii)
. (iii)
. aa d (iv)
. Thes e paragraph s require th e facility owner/operato r to establis h criteri a aasociate d widi normat operation
. Th e inten tof

th e propose d revise d provision s i s identica l t o th e existin g provisions
. Th e differenc e i s tha tth e propose d S 61.24£2(dM6)ti) afiow s a a owner/operato r to tak e mtoacooua tth a smal l numbe r o f

liqui d drip * thatna y occu r whe n ne w seal s arei a plac e o r a n otherwis e assodate d wti b norma l operation
. Definition oj

f "3-hourPeriod" Th e SP I note d diat , i n th e Septembe r 198 6 final title
. EP

A adde d a definitio n o f "3-hou r period " 4 0 CF

R61.6 1 (4
. to clarif y thatth e emissio n limit s i n th e exhaus tga s standar d (tO ppnr ) 1 * a S
hou r average . Th e definitio n create s ^'rolling* * average s (2 4 3-he w average s . pe r day } rather tha n "block " avaiage s (6
- 3-heur average*}
. Th e SP I objecte d tha t a single , 1-hou

r 1 0 pp m exceedanc e coul d resul ti a three violation s of th e W pp m exhaus tga s standard , unde r th e revised deEnttk a o f

"3-hou r period. " Thi s coul d iea d t o denhi e o r tripl e penalties , "thereb y exceedin g th e maximu n penalty permissibl e unde r th e Clea n Ai r AcL " Upo n reconsideration , EP A propose s t o furthe r revis e th e definitio n of

"3-hou r period " t o ensur e thata singl e even tof 1-hou r or les s a t1 0 pp

m o r greate r could , resul ti n n o more than a singl e violatio n of th e exhaus tga s standard . A phras e ha s bee n adde d t o th e definitio n i a 61.61(z ) t o accomplis h diis
. Th e EP A di d no tinten d to penaliz e a plan t thre e time s wheneve r a 1 0 pp m even t occur s withi n 1 hon e Rather , EP A wante d t o ensur e thata combinatio n o f tw o or more 1 0 ppm event s whic h woul d resul ti n a 3-hou

r exceedanc e d o no tg o unpenalize d j.us

tbecaus e the y occune d ove r tw o separat e 3-hou

r "blocks. " Th e propose d revised definitio n o f "3-hou r period " satisfie s EPA' s inten twithou t unintentionall y subjectin g a plan t owner/operato r to multipl e viola-tuna
. Definition of

"Ethylene Dichloride Purification" Accordin g to SP I th e 1S86 final revisions change d th e definitio n o f ED C purification
. 4 0 CF

R61_61|o)
. Th e promulgate d definitio n exchide d produc t storag e followin g th e final V C finishing column , an d tiuis exempte d suc h storag e fro m th e exhaus tga s standard . Th e SP I believe s thatEP

A intende d to exclud e no tonl y ED C final produc tstorag e bu

t als o intermediat

e productstorag e (before th e final finishing cohann ) base d o n EPA' s respons e to comments containe d i n th e BEO (pp
. 2-4 3 an d 2-44 ) an d i n th e BI

D summar

y o f change s sinc e proposal (pp
. 1-2)
. Although i t supports th e exemptio n o f final ED C productstnsag e from th e definition , SP I requested thatEP

A als o exemp t intermediate ED

C produc tstorage . I

n addition , on e SP

I company , a major produce r of

V C monome r an d PV C polymer , provide d informatio n o n nin e crud e and intermediate storag e tank s a t on e of M s facilities
. Th e informatio n include d tan

k sizes , design , emission s estimates , an d casta . Thi s company requeste d EP

A to exclud e intermediat e an d crude , a s wel l a s final EDC storag e tanks , from th e definition
. Th e EP A agree s thati tintende d to exemp tcrud e an d intermediate storag e tank s from th e exhaus tga s standard . Th a definitio n of

"ED C purification " ha s . bee n revised t o clarif

y tha tenrisaiona fro m crude , intermediate , and final slesag e tank s following ED C formatkM: are notsubjec tto th e standard* , i n addition
. I &LB5{bffl, Openin g o

f equipment ; ha s als o bee n revised t o clarif y tha tth e requirement

s i n thi s sectio n d o no tappl y to erode , intermediate , o r final ED C storag e tanks . A s state d i n th e BI

D respons e (pp
. 2-4 3 throug h 2-45) , EP

A evaluate d th e reasonablenes s o

f regulatin g ED C storag e tank s unde r di e V C standard . Base d o n emission s dat a submitte d by th e commenters , uncontrolle d V C emission s from intermediate and final ED C storag e tank s ata typica l EDC/V C plan twer e estimate d t o b e 0. 1 t o 2 Mg / yr . A n emissio n redactio n a s hig h a s 1 4 Mg/y r from al l plant s woul d h e achieve d base d o n ventin g existin g EDC storag e tank s t o a n existin g p i ninny contro l devic e (incinerators)
. Prior to th e Septembe r 198 6 rule , EP

A conerode d thatregulatio n o f

thes e tenk s wide r th e V C standar d wa s notwarrante d I n respons e to SPT

s petitio n for reconsideration , EP

A ha s evaluate d th e dat a submitte d b y on e SP

I company (Docke tEntr

y N a Vl-B-4 ) for nin e crud e an d intermediate ED C storag e tank s befor e th e final finishing colum n a ton e o f it s facilities
. Thes e tank s ar e currently uncontrolled . Th e data L include d tank sizes , design , emission s estimates , an d costs . Th e company' s estimate s o f

th e total uncontrolle d emission s [0.00

2 t o 0.32 3 Mg/y r V Q for th e nin e crud e an d intermediate tank s fal l atth e lo w en d o f

th e range of individual V C tank emissio n estimate s mad e b y EP

A for ED C final product storag e tanks . Thi s informatio n i s consisten twith EPA' s positio n tha tth e regulation o

f crud e an d intermediate storag e tank s i s unnecessar y becaus e emission s are extremel y low . Leak Detection and

ESmination Unde r th e 1876 V C standard . 4 0 CF R 61.65(b)(6) , companie s installe d are a monitors an d develope d plant-specifi c leak detectio n an d eliminatio n program s tha tinclude d di e routin e us e of portabl e

. monitors
. Subsequently , EP A develope d a generi c lea k detectio n an d eliminatio n progra m (subpar

tV , 4 0 CF

R61.240 — 61.247) base d o n equipmentan d dat a for th e organi c chemica l an d petrohnu n industries
. Tn e 196 6 revisions

. incorporate d th e subpar tV provision s into di e V C standard , li e S H oppose s th e additio n of

di e subpar

tV provision s t o th e V C standard . Th e SP I argued diat existin g programs ar e effectiv e withou t tiie subpar

tV provision s an d diatEPA' s decisio n to retain are a monitorin g requirement

s bo m th e 187 8 standar d i s questionabl e sinc e they hav e no tbee n required fa r othe r indashie s subjec tte subpartV . J

a addition , aconrdinyt o SP I n » justificatio n ha s bee n give n fo rP. 6

Federa l Registe r /

Vol

. 54 , No

. 18 2 /

Thursday , Septembe r 21 , 198 9 /

Propose dRule s 3894 1 requirin g retention of

are amonitor s i n additio n to subpar t

V

. Althoug h a progra munde r

161.65(b)(8 ) demonstratin g les s tha n 2 percen t of valve s leakin g i s considere d"effective,* * suc h aprogra mi s exemp t onl y from certai n part s of

subpar t V

. Fo r thes e reasons , SP I requests reinstatement o f th e lea k detectio n an deliminatio n requirements containe di n th e 197 6 V C standard

. Upo n reconsideration , EPA propose s t o mak e n o change s i n th e applicatio n o f subpar t V t o th e V C standar dan dth e requirements for fixedare amonitorin g ( S 61.65(b)(8)(i))

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

. Th e EPA believe s tha t th e are amonitorin g an dsubpar t V approache s bot h hav e benefit s an dar e no t redundant

. I n particular , are a monitor s allo w for

quic k detectio n o f certai n larg e V C leak s tha t migh t otherwis e g o undetecte d unti l di e nex t routin e portabl e monitorin g screening , a s wel l a s detectio n of

larg e leak s from 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 o f - monito r operatio n i s relatively small , therefore , acompariso n t o other ' industrie s i s no t

relevan t Also , are a monitorin g i s ofte n use da s par t o f a progra mt o reduc e 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 to conduc t

th e lea k detectio n an d repair provision s o f

subpar t V

. An y plan t

wit h a n effectiv e existin g progra munde r

§ 81.65(b)(6 ) for

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

leak s withou t

complyin g wit h th e subpar t

V provisions

. Specifically , if a n owner/operato r

ca n demonstrat e tha t les s dia 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

from9 9 61.242

- 1(d ) (marking) , 61.242-7(a) (monitoring) , 81.24 8 (recordkeeping) , an d 61.24 7 (reporting)

. T o demonstrat e tha t les s tha n 2J0percen 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

times requeste db y di e Administrator

. If

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

mus t compl y wit h .subpar t V withi n 9 6 days

. Thi s exemptio n onl y applie s t o th e standard s fo r valve s ( 8 81.242-7{a)(b){c) ) becaus e th e othe r standard s i n subpar t

V interfac e wit h specifi c equipmen t requirements/performanc e measure s i n di e V C standar d(e.g. , leak s fromrelie f valves , § 81.85(b)(4 ) an drotatin g pumps , § 81.65(b)(3)(i))

. However , thi s exemptio n include s al l of th e recordkeeping an dreporting, requirement s o f

9 9 61.24 6 an d61.24 7 becaus e thes e requirement s mainl y affec t valves

. Th e exemptio n for marking , recordkeeping, an dreportin g applie s t o th e entir e proces s uni t 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 commen t

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

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

EP A reconsider

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

Ui e 197 6 standard , 4 0 CF

R61.65(a)

. Th e SP

I claime dtha t

di 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 ddiat , a s applied , di 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 dreduce di e administrativ e burde n o n EPA an dindustry

. Th e SPI als o believe s that-ih e propose d numerica l limit s ar e stricter-tha n th e 197 6 emergenc y discharg e provisio n becaus e "eac h discharg e causin g a n exceedanc e of

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

regar dt o whethe r

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

t o promulgat e numerica l limit s for

RVD' s an dha s decide ddia 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 of

th e basi s for no t promulgatin g th e numerica l limit s for RVD' s i s containe di n di e preambl e fo r th e promulgate damendment s (5 1 F R 34905-34906 , Septembe r

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

t woul daffec t

EPA' s decision

. I n summary , di e decisio n t o retai n th e origina l 197 6 RV D standar d wa s mad e afte r

considerin g di e revision s i n ligh t

of publi c comment s o n di e numerica l limits , an dafte r review o f th e basi s for

th e decisio n to reforma t

th e standard

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

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

di e origina l standard

. Odie r comment s expresse dconcer n Uia t th e revisedstandar dinclude dn o mechanis mfo r

regulatin g ver y larg e RVD's

. Th e basi s fo r

th e statemen t

tha t alarg e EPA resourc e commitmen t i s require d for

enforcin g th e 197 6 RV

D standar dwa s als o questioned

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

th e existin g standar d becam e clearer

. Thus , i t

wa s no t necessar y to revis e di e format o f th e RV D standard

. Compare dt o di e 198 5 proposal , th e existin g standar dals o ha s th e advantage s o f

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 reasons-stated. EPA' s review o f th e recor dsupport s di e existin g standard

. Base do n di e EPA' s experienc e wit h administerin g di e V C standar d o f 9 61.65(a) , on e majo r

deficienc y wit h th e typ e o f informatio n submitte di n man y of di e 10-day reports of

RVD' s ha s bee n recognized, Thi s concern s tha t informatio n require dt o b e reporte db y di e standar dregarding, "di e actio n tha t wa s take n t o preven t

th e discharge. " Fo r purpose s o f

clarification , dii 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 di e caus e leadin g u p to di e RV D release an d no t onl y di e actio n take n afte r a n even t o r caus e occur s tha t

results i n a n RV

D release

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

clarificatio n ha s bee n mad e i n 9 61.68 , Emissio n monitoring

. Th e existin g regulation , 9 61.68(b) , state s tha t

di e V C monitorin g system(s ) dia t

i s use dt o mee t

th e continuou s monitorin g requirements I n paragrap h (a ) (o f

9 61.68 ) for

emission s fromsource 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 9 61.6 8 call s fo r

th e monitorin g of

th e emission s fromprescribe dsource s for viny l chlorid e an dno t

ambien t ai r sampHn g a s require dunde r 9.61.85(b)(8 ) fo r lea k detection/elimination , 9 61.68(b )3894 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 54
. No . 18 2 /

Thursday , Septembe r 21 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s P. 7

ha s bee n clarifie d t

o requir e that representativ e (no tair) sample s from on e or mor

e applicabl e emissio n points b e obtaine d an d analyzed . Thi s revision mor e accuratel y reflects th e origina l inten t UL Administrativ e Requirements A. Public Hearing A publi c hearin g wil l b e held , if requested , t o discus s di e propose d rulemakin g i n accordanc e widi sectio n 307(d)(5 ) o f

di e Clea n Ai r Ac tPerson s wishin g t o mak e oral presentation s shoul d contac tEP

A a tth e addres s give n i n di e ADDRESSE

S sectio n o f

dii s preamble . Ora

l presentation s wil l b e limite d t o 1 5 minute s each . An y membe r of th e publi c ma y file a writte n statemen twit h EP

A before , during , o r withi n 3 0 day s afte r th e hearing
. Writte n statement s shoul d b e addresse d t o di e Centra l Docke tSectio n addres s give n i n th e ADDRESSE

S sectio n of

thi s preamble .

. A verbati m transcrip tof th e hearin g an d writte n statement s wil l b e availabl e for publi c inspectio n an d copyin g durin g norma l workin g hour

s a tEPA' s Centra

l Docke tSectio n i n Washington , D C (se e ADDRESSE S sectio n o f

dii s preamble)
. B. Docket Th e docke ti s a n organize d an d complete file o f

al l th e informatio n submitte d t o o r otherwis e considere d i n th e developmen tof

thi s propose d rulemaking
. Th e principa l purpose s o f th e docke tare : (1 ) T o allo w intereste d partie s t o identif

y readily an d locat e documents s o dia tthe y ca n effectivel y participate i n th e rulemaking process ; an d (2) t o serv e a s th e record i n cas e of judicial review, excep tfor interagency revie w material s (sectio n 307(d)(7)(A))
. C. Office of

Management

and Budget Reviews 1
. Paperwork Reduction Act There are n o informatio n collectio n requirements associate d with thi s propose d rulemaking
. 2
. Unde r Executiv e Orde

r 12291 , EP

A mus tjudge whetiie r a regulator y actio n i s "major " and . dierefore , subjec tt o di e requiremento f

a regulator

y impact analysis
. Thi s propose d rulemakin g i s no tmajor becaus e i tmake s mino r clarifyin g revisions t

o a n existin g regulatio n and , dierefore , results i n non e of th e significan tadvers e economi c effect s describe d i n di e Order
. Thi s rulemakin g wa s submitte d t o di e Office o f Managementan d Budge t (OMB) fo r review a s required b y Executiv e Order 12291
. An y writte n comments'from OM

B t o EP A an d an y EP A response to dios e comments are include d i n Docke tNo . A-81-21
. Th e docke ti s availabl e for publi c inspectio n a tEPA' s Centra

l Docke tSectio n Uia

ti s liste d under di e ADDRESSE S sectio n of dii s notice
. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Th e Regulator

y Flexibility Ac tof

198 0 require s th e identificatio n o f potentiall y advers e impacts of

Federal regulation s upo n smal l busines s entities
. Th e Ac t specificall y requires th e completio n of a Regulator y Flexibility Analysi s i n those , instance s wher e smal l busines s impact s ar e possible
. Becaus e thes e propose d mino r revision s impos e n o advers e economi c impacts , a Regulator y Flexibility Analysis'ha s no tbee n conducted . Pursuan tt o th e provision s o f

5 U.S. C 605(b) , I hereb y certif

y thatth e propose d rul e wil l no thav e a significan teconomi c impacto n a substantia l number o f smal l entities
. Lis tof Subject s i n 4 0 CF

RPar t6 1 Ai r pollutio n control , Asbestos , Benzene , Beryllium , Hazardou s materials
. Mercury , Viny l chloride
. Dated : Septembe

r 12,1989
. Willia m K . Reilly, Administrator. For th e reason s se tfort

h i n th e preamble , i ti s propose d t o amen d 4 0 CF Rpar t6 1 a s follows : PAR T 61- { AMENDED

] 1
. Th e audiorit

y citatio n for par

t6 1 continue s t o rea d a s follows: Authority : Section

s fti. 112,114, lie , 301 , Clea n Ai r Ac tas amended : 4

2 U.S. C 7401 , 7412,7414.741S , 7601
. 2
. Sectio n 61.6 1 i s amende d b y revising paragraph s (o) , (w) , (x) , (y) , an d (z ) t o read a s follows : 961.6 1 Oeflnltiona

, (0 ) Ethylene dichloride purification include s an y par

tof di e proces s of ethylen e dichlorid e purificatio n followin g ethylen e dichlorid e formation , butexclude s crude , intermediate , an d final ethylen e dichlorid e storag e tanks . (w ) Leak mean s an y of

severa l event s thatindicat e interruption of confinemen t of viny l chlorid e withi n proces s equipmen tLeaks includ e event s regulated unde r subpar

tV of dii s par t such as : (1 ) A n instrumentreading o f 10,000 pp m or greate r measure d accordin g to Medio d 2 1 (se e appendi x A of 4 0 CF R par t60) ; (2) A senso r detectio n of

failur e of a sea l system , failure of

a barrier fluid system , or both : (3) Detectabl e emission s a s indicate d b y a n instrumentreadin g of greate r dia n 50 0 ppm abov e background for equipmentdesignate d for n o detectabl e emission s measure d accordin g t o Tes t Metho d 2 1 (se e appendi x A of 4 0 CF R par t60) ; an d (4 ) I n di e cas e of

pum p seal s regulate d unde r 9 61.242-2
. indication s of liqui d dripping constitutin g alea k unde r 9 61.242-2
. Leak s als o includ e event s regulate d unde r 9 61.65(b)(8)(i ) fo r detectio n of ambientconcentration s i n exces s o f background concentrations
. A relief valv e discharg e i s no ta leak . (x ) Exhaust

gas mean s an y offgas (di e constituent s of

whic h may consis tof

an y fluids, eidie r a s a liqui d and/o r gas ) discharge d directi y o r ultimatel y t o th e atmospher e thatwa s initiall y containe d i n or wa s i n directcontac twith th e equipmentfo r whic h exhaus tga s limit s are prescribe d i n 9 61.62 (a ) an d (b) ; 9 61.63(a) : 9 61.64 (a)(1) , (b) , (c) , an d (d) : 9 61.6 5 (b)(l)(iij , (b)(2)
. (b)(3)
. (b)(5>
. (b)(6)(ii)
. (b)(7 ) an d (b)(9)(ii) ; an d 9 61.65(d)
. A lea k a s define d i n paragraph (w ) o f

dii s sectio n i s no ta n . exhaus tgas . Equipmen

twhic h contain s exhaus tga s i s subjec tt o 9 61.65(b)(8)
. . whethe r o r no tthatequipmentcontain s 1 0 percen th y volum e viny l chloride
. (y j Relief Valve Discharge means an y nonlea k discharg e throug h a relie f valve . (z ) 3-hour period mean s an y thre e consecutiv e 1-hou

r period s (eac h commencin g o n di e hour) , provide d dia t th e number of

3-hou r period s during whic h di e viny l chlorid e concentratio n exceed s 1 0 pp

m doe s no texcee d di e number 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 61.65 i s amende d b y revisin g paragraph s (a) ari d (b)(8 ) introductor

y text , an d adding paragraph (d ) t o rea d a s follows : 9 61.65 Emissio

n standar d fo r ethylene dichloride, viny

l chlorid e an d polyviny l chlorid e plants . (a) Relief valve discharge. Excep tfo r a n emergency relief

discharge , an d excep ta s provide d i n 9 61.65(d) , dier e i r t o b e n o discharg e t o di e atmosphere from an y relief

valv e o n any equipment i n viny l chlorid e service
. A n emergency relief discharg e mean s a discharg e whic h coul d no thav e bee n avoide d b y takin g measure s t o preven tdi e discharge
. Withi n 1 0 day s o f an y relief valv e discharge , excep tfor thos e subjec t t o 9 61.85(d) , th e owne r or operato r o f th e sourc e from whic h th e relief valv e discharg e occur s shal l submitto th e Administrato r a reporti n writin gP. 8

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 54 , No . 18 2 /

Thursday . Septembe r 21
. 198 9 / Propose d Rule s 3894 3
containin g information o n th e source , natur e an d caus e of

th e discharge , th e date and tim e o

f di e discharge , di e approximat

e total viny l chlorid e los s durin g di e discharge , di e medio d use d for determinin g di e viny l chlorid e los s (di e calculatio n of

th e viny l chlorid e loss) , di e actio n dia twa s take n t o preven tdi e discharge , an d measures , adopte d t o preven tfutur

e discharges
. (b ) • * * (6) Opening of

equipment

Vinyl chlorid e emission s from openin g of equipment(excludin g crude , intermediate , an d final EDC storag e tanks , butincludin g prepolymerizatio n reactor s use d i n th e manufactur e of bulk resin s and loadin g or unloadin g line s tha tar e no topene d t

o di e atmosphere afte r eac h loadin g o r unloadin g operation ) are t o b e minimize d a s follows : (d ) A RV D tha ti s ducte d t o a contro l devic e diati s continuall y operatin g whil e emission s from th e releas e are presen ta tdi e devic e i s subjec tt o di e followin g requirements: (1 ) A discharg e from a contro l devic e odie r tiian a flare shal l no texcee d 1 0 pp m (averag e ove r a 3-hou

r period ] a s determine d b y di e continuou s emissio n monito r syste m required unde r 9 61.68
. Suc h a discharg e i s subjec tt o di e requirements o f

9 61.70
. (2 ) Fo r a discharg e route d t

o a flare, th e flare shal l compl y with di e requirement

s o f 9 60.18
. (i ) Flar e operation s shal l b e monitore d i n accordanc e with di e requirements of 9 9 60.18(d) an d 60.18(f)(2)
. Fo r th e purpose s o

f 9 60.18(d) , di e volum e an d componen tconcentratio n of eac h relief valv e discharg e shal l b e estimate d an d calculation s shal l b e mad e to verif y ongoin g complianc e with di e desig n an d operatin g requirements of 9 9 60.1 8 (c)(3 ) throug h (c)(6)
. I f mor e than on e relief valv e i s discharge d simultaneousl y t o a singl e flare, diese calculation s shal l accoun tfo

r di e cumulativ e effec tof al l suc h relief

valv e discharges
. Thes e calculation s shal l b e mad e an d reporte d quarterly fo r al l discharge s withi n th e quarter . Failur

e t o compl y with an y o f di e requirements of

dii s paragraph wil l b e a violatio n of 9 61.85(d)(2)
. Monitoring fo

r di e presenc e of

a flar e pilo tflame shal l b e conducte d i n accordanc e wit

h 9 60.18(f)(2)
. I

f th e results of thi s monitoring or an y othe r informatio n show s dia tth e pilo tflam e i s no tpresen t100 percen tof th e time durin g whic h a relief

valv e discharg e i s route d t o di e flare, th e relief valv e discharg e i s subjec tt o di e provision s of 9 81.65(a)
. (ii ) A reportdescribin g th e flare desig n shal l b e provide d t o di e Administrato r no tlate r dia n 9 0 day s after th e adoptio n of

thi s provisio n or withi n 3 0 day s of

di e installatio n of

a flare syste m fo

r contro l of

relief valv e discharg e whicheve r i s later . Th e flare desig n repor

tshal l includ e calculation s base d upo n expecte d relief valv e discharg e componen tconcentration s an d ne theatin g value s (fo r PV C thi s calculatio n shal l b e base d o n value s expecte d ff a release occurre d a tdi e instan tth e polymerizatio n starts) : an d estimate d maximu

m exi tvelocitie s base d upo n di e desig n throa tcapacity o f th e ga s i n th e relief

valve . 4
. Sectio n 61.6 8 i s amende d b y revisin g th e firstsentenc e i n paragraph (b ) t o rea d a s follows : 9 61.68 Emissio

n monttoring

. (b ) Th e viny l chlorid e monitorin g sy8tem(s ) use d t o mee tth e requirement i n paragraph (a ) of

thi s sectio n i s t

o b e a devic e whic h obtain s representative sample s from on e o r mor e applicabl e emissio n point s o n a continuou s sequentia l basi s an d analyze s th e sample s widi ga s chromotography or, if th e owne r o r operato r assume s tha tal l hydrocarbon s measure d are viny l chloride , with infrared spectrophotometry , flame io n detection , o r a n alternativ e mediod
. * * *
5
. Sectio n 61.242- 2 of

subpar tV i s amende d b y revising paragraph (d) introductor

y tex t(d)(5 ) an d (d)(6 ) an d b y addin g paragraph s (d)(4) (i) , (ii ) an d (iii ) t o rea d a s follows : $61,242- 2 Standards : Pumps

. (d) Eac h pum p equippe d with a dua

l mechanical sea l syste m diatinclude s a barrie r fluid syste m i s exemp tfro m th e requirement

s o f paragraph s (a

) an d (b ) of dii s section , provide d di e followin g requirements are met : 

### M * * V

. (1 ) I f there ar e indication s o

f liqui d drippin g from di e pum

p sea l atth e tim e of di e weekl y inspection , di e pum p shal l b e monitore d a s specifie d i n § 61.245 t o determin e di e presenc e o f VO C an d VHAP i n th e barrier fluid
. (ii ) I f di e monito r reading (takin g int o accoun tan y background readings) indicate s di e presenc e of VHAP, a lea k i s detected . Fo

r di e purpos e o f

thi s paragraph , th e momto r ma y b e calibrate d with VHAP, or ma y emplo y a ga s chromatograph

y column t

o limi tth e response of

th e monito r t o VHAP, a tth e optio n o f di e owne r o r operator . (iii ) I f a n instrumentreadin g o

f 10,000 pp m o r greate r (total VOC ) i s measured , a lea k i s detected . (5 ) Eac h senso r a s describe d i n paragraph (d)(3 ) of

dii s sectio n i s checke d daily , or i s equippe d with a n audibl e alarm . (6)(i ) Th e owne r o r operato r determines , base d o n desig n consideration s an d operatin g experience , criteri a applicabl e t o th e presenc e an d frequency o f drip s an d t o di e senso r thatindicate s failure of di e sea l system , th e barrier fluid system , or both . (ii ) I f indication s o f

liquid s dripping from di e pum

p sea l excee d di e criteri a establishe d i n paragraph (d)(6)(i ) of thi s section , or

. if , base d o n di e criteri a establishe d i n paragraph (d](6)(i ) of thi s section ; di e senso r indicate s failur e of th e sea l system , di e barrie r fluid system , or bodi , a lea k i s detected . (iii ) Whe n a lea k i s detected , itshal l b e repaired a s soo n a s practicable , bu t no tlate r dia n 1 5 calenda r day s afte r i ti s detected , excep ta s provide d i n 9 61.242
- 10
. (iv ) A firstattemp ta trepair shal l b e mad e n o late r dia n five calenda r day s after eac h lea k i s detecte d
[F RDoc . 8&-2218

7 Filed 9-20-89 ; 8:4

5 am ] smia e coo s nm s

o u