OAR Box 1107 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

26) VI-H-1 

Docket Number: 

A-81-21 

Printed 4/11/2008 3:03:46 PM Sheet 26 of 90 

P.1 
P.2 

SEPA 

US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A6ENCY 

RMMrch Trirt* Park. North Carolina 27711 

Memo to Docket No. A-81-21 

The attached SF-83 and preamble/regulatory revisions 

to the NESHAP for Vinyl Chloride and Equipment Leaks were 

forwarded to OMB on April 14, 1989 for review as required 

under Executive Order 12291. 

Shirley Tabler 

Standards Development Branch 
P.3 

Standard Form 83 

(R«v. September 1933) Request for OMB Review 

Important 

Read instructions before completing form. Do not use the same SF 83 

to request both an Executive Order 12291 review and aporoval under 

the Pa perwork Reduction Act. 

Answer all questions in Part I. If this request is for review under E.O. 

12291. complete Part II and sign the regulatory certification. If this 

request is for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 

1320. skip Part II. complete Part III and sign the paperwork certification. 

Send three copies of this form, the materia! to be reviewed, and f( 

paperwork—three copies of the supporting statement, to: 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Attention: Docket Library, Room 3201 

Washington. DC 20503 

PART I.—Complete This Part for All Requests. 

1. Department/agency and Bureau/office originating request 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

3, Name of person who can best answer questions regarding this request 

Shirle y Table r 

2. Agency code 

_2 0_ 6 _0_ 

Telephone number 

( FTS > 629-525 6 

4. Title of information collection or rulemaking 

Revisions to National Emission Standards for Vinyl Chloride and Equipment Leaks 

5. Legal authority for information collection or rule (cite United States Code. Public Law. or Executive Order) 

4 2 use 7412 , 7414 , 7416 . 7601(a ) 

6. Affected public (check all that apply) 

1 O Individuals or households 

2 D State or local governments 

3 D Farms 

4 Q Businesses or other for-profit 

Federal agencies or employees 

6 D Non-profit institutions 

7D Small businesses or organizations 

PART II.—Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291 

7. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

.. or. None assigned D 

8. Type of submission (check one in each category) 

Classification 

1 D Major 

2 HH Nonmajor 

Stage of development 

1 03 Proposed or draft 

2D Final or interim final, with prior proposal 

3 D Final or interim final, without prior proposal 

Type ot review requested 

1 O Standard 

2 L j Pending 

3D Emergency 

4 D Statutory or judicial deadline 

9. CFR section affected 

r.FR 

10. Does this regulation contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

and 5 CFR 1320? . . n Yes O i 

2 D I 

« D i 

Certification for Regulatory Submissions 

In submitting this request for OMB review, the authorized regulatory contact aryl the program official certify that the requirements of E.O. 12291 and any appl cabli 

policy directives have been complied with. 

Signature of program offjei 

irector, Office of Air 

uality Planning & Standards 

Signature of authorizedregulatory contact 

Date * 

A^L 

Da!e 

12. (OMB use only) 

Previous «r<3itto*u obsolete 

NSN 7S40-0O634-4034 

8310 8 Stjnd»fdFcrm83(5;» . 5 

Prescribe Oy ( 

<; O"R i i^n ,>nri rn :? 
P.4 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 61 

[AD-FRL- ] 

NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 

REVISIONS TO VINYL CHLORIDE; EQUIPMENT LEAKS OF VOLATILE 

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

ACTION: Proposed rule and public hearing; petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: On November 26, 1986, the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. 

(SPI) filed with EPA a petition for stay of enforcement and administrative 

reconsideration of seven provisions in the final rule revising the national 

emission standard for VC (September 30, 1986, 51 FR 34904). The SPI and 

three manufacturers (Dow Chemical Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and 

Vista Chemical Company) concurrently filed a petition for review of the 

revisions to the VC standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. The petitioners requested review of the definitions 

of "ethylene dichloride purification," "leak," "exhaust gas," "relief valve 

discharge," and "3-hour period;" the scope of the relief valve discharge 

provisions; and the leak detection and elimination provisions (area monitoring). 

The EPA has evaluated the petitions, and the Administrator proposes to grant 

the petitioners' request for clarification of certain of these provisions. 

Minor revisions are being proposed to correct ambiguities in several definitions 

and in the applicability of certain regulatory requirements in the VC standards. 

The proposed revisions would not increase the emissions (and the associated 

health risks) allowed by the standards as promulgated in September 1986. 

No changes, however, will be made with regard to area monitoring requirements 

or the relief valve discharge standard. This action provides EPA's responses 
P.5 

to petitioners' requests, and the resulting minor proposed revisions to the 

standards are set forth in this notice. 

This action also serves as notice that the petitioners' request for stay 

of the 1986 revised provisions is being denied. 

In addition, this notice is not intended to address the recent decision 

by the D. C. Circuit Court on the VC standards, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc. v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (1987). Any response to that decision 

will be made in a future notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER. 

A public hearing will be held to provide interested parties an opportunity 

for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed 

revisions. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before 

(contact Ann Eleanor at FTS 629-5578). 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by (contact Ann Eleanor at FTS 629-5578), a public 

hearing will be held on (contact Ann Eleanor at FTS 629-5578) 

beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should 

call Ann Eleanor at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will be held. 

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony 

must contact EPA by (contact Ann Eleanor at FTS 629-5578). 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted in duplicate (if possible) 

to: Central Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-81-21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting a public hearing, it 

will be held at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing 

to present oral testimony should notify Ms. Ann Eleanor, Standards Development 
P.6 

Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5578. 

Docket. A docket, number A-81-21, containing information considered by 

EPA in the development ot" the promulgated standards and the petition for stay 

and reconsideration, to which this notice is responding, is available for public 

inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's 

Central Docket Section, South Conference Center, Room 4, 401 M Street, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information and interpretations 

of applicability, compliance requirements, and reporting aspects of the revised 

standards, contact the appropriate Regional, State, or local office contact as 

listed in 40 CFR 60.4. For further information on the background for the 

proposed revised standards, contact Ms. Shirley Tabler, Standards Development 

Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5256. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. BACKGROUND. 

In December, 1975, EPA designated VC as a hazardous air pollutant under 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412) and promulgated final rules 

for VC on October 21, 1976 (40 CFR 61.60 - 61.71). The standards limit emissions 

of VC from plants producing ethylene dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination, VC, 

and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other polymers containing VC. These plants 

are subject to a combination of emission limits, equipment, and work practice 

requirements at numerous points in the manufacturing processes. 

On September 30, 1986 (51 FR 34904), EPA promulgated several administrative 

and clarifying revisions to the national emission standard for VC. Subsequently, 

on November 26, 1986, SPI filed with EPA a petition for stay and administrative 
P.7 

reconsideration of seven provisions in the final revisions to the VC standard. 

The SPI, Dow Chemical Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and Vista Chemical 

Company concurrently filed a petition for review of several provisions of 

the revised standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the O.C. Circuit. 

The SPI is a nonprofit corporation whose members include processors and 

manufacturers of plastics or plastic products, suppliers of raw materials, 

processors and converters of plastic resins, and manufacturers of accessory 

equipment for the plastics industry. The Vinyl Institute, a division of SPI, 

represents the major domestic producers of VC and PVC. 

II. SUMMARY OF SPI'S PETITION FOR STAY/RECONSIDERATION AND EPA'S RESPONSE 

The SPI requested that EPA issue a stay of the 1986 revisions to the VC 

standard pending review of those revised provisions. Their request for a stay 

was based on the following factors: (1) certain provisions- of the 1985 proposal 

were changed without adequate notice or justification by EPA; (2) industry 

members represented by SPI would suffer irreparable harm if the effectiveness 

of the 1986 revisions are not stayed during the review period; and (3) a stay 

will cause no harm to other parties or the public interest. 

The EPA has considered the factors presented by SPI in support of their 

request for stay of the 1986 VC revisions pending EPA's review of the revisions. 

Having considered the likelihood of SPI's success on the merits of its petition 

for reconsideration, the likelihood that SPI would be irreparably harmed absent 

a stay, the prospect that others would be harmed in the event of a stay, and 

the public interest, the Administrator has not stayed the 1986 revisions of the 

VC standard at issue here. This is consistent with long-standing EPA policy 

to continue to enforce an existing regulation until and unless a revision 

becomes formally effective. The EPA's policy has been consistently approved by 

the courts in the context of State Implementation Plans. See Train v. NRDC, 
P.8 

421 U.S. 60, 92 (1975) ("This litigation, however, is carried out on the 

polluter's time not the public's, for during [the pendency of a SIP revision] 

the original regulations remain in effect, and the polluter's failure to 

comply may subject him to a variety of enforcement procedures.") The 

rationale in Train applies with equal force to regulations promulgated 

under Section 112. Therefore, EPA hereby denies SPI's request for a stay 

pending EPA's reconsideration of the VC standard. 

In the petition for review of the revised standard, SPI claimed that 

the 1986 promulgated revisions differed significantly from the revisions 

that were proposed on January 9, 1985 (50 FR 1182). 

The SPI asserted that without adequate notice, EPA's 1986 revisions 

changed key provisions of the VC standard in a manner that: (1) violated 

case law; (2) imposed new penalties; (3) created multiple penalties for the 

same event; and (4) expanded the types of equipment subject to the standard. 

The following discussion summarizes their concerns and EPA's responses. 

Definition of "Exhaust Gas" 

The SPI requested a review of several definitions in the VC standard. 

According to SPI, the 1986 final definition of "exhaust gas," 40 CFR 61.61(x), 

deleted a key sentence from the proposed definition without adequate explanation. 

By omitting the sentence, "A leak .. . is not an exhaust gas, " SPI was 

concerned that leak emissions could result in violations of the exhaust gas 

standard if more than 10 ppm of VC are emitted. Reconsideration was requested 

because leaks from equipment in VC service would exceed the 10 ppm emission 

limitation for exhaust gases, thereby subjecting industries to a potential 

fine of $25,000 per day for each leak. 

It was not EPA's intent to categorize every leak of greater than 10 ppm 

as an exhaust gas. The sentence was omitted in the final definition because 

5 
P.9 

some emissions which are required to be vented to a control device cannot 

be automatically categorized as either a leak or exhaust gas by a general 

definition. As stated in the promulgation BID for the revised standards 

(pp. 2-54 and 2-55), the facts of the situation resulting in these emissions 

needed to be considered when deciding which part of the VC standard applied. 

Upon reconsideration, EPA agrees with SPI's concern that the final definition 

of "exhaust gas" does not provide for exemption from the exhaust gas standard 

(10 ppm) when such an emission is judged to be a leak. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to modify the definition by adding two sentences which clarify 

that a leak is not an exhaust gas, and that equipment containing exhaust 

gas must comply with Section 61.65(b)(8) requiring leak detection and 

prevention, whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume VC. 

This proposed addition assures that leaks from exhaust gas streams are 

subject to the leak detection and elimination requirements, but that such 

leaks will not also be classified as "exhaust gas." 

Definition of "Relief Valve Discharge" 

The SPI objected to a sentence added to the 1986 final definition of 

"relief valve discharge," 40 CFR 61.61(y), which stated that a relief valve 

discharge would be exempt from regulation if vented to a control device, 

but only if the control device meets the 10 ppm emission limit. The SPI 

pointed out that a double violation could occur (i.e., of the relief valve 

discharge and exhaust gas standards) if a relief valve discharge is vented 

to a control device not meeting 10 ppm. If interpreted to impose double 

penalties, this provision, in SPI's view, would exceed EPA's statutory 

authority and unlawfully increase the maximum statutory penalty set by 

Congress for a single event that leads to a violation of a NESHAP. The SPI 

believes that owners/operators of regulated facilities have sufficient 
P.10 

economic incentive (preventing releases of their product) to ensure that 

pressure relief valves work as designed, regardless of the standard promulgated. 

Moreover, the final definition contradicts past regulatory interpretation 

that relief valve discharges ducted to flares and other control devices are 

exempt from the exhaust gas standard. 

The EPA agrees that venting a relief valve discharge (RVD) to a 

combustion device achieves significant emission reduction benefits. These 

devices, when properly designed and operated, generally have efficiencies 

of 98 percent or greater. The use of combustion devices are not expected 

to increase the number of RVD's. Thus, because regulated facilities do 

have some economic incentive to ensure that RVD's are minimized, the net 

RVD emission reduction resulting from the use of combustion devices should 

approach 98 percent or more. Therefore, minor revisions to the definition 

of "relief valve discharge" and to the RVD provisions [Section 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 the regulatory 

requirements and imposition of a double penalty. 

In addition, new provisions [Section 61.65(d)] have been added for an 

RVD that is ducted to a control device that is continually operating while 

emissions from the release are present at the device. An RVD that is ducted 

to a control device, other than a flare, would be subject to the 10 ppm limit 

and the continuous emission monitoring system requirement contained in 

Section 61.68 and to the reporting requirements of Section 61.70. In the 

case of flares, emission monitoring is not possible. Therefore, for RVD's 

routed to a flare, the design requirements, for flares (40 CFR 60.18) would 

apply. The EPA recognizes that measurement of relief valve discharge 

7 
P.11 

volumetric flow rates and gas stream composition is not possible using the 

methods set forth in 60.18(f)(3) and (f)(4). Estimates of these parameters 

will, therefore, need to be based on empirical or other bases, subject 

to EPA approval. Flare operations would be monitored in accordance with 

the requirements of Sections 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of 

Section 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 Sections 60.18(c)(3) through 

(c)(6). If more than one relief valve is discharged simultaneously to a 

single flare, these calculations would account for the cumulative effect 

on all such RVD's. If the results of the monitoring contained in 

Section 60.18(f)(2) or any other information show that the pilot flame is 

not present 100 percent of the time during which an RVD is routed to a 

flare, the RVD is subject to the provisions of Section 61.65(a). A report 

describing the flare design must be provided to the Administrator not later 

than 90 days after the adoption of this provision or within 30 days of the 

installation of a flare system for control of RVD's, whichever is later. 

Definition of a "Leak" 

The SPI objected to EPA's defining "indications of liquid dripping" 

as a "leak," 40 CFR 61.61(w). The SPI requested that the phrase be deleted 

or revised to refer to VC since dripping liquids may not always contain VC. 

In the VC standard, the portion of the leak definition referring to 

"indications of liquid dripping" applies only to pumps in VC service. The 

EPA believes that "indications of liquid dripping" are an appropriate criterion 

for requiring repair actions on double 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 promulgated revisions, visible leakage from all types 
P.12 

of pump seals, including double mechanical seals required by the VC standard, 

is generally indicative of seal wear even if no VC is present in the leaking 

fluid. To prevent further seal wear resulting in major seal failure allowing 

VC emissions into the atmosphere, the seals should be repaired soon after 

leakage is initially detected. After further consideration of SPI's concern, 

however, EPA agrees that some amount of barrier fluid leakage is normal. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to revise the standards for pumps [Section 61.242-2(d)] 

to clarify the requirements for pump seal drips. Section 61.242-2(d)(4) 

addresses drips from pump seals that contain VC, and Section 61.242-2(d)(6) 

addresses drips from pump seals that do not contain VC. 

The proposed revised provisions of Section 61.242-2(d) are designed to 

accomplish two purposes. One is to ensure that VC leaks from pump seals 

are detected and eliminated. This is accomplished by paragraphs (d)(4)(i), 

(ii), and (iii). The other purpose is to identify and prevent pump seal 

failures by causing abnormal dripping (even when VC is not contained in the 

dripping liquid) to be detected and repairs to be made. This is accomplished 

by paragraphs (d)(6)(i), (ii), (iii). and (iv). These paragraphs require 

the facility owner/operator to establish criteria associated with normal 

operation. 

The intent of the proposed revised provisions is identical to the existing 

provisions. The difference is that the proposed Section 61.242.2(d)(6)(i) 

allows an owner/operator to take into account the small number of liquid 

drips that may occur when new seals are in place or are otherwise associated 

with normal operation. 

Definition of "3-hour period" 

The SPI noted that, in the September 1986 final rule, EPA added a 

definition of "3-hour period" 40 CFR 61.61(z), to clarify that the emission 
P.13 

limits in the exhaust gas standard (10 ppm) is a 3-hour average. The definition 

creates "rolling" averages (24 3-hour averages per day) rather than "block" 

averages (8 3-hour averages). The SPI objected that a single, 1-hour 10 ppm 

exceedance could result in three violations of the 10 ppm exhaust gas 

standard, under the revised definition of "3-hour period." This could lead 

to double or triple penalties, "thereby exceeding the maximum penalty 

permissible under the Clean Air Act." 

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 in Section 61.61(z) 

to accomplish this. The EPA did not intend to penalize a plant three 

times whenever a 10 ppm event occurs within 1 hour. 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 just because they occurred 

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 violations. 

Definition of "Ethylene Dichloride Purification" 

According to SPI, the 1986 final revisions changed the definition of 

EDC purification, 40 CFR 61.61(o). The promulgated definition excluded 

product storage following the final VC finishing column, and thus 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 column) based on EPA's response 

to comments contained in the BID (pp. 2-43 and 2-44) and in the BID summary 

of changes since proposal (pp. 1-2). Although it supports the exemption of 

10 
P.14 

final EDC product storage 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 its facilities. The information 

included tank sizes, design, emissions estimates, and costs. 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. The definition of "EDC purification" 

has been revised to clarify that emissions from crude, intermediate, and 

final storage tanks following EDC formation are not subject to the standards. 

In addition, Section 61.65(b)(6), Opening of equipment, has also been revised 

to clarify that the requirements in this section do not apply to crude, 

intermediate, or final EDC storage tanks. As stated in the BID response 

(pp. 2-43 through 2-45), EPA evaluated the reasonableness of regulating EDC 

storage tanks under the VC standard. Based on emissions data submitted by 

the commenters, uncontrolled VC emissions from intermediate and final EDC 

storage tanks at a typical EDC/VC plant were estimated to be 0.1 to 2 Mg/yr. 

An emission reduction as high as 14 Mg/yr from all plants would be achieved 

based on venting existing EDC storage tanks to an existing primary control 

device (incinerators). Prior to the September 1986 rule, EPA concluded 

that regulation of these tanks under the VC standard was not warranted. 

In response to SPI's petition for reconsideration, EPA has evaluated 

the data submitted by one SPI company (Docket Entry No. VI-B-4) for nine crude 

and intermediate EDC storage tanks before the final finishing column at one 

of its facilities. These tanks are currently uncontrolled. The data 

included tank sizes, design, emissions estimates, and costs. The company's 

11 
P.15 

estimates of the total uncontrolled emissions (0.002 to 0.323 Mg/yr VC) for 

the nine crude and intermediate tanks fall at the low end of the range of 

individual VC tank emission estimates made by EPA for EDC final product 

storage tanks. This information is consistent with EPA's position that the 

regulation of crude and intermediate storage tanks is unnecessary because 

emissions are extremely low. 

Leak Detection and Elimination 

Under the 1976 VC standard, 40 CFR 61.65(b)(8), companies installed 

area monitors and developed plant-specific leak detection and elimination 

programs that included the routine use of 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 petroleum industries. The 1986 revisions incorporated the Subpart V 

provisions into the VC standard. The SPI opposes the addition of the 

Subpart V provisions to the VC standard. The SPI argued that existing 

programs are effective without the Subpart V provisions and that EPA's 

decision to retain area monitoring requirements from the 1976 standard is 

questionable since they have not been required for other industries subject 

to Subpart V. In addition, according to SPI, no justification has been 

given for requiring retention of area monitors in addition to Subpart V. 

Although a program under Section 61.65(b)(8) demonstrating less than 2 percent 

of valves leaking is considered "effective," such a program is exempt only 

from certain parts of Subpart V. For these reasons, SPI requests reinstatement 

of the leak detection and elimination requirements contained in the 1976 VC 

standard. 

Upon reconsideration, EPA proposes to make no changes in the 

application of Subpart V to the VC standard and the requirements for fixed 

12 
P.16 

area monitoring [Section 61.65(b)(8)(i)D. The basis for adding Subpart V 

to the VC standard was explained in detail in the preamble to the proposed 

revisions (50 FR 1190-1192, January 9, 1985), and the justification for 

those requirements has not changed since that time. The EPA believes 

that the area monitoring and Subpart V approaches both have benefits and 

are not redundant. In particular, area monitors allow for quick detection 

of certain large VC leaks that might otherwise go undetected until the next 

routine portable monitoring screening, as well as detection of large leaks 

from equipment not affected by Subpart V (e.g., agitators). The area 

monitors have already been purchased by subject facilities and the additional 

cost of monitor operation is relatively small. Therefore, a comparison to 

other industries is not relevant. Also, area monitoring is often used as 

part of a program to reduce leaks to below 2 percent, and therefore, as 

discussed below, an owner/operator does not have to conduct the leak detection 

and repair provisions of Subpart V. 

Any plant with an effective existing program under Section 61.65(b)(8) for 

detecting and repairing leaks can control equipment leaks without complying 

with the Subpart V provisions. Specifically, if an owner/operator can 

demonstrate that less than 2.0 percent of valves are leaking in any process 

unit, then.that process unit is exempt from Sections 61.242-l(d) (marking), 

61.242-7(a) (monitoring), 61.246 (recordkeeping), and 61.247 (reporting). To 

demonstrate that less than 2.0 percent of valves are leaking, the owner/operator 

must conduct a performance test initially, annually, and at any other times 

requested by the Administrator. If, during any performance test, the percentage of leaking valves exceeds 2.0 percent, then the owner/operator must 

comply with Subpart V within 90 days. This exemption only applies to the 

standards for valves [Section 61.242-7(a)(b)(c)] because the other standards in 

13 
P.17 

Subpart V interface with specific equipment requirements/performance measures 

in the VC standard [e.g., leaks from relief valves, Section 61.65(b)(4) and 

rotating pumps, Section 61.65(b)(3)(i)]. However, this exemption includes 

all of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Sections 61.246 and 

61.247 because these requirements mainly affect valves. The exemption for 

marking, recordkeeping, and reporting applies to the entire process unit. 

The exemptions (provided in the VC standard) to Subpart V were designed, 

based on comments made during the public comment period, to avoid unnecessary 

changes to existing leak detection plans which are effective in detecting 

and repairing VC leaks. 

Scope of Relief Valve Discharge Provisions 

The SPI opposes EPA's withdrawal of the 1985 proposed numerical limits 

for relief valve discharges and has requested that EPA reconsider its 

decision to retain the emergency discharge provision of the 1976 standard, 

40 CFR 61.65(a). The SPI claimed that the 1976 standard "impermissibly 

delegates rulemaking authority to enforcement personnel and is unconstitutionally vague and that, as applied, the regulation is unfair, unlawful, arbitrary 

and capricious." The SPI prefers the proposed numerical limits because they 

would remedy these problems and reduce the administrative burden on EPA and 

industry. The SPI also believes that the proposed numerical limits are stricter 

than the 1976 emergency discharge provision because "each discharge causing 

an exceedance of any numerical limit . . . would be considered a violation 

without regard to whether any individual discharge was preventable." 

The EPA has reviewed the basis for the decision not to promulgate numerical 

limits for RVD's and has decided that the 1976 standard is still reasonable 

and appropriate. The 1976 standard permits only "emergency" RVD's, those 

that could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. 

14 
P.18 

A detailed discussion of the basis for not promulgating the numerical 

limits for RVD's is contained in the preamble for the promulgated amendments 

(51 FR 34905-34906, September 30, 1986), and SPI has not provided any new 

information that would affect EPA's decision. In summary, the 

decision to retain the original 1976 RVD standard was made after considering 

the revisions in light of public comments on the numerical limits, and 

after review of the basis for the decision to reformat the standard. 

In particular, several public comments on the 1985 proposed amendments 

expressed concern that preventable RVD's would be allowed under the revised 

standard and that the performance allowed under the revised standard could 

be inconsistent with that allowed under the original standard. Other 

comments expressed concern that the revised standard included no mechanism 

for regulating very large RVD's. The basis for the statement that a large 

EPA resource commitment is required for enforcing the 1976 RVD standard was 

also questioned. 

The EPA's review revealed that the burden on its resources had 

diminished as experience with the implementation of the standard increased 

and as the industry's understanding of the provisions of the existing 

standard became clearer. Thus, it was not necessary to revise the format 

of the RVD standard. Compared to the 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 the existing standard. 

Based on the EPA's experience with administering the VC standard of 

Section 61.65(a), one major deficiency with the type of information submitted 

in many of the 10-day reports of RVD's has been recognized. This concerns that 

information required to be reported by the standard regarding, "the action that 

15 
P.19 

was taken to prevent the discharge." For purposes of clarification, this 

portion of the standard requires information on the action taken to prevent or address the cause leading up to the RVD release and not only the 

action taken after an event or cause occurs that results in an RVD release. 

Emission Monitoring Clarification 

In addition to the changes made in response to the petition for reconsideration, a minor clarification has been made in Section 61.68, Emission 

monitoring. The existing regulation, Section 61.68(b), states that the VC 

monitoring system(s) that is used to meet the continuous monitoring requirements in paragraph (a) (of Section 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 Section 61.68 calls for the monitoring of the emissions from 

prescribed sources for vinyl chloride and not ambient air sampling as required 

under Section 61.65(b)(8) for leak detection/elimination, Section 61.68(b) 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. 

III. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

A. Public Hearing 

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the proposed 

rulemaking in accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act. 

Persons wishing to make oral presentations should contact EPA at the address 

given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be 

limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written 

statement with EPA before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. 

Written statements should be addressed to the Central Docket Section address 

given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

16 
P.20 

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, D.C. (see ADDRESSES section 

of this 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 that 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 whether a regulatory 

action is "major" and, therefore, subject to the requirement of a regulatory 

impact analysis. This proposed rulemaking is not major because it makes 

minor clarifying revisions to an existing regulation and, therefore, results 

in none of the significant adverse economic effects described in the Order. 

This rulemaking was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any written comments 

from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included in Docket 

No. A-81-21. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Central 

Docket Section that is listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

17 
P.21 

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 hearby 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. 

Date Administrator 

Certified to be a true copy 

of the original 

IR 
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed to amend 

40 CFR Part 61 as follows: 

1. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 101, 112, 114, 116, 301, Clean Air Act as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, 7601). 

2. Section 61.61 is amended by revising paragraphs (o), (w), (x), 

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

§ 61.61 Definitions. 

**** * 

(o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" includes any part of the 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 this part such as: (1) an instrument 

reading of 10,000 ppm or greater measured according to Method 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 than 500 ppm above background 

for equipment designated for no detectable emissions measured according to 

Test Method 21 (see Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60); and (4) in the case of 

pump seals regulated under § 61.242-2, indications of liquid dripping 

constituting a leak under § 61.242-2. Leaks also include events regulated 

under § 61.65(b)(8)(i) for detection of ambient concentrations in excess of 

background concentrations. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. 

19 
P.23 

(x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas (the constituents of which may 

consist of any fluids, either as a liquid and/or gas) discharged directly 

or ultimately to the atmosphere that was initially contained in or was in 

direct contact with the equipment for which exhaust gas limits are prescribed 

in § 61.62(a) and (b); § 61.63(a); § 61.64(a)(1), (b), (c), and (d); 

§ 61.65(b)(1)(H). (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6)(H), (b)(7), and (b)(9)(H); 

and § 61.65(d). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not 

an exhaust gas. Equipment which contains exhaust gas is subject to Section 

61.65(b)(8), whether or not that equipment contains 10 percent by volume 

vinyl chloride. 

(y) "Relief Valve Discharge" means any nonleak discharge through a 

relief valve. 

(z) "3-hour period" means any three consecutive 1-hour'periods (each 

commencing on the hour), provided that the number of 3-hour periods during 

which the vinyl chloride concentration exceeds 10 ppm does not exceed the 

number of 1-hour periods during which the vinyl chloride concentration 

exceeds 10 ppm. 

3. Section 61.65 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(6), and 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride and 

polyvinyl chloride plants. 

An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or 

polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. 

(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for an emergency relief discharge, 

and except as provided in § 61.65(d), there is to be no discharge to the 

atmosphere from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride service. 

An emergency relief discharge means a discharge which could not have been 

20 
P.24 

avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any 

relief valve discharge, except for those subject to § 61.65(d), the owner 

or operator of the source from which the relief valve discharge occurs 

shall submit to the Administrator a report in writing containing information 

on the source, nature and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the 

discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, 

the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss (the calculation of 

the vinyl chloride loss), the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, 

and measures adopted to prevent future discharges. 

(b) * * * 

(6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of 

equipment (excluding crude, intermediate, and final EDC storage tanks, but 

including prepolymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resins 

and loading or unloading lines that are not opened to the atmosphere after 

each loading or unloading operation) are to be minimized as follows: 

**** * 

(d) A RVD that is ducted to a control device that is continually 

operating white emissions from the release are present at the device is 

subject to the following requirements: 

(1) A discharge from a control device other than a flare shall not 

exceed 10 ppm (average over a 3-hour period) as determined by the continuous 

emission monitor system required under § 61.68. Such a discharge is subject 

to the requirements of § 61.70. 

(2) For a discharge routed to a flare, the flare shall comply with 

the requirements of § 60.18. 

(i) Flare operations shall be monitored in accordance with the 

requirements of §§ 60.18(d) and 60.18(f)(2). For the purposes of § 60.18(d), 

21 
P.25 

the volume and component concentration of each relief valve discharge shall 

be estimated and calculations shall be made to verify ongoing compliance 

with the design and operating requirements of §§ 60.18(c)(3) through (c)(6). 

If more than one relief valve is discharged simultaneously to a single 

flare, these calculatons shall account for the cumulative effect of all 

such relief valve discharges. These calculations shall be made and reported 

quarterly for all discharges within the quarter. Failure to comply with any 

of the requirements of this paragraph will be a violation of § 61.65(d)(2). 

Monitoring for the presence of a flare pilot flame shall be conducted in 

accordance with § 60.18(f)(2). If the results of this monitoring or any 

other information shows that the pilot flame is not present 100 percent of 

the time during which a relief valve discharge is routed to the flare, the 

relief valve discharge is subject to the provisions of § 61*65(a). 

(ii) A report describing the flare design shall be provided to the 

Administrator not later than 90 days after the adoption of this provision or 

within 30 days of the installation of a flare system for control of relief 

valve discharge whichever is later. The flare design report shall include 

calculations based upon expected relief valve discharge component concentrations and net heating values (for PVC this calculation shall be based on 

values expected if a release occurred at the instant the polymerization 

starts); and estimated maximum exit velocities based upon the design throat 

capacity of the gas in the relief valve. 

4. Section 61.68 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 61.68 Emission monitoring. 

(a) * * * 

(b) The vinyl chloride monitoring system(s) used to meet the requirement 

in paragraph (a) of this section is to be a device which obtains representative 

22 
P.26 

samples from one or more applicable emission points on a continuous 

sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromotography or, 

if the owner or operator assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are 

vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, 

or an alternative method. * * * 

**** * 

5. Section 61.242-2 of Subpart V is amended by revising paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 61.242-2 Standards: Pumps. 

**** * 

(d) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that 

includes a barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs 

(a) and (b) of this section, provided the following requirements are met: 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * / 

(3) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) If there are indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal 

at the time of the weekly inspection, the pump shall be monitored as specified 

in § 61.245 to determine the presence of VOC and VHAP in the barrier fluid. 

(ii) If the monitor reading (taking into account any background 

readings) indicates the presence of VHAP, a leak is detected. For the 

purpose of this paragraph, the monitor may be calibrated with VHAP, or may 

employ a gas chromatography column to limit the response of the monitor to 

VHAP, at the option of the owner or operator. 

(iii) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater (total 

VOC) is measured, a leak is detected. 

23 
(5) Each sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section 

is checked daily or is equipped with an audible alarm. 

(6)(i) The owner or operator determines, based on design 

considerations and operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence 

and frequency of drips and to the sensor that indicates failure of the seal 

system, the barrier fluid system, or both. 

(ii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed 

the criteria established in paragraph 6(i), or if, based on the criteria 

established in paragraph 6(i), the sensor indicates failure of the seal 

system, the barrier fluid system, or both, a leak is detected. 

(iii) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is,detected, 

except as provided in § 61.242-10. 

(iv) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than five 

calendar days after each leak is detected. 

**** * 

24