Document KRQ7yR7p5d2QpZkO6oJxayDyx

'^Sl)00281592 A 2S1M PROPOSED RULES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [40CFR Part 61] additional actions. These include a re statement of EPA's policy for regulating carcinogens under section 112 of the Clean Air Act; the proposal of amend |FRL 728-5] ments which would require increased VINYL CHLORIDE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants efficiency of existing control equipment, require more stringent control at new sources, and prohibit increases In emis sions within the vicinity of an existing AGENCY: Environmental , Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. source due to new construction: and the initiation of a review of the vinyl chlo ride standard three years after the pro mulgation of the amendments. SUMMARY: The proposed amendments are being made to the vinyl chloride standard which has promulgated Octo ber 21, 1976, and would apply to new and existing ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants. Tiie standard and the proposed amend ments implement the Clean Air Act and are based on the Administrator's deter mination that vinyl chloride is a hazard ous air pollutant. The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to require improved effectiveness of control tech nology at existing plants, impose more stringent emission limits on new sources, r.'ii -'.--.i.uly.r. ir. rucrvisii within uie vicinity of an existing source due to the construction of a new source, DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1,1977. Zero Emission Goal The vinyl chloride standard has been criticized for allegedly placing unwar ranted emphasis on technological rather than health considerations. Although EPA disagrees with this criticism, it seems appropriate to restate EPA's ap proach to the regulation of carcinogens in general and under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and to explain how tire vinyl chloride standard and the pro posed amendments are consistent with this approach and with the protection of public health. Qu May 25, 1976. EPA published In terim itjj. fur health risk and economic impact a ments of suspected carcinogens (41 Fli 21402), which define EPA's approach to regulatory action for suspect carcino ADDRESSES: Comments should be sub mitted (preferably in triplicate) to the Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Attention: Mr. Don R. Good win. All public comments received may be inspected and copied at the Public In formation Reference Unit (EPA Li brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. gens. As indicated in that publication, there are two steps Involved in the deci sion-making process with regard to the regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al though different EPA statutory author ities impose different requirements, in general two decisions must be made with regard to each potential carcinogen. The first decision is whether a particular sub stance constitutes a cancer risk. The second decision is what regulatory ac tion, if any, should be taken to reduce that risk. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON In deciding whether a cancer risk TACT: exists, EPA will consider a substance a Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards presumptive cancer risk when it causes and Engineering Division, Environ ..a statistically significant excess incidence mental Protection Agency, Research of benign or malignant tumors in hu Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, mans or animals. In the case of vinyl Telephone No. 919-688-6146, ext. 271. chloride, EPA evaluated all available data and concluded that a cancer risk SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: exists. In deciding how and whether to Background On October 21,1976, EPA promulgated a standard for vinyl chloride under the authority of section 112(b) (1) (B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (41 FR 4G561). The standard applies to ethyl ene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and poly vinyl chloride plants. regulate, EPA examined section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Section 112 of the Act requires that emission standards be set "at the level which in the judgment of the Administrator provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollut ants." Tills requirement appears to as sume that each pollutant regulated will On November 19, 1976, the Environ mental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the standard. Motions to intervene were subsequently filed on behalf of the So ciety of the Plastics Industry, Inc., the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and were granted by order of the Court on January 18, 1977. On March 24, 1977, EDF and EPA moved to dlsmLss the proceedings In view of a settlement agreement requiring EPA to take certain have a threshold level of effects below which no health effects will occur. As explained In the documentation for the current standard (40 1-11 59532, Decem ber 24, 1975; 41 FR 46560, October 21, 1976), it has not been possible to deter mine If there is a threshold level of effects for vinyl chloride and it is not certain that such a threshold may be determined in the near future. In the absence of strong evidence to the con trary, then, the only level of vinyl chlo ride which would appear to be absolutely protective of health is zero, which may be achievable only by banning vinyl chlo ride emissions completely. That, in turn, would require closing the entire industry. As explained in the cailicr rulemaking It Is-not clear that Congress would havo Intended tills result, so instead EPA re quired the lowest level achievable using technological means. (See 40 FR 59534 ami 41 FR 46562). In order to Insure that the standard continues to approach the only level of emissions which is known to be abso lutely protective of health, namely zero emissions. EPA is proposing amendments which require more efficient use of exist ing control technology at existing plants and more effective controls at new plants, and which encourage technology to reach this goal without banning vinyl chloride. More Stringent Standards for Existing Sources EPA is proposing amendments which would require sources presently subject to a 10 ppm emission limit to reduce emissions to 5 ppm within three years of promulgation of the amendments. The affected sources include ethylene dichlo- r.iti; "ry.;ciileri.de f.wiui- lion and purification; react-ors, ctrippen ; mixing, weighing, and holding contain ers; monomer recovery systems; and fugitive emissions which have been cap tured in accordance with the existing regulation.* If the owner or operator of a source believed that a control system would not be capable of meeting the 5 ppm limit, he would be able to request that the Administrator approve an In terim emission limit for that source. Such requests would have to be made one year before the compliance date. In re questing an interim emission limit, the owner or operator would have to submit supportive data and meet with EPA to discuss his particular problems In attain ing compliance. The meeting would be announced In the Federal Register and any interested party would be allowed to attend and submit written or oral com ments. 1/ an interim emission limit were granted to the source, the required emis sion level would be specified in a written notification from EPA and in the Fed eral Register. Each source granted an interim emission limit would be reviewed every three years to determine whether emissions could be reduced to 5 ppm, or at least to a lower interim emission limit In proposing tire reduction from 10 to 5 ppm. it is not EPA's intent that a con trol system which has been installed to As an explanatory note, paragraph (b) ol I 61.05 contains nine fugitive emission regu lations. For several of thene. the fugitive emissions are required to be cuptured and ducted to a control devico meeting 19 ppm. According to the proposed amendments, the emissions from this control device would have to be reduced to 5 ppm in the same wn7 any other sourco currently required to meet 10 ppm would have to do. Rather than In corporating both the 5 and 10 ppm emission limits In each paragraph in {61.65(b), ft separate paragraph (c) containing those emission limits Is being added to i 61.65. AU the other paragraphs In (b) are crossreferenced In paragraph (c). FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE i, \977 ABD00281593 PROP05ED RULES 28155 meet the 10 ppm emission limit be re moved and replaced with another more efficient control system or that a second control system be added behind the first control system. The purpose of the pro posed amendment is to force owners and operators to maximize the effectiveness of existing control systems. More Stringent Standards for New Sources f The proposed amendments would also require more stringent controls for new sources; l.e., sources for which construc tion is commenced after the date of pro posal of these amendments. According to 61.02 of the General Provisions, "commenced" means that an owner or operator lias undertaken a continuous program of construction or modification or that an owner or operator has entered Into a contractual obligation to under take and complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of construc tion or modification. New sources of types which would be subject to the 10 ppm emission limit under the current standard would be required under the amendments to meet a 5 ppm emission limit at the time ofstartup. With new sources there would be no provision allowing requests for EPA approval of an interim emission limit. New sources would be required to meet the more stringent emission limit at the time of startup, because they have an opportunity to design their equipment to meet the 5 ppm emission limit at the time construction is commenced. Existing sources, on the other hand, require time to maximize the effectiveness of their control systems. The .proposed amendment would also require ethylene dichloride-vinyl chlor ide plants to control emissions from new oxychlorination reactors to 5 ppm. This requirement is based on installation of a recycling and oxygen feed system with an incinerator or equivalent control de vice. The current standard limits emis sions from the oxychlorination reactor to 0.2 g/kg <0.0002 lb/lb) of the 100 per cent ethylene dlchloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. This emis sion limit can be met by changing proc ess parameters, rather than installing a control device. During the development of the current standard EPA considered requiring existing sources to control emissions with an incinerator or equiva lent technology, but rejected this ap proach because a large quantity of fuel would be required to reduce emissions from a relatively small source. An exist ing oxychlorination reactor typically has a large volume, low hydrocarbon effluent gas stream, and large quantities of sup plemental fuels would be required for combustion of its emissions. A new plant can reduce the volume of its effluent gas stream and make it more concentrated by recycling the gas stream and using, oxygen instead of air to feed Into the process. (3, 4) the current standard was not based on this technol ogy because it was not considered feasi ble to retrofit existing plants so that they could use oxygen Instead of air. The re- cycling and oxygen feed methodolgy is considered feasible for tjew oxychlorina tion reactors because it'can be incorpo rated at the time of construction. Since the use of this technology would elimin ate the supplemental fuel problem re ferred to above, it Is EPA's judgment that new oxychlorination reactors should be controlled to the same extent that is proposed for other emission sources. ' The proposed amendment also Includes a more stringent emission limit for new polyvinyl chloride resins being processed in equipment following the stripping operation. That is, the amendment would apply to resins for which produc tion for the purpose of marketing was commenced alter the proposal of the amendment. The amendment would re quire all new resins except new disper sion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and new dispersion resins to be stripped to 500 ppm. These limits for new products would be one-fourth of the limits con tained in the standard for existing prod ucts. Consistent with the current stand ard, the amendment would permit the use of control devices rather than strip ping technology to meet the emission limit. In this case equipment being used to process all new resins except new dis persion resins would have to be con trolled to 0.01 kg/kg product and the equipment used for new dispersion resins would have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg product. A "new source" is defined in 40 CFR 61.02 as a stationary source, the con struction or modification of which is commenced after proposal oi jrstandard. There was some question based on this definition as to whether the amendment to the stripping standard for new sources should apply to new polyvinyl chloride resins or the Installation of new equip ment following the stripper. If the ap plicability of the amendment for new sources were based on the installation of new equipment following the stripper, it would be difficult to determine what con stitutes a new source at an existing plant. This is based on the reasoning that the stripping standard requires that all equipment following the stripper in the process be controlled as a unit. The series of equipment following the stripper in cludes pumps and conveying equipment which might be expected to be replaced on a frequent and routine basis. Replac ing one of these pieces of equipment would in effect cause the whole series of equipment following the stripper to have to meet the standard for new sources. In other words, all resins processed in the series of the equipment would have to meet the lower standard even though only a minor part of the equipment had been replaced. EPA decided that a more reasonable and direct approach was to make the proposed amendment apply to the pro duction of new polyvinyl chloride resins. This Is based on the reasoning that emis sions from the equipment following the stripper are a function of the amount of vinyl chloride left in the resin after tho stripping operation is completed; l.e., the resin Is the source of the emissions rather than the equipment The same equipment can be used to process differ ent resin grades. Variations in the emis sions from the equipment are a function of the resin being processed rather than the characteristics of the equipment. The control technology which is used for the equipment following the stripper Is like wise more directly linked to the resin than the equipment. Stripping is used to control the emissions due to the vinyl chloride in the resin before the resin is processed in the equipment. Before the hazards of vinyl chloride became known, stripping technology was employed by polyvinyl chloride manu facturers to recover raw materials for economic purposes. As a result of a standard promulgated by the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration <39 FR 35890). some companies Investi gated improvements in stripping meth odology' for emission control purposes. (/> Optimum stripping consists of a set of operating conditions which must be de veloped experimentally on an Individual basis for the many resins. In developing the current standard, EPA recognized that stripping technology for dispersion resins had not been refined to the same extent as it had been for other resins and that there was more difficulty in strip ping dispersion resins than other resins. For this reason a less stringent emission limit was established for dispersion res ins. Dispersion resins are permitted a higher emission limit under the proposed amendment for the same reason. EPA believes that for some resins, companies have already developed strip ping technology which would meet the proposed amendment. <2) For other resins, the. proposed standard would re quire additional improvement in strip ping technology. If stripping technology has not been developed to the extent necessary' to meet the proposed amend ment for a particular resin, the manu facturer would have the option of de veloping the technology or not producing the resin. The current standard, unlike the proposed amendment, was not based on the premise that an owner or operator would have the option of not producing a particular resin. It is EPA's judgment that the owner or operator making a new product has more freedom of choice than the owner or operator already making a particular product In selecting those resins which are to be produced. EPA's standard would be Included in the variables under consideration when decisions arc being made as to which resins are to be produced. The proposed amendment would apply to any new source, whether it constituted replacement of an existing source in an existing plant, the expansion of an exist ing plant, or part of an entirely new plant. That is. if a new oxychlorination reactor or ft new polyvinyl chloride re actor were installed at on existing plant, it would be subject to the emission limits for new sources. This means that as exLstlng sources are gradually replaced with new sources In an existing plant. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 ^6000281594 A 28156 PROPOSED RULES the overall emission level from that existing plant would be reduced. Emission Offset Because the present vinyl chloride standard focuses on reducing emissions rather'than attaining a particular am bient air quality concentration, there Is no provision for limiting the size of plants or the clustering of plants in a geographical area. The doubling of the size of an existing plant or the construc tion of a new plant beside an existing plant would considerably increase the ambient air concentrations of vinyl chloride in the vicinity of the plant(s) even if tire vinyl chloride standard was met. EPA determined at the time of promulgation of the current standard that the costs of prohibiting the produc tion of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride were too high and the continued operation of existing plants should be allowed. EPA believes, however, that the standard should lnclu.de a mechanism for prohibiting an increase in ambient concentrations of vinyl chloride due to new construction in areas where existing sources are already located. Accordingly. EPA is proposing an amendment which would prohibit an in crease in emissions within 8 kilometers (km) (approximately five miles) pf an existing source due to the construction of a new emission source. This means that if a new source were added to an existing plant, the increase in emissions due to that new source would have to be offset by a reduction in emissions from other existing sources within that plant or at other plants within 8 km of the construction site of the new source. Simi larly, a new plant could not be con structed within 8 km of an existing plant(s) unless the emission increase due to the new plant were offset by an emission reduction at the existing plant or plants. This provision may result In fewr existing plants being expanded and few new plants being constructed in the vicinity of existing plants. However, the proposed amendment does not preclude this possibility. The offset provision would apply only to now construction which results in an increase in production rate. Replacing or adding equipment such as pumps, com pressors, agitators, sampling equipment and unloading hoses is a routine practice at existing plants. Additions of equip ment of this nature would, in and of it self, be expected to result in little, if any, increase in emissions. In EPA's judg ment, a plant should not be required to prove this fact each time one of these pieces of equipment is added. The addi tion of this type of equipment in con junction with major process equipment, however, is likely to result in both an in crease in emissions as well as an in crease in production rate, and is there fore covered by the offset provision. If the offset provision jvcrc adopted, the reduction in emissions could be achieved in the production rate of an existing source or sources. The baseline emission rate would be determined based on the maximum production rate which had been attained by each existing source. The allowable emission rate for each source would be based on the maxi mum production rate at which that source would be operated in the future. Also, if thc-cmissions from an existing soiuxe were already below the emission limit applicable to It, the proposed amendment would give the source credit for the difference-between the emission limit and the actual emission level. That is the baseline emission rate would be based on the standard rather than on an emission test. It is EPA's judgment that this is a more equitable approach than penalizing a source which has already taken measures to reduce emissions below the standard. Such a source would have less room for further reducing emissions. The emission limits applicable to both the existing and new sources involved in the offset arrangement would be con tained in the approval of new construc tion granted by the Administrator under 40 CFR 61.08. EPA believes that a policy of no net increase in emissions due to new con struction is justified because of the haz ardous nature of vinyl chloride. How ever, EPA recognizes the potential diffi culties In implementing such a policy and interested persons arc urged to sub mit comments and factual information relating to this policy. Review of Standard EPA plans to undertake a full-scale review Of Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 61 beginning three years from the promul gation of any amendments. In the study EPA will review information concerning technological advances in the control of vinyl chloride emissions to determine what further changes might then be ap propriate to move toward the goal of zero vinyl chloride emissions. EPA will also consider recent health data to de termine whether the approach for regu lating vinyl chloride should be altered. Environmental Impact The proposed amendment, in contrast to the current standard, would encourage the development of new technology and improvements in existing technology and would have the following three positive environmental impacts: (1> further re duction of emissions at existing plants, (2) no increase in emissions within 8 km of an existing source, and (3) lower emissions from new sources than would be accomplished through the current standard regardless of the construction site. These environmental impacts would provide progress toward the ultimate goal of zero emissions without banning vinyl chloride, and in the process would provide additional protection of public health by further minimizing the health risks to the people living in the vicinity of existing plants and to any additional people who are exposed as a result of new construction. Specifically, for those existing sources which are currently subject to a 10 ppm emission limit, emissions would be re duced by half within three years after the promulgation date of these amend-' ments. At both an existing average-sized ethylene dlchloride-vlnyl chloride plant and an existing average-sized polyvinyl chloride plant, which contain other sources than the ones required to meet a 5 ppm emission limit, it is estimated this will have the effect of reducing total emissions by less than one percent. Emis sions at existing plants would be further reduced as existing oxychlorinntion re actors arc replaced with new oxychlori nntion reactors and as new polyvinyl chloride resins are prcduccd to replace existing ones. Under the proposed amendment, emis sions from new plants would be consider ably lower than they would be under the current standard. For a typical new average-sized ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride plant (318x10 kg/yr or 700 X10" lb/yr produced), the hourly emis sions would be 5.1 kg (11.5 lb) instead of 10.3 kg (23.1 lb). For a typical new average-sized dispersion polyvinyl chlo ride plant (46x10 kg/yr or 100X10* lb/yr production), the emissions would be about 9 kg/hr (20 Ib/hr) instead of 17.5 kg/hr (39 lb/hr) and for a typical new average-sized suspension polyvinyl chloride (68x10 kg/yr or 150x10 lb/yr production) the emissions would be 13.5 kg/hr) (30 lb/hr) instead of 16 kg/hr (36 Ib/hr). These emissions are calcu lated based on the emission factors pub lished in the documentation for the ex isting standard. (1) Ambient air concen trations are expected to be reduced proportionately. The only negative environmental im pact would be an increase in hydrogen chloride emissions at ethylene dichlo ride-vinyl chloride plants if incineration were used to control emissions from new oxychlorfnation reactors. However, due to the corrosion problems which would otherwise occur on plant property and in the community, plants are expected to use scrubbers to control the hydrogen chloride emissions. The proposed amend ment is not expected to have a signifi cant impact on energy consumption. Economic Impact The potential economic impacts of the proposed standard are: (1) Costs for research and develop ment of improved methodology for oper ation of existing control technology so that it can be used to meet the 5 ppm emission limit. 2> Costs for research and develop ment of improved stripping techniques to meet the standard for new polyvinyl chloride resins. (3* Cost of research and development or licensing for converting over to the oxygen system for a new oxychlorination reactor. (4) Possibly increased transportation costs of raw materials in the case that the offset policy results In the construc tion of a new plant farther, from an existing plant than it otherwise would have been. (5) Costs of building a new plant more than 8 km from an existing plant in the event that the offset requirement pre cluded the expansion of an existing plant. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 ABD00281595 A PROPOSED RULES 28157 ' (6) Delay In the production of a par ticular resin due to time spent develop ing stripping technology for that resin. (7) No growth in the production of a particular resin due to the inability to strip that resin to required levels. The types of costs which have been named would be difficult to quantify. The costs would be expected to vary consider (2) "Goodrich Reports Impressive Progress In Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem." Ameri can Paint and Coatings Journal. Vol. 00, No. 31, January 12. 197G. p. 24. (3) E. W. Wlmer and R. E. Feathers. "Ox ygen Gives Low Cost VCM," Hydrocarbon Processing. March 1976. pp. 81-84. . (4) Peter Reich, "Air or Oxygen For VCM?." Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1976. pp. 85-89. ably from one plant to another depend ing on the amount of research and de velopment than had already been done, the extent to which technology could be It is proposed that Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 61 be amended as follows: 1. In 61.08, paragraph <b) is revised to read as follows: transferred from other plants and proc esses, and the plans for new construction. One area In which cost estimates can be generated is the use of an oxygenrecycle oxychlorination process as op posed to an air-based system. The pro posed amendment does not require the use of the oxygen-recycle system, but many plants would be expected to em ploy this system to avoid the high costs of Incinerating the high volume gas stream from a typical air-based system. 61.08 Approval by ihc Admmis-lriitor. * ft * (b> If the Administrator determines that a stationary source for which an application pursuant to 61.07 was sub mitted will not, if properly operated, cause emissions in violation of the standard or violation of 61.73, he will approve the construction or modification of such source. ** * The primary cost of using the oxygen- 2. Section 61.62 is revised to read as rccycle system is the cost of the oxygen follows: itself. The cost of the oxygen for a par ticular plant would depend on whether the plant was located where there is a considerable demand for both the oxygen and nitrogen products of air separation. According to one recent article, if it is assumed that such a demand exists, the cost of the oxygen ($14.34/ton) would be approximately equivalent to the cost of compressing air for use in the airbased system. (1) Another report In which this assumption was not made and the economics of the air and oxygen sys tems were being compared, it was con cluded that overall production economics "favor the oxygen process even if vent gas incineration would not be required for an air-based plant since the sum of all remaining advantages offered by oxygen-based plant operation more than outweighs the incremental, cost for the oxygen feed." (2) Miscellaneous: The Administrator in vites comments on all aspects of the pro posed amendments. (Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 01-004, 84 Stnt. 1685 (42 U.S.C. 1R57C7) and section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148, 84 Stat. 504 ns amended bv sec. (15) (c) (2) of Pub. L. 01-G04. 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene dichloridc plants. An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 61.65. (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: Except as provided in 61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmos phere from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after the promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (b) Oxychlorination reactor: Except as provided in 5 61.65(a), emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere are not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (D Each source for which construc 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857 g(ft)). Secs. C1.67 and 61.68 also proposed under the au thority of section 114 of the Clean Air Act. as added by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1087 and amended.by Pub. L. 93-310, sec. 0(a)(4), 88 Stat. 259 (42 U.S.C. 1857C-9).) tion had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments). 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/Ib of the 100 percent ethylene dichloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. (2> Each source for which .construc Norn.--The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this document docs not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949 and OMB Circular A-107. Dated: May 27, 1977. tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (c) The requirements of this section do not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation and met the requirement In 61.65(b) (6) (1) before being opened. Douglas M. Costle, .Administrator, 3. Section 61.63 is revised to read as follows: References (1) Standard Support and Environmental *npact Statement: Emission Standard for Chloride. EPA-450 12-75-009, October, 61.63 Embsion standard for vinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo ride plant shall comply with the require ments of this section and 61.65. ( (a) Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: Except as provided in 8 61.65(a). the concentration of vinyl chloride In all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purification is not to exceed the appro priate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source, for which construc tion had commenced on or before June 2, 1977, 10 ppm until (date three years af ter promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced alter June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (b) The requirements of this section do not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 61.65(b) (6) (1) before being opened. 4. Section 61.64 is amended by revis ing paragraphs (a)(1), (b). (c), (d) and (e) and by adding paragraph (f) as fol lows : 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. * An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the re quirements of this section and 61.65. (a) Reactor: The following require ments apply to reactors: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a) (2) of this section and 61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride In all ex haust gases discharged to the atmos phere from each reactor is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as fol lows: (i) Each source for which construction had commenced on or before June 2,1977 10 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). (ii) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (b) Stripper: Except as provided in 5 61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each stripper is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before June 2. 1977 10 ppm until (date three years after promulgation of these amend ments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after final promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construction commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (c) Mixing, weighting, and holding containers: Except as provided in 61.65(a). the concentration of vinyl chlo ride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each mixing, weigh ing, or holding container in vinyl chlo ride service which precedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no strip per) in the plant process flow is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source, for which construc tion had commenced on or before (date FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 42, NO. 106--THURSOAY, JUNE 2, 1977, ABD00281596 28158 PROPOSED RULES A of proposal of thoso amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments) and S ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (d) Monomer recovery system. Except as provided In 5 61.65(a), the concentra tion of vinyl chloride In all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each monomer recovery system Is not to ex ceed the appropriate concentration as follows: (1) Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of tiiesc amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (e) Sources following the stripper(s): The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmos phere from the combination of all sources following the stripper(s) [or the reactor(s) If the plant has no stripper! In the plant process flow Including, but not limited, to centrifuges, concentra tors, blend tanks, filters, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage con tainers, and inprocess wastewater. (1) In polyvinyl chloride plants using stripping technology to control vinyl chloride emissions:' (1) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have been produced by the plant on or before June 2, 1977, tho weighted average residual vinyl chloride concentration in all the grades processed through the stripping opera tion on each calendar day, measured Im mediately after the stripping operation Is completed, may not exceed the appro priate emission limit as follows: (A) 2,000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride dispersion resins, excluding latex resins; (B) 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, averaged separately for each type of resin; (ii) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have not been pro duced by the plant on or before June 2, 1977, the weighted average residual vinyl chloride concentration In all the grades processed through the stripping operation on each calendar day, meas ured immediately after the stripping op eration is completed, may not exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (A) 500 ppm for polyvinyl chloride dispersion resins, excluding latex resins; <B) 100 ppm for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, averaged separately for each type of resin; or (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants con trolling vinyl chloride emissions with technology other than stripping or In addition to stripping: (1) For sources being used to process a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin all of which had been produced by the plant on or belore June 2, 1977: (A) 2 g/kg (0.003 Ib/lb) product from the strippcr(s) for reactor(s) If tho plant has no stripper(s)) for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with tire product determined on a dry solids basis; (B) 0.4 g/kg (0.004 Ib/lb) product from the sirippcr(s) (or reoctor(s) if the plant lias no stripper(s)) for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, Including latex resins, with tire product deter mined on a dry solids basis. (ii) For sources being used to procoss any grade of polyvinyl chloride resin not produced by the plant on or before June 2, 1977; (A) 0.5 g/kg (0.0005 lb/lb) product from the stripper(s) (or reactor(s) if the plant has no strippcr(s)) for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la tex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis; <B) 0.1 g/kg. (0.0001 Ib/lb) product from the strippers (or rcactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)) for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, Including latex resins,. with the product deter mined on a dry solids basis. (f) Tile requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not apply to equipment that has been opened, Is out of operation, and met the requirement in 61.65(b) (6) (1) before being opened. 5. Section 61.65 is amended as follows: A. By replacing the phrase "10 ppm'' with the phrase "the appropriate emis sion limit specified in 5 61.65(c)" In paragraphs (b)(1) (ii), (b)(2), (b)(3) (1), (b) (3) (ii), (b)(3) Oil), (b)(3)v). (b)(3)(v), (b)(5), (b)(6)(H), and (b) (0) (Ji); B. By revising paragraph (c) and add ing paragraph (d) as set forth below. 61.65 Emission standard for clliylcnc dicldoride, vinyl chloride, and poly vinyl chloride plants. * (c) Tlie emission limit which is not to be exceeded Is as follow's: (l) Each source, for which construction had com menced on or before June 2, 1977, 10 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (d) The requirements in pnrngrny>bs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)<f>), (b)ifl), <b*<7) and <b) (8) of this section arc to be In corporated into a standard operating procedure, and made available upon re quest for insj>ection by the Administra tor. The standard operating procedure is to include provisions for measuring the vinyl chloride in equipment ^4.75 nr1 (1250 gal) in volume for which an emission limit is prescribed in 61.65 (b) (6) (i> prior to opening the equip ment and u-sing Test Method 106, a port able hydrocarbon detector, or an equiv alent or alternative methol. The meth od of measurement Is to meet the re quirements In { 61.67(g) (5) <i) (A) or (g) (5) (0(B). 6. In 5 61.67, paragraph (a) Is revised to read as follows: 61.67 Emission tests. (a) Unless a waiver of emission test ing is obtained under 5 61.13, the owner or operator of a source to which tills subpart applies shall test emissions from the source as follows: (1) For an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding October 21,1976: (1) Within 90 days following October 21, 1976. and (ii) For those sources subject to 55 61.62(a): 61.63(a); 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c)> and (d); and/or 61.65(b)(1). <b> (2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6), and/or (b) (9), within 90 days following (date three years after the promulgation date of these amendments). (2) For a new source for which Initial startup occurs after October 21, 1976, within 90 days of startup. * 7. In 5 61.68, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows: 61,68 Emission monitoring. * ` (c) A daily span check is to be con ducted for each vinyl chloride monitor ing system used. For all of the sources listed in paragraph (a) of this section, except for the one for which an emission limit Is prescribed In 5 61.62(b) (1), the daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration emission limit appli cable to it. For a source subject to the emission limit prescribed in 5 61.62(b) (1), the daily span check is to be con ducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride which is determined to be equivalent to the emission limit for that source based on the emission test re quired by 5 61.67. The calibration Is to be done with either: 8. A new 5 61.72 Is added to read as follows: 61.72 Request for interim emission limit. (a) If in the opinion of the owner or operator of an existing source, that source will be unable to comply with the 5 ppm emission limit In 55 61.62(a)(1); 61.63(a) (1>: 61.64 (a) (1) (i). (b)(1), (c.WV), (d)(1); and/or fit.r.&fr.t < It on or In-loro (dnt.n llinn y-jnn utlrr pro mulgation of these iiinendnicnL'i), (lie owner or operator of that source may re quest that the Adminstrator approve an interim emission limit for that source. The request Is to bo in writing and is to be submitted to the Administrator within six months prior to (date two years after promulgation of these amendments). The request Is to include: (1) The reasons the source Is In capable of being in compliance with the 5 ppm emission limit and data to support those reasons, and FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. T06--THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1977 , ABD00281597 *u- . A PROPOSED RULES 28159 (2)' A suggested Interim emission limit and description of the methodology for attaining that limit. (b> Any owner or operator of a source who has submitted to the Administrator a written request for an interim emis sion limit In accordance with 61.72(a), shall within 60 days of the date of the written request meet with the Admin istrator concerning the information con tained In the request. The meeting is to bo open to interested persons, who are to be allowed to submit oral or written testimony relevant to compliance of the source, (c) The Administrator will within 120 days of receipt of the written request required by paragraph (a) of this sec tion, notify the owner or operator in writing of approval or denial of approval Of an Interim emission limit. <d) If an Interim emission limit is ap proved the notification is to include the level of the interim emission limit, which may be the level requested or a more stringent one. (e) A determination to deny approval of an Interim emission limit is to set forth the specific grounds on which such denial is based. (f) Approval for any interim emission limit granted for any source under 61.72(c) shall expire three years from the date of Issuance. The owner or op erator may request an extension of ap proval for an interim, emission limit or a lower interim emission limit. The re quest is to be in writing, is to be sub mitted within six months prior to a year before the expiration date and Is to in clude the information listed in 61.72 (b), (c), (d), and (e) are to apply. . 9. A new 61.73 is added to read as follows: 61.73 Offset of emissions due to now construction. (a) No owner or operator is to con struct a new source which alone or in combination with other sources being constructed at the same time results in an Increased production rate unless he demonstrates to the Administrator's sat isfaction that such construction will not cause an Increase in vinyl chloride emis sions within 8 km of any other source which is subject to this subpart. (b) Reduction in production rate is an allowable mccha'nism for attaining an offset in emissions. (c) The baseline emission rate is to be determined based on the level of emis sions allowable by the standard. > (d) Reducing emissions from an in terim emission limit to the standard for a source is not an acceptable means of achieving an emission offset. (c) In the application for approval of construction required by 61.07, owners or operators of sources subject to this subpart shall include, in addition to the information required by 61.07, the fol lowing information: (1) The name, address, and location of any plant subject to this subpart which is located within 8 km of the pro posed location of the source to be con structed. (f) Tire emission limits applicable to November 6, 1973). Part 163a (section both the new source(s) and thesource(s) 335 of Pub. L. 94-482) contains those at which emissions are being reduced to provisions applicable to the program of balance the Increase In emissions due to the new construction are to be estab lished by the Administrator In the ap proval for construction required by 61.08. (Sees. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1683: sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148, 81 Stat. 504 (42 U.S.C. 1855C-7, 1857g(a)). Secs. 01.67 and 61.68 also Issued under sec. 114 of the Clean collection, analysis, and dissemination by the Commissioner of career informa tion and exemplary materials. To the ex tent the Commissioner proceeds by con tract, as authorized by section 335 of Pub. L. 94-482, tho program will also be gov erned by the applicable provisions of the Federal Procurement Regulations. 41 CFR Chapters 1 and 3. To the extent the Commissioner proceeds by grant, the ap- Air Act. sec 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 plicable provisions of 45 CFR Part 100a Stat. 1687 (42 U.S.C. 1857C-9).) (38 FR 30662, November 6, 1973) will [FR Doc.77-15572 Filed 6-l-77;8:45 am) apply. (b) Comments and responses. In the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations. (published In 41 FR 51550 on November 22, 1976) the Commissioner requested Office of Education public comment on a number of specific [ 45 CFR Parts 163 and 163a ] issues in addition to inviting expressions of public sentiment on any issue consid CAREER EDUCATION AND CAREER ered worthy of comment. In the thirty DEVELOPMENT days afforded interested persons in which Addition of Programs AGENCY: Office of Education, HEW. to make their views known, 64 State and national organizations, associations, and agencies and 3 individuals submitted ACTION: Proposed rule. comments. The comments on the specific SUMMARY: The Commissioner of Edu cation, with the approval of the Secre tary of Health, Education, and Welfare, proposes to add two new career educa tion programs as enacted by the Educa tion Amendments of 1976. Part 163 con issues listed in the Notice of Intent are summarized below: (1) Given the apparent overlap be tween the planning authorities contained in section 406(f) (2) of Pub. 1*. 93-380 and sections 331--34 of Pub. L. 94-482, how tains provisions for a new one-year pro .can the latter program be designed to gram of financial assistance to States and avoid duplication of the former pro other allottees for Fiscal Year 1978 to gram? (a) Should planning under sec plan for the improvement and develop tions 331-34 focus on career education ment of career education and career de for individuals beyond the secondary velopment programs and activities for school level? (b) Should Stales be re individuals of all ages. Part 163a con quired to explain the relationship be tains provisions for the Commissioner of tween activities carried out and proposed Education to conduct a number of career under the two authorities? information activities during Fiscal Year The commenters were overwhelmingly 1978, including the collection, analysis, supportive of the view that duplication and dissemination of Information per of activities conducted under both au taining to career trends and options in thorities (Pub. L. 93-380 and Pub. L. 94- the United States as well as exemplary 482) should be as limited as possible. materials from the career education They clearly thought the regulation field. Both these programs are new au should require a careful explanation of thorizations for w'hich no funding has the relationship between these two plan been requested by the Administration. ning efforts. It was suggested that plan DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5,1977. ADDRESSES: Comments should be ad dressed to Sidney High, U.S. Office of Education, 7th and D Streets, S.W., Room 3108-A, Washington, D.C. 20202. ning activities conducted pursuant to Pub. L. 94r-482 might properly extend and augment the planning already begun under Pub. L. 93-380. It was also noted by several commenters that State plan ning already being conducted under Title I and Title X of the Higher Education FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: Sidney High, 202-245-2331. Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et scq.) should also be coordinated with planning efforts conducted pursuant to Pub. L. 94-182 be cause thoso titles deal with the continu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ing education of adults and. therefore, (a) Organization. Part 163 (sections are closely related to the concept or 331-334 of Pub. L. 94-482), as set forth career education for individuals of all in this proposed rule, contains those pro ages. The proposed 163.6(b) attempts visions which are applicable to the pro to avoid duplication by requiring the gram of Federal assistance to States and other allottees to enable them to plan for the development of career education and career development programs. The as allottee to explain the relationship be tween planning activities carried out un der Pub. L. 93-380 and proposed under Pub. L. 94-482 in the event that the plan sistance provided under this Part is also ning is addressed to the same age groups. subject to the applicable provisions con On the related question of priorities tained In the Office of Education General between K-12 and postsccondary plan Provisions Regulations published in 45 ning. while the majority of commenters CFR Parts 100 and 100b (38 FR 30G54, identified the need for cooperation be- FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977