Document X8ONj12w1ZKB5O1Z5JN6KYkVK

28154 PROPOSED RULES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION additional actions. These Include a re be achievable only by banning vinyl chlo AGENCY statement of EPA's policy for regulating ride emissions completely. That, in turn, [40CFR Part 61] carcinogens under section 112 of the would require closing the entire Industry. Clean Air Act; the proposal of amend As explained in the eailier rulemaking It ]FRL 728-5] ments which would require increased is not clear that Congress would have 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 intended this result, so Instead EPA re quired the lowest level achievable using technological means. (See 40 FR 59534 and 41 FR 46562). 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. 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 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. The standard and the proposed amend 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 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. ments implement the Clean Air Act and are based on the Administrator's deter mination that vinyl chloride is a hazard seems appropriate to restate EPA's ap proach to the regulation of carcinogens in general and under Section 112 of the More Stringent Standards for Existing Sources ous air pollutant. The intended effect of Clean Air Act, and to explain how the EPA is proposing amendments which the proposed amendments is to require vinyl chloride standard and the pro would require sources presently subject improved effectiveness of control tech posed amendments are consistent with to a 10 ppm emission limit to reduce nology at existing plants, impose more this approach and with the protection emissions to 5 ppm within three years of stringent emission limits on new sources, of public health. promulgation of the amendments. The and prohibit an emission increase within On May 25, 1976, EPA published In affected sources include ethylene dichlo the vicinity of an existing source due to the construction of a new source. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1,1977. terim procedures and guidelines for health risk and economic impact assess ments of suspected carcinogens (41 FR 21402), which define EPA's approach to regulatory action for suspect carcino ride purification; vinyl chloride forma tion and purification; reactors, strippers; mixing, weighing, and holding contain ers; monomer recovery systems; and fugitive emissions which have been cap ADDRESSES: Comments should be sub gens. As indicated in that publication, tured in accordance with the existing mitted (preferably in triplicate) to the there are two steps involved in the deci regulation.* If the owner or operator of Emission Standards and Engineering sion-making process with regard to the a source believed that a control system Division, Environmental Protection regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al would not be capable of meeting the 5 Agency, Research Triangle Park, North though different EPA statutory author ppm limit, he would be able to request Carolina, Attention: Mr. Don R. Good ities impose different requirements, in that the Administrator approve an in 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. 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. 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON In deciding whether a cancer risk ing compliance. The meeting would be TACT: exists, EPA will consider a substance a announced in the Federal Register and Don R, Goodwin, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environ mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone No. 919-688-6146, ext. 271. presumptive cancer risk when it causes a statistically significant excess incidence of benign or malignant tumors in hu mans or animals. In the case of vinyl chloride, EPA evaluated all available data and concluded that a cancer risk any interested party would be allowed to attend and submit written or oral com ments. If 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 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: exists. In deciding how and whether to eral Register. Each source granted an Background On October 21,1976, EPA promulgated a standard for vinyl chloride under the 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 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. authority of section 112(b) (1) (B) of the the Administrator provides an ample In proposing the reduction from 10 to Clean Air Act, as amended (41 FR margin of safety to protect the public 5 ppm, it is not EPA's intent that a con 46561). The standard applies to ethyl health from such hazardous air pollut trol system which has been installed to ene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and poly ants." This requirement appears to as vinyl chloride plants. On November 19, 1976, the Environ mental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned sume that each pollutant regulated will have a threshold level of effects below which no health effects will occur. As As an. explanatory note, paragraph (b) ot { 61.65 contains nine lugitlve emission regu lations. For several of these, the fugitive the United States Court of Appeals for explained in the documentation for the emissions are required to be captured and the District of Columbia Circuit to review current standard (40 FR 59532, Decem ducted to a control device meeting 19 ppm. 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, 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 According to the proposed amendments, the emissions Irom this control device would have to be reduced to 5 ppm In the same way any other source 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 (61.66(b), a separate paragraph (c) containing these EDF and EPA moved to dismiss the trary, then, the only level of vinyl chlo emission limits Is being added to ( 61.65. All proceedings in view of a settlement ride which would appear to be absolutely the other paragraphs In (b) are crossagreement requiring EPA to take certain protective of health is zero, which may referenced in paragraph (c). _ FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 105--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 DTH 000115643 PROPOSED RULES 28155 meet the 10 ppm emission limit be re cycling and oxygen feed methodolgy is rather than the equipment. The same moved and replaced with another more considered feasible for ^ew oxychlorina equipment can be used to process differ efficient control system or that a second tion reactors because it can be incorpo ent resin grades. Variations in the emis control system be added behind the first rated at the time of construction. Since sions from the equipment are a function control system. The purpose of the pro the use of this technology would elimin of the resin being processed rather than posed amendment is to force owners and ate the supplemental fuel problem re the characteristics of the equipment. The operators to maximize the effectiveness ferred to above, it is EPA's judgment that control technology which is used for the of existing control systems. new oxychlorination reactors should be equipment following the stripper is like Mors Stringent Standards for New , Sources controlled to the same extent that is proposed for other emission sources. ' The proposed amendment also includes wise more directly linked to the resin than the equipment. Stripping is used to control the emissions due to the Vinyl The proposed amendments would also a more stringent emission limit for new chloride in the resin before the resin is require more stringent controls for new polyvinyl chloride resins being processed processed in the equipment. sources; i.e., sources for which construc in equipment following the stripping Before the hazards of vinyl chloride tion is commenced after the date of pro operation. That Is, the amendment became known, stripping technology was posal of these amendments. According would apply to resins for which produc employed by polyvinyl chloride manu to {1.02 of the General Provisions, tion for the purpose of marketing was facturers to recover raw materials for "commenced" means that an owner or commenced after the proposal of the economic purposes. As a result of a operator has undertaken a continuous amendment. The amendment would re standard promulgated by the Occupa program of construction or modification quire all new resins except new disper tional Safety and Health Administration or that an owner or operator has entered sion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and (39 PR 35890), some companies investi into a contractual obligation to under new dispersion resins to be stripped to gated improvements in stripping meth take and complete, within a reasonable 500 ppm. These limits for new products odology for emission control purposes. time, a continuous program of construc would be one-fourth of the limits con (1) 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 of startup. 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 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 exbept 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 of a-standard. 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 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 sions from the oxychlorination reactor to 0.2 g/kg <0.0002 lb/lb) of the 100 per cent ethylene dichloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. This emis 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 veloping the technology or not producing the resin. The current standard, unlike the proposed amendment, was not based on sion limit can be met by changing proc process be controlled as a unit. The series the premise that an owner or operator ess parameters, rather than installing a of equipment following the stripper in would have the option of not producing control device. During the development cludes pumps and conveying equipment a particular resin. It Is EPA's judgment of the current standard EPA considered which might be expected to be replaced that the owner or operator making a new requiring existing sources to control on a frequent and routine basis. Replac product has more freedom of choice than emissions with an incinerator or equiva ing one of these pieces of equipment the owner or operator already making a lent technology, but rejected this ap would in effect cause the whole series of particular product in selecting those proach because a large quantity of fuel equipment following the stripper to have resins which are to be produced. EPA's would be required to reduce emissions to meet the standard for new sources. In standard would be Included in the from a relatively small source. An exist other words, all resins processed in the variables under consideration when ing oxychlorination reactor typically has series of the equipment would have to decisions are being made as to which a large volume, low hydrocarbon effluent meet the lower standard even though resins are to be produced. gas stream, and large quantities of sup only a minor part of the equipment had The proposed amendment would apply plemental fuels would be required for been replaced. to any new source, whether it constituted combustion of its emissions. EPA decided that a more reasonable replacement of an existing source in an A new plant can reduce the volume of and direct approach was to make the existing plant, the expansion of an exist its effluent gas stream and make it more proposed amendment apply to the pro ing plant, or part of an entirely new concentrated by recycling the gas stream duction of new polyvinyl chloride resins. plant. That Is, if a new oxychlorination and rising, oxygen Instead of air to feed This is based on the reasoning that emis reactor or a new polyvinyl chloride re into the process. (3, 4) the current sions from the equipment following the actor were installed at an existing plant, standard was not based on this technol stripper are a function of the amount of it would be subject to the emission limits ogy because it was not considered feasi vinyl chloride left in the resin after the for new sources. This means that as ble to retrofit existing plants so that they stripping operation is completed; l.e., existing sources are gradually replaced could use oxygen Instead of air. The re the resin is the source of the emissions with new sources In an existing plant. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1V77 DTH 000115644 /""V 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 the 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 Include 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 few existing plants being expanded and few new plants being constructed in the vicinity of existing plants. However, the proposed amendment does not px-eclude this possibility. The offset provision would apply only to new construction which results in on 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 were 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 the. emissions from on existing source 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 CPR 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 are 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 P 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 oxychlorination re actors are replaced with new oxychlorination reactors and as new polyvinyl chloride resins are preduced 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 dlchloride-vinyl chloride plant (318x10" kg/yr or 700 XlO* 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 lb/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 lb/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 dlchlo ride-vinyl chloride plants if incineration were used to control emissions from new oxychlorination 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 6 km from an existing plant In the event that the offset requirement pre cluded the expansion of an existing plant. DTH 000115645 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 106--THURSOAY, JUNE 2, 1977 dS w >- 5 o" i id | of J al yi yr 1.5 hr ubxn:ed al ien /*-- , )oson ew iue aid aid ted len adifi- the op>er- ' BO ipm ioplues inyl lent tlie tlon ition that TUC- i an ould more 11 pre stinb | I I i PROPOSED RUIES 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. (2) ''Goodrich Reports Impressive Progress in Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem." Ameri can Paint and Coatings Journal, Vol. 60, No. 31, January 12, 1976, p. 24. (3) E. W. Wlmer and R. E. Feathers, "Ox ygen Gives Low Cost VCM," Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1976, pp. 81-84. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: Except as provided in 5 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 The types of costs which have been (4) Peter Reich, "Air or Oxygen For purification is not to exceed the appro named would be difficult to quantify. The costs would be expected to vary consider VCM?." Hydrocarbon 1978, pp. 85-89. Processing, March, priate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source, for which construc ably from one plant to another depend It is proposed that Subpart F of 40 tion had commenced on or before June 2, ing on the amount of research and de velopment than had already been done, the extent to which technology could be 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. The primary cost of using the oxygen- CFR Part 61 be amended as follows: 1. In 61.08, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: 61.08 Approval by the Administrator. . . ' (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 5 61.73, he will approve the construction or modification of such source. ***** 2. Section 61.62 is revised to read as 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 after 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) (i) 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 : recycle system is the cost of the oxygen follows: 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinvl 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. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1685 (42 U.S.C. 1857c7) and section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148, 84 Stat. 504 as amended by sec. (16) (c) (2) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857 g(a)). Secs. 61.87 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. 1687 and amended.by Pub. L. 93-319, sec. 6(a)(4). 88 Stat. 259 (42 U.S.C. 1B57C-9).) Note.--The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this document 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene dichloride 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 161.65(a), emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere are 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), 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 lb/lb of the 100 percent ethylene dichloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. (2) Each source for which .construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. chloride plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the re quirements of this section and 5 61.65. (a) Reactor: The following require ments apply to reactors: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a) (2) of this section and 5 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. does not contain a major proposal requiring (c) The requirements of this section (c) Mixing, weighting, and holding preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis do not apply to equipment that has been containers: Except as provided in 61.- under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949 and OMB Circular A-107. opened, is out of operation and met the requirement in I 61.65(b) (6) (i) before 65(a), the concentration of vinyl chlo ride in all exhaust gases discharged to Dated: May 27,1977. being opened. the atmosphere from each mixing, weigh Douglas M. Costle, Administrator. References (1) Standard Support and Environmental "npact Statement: Emission Standard for 3. Section 61.63 is revised to read as follows: g 61.63 Emission standard for vinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo 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: Chloride, EPA-450 12-75-009, October, ride plant shall comply with the require (1) Each source, for which construc 1875. ments of this section and $ 61.65. tion had commenced on or before (date ( FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977. DTH 000115646 28158 PROPOSED RULES of proposal of these amendments), 10 resin all of which had been produced by od of measurement Is to meet the re ppm until (date three years after pro the plant on or before June 2,1977: quirements in { 61.67(g) (5) (1) (A) or mulgation of these amendments) and 5 (A) 2 g/kg (0.003 lb/lb) product from (g) (5) (1) (B). ppm after (date three years after pro the stripper(s) tor reactor(s) if the 6. In { 61.67, paragraph (a) Is revised mulgation of these amendments). plant has no stripper(s) 1 for dispersion to read as follows: (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, S polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on 61.67 Emission tests. ppm. a dry solids basis; (a) Unless a waiver of emission test (d) Monomer recovery system. Except (B> 0.4 g/kg (0.004 Ib/lb) product ing is obtained under { 61.13, the owner as provided In S 61.65(a), the concentra from the stripper (s) (or reactor(s) if or operator of a source to which this tion of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases the plant has no stripper (s)) for all subpart applies shall test emissions discharged to the atmosphere from each other polyvinyl chloride resins, including from the source as follows: monomer recovery system Is not to ex latex resins, with the product deter (1) For an existing source or a new ceed the appropriate concentration as mined on a dry solids basis. source which has an Initial startup date follows: (Jl) For sources being used to process preceding October 21,1976: (1) Each source for which construc any grade of polyvinyl chloride resin not (1) Within 90 days following October tion had commenced on or before (date produced by the plant on or before June 21, 1976, and of proposal of these amendments), 10 2, 1977: (ii) For those sources subject to ppm until (date three years after pro (A) 0.5 g/kg (0.0005 lb/lb) product 61.62(a); 61.63(a); 61.64 (a)(1), (b), mulgation of these amendments) and 5 from the stripper(s) (or reactor(s) if the (c), and (d); and/or 61.65(b)(1), (b) ppm after (date three years after pro plant has no stripper (s)) for dispersion (2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6), and/or (b) mulgation of these amendments). polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la (9), within 90 days following (date three (2) Each source for which construc tex resins, with the product determined years after the promulgation date of tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 on a dry solids basis; these amendments). ppm. (B) 0.1 g/kg. (0.0001 Ib/lb) product (2) For a new source for which initial (e) Sources following the stripper(s): from the strippers (or reactor(s) If the startup occurs after October 21, 1976, The following requirements apply to plant has no stripper(s)) for all other within 90 days of startup. emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmos polyvinyl chloride resins, including * * * * phere from the combination of all sources following the stripper(s) tor the reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper] latex resins,. with the product deter mined on a dry solids basis. (f) The requirements of paragraphs 7. In { 61.68, paragraph (c) Is revised to read as follows: in the plant process flow Including, but (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not 61,68 Emission monitoring. not limited, to centrifuges, concentra apply to equipment that has been *' * * tors, blend tanks, Alters, 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, the 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 opened, Is out of operation, and met the requirement in I 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 {61.65(c)'' In paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(3) (1), (b)(3)(h), (b)(3) (hi), (b) (3) (iv), (b) (3) (v), (b)(5), (b)(6)(h), and <b) (9) (ii); B. By revising paragraph (c) and add ing paragraph (d) as set forth below. (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 { 61.82(b) (1), the dally 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 {61.62(b) (1), the daily span check is to be con ducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride which is determined to be is completed, may not exceed the appro 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene equivalent to the emission limit for that priate emission limit as follows: dichloride, vinyl chloride, and poly source based on the emission test re (A) 2,000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride vinyl chloride plants. quired by { 61.67. The calibration is to be dispersion resins, excluding latex resins; ***** done with either: (B) 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, Including latex resins, averaged separately for each type of resin; (c) The emission limit which is not to be exceeded is as follows: (1) Each source, for which construction had com menced on or before June 2, 1977, 10 ** 8. A new {61.72 is added to read as follows: (ii) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl ppm until (date three years after pro 61.72 Request for interim emission chloride resin which have not been pro mulgation of these amendments) and limit. duced by the plant on or before June 2, 1977, the weighted average residual 5 ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). (a) If in the opinion of the owner or operator of an existing source, that 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; (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. (d) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7) and (b) (8) of this section are to be in corporated into a standard operating procedure, and made available upon re source will be unable to comply with toe 5 ppm emission limit in { 61.62(a) (1); 61.63(a)(1); 61.64 (a) (1) (1), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1); and/or 61.65(c)(1) on or before (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments), toe owner or operator of that source may re quest that the Adminstrator approve an (B) 100 ppm for all other polyvinyl quest for inspection by the Administra Interim emission limit for that source. chloride resins, including latex resins, tor. The standard operating procedure The request Is to be In writing and is to averaged separately for each type of is to include provisions for measuring be submitted to the Administrator within resin; or the vinyl chloride in equipment S;4.75 six months prior to (date two years after (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants con m' (1250 gal) In volume for which an promulgation of these amendments). trolling vinyl chloride emissions with emission limit is prescribed in {61.65 The request is to include: technology other than stripping or in (b) (6) (i) prior to opening the equip (1) The reasons toe source Is In addition to stripping: ment and using Test Method 106, a port capable of being in compliance with toe (1) For sources being used to process a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride able hydrocarbon detector, or an equiv alent or alternative methol. The meth 5 ppm emission limit and data to support those reasons, and DTH 000115647 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 4J, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1977 PROPOSED RULES 28159 (2)' A suggested Interim emission limit (f) The emission limits applicable to November 6, 1973). Part 103a (section and description of the methodology for both the new source(s) and thesource(s) 335 of Pub. L. 94-482) contains those attaining that limit. at which emissions are being reduced to provisions applicable to the program of (b) Any owner or operator of a source balance the Increase In emissions due to collection, analysis, and dissemination who has submitted to the Administrator the new construction are to be estab by the Commissioner of career informa a written request for an Interim emis lished by the Administrator in the ap tion and exemplary materials. To the ex sion limit In accordance with 61.72(a), shall wlihin 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 be 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 proval for construction required by S 61.08. (Secs. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 01-604, 84 Stat. 1683; sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148, 81 Stat. 604 (42 UJS.C. 1865c--7. 1857g(a)). Secs. 61.67 and 61.68 also Issued under sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act, sec 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 stat. 1687 (42 U.S.C. 1867C-9).) [PR Doc.77-16672 Filed 6-1-77:8:45 am] tent the Commissioner proceeds by con tract, as authorized by section 335 of Pub. L. 94-482, the 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 plicable provisions of 45 CFR Part 100a (38 FR 30662, November 6, 1973) will apply. days of receipt of the written request (b) Comments and responses. In the 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 S 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. 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 tains provisions for a new one-year pro 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. L. 93-380 and sections 331-34 of Pub. L. 94-482, how .can the latter program be designed to gram of financial assistance to States and other allottees for Fiscal Year 1978 to avoid duplication of the former pro 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 States be re- individuals of all ages. Part 163a con quired to explain the relationship be . 9. A new S 61.73 Is added to read as tains provisions for the Commissioner of tween activities carried out and proposed follows: Education to conduct a number of career under the two authorities? 61.73 Offset of emissions due to new construction. information activities during Fiscal Year 1978, including the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information per The commenters were overwhelmingly supportive of the view that duplication of activities conducted under both au (a) No owner or operator is to con taining to career trends and options in thorities (Pub. L. 93-380 and Pub. L. 94- struct a new source which alone or in the United States as well as exemplary 482) should be as limited as possible. combination with other sources being materials from the career education They clearly thought the regulation constructed at the same time results in field. Both these programs are new au should require a careful explanation of 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 thorizations for which no funding has been requested by the Administration. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5,1977. the relationship between these two plan ning efforts. It was suggested that plan ning activities conducted pursuant to Pub. L. 94-482 might properly extend and augment the planning already begun which is subject to this subpart. ADDRESSES: Comments should be ad under Pub. L. 93-380. It was also noted (b) Reduction in production rate is dressed to Sidney High, U.S. Office of by several commenters that State plan an allowable mechanism for attaining an Education, 7th and D Streets, S.W., ning already being conducted under Title offset in emissions. Room 3108-A, Washington, D.C. 20202. I and Title X of the Higher Education (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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: Sidney High, 202-245-2331. Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 etseq.) should also be coordinated with planning efforts conducted pursuant to Pub. L. 94-482 be cause those titles deal with the continu terim emission limit to the standard for a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ing education of adults and. therefore, source is not an acceptable means of (a) Organization. Part 163 (sections are closely related to the concept of achieving an emission offset. 331-334 of Pub. L. 94-482), as set forth career education for individuals of all (e) In the application for approval of in this proposed rule, contains those pro ages. The proposed 5163.6(b) attempts construction required by 61.07, owners visions which are applicable to the pro to avoid duplication by requiring the or operators of sources subject to this gram of Federal assistance to States and allottee to explain the relationship be subpart shall include, in addition to the other allottees to enable them to plan for tween planning activities carried out un information required by 61.07, the fol the development of career education and der Pub. L. 93-380 and proposed under lowing information: career development programs. The as Pub. L. 94-482 in the event that the plan (1) The name, address, and location sistance provided under this Part is also ning is addressed to the same age groups. of any plant subject to this subpart subject to the applicable provisions con On the related question of priorities which is located within 8 km of the pro tained in the Office of Education General between K-12 and postsecondary plan posed location of the source to be con Provisions Regulations published in 45 ning, while the majority of commenters structed. CFR Parts 100 and 100b (38 FR 30654, identified the need for cooperation be- DTH 000115648 - FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 l