Document b18EonvKZGXb5O2yJ692aOmk

(ccnoco) Interoffice Communication To D. A. Kuhn Houston From Gary Foshee Date July 12, 1977 subject Comments on the Proposed Revision to the EPA Vinyl Chloride Regulation Attached are comments of specific concern to LCVCM on the proposed revision to the EPA vinyl chloride regulation. I hope the comments will be helpful. We would be happy to answer any questions concerning these comments. Gary Foshee is CC: REL-JEC-CRH-JD-PLF-RLH-JAD-JF-HDG vvc ooooi?976 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VINYL CHLORIDE EMISSION STANDARD 1) The EPA document is unclear as to the definition of a reactor versus a source in an oxychlorination system. One interpretation would be that the failure of one of our three reactors, due to corrosion, etc., would force complete replacement of the oxychlorination system with an oxygen based system. This would cost approximately $17 MM (1981 $) versus approximately $1.5 MM (1981 S) for replacement of one reactor. We recommend CONOCO try to get the oxychlorination reaction train defined as the source, not each reactor. 2) We feel the EPA quoted oxygen cost of $14.34 per ton is low by at least a factor of two. We would expect oxygen cost in this area to be $30 plus per ton with escalation tied to natural gas price. 3) If the incineration system cannot be optimized to or below 5 ppm vinyl chloride, we would want a permanent higher standard rather than re negotiating an interim standard every three years. 4) Production rate for the offset provision should be based on maximum demonstrated instantaneous production (rather than annual). Wc 0000l9977 *----* ** -*h"---**** , ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (40 CFR PART 61) ``.-'"Jt NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS T'*1 ' .4 * Vinyl Chloride Amendments -d AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed Rule. SUMMARY: The proposed amendments are being made to the vinyl chloride standard which was promulgated October 21, 1976, and would apply to new and existing ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants. The standard and the proposed amendments implement the Clean Air Act and are based on the Administrator's determination that vinyl chloride is a hazardous air pollutant. The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to require improved effectiveness of control technology at existing plants, impose more stringent emission limits, on nev/ sources, and prohibit an emission 1 increase within the vicinity of an existing source due to the construction of a new source. DATES: Comments must be received on or before (60 days after this publication). ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (preferably in triplicate) to the Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin. All public comments received may be inspected and copied at the Public Information Reference Unit (EPA Library), Room 2922, 401 M Street, S. W.Washington, D. C. VVC 000019978 / I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don R. Goodwin,. Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Telephone No. (919) 688-8146, ext. 271. _ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 46561). - The standard applies to ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants. On' November *19, 1976, the Environmental 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 Society 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 dismiss the proceedings in view of a settlement agreement requiring EPA to take certain additional * 1 actions. These include a restatement of EPA's policy for regulating \ carcinogens under section 112. of the Clean Air Act; the proposal of \ W'A amendments which would require increased efficiency of existing control \ equipment, require more stringent control at new sources, and prohibit ^' increases in emissions within the vicinity of an existing source due to new construction; and the initiation of a review of the vinyl chloride' , Standard three years after the promulgation of the amendments. '2 . vvc 000019979 / i ZERO EMISSION GOAL -wfll The vinyl chloride standard has been criticized for allegedly placing unwarranted emphasis on technological rather than health considerations. Although EPA disagrees with this criticism, it seems appropriate to restate EPA's approach to the regulation of carcinogens in general and under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and to explain . ii how the vinyl chloride standard and the proposed amendments are consistent with this- approach and with the protection of public health. On May 25, 1976, EPA published interim procedures and guidelines +* Ip1 for health risk and economic impact assessments of suspected carcinogens ' [41 FR 21402), which define EPA's approach to regulatory action for \suspect carcinogens. As indicated in that publication, there are two steps involved in the decision-making process with regard to the regulation of a potential carcinogen. Although different EPA statutory authorities impose different requirements, in general two decisions must be made with regard to each potential carcinogen. The first decision is whether a particular, substance constitutes a cancer risk. The second decision is what regulatory action, if any, should be taken to reduce that risk. 1 In deciding whether a cancer risk-exists, EPA will consider a substance a presumptive cancer risk-when it causes a statistically significant excess incidence of benign or malignant tumors in humans or __ --!/ 4*^ animals. In the case of vinyl chloride, EPA evaluated all available ------------------------------------- -----------------------:--------------- r data and concluded that a cancer risk exists. In deciding how and --`--------- ------------------------ ------------- -- whether to 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 3. ` . - yye 000019980 'V.. '^i>r 1 * V, i margin of safety -to protect the pub!ic'health from such hazardous air pollutants." This requirement appears to assume that each pollutant regulated will have a threshold level of effects below which no health effects will occur. As explained in the documentation for the current standard (40 FR 59532, December 24, 1975; 41 FR 46560, October 21, 1976), it has not been.possible to determine 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 contrary, then, thp nnly IpupI nf vjpyl chloride which would anppar tn he absolutely protective of health is zero, which > may be achievable only by banning vinyl chloride emissions completely. That, in turn, would require closing the entire industry. As explained in the earlier rulemaking it isnot clear that Congress would haveintended this result, so instead ERA required the lowest level achievable using technological means. (See 40 FR 59534 and 44 FR 46562). In order to insure that the standard continues' to approach the only level of emissions which is known to be absolutely protective of \ health, namely zero emissions,. EPA is proposing amendments which require more efficient use of existing 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 4` VVC 000019981 three years of promulg a t ior, cf the amendments. The affected sources include ethylene dichloride purification; vinyl chloride formation and purification; reactors; strippers; mixing, weighing, and holding containers monomer recovery systems; and fugitive emissions which have been captured in accordance with the existing regulation.* If the owner dr 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 interim emission limit for that source. Such requests v/ould have to be made one year before the compliance date. In requesting an interim emission limit, the owner cr operator would, have to submit supportive data and meet with ERA to discuss his particular problems in attaining-compliance. The meeting would be announced in the FEDERAL REGISTER and any interested party would be allowed to attend and submit written or oral comments. If an interim emission limit were granted to the source, the required emission-level would be specified in a written notification from EPA and. in the FEDERAL 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. ' * As an explanatory note, paragraph (b) of section 61.65 containsnine fugitive emission regulations. For several of these, the fugitive emissions are required to be captured and ducted, to a control device meeting 10 ppm. According to the proposed amendments, the emissions from this control, devi ce would have to~bo rpdwrPH tn._5.-npm in the same way any other source currently required to meet 10 ppm would have_to do. Rather than- incorporating both the 5 and 10 ppm emission limits in each paragraph in 561.65(b), a separate paragraph (c) containing these emission limits is being added to 561.65. All the other paragraphs in (b) are cross-referenced to paragraph (c). 5 qOOOI"82 VN/C In proposing the reduction from 10 to 5 ppm,' it is not EPA's intent that a control system which has been installed to meet the 10 ppm emission limit be removed 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 proposed amendment is to force owners and operators to maximize the effectiveness of existino control systems. MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES The proposed amendments would also require more stringent controls for new sources; i.e., sources for which construction is commenced after the date of proposal of these amendments. According to section 61.02 of the General Provisions, 11 commenced1* means that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of construction or modification or-that an owner or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of construction 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 ERA approval of an interim emission limit. Mew 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 6 VVC 000019983 (lI * m. a hand, require time to maximize the effectiveness'of their control systems. The proposed amendment would also require ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride plants to control emissions from (nevpoxychlan nation reactors to 5 ppm. This requirement is based on installation of a recycling and oxygen feed system with an incinerator or equivalent control device. The current standard limits emissions from the oxychlorina'tion reactor to 0.2 g/kg {0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100 percent ethylene dichloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. This emission limit can be met by changing process parameters rather than installingI I a control device. During the development of. the current standard EPA considered requiring existing sources to control emissions with an incinerator or equivalent technology, but rejected this approach because a large quantity of fuel would be required to reduce emissions from a relatively small source. An existing oxychlorination reactor typically has a large volume,, low hydrocarbon effluent gas stream, and large quantities of supplemental'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 processC^li^rhe current standard was not based on this technology because it was not considered feasible to retrofit existing plants so that they could.use oxygen instead of air. The recycling and oxygen feed methodology is considered feasible for new oxychlorination reactors because it can be incorporated at the 7 OOOO^ }, of construct!on. Since the use of this technology would eliminate the supplemental fuel problem referred 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 a-lso 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 production for the purpose of marketing . was commenced after the proposal of the amendment. The amendment would require all new resins except new dispersion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and new dispersion resins to be stripped to 500 ppm. These limits for new products v;ould be one-fourth of the limits contained in the standard for existing products . Consistent wi th the current standard, the amendment would permit the use of control devices rather than stripping technology to meet the emission limit. In this case- equipment being used to process all new resins except new dispersion resins would, have to be controlled to 0.01 kg/kg product and the equipment used for new dispersion resins would have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg * i product.. A' "new source" is defined in 40 CFR 61.02 as a stationary source, the construction 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 equipment following the stripper.. If the applicability of the amendment for new sources were'based on the installation of new 8 ' VVC 000019985 *sr---'--+ J equipment following the stripper, it would be'difficult to determine <> what constitutes a new source at an existing plant. This is based '1 on the reasoning that the stripping standard requires that all equipment '1 following the stripper in the process be controlled as a unit. The series of equipment following the stripper includes pumps and conveying equipment v/hich might be expected to be replaced on a frequent and routine basis. Replacing 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 i 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 production of new polyvinyl chloride i resins. This is based on the reasoning that emissions from the equip ment following the stripper are a function of the amount of vinyl chloride left in the resin after the stripping operation is completed; i.e., the resin is the source of the emissions rather than the equipment. The. same equipment can be used to process different resin grades. Variations in the emissions from the equipment are a function of the resin being processed rather than the character!stics of the equipment. The control technology which is used for the equipment following thestripper is likewise 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.. 9 we 000019986 w-q Before the hazards cf vinyl chloride became known* stripping technology was employed by, polyvinyl chloride manufacturers to recover raw materials for economic purposes. As a result of a standard promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (39 FR 35890), some companies investigated improvements in stripping methodology for emission control purposes.^ Optimum stripping consists of a set of operating conditions which must be developed 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 stripping dispersion resins than other resins. For'this reason a Ipss stringent pmi^ion limit was established for dispersion resins. Dispersion resins are permitted a higher omission limit under the proposed amendment for the same reason. EPA believes that for some resins, companies have already developed stripping technology v.'hich would meet the proposed amendment. 2 For other `resins, the proposed standard would require additional improvement in stripping technology. If stripping technology has not been developed to the extent necessary to meet the proposed amendment for a particular resin, the manufacturer would have the option of developing the tech- nology 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. PA*s standard would be included in the VVC 000019987 -" 1 *w -i , variables under consideration when decisions are 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 existing'plant, or part of an entirely new plant. That is, if a new oxychlorination reactor or-a new polyvinyl chloride reactor were installed at an existing plant, it would be subject to emission limits for new sources. This means that as existing '^sources are gradually replaced with new sources in an existing plant, 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 ambient air quality concen- / tration, there is no provision fer limiting the size of plants or the 7` , clustering of plants in a geographical area. The doubling of the size L_ of an existing plant or the construction of a new plant beside an isting-plant would considerably increase the ambient air. concentrations vinyl chloride in the vicinity of the plant(s) even if the vinyl chi oride standard was met. EPA determined at the time of promulgation of the current standard that the costs 'of prohibiting the production 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 amechanism for prohibiting an increase in ambient concentrations of vinyl chloride due to new construction in- areas where existing sources are already located. 11 7--> (/CM CM <( WC 000019988 Accordingly, EPA is proposing an amendment which would prohibit an increase in emissions within 8 kilometers (km) (approximately five _ miles) of an existing source doe to the construction of a new emission <3~L O ~ 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 he set by a reduction in emissions from other existing sources within 0*7*'^ 'that plant er at other plants within 8 km of the construction site of the new source. Similarly, a new plant could not be constructed within km of an existing plant(s) unless the emission increase due to the new vA*^3 lant were offset by'an emission reduction at the existing plant or fy*/{ /^/plants. This provision may result in few existing plants being expanded yjfWand few new plants being constructed in the vicinity of existing plants. turfs' <*,*/ However, the proposed amendment does not preclude this possibility, The offset provision would apply only to new construction which n c **^ results in -an'increase in production rate. Replacing or adding equip ment such .as pumps, compressors, agitators, sampling equipment and unloading hoses is a routine practice at existing plants. .Additions of equipment of this nature would, in and of itself, be expected to result 1 in. Tittle, if any, increase in emissions. In EPA's judgment, a plant should not be required to prove this fact each time cne of these pieces cf equipment is added. The 'addition of this- type of equipment in V -ZkrijL . conjunction with major process equipment, however, is likely to result ?? in 'both an increase in emissions as well as an increase in production / ' rate, and 'is therefore covered by the offset provision. 12 OOOO If the offset provision were adopted, the reduction in ___ :t f emissions could he achieved by a reduction in the production rate -1 H of an existing source or sources. the baseline emission rate V $r' would ba determined based on trie maximum production rate which had I a^al- been attained by eacii existing source. The allowable emission rate 7/ for each source 'would be based on the maximum production rate at j- which that source would be operated in the future. i ^ Also,.if the emissions from an 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 'M limit and the actual emission'level. That is, the baseline omission rate would he based on the standard rather than on an emission test. It is EPA;s judgment that thi.s is a more equitable approach than penalizing a source which has already taken measures to reduce j emissions below the standard. Such a source would have less 5--*t room for further reducing emissions. The emission limits applicable to both the existing and new sources involved in the- offset arrangement would be contained in the approval of new construction granted by the Administrator . 1 under 40 CFR 61.08. EPA believes that a policy of no net increase in emissions due to ,,J-^35^/V4^/^new construction is justified because of the hazardous nature of -vinyl chloride. However, EPA recognizes the potential difficulties in such a`policy and interested persons are urged to submit y|j comments and factual information relating to this policy. jf> 13 QSW /- VVC 000019990 Y REVIEW OF STANDARD EPA plans to undertake a full-scale review of Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 61'beginning three years from the promulgation 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 appropriate to move toward the goal of \ tezero vinyl .chloride emissions.. EPA will also consider recent health \_ - v \ /IZLrZJUtr- data to determine whether the approach for regulating vinyl chloride J 'Htur'f should bo 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 reduction of emissions at existing plants, (2) no increase in emissions within 8 km of an existing source, and (2) 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 viny''- 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 CX ^ subject to a 10 ppm emission limit, emissions would be reduced by *7vjOpte/-- 2y half within three years after the promulgation date of these 14 vve 000019991 ***n_> amendments. ' At both an existing(ayerage-sized)ethylene dichloride- J"7> O /y / vinyl 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. Emissions at existing d plants would be further reduced as existing oxychlorination reactors are replaced with new oxychlorination reactors and as new polyvinyl chloride J2e****+ resins are produced to replace existing ones. Under- the proposed amendment, emissions from new plants would be considerably lower than they would be under the current standard. For a typical new average-sized ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride plant (3T8 x 10 kg/yr or 700 x lQ.lb/yr produced), the hourly emissions would be 5.1 kg (11.5 lb) instead of 10.3 kg (23.1 lb). For a typical new average-si zed dispersion polyvinyl chloride plant (46 x 10^ kg/yr or 100 x 10^ Ib/yr production), the emissions would be about 9 kg/hr (20 lb/hr) instead of 17.5 kg/hr (39 Ib/hr) and for a typical new average sized suspension polyvinyl chloride {68 x 10 kg/yr or 150 x'10^-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 calculated based on the emission factors published in the documentation for the existing standard."^ Ambient air concentrations are expected to be reduced proportionately^^^^^^ The only negative environmental impact would be an increase in hydrogen chloride emissions -at ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride plants if incineration were used to control emissions from new oxychlorination reactors. However, due to the corrosion problems 15 vvc OOOOl"92 -jr y-whi'ch would othcrv/ise occur on plant property and in the community, plants are expected to-use scrubbers to control the. hydrogen ssions. The proposed amendment is not expected to have a impact on energy consumption. ECONOMIC IMPACT The potential economic'impacts of the proposed standard are: (1) Costs for research and development of improved methodology for operation of existing control technology so that it can'be used to meet the 5 ppm emission limit. (2)- Costs for research and development 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 construction of a new plant farther from an existing plant than it otherwise would have been. .1 (5) Cost of building a new plant more than S km from an existing plant in the event that the offset requirement precluded the expansion of an existing plant. (6) Delay in the production of a particular resin due to time spent developing 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. 16 VVC 000019993 The types of costs which have been named would be difficult to quantify. The costs would be expected to vary considerably from one plant to another depending on the amount of research and development that had already been done', the extent to which technology could be transferred from other plants and processes, and the plans . for new construction. One area in which cost estimates can be generated is the use of'an oxygen-recycle oxychlorination process as opposed to an air-based system. The proposed amendment does not require the use of the oxygen-recycle system, but many plants would be expected to * employ 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-recycle system is the cost of the oxygen itself. The cost of the oxygen for a particular 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 fjju. 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 air-based system.''* Another report in which tin's assumption was not made and the economics of the air and. oxygen systems were being compared, it was concluded 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." 17 999` 00 MISCELLANEOUS; The Administrator invites comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments. These'amendments are proposed'under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of Pub.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1685 (42 U.S.C, 1857c-7) and' section 301(a) of the-Clean Air Act, see. 2 of Pub.L. No. 90- 1-48, 84 .Stat. 504 as-amended by sec. (15)(c)(2) of Pub.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857 g(a)). Secs. 61.67 and 61.68 also proposed under the, authority 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), 3S Stat. 259 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-9). The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this .^document does not,'contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an >*y,^conom.ic Impact Analysis under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949 and 0MB Circular A-107. \ Date Administrator 18 Wc OOi9995 REFERENCES 1. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement: Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride, EPA-450 12-75-009, October, 1975. 2. "Goodrich'.Reports Impressive Progress in Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem,*' American Paint and Coatings Journal, Vol. 60, No. 31, January 12, 1976, p.24. 3. E. Wimer and R. E. Feathers, "Oxygen Gives Low Cost VCM," Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1976, pp. 81-84. 4. Peter Reich, "Air or Oxygen For VCM?,11 Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1976, pp.85-89. 19 VVC 000019996 i Mite v*r-j -. <' i i' . 4' '"'.'It.1 I -. It is proposed that Subpart F of.40 CFR 6] be amended as follows: 1. In section 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 sol.07 v/as submitted will not, if properly operated, cause emissions in violation of the standard or violation of 56T.73, he will approve the construction or modification . .of such source. 2.' Section 61.6Z is revised to read as follows: 561.62 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 i61.65(a),the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: ' i (1) Each source for winch construction had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years `after promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after the promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construction commenced after (date of proposal of these amendments), 5.ppm. 20 * . YVC 300019997 V .* -* (b) Oxychlorination reactor: Except as provided in* 561.65(a), V emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere are not to exceed the 5t appropriate emission limit as follows:. (1) Each source for which construction had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 1,00 percent ethylene dichloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. (2) Each source for which construction commenced after (date of proposal of these amendments), 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 561.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. 3. Section 61.63 is revised to read as follows: * 61.63 Emission standard far vinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 561.65. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: Except as provided in 561.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride'in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from any equipment t used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purification is not to exceed the appropriate.emission limit as follows: (1) Each source, for which construction had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10.ppm until (date three years after promulgation of'these-amendments) and 5 ppm*after (date three years after promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construction commenced after (date of proposal of these amendments), 5 ppm. '' i ! 21 \jVt OOOOl^8 .4 1 J ;v4 */ ^-U -**! I21, >,8 (b) Tne requirements of tin's section do not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in a61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. 4. Section 61.64 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and by adding paragraph (f) as follows: 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and 61.65. (a) .Reactor: The following requirements apply to reactors: t1) Except as provided in paragraph.(a)(2) of this section and 61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each reactor is` not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows:* (1) Each source for which construction had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three-years after promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after promulgation of these amendments). (ii) Each source for which construction commenced after (date i of proposal of these amendments), 5 ppm. (2) *** (3) *** `. (d) Stripper: Except as provided in 561.65(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 construction had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments) 10 ppm until (date three years Vvc OOOOl9999 . ^K'V wr-'<v;r'^7s-rT *::* -j - ,,-x t? i a e i x - i *;> u..i J . k a d i.... :i after promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after final promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construction commenced after (date of proposal of these amendments), 5 ppm. (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding containers: Except as provided in 061.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all -exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each mixing, weighing, or holding container in vinyl chloride service which, precedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no stripper) in the plant process flow.is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows; . (1) . Each source, for which construction had commenced on or before . (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years after promulgation.of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construction commenced after (date of proposal of these amendments), 5 ppm. (d) Monomer recovery system. Except as provided in 561.65(a), S the concentration of vinyl chloride-in all exhaust gases discharged to the'atmosphere from each monomer recovery system is not to exceed .the appropriate concentration as follows: (1) Each source for which construction had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years after promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after promulgation of these amendments)-. .. ; ) 23 VVC 000020000 i< ................ `j & . L ____ . i i i ' l .me, ------- - --t . ^ . (2) Each source for which construction commenced after'(date of V*? proposal.of these amendments), 5 ppm. H (e) Sources following.the stripper(s); The. following. requirement's apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from the combination of all sources following the : *1 'stripper(s) Lor the reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper)] -Hi ' in the plant process .flow including, but not limited, to centrifuges, concentrators, blend tanks, filters, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inprocess wastewater. (1) In polyvinyl chloride plants using stripping technology to 4 control vinyl chloride emissions': . (i-) ' For a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have been produced by the plant oh or before (date of proposal of these amendments), the weighted average residual vinyl chloride concentration in all the grades processed through the stripping operation on each calendar day, measured immediately after the stripping operation is completed, may not exceed the- appropriate emission limit as follows: (A) '2000 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 produced by the plant on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), the weighted average residual vinyl chloride concen tration in all the grades processed through the stripping operation on each calendar day, measured immediately after the stripping operation is completed, may not exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: ' VVC 00002001 (A) 500 ppm for polyvinyl chloride dispersion resins, excluding latex resins; (8) 100 ppm for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, averaged separately for each type of resin; or (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants controlling vinyl chloride emissions with technology other than stripping or in addition to stripping: . (i) 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 before (date of proposal .of these amendments):' (A) 2 g/kg'*(G.0Q2 Ib/lb) product from the stripper(s) tor reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)j for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the . product determined on a dry solids basis; (B) 0.4 g/kg (0.0004 1b/lb) product from the stripper(s) [or reactor(s) if the plant has no.stripper(s)] for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. (ii) For sources being used to' process any grade of polyvinyl .chloride resin not produced by the plant on or before (date of proposal of these amendments): (A) 0.5 g/kg (0.0005 Ib/lb) product from the stripper(s) [or reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)] for dispersion polyvinyl' chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis; ... 25 *Vc Oq *ooe (B) 0.(1 g/kg (0.0001 lb/lb) product 'from the strippers [or reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)] for all other M polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the .. ` product determined on a dry solids basis. & (f) The requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and .(d) of this & t 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 v* opened. . 1*4 v* 5. Section 61.65 is amended as follows: * (a) By replacing the phrase "10 ppm" with the phrase "the appropriate emission limit specified in 61.65(c)" in paragraphs (b)(1)(H). (b)(2), (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(H), (b)(3) (i i i), (b)(3)(H),' (b)(3)(v), (b)(5), (b)(6)(H),' and (b)(9)(H); (b) By revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (d) as set forth below: * 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, '1 and polyvinyl chloride plants. * * * * * - .j (c) The emission limit which is not to be exceeded is as follows: (1) Each source, for which construction had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years after promulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after promulgation of these amendments). '(2) 1 Each source for which construction commenced after (date of proposal of these amendments), 5 ppm. 26 . VVC 000020003 ** (d) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7) and (b)(8) of this section are to be incorporated into a standard, operating procedure, and made available upon request for inspection by the Administrator. The standard operating procedure is to include provisions for measuring the vinyl chloride in equipment >4.75 m (1250 g-al) in volume for which an emission limit is prescribed in 6T.65(b)(6)(i) prior to opening the equipment and using Test Method 106, a portable hydrocarbon dectector, or an equivalent or alternative method. The method of measurement is to meet the requirements in 61-67(g)(5)(i)(A) or (g)(5)(i)(B). 6. In 61.67, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: i ! 561.67 Emission tests. (a) Unless a waiver of emission testing is obtained under 61.13, the owner or operator of a source to which this 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: ' (i) Within 90 days following October 21, 1976, and j (ii) For those sources subject to 5561.62(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 i October 21, 1976, within 90 days of startup. 27 I 2000<* vv c OOQO 7. In 561.68, paragraph (c) is revised to-read as follows: 3 61.68 'Emission Monitoring. . * * * it ^ i (c) A daily span cherk -U tn h&. mulcted for each vinyl chloride monitoring 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 561.62(b)(1), the daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration emission limit applicable to it. For a source subject to- the emission limit prescribed in 561.62(b)(1), the daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride which is determined to be equivalent to the emission limit for that source based on the emission test required by 61.67. The calibration- is to be done with either: - * * 8. A new 61.72is 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 5 561.62(a)(1); 61.63(a)(1); 61..64(a) (1) (i h (b)(1), (c)(1), (d.) (1);'and/or 61.65(c)(1) on or before (date three years after promulgation of these amendments), the owner, or operator of"that source may request that the Administrator approve an interim emission limit for that source.- The request is to be 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: 28 , . WC 000020005 (1) The reasons the source is incapable of being in*compliance with the 5 ppm emission limit' and data to support those reasons, and (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 emission limit in accordance with 61.72(a), shall within 60 days of the date of the -*-d1 written- request meet with the Administrator concerning the information IS~Ii contained in the request. The meeting is to.be open to interested d persons, who areVto be allowed to submit oral or written testimony A.0 1 relevant to compliance of the source. (c) The Administrator will within 120 days of receipt of the 1 *d written request required by paragraph (a) of this section, notify -A the owner or operator in writing of approval or denial of approval of an interim emission limit. SSS '-7 (d) If an interim emission limit is approved the notification is to include the level of the interim emission limit, which may be the* level requested or a more stringent one. *3 (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 061.72(c) shall expire three years from the date of issuance. The owner-or operator may request an extension of approval for an interim emission limit or a lower interim emission limit. 29 vvc 000020006 . Vv ** S. '*.*^*'-Aj*f~y>xtjcz'-.--rg^-^ '. - V. V. Vi'*'V?' >>'" ., >. , V T '-Tl "r- ' -- , -!. _-'. -~- JS The requcst'is' to be in writing, is to be submitted within six months prior to a year before the expiration date and is to include the information listed in 561.72(a). Sections 61.72(b), (c),.(d)> and (e) are to apply. 9. A pew-61.73 is added to read as follows: . 61.73 Offset of Emissions Due to New Construction. (a) No owner or operator is to construct 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 satisfaction that such construction will not cause an increase in vinyl'chloride.emissions within 8 km of any.other source which.is subject to`this subpart. (ft (f (b) -Reduction in production rate is an allowable mechanism for attaining an offset in emissions. (c) The baseline emission rate is to be determined based on the level of emissions allowable by the standard. -fc (d) Reducing emissions from an interim emission limit to the standard for a source is not an acceptable means of achieving an emission offset. \ (e) 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 following information: (1) The name, address, and location of any plant subject to this subpart 'which is located .within 8 km of the proposed location- of the source to be constructed. ^VC 0000200 (f)- The emission limits applicable to both.the new'source(s) and the source(s) at which emissions are being reduced to hbaallaanncree the a . /? *=rr- increase in .emissions duo to the new 'construction are to be established by the Administrator in the approval for construction' required dy 5bl.u0. AUTHORITY: Secs. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of Pub.l. Mo. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1683; sec. 2 of Pub.L. No. 90-148,-31 Stat. 5U4 (42 U.S.C. 1855c-7, l357g(a)). Secs. 61.67 and 61.68 also issued under sec. 114 of the'Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of Pub.L. Mo. 91-604, V 84 Stat. 1687 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-9). i ,v\fa 31 vvc 000020008 23154 PtOPOSED RULES . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION additional actions. These include a re be achievable only by banning vinyl chlo AGENCY [ 40 CFR Part 61 ] statement of EFA's policy for regulating ride emissions completely. That, In turn, carcinogens under section 113 of the would require closing the entire industry. Clean Air Act: the proposal of amend As explained in the earlier rulemaking it fFKL 738-6] ments which would require increased is not clear that Congress would have VINYL CHLORIDE HRtkWil Emission Standards for Hazardous Mr 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, tSee 40 FR 59534 and 41 FR 46562). AGENCY; Environmental Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. Protection 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 Zero Emission Goal emissions, EPA is proposing amendments axe being made to the vinyl chloride which require more efficient use of exist standard which has promulgated Octo The vinyl chloride standard has been . ing control technology at existing plants ber 21, 1976, and would apply to new criticized for allegedly placing unwar and more effective controls at new anH existing ethylene dichloride. vinyl ranted emphasis on technological rather plants, and which encourage technology chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants. than health considerations. Although to reach this goal without banning vinyl The standard and the proposed amend EPA disagrees with this criticism, it chloride. ments Implement the Clean Air Act and seems appropriate to restate EFA's ap are based on the Administrator's deter proach to the regulation of carcinogens mination that vinyl chloride is a hazard- ,, in general and under Section 112 of the Mohs Strutcent 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 Improved effectiveness of control tech vinyl chloride standard and the pro posed amendments are consistent with would require sources presently subject to a 10 ppxn emission limit to reduce nology at existing plants, impose more stringent emission limits on new sources, this approach and with the protection of public health. emissions to 5 ppm within three years of promulgation of the amendment. The and prohibit an emission increase within the vicinity of an existing source due to the construction of a new source. On May 25. 1976, EPA published in terim procedures and guidelines for health risk and economic impact assess ments of suspected carcinogens <41 FR affected sources include ethylene dichlo ride purification: vinyl chloride forma tion and purification: reactors, strippers: mixing, weighing, and holding contain DATES: Comments must be received on 21402). which define EPA's approach to ers: monomer recovery systems; and or before August 1.1977. regulatory action for suspect carcino fugitive emissions which have been cap 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. tured in accordance with the existing regulation.* If the owner or operator oi 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 dOuTCSSuch requests would have to be maae 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 m attain FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: Don R. Goodwin, Emission standards and Engineering Division, Environ mental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Telephone No. 919-683-8146. ext. 271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 21. 1976, EPA promulgated a standard for vinyl chloride under the authority of section 112(b) (l) <'B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (41 FR In deciding whether a cancer risk exists. EPA will consider a substance a 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 exists. In -deciding how and whether to 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 puolic 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. If an Interim emission limit acre 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 the reduction from 10 to 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 poiyvinyl chloride plants. 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 ants." This requirement appears to as sume that each pollutant regulated will have a threshold level of effects below which no health effects will occur. As explained in the documentation for the current standard (40 FR 59532. Decem ber 24, 1975: 41 FR 46560. October 21, As an explanatory note, paraaiar.h i i cl ! 61.85 contains nine fugitive (oub.^oa rc._ulatlons. For several oC these, the f^ritire emissions are required to be captured acd ducted to a control device meettne 15 ppm. According to the proposed amendment.1;. ZJ-.e 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 13. 1977. On March 24. 1977, EOF and EPA moved to dismiss the proceedings in view of a settlement agreement requiring EPA to take certain 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 emissions from 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 la } til,65(b). a separate paragraph (c) containing those emission limits Is beins added to { C1.C5. Ail the other paragraphs la <b) are croesreierenced in paragraph lc). FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 1OA--THURSDAY, JUNE 2. 1*77 VVC 000020009 FKUF05EP 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 aperatocs to maximize the effectiveness of existing control systems. wnw Smrcsrr Stajibams rot Nxw SOTiacxs The proposed amendments would also require more stringent controls lor new sources; i.c.. sources for which construc tion is commenced after the date of pro posal of these amendments. According to 9 61.02 of the General Provisions, "commenced" mer^s that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of construction or modification or that an owner or operator has entered wfc/i a contractual obligation to under take and complete, within a reasonable eyeHug and oxygen feed methodolgy is rather than the equipment. The same considered feasible for new oxychlartna- equipment can be used to process differ tlon reactors because it can be Incorpo ent resin grades. Variations in the emis rated at the time of construction. Since sions from the equipment are a function the use of this technology would elimin of the resin being processed rather than ate the supplemental fuel problem re the charactenstlcs of the equipment. The ferred to above, it is EPA's Judgment that control technology which is used for the new oxychlorination reactors should be equipment following the stripper is like controlled to the same extent that Is wise more directly linked to the resin proposed for other emission sources. than the equipment. Stripping Is used to The proposed amendment also includes control the emissions due to the vinyl a more stringent emission limit for sew chloride in the resin before the resin is polyvinyl chloride resins being processed processed in the equipment. in equipment following the stripping Before the hazards of vinyl chloride operation. That is. the amendment became known, stripping technology was would apply to resins for which produc employed by polyvinyl chloride manu tion for the purpose of marketing was facturers to recover raw materials for commenced after the proposal of the economic purposes. As a result of a amendment. The amendment would re standard promulgated by the Occupa quire all new resins except new disper tional Safety and Health Administration sion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and (39 FEfc 35890), some companies investi new dispersion resins to be stripped to gated improvements in stripping meth 500 ppm. These limits for new products odology for emission control purposes. Hm*. a continuous program of construc would be one-fourth of the limits con (I) s tion or modification. tained in the standard for existing prod Optimum stripping consists of a set of New sources of types which would be ucts. Consistent with the current stand operating conditions which must be de i subject to the 10 ppm emission limit ard. the amendment would permit the veloped experimentally on an individual under the current standard would be use of control devices rather than strip basis for the many resins. In developing required under the amendments to meet ping technology to meet the emission the current standard. EPA recognized a 5 ppm emission limit at the time of limit. In this f-hki* equipment being used that stripping technology for dispersion startup. With new sources there would be to process all new resins except new dis resins had not been refined to the same l no provision allowing requests for EPA persion resins would have to be con extent as it had been for other resins and approval of an interim emission limit. trolled to 0.01 kg/kg product and the that there was more difficulty m strip New sources w'ould be required to meet equipment used for new dispersion resins ping dispersion resins than other resms. the more stringent emission limit at the would have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg For reason a less stringent emission 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 product. ____ A`"new source" is defined in 40 CFR 61.02 as a stationary source, the con struction or modification of which is limit was established for dispersion res ins. Dispersion resins are permitted a higher emission limit under the proposed amendment for the same reason. sources, on the other hand, require time to maximize the effectiveness of their control systems. The proposed amendment would also 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 EPA believes that for some resins, companies have already developed strip ping technology which would meet the proposed amendment. <2) For other 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 Ib/lb) of the 100 per cent ethylene dichloride 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. 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 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 r.ew product has more freedom of choice than the owner or operator already making a particular product in selecting these resins which are to be produced. ERA'S standard would be included In the variables under consideration when decisions are being made as to wnich resins are to be produced. The proposed amendment would apply to any new source, whether it constituted 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 r.ew concentrated by recycling the gas stream duction of new polyvinyl chloride resins. plant. That is. If a new oxychlorination and using oxygen instead of air to feed This is based on the reasoning that emis reactor or a new polyvinyl chlor:de re into the process. (J. 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, FDUAl REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 104--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 VVC 000020010 28156 PROPOSED RULES the overall emission level from that plant would be reduced. ihasexoir. OfTsrr Because the present vinyl chloride standard focuses on reducing emissions rather than attaining a-parucular am bient air quality concentration, there la 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. CPA 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. EFA 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) of 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 withm 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 plantCs) 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 preclude this possibility. The offset provision would apply only to new 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 tliis 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 or.e 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 mi the maximum production rale 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 an 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 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 are urged to sub mit comments and factual information relating to this policy. Rzvzxw or 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 tile 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: <lj further re duction of emissions at existing plants. <2) no increase iu 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 avernce-sized ethylene dichlortde-vinyl 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 oxychionnation re actors are replaced with new oxychlori- rmtion 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 dichioride-vinyi chloride plant (318x10* kg yr or 700 X10" lb'yr produced), the hourly emis sions would be 5.1 kg (11.5 lb) msteaa of 10.3 kg (23.1 lb). For a typical new average-sired dispersion polyvinyl chlo ride plant <46x10* kg/yr or 100x10 Ib/yr production), the emissions would be about 9 kg/hr <20 lb/hr) instead o: 17.5 kg/hr (39 lb/hr) and for a typical new average-sized suspension polyvmy: chloride (68x10* kg/yr or 150x10" lb/yr production) the emissions wouxd be 12.1 kg/hr) (30 lb/hr) instead of 16 kg hi <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 reducei proportionately. The only negative environmental im pact would be an increase in hydrogei chloride emissions at ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride plants if incineratior were used to contxol emissions from neu oxychJorination reactors. However, due to the corrosion problems which woulr. otherwise occur on plant property anc in the community, plants are expectec to use scrubbers to control the hydroge: chloride emissions. The proposed amend ment is not expected to have a signiff. cant impact on energy consumption. Economic Impact The potential economic impacts of th proposed standard are: (1) Costs for research and develop ment of improved methodology for oper ation of existing control technology 5 that it can be used to meet the 5 ppc emission limit. <2> Costs for research and develop ment of improved stripping technique to meet .the standard for new poiyvm:. chloride resins. 3) Cost of research and developmer or licensing for converting over to th oxygen system for a new oxychlorinatic reactor. (4) Possibly increased transporiatic costs of raw materials in the case th: the offset policy results In the construe tion of a new plant farther from r existing plant than it otherwise wou. have been. (5) Costs of building a new plant mo: than 8 km from an existing plant in tl event that the offset requirement pr eluded the expansion of an existir plant. FIDfRAl MGl$T(R,*VOl. 41. NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNI 3, 1977 WC 000020011 * a ! %t t ) 1 ; i f1 l r 5 r i t 3T* 3m \ :iWe id ismdd d- ii a- he :ITp-oBmO 3P- iI ies xyl I snt the oon f ion hat nc- an nld :ore rtwy f PROPOSED RULES 28157 (0) Delay in the production of a par ticular resin due to time spent develop ing stripping technology xor 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 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 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 oxygenrecycle system is the cost of the oxygen 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. Cl) 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 ail aspects of the pro posed amendments. (Section 112 of th# Clean Air Act. sec. 4(a) of Pub. j. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1685 (42 U.S.C. 1857c- 7) and section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. see. 2 at Pub. L. No. 90-148, 84 Stat. 504 as amended by sec. < 15) (c) (2) of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1657 g(a)). Secs. 61.67 and 61.68 also proposed under the au thority of section 114 of the Clean Air Act. as added hy sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 16B7 and amended bv Pub. L. 93-319. sec. 6(a)(4), 88 Stat. 259 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-9>.) Not*.--The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that thLs document does 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. Douglas M. Costle. Administrator. Rsmzwczs (1) Standard Support end Environmental Impact Statement: Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride, EPA-450 12-75-009, October, 1975, (2) "aoodrlch Reports impressive progress In Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem.** Ameri can Paint and Coatinys Journal, Vol. 60. No. 31. January 12. 1078. p. 24. (3) E. W. Wlmer and R. E. Feathers. "Ox ygen Gives Low Cost VCM." J/ydroeardon Processing. March 1976. pp. 81-64. <*) Peter Raich. "Air or Oxygen For VCM?." Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 1970, pp. 65-89. It is proposed that Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 61 be amended as follows: 1. In 9 61.08, paragraph <b> is revised to read os 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 61.73. he will approve the construction or modification of such source. 2. Section 61.62 .is revised to read as follows: 61.62 Emhuion 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 dichlonde purification: Except as provided in I 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; U) 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 61.65(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. (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) (i) before being opened. 3. Section 61.63 is revised to read as follows: 61.63 EmUsion 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 1 61.65. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: Except as provided in 9 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 after June 2. 1977, 5 ppm. ib> 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 S 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 ltOhTeTS *appropriate emission limit as fol- (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.* a (b> Stripper: Except as provided in 1 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). <2j Each source for which construction commenced after June 2. 1977. 5 ppm. (c) Mixing, weighting, and holding containers: Except as provided in 5 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: (l) Each source, for which construc tion had commenced on or before (data . FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 VVc 000020012 28158 PROPOSED RULES ot proposal of these amendments). 10 ppot^imtU (date three jwan 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 aaprovided In 9 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 these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after pro* mitigation 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 &H 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 tripping technology to control vinyl chloride emissions: (1) For 8 grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have been produced 2>y 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 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 poiyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, averaged separately for each type of resin; (11) 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 iatex 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: (i) For sources being used to process a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin all of which had been produced.by od of measurement Is to meet the re the plant on or before June 2.1977: quirements la f 61.67(g)(5) U) (A) or (A) 2 g/kg <0.003 lb/lb) product from (g)(5) <l> (B). the striper(s) [or reactorfs) if the 6. In | 61.67. paragraph (a) Is iceiieti plant has no stripper(s) ] for dispersion to read as follows: polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding lata resins, with the product determined on S 61.67 Emitfioa mu. a dry solids basis: (a) Unless a waiver of emission test (B) . 0.4 g/kg (0.004 Ib/lb) product ing Is obtained under 9 61.23, the owner from the strlpper(s) (or reactor(s) If or operator of a source to which. the plant has no stripper(s) > for all subpart applies shall test emissions other polyvinyl chloride resins, including from, the source as follows: latex resins, with the product deter (I) For an existing source or a new mined on a dry solids basis. source which has an Initial startup date (11) For sources being used to process preceding October 21.1976: any grade of polyvinyl chloride resin not (1) Within 90 days following October produced by the plant-on or before June 21. 1976. and 2, 1977: (il) For those sources subject to (A) 0.5 g/kg (0.0005 Ib/lb) product 95 61.62(a): 61.63(a); 61.64 (a)(1), <b>. from the strtpper(s) (or reactor(s) If the (c), and <d): and/or 61.65(b)(1), (b> plant has no stnpper(s)) for dispersion (2). (b)(3). (b)(5). (b)(6). and/or <b> polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la (9), within 90 days following (date three tex resins, with the product determined years after the promulgation date of on a dry solids basis; these amendments). (B) 0.1 g/kg. <0.0001 lb/Ib> product (2) For a new source for which initial from the strippers (or reactor(s) if the startup occurs after October 21. 1976. plant has no stripper(s)) for all other within 90 days of startup. polyvinyl chloride resins. Including latex resins, with the product deter 7. In l 61.68, paragraph (c) la revised mined on a dry solids basis. to read as follows: (1) The requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not 61.68 Emission monitoring. apply to equipment that has been opened. Is out of operation, and met the (c) A dally span check is to be con requirement in 5 61.65(b) (6) (l) before ducted for each vinyl chloride monitor opened. ing system used. For ail of the sources 5. Section 61.65 Is amended as follows: listed to paragraph (a) of this section, A. By replacing the phrase "10 ppm" except for the one for which an emission with the phrase "the appropriate emis sion limit specified in 61.65(0" in paragraphs (b)Cl)<li). (b)(2), (b)(3) (1). (b)(3)(H), (b)(3) (ill), (b) (3) (iv), (b)(3Uv), (b)(5), (b)(6)(ID, and 0 (9) (11); B. By revising paragraph (c) and add ing paragraph <d) as set forth below. limit is prescribed la 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 61.52'b) (1), the daily span check is to be con ducted with a concentration cf vinyl chloride which is -determined to be 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and poly vinyl chloride plants. (c) The emission limit which Is not equivalent to the emission limit for that source based on the emission test re quired by 3 61.67. The calibration is to be done with either: to be exceeded is as follows: (l) Each 8. A new 5 61.72 Is added to read as source, for which construction had com menced on or before June 2, 1977, 10 follows: ppm until (date three years after pro 61.72 Requc-t for interim emi-rion mulgation of these amendments) and limit. 5 ppm after (date three years after pro (a) If in the opinion of the owner or mulgation of these amendments). operator of an existing source, that (2) Each source for which construc source will be unable to comply with the tion commenced after June 2. 1977, 5 5 ppm emission limit in J? 61.62-aj <1); ppm. 61.63(a)(1); 61.64 (a> < 1) (i>, <b>(!. <d) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2). <bM5>. (b>`6>, tb> (7) and (b) (8) of this section are to be in corporated into a standard operating procedure, and made available upon re quest for inspection by the Administra tor. The standard operating procedure (c>d). (d)(1); and. or 6l.65(c>'l* on or before (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments*, the owner or operator of that source may re quest that the Adminssrator approve an interim emission limit for that source. The request is to be in writing and is to is to include provt'ions for measuring be submitted to the Administrator within the vinyl cliloride in equipment ^=4.73 m* (1250 pal) in volume for which an emission limit is prescribed in 61.65 (b)<6> <i) prior to opening the equip six months prior to (date two years alter promulgation of these amendments). The request is to include; (1) The reasons the source is In ment and using Test Method 105. a port capable of being in compliance with the able hydrocarbon detector, or an equiv 5 ppm emission limit and data to support alent or alternative meihoi. The meth those reasons, and FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 42, NO. 106--THURSOAY, JUNE I, 1977 0q eoi3 PROPOSED RUl5 2S159 (2)` A suggested tnterlin emission limit nrf description of the methodology for that limit. (b) Any owner or operator of a source who has submitted to the Administrator written request for an interim emis sion limit In accordance with i 61.72(a), hail within 60 days of the date of the written request meet with the Admin* Istrator concerning the information con tained in the reouest. 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 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 jtmiitl is based. (I) 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 5 61.72 (b>, (c), (d>, and (e> are to apply. 9. A new 9 61.73 Is added to read as follows: 61.73 Offset of emissions due to new 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 mechanism 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. (e) In the application for approval ot construction required by 9 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) The limits applicable to both the new source(s) end the sourcefs) at which emissions are being reduced to 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 S 61.08. (Secs. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. see. 4(a) ot Pub. L. No. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1683: sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148. 81 Stat. 604 (42 0S.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. 18670-9).) [F& Doc.77--15572 FUed 6-l-77;8:4S am) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE Office of Education [4SCFR Parts 163 and 163a] CAREER EDUCATION AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT Addition of Programs AGENCY: Office of Education, HEW. ACTION: Proposed rule. 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. Fart 163 con tains provisions for a new one-year pro gram of financial assistance to States and other allottees for Fiscal Year 1978 to plan for the Improvement and develop ment of career education and career de velopment programs and activities for individuals of all ages. Fart 163a con tains provisions for the Commissioner of Education to conduct a number of career information activities during Fiscal Year 1978, including the collection, analysis, and dissemination of Information per taining to career trends and options in the United States as well as exemplary materials from the career education field. Both these programs are new au thorizations for which no funding has been requested by the Administration. DATES: Comments must be received oh 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: Sidney High. 202-245-2331. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: <a) Organization. Part 163 (sections 331-334 of Pub. L. 94-482), as set forth in this proposed rule, contains those pro visions which are applicable to the pro 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 sistance provided under this Part is also subject to the applicable provisions con tained in the Office of Education General Provisions Regulations published in 45 CFR Parts 100 and 100b 38 FR 30654. November 6, 1973). Part 183a (section 333 of Pub. L. 94-482) contains those provisions applicable to the program of 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. 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. (b) Comments and responses. In the Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations (published in 41 FR 51550 on November 22, 1976) the Commissioner requested public comment on a number of specific Issues in addition to inviting expressions of public sentiment on any issue consid ered worthy of comment. In the thirty days afforded interested persons in which to make their views known, 64 State and national organizations, associations, and agencies and 3 Individuals submitted comments. The comments cm the specific 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 avoid duplication of the former pro gram? (a) Should planning under sec tions 331-34 focus on career education for individuals beyond the secondary school level? <b) Should States be re quired to explain the relationship be tween activities carried out and proposed .under the two authorities? The commenters were overwhelmingly supportive of the view that duplication of activities conducted under both au thorities (Pub. L. 3-380 and Pub, L. 34482) should be as limited as possible. They clearly thought the regulation should require a careful explanation of 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 under Pub. I*. 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 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) should also be coordinated with planning efforts conducted pursuant to Pub. L. 94^-482 be cause those titles deal with the continu ing education of adults and, therefore, are closely related to the concept of career education for individuals of all ages. The proposed 5 163.6(b) attempts to avoid duplication by requiring the allottee to explain the relationship be tween planning activities carried out un der Pub. L. S3-380 and proposed under Pub. L. 94--482 in the event that the plan ning is addressed to the same age groups. On the related question of priorities between K-12 and postsecondary plan ning, while the majority of commenters identified the need for cooperation be- FEDERAL REGtSTER, VOL. 47, NO. 106--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 VVC 000020014