Document bBndBm7Xm693N9vNjDeEZ7wQ6

n, e*" t *m LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ^ 1/30/74 Chemical Week , p. 15. ''Probing Cancer Death* * 2/18/74 Chem. & Eng. News , p. 6, "Evidence Mounts Linking Vinyl Chloride and Cancer" 2/23/74 Business Week, p. 100* "Industry's Latest Cancer Scare" 2/25/74 3/3/74 3/6/74 3/13/74 Chem. It Eng. News, p. 16, "Battle Lines Drawn on Vinyl Chloride Issue" . Newspaper article, "Plant Yields 7th Cancer Victim" Newspaper article, "2 Plants in Houston Area in Survey*for Rare Cancer" " * Newspaper article, "Plastics Workers Screened for 111 Effects of Vinyl Chloride " 3/13/74 Newspaper article, "VCM Exposure Should be Cut to Unmeas urable Levels, Officials Urge" 3/29/74 Newspaper article, "Vinyl Chloride Ban in Pesticide Sprays Requested by EPA" 3/11/74 Report by the Bureau of National Affairs, "NIOSH Recommended Occupational Health Standard for the Manufacture of Synthetic Polymer from Vinyl Chloride" ci. 3/15/74 Reports by the Bureau of National Affairs, (1) "OSHA Will Adopt 50 ppm Exposure Limit in Emergency Vinyl Chloride Rule", (2) "NIOSH Issues Medical Surveillance Supplement to Vinyl Chlorides Document" 3/22/74 Report from Manufacturing Chemists Association, "OSHA Standards for Vinyl Chloride Monomer" April 1974 OSHA Bulletin, "Emergency Temporary Standard for Exposure to Vinyl Chloride " l z RSV 0018101 "..IV v--:* w tr ---- 7T -IV BUfcLiW P1- ,, ^ ff.rgfr !W U WUM-A..,jL, :',, ii.; garcsy. jrxjL^-iRJC-ff-aey. Monsanto' R. L.- Grantor if-- mom' iMtHl' * LOCATION* Chocolate Bayou Plant :*T "f vcTM jC- . UUKCT-'-- ^|vwgrteN^I ' August 1, 1973 cc J. H. Bordelon pyrolysis of Perchloro Ethylene W. G* Juhl H. H. Nelson^^"Texas City J* L. Young i Central Filp isri.t. .wo--f--jfr--2a.&-;vt-\.*:*'i<Vlw J. D. Robinson % Through Herb Nelson at Texas City, Scientific Design Company was contacted concerning thermal stability of perchloro ethylene (PCE) and methods of removing small amounts of it from a hydrocarbon stream like DSB. They felt that PCE is too*-thermally stable to decompose at temperatures up to 1200F* Because of the symmetry of the PCE molecule, they felt there would be little chance of removal with charcoal, molecular sieves, etc* They recommend distillation* PCE boils at 250F, toluene at 231F. Ortho, meta, and para-xylene boil at 291F, 280F, and 281F, respectively. Ethylbenzene boils at 277F* It appears that by two distillations, most of the aromatics of interest in this contaminated material could be recovered. Scientific Design's feeling regarding the thermal stability of PCE is confirmed by articles in the literature. At 932F, Krynitsky and Carhart(^) found no pyroiysis products from PCE* Schmeisser, Schrotter, and Schilderl2) were able to decompose PCE .to dichloro acetylene, hexachloro butadiene, hexachloro ethane, and hexachloro benzene. Carbon and chlorine were also produced. They operated under vacuum and at 2200-2460F in the presence of activated carbon. Based on these observations, I do not think we would do much to the PCE in our material by processing it through our cracking furnaces . > jal 8/1/73 R. L. Grantom RSV 0018103 (1) Krynitsky, *J. A., and Carhart, H. W., JACS. 71. 816-823 (1949). (2) Schmeisser,-M., Schrotter, H., and Schilder, H.^ Chem. Ber. 95. 1648-1656 (1962). wtiuwnuiil uuvwiilUlUno iii VDT CiaORIDE ^ Vinyl chloride (cUlorooihylcuc, monochlorocthylcnc), CHj=GTICl, at ordinary temperature and normal pressure, is a colorless gas with an irritant action on the eyes and an odor reminiscent of that of ethyl chloride. Industrially, vinyl chloride is handled os the liquid (bp, --13.9*0. To prevent its polymerization during storage or transport, stabilizers may l>c added. It is readily flammable, lias a very low flash point, and forms explosive mixtures with air. Vinyl chloride is very slightly soluble in water, and soluble in most of the common industrial solvents. Its toxicity is less than that of carbon tetrachloride or clilorofonn, and it has a narcotic effect similar to that of ethyl chloride. By fur, the most important use of vinyl chloride is in the manufacture of polyvinj'l chloride (PVC) and related plastics. It is used to a small extent as a special solvent, n refrigerant, and in chemical synthesis. Vinyl chloride was first prepared and described by Itognault, in 1835. He ob tained it by reacting dichlomcthnnc with alcoholic potash. Jlcgnault observed that on prolonged exposure to sunlight in a scaled tube the liquid deposited white flakes of solid. In the state of organic chemical theory and knowledge at that date, he could only record, without explanation, this liquid-to-solid change, llcgnault's white solid was studied in 1S72 by Baumann without its nature being fully elucidated; he described the material as "KuuprcucMorid" and gave it the empirical formula (C-r HaCI). In 1911, Klattc and llnllctt investigated the reaction between hydrogen chloride and acetylene, and two years later, Gricshcim-EIcktnm obtained a patent for theuse of mercuric chloride as a catalyst in this reaction, thus establishing an effective industrial route to vinyl chloride. The low price and ready availability of natural rubber and absence of technical interest in the type of plastic product produced from vinyl chloride limited develop ment of vinyl chloride manufacture prior to the outbreak of World War II. When that war cut oft the Western powers from their natural rubber sources, production of vinyl chloride for PVC, as a rubber substitute, was established on a large scale in the United States and the United Kingdom. Vinyl chloride is now one of the most 'mportant starting materials of the plastics industry. Physical and Chemical Properties . The physical properties of vinyl chloride are given in Table 1. At 25C, 0.11 g vinyl chloride dissolves in 100 g water, and at --15C, 0.03 g water dissolves in 100 g vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride is soluble in mineral oil, alcohol, the industrial chlorinated solvents, and a number of common organic liquids. No azeotropes have been reported. Reactions. In its chemical behavior, vinyl chloride obeys the general rule that the simple unsaturated chlorohydrocarbons arc more stable than saturated ones. At about 450C, vinyl chloride begins to decompose, forming small amounts of acetylene (2). In the presence of a copper, lead, tin, or cadmium catalyst, at 400C, vinyl chloride forms 2-eh!oro-l,3-butadicnc (3). When vinyl chloride is dry, tin decom position takes place in contact with metals at temperatures below those just indicated. Wet vinyl chloride, at elevated temperature, corrodes iron and steel. The thermal and photochemical decompositions of vinyl chloride, in rent art with air, do not appear to liavc been systematically studied. The decomposition products (peroxygen conv- 7/w *. 4 ii 3 t f. ' RSV 0018104 1 A ,,y n M . /*A* International newsletter April 11,1973 - CHEMICAL WEEK Dow Chemical and Mitsubishi are considering a site in South Australia for a petrochemical complex. Australian sources say the project, which could involve expenditures of more than $300 million, will be built at Rcdcliffs, 17 miles south of Port Augusta. Other companies involved in the preliminary planning are Delhi International Oil Corp. and Santos Ltd., developers of the Cooper Basin gas field in South Australia. These companies are also said to have salt reserves available at nearby Lake Torrens. Using ethane from the natural gas and chlorine from the sail, the complex will probably produce ethylene dichloride for shipment to Far East markets. Caustic soda, which would also be produced, is in heavy demand by Australian alumina refineries. Dow Chemical says its negotiations on location of a petrochemical plant in South Australia are proceeding satisfactorily and that a decision is expected shortly. Mitsubishi Corp., a trading firm, says it is being consulted by Australian government planners about a petrochemical project in South Australia, adds that discussions are in a preliminary stage. Look for a Japanese-Saudi Arabian petrochemical complex. Basic agree ment is reported to have been reached between King Faisal's government and Japanese officials for a joint venture to produce 500,000 tons/year of ethylene and other petrochemicals in Saudi Arabia. Tokyo sources say Japan's Mitsubishi group will invest up to $500 million in the project, to be matched by the Saudis. The Japanese investment is believed to be linked to a deal to supply Japan with 200 millions bbls. of crude oil. Nigeria is seeking partners for petrochemical projects. The government has budgeted more than $42 million for establishment of a petrochemical industry as part of new national development plan. Among the materials slated for produc tion: fertilizers, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, chlorine and caustic soda. One project envisioned by the Nigerian government--a $75-million ammonia-urea plant--would use natural gas as raw material. Another would be a phosphatic fer tilizer unit, with minimum capacity of about 80,000-tons/ycar, according to gov ernment officials. They say that although imports are now less than 50,000 tons/ycar, potential demand is much greater. French warning against premature fiber buildup. Acknowledging the in creased demand for some synthetic fibers in Europe, Jean de Precigoul, president of France's Synthetic Textile Trade Assn., says the improved sales seemed to be only temporary, resulting primarily from the exceptionally high price of wool. He cautioned at the annual meeting of the association in Paris that the recent pickup in demand is not likely to bring a permanent solution to the imbalance between production and consumption growth. A resumption of fiber plant building now would only accentuate this imbalance in the medium term, he added. Federal arbitrators will try to head off a West German chemical strike. They'll take over deadlocked negotiatiorriTAviih a labor unit representing onethird of Germany's 660,000^Lenri^d--woikers who areseeking an 11.5% hike. i r ATTENTION tb (ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE LITIGATION MATERIALS) DO NOT DESTROY OR REMOVE WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT. CALL 314-694-6060 OR 314-694-6032 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. o^s=>vr\ n Journal of Occupational .\l dinno ^wjud August 1974 Vol. 16 No. 6 Mortality Study of Workers in the Manufacture of Vinyl Chloride and its Polymers* Irving R. Tabershaw, M.D. and William R. Gaffey, Ph.0. Animal studies have shown that inhalation of vinyl chloride produces in rats angiosarcoma of the liver as well as cancers of the lung, kidney, skin and other sites. Although workers in occupations involving etposure to vinyl chloride have been found to have an increased risk of hemangiosarcoma, no excess of other cancers has so far been reported. This historical prospective mortality study of 6384 men who had at least one year of occupational ex* posure to vinyl chloride before December 31, 1972, demonstrated that cancers of the digestive, system (primarily angiosarcoma), respiratory system, brain, and cancers of unknown site, as well as lym phomas. occurred more often than expected in those members of the study population with the greatest estimated exposure. The mortality from other cancers was lower than that of the general male population, with the exception of cancers of the buccal cavity and pharynx. There was an ^xcess of these cancers, which however was inversely related to estimated exposure. The explanation for the latter finding is not apparent. The other maior findings of the study are: (1) The overall mortality of the study population was ap proximately 75% of what would be expected in a comparable population of U.5. males: (2) No cause of death showed a statistically significant excess over what would be expected in a comparable U-S. male population; and, (3) No deaths identified as angiosarcoma of the liver were found other than those previously identified. This is the first epidemiological study which suggests chat in humans vinyl chloride may also be associated with cancer of multiple sites. .**** - On. Trhmluw 4nd CrHt; * (ran frbvnhiw-Cooprr AHBCiMfi Inc. Sum* JOB. USD CaccwKv* Sd, lodmS*. MO JOSSJ. *TI mxh on Um mm rt tmd wormed br a pouo of tom(w*> nurri tn S* tv*v Dm *m*of the paMimuwi nr wtH cNpwrir. *nd MmrMMd mi ihnr bMut by R* mmumIwiiii Oxiwxi AnstuMM Joariul of Occupational Medicin&VoL IS. No. SAugust 1974 RSV 0018107 909 V t chloride m its manufacture and particularly those producing the to have had ihe greatest exposure, wli-i,. 1 I polymerization has been identified as a narcotizing agent,' as a liver * and as a vasospastic agent producing a specific occupational disease. acroosteolysis.4 Recently, vinyl chloride has been incriminated as a carcinogen producing m a group of workers engaged in the manufacture of polwmyl chloride a rare fatal liver tumor, hemangiosarcoma.' Large doses'of the chemical in rats reportedly produced cancer of the skin, lung and other organs.4 Unpublished but public in formation* indicates that inhalation ex- 7 monomer, this determination could be made on the basis <jl <oh titles. Usually, however, exposure was a function of both tob title and the location of the |ob in the plant, so that the assessment of ex posure had to be made on a case-bycase basis by plant odicials. Data were collected for as far back in time as complete records were kept. In most cases this covered the entire history of the plant. In others, records were kept for a fixed period such as a decade. In a few, records were kept for different periods, depending on whether the ihose with low scores will have had tr*. least, even though the true exposure m each group may vary considerable l/om person to person. The estimated exposure history ni f*a< h worker was summarized bv calculating an exposure Index (El) This was Horn by multiplying the number or months on each job by the exposure score, totalling these overall exposed |obs. and dividing by the total number of months of ex posure. Follow-up of Study Population periments with rats in doses easily reached in manufacturing, operations produces in addition to angiosarcoma of the liver, skin, kidney^'and other malignant lesions. The present study, however, was not restricted to the conditions and sites suggested by the above investigations, but concerned itself with the entire spec trum of causes of death, to the extent permitted by the size of the study group. The objectives of the study were: (1) To compare the mortality of individuals who have worked in vinyl chloride plants with that-of the general population; (2) ToTcompare mortality worker had died on the job or had left employment In. most plants it was impossible to quantify exposure. However, industrial hygiene and s safety personnel in each plant were able io identify certain jobs and locations as involving the highest exposures in the plant, and to classify other exposures as medium or low relative to the "high" represented by the jobs with the greatest exposure. Con sequently. each exposed job in a worker's history was scored 1. 2. or 3 to indicate low, medium or high estimated exposure. "This gross classification has two major failings, as a result of the subjective A foltow-up procedure was mxntutcH for those who had left employment and whose vital status could not be deter mined at the local plant, using dm-n mail follow-up and retail credit bureau investigations. Table 1 shows the vital status of the population as of December 31. 1972. Follow-up is 85complete. Those who were not found were born land began their exposure) about ten years before the group on which follow up was complete, and had about half the duration of employment m exposed jobs with a slightly higher El. Although there appears to be nothing very unusual about this group in terms of work history and exposure, it is nevertheless true that patterns within the.population of virryt nature of the estimates. The first is that their exposures took place further back tftioride workers, based, upon estimated occupational etposurer and (3) To com the scores represent estimated relative exposure within a given plant It is pare mortality among- vinyl * chloride* workers with the mortality of .other oc- -'ttehremresf,orea possible that, in objective "high" score in one plant in time than that of the group suc cessfully traced. It is therefore possible that their mortality, after a substantial latent period, might show a somewhat cupational groups.tr*?** a':*'The study popufotfon^consisted-of-in- dividual* from 33'-plants - who had 'corresponds' to a "medium" or even "low" score in another. The second is that /he scores usually do not take into different pattern from that of the traced group. . All of the subsequent analysis is con worked for at Ieat6^ne-yar id a tob inv volving exposure l=vmyi chloride before: December 31,1972^xincludedretired, and terminated ce..3ve+i as--active workers, for each sod* worker the date-- aceount changes in exposure over time. A worker with long service may therefore have had jobs in the remote past which involved "low" exposure relative to other jobs at that rime, but cerned with the 7128 workers on whom follow-up was complete. Table 2 shows their distribution bv duration of exposed employment and the year in which that employment began. Although almost of birth and an emggpynteoc htttorycwenr ; whith'might be "high" in companion obtained, and (he vital status of the worker as of December 31. 1972, was with current exposures in the same job. This subjective classification is therefore half Ihe study group first entered ex posed employment in 1960 or later, there are nevertheless 854 workers with ascertained. For those found to have tied, those death certificates that were of questionable validity in characterizing the exposure of a given worker, for 20 years or more exposure, and 1640 with 15 years or more. Table 3 shows the available were obtained and the cause epidemiological purposes, however, relationship between duration of ex of death determined. The observed mor tally was compared with that of the United States male population. those who have high scores can reasonably be expected, on the average. posure and El. There does not appear to be a close relationship between ihe El RSV 0018108 Data Collection In each plant, data werecoilecteel for each worker stated bv 'flu* "-plant management in have been ^plijyi^i for at least one year in a job involving exPosuu^te.-vinyt chloride.-Irrxoine plants,: 510 Ttta L -- FtfWxs Stain tf UU (finyl CM*a Kwkwx. VW ... . mm IHMI tart* CwMkm tal M '4 uw im SI tool U 12M III St } SJ n Mortality Study of Workers in Manufacture of Vtoyt Chloride/Tabersfiaw. Caffe? and the duration of exposure. that it worker* with a higher 1 do nut differ substantially in duration of exposure TiMa 2. -- ButriMiaa al MaatM i (>ggtH fptrmMt ty Tar m WV-e* |1001J,t tar flit ttafl CMarit* Nekm vtt* C*mptt4 FaUea-a* from those with a lower El. One im plication it that m attesting the relation ship between mortality and exposure, l be Stairt Klttl a llMWN tm *< t*m I20-I7S IM-7IS 24tm wm luati both duration and level of exposure can 11*919 is 7 4 I ti * be examined separately, at well at in combination. 1149 <9 moss ISM IS 10l IIS I) 111 ISI in H7 1917 MS 257 Ml Ul 217 11(1 1714 144} m 14 7 20 17 mo n 7IS MS t Calculation of Risk of Death ten Tua ms im m MS 2M 19 IS The risk of death is expressed as a Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR). which is the ratio of the number of posure versus those with five years or When the study population is divided observed deaths in the study population more. according to intensity and duration of * `to the number 0( deaths to be expected In order to examine the possible in- exposure (Tables 5 and 6) and com in a comparable population of U S. teraction-~between duration and level of-, binations of these measurements (Tables males. SMR's were calculated for overall exposure, the study population was 7. and 6) three major patterns emerge. mortality and for 33 major cause groups. divided into four groups on the basis of For malignant neoplasms as a whole, Table * shows observed and expected both El {low vs high) and duration of ex the SMR increases with increasing ex deaths, and the SMR, for each of these- posure (short vs long) umg the same posure. whether measured by level, causes for the total study group. In dichotomization as Tables 5 and 6. duration, or both, in the high exposure calculating the SMR's for specific causes. Table 7 shows the results for short ver group with 5 years or more exposure k-`:the 24'deaths for which no certificates sus. long exposure in the low 1 group, (Table S) .there are 36 observed cases were'found were assumed to have the. and Table 8 shows the same comparison and 26.11 expected. "-"same' cause distribution as those for in the high 1 group. For cardiovascular -- renal diseases as "-"which certificates were available. ... In each of the above tables, deaths for a group, there are also increases in the "* In the standard population, each SMR - which certificates had not been received SMR with increasing exposure, but the CD" would be equal to 100. Therefore, the were assumed to be distributed as a numbers of observed cases remain less * r':statfttical significance of the deviation of uniform percentage of all causes. The.. . chan expected, the differences being -^'each'SMR in the study population from * -cause specific- SMR's were therefore ad? statistically significant in all groups ex 9'- the expected value of 100 was 'tested.* A; -justed upward by. a percentage which. cept the high exposure, long duration ":fingle dagger indicates those SMR's .varied-in each subgroup. group in Table 8. which differed significantly from 100 at . - For all other causes, there are no con- o^--fte 5% level, that is. which had a Results of Analysis _ ,, sistent relationships with exposure. prebaljility of 70S or less of occurring by- ; The overall mortality of the study- Within the malignant neoplasms, the ^'-chancel'A'douBle'dagger indicates those. - population is statistically significantly largest (although not statistically) 1 ^`which Svere significant at the 1* levels-7~Jower- rhanthat-.of-the U.S. . male -signiticant_SMR-is in cancers of the buc Ttmrv -based on fewer 'than five' ob- . population. Jhere were 352 .observed cal cavity and pharynx, with five ob- I `,>'*erved cases were not * tested for- t- deaths compared with 467 expected, for served, 2.84 expected, and an. 5MR of significance.-' "- r - an SMR.of 75. --^,189, However. Tables S to-8 show that vo- -?r4ble S'shows the" same SMR's for ... Table 4 shows -that .no specific cause all these cases have Exposure Indexes Workers with-an Exposure Index beiow- - of- death was statistically significantly . fcudow 1.5 and four out of the five have nc 1.S-'wsifrthose at 1.5 or above. The^ - greater than , .expected. Several... pac-:- less-than .five years exposure. Table 10 is **^'tfvidrrig point of 15 represents" a level. . Ucularly -beart disease* accidents and-,-a listing of. these.deaths with age at eBlfway45eWeen "lovv"'ahd~*'medmm. ^--othey--diseases.'.- nos detailed, in the. . death, duration of exposure, and. cause 00:4 "Table-6 shows- similar results for tablet, were significantly below their ex- . .as stated on the death certificate. ^tr\&br*eri WWi'Iess than five years er-- . peeled values... .. .. jCaaceiof the digestive system shows 1 -OWC C*-a?- a?-- '-.ar **- ^ -rwa . ::i._ --......................................... -r -- -' - i TaMa X -- RC ad S a 7121 ViWfX OtfarMa Vartan ta Maatks at rinnrf toatarwaat iU .Eigmrr Mai. Un.: tiawn * -Mia *- - taw h% < h1 IIS k\ -(MM. - 12*179 Ut 11*171 a. \ V* Z 24*m it l r*.,',:- sa*m k\ M*4IS hi Da r- - li.4. I.S + r. - IMkHN n;j* ...-taU4 -aoizttoor 3057 (100) IS - .yiauani IMS <41} Uo"iTn nu (ait tin (in s tw (tm (71 <771 iTM iaj__ -t; (mi 'xoruoi jiwnnp' .ns tut 747 m* -- * W-fl)" jfl (III) l IS)------ su Ml . (41 IS (0) iL*wrn * W .M a ti) M (11 Journal of Occupational Medieine/Vot. 11 No. 8/August 19/4 Itacauh 1:.:* :* fccrarr -r. ef 511 RSV 0018109 Takli 4. -- OburwC Dritta tiiidii Otafit Mi {IjiViitni UttiiliN liiivt in tfiV CMarU* *4flfi taw a 0jr> ICO. | OMtw r U uiin 352 44748 75 ` iJ3! 311) k:~% evi mva '0019011 liS7l I1) 34 19 **:rn "whim >H0 205> ii piii mociiwm. luce* e*iiT H 11(01*1) Mrjnirt m-'Hin. >ne>rffBrf m-r* (ISOIW) Mnmm. ir'iiii *{mi tiroim Miupjnt MBotnm. whm iwi * ISO- lit > Mji-ptM uaetHMv at*if im antmoMO me* (ISO-111) Ml JWsiVmti i;(M| Lr--r-mn <200 MJ 70S) 7177 11 5/2.14 1171 17 257313 1/1.55 ------------- DIO 17/31.75 1/177 UN . no in U7 91 IT ISS e in (keen (2(0) 71.31 in Hmt atumitculK M4 IM1I 4>UM <130134. 400488. $92 5S4) -- -Mew knot MhOuii CIS Old 23*) IWynitiC Ifit* & efir***i**r*M* oiRire M*t M. <409-402. 410-410 XrteiaCvone Min Iiujk 1*20) Xmmwniftc Mauram (421. *22) -JimmuM MM *uni <4*oa4Jl - -law wsirrmina 4<ium i*4*447) ------------ --- .CMemc 8 immciM n*esi ( rnX iBcrms (517 SM) - - .. ; 3SSi307.4C (3/2441 5/187 12L/137.33 IASI MJ3 172M........... 0M47 .- 80 * 57 * 78 95 II S - 124 Murnil 1*4 mwmm (*50493) - MS . M' ttar ny*Ji mo *mma (MO. Ml) 2/313 58 iermtortti 1550-5531 - U.U "0 Hum m4 MVX'Ml pitruetiM <5M. 5(1. 570) 1/1.91 71 Cttum. 4u*dn;is. mim m4 am (M3. S7L 572) CfTfeavt ef Mm (SID . -- t/Ml--------- - . ... ; WIO - 82 21 Htomewi mm (do)- -- OOJI - - 9 5|*3Imis. MftililT M >B4efn4 (MAM (710-7)5) 1/7.14 IS 4* Vr Cistna (m4Ml) 21/li. ... - - - 49.' HM n*i{t kWmh 1110(35) OBm. kb4ri (100-802. M0 M21 - T-f . - 1773478 - -(8130.84 13 * ` Snap (163. $70)79) 1171(8) (02 HancP (SM. 140-915) ____ --.... . ^ ^ . . . 3/1U8 .. . ... _____ __ .1 <*<4 tun fjy*w) .. - rr-z ' -.................... : .*StM'*4igaM hr 4*0* >A am alw* " " neiiiaM m a&atat u.1% M *" - i t-t a**A '_-- C=iT"* * 1-*-; V. * -- ' ---1- : - 3T. SM?- . "1 " i~ - i - ' - - ; i*-- * - pr- ~a* nwri: z*- 4*: An1 or<jM-*- m r-. #12*-*- . Z - " r rno* --. 77148. _ . : r ?* r- -- --- - - -- '. ies* :na is* -neat* ; \*ars jrf.-. *-' *= ---rsv -- V. -- r* *--*= aC no exctrCin the study population-*) * " ' Malrgnantheopfas'iTis of"other-arid un" "brgartti amfTeutefnia. have fewer cases whofe.^Ffowever.in those*worker* with specified "sitei-show an excess in the than expected. -The" number o< cases i* tm El of 1.5 or higher, there are 12 oh- total group, and an increase with both too small to examine any trends, on^cd" cases where 9.14 are expectedlevel and duration of exposure fTabtes 5 ~ Drarmxinn (Table 5). In the subgroup of the above and 6). The relationship with exposure is The favorable overall monal ity of the workers with five years or~ rfrore"~ex-- mbre'prohbuniTeef.' sihce*those w>th`wi^'~niriv nnotilaiionTs a phenomenon com- _ posure, there are 11 observed cases and posures of less than fww -years have moedy observed tn working populations 7.47 expected. fewer cases than expected. Standardized Mortality Ratios m the low Respiratory cancer shows at flight ex* #'tjse lymphomas, although occurring at 8Q^> and be^ow have jieen foun'd^ ** **** (n the total group, and a tiiwiiar pa* about the expected rate when ihc hnle Cfgn in uccupettons-wnh well dm"1 if toa .for different exposure'categories, WithillobsprvM vprsiis in ?B pxnrrtrrf when the Exposure Inrimi is 1 S nr group n considered, are concentrated aIakhh " **' rrwijn" \nrto Hi.fji.rus ernun In that category hazards which cause an tncrcaod n*k ^Bfr t fjyr * a.htiII mtlf- .. Li.ty hA ^..r.ihln Ihvju*'- f------ higher, and-12 observed versus &50 ex* there are four cascs-otoscrved and'l S4 the low mk^om other>naor causes *< pectcd when, in jridiiion._the__duranon_ woertedrWh i^.^.iy ... ^.^..^xsruljr-- of exposure ts five years or more. Cancer) Of the genital and urinary __nnti category.11 c *1* Mortality Study of Workers in Manufacture of Vinyl CMoride/Taberstiaw. GlRry RSV 0018110 jSi- ***** l -- Wind OttlktfiwcM (bit** tnd SUftAirAintf Mtrtiktr till#* m Ti#|1 CM*t>4 Hwtrt, It CshnuUS ln*4 4 (tMU,t * Ini* m lJ k M U.*n ,WJ 8,,, ^ meT.m mm 4001 Ktt {kin tutnu *1.31 vui l U SHI* (MU 107 It) (I 07 1) 07 It Uill ""'h**! Ntfnin <140 2351 MCjiKmt. lcc* urn? jo# 9*vm> (110 US) *n#int. i(nn** [m # #rtta* (190199) * Mfoginmi. *rw jrsww (110 IM) nfgginnf. |tmt* cr|vn (120 170) fc*!"'* mHimq. (TOWT #PM (Itoill) w-tomt nofiivn oOb w* miokiM mm (1S0-I9II m MvMKN* (704) iMMOomw COO 703. 70S) 0nbtp\ ^.n|ul >213' C94il, U2 H4) ***** i%ti cus tmw\ t*"*** toe I wwc r*name MJfl l (400407. 410-4U) *rt,,",vi*i#* htart liitiu (420) ***#** BK#wr#mi (421. 422) "WWlW* Min OHM (440-44J) to* <KMnnti Mu# (444447) 'C A inMc4M rndfini I txk tdtrts* (592S94) _hl#*j ..j . 1440491) 17.44 71 9/1(2 7/12.50 11/13.54 2/2.30 1/207 44.97 UZ.ll 1/3-U snu 4/120.11 7/14.42 3AM 41/71.04 0/4.20 1/541 1/132 0/230 onto SO 1J0 M M S3 91 141 4S 31 144 79 * 92 * a S2 0 IS n o 4112(7 0/1 71 12714 13/10 71 1/1 4) an u 1/112 2/1.97 9/2.91 2765 IS.1&.9S inok 2/219 91/5109 IASS 2/33A 2A.C7 on.n 0/4.13 MtTJtfc 114 itvMlM _*>wintt^)iaii]V ... 1/221 Ml in to 0027 0031 lfl.ll jg,,r1'l 4.j4im* #rwi 4#4-MMM 1942 921 372) . _Brri>m.. ^ lrwr HWWIjm |l 00.74 2/090 0A29 1039 1.014 00.14 Matw. #. /w,fall ttt-Ma* *, 'Amrtr ll<qHH Ordetr-fa.inn (iraiaa, HI li j#io4> i#<t 0/422 14/71.90 01901 11/1733 sen 1/3.09 1/15.19 S/U.44 6/12.17 7/7 07 F4* M.M 2 <9394 U4.S4 1097 mm 134 0 141 '.30 79 ISO 114 217 09 14 n S9 30 30 201 0 171 1M 107 "4 *4|MM U MUM iB'UW *** 4 94 w* - ---Ur -_tTl*fcl*i-a is M. it: c.-.Im viaw-o^ these-fsets. SMR.*3 which w- -are higher (Km expected may be worthy '#' -of- attention even if they are not ^rvAtttiMtcaMy.ngnificant. This- ir-especially fla:bu in the present study since (he num r- ber of deaths from many causes is quite > jmail,. and even a relatively high SmR 7.3* may. not reach statistical significance. * r.-? .K. in addition, a funicular cause e~--shows a consistent partem of increase is* r. with exposure or estimated exposure. "the findings iW particularly interesting. - - By these criteria, mortality from r..--digestive cancer, respiratory c*ncer. can cer of other and unspecified sites, and lymphomas, appear to be related to ex* posure as defined in this study. in view of the association between vinyl chloride exposure and angiosar coma of the liwrr. the digestive cancers were examined further to see what contnbution angiosarcoma made to the ob served mortality pattern. Of the 19 digestive cancers, teven were liver cancers, of which two were angiosarcomas according to the death certificate. However, among angiosar coma deaths .ui vinyl chloride workers o ^owrul Occupational MedicineAol. 16, No. fl/Rufost-H74 identified by other investigators, there were six which occurred in the present study population during the study period. They were all found in the course of the study. Table 11 shows these cases with the cause of death as given on the death certificate. Note that one case was certified as cirrhosis, and was so considered throughout this study, since the validity of comparisons with population data required that cause of death be 'determined only from in formation on the death certificate. The other five were correctly classified as 513 RSV 0018111 TlWa C. -- ObumO Otitfu ti*IN (Satis fil SlanltrOittO MartaHtr Katin w liar* CMarila 4mitit by DaraHaa # Emui Cwm > Salt iM IUL IS 0K( Mmim Ml* 40 awiM Mitii SMt* <1 (MMt MlttU (7 * 731/37170 a* TcNttwaus (001OtD faba'UMm 4 maircar* nun TO! CCD -- -- ' "-- 0/2J1 0/7.07 " 0 0 0/3 SS on 3i o 0 UiK**t MS8<nmt U49 20S> Mih|*jaf Mas/umt. tacc OMT wtf lrni (IM-KD MMirn aifMM vpn mt tmitmutm (iM-isd KMipiot wirivii rttauanrr * MMlti) Nabpwr aaattas*i. pair* imi (170179) Utbpim HWiim. oiiirT arprrt (180-101) Milipua MOplIIHK. Mr *4 --tociiN m unit)) !>! w4 Mm (2043 (700 M3 70S) _~ * I3/1IM 4A.T0 TAM 3AS2 BA.49 HO 20.40 l/IJS - 1/203- 74 0/37.01 in 1/7.10 17/1(31 e 71/3(31 8 3/174 t LI71 n 1*173 K 20.33 0 *407 M*n mum I2S0) ______ in so- -- --- 1)4 -- -S*S4------- _ Sapr or(natai*w4 tans Swan* (330-334. 4Q0-UI. 3D SM!.............................. - - HAMS - tmla Sum iffwwf CHS (730 331) 4A.I7 --------KtowuM (Mr 8 arena rtwiM trf 4.'fl0048t 410-410) -- 2/ZJ1 ___ JtoanadMK turt isma (420) - ------------- ------ 710154 aartaaaitin MocvAtM (42L 477) 0/L79 -------- soanwail Mart *tum (M0-443) Ultt _____ Oftar bnartnum intM (444447) . _ _____ . ______________________ |_ -H -- .. CMm 0 mimoM rwekntn | rt*tl itltuww (S92S14) MSS -- 0* 123/137.39--------- U 0/1171 Ml 14 33 --nJ - 18/IOSJ* ----- ' LOTS a 7/7.01 -*------------ --- -MJ2--------- 0/1T4 Mihii art aotuiWBwi (4IC49J1 3/293 in 2/701 IIS 47 t 111 112 37 187 8) 121 - 113 - II* 0* (1 .. 30 178 A 21 tfcar *aM> m avrtrtam (MO. S41) 1/i.or 117 1/7.78 JSawtiDi (SM SS31 Narata art latastiah atTtrecM* (SCO. SO. S70) (Mint*. laaacntn. tirimn art cafatii IS41. S71. S72) OrtMui inar (311) Nnwausa 4 *wm (ISO) 00.24 04.42 1040 t/4.49 *0.07 0 o________ 101 a 0 04.43 t/uo 04 92 3Jll.lt 04 33 _ -0 -- 47 __ 0.------ ___ 0 IpaWS aMMt art 4*4 cart.Kart (780-793) ...M sir anaw/i.tmnuai. ina S3 0/301 0 -- 4fl|0 -------------- ---------- ag----- ---rsjjra-------------- ------SI" -talar <* noani (110433) 10/1(14 73 7/10 4$ 41* 'Otfear naan (too401 440 H7> 7/37.04 IS * 10/170 SI f Sm* (Ml. *7017D - Waaapaa (Hi H0H3) - ' * 4 nkt . T--ici ` *Wl hr uh * ora 14)4 37310 ais MM 114 - 10/10 21 04 20 4134 480 in 0 RSV 0018112 914 Ifatality Study of Wo*k* is ManuUcturt of Vinyl Chlonde/Tobctitu*. C*H*r jT I TtM* 1. -- Qtwivri Deiths CipcctcS Dulls *sS St>fl4r0tMa Msrtotilr Kai i" find CMarMs NsrOort wife CiMbira Micas Ids* US. Sr Duration to Cipssrt Ime/ST"**!- Cm* to 0to iio ICDi *t 'N iNh inwn OhtAto UR* iM Ntoffhf (iwwl SK1 )SI* U Cmn S6U2S S3* 132.11121 7J Ufcftttolrt (001 019) - - TiMfntoM st w* mr*t 001) ----------- ---------- Ma)>pMt atapitunt (1*0-20$) Uu^Ml mwim. Onea* *n ** e*tmi u6M|) Mwavni. ftftflm o>(m M( p^teiwto (150-159) Utofuto atwitimi. rmiratsT tru** (140-14*) ahfiNt Mcpiauai. (Haw W(W\ i\>oi75) N*b|Mto MMlIHU. unMTr SUN* (140101) MosiiMM. nt M immw m doo m) UMw ml Smhu I2W) timpkMiM (200203. 205) .... -- ---. OiNfla wlbtn 1260) 8/1.41 0/131 ' ` VI2Ji 4A.4S 123.13 2/150 MM MM WJ7 M.n onjo zn.is 0 0/117 ---------J----------- - '8/Tr" 73 1034 34 OS 0 0 128 0. 29/31.44 1/1.17 MM 1/io.ao za.o ULS1 0/4.43 1/1.40 1/2-23 283 1/2.50 0 5 n u 41 93 127 47 117 73 44 124 Ihi* ortmuctoar MS MM *mm* [jjo 3M. 0A4tt ?*) Imtar tom afttowf CHS (334 ]]*) - --Mmstoto km 4 tkniKC Mnunt *,, 4n. <40040. MII) bMKMM feurt SUM 4420) HmMmr wewttotrt (*2t.i:;> ------Mnulwim mart MM <4404* - OtM kmrwm Siksw t**44*M Onto 4 mimM tototoMt 4 >f KHrm (592-594) ---------- .. JU3330 2A93 *- VISA MAUO D/UI ULMMM 0/597 l n -- 13/0042 JS* 59 ' * - us----------- " a. . . 1/10.51 1(2.45 SZ/57J7 MM 45 1 4| 93 74 ___A. _UU2_________ ____ 101___ 0/1.S3 0 Momeiiu '1*40493) Oto'd estoacn aM Smsm** <540 j*n jn. MU tn |0 2/3.55 1/1.53 S3 --iNMKAi 1550 553) Nma M aNtCmai MwnAcu (560 Sjj $70) tarnm*. SuadoMii. mwim no cnm i*j, S7t. $22) --CfTBSt dim Oil) ' WfMOUto* d prastat* (110) 50.15 WV M20 172.00 M0S Q C.024 0 0/8.41 0 08 51 42 1605 0 0628 0 0 0 14 0 " Spam OSilHV 0 *M4iaH taJu.Mt (710-775) - rn *tm Omaws (rntouM HtMr wtocH acodnn <110 US) (Mtor Mini 4S00 M2. 140 90?)' MO 4/7 45 3AJ7 VJ.n 0 0/275 03 10/1252 3S 5/9.22 44 MIS 0 71 54 13 SmoS (M3. STO W) Hm till (H4. MOMS) 374M MSS M 4/5 44 109 0/3.43 0 W to tototan Hrwfi IMU Oil am' iS**cm* \v tML Jownil of Occupation^ Medidfl&Vai. {6. No. 8Au|uin974 RSV 0018113 I 1II t*W* -- OtiamO Otatto.fiactt( ftutli an4 SUndarlitrt Uartalitl latoM Ka|t CMarito WUn ith Cipotoro Uxti il U k Graattr. to OwftbM X tian*( Cmptoimaot CM a Own lifl. to __________ II C(M ratoretost (0014111 IvtobiioM a moiraop? trow* (001401) toftim Mcoutm (140-205) UMipaa MtoiiMiv total uny avT*i (MO-141) UabftMt Mtoon. Maim* am mt amvmm (150-151) UahfiM amiaiiii rewiia, mt** (IM IM) UartiiuM aaapUwi pmu tnt <170-171) . ai<euM ma/asma. w apn <100 141) Oab^Mt aaaaatms. am mt ntaaoM atm (199-111) ""laatoima to* Hiynu (204) _.. CfahawH (200 201 20)) B ImOi Daman Ototia r B-47JI OUT! 40.71 vur ua 1/K7 1/171 M2) 0)021 ------l/lll _____ ------------------UOU inn 71 0 % 75 71 1 0 - - 107 m 171 IK Uatoto Iihuii tMo Ml' 11114721 >1 ' o/iv 0/1.40 0 0 MAUI MM 11/7*7 UOM 1/1.41 MX --------- --7/151 1A.U MX 141 0 151 1*4 71 0 20* N m Oitoana *tOitvt (2(0) Mil 0 toat nonrealm ato rtaa anntn (UO-D*. 400441. 112 4) Vanato toaai ahewc CMS (in do 7A054 2/1J7 M* US toawc W 4 cWaaac rtomatic Ml On (*00402. 410410 MB 0 litondaraM lain amre (470) 5/10*1 01 * Itontowaato aatoorton (*2l. 77) MS7 --------------------- M70 ----------------------0 --Btor toOtoaaaa tom (4444n -- -- -------------------- ------- ------- --------------------MZ7 - - . . . 1 _. Ctewc i ampaefa* aatormi 4 torai (512 51*) MM 0 tatoaan M aimam.i (4(0 41)) MM 0 2/104 (2/70.40 MU VIM 4M7.B 1/ZJ2 - ---2/110 2AM M2) Ml) 100 M so too 44 IS S3 0 0 Uor 4 ammo m* toadaawa mo 54D leetolioai <150 51)1 _ tflJS am K2 O'* ' 0/125 0fl.11 0 0 JtoM.Ml imtiM atttnama <S(Q. 5(1. 170) Ml* 0 lfl.41 201 _Cmfft..4aa*auit. mtrm mt m>tn (111 571. 572) Ml* KM " M41 0 Carton a Oar (111) 1/1.51 0 1/5.00 20 _Hjpwaiaa a ataman (110) IO OI - 0 Ofl.lJ 0 lanMi W a-*atoa4 (mm (714715) 1AJ0 151 0/2.10 0 _*l to) tuna (rmton) Jhtm tobda mimi (1100)5) Ottor mfffitt (10ft502 H4 H7) 0.402 7)0.05 tin * (/II.B 140 " 2/7.4J 107 2/7%' 51 ' 21 70 too* (Ml 170170 toMto (144. 180115) w.*o ISO 4/4(2 wu 50 0/2.70 U 0 ' " to a Barton totoln an U17 OB BB 'SMTi <mi to mm aa cm* a St to* <Hm it ton RSV 0018114 SIS Mortality Study of Workers io Manufacturt of Viayt Cfatoride/Toberstuw. Calfoy |M| Ik 2744 SIM TON BU 44S3 4C00 7271 7300 nn 7m VO |<U 1 -- OtMr Uili|Mdn (ISOM LCD.) VDH EaiMNkfi SUt4y PwUtMfc *f twi ta. (MM0 tmu m few* S IK Wl4WfM4 MUIR MiMlMMI a f) HMT*Mt *** f Mt 4| M IbbfIMt MtUMMi *1(1 dMFtO Mtnlna C7 " _ If |r MW (cMMa) (1 Ml) 43 M MtaaCM mi mtuimmut (S att.) Jwrn wwintu brM (2 i wit-w cmiieMXM) S4 11 AniBCYtm- Mafepuat Ml vwl IwilMn (I f ) (l SI Cmemm* f 0 mm IMMIWII PnMM 4m It Bit* CMfCttM S7 271 Ini* mmt. (MbUttMM mlbMrai (IS 44 211 IfJM tviw. M|MM (2 mm.) U 241 tnrt tVMM. 1t|MM U 214 TbfTWd MreiMMI * MfUAMM u 231 CmummUum klWH IN m m m - m M m -- ~47---------------------an-- ' OMUrcoint itH Mtatiwa (1 Mil -- n---------------- -------------------- TO--------~OniMnliiiif yriMMynpca mC~ mt-- "W -itt- (PW Mwy, iMwutM wIMitw mmmtd mCvcmT CarUe irat (I hr.) -Aaa*uv itutt mi auarH. (2 4*w> _ Ct--O-------- 6mmW (7 Ml) CSTMMMt, 7" --- - . .. -- ____ sa mi ------------ -Mt -- Critctf M US (4 Mil Journal of Occupational MrfirinejYal. 16, 1/*^^ {574 RSV 0018115 'CT RSV 0018116 i J a 1 livn C4tu ff. IHit only two were specified 4* angii^arcoma If then* hjd been no ang'osjrcomas. the nornlx* of deaths classified as cirrhosis in this study would have decrcasnl by one. and the number classified as digestive cancer would have decrease! by live. The pattern of duration and intensity of exposure in these five cases was such that if they had not been Resent there would have been no relationship between exposure and digestive cancer. The mortality pattern in this cause group is therefore attributable to angtovirromai of the liver. TabU 10. -- Haliiuat NmoIimh d Incut Cants id Pkarpu w VCM (tdmieiotr SMs fwvlati**. IW| k A| d Bull Mm. Inmm Cm (i Cnw KOI ;oi 3001 IMS 31 St V 94 It Catseii d W mihum is k*| vl mn IS et 1 30 fecer kr*i (90 > Mseri Mntm ICwist w lvt M*(w m4 MWMt) 11 Humic hmihvi ca. mn hsm sees 40 mom aw ts nwim is mt4MBMM <4 mi.) LC.6-) kieq a m m m The otlvr cause group worth further investigation is cancer of other and un specified stm, both because it is a heterogent'ous category and because it seems, unlike the other cancers, to be more related to duration than to level of exposures. Table 9 shows a list of the specific causes included in this category, which * 23S4 U bras, ksr A sgiims (1 yr.) Miii artawu M ml Mrpu nO II aim hMurrsats w* t?K-trw Sum set isnstssmemiown. M CM met ftwctm MMddwtiiM ferammg Umh CSX MUIM-- d Ml pbs an (am) m is essentially train cancer and RCQCLaJuud cancer with -pnmary site -- -- * - - unknown. About 40% of the observed Takk U. -- btfivumaa DtiOs h VCU EpidtmiilfS StuSf TapxbbwL deaths were due to brain cancer. In the general male population, about 22% of SMr k M Mtt as. bad this category is due to brain cancer, so 4ZM S4 20 CarlHM d kwr tie*, aivks) it* of Other and unspecified sites excessive, 4259 ce 2U a*g km Hadwu (3 4an) m but brain cancer is overrepresented (Iwnam errtiMul within the category. The possibility exists based on the lack___ SMS 4S w faiapim n. ma M km na mi m of some of the listed causes that-some of the brain cancers were not- ------------ no-- ---------a- --ITT ' Unt Wk (1 ito.) -4anm d bur-pnamr f15 mt) ------ --~ primary. - but -metastases -from another-" . MMra (mat.) dd? mtaimt fnriwi The cancers of the buccal cavity and _______________ -- --d W-H-anl------ -------------------------------------------- , Pharynx are difficult to explain because of their occurrence in theTow exposure. short exposure group. It is possible"thar h*| launau km ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- f ppsures to other suh^r^nr** **f* should be investigated. volved. or that the mouth and pharvnx_ References t*Wj tw peculiarly susceptible because of l. Leuer-0~G<wb*f* LA. Adams WR El- the gaseousrratuie of the chemical. -****r-ct mrgle -and repelled expoAures-of haniw aryj rats to yinvl Chloride Am tod.. Possible Biases in the Calculation Hy* Asuk I 3"2AS"7S. 19hj of Rnlr 1 ,KU*irUm> HI. LtUwe* WX. nue g.-W al: fChronic inx>c liver Imam m the PVC There are two maior potential sources (polyvimrl chionde) -- producing workers. | of-bias in the study. The first that the_ Disch Med Wochemc/v tt 2)11-14. 1471. <ottow-sip rate iSTower than is` dcsiraWe. TTgramer uu. Murchlev It; Tlw corrHiiion The second is that observations of workers with long exposures followed by a long latent period are not adequately repreemrd. so that the at ckmcal and environmental mtusurenurnrs lor workers eiposed m vinyl Chloride. Am tod Hyg Attrie / 33 19-10. 1972. .. 4. Oorhivt VN. Omman BO. VVhiidnwr WM. t al OccupaiMxvil aimminAvt III A power of the uudy to detect causes of death associated with long exposure and long Utcrvo is unpaired. Populations with such characteristics exist and clMMcal study. Arch fnvwm Hhh 32 81-91. 1971 S Creech R. krhnsiei MN. AnimurriMu of liver in tie manulai lure <4 pilsvinvl cNtmdr. f Occwp Med ia 1SU-SI, 1974 k. Viola PL. Bigotti A. Cuomo A On""ceogenJe response of rai skin. lung* an* I -bonesto vinyl cNonde. Cancer Res 3:5Wp-~ 1971. _ _____ _____________________ /. Occupational Safety and Health Ait- tmnmratwTV-Occupational Sgwtv amt Hwiin Standards. Emeryenev Temoorarv SiarvUnl u* UpHble 1o Vinyl Lhiwide. Federal Ristruer 39 (47) 12342-44. April 5.1974 8. Chiang ci- Standard mir of ih1 ageadjusted death, rate. Vital Statistics St***1 `itepers. 47 (I4htl pp 275-28$. 4. Lloyd IVV. CmCCn A; long-term rntwijlas study nf sleehvorken; I. Melhivioliigs / <* cup Med 11229-im. t9fi9 >0 Tabershaw/Cnoper Assoruii**. Inr . un published 11. Ririmnnd CK, Cincco A. Ikmi ILV Kun HW Long-term morialily studs sieehviuki-rs- IV Mnrtgliiv fnvn rnjkcnjiv neigiMsms among rnke oven v>ke** CMp Med I4h2)429. 1972. 518 mortality Study of Workers in Manufacture of Vinyl Chioride/Tabersha*. Galley Special Communication Angiosarcoma of Liver in the Manufacture of Polyvinyl Chloride Three reported cases of angiosarcoma of the liver serve as an alert to the probability that this condition may, in some instances, be causally related to employment in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride resins. f. L Creech, Jr., M.D. and M. N. Johnson, M.D. On January 22*23, 1974, a manufacturer of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers notified it's employees, the National institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Kentucky State Department of Labor, and the public, that three workers had died of angiosarcomas of the liver. These cases had as a common denominator employment in the manufac ture of polyvinyl chloride resins. A patient of one of the authors (J.L.C., Jr.) died on Sep tember 27, 1971 from an angiosarcoma of the liver. At that time the potential causal relation to the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride resins was not realized. Although other clinical manifestations of exposure to VCM were known (acroosteolysis), only one experimental paper1 indicated that vinyl chloride may be a carcinogen. The tumors in rats that he described occurred primarily in the skin and were epidermoid in origin. Eighteen months later on March 3, 1973, a second former employee in the Louisville plant died. Since he was not under our care, no connection was made that the two cases may have had a common origin. When a third patient died on December 19, 1973, the pathologist on gross examination diagnosed an angiosarcoma of the liver. Since all three patients were treated by different physicians, no relationship to ex posure to polyvinyl chloride was surmised until the authors, recognizing the rarity of the tumor, and learning that all three had worked in the PVC plant, brought the matter to the at- D>. Creech it Plant PViyucMn. Th* I f, Goodrich Owrmcal Company, louuvlle, Ky. Or. lohnion it Director of Environment! Hearth. The B.F Gootoch Company. Akron. Ohio Reprint request! to Oef* 0020. Bdg. S-H, S00 South Mam Sc.. Akron. Ohio MSI* (Dr. lohnion) tention of the company. Further search indicates that a fourth death from angiosarcoma may have occurred five years earlier (1968), but the death certificate shows primary liver tumor as the cause of death. (Clinical, epidemiologic, toxicological and occupational investigations are being vigorously pursued with regard to other employees who may have been similarly ex posed.) A brief resume of the first case under our care is presented. The history, clinical course, and pathologic findings are con sistent with the others who died of angiosarcoma. These cases will be presented in a group and in more detail at a future date. . . Case Report Patient one, a 36-year old white male, was hospitalized January 5, 1970 because of tarry stools. Occupational History.--The patient had been employed from November 1955 until his illness, except for two lay-offs of nine months in 1958 and six months in 1959, as a chemical helper and operator in the Louisville plant of B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride resins. Present Illness.-- At the time of admission the patient had no complaints except passage of tarry stools. Past history was negative except for an operation for hemorrhoids four years earlier.-Physical examination showed pallor, and black stool on rectal examination. Liver and spleen were not palpable. Although upper G-l series was interpreted as normal, a ten tative diagnosis was made of bleeding duodenal ulcer. - --On diet and medication, the patient had no recurrence of 150 BSV 0018117 u Lb Met a -oU >41 I I 1 k I C f i CURRENT REPORT 1701 th three provisions, which occurred last fall While OSHA agreed to reopen the rule and proposed a variety of minor modifications to the expanded standard to satisfy OMB. it stood by ita original intent and its justifications for the provisions, saying additional information "has, by and large, not convinced OSHA that significant changes are warrant ed" (17 OSHR 1490, 1548). WhUe various industry interests had urged OMB to sus pend application of the expanded rule to certain industry sectors, or to the entire non-manufacturing sector until the disputes were resolved and new rulemaking completed, OMB said it was moved to make the "regrettable" decision that the majority of the standard should move ahead while the rrmslnrlrr is resolved. `TTJm confusion and potential paperwork duplication re sulting from the delayed agency rulemaking, while regretta ble and avoidable, do not, on balance, outweigh the value of putting into effect the key components of the standard." OMB said. OSH Act Vs. Paperwork Act The disapproved portions of the rule first appeared as parts of OSHA's expanded standard, which was published in August 1987 with a May 23 effective date (17 OSKR 507. 520). The budget office, using its authority under the Paper work Reduction. Act, reviewed the revised rule and disap proved the three provisions in an Oct 23, 1987, decision. In addition, OMB instructed OSHA to reconsider its definition of "article," as used in the standard (17 OSHR 907, 918). OMB argued that OSHA's public record did not support the additional "information collection" provisions, and that comments submitted to the budget office from the regulated community indicated that the provisions would prove costly and burdensome to employers. OMB's reaffirmation of that decision April 13 was in response to OSHA's request March 7 for extension of OMB's paperwork collection approval of the provisions of the standard not contested last faB. OMB extended its approval "of all collection of information requirements in the [stand ard] through April 1991, except the three provisions that we disapproved on October 23,1987." In addition, OMB approved the agency's definition of an "article" as used in an exemption to the standard, with the understanding that OSHA's intent is to exempt unlikely hazardous chemical exposure risks to workers from what it considers to be articles. OMB accepted an explanation ten dered by OSHA Administrator John A. Pendergrass in a Jan. 14 letter to the budget office, which was appended to the agency's March 7 extension request Pendergrass clarified that "absent evidence that releases of such very small quantities could present a health hazard to employees, the article exception to the rule's requirements would apply" (17 OSHR 1331, 1389), OMB Response To Propose! Ponding In accepting this proviso from OSHA, the budget office did not acknowledge or diacuas OSHA's formal rulemaking pro posal to respond to OMB's paperwork concerns about the hazard standard, which currently is under review (17 OSHR 1499, 1548). In that revision, OSHA made minimal accom modations to address OMB's objections, iwriMHiwg mb adjust ment to the article definition to exclude fluids and particles and exempt "minute quantities," described as trace amounts or molecules. OMB is expected to respond separately to the additional rulemaking proposed by OSHA to address MSDSs oo multi- employer work sites, as well as conraner products amf~~ drugs. OSHA has stated that it doss not anticipate conclud ing such rulemaking--provided it satisfies OMB--until late this year, or at least four or five months after the rest of the expanded rule goes into effeeL The hazard communication standard, which currently covers manufacturers, distributors, and importers, is de signed to protect workers from exposure to hazardous sub stances through the ese of written programs, information and training, labeling of chemical containers, and distribu tion and maintenance of material safety data sheets about chemical substances in the workplace. ffOOMfCfl high death rates from liver cancer, LYMPHOMAS FOUND IN WEST VIRGINIA WORKERS Employees at three Union Carbide Co. chemical plants in West Virginia have died from liver cancer and malignancies of the lymphatic system at significantly higher rates than normal, according to newly published results.of a study by a team of researchers from Union carbide and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The rMoarrhm identified what they said could have been a possible work-related cause for the high rate of Uvpc cancers: occupational exposure to vinyl cnlSnde, a known liver carcinogen oo longer used at any of the plants. However, they said they were unable to determine, one way or the other, whether similar chemical exposures mey have been responsible for the higher-thas-expected mortal ity rate from malignant lymphomas, or whether the abnor mally high number of deaths was just "a matter of chance." But by the same token, they said they could not conclusively rule out possible workpiece factors in those cases. NIOSH and Union Carbide have begun a series of more closely focused follow-up investigations that they hope will clarify those questions, one of the researchers told BNA April 18. Although preliminary results from the study were re leased in 1986--and efforts were undertaken at that time to warn Union Carbide workers found to be potentially at high risk--the publication of the report in the latest issue of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine marks the first detailed public release of the data, BNA was told. Triggered By Brain Cancer Findings The study, which began in J97B. looked at deaths up through 1978 mans 29.139 men who had worked from 1940 through 1978 at three Union Carbide facilities located just outside Charleston, the state capital, in West Virginia's Kanawha Valley. The rewrchers noted that the study was prompted by several factors--among them, the fact that an earlier Union Carbide investigation showed a high mortality rate from brain cancer among several hundred former employees of the company (16 OSHR 827). The joint study, however, found that workers from the three Kanawha Valley facilities suffered fewer deaths from brain cancer than would be expected from looking at com parable deaths in the general U.S. white male population. Twenty-eight deaths from malignant neoplasms of the brain were found in the study group, compared with 41.2 deaths expected, the researchers said. In feet, the study found fewer deaths from cancer in general than expected, as well as fewer overall deaths then anticipated. The rasesirhera ascribed these general to the so-called healthy worker effect* the hypothesis that RSV 0018119 1702 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY A HEALTH REPORTER workers, is a category, an healthier on the average than the general population. Bat the number of liver cancv was significant* ly higher than the_9.7~cxpectea, the study Mid. as was the amber of deaths from malignant lymphomas: 44 ohaerved versos 54 expected. Most of the liver cancer deaths occurred in workers who were employed for more than 10 years in operations where vinyl chloride resins were produced, the study said. The high rate of such deaths in this group "could vary well be the cause of the excess liver cancer deaths seen in the overall cohort," according to the researchers. No Apparent Trend For Lymphomas The study failed to find similar associations for the malig nant lymphomas, which were sub-categorised as either lym phosarcomas or reticulosarcomas. According to tM~report, those cases failed to show any "apparent pattern or trend" when the researchers looked at two factors important for drawing a connection between cancer cases and possible workplace causes: the length of time the victims worked at the plants, and the length of time between their initial exposure to chemicals at the plants and their deaths. Also, the fact that vinyl chloride is a recognized liver carcinogen made It an "obvious hypothesis" from the outset that the liver cancers might be traced to departments where the chemical was used, NIOSH investigator told BNA. No similar hypothesis was present for the lym phoma cases, she said. The higher-than-expected number of lymphoma deaths "could conceivably be a matter of chance," the report said. It added, however "We do not consider the absence of trends by latency or duration of employment to be evidence against an occupational association, since such trends could have been obscured by the larger cohort." FoMow-Up Investigations Ward told BNA that the institute and Union Carbide will follow up on the study in two ways. As one initiative, they will conduct a aeries of studies death rates among workers exposed to particular chemicals. Simulta neously, they will conduct "case control studies" focusing on specific deaths found in the three-plant cohort, to look at factors surrounding thoae deaths, Two of the studies already have begun. Ward said. In one, researchers are trying to determine which of the 29,000-plus workers in the study cohort were exposed to ethylene oxide, and how many of thoaa workers have died. In the other, reaearchers are looking more claeely at the malignant lym phoma deaths. Union Carbide officials said that workers at the three plants were informed of the findings of the study early in I9M, when preliminary data beesme available. Remits were posted at the plants, and two sets of letters were sent directly to employees: one set to all current employees and retirees at the plants, and another to those employees who had worked with vinyl chloride, the officials said. Dr. Don Teter, medical director at one of the plants. Union Carbide's South Charleston facility, said that the letters to the "high-risk," vinyl chloride cipoaed workers diseased the liver cancer findings, advised the workers to pass the information on to their personal physicians as well, and mggerted that the workers have medical examinations annually. The letters also Included Teter1* phone number for further information, and Teter told BNA that ha "got r*-_ iponaei from a number of (the recipients]." Regulatory Reform AGENCIES SHOULD STATE HOW MUCH RULES COST PER LIFE SAVED, DRAFT RECOMMENDATION SAYS When federal agendas such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration imue regulations designed to save human lives, they should state explicitly bow many dollars the rule will coet to Implement per life saved, according to a draft recommendation that an Administra tive Conference of the United States committee revised April 15. The Committee on Regulation soon will Bead the draft to federal agendas for comment according to Jeffrey Lub bers, mesrch director for the Administrative Conference. If necessary, the committee will again revise the draft to reflect agencies' comments, and will present the recommen dation to the Administrative Conference's plenary semen in June, be said. The recommendation is based on a report by an American University economics professor and a Boston University law school professor (17 OSHR ISM). One part of the recommendation would require agenda to state how much rula would cast to implement, expressed in dollars per life saved. This suggestion would apply to "agrades that adopt regulations on the justification that the number of lives subsequently saved warrants incurring tbs associated compliance costs," according to the draft lan guage developed by the committee April IS. Noting Impradaions If an agency is unable to determine a dollar amount because a regulation's coats or benefits are based oo conjec ture, or where the price tag is not obvious--such as rula designed to protect or enhance aathetie gains--Ute agency should try to describe what part of its calculation is impre cise, the draft said. The rest of the draft recommendation revotva around how agenda should go about stating the dollar value of regulations per life saved. The committee suggested that the Office of Management and Budget create a central clearinghouse for research data on how agencies value human life. Additionally, OMB each year should update Its discussion of bow different agenda conduct this valuation, the committee said in its draft The draft noted that OMB began this discussion in its 1987-M edition of the government's annual regulatory pro gram, a Reagan administration innovation that spells out with'timetables, every agency's rulemaking intention (17 OSHR 20). The draft said agenda should also continue developing appropriate methods in placing valua on human life, recog nising that currant methods do not incorporate all variabla affecting social valuation of human life. The Administrative Conference was chartered to Identify the causa of delay. Inefficiency, and unfairnes in adminis trative piocedura. Corapoaed of presidential appointea from the public and private sectors, the conference maka non-binding recommendation to the president. Congress, government agencies, and courts on administrative law lauaa. fffgftf-To-fCoow BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OPPOSES UNION REQUEST FOR COURT ACTION ON HAZARD COMMUNICATION RULE r_ning a motion filed by the United Steelworkers of America seeking further court action to force program on am Gopyflgnteisaiey'nweweauafNaNnaiAaim.m ora HMTimm i as RSV 0018120 I . > ''V RSV 0018121 SRDC v. KPA 25 ERG 11 OS NRDC v. EPA U.S. Court of Appeal* District of Columbia Circuit NATURAL RESOURCES DE FENSE COUNCIL, INC . Petitioner v, U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC TION AGENCY ami LEE THOMAS. ADMINISTRATOR, US ENVI RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Respondents, No. 85-1150, November 4, 1986 AIR Federal, date, and local regulation -- Hazardous emission standards ({48.27) Court jurisdiction and procedure -- Subject matter jurisdiction ({58.05) 111 U.S. Coun of Appeals has jurisdic tion to review challenge by citizen group to Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of proposed vinyl chloride standards under Glean Air Act, even though group is challenging both original 1976 standards and EPA's 1985 decision to withdraw proposal for stricter stan dards, because: (I) challenge is directed to agency reliance on allegedly improper factors in 1985 decision, and (2) conn's invalidation of withdrawal derision would not invalidate 1976 standards. Federal, state, and local regulation -- Hazardous emission standards (#48.27) Court jurisdiction and procedure -- Exhaustion of administrative rem edies (#58.25) |2| Citizen group properly exhausted administrative remedies before challeng ing Environmental Protection Agency s withdrawal of proposed vinyl chloride standards under Clean Air Act, even though group did not participate in public comment process for proposed standards, because: (I) EPA considered issues raised in court challenge when withdrawing proposed standards; (2) group is not re quired to exhaust administrative remedies if agency considered same issues during rulemaking prortss, and (3) Air An does not require mat group must participate in regulatory action before bringing court challenge. Federal, slate, and local regulation -- Hazardous emission standards (#48.27) Federal, state, and local regulation -- Administrative agencies --- Proce dure before agencies (#48.621) 131 Environmental Protection Agency may consider factors other than public health in issuing vinyl fhloride standards under Section 112 of Clean Air Act, Ixcause; (I) Act requires agency to issue standards with "ample margin of safety1* to protect public health; (2) EPA has discretion to determine ample margin nl safety; (3) Congress recognized uncertain ty exists in determining margin of safely, and did not prohibit emissions of hazard ous air pollutants; and (4) Act is ambigu ous concerning factors agenry may consid er in selling standards. 1 lowever, Act dors not allow agency to limit consideration to cost and feasibility factors. Federal, stale, and local regulation -- Hazardous emission standards (48.27) Federal, state, and local {regulation -- Administrative agencies -- Proce dure before agencies'(#48.621) (4) Environmental Protectinp Agency may consider factors other ihdn puhljr hralth in preparing standards for vinyl chloride emissions under Glean Air At*, because: (I) Congress did not intend to firerlude agency from considering othe|r actors in issuing standards; (2) "ntargih of safely" for public health included in Section 112 allows agency discretion in dealing with scientific uncertainly; and (3) agency's review of economic and tech nological feasibility factors was reason able in absence of congressional direction. STATUTES Federal -- Clean Air Act -- Hazardous emission standards (95.0315) Construed. On (telition for review of Environmen tal Protection Agency withdrawal of putposed standards for vinyl chloride under Clean Air Act; (teiiiioo denied. Davit! Doniger, Washington, l).C. bn petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. A i.kc i Mir. NRDC v. EPA Fail Salo, EPA, and Margaret N. Nir.mil, U S Dept of Justice, Washingumi. I) l ' . for rr|Mmdem El'A. Rolffl liragrr, Washington, |).C. for mirrvetmr Vinyl Institute. Irederir I* Andes, Martha Beauiliitmp, Arnold Block, Neil King, Stark Km Hir. Arlhor F. Sampson III, and Da vid I'* /oil, Washington, D.C. for umiii inmr American Petroleum Institute and Clirmiral Manufacturers Association. Holicrt V. IVrrival, Washington, D.C., lor amnui curiae Environmental Defense lurid Before Robert II. Bork, Marry T. Ed wards, and J. Skelly Wright, Circuit Judges Full Text of Opinion ROKK, Circuit Judge: -- Petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") challenges the Environmen tal Protection Agency's ("EPA" or *'agenty") withdrawal of proposed regulations overning the emissions of vinyl chloride. lie NR DC claims that section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412 (1982), pursuant in which the EPA regulates haz ardous pollutants such as vinyl chloride, allows consideration of no factors other than health in setting the level of regula tion. Because the Administrator relied on economic and technological factors in withdrawing the proposed regulations, the NRDC tnnienos that the withdrawal was arbitrary and capricious and asks that we vacate the agency's action and miiiiud for further proceedings. We be lieve, however, that the statute vests the Administrator with same discretion in settiog regulations under section 112, hut does not specify precisely how that discre tion is to ue exercised. Accordingly, under (.'Perron It S. A v. Natural Resources Defense f'liuih if, 467 U S. 837 (21 ERC I049| Il'MU), we must uphold the agency's se lect ion of factors to employ in fleshing out its authority if we find the agency's choice a reasonable one. Because we believe that tbr agency's choice of economic and teehnologiial feasibility was reasonable, we .dliriti die agency's action 1. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act pro vides for regulation of hazardous air pol lutants. which the statute defines as Sir |M:flul.ini(s| to which no ambient air qual ity standard is applicable and which in the jutigtnrni of the Administrator cause] |, or contributed in, air pollution which may reasonably l>e anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating re versible, illness." 42 U.S.C. 74l2(a)(l) (1982). The statute requires the Adminis trator to publish a list containing each hazardous pollutant for which he intends to adopt an emission standard to publish firoposed regulations and a notice of pub ic nearing lor each such pollutant, and then, within a specified period, either promulgate an emission standard or make a finding that the particular agent does not amount to a hazardous air pollutant. See 42 U.S.C. $7412(h) (1982). The stat ute directs the Administrator to set any emission standard promulgated under section 112 "at the level which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health." 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)( 1 )(B) (1982). The ques tion before us is whether this standard permits the Administrator to consider eco nomic and technological feasibility. This case concerns vinyl chloride regu lations. Vinyl chloride is a gaseous syn thetic chemical used in the manufacture of plastics and is a strong carcinogen. In late 1973, the Administrator issued a notice of proposed rule-making to establish an emission standard for vinyl chloride. 40 Fed. Reg. 59,532 (1975). In the notice, the EPA asserted that available data linked vinyl chloride to carcinogenic, as well as some noncarcinogenic, disorders and that "(reasonable extrapolations'' from these data suggested "that present ambient levels of vinyl chloride may cause or contribute to . . . jsuchj disorders." Id. at 59,533. In so deciding, the agency noted that vinyl chloride was "an apparent nonthreshold pollutant," which means that it appeared to create a risk to health at all non-zero levels of emissions, but that sci entific uncertainty, due to the unavailabi lity of does-response data, made it impos sible to establish any definite threshold level of adverse effects to human health. Id at 59,534. In the face of this uncertain ly, the EPA derided that setting emissions at the level achievable by the best avail able technology would substantially re duce emissions and provide stringent reg ulation that satisfied the command of oviding "an ample margin of safety." On October 21,1976, the EPA promul gated final rules for vinyl chloride, ex pected to reduce emissions to 5% of unre- Julaled levels. 41 Fed. Reg. 46,560 1976). In promulgating these standards, RSV 0018122 NRDC u EPA the EPA staled that the "purpose of the standard is tn minimize vinyl chloride emissions ... to the level atlainahle with best available control technology." Id. The EPA also noted that it believed section 112 permits the Administrator to "assure that the costs of control technology are not grossly disproportionate to the level of emission reduction achieved." M. at 46,562. The Environmental Defense Fund ("EDF") filed suit challenging the rules on the basis that section 112 re quired the Administrator to rely exclu sively on health, and not at all on techno logical, considerations in standard setting. The EDF and EPA settled the suit, how ever, upon EPA's agreement in propose new and more stringent rules for vinyl chloride and to establish an ultimate goal of zero emissions. The EPA satisfied its obligations under the settlement agreement by proposing new regulations on June 2, 1977. While the proposal sought to impose more strict regulation and establish an aspirational goal of zero emissions, the EPA made it clear that it considered its previous regu lations valid and reemphasized its view that the inability scientifically to identify a threshold of adverse elferts did not re quire prohibition of all emissions, but rather permitted regulation at the level of best available technology, 42 Fed. Reg. 28,154 (1977). The EPA received com ments on the proposal, but for over seven years look no final action. On January 9, 1985, the EPA withdrew the proposal. Noting that certain aspects of the pro posed regulations imposed "unreason able" costs and that no control technology "has lieen demonstrated to significantly and consistently reduce emissions to a level below that required by the current standard," 50 Fed.Reg. 1182, 1184 (1985), the EPA concluded that it should abandon the 1977 proposals and propose in their place only minor revisions to the 1976 regulations. This appeal followed. II. We must address at the outset two rocedural challenges to the NRDC'c ringing this petition for review, First, an industry intervenor, the Vinyl Institute, argues that the petition for review is not timely filed. Second, the EPA argues that NRDC has failed to exhaust its adminis trative remedies and that we must, there fore, dismiss its petition for review. We address these contentions in turn. 25 ERC 1107 A The Vinyl Institute argues that this court has no jurisdiction in this case be cause the statute provides that "|a|ny peti tion for review . . must be filed within sixty days front the dale notice of |the| promulgation, approval or action appears in the Federal Register, except that if the petition is based on grounds arising after such sixtieth days, then any petition for review . . . shall be filed within sixty days after such grounds arise." 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(t) (1982). According to the intervenor, the NRDC seeks to review in this case not the 1985 withdrawal of the proposed amendments, but the 1976 stan dards themselves. Because that statutory issue did not arise within sixty days before the filing of review, the intervenor claims the petition is untimely. Under Montana i* Clark, 749 F.2d 740, 744 (DC. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 106 S Ci 246 (1985), "an agency decision not to amend long standing rules after a notice and comment period is revicwahle agency action" Thus, if the petition for review, filed within sixty days of the withdrawal of the proposed amendments, amounts to a genuine challenge to the withdrawal of the proposed regulations, it (was timely filed. If. by contrast, Vinyl llnstitote is correct in asserting that this appeal in fart constitutes a substantive attack, on the 1976 regulations, we must dismiss'the suit as untimely filed. See Professional ftrutn Counci/ i'. Bureau of Motor (^aYncr. Safety, 706 F 2d 1216, 1217-18 n 2 (DC. Cir. 1983). We believe the former is the more accurate characterization of this lawsuii 111 The contention that this case amounts to a back-door challengr to the 1976 regulations is refined by the sub stance of petitioner's brief and the relief requested. The petitioner states that "|i|n withdrawing the proposed amendments EPA violated the law by employing costbenefit and technological feasibility tests that are prohibited by the Clean Air Act." Brief for NRDC at 3. Indeed, the brief makes explicit that the petitioner is s|*cifically challenging the EPA's reliance on cost and technological feasibility tests in Us withdrawal of the proposed amend ments. Id. at 12-13. Most importantly, the petitioner does not seek to have us overturn the 1976 standards, hut rather seeks to have us vacate the F.PA's decision to withdraw the amendments and order agency action consistent with our opinion. See Brief for NRDC at 36-37. While, if we were to agree with the NRDC that the .15 i k< : muk .VW/K. i M\4 si.uulc ptnhihils any cost or Inhnologu ,l The NHIH: did not pariiripatr in die ntnsohi limns in standard selling, our ra rulemaking ptmredings in llns case, bin i tion,i|r might inriirair ihr invalidity of ihr argues that we sboubi tint dismiss its 1976 irgul.nions, mir drt isinn would no! pelilion for review Iterause tlir agency in ol iisrll invalidate (hose rtguUiiom. We fact considered the statutory issue pu-ssrd llunk it dr.ir, iherrfnte, ih.it ihr NRDC n appeal The NKDC is correct This has i hallrngrd ilir I 985 withdrawal of the cmiri has excused litigants from ihrir ex- amendments. The (trillion for hausiion obligations as lo a particular ifvinv is limely. issue so long as the agency in f,u i consid ered the issue. See Washington Association D for lelernion b Children i< FCC, 712 F.2d 677, 682 n. 10 (DC. Cir. 1983), Melton t>. I hr KPA argues that ihr petitioner has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies and asks us to dismiss ihr prtilioii for thill rrasoit. Congress included in srtiiou 107(d) ,,f ihr ('Iran Air Aci a statutory requirement of rxhausiion, pro viding ihai "|n|nly an objection lo a rule or |hh rtlorr that was raistil with reasoniilde s|ir ilu-iiy during the period (or pub lic cnrnnirni (including any public hear ing) may lie raised during judicial review,'' 42 US C |7607{d)(7)(ll) (1982). This siaiuuiry requirement of ex haustion, however, docs not apply here. The statute states ihat "|t|he require ments of . . . subsection 1307(d) of the Act) shall lake eireei with respect in any rule the projMisal of which occurs alter ninety days after August 7, 1977," 42 U.S.C $7607(d)(U) 0^82). The withdrawal of the p<o|tosed amendments now before us toiisiitiiies final agency action on liie nolit e of profNised rulemaking ihal came out on June 2. 1977. Set 42 Fed. Reg. 28,154 (1977). Thus, even if we assume that the anion of withdrawing a pmjwsed rule aniiHinis in a "rule" for the purposes f section 3ll7(d)'s liming provision, ihe projxrsal withdrawn here was issued before the dale section 307(d) took effect. Ac cordingly, we must look to the common law doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. SrrSafn r Krrpi, 551 F 2d 447. 452 (D O. Cir.), ml denied, 414 U S. 820 (1977) The result, however, is the same. 0//fce of Personnel Management, 684 F.2d 918, 923 (DC. Cir 1982), ASARCO, Inc b:i`A, 578 F.2d 319, 320 21 n.l (DC Cir. 1978); Safir i>. Krcfn, 551 F.2d ai 452 Thus, courts have waived exhaustion il ihr agency "has had art opportunity to consider the identical issues |presented in the ttiurt) , . . (tut which were raised by other parties," see Buckeye CVitdemonn, Inc f- United Slain, 438 F.2d 948. 951 (6th Cir. 1971), or if ihe agency's decision, or even a dissenting opinion, makes il clear that the agency had "the opportunity lo consider" "the very argument pressed" by the petitioner on judicial review. Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ f- ECC. 465 F.2d 519, 523 (D C Cir. 1972). In this rase, the issue whether the clear meaning of section I 12 precluded the con sideration of tost or technological feasibil ity in standard setting was adequately raised before the agency. First, the 1977 promised amendments were the product of toe settlement of a lawsuit challenging the previous vinyl chloride standards as having iitqicrniissihly taken consideration of feasibility into account. This demon strates that the agency had notice of ihr argument that the statute precluded such considerations, and that ihe agency did or should have laken this into account in reaching a final decision on the promised amendments. Indeed, in its notice of pro mised rulemaking, the KPA remarked that "|t (lie 11976) vinyl chloride standard /\ < InurU have long required that a party has been criticized for allegedly (daring seeking review of agency action exhaust unwarranted emphasis on irHmolugit.il its administrative remedies liefore seeking rather than health considerations. 42 inditi.il relief. See, eg., Afyert i. Bethlehem Fed. Reg. 28,154 (1977), The notice then Shifstosihlmg Cntp., 303 U..5. 41, 50-51 continued by discussing the "ample mar (19181 In the case before us. the ndminis- gin of safety" language, ihr |mirniial iiaiivr irmrdy was participation in tlie problem, under this stand,ml, of having lo rulemaking proceedings during the com slut! down an rntirr industry that pm- ment |>eriod. Indeed, litis court grnrrally ilures a non-threshold |tolUnani, and ihe requires such participation as a prerequi way the promised amendments resolved site In |ietjiinning for direct teview of the ilie problem by moving lowaid zero emis rt orbing regulations. See Enviionmenlat sions without banning vinyl ihlmide. /,/ /Weii'f bund v. KVA, 59R F.2d 62, 91 112 Thus, il is Hear that the ( PA considered likC 1151) (IVC. Cir l`>78) the question whether the language ol sec- RSV 0018123 SR/)(. KPA_________________________________ 25 ERC I |I9 lion 112 requires a purely health-based siandaid. Moreover. EOF explicitly raised the issue hrlnrr the KPA in its comments on ihe promised amendments. In ibis respect, the Fill- statedThe pio|Kird amendments represent a true compromise between what P.DF could have pressed for in court and the existing standard Set lion 112 of ihe Clean Air Ad requires that emission standards for hazardous air pollutants he set "at a level which in (he judgment of (he Administrator provides an ample m.ugin of safety to protect the public health front such hazardous air poltu- l.iuis." it dearly requires a healthlinked, not a tcchnology-haseil stand ard l et, inrnnsisiriii with the statulory requirement, the original standards were based on what KPA believed in dustry could accomplish with best available technology. . . KPA recog nized that vinyl chloride is "an apnarroi non-threshuUi pollutant" width creates a risk to public health at all levels. I lad the case gone to trial, K.DF would have taken the jrosilion th.it (j|l2 required a zero emission stand ard, the only standard adequate to pro vide the required margin ol safety lor a noii-ihiTsliold pollutant. Instead, KDF settled fnr a compromise which estab lishes a goal of 2ero emissions and re quires industry lo move one step closer to that goal. J.A. ai 72-73. KDF's comments contain oilier, similar references, such as the as sertion, in res|Minse lo cost arguments raised by I lie industry, that "the statute KPA o|ter.ucs under requires regulations based on protection of health and not tost and technology concerns." Id at H.V Tints, the I'.I'A had before il (he question wheth er the statute permits considei alions of tost and technology ill setting standards, ami it had (lie opportunity to consider that quest ion in deciding lo withdraw the proloscd amendments. Accordingly, we may not dismiss on the grounds of failure to exhaust |2| The KPA also suggests, however, tit.il wr should be "especially" loath to allow ibis itetiiion (or review because the "NR l)U t hose not to participate at nil in any ol the administrative pruirddings on vinyl chloride " brief for KPA at 12 (em phasis in original) 'I bis merely restates the proposition that the NRIK! has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. None of the cases relied upon by the KPA suggests that exceptions lo exhaustion have any less applicability in the case of a wholly absent party Ilian in other exhaus tion contexts. .See Environmental Defense bund o ERA, 598 F 2d 62, 91 (DC Car 1978); Nader i>. Nuclear Regulatory (.'unmm- ucin. 511 F 2d 1045, 1054-55 j7 KRC. 2059) (DC. Uir. 1975). This is no! a case in which the statute renditions a party's ability to obtain judicial review upon its participation in the rulemaking proceed ings Are (>We o Atomic Energy Commiuion, 479 F.2d 1214. 1218)5 ERU I402|(D.C. Cir. 1971). The jurisdictional provision of ihe Clean Air Ad inqxises no such pre requisite-, and, in fad, employes rather (icrntissive language not s|>ecifying who may bring review. A>e 42 U.S.C. 7607f l>) (1982) ("A petition for review of anion ol ihe Administrator in promulgating . any emission standard or requirement un der section 7412 . may lie filed in the Untied Stales Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.")- (he NRlK'.'s total abstention from participating in ihe rulemaking proceedings does not make the exhaustion requirement more compel ling or negate the valid exception to that requirement asserted by the NRIK! The NKDC mounts only a narrow challenge: that the statute adopts an ex clusive focus on heahh-hased consider ations and that the KPA, therefore'; relies ; on statutorily inqtei nnssible factors in us ing cost and technological feasibility as the basis for withdrawing the 1977 priqxised ( amendments. According to |>etitionrr, ilie , > KPA's actimt was "arliilrary and capri cious" under Motor I ehule Manufactured Aiuiilation u. Stair Emm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 46.1 U S. 29. 43 (1983). See Brief fnr NRDC at 17-18 & n 32 We turn then lo the question whether the NKDC! has met its burden of making this showing. .See San l.uts Obtspn Mothers for /Voce i'. United States Nuclear Regulotoiy f.Vnmoi<n, 789 F.2 26, 37 (l).C!. (lie. 1986) (en banc), cert, denied, 55 U.S.I, W. 3250 (LI.S. Oct. 21, 1986). We think n has not. A Tfiis tiring a question of sialolory inicrpmaiion, the inquiry of courve Itegins with "the language employed by Con gress." Reiter v Sonutone corp , 442 US 330, 317 (1979). The statute ommiands the Administrator lo set an "emission standard" for a particular "hazardous air i.rc mo {hiIKii.iiu" so as i> "provide) l an ample .......gin of safely to protect (he public health " I'rlilionrr argues lhal these irum are plain and direr! the Administraloi i<i consider only fat tors relating tn he,ililv We find the statute less clear than does the ftetiiiuner. The mandate "to pro tect the public health" unambiguously evinces a health-based goal as (he primary aim ol section 112 of the Act. The comple mentary standard of providing an "ample margin of safely," however, contemplates wane discretion in the regulatory process, thus raising the possibility lhal the Ad ministrator may properly consider nonhr.tlih-based factors in tieriding upon an appropriate level of regulation. The statute nowhere delines "ample margin of safety." The Senate Report, however, in discussing a similar require ment in the context of setting ambient air standards under section 109 of the Act, explained the purpose of the "margin of alny" standard as one of affording "a reasonable degree or protection . . . against hazards which research has not yet identi fied." S. Rep. No. 1196, 9lsl Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1970) (emphasis added). This view comports with the historical use of the term in engineering as "a safety factor . . . meant to compensate for uncertain!lies and variabilities." See Hall, l~ht Conin>l nf 7mic Pollutants Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Acl Amendments of IV72, 63 Inwa L. Rev. 609, 629 (1978). In a discussion of the use of identical Ian* fuage, in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, this court has recognized that, in discharging the responsibility to assure "an ample margin of safety," the Administrator faces "a difficult task, in deed, a veritable paradox -- calling as it dors for knowledge of that which is un known -- |bui) . . . the term 'margin of safety' is Congress's directive that means tie found to carry out the task and to reconcile the paradox." Environmental De fense Fund i*. FPA. 598 F.2d 62, 81 (D C. Cir. 1978). And while Congress used the modifier "ample" to exhort the Adminis trator not to allow "the public (or| the environment ... in be exposed lo anything resembling the maximum risk" and, therefore, in set a margin "greater than `normal' or 'adequate, " Congress still left the KPA "great latitude in meeting its tes|>>Hsibiliiy. See id. Petitioner's assertion that health-based lot tors constitute the only fiermissible fac tors in consider in standard-setting under niion I 12 apftears implausible precisely lircausc the statute brings the Administra NR in.' < F.PA tor's disc retion, and judgment to bear on scientific uncertainly If health were the only (lermissihle consideration, no such discretion would be necessary, lor decid ing how much uncertainty to allow from a strictly health-based perspective would always lead to the same answer -- none, whenever any scientific uncertainty exist ed about the ill effects of a non-zero level of hazardous air pollutants --- and we find it unthinkable that science may ever yield absolute certainly of safety in an area so complicated ana replete with problems of measurement, modeling, long latency, and the like -- any decision informed solely by health, but no other, values would require a prohibition of any emissions. Had Con gress intended that result, it could very easily have said so by writing a statute that states that no level of emissions shall be allowed as lo which there is any uncer tainty. But Congress chose instead to deal with the pervasive nature of scientific un certainty and the inherent limitations of scientific knowledge by vesting in the Ad ministrator the discretion to deal with uncertainty in each case. B. Petitioner also argues that the legisla tive history makes clear Congress' intent to foreclose reliance on non-health-based considerations in standard selling under section 112. The4NRDC directs us to the hazardous air pollutants provision of the House bill, which slates that "|i|f ... emissions [from any class of new station ary sources] are extremely hazardous to health, no new source of such emissions shall be constructed or operated, except where (and subject to such conditions as he deems necessary and appropriate) the {administrator! makes a specific exemp tion with respect lo such construction or operation." See II R 17255, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 5(a), 116 Cong. Kec. 19,226 (1970). Thus, as l extremely hazardous emissions, the House bill granted the Ad ministrator a rather open-ended |mwcr to exempt a source from the regulation im posed, a power that petitioner presumes to liave allowed for exemptions on the basis of non-health considerations.1 By con- 1 Petitioner's assumption scents correct. The bill pmhihiied new sources if and tiecause they minted extremely hazardous (tollmanls Allowing exemptions to such prohibitions without specifying the permissible Itascs for exemption srrms to invite consideration of non-health factors, for it would lie strange imlerd to construct a scheme under which both n s t RSV 0018124 NRDC v. E, zr> r.Kt. 111 irasl, petitioner notes, the Senate bill had a tight focus on health, prohibiting emis sions "hazardous to the health of persons" and allowing only health-based excep tions to that prohibition. See S. 4358,91st Cong., 2d Sess. $6(b), 116 Cong. Rec. 32,375 (1970). Because the final version that emerged from conference more close ly resembled the Senate than the House bill, and because no express provision for any '`specific exemption" survived, the NRDC argues that any feasibility consid erations must have been deliberately eliminated. We find this reading of the legislative history strained. While the original Senate bill is closer than the House bill lo the final legislation, neither the House ntir the Senate version closely resembles in the aspect relevant here the compromise that emerged from conference. II R. 17255 dealt only with new stationary sources and, with respect lo those, only half of the regulatory scheme dealt with emissions considered "extremely hazardous to health." See H R. 17255, 91st Cong , 2d Sess. $5(a), 116 Cong. Rec. 19,225-26 (1970). The bill also dealt with new sources the emis sions of which could "contribute substan tially to endangerment of the public health or welfare," but which were not "extremely hazardous to health," provid- a prohibition and an exemption from prohibi tion were available on the basis of the same criterion. To be sure, the Senate bill did set up a system under which the agency was to pro pose a prohibition of hazardous pollutants, and could refuse to promulgate lhal prohibi tion only for health-based reasons, see infra pp. 15-16, but this does not make any more plausi ble the notion that the House hill set up a tirohibition and exemption on the sole basis of lealth. The Senate provision did not set tip a system of prohibitions and exemptions, but rather a procedural system to guide the agen cy. SrrS. 4358.91st Cong . 2d Sess. 6(b), 116 Cong Rec. 32,375 (1970) The agency was to Cublish a list of hazardous pollutants on the asis of "available material evidence." This list would amount lo a proposed prohibition of emissions of the substances on the list. The agency was then to provide notice and a public hearing for each agent or combination of agents included on the list and rould refuse lo promulgate (he prohibition only if a prepon derance of the evidence at the hearing refuted the initial basis for the substance's inclusion. Under (he House hill, the exemption applied to something still considered "extremely haz ardous." We dn not see how such an exemp tion could rest on exclusively health-based considerations. ing for control of such emissions "to (hr fullest extent compatible with (be avail able technology and economic feasibility " Id. In elfect, therefore, the House lull amounted lo a comprehensive measure generically aimed at dealing with new sources, and only incidentally treated ibr problem of "extremely hazardous" agents. Unlike the House bill, the .Senate ver sion dealt only with hazardous air pollutants and did so with respect to all station ary sourres. I'he bill proposed a relavtively narrow definition of hazardous agents, restricting this category to pollu tants "whose presence, chronically or in termittently; in trace concentrations in the ambient air, either alone or in combina tion with other agents, causes or will cause, or contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irre versible or incapacitating reversible dam age to health." S. 4358, 91st Cong , 2d Sess. 6 (h), 116 Cong. Kec. 32,375 (197(1). Under the scheme set up by the bill the Administrator was in publish a list of hazardous agents, and follow it by a "proposed prnnibiliun of emissions of each such agent hr combination nf agents from any stationary source." Id The bill then provided for a hearing, after whiib the Administrator had to promulgate the prohibition unless a pre|>onderanee of evi dence demonstrated either "that such agent is not hazardous tn the health of persons" or "that departure fron^ prohibi tion for |a| stationary source w*ll not lie hazardous to the health of persons." /</ If the Administrator found cither such nui1dition to exist, he would then implement an emission standard in lieu of a prnliibi|tiou M Given these starling imints, the infer ence the petitioner draws from the changes made at conference apfieats ten uous at best. The final version defines a "hazardous air pollutant" as an air pollutant to which no ambient air quality standard is applicable and which in the judgment of the Adminis trator may cause, or contribute to. air pollution which may reasonably lx an ticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irre versible, or incapacitating reversible, illness. Clean Air Amendments of 197(1. Pub. I. No. 91-604, 4(a), 84 Sul. 1676, loHS J 'Congress in the Clean Air Art Amend ment* of 1977 made a minor alteration mi die delinilinn of a "hazardous air (wiHnt.iiii," ie- >5 I.KC 111' MfWCv KVA I he statute insirui is the Administrator to publish a list u( such iNilloiinii, u <on(Iiki hearings. anil, unless the hearings show ,i parihiil.ir agent mil in lie a "haz ardous air pollutant," in promulgate emissions standards. /./. The Adruimstramr imiisI "nulilish any such standard at llir Inrl whiih in his judgment provides .in .nnptf* margin of s.ifriy in pmieil ihe public health fioin such hazardous air |Hillul.tnv " hi Petitioner has correctly ah- served ih.ii ihe law enacted lias a rinser siiiM HM.il resemblance in the Senate bill, Imii this idlers linle. if any. sop|x>rt in |K'iiiinnrrs* claim Itecause ihe Senate bill and ihe Ini.d legislation IhiiIi were mea sures in deal wiifi the prnhlem of hazard ous air |k)llniams from all snurees. Thai they would resemble each oilier more than a I louse bill ineaiti in deal genetically with ihe |irnhiem of all pollution from tirvv Mwvvtt sums a natural outcome lor dial reason alone and thus sheds nn light tilt llir iiilrnt lo adopt particular as|>cm of ihe Senate versitut in the final bill. and allowed the imposition of emissions siandards in other rases. An "emission standard" "funr/t the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air fmlluMinis on a continuous basis." 42 DSD. 7602 (It) (1982) (emphasis added). And die definition of "hazardous aii jxdlutanls" in ihe final legislation is rtearly broad enough lo include substances haz ardous in health even in "irate" concen trations. One might conclude, therefore, that Congress was aware of the distinction lietween a "prohibition" and an "emission standard," and that the ultimate aban donment of the former in the final version of the state may evince an intent nut lo prohibit emissions of even those hazard ous pollutants known to pose a danger to public health in trace amounts. Such a conclusion, of course, would flatly contra dict the petitioner's position by indicating a retreat in the final legislation from the exclusive concern with health in the Sen ate hill. N*r do we ariepi |ietitimer's comen- We do not believe that the final bill linn ili.it ilie final legislatures failure in precludes a lias prohibition of emissions of allow for "s|ierilie exemptions'' fnrerlnses a hazardous pollutant. A summary of the Muisiilrraiion of non-health factors. The provisions of the conference agreement House hill made such "sjtecilir exemp- presented hy Senator Kluskie, the princi imi's" available only where the bill Vrhih- pal Senate sponsor of the Clean Air tlrii the construction or operation of new Amendments of 1970 and the chairman of vturi es Because the linal version enacted the Senate conferees, made it clear that min.tins no prohibitory provision of any the "ample margin of safety" standard kind, failure lo include (be pmver lo might require "a plant ... to close" or exempt a suture from a non-rxisieni blan "could include emission standarads which ket prohibition tells us little. It seems allowed for no measurable emissions." more likely ihai ihe |>ower lo exempt was 116 Cong Rec 42.185 (1970) This sug omitted Itecause ihe ronsideraiions that gests that, rather than barking away from might have gone into deriding whether the protection provided in the Senate bill, and tinder what conditions lo exempt a the "ample margin uf safety" standard source. which we think did relate to rust provided the flexibility to provide for such and irrhnology, tee infra p. 26-27, were protection. A hazardous pollutant demon i now to lie taken into account in deriding on the margin of safety to provide. Moreover, we (relieve that the |ietiiioner's rrliamc on the Senate hill to support iu ilatm altoul ihe cxrlusivily of health- strated to have ill effects at trace concen trations may clearly he prohibited under this standard. Absent the explanatory statement by a reliable source alrout what based ronsideraiions is misplaced. The the conferees intended, however, we have emphasis on factors of health in the Sen no way of knowing the meaning uf Ihe ate bill, to ihe rxieni dial it reveals any change from specific regulatory com thing, seems arm.illy lo rut against die mands to a different and more general {iriiiiiHter's argument. The Senate bill pattern. sought in pruhibii emissions whiih wrie |3| And so it is with the I louse bill. At liii/artlmis even in "irate" vonientratiuos ronlereitre, the s|>erifir provisions of the I louse bill gave way lo a more amorphous placing "in.iy tause, or rumnlMtte to'1 will) `'r.iurs. or ionirihuies in." Pnh I. No `JS-VS 40l(a>.9| .Star 6*5.791 (1977) I hi hange dors mil allei i die outcome of diis case standard in which the sources and types of (Hillutinn covered were different anti the Administrator was given the power to regulate in his sound judgment to protect the public health with a reasonable degree of caution for scientific unknowns. We 1 l r > RSV 0018125 HRI)C v. KPA know of no statement, nor has jietitionei directed us to any. that reliably indicates what the conferees intended in replacing the specific regulatory scheme for new sources with the hroau standard mvering all hazardous pollutants in the linal hill At most, therefore, we find the legislative history of the 1970 Clean Air Amend ments ambiguous with respect to what the Administrator may consider in setting standards for hazardous air pollutants. Some of the history sup|)nrls an inference that factors other than health might ap propriately be taken into account at the Administrator's discretion Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that section 112(b) permits only the consideration of health. C On the other side of this controversy, the EPA argues that the 1977 amend ments of the Clean Air Act, in the light of Congress' awareness of the 1976 vinyl chloride regulations, amounts to a ratifi cation of the use of cost and technological feasibility considerations in standard sel ling under section 112. We think this overstates the significance of the legisla tive history leading up to the ('lean Air Act Amendments of 1977. To understand why this is the case, and to appreciate what significance, if any, the 1977 amendments have, we turn to an exami nation of the history of those amendments. In 1976, both houses of Congress passed bills purporting to amend the Clean Air Act. The first section of the Mouse bill sought to spur the EPA to lake action with respect to specified unregulat ed pollutants, including vinyl chloride. Within one year of the enactment of the amendments unless the Administrator found after notice and a hearing that the enumerated "substance (would) not cause or contribute to air [Xilluiion which (could] reasonably be anticipated to en danger public health," hr was to include such substance on the list of pulluianis subject to regulation under an ambient air standard pursuant to sections 108 through 110 or under the hazardous air (willuiant provisions of section 112, or to include sources of such pollutants on the list of stationary sources governed by section 111's new source performance standards, or to implement some combination of such regulation. M.R. 10498, 94th Cong , 2d Sess. 101 (a), 122 Cong. Rec. 29,219 (1976). 25 f.RC 1111 In addressing this section id the hill, the KejMirl ol the Cronmtlire on Interstate and foreign Commerce discussed the vi nyl chloride problem in some ilri.iil, em phasizing die dangerous nature ol ihr substance HR Rep. Nn 1 175, 94th Cong-, 2d Sess. 23 (1976). During the development of the bill, the Ke|*orl noted, the l-.PA had '*prn|*osed emission stan dards for vinyl chhnidrs under srriinn ||2 of the Act lor major sources in ihe plastics industry," hut the Commillre re tained vinyl chlorides in the promised legislation to underscore "the Cominiitee's concern that the siandards lx* pro mulgated for any other significant sources of vinyl chlorides which may exist " hi ai 23-24 The Committee also noted, how ever, that it "did not intend tit s|rri(y dip degree ol emission reduction which should l>e required," but dial "the Admiiusir.ilor should apply die appropriate means and extent of regulation under dir existing statutory criteria." hi. at 26 The Mouse passed the bill, leaving section |t)| ml.mi The Senate hill contained nothing simi lar. The Conference Committre, however, der ided to adopt tin1 I (oust' provision re garding unregulated pollutants in rel evant part. .See II.R. Rep No. [1742. 94ih Cong., 2d Sess 25-26 (1976) Jl he thie.it of a total filibuster, however,| prevented the Senate from voting on the rrmnuMrndatinns ol the r onlcrers, aitrl (lie 1 ii|I died fn 1977, both houses rri nit odur till leg islation to amend die Clean Air An. In the interim lietween the abandonment ol the 1976 amendments ami the inimduttion ol the new legislation, the EPA promulgated emission standards tor vinyl chloride under set lion 1 12 of the Ai l Air 48 Fed. Reg. 46,560 (1976) In so doing, the EI'A had clearly articulated that the regulations adopted reduted vinyl rhloride emissions "to the level attainable with best available technology" and that, while "section 112 does not explicitly pro vide for iiinsideration of costs," the agency (relieved it could take them into account for the limited purpose of "assurfingj that the costs of control technology are not grossly dispro|)oriinnaie In the amount ol emission reduction achieved." hi. at 46,5611, 46,562. The 1977 Mouse bill nm(ainerl a provision "nearly nimbi al'1 to section Mil of die 1976 I louse bill, dtllrring primarily in its inclusion of radioac tive materials ami deletion ol vinyl chlo ride front the unregulated |mlhit.uus specified. II.R. Rep. No. 294.95th Cong . 1st Sess. 3 (1977) The Cninmiiice ex plained the deletion of vinyl chhuuti' on ? \ ' 2S I.KC >114 NR MS ,, EPA ihe ground that "|d|uring Ihe nasi year ilir Ailminivtiaior )had| promulgated fi lial regulations fur the control of vinyl chlorine " hi The bill passed tlte House with the unregulated |k>IIuMmis provision intact. Onif again, the Senate hill had nn suth provision, and, at mrilerente, the House's provision was adopted in relevant part. See Il k- Hep No. 564, 95lh Cong , 1st Scsv 141-42 (1977) The ronlereme ret iMiiinenilaiioos regarding unregulated Imllm,nit** passed l>mh houses intact, and 'resilient ( .iinrr signed the Clean Air An Amendments into law on August 7, 1977. Vrv Pub I. No. 95-9$. 91 Slat. 685 (1977) The 1977 legislation comprehensively amended the Clean Air Act, and, in fact, amended the very section that is the subjnl id this lawsuit. Indeed, that amend ment added a further subsection employ ing substantially the language that EPA had construed in the vinyl chloride regu lations to allow consideration of economic pie margin of safety" requirement when adopting that language anew in the amendment adding section 112(c) may, therefore, indicate that the EPA has cor rectly discerned legislative intent. See United jVafri v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 554 n.UI (1979) Indeed, if the House's and the House Committee's awareness of what was taking place could confidently be attributed to the entire Congress, the history recited of reactions in 1976 and 1977 would make a considerable case for ratification. But we cannot be certain that Congress was aware of the content of the vinyl chloride regulations,* and, there fore, we give the failure to repudiate the EPA's substantive interpretation of sec tion 112 in those regulations only "modest weight," see National Wildlife Federation v. Gonuch, 693 F.2d 156, 167 |I8 ERC I ll)5| (L).C. Cir. 1982), and we certainly cannot construe Congress' failure to act in these circumstances as amounting to rati fication of the EPA's construction * Con- and lei hnologii al feasibility . The relevant amendment to section 112 empowered the Administrator under certain cirtiunu.tiices to Imgn use of an emission siattd,nd mill instead to "promulgate a design, nfuipmrm, work practice, or o|ieraiional M.oid.iril, or combination thereof, which in Ins judgment is adequate to prnteist the Rulemaking to amend the vinyl chloride standard, it becomes unclear whether the EPA's cost and technological feasibility inter pretation was well-established at the time of the 1977 amendments. We think it was. Al though embracing a aero emission goal, the oolite explicitly disagreed with criticism that (he 1976 regulations placed unwarranted tm- pnhii, hinilh . with an ample morfin nf st,ty " 42 ll.SC:. $?412(e)(l) (1982) (emphasis added); tee olio Pub. I,. No. 9595, 9| Slat 4,85. 70.) (1977) Thus, at die time id the >977 amendments. Con gress expressly considered the kind of regulation the El*A should apply to haz ardous ait |Milluiants, tone identified, and, f'hatis on technological, rather than health- msed goals. 42 Feld Reg. 28,154 (1977). More importantly. the proposed rules mandated only ellHtcnt use of raining control technol ogy at existing plants and more elfective con trol* at new plants " Id. The proposal encour aged new technology but refuted to ban vinyl chloride beraosr of the drastic implications such a measure would hold for the industry. Id. in so doing, reenacted the standard run- Thus, while more stringent, the proposed reg timed by the KPA in the vinyl chloride regulations. The I louse knew nl the 1976 regula tions.4 and the failure to clarify die "am- ulations did not hy any means abandon the EPA's earlier position. 1 The EPA also argues that asbestos regu lations hated on feasibility considerations had been promulgated pursuant to 112 prior to the 1977 amendments We give this no weight ' The Administrator rould employ this al ternative kind of regulation when an emission standard |wnvnl infeasible ht+ausr "(Aka liiit.mlous pollutant or (MiUuianii rannoi lc entit led iliiMigh a conveyance designed and rtmMr'uied to emit or upuir such pollutant, nr that any requirement for, or use of, such a <i>meyaiice wihiM > incoitsittem with any federal. Stair, nr local law, or (U) the appliraiioo of nieaniremrtii metltodology in a part it ul.u tlass of Mtuiin is not practicable due lo eihnologital or economic limitations.'' 42 HSC 87412(e)(2) (m2), Pub. 1. No 9595, yi |(t, `l| .Stilt. 685, 7! (1977). * I lir NKDC argues that lietiute the F.PA fold pioiiiiila.iled its 1977 Nome of Prnjiosed liecaiise the EPA has given to us no indication that Congress had any awareness of the exittrnre of, let alone the content of, those regulation) * A court must only sparingly accept argu ments based on acquiescence or ratification, for "the Framers of our Constitution deliber ately made the passage of legislation difficult -- more difficult, for instance, than in parlia mentary democracies -- jand) Congress sim ply cannot he obliged affirmatively to correct subsequent administrative interpretations in consistent with original legislative intent; that is the responsibility of the courts." Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of Ameriran Trade marks v. United Slates, 790 F.2H 907, 917 (l).('. Cir. 198b). C ongressional inaction t>n a a % * *>h |* ov RSV 0018126 NRDCv. EPA 25 F.RC MIS gress, in confronting the problem of unre gulated |wllutams, sought only to provoke some action hy the EPA, and in no way aimed to specify the appropriate degree of emission control. That the I louse knew of the existence of the 1976 standard for vinyl chloride and derided to remove it from the unregulated pollutants list does not, therefore, tell us whether the House examined and became aware of (he con tent of those regulations or the theory or level of the controls inqrnsed. The history of the 1977 amendments may give a scin tilla of evidence in support of the agency position here, hut it is far short of legisla tive raiilieatinn of the EPA's const ruction may consider cost and technological feasi bility to set a standard that allows a level of emission at or above which evidence has indicated adverse health elfccts to occur. Perhaps if the evidence positively demon strated that a given substance had ill ef fects and endangered the public health in trace amounts, the EPA could permit no emissions of that pollutant. Only when an area of uncertainly exists does the Admin istrator "reconcile ihe pararlpx" of having to protect against dangers he cannot know by setting standards as strict as jsnssiblr given Itnth available technology and the requirement (hat the cost of reduction not he grossly dispro|Mriionate to the level achieved. T hai the area of uncertainty, as n with vinyl chloride, covers all non-zero levrls of emission does not alter our Because the statute does not seem to conclusion.1 restrict the Administrator to health-based considerations, and furthermore is am biguous in that it does not specify what additional factors the Administrator may Itermissibly take into account in "providingj an ample margin of safety in protect the public health," we may not "simply impose |our| own construction on the stat ute." Chevron U.S.A v. Natural Resources Defeme fojwnctf, 467 (J.S. 6 J7, 843 (l 984). As the Supreme Court said, "if ihe statute is silent or ambiguous with resjxrct to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on permissible construction of the statute." hi Accordingly, we must uphold the Ad ministrator's construction of the section if it is "a reasonable one," that is, if the Administrator's decision represents "a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make." Id. at 845. We believe that the agency in this case lias made a reasonable interpretation. Contrary ut (he Dissent's view of what is at issue here, tee Dissent at 15-16, the EPA has not taken the jrosilion that il particular point may "betoken) | unawareness, preoccupation, nr paralysis." rather than tacit assent. See Zither v. Aden, 396 U.S. 168, 18586 n.21 (1969). Of course, in the case before us there was more than mere congressional si lence, there was aitirmaiive evidence that member* of the House knew whai KPA was doing and failed u> object and that the House Committee employed language that showed a desire in achieve a reduction,but ool necessar ily the total elimination, of emissions. 'I bis is something more than mere failure to mart inrrenive legislation ' Petitioner soggeis that a deferential ap- Emarli may not lie appropriate in this case Clause vinyl ihloridr is "an apparent nonthreshold |M*l)uiao(,'' and the legislative histo ry makes tlear that in such a tase Congress intended to allow nn measurable emissions. We disagree. Petitioner confuses a "ncuiihreshold |n>l|otant" with an "apparent nonthreshold pollutant." The (ornfer imscs a known hazard at all non-zero levels. 'I he latter may appear to pose a risk at all levels, but, by definition, sulliciem data are not available to establish the hazard lo public health. \Vc lie- lieve that this is precisely the tyjx ol unin >*>n- ty for whirls the Administrator was'vested wiih discretion, and even though the Administrator may assume that some risk to health is pmb- ahle at alt concentrations, it is still up to hint in decide what constitutes a reasonable degree of protection given that uncertainly does exist 'Ihe Dissent's conclusion that mu explana tion of the distinction between "non-threshold pollutants" and "apparent non-threshold fwtllutantt" ii "odd" reflects the Dissent's misun derstanding of the definition of "apparent nonthreshold pollutant." T he Dissent claims that because the EPA recognized that "any atmos- Kheriv concentration of VC |xnet some pohlir ealth risk," it has also effectively iccognized lh.it vinyl chloride is a non-threshold pollu tant See Dissent at 16 |2S EKO I 126) This is simply incorrect The EPA explicity slated that vinyl chloride was an apparent nonthreshold pollutant because it ap|M3red to cre ate a risk to health at all non-zero levels n{ emissions, hut scientific uncertainty made it impossible to establish any definite threshold level of adverse effects to human health. 40 Fed. Reg at 59,5)4. Because of the un* main ly as In the threshold level, the El'A "assumed . . . that there is nn aimnsidierir concentration that poses alistdutely no pohlir health isk " hi Il did not conclude that vinyl chloride was a non-threshold |M>1hit.:i.l 'S i Kt: mo xmx: r. epa Sum r die Adminisii atm has no way of kimwiiiK licaldi <llcals mi (lie tange of iiiii ri i.iiiiiy. sin li i nnsiderattmts as technologit a I .mil economic feasibility seem ii.ilhi ill. ikm haps inevitable, i hones 10 in- Iim in (lie A unit limit i ill in 's ilia isinn wluihii Hr lots .nnjily |niinilril lor a iI'.tsmi.iUlr degree ol safety lioin (Hr un known. Ily emphasizing available (eth nology. lie l.l'A has rnturril ilir maxiill uni i C)(ii Hi lion against unrrrl.iinly without <lie* rionoinii and social displacelinns ili.ii would at rotimany the (losing ol ,in industry or .my suluiitnibl |siri of .in industry fly ensuring that costs do not Ihmoiim- grossly tlispn|Hirl innate lo llie level ol itiIim tion 4i hit-veil, llie l.lkA guar antees, ili.ii the consuming public aloes nol I*.H ail exti-sshr pine for the marginal K-ni-ins n| nii teasing increments of proii-iiinii against llie unknown Weianiun say dial iliis represents .in iimcasonahle weighing of laliM'S, e*|teially when no oilier valor ie.nlily suggest itself ami |tciliinier supplies none apatt from healiii likih, winch in tire range of uncertainty air liy dt-limtion unknowable. rite statute, inomiviT, explieilly cm- Hu ses iMononiii' values, suggesting iliat llie use of stn h values lit inform amhigumis piovisiinis is noi unreasonable. Seclimi I 1.2(e) s|M`i ifiially allows lor llie use l ilesign, equipment, work pi,nine, ami o|M'raiimiiil M.tml.uils in lieu of emissions M.uni,mis whete "the application of inra- Miu-mnil methiMinliqf)* in a partieul.ir ilass ol smines is not prariit alilc due in to luiologii al or eioiioinie liiiiilniiom." 42 l S i7412(c)( I) & (2) (1982). Where iiir.inunneiil is inipralii al Itecause of lei luiologii ai or economic factors, unceri.nnis as to lie.ilili elicits ncrcstarily ex ists li is \ignilii.ini Imdi tltat uiuettainiy neeil him lie dissipated if (lie toil is pinhihiin i and that requirements oilier than emissions limits may tlirn In- iuqtnsrd < ongtess Has thus explicitly expressed ns Im'Iii'I tH.it iriHnidogicat ..... I economic t,tines Have a place in llir irgolaiion of ha/,irilous pollutants.' We Helicve. ' VVr do noi .t.tfpi iU- NHIKVs argument ili.ii t onxii'ss' rxydnidy .utniiiuiiig fm <>.- i,hum .mil lei IiiioIoxm .il Icitsilttloy in tltis < mi ll si suggests a ioiigirsMuo.il intent ili.n the \ilimm\ti,ii.o loitsidrt these valors only to Iriiihng svla.it l>|M` in irgul.iOitv si.tnd.nd to <iM' .old im.i in dri tiling dir Irtel ol rrgul.Onm .........I!tls I'l lilioiM'i iii t-lln I assrns iit.il I-tMt- ((tss kill" how hi dcsign.ur sink l.iilois .mil ilnl so rspii'sslt linr II iiilrnilnl ikru .qqtli- 1.1111,0 I Ills .Oglllllt'lll (.ills sill'll (alllgll'ss li.nl \>i> sj h 111. is ok,nil tvlnii itir A.I- lltrreluie. dial die l.l'A Has aunt reason* aldy in relying on economic and irchnologiral feasibility, and we raimol uveriui n llie withdrawal of die promised regidalions on llir liasis (Hal (lie l.l'A so relied. Iv 14) We dunk (his analysis id die statute demonstrates iliat Congress dill noi pre clude consideration of economic and tech nological considerations in the range of emissions where health effects are uncer tain. The language Congress used is quite inappropriate m support any such conclusion. Had that result been desired, (am- Sress could easily have stated that where eallh elfecls at any level are unknown there shall lie zero emissions That dties nol even remotely resemble the statute we have before us. IV. '('he eases cited by petitioner in sup|Hirl of its claim tin not atirr our mm htsinn. No case has squarely addressed what the Adniinistralnr may consider in the context of section ||2(h)'s rnniinami to "provide an ample margin of safety to protect the oiittiilfator multi employ design, equipment, work peatticc, ami operational, rather than emission, stamfird* under 112 and it ex pressed itself very speeiln ally. Sec tu/ira note 2. Thai Congress has explic itly (irnvided for cfi lain spei ilic considerations in one detailed sull ied noi does nol seem in us a |>ersuasive reason lo roni lude that failure lu H|*et i(y sutli ninsiilrr.iiiiini when employing a gcnri.dized standaid in a dillerenl subsec tion forri loses reliant r no itiosr faiiori in llediing oul dial slandaol. II, elsewherr in die statute, Coogiess had exhoried the Adiitinisiraliir "to provide an ample margin of rainy lo proteci die ptddii Itr.ilih" ami then s|tenli<aUy noted that he iixilil or should itmsidrr ecrinoutii or techno logical frasihihiy in making his dncrmimiiinn, the failure so lo sjieiify in M2<I>KI1 wmild seem iiersoasively to hirei lose uinsideraiiou of sue h fill tors I'riiuonrr makes a similar iigunient with res|>n i hi llir provision giving the Adiumistraini llie |Hiwer lo gram a iwn-yrnr waiter for iosiallaiini) nl iiifornls im|Misrd under 112 See 42 USC: 7412 |i)(I >(|l)<n) (I0H2) This .iiguiuriil has on meric I tie- pmsisinn u lied tin nirirlv (His the outside limil dial dir Admiiosu.ili'i may allow, if nnrssarv. h>r die mi|>iiM<Hiii of innliiiK. il says imlhing aluiol i'iiiiiiiiiiii oi liihriologuat Ir.isdiililv anil i.iii in no way tie i onsli ord as an ext liouvi avenue loi i oiisidri alion of \m li lai tors, as pelluuiiet suggi'sls >*y RSV 0018127 X/iDCv HPA 2S i'.HC 1117 pcddic Health " While some cases have "adecpiate," rather than "ample," "nt.ii- l construed similar or identical language to gin of safety," nuupels the cunt lusinii ili.n fcnri lose roitiideraunn of technological sen ion 112 prnbides considriitiion ol and economic feasibility, we do not lind ecumtiitir and lecltnolugit al feasibility the reasoning of those rases i-oui|relling. We think nol. Nor do the various dicta (ictitiiiiier pulls I Hr dicta in !.eatt Jnilmtnei on widt h from other, related cases jierstiadr us that we have reached the wrong eoni Union, ft peiilitiner relies rest o|mhi siatuiory pirintses and legislative history iuapixisitr to must be icmetttliered that each statute and this case. The court, significantly, did not < Iicovision has its own structure and Irgis- assert that (he statutory liinfiia^e pre auve history so that a decision almiil one cluded consideration of feasibility In this 9 cannot lie considered lo ronirol the inter-re5|>eci, the opinion slated merrly that pretaiion of another. Hmh similarities and "|ii|nlhng in its language suggests that dissintilariiirs musi he considered in de- the Administrator is to consider economic (iding hmv |>ersuasive the analogy is. or technological feasibility in setting am IVtiintncr's strongest case is tsar!hutu\- hieni air quality standards " 647 l;.2t| at irtf i (-. EPA, 647 h' 2d 11.10 114 1148-49. This says only that (he "margin A KKC 19061 < I> C. Cir ), (eU. demcd, 449 of safety" language does not demand con II,S. 1042 (I9B0). In l.emt InduUnn this sideration of silt It factors, something that / court reviewed a challenge by represrnia- no party in the case Irefore us disputes lives and members of the regulated indus llie /.I'rt,//nt/ui/r(r>i court did state that try to the promulgation of primary air (He statute on its face does not allow quality standards fiir lead under section consideration oi lei Hindiigii .tl or fconomit 109 of the Olean Air Act.* Petitioners in feasibility, but (He coon based nk coiulu- that case argued that the Administrator siun on slrut iural aspects of the .tmlbrni must consider economic impact and ierh- air |Mdlitnon prov isiuns not germane line noiogical feasibility in determining the The rcmrl relied tin sections ol tin- Art appropriate margin of safety to set under closely related to srriinn 109 in tr.tilling statutory language requiring that the its determination lust, Ivesidrs "altuwing standards "allow] | an adrquate margin of an adequate margitt of safety," ambient safety . . to protect the public health," 42 air standaids set ontler sejtlion 1119(b) U S O. 7409(h){l) (1982) See 647 F.2d must lie based on sn-catlrd "air quality at I 148. The court noi only rejected this criteria." wltitb section U8 defines .is argument, hut also went on lo state that comprising several elrntrnis, all (Vlaied to section 109 of the Ad affirmatively pre health SeeV ti C. 74PH(a)(2)(A). <H). & cluded consideration of feasibility in (C) (1982) The rnuri reasobed that the, standard setting. The NKDO argues, exclusion of economic and leeliunlngiral therefore, that T.eaii /n/ioUri. which in feasibility considerations front ait quality, volved the more permissive language of criteria also lom losrd reliance on sin h! factors in setting the ambient air quality standards based on those criteria f47 * I'he statutory scheme involved in t.euJ Ituiuiinr* irgtdates sir {tnllutnnts the "emis sions of which, in (the Administrator's) judg ment. cause or crmtributr tu air pollution l' 2d at 1149 n 17. The (otirt also relied on the lad that state implementation plans, the means of eoforcrinrnl of ambi ent air standards, could not lake into which may irasonahty he antiripalcKf in en account economic and lechnological feasi danger public health or welfare. . . fanri) the bility if such consideration interfered with Iueseme of which in the ambient air results the (imely attainment of ambient air stan / rum numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources." 42 U S.C. 74(lft(aKl> <|J82) The Administrator most ilieo publish "air quality dards, and that the Administrator could not consider such feasibility factors in triteria* fur the pollutants thus lisird hi. deciding whethrr lo approve die state 7408(a)(2) Having done this, (hr Ariimnis- plans. /</.; xee 42 U S U. 74 10 (1982) iraoir prescribe* primary and secondary ambi Ibis provided further grounds for the ent air standards based on these criteria. See 42 U -SC 7409 (1982) f inally, states must adopt state implementation plans to meet these ambient air siandaids and must submit ilteir plans to the KI'A for approval. See 42 USC 7410 (1982). I he schrnic under rrview in litis case, regulation of hazardous air jkiIIuliinis. tomplenirnis the amhieni air quality court to Itehrve that Congress simply did not want die economics of |Mdluiioti ttmIrol considered in the scheme of ambient ir regulations. See 647 l'\2d at 1149 n .17. Moreover, (he relevant Senate RfjM.il stated daily that "existing sources of jMillutants either should meet the stand,ml of standard is apploalile " Arc 42 U..S.C. 7412 (|9H2>. the law or le tinsrd down." 647 F 2d at 1149 Tim is a lar clearer si.ilciiiciii than 25 |.KC 1118 SRiiC ,, EPA anything in itir present rait that Congress < oiMiltrd the alternatives and t hi (los ing iluwn souri es nr even industries rather than allmv risks to health. The substantive standard imjx>srd un- dei the hazardous air pollutants provi- sums id section M2, ly conirasi, is mil based on mteria that enumerate sjienlir larlors lo consider, yet iwiinledly exclude feasibility Section M2(h)(l)'s runintand "to |irovide ail ample margin of safety to prnierl the public healili" is self-con tained, and the sUttttt id enumerated criteria may well evince a congressional intern for ihe Administrator lo supply reasonable ones. And while the hazardous |Nillutanis provision does all for state im plementation plans, section 112, in marked contrast to (he regime of ambient air standards, ofierates, through nationally enforced standards; stale plans are jiermissive and may not interfere with national enforcement of any hazardous pollutant standard. 42 U.S.O. $74l2(d) (1982). No detailed provisions preclusive of irclmologira! and economic consider ations govern the slate plans allowed un der section 112; indeed, the Administrator must delegate enforcement and imple mentation authority lo the state (subject to his continuing ability In enforce national standards) if he finds the state plan "ade quate." id. Thus, nothing in the s< heme of state implementation plans under section M2 demonstrates disfavor for feasibility considerations, and this further distin guishes section I 12 from the Lead Indus triei court's interpretation of section 109. Before turning from /W Industries, we must also address another aspect of that opinion. The l*ad Industries court did not ''discern*' in the margin of salety require ment "any congressional intent tn require, or even |>ermil, the Administrator to con sider economic nr technological (actors in Iironiulgaiing air quality standards." 647 :.2d at 11 fill. In so concluding, the court was fully aware of the nature of the matgin of safety standard and, indeed, quoted the Senate Report's description of its pur|M>sr as one of providing "a reason able degree of protection" from the un known. Id Thus, at first blush, the rea soning of Lead Industries may seem at odds with our conclusion that the margin of safety requirement is what allows for such consideration. Closer examination reveals that our conclusion stands. First, the Ijad Indus tries court fared the argument that "mar gin of safely" requirrd feasibility consid erations, and, lo the extent that it said the language and history of this requirement did not "even permit" such consideratixns, the court's statement was not pari of the rationale hy which it decided the contention before it hut amounted only to dicta. Second, these dicta must lie under stood in the context of where they appear in the t^ad Industriei opinion. The court's discussion of "margin of safely" immedi ately followed a thoughtful and compre hensive analysis of ihe legislative history of the ambient air pollution scheme found in sections 106 through 110. This analysis concluded that Congress meant ambient air standards lo be affirmatively technology-forcing, and, therefore, consciously excluded any feasibility considerations from their formulation. See 647 F.2d at 1149. Accordingly, we read the court's "margin of safely" discussion to mean that, in the light of overwhelming evidence that Congress did not want feasibil ity considered in setting ambient air stan dards, the court would not read feasibility considerations into whatever discretion the Administrator may have been given under the "margin of safety" require ment. In other words, Ihe court could not discern any intent in permit such consid eration in the face of other strong evidence to llie contrary. No evidence of preclusion of economic and technological consider ations has emerged in our examination of section I 12 and its history. For that rea son, Lead Industries does not control this rase. Here, for the reasons given, we be lieve the Administrator is not foreclosed from including these considerations in Ihe exercise of his discretion under the margin of safely requirement of section 112. Petitioner also cites Hercules. Inc. v. F.PA. 59B F 2d 91 (12 ERC I376| (DC. ('jr. 1978), in support uf its claim that the "ample margin of safety" language pro hibits consideration or cost and (ethno logical factors. Hercules involved section 307(a)(4) or the Federal Water Pollution Control Art, which directs the EPA lo set standards for toxic water pollutants to provide "an ample margin of safety," see 33 (J S C 1317(a)(4) (1982) In relevant part, the decision dealt with an industry petitioner's claim that renain regulations promulgated by the EPA under section 307(a) failed adequately to take feasibility into account. The EPA responded that section 307(a) does not require consider ation nl any such factor. The court agreed with the EPA, princi pally on the ground that section 307(a)(2) enumerated six specific factors to take into account in setting standards for toxic wa l> 'k RSV 0018128 NRDC o. EPA 25 ERC. 1119 ter pollutants, and none involved econom ic or technological criteria. 598 F.2d at 111. Reinforcing ihis interpretation was the fact that "(sjeclion 307(a)(4) directs EPA to set standards providing 'an ample margin of safety' without any mention of feasibility criteria." Id This, however, docs not support the NR DC's position in ihis rase, for Hercules merely stands for the proposition that the unadorned ap pearance of "ample margin of safety" does not require economic and technologi cal considerations; the case says nothing about what such language may permit. Nor do we find persuasive the dina from Hercules that the NRDC cites on the subject of section 112 of the Glean Air Act. The Hercules court noted similarities between the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. 598 F.2d at 112. The court then discerned a distinc tion applicable to both statutes positing "health-based" regulation for toxic water and hazardous air pollutants and "tech nology-based'' regulation for other water and air pollutants. See id. The court also noted that "Congress enacted section 112 . . . without provision for considerations of feasibility." Id. AH this is beside the point. We may accept the heallh-based/technology-based distinction put forth by the Hercules court and still acrept the EPA's use of economic and technological feasi bility in standard setting under section M2. Health, not technology, it both the starting point and the overriding consider ation under (he EPA's construction of section 112. The EPA must set its stand ard at a level which eliminates known adverse health effects of the hazardous substance. It is only when those health elTects become unknowable that the EPA turns to economic and technological feasi bility to decide the level of emissions to permit. We do not think that this inciden tal consideration or non-health factors makes the withdrawal of the proposed standards pursuant lo the EPA's con struction of section 112 technology-based, rather than health-based. Nor do we believe that the Hercules court's casual observation that section 112 makes no provision for feasibility changes the analysis. Section 112 provides discre tion in standard-setting, does not affirma tively preclude feasibility considerations, and may, we believe, reasonably accomI tnodate such considerations. In these cir cumstances, the EPA's construction of section 112 to allow for feasibility consid erations is permissible. In this vein, petitioner sets forth one final argument that we address. Petitioner attempts to erect a policy of clear state ment in environmental statutes, such that economic and technological considerations may not enter the calculus of environmen tal regulation unless the statute expressly so provides. In support of this thesis, petitioner first cites American I'ex/ile Man ufacturers Institute v. Donoi'an, 452 U S. 490. 510 (1981), which stales: "When Congress has intended that an agency engage in cost-benefit analysis, it has rlearly indicated such intent on the face of the statute." Petitioner's reliance on this statement is misplaced. The Court in American 7'exli/e made the statement quoted in response lo an argu ment that a statute exhorting the Secre tary of Labor to consider "feasih|iliiy|" tequnedcosl-beneiil analysis. In ihis light, the Court's statement appears to mean that Congress has clearly stated when it has sought to require an agency to engage in cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, the EPA has tint engager! in that form of analysis here Cosi-lrencfil analysis means weighing the marginal gain against tiie marginal cost of each increment of further regulation and then selling the level of regulation at the (joint at whijh the latter exceeds the former. In this fase. in the extent that the Administrator considers cost at all, he does so only tn ensqre that costs are not grossly dispro|M)rtinnaie to lienefits and unly when health effects are uncertain. So even if dw<rt< an Textile docs mean that Congress must clearly an nounce when it intends to (jermit costbenefit analysis, that limitation has no application here. Petitioner also brings to our niire Union Electric Co v. EPA, 427 U S. 246 |fl ERC 2I43J (1976), a case under the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 in which the Supreme Court stated: "Where Con gress intended the Administrator to lie concerned about economic and technologi cal infeasibilily, it expressly so provided " Id. at 257 n.S; ree also Lead Industries, 647 F.2d at 1148. Be that as it may, it does not alter our conclusion in this case. The EPA docs not contend that Congress intended lo require the Administrator to consider economic and technological feasibility in selling standards under section I 12. But this does not mean that Congress intended to preclude the Administrator from em ploying such considerations. It is enough that Congress vested the Administrator with discretion to deal with scientific un certainty under the "ample margin ol 2S ERC II2M NRDCv EPA uilrty" tianilanl, and, that, in ihf absence of < rtngr rcutonal direction as lo the values the agency should use in guiding lhai discretion. the Administrator's choice it( economic and lethnological feasibility Act creates an administrative procedure for regulation of "hazardous air pollu tants, 42 U.S.d. 7412. The central lan guage of the provision directs the EPA Administrator to establish an emission amounted to a reasonable one. Chevron requires no more for us to affirm the agency's t imvmrlion o( the statute. At tordmgly, the dftision ol the EPA withdrawing the 1977 proposed regula standard "at the level which in his judg ment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutant." Id. 57412(b)(1)(B). The provision contains tions lor vinyl chloride is no language authorizing the Administra tor to consider technological and economic Affirmed factors. On the contrary, the language op its face dearly makes the Administrator's Cull Text of l)n\rnt\ng Opinion decision dependent only on health consid erations. The majority argues that the Wright, -Senior Circuit judge, concurring^ ot funt mul diwetilnig in pari: Our legal system assigns to the courts the task of saying what the law is, even in thnse rases where administrative agencies have ar rived at interpretations of their own. See Afut/it/ry r. Airfitn, 5 U S. (I Cranch) 1.17, 177 (1803); Chevron US A. !' Natural Rrwurcei Defente Council, 476 U.S. 837, R42-43 (21 ERC I049| (1984); Motor Pc hale Af/rt. An n v. Slate Farm Mut. Ini. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Although the Supreme Court has made dear that the ledrntl courts must give agency interpre tations substantial deference, CAeivon, 467 U.S. at 844, agencies must follow the clear intent of Congress, and the courts must enforce it. The unsupported assertion that a congressional command is in some resited ambiguous is not suHiticni, and should not be sufficient, to block all signilii iint {udicial review. In the rase Itefore the court today, the Environmental Pro tection Agency has withdrawn a proposed irgolation under $112 nf the Clean Air Act mi the basis of technological and eco nomic (actors Congress dearly removed Imm the scope of proper delilteralion. See 42 U.S.C. $74l2(h)(l) (1982); 50 Fed. Reg. at 1184 (Jan. 9, 1985). reproduced in Joint Appendix (JA) 48. It is the respon sibility of this court, despite EPA's inter- term "judgment'' implies (hat (he Admin istrator has discretion lo consider feasibil ity. But the statute is clear: "judgment'' applies only to an "ample margin of safely to protect Inc public health," and does not make any reference to feasibility consider ations, either technological or economic. Despite this, EPA withdrew its 1977 Eroposed vinyl chloride standard on feasiility grounds. 50 Fed. Reg. at 1185, JA 49. The new standard is "based on judg ments concerning the costs and benefits of the standard lo society. The (new) stand ard is not designed to eliminate V|inyl| Cjhloride] exposure risk entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance between public health protection and the cost of that protection." Id. at 1183, JA 47. This approach is impermissibly for several reasons, each of which I will address in turn. First, though it may seem reasonable to consider feasibility here, the face of the statute unambiguously precludes it. In ! 12 Congress had the public health first, foremost, and apparently exclusively in mind. See 116 Cong Rec. 42385 (1970) (comments of Sen. Muskie). Second, the legislative history of the Act is not so ambiguous as lo obscure the intent of Congress in $112, the majority's claim to the contrary notwithstanding- The history of $112 supports the clear meaning of its ptelation, to uphold Congress' clear deri sion that |l 12 emission standards should rrllrd public health considerations alone. I concur in Judge Burk's succinct rejec tion nl the statute of limitations and ex language. Finally, EPA's rationale for the withdrawal of the 1977 proposals is not as modest as the majority claims. According ly to the majority, EPA evaluated eco nomic and technological feasibility in this haustion arguments made by the intervenor and the agency res|et'liv*ly. But I must resi>ecifully dissent from that por tion of the majority opinion that would defer It* F.PA's consideration nf economic (rasihiliiy and available technology in its i.uinnale lor the withdrawal. The provision under review here is (airly simple. Section Il2f (lieClean Air case only as a last resort, when faced with chronic scientific uncertainty as to the extent of harmful effects of a particular hazardous pollutant. The majority would uphold this use of feasibility consider ations. But EPA itself does not limit its consideration of technological and eco nomic feasibility lo such an extent, and argues that $112 gives the Administrator 0 r\ RSV 0018129 S'HDCv. hrA ___25KRCII2I discretion to consider feasibility in all rases. See Brief for Res|tonden(s at 12-14; 50 Fed Reg at I 185, JA 49. By with drawing the 1977 proposed regulations as infeasible, EPA has contravened (he man date nf the Clean Air Art. The imqioseri vinyl chloride standard should be re manded to the agency for reconsideration and reexamination consistent with (he in tent of Congress. I. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND .SECTION 112 The Supreme Court's Chevron opinion, of course, guides our derision here. In that case the Supreme Court upheld an KPA interprct.`*'.on of the Clean Air Act, 467 S. at 839-40, and found that, in the absence of clear congressional intent on a particular issue, the courts may only re verse an agency's interpretation of a pro vision if it is "im|>ermissthlc" or "unrea sonable." Id. at 843-44. But the Court stressed that, if "the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give elfert to the unambiguously expressed in tent of Congress." Id at 842-43. In the case before this court, the language of the Clean Air Art and its structure clearly show that Congress intended to make 112 a "health-based" rather than a "technology-based" provision. The ma jority's discovery of ambiguity in the pro vision is not borne out by a review of precedent on closely related portions of he Clean Air Act, or by examination of die structure of the Ail. The Clean Air Act of 1970 was largely the result of public concern over the grow ing destruction of our r'r quality. See Schoenbrod, Goals Statute, or Rutei Statutes: 'the Case of the Clean Air A.i 30 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 740, 744 (1983); 1 If- Cong Rec. 42381-82 (remarks of Sen. Muskie). The Air Quality Act of 1967 had failed lo improve air quality to any significant ex tent, Schoenbrod, supra, at 745, and in 1970 Congress responded lo the problem by enacting a series of substantial amend ment* to the Act. Id. See Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Slat. 1676, codified at 42 U S C. 7401-7626 (1982). In that leg islation Congress attempted to stiffen the spines of state clean air administrators, tee Schoenbrod, Jti/ro,ai 744-47, and to insti tute a policy of "technology-forcing." The hirer policy imposes air quality atandardi that are unattainable under present tech nology in order to force industry to pro duce the equipment necessary for elleetive control of airborne pollutants. Irotn v Natural Remurces Dejenie Council, Inc , 421 U.S. 60, 91 |7 ERC 17351 (1974); tee aim Note, Forcing 7echnohigy: ihe Clean .4rr Act Experience. 88 Yale L. J 1713, 1713-15 (1979). Although "teen nnlogy forcing" necessarily involves imposition of stan dards that at present seem unreasonable. Congress clearly made the "hard rhnire" lo follow (his policy in search of cleanrr air. Union Electric Co. v. F.PA, 427 l).S 246,257(8 ERC 2143] (1976); 11 Rec. 42381 (comments nf Sen Muskie) The statute implements the "technol ogy-forcing" policy by refusing to allow the agency to consider technological and economic feasibility in the establishment of most emissions and ambient air stan dards. Section 108(a)(2), which sets out the grounds for establishment of air qual ity standards, docs nm mention techno logical or economic factors. .42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(2) (1982). Section' 109(h)(1), which directs the EPA Administrator lo establish ambient air quality standards "the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administra tor, based on (criteria not including feasi bility) and allowing an adequate margin nf safety, are requisite to protect the pub lic- health," does not mention technologi cal or economic feasibility. 42 ll.S.ll, 57409(b)(1) (1982). This cmljii has held that 109(b)(1) not only does! not require the Administrator lo consider technologi cal and economic feasibility, but actually bars him from doing so. Lead Induitnei duVi, Inc. v. EPA. 647 F.2d 1130, ||50 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cerl denied. 449 U.S 1042 (1980).' Section 110(a)(2). which directs the EPA Administrator lo review state ambient air quality standards, does ' The majority argues that the lead Indue tries court's language barring consideration of technological or economic feasibility was un necessary lo the judgment in that case, and is therefore nnnhinding dicta. Maj op at 32. I must disagree. Although it is formally distin guishable from the holding, the language bar ring consideration of feasibility under JtlW is an integral pari of the opinion's rationale, as demonstrated hy its repeated appearance, t rail Induitnei. 647 F.2d at 1148, IH9. 11 Mi Fur thermore. EPA is dearly bound by this language in the 109 context. For practical pur poses, and certainly for purpmri of interpreting parallel provisions nf the Clean Air An, the language barring consideration of feasibility is not dicta. im 11- Hi .ihiitnf) / 9f/o.tj(f y fiitmijiuj `japauiqai^ (.. * 3jqeUOpS3llb A|l|8iq SI SpJBp uris uoissiuia paseq-qqeaq uiojj ajnucd -ap saAaiia8y d|,i. , , ,, auueis paseq-A9o -|ouqaai ir oi imieis paseq-qqeaq e uiojj 11 | uoii.us ij jauoj o| fi9|duuiii' seq V|'-| Kl `0l T'l J*lna 861 `l-'K J!V un.t)-f ,<i/i f,, m iiui/jjj> jjpiy} sujSouimd^j suj'iyuty fo iiwifp/iil.'j/ aifi .Stuujojj -A.iiuSp fi> ajn/ipy J144 `uieqejQ H..`|oji -iiui jo Auiupseaj jo *siso> aqi oi pje2 -aj inoqiiM suopejapisiioj ippraq jqqnd Aq A||os paienip aq p|noqs iuein||od snopjezeq e Joj pjepueis uoissiuia ue uo iuaui8pni aAueJistuiuipe aq|a|l.) (461) HI Mr| pnuaiuuojiAug -sjazpoy \\ suoissiiua iieu|iu;|9 A|aia|duiua IIim qjiqM spjepueis ias oi ygg aJinb 9i oi iius ll | uupaay , # , spjepueis MIMSSIUI3 jqi HulUIUIJJIJp Ul 3>URI|(llUO.> jo Xi|iui||ip jo isoj ji|i jo uopcjapisuoa I Vcl'l I UOISIAOJll Oil SI JJJI|||| |zil lM6i)9S* mb'] iBiusiuuojiAug `jaqjeg (1 Iff Aa|pui.{ y ?C. . - iuoojjb l ihui uaqei m| iouue.1 Apuajedde Aiqiqiseaj ;/>uuouua pue |eaiuq.ia|x| `isoa ui pjeSaj inoqiiM sqtij sooijas aiqissud uieu miqj itqi pjepueis jaiimioju A|i|Siq e |)i oi v,|3 uJJip OI sjeadde z 11 |ooipjS)m) (HbllVlS UtS *=ld ^ M*T :uo3wjj |t`iU3UiuojiAug 'qao|jej. V V jaqjapuepq f| 'UOSJJpUV .! !(,,|R|U3p|JJC eb Abmb paiiie|tlxj ji| oi snoiAqo ooi si spjepueis ASoptuqiai put spjepueis qqvaq uaaMiaq j.iujjj|jip aqi `|aimeis aqi oiui suope -JjpiSUOJ |SOJ 8uipt!JJ Ul| SJI|J34|!| MIS -sjjkj uaqei seq Vd'J 9H' `|2l l u!l >umj .it* unit uaqei x| oi sism pjMuqe mvi| oi iq8nii ssjjUuo;) apqM..) (>801) 06"t sisApru y pin; mb'] lejapag juopnqny jiy jijjn;) (| aaj- -spjepueis uoissuua iiibi n||IKi COopjBZBi| 41 I JO lUJUiqSqqCISa 3IJ| Ul A|I|IC|ISVJJ JIUIUUOJJ pUB |UJ|8o| -0111)131 ftoijapiSUOJ UIOJJ JOIBJISIUIIlipy jqi U31l1|H|OJci SS3j8||I;3 |BI|) sjajSe uoii -SJUll 3l|| 3UIIUBKJ oi JOIKIUJIUIUO* Aj3A3 ^lleM|J!A JU"|B M3IA XlU IOU SI Sjl| L py sip j)|iun ?|(|tssiui JMtuil 5RM pJBpUBIS 46| Jqi MBJ|II|IIM OI uoispjp SII ui XM|iqise3j .iiujuuou pu |b.m9o|oui|.>3| jo uoiien|BAs siy,|'.| irqi jbj|. XpiiBpunqB |Biu `jpsii z 11 J" 2Jni -,mjis |eiiJ9iui aqi se ||jm sk `jpiqM.e sk MV jiy ubjjo jqi uiqiiM j| | jo J|u aqj. My Jiy uu3|-.) aqi japun suojiBJjpisuoj Xiqiqoejj .iiuioiiojj pur |iMi8o|ouq.ui jo j:>C|d jIoj<I jqi Huissajppu mi:| |o A|hk| 1iijiji|o> A|qt>| iiruij i t* UJ.iq si-q |L'i|At sj|ppiiiu uoi|iriaJ>|jJ|Ui s tiiJulrui jq | <SH6I) IBZt '*!AcV O'K Sill '</ I it (/ S' 'RMH/^V ) l)8E '0`IKE ID S 901 um;vp;) uwjiniuy >i uiip i'ui/oy q uv<Jv{$ ||3M sb 'X|i|iqisBai jo uonejapisuoj upnpjjd XpAiiduinsaju 'Ajrjiuoj aqi oi ajuapiAa Suujis luasqe 'll i XM|iquejj JO uoilBJJpisuoj tpiqjoj 601S leqi ja||BJB(l X|JK3|3 os si suoiuas omi jqi ui aaen8uB| aqi `jaAuajcipq *60l japun sisixa utt|l suoiicjapisuoo Aiijiqis eaj isuie^e seiq J8uojis UM3 ub aiBJipui oi suiaas jombj a|8u;s b uo snaoj siqi *8u;qi Auk J] qiisraq 3l|qiul aqi -- uoilBJapls -uo3 jadojtl auo A|uo stsif | | `Ajbjiuoj aqi uo S9sea|d aq jopij Aub japisuoj OI JOIBJISJUlUipy 3I|| SMO||B 2|| UB3UI lou saop ist| pafiBiap b jo ajuasqs aqi my joiBJisiuiuipy aqi Aq pasn a<| oi bijsiijj jo ist| e uieiuoa iou saop || '601$ a>|i|un 'paiuejo '6UI$ S3>>P ueM' ,J0,U uu UOIIBJjpiSUOJ aiqissiuiJM B SB All|l<| isBsj suoiiuaui 411 uo)|.is 71 | puiqaq luaUii aqi uiojj 60l u! >u>'u! |euoissaj8 ^Mfe^fsinbuiisip iou saop it `anji A|uieuaa ifsiqt a|;q\\ 1C ib do lepq isq qjns uu suibiuo.) 4| | SBajaqM `A|i||(|iseaj uoii -uaui oi s|iej A||BJijna<is pus 'spjepuBis Aiqrnb jib tuaiquiB Suiuas ui pajapituai aq oi bijjiijj oi uj)J A|ipi|dxa 60l leqi mu siuuid AiijoTbui aqi 'peaisu] JC'Ot ib do lejq ii uiB|dxa oi S|(Bj mq 'jjbj siqi oi !>.>uaJ>jJ sa^eiu AiijuIbui qx (My jiy uea|^> aqi jo suoisiAOid asaqi ui ..aienbape,, ueqi joui si laJ|duiBal leqiSuiiou) (8/.6I J'O O U) 18 '29 PZ'd 86S 'Vd'i 11 Pun.1 *su*f*(l Jbuujuojmu3 d)(q)6ml `(i)(s)ziaIS 'o s n z* ajKS jo uiSjkui }onbjpDlt a8BnSuE| s,60l uBqi ijijis jjouj aq oi aaej *|i uo SJBadde l(qqeaq aqqrwi aqi v*aiojd o> Amjbs jo ut8 -jbui apiujB ue apiAiud )uaui8pnf siq ui,, qjgqM suoiiejnSaj qsi|qBisa ui joibjisuiiu py aqi 8ui|jajip a8tn8iie| s,4||9 `mbj u] suikic\|)ikI snujaSusp ssa{ jo uuiie|n8aj aqi ui paMO||K s; aq ueqi snojaSuep A|q9iq se paziu9o.>aj A||iai|dxa ssajSuoy s|UB|n| | V -|od joj spjepueis jo luaujqsqqeisa aqi ui apniipq Jaieai8 JoiBJisiuiuipy aqi Moye oi asuas ou saijcui i| -spjepueis Aiijenb jib loaiquie 8u;nas ui AiqiqisBaj jiuiou oaa pun |eai8o|ouqaai Suuapisuoa uiojj joiejisiuiuipy aqi apnpajd oi Qll Puv `601$ `801$ PB3J Apuaisisuoa aAeq sunoa aqi 'jam|R patou sy j|| Japun sjojiuo.) uo;ss;uia aiiuein||o<l jib tnopjezeq,, pue uy jiy UKai;) aqi jd ()|l*80l$ jaPun spjvpiiKis Aiqenb jib luaiquie |BUo|ieu paqsqquisa ssaj8uo;j iuaiu aAi|R|ti8j| * Ajkjiuo.i jo suoiiB.iipui Muojis asaqi qiim ujaj pua iou saop uoiiHiajdjaiut s,Aiua8e aqi isoir8b aioapiAj jejnl-injis aqi iny spji-puns uoivsiuia iuirm||od snopjBZBq 8iMqsi|qi'iva ui Aiqiipsoai Miuouou pun |K)i8o[*>uqij| japisuo.i oi uoqajjsip joi in i un'j sz k/.v 081-81-00 ASH BJisiumipy aqi Auap Ajjeap 41| $ i(> Pu* l.iy aqi jo jjniHuis aqi "uoqs u| (446I) 104 *S89 'IS* 16 `S6*S6 "N| 'I `I'M ;(l)(a)Zlfr4S :)STI ZP Ajessa.auun uaaq aAeq p|tii>M siuBiiqjwl jo sadAi auios joj spjepuBis 10 Aii|i(|isBaj aqi jjao siuaj -uoj jBUDissaJBuoa 'uoqBjaptsuoa a|qissuu jad e A||Bjaua9 ajaM AiqiqisBaj j| -446I ui uy aq> 01 Htauipuaiue ub se (1 )(*)411$ pai.ieua 11 uaqM uoiiejapisuoj a|qissiuijad v iou sbm AiqiqisBaj paAai|a| aAeq isniu ssajSuo^j 'A|je|iiuis (ia JO|BJ|siutujpy aqi ui isanhaj jaAiBM e ui si (411 japun) A80 |ouq.iai pue saiuiouoaa anSje 01 saajnos Suiisixa joj uoiseaao aq 1 ,,) (446I) 444 mb'] |eiuauiuojiAug `sjaapoy mj1 -sauisnpui Aiunaas (euoiieu joj amieis aqi ui umiuuiaxa A8o|uuq.iai a|(|e|jBAB tsaq,, leiaads b a.ie|(i ui uoseaj a|iiq peq aAeq P|iiom ssajSooj `suasse yjg se `paja -pisuoj aq sAbm|b p|noa ASopmqjai apje |ibab isaq i| (|)(a)411$ josuoisiAOjd moj jbu aqi stfaisapis pue jaAaieijM 8uiueaui Aue jo (4)(J)411 sqoj uoiijb siqx -pjeoq aqi ssujae pjRpueis uuis e jo jaAtBM aqt Ajusnl 01 pasn si A8ojouqaai a|qepeAe jo qaej aq L <|)(a)4j($ is apjjiqqa (Auia joj pjepueis uoissiuia ue laaajojua jo aqujsajd 01 a|q;seaj iou si |i,, teqi punoj Aju8b aqi seq jon (4)(a)4| |$ aay -A8o|ouqaai jo qaej 01 anp pjepueis uoit siuia aqi aAaiqae 01 ajqeun si teqi Aiun.ias (euoiieu 01 le-iiiiJ.) aajnos e 01 luauiaajoj -ua jo jjaibm jeaA-OMi e 8uiiiibj8 Apjaiu iou si A.ua8i! aqj. OS 'bP `9P Vf `( |i l) 9811 `('l00 PC ` I**3 *!) 811 ( p PC ` l0` * I) *811 e 8j>l PJ 05 Apjiiua UMBJpqiiM a<| isnui pjepueis pasodojd aqi `pjepueis mijis e qans iuauia|dui; 01 aiy -jns iou ||im A8o|nuii.iai a|qe|iBAB asne.iaq `leqi saieis Ajpaieaclaj Aaua^e aqi suop KjnSaj 446I pasodojd aqi SuiMBjpqiiM a.uiou i,H6l SM "I pjepueis ap<jo|qa |Auia aqi jo luauneaJi sq ui suoiidaaxa 411 $ omi aqi jo jaqita puoAaij Jej auo8 seq A.uiaSe aqi `auiaq.is siqi jo Aiijep aqi audsaf| siueinj|od snopjpzeq joj spjepueis 8uinas ui sjoi.iej (///>(/ japismu Ajuo Abui joibji siuiuipy aqi ieqi 411$ jo pueuiuioa mmis asiMjaqio aqi 01 suoiidaaxa mojjbu ino las suoisiAOid omi aqj Aiqiqiseaj japisuoa 01 joiKJisiuiiupy aqi mo||b iou saop apiijM e se uoinas aqt ssapm asuas a|iiq saqeiu siioipjsqus omi asaqi jo ajuaisixj aq | (pappu siseqiluia) (4)(.)ZI^4 \YS fl ZP a Aiiu> >.w (buiummi jo suoseaj joj pajinhaj si aunos q.ms jo uoiieiado aqi puv a|i|e -|irae iou si spjepueis qtns luaiuajduii <n A8<qoui|>ai aqi 11-qi spui| aq ji,, pjepiieis iiienqpKl siiojuezeq e jo luauiauojua <4)(a) ZIU J V(1 ZP SUUI|C||UJ| aiujouo.ta jo |i!.Mn><| -oui|oi 01 aup,, |qcjiMBjduii si A8<qop<iqiaiu luaoijjnteaui (g) jo a|qe|iBAB hju aje saoluu -q.ui {OJtlKtj (y) qaiqiM, u suuiitnus apiquu 01 alpjepUBis tuoistiuia ue a.uiqua jo a|ij.ivai)l 01 aiqiseaj n>u,, sauajap ()(a)4|| ouiios, iuojj sjaAiBM jeaA-oMi saajnos Ajbuoiibis iubj8 01 luapisajy aqi sMiq|e (4)(a)4|| `ApueiJoduii ajopq ,(|)(J>4U45 OS H ZP ,,'luBinuod jib snopjezeq e ju |ojiuo> joj pjepueis uoissiuia ue aajojua ju aajij.jt ajJ at aiqiseaj uiu si |i,, uaqM .joajjqi uoiieuiquioj jo 'pjepueis jeuoaiejaalo jo 'aai|>Ejd qjoM `luauutinba 'u9isap,, e aie8|nuiojd 01 uoiiajasip juiejisiuiiupy aqi saAiS (a)4|| uoiiaas 'saaueituinaji.i /wWi uieuaa japun Aiqiqgseaj |b>i8o|oii qaai jo uopejaptsuoa joj Mope ieqi suop -jasqns omi su;biuim j|jsii j j | qaej uj AC'U bP9 PZ d LP9 'taupupu/ j-w/ -(2861) JUa5 O S a ZP uoiieuHUjaiap siqi 8uiqeui ui Aiqiqiseaj aiuiouo.Va pue |eai8o|Ouqaai jo uopejaptsuoa suoisiauj Aynj pue 'a|qe|ieAe A8o|ouqaai isac| aqi uo saajnos uoiin||od Ajbuoiibis mju joj aaueujjojjad jo spjepueis aseq 01 joibji siuiuipy aqi siaajfp Apiaiplxa `a|duiexa joj '(ii uopaas -os Abs oi Moq Mauq i 'suoisiaap saJOiBJ|t;uiujpy aqi ui aoiaej e aq 01 Aii|iqisea) paiuem ssajBuo') uaqjyy Aiqiqtseaj aiuiuuoaa pue ieji9o|nuqjai jo uoi|en[BAa mo|[b A|iMl|dxa ieqi uy aqi jo suoisiAojd jaqiu qiiM paswieixiij uaqM iubjijiu9is Ajtmnujoua si 'jia)mih| 'suopaas asaqi jo Aue ui sjoiaej Aiqiqisraj tajejquia ieqi a9en8ue| jo aauasqe aq j -tuopejapisuoi Aiqiqiseaj uopuaui |ou pip' tuiliiiu;) (D(*i) zik :>s n zp ->!nnd aqi Maiojd 01 Aiajrs jo uiVjbui apiuie ue sapiAiud iuaui9pnf siq ui qaujM jaAaj aqi ie pjepueis qjns Aue qsi|qeisaal 01 joi -Rjtsiuiuipv aqi siaajip Apjaui pue 'siuei -n||od snopjezeq Ajje|nai|jed jo uiapjo.ul aqi sassajppe Z|| uo.uas 4I>4$ S 11 ZP Zl 1$ M3IA3J japun uoisiaojiI aqi saop jaquajg A|iiai|dxa os saop suoit.ias aajqi aqi jo auou qjjf pue w,j h,,| ii; JB3|j si spjepueis Aiqenb jik jo tuauiqsq qeisa aqi ui Aiqppsejj jo liopejapisuoa Jeq o| Ssjj8uu;) jo (uaiui aqi q8noi|i|y 992 `HS-452 IB S R LZP spjepueis Aipenb iie luapiuie aieis 8in MaiAjj uaqM Aiqiqiseaj |eji8op>uqjj| pue aiuiuuoaa japisuoa m JoiBJisiuiuipy y,j'.| aqi mo||b |uu saop (4)(e)oi l$ ieqi p|aq seq jpsu uno'3 auiajdnq aq j. (4H6I) <2>(BHUA$ :xs* n ZP qiii Auiupseaj aiuiouoaa jo |e>i8ojouq.>ai uopuaui iou K./.v 22 m :)'i sr 2S I KC 1124 N/tnc EPA Regulating the ('hrinunl /mfuifry, 46 Law ami (lunifniji. Priili. I, 3(1 36 (Summer I 9H 3) ("LI'A rewrote die statute," EPA's ",i)|nMih is totally unjustified" and "imiM.illy implausible," El'A's interpre tation is "dead wrong") Even a General A*iminting Ollite rr|>n "finds liille sup* |m>ii for 1,1'A'* |xisilioii," and comments ili.it I'.PA seems to lie "at odds with seclion 112." Conipir Gen. of the US., Orl.iys in LPA'* Regulation of Hazard ous Air Pollutants 44. SI (1983). And in J/. U N/n. /m v EPA. 598 F 2d 91 (D C. <Ui I*>7K>. this Murt itself stated in dicta ili.it "I a ingress mailed section 112 * willumi provision for constrict atinns of Ir.isihiliiy" hi. at I 12. I Hivioosly, none <if these comments has any hvuhng rflni on this rourt. We are lice to ignore them if we wish, and the majority lias done so. Nevertheless, the niiiinieni.ilors* unanimity on the meaning I 112 is a (Miwerful indication of the clarity id Congress' intent on this issue. I lespite the majority's attempt to show otherwise, < amgress made 1 12 an unam biguously health-based standard. We need not consider ihe legislative history of the provision in any great detail, nor need ve tnnsider whether EPA's interprcialion is "rrasonable" utKler the second tier of the Chevron deference test Our only duty is lo vindicate the dear intention of Cmigicss Hut even if some ambiguity actually surrounded 112, the EPA's construction of that set lion still should lie invalidated. II Congress had no dear intent on a pan it olar question, and did not explicitly delegate the interpretation lo the agency - as the majority claims is the case here this court has specifically held that a |*tn inner need only show that the agenty's interpretation of the statute is unteantnahU- or tmpenomi6fr in order to prevail. Stair nf Montana v (.Varik, 749 F.2d 740 74SJ2I LRC 2(K>0j(D C Cir 1984),cert, tit tiled, 106 S.Ct 246 (1985); American (etmeiin .Sixir/y v. Ilnhltige, 768 F.2d 426, 433 (IMV Cir. 1985), overfulfil on other gnntrup %nt> man. Japan Whaling An'n v. .Imciiooi (\ imean Surirl?, 106 S.Ct. 2860 11986): Chevron, 467 U S. at 843-44. Giveit the strut lure of the Clean Air Act and the t-xisirntc of closely parallel precedent mi other provisions within the Act, EPA's interpretation of 112 simply cannot stand as "permissible." II. HIE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Of SECTION 112 T he majority, confronted with the clar ity of t12 s language in light of the Clean Air Act's overall strurture, searches for ambiguity in the voluminous legislative history of the 1970 ('lean Air Act Amend ments. At the outset, it is important to note that the majority does not find that the legislative history dearly indicates the face of the statute is misleading and that Congress intended economic and techno logical feasibility to lie considered by the Administrator in setting 112 emission standards. If the legislative history clearly contradicted the language of the statute, perhaps the intent ol Congress could le- Jitimately be called "amBiguous," and hevron't ''reasonableness'' review of EPA's interpretation would become ap propriate. See 467 U.S. at 844. The ma jority, however, slops far short of this evaluation of the legislative history In deed, it finds that "fa/t most * * the legislative history of the 1970 Clean Air Amendments jis| ambiguous with respect to what the Administrator may consid er* " Maj. op. at 19 (emphasis added).1 The majority uses "ambiguous" legis lative history, therefore, lo indict a provi sion that is otherwise clear on its face. This is a contorted approach ttt statutory interpretation. The words of a statute are presumptively conclusive of legislative in tent. Slate of Montana, 749 F.2d at 747. Ambiguous legislative history alone can not overcome that presumption. The ma jority effectively suggests that judicial def erence in administrative agencies is due whenever any ambiguity can be found in the legislative history of a provision, re gardless of ambiguity or lack thereof in the actual language and structure of the statute. This approach comes perilously close tu establishing an absolute rule of judicial deference tu agency interpreta tions. Virtually all legislative histories of 'Similarly, the majority discusses whether Congress implicitly ratified EPA's consider ation of technological and economic feasibility in its 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, and concludes that the history of the 1977 amendments "is far short of legislative ratifica tion of the EPA's construction " Maj. op 24. Although this evaluation seems reasonable, it does not obscure the clear congressional intent that underlies 112, and certainly does not make the language and structure of the Act ambiguous. at om *ve ten five .nc ued ng /SI ales *on- i as ( 14 es tori157 .tedy rites. RSV 0018131 NRDC v. EPA 25 fcRC 1125 any size are plagued with some degree of contradiction and ambiguity. The major ity would impose upon Congress a duty to be dear that goes far beyond what that body, or any human drafter, could possi bly hope tu achieve on a consistent basis in an age of complex statutory schemes In our caution nm to rob the Executive Branch of its proper role in the constitu tional system, we must lie extremely care ful not lo deprive Congress of cITeclivc legislative control over agency action. In any event, the legislative history is not ambiguous. On the contrary, the his tory of 112 sup|xins its otherwise clear meaning Section 112 had its origins in 115 of the Senate hill S. 4358 and I 12 of House bill H R 17255. The Senate bill contained si if T provisions that prohibited non-threshold hazardous pollutants, that is, hazardous pollutants for which no safe level of exposure exists. Only health fac tors were to be considered. See S. 4358, 91s( Cons., 2d Sess. 6(h), 1 16 Cong. Rec. 32375 (19711). The House hill, in contrast, explicitly called for consideratinn of feasibility in setting emission standards (or all new sources of hazardous pollutants. The House version did not attempt to handle existing sources. See H R 17255, 9) st Cong , 2d Sess 5(a), 116 Cong. Rec 19225-26 (1970) The conference committee arrived at a com promise between the two versions, and it is that compromise that is at issue here. First of all, the final version of 112 dearly resembles the Senate bill. Like the Senate bill, 112 regulates all emissions, not simply those from new sourres. Like the Senate hill, the final version dives not include a provision that would give the Administrator broad discretion to grant exceptions from emissions standards. The I louse bill contained such a provision. See II.R. 17255, 9lst Coi>., 2d Sess. 5 (1970). The majority denies that the simi larity between tne Senate bill and the final Ai t says anything as to whether Congress intended to allow the Administrator to consider economic and icchnologira) feasi bility in setting the standards. Maj. op. at 16-17. This overstates the case. If the final bill more closely resembles the Sen ate bill, then that fact should he taken at fare value. T he Senate version seems to have substantially prevailed in the confer ence committee deliberations. As the Sen ate version forbade consideration of feasi bility, we ran draw the cautious inference, absent evidence to the contrary, that the final hill does so as well. It would be odd to discover a "rule" of statutory construc tion that indicated that final hills resem bling the version nf one house are to Ite evaluated according in the legislative his tory of the other house's version. T his analysis alone, however, does not illuminate every dim corner of the com promise reached between I lousr and Sen ate on 112. Conceivably, the I louse con ferees allowed the Senate in retain its regulation of all sources, both new and existing, in exchange (hr an implicit agreement to allow the Administrator to consider feasibility in setting emission standards. The insertion of the language "ample margin of safety" into the final provision weakly supports this hyjutihrsis, though it is important to reemphasize that this language on its fare speaks only to health considerations, and conspicuous ly fails to make any mention of feasibility, .fee Conference Report, li R , Rep. No. 1783, 91 si Cong., 2d Sess. 195-96 (197(f), But the conference committee added other language to 112 as well. T he com mittee. after wrangling over the scope of the regulation and Ihe precise language of the command to the Administrator, made a point of inserting 112(c), the presiden tial waiver provision. See Conference Re port, H R. Ret) No 1783, 9jJ st Cong , 2d Sess. 197 (197(1). This, it setnis lo me. is the heart of the compromise between House and Senate. The waiver provision, as previously noted, see pages (J-7 supra, allows for tem|xtrary waiver nf {mission standards if available technology cannot implement the standards at a source of im|K)rtance lo national security. This pro-, vision is unnecessary, unless the "ampler margin of safely" language otherwise hat s consideration of available technology The conference conuniiiee added ImhIi pieces of language at approximately the same time, a fact that makes it ditlinili to believe the committee was unaware ol the interaction nf the two phrases. Given the resemblance of the final hill to the Senate bill, and the failfy clear evidence of the nature of the compromise between the two houses of Congress pro vided by the changes made in conference, the legislative history tips toward peti tioner*^ position. As noted above, how ever, it is far from dear that even an ambiguous legislative history would re quire us to find for respondents. On the contrary, petitioner's position is amply supported by the fare of the statute, which makes resort to the legislative history a subsidiary endeavor. In any event, how ever, the ambiguity the majority seeks in 25 I K( 112ft XHhCr KPA 2 can no more hr Inunri in its legisla tor liislixy than in its actual language III The Majority's "Uncrriainity" Rationale I n explain ns inlerencr of broad dis' ft him lor the Administrator to lonsiiler i'iihmiimh and technological feasibility un der (Jl 12, the majority relies heavily on what it rru.iriis as the inevitable discretion ol the l-l'A Administrator when fried with ``sdnuifii' tinieiuinty." In essence, the uiiijiiiiiy would rreate un "uncertain ty** ext rot inn In the "liealth-based" char acter of 112. The questions raised hy the majority** disrovery of this exception to the general rule that feasibility is not to Ire timsidered in areas where Congress has nm authorized such an approach, Amen, mu I c\tile Manufacturers institute i>. DnnoiTHt. 452 US 490, 510 (1981) (when Congress intends cost-benefit analysis m lie used, it says so); Union Klecinc, 427 US. at 257 n.S (same), are sufficiently im|Mrtani to warrant separate discussion. As a thieshold matter, the majority's i li.n.olrri/alion of F.PA's rationale lor withdrawing the proposed vinyl chloride standard is misleading. Throughout its opinion the majority attempts to narrow hl'A s |M>sitiou to n*ore tenable grounds hy limiting LPA's claims to the special "oinmainly" question posed hy carcino gen regulation. KPA itself has not ftren so neat. In its notice of proposed regulation, in its briefs, and in us oral argument to this court, EPA never raises ihe"'srienli1ir uncertainty" problem in any significant manner And with good reason, because it is not El'A's position that only scieniilic uncertainty justifies consideration of fea sibility under $112. EPA argues that it may engage in rost-benefil analysis, in cluding consideration of technological and rtonomic feasibility, any time it promul gates regulations under $112. See SO Fed. Keg at IIH3, JA 47 (cost-lienelit analysis used to arrive at vinyl chloride standard, lrt a use elimination of risk would require ptohibition of emissions); Brief of Rcs|Mindcnis at 12-14. EPA`s expansive |Misi(ion on its discre tion in consider feasibility Hows in part, ihmIiiuIii, front the fact that the uncertain ty as to vinyl chloride's low-rnnrenlration health elicits seems relatively small. .See SOFed Keg at IIB2, JA 4b. In fact, EPA lias decided to a substantial tiegree of certain ly that the numlier of lives saved by regu lation I ittow the level of the 1976 stall- datds would not lie justified hy the costs of suih regulation. Id (setting out specific, though esiimaird, figures on risk) As a consequence, the majority's attempt to distinguish Iretween "apparent lionthreshold toxics" and "non-fhrrshohl tox ics" is rather odd. Maj. tip at 2S-2t> n.7. EPA does not hxus on any such distinc tion. On the contrary, EPA explicitly rec ognizes that "any atmospheric concentra tion of VC poses some public health risk." 50 Fed. Reg. at I 183. J A 47;cimt/xire maj. op. at 24-25 (EPA nu refusing in regulate known health risk). In other words. F,PA recognizes that vinyl chloride is ellrrtively a non-threshold pollutant.' EPA's deci sion to withdraw its promised regulations did nut spring from concern over uncer tainly. but rather rested on the determina tion that the costs of regulation exceeded its benefits. When Congress enacted $112 of the Clean Air Act as a health-hased provision, it forbade the use of precisely this rationale. * The majority, not surprisingly, denies this, and insists that EPA has made a of distinguishing between "apparent nnn- thrcshnld" |Mllutanis and ''nun-threshold'' pollutants. Maj. op at 25-26 n.7. I agree with the majority that such a distinction can lie made as an intellectual matter. I do mil see, however, that EPA has rested its deiision in this rase on any such distinction. On the mn- trary, ETA none fjearly stales that it tielievrs vinyl chloride, for all practical purposes, is always hazardous, even though it concedes that at some very low level of exposure adverse health efrens might not accrue. Moreover, it seems to me that the majority's distintiion is one without a difference Science may never be able to prove dcfiniiivrly that any given |xilhi- lant is harmless at some low ronivntralion. See text at 2U infra; maj. op. at (5. To do so would be to prove a negative. See, eg., Ktbyl Curb. i E/'d.HI F.2d I, 25 n.52 |fl ERC ms| (|>.f:. rir. 1975) (en bancf.terl denied, 426 II.S. 94 | (1976) (ultimately nil scientific "fart" is uncer tain at some level). Thus, if we adhere to the majority's definitions of "apparent non- threshohi" |>lluiani and "non-threshold" |mI- lutant. we soon discover that the srrmul the ory is an empty set As a conseapieme, the mini lion lieiween the two does not nOVr any particular insight into EPA's approach to vi nyl chloride regulation nr. more int|xui.oilly, into Congress' intent on non-threshold |h>Hu- tanl regulation. On the contrary, it tends m oliscure the otherwise obvious Ian that KPA lias decided, with only a very small degree of uncertainly, ilui ihe cnxis of this regulation exceed its Ireneliis As KPA is conltdcni enough to make decisions on the assumption that vinyl t Idoridr is for all prac tical purpnsr* a non-lhrrslmld jmlbilanl, we should not hesi tate to do so as well. < \ ij i f '*y RSV 0018132 NllhCKPA 25 ERC 1127 The majority argues that the wnrd "judgment' in $112(b)(1) implicitly granls the Administrator discretion to consider feasibility in setting emissions standards when the level of harms from pollutant exfxrsurc is uncertain. Maj. op. 12-13. If health were the only factor to he considered, the majority submits, the stat ute would effectively require that the Ad ministrator ban outright any emissions of pollutants with no sale level of emissions, that is, any "non-threshold" pollutants. If this were the case the Administrator could make only one decision, his discretion would disappear, and the word "judg ment'' would have no meaning. This would also lie true, says the majority, if any uncertainty whatever existed as to the health risks posed by a pollutant. Three responses to this line of reasoning come to mind. I will explain each in turn. First, "no-threhold" pollutants are not the only pollutants 112 regulates. A substantial part or the Administrator's "judgment" lies in classifying pollutants as threshold or non-threshold, and in establishing spe cific threshold levels. Second, the Admin istrator has some discretion to refuse to regulate "insignificant'' health risks. Ftnally, this court has no authority to allow the agency to ignore clear congressional commands, regardless of our opinion of their wisdom. Congress did not enact $112(b)(1) to regulate "non-ihreshuld" pollutants alone. The Senate report explicitly ad verted to "threshold" pollutants, that is, pollutants safe at some low level of emis sions, in its explanation or the scope of the Administrator's discretion. If the Admin istrator found "that a greater than zero emission |of a hazardous pollutant] could be permitted without presenting a hazard to health," he would be free not to prohib it emissions of that pollutant. S. Rep. No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 20 (1970). Senator Muskie, reflecting back on the legislative process, has said that the Act is based on the assumption that thresholds of safety exist for some hazardous pollu tants. See Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Comm, on Environment and Public Works (pi. 3), 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1977). Despite the majority's assertions to the contrary, therefore, the word "judgment" simply does not require a technological and economic feasibility overlay to make sense in this provision. The term "judg ment" in 112(b)(1) gives the Adminis- tramr discretion to determine the exis tence and level of "thresholds" for various pollutants, consistent with the public health. See l*ad Industries, 647 F.2d at 1152 (F)PA position stresses that Admin istrator's "judgment" regards scieniilic anti technical questions). It does not gram discretion to make wide-open evaluations of technological and economic feasibility. The existence of uncertainly in the deter mination of threshold levels not only fails to undercut this interpretation or congres sional intent, hut actually supftnrls itCongress was aware that safe emissions levels might always be scientifically tincertain to some extent, and therefore gave ihe Administrator discretion to make the final determination of the threshold levels of various pollutants by evaluating exist ing scientific evidence. Id. at 1 152-53. The majority worries that interpreta tions of $ 112 that do not allow for consid erations of feasibility might require the EPA to prohibit all emissions of nonthreshold jjollutants. This could lead, says the majority, to the elimination of eniire industries for the sake of negligible and uncertain improvements in the public health, 'f he majority's picture of the cala mities that could befall tlitj nation if this court o!>eys the will of Congress is greatly exaggerated. Though the statute might I* read to ban emissions of mm-threshold pollutants in every case, I atn urtconvint ed that this would be proper. Cmtgfess dear ly hanned consideration of feasibility cin der $112, but it did not clearly require in absolute ban on non-threshold pnlluiapt emissions. At times EPA may in factlje bound for health reasons to ban outright all emissions of a given non-threshold pollutant. But it is well established that agencies have some limbed discretion to refuse to regulate "insignificant" harms. In Alabama Power Co. v. CostU, 636 F.2d 323|I3 ERC 1993] (D C Cir 1979), for example. Judge l^evrnthal noted that "jejourts should be reluctant to apply the literal terms of a statute to mandate [Horn less expenditures of effort," id. at 360, and that "there is likely a basis for an implica tion of de minimis authority to provide exemption when the burdens of regula tion yield a gain of trivial or no value." Id at 360-61; see also hthyl Corfi. n. KPA, F'.2il I, 13-14 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (en bane), >ei(. dented, 426 U S. 941 (1976) If. in Hie judgment of the Administrator, health harms from some low level of emissions arc trivial nr nonexistent, 112 <|iv$ not require a ban. 2S LKC 1128 nmh:,' f.pa l)ut that is ni ik situation presented lay lliit tasf Discretion in allow ^dc mini mit" emissions of toxic |xdlulauts if harm if a the public health would lie truly insig nificant is a far rry from the EPA's * I.timed discretion 10 examine let Imoloaic.il and economic feasibility under all etctumstaiues, or from the majority's atIrnifM In give EI*A license lo consider feasibility tai lors in the face of any scien tific uncertainty whatever. The majority highlights just how sweeping an approach it lakes by slating that even if "the area of uni mainly (of harms associated with a toxit |, as with vinyl chloride, rovers all mm*zero levels of emission!, that | does not alter nor cuntlusion |that cosi-bencnt analysis can be applied when any uncer tainty exists) " Maj op. at 25. Trivial and insignifiranl harms arc not the only harms encompassed hy this language. Finally, even if the statute did require an outright han on non-threshold pollu tant emissions, this court should not set uImiuI "correcting" perceived deficiencies in that policy. If Congress has made the decision to impose such costs on society, that is the prerogative of Congress. The Supreme Court made this absolutely clear not long ago, in a situation in some res|>ri is not very different from that before us today. See TVA o //iff, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978). Though we owe the agency here substantial deference, ter Chevron, 467 U S. at 844, that deference pales by comparison with that we owe Congress. Congress has sjNiktn dearly in $112, and we must oley ns command. The extent to which the majority's grant of wide discretion lo the EPA lo tnnsitler feasibility in (he face of "uncer tainty" is at loggerheads with congres sional intent liecnmes even mitre dear if we consider the practical effect of this exception. As has become all loo apparent in the last fifteen years, the degree of risk |xsrt by carcinogens is virtually always a matter of some uncertainty. See, eg.. In iluUnal Union Dep't, AH.-CIO v. American Petroleum hntilute, 448 U.S. 607, 613 (1980). The majority itself recognizes this Ian admitting that science may never eliminate uncertainly in the evaluation of carcinogenic risk. Maj. np. at 13. The existence of a hazard may be absolutely dear, as in the present case but the magni tude of that hazard is likely tu be imprecise. Many of the pollutants regulated under $112, or king considered lur regulation under that section, are carcinogens. Contptr. (irn. of the U.S., Delays in El'A't Regulation of Hazardous Air Pol lutants 8- 11 (1983); Summary of Data on Sepcifir Pollutants and Cancer Risk Esti- males Excerpted from F.PA Draft Study, 15 Env't Rep. (UNA) 616, 616-18 (Aug. 10, 1981). Asa consequence, if the major ity's interpretation of $11 2 prevails, many jtoHiitants regulated under this provision will be regulated under a "technologybased" feasibility standard. Tltis would be perverse. Granted, Congress may not have realized the full extent lo which carcinogenic risk is subject to intrinsic uncertainty. Nevertheless, Congress was clearly aware that some toxics pose a danger to health at any concentration, requiring the strictest regulation without regard to cost, even if the extent of that danger might be unclear at the third derimal point. See 116 Cons. Rec. |609| (1970) (comments of Sen, Muskie). Con gress did not include any language what ever that indicates it embraced a broad "uncertainly" exception of the sort pro posed by the majority. After all, the judg ment of the Administrator under 112 is judgment as lo an "ample margin nf safely necessary to protect the public health/' not judgment as In "a reasonable degree of safety in light or the availability of tech nology ana the costs to be imposed on industry." Moreover, the majority's willingness lo allow for consideration of feasibility if harms are uncertain runs afoul of its own logic. The majority feels that if the exact scope of harm from a hazardous pollutant is not certain, even though the existence of harm may be clear, then "such consider ations as technological and economic fea sibility seem natural." Maj. op. at 26. EPA should be allowed to weigh these, factors against the harms caused hy the toxic, argues the majority. If the harms that stem from emission of a hazardous pollutant are uncertain, however, how can they k "weighed" against technologi cal and economic feasibility? The major ity proposes an exception to Congress* ban on cost-benefit analysis under $112 that covers precisely the circumstance where cost-benefit analysis is of no real assistance In the Administrator. Let us be clear about what the majority would do: Discretion to weigh cost and technology against uncertain levels of harm -- even though these harms may Itc certain at mine level -- is broad discretion not to regulate low-level hazardous pollutants at all. Without solid statistics for harm, the costs of regulation will always dominate the equation Perhaps this approach can be e' g \ I { | NMX'v. Thumat RSV 0018133 25 ERC 1129 justified if Congress has explicitly used the language of "reasonableness," ter. e g , Indmtrial Union Department, 448 U.S. at 642, but it is hardly acceptable if Con gress has gone to considerable lengths to avoid suth language, as in the case before us III. Conclusion This court should not read the Supreme Court's Chevron opinion and general prin ciples of administrative law to allow the insertion uf rost-ltenefii analysis or its equivalent into every statute where Con gress makes any technical delegation to an agency It is the legislature's right, and at limes its duly, to vindicate public values even if they are not cost-justified. See. e g , TVAn. Ihll, 437 U.S. at I94-9S; Kelman. An Ethical Cnlit/ue of Coil-Benefit Analysn, 1981 Regulation 33 (Jan./Feb.). In $112 of the Clean Air Act Congress sought to make "the hard choices" necessary tu im prove our air quality and to eliminate liazardnus pollutants from our air. Union Electric, 427 U.S. at 457. Congress refused in compromise on matters of public health, and denied the EPA Administra tor the discretion to consider technological anil economic feasibility in selling hazard ous pollutant emissions standards. Simply Itecausc the majority feels lack of compro mise is unreasonable docs not mean the court should enforce its own conceptions of proper policy. TVA o ffi/f, 437 U.S. at IBS (` It is not for us to speculate, must less act, on whether Congress would have altered its stance had the specific events of this case Itern anticipated ). This analysis is in no way at odds with the Chevron decision. The Supreme Court has directed the lower federal courts to consider the reasonableness of an agency's interpretation of a statute carefully and deferentially if the intent of Congress on the issue is not clear. 467 U.S. at 844 As I have argued alxwe, 112 is as devoid of ambiguity on the permissibility of costbenefit analysis, given the overall struc ture of the Clean Air Act, as any statutory provision probably could be. Bui even accepting, for the sake of argument, the majority s claim that $112 is somehow unclear, the agency here should still Itc directed to reconsider its decision. The "reasonableness" of an agency interpreta tion must be determined in light of the statutory scheme under examination. Id. at 845. (.7tenron\ "reasonableness" review tles not give the courts -- and agencies -- |xiwer to apply "laws" of eflinenty and cost-benefit optimality lo legislative schemes if the structure and history of those schemes indicate that Congress in tended otherwise. Congress did not enact the Clean Air Act in order (o reach a "reasonable" ac commodation between air free of hazard ous pollutants and economic consider ations. Congress moved with grim determination to clear the skies of these toxics, and imposed upon the country a jjolity of stringent "tecHnolugy-fordng" regulation as "a drastic remedy lo what was perceived as a serious and otherwise unrheckable problem of air pollution." Union Electric, 427 U-S. at 256; from i*. NBOC, 421 U.S. at 91. Today, in diluting the effectiveness of that remedy, this court ignores both the letter of the Act and the uncompromising spirit behind it. In refusing to read the clear intent of Congress in 112 of the Clean Air Act, the majority overemphasizes the Chevron def erence principle and effectively, converts the unambiguously "health-based" $112 into a "technology-based" provision. This metamorphosis not only contravenes con gressional intent but Hies in the fare of an entire line uf this court's precedent, as well as precedent of the Supreme Court. When Congress intended EPA to consider technological and economic Ifeasibility un der the Clean Air Act, it dearly stated that fact. I cannot agree with tfie major ity's refusal to overturn EPA's unjustified and unreasonable contrary (tosilinn, and therefore T| I respectfully dissent. NRDC v, THOMAS U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit Natural Resources Defense Council, ei al.. Petitioners, v. Lee M. Thomas, Ad ministrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al, Respondents, Engine Manufacturers Association, Motor Vehi cle Manufacturers Association, el al.. In ternational Harvester Company, People of the Slate of California, intrrvcnnrs. No. 85-1294; Engine Manufacturers As sociation on behalf of Caterpillar Tractor Nf.V ' : TM MONSANTO--WASHINGTON OFFICE DAVID S. J. BROWN /V RSV 0018134 Wednesday January 9, 1985 Part V -Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 ~ National Emission Standarga^for Hazardous Air Pollutaf^tsTvinyl Chloride; Proposed Rule and Notie"ef~Publlc Hearing RSV 0018135 1182 Federal Register / Vol 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 19BS / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 61 [ AD-fRL-2707-4) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Vinyl Chloride agency: Envoronmental Protection Agency (EPA). action: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing. summary: The current emission standard for vinyl chloride (VC) was promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in 1976. A review of the technological basis and administrative aspects of the standard has been completed, and the conclusions of the review are presented in this notice The conclusions are the basis for this action which (1) proposes administrative and clarifying revisions to the standard and (2) announces decisions pertaining to other aspects of the current standard. This notice also withdraws proposed revisions to the current standard which were published in the Federal Register on June 2.1977 (42 FR 28154). If requested, a public hearing will be held to provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed revisions to the current standard. dates: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 25.1965. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 30 1985. a public hearing will be held on February 26, 1985 beginning at 9:00 a-m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ms. Shelby Joumigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will occur. Request ta Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must contact EPA by January 30.1985. incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in these standards will be approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of the date of the final rule. addressee; Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible} to: Central Docket Section (A130). Attention Docket Number A-81-21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20460. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 30.1965. the public hearing will be held at EPA Auditorium. comer of Highway 54 and Alexander Drive. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina. Persona interested in attending the bearing should call Ms. Shelby Joumigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will occur. Persons wishing to present oral testimony should notify Ms. Shelby Joumigan. Standards Development Branch (MD-13J. U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone number (919) 541-5578. Background Information Document The general findings of the review study are documented in "Vinyl Chloride--A Review of National Emission Standards'*. EPA-450/3-62-003 (NTISPB 84-114354), available from the National Technical Information Service. 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia 22181. The major technical analysis for the review study is contained in a separate document which may be obtained from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to "Vinyl Chloride: Relief.Valve Discharge Standard." EPA-t50/3-85-002. for the technical document Docket. Docket No. A-61-21. containing supporting information used in developing the proposed standard, ia available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section. West Tower Lobby,"Gallery 1. Waterside Mall. 401M Street SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FUTHIR INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel or Mr. Leslie B. Evans. (919) 541-5671. concerning technical aspects of the industry and control technologies, and Mr. Fred Dimmick or Mr. Gilbert H. Wood. (919) 541-5578. concerning regulatory decisions. The address for these contacts is Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Revisions to Current Standard Revisions. Several administrative changes are being proposed as a result of a review of the national emission standard for VC. No major revisions are being proposed to the standard. As with the current standard for VC. the revisions are being established under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The significant administrative revisions include: (1) Reformatting the emiasion limit for relief valve discharges. (2) providing a compliance test procedure and a specific emission limit for operators who perform stripping operations in reactors, and (3) specifying requirements for leak detection and repair programs for certain equipment in VC service. Additional minor administrative changes to the standard are being proposed and are explained later in this premable. Summary ofHealth. Environmental. Energy, and Economic Impacts. Since no major revisions to the standard are being proposed, the impacts resulting from the current standard remain generally unchanged. In 1975. it was estimated that emissions of VC from plants producing ethylene dichloride (EDC). VC monomer and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) would be reduced from 96.000 Mg/yr to 4.910 Mg/yr under the . current standard, representing an emission reduction of 91.000 Mg/yr of VC (or 95 percent of VC emissions). Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and EDC are also reduced under the standard. The estimated risks attributed to exposure to VC from EDC/VC and PVC plants in operation prior to the current standard were S.5 cases per year for liver angiosarcoma and 11 cases per year for all cancers. The risks attributed to exposure to VC from sources under the current standard have been estimated to be 0.28 cases per year for liver angiosarcoma and 0.55 cases per year for all cancers. In 1975. the estimated capital cost for existing plants to meet the VC standard was S198 million, of which $15 million was for EDC and VC monomer plants and $183 million was for PVC plants. The EPA estimated that the annualized cost (including capital amortization, etc.) to these plants to maintain the required emission levels would be $70 million per year. Background The VC standard was proposed on December 24.1975 (40 Fr 59532). and promulgated on October 21.1978 (41 Fr 46559). It is applicable to plants producing EDC by the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene, plants producing VC by any process, and plants producting one or more polymers containing any fraction of VC. These plants are subject to different requirements at numerous VC emission points in the manufacturing process. These requirements include numerical emission limits, equipment specifications, and work practices. The standard was designed to minimize the health risks associated RSV 0018136 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1183 with VC by requiring reasonable control measures. As stated in the preamble to the proposed standard (40 Fr 59532. December 24.1975). there is no known threshold level of effects for VC. Therefore, the only approach that would eliminate health risks associated with VC would ban its production and use. This approach was not selected. Rather, an approach was selected to minimize the health risks associated with VC by use of reasonable control measure. 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. On March 24.1977, the EDF and the EPA moved to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of a settlement agreement requiring the EPA to propose amendments which would require increased efficiency of existing control equipment, require more stringent control of new sources, and prohibit increases in emissions within the vicinity of an existing source due to new construction. The preamble to the proposed amendments was to state that the EPA's policy for regulating carcinogens under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act would include a general goal of eliminating emissions of carcinogens and that the EPA would initiate a review of the VC standard 3 years after the promulgation of the amendments. On June 2.1977. the amendments were proposed (42 FR 26154). Many comments pertaining to policy, technological feasibility, and procedural aspects of the proposed amendments were-received. Review of these comments indicated that additional technical data and cost information were required before the proposed amendments, or revisions of the proposed amendments, could be promulgated. Meanwhile, the EDF filed a petition with the EPA requesting the establishment of a comprehensive program for regulating airborne carcinogens under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The aspects of the EDFs petition concerning the development of standards under Section 112 were similar to those proposed in the June 2. 1977. amendments to the VC standard. Based on the similarity of the proposed amendments and the EDFs requested comprehensive program for regulating airborne carcinogens, the EPA believed that it should not take final action on the proposed VC amendments until after it had acted on the EDFs petition. On October 10.1979 (44 FR 58642). die EPA proposed "Policy and Procedures for Identifying. Assessing, and Regulating Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer.** This proposal addressed several issues which were central to the proposed VC amendments. It slso articulated the EPA's conclusion that Section 112 does not express an intent loelitninste totally all risks from emissions of airborne carcinogens. The EPA's selection of the level of control for a hazardous air pollutant emission standard would not be based on a policy that requires zero emissions of carcinogens. This policy is consistent with the basis for other recent actions under Section 112. For example, standards for benzene from coke ovens and leaks from equipment components in benzene service ere not based on a zero emissions policy but rather on a reasonable level of control, which considers emissions and health risks. The EPA believes it is not appropriate to leave the proposed amendments to the VC standard in effect or to promulgate amendments based on the proposed amendments. Therefore, the June 2,1977. proposal is withdrawn. As described in the following section of this notice, the EPA began a review study to obtain additional technical data and cost information and to determie whether.other amendments to the standard are needed. New amendments developed as a result of the review study are proposed in this notice. Review of VC Standard Early in 1980 the EPA began a review of the VC standard. The primary purpose of the review was to investigate the adequacy and appropriateness of the standard in light of policy decisions, health studies, control technology* developments, and enforcement and compliance experience which have occurred since the standard was first promulgated. The review consisted of a screening study of: (1} Existing and new control technologies. (2) sources not regulated by the standard, and (3) enforcement and compliance experience since promulgation of the standard. Information and data evaluated during this study were obtained through literature searches, plant visits, and interviews with industrial representatives and EPA regional personnel involved in enforcement and surveillance of the VC-emitting industries. The information and data are presented in a document that may be obtained as described in the addresses section of this preamble. Decisions based on this review are summarized in the next two sections of this preamble. As another aspect of the review of the VC standard, the EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Croup reviewed new health studies that have become available since the standard was promulgated. This review included a study of the estimated carcinogenic strength of VC (the VC unit risk number) and focused on whether this number should be changed to reflect new informaton. Since the current standard was promulgated, new occupational studies have confirmed qualitatively that liver and brain cancer incidence are asociated with population exposure to atmospheric VC. However, none of these new studies have sufficient exposure information to warrant a refinement of the quantitative cancer risk estimate. Findings and Conclusions of the Review Study The findings and conclusions of the VC review study are presented is the following subsections. The first subsection discusses the need and basis for the current standard. The second subsection addresses the level of control required by the current standard. The third subsection identifies source categories not covered by the current standard and evaluates the appropriateness of regulating these sources. (1) Needand Basis for Current Standard The current VC standard was established based on judgments concerning the costs and benefits of the standard to society. The standard is not designed to eliminate VC exposure risk entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance between public health protection and the cost of that protection. Data (evaluated before the current standard was established) strongly indicate that VC causes or contributes to the development of angiosarcoma, other cancers, and various nonearcinogenic disorders in people with occupational exposure and in animals with experimental exposure to VC Although no dose-response data are available at the concentrations of VC found in the ambient air. the EPA concluded when the standard was established that any ' atmospheric concentration of VC poses some public heath risk. To eliminate the risk of VC exposure entirely, a complete prohibition of all VC emissions would be necessary. This would require the closure of the entire industry and result in serious, adverse economic impacts. Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the time the current standard was established that a complete prohibition of all VC emissions would not be desirable or necessary. The EPA RSV 0018137 11M Federal Register / Vol, 50. Na fl / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules conducted this in view of fl) the beneficial usee of VC products for which desirable substitutes are not readily available; (2) the potential adverse health and environmental Impacts associated with VC substitutes that have not been throughly studied: (3) the number of employees, particularly in fabrication industries, who would become at least temporarily unemployed: and (4) the availability of control technology that is capable of substantially reducing emissions of VC into the atmosphere. Although all EDC, VC and PVC plants have now incorporated VC emission controls, the maintenance of a Federal standard for VC is still considered necessary. The VC standard contains requirements for the proper operation and maintenance of control devices and the proper implementation of work practices. These requiremeats reflect an appropriate balance between the need to minimize bealth risks and the avoidance of unreasonable economic and community impacts which would result from standards designed to reduce risks to zero. Relative to the initial control costs, the additional cost of maintaining and implementing the - Federal VC standard is small. Nevertheless, if the Federal standard is discontinued, these small costs may be sufficient to provide the industry with an economic incentive for discontinuing the use of proper control measures. Thus, the continued maintenance of Federal standards for the control of VC is necessary to ensure s continuation of the current level of control. Additionally, the standard is important for the control of VC emissions from plants built in the future. The consequence of not maintaining a Federal standard would be to increase the carcinogenic risk to Urge segments of the population. (In 1975 when the standard was originally proposed, approximately 44 people lived within a 5-mile radius of E33C VC and PVC plants.) Accordingly, the EPA has concluded that the maintenance of the Federal standard for VC or reasonable revision of the standard, is appropriate. (21 Review of Technology-Based Level of Control This subsection describes the tutus of the technology-based level of control for sources covered by the current standard. The present status of emissions from sources covered by the current VC standard Is presented in Table 1. T*aut 1. Status of Currcmt Emissxm Lev- els From sources Covered tv the Vmu Chlorioc NE5HAP E"" fettijuBM jMQ/yn U(pnnoer e0m1M975* CMHW* Mfe gnmerm *om mom 315.000 mg/yr EOC/VC Mow? Pnmaty UWDL OiWtonr*. on Mnt 10 ppcwr_______ &2**eEOC product 9Tf m 379 93 W Jl Hi Mo A i MOOIfe* Sfecnem _ 1 mm. ErMMO *o* i moo* QAAOO mgryr PVC UcMfe Wwory consol Aqcbi <0--5 Comowod OMON QCC2 g/lOO ^vc ma 4CO0MOMMiropn* 235 or 313 1 4 ISO r if S'jF**.-.... ngn yiBbUEw on WMl WWW AMM ijm_ Moiw.wiio 9W iMrfrffe on*. 1.040 *05 135 2.4 * tae m mm &A mmhom wmw smMms few dra niMN fey hmhi muom pnor a pronoMoaonM * 107S^ whom wmwtm mmm mi mm i> eoc/vc eve EDC/VC pMnM pnor a 1574 8Md on few EPA mmmM mmm ta> tvec* 10ppmv Standard. Emission sources covered by this standard include EDC purification and VC monomer formation and purification equipment monomer recovery systems and other equipment at PVC plants, and vents from fugitive emission capture systems. The standard is based primarily on the control of these emissions by incineration or other primary control devices and specifies an emission limit of 10 parti per million by volume (ppmv) of VC averaged over a 3hour period. The 10 ppmv standard applies to control device bypass streams. One of the amendments proposed in 1977 would have required reduction of the emission limit from 10 to 5 ppmv. The goal of the proposed 5 ppmv limit was to ensure that the standard continued to approach a "zero emission goal" by requiring owners and operators both to maximize the effectiveness of existing control systems and to design improved new control systems at the time of construction. Th*.5 ppmv limit was not based on data for control technology different from that analyzed at the time of the promulgation of die 10 ppmv limit Comments received cm the proposed 1977 amendments stated that in order to meet a limit of 5 ppmv. a control device would have to be capable of control at a level even tower than S ppmv to offset emission fluctuations. Commenters also stated that a change from 10 to 5 ppmv would result in little reduction in mass emissions of VC. Finaly. commenters questioned the rationale of the "zero emission goal*' policy. Because the proposed 5 ppmv emission limit was not based on data from a control technology different from that analyzed for the current standard and because 10 ppmv represents the lowest level of control which has been consistently achieved, the EPA withdraws (he proposed 5 ppmv limit and affirms the original 10 ppmv limit, if such a technology had been identified, it could have been the basis of a revised standard. However, during the review study no more advanced technology was identified, even though additional data on incinerators, carbon adsorbers, and solvent absorption control systems an existing plants were obtained. Although these data indicate that incinerators are capable of reducing emissions below 10 ppmv. 10 ppmv represents the lowest level of control which haa been consistently achieved. Based on this information, the EPA has concluded that there is no improved or new control technology that has been demonstrated to significantly and consistently reduce . emissions to a level below that required by the current standard. Therefore, no further technological investigation of the 10 ppmv standard is planned. Qxychlorination Vent Standard--0J g/kg EDC. The current oxychlorinatioe vent standard of 04 g of VC per kg of EDC does not require an add-on control device. Instead, the limit can be achieved at most plants by controlling operating conditions and at the remaining plants through process modifications. At the time the original standard was written, incineration of oxychlorination vent emissions was investigated. Because of expected high energy costa associated with supplemental fuel requirements for combustion, incineration was determined not to be a reasonable method of control for this source. The amendments proposed in 1977 specified e level of 5 ppm for the oxychlorination verti. The proposed requirement was based on installation of an oxygen feed system with an incinerator or equipment control device. The use of oxygen feed in the EDC oxychlorinaton process decreases the RSV 0018138 Federal Registar / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1905 / Proposed Rules 1185 volume of inert substance* in the vent stream and, consequently, the cost for supplemental fuel required for incineration. Comments received on this proposed amendment Focused primarily on the high expense and large energy requirements associated with the production of oxygen. The review atudy identified no control technology for oxychlorination vents at EDC/VC plants that bad not been considered during the development of the original standard. Additionally, the EPA reevaluated the cost of retrofit incinerator controls and reached the same conclusion drawn in the development of the original standard. As before, the high cost associated with incinerating oxychlorination vents at existing EDC/VC plants makes this level of control unreasonable. Thus, the current standard of 0.2 g/kg EDC is considered still to be the most reasonable level of controt for existing oxychlorination vents. In addition, the review study concluded that significant new construction or modification of EDC/VC plants is not expected. At this time, only one new EDC/VC facility is reportedly planned. (BF Goodrich has plans to construct an EDC/VC facility in Convent Louisiana.) Oxychlorination vents at new EDC/VC plants will be regulated by the proposed standards of performance for air oxidation processes (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart 111) or by the BACT or LAER requirements of new source review regulations applicable in specific locations to a level comparable to that achievable through the use of incineration. Because the technologically achievable level of control is assured through the current requirements, the EPA concluded that investigation of additional control (i.e~ incineration] was not required for oxychlorination vents. Reactor Opening--0.02 g/kg PVC Product The current VC standard restricts emissions during polymerization reactor openings. The standard was based on reactor purging and on a reduction in the frequency of reactor openings. An increased level of control was not proposed in the 1977 amendments. (The level of control provided by the current standard. 0.02 g/kg of PVC product, reduces VC emissions to about 1.36 Mg per year for a model PVC plant.) During the review of the standard, no technology was identified that would provide additional VC reductions beyond the level of the current standard. Therefore, the EPA is not investigating further the control of reactor openings. Combined Sources After Resin Stripping. The sources of VC emissions covered under the current standard include blend tanks, dryers, centrifuges, storage silos, bagging operations, and any sources Following the stripper. Control of these emissions is bated on either stripping the PVC resin to a specified (based on resin type) residual VC level (i.e., 400 ppm for suspension, bulk, solution, and latex resins; and 2.000 ppm for dispersion resins) or controlling the emissions from all sources following the stripper with a control device. The 1977 proposed amendments would have required "new resins" to be stripped to lower levels (i-e~ 100 ppm for suspension, bulk, solution, and latex resins: and 500 ppm for dispersion resins). When the amendments were proposed, the EPA believed that some resins could meet the proposed limits: whereas, for other resins the manufacturer would have been required to develop improved stripping technology or not to produce the resin. Industry comments stated that most dispersion, copolymer, and bulk resins would suffer degradation if more stringent emission limits were imposed Additionally, the commenters noted the inherent difficulties in defining a "new resin." Information submitted by commenters indicated that minor adjustments to resin compositions are made routinely, and completely new resins are rarely, if ever. made. As a result of these comments, the EPA concluded that it is impossible in many cases to distinguish between new and existing resins and still have any resins covered by the proposed amendments. Further, the proposed amendments did not address what levels of control could be achieved by improved stripping technology. For these reasons, the EPA chose to evaluate whether higher levels of control are achievable for all resins, or only for some special classes of resins. The review study found that resin stripping technology has improved since the current standard was promulgated, and that some processors can achieve lower resin residual VC levels than those required in the original standard. In certain eases, some resins can meet the more stringent levels specified in the previously proposed amendments. However, other processors manufacturing resins of differing grades and characteristics can only marginally comply with the original standard. Because of the wide variation in resin grades and characteristics, it cannot be concluded that, even though a particular resin made by one company can meet a particular level, any other resin or similar resins produced by another company could also meet that level. Furthermore, in some cases these processors meeting the more stringent limits proposed previously are stripping these resins to this low level to offset emissions from those resins which are more difficult to strip. Without this ability to average the emissions and reductions among resins, these processors might not achieve the current standard. Exempting resin grades known to be difficult to strip is not feasible because these resins cannot readily be defined. For the foregoing reasons, the EPA has concluded that there is no demonstrated level of control which could significantly and consistently reduce residual VC levels in resins to levels below that required by the current standard. Therefore, the EPA is not investigating further the control of the combined sources after tripping. Equipment Leaks. Because little was known about leak detection and elimination programs for control of equipment leaks from components in VC service, specific requirements for these programs were not included in the current standard. Instead, each plant was required to institute and implement a formalized leak detection and elimination program incorporating both a fixed-point monitor and a portable monitor. Plant-specific programs were subject to approval by the Administrator. Consequently, due to site-specific difference* among plants, as well as variations in leak definitions and monitoring practices, differences in control of equipment leaks among the plants have resulted. Since the standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained more information pertaining to the control of equipment leaks from components in VC service. With the information obtained form the development of other standards, an effective leak detection and repair program based on uae of a portable monitor can now be specified for equipment covered by this program. The specific leak detection and repair requirements are discussed in die Administrative Revisions section of this preamble. Relief Valve Discharge Standard. Sources of VC emissions covered by this standard include discharges from relief valves on pressure vessels, transfer lines, and other equipment in EDC/VC and PVC plants. The standard is based on emission control by a combination of equipment and process modifications, and operational procedures, found in plants during development of the standard. An exact combination of modifications and operational procedures was not specified. Instead, a performance standard (i.e., an emission RSV 0018139 118a__________ Federal Register / VoL 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules standard) was established because it to sources covered by the VC standard, unnecessary and that the current level was believed that different the EPA concluded that none of the- of control resulting from the EPA* combinations could be equally effective additional sources identified in the standard and OSHA's standard is still in controlling relief valve discharges. review study warrant a Federal reasonable. The current format of the standard standard. Landfills. Off-specification resins prohibits all relief valve discharges except emergency discharges. Emergency discharges are described as Miscellaneous Sources of VC Emissions. Miscellaneous sources are plants other than PVC and EDC/VC containing VC has been taken to landfills where the gaseous VC can be released However, the current EPA those which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge (t.e~ those that are "nonpreventable"). Since the standard was promulgated, all plants have experienced some releases. Many of these releases are considered preventable by the EPA. Based on visits to plants with good compliance histories, the EPA concluded that a level of performance reflecting compliance with the current format of the standard through the combined effects of equipment, process modifications and operational procedures remains reasonable, during the review, no technological level of control was found that would provide for a more stringent standard. Therefore, the standard is still considered to reflect the appropriate level of control for these sources. However, as discussed in die Administrative Revisions section of the preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the standard by setting limits for relief -valve discharges in a different format. Administrative Aspects of the Standard. Even though the EPA decided not to revise the level of control associated with the current VC standard, the EPA identified revisions to several administrative aspects of the standard. These revisions as well as those identified above, are discussed in the Administrative Revisions section of the preamble. (3) Review ofSources Not Previously Covered plants that use VC as a raw material or produce VC as an intermediate or by* product. The EPA has identified four such plants, two of these plants produce 1.1,1-trichloroethane. one produces perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene and the fourth plant produces pesticides. (An additional l.l.l*trichloroethane unit was constructed at a fourth location but has reportedly never operated. There are no plans to operate in the furture.) Review of VC emission sources at the identified plants showed them to be well controlled. Emissions of VC from these plants are primarily from fugitive sources and range from less than l Mg/ yr to 14 Mg/yr per plant In general, the VC NESHAP requirements for process vents and equipment in VC service are being met at the miscellaneous sources due to company policy considerations and State and local regulatory requirements. In addition, many of the equipment components in VC service would be covered by standards of performance for new sources and standards for sources in nonattainment areas. Based on the investigation of these sources, the EPA concluded that they are already relatively well* controlled and do not contribute significantly to VC exposure. For these reasons, additional requirements for miscellaneous sources of VC are not being proposed at this time. PVCFabrication Plants. There are about 8.000 fabrication plants which take the resin produced by PVC plants standard intends that all resins, including off-specification resins, be stripped to reduce the VC emissions from sources downstream from the stripper. In order to clarify that stripping requirements also apply to the offspecification resins before removal of landfills, these requirements are being restated to expUcity address offspecification resins. The EPA believes that the level of control resulting from the stripping requirements is reasonable: thus. VC emission requirements for landfills are not being proposed today. However, the EPA recognizes that VC may be emitted from hazardous waste landfills and is evaluating and may . regulate under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAJ volatile emissions (including VC) from landfills at hazardous waste disposal facilities. The EPA also recognizes that VC has been detected in municipal landfills. Therefore, in addition to assessing VC emissions from hazardous waste disposal facilities, a (RCRA) Subtitle D TASK FORCE has been formed which will assess all environmental releases including air emissions from Subtitle D facilities [a category which includes municipal landfills). Administrative Revisions As discussed in the Findings and Conclusions of the Review Study section of this preamble, the EPA identified several administrative revisions thst are This subsection discusses the status and fashion it into intermediate or final appropriate as a result of the review of VC sources not covered by the current standard that were identified in the review study. For these sources, the EPA assessed whether a Federal products. Emissions from these plants are estimated to be about 0.0035 Mg/yr per plant In comparison to VC production plants (which typically emit study. The rationale for the proposed administrative revisions is presented in this section of the preamble. These revisions include: (1) Reformatting the standard was warranted. The EPA`s assessment of these sources was based primarily on a quantitative anajysis of about 92 Mg/yr), PVC fabrication plants are small emitters of VC. If standards were developed for this category they emission limit for relief valve discharges. (2) providing a compliance test procedure and a specific emission VC emissions from these sources would not result in reduced emissions limit for operators who strip in the combined with a qualitative analysis of because the best control for these plants reactors, (3) specifying requirements for risks associated with exposure to VC is to reduce the VC levels in the resins leak detection and repair program Tor from these sources. The EPA considers being processed by the fabricators. equipment components in VC service, these analyses to be adequate in place Resin stripping beyond the level that and (4] miscellaneous revisions. I I of a thorough quantitative risk process economics would dictate is assessment for purposes of determining already being done as a result of the Relief Valve Discharges whether a Federal standard is EPA't current standard andQSHA's VC Background. The current format of the warranted for these sources. Because standard, based on the EPA'i standard for relief valve discharges these sources are already relatively assessment of these sources, the EPA allows only "emergency" discharges well-controlled and the quantity of VC concluded that they do not contribute [i.e.. discharges that could not be emission, and consequently, the risks significantly to VC exposure. Therefore, avoided by taking preventive measures!. associated with exposure to VC from the EPA believes that the evaluation of The standard applies to all pressure these sources, are small in comparison controls for PVC fabrication plants is relief devices on pressure vessels. RSV 0018140 Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1965 / Proposed Rule* 118 transfer lines, and other equipment in EDC/VC and PVC plants. The control techniques considered as the basis of the standard involve a combination of equipment modifications, process modifications, and operational procedures. An exact combination of modifications and operational procedures was not specified in the current standard; rather, a performance standard {i.e- an emission standard) was established because different combinations of the modifications and procedures were expected to be equally effective in controlling relief valve discharges.' Based on 6 years of enforcement and compliance experience, the EPA has concluded that the relief discharge standard has resulted in: (1) Significant reductions in the frequency and quantity of VC discharges from relief valves. (2) significant use of agency resources to evaluate individual discharges for preventability. and (3) uncertainty on the part of producers regarding whether they comply with the standard. Additionally, the EPA learned some of VC and PVC believe that this part of the current standard applies only to discharges through safety relief valves and that discharges through other pressure relief devices, such as rupture disks or manual or automatic vent valves, are not covered. This interpretation is not compatible with the intent behind the current standard. To provide more efficient enforcement by d'tcreasing the burden of individual preventability assessments on the EPA. and to provide a better understanding to plant operators of the goal of the standard, the EPA is proposingto reformat the standard for relief valve discharges and to define the emission points covered by this standard to include appropriately aU pressure relief devices. As discussed more completely in the following sections, the EPA is proposing to change the format of the numerical limits in the standard to reflect the number of discharges that occur from those plants complying with the format of the current standard. The EPA found in the review study that efforts by all EDC/VC and PVC producers to comply with the standard are reflected in their preformance (in terms of size and frequency of discharges) since the standard went into effect. 4n general, a reduction in the reported frequency and size of relief valve discharges by PVC producers has occurred since 1976. A further decrease in relief valve discharges by the PVC industry occurred between 1980 and 1981. Performance by the EDC/VC industry exhibited a less marked trend of decreased discharges over the compliance period. Following an initial drop in relief valve discharges after the standard went into effect, the frequency and quantity of relief valve discharges by EDC/VC plants have decreased slightly or remained relatively constant General Basis for Numerical Limits. In selecting the proposed numerical limits, EPA first evaluated in detail the recent performance (1961 to 1983] of five PVC plants and one EDC/VC plant. These plants were chosen based on discussions with EPA Regional Office personnel and industry and were intended to represent plants with good relief valve discharge records. In general, the EPA's evaluation of these plants indicates that each has adopted the combination of equipment, operational procedures and attitude toward prevention of relief discharges intended by the current standard, and that their resulting performance is consistent with compliance with the current standard. The EPA's evaluation found that a few discharges may continue to occur from some plants that comply with the standard. This observation is consistent with the expectation held by the EPA when the standard was written. In order to revise the standard in terms of numerical limits representing compliance with the current format of the standard, this evaluation separated PVC and EDC/VC plants'. For plants, relief valve discharge performance data were further separated by source (reactor vs. nonreactor) and by resin type The EPA then reviewed the performance of 25 additional PVC plants and 12 additional EDC/VC plants. The EPA reviewed this large set of plants to ensure that the level of performance demonstrated by the evaluated plants could be achieved by all PVC and EDC/ VC plants. The numerical limits presented in the Findings section of this preamble are based on an evaluation of the number of discharges representing the demonstrated performance level associated with eompbanee with the provisions of the existing standard. Format forNumerical Limits. The EPA visited the five PVC plants evaluated in detail. As expected, the EPA found differences in die combinations of hardware and operational procedures associated with control of relief valve discharges of each of the plants. Furthermore, no exact relationship was found between the effectiveness of specific hardware items and operational procedures and prevention of discharges. In the EPA's judgment, the various combinations of hardware and operational procedures implemented by each of the plants along with the attitudes adopted toward preventing relief valve discharges represent the types of control measures that the standard intended- In particular, the EPA concluded that the low frequency of discharges by the visited plants was indicative of their degree of effort to prevent relief valve discharges. Consistent with the goal of this proposed revision, the EPA decided that an alternative numerical emission limit based on performance resulting under the current standard could be revised in a format that would be easier to understand by enforcement and industry- personnel. The EPA investigated two basic ways of expressing relief valve discharge performance for PVC plants. One formal is based on mass emissions, for example, the pounds of VC discharged per million pounds of PVC produced (lb VC/MM lb PVC). Based on a review of methods used by industry to determine the amount of VC discharged from relief valves, the EPA was unable to identify e sufficiently accurate for measuring discharge quantities from relief valves. At present, producers are required only to estimate diacharge quantities for reporting purposes. Demonstration of compliance with a lb VC/MM lb PVC limit would require producers to measure the amount of VC discharged during an incident. Because a suitable measurement method was not identified, the EPA decided cot to redefine relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants m a lb VC/ MM lb PVC format Another format is based os the frequency (Le number per unit time) of discharge from occurrences. No method for measuring the amount of VC discharged from relief valvea is needed because only the occurrence of a release is required for this format The occurrence of a discharge can be determined by monitoring process parameters as well es inspecting relief valve performance reports. Thus, of the two basis ways of expressing relief valve performance that were considered, the EPA selected a format based on the frequency of discharges. Based on this decision, the EPA then considered how the format would be applied to PVC and EDC/VC plants. At PVC plants, the frequency of discharges from polymerization reactors and associated process equipment may be related to the fact that a batch process is used to produce most types of PVC For batch PVC production processes, the opportunity for discharges is related to the number of times a new RSV 0018141 1188 Federal Register / Vol 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules polymerization batch is initiated. Expressing relief valve discharge performance for these plants with a diacharge-per-batch format accounts for variations among plants in the number of batches produced. The EPA selected 100 polymerization batches as a convenient basis for expressing relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants with batch production processes in a discharge frequency format Further, the EPA noted that the ability of batch PVC producers to limit the discharge frequency may be different for reactor and nonreactor discharges and that reactor discharges may vary by resin type at any plant Consequently, relief valve discharges by individual PVC plants (except for continuous solution process plants) were classified according to type of discharge (i.e.. reactor vs. nonreactor) and the reactor discharges were separated by resin type. Nonreactor discharge sources at PVC plants include blowdown tanks, transfer lines, and storage vessels. * Because usage of this equipment is also related to some extent to the frequency of batch polymerization operations, the relief valve discharge performance by nonreactor sources in PVC plants with batch production processes was also examined on the basis of number of discharges/100 batches. Unlike the batch process used to produce other PVC resin types, the solution PVC process is continuous. Thus relief valve discharge performance for the solution PVC process cannot be expressed on a frequency per batch basis. Instead, the relief valve discharge performance associated with the solution production process only be expressed in terms of the total number of discharges (reactor and nonreactor) per year. Similarly, the EDC/VC production process ia not a batch process, but is continuous. Thus, relief valve discharge performance by EDC/VC plants also cannot be expressed on a frequency per batch basis. Moreover, the EPA was unable to detect a direct relationship between discharge frequency and VC production at EDC/VC plants. Thus, the EPA decided to define releif valve discharge performance for EDC/VC plants on the basis of a total number of annual discharges. Findings. PVC Reactor Discharges. Suspension resins account for the highest percentage of total PVC production. The remaining PVC production is in the form of bulk, dispersion and solution resins. (A small amount of latex resin is produced by a process closely related to the dispersion process.) Examination of relief valve discharge performance associated with production of suspension and bulk resins indicates that reactor discharge frequency generally ia either lesa than 0.035 discharges/100 batches or is much greater. (Recent reactor discharge frequencies for suspension resin plants with poorer performance levels ranged between 0.059 and 0.101 discharges/100 batches.) Further examination of relief valve discharge performance by suspension resin producer* indicates that only one plant experienced more than 4 discharges per year during the period from 1981 to 1983. Performance by this plant also exceeded 0.035 discharges/100 batches. The reactor discharge frequency associated with dispersion and latex production ia typically zero. However, for a typical dispersion or latex resin process with a low production rate (i.e~ number of polymerization batches per year), a single emergency reactor discharge in a given year would be equivalent to a discharge frequency of about 0.035 discharges/100 batches. Nonreactor Discharges. Nonreactor discharge frequencies by PVC plants typically were either less than 0.023 discharges/100 batches or were much greater. (Recent nonreactor discharge frequencies reflecting poorer performance than the 0.025 level ranged between 0.046 and 0.225 discharges/100 batches.) Furthermore, with the exception of two producers, no more than three discharges per year were reported from nonreactor sources in PVC plants during the period from 1981 to 1983. Each of tbe five PVC plants that the EPA evaluated in detail was among those achieving 0.035 discharges/100 batches or less in each of the reactor discharge categories and 04125 discharges/100 batches or less in the nonreactor discharge category. The EPA examined.individual discharge incidents for the PVC producers whose recent performance has exceeded 0.035 discharges/100 batches in one or more of the reactor discharge categories or who exceeded 0.025 discharges/100 batches and 3 discharges per year from nonreactor sources. In every case, the EPA identified one or more discharger that were preventable. Elimination of these preventable discharges indicates that these producers should have achieved discharge frequencies comparable to the five PVC plants that the EPA evaluated in detail. Solution PVC Process. Discharge frequency from both reactor and nonreactor sources by the single plant producing PVC by the solution process was zero during the period 1981 to 1983. Previously, this plant experienced as many as two discharges in a 12-month period. Recent performance suggests that preventable discharges have been eliminated at this plant With the exception of e potential emergency discharge occurrence, future discharges at this plant are not anticipated. EDC/VC Discharges. During the review study, the EPA evaluated performance by one EDC/VC plant in detail This plant experienced about four discharges that could be considered emergencies. Recent (1981 to 1983) relief valve discharge performance data for ether EDC/VC producers indicates an industry range of 0 to 7 discharges/yr. Information obtained from plants during the review indicated that where applicable, similar types of equipment process modifications and operational procedures used to control relief valve discharges from PVC plants also are used at EDC/VC pants. The EPA examined discharges by the EDC/VC producers who exceeded four discharges in one or more yean since 1981 and found that one or more of the discharges at each plant were preventable. Elimination of the preventable discharges would allow each of these plants to reduce their annual discharge frequency to four or fewer. Summary ofNumerical Limits. Based on the study of current relief valve discharge performance by PVC and EDC/VC plants, the EPA is proposing that the following numerical limits for relief valve discharges be added to the standard. Each discharge causing an exceedence of any numerical limit presented below would be considered a violation without regard to whether any individual discharge was preventable. Compliance Provisions. The EPA recognizes that all plants may experience an unavoidable relief valve discharge incident at some time. Examination of relief valve discharge performance by PVC plants with low RSV 0018142 Federal Register -/ VoL 5ft No. 8 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules 1189 discharge frequencies indicated that plants with the lowest polymerization batch frequencies typically experience about one discharge in a 12-month period. The EPA concluded that for most plants a 12-month reporting period (rolling every 6-months) was both suitable and appropriate for determining compliance with the proposed numerical limits. For plants producing only a small amount of a particular resin (i.e- low number of polymerization batches), an apparent violation of the standard may result from a single discharge occurrence during a 12-month compliance period as described below. For a PVC plant producing a single resin type to meet die numerical limit for reactor discharges (i.e.. 0.035 discharges/100 batches), it must experience and average of no more than one discharge per 2.858 polymerization batches over the preceding 12-month period. An average reactor discharge frequency exceeding one discharge per 2.858 batches would be a violation of the standard. However, if the plant made less than 2,858 polymerization batches over the 12-month compliance period, a single discharge occurrence would be an apparent violation of the standard (Le the discharge frequency per 100 batches would exceed 0.035). Because insufficient batches were made, the reported discharge frequency per 100 batches would sot correctly reflect the performance by that plant in comparison to other plants complying with the standard. In rectifying the undue compliance burden posed on plants with small numbers of batches by the discharge/100 batch format and the selected 12-month compliance period, the EPA is proposing to add additional provisions affecting the number of batches used to calculate the discharge frequency. For PVC plants producing less than 2,858 batches of a particular resin, the minimum number of 2.85B batches will be used when determining compliance with the numerical limits. PVC plants producing more than one resin type must demonstrate compliance separately for reactor discharges occurring from different resin production processes. Only the relief valve discharges and polymerization batches specific to each resin type are considered for determining compliance. However, for determining compliance with the standard for nonreactor discharges, the total number of polymerization batches [regardless of resin type) are counted. To determine the number of polymerization batches produced for purposes of assessing compliance, the following guidelines apply. A "polymerization batch** consists of each sequence of charging VC and other materials to the reactor, heating reactor, contents, polymerization of reactor contents, and removal (i.e.. blowdown) of reactor contents. Any batch that is aborted following charging of VC to the reactor is nonetheless counted as a polymerization batch in assessing compliance. For PVC plants producing bulk resin, a single "polymerization batch" includes both prepolymerization and postpolymerization reactor operations. Discharge frequency can be recorded in two ways. Discharge frequency can be recorded on the basis of discharge events (involving discharges from one or more relief valves) or on individual relief valve discharges, bn most cases, plants currently report discharges individually when they occur from relief values on separate equipment. However, certain equipment such as polymerization reactors that are equipped with multiple relief valves may experience discharges simultaneously from more than one relief valve. Most plants currently report such multiple discharges from a single piece of equipment as a single discharge. Thus, the performance levels serving as the basis for the numerical limits represent individual discharges and not multiple discharge events except when they occur from a single piece of equipment For determining compliance with the numerical limits, discharge frequency is to be recorded on the basis of individual discharges except when simultaneous discharges occur from relief valves on the same piece of equipment A relief valve discharge in considered to be any venting through a pressure relief device to prevent or relieve an overpressure condition from equipment in VC service that results in emissions of VC directly or indirectly to the atmosphere. In determining whether or not a relief valve discharge results in emissions to the atmosphere, the controlling factor is the ultimate disposition of the gases. Venting to a manifold or header system that ultimately discharges to the atomsphere constitutes a relief valve discharge. If the manifold or header discharges gases through a control device meeting the 10 ppmv VC emission limit, the venting does not constitute a relief valve discharge. For purposes of reporting compliance status with the limits, plants will be required to calculate their discharge per batch frequencies with sufficient precision to demonstrate that performance is either equal to, below of in excess of the limits. Based on operating history, relief valve discharge performance by certain plants ia expected to be much better than the respective limits. For example, some new suspension resin PVC plants produce about 5. 000 batches during a 12-month compliance period. One and two discharges at one of these plants during a compliance period would result in a discharge performance of 0.02 and 0415 discharges per 100 batches, respectively. The second discharge during the compliance period would be a violation of the proposed 0.035 discharges per 100 batches limit despite the fact that the first discharge would result in performance well below the limit These types of plants were considered in selecting the proposed limits and reporting procedures for relief valve discharges. The result that plants of this type must perform well below the limits in the standard in order to be in compliance is consistent with the proposed limits, which were selected to represent an upper boundary on the number of allowable discharges intended by the standard. The EPA expects that plants using the best technology and procedures should be able to perform better than the proposed limits. Reporting Requirements. The current standard for relief valve discharges requires producers to report discharges within 10 days of the incident The EPA is proposing to eliminate the 10 day reporting requirements and to require reporting of all discharges on a quarterly basis. Although compliance is to be determined on a semiannual basis, quarterly reporting of discharges is appropriate because violations of the standard may occur well before the end of the 6-month period. Quarterly reporting notifies enforcement personnel of potential violations and violations that have already occurred prior to the end of the compliance period so that corrective actions can take place sooner following the end of the compliance period. Information to be included in the semiannual report for individual relief valve discharges is to be reduced to include only the date. time, source, cause and estimated amount of each discharge occurrence. The semiannual report will also inlcude information on compliance status. In addition, plants will now be required to maintain relief valve discharge records for 3 years, because'of the potentially significant increase in the time period between a discharge occurrence and reporting of the discharge. Effective Date ofRevision. The current standard as written will remain RSV 0018143 1190 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules in effect for relief valve discharges until the proposed revisions are promulgated. The proposed administrative revisions do not change the standard's original intent and are intended only to set limits to facilitate compliance and enforcement efforts. Thus, the current standard will continue to be enforced until the revisions are promulgated. Stripping-in-Reactor Compliance Test Procedure The test method for measuring reactor opening losses was developed for resin stripping operations that take place in vessels separate from the reactor. Some PVC plants, including all bulk resin manufacturers, however, do not use separate strippers to remove residual VC from the resin produced. Instead, these plants strip VC from the product resin in the reactor {postpolymerization reactor in the case of bulk resin producers). For plants with reactor resin stripping operations, the concentration of VC in the reactor vapor space, as measured in accordance with the current standard, exceeds the 0.02g/ki of PVC requirement The high concentrations result form VC monomer diffusing from the resin into the vapor space during the period following completion of the stripping operation (normally occurring under a vacuum that must be broken before the reactor can be emptied) and before the reactor is completely emptied of PVC resin. According to the Federal Register notice of promulgation of the current VC standard {40 FR 46563. October 21, 1976). any VC escaping from the resin after it has been stripped to acceptable levels is not intended to be counted as part of the reactor opening loss. However, the current standard did not include in the measurement method an acceptable method for determining what part of the VC in the vapor space has escaped'from the resin after stripping it completed. The current standard allows bulk resin producers to calculate reactor opening losa emisaions from the postpolymerization reactor based on the number of reactor evacuations, the vacuum invloved and the volume of gas in the reactors. For nonbulk resin producers with reactor resin stripping operations, calculation of reactor opening loss emissions is more complicated due to the presence of water vapor in the reactor vapor space. Currently, waivers of testing for producers with nonbulk resin stripping operations in the reactor have been granted on a case-by-case basis by the EPA Regions, typically with the provision that residual VC samples are anlayzed on each batch. A variety of calculation methods are then used to establish tha reactor opening loss. Based on experience of the EPA Regional offices, a method for determining the reactor opening loss that accounts for stripping in the reactor haa been developed for use by all nonbulk resin producers with reactor resin stripping operations and is included in the proposed revisions to tha current VC standard. Limitations for resin residual and reactor opening loss are added together to give a total allowable VC content from these two sources. The measured resin residual VC and the calculated reactor opening loss would then be added together, and averaged over a 24-hour period according to resin type. If the 24-hour average meets the combined standard, the plant would be considered to be in compliance with both the stripping and the reactor*opening loss requirements. Leak Detection and Repair * Background. The current standard requires implementation of a formalized program for detection of leaks from equipment in VC service and elimination of these leaks. The formalized program includes a multipoint VC detector and a portable volatile organic compound (VOC) analyzer. The fixed-point monitoring system continuously monitors VC concentrations in the work area around equipment in VC service and sounds an alarm when concentrations exceed a prescribed leveL The portable monitor is used independently to screen individual equipment components for leaks. Rather than specifying the number of points to be monitored, the sensitivities of the multipoint detector, the VC concentration that indicates a leak, and the actions to be taken to repair leaks, the current standard requires each plant owner or operator to prepare a program plan containing these specifications and to aubmit the plan to the EPA for approval- Plant owners or operators are required to submit data on background concentrations of VC in different areas of the plant to use in determining the VC concentration that should be designated as indicating a leak. Plans, therefore, were tailored by each plant and reviewed by the the EPA Regional Offices. The EPA found in the review study that differences in leak detection and elimination programs exist among PVC and EDC/VC production plants and miscellaneous sources and that sitespecific differences include variations in leak definitions and monitoring practices. The definition end monitoring practices, along with repair practices, are primary influences on the control effectiveness of leak detection and repair programs. Some plants implemented rigorous programs and others implemented programs lacking specific procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the effectiveness of leek detection and elimination programs varies among the plants. Since the current standard was promulgated, the EPA has obtained more information pertaining to the control of emission from equipment leaks. Based on this information and the review of the leak detection and elimination plans being implemented to control emissions of VC. the EPA decided to specify leak detection and repair requirements for certain equipment components in VC service. Although information obtained from development of other standards indicates that a routine leak detection and repair program with a portable monitor can be an effective emission reduction technique without the requirement of a fixed point monitoring system, the EPA concluded that fixedpoint monitoring systems already in place have uses that justify their retention in the current standard. In particular, fixed-point monitors allow for quick detection of certain large VC leaks that might otherwise go undetected until the next routine portable monitor screening. The EPA recognizes that existing fixed-point monitoring plans will need to be reviewed in light of the leak detection and repair requirements being specified at this time. The complexity of existing fixed-point monitoring plans, in terms of number and distribution of monitoring points, varies greatly among plants. Consequently, some plant owners or operators may want to alter the number of points that are monitored and the distribution of monitoring locations to better complement the specified portable monitoring requirements. Such changes to existing fixed-point monitoring plans will be allowed providing they do not alter the plant's ability to detect large VC leaks. The proposed revisions are primarily intended to standardize control of VC emissions from equipment leaks. In doing this, the EPA is concerned that exiating effective plans not be inappropriately changed. The proposed revisions include provisions that allow plants with existing effective plans to periodically demonstrate the effectiveness of their plans without additional requirement!. Accordingly, the EPA requests comments from industry representatives concerning the specific effects of specifying leak RSV 0018144 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1965 / Proposed Rules 1191 detection and repair requirements on effective existing plans. Leak Detection and Repair Requirements. The EPA established leak detection and repair, requirements (40 CFR Part 81 Subpart V) for certain equipment in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAPJ service on June 8. 1984. These requirements were established in conjunction with the final standard for benzene equipment leaks. The requirements of Subpart V generally apply to pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator vessels. These requirements reflect the level of control that the EPA considers reasonable for equipment covered by developing standards for VHAP. The EPA is therefore proposing to add VC to the list of substances covered by Subpart V. Subpart V would substantively affect only valves and flanges in VC service within this industry. All other equipment in VC service are already required by the VC standard to comply with equipment and work practice standards consistent with those in Subpart V. For example, pumps and compressors meeting the dual mechanical seal requirements of the current VC standard will be in compliance with the Subpart V requirements. In addition, the sampling connection systems requirements of Subpart V are essentially the same as the current standard. The use of rupture discs for controlling leaks from pressure relief devices, as required by the VC standard, is consistent with the "no detectable emissions" requirement included in Subpart V. Requirements for controlling leaks from pressure relief devices are described in more detail later in this section. Thus. Subpart V will affect primarily valves and flanges in VC service by requiring a specific monitoring schedule, leak definition and repair provisions. Compliance with tbe provisions of Subpart V will be used to determine compliance with the portable monitor leak detection and elimination requirements in the current VC standard (40 CFR 6l.65(b}(8)(it)), and therefore, the current standard is being revised to reflect this change. However, process units within VC and PVC plants in which the percentage of leaking valves is equal to or less than 2.0 percent are considered by the EPA to be effectively controlling VC emissions from leaking valves. For these process units, the existing leak detection and elimination program will continue to be allowed while the percentage of leaking valves is 2.0 percent or less. Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves that achieves that standard may be applied. Section 112(e)(2) defines the is found to exceed Z.0 percent will be following conditions under which it is required to comply with the provisions not feadible to prescribe or enforce an of Subpart V. emission standard: (1) If the pollutants The Subpart V requirements for cannot be emitted through a conveyance valves are based on a leak detection designed and constructed to emit or and repair program that requires (1) capture the pollutant: or (2) if the monthly monitoring for valves in gas/ application of measurement vapor and light liquid service, (2) an methodology is not practicable due to initial attempt at repairing these valves technological or economic limitations. within 5 days after detection of leak. Section 112(e)(1) allows that if an (3) repair of leaking valves within 15 emission standard is not feasible to days after detection of the leak unless prescribe or endorce. then the EPA may repair would require a process unit istead promulgate a design, equipment, shutdown, and (4) repair of valves work practice, or operational standard, during the next process unit shutdown or combination thereof. after repair is delayed until a process The EPA has reviewed the design, unit shutdown. Valves found not to leak equipment, work practice and for 2 successive months can be operational requirements contained in monitored quarterly until leaks are the cunent VC standard. The only detected. Monitoring of equipment to sources covered by the current standard detect leaks is conducted in accordance with one of the requirements for which a with Method 21 end a leak la defined as performance atandard (i.e~ an emission a measured organic concentration equal standard) is feasible are pressure relief to or greater than 10.000 parts per devices. As discussed below, the EPA is million by volume (ppvm). For a setting a "no detectable emissions" limit complete description of the leak for these sources. For the other sources, detection and repair requirements, see the EPA is reinstating those Subpart V (49 FR 23498. June 6.1984}. requirements as set forth in the cunent In addition. Subpart V contains standard. standards for other types of equipment The EPA selected the use of rupture (e.g., flanges, and open ended valves or disks as the basis for the current tines). Standards for flanges include standard for pressure relief devices. monitoring with a portable Instrument When the integrity of ruptures disks is under prescribed procedures within 5 maintained, equipment leaks through the days of observing evidence of a relief device are eliminated. Rupture potential leak by visual audible or other disks normally maintain their integrity means. Open-ended valves or tines are unless an overpressure occurs. After the required to be capped, blinded or fitted occurrence of an overpressure, with second valve. Theee provisions replacement of the rupture disk once are not expected to significantly affect ~ again eliminates equipment leaks of VC producers with these types of equipment through the pressure relief device. in VC service. The equipment and For emission control techniques that procedures employed as normal practice eliminate equipment leaks, such as the by these producers or as a result of the use of rupture disks, a "no detectable current VC standard are expected emissions" limit is feasible. An generally to ensure compliance with instrument reeding of less than 500 parts Subpart V. per million by volume (ppmv) above a Pressure ReliefDevices. The EPA background concentration based on proposed and promulgated the work Reference Method 21 can be used to practices, equipment design and indicate whether equipment leaks have operational standards in the current been eliminated: that is, that the standard before explicit legal authority equipment has "no detectable existed in Section 112. These emissions." requirements are found in $ 61.85(b). In The "no detectable emission" limit August of 1977, Congress amended would not apply to discharges through Section 112 to allow the use of these the pressure relief device during requirements. Section 112 of the Clean overpressure relief. (These releases are Air Act requires that an emission covered under 61.64(a) and 01.65(a).) standard (i.e., a performance standard) The standard would specify, however, be established for control of a that the relief device be returned to a hazardous air pollutant unless, in the state of "no detectable emissions" judgment of the EPA. it is not feasible to within 5 days after such a discharge. prescribe or enforce such a standard. An The standard would further require an emission standard alltfws for some annual test to verify the "no detectable flexibility in complying with the emissions" status of the pressure relief standard, since any control technique devices and a test after each over l RSV 0018145 i 1192 Federal Register / Vbt 50/No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 198S / Proposed Rules pressure relief. This administrative change implements the basis of this standard consistent with the requirements of Section 112(e). Miscellaneous Revisions Based on discussions with the EPA regional personnel regarding their experience in administering the current VC standard, the EPA is proposing several additional administrative revisions that would facilitate compliance and enforcement efforts associated with the current standard. These revisions represent minor changes to the standard. A brief description of these administrative revisions and the basis for making them follows. Definition ofLeak. Exhaust Cos and Relief Valve Discharge- Functional definitions of "leak", "exhaust gas" and "relief valve discharge" are being added to the standard to clarify the . applicability of the standard to each of these types 0f VC emissions. During their review of enforcement and compliance experience since the standard was promulgated, the EPA discovered several cases of confusion over the intended meaning of 'leak*', "exhaust gas" and "relief valve discharge." These three distinct categories of VC emissions are being defined in the revised standard to provide compliance and industry personnel with clear understanding of which part of the standard applies to any given discharge of VC emissions to the atomosphere. Definition ofEDC and VC Purification. In the past, some plants have misinterprented which equipment components are included in EDO purification and VC purification processes with the result that emissions from certain equipment intended to be covered by the standard may not have been controlled. The definitions of "EDC purification" and "VC purification" are being revised to clarify that all purification equipment following EDC and VC formation were subject to regulation under the current standard. Wppmv Standard. Two clarifying revisions are being made to the to ppmv regulations to improve understanding of the applicability of this part of the standard First, although the test method for determining compliance with the 10 ppmv standard specifies that the average results from three 1-hour sampling runs be used this 3-hour averaging period is not specified in the to ppmv requirements. Specifying that emissions may not exceed 10 ppmv over a 3-hour averaging period clarifies that instantaneous compliance with the 10 ppmv standard is not an Intended requirement. Moreover, specification of the 3-hour averaging period is intended to clarify that the 10 ppmv standard applies to VC emissions in all exhaust gas streams covered by the 10 ppmv requirements, including any control device bypass streams. Requirements for calculating the VC content in bypassed emissions for purposes of reporting VC emissions is excess of the 10 ppmv standard are being added to the regulation. The EPA may use these calculations along with continuous emission monitoring results as indications of ooncompliance if they show clearly that emissions in excess of the 10 ppmv requirements occurred The second clarifying revision to the 10 ppmv standard involves the specification that the 10 ppmv requirements apply to each exhaust gas stream from the covered equipment The purpose of this revision is to cleariy prohibit plants from using dilution with other exhaust gas streams as a technique for meeting the 10 ppmv requirement This revision is not intended to prohibit the common practice of combining two or more exhaust gas streams in a common header leading to a control device. According to the revised 10 ppmv requirements, combining an exhaust gas stream containing more than 10 ppmv VC with another exhaust gas stream containing less than 10 ppmv VC is allowed only when the combined stream is ducted to the control device. Relief Valve Definition. The current standard for relief valve discharges was intended to apply not only to safety relief valves but to all types of pressure relief devices, A definition of "relief valve" is being proposed under the revised standard to clarify that the current relief valve discharge standard also applied to rupture discs, manual vents and other pressure relief devices that vent to the atmosphere to protect process equipment from unsafe overpressure conditions. The definition of relief valve in the proposed standard is not intended to include pressure control valves used to control flow to an incinerator or other control device. However, the current relief valve discharge standard did cover emissions from pressure control valves. Also not included in the definition of relief valve are pressure control systems such as polymerization reaction shortstop systems or refrigerated water systems which act to reduce pressure by means other than venting. Reactor Opening Loss Requirements far Bulk PVC Rosin Producers. Bulk PVC resin production differs from production of other types of PVC resin in that the polymerization reaction is carried out in two separate vessels. The reaction is initiated in the "prepolymerization" reactor and the reactor contents are then transferred to the "poetpolymerizatioa" reactor where the reaction is completed. Stripping of residual VC in bulk resin is performed following the postpolyaerizatiofi step in the reactor vessel. The postpolymerizatioa reactor generally is opeoed after every batch and must comply with the reactor opening loss limits specified in the standard. Because the prepolymerization reactor is opened less frequently and because determination of gross product (for reactor opening loss estimation) is difficult, the EPA has allowed plants to meet the equipment opening requirements for minimizing VC emissions from polymerization reactor openings. The reactor opening loss requirements are being revised at this time to specifically exclude prepolymerization reactors. Accordingly. VC emissions from all opening of prepolymerization reacton will be subject to the equipment opening requirements. This revision is intended to clarify and improve the consistency of the equirements of the revised standard as they apply to bulk PVC resin producers in light of actual, industry practice. No reduction in VC emission control stringency will result from the change in requirements for prepolymerizatioo reactors. Inprocess Wastewater Requirements for Gasholder Seals. Under the current standards, the VC content of inprocess wastewater must be reduced to less than 10 ppm exposure of the wastewater to the atmosphere. In the case of gasholder water seala, the VC content in the exposed water seal may exceed 10 ppm during normal operation of the gasholder. Experience since the standard was promulgated indicates that compliance with the atmospheric exposure limit is not practicable for this particular inprocess wastewater source. Consequently, the definition of inprocess wastewater is being revised to exdude the exposed water seal of gasholders. The inproeese wastewater stripping requirements will continue to apply to wastewater after removal from the gasholder seal. Elimination of30-Day Limit on Equivalency Requests. The current standard specifies a 30-day limit for existing sources to submit requests for use of equivalent methods. Because such a limit poses a restriction on initiative by industry to develop alternative, and potentially more effective, control measures, the 30-day limitation is being eliminated. 00181*6 BSV Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January S. 1905 / Proposed Rules 1193 Other. In addition to the revision*, described above, a review or the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the current standard was performed to identify ways to ease recordkeeping and reporting burden on plants and to identify any additional recordkSeping and/or reporting needs. Hie EPA identified two areas where the reporting burden on plants could be reduced. The current reporting requirement! for residual VC monomer specifications and reactor opening measurements require that results of all compliance tests be reported in semiannual reports. Hie EPA is proposing to allow plants to report only test results that show exceedences of the respective standards. If no exceedences occur, plants will be required to indicate that fact in the semiannual report. This type of exception reporting is currently allowed for demonstration of compliance with the 10 ppzav standard for process vents. The second area is the requirement to report relief valve discharges within 10 days of their occurrence. The EPA is proposing to allow plants to report relief valve discharge occurrences on a quarterly basis rather then within 10 days of their occurrence. Furthermore, the reporting requirement! for relief valve discharges have bean streamlined by dropping the need to report actions taken and implemented preventive measures for each discharge. Information on the date. time, source, cause and estimated amount of individual relief valve discharge will be included with the semiannual reports along with information on compliance status. Additional semiannual reporting requirements being added for PVC producers are the number of reactor openings and the design capacity number of polymerization batches for each resin type. This requirement will proride general information to facilitate review of industry-wide compliance status during past reporting periods. Specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements are included as part of the revisions to the leak detection and repair requirements The recordkeeping requirements include preparation of an initial log to record equipment component identification, physical tagging of equipment components which leak, and maintaining a record of equipment leaks and repair action. Included in the reporting requirements are the number of equipment leeks and the repair status of leaking components Depending on the particular leak detection and repair program in place, these requirements may represent an increase or decrease in the overall recordkeeping and reporting currently practiced by individual plants The ETA concluded that the current recordkeeping requirements, as specified in 40 CFR 61.71. are still appropriate. However, the EPA is proposing to extend the current recordkeeping requirements for all reporting activities from 2 lo 3 years. The net impact of the revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements proposed by the EPA is estimated to be a decrease in a paperwork burden of about 2JJ person* years It should be noted that all Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 101(14) hazardous substances such as vinyl chlofide are subject to reporting requirements under Section 103(a) of CERCLA. CERCLA requires that persons in charge of vessels or facilities from which hazardous substances have been released in quantities (RQs) immediately notify the National Response Center (NFC) of the release. The toll-free 24-hour telephone number of the NRC is 800-424-4802 and in Washington. D.C. metropolitan area it is (202) 426-2875v(See CERCLA Section 103 and 48 FF 23552. May 25.1883.) Vinyl chloride was assigned a statutory 1 pound reportable quantity under Section 103(14) until adjusted by regulation, and la presently undergoing assessment for both chronictoxicity and carcinogenicity. Its RQ will be adjusted pending the outcome of these reviews by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Federally permitted releases under CERCLA (See CERCLA Section 101(1) and 46 FR 23SS2) are not subject to CERLA notification requirements or liabilities. However, releases of hazardous substances that are not subject to a permit or control regulation must be reported. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1960 requires that adverse effects of all Federal regulations upon small businesses be identified. According to the current guidelines of the Small Business Administration (SBA), a small business that produces or processes VC is one that has 500 employees or less. Currently, none of the existing producers or processors that are affected by the standard are estimated to be small by this definition. Since none of the companies meets the SBA definition of small business, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Even if an analysis were required, the proposed administrative revisions do not increase the cost of compliance with the standard. Public Hearing If requested, a public hearing will be held to discuss the proposed revisions to the VC standard in accordance with sections 112(b)(1)(B) and 307(d)(5) of th< Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make ora) presentations on the proposed revisions should contact the EPA at thr address given in the aooresses section or this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each- Any member of the public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30 days after the bearing. Written statements should be addressed to the Central Docket Section address given in the addresses section of this preamble. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours st the EPA's Central Docket Section in Washington. D.C. (see ADoncsSES section of this* preamble). Docket The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in die rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record m case of judicial review (except for interagency review materials (| 307(d)(7(A)]). Miscellaneous In accordance with section 117 of the Act. publication of this proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed regulation, including health, and economic and technological issues. The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Comments on these requirements should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB. marked "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA". as well as to the EPA docket described above. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements. RSV 0018147 1194 Federal Register / VoL SO, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules Under Executive Order 12291. the EPA must judge whether a regulation is "major" and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. This regulation is not major because: (1) The national annualized compliance costs, including capital charges resulting from the standards total less than $100 million; (2) the standards do not cause a major increase in prices or production costs: and (3) the standards do not cause significant adverse effects on domestic competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or competition in foreign markets. This regulation was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response to those comments are included in Docket Number A-81-21. The docket is available Tor public inspection at EPA's Central Docket Section. West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1, Waterside Mall 401M Street. SW- Washington. D.C. 20460. Pursuant to the provisions of S U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because no small entities are affected. list of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 01 Air pollution control Asbestos, Beryllium. Hazardous materials. Mercury, Vinyl chloride. Dated: Dated December 31.1984. Alvin L Ala. Acting Administrator. PART 61--[AMENDED) It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part 61 as follows: 1. The proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 61 proposed at 42 FR 26154, June 2. 1977 are withdrawn. 2. By revising the definitions in existing $ 61.61(j). (I), (o) and (p) for "in process wastewater", "in vinyl chloride service", "ethylene dichloride purification" and "vinyl chloride purification" and by adding definitions for the terms "relief value", "leak", "exhaust gas", "relief valve discharge and "3*hour period" in new paragraphs (v). (w). (x). (y) and (z). $61.61 Definitions. (j) "Inprocess wasterwater" means any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product finished product by-product, or waste product containing vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to wastewater treatment process or discharged untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder seal water is not inprocess wastewater until It is removed from the gasholder. (1) "In vinyl chloride service" means that a piece of equipment either contains or contacts a liquid that is at least 10 percent vinyl chloride by weight or a gas that is at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride as determined according to the provisions of 161.67(h). The provisions of $ 61.67(h) also specify bow to determine that a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service. This definition must be used in place of the definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart V of this part a * (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" includes any part of the process of ethylene dichloride production which follows ethylene dichloride formation. (p) "Vinyl chloride purification" includes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation. ** (v) "Relief valve" means each pressure relief device including pressure relief valves, rupture disks, manual vents and other pressure relief systems used to protect process components from overpressure conditions. "Relief valve" doee not include control valves used to control flow to an incinerator or other air pollution control device. (w) "Leak" means any of several events that indicate interruption of confinement of vinyl chloride within process equipment. Leaks include events regulated under Subpart V of this part such as: (1) An instrument reading of 10.000ppm or greater (2) indications of liquid dripping: (3) a sensor detection of failure of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid system, or both: and (4) detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of greater than 500 ppm above background. Leaks also include events regulated under | 61.05(b)(8)(i) of detection of ambient concentrations in excess of background concentration. Emissions of vinyl chloride not regulated under | 61.61 (a) and (b): f 61.63(a): | 61.64 (a), (b). (c), (d). (e) and (f): and | 61.65 (a) and (b)(1), (b)(2). (b)(3). (b)(4). (b)(5). (b)(6). (b)(7) and (b)(9) shall be considered a leak. A relief valve discharge is not a leak. (x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas discharged directly or ultimately to the atmosphere that was initially contained in or was in direct contact with the equipment for which 10 ppm emission limits are prescribed in 161.62 (a) and (b) : $ 61.63(a): f 61.64 (a)(1). (a)(2). (b). (c) and (d): 61.65 (b)(l)(U). (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9)(ii). A leak as defined in paragraph (w) of this section is not an exhaust gas. (y) "Relief valve discharge".means any nonleak discharge through a relief valve. (*) "3-hour period" means any three consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour commencing on the hour). 3. By changing " ail exhaust gases'* to "each exhaust gas stream" and making other minor clarifying revisions in f 61.62(a). | 61.63(a). and | 61.64 (a)(1). (b), (c) and (d) as follows: $61.62 Emission standard for ethylene dtchioride plants. (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from any equipment used in ethylene dichloride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with $ 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in I 61.65(a). This requirement does not preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined steam is ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as provided in $ 81.68. This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in $ 61.65(b)(8)(i) b efore* being opened. $ 61.63 Emission standard for vinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of vinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and $ 61.65 (a) Vinyl chloride formation and purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride In each exhaust gaa stream from any equipment used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purification ia not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-houi period or aa determined in accordance with $ 61.67(g)(1)). except as provided in $ 61.65(a). This requirement does not preclude combining of exhaust gas streams provided the combined steam is ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, ia out of operation, and met the requirement in 161.85(b](6)(i) before being opened. BSV 0018148 Ftdwil Register / Vol. SO. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1965 / Proposed Rules 1195 Emission standard ter pofyvlnyt eWorld* plant*. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and f 61.65. (a) Reactor. The following requirements apply to reactors: (1) The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with 161417(g)(1)). except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this s ection and | B1.6S(a). (b) Stripper. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with } 61.67(g)(1)). except as provided in S 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, end met the requirement in $ 61.85{b)(6)(i) before being opened. (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding containers. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas stream from each mixing, weighing, or holding container in vinjyl chloride service which precedes the stnpper (or the reactor if the plant has no stripper) in the plant process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour period or as determined in accordance with { 61.67(g)(1)). except es provided in { 61.65(a). This requirement does 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. (d) Monomer recovery system. The concentration of vinyl chloride in each exahust gas stream from each monomer recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-bour period or es determined in accordance with S 61.67(g)(1)), except as provided in I 61.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in { 61.65(b)(Q)(i) before being opened. 4. By revising existing paragraphs 5 61.64(a){2} and by removing (a)(3) as follows: f 1144 Emission standard tor polyvinyl eWorld* 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: ' (2) The reactor opening loss from each reactor is not to exceed 04)2 g vinyl chloride/kg (04)0002 lb vinyl chloride/ib) of poly vinyl chloride product except as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. Ibis requirement does not apply to prepolymerization reactors in the bulk process. This requirement does apply to postpolymerization reactors in the bulk process, where the product means the gross product of prepolymerization and postpolymerization. 5. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text and adding paragraph (e)(3) to | 61.64 as follows: {61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chlorld* plants. o e o (e) Sources following the stn'pperfsj. The following requirements apply to emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from the combination of all sources following the stripper(s) (or the reactors) is the plant has no stripperfs)] in the plant process flow including but not limited to. centrifuges, concentrators, bleed tanks, filter*, dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, storage containers, and inprocesa wastewater, except as provided in paragraph (!) of this section: ** * (3) The provisions of this paragraph apply at all times including when off- specification or other types of resins are made. 6. By adding paragraph (f) to { 61.64 as follows: {61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl eWorld* plant* * _ (f) Reactor used as stripper. When a nonbulk resin reactor is used as a stripper this paragraph may be applied in lieu of f 61.64 (a)(2) and (e)(1): (1) The weighted average emissions of vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper from ell grades of polyvinyl chloride resin stripped in the reactor on each calendar day may not exceed: (i) 202 g/kg (0.00202 lb/lb] of polyvinyl chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. (if) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 Ib/lb) of polyvinyl chloride product for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. 7. By revising paragraph (a) to I 61.65 as follows: {6145 Emission standard for ethylene dtcWortde, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl eWorld* plants An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shell comply with the requirements of this section. (a) Relief valve discharges. (1) Polyvinyl chloride plants (suspension, dispersion, latex, end bulk processes). (1) Reactor. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on polyvinyl chloride reactors in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed the following limits except as provided in paragraph (a)(l)(iu) of this section. For all reactors producing suspension resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 4 discharges per year. For all reactors producing dispersion and latex resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. For all reactors Including prepolymerization and postpolymerization reactors, producing bulk resins within a PVC plant the number of relief valve discharges is not to exceed 04)35 discharges per 100 polymerization batches. (ii) The number of dischatgei to the atmosphere from relief valves on equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors) in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 0.025 discharges per 100 polymerization batches nor 3 discharges per year except as provided in paragarph (a)[l)(ui) of this section. (iii) The limits specified in paragraphs (a)(ij(i) and (a)(1)(H) of this section may be exceeded when only one relief valve discharge to the atmosphere occurs during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6>,month reporting period. (2) Polyvinyl chloride plants (solution and other continuous PVC production processes). The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on all equipment in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 1 discharge per year. (3) Ethylene dichJoride and vinyl chloride plants. The number of discharges to the atmosphere from relief valves on equipment in vinyl chloride service is not to exceed 4 discharges per year. (4) Each relief valve discharge that contributes to a relief valve discharge frequency in excess of any limit prescribed in paragarphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this paragraph constitute* RSV 0018149 1196 Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1955 / Proposed Rules an individual violation of the respective limit (5) For every relief valve discharge to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source, the date and time of the discharge, the cause of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be submitted in writing to the Administratoras part of the reporting requirements of paragraph 5 61.70. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years. 6. By revising paragraphs [b](3), (b)(8)(i). (b)(6)(iii), fb)[B)(iv) and (b)(8}(vi) to } 61.65 as follows: $ SY.SS Emission standard for ethylene diehtortde, vinyl chloride end polyvinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of an ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) * * (b) Fugitive emission sources (!)* (2) * * * (3) Leakage from pump, compressor, and agitator seals: (i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals or equivalent as provided in S 61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 9 61.66. (iij Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in 9 61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 9 01.66. (iiil Rotating compressor. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all rotating compressors in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing compressors with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in 9 61.86. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the compressor: by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in f 61.66. fiv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all reciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing double outboard seals, or equivalent as provided in 9 61.66. If double outboard seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the compressor: by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does cot exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 9 61.66 (v] Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on all agitators in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing agitators with double mechanical seals, or equivalent as provided in 161.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the agitated vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride In the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided in 9 81.88. * (6) Leak detection and elimination. (i) It includes e reliable and accurate vinyl chlorida monitoring system for detection of major leaks and identification of the general area of the plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system means a device which obtains air samples from one or more points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas chromatography or, if (he owner or operator assumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. (iii) It provides for an acceptable calibration and maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable hydrocarbon detector. For the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration defined as a leak according to paragraph (b)(6)(vi) of this section. The calibration is to be done with either (A) A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases specified in sections 5.2.1 and 5^2 of Test Method 106 and in accordance with section 7.1 of test Method 106, or (B) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the appropriate concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition of the calibration gas cylinder standard is to have been certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must have recommended a maximum shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than 5 percent from the certified value. The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration and recommended maximum shelf life must have been affixed to the cylinder before shipment from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may be directly used to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as described in section 7J of Test Method 106. The requirements in section 5-2J.1 and 5.2J.2 of Test Method 106 for certification of cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of calibration standards are to be followed. (iv) The location and number of points to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring provided for in die program are acceptable when they are compared with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl chloride service and the size and physical layout of the plant (vi) It contains a definition of leak which is acceptable when compared with the background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system are to be included with the description of the program. The definition of leak for given plant may vary among the different areas within the plant and is also to change over time as background concentrations in the plant are reduced. ** RSV 0018150 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules 1197 By revising paragraph (b)(4) to 161.65 as follows:' f 61.65 Emission standard ter ethylene dleldortde, vinyl eNortde and polyvinyl chloride plants (b) Fugitive emission sources. * (4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service shall comply with f 61.2f4t 2-4ftof Sub partV of this part. 10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of B 61.65 as follows: 161.65 Emission standard lor ethylene dlchlorlde, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. 6t fb) Fugitive emission sources. *666 (7) Samples. Unused portions of samples containing at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to be returned to the process or destroyed in a control device from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does not exceed 10 ppm. Sampling techniques are to be auch that sample containers in vinyl chloride are purged into a dosed process system. 11. By revising paragraphs (b)(6) introductory text. (b)(8)(H), and (bj(8)(v) to \ 61.55 as follows: 9 61.65 Emission standard tor athylene dlchlorids, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants. a a ft (b)ftFugitftive em* issioftn sources. (6) Leak detection and elimination. Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be minimised by instituting and implementing a lead detection mod repair program consistent with the provisions of Subpart V of this part The program is to be implemented within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under fi 61.11. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: (ii) It includes a reliable and accurate portable hydrocarbon detector to be used consistent with the provisions of Subpart V of this part An owner or operator is exempt from i 81.242-l(d). B! 61.242-7 (a), (b) and (c). 9 61.246 and f 61.247 of Subpart V of this part for any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is demonstrated to be equal to or less than 2.0 percent, as determined in accordance with the following: (A) A performance test as specified in paragraph (b)(8J(ii](C) of this section shall be conducted initially within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations, annully and at times requested by the Administrator. (B) For each performance test a minimum of 200 or 90 percent of the total valves in VOC service (as defined in I 60-481 of Subpart W of Part 60) within the process unit shall be randomly selected and monitored within 1 week by the methods specified in | 61.245(d) of Subpart V of this part. If an instrument reading of 10.000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is detected. The leak percentage shall be determined by dividing the number of valves in VOC service for which leeks are detected by the number of tested valves in VOC service. (C) If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired in accordance with 161.242-7 (d) and fe) of Subpart V of this part (D) The results of the performance test shall be submitted in writing to the Administrator in the first semiannual report following the performance test as part of the reporting requirements of f 61.70. (E) Any process unit in which the percentage of leaking valves is found to be greeter than 24) percent must comply with all provisions of Subpart V of this part within 90 days. * ft ft 9 ft (v) It contains a plan of action to be taken when a leek is detected consistent with Subpart V of this part 12. By revising $ 61.66 as follows: f 61.66 Equivalent equipment and procedures. Upon written application from an owner or operator, the Administrator may approve use of equipment or procedures which have been demonstrated to his satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl chloride emissions to the atmosphere to those prescribed for compliance with a specific paragraph of this subpart- 13. By revising paragraph (f) of B 61.67 as follows: 161.67 Emission feasts. v (f) The owner or operator shall retain at the plant end make available, upon request for inspection by the Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, records of emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions. 14. By revising paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text (g){3)(). and (g)(3)(iii) of B 61.67 at follows: 9 61.67 Emission testa. ft ft ft (8) * * * (3) When a stripping operation is used to attain the emission limits in B 81.64 (e) and (f), emissions are to be determined using Test Method 107 as follows: (i) The number of strippers (or reactors using as strippers) and samples and the types and grades of resin to be sampled are to be determined by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the test based on the plant's operation. (ii) (iii) The corresponding quantity of material processed by each stripper (or reactor used as a stripper) is to be determined on a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. ft ft IS- By revising paragraph (g)(5) introductory text and adding paragraph (g)(6) to i 81.67 as follows: {61.67 Emission tests. ft ft ft ft (8) * * ' (5) The reactor opening loss for which an emission limit is prescribed in B 01.64(a)(2) is to be determined. The number of reactors for which the determination is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. ft ft ft (6) For a reactor that is used as a stripper, the emissions of vinyi chloride from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper for which an emission limit is prescribed in f 61.64(f) are to be determined. The number of reactors for which the determination is to be made is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. (i) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the following measurements ere to be made: (A) The concentration (ppm) of vinyl chloride in resin after stripping, measured according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section: (B) The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at end of strip from plant instrument: and (C) The reactor temperature (*C) at end of strip from plant instrument. RSV 0018151 1196 Federal Register / Vol. SO, No. fl / Wednesday. January 9. 1965 / Proposed Rules (U) Far each batch stripped in the reactor, the following information is to be determined: (A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of water in the reactor at end of strip from the following table: ftwetv vapor U--P-- trerq --cor P-- re mm H# taew vww WWBW a--rc *0 wow *4-- "MOOT vapor wrap** arerq *o *aeor pro*re (mm Hq> 40 M3 41 U.1 'j 43 St* 44 as *5 71.* 4S 750 47 7*.a * 07 49 MO SO 92-5 s< 97.2 S3 at' S3 107.2 S4 H2.S ss 1140 M 123-0 57 129.5 SS 130.1 SO 142.0 00 149.4 93 lM.4 S2 143 S3 1714 04 ires OS 157 5 44 195.1 47 204.3 214a M1 223.7 70 mr 71 243.9 7 254 4 TS 2547 74 ZT72 75 295.1 TO 301.4 77 314 1 75 3272 7* 3410 BO 3541 1 309.7 2 384.9 92 400.9 94 4140 9ft 433.0 M 4509 97 499.7 <S 467.1 95 5041 90 529 9 *r 9440 9ft 957.0 93 sue *4 010.9 98 9325 99 057* 97 982.1 99 707 3 99 7335 100 780.0 (B) The partial pressure (mm tig) of vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip from the following equation: PPVA* 7o- RV - VPW Where: PPVC--partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in mm Hg "80-- atmospheric pressore at 0*C. in mm Hg RV-absolute value of reactor vacuum, in mm Hg VPW --vapor pressure of water, ia nun Hg (C) The reactor vapor space volume (m3) at end of strip from the following equation: nvsv-nc-wv- PVCW s where: RVSV - reactor vapor space volume, in ra* RC--reactor capacity, in m* WV - vohune of water bi reactor from recipe, in m* PVCW -dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, in kg 833-typical density of polyvinyl chloride, in kg/m* (iii) For each batch stripped in the reactor, the combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as stripper is to be determined using the following equation: C(PPMYCKi(M where: C--g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride product PPMVC--concentration of vinyl chloride in resin after stripping, in ppa 10"*--conversion factor for ppm PPVC--partial pressure of vinyl chloride determined according to paragraph (8)(0](iiKB) of this section, m mm Hg RVSV--reactor vapor space volume determined according to paregraph (g](6){ii](C] of this section, in m* r 1.002--ideal gas constant in g--'K/mm Hg--- ra* for vinyl chloride PVCW--dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in reactor from recipe, ia kg 273--convenns factor fa *C to *K RT-- reactor temperature, in *C 18. By adding paragraph (h) to | 61.67 us follows: * # (h)(1) Each piece of equipment within a process unit that can reasonably contain equipment in vinyl chloride service is presumed to be in vinyl chloride service unless an owner or operator demonstrates that the piece of equipment Is not in vinyl chloride service. For a piece of equipment to be considered not in vinyl chloride service, it must be determined that the percent vinyl chloride content can be reasonably expected not to exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams and 10 percent by volume for gas streams. For purposes of determining the percent vinyl chloride content of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment, procedures that conform to the methods described in ASTM Method D-2287 (incorporated by reference as specified in | 61.18} shall be used. (2X1) An owner or operator may use engineering judgment rather than the procedures in paragraph (hl(l| of this section to demonstrate that the percent vinyl chloride content does not exceed 10 percent by weight for liquid streams and 10 percent by volume for gat streams, provided that the engineering judgment demonstrates that the vinyl chloride content clearly does not exceed 10 percent When an owner or operator and the Administrator do not agree on whether a piece of equipment is not in vinyl chloride service, however, the procedures ia paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall be used to resolve the disagreement (ii) If an owner or operator determines that a piece of equipment is in vinyl chloride service, the determination cun |PPVC)(RVSV)(1.002) IPVCWMZ73+RT) be revised only after following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section. (3) Samples used in determining the percent vinyl chloride content shall be representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts the equipment 17. By adding paragraphs (d)* (e) and If) to | 61.68 as follows: 9 61.6S Emission monriorinq. m (d) When exhaust gas(es), having emission limits that are subject to the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, are emitted to the atmosphere around the control system and required vinyl chloride monitoring system the vinyl chloride content of the emission shall be calculated (in units of each applicable emission limit) by beat practical engineering judgment based on the discharge duration end known VC concentrations in the effected equipment ee determined in accordance with 161.67(h) or other acceptable method. (e) For each 3-hour period, the vinyl chloride content of emissions subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section shall be averaged (weighted according to the proportion of time that emissions were continuously monitored and that emissions bypassed the continuous monitor) for purposes of reporting excess emissions under | 61.70(c)(1). (f) For each vinyl chloride emission to the atmosphere determined in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section to be in excess of the applicable emission limits* the owner or operator shall record the identity of the source(s). the date. time, end duration of the excess emission, the cause of the emission, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the excess emission, and the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss. This information shall be retained and made available for inspection by the Administrator as required by f61.71(a). 16. By changing die title from "Semiannual report" to "Reporting" and by revising paragraph (a) of i 61-70 as follows: RSV 0018152 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 8 / Wednesday. January 0, 19B5 / Proposed Rules 1199 {11.70 Reporting (a)(1) The owner or operator of any source to which thie subpart applies shall submit to the Administrator on September 1$ and March 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraphs, (c). (d) and (e) of this section and on December 15 and June 15 of each year a report in writing containing the information required in paragraph (e) of thia section, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2). (2) In the case of an existing source that submits semiannual reports on an approved fixed schedule other than September 15 and March 15. the approved semiannual reporting schedule shall be used to report the information required in paragraphs (c). (d) and (e) of this section. In addition, (he information required in paragraph (e) of this section will be reported exactly 3 months following the semiannual reporting dates. (3) The first report is to be submitted following the first full 3 month reporting period after the initial report is submitted. 19. By revising paragraph (c)(1) of { 61.70 as follows: f 61.70 Reporting. * (c) * * * (1) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content of emissions for each 3-hour period during which average emissions are in excess of the emission limits in { 61.62 (a) or (b). { 61.63(a). or { 61.64 (a)(1). (b). (c). or (d). or during which average emissions are in excess of the emission limits specified-for any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in S 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive emissions are required to be ducted in { 61.65 (b)(i)(ii). (b)(2). (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii). or (b) (9)(ii). If emissions in excess of the emission limits are not detected, the report shall contain a statement that no excess emissions have been detected. The emissions are to be determined in accordance with I 61.86(e). 20. By revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text removing paragraphs (c) (2)(iv). revising paragraph (c)(2)(iii) and revising (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi) introductory text to f 61.70 as follows: {1.70 Reporting. (c) * * * (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to attain the emission level prescribed in { 61.64(e). the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl x chloride resin. (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test Method 107 as prescribed in | 61.67(g)(3). (iv) (Reserved) (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-hour average resin Ar*m --` where: A 24-hour average concentration of type. T reain in ppm (dry weight basis). Qw.Total production of type TV resin over the 24-hour period in kg. TVwType of resin: /aU. . . at where m is total number of reain types produced during the 24-hour period Ms Concentration of vinyl chloride in one ample of grade Gt reain. in ppm. production of grade G resin represented by the sample, in kg. CsGrade of resin: e.g- G,. Gt. and C,. n -Total number of grades of resin produced during the 24-hour period If no 24-hour average resin vinyl chloride concentrations in excess of the limits prescribed in { 61.64(e) are measured, the report shall state that no excess resin vinyl chloride concentrations were measured. (vi) The owner or operator shall retain at the source and make available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years records of all data needed to furnish the information required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section. The records are to contain the following information: (A) * * * CB) * - - t 21. By revising paragraph (c)(3) of { 61.70 as follows: {1.70 Reporting. * (C) (3) The owner or operator shall Include in the report a record of any emissions from each reactor opening in excess of the emission limits prescribed in { 61.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be determined in accordance with{ 61.67(g)(5). except that emissions for each reactor are to be determined. If emissions in excess of the emission limits are not detected, the report ahall vinyl chloride concentration, os determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in { 61.64(e). The vinyl chloride content found in each ample required by paragraphs (c](2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section shall be averaged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the tripperfs) that calendar day. according to the following equation: 5T include a statement that excess emissions have not been detected. t 22. By adding paragraph (c)(4) to { 61.70 as follows: { 1.70 Reporting (4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which stripping in the reactor is used to attain the emission level prescribed in | 61.64(f). the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the vinyl chloride emissions from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper. (i) One representative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken from each batch of each grade of resin immediately following the completion of the stripping operation, and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. The corresponding quantity of material processed in each stripper batch is to be recorded and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. (ii) The vinyl chloride content in each sample is to be determined by Test* Method 107 as prescribed in I 61.67(g)(3). (iii) The combined emission from reactor opening loss and all sources following the reactor used as a stripper are to be determined for each batch stripped in a reactor according to the procedure prescribed in f 6167(g)(6). (iv) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include a record of any 24-hour average combined reactor opening loss and emissions from all sources following the reactor used as a stripper as determined in this paragraph, in excess of the limits prescribed in { 61.64(f). The combined reactor opening loss and emissions from RSV 0018153 1200 Federal Register / Vol.SO. No. 6 / Wednesday, Janaary 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules all sources following the reactor used as a stripper associated with each batch are to be averaged separately for each of each grade of resm stripped in reactors that calendar day as follows: For each type of resin (suspension, N F. --; aod FN Y type of resin, over each calendar day dispersion, latex, bulk, other), the and weighted according to the quantity following calculation is to be performed: where F.* relief valve discharge frequency per tOO r 9- cr i-i gi st VGi - PG2 cg2 ... - PS,, cs,, Q Where: A < 24-hour average combined reactor opening losa and emissions from all sources following the reactor osed as a stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight basis). Q*Total production of resin in batchea for which stripping ia completed during the 24-hour period, ia kg. C Average combined reactor opening lose and emissions From all sources following the reactor used as a stripper of all batchea of grade Gt resin for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period in g vinyl chloride/kg product (dry weight basis) (detennioed according to procedure prescribed in | 0147(g)(6)). P * Production of grade G resin in the batchea for which C ia determined, in kg. C(~Grade of resin; e g- Gi. Gi. and G. n *Total number ofgrades of resin in batchea for which stripping is completed during the 24-hour period. If no 24-hour average combined reactor N Where F, relief valve discharge frequency per too polymerization batchea from all reactor* producing reaiag type t N * total number of relief valve discharge* during th^ 12-momh period preceding the close of the S-month reporting period from all reactor* producing resin type t Y s total number of polymerization batches of resin type t during the 12-month period preceding the dose of the 6-month reporting period divided by IDO t = resin type, dispersion (including latex) or bulk resin type (2) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing suspension resins, the relief valve discharge frequency from polyvinyl chloride reactors ia to be determined in two ways using the polymerization batches from U equipment (excluding reactors) F> relief valve discharge frequency per 12- month period from all equipment (excluding reactors) N total number of relief valve discharges during the 12-month period preceding the dose of the 6-month reporting period from all equipment (excluding reactor*) Y * total number of polymerization batches of all ream types combined divided by 100 (4) For polyvinyl chloride plants using the solution process or any other continuous production process, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all equipment types during the 12-month period preceding the dose of the 6-moolh reporting period. (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinyl chloride plants, the relief valve discharge frequency is the summation of each relief valve discharge from all equipment types during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 8month reporting period. (6) A polymerization batch consists of each sequence of charging VC and other materials to the reactor, heating reactor contents, polymerization of reactor opening lots and emissions from all following equations: contents, and removal of reactor sources following the reactor used a contents including any incomplete stripper in excess of the limits prescribed in f 81.84(f) are determined, the report shall state that no excess F- - --: M P- - H r sequence that is aborted after charging VC to the reactor. For bulk resin production plants, a single vinyl chloride emissions were "polymerization batch" includes both determined. prepolymerization and 23. By adding paragraphs (d). (*) and where postpolymerization reactor operations. \ (f) to S 81.70 as follows: 9 61.70 fleporttngk 4 (d) The owner or operator shall include in the report a record of relief valve discharges as prescribed in 9 81.65(a)(4). and the owner or operator shall report exceedences of the relief valve discharge frequency limits prescribed in } 61.65(a) to be determined as follows: (1) For polyvinyl chloride plants producing dispersion, latex or bulk FM*relief valve discharge frequency per 100 polymerization batches from all reactors producing suspension resin F.i arelief valve discharge frequency per 12month period from aU reactors producing suspension resin N * total number of relief valve diseba rg** during the 12-month period preceding the close of the 6-month reporting period from all reactors producing suspension resin Y ** total number of polymerization batches of suspension resin during the 12-month period preceding the close of the A-munth reporting period divided by 100 (ej The owner or operator shall include in the report the number of relief valve discharges to the atmosphere during the 3-month period preceding the report from each of the following sources: suspension resin production reactors: dispersion and latex resin production reactors: bulk resin production reactors; all nonreactor equipment in PVC plants: all equipment used in solution process and other continuous process PVC plants: and all equipment in EDC/VC plants; any other source. (f) The owner or operator shall resins, the relief valve discharge include in the report the number of frequency from polyvinly chloride (J) For polyvinyl chloride plants reactor openings and the design reactors is to be determined using the producing suspension, dispersion, latex, capacity of the number of following equation. Separate or bulk resins, the relief vahre discharge polymerization batches for each type of calculations are to be made for each frequency from all other equipment resin in each plant during the 6-month resin type (t) as defined: (excluding polyvinyl chloride reactor*) period preceding the report. The design ia to be determined io two ways osrng capacity of the number of the following equations: polymerization batches may be defined RSV 0018154 1 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January P, 1965 / Proposed Rules initially and remain unchanged unless significant changes to the design capacity occur. 24. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text of | 61.71 as follows $ 61.71 Recordkeeping. (a) The owner or operator ol any source to which this aubpart applies shall retain the following information at the source and make it available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 3 years: 25. By adding the words "vinyl chloride" to the definition of the term "volatile hazardous air pollutants" in . | 61.241 of Subpart V as follows: 61.241 Definttions. 4 "Volatile hazardous air pollutant*' or "VHAJP** means a substance regulated under this part for which a standard for equipment leaks of the substance has been proposed and promulgated. Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl chloride is a VHAP. (Sec. 112 Clean Air Ac) of 1976) (FR Doc. 65-509 Filed 1-6-65; 6:45 m| djjho eooc UMM a 1201 RSV 0018155 i -7*75^ Environmental * .*.. . .................<* tt'i..: -iji Protection Agency ' National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Alternative Test ' Method 107A (Vinyl Chloride)T RSV 0018156 12108 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 29 / Thursday, February 12.1981 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT method is not acceptable where AGENCY Mr. Roger T. ShJgehara (MD-19), U.S. methods from Section 304(b) of the Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act, 33 U-S.C. 1251 et seq. 40 CFR Part 61 (AD-FRL 1643-4] Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2237. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977) ate required. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Alternative Test Method 107A (Vinyl Chloride) October 21.1976 (41 FR 46560) and on June 7.1977 (42 FR 29005) the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated Method 107-- .. 1.2 Principle. The basis for this method lies in the direct injection of a liquid sample into a chromatograph and the subsequent evaporation of all agency: Environmental Protection Determination of Vinyl Chloride Content volatile material into the carrier gas Agency (EPA). of Inprocess Wastewater Samples and stream of the chromatograph, thus action: Proposed rule and notice of Vinyl Chloride Content of Polyvinyl permitting analysis of all volatile public hearing. Chloride Resin. Slurry, Wet Cake, and material including vinyl chloride. Latex Samples. Since that time, Union 2. Range and Sensitivity. summary: The proposed method would Carbide has submitted comparative The lower limit of detection of vinyl apply to the measurement of the vinyl supporting data to EPA on a test method chloride in dry PVC resin Is 0.2 ppm. For chloride content of solvents, resin* that embodies a less sophisticated, but . resin solutions, latexes, and wet resin, solvent solution, polyvinyl chloride also technically satisfactory, analytical this limit rises inversely as the resin, resin-slurry, wet resin, and latex approach. Because practical ' nonvolatile (resin) content decreases. samples. The proposed method was considerations would favor its use in With proper calibration the upper derived from a test method submitted to some Instances, this alternative method limit may hrextended as needed. EPA by Union Carbide. The intent of is being considered for adoption as an 3. Interferences. this proposed method is to provide this EPA method. If adopted, this alternative The chromatograph columns and the alternative analytical procedure test method would be available to corresponding operating parameters because it may be preferred over determine compliance with the national herein described normally provide an Method 107 in some circumstances. emission standard for vinyl chloride, 40 adequate resolution of vinyl chloride. In A public hearing will be held to CFR. Part 61 Subpart F. ^ eases where resolution interferences are provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data (Secs. 112.114. and 301(a) of the Clean Air ' Act is amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7414. and encountered, the chromatograph operator shall select the column and views, or arguments concerning the W0.(a) operating parameters best suited to his proposed method. . . Dated: February 4,1981. ^ t,.( particular analysis problem, subject to DATES: Comments. Comments must be Walter G Barber. ^ the approval of the Administrator. received on or before April 13.1981. Acting Administrator. Approval is automatic provided that the Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held os March 26.1981 (about 30 days after proposal) beginning at 9 ud.` Request to Speak at Hearing.* Persons ^*i> It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part 61 by adding Method 107A to Appendix B as follows: tester produces confirming data thfLugn 4. an adequate supplemental analytical technique, such as analysis with a Lr different column or GC/mass wishing to present oral testimony must, . Appepdix B--Test Methods ^ ^ spectroscopy, and has the data contact EPA by March 19 (1 week before*?*:g`ll* * * available for review by the hearing). ---- '---------------------- addresses: Comments. Comments ; ^j Method 107A--Determination of Vinyl should be submitted (in duplicate If! Chloride Content of Solvents, Rob* p - p13o0s)s.iAbltete) ntoti:oCne: nDtoraclkDeot Ack-6e0t S-3e7c,tiUo.nS(. A. T-s'V; ', Solvent Solution, Polyvinyl Chloride , Ramin, Resin Slurry, Wet Resin! and " Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Latex Samples1 Administrator. 4. Precisian and Reproducibility. A standard sample of latex containing 181.8 ppm vinyl chloride analyzed 10 times by the alternative method showed a standard deviation of 7.5 percent and Street, SW,, Washington. D.C. 20460. Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held at Emissions Measurement Laboratory Building, Page Road and Interstate 40. R.TJ*. North Carolina 27711. Persons wishing to present oral testimony should notify Ms. Deanna Tilley. Standards Development Branch (MD-13). U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5421. Docket. Docket No. A-80-37, containing material relevant to this rulemaking, is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1. introduction - a mean error of 0-21 percent A sample of vinyl chloride copolymer Performance of this method should , resin solution was analyzed 10 times by not be attempted by persons unfamiliar, the alternative method and showed a with the operation of a gas -r:j standard deviation of 6-6 percent at a chromatograph or by those who are^., unfamiliar with source sampling i ' level of 35 ppm. 5. Safety. because knowledge beyond the scope of - Do not release vinyl chloride to the this presentation is required. Care must; > laboratory atmosphere during be exercised to prevent exposure of preparation of standards. Venting or sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a ^ purging with vinyl chloride monomer carcinogen. 1. Applicability and Principle. , 1.1 Applicability. This is an ' alternative method and applies to the . measurement of the vinyl chloride ' * content of solvents, resin solvent' solutions. PVC resin, wet cake slurries, latex, and fabricated resin samples. This (VCM) air mixtures must be held to minimum When purging is required, the vapor must be routed to outside air. Vinyl chloride, even at low-ppm levels, most never be vented inside the laboratory. ' 6. Apparatus. 6.1 Sampling. The following Waterside Mall, 401M Street. SW,, Washington. D.C 20400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. ' Mention of trade names or specific pforiurti doea not conatitute endorsement by the DA Environmental Protection Agency. equipment is required: 6.1.1 Glass Bottles. 16-oz wide mouth with polyethylene-lined screw-on tops- RSV 0018157 Federal Regiater / VoL 46. No. 29 / Thursday. February 1Z 1981 / Proposed Rules 12189 642 Adhesive Tape. To prevent chromatograph. Compare the THF glass sparger to attempt to remove the loosening of bottle tops. chromatogram with that shown in Figure interfering peak. Reanalyze the sparged 6.2 Sample Recovery. The following 107A-l. If the chromatogram is THF to determine whether the THF is equipment is required: comparable to A the THF should be acceptable for use. If the scan is 6.2.1 Glass Vials. 20-ml capacity sparged with pure nitrogen for comparable to B, the THF should be with polycone screw caps. approximately 2 hours using the fritted acceptable for use in the analysis. 6.22 Analytical Balance. Capable of weighing to 0.01 gram. Interfering peak 622 Syringe. SO-microliter size, with removable needle. 6.2.4 Flitted Class Sparger. Fine porosity. 6.2.5 Aluminum Weighing Dishes. 62.6 Sample Roller or Shaker. To help dissolve sample. 6.3 Analysis. The following equipment is required: . 6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. Hewlett Packard Model 572QA or equivalent 6.3.2 Chromatograph Column. Stainless steel 6.1 m by 32 mm, packed with 20 percent Tergitol E-35 on Chromosorb W AW 60/80 mesh. The analyst may use other columns provided Time, minutes that the precision and accuracy of the analysis of vinyl chloride standards are Figure 107A-1 not impaired and that he has available 7.1.5 N. N-Dimethylacetamide sample of the wet resin is used to for review information confirming that (DMAC). Spectrographic grade. For use determine total solids as required for there is adequate resolution of the vinyl in place in THF. calculating the RVCM (Section 62.4). chloride peak. (Adequate resolution is 72 Calibration. The following item is 622 Latex and Resin Solvent defined as an area overlap of not more required: Solutions. Samples must be thoroughly than 10 percent of the vinyl chloride 72.1 Vinyl Chloride 99.9 Percent mixed. Weigh 1.00 021 g of the latex peak by an interfered peak. Calculation Ideal Gas Products lecture bottle, or or resin-solvent solution into a 20-ml of area overlap is explained in equivalent For preparation of standard vial containing 9.00 021 g ofTHF or Appendix C, Supplement A: solutions. DMAC as for the resin samples (62.1). "Determination of Adequate 6. Procedure. Cap and shake until complete solution is Chromatographic Peak Resolution."} 64 Sampling. Allow the liquid or obtained. Determine the total solids of 622 'Valeo Instrument Six-Port dried resin to Qow from a tap on the the latex or resin solution sample* Rotary Valve. For column back flush. tank. silo, or pipeline until the tap has | (Section 62.4). s ,>. 62.4 ; Septa. For chromatograph been purged. Fill a wide-mouth pint 6.2.4 Solvents and Non-viscous injection port bottle, and immediately tightly cap the Liquid Samples. No preparation of these 62.5 Injection Port Liners. For bottle. Place an Identifying label on each samples is required. The neat samples chromatograph used. ^ ' bottle and record die date, time, sample 6.32 _ Regulators. For required gas = location, and materiaL0-- cylinders. :<' 82 ' Sample Treatment Samples must 6.3.7 Soap Film Flow Meter. Hewlett be run within 24 hours. >- Packard No. 0101-0113 or equivalent 62.1 Resin Samples. Weight 820 6.4 Calibration. The following 0.01 g of THF or DMAC in a tared 20-ml equipment is required: viaL Add 120 021 g or resin to the 6.4.1 'Analytical Balance. Capable of tared vial containing die THF or DMAC. weighing to 0.0001 g. Close the vial tightly with the screw cap. 6.4.2 Erlenmeyer Flask With Glass and ehake or otherwise agitate the vial Stopper. 125 ml. until complete solution of the resin is 6.42 Pipets. 0.1.0.5,1. 5,10, and SO obtained. Shaking may require several ml. minutes to several hours, depending on 6.4.4 Volumetric Flasks. 10 and 100 the nature of the resin. are injected directly into the gas chromatograph.. *.r i ..\i > :;i 82 Analysis. . 7: 62.1 Preparation of Gas Chromatograph. Install the i chromatographic column, and condition overnight at 70*C Do not connect the exit end of the column to the detector while conditioning. ~j>- 7 n: ' 82.1.1 Flow Rate Adjustments. Adjust the flow rates as follows: a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator on cylinder to read 60 psig. Set column flow controller on the chromatograph ml. 7. Reagents. Use only reagents that are of chromatograph grade. 7.1 Analysis. The following items are required: 7.1.1 Hydrogen Gas. Zero grade. 7.12 Nitrogen Gas. Zefb grade. 7.12 Air. Zero grade. 7.1.4 Tetrahydrofuran (THF). Reagent grade. Analyze the THF by injecting 10 microliters into the prepared gas 622 Suspension Resin Slurry and Wet Resin Samples. Slurry must be filtered using a small Buchner funnel with vacuum to yield a wet resin sample. The filtering process must be continued only as long as a steady stream of water is exiting from the funnel Excessive filtration time could result in some loss of VCM. The wet resin sample is weighed into a tared 20ml vial with THF or DMAC as described earlier for resin samples (82.1) and treated the same as the resin sample. A using the soap film flow meter to yield a flow rate of 40 cc/min. b. Burner Air Supply. Set regulator on the cylinder at 40 psig. Set regulator on the chromatograph to supply air to the burner to yield a flow rate of 250 to 300 cc/min using the flow meter. c. Hydrogen. Set regulator on cylinder to read 60 psig. Set regulator on the chromatograph to supply 30 to 40 cc/min using the flow meter. Optimize hydrogen flow to yield the most sensitive detector response without extingushisg the RSV 0018158 121*0 FadecnJ Register / VoL 46. No. 29 / Thursday, February 12. 1961 / Proposed Rules ? flame. Check flow with flow meter and record this flow, d. Nitrogen Back Flush Gas. Set regulator on the chromatograph using the soap film flow meter to yield a flow rate of 40 cc/min. 8.3.1.2 Temperature Adjustments. Set temperature as follows: a. Oven (chromatographic column) at 70*C. b. Injection Port at 100'C. c. Detector at 300*C. 6.3.1.3 Ignition of Flame Ionization Detector. Ignite the detector according to the manufacturer's instructions. Allow system to stabilize approximately 1 hour. 6.3.1 A Recorder. Set pen at zero and start chart drive. 8.3.1.5 Attenuation. Set attenuation to yield desired peak height depending on sample VCM content. 8.3.2. Chromatographic Analyses. a. Sample Injection. Remove needle from 50-microliter syringe. Open sample vial and draw 50*microUlers of THF or DMAC sample recovery solution Into the syringe. Recap sample vial. Attach needle to the syringe and while holding the syringe vertically (needle uppermost], eject 40 microliters Into an absorbent tissue. Wipe needle with tissue. Now inject 10 microliters into chromatograph system. Repeat the Injection until two consecutive values for the height of the vinyl chloride peak do not vary more than 5 percent Use the average value for these two peak heights to compute the sample ' concentration. b. Back Flush. After 4 minutes has elapsed after sample injection, actuate , the back flush valve to purge the first 4 feet of the chromatographic column of solvent and other high boilers. c. Sample Data. Record on the chromatograph strip chart the data from the sample label. ' - d. Elution time. Vinyl chloride elutes at 2.8 minutes. Acetaldehyde elates at 3.7 minutes. Analysis is considered complete when chart pen becomes stable. After 5 minutes, reset back flush valve and inject next sample. 8.3.3 Chromatograph Servicing. a. Septum. Replace after five sample injections. b. Sample Port Liner. Replace the sample port liner with a clean spare after five sample injections. c. Chromatograph Shut Down, if the chromatograph has been shut down overnight, rerun one or more samples from the preceding day to test stability and precision prior to starting on the current day's work. 8.3.4 Determination of Total Solida (T.S.). For wet resin, resin solution, and PVC latex samples, determine the T.S. for each sample by accurately weighing approximately 3 to 3 grama of sample into a fared aluminum pan. The <ninl procedure is as follows: a. Where water Is the major volatile component Tare the weighing dish, and add 3 to 5 grams of sample uTthe dish. Weigh to the nearest milligram. b. Where volatile solvent is the major volatile component Transfer a portion of the sample to a 20-ml screw cap vial and cap immediately. Weigh the vial to the nearest milligram. Uncap the vial and transfer a 3- to S-gram portion of the sample to a tared aluminum weighing dish. Recap the vial and reweigh to the nearest milligram. The vial weight loss is the sample weight To continue, now place the weighing pan in a 130*C oven for 1 hour. Remove the dish and allow to cool to room temperature in a desiccator. Weigh the pan to the nearest 0.1 mg. Total solids is the weight of material in the aluminum pan after heating divided by the net weight of sample added to the pan originally times 100. 9. Calibration ofthe Chromatograph. 9.1 Preparation of Standards. Prepare a 1 percent by weight (approximate) solution of vinyl chloride in THF or DMAC by bubbling vinyl chloride gas from a cylinder into a tared 125-ml glass-stoppered flask containing THF or DMAC The weight of vinyl chloride to be added should be ; calculated prior to this operation, i.e,, 1 percent of die weight of Tiff or DMAC contained in the tared flask. This must be carried out in a laboratory hood. Adjust the vinyl chloride flow from the cylinder so that the vinyl chloride1 dissolves essentially completely in the THF or DMAC and is not blown to the atmosphere. Take particular care not to volatize any of the solution. Stopper the flask and swiri the solution to effect complete mbring. Weigh the stoppered flask to nearest (LI mg to determine the . exact amount of vinyl chloride added. Plpet 10 ml of the approximately 1 percent solution into a 100-ml glass* stoppered volumetric flask, end add _ THF or DMAC to fill to the mark. Cap the flask and invert 10 to 20 times. This solution contains approximately 1.000 ppm by weight of vinyl chloride (note the exact concentration). Pipet 50-, 10-. 5~, 1-, 0.5-. and 0.1-mJ aliquots of the approximately 1,000 ppm solution into 100 ml glass stoppered volumetric flasks. Dilute to the mark with THF or DMAC cap the flasks and fnverteach 10 to 20 times. These solutions contain approximately 500. 100. SO, 10, S, and 1 ppm vinyl chloride. Note the exact concentration of each one. These standards are to be kept under refrigeration in stoppered bottles, and must be renewed every 3 months. 9-2 Preparation of Chromatograph Calibration Curve. Obtain the gas chromatograph for each of the six final solutions prepared In Section 9.1 by using the procedure in Section 8.3.2. Prepare a chart plotting peak height obtained from the chromatogram of each solution versus the known concentration. Draw a straight line through the points derived by the least squares method. 10. Calculations. 10.1 Response Factor. From the calibration curve described in Section 9.2. select the value of C* that corresponds to H for each sample. Compute the response factor, R* for each sample as follows: Cc Eq. 107A-1 *7 10.2 Residual vinyl chloride monomer concentration (C^) or vinyl chloride monomer concentration in resin: rvc 10HS Rf 107A-2 Where: , H,~Peak height of sample, mm. . R<Chromatograph response lector. .; .104 - Samples containing volatile material, Le,, resin solutions, wet resin, and latexes: ;* ' t.r H R-0,000) r- s _T_ -_____ rvc T.S. ;:\v' " E$:i07A-3 10.4 Samples of solvents and Inprocess waste water: Cvc-feiS * 10M-4' Where: <L88S~Specific gravity of THF. 11. Bibliography. 1. Communication from RJ'L Wheeler, fr^ Union Carbide Corporation. Part 81 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Appendix B. Method 107--Alternate Method. September 19,1977. - (F* Doe. CI-4M0 MVtli *44 a| sauna coos nes as u . RSV 0018159 > HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS S-391 121:0473 Subpart F--National Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride {41 FR 46559, October 21, 1976] 61.60 Applicability. (a) This fcubpart applies to plants which'produce: (1) Ethylene dlchioride by reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene, (2) vinyl chloride by any process, and/or (3) One or more polymers containing any fraction of polymerized vinyl chlo ride. <b> This subpart does not apply to equipment used In research and develop ment If the reactor used to polymerize the vinyl chloride processed In the equip ment has a capacity of no more than 0.19 mM50 sett le) Sections of this subpart other than 61.61; 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c), and (d); 61.67; 61.68; 61.69; 61.70; and 61.71 do not apply to equipment used in research and development If the reactor used to po lymerize the vinyl chloride processed In the equipment has a capacity of greater than 0.19 m* (50 gal) and no more than 4.07m* (1100 gal). (42 FR 29006. June 7, 1977] 61.61 Definitions. Terms used in this subpart are defined In the Act, In subpart A of this part, or In this section as follows: (a) "Ethylene dlchioride plant" In cludes any plant which produces ethyl ene dlchioride by reaction of oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene. (b) "Vinyl chloride plant** Includes any plant which produces vinyl chloride by any process. (c) "Polyvinyl chloride plant" Includes any plant where vinyl chloride alone or in combination with, other materials is polymerized. (d> "Slip gauge" means a gauge which has a probe that moves through the gas/ liquid interlace in a storage or transfer vessel and indicates the level of vinyl chloride In the vessel by the physical state of the material the gauge dis charges. <e) "Type of resin** means the broad classification of resin referring to the basic manufacturing process for produc ing that resin. Including, but not limited to, the suspension, dispersion, latex, bulk, and solution processes. - (f) "Grade of resin" means the-sub division of resin classification which de scribes It as a unique resin, Le., the most exact description of a resin with no fur ther subdivision. (g) "Dispersion resin" means a resin manufactured in such away as to form fluid dispersions when dispersed in a plasticizer or plasticizer/diluent mix tures. (h> "Latex resin" means a resin which 1$ produced by a polymerization process which initiates from free radical catalyst sites and is sold undried. (l) "Bulk resin' 'means a resin which Is produced by a polymerization process in which no water is used. <J) "Incrocess wastewater" means any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-preduet, or waste product containing vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride but which has not been discharged to a wastewater treat ment process or discharged untreated as wastewater. (k) "Wastewater treatment process" includes any process which modifies characteristics such as BOD, COD. TSS, and pH. usually for the purpose of meet ing effluent guidelines and standards; it does not Include any process the purpose of which is to remove vinyl chloride from water to meet requirements of this subpart. (1> "In vinyl chloride service means that a piece of equipment contains or contacts either a liquid that Is at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride or a gas-that is at least 10 percent by volume vinyl chloride. (m> "Standard operating procedure" means a formal written procedure offi cially adopted by the plant owner or operator and available on a routine basis to those persons responsible for carrying out the procedure. (n) "Run" means the net period of time during which an emission sample la collected. (o' "Ethylene dlchioride purification" Includes any part of the process of ethyl ene dichloride production which follows ethylene dlchioride formation and in which finished ethylene dlchioride is produced. <p' "Vinyl chloride purification" In cludes any part of the process of vinyl chloride production which follows vinyl chloride formation and in which finished vinyl chloride Is produced. <q) "Reactor" Includes any vessel In which vinyl chloride is partially or totally polymerized Into polyvinyl chloride. (r) "Reactor opening loss" means the emissions of vinyl chloride occurring when a reactor Is vented to the atmos phere for any purpose other than an emergency relief discharge as defined in 161.65(a). - (s' "Stripper" Includes any vessel in which residual vinyl chloride is removed from polyvinyl chloride resin, except bulk resin. In the slurry form by the use of heat and/or vacuum. In the ease of bulk resin, stripper Includes any vessel which is used to remove residual vinyl chloride from polyvinyl chloride resin immediately following the polymeriza tion step in the plant process flow. (t) "Standard temperature" means a temperature of 20* C`69* F>. (u) "Standard pressure" means a pressure Of 760 mm of Rg (29.92 In. of Hg). [42 FR 29005. June 7, 1977] 61.62 Emission standard for ethylen* dichloride plants. (42 FR 29005, June 7. 1977] (a) Ethylene dlchioride purification: The concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the at mosphere from any equipment used In ethylene dlchioride purification is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in 161.65(a). This requirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the require ment in f 61.65(b) (6) (D before being orwiid. (b) Oxychlorination reactor: Except as provided in 161.65(a), emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from each oxychlorination reactor are not to exceed 0.2 g/kg <0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100 percent ethylene dlchioride product from the oxychlorination process. 61.63 EniU*iua ttandurd' for vinyl chloride plant*. An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo ride plant shall comply with the require ments of this section and I 61.65. (a) Vinyl chloride formation and puri fication: 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 10 ppm. ex cept as provided In { 61.65(a). This re quirement does not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement in 61.65(b) (6>(l> before being opened. 61.64 Emission timdui-d for polyvinyl chloride plant*. An owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the re quirements of this section and i 61.65. (a) Reactor: The following require ments apply to reactors: <l> The concentration of vinyl chlo ride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each reactor Is not to exceed 10 ppm. except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and f 6l.65<a>. (2 > The reactor opening loss from each reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl chloride/Kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/ lb> of polyvinyl chloride product, with the produet determined on a dry solids basis. This requirement applies to any vessel which Is used as a reactor or as both a reactor and a stripper. In the bulk process, the product means the gross product of prepolymerization and postpolymerlzatlon. O' Manual vent valve discharge: Ex cept for an emergency manual vent valve discharge, there is to be no discharge to the atmosphere from any manual vent valve on a polyvinyl chloride reactor in vinyl chloride service. An emergency manual vent valve discharge means a discharge to the atmosphere which could not have been avoided by taking meas ures to prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of any discharge to the atmosphere from any manual vent valve, the owner or operator of the source from which the discharge occurs shall submit to the Ad ministrator a report in writing contain ing information on the source, nature 3*2478 RSV 0018160 (Sc. 61.64(aJ(3JJ Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC-, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 31 121 0474 FEDERAL REGULATIONS and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the dis charge. the method used for determining polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex (1) Rotating pumps; Vinyl chloride resins, with the product determined on a emissions from seals on all rotating dry solids basis: pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be Ml) 0.4 g/kg (0.0004 Ib/lb* product minimized by Installing pumps, the vinyl chloride loss, the action thft was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future dis charges. from the strippers (or reactons) if the pumps with double mechanical seals, or plant has no stripper (s)] for all other equivalent as provided in 61.66. If polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex double mechanical seals are used, vinyl resins, with the product determined on chloride emission from the seals are to t b* Stripper: The concentration of a dry solids basis. be minimized by maintaining the pres vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases dis charged to the atmosphere from each stripper is not to exeeed 10 ppm, except as provided in 161.65(a). This require 61.65 Emiwwn .'liiniLinl for rilt>l*ne dirliloride, vinyl rlilorid* und poly vinyl chloride piunl*. sure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride between the two seals through a control system from ment does not apply to equipment that An owner or operator of an ethylene which the concentration of vinyl chlo has been opened, is out of operation, and dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or poly ride in the exheust gases does not ex met the requirement in | 61.65(b) (6) (i> vinyl chloride plant shall comply with ceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided before being opened. the requirements of this section. in < 61.66. (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding (a) Relief valve discharge: Except for (ii> Reciprocating pumps: Vinyl chlo containers: The concentration of vinyl an emergency relief discharge, there is ride emissions from seals an all recipro chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to be no discharge to the atmosphere cating pumps in vinyl chloride service to the atmosphere from each mixing, from any relief valve on any equipment are to be minimized by installing double weighing, or holding container in vinyl in vinyl chloride service. An emergency outboard seals, or equivalent as provided chloride service which precedes the relief discharge means a discharge which in } 61.66. Zf double outboard seals are stripper (or the reactor if the plant has could not have been avoided by taking used, vinyl chloride emissions from the no stripper) In the plant process flow is measures to prevent the discharge. With-) not to exceed 10 ppm. except as provided in 10 days of any relief valve discharge, in } 61.65(a). This requirement does not the owners operator of the source from epply to equipment that has been which the relief valve discharge occurs opened. Is out of operation, and met the .shall submit to the Administrator a re seals are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is Into the pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride be requirement in 161.65(b) (6) (i> before port in writing containing information tween the two seals through a control being opened. on the source, nature and cause of the system from which the concentration of <d> Monomer recovery system. The discharge, the date and time of the dis vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does concentration of vinyl chloride in all ex charge, the approximate total vinyl chlo not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as haust gases discharged to the atmos ride loss during the discharge, the meth provided in 3 61.66. phere from each monomer recovery sys od used for determining the vinyl chlo <1U) Rotating compressor: Vinyl tem Is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as ride loss, the action that was taken to chloride emissions from seals on all ro provided in | 61.65(a). This requirement prevent the. discharge, and measures tating compressors' in vinyl chloride does not apply to equipment that has adopted to prevent future discharges. service are to be minimized by jfiVtaiUng been opened, is out of operation, and met (b> Fugitive emission sources: compressors with double mechanical the requirement in f 61.65(b) (6) (1) be (1) T-rtftdlwy and Ifawf seals, or equivalent as provided in 9 6L66. fore being opened. Vinyl chloride emissions from If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl (e> Sources following the strlpper(s>: and iirilrtaHtwy 1tn In vinyl rf-ilarid# chloride emissions from the sekls are to The following requirements apply to service which are opened to the atmos be minimized by maintaining the pres emissions of vinyl chloride to the at phere after each loading orunloading op mosphere from the combination of all eration are to be minimized as follows: sure between the two seals so that any leak that occurs is into the compressor; sources following the strlpper(s) (or the (42 FR 29005, June 7, 1977] by ducting any vinyl chloride between reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)] in the plant process flow In cluding but not limited to, centrifuges, concentrators, blend tanks, filters, dry ers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, . <i> After each loading or unloading operation and before opening a loading or unloading Une to the atmosphere, the quantity of vinyl chloride in all parts of the two seals through si control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride In the exhaust gases does not exceed 1C ppm; or equivalent as provided in $ 61.66. storage containers, and inprocess waste- each loading or unloading line that are (iv) Reciprocating compressors: Vinyl water: to be opened to the atmosphere is to be chloride emissions from seals on all re (1) Zn polyvinyl chloride plants using reduced so that the parts combined con ciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride stripping technology to control vinyl tain no greater than 0.0038 (0.13 ft*) service are to be minimized by installing chloride emissions, the weighted average of vinyl chloride, at standard tempera double outboard seals, or equivalent as residual vinyl chloride concentration in ture and pressure; and provided in $ 61.66. Zf double outboard all grades of polyvinyl chloride resin Ml) Any vinyl chloride removed from seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions processed through the stripping opera a loading or unloading line In accord from the seals are to be minimized by tion on each calendar day, measured ance with paragraph tblfl) <l)' of this maintaining the pressure between the immediately after the stripping opera section Is to be ducted through a control two seals so that any leak that occurs is tion is completed, may not exceed: system from which the concentration of into the compressor; by ducting any (1> 2000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does vinyl chloride between the two seals dispersion resins, excluding latex resins; not .exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as pro through a control system from which the <ii> 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl vided in | 61.66. concentration of vinyl chloride in the chloride resins, including latex resins, (2) Slip.gauges: During loading or un exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; averaged separately for each type of res loading operations, the vinyl chloride or equivalent as provided in 3 61.66.. in; or emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl iv) Agitator: Vinyl chloride emissions 2> Zn polyvinyl chloride plants con chloride service are to be minimized by from seals on all agitators in vinyl chlo trolling vinyl chloride emissions with ducting any vinyl chloride discharged ride service are to be minimized by in technology other than stripping or in from the slip gauge through a control stalling agitators with double mechani addition to stripping, emissions of vinyl system from which the concentration of cal seals, or equivalent as provided in chloride to exceed: the atmosphere may not vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm. or equivalent as pro <61.66. If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions from the (i>2 g/kg (0.002 lb/lb; product from vided in i 61.66. seals are to be minimized by maintaining the stripper(s) (or reactor<s> if the <3> Leakage from pump, compressor, the pressure between the two seals so plant has no stripper(s> 1 for dispersion and agitator seals: that any leak that occurs is into the agi- Environment Reporter [See. 61.65lb)(3Hv)J RSV 0018161 32 HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS S-391 1 - r\* is tated vessel; by ducting any vinyl chlo ride between the two seals through* a control system from which the concen tration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equiva lent as provided in ! 61.66. <4> Leakage from relief valves: Vinyl chloride emissions due to leakage from each relief valve on equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by installing a rupture disk between the equioment and the relief valve, by con necting the relief valve discharge to a process line or recovery system, or equiv alent as provided In 9 61.66. '5> Manual venting of gases: Except as provided in I 61.64(a) (3*. all gases which are manually vented from equip ment in vinyl chloride service are to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm: or equivalent as provided in 3 61.66. <6> Opening of equipment: Vinyl chloride emissions from opening of equipment (including loading or unload ing lines that are not opened to the at mosphere after each loading or -unload ing operation) are to be minimized as follows: i> Before opening any equipment for any reason,- the quantity of vinyl chlo ride is to be reduced so that the equip ment contains no more than 2.0 percent by volume vinyl chloride or 0.0960 m' (25 gal) of vinyl chloride, whichever is larger, at standard temperature and pressure; and til) Any vinyl chloride removed from the equipment in accordance with para graph (b)(6)<i> of this section is to be ducted through a control system from which the concentration of vinyl chlo ride in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in $ 61.66. '7; Samples: Unused portions of sam ples containing as least 10 percent by weight vinyl chloride are to be returned to the process, and sampling techniques are to be such that sample containers in vinyl chloride service are purged into a closed process system. <8) Leak detection and elimination: Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks from equipment in vinyl chloride service are to be minimized by instituting and implementing a formal leak detection and elimination program. The owner or operator shall submit a description of the program to the Administrator for approval. The program is to be sub mitted within 45 days of the effective date of these regulations, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under 9 61.11. If a waiver of compliance is granted, the program is to be submitted on a date scheduled by the Administrator. Ap proval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided he finds: >i' It includes a reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system for de tection of major leaks and Identification of the general area of the plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitor ing system means a device which obtains air samples from one or more points on a continuous sequential basis and ana lyzes the samples with gas chromatog raphy or, if rite owner or operator as sumes that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectro photometry flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. <ii) It includes a reliable and accurate portable hydrocarbon detector to be used routinely to find small leaks and to pin point the major leaks indicated by the vinyl rhionde monitoring system. A portable hydrocarbon detector means a device which measures hydrocarbons with a sensitivity of at least 10 ppm and is of such design and size that it can be used to measure emissions from local ized points. (iH> It provides for an acceptable cali bration and maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and <vt> it contains a definition of leak which is acceptable when compared with the background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitor ing system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system are to be included with the description of the program. The definition of leak for a given plant may vary among the differ ent areas within the plant and is also to change over time as background con centrations in the plant are reduced. <9 Inprocess wastewater: Vinyl chlo ride emissions to the atmosphere from inprocess wastewater are to be reduced as follows: (i) The concentration of vinyl chlo ride in each inprocess wastewater stream containing greater than 10 ppm vinyl portable hydrocarbon detector. For the chloride measured immediately as It vinyl chloride monitoring system, a daily span check is to be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration defined as a leak ac cording to paragraph <b> <8> <vi> of this leaves a piece of equipment and before being mixed with any other Inprocess wastewater stream is to be reduced to no more than 10 ppm by weight before being mixed with any other inprocess wastewa ter stream which contains less than 10 section. The calibration- is to be done ppm vinyl chloride: before being exposed with either: . . to the atmosphere, before being dis (A) A calibration gas mixture pre charged to a wastewater treatment proc pared from the gases specified in sections ess; or before being discharged untreated 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Test Method 106 and as a wastewater. This paragraph does in accordance with section 7.1 of Test apply to water which Is used to displace Method 106. or vinyl chloride from equipment before It (B) A calibration gas cylinder stand is opened to the atmosphere In accord ard containing the appropriate concen ance with 161.64(a)(2) or paragraph tration of vinyl chloride. The gas com <b> (6> of this section, but does not apply position of the calibration gas cylinder to water which is used to wash out equip standard Is to have been certified by the ment after the equipment has already manufacturer. The manufacturer must been opened to the atmosphere in ac have recommended a maximum shelf life cordance with | 61.64(a) (2) or para for each cylinder so that the concentra graph (b) (6) of this section. tion does not change greater than 5 (lit Any vinyl chloride removed from percent from the certified value. The date the Inprocess wastewater In accordance of gas -cylinder preparation, certified with paragraph (b> (9> (1) of this section vinyl chloride concentration and recom la to be ducted through a control system mended maximum shelf life must have from which the concentration of vinyl been affixed to the cylinder before ship chloride in the exhaust gases does not ment from the manufacturer to the exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as in 9 61.66. the vinyl chloride ihonitoring system, <c> The requirements in paragraphs these gas mixtures may be directly used (bid), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7) to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as described in section 7.3 of Test Method 106. The requirements in sec and (b> (8) of this section are to be in corporated into a standard operating procedure, anr made available upon re quest for Inspection by the Administra tion 5.2.3.1 and 5 2.3.2 of Test Method tor. The standard operating procedure Is 106 for certification of cylinder stand to Include provisions for measuring the ards and for establishment and verifica vinyl chloride in equipment te4.7B m* tion of calibration standards are to be 1,250 gal In volume for which an emis followed sion limit is prescribed in I 61.65(b) (6) [42 FR 29005. June 7. 1977) (1) prior to opening the equipment and using Test Method 106, a portable hydro (lv) The location and number of points carbon detector, or an equivalent or al to be monitored and the frequency of ternative method. The method of meas monitoring provided for in the program urement Is to meet the requirements in are acceptable when they are compared 9 61.67(g) (5>(i> (A) or <g> < <5> (1) (B>. with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl chloride service and the size and [41 FR 53017, December 3. 1976[ physical layout of the plant. $ 61.06 Equivalent equipment uud pro <v> It contains an acceptable plan of action to be taken when a leak is de cedure*. Upon written application from an own tected. er or operator, the Administrator may RSV 0018162 3-24-78 .Sec. 61.66] Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 2003? 33 12 V 0476 FEOERAL REGULATIONS approve use of equipment or procedures which have been demonstrated to his satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl chloride emissions to the atmosphere to those prescribed for com pliance with a specific paragraph of this subpart. For an existing source, any re quest for using an equivalent method as the initial measure of control is to be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days of the effective date. For a new source, any request for using an equiva lent method is to be submitted to the Administrator with the application for approval of construction or modification required by 1 61.0?. and equivalent or alternative methods do not agree, the results obtained by the reference method prevail, and the Ad ministrator may notify the owner or operator that approval of the method previously considered to be equivalent or alternative is withdrawn. (1) Test Method 106 Is to be used to determine the vinyl chloride emissions from any source for which an emission limit is prescribed In if 61.62(a) or (b) I 61.63ia>. or |i 61.64(a)(1), (b>. (c),or <d), or from any control system to which reactor emissions are required to be ducted in i 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugi tive emissions are required to be ducted In II 61.65(bi (l) (ii), (b)(2). <b>(5'. (b)(6) ill),or (b)(9)(ii). Cm - IC (2.60) Q 1Q~] [IQQ] 2 where: fax*kg vinyl chloride/100 kg prod uct. Ce* The concentration of vinyl chlo ride as measured by Test Method 106. 2.60 Density of vinyl chloride at one atmosphere' and 20* C in kg/m*. <?* Yoiumetric flow rate in mVbr as determined by Reference Method 2 of Appendix A to Part 60 of this chapter. 10"*-= Conversion factor for ppm. 2"-Production rate (kg/hr). (42 FR 29005, June 7, 1977) 61.67 EmUftkm lest*. <a> Unless wwaiver of emission testing is obtained under $61.13. the owner.or operator of a source to which this sub part applies shall test emissions from the source. <Ij Within 90 days of the effective date in the case of an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding the effective date, or (21 Within 90 days of startup in the case of a new source, initial startup of which occurs after the effective date. <b* The owner or operator shall pro vide the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of an emission test to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present during the test. <c> Any emission test is to be con ducted while the equipment being tested is operating at the maximum production rate at which the equipment will be op erated and under other relevant condi tions as may be specified by the Adminis trator based on representative perform ance of the source, <d> IReserved1 <e> When at all possible, each sample (1) For each run. one sample is to be collected. The sampling site Is to be at least two stack or duct diameters down stream and one half diameter upstream from any flow disturbance sueh~ as a bend, expansion, contraction, or visible flame. For a rectangular cross section an equivalent diameter is to be determined from the following equation: 0 (length) (wkith) equivalent diameter length-rwidTlIT The sampling point in the duct is to be at the centroid of the cross section. The sample is to be extracted at a rate proportional to the gas velocity at the sampling point. The sample is to be taken over a minimum of one hour, and Is to contain a minimum volume of 50 liters corrected to standard conditions. (ill Each emission test is to consist of three runs. For the purpose of determin ing emissions, the average of results of all runs Is to apply. The average is to be computed on a time weighted basis. (fill For gas streams containing more than 10 percent oxygen the concentra tion of vinyl chloride as determined by 2) Test Method 107 is to be used to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride in each inprocess wastewater stream for which an emission limit is prescribed in I 61.65(b) (9) (i). <3) Where a stripping operation is used to attain the emission limit in ( 61.64(e). emissions are to be determined using Test Method 107 as follows: (1) The number of strippers and sam ples and the types and grades of resin to be sampled are to be determined by the Administrator for each Individual plant at the time of the test based on the plant's operation. (if) Each sample is to be taken imme diately following the stripping operation. (iil) The corresponding quantity cf material processed by each stripper Is to be determined on a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. (lv) At the prior request of the Ad ministrator, the owner or operator h*u provide duplicates of the samples re quired in paragraph <>(3X1) of this section. is to be analyzed within 24 hours, but in Test Method 106 Is to be corrected to 10 (4) Where control technology other no case In excess of 72 hours of sample percent oxygen (dry basis) for determi than or in addition to a stripping opera collection. Vinyl chloride emissions are nation of emissions by using the follow tion is used to attain the emission limit to be determined within 30 dan after the ing equation: in 161.64(e), emissions are to be deter emission test. The owner or operator mined as follows: shall report the determinations to the Administrator by a registered.letter dis ^ patched before the close of the next busi ness day following the determination. where: a 1U.V 20.9--percent O, concentration of vinyl 142 FR 29005. June 7. 1977] chloride is the exhaust gases, corrected <f> Tiie owner or operator shall retain at the plant and make available, upon request for inspection by the Adminis trator. for a minimum of 2 years records of emission test results and other-data needed to determine emissions. (g) Unless otherwise specified, the owner or operator shall use test Test to 10-percent oxygen. C*--The concentration of vinyl* chloride as measured by Test Method 106. 20.9-- Percent oxygen in the ambient air at standard conditions. 10.9* Percent oxygen in the ambieut air at standard conditions, minus the 10.0-percent oxygen to which the correction is being made. Methods in Appendix B to this part for Percent Oj" Percent oxygen in the each test as required by paragraphs exhaust gas as measured by Refer (g)(1), (g) (2). (e) (3). (g)(4), and ence Method 3 in Appendix A of <i) Test Method 106 is to be used to determine atmospheric emissions from all of the process equipment simultane ously. The requirements of paragraph (g> (1) of this section are to be met. (U) Test Method 107 is to be. used to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride In each inprocess wastewater stream subject to the emission limit pre scribed In | 61.64(e). The mass of vinyl chloride in kg/100 tv product in each in process wastewater stream is to be de termined by using the following equa tion: ^ 1C* 7? 10"*1 [100] ------ " ----2----------- of this section, unless an equiva Part 60 of this chapter. re: lent method or an alternative method has been approved by the Administrator. If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the results obtained by an equivalent or alternative method, he may require the use of a reference method. If the results of the reference (lv) For those emission sources where the emission limit is prescribed in terms of maa rather than concentration, mass emissions in kg/100 kg product are to be determined by using the following equa tion: Cot --ke vinyl chtotldrlOO product. Cv-liie concentration o( vinyl chloride as tin jurcd by T Ucthod 107. r .-witter now rate in l/lir. delrrimnMtii rerordiiitf* with method which tus been submitted to and approved by tilt AduiinUtiator. In**--Conversion (actor lor ppm. ^-yrudnetioii rate (kphr), dtttrniinel in n-ewrd- ance with a Method which ha* submittal and approved by tlie Administrator Environment Report** (Soe. 67.67(4)(til j RSV 0018163 34 HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS <5> The reactor opening loss for which are required to be ducted in 61.65 (b) (1) an emisston limit is prescribed in 61.64 (u), and (b) (2). Cb) (5), (b) (6) (U). and (b) (a) (2) is to be determined. The number (9)(ii). of reactors for which the determination {41 FR 53017, December 3. 1976| is to be made is to be specified by the Administrator for each individual plant at the time of the determination based on the plant's operation. For a reactor that is also used as a stripper, the deter mination may be made immediately fol lowing the shipping-operation. < b * The vinyl chloride monitoring sys tem is' used to meet the requirement in paragraph (aj of this section is to be a device which obtains air sampels from one or more points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples <1) Except as provided In paragraph with ff chrcmotography or. if the owner igXSXll) of this'section, the reactor rpening loss is to be determined using the following equation: or operator assumes that all hydrocar bons measured are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion f,^TT C2.60) (10-*) (C&j detection, or an equivalent or alterna tive method. The vinyl chloride monitor ing system used to meet the requirements C--kj vinyl ehtorid* nuMoni/kg piodu... (('Capacity efib* tractor in m*. of vinyl chloride it one aitw.iniui* and XTCinkc/a1. 10-4* Conversion loctor far ppm. C1-ppm by volume vinyl chloride ; drri-.uiiu>d liy Tvft Xeibod IOC or a portable ludrocarbon lettctvr wblfli iurn*urr hyrlri'.-irbon with a *cnltlvlty of at lu-t l>i ppm. V-Nuinlvr of hatch*! since lb* rtivi'jt vt-us tost opnicd >o (hr titmosphere. <?-Av*r*ac ki of polyvinyl chloride i> viueod per )*icn In Cbc nuoiber of batch?*jiim.-- w-aerer was Ian opened to t be raospiwe. in f 61.68(b) (8) (l> may be used to meet the requirements of this section. tc) A daily span check is to be con ducted for each vlnyle chloride monitor ing system used. For all of the emission sources listed m paragraph <a) of this section, except the one for which an emis sion limit is prescribed in i 61.62(b), the daily span check is to be -conducted with a concentration of vteyl chloride equal >Ai If Method 106- Is used to deter mine the concentration of vinyl chloride <Cb>. the sample is to be withdrawn at a constant rate with a probe of sufficient length to reach the vessel bottom from the manhole. Samples are to be taken for 5 minutes within 6 inches of the ves sel bottom, 5 minutes near the vessel center, and 5 minutes near the vessel top. <B) If a portable hydrocarbon detec tor is used to determine the concentra tion cf vinyl chloride (Cb), a probe of sufficient length to reach the vessel bot tom from the manhole is to be used to make the measurements. One measure ment will be made within 6 inches of the to 10 ppm. For the emission source for which an emission limit is prescribed in i 1.62<b), the daily span check is tot 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: (41 FR 53017, December 3,1976) (DA calibration gas mixture pre pared from the gases specified In sections 5.2.1 and 5.22 of Test Method 106 and in accordance with section 7.1 of Test Method 106. or )42 FR 29005. June 7. 1977] vessel bottom, one near the vessel center and one near the vessel top. Measure ments are to be made at each location until the reading is stabilized. All hydro <2> A calibration gas cylinder stand ard containing the appropriate concen tration of vinyl chloride. The gas com position of the calibration gas cylinder carbons measured are to be assumed to standard is to have been certified by the be vinyl chloride. manufacturer. The manufacturer must iC) The production rate of polyvinyl have recommended a maximum shelf chloride <Z) is to be determined by a method submitted to and approved by the Administrator. life for each cylinder so that the concen tration does not change greater than c=5 percent from the certified value.Tbe <ii> A calculation based on the number of evacuations, the vacuum involved, and the volume of gas in the reactor is hereby approved by the Administrator as an al ternative method, for determining reac tor opening loss for postpolymerization reactors in the manufacture of bulk resins. date of gas cylinder.preparation. certified vinyl chloride concentration andrecom-. mended maximum shelf life must have been affixed to the cylinder before ship ment from -the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph Is used as the vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may be directly used to -prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as described in section 7.3 of Test 61.68 Emiiiion monitoring. Method 106. The requirements in sec tions 5.2.3.1 and 52.32 of Test Method a) A vinyl chloride monitoring sys tem is to be used to monitor on a con tinuous basis the emissions from tire 106 for certification of cylinder stand ards and for establishment ar.d verifica tion of calibration* standards are to be sources for which emission limits are pre scribed in S 61.62(a) and (fa;. ? 61.63(a), and I 61.64>a> (1), (b), (c>. and 'd>. and for any control system to which reactor followed. (42 FR 29005. June 7. 1977] 61.69 Initial repurl. .emissions are required to be ducted in (a) An owner or operator of any 61.64(a) (2) or to which fuotive emissions source to which this subpart applies shall submit a statement in writing notifying the Administrator that the equipment and procedural specifications in is 61.65 ib/il), ib)(2>. (b)(3). (b)<4>. <b)<6), <bx7), and (b>-8) are being implemented. (b) (J) In the case of an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding the effec tive date, the statement is to be submit ted within 90 days of the effective date, unless a waiver of compliance Is granted under $ 61.11. along with the informa tion required under i 61.10. If a waiver of compliance is granted, tire statement Is to be submitted on a date scheduled by the Administrator. (2) In the case of a new source tvhicn did not have an initial startup date pre ceding the effective date, the statement is to be submitted within 90 days of the initial startup date. (c) The statement is to contain the following information: (1) A list of the equipment installed for compliance, (2> A description of the physical and functional characteristic; of each piece of equipment. (3) A description of the methods which have been incorporated into the standard operating procedures for meas uring or calculating the emissions lor which emission limits are prescribed in 2161.65 (b) (DU) and (b) (6) (i). (4) A statement that each piece of equipment is installed and that each piece of equipment and each procedure is being used. 61.70 &'iuli.nnunl vport. (a) The owner or operator of any source to which this subpart applies shall submit to the Administrator on Septem ber 15 and March 15 of each year a report In writing the information required by this section. The first semi annual report Is to be submitted follow ing the first full 6 month reporting period after the initial report is submitted. (41 FR 53017, December 3. 1976] (b) (1) In the case of an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding the effective date, the first report Is to be submitted within 180 days of the effective dote, unless a waiver of compliance is granted under 16l.il' "if m waiver of"compliance is granted, the first report is to be sub mitted on a date scheduled by the Ad ministrator. (3) In the case of a new source which did not have an initial startup date pre ceding the effective date, the first report is to be submitted within 180 days of the initial startup date. (e) Unless otherwise specified, the owner or operator shall use the Test Methods in Appendix B to this part to conduct emission tests as required by paragraphs (c)(2) sad <c>(3> of this section, unless an equivalent or an alter native method has been approved by the Administrator. If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the RSV 0018164 3-24-78 [See. Sl.7G<cji Published by THL UURLAU OT- NATIONAL Af-FAIRS, INC.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037 35 t2t3-73 FEDERAL REGULATIONS results obtained by an equivalent or al (ill) The quantity of material proc (A) The vinyl chloride content found ternative method, he may require the use essed by the stripper Is to be determined in all the samples required In paragraphs of a reference method. If the results of the reference and equivalent or alterna tive methods do not agree, the results obtained by the reference method pre on .a dry solids basis and by a method submitted to and approved by the Ad ministrator. (c> (2) (1) and (c) (2) (U) of this section, identified by the resin type and grade and the time and date of the sample, and vail. and the Administrator may notify the owner or operator that approval of the method previously considered to be equivalent or alternative is withdrawn. (tv) At the prior request of the Ad ministrator, the owner or operator shall provide duplicates of the samples re quired in paragraphs (cX2XD and <c> (B) The corresponding quantity of polyvinyl chloride resin processed by the stripper(s). identified by the resin type1 and grade and the time and date it (l > The owner or operator shall in (2) (li> of this section. represents. clude in the report a record of any emis sions which averaged over any hour period (commencing on the hour) are in excess of the emission limits pre scribed in Si 61.62(a) or (b), f 61.63(a). (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include the vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (C) (2) <3> The owner or operator shall In clude in the report a record of the emis sions from each reactor opening for which an emission limit is prescribed in or ii 61.64(a) (1). (b). (e), or (d). or for (1) and (c) (2) (ii) of this section, aver I 61.64(a) (2). Emissions are to be deter any control system to which reactor aged separately for each type of resin, emissions are required to be ducted in f 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugitive emis over each calendar day and weighted sions are required to be ducted in I 61.65 according to the quantity of each grade (b) (1) (U). (b) (2). <b) (5), (bX6)(li).or of resin processed by the stripper(s) (b> (9) (ii). The emissions are to be meas that calendar day, according to the fol ured in accordance with I 61.68. lowing equation: mined in accordance with | 61.67(g) (5), except that emissions for each reactor are to be determined. For a reactor that is also used as a stripper, the determination may be made Immediately following the stripping operation. <2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for which a stripping operation is used to * attain the emisison level prescribed in pCiM^+p0aM<h+ . . . +PomMon i Si.64' e`. the owner or operator shall include in the report a record of the " Q*t vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl chloride resin. Test Method 107 is to be where: 161.71 Recordkeeping. used to determine vinyl chloride content as follows: <i) If batch stripping is used, one rep A*24-hour average concentration of (a) The owner or operator of any type Ti resin in ppm (dry weight basis). source to which this subpart applies shall retain the following information at the resentative sample of polyvinyl chloride 0" Total production of type 7*, source and make it available for inspec resin is to be taken from each batch of each grade of resin Immediately follow resin over the 24-honr period, tion by the Administrator for a mini in kg. mum of two years; ing the completion of the stripping op eration. and identified by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. The corresponding quan tity of material processed in each strip per batch is to be recorded and identi fied by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch Is completed. [42 FR 29005, June 7. 1977} (U' If continuous stripping is used, one representative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken for each grade of resin processed or at intervals of 8 hours for each grade of resin which 7\"Type of resin; il,2 . . . m where m is total number of resin types produced during the 24-hour period. M *= Concentration 6! vinyl chloride in one sample of grade Gt resin, in ppm. P- Production of grade <?< resin represented by the sample, in kg. G,-" Grade of resin; e.g., Gj, (7*, and Gi rt ~ Total number of grades of resin produced during the 24-hour period. (1> A record of the leaks detected by the vinyl chloride monitoring system, as required by | 61.65(b) (8), ineluding the concentrations of vinyl chloride as measured, analyzed, and recorded by the vinyl chloride detector, the location of each measurement and the date and ap proximate time of each measurement. ' (7) A record of the leaks detected dur ing routine monitoring with the portable hydrocarbon detector and the action taken to repair the leaks, as required by | 6L65j(b> (8)., including a brief state ment explaining the location and cause of each leak detected with the portable* hydrocarbon detector, the date and time is being processed, whichever la mare fre (42 FR 2900S, June 7, 1977) of the leak, and any action taken to quent. The sample is to be taken as the eliminate i*v resin flows out of the stripper mA iden (42 FR 29005. June 7. 1977] tified by resin type and grade and the date and time the sample was The corresponding Quantity of *wa.tr<>i processed by each stripper over the time period represented by the sample during the eight hour period, is to be recorded and identified by resin type and grade (vi) The owner or operator shall re tain at the source and make available for inspection by the Administrator for a minimum of 2 years records of all data needed to furnish the information re quired by paragraph (c) (2) (v) of this section: The records are to contain the (3) A record of Remissions measured In accordance with f 61.68. (42 FR 29005, June 7, 1977] (4) A dally operating record for each polyvinyl chloride reactor. Including pressures and temperatures. and the date arid time It represents. following information: [42 FR 29005, June 7. 1977] RSV 0018165 Environment Reporter (Sec. 61.71(a)(4)] 36 2S154 -er:~C v ~ PROPOSED RULES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [40 CFRPart 61} [7KZ. 738--8] VINYL CHLORIDE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants additional actions. Theae Include a re be achievable only by banning vinyl chlostatement of EPA`s policy for regulating ride emissions completely. That, in turn, 'carcinogens under section 112 of the would require closing the entire industry. Clean Air Act; the proposal of amend As explained in the earlier rulemaking it ments which would require Increased Is not dear that Congress would have efficiency of Ti<tiT|y control equipment, Intended this result so Instead EPA rerequire more stringent control at new ' qulred the lowest level achievable using sources, and prohibit increases in emis technological means. (See 40 FR 59534 sions within the vicinity of an easting and 41 FR 46562). AGENCY: Environmental Protection source due to new construction; and the In order to insure that the standard - Agency. .Initiation of a review of the vinyl chlo continues to approach the only level of. i ACTION: Proposed rule. ride standard three yean after the pro emissions which Is known to be abso- -.' mulgation of the amendments.. ___ lutely protective of health. zero ., SUMMARY: Tie proposed amendments are being made to the Tiny! chloride - Zrxo Emission Goat * emissions. EPA is proposing amendment*/^ which require more efficient use of exist-' standard which has promulgated Octo The vinyl chloride standard has been lng control technology at existing plants v ber 21, 1978, and would apply to new criticized for allegedly placing unwar and more effective controls- at new and existing ethylene dichloride, vinyl ranted emphasis on technological rather plants, and which encourage technology ,-h 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. , -.3 ments implement she Clean Air Act are based on the Administrator's deter mination that vinyl chloride Is a hazard seems appropriate to restate EPA's ap proach to the regulation of carcinogens Mote Stkikcxnt Standards tor Existing to general and under Section 112 of the . Sources ous air pollutant. The intended effect of Clean Air Act, and to explain how the EPA is proposing amendments which R the proposed amendments Is to require vinyl chloride standard and the pro would require sources presently subject., Improved effectiveness of control tech posed amendments- are consistent with to a 10 ppm emission limit to reduce^ nology at easting plants. Impose more this approach and with the protection emissions to 5 ppm within three years of stringent emission fcntm on new sources* of pub&c health. . promulgation of the amendments. The i .and prohibit an emission increase wlthto On May 25. 1976. EPA published In .affected sources include ethylene dlchloo _the vicinity of an --source due to terim . procedures. and . guidelines for ride purification;, vinyl chloride forma-., ?the construction of a new source. . health risk and economic Impact assesa- tion and purification; reactors, strippers; -?| SATES: Comments- must be received on -orbeforeAugustl.2977. aesta of suspected carcinogens' (41-FR rniTiny weighing, and contain- 21402). which define EPA's approach to. ezs r- monomer recovery systems; - and : regulatory action for suspect carelno- fugitive emissions which have been cap-!i4 ADDRESSES: Comments should be.sub grcs, As Indicated in. that publication,; tured in accordance -with the exist mitted (preferably in hrlplicate) to the there are two steps involved in the deci- regulation.* If the owner or operator Standards ffngin--t^TTg sim-mattng process with regard to the a. source believed that a control system- 'Division, -Environmental - . Protection regulation of a potential cvtonogsi. Al would..not be capable of meeting the .6. Agency, Research Triangle Park, North though different EPA statutory author ppm limit, he would be able to request;, Carolina, Attention:"Mr. Don R. Good ities impose different requirements, in . that the Administrator approve an tor; win. l. '..cf* v:.-- general two decislons must be made with terim emission, limit for that source.'! .All public comments received may be Inspected and copied at-the Publie in formation Reference Unit:' CEPA Li brary) , Room 2922, 401 M 'Street, SW^. Washington. D.C. ' . agsrt to each potential carcinogen. The" Such requests would have to be made onejj first decision Is whether a particular-sub- year before the compliance date. In sconce constitutes-,a cancer -risk. The questing an interim' emission limit, thej wicond decision is what'regulatory ae- owner.or operator would have to submit ttact if any, should-be taken^to reduce supportive data and meet with EPA to3 that risk:.- : discuss his particular problems to attain^ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON Ta~ deciding' whether' a*1 cancer risk, tog compliance. The meeting would .be' TACT: exists. EPA will consider s substance a announced to the Fedxbsi, Resists* and-5 ! Don R. Goodwin, Eznl&sIon Stand&ids and Engineering. Division,. Envtrcomental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711, j Telephone No. 919-688-6146, ext. 271- SUPPLEMENTARY ' INFORMATION: presumptive cancer risk when it causes, ^statistically significant excess Incidence of benign , or malignant, tumors in hu- mm. 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 any interested party would be allowed tof attend and submit written or oral com* ments. If an interim emission limit were* granted to the source, the required emis-Sf aion level would be specified to a written^ notification from EPA and In the Fs->gr xral Registxx. Each source granted AtfMp s."^ - ~ 'J'RmxaaouwD.n'. - ' v - regulate, EPA examined section 112 of interim emission limit would be reviewed^, .the Clean Air Act. Section 112 of the Act - every three years to determine' whetha^Jr. - On October 2V1976, EPA promulgated a standard for vinyl chloride under the requires that emission standards be set . emissions could be reduced to 5 ppxn.'.'OCE'*. "at the level which in the.judgment of at least to a lower Interim emission limits^ authority of section 112(b) (1) 3) of the Clean Air AcV as -'amended <41 FR 46561). The standard-applies to ethyl the Administrator provides an ample In proposing the reduction from 10 "Iqa^. margin of safety to protect the public 5 ppm, it Is not EPA's intent that a cdh.*e/ health from such hazardous air pollut- - trol system which has been Install ene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and.poly- ants." This requirement appears to as -Vinyl chloride plants.. . sume that each pollutant regulated will . On November '19. -1976, the Environ- - have a threshold level of effects below mental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned which no health effects will occur.-As the United States Court of Appeals for explained in the documentation for the *As an explanatory note, paragraph (b)r I S1.6S contains tone fugitive emlasion-regu-^e,*' latlons. For several of these, the mfttLve-'v' emissions are required to be captured andi-^r the District of Columbia Circuit to review current standard (40 FR 59532, Decem ducted to a control device meeting 19 ppaj-;.- the standard. Motions to intervene were ber 24, 1975; 41 FR 46560. October 21. According to the proposed amendments. subsequently filed on behalf of the So 1976), It has not been possible to deter emissions from this control device would ' ciety of the Flashes 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 anrf EPA moved to dismiss the 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 have to be reduced to S ppm in the ssme wsyv- any other source currently required to meer^ 10 ppm would hee to do. Rather than la-. corporating both the S and 10 ppm wnlmW'- limits In each paragraph la |fllSS<W> 1 separate paragraph (c\ containing emission Umlte 4s being added to 1 61.66* AH . proceedings. In view of a. settlement ride which would appear to be absolutely the other paragraphs tn (b) are croae*. agreement requiring EPA to take certain protective of health is zero, which may'. referenced In paragraph (c). ' FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 10^--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 RSV 0018166 PROPOSED RULES 2S153 cycling and oxygen feed methodolgy ts rather than the equipment. The same .considered feasible for new oxyehlortna- equipment can be used to process differ tion 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 th< technology would elimin of the resin being processed rather than ate the supplemental fuel problem re the characteristics 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 Souses controlled to the same extent that is proposed for other emission sources. The proposed amendment also includes a more stringent emission limit for new wise more directly linked to the resin than the equipment Stripping is used to control the emissions due to the vinyl chloride m the resin before the resin is } si.03 of the General Provision*, iced" means that an owner or ha_< nniftatn a continuous polyvinyl chloride,resins being processed in equipment following the stripping operation. That Is. the amendment would apply to resins for which produc tion for the purpose of marketing was commenced after proposal of the t-wwi^TTunt The amendment would re processed In the equipment. Before the hazards of vinyl chloride became known, stripping technology was employed by polyvinyl chloride manu facturers to recover raw materials for economic purposes. As a result of a standard promulgated by the Occupa quire all new resins except new disper tional Safety and Health Administration sion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and (39 PR 35890). some companies investi new dispersion resins to be stripped to gated improvements in stripping meth SCO ppm. These limits for new products odology for emission control purposes. would be one-fourth of the limits eon-'' <I> to the 10 which would be i' mrr>Ilr\n standard would be in the standard for existing prod- Consistent with the current stand ard. the amendment would permit the use of contool devices rather than strip ped technology to meet the emission ~mr ?n case equipment being used to pnjuess aU new resins except new dls- resins would have to be con- to 0.01 kg/kg product and the equipment used for new dispersion resins B-TMw have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg Optimum stripping consists of a set of operating conditions which must be de veloped experimentally on an individual basis for the many resins. In developing the current standard. EPA recognized that stripping technology for dispersion resins had not been refined to the same extent as It had been for other resins and that there was more difficulty In strip ping dispersion resins than, other resins. Pot this reason a less stringent emission limit was established for dispersion res A "new source** Is defined in 40 CFR ins. Dispersion resins are permitted a Is commenced. Existing' e other require time the effectiveness of their sun as a stationary source, the conssrunstan or modification of which Is . after proposal of a standard, was some question based on this higher emission limit under the proposed amendment for the same reason. EPA believes that for some resins, companies have already developed strip deffzdttan as to whether the amendment ping technology which would meet the to the stripping standard for new sources proposed amendment. (2) For other apply to sew polyvinyl chloride resins, the proposed standard would re or the installation of new equip- quire additional Improvement In strip nrst following the stripper. If the ap ping technology. If stripping technology plicability of the* amendment for new has not been developed to the extaat sources were based on the installation of necessary to meet the proposed amend new equipment following the stripper, it ment for a particular resin, the manu would be difficult to determine what con facturer would have the option of de stitutes a new source at an existing plant. veloping the technology or not producing This Is based on the reasoning that the the resin. stripping standard ' requires that ell The current standard- -unlike the equipment following the stripper In the proposed amendment, was not based on process be controlled asa unit. The series the premise that an owner or operator of equipment following the stripper In would have the option of not producing cludes pumps and conveying equipment a particular resin. It is EFA's judgment which might be expected to be replaced that the owner or operator making a new *yiting sources to control on a frequent and routine basis. Replac product has more freedom of choice than ing one of these pieces of equipment the owner or operator already making a would in effect cause the whole series of particular product In selecting those equipment following the stripper to here resins which are to be produced. IPA's to meet the standard for new sources. In standard would be included In the other words, all resins processed in the variables under consideration when series of the equipment would here to decisions are being made as to which meet the lower standard even though resins are to be produced. only a minor part of the equipment had The proposed amendment would apply been replaced. to any new source, whether It constituted EPA decided that a more reasonable replacement of an existing source in an am* direct approach was to make the existing plant, the expansion of an exist proposed amendment apply to the pro ing plant, or part of an entirely new duction of new polyvinyl chloride resins. plant. That Is, If a new oxychlorinatlon This Is based on the reasoning that emis reactor or a new polyvinyl chloride re the process. (3. 4) the current sions from the equipment following the actor were Installed at an existing plant, stripper are a function of the amount of it would be subject to the emission limits vinyl chloride left In the resin after the for new sources*. This means that as stripping operation ts completed; Le, existing sources are gradually replaced the resin is the source of the emissions with, new sources in an existing plant. FififlUi REGISTER, VOL SJ,-N7-104--THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1977 RSV 0018167 2S155 PROPOSED XUIES the overall emission level from that existing plant would be reduced. Eacsaox Orrsrr Because the present vinyl chloride standard focuses on reducing emissions rather than attaining a particular am* blent air duality concentration, there Is no .provision for limiting the size of 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 ethylene dkhloride-vtayl 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. Emlsslons at existing plants would be further Ve* reduced as existing oxychlorination re- '2 plants or the clustering of plants In a geographical area. The doubling of the size ot an existing plant or the construc tion of a new- plant beside an existing 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 actors are replaced with new oxychlori- nation reactors and as new polyvinyl chloride resins are preduced to replace -ST- existing ones. - .plant would considerably Increase the emission test. It Is EPA's"Judgment that Under the proposed amendment, emls-**'' ambient air concentrations of vinyl- this is a more equitable approach than slons from new plants would be consider-'^ - chloride In the vicinity of the plantls) penalizing a source which has already ably lower than they would be under the 3f- even If the vinyl chloride standard was taken measures to reduce emissions below current standard. For a typical new 12$ met. EPA determined at the . time of the standard. Such a source would have afrerage-slzed ethylene dlchloride-vinylffie promulgation of the current standard ' less room for further reducing emissions. chloride plant (318x10* kg/yx or ?00? that the costs of prohibiting the produc -The emission limits applicable to both XlO* lb/yr produced), the hourly emis~3r tion of vinyl chloride and-polyvinyl the existing and new^source* Involved sions would be 5.1 kg (11,5 Ib> instead''^' .chloride were'too high and the continued In the offset arrangement-would be con of 10.3 kg (23.1 lb). For a typical new-j^i- .operation of plants should, be tained In the approval of new construc average-sized dispersion polyvinyl chlo-*^" allowed. EPA believes, however, that the. tion granted by the Administrator under ride plant (46x10* kg/jr or 100x1 . standard should include a mechanism 40 CFR 01.08. ` S- . Ib/yr production), the emissions woul< 'for prohibiting in teer**** in ambient EPA believes that a policy of so net be about 9 kg/hr (20 'lb/hr) instead concentrations of tryi chloride due to Increase In-emissions due to sew con 17J kg/hr (39 Xb/hr) and for a typical new construction in anas where existtag- struction Is justified because of the haz new average-sized suspension polyvinyl .. , sources are already located. ardous* nature Of vinyl chloride. How chloride (88x10* kg/jrr or 150x10* Ib/yrS V V - Accordingly, EPA Is proposing' an ever. EPA recognizes the potential diffi production) the emissions would.be 23:5: ' 'amendment which, would prohibit an In culties tn Implementing such -a policy kg/hr) (30 Ib/hr) -instead of 16 kg. _ crease in emissions wtchin 8 kilometers (km)J (approximately' five miles) of an - existing source due to the construction and Interested persons are urged to sub- (36 Ib/hr). These emissions are calcu-, sib comments and factual information lated based on the emission factors pul* Treating to this policy, ^ 1 ` .V - - . llshed in the documentation for the -r:of a new emission source. Tttfar 'meazs - y';Rivisw ofvSxixj/uii-'''-'.;'. ; /_ Istlng standard. (I) Ambient air concent " /that if a new .source were added to an "existing plant, **> tn emissions ; `due to that new source would have to be- -'offset by a reduction in emissions from 7-other existing sources within that plane or at other plaate within 8 bn of the -construction site of the new source. Simi- ^ 'larly. a new plant' could not be eon-- V'structed within'-B km of an existing - .- plant (s) unless -the' emission* Increase ' doe to the new, plant were offset by in - emission reduction at the existing plant .--or ;plants. TTzis-provision may result'In ."Tew plants being expanded and few new plants being constructed ln'.the - EPA plans to undertake a full-scale ze*Jew of Subpart F of-40 CFR Part 81 beginning three.yearsTroa the-proaulr^rtywi any amendments-In the study EPAwfQ review Information concerning technological advances in the control of vtgyl chloride emissions to determine what further changes might then be -ap- ptapriate to move toward ;the goal of ics vinyl chloride emissions. EPA win also- consider recent health data to de-r terrritne whether the-approach, lor regu lating vinyl chloride, should -be altered.' /EirmtorhtricrAL^lHpact' V - trations - are expected to * be proportionately.. r * / The onlynegative' enrlrohmentaif/pact would be an increase in hydrogen 'chloride emissions at ethylene dlehloV ride-vinyl chloride plants If incineration ' were used to control emissions from sew oxychlorination reactors. However,, due* . to the corrosion problems which -would^r ' otherwise occur on plant property;aqHfK '-In the community, plants are expected*: Jto use scrubbers to control the hydrogen^ "chloride emissions.*The-proposed amnd=5y .'ment is not-expected to have a signing ;'cant Impact on energy consumption.^ -"-/Vicinity of existing plants. However, the proposed amendment does not preclude Atbto possibility.-:.'-:,\ The proposed amendment,' in-contrast.' Economic Impact -to- the current standard, would encourage"- The potential economic the development ofjhew. technology and rproposedstandardare:.-. impacts . o ' 3r The offset provision would'apply oniy- Improvements in existing technology and: - fl) Costs"for research and'develop^., to' new construction which results in an ': Increase in production rate. Replacing or - adding equipment such, as pumps,, com- "~pressocs, agitators. sampling equipment and unloading hoses'Is a routine practice ' "at existing plants; Additions of equip- - ment of this nature would, in and of it- self, be expected to result in little, if any.. . : Increase In emissions. In EFA`s. judg ement."STplant should not be required to -prove fact-each time one of these * pieces of equipment is added. The addi- ' -would have'the following three positive- ^ment of improved methodology fox oper^r^- environmental lmpacts:*(l)-ftirthex-rev. ation of existing-control technology*>0*- duetton of emissions at existing'plants, . (2) no-increase in mfr-viwM within 8 km of anLexisting,80urce^''and.(3). lower from new sources -than would be accomplished* through.the current standard regardless of the construction site^ These environmental impacts would provide'- progress toward V the '.ultimate goal of 2ero emissions without banning vinyl chloride, and In-the process would - that It can be used to meet thef5j>pgg.* emission limit.*--' '^<2) - Coats for' research. ahd-^evelfip^-" ment of Improved stripping techniaitet*^*- .to meet the standard for sew polyvtnyi chloride resins." V (3)' Cost of research and.development^"/; .dr licensing for converting over oxygen system for a new orvchlorfpaPtg^ v . tlon of this type of equipment in con- Junction with major process equipment, provide additional protection of public health by further minimizing the health .reactor. .. ? -mw (4) Possibly increased; transportation_ however, is likely to result in-both an in risks to the people living in the vicinity costs of raw materials In the' case th*6' crease In emissions as well. as an in of existing plants and to any additional the offset policy results in the'constiyc* crease in production rate, and is there people who are exposed as a result of new tton of a new plant farther frotp-.e fore covered by the offset provision. construction. "' existing plant than it otherwise;.wu^r ' 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 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 have been.. ' (5) Costs of building a new plant aon than 8 km from an existing plant to.*** event that the offset requirement VJ~~ emission rate would be determined based the promulgation date of these amend eluded the expansion of an on the maximum production rate which ments. At both an exlstingaverage-sized ' plant. . . . IV , 1.'..'sy*;*.. _r,*,-;& PIOiRAL leClSTSI, VOL 42, NO. 106--THU*iOAr, .JUNf 2, IV7r RSV 0018168 PR6POSED RU1E5 2S157 (6* Delay In the production of a particular resin due to time spent derelopin? stripping technology for that resin. i7> No growth in the production of a particular resin due to the inability to (3) "Goodrich Reports Impressive ftegrne In Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem.- Ameri can Paint and Coating* Journal. Vol. 60, No. 31. January 12.1978. p. 34. (3) E. W. Wimer and R. C. Feathers, "Ox ygen Olvu Low Cost VCM," hydrocarbon (a) Vinyl chloride formation and pu rification: Except as provided in 3 61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from any equipment strip that resin to required levels. The types of costs which have been named would be difficult to quantify. The Processing, March 1975. pp. 81-84. (4) Peter Reich. "Air or Oxygen For VCM?." Hydrocarbon Processing, March, used in vinyl chloride formation and/or purification Is not to exceed the appro priate emission limit as follows: costs would be expected to vary consider 1975. pp. 85-89. (1> Each source, for which construc ably from one plant to another depend It is proposed that Subpart F or 40 tion bad commenced on or before June 2, ing on the amount of research and de CFR Part 61 be amended as follows: ' 1977, 10 ppm until (date three years af velopment than had already been done. Ga ixtint to which technology could be crsn*rerre<i from other plants and proc esses. and the plans fornew construction. One area in which cost estimates can be generated Is the use of an oxygenrecycle oxychlorination process as op posed to an air-based system. The pro posed amendment does not require the use of the oxygen-recycle system, but many plants would be expected to em ploy this system to avoid the high costs of Incinerating the high volume gas stream from a typical air-based system. The primary cost of using the oxygen- 1. In I 61.08, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: 61.08 Approval bythc Administrator. \ * - <b) If the Administrator determines that a stationary source for which an application pursuant to 3 61.07 was sub mitted will not. If properly operated, cause emissions in violation of- the standard or violation of I 61.73, he will approve the construction or modification of such source. , a # 2. Section 61.62 is revised to read as ter promulgation of tttcae amendments) and S Ppm. after (data ttxree years after promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. '(b) The requirements of this section " do not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation, and met the requirement In. f 61.65(b)(6)(1) before being opened. 4. Section 61.64 is amended by revis ing paragraphs (a) (1), <b), (e), (d) and <e> and by adding paragraph (f) as fol lows: recycle system Is the coec of the oxygen, follows; ~ 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl itself. The coat of the oxygen for a par ticular plant would depend on whether the plant was located where there is a Emission standard for ethylene diehloride plants. considerable demand,for both the oxygen An. owner or operator of an ethylene and nitrogen products of air separation. fihmiaride plant shall comply with the According to one recent article, if it is . requirements of this section and I 61.65. assumed that such a demand exists,, the ta) Ethylene diehloride purification: cost of the oxygen (S14-34/toa) would ctogpt as provided In f 61.65(a), the be approximately equivalent to the cost concentration of vinyl chloride in all of compressing air for use -in the air- exhaust gases discharged to the atmos based system - (1) Another report tn phere from any equipment used in which assumption was not made and etioleae diehloride purification la not the economics of the air and oxygen sys- ` to exceed the appropriate emission limit terns were being compared. It waa con as follows: cluded that overall production economics CD Each source lor which construc "favor the oxygen, process even if vent tion, had commenced on or before (date g3s incineration would not be rrequired. of proposal of these amendments), 10 for an air-based plant since the sum of ptau until (date three yean after pro- all remaining advantages offered by xnilgation of these amendments) and oxygen-based plant operation more than ppm after (date three years after the outweighs the incremental'cost for.the promulgation of these amendments). oxygen, feed." (2) * .-~V (2> Each source for-whlch construc Miscellaneous: The Administrator in tion commenced after June 2, 1977.. 5 ' chloride plants.. An. owner or operator of a polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply with the re quirements of this section and i 61.65. . (a) Reactor;. The following require ments apply to reactors:. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a) (2) of this section and I 61.65(a),.the concentration of vinyl chloride tn all ex haust gases discharged to the atmos phere from each reactor is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as fol lows: - . , (1) Each source for which construction 'had commenced on or before June 2,1877 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. - .. .9 -i*. .m9 -- ,, vites comments on all aspects of the pro posed amendments. `' (Section 113 of the Clean Air Act, ee.'4(a) of Pub. L, 91-004, S4 Stat. 1685 (43 CS.C. 1837c- 71 and section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, *ec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-143, 04 Stat. 504 aa emended by see. (15) (e) (X) of Pnb.X*. Bl-604. 84 Stat. 1713 (43 CJ9.C. 1867 r(a)>. Beta. 81.87 and 81.M also proposed under the an- eboney of section 114 of the Clean Air Act. m added by sec. 4<a) of Pub. X,. 91-604, 84 Stae. 1687 and amended by Pnb. L. 93-319, mc- 6(a)(4), 88 StaX - 259 . (42 US.C. PW1**, . . 0>) -Oxychlorination reactor: Except, aa provided in i 61.65(a), emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere are not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as -follows: . - -- - () Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 0J2 g/fcg (0.0002 Ib/Tb of the 100 percent ethylene diehloride product from the oxychlorination reactor. (b>* Stripper: Except as provided In' 3 61.65(a),- the concentration of vinyl chloride ih all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each stripper Is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (l> 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 tas7c-9).) * (2) Each source for which construc amendments). Non.--.The ShTlroomentaf Protection tion'commenced after June 2, 1977, 6 Agency has determined that thla document ppm.-- (2) Each source for which construction commenced after June 2. 1977, 5 ppm. does not aontoia a major propoeal requiring (c) The requirements of this section (c> Mixing, weighting, and holding prevention of an Economic Impact Analysis do not apply to equipment that has been containers: Except as provided in 3 61.- under Eseeutlee Orders 11831 and 11949 and OM3 Circular A-107. opened. Is out of operation and met the requirement In S 61.65(b) (6) (1) before 65(a), the concentration of vinyl chlo ride-In all exhaust gases discharged to Dated: May 27.1977. being opened. the atmosphere from each mixing, weigh Douglas M. Costlz. Administrator. Reran*cm (1 > Standard Support and Environmental 3. Section 61.63 is revised to read as follows: 61.63 Emission standard for vinyl chloride plants. 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 impact Statement: Emission Standard for ` An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo follows: mj1 Chtortde' epa-^50 12-75-oob, October, ride plant shall comply with the require . (1) Each source, for which construc ments of this section and 3 61.65. tion had commenced on or before (date . FfDitAl REGISTCR, VOL 43, NO. I0A--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 RSV 0018169 2S13S PROPOSED RULES of proposal of these amendments), 20 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments) 5 resin all of which had been produced by the plant on or before June 2,1977: _ (A) 2 g/kg (0.003 Ib/lh) product from od of measurement is to meet the re- qulrements in 1 61.67(g) (5) U) CAJ or (g) (5) (1) (B). ~ ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). the strlpper(s) (or rvactor(s) If the plant has no stripper(s) 1 for dispersion 6. In | 61.67. paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: '' i (2) Each source for which construc polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 resins, with the product determined mi 5 61.67 Emission tests, PPffii a dry solids basis; (a) Unless a waiver of emission test- iS (d) Monomer recovery system. Except (B) 0.4 g/kg (0.004 2b/Zb) product ing is obtained under I 61.13, the owner 7^ as provided In i 61.65 (a), the concentra from the stzlpper(s) (or reactor<s) If or cg>erator of a source to which this . C tion of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases the plant has no stripperCs)) for all' eubpart applies shall test enissions -sS discharged to the atmosphere from other polyvinyl chloride resins, including from the source as follows: 7 monomer recovery system. Is not to ex- latex resins, with the product deter (1) For an existing source or a sew ' ceed the appropriate concentration as .follows: mined on a dry solids basis. (tl> For sources being used to process aouree which has an initial startup date^i preceding October 21.1976: (1) Each source for which construc any grade of polyvinyl chloride resin not (1) Within 90 days following October tion had commenced on or before (date produced by the plant on or before June . 21, 1976, and of proposal of these amendments), 20 2, 1977 ; 7-- (ii> For those sources subject t< ppm until (date three yean after pro- (A) 0J g/kg (0.0005 lb/lb) product 1161.62(a); 61.63(a); 61.64 (a)(2), <b>; -,;T\ mitigation of these amendments) and 5 from the stripperCs) (or reactorts) If the <d, and (d); and/or 61.65(b) (1), (b&S 7 ppm after (date three years after pro- plant has no stripperCs)) lor dispersion - (2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6), and/or (b)s; . mulgauon of these amendments). polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la (9), within 90 days following (date tfaree.i?&. ' -,(2) Each source for -which construe- tex TMgrr><, vith the product determined years after the promulgation date tlon commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ' on a dry solids basis; ~ these amendments). `sg * "ppm. <B> 0.1 g/kg. <0.0001 Ib/Ba) product - . (2). For a new source for which Initial . <e) Sources following the strippen(s>:. finxn the strippers (or reactor(s) If the startup occurs after October 21, 1976,' The following apply to rfti-t has no ittlpperCa)) for aS other. within 90 days of startup. emissions of vinyl chiarsde to the atmos phere from the oambteatlon.' of aE sources following thessrtpper(s) tor the reactor(s) If the plant has no stripper] polyvinyl - chloride resins, including resins, with the-product deter?- 7r In I 61.66, paragraph (c) is rei , i a dry solids basis. . <> requirements of paragraphs to read as follows: . .. - .fn the plant pu.1111 Saw including, bon Ck>,, <e),, and (d) of this section do not 6 61.6$ ' Emiwfoirmonitoring- . ' -not limited, to centrifuges, concentia-- mrtr to equipment that -has ..been - * *"' m -'..'7" ^ "V tors, blend tanks, filters, dryers, conveyor air discharges, -baggers, storage com- talnen, and Inprocess wastewater. (1) Zn polyvinyl chloride plants using-- .' stripping technology to control vtayl ' chloride emissions: *- <1) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have been produced ,by the plant on or before June 2,1571. the weighted-avenge residual vinyl .. chloride concentration to. aQ the grade* T processed through the stripping- opera- tlon cm each ^i^n^nr- day, measured Sm-. :; mediately after the stripping operstfam b completed, may sot exceed the appro-_ - priatc emission limit as follows: t - -. A (A) 2,000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride . dispersion resins, excluding latex resins; r. (S> 400 ppm few all other polyvinyl -^-chloride rfn*, - +nilTir<fTiy . lt*r resins. T^averaged separately for each'type of '3>esin; '.c*.-..; . * . cpcTffrt. is out of operation, and met the retirement is .| 61.65(b) <6) (i) -'before besxtopcied. . .. ... . 5_Sectim 61.65 Isamended a* foEow*:. A^By replacing the phrase 710 ppm".' the phrase -"the appropriate emls- accr Omit- specified in |61A5(c>" in paragraphs (b)(1) (ID. (b)(2), (b)(3) -, Q>. <b>(3>til)..<b><3)ClU>.,<b)<3>Clv),- Qa>tT)^(b>(5>. <bi(6)Ul>.' and (b>. 9) SJByrevlstng paragraph'(e)-and add-> fng-paragraph <d>- as set- forth below.; S6L65 Emuuon ituJwd for'elhylene'; 7 ~ didxloride^Vinyl -chloride, and poly-.. -vinjl chloride pUnts.' - ., % , * ,5 ,. ^ ^ ^r **7 .**f ' v * ;*<c) v TTift-emlasiorivllmit: which.: is not te be exceeded is ai follows: ci>.*Bach. lomce, for which construction had com-. xnenced-'On or before June 2, 1977,^10^' (c)-A 'dally span'check ls'to be cah^ ducted for each vinyl chloride mnnit ing system used. For aQ of-the so; listed in paragraph (a) of this sectloo^ except for the one for which an emission^ lhnlt is prescribed in { 61.82(h) CU^the^ dally span check Is to be conducted witnxj a concentration of vinyl chloride equal.to the concentration emission limit appli cable .to it. For a source subject'to the?, emission limit prescribed-in .! 61.62(b>.f (1), the daily span check is to.be con; ducted with' a concentration, br^ylnyl^i chloride .. which ' is determined to' beT; equivalent to the emission limit for source based' on the. emission .test. .qulredby S 6I.S7.The calfbration isto Itei done with eitherr r-.tr, - i r ` * 18. A? new. { 61.72 'B added to^read^a follows; 7;rv. ^; _.r`-^.(ii) For a grade or giad of polyvinyl ppm until (date.three years-after pro-. S61.72 'RefQCft'for interim`'wniiwfw^? ^VCehlorlde resin which have not been pro5^% duced by the plant on or before June 2, r.-" 19T7, the'weighted average residual . ` vinyl chloride concentration In aQ 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 app'ropriate emission limit as follows:. (A) 500 ppm'-for- polyvinyl chloride * dispersion resins; excluding latex resins; Emlgatioa of- these amendments)! and - :> - 5 ppm after (date tiiree yean afterpro- -- (a) If in theropinion of the owner or?^ mulgation of these amendments)i;.j' operator."of an: eristingvsources.tba^^^ (3) Farh source for which construc source win be unable to complywith the^STr tion commenced after June: 2.-. 1977,- 5 5 ppm. emission limit In SI 61.62(a) (l>;^w` ppm. ' V ? -T-i-r. rh- v" . -61.63(a) (1);... 61.64 (a) (1)0). (b).(t).3d>* - (d>The requirements, -la paragraphs *Cc) (1), -(d) Cl)* - and/or 61.65Cc%llP.an^ tt (1); (b) (2). (b> (5)<b> (6).. (b) (7) or before .(date three years after*pro-^c; mnd (b) (B) of this section are' to be in- '' mitigation, of'these amendments)the^^. corporated.. into a standard operating owner or operator of that source may procedure, and made available upon re quest that, the Adminsttatdfc'apPM** ans^ ' (B) 100 ppm. for all other polyvinyl _ chloride resins,7including latex resins, quest for inspection by the Administra tor. The standard operating procedure Tinhteerrimequ^tls *twoi blieminit for^tbat source. writimtand ti te ; averaged separately for each type of is to include provisions for measuring be submitted to the Administrator wlttin resin; or . '"w (2> In polyvinyl.chloride'plants con- the vinyl m' (1250 chloride -In equipment --4.75 gal) in volume for which an - six months prior to (datetwo 7an promulgation, of these^amendments). - trolling vinyl chloride emissions with technology other than stripping or in addition to stripping: (1) For sources being used to process emission limit Is prescribed In 61.65 (bH6> (!) prior to opening the equip ment and using Test Method 106. a port able hydrocarbon detector, or an equlv- * The request is to include?'. ' . (!) The reasons^-thei-source h in capable of being in compliance with tne. 5 ppm emission limitju** data to support . . a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride alent or alternative methol. The meth those reasons, and^;: - : ss; fEOCRAl SECISTSK, VOL 42. NO. 106--TMUtSOAT, JUNE 2.1977 RSV 0018170 PROPOSED RULES 28159 <2) A suggested Interim emission limit <f> The emission limits applicable to November 6, 1973). Part 183a (section and description or the methodology for both the new sourceCs) and the source(s) 335 of Pub. Ik 94-482) contains those attaining that limit. at which emissions are being reduced to provisions applicable to the program of (b) Any owner or operator of a source balance the increase in emissions due to collection, analysis, and dissemination who has submitted to the Administrator the new construction are to be estab by the Commissioner of career informa a written request for an Interim emis lished by the Administrator In the ap tion and exemplary materials. To the ex sion limit In accordance with S 81.72(a), proval for construction required by tent the Commissioner proceeds by con shall within 60 days of the date of the written request meet with the Admin istrator concerning the information con tained in the request. The meeting Is to 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 i 81.08. (Sees. 112 sad 301(a) or the Clean Air Act, see. 4(a) or Pub. L. No. l-04. 84 stat. 1S83; MS. 2 Of Pub. L. NO. 80-148, 81 stat. 804 (42 T7.5.C. iBSSc--?, 18S7g()). Seen 61.67 and (138 also laeued under see. 114 at the Clean Air Act. He 4(a) Ot pub. L. NO. 81-404. S4 Stan 1687 (42 VAC. 1SS7C-0).) (P3 Doc.77--1SST3 Piled 5-1-77:0:46 au| tract. as authorized by section 335 of Pub. I*. 94-482. the program will also be gov erned by the applicable provisions of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 41 CFR Chapters l and 3. To the extent the Commissioner proceeds by grant. Che ap plicable provisions of 45 CFR Part 100a (38 FR 30662, November 6. 1973) will apply. days of receipt of the written request (b) Comments and responses. In the required by paragraph (a) of this sec tion, notify the owner or operator lawriting of approval or denial of approval DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations (published In 41 FR 51550 on November 22. 1976) the Commissioner requested of an interim emission limit. Office of Education (d) If an Interim limit is ap proved the notification Is to Include the level of the Interim 1 limit, which may be the level requested or a more . T45 CFR Parts 163 and 163a ] CAREER EDUCATION AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT stringent one. Addition of Programs (e) A determination to deny approval of an emission limit, is to set AgBTCT: Office of Education, HEW. . public comment on a number of specific Issues in addition to inviting expressions of public sentiment on any issue consid ered worthy ol 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 forth the specific an which such denial la based. (f> Approval for any~interl.m emission limit granted for any source under i 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 era lower interim emission limit. The re quest is to be In riMnyf is to-be sub mitted within six months prior to a year ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Commissioner of Edurscir-a. with the approval of the Secre? tezy of Health. Education, and Welfare, pmjjubea to add two new career educa ting programs as enacted by the Educa- ^TT'fmenM of 1976. Part 163 constsss provisions for a new one-year proj'vi" of financial assistance to States and wise, allottees for Fiscal Year 1978 to plan, for the Improvement and develop- comments- The comments on the specific Issues listed In the Notice of Intent are summarized below: (1) Given the apparent overlap be- tweemthe 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 before the expiration date and Is to In tawut off career education and career de- for individuals beyond the secondary clude the Information listed In I 61.72 vuhmeent programs md activities for school level? Cb> Should States be re (b). (c), (d).and (e> are to apply. fndlvMinis of all ages. Part 163a con quired to explain the relationship be 9. A new I 61.73 is added to read as follows: . ,*.-- tains provisions for the Commissioner of Education to conduct a number of career tween activities carried out and proposed under the two authorities? 61.73 Offset of emission* due to new construction. tr.fi 'i mafrion activities during Fiscal Year The commenters were overwhelmingly 1978; vpwittdJnr the collection, analysis,. .supportive of the view that duplication and dissemination of information per of activities conducted under both au (a) No owner or operator Is to con taining to career trends and options in thorities (Pub. L. 93-380 and Pub. L. 94- struct a new source which alone, or in tim'United States as weQ as exemplary 482) should be ss limited as possible. combination with other sources being materials from -the career education They dearly thought the regulation constructed at the same time resulte- in field. Both these programs are-new au- should require a careful explanation of an increased production rate' unless he thoezatlons for which no funding has the relationship between these two plan demonstrates to the Administrator's sat beai requested by the Administration. - ning efforts. It was suggested that plan isfaction that such' construction will not cause an Increase In vinyl chloride emis sions within 8 km of any other source DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5,1977. ning activities conducted pursuant to Pub. I*. 94-462 might properly extend and augment the planning already begun which is subject to this subpart. ADDRESSES: Comments should be ad under Pub. L.' 93-380. It was also noted (b) Reduction in production rate Is dressed to Sidney High. UJS- Office of by several commenters that State plan an allowable mechanism for attaining an Education. *7th and D Streets. S.W,, ning already being conducted under Title offset in emissions. Room 3108-A. Washington, D.C. 20202. I and Title X of the Higher Education (c) The baseline emission rate Is to be determined'based on the level of emis sions allowable by the standard. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: '_ _- Act of 1965 (20 UJS.C. 1001 et seq.) should also be coordinated with planning efforts conducted pursuant to Pub. I*.-94-482 be (d) Reducing emissions from an In . Sidney High, 202-245-2331. cause those titles deal with the continu 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 of construction required by ! 61.07. owners or operators of sources subject to this subpart shall include, in addition to the information required by S 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. 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 Fart 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. ing education of adults and, therefore, are closely related to the concept of career education for individuals of all ages. The proposed I 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. 93-380 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 tiie majority of commenters identified the need for cooperation be- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 47. NO. 104--THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 RSV 0018171 RULES AND REGULATIONS 29005 Subpart W--Massachusetts 52.11-47 [Amended]' 5. In 3 52.1147(a)(5).. subparagraph i i > is amended by revising the words "an average annual throughput of 5.000,* 000'* to read "a daily throughput of 20.- 000*'. Subpart FF--New Jersey 52.1598 [Amended] 6. In 3 52.1598(c)(3>. subparagraph <iv> is amended by revising the words **an average nnuni throughput of 5,000,000" to read ``a daily throughput of 20,000". Subpart NN - Pennsylvania 52.2042 (Amended] 7. In 3 52.2042(01(5), subparagraph (iv) is amended t7 revising the words "an average throughput of 5.000.000" to read "a cany throughput of 20,000". . Subpart SS--Texas 52.2285 [Amended! 8. In 9 52.2285(0(21. .subparagraph (iv) is amended by revising the words "an average throughput of 5.000.- 000" to read "a daily throughput o 20,000": Subpart W--Virginia - 9. la 9 52.2438(c). subparagraph (7> is amended by adding (hr), as follows: 52.2438 Gasoline transfer apor toe trol. i (c) ... . (3) - (It) Facilities which, have a *. daHy throughput of 20.000 gallons of gasoline or less are required to have a vapor re covery system in operation no later than May 31. 1977. Delivery vessels and stor age containers served exclusively by fa cilities required to have a vapor-recovery system in operation no later than May 31. 1977, also are required to meet the provi sions of this section no later than May 3h 1977. . f.... ArvcfOR--GASOLsnrTAroz Reeovnv; Swsi.ii Btrjc Plaitis; Nonce or AniLuamT or ai'i;urr ; This codes announces tbe availability ot and summarizes arudles conducted by regarding tie evailabmcy and applicability of control technology for small bulk plants la connection with stage I Vapor Recovery regulations promulgated by SPA as discussed below. CPA initiated several studies In 1978 to de termine If the requirement to Install gaso line vapor recovery equipment would, place severe economic burdens on the Industry and whether the so percent control level was achievable by a vapor balance system, and to further determine tne avaUebUtty of control equipment which would satisfy the require ments of the existing regulations. Pacific En vironmental Services. Inc, of Santa Monica. California, was chosen by SPA to perform these studies. BACKGROUND tn 1973 and 1974. the Administrator pro mulgated Stage Z Vapor Recovery regulations for 13 Air Quality Control Regions {AQCRS). The AQCRs. FnxaAi. Rccirrsa references, and promulgation dates are listed below: Metropolitan. Los Angeles AQCR. 38 PR 31251. installed. These bottom-loading systems November 12. 1973 because cf the additional modifications and Secnmento Valley AQCR. 38 FR 31351. No equipment required for on bull: vember 13. 1973 plants, are consistently much more expen San Joaquin Valley Intrastate AQCR. 38 PR sive to Install than the alternative top 31251. November 12. 1973 loading vapor balance system. Metropolitan Denver Intrastate AQCR. 38 PR - The recent SPA studies en small bulk 30823. November 7, 1973 plants rsafirsi the earlier conclusion that Marion County. Indiana. 38 PR 13349, April controls ere available at a reasonable coat. 3. 1974 Specifically, EPA bas determined that tne Maryland portion of National Capital Inter state AQCR. 38 PR 33719. December 8, 1973 Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate AQCR. 38 top-loading vapor balance system, which Is readily available and the least expensive alternative, will meet the 90 percent control PR 34252. December 13,1973 Boston Intrastate AQCR. 38 PR 30989. No vember 8,1979 level established In the existing regulations at a reasonable coat, However, due to the Administrator's concern regarding the pos New Jersey portion of New Jersey-New York- Connecticut-Interstate AQCR, 38 PR 31399. November 13. 1973 New Jersey portion of Metropolitan Phila sible economic Impacts of these regulations on the very smell bulk plants ness than 4,000 gal/day of gasoline throughout). EPA will continue to study such impacts. EPA delphia Interstate AQCR, 38 PR 31399. No vember 13.1973 will report on Its findings at tbe end of four to six weeks. AZegheny County portion of Southwest Penn sylvania Intrastats AQCR. 38 PR 33895. No vember 33.1973 . SJUsam-OalTvstoa laWestate AQCR, 38 PR 30043. November 8.1973 - Sam Antonio Intrastate AQCR. 38 PR 30643. Pot further Information or copies of the studies contact: Jared Flood. Regional Pro grams Section (EN--341), Division of Sta tionary Source Enforcement. VS. Envtroo mental Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW,, Washington. D.C. 20480. Rovember 8.1973. -- VTrmta portion of National Capital later- Dated: May 31.1977. n=e AQCR. 38 PR 33728, December 8.1973 ui'isi or nr srciio Douglas M. Costlc. - Administrator. first study (SPA contact 68-01^154. (PR Doc.77-18097 Plied 8-8-77:8:45 ami ~>r No. 5) evaluated the applicability and SLnc ljspaet of bottom-loading vapor balance "IPRL 740-71 ejaiw on small bulk planta- The second s--aty (SPA contract 68-01-3155, Thak No. 17) - 61--NATIONAL EMISSION STANCE stmmyad small bulk pls&ts in around^ 'ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ~>-"7ag. 5an Diego, and tbe San Joaquin Val- ( ley; ssd Included the source 1of two cag balk plants to determine if 90 percent casern could be achieved for Incoming and ranyang loads through the us# of a vapor system and a refrigeration-conden. system. A third study (EPA contract Standard for Vinyl Chloride; Corrections and Amendments " _ Agency. Environmental ACTION: Final rule. 88-01-3156,. Task No. 38) surveyed small bulk plasm In .the Washington. D.C., Bel-- arriTci Mi; and Houston/Galveston, Tex.. a=eaa to determine whether tbe descriptive, '"xrVrtt and economic data presented In the jqiuru of the eeeoad study could be ade quately applied to other, areas of the cou^- y, and also to evaluate the methods being esmloyed by bulk plant operators in these. Altai to comply with vapor recovery regula tions a fourth' study (S'A contract 68-01-- *140. Tksk No. 9) provided for the evalua tion of the applicability; availability and tbe: impact of and operating top-loading vapor balance systems at amall SUMMARY: These amendments are be ing made to the vinyl chloride standard which was promulgated under the au thority of the Clean Air Act on October. 21, 1976. The standard contains some typographical errors and needs clarifica tion in some parts. These amendments are intended to correct.the typographical errors and clarify the standard. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7.1977. FOR TACT: - INFORMATION CON bulk plants. In addition. Radian Corporation performed . a study for EPA * (EPA cotract' No. 68-02--1319,' Task No. 2) In 1975 which evaluated vapor control methods for gasoline marketing opcratlons.^lneludlng small bulk plants- - w. - ,,;_ uslilts or lex ai uuja Among other things, the studies concluded then both refrigeration--condensation and vapor balance type systems era capable of achieving the 90 percent control levels estab lishd in the regulations. Tbey further con cluded. that the equipment and technology for achieving these levels does Exist in suffi cient supply, and has been satisfactorily applisd on gasoline transfer operations for number of yean. These studies also concluded that certain types of vapor control systems (eg- a bottom-loading vapor balance eystam) are mare desirable from tbe viewpoint of the owner and operator because of tbe more eSclent marketing capability that tbe sys tems provide. It muse be emphasized that* there is no requirement In the federal regulations that bottom-loading systems be Don R. Goodwin. Emission Standards and Engineering Division. Environ mental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Parle, North Carolina 27711. telephone 919-688-8146. ext. 271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 21,1976, under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U5.C. 1857). the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a national emission standard for vinyl chloride (41 FR 46560). The standard coven plants which manufacture ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride. Since that time, it has become apparent that a few sections of the standard and Test Methods-106 and 107 are uncles* The purpose of the amendments being made afthis time is to clarify these sec tions and to correct typographical errorr. These corrections are in addition to those published on December 3.1975 (41 FR 53017). The Administrator finds that FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. t09--TUESDAY, JUNE 7. 1977 RSV 0018172 * 29006 RULES AND REGULATIONS rood cause exists for omitting prior each batch of resin is to be measured for (t) "Standard temperature'* means a notice and public comment on. these its vinyl chloride content. Section 61.71 temperature of 20* C 69* F). amendments as unnecessary and for (a) is being changed to correct typo (u) "Standard pressure" means % making them immediately effective be graphical errors and to clarify that daily pressure of 760 mm of Sg (29.92 In. of - - cause they simply clarify and correct the operating records for polyvinyl chloride Hg). - y j, existing regulations and impose no ad reactors are required to be kept whether ditional substantive requirements. a relief valve discharges or not. 3. Section 61.62 is corrected as follows: The most significant amendment in Section 4.33 of Test Method 106 Is 61.62 Emission standard, for ethylene volves clarification of the requirements being revised to allow the option of using dichloride plants. .. > for certification of the analysis of gas Poropak T as the column packing in (a) Ethylene dichloride purification: cylinders which may be used to calibrate stead of GE SF-96 In a secondary gas The concentration of vinyl chloride tn.J^_ testing and monitoring equipment. The chromatographic column If acetaldehyde all exhaust gases discharged to the at- e. standard, as promulgated on October 21, is present. This packing has also been mosphere from any equipment used in ^ 1976. requires that an analysis of the gas used for calibration purposes. " * * be traceable to the National Bureau of Standards or to a gravlmetrieally cali brated permeation tube.*' Comments were received indicating that the term "traceable" was unclear. shown to produce adequate separation of vinyl chloride and acetaldehyde. Sec tion 61.67(e) of the regulation and 9 63 of Test Method 106 are being amended to include a limit on the amount of time a test sample can be kept before it is analyzed for vinyl chloride. Section 13 ethylene dlchlorlde purification Is not to exceed 10 ppm. except as provided in 3 9 61.65(a). This requirement does not^S apply to equipment that has been opened, 'a* is out of operation, and met the require-V ment in f 61.65(b) (6) (D before being * opened. - *- These amendments require that the of Test Method 107 la being amended to (b) Oxychlorination reactor: Except composition of gas cylinders which may clarify that chromatograph parameters as provided tn I 61.85(a). emissions of. be used for of testing and can be altered if the precision and re vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from, monitoring equipmats be certified by the producibility of analysis of vinyl chloride each oxychlorination reactor are not to gas manufacturer. The certified compo cylinder standards is not impaired. Sec exceed 03 g/ig <0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100 sition must have beet determined by di tion 533 of Test Method 107 is being percent ethylene dlchlorlde product from rect analysis of the gas contained in each amended to allow the use of a pair of the oxychlorination process. calibration cylinde^ cSng an analytical Furtioak Q columns if methanol or ac- . 4. In 5 61.65, paragraphs (b)(1), (b*-' procedure the manufacturer had cali esaMefcyde is present In the sample. Also (8) (ill) (A), and (b> (8) Oil) <B> are brated on the day the analysis was per inTest Method 107 a clarification for the amended as follows: -. formed. Calibration of the analytical test K* has been added to f 93. procedure was to have been done using - gases for which the concentrations have been verified: (1) By comparison with a calibrated vinyl ' chloride permeation tube. (2) by comparison with a gas mix ture prepared in acordance with the pro cedure described In I 74 of Test Method 'aseremaining changes are corrections cf typographical errors or are self- esmhnaatory. e' *Ciese amendments are issued under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Ati-Act. sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Sat. 1685 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7) and sec-' 61.65 Emu*ion atandard for ethylene?, dichloride* vinyl chloride and. poly^-jg vinyl chloride plants. - . a... '"1 (b> * * - (D Loading and unloading tines: Vinyl chloride emissions from loadbag- 106 and using 993 percent vinyl chloride, or (3) by direct analysis by the National Bureau of Standards. These amendments turn 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148. 81 Stat. 904. as *" -M.TaH by sec. (IS) (c)(2) of Pub. L. and unloading lines tn vinyl chloride-SL service which are opened to the atmoa-- ig phere after each loading or iintmtrfiny are being made to 55 61.65(b)(8) CUD 9^-594. 84 Stat. 1713 (42 tT-S.C. 1857g eration are to be minimized as foUowsi-nSi and 61.68(c). which contain the moni toring requirements^and to 5$ 93 and 63 of Test Methods 106 and 107; respec tively. '..'`I;-'--, <a>>. The amendments tn 94 61.67 and 62-65 are also Issued under the author ity of section 114 of the Clean Air Act, as added by sec. 4(a) of.Pub.L. 91-804. * " - v V. .'* -r / (8) - .. - .1 (in) *-/. - (A) A calibration gas mixture-, pre There are several other changes fa 84 Stat. 1687 and amended by Pub. L. pared from the gases specified tn sectioned wording for clarification purposes. For. 93-313. sec. 6(a)(4), 86 Stat. 259 (42 534 and 533 of Test Method 106 and example. | 61.60 . is being amended USC. 1857C--9). ' in accordance with .section 7.1 of. Test-^fe; to clarify that the testing. reporting..and - recordkeeping requirements apply to re- search and development equipment sub ject to 19 61.64 (a)(1). (b). (c). and (d). and definitions for standard temperature and pressure are being added to f 61.61. The phrase "in vinyl chloride service** is being -added to f Sl.'65(b) (1) to clarify that loading and unloading lines which - clearly do not contain- vinyl chloride do not have to be continuously- tested to demonstrate that fact. Section 61.67(d) is being redesignated as 161.67 (g)(1) ,(li> to clarify that conducting a-series of three runs is not necessary when Test' . r?rrx: TBe Environmental 'Protaction . Method 106, or ' /'. ^ Asencyhts determined that tbis doeumeot does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation ot an Economic Impact Analy sis trader Executive Orders lini- and 11449/ and OMB Circular A-10T._ ' Dated;May26.1977. tv;*7"* (B) A calibration gas cylinder stand-' ard containing the appropriate concen- ."'-V tration of vinyl: chloride. The gas com position of the calibration gas cylinder _./ standard Is to have been certified by the-^ manufacturer. The manufacturer must ;*^- Edwasd P. Toekx. Acting Assistant Administrator . for Air and Waste Management. have recommended a shelf llfe'fi^v' for each cylinder so that the concentra- tlon does not change greater than -percent from the certified value. The date*?|P of gas cylinder preparation, certified^r. Part 61 of Chapter-1. Title 40 of the vinyl chloride concentration and recom.-*--^ Code of Federal Regulations: jg amended mended maximiun shelf life must have Method 107 is being used to determine emissions. A change Is being made in 5 81.67(g) (1) (ill) (which was originally promulgated as I 61.67(g) (1) (11) J to es tablish that the concentration emission limits for gas streams are to be de as follows: -~ l.,ln 161.60, paragraph amended as follows: 61.60 Applicability. a' - - been affixed to the cylinder before ship--(c> is ment from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatooraph Is used as /- the vinyl chloride monitoring system, theje gas mixtures may be directly used a ,, V to prepare a chromatograph calibration termined on a dry basis. Stmilartv, word (c> Sections of this subpart other than curve aa described in section 7.3 of Test ing is being added to 6t.70(c) (2) (v) to 59 61.61; 61.64 (a) m. (b). (e>. and (d): Method 106: The requirements in- sec establish that vinyl chloride concentra 61.67; 61.68: 61.69; 61.70; and 61.71 tion 9334 and 5.2.33 of Test Method tions in polyvinyl chloride resin are to 2. In 9 61.61 paragraphs .(t) and (u) 106 for certification of cylinder stand be determined on a dry weight basis; An are added as follows: ards and for establishment and verifica additional change to this same section is 61.61 Definition*. being made to clarify that a sample from tion of calibration standards are to be followed. ~ FEOERAi REGISTER. VOL 42. NO. 109___TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 197V RSV 0018173 RULES AND REGULATIONS 29007 ics 112 led 301(a). Clean Air Act (43 L` S C- I357C-7 and 1867j(a)).) 5. Section 61.67 Is amended by deleting and reserving paragraph fd), revising paragraphs (e), (gXDCli) and (g)(1) (ill), and by adding paragraph (g)(1) ijv as follows: $61.67 Emission teats. (d> (Reserved! (e) When at all possible, each sample is to be analyzed within 24 hours, but in no case in excess of 72 hours Of sample collection. Vinyl chloride emissions are to be determined within 30 days after the emission test. The owner or operator shall report the determinations to the Administrator by a registered letter dis patched before the close of the next busi ness day following the determination. (g) (l) . --* f ii) Each emission zest is to consist of three runs. For tha purpose of determin ing emissions, the average of results of all runs is to apply. The average is to be computed on a weighted basis. (ili) For gas Ll1^ containing morechan 10 percent oxygen the concentra tion of vinyl chloride- as determined by Test Method 106 is to be corrected to 10 percent oxygen, (dry basts) for determi nation of emissions by using the follow ing equation: ' ... 6. Section 61.68 is amended by revis ing paragraphs (c)(1) and fo (2) as fol lows: 61.68 Emiition monitoring. (C) * " (1) A calibration gas mixture pre pared from the gases specified in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Test Method 106 and In accordance with section 7.1 of Test Method 10$. or - (2) A calibration gas cylinder stand ard containing the appropriate concen tration of vinyl chloride. The gas com position of the calibration gas cylinder standard Is to have been certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must have recommended a maximmw shelf life for each cylinder so that the concen tration does not change greater than --5 percent from the certified value. The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration and recom- ansideci maximum shelf life must have been taxed to the cylinder before ship ment from the manufacturer to the buyer-, if a gas chromatograph Is used as vinyl chloride monitoring system, dense gas mixtures may be directly used -prepare a chromatograph calibration carve as described in section 7.3 of Test Method 106. The requirements In sec tions 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method for certification of cylinder stand- arfy and for establishment and veriflea- tlon of calibration standards are to be followed. (Sees 113. 1H, and 301(A). Cnn Air Act (43 XT-S.C. 1857c--7, 1857C-0. and 1834g<a) ) I 7. In 161.70 paragraphs (c'*2> (i and (c)(2)(t) arc amended as follows. 61.70 Semiannual report. B B S B (c> <2> * - (1) If batch stripping is used, one rep resentative sample of polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken from each batch of each grade of resin immediately follow ing the completion of the stripping op eration. and identified by resin, type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. The corresponding quan tity of material processed in each strip per batch is to be recorded and identi fied by resin type and grade and the date and time the batch is completed. _ w ' (v) The report to the Administrator by the owner or operator is to include the vinyl chloride content found in each sample required by paragraphs (c)(2) (i) and (c) (2) (ii) of this section, aver aged separately for each type of resin, over each calendar day and weighted according to the quantity of each grade of resin processed by the stripper(s) that calendar day, according to the. fol lowing equation: " rU,MrrM**d\JrC` 20.9-percent~ 0, where: -' * ZZ-iTOiMi7, At( i. Pot Mgt-+Paa On - ~~: concentration of vinyl chloride-in the exhaust gases, corrected a cere: ....... --\i: .i- to KVpercent oxygen. C* --The concentration of vinyl chloride as measured by Test Method 106. 20.9* Percent oxygen in the ambient air at standard conditions. " l0.9*Percent oxygen in the ambient air at standard conditions, minus the 10.0-percent oxygen to which the correction is being made. Percent 0j" Percent oxygen in- the exhaust gas as measured by. Refer ence Method -3 in Appendix A. of Part 60 of thi chapter.. - * A* 24-hour average, concentration of 1 type T.- resin in ppm (dry - weight basis). 0*Total .production of type T, resin over, the 24-hour period, in kg. Tf*Type of resin; *-*1,2 ... fa .where - m is total number of resin , types produced during the 24-hour period. M Concentration of vinyl chloride .. -inione sample of grade G, - - -ream, in ppm. F" Production-;-of grade G, resin (3) A record of emissions measured in accordance-with S 61,68. (4> A daily operating record for each polyvinyl chloride reactor, including pressures and temperatures. S. Section 1.1 of Test Method 106* is corrected a3 follows: 1.1 An Integrated bag sample of stack gas containing vinyl chloride (chloroethene) Is subjected to chromatographic analysis, us ing a Came Ionization detector. 10. Section 3- of Test Method 106 Is corrected as follows: - < iv) For those emissitm sources where che emission limit Is prescribed in terms of mass rather than concentration, massemissions in kg/100 kg product are to be determined by using the following equa represented by the sample, io kg. 7 Gi* Grade of resin: e.g., Glr G* and G*. , . -i . n"Total number of . grades of resin 3. interferences. Acetaldehyde, which can occur in same vinyl chloride sources, will in terfere with the vinyl chloride peak from the Chromaaorb 103 1 column. See sections 4.3.3 and 6.4. If resolution of. the vinyl tion; c .[Ca C2.60) 010"*] flOOl produced ' during the 24-hour period. .- _ chloride peak is still not satisfactory for a particular sample, then chromatograph pa rameters can be- further altered with prior 2 where: fa.r*kg vinyl chloride/100 kg prod uct. C= The concentration of vinyl chlo ride as measured by Test Method 106. 2.60* Density of vinyl chloride at one atmosphere and 20 C ia kg/m*. (/"Volumetric flow rate m mYhr as determined by Reference Method 2 of Appendix A to Part 60 of this chapter, T,'~` " Conversion factor for ppm. 7-~ Production rate (kg,'hr). ' 8. Section 61.71 Is amended by correct ing paragraphs (a) (2) and (a> (3). and by adding paragraph (a) (4) as follows: 61.71 Recordkeeping. (a) (2) A record of the leaks detected dur ing routine monitoring with the portable hydrocarbon detector and the action taken to repair the leaks, as required by 161.65(b) (8), including a brief state ment explaining the location and cause of each leak detected with the portable hydrocarbon detector, the date and time of the leak, and any action taken to approval of the Administrator. If alteration or the chromatograph parameters falls to resolve the vtnyl chloride peek, then sup plemental confirmation of the vinyl chloride peak through an absolute analytical tech nique. such ss mass spectroscopy, must b performed. 11. Section 4.1 of Test Method 106 is corrected as follows: 4.1 Sampling (Figure 106-1). 12. Section 4.1.3 of Test Method 106 is corrected as follows: ' 4.1.3 Male (3) and female (3k stainless steel qutcK-conneco, with ball checks (one pair without) located u shown In Figure eliminate that leak. 106-1. FfOHAl REG>STEft._VOl. 42. NO. 109--TUESBAy, JUNE 7, 1977 RSV 0018174 29008 RULES AN0 REGULATIONS 13. Section 4.1.10 of Test Method 106 is corrected as follows; 4.1.10 Connecting tuning. Tefion. 6.4 mw outside diameter, to assemble sample train (Figure 106-1). 14. Section 4.3.2 of Test Method 106 is amended as follows! 43.3 Chromatographic column, stainless steel. 2 mx3.2 mo, containing 80/100 mesa permeation tube. (3) verification value determined by comparison with a gas mix ture prepared in accordance with the pro cedure described in section 7.1 and using 99-9-- percent vinyle chior.de. or (3) verifi cation value oa mined by having the calibration standard analyzed by the Na tional Bureau of Standards. All calibration standards must be renewed on a time interval consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder standards sold. chromatograph parameters may be a *--ed provided that the precision and rep-d :-:bllity of the analysts of vi.-.yt ehior.ee c . Un der standards are not Impaired. If sh-re :s reason, to believe that same other bvc-ocarbon with an Identical retention -..me j present la tbe sample, then suyp'.emen-.*: confirmation of the vtnyi ehlor.de peak through an absolute analytical technique such as mass spectroscopy, should be per formed. 7' Chromasorb 103. A secondary column of OS SF-96. 30 percent on 60/80 mesh AW Chroma* sorb P. stainless steel. 2 =x3-2 mm or Forepat T, 80/100 mesh, stainless steel. 1 & X3.3 mm is required If acetaldehyde is present. 1? used, a secondary esiu^m is placed alter the Chromasorb 103 i-am*-"* The combined columns should then be operated at 130* C. 16, Section 6.2 of Test Method 106 is Amended as follows: 63 Sample storage. Sample bags must be kept out of direct sunlight. When at all possible analysis la to be performed within 24 hours, but in no ease in excess of 73 horns of sample collection. 20. Section 5-3-2 is amended as follows; 5.3.3 Chromatographic column. Stainless. tee!. 3 m X 3.2 mm, containing 0-4 percent ~ Garbowax 1500 on Carbopak A. Fsrkln-c'.mer <, Corporation No. 105-0133, or equivalent. Carbopak C can b used in place of Carbcpak * "v A If methanol and/or acetaldehyde 13 pr-s- ; 15. Section 52 of Test Method 106 is revised as follows: --- ' 17. Section 7.1 of Test Method 106 Is 'Amended as follows: eat In the sample, a pair of Poropek Q col- - - . umns In series (1 m x 33 mm followed by ' 2 m x 32 mm) with provision for bsekfiush >?' 5.2Calibration, Cse one of the following options: either 2.3.1 and S33, or 5.2.3. - 3.3.1 Vinyl chloride, &S+ percent. Pure vinyl chloride gaa ucrsgqd by the manufac turer to contain a rrw^;- of 90S percent vinyl chloride for use m. the preparation r standard gas mixtures Is Section T.l. If the gas manufacturer etssss a bulk cylinder, supply- of 99.9+ pervent nsyl chloride, the" certification analysts may have been per formed on this, supply- rather than on each, gas cylinder prepared frees rein bulk supply. The date of gaa eyimdar preparation and the certified analysis mesa have been aOxad to the-cylinder before shipment from the gsa . manufacturer to the buyer.. - 5.23 Nitrogen gee. Zero grade, for pn^w 7.1 Preparation of vinyl chloride stand of the first column has been shown to pro- -_>* ard gae mixtures. Evacuate a slxtecs-inch vide adequate separation of vinyl chloride. . . / square Tedlar bag that has passed a leak check (described to Section 7.4) and meter . ta 2 liters of nitrogen. While the hag is -use the 03 ml syringe to inject SSOal of 99.9-r percent vinyl chloride &mugh'~the wall of the bag. Upon with- 21. Section 6.2 of Test Method- 107 is S1T revised as follows: 93 Calibration. " 'at l^ 93.1 Cylinder standards <4>. Gas mixture '-v standards (50. 500, 3.000. and 4.000 ppm vinyl :J mwar the syringe needle, immediately cstrsx the resulting hole with a piece of ar*bretve tape. The bag now contains a vsxyt chloride concentration of SO ppm. In a 'Ike manner use the- other syringe to S-mpore gas mixtures having 10 and 5 ppm vl_jI chloride concentrations. Place each be^ cm a smooth surface -and alternately A^ee* opposite sides of the bag 50 times chloride In nitrogen cylinder*) far which the . ~.*:L gas composition has bean certified by the. manufacturer. Lower coccectraticn stand ards should be obtained if lower concentra tions of vinyl chloride samples are expected., as the Intent Is to bracket the sample caa- . centratlons with standards. The manufac- ; turer must have recommended, a maximum ^ shelf life for each cylinder so that the ccn-,1 ration of standard gss ^fixtures. 53.3 Cylinder standards (J). Qas sx>- ture standards (SO. 10. and 5 ppm vinyl chloride in nitrogen cylinders) for wtneht^ gas composition has been certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must haw recommended a rwvHvmTM shelf life for each cylinder so that the concentration dees act change greater than sfi percent from thecertified value. The date of gaa cylinder prep aration, certified vinyl chloride ccncenteatlon and recommended "i**'*--*..--< shelf'ESfb- Artier mix the gases. These gae mixture -centretlon does not obange greater than ti5 may be used for 10 days from the percent from the certified value. The date - r preparation, after which time prtp- of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl " . of new gas mixtures is required. - chloride concentration and recommended'-' __ (Gaunauv.--Contamination may be a prob- maximum shelf life must have been atixed 1b when a bag Is reused If the new gas to the cylinder before shipment from the -JUUje standard contains a lower con- manufacturer to the buyer. /'A esssQOD than the prevtous gas mixture 6.2.1.1 Cylinder standards certification, smsdmd did. > . The concentration of vinyl chloride in nltio--...*5 IS. Section 7.3 of Test-Method 106 is- -gen in each cylinder must have been eertl- _:% gsrrarifd as'foliows:-. ., fied by the manufacturer by a-direct analysis of each cylinder using an analytical prcce- . 'rw must have been afixed to the cylinder before shipment' from the gu manufacturer to the 73 Preparation of chromatograph calthtifoa curve. Make a gaa chromatographic dure that tbe manufacturer bad calibrated ;-'-7 on tbe day of cylinder analysts. Tbe calibre-- buyer. These gae mixture standards may ba measurement of each gas mixture standard tioa of the analytical procedure shall, as a directly used to prepare a (described In section 5.2.2 or 7.T) using con minimum, have utilized a three-point call- calibration curve as described in section 7J. 3.2.3.1. - Cylinder standouts certification. ditions identical with those listed in sections - bratlon curve. It Is recommended that the A3-and 6.4. Plush the sampling loop for 30 manufacturet maintain two calibration*--.^* The concentration of vinyl chloride in nitro wvrmrtv at the rate or 100 ml/mln with each standards and use these standards In the gen m each cylinder muse have been certified standard gas mixture and activate the sam following way: (l) a high concentration >3 by the manufacturer by a direct analysis ctf" ple valve. Record Cm, the .concentration of standard (between 4.000 and 8,000 ppm) for- - each cylinder using an analytical procedure vinyl chloride Injected, the attenuator set preparation of a calibration curve by an sp- . 'ap that the manufacturer had calibrated on the ' ting. chart speed, peak area, sample loop day of cylinder analysts. The calibration' of - temperature,. column .temperature, carrier propriate dilution technique; (2) a low eoncentration standard (between 50 and 500 I"??' the analytical procedure as e minimum, gas fiov rate, and retention time. Record the ppm) for verification of tbe dilation tech-,^*'J have utilized a three-point calibration curve. laboratory pressure. Calculate A., the-peak nlque used. :~- It Is recommended - that .the manufacturer area multiplied by the attenuator setting. 93.13 Establishment end verification of -TV* maintain two calibration standards end use . Repeat until two Injection areas are within these standards in the followlng way: (2) a 5 percent, then plot these points v. C#. When calibration standards. The concentration of. each calibration standard must have been * high concentration standard (between 20 and . the other concentrations have been plotted, established by the manufacturer ustng rell- ' ICO ppm) for. preparation. of a-calibration draw a smooth curve through tbe points.- able procedures. Additionally, each calibre- curve by an appropriate dilution, technique: Perform calibration dally, or before and after tton standard must have been verified by the /i". (3) low coneenOation standard (between. each set of beg samples, whichever is more manufacturer by one of the following proce- 5 and 10 ppm) for verification of the dilution frequent. . ... duree. and tbe agreement between the ini- technique used. .r . . - 5333 Establishment and verification of calibration standards. The eoncentiatian of Id. Section 1.2 of Test Method 107 is amended as follows: tlaliy determined concentretlon value and y the verification concentration value must be - .re wtthin =5 percent: (1) verification value de each calibration standard must have been established by the manufacturer using reliable procedures. Additionally, 'n calibration standard must haw been veri fied by the manufacturer by one of tbsfoUowing procedures, and the ag^ement between the initially determined concen tration value and the verification concen tration value must be wtthin * 5 percent: (1) verification value determined by com parison with a calibrated vinyl chloride 13 This procedure Is suitable for deter mining the vinyl chorlde monomer (VCM) content of laorocess wastewater samples, and tbe residual vinyl chloride monomer (TtVCil) content of polyvinyl chloride (FVC) resins, wet cake, slurry, and latex samples. It eanaot be used for polymer in fused forms, such as sheet or eubes. If a resolution of the vinyl chloride peak Is not satisfactory for a particular sample, then - termined by comparison with a gas mixture standard generated in a similar manner to the procedure described Ln section 7.1 of Method 106 for preparing gas mixture stand ards ustng 99.9-- percent vinyl chloride, or (2) verification value obtained by having the calibration standard analyzed by the Nation al Bureau of Standards. All calibration stand ards must be renewed on a time interr&l consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder standards sold. FCDERAl IEG1STEX, VOL 43, NO. 109--TUESDAY, JUNE 7. 1977 RSV 0018175 9! RULES AND REGULATIONS 29009 32. Section 7.3.2.d. of Test Method 107 is corrected as follows: d __stabilization time. The normal set- -`na is 0.3 mtoutw. .r,=Volume of vapor phase (vial volume less sample volume). Weight of sample, grams. R*Ga constant [62.360 (ee-mmmole-degrees Kelvin)] FOP. FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: Robert F. Caxmody. Jr., 202-472-2758. SUPPLEMENTAP.Y INFORMATION: 23. Section 9.2 of Test Method 107 is A.'= Henry's Law constant. For ' This rule prescribes what the Commis corrected as follows: VCM in PVC at 90* C, sioner's ''equitable share" of payments 92 Residual vinyl chloride soaomir con centration. or vinyl chloride monomer con centration. Calculate C,, as follows: K-6.52X10--K^ For VCM in 1 cc (approximate) wastewater sample at 90* C, AT-5.0X10-*-*.. 7s-- Equilibration temperature, *K. is with respect to payments made by a borrower to a State or private nonprofit student loan insurance program ("guar antee agency") in full or partial dis charge of the borrower's loan obligation, Cr,, A.P. (M.V,+KT,) 'R,Ti \ m,R If the following conditions are met, after the Commissioner has made a rein Location 107-2 can be simplified as surance payment to the guarantee follows: agency with respect to that loan pursu Equation 107-2 e: C,,=Coceectrar:en of vinyl chloride in the sample, in ppm. Laboratory 'atmosphere pres sure. mm Eg. 1. 7',22* C (295 K) 2. r:=90a C (363* K) 3. P.ssToO mm Hg. 4. r. where 1.4 "3'5 1.4 ant to a Supplemental Guaranty Agree ment. Section 423A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Act), as added by sec tion 127 of the Education Amendments of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-482). authorizes the Commissioner to enter with guarantee J*i " Room tempersture, KT V,--Vial volume, cc (23.5). agencies into Supplemental Guaranty .V,* Molecular weight of VCM 5. Sample contains less than 0.5 percent Agreements which provide for 100 per (62.5). warer. cent Federal reinsurance on eligible loans. The statute also directs the Com- F)4; ("XIO"L 5.958x10- - missioner to prescribe by regulation his Equation 107-3 "equitable share" of payments collected by the guarantee agency from the bor The following geienl equation can be uses for any sample which contains VCM, rower once the guarantee agency Is PVC and water. . subrogated to the rights of the lender c..^^x[^5-sr.:rs,r;-i:.a-rs)r,] . after paying an insurance claim. The Commissioner of Education has already begun to enter into Supplemental Guar Equation 107-4 anty Agreements with guarantee agen cies. These agreements provide that the where: Results calculated using Equation 107--4 Commissioner's "equitable share" will be TS"Total solids^ - N :otf. Kw must be determined for sam ples with a vapor volume to liquid volume ratio other, than 22.5 to 1. This ratio caft be obtained by adjusting the sample weight through giving consideration to the- total represent concentration based on the total samDie. To obtain results based on dry ?VC content,'divide by TS. . For a 1-cc wastewater sample (that is, 22_3 to 1 vapor volume to liquid volume zario), K* is 5.0X10"*. Thus, Equation determined by-.regulations to be pre scribed by the Commissioner. This regu lation is needed immediately to.prescrtbe the disposition of payments received from borrowers after the execution of the agreements. solids and density cf the PVC. j- ICT--4 can be'simplified to the following: The definition contained In the In terim rule is the same, except for a tech . Cr a, rs0..988X1^- (3 Q66x io-) I . `A/L mt -'J nical change, as the definition added to - Equation 107-5 section 428(c) of the Act by Public Law 94-482 with respect to the Commissioner's (Secs. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7 and-1857g(a>.) "equitable share" of payments received by guarantee agencies participating In [PH. Doc.77-1582*yUe<I S-S-77;8:45 am).. the * standard 80 percent reinsurance agreement. It provides that the Commis Title 45--Public Welfare , ._-J 100 percent reinsurance program with sioner's share of any such payments shall CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF EDUCATION. DE PARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE guarantee agencies- authorized by the be that portion remaining after the guar Education Amendments of 1976 (Public antee agency has subtracted Law 94-482). The regulation is needed - 1. A- percentage amount equal to the immediately to* prescribe the disposition .percentage, if any, of insurance it bad PART 177--FEDERAL STATE AND PRI VATE PROGRAMS OF LOW INTEREST LOANS TO VOCATIONAL STUOENTS AND STUOENTS IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Commissioner's "Equitable Share'' of Payments on Certain Reinsured Loans of payments received from borrowers after the execution of each agreement. slt'i'LCTiVE DATE: Pursuant to sec. 431 (d) of the General Education. Provisions Act. as amended (20 U.S.C. 1232(d)), these regulations have been transmitted to the Congress concurrently with the previously paid on the loan obligation to the holder of the loan which was not re imbursed by Federal reinsurance; 2. An amount attributable to the al lowable "administrative costs of collec tion of the loan." as defined at sections 428(0 (6) (B)(1) and 428 (fl (3) (B) of the AGENCY: Office of Education, HEW. ' publication In the Federal Register, Act: and - ACTION: Interim Final Rule. That section provides that regulations 3. An amount attributable to the allow subject thereto shall become effective on able "administrative costs of preclaim SUMMARY: This Guaranteed Student the 43th day following the date of such assistance for default prevention," as de Loan Program (GSLP) rule prescribes the Commissioner's "equitable share" of a payment made by a borrower in dis transmission, subject to the provisions therein concerning Congressional action and adjournment. fined at sections 428(0 (6> <B> (ii) and 428(f) (3) (C) of the Act. charge of his GSLP loan obligation to- ADDRESSES: Written comments con an approved State or private nonprofit cerning this rule should be sent to the loan insurance program (guarantee Associate Commissioner, Office of Guar The technical change clarifies that a guarantee agency may not deduct costs for loan collection and preclaims assist agency) after the Commissioner has anteed Student Loans, Office of Educa ance which are reimbursed pursuant to made a. reinsurance payment on that tion, Room 4636. Regional Office Build section 428^f> of the Higher Education loan to the agency. This regulation- ing No. 3, Seventh and D Streets. S.W.. Act of 1965, as*added by Public Law 94- assists In the implementation of a new Washington, D C. 482. FEDSJUl IHSIS72K. VOL 42, NO. 109--TUESDAY, JUNE 1977 RSV 0018176 /<r.* t c 10A Wed., February 23f 1977 I c. N ST.LDUIS POST-OISPATCH ^arasOf Chemical la the Italian study, conducted by Dr. ZiNEW YORK. Feb. 23 -- The findinf Cesare Maltoni, rats, hamsters and mice were exposed to vinylidine chloride jfcy a leading Italian researcher that a . gas at high levels for up to one year. Snismicai used in some plastic toad Kidney cancers developed in about 20 ^qfape can cause cancer in mice has per cent of the male Swiss mice, butin prompted. two United States cancer . noue of the other animals. Aperts to alert the public end Govern*. Three yean ago, Maltoni's studies of jpeat agenda to the need for closer. vinyl chloride, another plastics cbemi- - scrutiny of the chemical end others. cal, showed it to cause cancer in rats, CTs At a press conference yesterday. Dr. and mice. Shortly afterward the . ; Jgr Cuyler Hammond and Dr. Irving J. cal was pinpointed as the cause of a ' delikoff said the chemicai. called vinyU- rare, fatal liver cancer in exposed work- jjine chloride, was closely related to two era. jxher chemicals, vinyl A Dow spokesman said that ooe third chloride and trichloroethylene. of the flexible plastic parkagjpg for food . However, researchers ai the Dow . in grocery shelves was made from viny- Chemical Company, the leading maim* lidine chloride. But be ooted that studies lecturer of vinylidine chloride, said the of foods wrapped in such plastics had Italian finding was of questionable sig 'shown that none of the chemical migrat nificance. The Dow spokesmen cited a ed from the wrapping to the food. . jwo-year. $1,000,000 study sponsored by Hammond said be. personally, would American industries that showed no continue to use plastic food wraps. jcancer-induting effect of vinylidine ehk>- , Asked how. consumers should reset to /ide in rats. his warning against vinylfafine chloride, . ; Vinylidine chloride is a gaseous be said, "It is my personal opinion thar idiemical that, when polymerized with consusmers at this point need have no vinyl chloride, makes Saran Wrap, a worry.'* His warning was intended to Dow product. (Other packaged plastic them from possible future risk. wraps are polyethylene.) Carter XT RSV 0018177 -I-'AIO C ^ .:# _ . - ?e Cancer Experts Warn of Dangers In Some Plastic Wrap Chemicals By JANE E. BRODY The finding by * leading Italian re- Maltoni's findings. Dr.' Hammond, a vice : searcher that a chemical used in some president of the American Cancer Soci - plastic food wraps can cause cancer in mice prompted two American cancer ex* : perts yesterday to alert the public and ety, and Dr. Selikoff, director of environ mental' medicine at Mount Sinai Medical . Government agencies to the need for Center, said they saw no reason for the ' closer scrutiny of this and related chemi* public to stop using sara products. But teals. Dr. Hammond suggested that industry At a news conference at the New York might try to remove residual vinylidine . Academy of Sciences, Dr. E. Cuyier Ham* chlorite from the finished plastic before : mood and Dr. Irving J. Selikoff aid that it came into contact with food. the chemical, called vinylidine chloride, They said that Dr. Maitool's finding -was closely related to two other cancer* warranted further examination by the causing chemicals, vinyl chloride and tri- Food and Drug Administration, the Na v'chJoroethylene. , tional Institute of Occupational Safety However, researchers at the Dow and Health and the National Institute of Chemical Company, the leading manufac Environmental Health Sciences. v-turer of vinylidine chloride, said the Its! In a related development, the Natural { hut finding .was of questionMble signlifl- Resources Defense Council has asked the ! canoe and cited a two-year, il*ailIion Food sod Drug Administration to recall t'study sponsored by American industries existing stocks of Coca Cola In plastie ' that showed no cancer-indudng effect of bottles made float acrylonitrile, also - ; vinylidine chloride in rats, called vinyl cyanide and another chemical jv- In addition, Dow researchen said that relative of vinyl chloride. In response to studies of foods wrapped in plasties made a suit brought, by the council In 1975, v from vinylidine chloride had showed that the drug agency last Friday rescinded its * nose of the chemical migrated from the approval of market testa of the plastic . .wrapping to the food. The test would soda bottles. ' have disclosed such contamination If it The agency's decision 'was baaed an ^exceeded 10 parts of vinviidlea chloride recent findings Oat acrylonitrile causes fin one billion parts of food. birth defects and tumors in test animals* ' M the Italian study, conducted by Dr. and that small amounts of the chemical . ?eaare Maltood at the Institute of Oncolo leach out of the bottles Into the drink. gy in Bologna, rata, hamsters and mice T were.exposed to vinylidine chloride gas {at much higher *levels starting at 10 THE NEW YORK T2MES;JVEDNESDA Z.$EBRg^EYVf : J parts per mullein for up t a yw. /Kkhiey cancers developed la about BO ijpercent,oCthe male Swiss mice,;biitia ^^Jnone ofthe other animals. --w'- .Three,years'ago, Dr. MaltonTs stoats _ ^ erf vinyl chlorite^ another plastics bhanl- | od, s&owedr it to- cause cancer far rata : and mice. Shortly afterward the chemical ^pinpointed eathe cause of a rare, fatal cancer, fat imposed workers. Dr.MaJ- -studiea of. vfaxyUdbie .chloride were the behest off'four^European ------- __ .v ^ ., * . ** yinylidtee chloride Is a ^seous eheoi- fB&.tkit, when polymerized with virjy] iOrioride, makes upSaran Wrap,_a`Dow ^.product (Other packaged plastic wraps -are mate of polyethylene.) The visyildfaM . chloride-vinyl chloride copolymer-called < samn--Is also used to wrap commercially . prepared meats end diacres. A - Dow - spokesman said that about one-third of the flexible plastic packaging for food .-*.. *-**ib'ir - -rv-*?*.**. An ttaftan reimtort finding Oat tjb* mafn^vhemfcal .osed fa plasticfood wraps -xan-cause,-cancar far :ntiee prompted Drs. E. Cuyier Hammond and Irving J. Selikoff to call for ctoeer scrutiny of the ingredient, vinylidina chloride. and related chemicaly The researcher, Dr. Cesare Maitonl, earlier did pioneer work pointing to another plastics chemical, vinyl chloride, later proved to be a cancer hazard to man. Dow Chemical Company, the leading maker of saras. questionad the sistificanco of his new finding LA10:l-2.? ' 1 In grocery stores is sarin, representing 2 an wmnal market of between 150 and ; 200 million pounds of plastic. Is announcing their concern about Dr. RSV 0016178