Document zQ9yMa4jMEmGoxOM1g3DRZ6pm

484 CHEMICAL REGULATION REPORTER Amnu c--Medical Bvatouahci OviDIXCNEa rot Bxnxtnx t. XOTTTX or KKTiT Inhalation; powlbl* akin absorption, n. toxwoloot BonMni U primarily an Inhalation huord, Byitemlo absorption otuti dvpraaalon of ths hemaiopolatlo aystsm. Inhalation of blgti concentrations can alTaet tba central nsrv* 00! system function. Aspiration of snail amount! of liquid Udmoi ieundlauty oauMt pulmonary adtma and hsmorrhogs of pulmonary ttssu*. Bkln absorption through intact akin la negligible. However, absorp tion win be accelerated In the case of In jured eklo, and benzene may be more readily absorbed if It Is present In a mixture or ae a contaminate In solvents which are readtly absorbed. Defatting action of benzene may produce primary Irritation upon repeated or prolonged contact with the akin. High con centrations are Irritating to the mucous membranes of the eyes, noee. and respiratory tr*ct, TO. ftiONft AMD STSPTOUS Benzene Is poorly absorbed through the skin, however, direct contact may cause erythema or blistering. Repeated or pro longed contact may result In drying, scaling, dermatitis, or precipitate development of secondary skin Infections. Local effects of benzene vapor or liquid on the eye are alight. Only at very high concentrations la there any smarting sensation In the eye. Droplet contamination of the eye by benzene causes a moderate burning sensation, but only slight transient Injury of the epithelial cell, with the eye recovering rapidly. Inhalation of high concentrations of benzene may have 'an initial stimulatory effect on the central nervous system characterized by exhilaration, nervous excitation, and/or giddiness, fol lowed by a period of depression, drowsiness, /H'.iguc, or vertlco- There may be sensation of tightness In the chest accompanied by breathlessness and ultimately the victim may io&e consciousness. Convulsions and tremors occur frequently, and death may follow from respiratory paralysis or circula tory collapse In a few minutes to several hours following severe exposure*. The insid ious and often Irreversible effect on tbe blood-forming system of prolonged exposure to small quantities of benseut vapor is of xtremt importance. These effects have been noted to ooour at concentrations of beneene which may not cause Irritation of mueoui membranes, or any unplsasant sensory ef fect!. Early signs and symptoms of benaene morbidity aro varied and vagus, and not specific for benzene exposure. Subjective complaints of headache, dizziness, and loss of appetite may preeeds or prooede clinical aymptomology, Bleeding from tbe note, gums, or mucous membranes end tbe devel opment of purpurlo spots may occur as tbe condition progresses. Rapid pulse and low blood pressure In addition to a physical ap pearance of anemia may accompany a sub jective complaint of shortness of breath. Clinical evidence of leucopenli and anemia are the most common abnormalities re ported, however, macroeytosis and thrombo cytopenia are also frequently present. Bone marrow may appear normal, aplastic, or hy perplastic and may not In all altuatlons cor relate with peripheral blood findings Indi cating hypo-hyper-actlvlty of blood forming tissues. There are great variations In' the susceptibility to benzene morbidity which prohibits the Identification of "typical" blood picture. The effects of prolonged ben zene exposure may appear after several weeks or years after the actual exposure baa ceased. Development of leukemia also re* tulta from exposure to benzene. IV. ftSATMXNT Remove from exposure Immediately, give oxygen or artificial resuscitation U Indicated. Flush eyes and wash contaminated akin. Symptoms of non-specific nervous disturb ances may persist following severe exposures. Recovery from mild exposures l! usually rapid and complete. V. SUlVEtlLAHCC AMD F*EVIKTTY* CONeifitXAtlOWB A. Other con$ideratfon*. Benzene can cause both acute and chronic effects, fft U Impor tant that the physician become familiar with the operating conditions In which exposure to benzene occurs. Those with skin disease may not tolerate the wearing of protective clothing and those with chronic respiratory disease may not tolerate the wearing of nega tive pressure respirators. B, gwttwMJaaee tad soreealag. Medical his tories and laboratory etamtnaUuni are re quired for each employee subject to eiposure to benaene. The employer must screen em ployees for history of certain medical condi tions (listed below) which might place the employee at Increased risk from exposure. 1. liver dUcau. The primary MM of bio- traneformstlon and detoxification of benzene Is the liver. Liver dysfunctions UJksly to In hibit the conjugstlon reactions will tend to promote the toxic actions of benzene. These precautions should be considered before ex posing persons with Impaired liver function to benzene vapors. a. Renal diiectt. Although benzene Is not known as a kidney toxin the importance of the organ In the elimination of toxic sub stances and metabolites justifies special con sideration in those with, possible Impairment of renal function. ' 3. fffcfn direare. Benzene is A defatting agent and can cause dermatitis on prolonged exposure. Persons with preexisting skin dis orders may be more susceptible to the effects of benzene. 4. Blood dyterasia*. Benzene is a hema topoietic depressant. Persons with existing blood disorders may be more susceptible to the effects of benzene. umuMcis 1. Orwot, W. Morton: Toxicology of the Eye, (Second Edition), Charles C. Thomas, Illinois. 1974. page 666. 9. Browning. Ethel: Toxicity and Metabo lism of Industrial Solvents, Elscvzer Publish ing Company, Amsterdam, 1966, pp. 446-443. 3. Patty, F. A.: Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Volume Il-Toxlcology, Intereci* ence Publishers, Hew York. 1693. pp. 17661766. 4. Oerade, K. W.: Toxicology and Biochem istry of Aromatic Hydrocarbons, EUevzer Publishing Company, Amsterdam, i960, pp. M-106. (Bees 4. 6. 8, M Btat. 1603. 1800 (30 UilC. 663, 665. 667); Secretary of Labor's Order 6-76 (41 FR 36060); 30 CFR Part 1011.) (FR Doc.77-14050 Filed 6-06-77:8:46 ami EPA PROPOSED REGULATIONS SETTING NATIONAL EMISSION RECEIVED STANDARDS FOR VINYL CHLORIDE AS A HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT JUN 1 5 1977 42 FR 28154, June 2, 1977 R- W. Laundrie ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY C 40 CFR Part 61] |FRL 728-5| VINYL CHLORIDE National Emission standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The proposed amendments are being made to the vinyl chloride standard which has promulgated Octo ber 21, 1976, and would apply to new and existing ethylene dlchlorlde. vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants. The standard and the proposed amend ments Implement the Clean Air Act and are based on the Administrator's deter mination that vinyl chloride Is a hazard ous air pollutant. The Intended effect of the proposed amendments Is to require Improved effectiveness or control tech nology at existing plants, Impose more stringent emission limits on new sources! 'and prohibit an emission increasTWIlhlh the vicinity of an existing source due to the construction of a new source. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1,1977. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sub mitted (preferably in triplicate) to the Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Attention: Mr. Don R. Good win. All public comments received may be Inspected and copied at the Public In formation Reference Unit (EPA Li brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street, 8W., Washington, D.C. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environ mental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. Telephone No. 919-688-8146. ext. 271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 21, 1976, EPA promulgated a standard for vinyl chloride under the authority of section 112(b) (1) (B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (41 FR 46561). The standard applies to ethyl ene dlchlorlde, vlnvl chloride, and poly vinyl chloride plants. On November 19, 1976. the Environ mental Defense Fund <EDF> petitioned the United Btates Court cl Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit to review Chemical Regulation Reporter 6ENC 014037 x'"^ CURRENT REPORT 485 the standard. Motions to Intervene were subsequently filed on behalf of tho So dety of the Plastics Industry. Inc., the aoodyoar Tiro and Rubber Company and Air Products and Chemicals, Inc,, and were Granted by order of the Court on January 18, 1077. On March 24. 1077, EDP and EPA moved to dismiss the proceedings In view of a settlement agreement requiring EPA to taka cortaln additional actions. These Include a re statement of EPA's policy for regulating carcinogens under section 112 of the Clean Air Act; the proposal of amend ments which would require Increased efficiency of existing control equipment, require more stringent control at new sources, and prohibit increases In emis sions within the vicinity of an existing source due to new construction; and the initiation of a review of the vinyl chlo ride standard three years after the pro mulgation of the amendments, Zero Emission Goal The vinyl chloride standard has been criticized for allegedly placing unwar ranted emphasis on technological rather than health considerations. Although EPA disagrees with this criticism, It seems appropriate to restate EPA's ap proach to the regulation of carcinogens in general and under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and to explain how the vinyl chloride standard and the pro posed amendments are consistent with this approach and with the protection of public health. On May 25, 1976, EPA published lntorim procedures and guidelines for health risk and economic Impact assess-' ments of suspected carcinogens <41 PR 21402), which define EPA's approach to regulatory action for suspect carcino gens. As Indicated In that publication, there are two steps Involved in the declslon-maklng process with regard to the regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al though different EPA statutory author ities Impose different requirements, in general f.w.o decisions must be made with regard to each potential carcinogen. The first decision Is whether a particular sub stance constitutes a cancer risk. The second decision Is what regulatory ac tion, If any, should be taken to reduce that risk. In deciding whether a cancer risk exists, EPA will consider a substance a presumptive cancer risk when It causes a statistically significant excess Incidence of benign or malignant tumors In hu mans or animals. In the case of vinyl chloride, EPA evaluated all available data and concluded that a cancer risk exists. In deciding how and whether to regulate. EPA examined section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Section 112 of the Act requires that emission standards be set "at the level which In the Judgment of the Administrator provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollut ants." This requirement appears to as sume that each pollutant regulated will have a threshold level of effects below which no health effects will occur. As explained in the documentation for the current standard <40 PR 59532, Decem ber 24, 1975; 41 PR 4C5C0. October 21, 1976), It has not been possible to deter mine If there Is a threshold level of effeots for vinyl chloride and It Li not certain that such a threshold may be determined In the near future. In the absence of strong evidence to the con trary, then, the only level of vinyl chlo ride whloh would appear to be absolutely protective of health Is aero, which may be achievable only by banning vinyl chlo ride emissions completely. .That, In turn, would require closing the entire industry. As explained In the eailler rulemaking It Is not clear that Congress would have Intended this result, so Instead EPA re quired the lowest level achievable using technological mea' v. (See 40 PR 59534 and 41 PR 46562). In order to Insure that .the standard continues to approach the only level of emissions which Is known to be abso lutely protective of health, namely zero emissions, EPA Is proposing amendments which require more efficient use of exist ing control technology at existing plants and more effective controls at new plants, and which encourage technology to reach this goal without banning vinyl chloride. More Strincent Standards for Existing Sources EPA is proposing amendments which would require sources presently subject to a 10 ppm Emission limit to reduce emissions to 5 ppm within three years of promulgation of the amendments. The affected sources Include ethylene dichlorlde purification: vinyl chloride forma tion and purification; reactors, strippers; mixing, weighing, and holding contain ers; monomer recovery systems; and fugitive emissions which have been cap tured in accordance with the existing regulation.* If the owner or operator of a source believed that a control system would not be capable of meeting the 6 ppm limit, he would be able to request that the Administrator approve an in terim emission limit for that source. Such requests would have to be made one year before the compliance date. In re questing an interim emission limit, the owner or operator would have to submit supportive data and meet with EPA to discuss his particular problems In attain ing compliance. The meeting would be announced In the Federal Reoister and any interested party would be allowed to attend and submit written or oral com ments. If an interim emission limit were granted to the source, the required emis sion level would be specified In a written notification from EPA and in the Fed eral Register. Each source granted an "As an explanatory note, paragraph 41>) of ( ei-OS contains nine fugitive emitilon regu lations. Tor several of these, the lugltlve emissions are required to be captured and ducted to e control device meeting 18 ppm. According to the proposed amendments, the emissions from this control devics would bave to be reduced to 6 ppm In the umo wsy any other eource currently required to meet 10 ppm would have to do. Esther than In corporating both the 6 and 10 ppm emission limits In each paragraph In I Cl 03(b), s separate paragraph (c) containing these emission limits Is being added to | oi 03. All the other paragraphs In (b) are cross- referenced In paragraph (c). Interim emission limit would be reviewed evory three years to determine whether emissions could be reduced to b ppm, or at least to a lower interim emission limit. In proposing the reduction from 10 to 5 ppm, it la not EPA's Intent that a oon- trol system whloh lina been Installed to meal the 10 ppm emission limit be re moved and replaced with another more efficient control system or that a second control system be added behind the first control system. The purpose of the pro posed amendment is to force owners and operators to maximize the effectiveness of existing control systems. More Stringent Standards for New Sources The proposed amendments would also require more stringent controls for new sources; l.e,, sources for which construc tion Is commenced after the date of pro posal of these amendments. According to $ 61.02 of the General Provisions, "commenced" means that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of construction or modification or that an owner or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to under take and complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of construc tion or modification. New sources or types which would be subject to the 10 ppm emission limit under the current standard would be required under the amendments to meet a 5 ppm emission limit at the time of startup. With new sources there would be no provision allowing requests for EPA approval of an interim emission limit. New sources would be required to meet the more stringent emission limit at thd time of startup, because they have an opportunity to design their equipment to meet the 5 ppm emission limit at the tim4 construction Is commenced. Existing sources, on the other.hand, require time to maximize tho effectiveness of their control systems. The proposed amendment would also require ethylene dlchlorlde-vlnyl chlor ide plants to control emissions from new oxychlorlnatlon reactors to 5 ppm. This requirement Is based on installation of a recycling and oxygen feed system with an incinerator or equivalent control de vice. The current standard limits emis sions from the oxychlorlnatlon reactor to 0.2 g/kg <0.0002 lb/lb) or the XOO per cent ethylene dlclilorlde product from the oxychlorlnatlon reactor. This emis sion limit can be met by changing proc ess parameters, rather than Installing a control device. During the development of the current standard EPA considered requiring existing sources to control emissions with an Incinerator or equiva lent technology, but rejected thi* ap proach because a large quantity of fuel would be required to reduce emissions from a relatively small source. An exist ing oxychlorlnatlon reactor typically has a large volume, low hydrocarbon effluent gas stream, and large quantities f sup plemental fuels would be required for combustion of Its emissions, A new plant can reduce the volume of Its effluent gas stream and make It more concentrated by recycling the gas stream and using oxygen Instead of air to feed Copyright 4 1977 by The BsneOj o( Na'.pou' Mis.,, u;. GEMC 014038 486 CHEMICAL REGULATION REPORTER Into tne process. (J, 4) the current standard was not based on this technol ogy because It was not considered feasi ble to retrofit existing plants so that they could use oxygen instead or air. The re cycling and oxygen feed methodolgy U considered feasible for now oxychlorina- tlon reactors bccauso It can bn Incorpo rated at the time of construction. Since tho use of this technology wpuld elimin ate the supplemental fuel problem re ferred to above. It Is EPA's Judgment that new oxychlorlnatlon reactors should be controlled to the same extent that is proposed for other emission sources. The proposed amendment also includes a more stringent emission limit for new polyvinyl chloride resins being processed In equipment following the stripping operation. That Is. the amendment would apply to resins for which produc tion for the purpose of marketing was commenced after the proposal of the amendment. The amendment would re quire all new resins except new disper sion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and new dispersion resins to be stripped to 600 ppm. These limits for new products would be one-fourth of the limits con tained In the standard for existing prod ucts. Consistent with the current stand ard, the amendment would permit tho use of control devices rather than strip ping technology to meet the emission limit. In this case equipment being used to process all new resins except new dis persion resins would have to be con trolled to 0.01 kg/kg product and the equipment used for new dispersion resins would have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg product. A "new source" Is defined in 40 CFR 61.02 as a stationary source, the con struction or modification of which Is commenced after proposal of a standard. There was some question based on this definition as to whether the amendment to the stripping standard for new sources should apply to new polyvinyl chloride resins or the Installation of new equip ment following the stripper. If the ap plicability of the amendment for new sources were based on the Installation of new equipment following the stripper, it would be difficult to determine what con stitutes a new source at an existing plant This is based on the reasoning that the stripping standard requires that all equipment following the stripper In the process be controlled as a unit The series of equipment following the stripper In cludes pumps and conveying equipment which might be expected to be replaced on a frequent and routine basis. Replac ing one of these pieces of equipment would in effect cause the whole series of equipment following the stripper to have to meet the standard for new sources. In other words, all resins processed In the series of the equipment would have to meet the lower standard even though only a minor part of the equipment had been replaced. EPA decided that a more reasonable and direct approach was to make the proposed amendment apply to the pro duction of new polyvinyl chloride resins. This Is based on the reasoning that emis sions from the equipment following the stripper are a function of the amount of vinyl chloride left In the rrsin after the stripping operation Is completed: t.e.. the overall emission level from that the resin Is the source of the emissions existing plant would be reduced. rather than the equipment The samu equipment can be used to process differ ent rosin grades. Variations In the emis sions from the equipment are a function of the resin being processed rather than the eharnoterlstlos of the equipment. Tho control technology which Is used for the equipment following the stripper Is like wise more directly linked to the resin than the equipment. Stripping Is used to control the emissions due to the vinyl chloride In the resin before the resin is processed In the equipment. Before the hazards of vinyl chloride became known, stripping technology was employed by polyvinyl chloride manu facturers to recover raw materials for economic purposes. As a result of a standard promulgated by the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration (39 PR 35890), some companies Investi gated improvements In stripping meth odology for emission control purposes, (1) 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 tho current standard, EPA recognized that stripping technology for dispersion rcsln3 had not been refined to the same extent as it had been for other resins and that there was more difficulty In strip ping dispersion resins than other resins. For this reason a less stringent emission limit was established for dispersion res ins. Dispersion resins are permitted a higher emission limit under the proposed amendment for the same reason. EPA believes that for some resins, companies have already developed strip ping technology which would meet the proposed amendment. (!) For other resins, the proposed standard would re quire additional improvement in strip ping technology. If stripping technology has not been developed to tho extent necessary to meet the proposed amend ment lor a particular resin, the manu facturer would have the option of de veloping the technology or riot producing the resin. Emission Orrstr Because the present vinyl chloride standard focuses on reduolng emissions rather than attaining a particular am bient air quality concentration, there is no provision for limiting the else of plants or the clustering of plants In a geographical area, Tho doubling of the size of nn existing plant or the construc tion of a new plant beside an existing plant would considerably Increase the ambient air concentrations of vinyl chloride lr. the vicinity of the plant (s) even if the vinyl chloride standard was met. EPA determined at the time of promulgation of the current standard that the costs of prohibiting the produc tion of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride were too high and the continued operation of existing plants should be allowed. EPA believes, however, that the standard should Include a mechanism for prohibiting an Increase in ambient concentrations of vinyl chloride due to new construction In areas where existing sources are already located. Accordingly, EPA is proposing an amendment which would prohibit an in crease In emissions within 8 kilometers (km) (approximately five miles) of an existing source due to the construction of a new emission source. This means that if a new source were added to an existing plant, the Increase In emissions due to that new source would have to be offset by a reduction In emissions from other existing sources within that plant or at other plants within 8 km of the construction site of the new source. Simi larly, a new plant could not be con structed within 8 km of an existing plant(s) unless the emission increase due to the new plant were offset by an emission reduction at the existing plant or plants. This provision may result in few existing plants being expanded and few new plants being constructed in the vicinity of existing plants. However, the proposed amendment does not preclude this possibility. The current standard, unlike the proposed amendment, was not based on The offset provision would apply only the premise that an owner or operator to new construction which results in an would have the option of not producing Increase in production rate. Replacing or a particular resin. It Is EPA's judgment adding equipment such as pumps, com that the owner or operator making a new pressors, agitators, sampling equipment product has more freedom of choice than and unloading hoses is a routine practice the owner or operator already making a at existing plants. Additions of equip particular product In selecting those ment of this nature would. In and of It resins which are to be produced. EPA's self, be expected to result in little, If any. standard would be Included In the increase In emissions, in EPA's judg variables under consideration when ment, a plant should not be required to decisions are being made as to which prove this fact each time one of these resins are to be produced. pieces of equipment is added. The addi The proposed amendment would apply tion of this type of equipment In con to any new source, whether It constituted junction with major process equipment, replacement of an existing source In an however, Is likely to result In both an In existing plant, the expansion of an exist crease In emissions as well as nn in ing plant, or part of an entirely new crease In production rate, and is there plant That is. If a new oxychlorlnatlon fore covered by the offset provision. Yeactor or a new polyvinyl chloride re If the offset provision were adopted, actor were Installed at an existing plant. the reduction In emissions could be It would be subject to the emission limits achieved in the production rate of an for new sources. This means that as existing source or sources. The baseline existing sources sxe gradually replaced emission rate would be determined based with new souroes In an existing plant. on the maximum production rate which Ciicrmcal Regulation Reporter 6ENC 01403 CURRENT REPORT 487 had been attained by each existing source *nie allowable emission rate lor each source would be based on the maxi mum production rate at which that source would be operated in the future. Also, if the emissions from on existing source were already below the emission limit applicable to It, the proposed amendment would give the source credit for the difference between the emission limit nnd tho actual emission level. That is the baseline emission rate would be based on the standard rather than on an emission test. It is EPA's Judgment that this is a more equitable approach than penalising a source which has already taken measures to reduce emissions below the standard. Such a source would have less room for further reducing emissions. The emission limits applicable to both tlie existing and new sources Involved In the offset arrangement would be con tained In the approval of new construc tion granted by the Administrator under 40 CFB 61.08. EPA believes that a policy of no net increase in emissions due to new con struction is Justified because of the haz ardous nature of vinyl chloride. How ever. EPA recognizes the potential diffi culties in implementing such a policy and interested persons are urged to sub mit comments and factual information relating to this policy. Review or Standard EPA plans to undertake a full-scale review of Subpart F of 40 CFR Port 61 beginning three years from the promul gation of any amendments. In the study EPA will review information concerning technological advances in the control of vinyl chloride emissions to determine what further changes might then be ap propriate to move toward the goal of zero vinyl chloride emissions, EPA will also consider recent health data to de termine whether the approach for regu lating vinyl chloride should be altered. Environmental Impact The proposed amendment, in contrast to the current standard, would encourage the development of new technology and Improvements in existing technology and would have the following three positive environmental Impacts: (1) further re duction of emissions at existing plants, (2) no increase in emissions within 8 km of an existing source, and (3) lower emissions from new sources than would be accomplished through the current standard regardless of the construction site. These environmental impacts would provide progress toward the ultimate gonl of zero emissions without banning vinyl chloride, and in the process would provide additional protection of public health by further minimizing the health risks to the people living in the vicinity of existing plants and to any additional people who are exposed as a result of new construction. Specifically, for those existing sources which arc currently subject to a 10 ppm emission limit, emissions would be re duced by half within three years after the promulgation date Of these amend ment' At both an existing average-sized ethylene dichlorido-vinyl chloride plant and an existing average-sized polyvinyl chloride plant, which contain other sources than the ones required to meet a 6 ppm emission limit, it is estimated this will have the effect of reducing total emissions by less than one percent. Emis sions at existing plants would be further reduced as existing oxychlorination re actors are replaced with now oxychlori nation reactors and as new polyvinyl chloride resins aro produced to replace existing ones. Under the proposed amendment, emis sions from new plants would be consider ably lower than they would be under the current standard. For a typical new average-sized ethylene dlchlorlde-vinyl chloride plant (318x10* kg/yr or 700 XlO* lb/yr produced), the'hourly emis sions would be 5.1 kg' (11.5 lb) Instead of 10.3 kg (23.1 lb). For a typical new average-sized dispersion polyvinyl chlo ride plant (46x10* kg/yr or 100X10* Ib/yr production), the emissions would be about 9 kg/hr (20 lb/hr) instead of 17.5 kg/hr (39 lb/hr) and for a typical new average-sized suspension polyvinyl chloride (68x10* kg/yr or 150X10* Ib/yr production) the emissions would be 13.5 kg/hr) (30 Ib/hr) Instead of 16 kg/hr <36 lb/hr). These emissions are calcu lated based on the emission factors pub lished In the documentation for the ex isting standard, (f) Ambient air concen trations are expected to be reduced proportionately. The only negative environmental Im pact would be an increase In hydrogen chloride emissions at ethylene dlchlo rlde-vinyl chloride plants If Incineration were used to control emissions from new oxychlorination reactors. However, due to the corrosion problems which would otherwise occur on plant property and in the community, plants are expected to use scrubbers to control the hydrogen chloride emissions. The proposed amend ment Is not expected to have a signifi cant impact on energy consumption. Economic Impact The potential economic impacts of the proposed standard are: (1) Costs for research and develop ment of improved methodology for oper ation of existing control technology so that it can be used to meet the 5 ppm emission limit. (2) Costs for research and develop ment of improved stripping techniques to meet the standard for new polyvinyl chloride resins. <3) Cost of research and development or licensing for converting over to the oxygen system for a new oxychlorination reactor. (4) Possibly Increased transportation costs of raw materials In the case that the offset policy results in the construc tion of a new plant farther from an existing plant than It otherwise would have been, (5) Costs of building a new plant more than 8 km from an existing plant in the event that the offset requirement pre cluded the expansion of an existing plant. (6) Delay in the production of a par ticular resin due to time spent develop ing stripping technology for that resin. <7> No growth in the production of a particular resin due to the Inability to strip that resin to required levels. The types of costs which have been named would be difficult to quantify. The costs would be expected to vary consider ably from one plant to another depend ing on tho amount of research and de velopment than had already been done, the extent to which technology could be transferred from other plants and proc esses, and the plans for new construction. One area in which cost estimates can be generated is the use of an oxygenrecycle oxychlorination process as op posed to an air-based system. The pro posed amendment does not require the use of the oxygen-recycle system, but many plants would be expected to em ploy this system to avoid the high costs of incinerating the high volume gas stream from a typical air-based system. T7ie primary cost of using the oxygenrecycle system is the cost of the oxygen Itself. The cost of the oxygen for a par ticular plant,would depend on whether the plant was located where there is a considerable demand for both the oxygen end nitrogen products of air separation. According to one recent article. If it is assumed that such a demand exists, the cost of the oxygen ($14.34/ton) would be approximately equivalent to the cost of compressing air for use in the airbased system. (1) Another report In which this assumption was not made and the economics of the air and oxygen sys tems were being compared, it was con cluded that overall production economics "favor the oxygen process even If vent gas incineration would not be required for an air-based plant since the sum of. all remaining advantages offered by oxygen-based plant operation more than outweighs the Incremental cost for the oxygen feed." (2) Miscellaneous: The Administrator in vites comments on all aspects of the pro posed amendments. (Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-804, 84 Slut. 1885 (42 U5.C. 1857c7) and section 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act. aee. 2 of Pub, L. No. 90-14$. 84 Stat. 504 as amended by sec. (15) (e) (2) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857 g(a)). Secs. 81.87 and 81.68 also proposed under the au thority of section 114 of tho Clean Air Act, oa added by sec. 4(a) of Pub. h. 91-804. 84 Stat. 1887 and amended by Pub. L. 93-319, sec. 6(a)(4), 88 Stat. 259 (42 C.S.C. 1867C-9).) Non.--The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949 and OMB Circular A-107. Dated: May 27,1977. Douolas M. Costle, Administrator. References (1) Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement: Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride. EPA-450 12-75-009, October, 1975. Copyright 1977 by The Bureau of Notronol Affairs, Inc. GENC 014040 488 CHEMICAL REGULATION REPORTER (3) "aoedrloh Report* Impreulv* Proffroiui (ft) Vinyl ohtorldo formation and pu of proposal of thwo amendments), to In Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem," Ameri rification: Exoept as provided In ppm until (date three years after pro can Paint amt Coatings Journal, Vol. 00, No. 31, January 13, 1070, p. 34. (3) E. W. Wlmcr and R. E. Feathers, "Ox ygen Olves Low Cost VCM." Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1070. pp. 81*84. f4) Peter Reich, "Air or Oxygen For VCM?," Hydrocarbon Processing, March, 161.68(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride In ftll exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from any equipment used In vinyl chloride formation and/or purification is not to exceed the appro priate emission limit as follows: mulgation of these amendments) and & ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2. 1977, 5 ppm. 1970. pp. B5--B9. (1) Each source, for which construc (d) Monomer recovery system. Except It Is proposed that Subpart P of 40 CFR Part 61 be amended as follows: 1. In G1.08, paragraph (b) Is revised to read as follows: tion had commenced on or before June 2, as provided in ( 61.65(a), the concentra 1977, 10 ppm until (date three years af tion of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases ter promulgation of these amendments) discharged to the atmosphere from em-n and 5 ppm after (date three years after monomer recovery system is not to ex promulgation of these amendments). ceed the appropriate concentration as 61.08 Approval by the Administrator. (2) Each source for which construc follows: * 4 * * * tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 6 (1) Each source for which construc (b' If the Administrator determines .that a stationary source for which an application pursuant to 61.07 was sub`mltted will not. if properly operated, cause emissions In violation of the ppm. tion had commenced on or before (date (b) The requirements of this section of proposal of these amendments), 10 do not apply to equipment that has been ppm until (date three years after pro opened, is out of operation, and met tho mulgation of these amendments) and 5 requirement in 61.65(b) (6) (1) before ppm after (date three years after pro standard or violation of I 61.73, he will approve the construction or modification of such source. ** 2. 'Section C1.C2 is revised to read as being opened. mulgation of these amendments). 4, Section 61.64 is amended by revis (2) Each source for which construc ing paragraphs (a)(1), (b), (c), (d> and tion commenced after June 2. 1977, 5- (e) and by adding paragraph (f) as fol ppm. lows: (e) Sources following the strlpper(s): follows: 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl The following requirements apply to 61.62 Emission slundnrd for ethylene dirhloridc plant*. An owner or operator of an ethylene dlchlorlde plant shall comply with the requirements of this section and { 61.65. (a) Ethylene dlchlorlde purification: Except as provided In 61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmos phere from any equipment used In ethylene dlchlorlde purification Is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit chloride plants. emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmos An owner or operator of a polyvinyl phere from the combination of all chloride plant shall comply with the re sources following the stripper(s) [or the quirements of this section and ! 61.65. reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper] (a) Reactor: The following require In the plant process flow including, but ments apply to reactors: not limited, to centrifuges,- concentra (1) Except as provided In paragraph tors, blend tanks, filters, dryers, conveyor (a) (2) of this section and 5 61.65(a), the air discharges, baggers, storage con concentration of vinyl chloride In all ex tainers, and lnprocess wastewater. haust gases discharged to the atmos (I) In polyvinyl chloride plants using phere from each reactor Is not to exceed stripping technology to control vinyl the appropriate emission limit as fol chloride emissions: lows: (1) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl as follows: <1) Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 10 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after the promulgation of these amendments), (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2. 1977, 5 (1) Each source for which construction chloride resin which have been produced had commenced on or before June 2,1977 by the plant on or before June 2, 1977, 10 ppm until (date three years after pro the weighted average residual vinyl mulgation of these amendments) and 5 chloride concentration In all the grades ppm after (date three years after pro processed through the stripping opera mulgation of these amendments). tion on each calendar day, measured Im (il) Each source for which construc mediately after the stripping operation tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 is completed, may not exceed the appro ppm. priate emission limit as follows: ***** (A) 2.000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride PPm. (b) Oxychlorination reactor: Except as provided in 5 61.65(a), emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmosphere are not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source for which construe-' tlon had commenced on or before (date of proposal of these amendments), 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 lb/lb of the 100 percent ethylene dichlorlde product from the oxychlorination reactor. (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 6 ppm. (b) Stripper: Except as provided in {61.65(a), the concentration of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each stripper is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source for which construc tion had commenced on or before June 2, 1977 10 ppm until (date three years after promulgation of these amend ments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after final promulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construction commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. dispersion resins, excluding latex resins: (B) 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, averaged separately for each type of resin; (II) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride resin which have not been pro duced by the plant on or before June 2, 1977, the weighted average residual vinyl chloride concentration In all the grades processed through the stripping operation on each calendar day, meas ured Immediately after the stripping op eration is completed, may not exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows ; (c) The requirements of this section do not apply to equipment that has been opened, is out of operation and met the requirement in I 61.65(b) (6) (i) before being opened, 3. Section 61.63 Is revised to read as follows: 61.63 ICmi-Mon ttlniniurd for vinyl chloride plants. An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo ride plant shall comply with the require ments of this section and 5 61.65. (c> Mixing, weighting, and holding containers: Except as provided in 5 61,- 65(a), the concentration of vinyl chlo ride In all exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere from each mixing, weigh ing, or holding container in vinyl chlo ride service which precedes the stripper (or the reactor if the plant has no strip per) in the plant process flow is not to exceed the appropriate emission limit as follows: (1) Each source, for which construc tion had commenced ou or before (date (A) 600 ppm for polyvinyl chloride dispersion resins, excluding latex resins; (B) 100 ppm for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resiia, averaged separately for each type of resin; or (2) in polyvinyl chloride plants con trolling vinyl chloride emissions with technology other than stripping or In addition to stripping: (1) For sources being used to process a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride Chemical Retaliation Reporter GEMC OHO41 current report 489 resin all of which had been produced by 61.67 Emission mu, the plant on or before June 2.1877: <A) 3 g/kg <0.003 Ib/lb) product from the etripper<> tor reactor(s) If tho plant has no strlpper(s)] for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis; (B) 0.4 g/kg <0.004 Jb/Ib) product from the stripper(s) (or reactor(s) If the plant has no stripper(s)l for all other polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex resins, with the product deter mined on a dry solids basis. (11) For sources being used to process any grade of polyvinyl chloride resin not produced by the plant on or before June 2, 1977: (A) 0.5 g/kc (0.0005 lb/lb) product from the strlpper(s) (or reactor (s) If the plant has no stripper <s)) for dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la tex resins, with the product determined on a dry solids basis; <B) 0.1 g/kg. <0.0001 Ib/lb) product (a) Unless a waiver of emission test ing Is obtained under } 61.13, the owner or operator of a source to which this subpart applies shall test emissions from the source as follows: (1) For an existing source or a new source which has an initial startup date preceding October 21,1976: (1) Within 90 days following October 21,'1978, and (U) For those sources subject to 55 61.62(a); 61.63(a); 61,64 (a)(1), (b), (c), and <d); and/or 61.65(h)(1), (b) (2/, (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6), and/or (b) (9), within 90 days following (date three years after the promulgation date of these amendments), (2) For a new source for which Initial startup occurs after October 21, 1976, within 90 days of startup. 0 * 7. In 5 61.68, paragraph (c) Is revised to read as follows: from the strippeTS (or reactor(s) If the 61.68 Emission monitoring. plant has no stripper Cs)) for all other ***** polyvinyl chloride resins, Including latex resins, with the product deter mined on a dry solids basis. (c) A dally span check Is to be con ducted for each vinyl chloride monitor (f) The requirements of paragraphs ing system used. For all of the sources (b), <c). and <d) of this section do not listed in paragraph (a) of this section, apply to equipment that has been except for the one for which an emission opened, Is out of operation, and met the limit Is prescribed In 5 61.62(b) (1), the requirement in 5 61.65(b) <6) (1) before dally span check is to be conducted with being opened. 6. Section 61.65 Is amended as follows: a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration emission limit appli cable to It. For a source subject to the A. By replacing the phrase "10 ppm" emission Hmlt prescribed In 5 81.62(b) with the phrase "the appropriate emis sion limit specified In 5 61.65(c)" In (1), the dally span check Is to be con ducted with a concentration of vinyl paragraphs (b)(1)(H), (b)(2), (b)(3) (1), (b)(3) (11), (b)(3) (111), (b) (3) (lv), chloride which Is determined to be equivalent to the emission limit for that (b) (3) (v), (b)(5). (b)(6)(H), and (b) source based on the emission test re (9)(U); quired by { 61.67. The calibration Is to be B. ,By revising paragraph (c) and add done with either: ing paragraph (d) as set forth below. * * * * 61,65 Emission standard for ethylene 8. A new 5 61.72 is added to read as dichloride, vinyl chloride, and poly foUows: vinyl chloride plants. ** (c) The emission limit which Is not to be exceeded Is as follows; (1) Each source, for which construction had com menced on or before June 2. 1977, 10 ppm until (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments) and 5 ppm after (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments). (2) Each source for which construc tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm. <d) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(6), (b)(7) and (b) (8) of this section are to be In corporated Into a standard operating procedure, and made avaUablc upon re quest for Inspection by the Administra tor. The standard operating procedure Is to Include provisions for measuring the vinyl chloride in equipment 5s4.75 m* (1250 gal) In volume for which an emission limit is prescribed in i 61.65 (b) (6) (1) prior to opening the equip ment and using Test Method 106, a port able hydrocarbon detector, or an equiv alent or alternative methol. The meth od of measurement Is to meet the re quirements In 5 61.67(g) (5) (1) (A) or (g) (5) (1) (B). 61.72 . RrqiirAt for interim emission limit. (a) If In the opinion of the owner or operator of an existing source, that source wUl be unable to comply with the 5 ppm emission limit In 55 61.62(a) (1); 61.63(a)(1); 61.64 (a)(l)(l). (b)(1). (c)(1), (d)(1); and/or 61.65(c)(1) on or before (date three years after pro mulgation of these amendments), the owner or operator of that source may re quest that the Admlnstrator approve an Interim emission limit for that source. The request Is to be In writing and Is to be submitted to the Administrator within six months prior to (date two years after promulgation of these amendments). The request is to Include: (1) The reasons the source Is in capable of being In compliance with the 6 ppm emission limit and data to support those reasons, and (2) A suggested Interim emission limit and description of the methodology for attaining that Hmlt. (b) Any owner or operator of a source who has submitted to the Administrator a written request for an Interim emis sion Hmlt In accordance with 5 61.72(a), shall within 60 days of the date of the 6. In J 61.87, paragraph (a) Is revised written request meet with the Admin to read as follows: istrator concerning the information con tained In the request. The meeting is to hq open to interested porsons, who are to bo aUOwed to submit oral or written testimony relevant to compliance of the source. (c) The Administrator will within 120 days of receipt of the written request required by paragraph (a) or this sec tion, notify the owner or operator in writing of approval or denial of approval of on Interim emission limit. <d) If an Interim emission limit is ap proved the notification is to Include the level of the interim emission limit, which may bo the level requested or a more stringent one. (e) A determination to deny approval of an interim emission limit is to set forth the specific grounds on which such denial Is based. (f) Approval for any interim emission mlt granted for any source under 61.72(c) shall expire three years from the date of Issuance, The owner or op erator may request an extension of ap proval lor an Interim emission limit or a lower Interim emission limit. The re quest Is to be in writing, Is to be sub mitted within six months prior to a year before the expiration date and Is to In clude the Information listed in 5 61.72 (b), (c), (d), and (e) are to apply. 9. A new t 61.73 is added to read as follows: 61.73 Offset of emissions due to new construction. (a) No owner or operator is to con struct a new source which alone or In combination with other sources being constructed at the same time results In an Increased production rate unless he demonstrates to the Administrator's sat isfaction that such construction wHJ not cause an Increase in vinyl chloride emis sions within. 8 km of any other source which is subject to this subpart. (b) Reduction in production rate is an allowable mechanism for attaining an offset in emissions. (c) The baseline emission rate is to be determined based on the level of emis sions allowable by the standard. (d) Reducing emissions from an in terim emission limit to the standard for a source is not an acceptable means of achieving an emission offset. (e) In the application for approval of construction required by i 61.07, owners or operators of sources subject to this subpart shall include, in addition to the infonnatlon required by 5 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. it) The emission limits applicable to both the new source(s) and thesource(s) at which emissions are being reduced to balance the Increase In emissions due to the new construction are to be estab lished by the Administrator in the ap proval for construction required by { 61.08. (Sacs. 112 and 301(a) or the Clean Air Act. sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 61-604, 84 6tat, 1033: seo. 2 ot Pub. L. No. 60-14B, B1 Btat. 604 (43 TJ.S.O. 18660-7, 1867g(a)). Sece. 61.67 and 61.es also leaned under sec. 114 or the Clean Air Act, seo 4(a) or Fub. L. No. 01-604, 84 Stat. 1887 (42 U-B.C. 1B57C-B).) JFR Doc.77-16672 Piled 6-1-77.8:45 am] Copyright 1977 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc, GENC 014042